Service to community is a long-standing tradition in American democracy and society. Nonprofit public service organizations are key actors in the provision of public goods and services, as well as partners in the process of governance. MPA program curricula often incorporate coursework and service-learning opportunities to help students better understand the link between nonprofits and public sector organizations and functions. A case analysis of the University of Utah MPA program illustrates the benefits of tying MPA course curricula to community partnerships. Common barriers to creating and maintaining productive long-term community partnerships are identified. Lessons learned include maintaining consistent and well-funded outreach efforts, anticipating and managing faculty disinterest and resistance, employing multiple models of service learning, and linking nonprofit education to studies of democratic go vernance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aberle-GrasseM. (2000). The Washington Study-Service of Eastern Mennonite University: Reflection on 23 years of service learning.American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 848–857.
2.
BarberB. (1988). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
BellahR. N.MadsenR.SullivanW. M.SwidlerA.TiptonS. (1992). The good society. New York, NY: Knopf.
4.
BennisW. (1967). Organizations of the future. Reprinted in ShafritzJay M.HydeAlbert C.1992. Classics of Public Administration (3rd ed., pp. 284–296). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
5.
BergquistW. H.PawlakK. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
6.
BorisE. T.SteuerleE.. (2006). Nonprofits and government: Collaboration & conflict (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
7.
BoyerE. (1994, March). Creating the new American college. Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.
8.
Bringle & Hatcher. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education.The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2): 221–239.
9.
Campus Compact. (2001). Assessing service-learning and civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
10.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2008). Classification Description: Community Engagement Elective Classification. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/
11.
Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions. (2007). Engaging academia in community research: Overcoming obstacles and providing incentives.Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Florida Atlantic University, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions.
12.
CipolleS. B. (2010). Service learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
ClemensE. S. (2006). The constitution of citizens: Political theories of nonprofit organizations. In PowellWalter W.SteinbergRichard, The Nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 207–220). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
DouglasJ. (1987). Political theories of nonprofit organizations. In PowellWalter W., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (1st ed., pp. 43–54). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
EdwardsM. (2009). Civil society (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
16.
FlynnN. (2012). Public sector management (6th ed.). London, England: Sage.
17.
FoleyM.EdwardsB. (1997). Editors’ introduction: Escape from politics? Social theory and the social capital debate.American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 550–561.
18.
FredericksonH. G. (1980). New public administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
19.
GronskiR.PiggK. (2000). University and community collaboration: Experiential learning in human services.American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 781–792.
20.
GruskyS. (2000). International service learning: A critical guide from an impassioned advocate.American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 858–867.
21.
HrebenarR. J.MorganB. B. (2009). Lobbying in America. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Retrieved from http://www.abc-clio.com.
22.
HunterR.MunroS.DunnL.OlsonK. (2009). Bridging university and community: The power of collaborative partnerships for social change. In MohrmanKathrynShiJianFeinblattSharon E.ChowKing W., Public universities and regional development (pp. 289–310). Chengdu, China: Sichuan University Press.
23.
InglehartA. P.BecerraR. M. (2011). Social services and the ethnic community: History and analysis (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
24.
JacobyB.. 1996. Service learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25.
KingC.. (2011). Government is us 2.0.Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
26.
KolibaC. J. (2000). Moral language and networks of engagement: Service learning and civic education.American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 825–838.
27.
LeRouxK. (2009). Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: The role of community-based organizations in promoting political participation.Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 410–422.
28.
LeRouxK. (2011). Examining implementation of the National Voter Registration Act by nonprofit organizations: An institutional explanation.Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), 565–589.
29.
LismanC. D. (1998). Toward a civil society: Civic literacy and service learning. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
30.
MacFarlaneB. (2007). The academic citizen: The virtue of service in university life. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
MendelS. C. (2010). Are private government, the nonprofit sector, and civil society the same thing?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 717–733.
32.
MichenerJ. L.YaggyS.LynM.WarburtonS.ChampagneM.BlackM. A.et al. (2008). Improving the health of the community: Duke’s experience with community engagement.Academic Medicine, 83(4), 408–413.
33.
MirabellaR. M. (2007). University-based educational programs in nonprofit management and philanthropic studies: A 10-year review and projections of future trends.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 11S–27S.
34.
National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS). (2012, May). NCCS Quick Facts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm
35.
OttJ. S. (2010, October). Community activities in faculty expectations and rewards. Unpublished paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, Las Vegas, NV.
36.
OttJ. S.DickeL.. (2012). The nature of the nonprofit sector (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press/Perseus.
37.
ParsonsC. (1996). Serving to learn, learning to serve. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
38.
PutnamR. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Touchstone Books.
39.
RawlsJ. (1996). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
40.
ReadB. I.PekkanenR.. (2009). Local organizations and urban governance in East and Southeast Asia.London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
RohrJ. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. Lawrence, KY: University Press of Kansas.
42.
RoschelleA. R.TurpinJ.EliasR. (2000). Who learns from service learning?American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 839–847.
43.
RosenbloomD. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers.Public Administration Review, 43(3), 219–227.
44.
SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W.. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
45.
SchneiderJ. A. (2009). Organizational social capital and nonprofits.Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 643–662.
46.
SmithD. H. (1973). The impact of the volunteer sector on society. Reprinted in OttJ. S.DickeL. A., The nature of the nonprofit sector (2012, pp. 71–79). Boulder, CO: Westview Press/Perseus.
47.
SmithS. R.GrønbjergK. (2006). Scope and theory of government–nonprofit relations. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 221–242). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
SmithS. R.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofits for hire.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
SpeckB. W.HoppeS. L.. (2004). Service learning: History, theory, and issues. Westport, CT: Praeger.
50.
StiversC. (1993). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51.
StiversC. (2000). Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public administration in the Progressive Era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
52.
StiversC. (2001). Democracy, bureaucracy and the study of administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
53.
TocquevilleA. de (2002). Democracy in America (Trans. ManfieldH.WinthropD.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54.
TofflerA. (1967). Future shock. New York, NY: Bantam.
55.
United States Government Accountability Office (U. S. GAO). (2007). Nonprofit sector: Increasing numbers and key role in delivering federal services.Washington, DC: Author.
56.
WaldoD. (1980). Enterprise of public administration. Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp.
57.
WallaceJ. (2000). A popular education model for college in community.American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 756–766.
58.
WeertsD. J.SandmannL. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities.Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 1380–1387.
59.
WrightM. da G. M. (2000). A critical–holistic paradigm for an interdependent world.American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 808–824.
