This article examines the outcomes of African American–led nonprofit organizations in improving the lives of the youth they serve. Using the framework of representative bureaucracy, this study suggests that demographic similarity among nonprofit leadership and nonprofit clients is transferable to increasing positive youth outcomes within African American–led youth-focused nonprofit organizations. Based on survey data from 727 youth, enhanced by qualitative interviews and focus groups, this research examines youth outcomes across three African American–led nonprofits and compares them with demographically similar youth in their communities. Youth outcomes are analyzed in the areas of academic performance, deviant behavior, family and social support, and self-esteem and resiliency. The findings suggest youth who participate in African American–led nonprofit organizations outperform their peers in the areas of academic performance and self-esteem. These outcomes are important because African American–led nonprofit organizations disproportionately serve African American youth who may not otherwise be served by other extracurricular programming.
AveryD. R.McKayP. F.WilsonD. C.TonidandelS. (2007). Unequal attendance: The relationships between race, organizational diversity cues, and absenteeism. Personnel Psychology, 60 (4), 875-902.
2.
BarreraM.LiS. A. (1996). The relation of family support to adolescents’ psychological distress and problem behaviors. In PierceG. R.SarasonB. R.SarasonI. G. (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 313-343). New York, NY: Plenum.
BrinkerhoffJ. M. (2002). Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public Administration and Development, 22, 19-30.
5.
CôtéJ.BrunerM.EricksonK.StrachanL.Fraser-ThomasJ. (2010). Athletes development and coaching. In LyleJ.CushionC. (Eds.), Sport coaching: Professionalism and practice (pp. 63-79). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
6.
DickeL. A.OttS. J. (1999). Pubic agency accountability in human service contracting. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22, 502-516.
7.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505368
8.
GaskellC. (2008). “But they just don’t respect us”: Young people’s experiences of (dis)respected citizenship and the new labour respect agenda. Children’s Geographies, 6, 223-238.
9.
GoodenS. T.WooldridgeB. (2007). Integrating social equity into the core human resource management course. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13, 59-77.
10.
GordonE. (2013). Under-served and un-deserving: Youth empowerment programs, poverty discourses and subject formation. Geoforum, 50, 107-116.
11.
GrissomJ. A.KernE. C.RodriguezL. A. (2015). The “representative bureaucracy” in education: Educator workforce diversity, policy outputs, and outcomes for disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 185-192.
12.
GuoC.MussoJ. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 308-326.
13.
KingsleyJ. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy: An interpretation of the British civil service. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
14.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. L. (2006). Out of school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275-313.
15.
LeRouxK. (2009). The effects of descriptive representation on nonprofits’ civic intermediary roles a test of the “racial mismatch” hypothesis in the social services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 741-760.
16.
LeRouxK. (2011). Examining implementation of the national voter registration act by nonprofit organizations: An institutional explanation. The Policy Studies Journal, 39, 565-590.
17.
LeRouxK.SneedB. G. (2006). The convergence of public and nonprofit values: A research agenda for the intersectoral study of representative bureaucracy. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 9, 537-556.
18.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Sage.
19.
LomoteyK. (1992). Independent black institutions: African-centered education models. The Journal of Negro Education, 61, 455-462.
20.
LuJ. (2015). Organizational or social benefits? The progressiveness of policy advocacy in nonprofit human service organizations. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39, 509-521.
21.
McGinnisJ. (2011). Making the case for workplace diversity. In AgardK. A. (Ed.), Leadership in nonprofit organizations: A reference handbook (pp. 871-877). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MinznerA.KlermanJ. A.MarkovitzC. E.FinkB. (2014). The impact of capacity-building programs on nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 547-569.
RiggsN. R. (2006). After-school program attendance and social development of rural Latino children of immigrant families. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 75-87.
25.
SalamonL. M. (1989). The voluntary sector and the future of the welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18, 11-24.
26.
SalamonL. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-Nonprofit relations in the modern Welfare State. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
ScottR. W.DeschenesS.HopkinsK.NewmanA.McLaughlinM. (2006). Advocacy organizations and the field of youth services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 691-714.
28.
ShafritzJ. M.RussellE. W.BorickC. P. (2013). Introducing public administration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Thomas-BreitfeldT.KunreutherF. (2017). Race to lead: Confronting the nonprofit racial leadership gap. New York, NY: Building Movement Project. Available from http://www.racetolead.org/
31.
WarrenM. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
WeismanS. A.SouléD. A.WomerS. C. (2001). Maryland after-school community grant program: Report on the 1999-2000 school year evaluation of the phase 1 after-school Programs. College Park: University of Maryland.
33.
WeismanS. A.WomerS. C.KellstromM. A.BrynerS. L.KahlerA.SlocumL. A.GottfredsonD. C. (2003). Maryland after-school community grant program part 1: Report on the 2001–2002 school year evaluation of the Phase 3 after-school programs. College Park: University of Maryland.
