EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL STUDY

Jon Van Til is Professor of Urban Studies and Community Planning at Rutgers University, Camden NJ 08102 USA. Phone: (609) 225-6223. Fax: (609) 225-6074. E-mail: vantil@camden.rutgers.edu

Gabor Hegyesi is Director of the Program in Social Work Education at the Barczi Gustav College, H-1443 Budapest 70, Hungary. Phone (361) 1666-300. Fax: (361) 166-7410

The support of ISTR and the members of its Affinity Group on Education and Training is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Second International Conference of ISTR, held in Mexico City in July, 1996.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL STUDY

A working group of the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR), meeting in Pecs (Hungary) in 1994, arrived at a set of provisional understandings regarding education and training in nonprofit management and related fields (Van Til, 1995). Among these understandings were: 1) The setting of a single international standard for training and education is not warranted at this time (if indeed it should ever be); 2) It would be highly useful to share experience with fields of study (courses) and to share existing practice models and aspirations; 3) The next step should be to develop an interactive process to explore the areas of study currently being developed, and in planning or contemplation, throughout the nations represented in the group.

Following on the meeting at Pecs, ISTR committed to undertake a Delphi study to allow for the sharing of practice and informed judgment as to the present and future state of curricula on the sector. The present authors were invited to play leading roles in conducting and reporting this research. An interim report of the research was presented to the Conference on Nonprofit Management Education, which met in Berkeley, California in March of 1996. The present paper forms the final report of the study.

The first working conference to be held on curricula in third sector studies was convened in 1986 at the University of San Francisco by Michael O'Neill and Dennis R. Young. Some forty experts were invited to work for three days to develop and extend concepts for educating managers of nonprofit organizations, and the conference results were reported in an influential volume (O'Neill and Young, 1988).

Participants in the conference came to the recognition that the field of third-sector studies required a reconstitution of existing elements in management curricula and their enrichment with specifically third-sector perspectives. Beyond that task of recombination and reorientation lay a second recognition: that the work of the third sector was so broad in its purview that no one program could provide courses in all aspects of the field.

As a means of dealing with the dual challenges of reconstitution and breadth, a "three-circle" approach, as depicted in Figure 1, was developed by conference participants.

FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

The first circle consists of generic courses in organizational management and leadership, providing the general instruction in these fields as offered in conventional degree programs in Business and Public Administration. Included in this circle might be such courses as: Organizational Theory and Behavior; Human Resources Management; Research and Analytic Methodology; Program Evaluation; Management Information Systems; Leadership Development and Skills; Public Policy Formulation and Development; and Total Quality Management.

The second circle would provide perspective on the special history, traditions, and structure of the third sector. Included in this circle might be such courses as: Theory of the Third Sector; The Nonprofit Economy and Public Policy; Understanding the Third Sector; Managing the Nonprofit Organization; Ethics and Professionalism in the Third Sector; Marketing Nonprofit Organizations; Financial Management and Resource Development for Nonprofit Organizations.

The third circle would address specific competencies required for management and leadership of the diverse fields of endeavor that comprise the third sector. At the Pecs conference, discussion touched on the preparation of individualized portfolios of papers and experiences, focusing on competencies and knowledge about specific sub-fields of the third sector, such as arts, social service, community development and organization, religion, advocacy, health care, education, legal services, etc. Such portfolios might include readings, "on the job" reports and reflections, papers presented to professional conferences, etc.

The present research tests the applicability of the three-circle approach by presenting it to a an international panel of experts in the form of a "modified Delphi" instrument. The idea behind a Delphi study is to tap the expertise of individuals and to feed back to them their responses in later iterations of an initial survey-like instrument. Such an instrument facilitates a "nominal group process" within which new ideas may be introduced while a consensus is explored and developed.

A Delphi form was developed and sent initially to members of the ISTR Affinity Group on Education and Training (64 members). Seven usable responses were received from this group. A second iteration was mailed some months later to the same group, supplemented by members of the ARNOVA Affinity Group on Teaching (ca. 35 members). Fifteen usable responses were received in response to this iteration. The third round yielded 22 responses, from those who responded to the initial rounds as well as all members of the ISTR affinity group and participants in the Berkeley conference. International responses were received from colleagues overseas as well as from the U.S. (two from Germany, one from Spain, one from India, one from Ireland, and one from Hungary). Because of the limited nature of the response to the instrument, attendees at the Mexico City conference are invited to complete Appendix A of the present paper, and to join in the process of reflecting on the future of curriculum in the field. The only requirement for participation in the panel is one's own self-identification as knowledgeable about the field of third sector education and training and its future needs.

In addition to probing expert knowledge on the utility of the three-circle concept, the study also asked for opinion on the nature and locus of instructional experience and certification. What parts of the educational mission on the third sector might be best suited to school (pre-college) programs? Which to college courses in the liberal arts? Which as a focus of an administrative study degree program? Should there be separate degree programs in third sector studies? What about certificates in the field?

Respondents were asked to consider the siting of programs in a variety of educational settings, as well as in a variety of third-sector settings such as the nonprofit organization itself, professional associations, community schools, churches and seminaries, and extracurricular clubs.

Additionally, respondents were asked to indicate preferences for names and titles of programs and degrees in the field. A wide variety of suggestions were elicited in response to this invitation.

The Delphi instrument yielded a set of recommendations regarding the siting of educational and training programs in the third sector that may be summarized as follows:

1) Instruction on volunteerism and the provision of options for service learning should be built into the pre-college curricula of elementary, middle, and secondary schools.

2) At the undergraduate level, instruction on the third sector and the provision of options for service learning should be provided, primarily by their inclusion in social science and humanities courses.

3) At the graduate level, third-sector management training should be offered by means of either a focused program within an established management degree (e.g. Business, Public Administration) or by the provision of a separate third-sector degree.

4) At the graduate level in research universities, doctoral work should be provided, primarily in the corpus of existing disciplines.

5) Certificate work in the third sector should be provided in a wide variety of venues, including not only undergraduate and graduate colleges, but also third-sector employers, nonprofit education and training organizations, professional associations, community schools, and seminaries.

Table 1 reflects the strong support of respondents to curriculum development at each educational level. (All tables report a scale in which 5=Strongly agree; 4=Agree somewhat; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree somewhat; and 1=Strongly disagree.)

TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

The expert panelists reported no difficulty in applying the three circle schema to the development of third sector curricula, although they were not overwhelmingly supportive of acknowledging the applicability of this schema to the design of the field. Table 2 shows that the recognition of the third circle, demonstration of specific competencies by means of portfolio presentation, receives more warmer support than does acknowledging the validity of the three-sector model to the field.

TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

.

Within the first circle, the expert respondents gave their highest support to "classic" courses on leadership and organizational structure, and a variety of courses in planning and policy development. Rated most highly were courses in:

Organizational Theory and Behavior

Leadership Skills Development

Program Evaluation

Human Resources Management

Research and Analytic Methodology

Planning

Policy Formulation and Development

A set of management-related subjects drew lesser levels of support:

Group Process

Management Information Systems

Management Theory

Table 3 presents these findings.

TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

Within the second circle, basic courses on the third sector, three core courses received the highest level of support:

Theory of the Third Sector

Ethics and Professionalism in the Third Sector

Nonprofit Economy and Public Policy

Strong support was also provided for a set of courses on specific management skills for third sector leaders:

Financial Management

Governance of Third Sector Organizations

Marketing the Third Sector

Development and Philanthropy

Two academic courses received moderate levels of support, with several suggestions made as to incorporating their materials into the course, "Theory of the Third Sector."

History and Literature of the Sector

Understanding the Third Sector

A variety of other courses, mostly pertaining to applied administrative practice and process, received considerably less support, but again were accompanied by suggestions that their topics might be included in other courses, thus not losing their content in the overall curriculum:

Tables 4 and 5 present these ratings, as judged by the panel of expert respondents.

TABLES 4 AND 5 ABOUT HERE

The third circle was seen to include a set of competency specializations. Some dealt with areas of particular nonprofit service:

Social Service (6)

Health (5)

Arts (4)

International Service (4)

Others dealt with particular competencies needed by third sector organizations:

Management of development (6)

Leadership and service (5)

Spiritual and Religious Support for Third Sector workers (4)

Useful statistics (4)

Survey Research (3)

When asked about names preferred for the program of study, respondents tended to suggest and choose names containing the "nonprofit management", rather than the "third sector" title.

In the second round of the study, a weighted response supported degree names such as the following:

Management of Non-Profit Organizations (30)

Master of Nonprofit Management (25)

Certificate in Nonprofit Management (23)

Ph.D. in Nonprofit Sector Studies (21)

The highest ranking suggestion with a "third sector" focus finished fifth in level of support:

Serving through the Third Sector (17)

Remaining suggestions tended to focus on particular sub-specializations:

NPOs in a Global Community (15)

Organization, Service, and Advocacy (13)

Public-Private Partners: NPOs + Public Policy (12)

The NPO Manager (11)

The Arts in Community Development and Service (8)

Teaching, Service, Community and the Third Sector (7)

Religious Ministry to Society's Servants (3)

In the third round, respondents were asked to rank names using the "nonprofit management" nomenclature in contrast to those using "third sector" or "other" images. Table 6 shows a preference for the nonprofit management image. Indeed, the "third sector" title is greeted only neutrally by the respondents, and this pattern of preference characterizes both U.S. and non-U.S. respondents equally.

The acceptance of the nonprofit image is not greeted with evident enthusiasm, however. Among the comments generated by this choice were the following:

TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE

--"I personally don't care too much between nonprofit and third sector. Neither is a greatly compelling term. However, I can't think of any other name that is not silly or too limited" --(I prefer the nonprofit image "mainly because I believe it's now too well known to change. However, I like "social sector" or something that defines mission, not economic form." --"I like third sector, but not enough people know what it means."

--"I am unable to come up with a new name or image yet, but I feel we should stop defining ourselves by what we are not. I am thinking of names like Social Benefit Organization, Social Enterprise Organization, Community Benefit Organization..."

--"I don't like the term "third sector", but sometimes I think it is the best we have."

--"I prefer Philanthropy--including Volunteerism, Fund-raising, Program Development..."

--"The essence of the third sector should be about civil society--the need to maintain social capital, community, and meaning through collective action."

--"I think Salamon's notion of educating students for public and third sector positions is key to the future in this area. Infusing the notion of citizenship into our programs is essential for preparing students for lifelong work in the "public" fields."

--(A new name?) "Great question--but I have no answer yet."

--"I imagine that there will be some relatively 'radical' conceptual contributions fairly soon (as the academic clock ticks) that may shake things up a bit."

Findings from this modified Delphi study indicate that nonprofit educators view as appropriate the establishment of a number of institutional venues for the delivery of curricula in their field. Specific types of programs are matched as appropriate with those venues: service learning to elementary and secondary schools; course enrichment to undergraduate colleges; specialized professional and doctoral programs to universities; and specialized certificate programs in a wide range of nonprofit and even for-profit organizational settings.

The findings also indicate that nonprofit educators accept the validity of the three-circle schema in organizing curriculum in their field. A core set of courses in organizational theory and practice overlaps the conventional core in business and public administration programs. A specialized series of courses on the history, traditions, and structure of the third sector is recommended as the heart of the program. And an experientially based set of competencies address the need for area specialization within the third sector. Such competencies might be developed by means of the presentation of "learning portfolios", which show experiences, at the work place, conference and professional activity, and research accomplishments.

As for a name for these programs, the preliminary findings show support, though not particularly enthusiastic, for names that use the "nonprofit" modifier. Support for this nomenclature characterizes both American and overseas colleagues, indicating a remarkable internationalizing of the nonprofit metaphor.

While the "three-circle" model seems to reflect conventional wisdom in the emerging field of third-sector studies, there are indications that other paradigms are emerging to challenge its rather shaky dominance. In Europe, a closely related "three-axis" model has been developed by the multi-national "Euro-Dir" group (Axis 1 represents the society as a whole, or social economy; Axis 2 represents management knowledge; and Axis 3 presents specific areas of social concern). And, in the United States, Lester Salamon of Johns Hopkins University (Maryland, USA) has reflected upon the potential gains that might issue from a "public service" curricular focus, linking traditional programs in public administration with the emerging curricular ventures that focus specifically on third sector or nonprofit organizational life.

While it is too soon to venture a guess as to what models will predominate in the future, it is clear that a variety of approaches will continue to be explored. Charting of the variety of curricular experience in the field has been begun by Naomi Wish and Roseanne Mirabella of Seton Hall University (New Jersey, USA), and their work, among others, can be expected to detect important directions in curriculum in the years ahead.

CONCLUSION

The search for a template for curriculum in the third sector on an international scale is a task that requires considerable intellectual consideration and some diplomacy. No national tradition should be allowed to dominate in the creation of curricular models, though leadership may properly be assumed by interested persons throughout the world.

The present work, demonstrating as it does a remarkable amount of consensus among scholars from a variety of countries, must nonetheless remain open to new perspectives that might emerge from any corner of the world of third sector education.

We therefore present our work with the hope that it may be considered by colleagues, and used as a guidepost for the best of present thinking. New ways of organizing the field, and the curriculum that presents its best thinking, are both to be expected and to be welcomed as the study and transmission of knowledge of the third sector becomes ever more widespread throughout the world.