Nonprofit Incorporation among Movements of the Poor ...

Nonprofit Incorporation among Movements of the Poor: Pathways and Consequences for Homeless Social Movement Organizations Author(s): Daniel M. Cress Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring, 1997), pp. 343-360 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society Stable URL: Accessed: 03/12/2010 17:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@.

Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.



NONPROFITINCORPORATIONAMONG MOVEMENTOS F THEPOOR:

PathwaysAnd Consequences For Homeless Social Movement Organizations

Daniel M. Cress

University of Colorado

Socialmovemenstcholarhs avebegunto notethewidespreaudseof nonprofitncorporationby socialmovemenotrganization(SsMOsi)n theUnitedStates.Theyarguethatnonprofitincorporatioisna voluntarayctthatultimatelyleadsto moderatioinn goalsand tactics.I examinethisargumenwt ithethnographdicataon fifteenhomelessSMOsthat operatedin eightU.S.cities. I identifysix pathwaytso adoptionornonadoptioonf nonprofitformandfindthatmoderatiown,henitoccursi,s notafunctionof nonprofint corporationpersebutof theparticulaprathwabyywhichanSMOcametoadoptnonproffiot rm. I discusstheimplicationosf thesefindingfsorSMOsingeneraal ndforunderstanditnhge broadedrebatesaboutorganizationaaultonomayndexternaclontrool f SMOs.

The formof social movementorganizations(SMOs)has been a centralconcernof social movementscholarssince the ascendenceof theorganizationapl aradigm(McCarthyandZald 1973, 1977;Oberschall1973;Tilly 1978;ZaldandAsh 1966)in the social movementliterature. Borrowinga fundamentailnsightfroma rangeof organizationatlheoriststhatorganizational form influencesthe type of actionthatcan be pursued(DiMaggioand Powell 1983; Hannanand Freeman1989;Marchand Simon 1958;Pfefferand Salancik1978; Thompson 1967;Williamson1985),studentsof socialmovementshaveexaminedSMOsalonga number of contrasting"idealtype"dimensions(Edwards1994;Jenkins1987). Thus, scholarshave exploredthe influenceof bureaucraticversusnonbureaucraticfo, rmalversusinformal,centralizedversus decentralized,and professionalversus grassrootsstructureson SMO goals, mobilizationcapabilities,tacticalrepertoiresa, nd outcomes(Freeman1979; Gamson 1975; McCarthy1987;OliverandMarwell1992;Piven andCloward1977; Staggenborg1988).

More recently,a small numberof social movementscholarshave begun to note the increaseduse of nonprofitincorporationby SMOs. J. Craig Jenkins(1987) was the first to examineexplicitlythe impactof nonprofitincorporationon politicaladvocacyandto address whetherit was beneficialor contributedto a factionalizedpoliticalclimate. JohnD. McCarthy, DavidW. Britt,andMarkWolfson(1991) andBob Edwards(1994) examinedthe extensiveness of nonprofitadoptionin greaterdetail. They identifiedhigh levels of nonprofit incorporationat boththe nationaland local levels amongpeace (85 percent),poorpeople's

*Directall correspondencteo DanielM. Cress,Departmenotf Sociology,Universityof Coloradoat Boulder,Boulder,CO 80309-0327.

The SociologicalQuarterly,Volume38, Number2, pages 343-360. Copyright? 1997 by The MidwestSociologicalSociety. All rights reserved. Send requestsfor permissionto reprintto: Rights and Permissions,Universityof CaliforniaPress,JournalsDivision,2120 BerkeleyWay, Berkeley,CA 94720. ISSN: 0038-0253.

344

THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 38/No. 2/1997

(85 percent),andantidrunk-drivin(g71 percent)SMOs,contendingthateven the vast majority of small SMOswithinthese movementshadadoptednonprofitform.

The identificationof widespreadadoptionof thenonprofitformby SMOsis perhapsone of the most significant,yet leastnoted,findingsof recentmovementscholarship.McCarthyand his colleagues(1991)havearguedthatthedramaticincreasein nonprofitincorporationamong SMOsis bothconsequentialandironic. It is consequentialin thatlaws intendedto regulate charityhave now come to channeland moderatethe influenceof social movementsas a whole. NonprofitSMOs,requiredto shapetheirgoals to be morein line withwhatis defined by the state as charitableends, are prohibitedfrom engagingin certainforms of resource aggregationandpoliticaladvocacyandaremoreconservativein theirtacticalrepertoires.It is ironicin that SMOs subjectthemselvesvoluntarilyto these controls. Inducements,such as tax-deductibleincentivesfor contributionsfromsupporterst,ax-exemptionon money raised, specialbulk-mailingrates,andaccessto charitableappeals,areparticularlyattractiveto traditionallyresource-poororganizationssuch as SMOs. Thus,throughthe vehicle of nonprofit incorporationt,hestatecomesindirectlyto controlsocialmovementactivityby offeringsomething most SMOscannotrefuse:enhancedresourcemobilizationcapabilityin exchangefor moderationin SMOgoals andtactics.'

The tensionbetweenresourcemobilizationand social controlinherentin the decision to

incorporateas a nonprofitparallelsthedebateoverorganizationaalutonomyandenvironmental determinismthat is the subjectof broadertheoreticaldiscussions(e.g., Freeman1979; Jenkinsand Eckert1986; McCarthyandZald 1973; 1977;Tarrow1994; Tilly 1978; 1986; ZaldandAsh 1966). The observationsof McCarthyandhis colleagues(1991) embodythis tension. On the one hand,they arguethatnonprofitincorporationis enteredinto voluntarily by SMOs. On the otherhand,they imply thatchoice doesn't really exist, arguingthatthe "tangleof incentives"withintheinstitutionaelnvironmenits so strongthatmostSMOscan ill affordnot to incorporateas a nonprofit.

This apparentcontradictionraises two empiricalquestionsthat have broadertheoretical importancein the debateover organizationaal utonomy. First, to what extent is nonprofit incorporationvoluntary?Do SMOschoose to becomenonprofitor is it outsideof theircontrol? Second,whatarethe consequencesof nonprofitincorporation?Does adoptionof nonprofitforminevitablysubjectSMOsto social controlconsequences?I seek to addressthese questionsby lookingspecificallyat the variouspathwaysby whicha set of fifteenhomeless SMOscame eitherto adoptor not adoptnonprofitformandexaminingthe consequencesof those particularpathwaysto nonprofitincorporationon the goals andtacticsof these SMOs.

The datacome frommy fieldworkexaminingprotestactivityby homelesspeoplein eight U.S. cities. Thehomelessarea particularlyfittingpopulationin whichto examinethe tension betweenresourcemobilizationand social control. On the one hand,they are extremelyresource-poor,lackingthe personalresourcesto providefor their own basic necessities and organizationaflormsthataccentresourcemobilizationcapabilitiesoughtto be especiallyappealingto impoverishedgroups. On the otherhand,the pooraremoredependenton disruptive tacticsas a vehiclefor institutionarledress(PivenandCloward1977),suggestingthatthe

costs of nonprofitadoptionaremorepronouncedfor poorpeople'sorganizations.Thesefac-

tors are salientfor understandingboth how SMOs come to adoptnonprofitstructuresand

whethernonprofitadoptiondoes indeedinfluenceSMOgoals and tactics.

NonprofitIncorporatioAn mongMovementsof the Poor

345

DETERMINANTSOF SMO ACTION

A centraldebatewithinthe social movementliteratureconcernsthe level of autonomythat SMOshave in determiningtheirstructureandaction. This debateis reflectedin two strands of theory. Onestrandemphasizesinternalprocessesas the mechanismdrivingorganizational behavior,whilethe secondstrandgives primacyto externalfactorsin the SMOenvironment.

Movementscholarshave highlighteda numberof internalmechanismsthatguide SMO structureandaction. TheseincludeSMOdecision-makingprocesses(McCarthyet al. 1991), the belief systems or collective identityof SMOs (Freeman1979; Melucci 1989; Mueller 1994;Taylor1989),andtheroleof movementprofessionals(McCarthyandZald 1973, 1977; OliverandMarwell1992;Piven andCloward1977;Staggenborg1988). The workon nonprofitadoptionmentionedabove(Edwards1994;Jenkins1987;McCarthyet al. 1991)emphasized internaldecision-makingmechanisms,implicitlyassumingan organizationarl ationalcalculuswherebythe materialresourcebenefitsof nonprofitadoption(tax-deductibleincentives for contributionfsromsupporterst,ax-exemptionon moneyraised,specialmailingrates, and access to charitableappeals)are weighedagainstthe costs of adoption(limitationson activitiesdefinedas political,reportingof organizationaal ctivitiesto the InternalRevenue Service,formalizedorganizationasltructure)l,eadingto a decisionto adoptor not adopt.

Takentogether,the internalmechanismshighlightedby thesetheoristssuggesthigh levels of organizationaalutonomyin SMOstructureandaction. Theseperspectivessuggestthatthe adoptionof nonprofitformandthe subsequentconsequencesfor SMO actionsarethoughtto be controlledprimarilyby the SMOitself.

In contrastto the internalmechanismsmentionedabove, othermovementscholarshave

emphasizedthe externalorganizationalenvironmentas the primarydeterminantof SMO structureandaction. Theseapproacheshaveemphasizedthe immediateenvironmentin terms of the SMO'sresourcedependencies(Haines1984;JenkinsandEckert1986;McAdam1982; Piven and Cloward1977;Pfefferand Salancik1978), the broadermulti-organizationaflield (CurtisandZurcher1973;Klanderman1s992;ZaldandMcCarthy1980)andthe institutional environment(McCarthyet al. 1991;Tarrow1994;Tilly 1978) in whichthe SMO is embedded. McCarthyandhis colleagues(1991)developedtheinstitutionaline of thoughtin detailing a numberof channelingmechanismsthatderivedfrom statetax laws and from policy

governingnonprofitincorporation.

Theexternalmechanismshighlightedby thesetheoristssuggestlow levels of organizational autonomyin SMOstructureandaction. Theseperspectivessuggestthatthe adoptionof nonprofitform and the subsequentconsequencesfor SMO actionsare controlledprimarilyby external organizationsand institutionswithin the environmentin which the SMO is embedded.

While the abovetheoristsdifferin theirlocationof the primarymechanismthatdetermine SMOstructureandaction,theyarenot mutuallyexclusiveof one another.Rather,the difference betweeninternalandexternaldeterminantiss a matterof degreeand may varyby the particularcircumstanceosf SMOs. I will returnto thisdebateandattemptto assesstheweight

of internalandexternalfactorslaterin the paper.

METHODS

This articleutilizesa comparativeethnographicapproachd, rawingon fieldworkI conducted in eight U.S. cities in 1988-1992.2 The cities and SMOs are shown in Table 1.

346

THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 38/No. 2/1997

TABLE1: SOCIALMOVEMENTORGANIZATIONSAND LOCATIONS

City Boston

Denver Detroit Houston Minneapolis

Oakland Philadelphia Tucson

SMO

BostonUnionof theHomeless HomelesCs ivilRightsProject HomeFront

DenverUnionof theHomeless HomelesPs eopleUnite DetroiUt nionof theHomeless

HoustonUnionof theHomeless HeadsUp! MinneapolUisnionof theHomeless Allianceof theStreets PeopleUnitedforEconomiJcustice OaklandUnionof theHomeless OaklandUnionof theHomeless-MembersChaipucus PhiladelphUianionof theHomeless TucsonUnionof theHomeless

SMO Abbreviation

BUH HCRP HF

DnUH HPU

DtUH

HUH HU

MUH AOS PUEJ

OUH MC

PUH

TUH

A triangulatedapproach(Denzin1970)to the datacollectionwas employed,incorporating informationfroma varietyof sources. The bulkof the dataarefromparticipant/observation of homelessSMOsandin-depthinterviewswithhomelessactivists,theirsupportersa, ndthe targetsof theirprotestactions. Fieldworkexcursionswerefollowedby regulardebriefingand discussionsessionswiththe principleinvestigatorof the project.This aidedin the focus and directionof the researchas it unfolded. In addition,I used documentsfrom the homeless

SMOs,facilitativeorganizationsa, ndtargetorganizationsa, s well as newspaperaccountsof homelessprotestfromeach of the cities. The additionaldatasourcesnot only increasedthe

informationalyield but allowed me to cross-checkclaims of informantsand documents

againstone another(Douglas 1976).

Fieldworkin Minneapolis,Philadelphiaa, ndTucsonoccurredover a four-yearperiodand servedas the basisfor morestructuredandfocusedfieldworkin the otherfive cities whereI

spenta minimumof one montheach. I typicallyoccupiedmy timein the fieldaccompanying homelessactivistsin theirdailyroutines,attendingtheirorganizationaml eetingsanddemonstrations,and sleepingin sheltersor flophouses.I employedan onion/snowballstrategyfor gatheringinformationin the field(BiernackiandWaldorf1981;CressandSnow 1996). Be-

ginningwith the homelessSMO,I observedandinterviewedleadersandrank-and-filemembers. From these discussions,I branchedout and gatheredinformationfrom membersof organizationsthathadsupportedthe SMO. Next,I interviewedthe membersof organizations that were the targetsof SMO attacks. Finally,I interviewedmembersof other prominent organizationswithinthe field thatwereidentifiedby facilitatorsandtargetsbut who maynot have been directlyinvolvedwith homelessmobilization.This groupfunctionedas morede-

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download