The lens of administration burden is used to examine the behavior of nonprofit organizations when managing regulations attached to public funding and public policy implementation. Interviews with leaders of nonprofit domestic violence advocacy organizations dependent on public funding streams were qualitatively content analyzed to answer three questions. How do nonprofit managers respond to burdensome bureaucratic reporting measures when they are at odds? How do they determine when to comply and when compliance is not possible? What is the outcome for service recipients? The authors find that these nonprofit organizations simultaneously implement multiple public policies while absorbing the accountability costs. They do this to shield their clients from the laborious task of obtaining a spectrum of services across public systems.
AlexanderJ. A.LemakC. H. (1997). The effects of managed care on administrative burden in outpatient substance abuse treatment facilities. Medical Care, 35, 1060-1068.
2.
ArnoldJ. (1995). Dilemmas of feminist coalitions: Collective identify and strategic effectiveness in the battered women’s movement. In FereeM. M.MartinP. Y. (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp. 276-290). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
3.
BerryF. (2016, March). The Art of Management Paradox: Reconciling Politics, Public Values, and Innovation. Donald C. Stone Lecture, American Society of Public Administrators National Conference. Seattle, WA. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/user-509715693-556483132/fran-berry
4.
BierraA. (2007). Pursuing a radical antiviolence agenda inside/outside a non-profit structure. In INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (Ed.), The Revolution will not be Funded: Beyond the Non-profit Industrial Complex (pp. 152-163). Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
5.
BoalA. L.MankowskiE. S. (2014). Barriers to compliance with Oregon Batterer intervention program standards. Violence and Victims, 29, 607-619.
6.
BozemanB.FeeneyM. K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
7.
BrowerR. S.JeongH. (2008). Grounded analysis: Going beyond description to derive theory from qualitative data. In YangK.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration (Vol. 134, p. 823). New York, NY: CRC Press.
8.
BrownL. K.TrouttE. (2004). Funding relations between nonprofits and government: A positive example. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 5-27.
9.
BurdenB. C.CanonD. T.MayerK. R.MoynihanD. P. (2012). The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 741-751.
10.
ChanK. L.ChoE. Y.-N. (2010). A review of cost measures for the economic impact of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11, 129-143.
11.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolinY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
CorriganR. (2013). Up against a wall: Rape reform and the failure of success. New York: New York University Press.
14.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
EakinL. (2007). We can’t afford to do business this way: A study of the administrative burden resulting from funder accountability and compliance practices. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wellesley Institute.
16.
GilmoreR. W. (2007). In the shadow of the shadow state. In INCITE (Ed.), The revolution will not be funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex (pp. 41-52). Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
17.
GoodinR. E. (2003). Democratic accountability: The distinctiveness of the third sector. European Journal of Sociology, 44, 359-396.
18.
GrønbjergK. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social services and community development organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
GrønbjergK. (2001). The U.S. nonprofit human service sector: A creeping revolution. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 276-297.
20.
HerdP.DeLeireT.HarveyH.MoynihanD. P. (2013). Shifting administrative burden to the state: The case of medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review, 73(S1), S69-S81.
21.
HowardP. K. (2011). The death of common sense: How law is suffocating America. New York, NY: Random House.
22.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
23.
JeongH.-S. (2009). A phenomenological approach to grounded analysis: An interpretive understanding of theory-in-data. International Review of Public Administration, 14, 103-117.
24.
Lara-CinisomoS.SteinbergP. (2006). Meeting funder compliance: A case study of challenges, time spent, and dollars invested (Vol. 505). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
25.
LeRouxK. (2009). Managing stakeholder demands balancing responsiveness to clients and funding agents in nonprofit social service organizations. Administration & Society, 41, 158-184.
26.
MajicS. (2011). Serving sex workers and promoting democratic engagement: Rethinking nonprofits’ role in American civic and political life. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 821-839.
27.
MatlandR. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 145-174.
28.
MatthewsN. (1995). Feminist clashes with the state: Tactical choices by state-funded rape crisis centers. In FereeM. M.MartinP. Y. (Eds.), Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement (pp. 291-305). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
29.
MettlerS. (2016). The policyscape and the challenges of contemporary politics to policy maintenance. Perspectives on Politics, 14, 369-390.
30.
MoynihanD.HerdP.HarveyH. (2014). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 43-69.
31.
National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2016). 11th annual domestic violence counts report. Author.
32.
Office for Victims of Crime. (2016). Side-by-side comparison of the VOCA victim assistance guidelines and rule. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
PattonM. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
34.
PetroskyE.BlairJ. M.BetzC. J.FowlerK. A.JackS. P.LyonsB. H. (2017). Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—United States, 2003–2014. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, 66, 741-746.
35.
RigerS.StaggsS. L. (2011). A Nationwide Survey of state-mandated evaluation practices for domestic violence agencies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 50-70.
36.
SalamonL. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1997). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross-national analysis. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
38.
SchechterS. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
39.
SpradleyI. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
40.
TschirhartM.BielefeldW. (2012). Managing nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
41.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2014). Uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal awards. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
WestbrookL. (2008). Understanding crisis information needs in context: The case of intimate partner violence survivors. The Library Quarterly, 78, 237-261.
43.
YanowD. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
44.
YoungD. R. (2006). Toward a normative theory of nonprofit finance. In YoungD. R. (Ed.), Financing nonprofits: Putting theory into practice (pp. 339-372). New York, NY: AltaMira Press.
