Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Incentivizing for-profit investment in the non-profit initiatives of the Community Cooperative: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Incentivizing for-profit investment in the non-profit initiatives of the Community Cooperative: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Incentivizing For-Profit Investment in the Non-Profit Initiatives of The Community Cooperative:
An Evaluation Study
by
Norman Keith White, Esq.
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2020
Copyright 2020 Norman Keith White, Esq.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Jennifer Phillips, for being a stern but guiding hand
and inspiring me to constantly define my position instead of defending my biases. Thank you for
believing in me and being so incredibly supportive that I would often feel unworthy of your help. Your
care for my work provided a foundation for the confidence I needed to thrive in this program. My time
in your class and under your guidance as my committee chair has made me a better professional, a
better student and a better human. Thank you and I am forever grateful.
To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Helena Seli and Dr. Kalima Rayburn, for
challenging me to be produce the best version of myself through my work and for encouraging me in
the belief that my work is important. Your expertise and guidance has helped me refine my lofty but
ever-present goal of changing the world. Thank you both for working with me and on me as I developed
in this program. Thank you!
Completing this dissertation would be impossible without the support of my incredible wife,
Allegra, and our children, Kennedy, Kalle, Klark, Kingston and Kohen. This dissertation and all of the
efforts to create a more sustainable world are dedicated to my family. I love you Allegra, and I owe
my growth and development to your love, patience and faith. Thank you for choosing me.
To my best friends, Mom and Dad. Norman, Sr and Gloria White. I’ve always used my middle
name (Keith) in an effort to establish my own identity, but as I’ve grown that identity is more
established in how you raised me. You provided incredible examples of love, grace, faith and
perseverance. And although I am also using a pseudonym for my last name (Africa), it is an effort to
honor the ancestors that chose you to be my parents. I could not have asked for better parents. I love
you. And that’s on periodt!
To my Brooklyn Combine family, you guys saved my life in a time when I was lost and looking
for community. I love you guys. Now let’s disrupt up the world!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................................... 2
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................... 2
Related Literature ........................................................................................................................ 3
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 7
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................................ 9
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 10
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................................... 11
Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 11
Organization of the Project ....................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 13
Influences on the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 13
The History and Development of Private Sector Investment ................................................... 13
The Standard Goals of Private Investment ............................................................................... 15
The Changing Landscape of Investment Goals and Models .................................................... 16
The Standard Model of Non-Profit Development and Funding ............................................... 18
Emerging Practices in Non-Profit Funding and Development ................................................. 19
Challenges in Incentivizing Private Investment in Non-Profit Initiatives ................................ 19
Capturing Data that will Incentivize Private Investment into Non-Profit Initiatives ............... 20
Tying Investment to Programming ........................................................................................... 21
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework ........................................................................ 23
iv
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ....................................... 24
Knowledge and Skills ............................................................................................................... 25
Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 30
Organization- Related Influences ............................................................................................. 34
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and The
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 39
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................ 44
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 44
Individual Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale ........................................................... 45
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale ............................................................................. 45
Explanation of Choices ............................................................................................................. 46
Documents and Artifacts ........................................................................................................... 47
Qualitative Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 47
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 48
Documents and Artifacts ........................................................................................................... 48
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 49
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 50
Ethics ......................................................................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 54
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 54
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Findings ............................................................. 55
Knowledge Findings ................................................................................................................. 55
Motivation Findings .................................................................................................................. 64
Organizational Influences’ Findings ......................................................................................... 69
Synthesis ................................................................................................................................... 73
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN .......... 75
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................... 75
Knowledge Influences and Recommendation .......................................................................... 75
v
Motivation Recommendations .................................................................................................. 77
Organization Recommendations ............................................................................................... 79
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ....................................................................... 82
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ...................................................................... 82
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ................................................................................... 84
Level 3: Behavior ...................................................................................................................... 85
Level 2: Learning ...................................................................................................................... 88
Level 1: Reaction ...................................................................................................................... 90
Evaluation Tools ....................................................................................................................... 91
Immediately Following the Program Implementation .............................................................. 91
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation ......................................................... 91
Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................................................... 92
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 92
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 93
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................................... 94
Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 95
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 95
References ..................................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 104
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 104
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 107
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 109
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 110
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Shareholder Performance Goals 19
TABLE 2 Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type and Knowledge Assessments 39
TABLE 3 Motivational Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments 43
TABLE 4 Organizational Influences 47
TABLE 5 Knowledge Influences, Interview Results 64
TABLE 6 Motivation Influences, Interview Results 71
TABLE 7 Organizational Influences, Interview Results 76
TABLE 8 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 81
TABLE 9 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 84
TABLE 10 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 86
TABLE 11 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 90
TABLE 12 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 91
TABLE13 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 92
TABLE 14 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 95
TABLE 15 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 96
TABLE 16 Organizational Goals 98
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Framework for the Community Cooperative 49
viii
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study evaluated the steps necessary for a non-profit organization to
incentivize private investment in its non-profit initiatives. The research questions for this study
examined the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that influenced the Community
Cooperative’s efforts to incentivize private investment in its non-profit initiatives. The research
methods included interviews with the Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative and a
document review. The researcher received unanimous approval by the Board of Directors to
conduct the study and gained approval through school leadership and the university’s
Institutional Review Board.
The data analysis produced several themes. These themes were that the Board of
Directors possessed procedural knowledge gaps and self-efficacy motivational gaps.
Additionally, the organizational settings did not provide enough structural support or
accountability. Without enough structural support and accountability, the organization could
develop ideas but failed to execute on those ideas. These themes were exhibited by the
stakeholders’ inability to collect data and create programming that incentivized private
investment in its non-profit initiatives.
Recommendations included allocating resources towards the development of
programming and data collection that incentivize private investment. The other recommendation
includes providing training for the stakeholders in the organization so that they learn how to
execute the steps required to achieve the organizational goal.
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This dissertation addresses the need to incentivize private investment in non-profit
initiatives and the challenge of finding shared common goals when private institutions support
non-profit entities. Non-profit institutions can be very effective when the institution can develop
community programs that are both in alignment with their non-profit initiative and attractive to
private investors. When different institutions share common goals and desired outcomes, the
financial support of one institution into another with the mutual expectation of a benefit in return,
is considered an investment. Grabenwarter and Heinrich’s (2011) research and inability to find
many shared common goals between private institutions and non-profit initiatives illustrates this
problem and is an example of the challenges that exist in solving this problem. The concept of
private investment in non-profit initiatives creates a unique opportunity for non-profit entities to
offer a return on investment that is not limited to an interest rate. However, the evidence shows
that positive social impact and other non-profit outcomes are not enough to incentivize private
investment in non-profit and government work (Shaoul et al., 2011). Thus, the work of non-profit
entities involves providing a return on private investment that is directly connected to a social good
and also financially competitive with traditional investment scenarios. These returns could be in
the form of tax credits that make development for the benefit of underserved communities
profitable or the creation of workforce development programs that provide jobs to vulnerable
communities and skilled labor to employers. By framing the funding of non-profit work as an
investment, a non-profit can increase the potential for program underwriting and scale to serve the
increasing needs of underserved populations. This problem is important to address because private
2
investment in non-profit and governmental work is essential to building strong and sustainable
communities (Roundy et al., 2017).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Community Cooperative for Progressive Action, Inc. (pseudonym, The Community
Cooperative) is a non-profit organization dedicated to sustaining the culture that supports and
advances the well-being of oppressed peoples in general, and the Pan-African diaspora in
particular. To this end, the Community Cooperative works with schools, community
organizations, and dedicated city officials to help provide critical education, leadership, and
social support programs to youth and young adults in low-income and under-served
communities. The Community Cooperative is deeply impacted by its inability to incentivize
private investment because the organization currently relies on the donations of its community
members, the board, and grant applications. These sources of funding place limitations on the
Community Cooperative because grants are often limited to a specific government or foundation
initiatives that may not be in alignment with the Community Cooperative’s values or goals. As
an organization with an annual operating budget of $125,000, two part time contractors and nine
volunteers, the Community Cooperative is stretched to capacity as it serves approximately one
thousand local residents of Brooklyn through three different initiatives. Since the work of the
Community Cooperative is focused on marginalized communities, the members of the
community have limited funds to support the organization and Board Members do not have the
capacity to sustain the financial needs of the organization.
Organizational Goal
The Community Cooperative’s goal is to achieve at least thirty percent of its funding
from private investment that fulfills a community need by the end of 2021. This goal was set
3
after recognizing the importance of private investment in non-profit initiatives. The theory
behind this goal is that for-profit investment creates an expectation of accountability while gifts
rarely create accountability measures for organizational or systemic gains (Greller, 2015). The
ideal type of investor that the Community Cooperative would seek to attract would be a
developer seeking infrastructure and programming for a housing initiative like Gotham
Developers, Inc., a large employer seeking workforce development like Amazon, or a quasi-
government organization or agency seeking to provide services to a marginalized community
like Safe Horizon.
Community and workforce development data are attractive to potential private investors
that are tasked with partnerships with local governments while social engagement is attractive to
investors seeking brand promotion opportunities. To this end, the organization is committed to
developing programming that can be memorialized and exhibited for potential investors to show
that the organization’s programming will provide a return on investment as well as remain
consistent with the organization’s non-profit initiatives. Additionally, the organization is
committed to developing data collection methods that exhibit the effectiveness of the
organization’s programming in community development, workforce development and social
engagement.
Related Literature
This literature review will examine the research on private investment into non-profits
and government work. It is important to note that this review is not an examination of the
research on charitable giving or philanthropy, but instead, specifically looking at private
investment in non-profit work that has a positive social impact and a financial return. By
examining how for-profit institutions choose their investment in vehicles of positive social
4
impact, this section will identify the corresponding metric for success. This examination will
review the problem of finding shared desired outcomes and goals between private institutions,
non-profit organizations, and government agencies. Following the general research literature,
later sections of the study will examine the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008)
and, specifically, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on a non-profit’s
development of programming and initiatives that incentivize private investment.
When private institutions struggle to find shared common goals with non-profit entities
and the governments they support, society has trouble building strong and sustainable
communities (Hanleybrown, Kania, & Kramer, 2012). Trelstad and Katz (2011) asserted that
for-profit institutions and non-profit entities often have very different goals when conducting
business. The researchers found that specifically, for-profit companies usually have a goal of
increasing corporate profits while non-profit companies usually have a goal of solving a social
problem. Brest and Born (2013) researched this issue and found that while most investments that
seek a social impact produce market rate returns, an investor seeking to produce social impact
must be willing to make financial sacrifices in order to contribute to the market.
There are few private institutions willing to invest in initiatives with small profit margins
and fewer examples of private institutions willing to absorb the risk associated with investing in
non-profit and government work. While there is on-going debate in the financial industry on the
definition of an “impact investment,” there appears to be a consensus that an impact investment
is a capital investment intended to create positive social impact beyond financial return (Jackson,
2013). Wood, Thornley and Grace (2013) posited that while tax subsidies and other incentives
exist for institutions to impact invest, private institutions are still reticent to invest in non-profit
or government initiatives without clearly established and identifiable profit incentives. Positive
5
social impact alone is often not enough to incentivize private institutions to invest in non-profit
and government work because impact investing is predicated upon the belief that there are shared
values between non-profit purposes and for profit entities (Bugg-Levine & Emerson, 2011).
Finding confluence between asset owners, asset managers, demand-side actors, and service
providers is an initial step towards solving the problem of incentivizing impact investing
(Jackson, 2013). Private profit versus social impact as competing goals is not a new area of
conflict, however, the struggle to find common goals and values at their points of intersection is
a new discipline in a rapidly developing society.
Impact investing is distinguished from simply offering tax-deductible donations because
donations come with a lower level of accountability and expectation (Milligan, & Schöning,
2011). Milligan and Schöning’s (2011) research showed that impact investments are designed to
drive innovation and provide returns on investment that are directly aligned with social good
while donations typically provide no requirement of proficiency or community development.
Importance of the Evaluation
Evaluating how non-profit entities incentivize for-profit investment is important because
finding shared common goals between non-profit entities and for-profit institutions is essential to
solving real world problems like the achievement gap in under-served communities and the
growing global wealth disparity (Forrer, Kee, Newcomer & Boyer, 2010). To this end,
evaluating how the Community Cooperative incentivizes private investment in its organizational
initiatives will help the organization understand how it can become a sustainable institution that
helps to solve problems without only relying on the goodwill of donations. The problem of
finding shared common goals when private institutions support non-profit entities and
government work is important to address because private institutions, non-profit entities, and
6
government agencies are all stakeholders in the success and sustainability of society (Forrer,
Kee, Newcomer & Boyer, 2010). If the Community Cooperative can develop effective
partnerships with for-profit entities to provide resources to their service population while also
returning a profit to these partners, a mutually beneficial relationship will be fostered that will
allow the Community Cooperative to scale its model. These types of partnerships are essential
because the social and ecological path that society is on is unsustainable because private profit
and wealth often comes at the expense of social good (Arrow, Dasgupta, Goulder, Mumford &
Oleson, 2010). The growth of private wealth and public poverty is broadening the divide of
humanity (Arrow et al, 2010).
One example of where a for-profit company and a non-profit company partnered is
explored in the Trelstad and Katz (2011) research. The Trelstad and Katz (2011) research
discussed how malaria nets were developed and showed how private and public partnerships can
effectively solve problems and increase private profits. In this research, a non-profit entity
partnered with a for-profit company to provide malaria nets during an outbreak of malaria
(Trelstad & Katz, 2011). This partnership ended the malaria outbreak and provided a profit boon
to the for-profit entity (Trelstad & Katz, 2011).
The Community Cooperative has an opportunity to assess its strengths and weaknesses
as well as evaluate its knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on this goal of
incentivizing private investment. Solving public problems with private investment is a
progressive way to close achievement gaps, poverty gaps and racial gaps that have previously
been informed by purposeful class divides perpetuated by corporate drive for profit. If these
problems are not solved, there will be a widening divide in humanity, draining of natural
resources and the continued journey towards an unsustainable future (Crifo & Forget, 2013).
7
This evaluation will assess The Community Cooperative’s proficiency at incentivizing private
investment while remaining true to its core values and non-profit initiatives. The importance of
this evaluation will be underscored by evidencing the Community Cooperative’s effect on
positive community development while providing a return on investment to a for-profit company
for its investment in the same non-profit initiative.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from
the achievement of the organization’s goal. The Board of Directors of the Community
Cooperative is a stakeholder group in the Community Cooperative. The instructors are also a
stakeholder group in the Community Cooperative as staff members and instructors play an
integral role with the computer coding courses offered by the organization. The participants and
students are a stakeholder group in the Community Cooperative as students in the computer
coding and photography workshops offered by the organization.
The Board of Directors at the Community Cooperative are responsible for creating the
mission, vision, and focus of the organization. An important task in establishing a mission is
identifying a purpose. The Board of the Community Cooperative are tasked with providing a
purpose for the mission and inspiring a passion for the vision. By clearly communicating the
purpose, mission, and vision of the organization to its members and society at large, the board is
establishing the core values of the organization. Consistent with the core values of the
organization, the board has developed an organizational goal of incentivizing private investment
in the Community Cooperative. The Board of Directors developed this organizational goal by
looking at what progressive steps would be necessary for the organization to scale. While
resources were identified as a necessary component of growing the organization, partnerships
8
were identified as the main component to any sustainable growth. The Board determined that
for-profit institutions would be better partners than other non-profits who would also compete for
grants and funding. They also determined that two programs would not be enough to incentivize
private investment. The board also reasoned that creating more than three programs would create
management and accountability issues outside of the organization’s capacity. Using this
reasoning, the Board chose to develop three programs in an effort to incentivize private
investment. In order to track progress toward the goal, the Board set three-month and six-month
goals for programming initiatives that would align with the organization’s overall goal.
The instructors at the Community Cooperative are responsible for adhering to and
promoting the core values of the organization. This work includes instructing members of the
community on coding, self-advocacy, financial literacy and legal process. By developing strong
skills in the community that they serve, the instructors at the Community Cooperative are
promoting the core-values of the organization.
The participants in the workshops and services provided by the Community Cooperative
embody the core-values of the organization by carrying the work forward in their respective
communities. While the participants come from various age groups and capabilities, the
community goal is to develop proficiencies in skills that enrich their personal lives as well as
their community. The participants range in ages as low as 11 years old to early 30’s (though
there have been senior citizens trained in coding), and as community stakeholders, develop skills
that can benefit their communities. Attendance by participants ranges from 25-30 participants
per week with males making up approximately 65% of each session.
9
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would require participation from all stakeholder groups,
for practical purposes, this study will focus on the Board of Directors. This stakeholder group
was most instructive in analyzing this organizational goal since this goal was set by the Board of
Directors. The Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative are also tasked with working
in programming and fundraising as well as promoting the services of the organization. These
tasks give the Board a first-person view of the proficiencies and needs of the Community
Cooperative. Additionally, this stakeholder group has the most influence in the process that is
required to achieve this organizational goal. The Board of Directors are important to the process
of achieving the organization’s performance goal because the Board sets the benchmarks for
formative assessments that indicate whether the organization is on target to meet its goal. Failure
to remain on task and meet each intermediary goal will jeopardize the Board’s goal to develop
three programs that incentivize for-profit institutions to invest in their non-profit initiatives by
the February 2021. With the development of effective programs that provide data indicating
proficiency in workforce development, social service support and youth and student
programming, the organization would seek to meet with private investors seeking to impact
invest in non-profit initiatives. These private investors would be partners in community
development, restorative justice and coalition building while also providing examples of the
profitability of impact investing. See Table 1.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
10
To support and advance the well-being of oppressed peoples in general, and the Pan-African
diaspora in particular. To this end, The Community Cooperative works with schools, community
organizations and dedicated city officials to help provide critical education, leadership, and social
support programs to youth and young adults in low-income and under-served communities.
Organizational Performance Goal
The Community Cooperative’s goal is to achieve at least thirty percent of its funding from private
investment that fulfills a community need by the end of 2021.
Board of Directors Goal Instructors/Staff Goal Students/Participants Goal
The Board of Directors will
develop three programs that
incentivize for-profit
institutions to invest in their
non-profit initiatives by
February of 2021.
The Instructors and Staff of the
organization will implement
the programming by June of
2021.
Students and participants will
become proficient in areas of
instruction and provide
feedback loops to staff and the
Board that prove the
effectiveness of the instruction
and programming.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs’ analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance
goal. The analysis will begin by generating a list of possible needs and will then move to
examining these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs
analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on
in this analysis is the Board of Directors. The questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What are the Board of Director’s knowledge and motivation related to incentivizing
private investment in non-profit initiatives?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and Board of
Directors’ knowledge and motivation to increase private investment in non-profit
initiatives?
11
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources related to private investment into non-profit
initiatives?
Methodological Framework
To answer these research questions, the project employed a qualitative method of data
gathering and analysis of knowledge, motivation and organizational context (Clark & Estes,
2008). Additionally, the project used descriptive methods to provide contextual background into
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context (McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Stringer,
2014). Using interviews, the research explored the Board of Directors’ capacity and willingness
to develop programming that incentivizes for-profit investment in non-profit initiatives. This
framework and these research methods were instrumental in understanding the knowledge and
motivation of the Board, as well as organizational influences. This research also provided
understanding into the culture of the Community Cooperative as an organization, how it
developed and how it can improve.
Definitions
Donation: a gift given from one party to another with no expectation of repayment.
Impact Investment: an investment that has an expected yield of return that includes a social good
that is tied directly to the investment.
Social Responsible Investment: an investment that expects a lower yield of return than a
traditional investment because of its focus on social good.
Non-profit company- an organization that has been granted tax-exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service because it furthers a social cause and provides a public benefit.
For-profit company- a business or organization whose primary goal is to make money or profit.
12
Organization of the Project
While this first chapter provided an outline of the problem associated with incentivizing
for-profit investment into non-profit initiatives, the second chapter will provide a literature
review as well as frame the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary to
develop solutions to this problem. Chapter three of this dissertation will provide the methodology
for conducting the research and obtaining the qualitative data of the Board of Directors from the
Community Cooperative to provide further context to the problem of practice and the
corresponding proposed solutions. In chapter four, the data compiled will be examined, assessed
and analyzed. Finally, chapter five will provide data-based solutions to the problem of divergent
institutional goals and the challenge of creating business synergy between non-profits and for-
profit entities.
13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Influences on the Problem of Practice
Procuring private investment in non-profit work is challenged by differing desired
institutional outcomes and missions. This chapter examines the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences necessary to develop shared common interests and partnerships in
profit-making and social good.
The History and Development of Private Sector Investment
While the Private sector has historically focused on increasing profit margins, recently,
there has been an increased focus on the process of economic development as distinguished from
economic growth. Economic development is different from the concept of economic growth in
several ways. While economic growth is tethered to macroeconomic conditions and market
forces, economic development represents the conditions that determine the microeconomic
functioning of the economy, affecting both the quality of inputs and the opportunity set for firms
(Feldman, Hadjimichael, Lanahan & Kemeny, 2016). Economic growth is a quantifiable
measure while economic development is a qualitative measure (Feldman et al, 2016). Economic
growth is quantified by an increase in value while economic development is focused on quality
improvements, risk mitigation, innovation, and entrepreneurship that place the economy on a
growth trajectory (Feldman et al., 2016).
Because economic development has broader implications for economic growth, the
private sector has increased its focus on creating more opportunities for development (Feldman
et al, 2016). The Feldman (2016) article indicates that this includes looking at what forces are
beneficial or adverse to development through private institutions, social capital, labor and capital
mobility, and income and wealth equity. Gordon (2010) asserted that current economic
14
development rates are the slowest in measured American living standards over any two-decade
interval recorded since George Washington became president. Cowen (2011) has described the
last several decades by coining the phrase, “the Great Stagnation.” With these concerns and the
growing belief that economic development is the best solution for sustainable economic growth,
the industry has been focusing on the microeconomic foundation of the economy (Feldman et al,
2016).
The Cingano (2014) article makes a strong case for focusing on sustainable economic
development as a method to increase economic growth. Relying on data from the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, an intergovernmental economic organization with
36 member countries, Cingano (2016) asserted that income inequality, inequity and lack of
community development have a negative and statistically significant impact on subsequent
economic and community growth. Further, policies to reduce income inequalities should not only
be pursued to improve social outcomes but also to sustain long-term economic growth (Cingano,
2016). It is also essential that these policies promote equality of opportunity and access to quality
education because promoting employment for disadvantaged groups through active labor market
policies, childcare supports and in-work benefits are foundational to economic development
(Cingano, 2016).
The United Nations’ work in creating sustainable development goals has been
highlighted in the Assembly (2015) article where UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon created
initiatives aimed at economic development. By creating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
the United Nations has prioritized development that focuses on creating partnerships with the
private sector in support of sustainable development and problem solving at the local, national
and global level (Assembly, 2015). These examples of increased private sector and government
15
focus on sustainable development are consistent with the growing belief that economic growth is
untenable without development that is informed by non-profit goals.
The Standard Goals of Private Investment
Traditionally, the principle goal of private investment is to yield the highest margin
possible. The history of private investment for-profit investment in the West is complicated by
the development of industrialism and the partnership between governments and profiteers in the
Caribbean (Fichtner, 2014). Fichtner’s (2014) study indicates that while private profiteers were
once celebrated, a shift developed when society began to develop global initiatives aimed at
sustainability. With a view towards globalism and sustainability, investment vehicles needed to
provide profit margins, spur tax revenues and improve quality of life (Fitchner, 2014).
In order to accomplish increasing goals and desired outcomes, the financial markets
needed to develop additional methods of investment. With increased methods of investment,
private equity funds can reap the benefits of economic development (Metric & Yasuda, 2011).
The Metric and Yasuda (2011) article describes how the increase in economic development
diversified the pool of potential investors and more importantly, increased the pool of global
problem solvers. This growth in the pool of investors spurred economic growth. This supports
the ideology that opening access to the private investment market drives profit margins
(Gutiérrez & Philippon, 2017). In their study, Gutiérrez, and Philippon (2017) note that when
less people and entities have access to the competitive market, profit margins decline.
Consequently, the results of this study indicate that providing equity in access to the market will
improve profit margins (Gutiérrez & Philippon, 2017).
16
The Changing Landscape of Investment Goals and Models
With the development of multiple major global crises, sustainable social good has often
become an additional goal in private investment. For example, core investment and banking
activities suffered a steep decline following the recession of 2008 (Wójcik, Knight, O’Neill &
Pažitka, 2018). While large U.S. banks remain dominant globally, they have experienced the
biggest declines in revenue in contrast to Asian banks that have capitalized on the growth of
local markets (Wójcik et al, 2018). This reliance on local markets is based on the belief that
developing gross domestic product is a useful metric to measure potential for capital growth
(Wójcik et al, 2018). While not abandoning the principles of globalism, investment tools that
remain global in scope but local in focus are yielding returns provide sizeable profits as well as
measurable social good. The Wójcik (2018) study illustrates how gross domestic product is
developed by programming that addresses the financial and social welfare of a region or
community.
Any discussion about private investment without some discourse on the effects of
capitalism is incomplete. To be clear, capitalism has had a negative effect on the environment,
humanity and the concept of fair trade (Soederberg, 2009). However, local initiatives and non-
profit programming have provided marginalized groups with an opportunity to have a voice.
Partnerships between non-profit organizations, local communities and private investors have
created unique opportunities for holistic development of local communities and cities at large
(Soederberg, 2009). The Soederberg (2009) article asserts that any regression back to strict
entrepreneurialism is a return to the private profiteering of the Caribbean and will provide no
positive effects on sustainable practices or economic development.
17
Businesses around the world are beginning to commit resources to measuring and
reporting on the wider impacts of their activities beyond financial performance (Shinwell &
Shamir, 2018). Shinwell and Shamir’s (2018) research asserts that this commitment to corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and understanding and reporting social and environmental impact is
good for business. The connection between environmental variables, social developments,
business performance and various financial outcomes (such as stock-market performance,
profits, etc.) has been extensively documented over the last few decades (Shinwell & Shamir,
2018). A study by Clark, Feiner and Viehs (2015) in partnership with Arabesque Partners found
that sound sustainability standards lower companies’ costs and raise their profitability.
According to the same analysis, a company’s stock-market activity is positively influenced by
sustainable practices (Clark et al, 2015).
Improved measurement and reporting on the impact of investment on people’s well-being
is also being driven by investor demand (Shinwell & Shamir, 2018). The research shows that
investors are becoming more concerned with the environmental, social and governance (ESG)
performance of firms when building their portfolios (Shinwell & Shamir, 2018). Accordingly, an
increased value is being placed on environmental impact, stakeholder relationships and whether
the company meets basic ethical standards concerning the company’s leadership and
management (Shinwell & Shamir, 2018). This transition towards sustainability has been largely
internal and based on market factors, however, investors are not the only entity pressuring
businesses to pay more attention to their wider impacts and to become more socially and
environmentally responsible (Shinwell & Shamir, 2018). More recently, consumers have been
demanding more responsible conduct from corporations and private, while using their consumer
choice to influence the behaviors of the business community (Shinwell & Shamir, 2018).
18
The Standard Model of Non-Profit Development and Funding
Historically, non-profit entities have not held an agenda to create profits or enrich
businesses or individuals. The Robinson (1996) articles supports the position that the primary
purpose of most non-profit entities is to perform a service of social good. The standard practice
for most non-profit entities is to rely on grants and donations to staff their organizations and run
the programming of these organizations (Robinson, 1996). Using grants from government
agencies and philanthropic donations from businesses and individuals, non-profit organizations
typically provide social good services at cost (Robinson, 1996).
As the landscape for fundraising has developed and been influenced by private market
volatility, non-profit organizations have placed an increased focus on their organizational
sustainability and the changing needs of their complex operating environments (Al-Tabbaa,
Gadd, & Ankrah, 2013). With increasing pressure to achieve best practices in performance and
ensure their continued sustainability, non-profit organizations have been compelled to develop
new methods of fundraising to support their programming (Cairns, Harris, Hutchison & Tricker,
2005). This is underscored by a growing need for non-profit organizations to provide services for
their targeted populations and also the increasing requirement by governmental funders to ensure
that the recipients of their financial support (i.e. the non-profit organizations) have the
organizational capacity to deliver services effectively (Eisinger, 2002). These factors require
non-profit organizations to run efficient programs while also being proficient in business
development that provides for scale (Lecy, Schmitz & Swedlund, 2012).
Lecy, Schmitz and Swedlund (2012) article posit that non-profit organizations must
have a business model in operation that creates enough working capital or revenue to keep the
entity’s business running in order to be sustainable. More recently, effective practices have taken
19
on additional urgency among non-profit entities due to more specific demands for accountability,
transparency, and financial responsibility (Lecy et al, 2012).
Emerging Practices in Non-Profit Funding and Development
Herman and Renz (2008) suggest that the credibility and stability that are crucial to the
development of a non-profit organization can be measured by several traits. These traits include
comparative practices, multi-dimensional practices, effective management practices and a
commitment to best practices limited in scope and focus. As the marketplace for executives
becomes more competitive, non-profits are forced to compete against for-profit organizations for
talented staff (Carnochan, Samples, Myers & Austin, 2014). Additionally, non-profits have
growing accountability mandates from funders and government partners because performance
measurement data has proven helpful in establishing proficiency and efficacy (Carnochan et al,
2014).
Some researchers have expressed concern over the association between non-profit
organizations and their reliance on funding to provide advocacy (Kimberlin, 2010). According to
the theory of Resource Dependency, non-profit organizations receiving revenues from funders
face pressures that may adversely affect their ability to effectively advocate or provide services
(kimberlin, 2010). In an effort to address these concerns, many non-profit entities have begun to
seek alternative methods of fundraising, including soliciting investments from private entities,
entering partnerships with Private Investors, providing fee-based services and procuring
government contracts (Aulgur, 2016).
Challenges in Incentivizing Private Investment in Non-Profit Initiatives
Incentivizing private investment in non-profit initiatives requires capturing data and
creating programming that further the organizational goal. Capturing data that incentivizes
20
private investment requires collecting data that will show an alignment in values or goals
between the non-profit initiative and the private investor. Creating programming that incentivizes
private investment will require the execution of programs that produce shared desired outcomes
between non-profit initiatives and private investors.
Capturing Data that will Incentivize Private Investment into Non-Profit Initiatives
Non-profit entities are often required to provide quantitative data projecting competitive
returns in order to incentivize partnerships with private entities or in order to procure private
investment (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). The partnership between governments, for-profit
investment and non-profit service providers has been defined as public-private partnerships
(PPPs). The development of PPPs has become more common in an effort to improve public
service delivery and for large infrastructure projects that are meant to incentivize private sector
investors to use their skills to partner in the production of better services (Klijn & Koppenjan,
2016). PPP’s allow governments to provide accountability to private sector partners through
sanctions in order to ensure against opportunistic conduct (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016).
Additionally, PPP’s allow governments and private sector partners to hold non-profit partners
accountable for efficacy and proficiency by the shortening or lengthening of contracts and
resources.
Private investors consider public-private partnerships as exercises in impact investing
(Chowdry, Davies & Waters, 2014). Impact investing is distinct from other forms of investing or
socially responsible investing because impact investing requires the return on investment to be
specifically tethered to a social good (Chowdry et al, 2014). The Chowdry, Davies and Waters
(2014) article identifies challenges with impact investment when projects are financed with
external capital and private investors choose to under invest in social good. Under investment
21
arises when an investor does not completely internalize the social value of a public good
(Chowdry et al, 2014). In an effort to remedy the challenge of under-investment, many PPPs
have developed Social Impact Guarantees that set a minimum threshold for problem solving and
measurable social good (Chowdry et al, 2014).
The Kharas and McArthur (2014) article posits that non-profit partners in impact
investment models will likely need more ambitious financing for strategy development that can
mobilize increased public, private and mixed financing. In arguing that public-private
partnerships must be constructed at a fine level of disaggregation in order to have an impact, the
Kharas and McArthur (2014) article also asserts that non-profit organizations will need to be
increasingly ambitious. Many private investors have expressed a desire for more effective
public-private partnerships that create a framework within which they can participate more
effectively in profitable, development-oriented investments (Kharas & McArthur, 2014). The
development benefits from investments made by for-profit partners include increased tax
revenues, increased employment rates, the expansion of access to social services and the
innovation and cost competitiveness that for-profit partners can generate.
Tying Investment to Programming
In order to successfully procure private investments, non-profit entities will need to tie
the investment directly to programming that will provide measurable returns that are connected
to social good (Warner, 2013). Non-profit initiatives and entities can attract private investment to
social programs by paying a market rate of return if predefined outcome targets are met (Warner,
2013). The importance of collaboration among philanthropy, government, and the investment
community is supported by the available research on this topic (Ragin & Palandjian, 2013).
Tying investment to social impact invites new way to advance public-private partnerships and
22
introduce innovative financing solutions to scale proven social programs (Ragin & Palandjian,
2013). Impact investing ignites greater funder interest in evidence-based practices in social
service delivery, government interest in performance-based contracting and impact investor
appetite for investment opportunities with both financial returns and social impact (Ragin &
Palandjian, 2013).
The Ragin and Palandjian (2013) article suggests that the popularity of impact investing
has grown exponentially in recent years. For example, the article describes how the Rockefeller
Foundation and others have prioritized addressing complex societal problems requiring larger
scale funding and greater collaboration among philanthropists, government, and private investors
(Ragin & Palandjian, 2013). Although impact investment only represents a small proportion of
the total assets under private investor management, these assets represent a substantial and
growing pool of capital that can fund programs to solve societal problems (Ragin & Palandjian,
2013).
Many impact investors share the common goal of finding projects that provide social
impact and generate a financial return (Ragin & Palandjian, 2013). The community of impact
investors is broad, diverse and includes investors seeking to support a variety of projects in both
developed and emerging markets (Ragin & Palandjian, 2013). These markets include areas
requiring development in affordable housing, accessible health care, financial services for the
poor, and clean energy (Ragin & Palandjian, 2013). The desired financial returns may range
from below-market to risk-adjusted market rate returns, while investments may take the form of
equity, debt, credit enhancement, or instruments that combine a mixture of all of these elements
(Ragin & Palandjian, 2013). These mixtures may include program development-related
investments or mission-related investments (or both), in which, unlike grants, foundations
23
require a high level of confidence in the return of finances (Ragin & Palandjian, 2013).
Diversified financial institutions, pension funds, high-net-worth individuals, and fund managers
may also make impact investments, in addition to foundations (Ragin & Palandjian, 2013).
A study by Bhattacharya, Oppenheim and Stern (2015) suggests that the world is in the
midst of historic structural transformation. Major changes are occurring globally in an effort to
attain the sustainability and equity standards that the world is setting for itself practices
(Bhattacharya, Oppenheim & Stern, 2015). As major expansion of investment in modern, clean,
and efficient infrastructure will be essential to attaining the growth and sustainable development
objectives, non-profit organizations can properly position themselves to participate in this
development with progressive business practices (Bhattacharya, Oppenheim & Stern, 2015). The
expansive financing needs of problem solving projects can only be met through effective non-
profit governance and the mobilization of private financing to non-profit initiatives
(Bhattacharya, Oppenheim & Stern, 2015). The pool of private capital attracted to solving
societal problems is growing (Bhattacharya, Oppenheim & Stern, 2015). The current stock of
$3–4 trillion in public finance projects held directly by private investors and entities has the
potential to grow in excess of $15 trillion over the next 11 years in ways that could improve
overall portfolio performance (Bhattacharya, Oppenheim & Stern, 2015).
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a framework for understanding organizational and
stakeholder goals by identifying and analyzing gaps that exist between each level and each goal.
The framework examines stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and
how these criteria inform performance gaps (2008). The four types of knowledge and skill used
to determine if stakeholders are proficient in reaching performance goals are factual, conceptual,
24
procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Some motivation influences are the value
placed on achievement of goals, the choice to continue working toward the goals and the mental
effort and desire to accomplish the goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy,
attributions, values, and goals are motivational principles that can be considered when analyzing
the performance gaps (Rueda, 2011). Additionally, Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that
organizational culture, resources, and processes should be considered when examining
organizational influences on stakeholder performance.
These elements of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis will be examined in the context
of the Board of Director’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to meet their
performance goal of developing programming that incentivizes private investment in the
Community Cooperative’s non-profit initiatives. The assumed influences on the Board’s
performance goal in the context of knowledge and skills will be discussed in the first section.
The Board’s motivation to accomplish their goal will then be examined in the next section.
Finally, organizational influences on the achievement of the Board’s goal will be examined. In
Chapter 3, these stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences will be
examined through the methodology that is also discussed in chapter 3.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The following review of current scholarly literature and research focuses on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences required for the Board of Directors
(Board) of The Community Cooperative to achieve their stakeholder performance goal. The
performance goal for this group of stakeholders is to create programming with measurable
performance benchmarks that will incentivize private investment into the Community
Cooperative’s non-profit initiatives by February 2020.
25
Knowledge and Skills
The application of knowledge is necessary for the Board, which governs the
Community Cooperative, to meet their performance goal. Knowledge provides this group of
stakeholders with an opportunity to engage in monitoring and self-assessment of their efficacy
prior to program development, during program development, and after implementation of subject
programming (Baker, 2006). In order to develop the programming to meet organizational goals,
the Board will need to develop critical problem solving skills that will address future challenges
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Being able to meaningfully organize and connect new knowledge to prior
knowledge is essential to this process (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Thus, knowledge
assessment is the first critical step in gap analysis to determine if stakeholders have the
knowledge and skills needed to achieve their goal.
The identification and examination of knowledge influences, knowledge types,
and assessment methods is fundamental to identifying gaps and achieving performance and
stakeholder goals. Rueda (2011) and Krathwohl (2002) identified the four types of knowledge as
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is based on the
foundational aspects of information that are specific to domains, disciplines, activities, and
terminology (Rueda, 2011). A basic understanding of these terms is required in order to solve
problems within this framework (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge is an understanding
of concepts, principles, theories and categorizations required for understanding issues (Rueda,
2011). Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of process and refers to an individual’s
knowledge of how to accomplish a task (Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge is an
individual’s knowledge of their self, their own thinking and cognitive process (Krathwohl, 2002;
26
Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl (2002) posited that metacognitive knowledge helps an individual
understand why they might act and when they might act in a certain way.
Based on a review of the current literature, three primary knowledge
influences of the Community Cooperative’s Board will be discussed and categorized into one of
the previously identified knowledge types. Understanding the knowledge types is instructive in
determining the appropriate assessment for each knowledge influence of the Board. Obtaining
effective assessments of the Board’s knowledge will be foundational in the examination and
analysis of the stakeholder goal.
Understanding the Value of Private Investment in Non-profit Initiatives
In order to achieve their performance goal, the Board will need to have conceptual
knowledge of the factors that incentivize private investment in non-profit initiatives. This
knowledge influence is conceptual because it emphasizes proficiency in identifying and
understanding concepts, constructs, and contexts. Private investment provides viability to non-
profit initiatives and social caché to social movements. Having conceptual knowledge of the
relevant factors informing private investment into the Community Cooperative will inform the
Board’s necessary steps to accomplish the organizational goals. These organizational goals shall
inform the tasks to be performed by the Board.
The Board’s development of programming that focuses on institutional analysis
of data and societal returns will create a culture of growth and accountability (Cardoso, Meireles,
& Peralta, 2012). Through case studies on scale and sustainability, Trelstad and Katz (2011)
were able to compare the mission of non-profit organizations, the mandate of government
initiatives, and the margins of for-profit companies along with how each of these intersect. This
series of qualitative case studies was used to examine where private and public partnerships
27
intersect and have shared common goals or values (Trelstad & Katz, 2011). This examination of
common goals between the non-profit sector and for-profit business gives stakeholders valuable
information to develop programming that renders metrics that inspire private investment.
In 2015, Hacke, Wood, and Urquilla conducted a quantitative study of the chief
motivating factors of private investors. Through a series of surveys and interviews, investors
revealed what inspired or informed investment and how investment was distinctly different from
philanthropy. This insight and conceptual knowledge could only be developed with a thorough
understanding of the different connections involved in investing and how they relate to
corresponding non-profit goals. Understanding or creating the congruence between non-profit
initiatives and private investment will prove instructive since the Board will be making
management decisions for the organization, and, to a larger extent, creating precedent in the non-
profit and social justice area of practice.
Develop Programming and Assessments that Attract Private Investment
The second knowledge influence that the Community Cooperative’s Board needs to
achieve their performance goal is to know how to develop programming and assessments that
attract private investment. This knowledge influence is procedural knowledge as it emphasizes
how to do something. Specifically, this knowledge influence emphasizes the program
development, assessment, data collection, and analysis to meet the stakeholder goal successfully.
The research of Wilson, Bunn and Savage (2010) indicated that in order to incentivize private
investment, non-profits are required to provide data that substantiates expected return that is
independent of social good. Any comprehensive development of programming that attracts
private investment will be informed by extensive field notes, in-depth interviews, and
28
explanatory case data that creates a framework for private investor stakeholder collaboration
(Wilson, Bunn, & Savage, 2010).
The Wilson, Bunn, and Savage (2010) study employed a comprehensive analysis
of social partnerships among a complex network of stakeholder organizations. This quantitative
study used field-notes from 33 in-depth interviews and a mix of inductive and deductive
reasoning to formulate a conceptual framework and research propositions for a private-public
social partnership (Wilson et al., 2010). Through the use explanatory case data, this research
developed a framework of stakeholder collaboration in a complex setting involving a mix of for-
profit and non-profit organizations (Wilson et al., 2010). This conceptual framework offers an in-
depth understanding of private-public partnership development and relationship dynamics and
the procedures necessary to carry out the partnership (Wilson et al., 2010). These public and
private collaborations are often structured so that each partner is tasked with a goal that is
consistent with their respective focus (Loxley, 2012). Loxley’s (2012) research provides an
example of how public private partnerships evolved following the global financial crisis of 2008
to meet the needs of municipalities and the surrounding business and social interests. By
partnering private interests with congruent public organizations and identifying their shared
interests in solving problems, Loxley’s (2012) research shows that for-profit institutions can
solve problems while addressing their desire for positive profit margins.
Assess and Develop Board Proficiency in Program Development and Data Collection
The third knowledge influence that the Board needs to achieve their performance goal
is assessing and reflecting on their ability to develop proficiency in program development and
data collection that incentivizes private investment. This knowledge influence is categorized as
metacognitive knowledge because the focus is on the stakeholders’ ability to self-reflect and
29
assess their own understanding and abilities. Lanier (2018) posited that self-reflection inspires
emotionally intelligent leadership. Emotionally intelligent leadership is the cornerstone of a
stable environment where sustainability and innovation hallmarks of success (Lanier, 2018).
Stakeholder reflection requires the Board to assess what they do well and to reflect on where
there are opportunities to improve their performance.
The research of Torfing, Sørensen, and Røiseland (2016) indicated that
stakeholder reflection is a healthy step towards driving non-profit innovation and partnerships.
Further, stakeholder reflection allows the Board to learn from initiatives that did not work and
improve on initiatives that were successful. Consequently, the Board of Directors of the
Community Cooperative need to assess their ability to develop proficiency in program
development and data collection. Effective programming and data collection will be a
storytelling tool provided to investors that explains the work, benefit and potential impact and
return that can be gained by investment. Papineau and Kiely’s (1996) research supports this
position by asserting that the process of evaluation and reflection are foundational to strong and
empowered stakeholders. By engaging in a comprehensive process of reflection and assessment,
the Board of the Community Cooperative can confidently approach performance gaps with data
and analysis. Table 2 categorizes the three knowledge influences by knowledge type, assessment
methods.
30
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types and Knowledge Assessments
Motivation
While knowledge-related influences are a study on the Board’s ability to know what is
necessary to achieve performance goals, a study on motivation-related influences will examine
the Board’s desire to achieve the identified performance goal (Rueda, 2011). Motivation-related
influences present additional critical considerations that are essential to the Board achieving their
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge Type
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
The Board of Directors need to
understand what factors
incentivize private investors to
invest in non-profit initiatives.
Conceptual
Interview Board Members and
ask them to paraphrase the
importance of the value of
private investment in non-profit
initiatives. Use publicly
available items that require
respondents to identify, classify
or categorize principles, or
interpret, compare theories,
concepts and principles.
The Board of Directors need to
know how to develop
programming and assessments
that attract private investment.
Procedural Interview Board Members and
ask them to explain how to
develop programming and
assessments that attract private
investment.
The Board of Directors need to
assess and reflect on their
ability to develop proficiency in
program development and data
collection that incentivizes
private investment.
Metacognitive Interview Board Members and
require them to provide the
methods they use to become
proficient in program
development and data collection.
31
performance goal. Motivation is the primary measure of a stakeholder’s desire to undertake a
task and achieve a goal (Mayer, 2011). While motivation and knowledge are closely related,
motivation-related influences are very different from knowledge-related influences as knowledge
related problems cannot be solved with motivation-based solutions and motivation related
problems cannot be solved with knowledge based solutions (Clarke & Estes, 2008). Along with
knowledge and organizational barriers, the authors identify motivation as a necessary factor in
performance assessment. Increasing motivation increases performance and helps the institution
achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
A comprehensive analysis of how motivation informs performance is an
important process in determining what an organization needs in order to be sustainable or scale
(Rueda, 2011). Six theories of motivation within cognitive psychology include (1) self-efficacy,
(2) value, (3) interest, (4) attributions, (5) goals, and (6) emotions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer,
2011; Rueda, 2011). The authors assert that each of these theories contribute to three behavioral
measures of motivation. These behavioral measures are choice, persistence, and mental effort
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Choice provides a measure of what is valued
based on the choices made the stakeholder. The level of persistence is determined by the
resilience of the stakeholder and provides a measure of the stakeholder’s determination. And the
amount of mental effort applied to a problem will be a direct result of the level of motivation of
the stakeholder. The following sections will discuss value and self-efficacy as the critical
measures in evaluating the Board’s motivation to achieve their stakeholder goal.
Expectancy Value Theory: Task Value
In 2006, Eccles posited that motivation is driven by two fundamental questions: “Can I
do the task?” and “Do I want to do the task?” The first question is a question of self-efficacy
32
while the second question is a question of expectancy value (Eccles, 2006). Expectancy value
theory is based on the belief that there is importance and utilitarian value in the task that is
undertaken by the stakeholder and the likelihood that the behavior will have a successful
outcome. The more value that a person places on a task, the better likelihood that the person will
apply themselves to completion and proficiency in that task (Rueda, 2011). A stakeholder with
complete faith that they can accomplish a task will commit to completion of that task.
In Bear, Rahman and Post’s (2010) study about the impact women have on a Board’s
focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the value that the Board of Directors placed on an
initiative directly influenced the allocation of resources to that initiative. This study focused on a
single organization and how this value influenced the Board’s critical function of monitoring
management (Bear, Rahman & Post, 2010). If the Board does not place a high value on an
initiative, the Board may not work as hard to deliver the required resources or hold management
accountable for tasks necessary to successfully complete an initiative. This illustrates how
important it is for the Board to value an initiative that an organization is trying to complete. In
McMurray, Pirola-Merlo, Sarros, and Islam’s (2010) study on the effect that leadership has on
the organization’s climate and over-all wellbeing, the research was definitive in asserting that
leadership is essential to an organization accomplishing any stated goal. This study examined
multiple organizations with the research suggesting that the Board of an organization controls the
climate of an organization and an ecosystem that is amenable to an initiative will be vested in the
success of that initiative (McMurray, Pirola-Merlo, Sarros, & Islam, 2010). Alternatively, if a
Board does not create a climate that is amenable to an initiative, the initiative will likely fail
(McMurray et al., 2010).
33
Self-Efficacy Theory
The second motivational influence impacting the Board is self-efficacy. The Board of
Directors must believe they can meet the performance goals of obtaining private investment
through the relevant tasks that are required to reach performance goals. Self-efficacy is a social
cognitive belief based on people’s perceptions of their own abilities to complete a task (Bandura,
1997). The more a person believes that they can achieve a task, the more motivated that person
will be to overcome obstacles and achieve the task (Rueda, 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares,
2006). Several factors that have an effect on self-efficacy include experience, observations of
others, input from others, and emotional or psychological reactions (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
The research indicates that self-efficacy increases with success and decreases with failure. This
affirms the assertion from Pajares (2006) that experience is very influential in the self-efficacy of
an individual. The self-efficacy factors apply to individuals as well as group dynamics (Pajares,
2006).
With the Board focusing on progressive changes to the Community Cooperative,
there appears to be alignment with Bandura (2005) and the belief that self-efficacy is highly
influential in ushering in change and progressive policies. With a goal of developing
programming and assessments that will incentivize for-profit investment, the Board needs to
believe that they possess the skills to accomplish the goal. This will require input from others in
the field who have attempted to implement these types of changes. Successfully achieving this
goal will also require observing others who have attempted this goal.
The self-efficacy of the Board is a predictor of the organizational commitment of the
employees of an organization (Akhtar, Ghayas, & Adil, 2013). While self-efficacy might be one
of the most important entrepreneurial traits for for-profit executives, it is also a fundamental
34
requirement of an effective Board for a non-profit company (Lukes and Stephan, 2012). A
Board’s ability to practice self-efficacy directly influences the proficiency of their organization
and the organization’s ability to successfully complete an initiative (Brown & Fields 2011).
Table 3 shows the organizational performance goal and stakeholder goal that are
critical to meeting the organizational and stakeholder goals. Further, the table identifies the
motivational theory and the assessment mechanism suggested for the stakeholders.
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organization- Related Influences
The third and final factor in an organization’s success is the organizational
influence that an organization has on its own performance gaps. This final component of the
Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational equation for analyzing and
problem solving the gap between goals and performance, provides comprehensive answers to the
disconnect that often occurs between different stakeholder groups. Organizations contribute to
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Value- The Board of Directors need to value
private investment into non-profit initiatives.
This motivational influence will be
assessed by interviews. Interviews will be
conducted with stakeholders to determine
whether stakeholders’ values are in
alignment with the organization’s values.
During the interview, stakeholders will be
asked about the value they place on private
investment compared to donations and
other forms of income for the organization.
Self-Efficacy Theory- The Board of Directors
must believe they can meet the performance
goal of developing three programs that
incentivize private investment through the
relevant tasks that are required to reach this
performance goals.
This motivational influence will be
assessed by interviews. In the interview,
stakeholders will be asked about whether
they believe they can achieve the
development and programming goals
required to meet the organizational goal.
35
the deficiency and the proficiency of the skills and performance of the stakeholder groups tasked
with closing performance gaps. Organizations that fail to support their stakeholder groups with
adequate resources, processes, and culture are organizations that create performance gaps (Clark
& Estes, 2008). In the next section, organization change will be analyzed, through the literature,
according to cultural models and cultural settings in an effort to understand what influences will
adequately support the Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative in achieving their goal.
The style of leadership and the policies that inform organizational character and practices
are born out of an organization’s culture. Organizational culture is defined as the values, goals,
beliefs, and processes within an organization that develop as the organization scales and dictates
how employees complete tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture connects the different people in an
organization so that they share common goals in a manner that allows the organization to
accomplish desired outcomes (Bolman & Deal, 2013). In this way, culture operates as a product
of work experience and a process of organizational development (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Cultural Settings and Models
Organizational culture is comprised of cultural models and settings (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are institutional practices and shared understandings within
an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are the manifestation of the
cultural model and is best exemplified by how members of the organization work together to
complete tasks (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are typically fixed, concrete,
and include the social context in which work is completed (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The
visible characteristics of an organization and the underlying assumptions about the organization
is an accurate description of an organization’s cultural settings and models (Schein, 2004).
36
By studying cultural models and settings, the research will identify and
examine organizational influences such as trust, accountability, goal setting and communication.
In order to achieve the organizational goal of incentivizing private investment in the Community
Cooperative’s non-profit initiatives, the Board will be required to hold each other accountable,
clearly communicate the goals and status of each required task and provide the resources
necessary for accomplishing organizational goals.
Accountability
The Board of The Community Cooperative must hold each other accountable for the
development of programming that achieves the organizational goal of private investment.
Firestone and Riehl (2005) defined accountability as the requirement to account for performance
to another by explanation of method and reporting of outcomes. In this current study, the Board
of the Community Cooperative must be honest with one another in explaining their respective
methods for data collection and honestly report the outcomes of their collections. These
collections will inform their programming and provide the data required to show patterns of
success in impact investment programs. Without a focus on accountability, organizations
typically have low performance rates and a misunderstanding of the granular activities of an
organization (Kezar, 2001). Bolman and Deal (2010) assert that high performing teams have a
system of automatic individual and team accountability.
With a focus on accountability as a cultural setting, the Community
Cooperative can foster a culture of accountability and exhibit work patterns of accountability
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This would enable the Community Cooperative to quickly identify and
exclude bad data or programming and streamline finding effective methods of incentivizing
37
private investment. This streamlined approach would also allow the Community Cooperative to
deliver efficient services and effectively manage the corresponding costs.
Clearly Communicate Goals
Goal setting is a cultural setting that provides an organization with purpose and vision
(Hess & Bacigalupo, 2013). Goal setting also provides an organization with validity as the
organization works internally uniformly in accomplishing goals (Hess & Bacigalupo, 2013).
Since individual employee goals are based on organizational goals, organizational goals remain
the standard of organizational progress (Lewis, 2011). By sharing goals and fostering
organizational consensus, employees are able to focus on organizational goals and spend less
time on individual focus (Clark & Estes, 2008). When organizational goals are clearly identified,
employees can typically rely on a pattern of conduct to accomplish goals within the organization.
This is true for the Community Cooperative because as participants and instructors develop as
vested members of the Community Cooperative community, these same participants and
instructors place an increased value on organizational goals and the tasks required to achieve
them.
Effective communication is key to effective goal setting. The use of
common language is essential to goal-setting and accountability (Krathwohl, 2002). A lack of
communication can break a relationship down and lead to lack of trust and disenfranchisement
(Blery, Katseli & Tsara, 2010). Alternatively, good communication develops trust and employee
engagement, a lack of clear vision can also break down the willingness of supporters to support a
work (Blery, et al, 2010). Blery, Katseli and Tsara (2010) also posit that when an organization
clearly states its goals and provides a roadmap for its work, the employees can focus on
processing desired outcomes. With a focus on communication and transparency, the Community
38
Cooperative will provide a clear path toward proficiency for members, participants and
instructors.
Provide the Necessary Resources
While accountability and clear communication inform organizational proficiency,
providing the necessary resources for accomplishing organizational goals is also evidence of a
cultural setting required for the Community Cooperative to achieve its organizational goals. This
commitment to resources designed to better capture and understand data will be required in order
for the Community Cooperative to scale in proficiency and private investment (Schein, 2017).
To this end, the Community Cooperative will provide the required resources to capture and
analyze data that will incentivize private investment. This data includes participant assessments,
participant retention and the relationship between funding and programming.
In order to effectively explain the importance of programming for the
Community Cooperative, this section discussed the K, M and O influences. The knowledge and
motivation influences provide a lens into the individual stakeholders of the Community
Cooperative. The organizational influences are illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4
Organizational Influences
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting - The Community Cooperative
needs a structure of accountability with private
investment related to program performance and
data collection.
Interviews to assess the accountability of
the Community Cooperative.
Document Analysis to determine the
viability of the assessment process.
Cultural Setting - The Community Cooperative
needs clearly defined program goals that are
communicated to potential investors.
Interviews to assess the level of
communication within the Community
Cooperative.
39
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and The Organizational Context
Understanding the process of incentivizing private investment in non-profit initiatives
for the purpose of this study requires a conceptual framework. A conceptual framework gives
direction and focus to a study by identifying general themes related to the topic of the study
(Maxwell, 2013). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) assert that the theoretical framework affects each
aggregate part contained within a body of research, including key terms, concepts, literature, and
undeveloped studies that may affect the focus of research. In the current study, the conceptual
framework (Figure 2) focuses on what the Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative
will be required to learn and execute in order to incentivize private investment. The next section
will discuss how the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors introduced above
intersect to form the foundation of the conceptual framework and exemplify the framework
through a graphical depiction (Figure 1).
The Community Cooperative’s Board of Directors have K and M factors that directly
contribute to their ability to incentivize private investors to invest in non-profit initiatives of the
organization. The K and M influences of each individual Board Member are influenced and
directly affected by the influences of the organization. To this point, the Board of the
Community Cooperative must know the importance of private investment and how to
proficiently develop programming. Additionally, Board Members need to believe that they can
Cultural Setting – The Community Cooperative
needs resources devoted to the development of
data that will incentivize private investment.
Interviews and document analysis of
presently and publicly available documents
to assess the current resources being
allocated to the development of data.
40
meet the goal as a symbol of self-efficacy (Bongar, et al. 2017). This conceptual framework
posits that these knowledge and motivation influences coupled with organizational cultural
models, settings and resources will ensure success. Thus, the knowledge, motivation, and
organization factors within the organization are most effective when interaction between all three
occurs, as represented in Figure 1.
41
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for the Community Cooperative
The figure further represents how the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences factor within the two and the collective work that they both require:
Organizational Influences
1. Cultural Setting - The Community Cooperative needs clearly
defined goals that are communicated to participants.
2. Cultural Setting - The Community Cooperative needs
resources devoted to the development of data that will
incentivize private investment.
3. Cultural Setting - The Community Cooperative needs a
structure of accountability related to data collection and its
connection to private investment.
Study and embrace emerging practices in non-
profit funding and development, Develop
programming to incentivize for-profit investment,
collect data to incentivize investment. Ultimately,
incentivizing for-profit investment in non-profit
initiatives.
The Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative – Knowledge and
Motivation
1. The Board needs to understand what factors incentivize private
investors to invest in non-profit initiatives (Declarative).
2. The Board needs to know how to develop programming and
assessments that attract private investment (Procedural).
3. The Board needs to reflect on their ability to develop proficiency in
program development and data collection (Metacognitive).
4. The Board of Directors need to value private investment into non-
profit initiatives. (Expectancy Value)
5. The Board of Directors need to believe they can meet the
performance goals of obtaining private investment through the
relevant tasks that are required to reach performance goals. (Self-
Efficacy)
42
1. The orange ring is representative of the stakeholder group identified as the Board of the
Community Cooperative and the organizational factors.
2. The blue ring is representative of the organization. Cultural settings indicative of the
organization are present within this circle.
3. The work required to achieve the stakeholder and the organizational goal is represented by the
purple square. While the goal is ultimately incentivizing for-profit investment, embracing the
process and skills required to meet this goal is itself a goal.
The Board Members of the Community Cooperative must be proficient in specific
knowledge and motivation factors in order to meet their goals. Procedural knowledge of
programming that will incentivize private investment is crucial. Declarative and conceptual
knowledge of the importance of private investment must be present in order to inspire the Board
to remain consistent in its efforts. Self-efficacy is also a key factor to the success of the Board as
this motivational factor allows the Board to believe that the knowledge and organizational
factors available can allow them to succeed in procuring private investment. While the
knowledge and motivation factors described above are important as independent factors, in this
conceptual framework the knowledge and motivation factors are interdependent upon the
Community Cooperative as an organization to which the Board are also participant members.
The Community Cooperative is the organization that holds the Board Members
accountable. However, the Community Cooperative as an organization contains critical
organizational factors such as cultural settings, cultural models, resources and processes. Cultural
settings and models are represented in the blue circle of the framework. The conceptual
framework assumes these cultural settings and models are necessary for achieving the
organizational goal, but they depend upon the Board being proficient in their respective
43
knowledge and motivation factors to succeed.
With the three knowledge, motivation and organizational factors and influencers being
interdependent for the achievement of the organizational goal, each part of the organization relies
on each other. Without the stakeholders and their knowledge and motivation influences and
factors, the organization lacks a programming that provides data that incentivizes private
investment. Without the organization, the Board ceases to exist and the individuals on the Board
are left with no cultural setting. Thus, the conceptual framework asserts that all knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors, as well as the relationship between the Community
Cooperative and its Board, are necessary for success in incentivizing private investment in non-
profit initiatives.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate how non-profit organizations might
incentivize for-profit investment. This literature review included research in the differing desired
outcomes of non-profit and for-profit companies and some effective examples of creating
intersection between their differing value systems. The literature in chapter two provided
examples of public private partnerships and distinguished between socially responsible investing
and impact investing. The literature also identified that impact investing creates better synergy
between non-profit and for profit entities because impact investing is an investment that ties
return on investment directly to social good. This study also identified the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences of the Board of Directors for the Community
Cooperative and provided the conceptual framework for the problem of practice. In the next
section, chapter three, the research will present the study’s methodological approach.
44
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter represents the study’s research and design methods for the collection of data
and the analysis of subject data. In evaluating the Community Cooperative’s Board of Directors’
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goal
of incentivizing private investment in their non-profit initiatives, this study was guided by
several questions. The questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the Board of Director’s knowledge and motivation related to incentivizing
private investment in non-profit initiatives?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the Board of
Directors’ knowledge and motivation to increase private investment in non-profit
initiatives?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources related to private investment into non-profit
initiatives?
The sampling criteria, recruitment strategy, and rationale for the data collection method is also
identified in this chapter. Additionally, the chapter provides additional reasoning behind the data
collection methods and analysis.
Participating Stakeholders
While the success of an organization is never determined by one stakeholder group, the
leadership of an organization is often an effective indicator of the direction of an organization
and their potential for success. As the policy makers in an organization, the Board of Directors
create the framework for how an organization works. The Community Cooperative operates in a
very unique way as the Board of Directors not only create policy for the organization, the Board
45
Members also manages the day to day leadership of the organization. As the policy makers and
executors, the Board of the Community Cooperative have the deepest understanding of the
organization’s work, the field in which they work, and the greatest potential for providing
relevant data to this study. These factors clearly indicate why the Board of the Community
Cooperative are the stakeholders of focus for this study.
Individual Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
As the researcher was excluded from the study, all eight of the additional Board Members
of the Community Cooperative participated in this study. The Board Members have a specific
lens into the creation of organizational policy and its execution. Additionally, the Board is
uniquely placed in leadership to observe how policies are effective or ineffective. Board
Members have established a commitment to the non-profit initiatives of the organization and
have actively participated in the work of the organization. This experience and commitment
provide the requisite knowledge of the Board member and establishes the requisite motivation of
the Board Member. All Board Members of the Community Cooperative have given at least ten
thousand dollars in currency or resources to the organization. This financial commitment
establishes the understanding of the financial needs of the Community Cooperative and also
establishes the Board Members’ understanding of the need for private investment in the
Community Cooperative.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
For the interviews of the stakeholder group of focus, the sampling was a census sample
(Creswell, 2014; Fink, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The census sampling of participants was
designed to create a group that would possess the requisite knowledge of the field and
organization, from which meaningful qualitative discovery will be conducted (Merriam &
46
Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the conduct and activities of the entire Board was studied. With all
eight additional members of the Board being interviewed, a realistic sample size was delivered.
Limiting the size of the study also rendered the study stratified, with participants reflecting
conduct that can be accurately attributed to the whole group (Creswell, 2016). For this study,
stratification means including Board Members who are founding members and Board Members
who have joined in not less than three years. Recruitment for this study was relatively easy as the
focus group had spent a great amount of time looking for methods to improve private investment.
A study of the organization’s knowledge, motivation and organizational influences required to
solve this problem of practice is recognized as a good thing internally and all Board Members
have already offered to participate.
Explanation of Choices
The Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative represented the stakeholder
group with the most information to offer for this study. For that reason alone, the study focused
on the Board of Directors. The qualitative method is the most effective method to use when
analyzing research that is driven by narrative. The interview method also appears to provide the
most qualitative information as surveys only provide a snapshot of the process of decision-
making.
Using the interview method and the census method to triangulate data gathered from the
other methods for the purpose of revealing research themes (Creswell, 2014), reduces bias and
incidental intersections of information (Maxwell, 2013) and increases validity and credibility
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This evaluation did not use surveys as the qualitative interviews and
document analysis provided the most comprehensive information for this study.
47
Documents and Artifacts
The study collected documents from the Community Cooperative that aid in
understanding how the Community Cooperative collects data that can be shared with potential
investors. These documents included participant assessments from coding exercises and
accountings separated by donations, fees for services and investments. These documents were
publicly available and no participant, personal or pedigree data was revealed. These documents
were voluntarily offered to the researcher by the Community Cooperative. An analysis of these
documents provided additional context into how the results of non-profit work have a direct
impact on the funding of non-profit work. Focusing on participant experiences and growth
provided broader context into the effectiveness of the organization and its ability to scale in
funding (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Comparing participant interview responses with available data allowed the researcher to get
accurate responses to questions that might be affected by the participants’ biases. While participants
provided responses that were optimistic about the Community Cooperatives’ conceptual knowledge
and values related to incentivizing private investment, the interviews and publicly available data
helped temper responses that may have been based on intent and not impact. Specifically, the
interviews and available documentation helped the researcher understand what accountability
methods are currently not in place and what missing resources are needed to develop and analyze
data that will incentivize private investment.
Qualitative Data Collection
Creswell (2014) asserts that qualitative research requires the collection of multiple forms
of data. These different methods of data collection allow for broader contextual understanding of
the knowledge, motivation and organization influences associated with participant responses
48
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study included two types of qualitative data:
interviews and document analysis. The researcher conducted interviews with Board Members of
the Community Cooperative to document their knowledge, motivation and experience related to
their organizational goal of incentivizing private investment in the organizations’ initiatives.
Interviews
Eight interviews were conducted with the other Board Members of the Community
Cooperative. These interviews ranged from 40 minutes to one hour, with most interviews lasting
one hour. All participants being interviewed volunteered for this study and were not pressured to
participate in this study. The researcher administered the interviews in a formal manner in an
effort to maintain a consistent process in the data collection process and to limit any bias that
might have affected the integrity of the process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview
subjects were given optional times over the course of one month in an effort to accommodate
their busy schedules and make the process as easy as possible. Remaining amenable to their
schedules is important to maintaining their willingness to engage in the process. The interview
questions were straight-forward and open-ended in order to elicit the most thoughtful and
complete responses (Patton, 2002). The interview protocol elicited meaningful data from the
Board of the Community Collective related to their organizational experiences and knowledge
and motivation (see Appendix A).
Documents and Artifacts
The study collected documents from the Community Cooperative that aided in
understanding how the Community Cooperative collects data that can be shared with potential
investors (see Appendix B). These documents included participant assessments from coding
exercises and accountings separated by donations, fees for services and investments. These
49
documents were publicly available and no participant personal or background data was revealed.
These documents were voluntarily offered to the researcher by the Community Cooperative. An
analysis of these documents provided additional context into how the results of non-profit work
have a direct impact on the funding. Focusing on participant experiences and financial growth
provided broader context into the effectiveness of the organization and its ability to scale in
funding (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Comparing participant interview responses with available data allowed the researcher to
triangulate responses to questions that might have affected by the participants’ biases. While
participants provided responses that were optimistic about the Community Cooperatives’ conceptual
knowledge and values related to incentivizing private investment, the interviews and publicly
available data helped temper responses that were based on intent instead of impact. Specifically, the
interviews and available documentation helped the researcher understand what accountability
methods were currently in place and what resources were being used to develop and analyze data that
incentivize private investment.
Data Analysis
In order to obtain comprehensive data from this study, the researcher conducted
interviews and document reviews. Interviewing allows the participant to share information that is
centered on their own experiences and perceptions and provided the interviewer with the best
opportunity to contextualize the participant’s responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
interviews and document review began during data collection. The researcher wrote memos and
notes during and after each interview. All questions, concerns or comments were noted by the
researcher and compared to the conceptual framework and research questions. Once the
interviews were complete, the researcher coded and transcribed the interviews. Coding allowed
the researcher to use short-hand notes that were easy to refer to once the researcher compared the
50
responses to research questions to the conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Once
the coding was complete, the researcher analyzed documents and artifacts in relation to the
concepts in the conceptual framework.
The researcher used open coding during the analysis of the interviews and document
review. Comparing the questions and responses to a priori codes from the conceptual framework
allowed the researcher to categorize responses according to prompts in the conceptual
framework. The researcher then used these response codes to create analytical codes that the
researcher used to identify patterns of thought, conduct and beliefs. These patterns of thought,
conduct and beliefs were then analyzed within the conceptual framework and used to analyze
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences and gaps.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As the main instrument in a qualitative study, the researcher is tasked with using
methods that ensure the research is credible and trustworthy (Creswell, 2014). This required the
appropriate effort and attention to ethical conduct throughout all of the research and a
commitment to the process of being accountable to the highest ethical standards (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In an effort to ensure the validity of the research, the researcher also reviewed
publicly available documents in order to compare findings. This collection and comparison of
findings was a method of triangulation to ensure internal validity (Creswell, 2014; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). By using interview questions that draw out deep context, meaning and thought
from the participants, the data provided was rich in substance.
Engaging in reflexivity allowed the researcher to reflect on biases, roles in the
organization and assumptions that might affect data so that the credibility and trustworthiness of
the data was not tainted (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Journaling the process and
51
reflecting on my bias and how it affects my process benefitted the study and the results were
more accurate and impactful (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Ethical practice and informed consent were foundational to the research provided in this
study. All inquiry, data and development were scaffolded with ethical considerations (Glesne,
2011). These ethical considerations included a focus on doing no harm, avoiding deception or
pressure on participants, obtaining informed consent, and honoring the promises and
expectations of the participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Tracy, 2013). In this study, participants
were not placed in any position of risk because the interview questions did not probe into
confidential or sensitive subjects. The purpose of this study was clearly communicated to
participants by the principal researcher in preliminary conversations related to this study and
then reiterated in writing to participants through the dissemination of an information sheet. The
information sheet provided to the participants with information was suggested by Glesne (2011),
and included the participants’ right to decline or withdraw participation at anytime and the
potential risks of participating. Additionally, the Board of Directors of the Community
Cooperative unanimously voted to participate in this study.
Participants in this study maintained an expectation of privacy that was protected
(Glesne, 2011). To this end, no identifiable information was collected or obtained and
participants were not asked to reveal their identities. All interview notes were kept in a secure
location where only the principal researcher had access to the data and the notes were destroyed
when the study was concluded.
One of the most important tasks required to deliver rich and reliable data is to
identify bias and provide transparency. Thus, it is must be noted that the principal researcher is a
52
Board Member of the Community Cooperative and a major stakeholder in the organization. This
status within the organization informed the principal researcher’s decision to only interview
other Board Members so that no subordinates would be subject to the potential biases or
pressures associated with participating in this study. By interviewing peer-level colleagues, the
principal researcher can cull information from members of the organization who are vested in the
success of the study and thus very interested in providing data that is free from bias (Creswell,
2014). And while the researcher and the participants share an interest in a well-executed study,
no researcher or participant had any specific material stake in the study or personally benefit
from its findings.
The researcher chose not to have an outside interviewer conduct the interviews
because the participants in the study are all aware of the researcher’s identity and purpose. The
best way to demonstrate respect for the study and eliminate any power imbalances is to engage
them in an honest and transparent manner (Creswell, 2014). Additionally, since the Community
Cooperative operates in a cyclical structure with no formal hierarchy, the researcher has no
influencing power or authority over the participants being interviewed and did not create
involuntary participation or uninformed consent (Glesne, 2011).
Because the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection, the personal
biases of the researcher must be noted (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher is a firm
believer that capitalism has caused a vacuum in human values that is driving the human path
toward unsustainability. While the researcher shares many of the values of socialism (means of
production and consumption controlled by the people), the researcher understands the practical
need for capital and governance in partnership in order for societal shifts to be realized. While
the researcher’s personal views should be noted in light of this study on private investment in
53
non-profit initiatives, these views did not negatively bias the data gathered related to the other
stakeholders. Additionally, the data collection process was triangulated through interviews and
historical documents in an effort to limit the effect of researcher bias on the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Tracey, 2013).
54
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Chapter Four is the presentation of the findings of this study through an analysis of the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences as informed by the Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework. Each of the knowledge, motivation and organization influences
introduced in Chapter Two are analyzed through the findings. A comprehensive analysis of each
assumed influence will also be provided in addition to whether a gap was identified for the
assumed influence. Interviews and document data were collected to analyze the knowledge,
motivation and organizational proficiencies and deficiencies that might affect the Community
Cooperative’s ability to incentivize private investment in its non-profit initiatives.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the Board of Director’s knowledge and motivation related to incentivizing private
investment in non-profit initiatives?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and Board of
Directors’ knowledge and motivation to increase private investment in non-profit initiatives?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources related to private investment into non-profit initiatives?
Using a qualitative analysis of these interviews and documents, the researcher has provided
answers to the research questions being raised.
Participants
Eight members of the Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative were
interviewed for this study. To protect the identity of individual participants, no demographic or
55
other identifying information is provided. Each participant was issued a number between 1 and 8
and identified as Participant 1-8 (P1-P8 in tables) for the purpose of this study.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Findings
The interviews were conducted as part of a qualitative analysis. Text message requests to
participate in the study and be interviewed were sent by the researcher to each board member.
Each board member responded in the affirmative within one day of the initial text. For each
interview, 23 questions were asked with no follow up or additional questions or remarks from the
researcher. The interviews were conducted over zoom and recorded. Each subject gave explicit
permission to be interviewed and to have the interviews recorded and transcribed. Each interview
was transcribed by Otter.ai. All interviews lasted less than an hour. The responses to the
interview questions have been placed in a secure location and have not been shared with anyone.
The responses were then analyzed for the qualitative findings of this study.
Knowledge Findings
This study’s knowledge research question is: What are the board of director’s knowledge
related to incentivizing private investment in non-profit initiatives? The answer to this question
is found in comparing the interviewees’ responses to the conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive knowledge influences proposed in Chapter Two. Additionally, the document
review revealed that the board was consistent in reflecting on their ability to develop
programming and data collection that furthered the organizational goal. While the board’s
conceptual and metacognitive knowledge influences did not appear to reveal any gaps, the board
did appear to need improvement in procedural knowledge. This was exemplified by the board’s
inability to articulate the process for implementing and programming and data collection.
Implementing data collection and programming are key components required to incentivize
56
private investment. This section presents a summary of the findings from the interviews and
document analysis separately before addressing key themes that were identified through the
course of the study.
Interviews
The researcher conducted interviews as part of a qualitative approach. The interview
questions were structured so that the responses would reveal how the knowledge influences
impacted the Board Members’ proficiency in developing programming and data that would
incentivize private investment. The questions were consistent with the conceptual framework and
included the following:
1. Describe how private investors determine which non-profit initiatives
to invest in, if any.
2. What are some metrics private investors look for when deciding what
to invest in?
3. What are some desired outcomes for private investors when deciding
what to invest in?
4. What programs, if any, do investors look for when deciding what to
invest in?
5. What have you observed about the process of collecting data that
informs private investment?
All eight Board Members were assigned numbers from one through eight and asked the
above questions during the interview process. The participants all responded to questions related
to their conceptual knowledge in a manner that indicated a basic understanding of what factors
incentivize private investors to invest in non-profit initiatives. The participants also responded to
57
questions related to their metacognitive knowledge in a manner that indicated their assessment
and reflection on their ability to develop proficiency in program development and data collection
that incentivizes private investment. However, a procedural knowledge gap occurred as the
participants struggled to describe how to develop programming and assessments that attract
private investment. A sample of the knowledge influences interview results are represented by
Table 5 following a narrative discussion of the findings.
As illustrated in Table 5, the interviews with the Board Members included questions
related to the influences that might be considered conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.
There did not appear to be a conceptual knowledge gap as the participants were generally able to
articulate what factors incentivize private investors to invest in non-profit initiatives. The
participants also appeared to thoroughly reflect on their ability to develop proficiency in program
development and data collection. By thoroughly reflecting on their ability to stay on task with the
organizational goals, the participants did not appear to show a metacognitive knowledge gap.
However, when the participants were asked questions related to the process or
implementation of programming and data collection that would incentivize private investment,
their responses were vague, general, or non-responsive. For example, when asked about the
implementation of programming, Participant 1stated, “programming is developed based on need
and resources” while Participant 3 responded, “I don’t have any experience there.” These
responses revealed a lack of the procedural knowledge required to implement the data collection
and programming required to incentivize private investment. The questions that were designed to
explore procedural knowledge gaps should have prompted responses that identified some
specific program opportunities, parallel outcomes, and metrics for success that the participants
could call out as a model for implementation. However, there appeared to be a lack of confidence
58
and training in implementation models that currently work to incentivize private investment in
non-profits. While most participants attempted to provide an adequate response, when
Participant 8 was asked to describe the metrics private investors look for when investing in
nonprofits, this board member transparently replied, “I don’t know.” Based on the replies to the
questions in this section, there appears to be a procedural knowledge gap in the goal to develop
programming and data collection that would incentivize private investment.
Table 5
Knowledge Influences, Interview Results
Knowledge Influences, Interview Results
Interview Questions Knowledge Type Responses
Describe how private
investors determine which
non-profit initiatives to invest
in, if any?
Conceptual P1- “a smart investor would
…see how a program works
and how you’re getting
resources…”
P4- “the investors’ perception
of how the world views the
non-profit”
P7- “a lifestyle choice…the
non-profit aligns with [the
investor’s values]”
What are some metrics
private investors look for
when deciding what to invest
in?
Procedural
P2- “Credit worthiness, if
that’s a word if that makes
sense”
P3- “Yeah I don’t have an
answer for that one”
P5- “Just human interaction”
P6- “the ability to maintain
the status quo or social
control.”
59
P8- “I don’t know”
What are some desired
outcomes for private
investors when deciding what
to invest in?
Procedural P2- “I guess it depends on
who you’re investing in, like,
if you invest in a community
outreach nonprofit, I would
hope that you…change crime
drops, they’re reaching the
kids and education is
improving.”
P3- “return on their
money…to see whatever
they’re investing in blossom.”
P4- “as in any relationship
they want to see an
observable return”
What programs, if any, do
investors look for when
deciding what to invest in?
Procedural P1- Programs “that are near
and dear to their heart.”
P5- “In my experience, things
that have to do with people
who are formerly incarcerated
has been a major one along
with environmental
awareness being another
one.”
P7- “Environment, Education
and Technology”
What have you observed
about the process of
collecting data that informs
private investment?
Metacognitive P1- “That is critical because
when we do a particular
program, we did an eight
week program and in Red
Hook with kids in middle
school, and the data is key to
help tell the story and to help
communicate your findings
with you know, set investor,
anyone really a potential
parent who may want their
kid to be part of your
curriculum, we like, you
60
know, the data is it helps a lot
It also helps as a marker of
success. So you can base you
know, how successful was
our program, how, how
successful Can this be if we
add the certain elements or
remove these certain
elements, so data is very
useful. Very important.”
P6- “I think one of the things
that I'm most proud of … is
that we really, in my opinion,
we've been focusing on the
interaction with humanity and
the people. I'm not. And I
think that's one of our, I
think, depending on who you
speak to a lot of people may
come away with the fact that
they feel we should be
reaching out more to
investors and getting
investments and grants. But I
think we've kind of been
really enthralled in how can
we impact on the ground? So
I am and I know me for one,
I'm much more interested in
that maybe there's others in
our organization or other
people who can focus on
getting the the invest
investment side of it, but I'm
not particularly smitten by
that, to be honest with you.”
Document Review
The document review examined student attendance and proficiency rates in coding
exercises from 2018 through 2019 as well as donations and investments. The data from the
document review revealed that there were no investments, very few donations from people
61
outside of the Board and that the participants in this study have placed an emphasis on reflecting
on their ability to develop proficiency in program development and data collection. This
metacognitive knowledge will be important for the participants as they continue to develop
programming and collect data that is in alignment with the organization’s goals. Attendance was
taken and proficiency assessments were documented for 100% of the mentoring programs
provided by the Community Cooperative. The document review also examined the completion
rate of assessments in order to determine if program development goals could be informed by
student participation.
The document review examined three programs developed and run by the Community
Cooperative. The programs are partnerships with local communities in Brownsville, Red Hook
and East New York. The partners are host sites that have students in the community that either
volunteer to attend programming or are mandated by their school or other governing authority.
While 100% of the students involved in the CREAM Center (pseudonym) partnership completed
the creation of their Bluetooth speakers, 85% of the students at the Scott Hill (pseudonym)
partnership completed creation of their websites, and 100% of the students at the SUMMISE
school (pseudonym) partnership completed creation of their websites. This success rate indicates
that the programming is being created effectively and in a manner that keeps learners engaged.
Knowledge Theme 1: Board Members Understand What Incentivizes Private Investors
By analyzing the interviews and documents, the Board Members understand what factors
incentivize private investors to invest in non-profit initiatives. When posed with guiding
questions related to private investment in non-profit initiatives, Participant 1 in the study
provided insightful information. Participant 1 stated:
62
Somehow connecting with the nonprofit that they're investing in, and getting a look at
how they do their practice, how they, you know, in our case, you know, we work with the
community. So, in some instances, you know, you would invite the investor down and
they would sit with you and see kind of How your program works, you know, what is
involved? Who is affected? Who's being helped, and how you're getting them the
resources.
This shows the participant’s the knowledge related to incentivizing private investment in non-
profit initiatives. The participant is clear on the importance of private investment. This
knowledge of the importance of the organizational goal provides a foundation for developing the
programming necessary to incentivize private investment. Participant 4 remarked, “it would be
similar to commercial ventures in that they (private investors) would want to see a direct
relationship between the investment, good work and a good return.” This sentiment is generally
shared among the other participants, including Participant 6, who stated, “ [if an investor] does
not understand a non-profit or the non-profit’s goal and how it’s connected to the investor, that
may have an impact on their willingness to invest.” The data makes it clear that the participants
had a strong conceptual knowledge of the problem of practice presented in the study.
Knowledge Theme 2: Board Members are Reflective of Their Ability to Collect Data and
Create Programming
The data reveals that the participants reflected on their ability to develop proficiency in
program development and data collection. Each of the participants provided thoughtful and well-
informed reflections about their ability to develop programming and data collection that
incentivized private investment. When asked to describe areas in which they would seek growth
63
in their ability to explain programs in a manner that would attract private investors, Participant 3
responded:
We could use tools like some of the events where we actually have the people who we
work with as well as the people who we’ve worked for speak and give some accounts of
how the Cooperative has changed their lives and how they have gone into the community
to pay it forward. Having community members speak for themselves would be far more
impactful because they are the product of these partnerships we are seeking.
When posed with the same prompt, participant 8 responded:
“I would want to collect data better and track kids that have gone through the program
and it really matters their growth. Um, and not just from a, like, logical standpoint of like,
Oh, they can now build a program but also like emotional growth, things like that if
we've raised the quality of life I've seen I see examples, we just don't have those case
studies to document it. So, I think that's where I would like to take home our product and
refine it and present it, like constantly present it.”
The responses from Participant 3 and Participant 8 are indicative of the thoughtful and insightful
responses from all of the participants when prompted with questions related to their
metacognitive knowledge influence on the problem of practice.
Knowledge Theme 3: The Board of Directors Need to Know how to Develop Programming and
Assessments that Attract Private Investment
While the participants understand the importance of private investment in non-profit
initiatives and are deeply reflective of the work required to achieve the stakeholder and
organizational goal, all of the participants lacked complete proficiency in the process of
developing programming and assessments that attract private investment. When asked, what
64
programs, if any, do investors look for when deciding what to invest in, Participant 3 responded,
“I have no answer for that one.” When prompted with the same question, Participant 5 stated,
“it’s a struggle.” All of the participants answered these questions similarly. This “struggle”
indicates that the participants have a knowledge gap as it relates to their ability to create and
implement programming that will yield data that incentivizes private investment. The gap
between knowing the importance of a practice and knowing how to implement a practice is the
challenge facing the Community Cooperative. The participants are all skilled at reflecting and
acknowledging these challenges. This metacognitive knowledge will be a helpful tool as the
stakeholders develop proficiency in procedural knowledge.
Motivation Findings
This study’s motivation research question is: What is the Board of Director’s motivation
related to incentivizing private investment in non-profit initiatives? The data gathered during
interviews reveals that the Board is highly motivated to engage in the work of incentivizing
private investment but has a motivation gap in the area of self-efficacy. This section presents a
summary of the findings from interviews and document analysis before proceeding into a
discussion of the key themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis.
Interviews
The researcher divided the interview questions into the two motivational theories of
expectancy-value and self-efficacy. The motivation research asked questions about the Board of
Directors’ motivation related to incentivizing private investment in non-profit initiatives. The
relevant interview questions and responses are described in Table 6 following the narrative
discussion of the findings.
65
The general sentiment shared among participants was that private investment in the
organization’s work was important. The participants placed a great deal of value on obtaining
private investment and communicated high levels of motivation to seek ways to implement
private partnerships into the work of the organization. Participant 1 acknowledged that the needs
of non-profits exceed the donation amounts and that there is an increasing need for partnerships
that yield returns tied to social good. Participant 5 acknowledged that in order for the
organization to be sustainable, private investment was necessary.
While the participants did recognize the value of private investment, some also
acknowledged the inherent dangers that can occur in partnerships where values may not be
aligned. While Participant 2 stated, “I can’t imagine there being any detriments in non-profits
receiving funding,” Participant 8 asserts, “but the investor can’t feel like they own you.” This
commitment to core organizational values provides a balancing act for the participants as they
seek to invite private investment that is in alignment with their values.
Similarly, to the procedural knowledge gap, the participants appeared to waiver in confidence
when questioned about their abilities to create programming and collect data that might
incentivize private investment. Participant 6 was most pointed in this regard when they stated:
I've kind of limited myself, and I think in a lot of regards, because I didn't want to get
bogged down with the data so much…you can lose sight of what you're really trying to
do and what the narrative is really about.
Participant 4 noted the financial limitations of doing the day-to-day work of the organization
while also trying to create programming and data that would be attractive to private partners.
While motivated to continue the work of the organization, participants struggled to find the
motivation to collect certain data that furthered organizational goals.
66
Table 6
Motivation Influences, Interview Results
Motivation Influences, Interview Findings
Interview Questions Motivational Theory Responses
Why is it important for non-
profits initiatives to receive
private investment?
Value P1: “Because non-profits
have needs that go beyond
donations….and Non-profits
can’t function without
money”
P3: “…to take the burden off
of the people who have
invested time [because] it’s
hard to be present…as well as
try to find funds to make
things happen…”
P5: “you need outside
investment to keep the engine
running”
Are there any detriments to
non-profit initiatives
receiving private investment?
Value P2: “I can’t imagine there
being any detriments in non-
profits receiving funding”
P8: “Once a client gives you
money they feel like they
own you. But with an
investment, they may want
things skewed but the
investor can’t feel like they
own you”
Describe your proficiency in
programming and data
collection.
Self-Efficacy P4: “I hope that I am”
P6: I think in programming,
I'm pretty proficient in a
sense that I understand what
we're trying to do and in…
the activation that's required.
Outside of that, I've kind of
limited myself, and I think in
a lot of regards, because I
didn't want to get bogged
down with the data so
much…you can lose sight of
what you're really trying to
do and what the narrative is
67
really about. So I've been
more on the end of
conception and ideology…
getting things done and
activations. I haven't been
that instrumental in the
collection of data….”
Describe what limits your
ability to develop
programming and data that
incentivizes private
investment.
Self-Efficacy P7: “I will say operations is
definitely one of them…being
able to manage operational
budget, um, I think those are
some things that I definitely
[need to develop]”
P4: “the biggest limit is
financially not being able to
afford to focus a dedicated
amount of time to Developing
programming right now, we
are doing the work that we
can, whenever we can, and
however we can. And while
that has sustained us over
these years, it is certainly not
efficient. And I would say
then the biggest two of the
biggest stumbling blocks of
like any other organization is
time and money, you know
what I mean? And they seem
to always have to be twisted
up together like that, but they
tend to be you know, they
tend to be there any number
of creative ways, I'm not
gonna expand on it now, but
suffice to say, time and
money are big prohibiting
factors to me personally
being a being able to develop
programming that, you know,
can solve a lot of our very
immediate needs and
desires.”
Document Review
68
The document review included a list of tax credits available to investors that would serve
as an incentive for private-public partnerships. While these documents address what might
motivate potential partners to invest in the organization, these documents provide no
motivational impetus for stakeholders of a non-profit organization that is already tax-exempt.
Motivation Theme 1: Value
All eight members of the Board value partnerships with for profit investors that yield
positive change. Specifically, Participant 3 expressed excitement when discussing private
investment because it would allow the participants to focus on the work of social change and be
relieved of the burden of seeking donations. This sentiment was shared by Participant 4 who
acknowledged that the work of funding a non-profit can be detrimental to the actual work of
creating social change. Even Participant 8, who expressed concern over financial partners
dictating purpose, shared in the sentiment that a for-profit partner might provide a focus
on efficiency that allows the organization to function better and do the work better.
Motivation Theme 2: Self-Efficacy
All members of the Board expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to collect data
and programming that incentivize private investment. This is in contrast to their desire to collect
data and create programming that accomplish their collective goal. This issue appears to be
related to an issue with self-efficacy where the Board Members do not believe that they can
initially be successful at something they have never done before. With no model for successful
implementation of their goal, the participants all expressed doubts about their abilities.
Participant 7 acknowledged that collecting data and creating programming that will attract
private investment is an area of needed growth for the participants. Participant 1 also
acknowledged that seeking private investment will require the participants to leave their comfort
69
zones and engage in work that requires a new set of skills. This sentiment is shared among the
participants as they all generally struggle with the concept of implementation of a new set of data
collection and program development.
Organizational Influence Findings
The research question that probed for organization-related influences as they impact the
stakeholder goal is: What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the
Board of Directors’ knowledge and motivation to develop programming and collect data that will
increase private investment in non-profit initiatives? This multi-layered question requires an
examination of the participant’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to private investment.
This question also requires an examination of the cultural settings of the organization and how
the participant’s knowledge and motivation interact with the organization’s cultural settings.
While the organization has a clear mechanism and platform to communicate its goals, vision and
mandates, the organization does not have clear mandates or a bonus structure implemented to
incentivize private investment in its non-profit initiatives.
For the organization section, the research asked guiding questions related to the Community
Cooperative’s needs for clearly defined goals that are communicated to potential investors,
resources devoted to the development of data that will incentivize private investment, and a
structure of shared accountability with private investment related to program performance and
data collection. The relevant questions and the corresponding responses are described in Table 7.
Table 7
Organizational Influences, Interview Results
Organizational Influences, Interview Results
Interview Question Cultural Model or Setting Responses
70
How does your organization
communicate its’ goals to
participants?
Setting P3: “email, text and in our
meetings”
P6: “consistent messaging
and conversations”
P7: “events, social media,
emails, texts and social
gatherings”
P8: “weekly meetings, zoom
calls and events”
What organizational
mandates exist to ensure that
data is collected that
incentivizes private
investment?
Setting P1: “I wouldn't say there are
any mandates at the moment.
Yeah, no like mandates, but I
think that there should be
some in place, just to make
sure that by the end of every,
you know, year or we create
sort of benchmarks so that,
you know, we can actually
take information that's, you
know, been used and proven
and apply that to getting that
information into our materials
that we share with potential
investors…”
P2: “I don’t think we have
that set up”
P4: “We don’t have any.”
P5: “I am not sure.”
What benefits or bonuses
exist for participants who
collect data that incentivizes
private investment?
Setting P1: “there are no incentives.
Just the incentive of being a
team player participating in a
positive way.”
P2: “there are no benefits”
P5: “I’m not sure”
P6: “there is none. We’re
doing it because it has to get
done”
P7: “none that I know of”
P8: “none. We do this for the
will not for a bonus”
71
The organizational settings appear to provide more information about the KMO factors
affecting the organization than any cultural models. The participants’ responses were generally
uniform when discussing the organizational factors affecting the organization’s desired goal.
Document Analysis
The researcher collected documents related to the current data collection efforts of the
organization including attendance records of participants and the tax benefits available to private
investors. These documents did not yield any relevant data for this section of the study related to
the organizational influences.
Organization Setting Theme 1: Clear Communication
According to the interviews, the organization clearly communicates its goals to
participants. All eight of the Board Members of the organization agree that the organization’s
programmatic goals of mentoring and training that lead to community and workforce
development are being communicated to potential investors through consistent attendance and
assessments that exhibit the development of strong proficiencies in coding, conflict resolution
and content creation. Through a partnership with STREAM, the Community Cooperative
developed a content creation program where participants in the program created Bluetooth
speakers and created marketing campaigns for household products. This program, the attendance,
and its resulting marketing campaigns were sent to the organization’s potential investors through
a newsletter and follow up emails. It is worth noting that these perspectives were collected from
the Board Members and not from volunteers. The researcher did not interview volunteers to
determine if this theme was consistent with volunteers’ perception.
Organization Setting Theme 2: Lack of Accountability for Data Collection
72
The organization does not appear to have mandates set up to ensure that participants
collect data and create programming that incentivizes private investment. The participants were
in unison on this issue. Participant 1, recognizing that there were no mandates in place, offered
the suggestion that some mandates should be set in place in order to hold the stakeholder
accountable for their responsibility in achieving the organizational goal. Participant 2 and
Participant 5 did not definitively assert that there was no mandate, however, they both
acknowledged not knowing of a mandate. Since the participants did not know of a mandate, it is
clear that there is no mandate set up to ensure data is collected and programming is developed to
further the organizational goal of incentivizing private investment in its non-profit initiatives.
Organization Theme 3: The Incentive Setting
According to the interviews with the participants, there are no incentives for collecting
data that furthers the organizational goals. Participant 1 asserts that “just the incentive of being a
team player” exists to incentivize participants. This statement is indicative of a larger theme
among the participants in that they all appear to love the organization and its goals while also
recognizing the lack of accountability necessary to meet the organization’s goals. Participant 6
goes a step further and says that “there is none…we’re doing it because it has to get done.” This
statement from Participant 6 reveals that the participants are aware of the organizational goal and
the necessity to implement the strategies to accomplish the goal. Participant 8 states, “we do this
for the will not for the bonus.” The participants all expressed a loyalty and dedication to the
organization and its goals. This loyalty and dedication to the organization indicates very
motivated participants that have personal values in alignment with the organization’s goal to
grow in services and funding.
73
Synthesis
The results from this study reveal a group of stakeholders with conceptual knowledge of
the importance of private investment in non-profit initiatives and the requisite metacognitive
ability to reflect on the requirements to collect data and create programming that accomplish this
goal. However, there was a gap in the stakeholder’s procedural knowledge of how to implement
the practices and strategies necessary to accomplish the organizational goals. As discussed in
Chapter Three, a commitment to resources designed to better capture and understand data will be
required in order for the Community Cooperative to scale in proficiency and private investment
(Schein, 2017).
With detailed attendance and proficiency records, the document review revealed that the
stakeholders take data collection seriously and already have a practice of monitoring attendance
and proficiency in the mentoring programs that exist in three different sites. This supports the
notion that the stakeholders are capable of developing the procedural knowledge necessary to
develop programming that will incentivize private investment. The document review also
revealed that the students being mentored by the organization are actively engaged as the
attendance rates for the volunteer attendance programs maintained a robust attendance rate.
These high attendance rates signal to investors that the range of program participants are engaged
and enthusiastic about the organization, which is an example of the type of data that is needed to
attract investors and achieve the organizational goal. High levels of engagement provide private
investors with an incentive to engage with the organization’s participants and invest in
opportunities that might yield a return on investment.
While the document review revealed a proficiency for collecting data, the interviews of
the participants revealed a procedural knowledge gap. This gap revealed that the participants
74
were hedged in their current practices and were challenged with collecting additional data and
creating additional programming that was specifically aimed at incentivizing private investment
in the organization’s work. This procedural knowledge gap was congruent to the stakeholder’s
gap in self-efficacy.
The stakeholders appeared to value the challenge of incentivizing private investment.
They expressed challenges in their confidence to implement the protocol changes necessary to
achieve the organizational goal. Several stakeholders expressed their desire to create additional
programming while simultaneously expressing their doubts in their ability to multi-task the day-
to-day work with macro-level implementation.
With no clear organizational mandates or bonus structure, the participants were tasked
with creating goals and fulfilling these goals in a silo. This left the stakeholders only being
accountable to their goodwill and not a process of growth. As previously asserted in Chapter
Three, Bolman and Deal (2010) posit that high performing teams have a system of automatic
individual and team accountability. Several participants in this study acknowledged that the level
of comfort made for an enjoyable environment, yet was not a growth factor that would get the
organization where it sought to grow.
75
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATIONS AND EVALUATION PLAN
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The findings of this study that were provided in Chapter Four presented an overview of
the assumed stakeholder influences according to Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework. In
this section, the researcher offers recommendations to bridge the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influence gaps. Additionally, the researcher offers performance measures for
accountability and behaviors that will be helpful to achieve the organizational goal.
Knowledge Influences and Recommendation
The knowledge gap impacting the stakeholder group’s ability to meet the organizational
performance goal was procedural. While the study group exhibited a conceptual knowledge of
the importance of private investment in their initiatives and were reflective about their ability to
develop the appropriate programming, the study group did not display a procedural knowledge
related to the necessary process of programming and data collection. Table 8 provides a
summary of the gap in knowledge influence and the recommendation.
Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
The Board of
Directors need to
know how to develop
programming and
assessments that
attract private
investment. (P)
Effective observational learning is
achieved
by first organizing and rehearsing
modeled
behaviors, then enacting them
overtly
(Mayer, 2011).
Any comprehensive development
of programming that attracts
Provide training that teaches the
stakeholders effective strategies
for taking in-depth field notes
from each program and
comparing these notes to
conversations with potential
investors.
Incorporate modeled examples
of how to do this effectively and
76
private investment will be
informed by extensive field notes,
in-depth interviews, and
explanatory case data that creates a
framework for private investor
stakeholder collaboration (Wilson
et al, 2010)
offer opportunities for practice
and feedback.
The knowledge gap identified in the analysis of this study was procedural. These steps
will need to be modeled after examples of non-profit initiatives that have successfully
incentivized private investment. Effective observational learning is achieved by first organizing
and rehearsing modeled behaviors, then enacting them overtly (Mayer, 2011). Any
comprehensive development of programming that attracts private investment will be informed by
extensive field notes, in-depth interviews, and explanatory case data that creates a framework for
private investor stakeholder collaboration (Wilson et al, 2010). In addition to knowing the
importance and value of private investment, the Board Members of the Community Cooperative
need to know how to implement the collection of data and how to communicate this same data to
potential investors. The recommendation then is to provide training that teaches the stakeholders
effective strategies for taking in-depth field notes from each program and comparing these notes
to conversations with potential investors. By incorporating modeled examples of how to do this
effectively and offer opportunities for practice and feedback, the stakeholders will be modeling
successful examples of private and non-profit partnerships.
The best method to use in teaching the process of data collection and analysis is training
behaviors modeled after successful examples (Clark & Estes, 2008). Being able to meaningfully
organize and connect new knowledge to prior knowledge is essential to this process (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). As previously mentioned in Chapter Two, the Wilson et al. (2010) study
employed a comprehensive analysis of social partnerships among a complex network of
77
stakeholder organizations. This quantitative study used field-notes from 33 in-depth interviews
and a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning to formulate a conceptual framework and
research propositions for a successful private-public social partnership (Wilson et al., 2010). The
Loxley (2012) study is also referenced in Chapter Two. Loxley’s (2012) research provides an
example of how public private partnerships evolved following the global financial crisis of 2008
to meet the needs of municipalities and the surrounding business and social interests. By
partnering private interests with value-aligned public organizations and identifying their shared
interests in solving problems, Loxley’s (2012) research shows that for-profit institutions can
solve problems while addressing their desire for positive profit margins. Modeling these
examples is consistent with Kirkpatrick’s (2006) emphasis on training that focused on results as
the metric for success. This literature review supports the recommendation that training the
stakeholders and modeling successful examples can effectively address the gap in procedural
knowledge.
Motivation Recommendations
The motivation influences identified in Table 9 provide a comprehensive listing of the
assumed motivation influence that was validated as a result of this study’s completed data
collection and analysis. While the assumed influence of value was not validated as a motivation
gap, self-efficacy was identified as a motivational gap for the Board of Directors. A
stakeholder’s mental effort is a key indicator in assessing the motivation of a stakeholder (Clark
& Estes, 2008). While the stakeholders that were the subject of this study valued the data
gathering process and its ability to incentivize private investment, they did not display a
consistent ability to seek and apply new knowledge to the goal of incentivizing private
investment.
78
Table 9
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence*
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
The Board of Directors
must believe they can
meet the performance
goals of obtaining
private investment
through the relevant
tasks that are required
to reach performance
goals- Self-Efficacy
Creation of a model of best
practices based on prior successes
will provide a working model as an
example of their own capabilities.
Internalizing knowledge and then
transferring knowledge to
colleagues is a hallmark of a
healthy work environment that can
improve the confidence of
colleagues. (Buenaventura-Vera,
2017)
Provide instructional support
(scaffolding) early on, build in
multiple
opportunities for practice and
gradually remove supports
(Pajares, 2006).
The impact of leader self-efficacy
on the characteristics of work
teams. Intangible Capital, 13(4),
824-849.
Create a step-by-step manual
for data collection and how it
should be gathered.
Provide clear lines between
the data collection and the
investment that is being
sought.
Include a checklist for the
steps so that as each goal is
realized the confidence of the
stakeholder can grow. Allow
these manuals to be living
documents that colleagues
can review as they also go
through the process of data
collection.
Approximately 50% of the Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative are not
confident in their ability to meet the performance goals of obtaining private investment for non-
profit initiatives. In order to close this influence gap, the Board will need to feel competent
enough to implement new strategies in governance and administration to meet the performance
goals of the Community Cooperative. Motivation, learning and performance are improved when
participants in a learning process are confident about their chances for success (Pajares, 2006).
79
This can be accomplished by creation of a model of best practices based on prior successes that
will provide Board Members with a working model of an example of their own capabilities.
Internalizing knowledge and then transferring knowledge to colleagues is a hallmark of a healthy
work environment that can improve the confidence of colleagues (Buenaventura-Vera, 2017). By
creating a step-by-step manual for data collection and how it should be gathered, stakeholders
would be provided with clear lines between the data collection and the investment that is being
sought. Including a checklist for the steps ensures that each goal that is realized grows the
confidence of the stakeholder. These manuals will be living documents that colleagues can
review and be confident in as they also go through the process of data collection.
As previously stated in chapter two, the more a person believes that they can achieve a
task, the more motivated that person will be to overcome obstacles and achieve the task (Rueda,
2011; Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006). ). While several factors have an effect on self-
efficacy, the research indicates that self-efficacy increases with success and decreases with
failure (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Once individuals believe that they can create desired
outcomes through their work, they can increase their successes and decrease their failures
(Bandura, 2000).
Organization Recommendations
Chapter Four revealed that participants experienced gaps in organizational influences.
These gaps exposed deficiencies in the organization's ability to support the stakeholders’
approach to organizational change. With organizational settings that did not provide adequate
accountability to and for the stakeholders, the participants in this study were left without an
adequate framework for accomplishing the organizational goal. Table 10 below, identifies the
assumed organization influences and the researcher’s recommendations.
80
Table 10
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence*
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The Community
Cooperative needs
resources devoted to the
development of data that
will incentivize private
investment.
Organizations seeking new
methods of funding and
sustainability will need to invest
funding and resources in the
development of business strategy
and implementation that supports
the new funding mechanism
(Moizer & Tracey, 2010).
The Community Cooperative
should allocate spending
resources to hiring a part time
employee whose sole function
is to collect data and research
programming that
incentivizes private.
The Community
Cooperative needs a
structure of shared
accountability with
private investment
related to program
performance and data
collection.
Non-profit organizations can
model best-practices when there
are internal accountability
measures that ensure the
stakeholders are incentivized to
work toward a common goal
(Costa, Ramus & Andreaus,
2011).
The organization needs to
implement accountability
measures to ensure that
participants work towards the
shared organizational goal.
Implement an Incentive into the Plan for Data Collection and Program Creation
According to the interviews with the participants, there are no incentives for collecting
data or creating programming that furthers the organizational goals. Implementing incentives for
stakeholders creates an atmosphere where adherence to organizational goals are celebrated and
rewarded. Incentivized participants who share and communicate with one another will create a
work environment that promotes growth (Clark & Estes, 2008). Non-profit organizations can
model best-practices when there are internal accountability measures that ensure the stakeholders
are incentivized to work toward a common goal (Costa et al., 2011). The organization needs to
implement accountability measures to ensure that participants work towards the shared
organizational goal.
81
As stated in chapter 2, Firestone and Riehl (2005) defined accountability as the
requirement to account for performance to another by explanation of method and reporting of
outcomes. Greller’s (2015) theory of accountability asserts that for-profit investment creates an
expectation of accountability and measurements for organizational gains. Designing protocols of
accountability cannot be overstated. Accountability will also provide a standard of business
practice that models how other colleagues and peer organizations respond to the Community
Cooperative.
Allocate Resources Devoted to Organizational Goals
The Community Cooperative should devote organizational resources to its goals of
incentivizing private investment into its non-profit initiatives. Organizations seeking new
methods of funding and sustainability will need to invest funding and resources in the
development of business strategy and implementation that supports the new funding mechanism
(Moizer & Tracey, 2010). In order to ensure that implementation of the data collection and
programming creation plan is effectively executed, the organization should hire a part-time
employee to focus all of their efforts on implementation. This role would have the responsibility
of collecting all of the data that would be attractive to private investors, such as attendance,
demographics, and assessments program participants. Additionally, this part-time employee
would be responsible for consulting on the creation of additional programs that would provide a
return to investors and fulfill a community need. With a well-defined role, the part-time
employee should be able to identify connections between the mentoring and development
programs with the needs of potential investors and partners.
Organizations seeking new methods of funding and sustainability will need to invest
funding and resources in the development of business strategy and implementation that supports
82
the new funding mechanism (Moizer & Tracey, 2010). While non-profits often invest in
expensive fundraisers to incentivize philanthropy, a sustainable practice would involve investing
in programs and putting resources into collecting data that incentivize investment and
partnership.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The implementation and evaluation framework was informed by the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is based on the original Kirkpatrick
Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The premise behind this
model asserts that evaluation plans start with the organization’s goals and works backwards so
that the organization’s goals, gaps and solutions are more recognizable and aligned with each
other. The Kirkpatrick reverse model also allows for the development of solutions that focus on
observed conduct, formative learning during the implementation period and signaling of whether
the participants are finding success with the implementation strategies. Developing these
implementation and evaluation plans will inspire immediate solutions and necessary pivots that
will bring the organization closer to achieving the stated goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The Community Cooperative for Progressive Action, Inc. (pseudonym-The Community
Cooperative) is a non-profit organization dedicated to sustaining the culture that supports and
advances the well-being of oppressed peoples in general, and the Pan-African diaspora in
particular. To this end, the Community Cooperative works with schools, community
organizations, and dedicated city officials to help provide critical education, leadership, and
social support programs to youth and young adults in low-income and under-served
83
communities. The Community Cooperative is deeply impacted by its inability to incentivize
private investment because the organization currently relies on the donations of its community
members, the board, and grant applications. These sources of funding place limitations on the
Community Cooperative because grants are often limited to a specific government or foundation
initiatives that may not be in alignment with the Community Cooperative’s values or goals.
The Community Cooperative’s goal will be to develop three programs that incentivize
for-profit institutions to invest in non-profit initiatives by the end of 2020. This goal was
established in 2019 by the Community Cooperative’s Board of Directors. The board set this goal
after recognizing the importance of private investment in non-profit initiatives. The theory
behind this goal is that for-profit investment creates an expectation of accountability while gifts
rarely create accountability measures for organizational or systemic gains (Greller, 2015).
The Board of Directors developed this organizational goal by looking at what progressive
steps would be necessary for the organization to scale. While resources were identified as a
necessary component of growing the organization, partnerships were identified as the main
component to any sustainable growth. The Board determined that for-profit institutions would be
better partners than other non-profits who would also compete for grants and funding. They also
determined that two programs would not be enough to incentivize private investment. The board
also reasoned that creating more than three programs would create management and
accountability issues outside of the organization’s capacity. Using this reasoning, the Board
chose to develop three programs in an effort to incentivize private investment. In order to track
progress toward the goal, the Board set three-month and six-month goals for programming
initiatives that would align with the organization’s overall goal.
84
The Board of Directors are important to the process of achieving the organization’s
performance goal because the Board sets the benchmarks for formative assessments that indicate
whether the organization is on target to meet its goal. Failure to remain on task and meet each
intermediary goal will jeopardize the organization’s overall goal to develop programs that
incentivize for-profit institutions to invest in their non-profit initiatives by the end of 2020. With
the development of effective programs that provide data indicating proficiency in workforce
development, social service support, and youth and student programming, the organization
would seek to meet with private investors seeking to impact investment in non-profit initiatives.
These private investors would be partners in community development, restorative justice and
coalition building while also providing examples of the profitability of impact investing.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators through outcomes,
metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes for the Community Cooperative’s
stakeholder group of Board Members. Based on short-term observations, the metric for success
implementation are increased balance sheets, resources for participants and the increased
development of the local community.
Table 11
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased Investment
In The Community
Cooperative’s Non-
profit programs
Increased Balance Sheet
RFP and RFQ procurement of public private
partnerships and private partner investment in
community development and educational
initiatives.
RFP and RFQ partnerships
would be tracked by the
municipality (NYC) and the
balance sheet reported on 990
Filings with the IRS.
Increased Partnership
Opportunities
Increase in partners who are aligned in values and
who provide resources
Track the number of partners
85
Increased tax base of
community without
gentrification
The racial demographics and economic class of the
community remaining stable (as tracked by the US
census) while the quality of life increases with an
increased tax base and allocation of resources
proportionate to the needs and desires of the
community
Check the updated census and
tax records
Internal Outcomes
Increased participant
attendance
Attendance taken at Sessions sign in and email confirmations
at all sessions
Increased resources
allocated to
programming and
community services
Line item budget increased for the funding of
programming and community service resources
allocating financial gains from
partner investment into the
organization
Increased Staff Number of new staff Staff data tracked through
report to the Board by a part
time hire every quarter
Less reliance on
Philanthropy
Funding from fundraising decreases compared to
funding from private investment
Fewer fundraising campaigns
Increased partnerships with
private investors
Level 3: Behavior
In order for the organization to experience meaningful change, the stakeholders
in the organization will need to exhibit behaviors that further the mission of the organization
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These behaviors will need to be informed by the new
information received in training and development. Additionally, these behaviors need to be in
alignment with the goals and values of the organization.
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders of focus are the Board Members of the Community Cooperative. The
first critical behavior that must be exhibited by the board is their approval of increased resources
to support change. The second critical behavior that must be exhibited by the board is that Board
Members must implement accountability measures for one another. The behaviors and how they
align with the metric for success, method of success and timing of implementation are in Table
12.
86
Table 12
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Board Members need to
approve increased resources to
support change
The budget allocation to
new initiatives
creating an account that is funded
and tracked by the board
within six
months
Board Members must
implement accountability
measures for one another that
reward effective communication
and penalize communication
gaps
incentives and mandates
must be tied to new
initiatives
writing organizational policy and
enforcing the policy
within
three
months
Board Members must, in
unison, create new programs
and initiatives that incentivize
private investment
programs that are funded
by their connection to a
funding source or that
directly draw funding as a
result of the program
running
work with for-profit partners to
develop training and development
that provides needed professional
development to a population that
can then be sourced for hiring
initiatives
within 6
months
Required Drivers
The Community Cooperative’s Board will require an organizational setting that
reinforces the organizational goal. Mandates and rewards should be established to incentivize the
Board as well as hold Board Members accountable if they are engaged in conduct that does not
further the organizational goal. The Board Members are the most senior in a non-profit
organization, thus, they will be required to drive each other. Table 13 shows the recommended
drivers to support critical behaviors of the Board Members.
Table 13
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Participants need a mandate and framework of accountability
that enforces adherence to new initiatives that develop
programming and collect appropriate data.
Ongoing 1,2
87
Participants need to invest in the resources necessary to collect
data adequately and create programming that will provide data
that incentivizes private investment.
Ongoing 1,2
Participants need to hire a part time employee whose sole
function is to collect data and research programming that
incentivizes private
Ongoing 1,2
Encouraging
Board Members need to be enthusiastic about the new
initiatives and provide adequate resources to staff
Monthly 1,2
Rewarding
Board Members need to experience a material benefit to their
adherence with the organizational goal
Quarterly 1,2
Monitoring
Board Members need to have formative assessments of their
adherence to the organizational goals
Monthly 1,2
Organizational Support
The organization will support the recommendations by implementing strategies that
provide resources for the new initiatives as well as provide the accountability for the execution
of these new initiatives. The organization needs to implement accountability measures to ensure
that Board Members work towards the shared organizational goal of having thirty percent of its
budget funded through private investment that fulfills a community need. The level of familiarity
and comfort among Board Members within the organization has been helpful as well as harmful
to the organizational goals. The organization will need to develop clear language related to
expectations and the consequences of missed deadlines. The organization will need to hire a part-
time employee who can create timelines that hold the process accountable and also support data
tracking. The organization will continue to use non-financial markers of goodwill and good
humanity to maintain the value system that inspired the organization from its inception. The
organization will balance between its desire to focus on goodwill and humanity with a desire to
remain sustainable, viable and scalable.
88
The organization’s support of its programmatic goals are paramount to the success and
achievement of the organizational goals. The organization’s programmatic goals are to mentor,
teach and instruct in the areas of STEM, STEAM, Conflict Resolution, Advocacy, Legal Rights
and Food Justice (Gardening, Horticulture, nutrition). Focused in the underserved sections of
Brooklyn (East NY, Brownsville, Red Hook, Bed Stuy and Crown Heights), the goal of these
programs is to teach communities how to advocate for themselves and become proficient,
sustainable and thriving. By providing these instructional and mentoring services, the
organization seeks to spark community development coming from within the community instead
of from real estate and banking professionals.
Level 2: Learning
A crucial step towards closing the assumed influence gaps will include
stakeholder learning goals. These learning steps will be aimed at the stakeholders’ abilities to
collect data and create programming that incentivize private investment. Additionally,
stakeholders will learn the importance of accountability measures that are necessary to
accomplishing organizational goals.
Learning Goals
After the completion of the solutions recommended by the researcher, the stakeholders
will be able to:
1. Apply steps to create programming and data collection protocols that incentivize
private investment (Procedural).
2. Allocate organizational support for organizational goals (Procedural).
3. Understand and execute the stated goal of the organization (Confidence- Self-
efficacy).
89
4. Feel positive about new organizational goals that will render the organization
more sustainable (Mood).
5. Seek organizational support in developing accountability measures that inspire
board member responsibility without sending a chilling effect throughout the
organization (P).
Program
The Learning goals identified in the previous section can be accomplished with a training
program that emphasizes reflection, process and execution. The Board Members will learn about
modeling behavior, corporate governance and budgeting. The training will be delivered over the
course of four weeks with one session per week for four hours a day. The training will be
conducted by Community Resource Exchange (CRE).
The program will be run virtually through a zoom conference. Materials will be provided by
email at least 48 hours before each class. The program will focus on the organizational goals and
information and examples of organizations that have successfully achieved similar goals. These
modeled examples will serve as a template for how the Board Members can begin to implement
the changes needed for the sustainability of the organization.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
A key component of learning is confidence. Learners of new methods of implementation
need to believe that they can apply their new knowledge in practice. Evaluating the effectiveness
of a training is best accomplished by evaluating the declarative and procedural knowledge
methods of the training. Table 14 describes the evaluation methods and timing associated with
the guidelines for learning.
90
Table 14
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks at each stage of the implementation plan Weekly meetings
Knowledge checks through small group meetings among
stakeholders
Monthly meetings
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Application of the skills to develop programming that
incentivizes private investment
Monthly meetings
Application of the skills to collect data that incentivizes private
investment
Monthly meetings
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Board Member assessment- Every Three Months
Observing Board Member Attitudes during sessions At weekly check ins and
Monthly check ins
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Board Member Self-Efficacy assessment Every Three Months
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create a sub-committee on the Board responsible for the action
plan and Board Member accountability
Initial Meeting
Level 1: Reaction
Table 15 provides a formative and summative approach to evaluate Board engagement
and implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The evaluation methods include program
observations and Board member check-ins (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Evaluation of Engagement and Training Monthly
Relevance
Evaluation of participants Weekly
Customer Satisfaction
Evaluation of Board’s approval/disapproval of training Monthly
91
Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
The participants will be evaluated during the training in order to determine the
effectiveness of the training and to monitor how participants are feeling about the training. This
evaluation will be used to measure the relevance and participants’ immediate satisfaction with
the program implementation. By providing a measure of the Level 1 reaction to training and
implementation, the participants will help ensure that the organization reaches its goals. In
addition to the Level 1 measure, this evaluation will also inform the Level 2 measure of learning.
Specifically, the participants will be evaluated on how the training is developing their
knowledge, skills, attitude and confidence. Participants will be given a survey in an effort to
deliver the most accurate feedback. The questions and responses will be anonymous so that
participants can offer unencumbered questions and elicit comprehensive responses. The
questions and answers, without other identifying information, will be available for the training
staff to see during the training period so that the feedback is in real-time and pivots can be made
quickly. See Appendix C for this evaluation.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
At the conclusion of the initial training of participants, the participants will begin the
work of data collection and program creation that incentivize private investment. After thirty
days of working at the stated task, the participants will have an opportunity to complete a survey
to determine the effectiveness of the training and how the training is being implemented in the
field. The timing of this evaluation will take place after thirty days so that participants can
provide formative feedback that is informed by the participants’ training, experiences and
reflection. This evaluation instrument will measure reaction, learning, behavior and
92
organizational results. Measuring all four levels will provide information on the relevance of the
training as well as participant satisfaction, knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and behaviors.
The Level 3 measure is particularly important as the behaviors of the participants should be
informed by the training and will be the leading indicator of whether the organization achieves
its desired outcomes, see Appendix D for this evaluation.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level Four goal for Board Members is to have a robust and sustainable organization
that maintains its non-profit purpose while yielding private investment in its non-profit initiatives.
When this goal is achieved, the organization will increase its balance sheets, resources for
participants, and participate in the increased development of the local community. The members
of the board will pull data from the organization and provide surveys to the organization’s
constituents to understand priority items and what areas need additional support. The Board
Members will then use this data to determine what community needs can be met while providing
data that would incentivize private investment. In order to accomplish this, the Board Members
will also provide a survey to potential investors to better understand what investors are looking for
as an impact investment return.
Table 16 exemplifies the measurement for impact.
Table 16
Organizational Goals
Goal Target Actual Gap
Increase balance sheet $150,000 in investment income TBD TBD
Increase in Asset capture $25,000 TBD TBD
Summary
93
With a well-developed protocol for accountability and data collection methods, the
Community Cooperative can achieve its organizational goals and remain sustainable. This study
used the New World Kirkpatrick Model to plan the training and focus on the end goal. By
constructing the evaluation and participant training backwards from long-term impact to short-
term impact, the researcher was able to remain focused on the overall goals of the organization
and while working through the critical behaviors of the Board Members. By providing formative
assessments throughout a summative evaluation, the researcher maintained an alignment between
organization and stakeholder goals.
Limitations
The inability to verify the veracity of each response provided a limitation to the interview
responses. In an attempt to evade response biases, the researcher posed interview questions that
were confirmed by follow up questions that were designed to elicit accurate responses. The
accuracy of the responses has helped to create an atmosphere of reflection, growth and
development.
Another limitation was the role that the researcher maintains within the
Community Cooperative. As a board member, the researcher’s role could have influenced the
other board member’s responses. However, because the researcher does not have a leadership or
hierarchical relationship to any of the other Board Members, this bias was excluded.
Additionally, each board member volunteered for this study after a conversation with the
researcher and an affirmation that this study was designed as an evaluation of how the
organization could operate more effectively.
The focus of this study was limited to one non-profit organization and this presented an
additional limitation to this study. A comprehensive evaluation of the stakeholders in other
94
organizations would have provided a more in-depth perspective of the challenges presented with
incentivizing private investment in non-profit initiatives. A triangulated view of the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences could offer a more whole perspective on the field of
impact investing and gaps that may exist in the field of study. The researcher attempted to solve
for this limitation by providing a comprehensive review of the field in the literature review
section of this study.
An additional limitation in this study was presented by unforeseen circumstances that
deeply impacted the stakeholders as well as the organization. During the data collection phase of
this study, the global pandemic of COVID-19, caused a global shift in resources, priorities and
agendas. The effect of of COVID-19 on the world cannot be overstated. The world may not truly
know the complete effect that this pandemic has caused and how its resulting traumas may show
up, however, the researcher asserts that the interview results present stakeholders answering
questions about behaviors and conduct through the lens of active trauma. As a result, all data
collection for this study was done as participants may have been going through active trauma
that presented in unforeseen ways. Specifically, the findings in the study found that participants
were not confidant and were not knowledgeable about procedure. However, the global trauma of
COVID-19 and the abusive news cycle may have contributed to this lack of confidence and lack
of procedural knowledge.
Implications for Practice
Traditionally, non-profit organizations would rely on donations in order to fulfill
their missions of societal change or improvement. This study explored the opportunity for private
investment to have a profound effect on the framework for non-profit funding. By relying on
investment that is tied to a social good, non-profits can become viable and sustainable
95
organizations that are not relegated to asking for donations to improve society. Instead, non-
profit organizations can incentivize investment by providing returns to investors that rival
traditional investments. This revolutionizes the non-profit space and develops a model of
sustainable profit building for investors and sustainable community building for non-profit
organizations. As previously stated in Chapter One, a successful example of a non-profit and for-
profit partnership providing profitability and social good occurred in the Trelstad and Katz
(2011) research where malaria nets were developed to stop disease. In this research, a non-profit
entity partnered with a for-profit company to provide malaria nets during an outbreak of malaria
(Trelstad & Katz, 2011). This partnership ended the malaria outbreak and provided a profit boon
to the for-profit entity (Trelstad & Katz, 2011).
Future Research
Future research should include a field-study of impact investment and how it
continues to compare to traditional investment tools. The literature in this study examined private
investment in non-profit initiatives. However, a future study should examine private investment
in non-profit institutions as a more robust model for growth. The implications of this research
could reveal why for-profit investment in institutions might be instructive as a business model
for non-profits. Alternatively, the research could reveal the misalignment in values between non-
profits and for-profit institutions and substantiate why non-profits and for-profit institutions
should remain at an arm’s length away from each other.
Conclusions
This dissertation addressed the need to incentivize private investment in non-profit
initiatives and the challenge of finding shared common goals when private institutions support
non-profit entities. While the concept of private investment in non-profit initiatives creates a
96
unique opportunity for non-profit entities to offer a return on investment that is not limited to an
interest rate, the evidence shows that positive social impact and other non-profit outcomes are
not enough to incentivize private investment in non-profit and government work (Shaoul et al,
2011). This study sought to examine the shared values that non-profit organizations might have
with for profit institutions and how they might work together to accomplish congruent goals. The
researcher used the Community Cooperative as a case study and interviewed the board member
stakeholder group to evaluate the organization’s ability to incentivize private investment in its
non-profit initiatives. The Community Cooperative developed organizational goals to incentivize
private investment in its non-profit initiatives and identified that increased data collection and
programming would be required to accomplish this goal.
Using the KMO framework from Clark and Estes (2008), the researcher identified and
evaluated the knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps that serve as barriers to the
organizational goal of incentivizing private investment in its non-profit initiatives. The
stakeholder group of study was interviewed and documents were collected from the organization.
Following the stakeholder interviews, the researcher determined that the stakeholder group had
gaps in procedural knowledge, self-efficacy and that the organizational setting did not provide
enough stakeholder accountability. As a result of the findings in chapter four, the researcher
recommended training the stakeholders to collect data, communicate accountability methods and
implement accountability methods. With the proper training and organizational modeling, the
stakeholders can develop practices that allow the organization and the stakeholders to
accomplish their goals.
97
References
Aulgur, J. J. (2016). Governance and board member identity in an emerging nonprofit
organization. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and
Research, 6(1), 6-21.
Akhtar, S., Ghayas, S., & Adil, A. (2013). Self-efficacy and optimism as predictors of
organizational commitment among bank employees. International Journal of Research
Studies in Psychology, 2(2), 33-42.
Al-Tabbaa, O., Gadd, K., & Ankrah, S. (2013). Excellence models in the non-profit context:
strategies for continuous improvement. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 30(5), 590-612.
Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L. H., Mumford, K. J., & Oleson, K. (2012).
Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and Development
Economics, 17(3), 317-353.
Assembly, G. (2015). Sustainable development goals. SDGs, Transforming our world:
the, 2030.
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition
on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2),
207-
221.
Bhattacharya, A., Oppenheim, J., & Stern, N. (2015). Driving sustainable development through
better infrastructure: Key elements of a transformation program. Brookings Global
Working
Paper Series.
98
Blery, E. K., Katseli, E., & Tsara, N. (2010). Marketing for a non-profit
organization. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7(1), 57-68.
Brest, P., & Born, K. (2013). When can impact investing create real impact. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 11(4), 22-31.Cimera, R. E., & Cowan, R. J. (2009). The costs of
services
and employment outcomes achieved by adults with autism in the US. Autism, 13(3), 285-
302.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public-private partnerships: Perspectives on
purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and
Development,31(1), 2-14.
Bugg-Levine, A., & Emerson, J. (2011). Impact Investing: Transforming How We Make
Money while Making a Difference. Innovations: Technology, Governance,
Globalization,6(3), 9-18.
Cairns, B., Harris, M., Hutchison, R., & Tricker, M. (2005). Improving performance? The
adoption and implementation of quality systems in UK nonprofits. Nonprofit
Management
and Leadership, 16(2), 135-151.
Carnochan, S., Samples, M., Myers, M., & Austin, M. J. (2014). Performance measurement
challenges in nonprofit human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 43(6), 1014-1032.
Cingano, F. (2014). Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
99
Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., & Viehs, M. (2015). From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How
sustainability can drive financial outperformance. Available at SSRN 2508281.
Chowdhry, B., Davies, S. W., & Waters, B. (2014, May). Incentivizing impact investing.
In Conference on the Impact of Responsible and Sustainable Investing, Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology.
Cowen, T. (2011). The great stagnation: How America ate all the low-hanging fruit of modern
history, got sick, and will (eventually) feel better: A Penguin eSpecial from Dutton.
Penguin.
Engel, E., Fischer, R., & Galetovic, A. (2013). The basic public finance of public–private.
partnerships. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(1), 83-111.
Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level
food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 115-130.
Feldman, M., Hadjimichael, T., Lanahan, L., & Kemeny, T. (2016). The logic of economic
development: a definition and model for investment. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 34(1), 5-21.
Fichtner, J. (2014). Privateers of the Caribbean: The hedge funds–US–UK–offshore
nexus. Competition & Change, 18(1), 37-53.
Forrer, J., Kee, J. E., Newcomer, K. E., & Boyer, E. (2010). Public–private partnerships and
the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 475-484.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4, 162-183.
Gordon, R. H. (2010). Public finance and economic development: reflections based on
experience in China. Journal of Globalization and Development, 1(1).
100
Grabenwarter, Uli and Liechtenstein, Heinrich, In Search of Gamma – An Unconventional
Perspective on Impact Investing (November 25, 2011). IESE Business School Working
Paper. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2120040.
Greller, M. (2015). Leasehold: An institutional framework for understanding nonprofit
governance in a civil society context. Administrative Sciences, 5(3), 165-176.
Gutiérrez, G., & Philippon, T. (2017). Declining Competition and Investment in the US (No.
w23583). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hacke, R., Wood, D., & Urquilla, M. (2015). Community investment: Focusing on the
system. The Kresge Foundation.
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling change: Making collective
impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research
and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit management and leadership, 18(4), 399-415.
Hess, J., & Bacigalupo, A. (2013). Applying emotional intelligence skills to leadership and
decision making in non-profit organizations. Administrative Sciences, 3(4), 202-220.
Hum, T. (2010). Planning in Neighborhoods with Multiple Publics: Opportunities and
Challenges for Community-Based Nonprofit Organizations. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 29(4), 461-477. doi:10.1177/0739456x10368700.
Edward T. Jackson (2013) Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where
it matters most, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3:2, 95-
110, doi: 10.1080/20430795.2013.776257
Kimberlin, S. E. (2010). Advocacy by nonprofits: Roles and practices of core advocacy
organizations and direct service agencies. Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3-4), 164-182
101
Kharas, H., & McArthur, J. (2014). Mobilizing private investment for post-2015 sustainable
development. Brookings Briefing Note. Washington DC.
Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). The impact of contract characteristics on the performance
of public–private partnerships (PPPs). Public Money & Management, 36(6), 455-462.
Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit
organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434-457.
Loxley, J. (2012). Public-private partnerships after the global financial crisis: Ideology trumping
economic reality. Studies in Political Economy, 89(1), 7-38.
Lukes, M., & Stephan, U. (2012). Nonprofit leaders and for-profit entrepreneurs: Similar people
with different motivation. Ceskoslovenska psychologie, 56(1), 41-55.
Metrick, A., & Yasuda, A. (2011). Venture capital and other private equity: a survey. European
Financial Management, 17(4), 619-654.
McMurray, A. J., Pirola-Merlo, A., Sarros, J. C., & Islam, M. M. (2010). Leadership, climate,
psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a non-profit
organization. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 436-457.
Milligan, K., & Schöning, M. (2011). Taking a realistic approach to impact investing: observations
from the world economic forum's global agenda council on social innovation. Innovations:
Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(3), 155-166.
Papineau, D., & Kiely, M. C. (1996). Participatory evaluation in a community organization:
Fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization. Evaluation and program planning, 19(1),
79-93.
102
Ragin, L., & Palandjian, T. (2013). Social impact bonds: Using impact investment to expand
effective social programs. Community Development Investment Review, 9(1), 63-67.
Rangan, V. K., Appleby, S., & Moon, L. (2011). The promise of impact investing. Harvard
Business School, Background Note.
Robinson, T. (1996). Inner-city innovator: the non-profit community development
corporation. Urban Studies, 33(9), 1647-1670.
Brown, R. T., & Fields, D. (2011). Leaders engaged in self-leadership: Can followers tell the
difference?. Leadership, 7(3), 275-293.
Roundy, Philip and Holzhauer, Hunter and Dai, Ye, Finance or Philanthropy? Exploring the
Motivations and Criteria of Impact Investors (February 4, 2017). Social Responsibility
Journal, Forthcoming. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2911570
Shaoul, J., Stafford, A., & Stapleton, P. (2011). Private finance: Bridging the gap for the UK's
Dartford and Skye bridges? Public Money and Management, 31(1), 51-58.
doi: 10.1080/09540962.2011.545547
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, 5th Edition. San Francisco:
JosseyBass.
Shinwell, M., & Shamir, E. (2018). Measuring the impact of businesses on people’s well-being
and sustainability.
Soederberg, S. (2009), Corporate power and ownership in contemporary capitalism: the politics
of resistance and domination. Routledge.
Trelstad, B., & Katz, R. (2011). Mission, Margin, Mandate: Multiple Paths to
Scale. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization,6(3), 41-
103
53. doi:10.1162/inov_a_00081
Mildred E. Warner (2013) Private finance for public goods: social impact bonds. Journal of
Economic Policy Reform, 16:4, 303-319.
David Wood, Ben Thornley & Katie Grace (2013) Institutional impact investing: practice and
policy, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3(2), 75-
94, doi: 10.1080/20430795.2013.776256
Department of Developmental Services. (2008). Fact book. Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf
Wójcik, D., Knight, E., O’Neill, P., & Pažitka, V. (2018). Economic geography of investment
banking since 2008: The geography of shrinkage and shift. Economic Geography, 94(4),
376-399.
104
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Research Questions:
1. What are the Board of Director’s knowledge and motivation related to incentivizing
private investment in non-profit initiatives?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and Board of
Directors’ knowledge and motivation to increase private investment in non-profit
initiatives?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources related to private investment into non-profit
initiatives?
KMO Influence Interview Question
Knowledge Influences
The Board of Directors need to
understand what factors
incentivize private investors to
invest in non-profit initiative
What are some things that might negatively influence an
investors desire to invest in non-profit initiatives?
Describe how private investors determine which non-
profit initiatives to invest in, if any?
The Board of Directors need to
know how to develop
programming and assessments
that attract private investment
What are some metrics private investors look for when
deciding what to invest in?
What are some desired outcomes for private investors
when deciding what to invest in?
What programs, if any, do investors look for when
deciding what to invest in?
The Board of Directors need to
reflect on their ability to
What has been your experience with developing
programs that incentivize private investment?
105
develop proficiency in program
development and data collection
What have you observed about the process of collecting
data that informs private investment?
Have you observed improvements in program
development and data collection that have helped support
investment efforts?
Describe areas in which you would seek growth in your
ability to explain programs and in a manner that will
attract private investors
Motivation Influences
The Board of Directors need to
value private investment into
non-profit initiatives
Why is it important for non-profits initiatives to receive
private investment?
Are there any detriments to non-profit initiatives
receiving private investment?
What has been your experience with private investment in
non-profit initiatives?
The Board of Directors need to
believe they can meet the
performance goals of obtaining
private investment through the
relevant tasks that are required
to reach performance goals.
Describe your proficiency in programming and data
collection.
Describe what limits your ability to develop
programming and data that incentivizes private
investment.
Organization Influences
The Community Cooperative
needs clearly defined goals that
are communicated to potential
investors.
What are your organization’s goals for the next ten years?
How does your organization communicate its’ goals to
participants?
106
Describe 3-5 ways in which your organization can
improve how it communicates its goals to participants.
The Community Cooperative
needs resources devoted to the
development of data that will
incentivize private investment.
What influences the allocation of organizational
resources devoted to programming that serves the
community need and incentivizes private investment in
its non-profit initiatives?
Does the Community Cooperative have sufficient
trained personnel capable of conducting data collection
and analysis that will provide the appropriate data that
will attract private investors?
What data does the organization use to incentivize
private investment?
The Community Cooperative
needs a structure of shared
accountability with private
investment related to program
performance and data collection.
What organizational mandates exist to ensure that data
is collected that incentivizes private investment?
What consequences exist for when data is not collected
in accordance with organizational goals?
What benefits or bonuses exist for participants who
collect data that incentivizes private investment?
107
Appendix B
Questions: Which KMO influences will be examined through Document Analysis?
KMO Influence Document Analysis
Knowledge Influences
The Board of Directors need to
understand what factors
incentivize private investors to
invest in non-profit initiative
The Board of Directors need to
know how to develop
programming and assessments
that attract private investment
The Board of Directors need to
reflect on their ability to develop
proficiency in program
development and data collection
X- Assessments of programming from participants
Motivation Influences
The Board of Directors need to
value private investment into non-
profit initiatives
X- A review of Tax credits available to private investors
The Board of Directors need to
believe they can meet the
performance goals of obtaining
private investment through the
relevant tasks that are required to
reach performance goals.
Organization Influences
108
The Community Cooperative
needs clearly defined goals that
are communicated to participants.
The Community Cooperative
needs resources devoted to the
development of data that will
incentivize private investment.
The Community Cooperative
needs a structure of
accountability related to data
collection and its connection to
private investment.
109
Appendix C
Evaluation Instrument: Immediate
KNOWLEDGE
1. My understanding of data collection and how it corresponds to private investment as
presented in the current training can be best described as:
A. Clearly Understood B. Partially Understood C. Barely Understood D. Not Understood
SKILLS
2. I am now able to collect data and create programming that incentivizes private
investment. This statement is:
A. True B. False
ATTITUDE
3. This training and the work I am being prepared for is important. This statement is:
A. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
CONFIDENCE
4. My level of confidence during the training is:
A. High B. Medium C. Low
RELEVANCE
5. The training that I am receiving is relevant for the work that I am tasked to perform. This
statement is:
A. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
SATISFACTION
6. My level of satisfaction with the quality of the programming provided in the training is:
A. High B. Medium C. Low
110
Appendix D
Evaluation Instrument: Delayed
LEVEL 1
REACTION
1. The training adequately prepared me for the work of data collection and program creation
that incentivizes private investment. This statement is:
A. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
RELEVANCE
2. I am very satisfied with the relevance of the material presented in the training and how it
relates to the work I am conducting in the field. This statement is:
B. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
SATISFACTION
3. I am very satisfied with the quality of the material presented in the training and how it
relates to the work I am conducting in the field. This statement is:
C. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
LEVEL 2
KNOWLEDGE
4. My understanding of data collection and how it corresponds to private investment as
presented in the current training can be best described as:
B. Clearly Understood B. Partially Understood C. Barely Understood D. Not Understood
SKILLS
5. I am now able to collect data and create programming that incentivizes private
investment. This statement is:
B. True B. False
ATTITUDE
6. This training and the work I am being prepared for is important. This statement is:
B. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
CONFIDENCE
7. My level of confidence during the training is:
B. High B. Medium C. Low
111
LEVEL 3
BEHAVIOR
8. As a result of the training, I am committing to accountability and the process of efficient
data collection. This statement is:
A. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
9. The training provided helped me develop new skills in budgeting, team-building,
accountability and the development of data designed to incentivize private
investment. This statement is:
B. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
10. I received appropriate information on the processes of change occurring in my
work environment and the need for change, despite its short-term difficulties.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree
11. I received appropriate information on practical self-care activities that I can
repeat as my schedule permits to help reduce my stress and maintain my sense of
identity.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree
12. I received training and education to advance my appreciation and
acknowledgement of the challenges and benefits of teaching on-ground and online.
Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree
LEVEL 4
RESULTS
11. As a result of the training, I am collecting data and creating programming that
incentivized private investment in my organization’s non-profit initiatives. This statement
is:
A. True B. False
(if false, please provide a brief explanation)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This qualitative study evaluated the steps necessary for a non-profit organization to incentivize private investment in its non-profit initiatives. The research questions for this study examined the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that influenced the Community Cooperative’s efforts to incentivize private investment in its non-profit initiatives. The research methods included interviews with the Board of Directors of the Community Cooperative and a document review. The researcher received unanimous approval by the Board of Directors to conduct the study and gained approval through school leadership and the university’s Institutional Review Board. ❧ The data analysis produced several themes. These themes were that the Board of Directors possessed procedural knowledge gaps and self-efficacy motivational gaps. Additionally, the organizational settings did not provide enough structural support or accountability. Without enough structural support and accountability, the organization could develop ideas but failed to execute on those ideas. These themes were exhibited by the stakeholders’ inability to collect data and create programming that incentivized private investment in its non-profit initiatives. ❧ Recommendations included allocating resources towards the development of programming and data collection that incentivize private investment. The other recommendation includes providing training for the stakeholders in the organization so that they learn how to execute the steps required to achieve the organizational goal.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study
PDF
Increasing workplace training transfer
PDF
The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study
PDF
Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency
PDF
Where are all the ""leadhers""? Female leaders' experiences in finance
PDF
Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study
PDF
Utilizing data analytics in the field of physical security: an exploratory study
PDF
Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations
PDF
Bridging the gap of gender equity in entrepreneurship: an evaluation study
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Addressing the challenges of employee retention: a qualitative analysis of job satisfaction and perceptions of advancement by marginalized women in the insurance industry
PDF
Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study
PDF
Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs
PDF
Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study
PDF
Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study
PDF
Gender-based leadership barriers: an exploratory study of the underrepresentation of women of color in technology
PDF
An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers
PDF
Improving the representation of female executives in a large utility provider: a modified KMO framework
PDF
Retaining female field grade officers in the USAF: an evaluative study
PDF
Good governance: the role and impact of school boards in setting student outcome goals
Asset Metadata
Creator
White, Norman Keith
(author)
Core Title
Incentivizing for-profit investment in the non-profit initiatives of the Community Cooperative: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
09/15/2020
Defense Date
08/24/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
attorney,Brooklyn,California,equity,Esq,for-profit,impact,investment,Keith,lawyer,non-profit,Norman,not-for-profit,OAI-PMH Harvest,partnership,PPP,private,public,USC,White
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Phillips, Jennifer (
committee chair
), Rayburn, Kalim (
committee member
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
)
Creator Email
Keith.white.1@usc.edu,Keith@keithwhitelaw.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-369344
Unique identifier
UC11666656
Identifier
etd-WhiteNorma-8955.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-369344 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WhiteNorma-8955.pdf
Dmrecord
369344
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
White, Norman Keith
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
attorney
equity
Esq
for-profit
impact
investment
non-profit
not-for-profit
PPP
public