Social service organizations often act as civic intermediaries for their clients by facilitating their interactions with governing systems and political processes and institutions. Theories of descriptive representation and representative bureaucracy suggest that organizations will act in ways that advance the political interests of their clients when organizational leadership is racially reflective of the clientele served. Yet little is known about the effects of racial representation on nonprofit organizational activities. To what extent can these theories explain nonprofit organizational efforts to advance the political interests of their clients? This article examines this question using data from a sample of nonprofit service agencies in Michigan. Multivariate regression is used to examine the effects of racial representation on four civic intermediary roles performed by nonprofits: political representation, education, mobilization, and assimilation. Findings suggest that nonprofits engage in these activities at higher rates when agency leadership is more racially reflective of the clientele served.
Berger, P.L., & Neuhaus, R.J. ( 1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
2.
Berry, J.M., & Arons, D.F. ( 2003). A voice for nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
Brady, H.E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K.L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294.
4.
Brown, W.A. ( 2002). Racial diversity and performance of nonprofit boards of directors. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.asu.edu/copp/nonprofit/res/racialdiversityandboardperformance.pdf
5.
Browning, R.P., Marshall, D.R., & Tabb, D.H. ( 1984). Protest is not enough: The struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for equality in urban politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
Clarke, S.E. ( 2000). Governance tasks and nonprofit organizations. In R. C. Hula & C. Jackson-Elmoore (Eds.), Nonprofits in urban America (pp. 199-221). Westport, CT: Quorum.
7.
Daley, J.M., & Marsiglia, F.F. (2001). Social diversity within nonprofit boards: Members’ view on status and issues. Journal of the Community Development Society, 32(2), 290.
8.
Dillman, D. ( 2000). Mail and electronic surveys: The tailored design method . New York: John Wiley.
9.
Eisinger, P.K. ( 1982). Black employment in municipal jobs: The impact of Black political power. American Political Science Review, 76, 380-392.
10.
Ezell, M. ( 1991). Administrators as advocates. Administration in Social Work, 15(4), 1-18.
11.
Guo, C., & Musso, J.A. ( 2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 36(2), 308-326.
12.
Hale, M. M., & Kelly, R. M. (Eds.). (1989). Gender, bureaucracy, and democracy: Careers and equal opportunity in the public sector. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
13.
Kelly, R.M., & Newman, M.A. ( 2001). The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equality of opportunity, and representative bureaucracies. Women & Politics, 22(3), 1-33.
LeRoux, K. ( 2007). Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: The role of community-based organizations in promoting political participation. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 410-422.
16.
LeRoux, K., & Sneed, B.G. ( 2006). The convergence of public and nonprofit values: A research agenda for the intersectoral study of representative bureaucracy. International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior, 9(4), 537-556.
17.
Marwell, N.P. ( 2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. American Sociological Review , 69, 265-291.
18.
Masci, D., & Greenblatt, A. (2003, October 17). Latino’s future. CQ Researcher, pp. 81-101.
19.
Meier, K.J. ( 1993). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory, 3(4), 393-414.
20.
Meier, K.J., & Bohte, J. ( 2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory , 11, 455-470.
21.
Mosher, F.C. ( 1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
Nicholson-Crotty, J. ( 2007). Politics, policy, and the motivations for advocacy in nonprofit reproductive health and family planning providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 5-21.
23.
Pagliaccio, E., & Gummer, B. ( 1988). Casework and Congress: A lobbying strategy. Social Casework: Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 69(3), 155-161.
24.
Pawlak, E., & Flynn, J. ( 1990). Executive directors’ political activities. Social Work, 35, 307-312.
25.
Pitkin, H.F. ( 1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley : University of California Press.
26.
Riccucci, N.M., & Saidel, J.R. ( 1997). The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public Administration Review, 57(5), 423-430.
27.
Salamon, L.M. ( 1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
28.
Soss, J. ( 1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363-380.
29.
Sowa, J.E., & Selden, S.C. ( 2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63, 700-710.
30.
Welch, S., & Bledsoe, T. ( 1988). Urban reform and its consequences: A study in representation . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Wilkins, V.M., & Keiser, L.R. ( 2006). Linking passive and active representation for gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory, 16, 87-102.
