Nonprofit Organizations as Bridges and Mediating Structures: How
They Work Within the Community.
Submitted by: Elizabeth B. Bolton, Ph.D. Professor of Community Development
Mendel, Stuart C. “The Ecology of Games between Public Policy and Private Action.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, vol 13, no. 3 Spring 2003.
Introduction
The number of nonprofit organizations has increased dramatically in the United States since the 1950s. The exact cause for this increase is attributed to the reaction of people to large scale federal programs after World War II affecting urban renewal, civil rights, welfare, and mortgage lending. In the 1980s these community based organizations began to assume a role of mediating structures between federal, state, and local policy and the people in the communities. Many of these nonprofit organizations became very adept in their ability to identify, accommodate and use the constituencies at primary, secondary and tertiary levels.
Methodology
Mendel uses the bridge metaphor to explain the rise in the number of nonprofits and the process leaders use to make changes in and protect the assets of their communities. Nonprofits as a bridge between constituencies, community issues, institutions and as a mediator in the environment of interrelationships is the theme of Mendel’s article in which he explores the concept of games as the connector for public-private partnerships. In this context games are described as interrelationships in which one group uses the goals and objectives of another group to achieve their own goals and objectives. For example, the real estate developer may use the goals and objectives of the banker to achieve his/her goals and objectives and the banker may use the goals and objectives of a politician to achieve his/her goals. This article looks at nonprofit organizations as the mediating structures that provide a bridge between the private individual and the large institutional structures. There are multiple bridges and multiple games going on at one time and new bridges are being formed as nonprofits change their focus, mission and funding.
Main Ideas
Mendel’s concept of nonprofits as a bridge and as a mediating structure is similar to Warren’s (1978) description of the community’s vertical pattern that provides ties to the larger society and culture and his horizontal pattern which provides the ties that bind the local units to each other. “A community’s vertical pattern was defined as the structural and functional relationship of its various social units and subsystems to extra community systems. Its horizontal pattern was defined as the structural and functional relationship of the community’s various social units and subsystems to each other “(Warren, p. 243).
Mendel and Warren seek to explain the interconnection between organizations and the larger culture and the relationship these organizations have to each other. Mendel sees these connections as bridges and Warren sees vertical and horizontal connections within the community and external to the community. Using Warren’s vertical and horizontal connections or Mendel’s bridges is useful in seeing the potential of community based organizations to the larger culture and to each other. Understanding the connections and the “bridges” is useful in forming coalitions and building relationships with public and private partners that will benefit both the as well as the nonprofit sector. For the most part, the nonprofit organization literature treats these entities as good for the community because they provide services that are needed but not otherwise provided for. However Gus Newport (2005) says that many times these organizations inhibit community development and provide a disservice to the very constituency they seek to serve by obscuring from view the real issues. Instead of focusing on policy that could sustain their missions, they focus on competing for funding and publicity.
The ecology of games is described as the process whereby nonprofit organizations develop a web of interconnections with other institutions, both public and private and with other nonprofits. People in various communities are brought closer together by common goals on a shifting playing field that involves secondary and tertiary allies.
Nonprofits are also seen as mediating structures. Mendel cites the work of Berger and Neuhaus (1996) in describing mediating organizations as “structures that stand between people and impersonal institutions, for example, the neighborhood, the family, the church, and the voluntary associations”(p. 231). Three reasons are given for endorsing mediating structures. These mediating structures represented the work of the classical thinkers concerned with the ideologies of community. These mediating structures were at the center of the philosophy of the Great Society. “These mediating structures provided rallying points for people who challenged the size of government and its support of a welfare state in a society that was committed to private property, low taxes and individual effort” (Mendel, p. 232.)
Mendel provides a case history of the Union Mills Community Coalition (UMCC) to illustrate the ecology of games and the mediating influence of nonprofits. The UMCC area was a community composed of steel workers. The community’s property and vitality were directly related to the steel industry. As the steel industry began to decline and consolidate into fewer operations, the neighborhood population shifted. White working class residents who moved out and lower-income black residents moved in. The constituent groups shifted in their significance in the community. The community changed in its relationship to the larger region and to institutions within the community. The churches in the neighbors became meeting places for community organizers striving to connect the concerns of the people to the local government and most specifically to the economically important and powerful corporate interests of the area.
In the 1980’s the emphasis shifted from the welfare state of the Great Society to providing economic opportunity in the private sector. “Corporate leaders and private grant makers, tired of endless demands for operating support by increasingly strident grassroots neighborhood organizations like UMCC, began to fund economic development corporations whose mission was to preserve and enhance neighborhood wealth” (Mendel, p. 233). Eventually the neighborhood coalitions gave way to development corporations that emphasized housing in the community through rehabilitation, development and preserving older homes.
Implications for Extension
As communities change so do the constituencies within them. When working with community based nonprofit organizations, the implications in this article for extension are as follows:
- Consider multiple constituencies rather than a single group which may lose its political and or economic influence over time.
- The concept of mediating structures as bridging strategies between policy makers, private enterprise and community organizations is a useful tool for extension educators who work nonprofit boards and community leaders.
- Practicality can be a guide for the nonprofit organization in that strategic thinking is required to determine where the organization fits into the community and how it is governed. Extension educators can help the nonprofit think strategically using the goals of other groups and organizations to reach their own.
- Nonprofit organizations have an obligation to remember that they are part of the larger system that delivers services, utilizes resources and protects the wealth and assets of the community. Extension educators can help these nonprofits see their important role in the community.
- Decision makers in nonprofits should understand the relevance of their organization to the larger environment and how it functions.
- Extension faculty have an obligation to understand the community and its functions, the institutions and how they relate to each other and the larger society in addition to the target audience to which we direct our programs.
- Look for, and at, the big picture. You will be amazed at what is there and how it operates.
References
Newport, G. (Winter, 2005). “Why are we replacing furniture when half the neighborhood is missing?” The nonprofit quarterly. (pp. 32-40).
Warren, R.L. (1987). The community in America. Third Edition. University Press of America: Lanham, Md. (pp. 240-304).
Labels: Bolton, nonprofits, RNYCU


