 |
 |
|
|
        
|
      |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Building Bridges
Initiative Cluster Evaluation: March 2001 R.
Sam Larson, Ph.D. and Mark I. Wilson, Ph.D. Part
1 - Executive
Summary
Part 2 - Continuing Education
Decision Making Desired Course ContentCentral to the BBI cluster evaluation is assessing the extent to which nonprofit courses reflect the interests and needs of the student/practitioner. Utilizing the research of Mirabella and Wish (internal/external) and the Guidelines by NACC and NASPAA (unique/general) as a guide, we developed a comprehensive listing of course topics and asked students to first evaluate the importance of each topic for managing or leading a nonprofit organization, and second, to indicate if each topic should receive more, the same, or less emphasis in their program. The determination of which nonprofit management topics a program covers rests primarily with faculty members who design courses and curricula, but content can be influenced by student demand. It is important to note that students and faculty may have different assessments of what courses should and should not be taught, or the extent of emphasis on any one subject matter. The contribution of the survey is that it provides insight into what students value and want. Table 3 presents student ratings of the importance of topics commonly covered in nonprofit management programs. On the rating scale, “1” is considered very important and “5” is not important. Thus, the lower the mean score (M), the more important students perceive the topic. This table also includes the percentage of students indicating that they want more, the same, or less emphasis on the topic in their program. Fundraising and development (M=1.4) and strategic planning for nonprofits (M=1.4) were rated as the topics most important for managing and leading a nonprofit organization. Other important topics included governance (M=1.5), budgeting and accounting (M=1.5), legal structure (M=1.6), ethics and values (M=1.7), evaluation and accountability (M=1.8), proposal writing (M=1.8), policy making (M=1.9) and marketing (M=1.9). Topics seen as less important include: international organizations and issues (M=2.8), quantitative analysis (M=2.5), history of the nonprofit sector (M=2.4), and economics and market issues (M=2.3). Course topics that rated highest in importance were also likely to be those that students wanted emphasized more in their program. Over one-third of the students wanted more emphasis on strategic planning for nonprofits, fundraising and development, legal structure, governance, proposal writing, diversity, budgeting and accounting, policy making and advocacy. In particular, we found that certificate students were significantly more likely to want more emphasis on management information systems, economics, and marketing than were other students. Table 3. Assessment of Nonprofit Management Courses
What
do our findings add to the work of Mirabella and Wish and the NACC and NASPAA Guidelines? To answer
this question we constructed Table 4 using the internal/external distinction
identified by Mirabella and Wish and the unique/general distinctions presented
by NACC/NASPAA. Next, we placed
each topic listed in our survey in one of the four quadrants:
internal/unique, external/unique, internal/general and external/general.
We then bolded those topics
students rated as being most important (M <
2.0) for managing and leading a
nonprofit organization and checked ( Table 4. Classification of Nonprofit Courses
Using this visual heuristic one can quickly see that topics that are unique to the sector and that have an internal organization focus were regarded by respondents as those most important to leading and managing nonprofits and also the topics that should receive greater emphasis. And, those courses unique to the sector but with an external organization focus appear less important to the respondents. Our interpretation of this data is, that while faculty and researchers, and perhaps those in leadership roles in regional or national nonprofit organizations, see a need for an external organization focus, our respondents are living in a “local” world and are seeking practical and immediately useful skills they can use within their organizations. We also asked students if they perceived differences among the sectors regarding operating environments and leadership needs. Our findings are a bit surprising. On the one hand, most students (72%) agreed that the legal, economic, and social environments for nonprofits are significantly different from private business or government. On the other hand, however, just half of the students (50%) agreed that the leadership skills required for the nonprofit sector are different from those required by the for-profit or public sectors. Students see the nonprofit sector as different to other sectors, yet find greater overlap in the skills needed to manage in the sector. Educational SatisfactionHow satisfied were students with their academic experience? To assess satisfaction, we listed a series of experiences associated with academic programs and asked students how satisfied they were with each element. These academic experiences fit into two broad categories: linking or bridge features and traditional academic characteristics. The linking or bridge features emphasize the connection of research or theory to practice. These are the features that the BBI would likely want programs to emphasize. The traditional academic experiences could be found in almost any certificate or degree program and would not be unique to BBI affiliates. Table 4 presents our findings on this topic. We used a 5-point scale ranging from very satisfied (1) to very dissatisfied (5). Thus, the lower the mean (M) for any single item, the more satisfied students are with that element. We have also included the percent of students who were satisfied (1 or 2) and not satisfied (4 or 5) with each element of their educational experience. Table 5. Student Satisfaction with Management Programs
Students indicated that, overall, they were satisfied with their programs (M=2.0) with half of the students saying they were satisfied and one-quarter saying they were very satisfied. Only 5% indicated they were dissatisfied with the program overall. Students assessed eight factors associated with the linkages between the academic program and the world of practice. Each of these linking factors was rated lower than the students’ overall satisfaction with the program. The linking factors perceived as most favorable were the connection of courses to practice (M=2.1/67% satisfied) and the involvement of practitioners in the program (M=2.3/60% satisfied). Students seem less satisfied, though still not dissatisfied, with collaboration opportunities for nonprofit leaders and students (M=2.5/56% satisfied), networking opportunities for students and alumni (M=2.5/53% satisfied), and links between the program and nonprofit organizations (M=2.5/54% satisfied). Less than half of the respondents (46%) were satisfied with the connection of research to practice (M=2.6). Students also indicated a low satisfaction with placement services (M=2.8/36% satisfied), but it may be that they have not yet used these services. It appears that students were, overall, somewhat more satisfied with the traditional academic characteristics of the program than they were with the linkage dimension. Students were most satisfied by the currency of course content (M=1.9/80% satisfied), instructional quality (M=2.1/70% satisfied), their relationships with other students (M=2.1/68% satisfied), the scheduling of class time (M=2.1/71% satisfied), relationships with faculty (M=2.2/67% satisfied), and the academic rigor of the program (M=2.3/61% satisfied). Students were less satisfied with faculty mentoring (M=2.7/ 42%), followed by quality of research experience (M=2.6/42% satisfied When choosing a nonprofit management program, students indicated that they valued programs that linked to the community, either directly or through courses or research. While an important reason to be attracted to a program, student responses suggest that this element, the bridge to the community, is less satisfying than the traditional elements of their programs. The linking/bridges experiences are a recent and less conventional form of education. It may be that faculty and nonprofit professionals are still uncomfortable or unsure of how to operationalize these linkages. It is also possible that these linkages are less valued by the academic institutions and thus receive less attention than the more familiar and valued traditional experiences. It is also possible that students are unfamiliar with these linkages and how to rate or value them. Regardless of the possible explanation, it seems clear that students value these community linkages as an important dimension of their education and that academic programs should focus more time and attention on making more or improving the quality of these linkages. This survey of graduate nonprofit management students enrolled in BBI funded programs is the first of a two-part profile of the next generation of nonprofit managers and leaders. The second part is a follow-up of these students as alumni. This study presents a “demand side” perspective to complement our greater understanding of the supply side of nonprofit management education. The nonprofit management student population revealed by the survey is primarily female and white, but they come from a range of ages. The human capital framework allows us to structure our analysis in terms of the investments made by students to achieve further education. Accordingly, we found that students seek to continue their education primarily for personal development and skill enhancement, although they do consider the financial benefits too. Locality is also important – most students are working and studying at the same time. We believe that most students are seeking a program with a strong reputation and a focus on the nonprofit sector that is accessible in terms of location and class times. Students are primarily interested in topics that focus on the internal and unique operations of nonprofit organizations. Perhaps this is because so many of these students are grounded in the day-to-day operations of a nonprofit organization and they need and want immediately applicable skills and knowledge. Differences do emerge among the respondents regarding the importance of courses and factors that influence their choice of program or decision to return to school, but few of these differences are statistically or substantively significant. The lack of differences is, in some ways, a surprising finding. We thought we would find differences by age, gender and race/ethnicity, but we found very few differences and most of those were negligible. And we certainly anticipated finding differences between students enrolled in certificate program, nonprofit management master’s, and master’s with a nonprofit concentration. Again, we found few differences. Students – regardless of their age, gender, race/ethnicity, and program type – share similar reasons for choosing to continue their education and to enroll in a program with a nonprofit focus; that these students tend to value the same types of courses or foci in a program; and that all students tend to value the bridging elements (the connection of research to practice). Our study suggests that the current focus of nonprofit programs on internal issues (see Wish and Mirabella, 1998a, 1998b; Mirabella and Wish, 2000) is not misplaced – students seek topics that are focused on the internal and unique characteristics of nonprofit organizations. Of course, what students want or say they need may be shortsighted. For example, quantitative analysis may not be fun, but it may be a necessary skill to be an effective user of research or evaluation and interpreting national or local trends and statistics. Our message to faculty and others who regard an external focus as important is to make these topics relevant and applicable to the life of a nonprofit professional who is handling daily operations of local nonprofits. As stated earlier in this paper, our respondents were enrolled in six nonprofit management graduate and certificate programs affiliated with Building Bridges Initiative grantee institutions. Thus, we will not generalize to the larger population of other nonprofit management graduate and certificate students. Furthermore, without a comparison group we cannot say if these students and their programs are different from non-BBI affiliated institutions. These are questions for another study. The second part of this study will begin in Summer 2001 and be completed in Winter 2001. We plan to see if students’ preferences change over time and what type of impacts their educational experiences have on their work and their life. ReferencesBecker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. New York and London: Columbia University Press. Digest of Educational Statistics. (1999). Table 299: Earned Degrees in Public Administration and Services conferred by Institutions of Higher Education and Table 280: Earned Degrees in Business conferred by Institutions of Higher Education. [On-line]: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99. Independent Sector. (1993). National Summary: Not-for-Profit Employment. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector. Larson, R. S. & Long, R.F. (1998). Nonprofit Management Academic Centers: Moving from the Periphery. Paper presented at the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Seattle, Washington. Larson, R. S. & Long, R. F. (2000). Academic Centers: Moving Beyond the Periphery. Journal of Public Service and Outreach 5(2), 39-47. Mirabella, R. & Wish, N. (2000). Nonprofit Management Education: Summary of Research on Graduate Degree Programs. Paper presented at the International Association for Third Sector Research, Dublin, Ireland. National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. (2000). Task Group Report on Guidelines for Graduate Professional Education in Nonprofit Organizations, Management and Leadership. [On-line]. Available: http://www.naspaa.org/guidelines/guide_npft.htm O'Neill, M., Young, D.R., & McAdam, T.W. (Eds.). (1988). Educating Managers of Nonprofit Organizations. New York ,NY: Praeger. O’Neill, M. & Fletcher, K. (Eds.). (1998). Nonprofit Management Education: U.S. and World Perspectives. Westport, CT: Praeger. Wish, N. & Mirabella, R. (1998a). Nonprofit Management Education: Current Offerings and Practices in University-Based Programs. In M. O’Neill and K. Fletcher (Eds.), Nonprofit Management Education: U.S. and World Perspectives, (pp. 13-22). Westport, CT: Praeger. Wish, N. & Mirabella, R. (1998b). Curricular Variations in Nonprofit Management Graduate Programs. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 9(1), 99-109. Young, D.R. (1983). If Not for Profit, For What? Lexington, MA: DC Heath. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
)
the topics where one-third or more of the students indicated they wanted more
emphasis. 