Nonprofit Federalism and the Csbg Program

Abstract

To understand more about the functions of community action agencies in the post-Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) era, a survey of executive directors and staff members was conducted in the state of Missouri. The survey revealed that community action agencies in the state are filling in the service gaps caused by state social service cutbacks. Practitioner focus has shifted from community to individual needs. Although Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) administrators feel the quality of services continues to remain high, clients have been turned away because of the lack of resources. Moreover, administrators perceive increased service demands because of welfare reform. To meet client needs, executive directors and staff members have formed collaborative relationships with other private nonprofit entities and faith-based organizations, raising questions of accountability.

“Jesus Speaks Better”: Interactions Between State and Faith-Based Organizations in Service Implementation

“…Studies in the U.S. context have analyzed the effects of FBOs on service delivery. They argue that, on one hand, FBOs can be more effective in some kinds of services, especially by ensuring their continuity and introducing specific agendas into social policies (Adloff, 2006; Bishop, 2006; Coleman, 2001; Fossett, 2004; Mapes, 2004). However, other scholars have questioned the benefits of FBO involvement for welfare policies, as they may have limited capacity and may compromise principles of the welfare state, such as inclusion and universalism (Dunn, 2009; Kinney, 2006; Poole, 2003; Poole et al, 2002).…”

The Changing Role of Private, Nonprofit Organizations in the Development and Delivery of Human Services in the United States

“…As governments and nonprofits suffered from economic uncertainty as well as partisan decision making processes, nonprofit sector agencies were increasingly expected to remain the safety net for those in need, funded by private dollars. In this devolved service system, continued economic uncertainty has amplified the vulnerability of nonprofit human service agencies (Smith, 2012;Bishop, 2006).…”

The Irony of NPM

“…Part of the second-order devolution is contractual devolution whereby local governments pass on program responsibilities to third-party vendors. Bishop (2006) has examined how community action agencies, funded via the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program, contracted out to other nonprofit or faith-based organizations in Missouri. In essence, third-order devolution (nonprofits contracting with nonprofits) is occurring (Bishop, 2006).…”

“…Bishop (2006) has examined how community action agencies, funded via the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program, contracted out to other nonprofit or faith-based organizations in Missouri. In essence, third-order devolution (nonprofits contracting with nonprofits) is occurring (Bishop, 2006). In regards to third-order devolution, Bishop's focus is largely on issues involving program design, focus, and effectiveness of the CSBG Program in Missouri.…”