What does it mean to integrate nonprofit substance into the Master of Public Administration (MPA) core curriculum in a world of blurred sector boundaries? The potential benefits seem self-evident, including finally gaining legitimacy for those who study and teach about the nonprofit sector. But are there other considerations worth taking into account? This article asks the public administration and nonprofit academy to consider the implications of teaching to blurred boundaries, including a discussion of what to consider when integrating nonprofit theory and practice. It considers what MPA programs determine that students need versus students’ perceived needs, both in relation to community and program needs. Specifically, it asks what integration in the core curriculum might portend for in-depth nonprofit studies, for hiring nonprofit theory specialists, and for maintaining a critical mass of students seeking in-depth nonprofit studies, both theoretical and applied.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderJ.Norris-TirrellD. (2014). Hiding in plain sight: The contributions of nonprofit sector organizations to running a democracy. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual ARNOVA Conference, Denver, CO. Draft version shared by authors.
2.
BerryJ. M. (with AronsD.). (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
3.
BlomgrenL.O’LearyR. (2008). Big ideas in collaborative public management. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
4.
BrownE.SlivinskiA. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and the market. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 140–158). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
ClemensE. S. (2006). The constitution of citizens: Political theories of nonprofit organizations. In PowellW. W.R. SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 207–220). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
ClemensE. S.GuthrieD.. (2010). Politics + Partnerships: The role of voluntary associations in America’s political past and present. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs. (1975). Giving in America: Toward a stronger voluntary sector. Washington DC: U. S. Department of the Treasury.
8.
Filer Commission. (1977). Research papers. Sponsored by the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs. Archived at Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indianapolis.
9.
FredericksonH. G. (2002). Public administration in the era of blurred boundaries.PA Times, 25(4), 11.
10.
GellesE. (1998). Filer Commission. In International encyclopedia of public policy and administration (pp. 885–887). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11.
GellesE. (2000). The role of the economic sector in the provision of care to trusting clients.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(3), 233–249.
12.
GellesE. (2013). Might the disciplinary wisdom of the elders need a mid-course, new century correction? [Blurred Boundaries alumni survey]. Preliminary findings presented at the NASPAA Annual Conference, L’Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC.
13.
GleesonS.BloemraadI. (2013). Assessing the scope of immigrant organizations: Official undercounts and actual underrepresentation.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 346–370.
14.
Hackney, Philip T. (2015). Should the IRS never “target” taxpayers? An examination of the IRS Tea Party affair. Retrieved from LSU Law Center Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/380.
15.
HallD. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
HallP. D. (2006). A historical overview of philanthropy, voluntary associations, and nonprofit organizations in the United States, 1600–2000. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 32–65). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
HammackD. (1998). Making the nonprofit sector in the United States, A Reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
18.
JenkinsJ. C. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and political advocacy. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 307–332). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
LeRouxK.FeeneyM. K. (2013). Factors attracting individuals to nonprofit management over public and private sector management.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24(1), 43–62.
20.
LibbyP.Associates. (2012). The lobbying strategy handbook: 10 steps to advancing and cause effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
MarwellN. P. (2010). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. In ClemensE. S.GuthrieD., Politics + partnerships: The role of voluntary associations in America’s political past and present (pp. 209–236). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
McAdamD.BrandtC. (2009). Assessing the effects of voluntary youth service: The case of Teach for America.Social Forces, 88(2), 945–969.
23.
MendelS. C. (2010). Are private government, the nonprofit sector, and civil society the same thing.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 717–733.
24.
MilakovichM. E.GordonG. J. (2012). Public administration in America (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.
25.
MillesenJ. L. (2014, July 22). Thoughts on the relevance of nonprofit management curricula. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/management/24537thoughts-on-the-relevance-of-nonprofit-management-curricula.html.
26.
MilwardH. B. (1994). Nonprofit contracting and the hollow state.Public Administration Review, 54(1), 73–77.
27.
MilwardH. B.. (1996). Symposium on the hollow state: Capacity, control and performance in interorganizational settings.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 193–195.
28.
MirabellaR. (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.
29.
MorganD. F.CookB. J. (2014). New public governance: A regime-centered perspective. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
30.
MorganD. F.GreenR. T.ShinnC. W.RobinsonK. S. (2013). Foundations of public service (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
31.
O’TooleL. J. (1997). The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 443–459.
32.
PatonR.MordauntJ.CornforthC. (2007). Beyond nonprofit management education: Leadership development in a time of blurred boundaries and distributed learning.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (4, Supplement), 148S–162S.
PowellW. W.. (1987). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
PowellW. W.SteinbergR.. (2006). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
PutnamR. (2000). The collapse and revival of American civic life. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
37.
RobbinsK. C. (2006). The nonprofit sector in historical perspective: Traditions of philanthropy in the West. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 13–31). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
RosenbloomD. H.KravchukR. S.ClerkinR. M. (2009). Public administration: Understanding management, politics and law in the public sector. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
39.
SaidelJ.SmithS. R. (2011). An integrated approach to nonprofit management education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, Kansas City, MO.
40.
SalamonL. M. (1987). Partners in public service: The scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In PowellW. W., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 99–117). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
SalamonL. M. (1993). Keynote address at the 22nd Annual ARNOVA Conference, OISE, Toronto, Canada.
42.
SalamonL. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In SalamonL. M., The tools of government (pp. 1–47). New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1994). The emerging sector. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.
44.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K.SokolowskiS.WojciechAssociates. (1996). The emerging sector: A statistical supplement. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy.
45.
SandbergB.KesckesK. (in press). Using rubrics as a foundation for assessing student achievement of program competencies: One public administration program’s creative exercise. Journal of Public Affairs Education.
46.
SchröerA. (2014). Teach for America: How a teacher corps changes schools and community. In EkkehardT.BögeleinN.BellerA.AnheierH., Philanthropy and education strategies for impact (pp. 161–191). Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
47.
ShafritzJ. M.HydeA. C. (2012). Classics of public administration (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.
48.
SindaneA. M. (2004). Public administration versus public management: Parallels, divergences, convergences and who benefits?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(4), 665–672.
49.
SkocpolT. (1997). The Tocqueville problem: Civic engagement in American democracy.Social Science History, 21(4), 455–479.
50.
SmithS. R. (2008a). The challenge of strengthening nonprofits and civil society.Public Administration Review, 68 (Supplement), S132–S145.
51.
SmithS. R. (2008b). The increased complexity of public services: Curricular implications for schools of public affairs.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(2), 115–128.
52.
SmithS. R. (2010). Nonprofit organizations and government: Implications for policy and practice.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 621–625.
53.
SmithS. R. (2012). Changing government policy and its implications for nonprofit management education.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(1), 29–41.
54.
SmithS. R.GrønbjergK. (2006). Scope and theory of government nonprofit relations. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 222–242). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
SmithS. R.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
SteaneP. (2008). Public management reforms in Australia and New Zealand.Public Management Review, 10(4), 453–465.
57.
SteinbergR. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR., The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 117–139). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
58.
StillmanR. J.. (2010). Public administration: Concepts and cases (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.
59.
StoneM. M.OstrowerF. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance.”Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.
60.
TschirhartM.ReedK. K.FreemanS. J.AnkerA. L. (2008). Is the grass greener? Sector shifting and choice of sector by MPA and MBA graduates.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 668–688.
61.
Van SlykeD. M. (2002). The public management challenges of contracting with nonprofits for social services.International Journal of Public Administration, 35(4), 489–517.
62.
VargasC. M. (2014). Building capacity in culturally diverse communities through community engagement in hard times. In MorganD. F.CookB. J., New public governance: A regime-centered perspective (pp. 111–124). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
63.
WeisbrodB. (1988). The nonprofit economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
WeisbrodB. (1998). To profit or not to profit: The commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
65.
WettenhallR. (2003). The rhetoric and reality of publicprivate partnerships.Public Organization Review, 3(1), 77–107.
66.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration.Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197–222.
67.
YoungD. R. (2000). Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 149–172.
