Are public managers more risk averse? Framing effects and status quo bias across the sectors

The article of record as published may be found at https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.21.3Modern reforms meant to incentivize public managers to be more innovative and accepting of risk are often implicitly based in the longstanding assumption that public employees are more risk averse than their private sector counterparts. We argue, however, that there is more to learn about the degree to which public and private managers differ in terms of risk aversion. In order to address this gap, we field a series of previously validated experiments designed to assess framing effects and status quo bias in a sample of public and private sector managers. Our results indicate that public managers are not more risk averse or anchored to the status quo than their private sector counterparts; in fact, the findings suggest the opposite may be true under some conditions. In addition, our results fail to confirm previous findings in the literature suggesting that public service motivation is associated with risk aversion. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these results for the study of risky choice in the public sector and for modern public management reforms

The stages of nonprofit advocacy

This dissertation argues that advocacy is a two-stage decision in which organizations must first decide whether or not to undertake political activity through advocacy or lobbying and then choose between the set of strategic actions that, based on available financial and human resources, are available to them. These are separate decisions with separate constraints. The decision to advocate is a strategic stance taken by nonprofit organizations in policy environments that necessitate such activity and in which it is politically conducive for them to undertake the cost of such actions. Once an organization has decided that it will undertake advocacy activities, it must determine the specific activities, collaboration, grassroots advocacy, or direct lobbying, that will help it to pursue that course most effectively. These hypotheses are tested in an analysis of the advocacy activities of over 500 nonprofit reproductive health service providers. Data for this study were gathered from the National Center for Charitable Statistics within the Urban Institute and directly from IRS Form 990s filed by the organizations. The findings suggest that there are strong and consistent relationships between policy and politics and the political activity of nonprofit service providers. In states with more restrictive reproductive health policy environments, nonprofit organizations that provide these services are more likely to engage in advocacy activity. The findings also suggest that, even when controlling for the policy environment, 501(c)(3)s are more likely to become politically active in states where they have a larger number of political allies. Additional analyses suggest that there is a negative relationship between government monies and the aggressiveness of advocacy and the use of multiple advocacy strategies. Interestingly, this finding is consistent with the expectations offered in the resource dependence literature and the results suggest only a tenuous relationship between institutional variables and decisions regarding organizational aggressiveness in the choice of advocacy strategies

Findings from Year Two of the External Evaluation of the Healthy & Active Communities Initiative

The Missouri Foundation for Health has funded 33 projects under its Healthy & Active Communities (H&AC) Initiative in two-year funding cycles. A set of 15 projects was funded beginning in 2005 while a set of 18 was funded starting in 2006. This report is the second of three annual reports that assess the extent to which the H&AC Initiative is achieving its objectives. The report builds upon the findings described in “Findings from Year One of the External Evaluation of the Healthy & Active Communities Initiative.” The Missouri Foundation for Health contracted with the Institute of Public Policy, Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri to provide an evaluation of the success of the Initiative as a whole. This focus differs from the typical evaluation where evaluators are assessing and reporting on the success of individual funded projects. Instead, the evaluation looked across the funded projects to identify common factors of success. Continuing from the framework established in 2006, the evaluation team worked from a socio-ecological model. This model assumes that complex prevention programs such as the H&AC projects must use a multi-faceted approach in order to change behavior on individual, organizational and community levels simultaneously. To evaluate programs with multiple approaches such as these, the evaluators determined that cluster evaluation, a strategy developed by the Kellogg Foundation, could be used to identify successful features of the Initiative as a whole. This method enables the evaluators to identify successful program and community conditions that transcend the individual projects

Are public managers more risk averse? Framing effects and status quo bias across the sectors

Modern reforms meant to incentivize public managers to be more innovative and accepting of risk are often implicitly based in the longstanding assumption that public employees are more risk averse than their private sector counterparts. We argue, however, that there is more to learn about the degree to which public and private managers differ in terms of risk aversion. In order to address this gap, we field a series of previously validated experiments designed to assess framing effects and status quo bias in a sample of public and private sector managers. Our results indicate that public managers are not more risk averse or anchored to the status quo than their private sector counterparts; in fact, the findings suggest the opposite may be true under some conditions. In addition, our results fail to confirm previous findings in the literature suggesting that public service motivation is associated with risk aversion. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these results for the study of risky choice in the public sector and for modern public management reforms

Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault

Using the theory of representative bureaucracy, this paper investigates the relationship between women police officers and sexual assault reports and arrests. The theoretical contribution is to establish a case in which representation is likely to occur, even without a conscious effort on the part of the bureaucrat involved but simply because of the shared experiences of the bureaucrat and the client. Based on a pooled time series of 60 urban areas over an eight-year time frame, this study finds that the percentage of women police officers is positively associated with the number of reports of sexual assault and with the number of arrests for sexual assault

Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of Higher Education

This article examines whether governance structures facilitate or impede political forces by testing two competing hypotheses concerning the ability of bureaucratic structures to insulate higher education policies from politics. Centralized structures both create autonomy and facilitate access by environmental forces. This study examines the structures of higher education boards to gain a better understanding of how they interact with politics to affect higher education policy. To the extent that variation in governance structures is correlated with bureaucratic autonomy, it should limit the ability of elected officials to influence education policies. The transaction costs of individuals seeking to influence overall agency policy are lowered, however, in more centralized organizations. Political actors can focus their attention on a single geographic site rather than multiple sites that are adapting to different sets of institutional arrangements and different local environments. These hypotheses are tested in a 47-state, 8-year analysis

Looking at nonprofit board performance through the lens of gendered leadership

Despite an active stream of “good governance” research, there is not yet much nonprofit scholarship examining how the gender composition of a board or its leadership relates to board performance. This article helps to fill this gap, focusing on the governance practices of U.S.-based nonprofits serving a domestic or international membership. A structural equation model finds that the presence of female leaders relates to the performance of nonprofit boards both directly, and indirectly through these leaders’ presumed influence on board characteristics and operation. This research advances the field by empirically testing a longstanding theory that board performance is both multi-dimensional and contingent on the market and labor environment, organizational capacity and other characteristics—in this case, gender dynamics. These findings also suggest that a strategy to balance a board’s gender may serve many nonprofits