Participation in collaborative advocacy organizations is one of the most common advocacy tactics pursued by nonprofit organizations. However, field-level dynamics and norms around collaboration may be changing with the growth of public-private intermediary organizations. Using a lens that brings together theories of structuration and institutional entrepreneurship, this research investigates (a) how intermediary organizations structure advocacy opportunities and institutionalize new advocacy practices at the field level, and (b) how member organizations interpret those opportunities and practices. Qualitative findings from a regional homeless services policy field demonstrate that intermediary organizations gain members and thus, power, based on their position in the policy field and through their ability to connect members to valuable government contacts. In this field, participation in public-private intermediary organizations has surpassed involvement in traditional advocacy coalitions as providers are motivated to meet organizational legitimacy goals as much as advocacy goals.
AlterC.HageJ. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
AndrewsK. T.EdwardsB. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479-506.
3.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543-571.
4.
AronsonJ. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1-3.
5.
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, 946-955.
6.
BarleyS. R.TolbertP. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institutionalization. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93-117.
7.
BattilanaJ. (2006). Agency and institution: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13, 653-676.
8.
BenjaminL. M. (2010). Mediating accountability: How nonprofit funding intermediaries use performance measurement and why it matters for governance. Public Performance & Management Review, 33, 594-618.
9.
BrutonJ. M.WilliamsonA. P. (2005). Structures and processes in intermediary nongovernmental organizations: Research evidence from Northern Ireland. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15, 417-432.
10.
ClemensE. S.CookJ. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441-466.
11.
DiMaggioP. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In ZuckerL. G. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3-21) Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
12.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
13.
DluhyM. J. (1990). Building coalitions in the human services. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
15.
GlickmanN. J.ServonL. J. (1998). More than bricks and sticks: Five components of community development corporation capacity. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 497-539.
16.
HardyC.PhilipsN. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9, 217-230.
17.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.
18.
McQuarrieM.MarwellN. P. (2009). The missing organizational dimension in urban sociology. City and Community, 8, 247-268.
19.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
20.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
22.
PadgettD. K. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
PhillipsN.LawrenceT. B.HardyC. (2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 23-43.
25.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networksPublic Administration Review, 61, 414-423.
26.
RaoH.GiorgiS. (2006). Code breaking: How entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to generate institutional change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 269-304.
27.
SalamonL. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
SalamonL. M.GellerS. L.LorentzS. C. (2008). Nonprofit America: A force for democracy? Listening post project Communique no.9. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
29.
SandfortJ. R. (2011). Reconstituting the safety net: New principles and design elements to better support low-income workers. In PlotnickR. D.MeyersM. K.RomichJ.SmithS. R. (Eds.), Old assumptions, new realities: Economic security for working families in the 21st century (pp. 214-239). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
30.
ScottW. R.DeschenesS.HopkinsK.NewmanA.McLaughlinM. (2006). Advocacy organizations and the field of youth services: Ongoing efforts to restructure a field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 691-714.
31.
SelznickP. (1949). TVA and the grassroots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
SewellW. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29.
33.
SheaJ. (2011). Taking nonprofit intermediaries seriously: A middle-range theory for implementation research. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 57-66.
34.
SmithS. R.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
StoneM. M.SandfortJ. R. (2009). Building a policy fields framework to inform research on nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 1054-1075.
36.
ThorntonP. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
ZuckerL. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.
