Graduates of nonprofit management and public administration programs face a workplace increasingly dominated by complex relationships between government, nonprofit, and for-profit entities. Nonprofit organizations and public policy cannot be understood independently of one another. To assess the role of nonprofits in the policy curriculum, we reviewed 12 public policy textbooks and 143 syllabi from graduate-level public policy courses taught at Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration-accredited programs to assess the extent to which nonprofits are incorporated. Nonprofit organizations deserve full integration into the core curriculum of Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs as essential actors in public administration and the policy process. Their ubiquity as policy partners, from problem recognition and advocacy to policy formation, implementation, and evaluation makes understanding nonprofit organizations crucial to the study and practice of public policy and administration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Almong-BarM.SchmidH. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35.
2.
BaggettaM.BrassJ. N. (2014). Context-based instruction: What traditional social science disciplines offer to nonprofit management education.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 579–596.
3.
BalassianoK.ChandlerS. M. (2010). The emerging role of nonprofit associations in advocacy and public policy: Trends, issues, and prospects.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 946–955.
4.
BasingerN. W. (2014). Charitable nonprofits in the West and their implications for public policy.California Journal of Politics & Policy, 6(1), 187–206.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.LeechB. L. (1998). Basic interests: The importance of groups in politics and in political science.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BentlyA. F. (1908). The process of government: A study of social pressures.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BevanS. (2013). Continuing the collective action dilemma: The survival of voluntary associations in the United States.Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 545–558.
8.
BoxR. C. (1995). Teaching intergovernmental relations and management.Journal of Public Administration Education, 1(1), 23–38.
9.
BrowneW. P. (1991). Issue niches and the limits of interest group influence. In CiglerA. J.LoomisB. A., Interest group politics (3rd ed., pp. 345–370). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
CandlerG.DumontG. (2010). A non-profit accountability framework.Canadian Public Administration, 53(2), 259–279.
11.
CoaseR. H. (1988). American philanthropy (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
DahlR. A. (1961). Who governs?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
GalbraithJ. K. (1952). American capitalism.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
14.
GamberF. (2007). The public sphere and the end of American abolitionism, 1833–1870. Slavery and Abolition, 28, 351–368.
15.
GazleyB.BennettT. A.LittlepageL. (2013). Achieving the partnership principle in experiential learning: The nonprofit perspective.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(3), 559–579.
16.
HansmannH. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise.The Yale Law Journal, 89 (April), 835–898.
17.
HansonR. L. (2013). Intergovernmental relations. In GrayV.HansonR. L.KousserT., Politics in the American states (10th ed., pp. 30–62). Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press.
18.
HecloH. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In KingA., The political system (pp. 87–124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
19.
HelmsL.BiggsS. (2007–2008). Policy mapping: A new framework for teaching policymaking and policy design through case studies. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13 (3/4), 565–584.
20.
HillC. J.LynnL. E. (2009). Public management: A three dimensional approach.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
HorneC. S.ParisT. V. (2010). Preparing MPA students to succeed in government-nonprofit collaboration: Lessons from the field.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(1), 13–30.
22.
Internal Revenue Service. (1991). Statistics of income: Compendium of studies of tax-exempt organizations 1974–87.Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.
23.
Internal Revenue Service. (2015). Publication 557: Tax-exempt status for your organization.Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved from Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf.
24.
Internal Revenue Service. (1995, Aug.) Exempt organizations business master file [Data set]. Retrieved from The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/.
25.
Internal Revenue Service. (2012, Dec.). Exempt organizations business master file [Data set]. Retrieved from The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/.
26.
Internal Revenue Service. (2014, Jun.). Exempt organizations business master file [Data set]. Retrieved from The Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/.
27.
Jenkins-SmithH.SabatierP. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework.Journal of Public Policy, 14(2), 175–203.
28.
KimY.RohC. (2008). Beyond the advocacy coalition framework in the policy process.International Journal of Public Administration, 31(6), 668–689.
29.
LowiT. J. (1969). The end of liberalism.New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
30.
MadisonJ. (2007). The Federalist No. 10. In SerowA. G.LaddE. C., The Lanahan Readings in the American Polity (4th ed., pp. 97–101). Baltimore, MD: Lanahan. (Original work published 1787).
31.
McCarthyK. D. (2003). American creed: Philanthropy and the rise of civil society 1700–1865.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
32.
McFarlandA. S. (1998). Social movements and theories of American politics. In CostainA. N.McFarlandA. S., Social movements and American political institutions (pp. 7–19). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
MikkelsenM. (2006). Policy network analysis as a strategic tool for the voluntary sector.Policy Studies, 27(1), 17–26.
34.
MintromM.VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms.The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126–148.
35.
MirabellaR. M. (2001). A symposium introduction: Filling the hollow state: Capacity-building within the nonprofit sector.Public Performance & Management Review, 25(1), 8–13.
36.
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(4), 11S–27S.
37.
MirabellaR. M.WishN. B. (2001). University-based educational programs in the management of nonprofit organizations: An updated census of U. S. programs. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(1), 30–41.
38.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In SabatierP. A., Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
40.
SabetiH.Fourth Sector Network Concept Working Group. (2009). The emerging fourth sector.Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
41.
SalamonL. (2001). Scope and structure: The anatomy of America’s nonprofit sector. In OttJ. S., The nature of the nonprofit sector (pp. 23–39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
42.
SalisburyR. H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups.Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13, 1–32.
43.
SandfortJ.StoneM. (2008). Analyzing policy fields: Helping students understand complex state and local contexts.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 129–148.
44.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people.New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
45.
ShierM. L.HandyF. (2014). Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies: A growing interdisciplinary field.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 812–831.
46.
SimonC. A.YackM.OttS. J. (2013). MPA program partnerships with nonprofit organizations: Benefits to MPA programs, MPA students and graduates, nonprofit organizations, and communities.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 355–374.
47.
SmithS. R. (2008). The increased complexity of public services: Curricular implications of schools of public affairs.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 115–128.
48.
TrumanD. (1951). The governmental process.New York, NY: Knopf.
49.
VaughanS. K.ArsneaultS. (2008). Not-for-profit advocacy: Challenging policy images and pursuing policy change.Review of Policy Research, 25(5), 411–428.
50.
VaughanS. K.ArsneaultS. (2014). Managing nonprofit organizations in a policy world.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
51.
ValentinovV.IliopoulosC. (2013). Economic theories of nonprofits and agricultural cooperatives compared: New perspectives for nonprofit scholars.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 109–126.
52.
WilsonJ. Q. (1973). Political organizations.New York, NY: Basic Books.
53.
WishN. B. (1993). Graduate programs in nonprofit management: An update.Journal of the National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals, 5(2), 15–20.
54.
WishN. B.MirabellaR. (1998). Curricular variations in nonprofit management graduate programs.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(1), 99–109.
55.
YoungD. (1999). Nonprofit management studies in the United States: Current developments and future prospects.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(1), 13–23.
