Nonprofit Funding and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Literature Review

Introduction

One purpose of this literature review is to give a historical account of punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) in social theory as it is largely drawn from the biological version. PET in social theory typically refers to the study of policy change and organizational conflict. Both biological and social versions of PET are similar in their major assumption that most social systems have long periods of stability before a disruption, or “punctuation,” occurs. Another purpose of this literature review is to highlight recent research in PET to note the challenges of how to identify the conditions and institutional arrangements that make punctuations likely to happen. Explorations of the literature in political science, public policy research, nonprofit research, metrics used in nonprofits, legal research, as well as research on philanthropic organizations and community-based organizations, reveal a gap in the overall research on how punctuations affect donation streams to nonprofit organizations.

Two large nonprofit organizations undergo some scrutiny in this literature. The first organization—the Human Rights Campaign (HRC)—is a leading nonprofit organization geared specifically towards the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, families, and couples. The HRC has campaigned for many pro-LGBGT issues, the most notable of which is the legalization of same-sex marriage in lieu of California’s Proposition 8 that, at first, banned same-sex marriage in the state after it was first legalized and, then, was overturned in a Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2012. While the HRC has engaged in lobbying campaigns to influence the national political landscape, the research shows how HRC has had a few punctuations occur in its organizational structure based on its organizational history, yet there is no existing research indicating how punctuations affect the donations streams of this organization.

The second organization—the National Rifle Association (NRA)—is a nonprofit organization, even though most may not always assume that the NRA has certified nonprofit status. The NRA is, arguably, the longest-running organization that is most well-known for organizing and mobilizing against restrictions posed on the individual right to own firearms in the United States. Although the NRA has had some history of punctuation in its organizational structure, it has not made any large social or political punctuation despite its popularity.

For both of the organizations studied, there is a brief account of the social and political climate of the 2000s. With the HRC, the social and political climate of this period discussed will refer to the issues associated with California’s Proposition 8; with the NRA, on the other hand, the social and political climate will briefly address issues related to school shootings—specifically, the shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007 and the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2012. The social and political climate for both organizations during the 2000s will also address issues associated with the passing of laws and the implementation of policy changes that have affected the people those organizations attempt to serve.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) is a method of understanding changes in complex social systems. Largely drawn from the biological theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Niles Elridge and Stephen Jay Gould (1972), PET primarily studies the history of policy change and the history of conflict in organizations (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Cioffi-Rivela, 1998; Robinson, 2013b). PET suggests that most social systems exist in long periods of stability (Robinson, 2013b); however, events called punctuations occur with sudden shifts and radical changes in organizational practice. Some of these punctuations are caused by changes in public opinion or an overall need to change the political structure of an organization as the punctuations act in concert with the rate of institutional changes (Robinson, 2013b). Research by Gersick (1991), conducted before the now influential research by Baumgartner and Jones (1993) found similar patterns between the ways that change in thought occurs in biological species and the ways individuals, groups, and organizations develop.

Gersick (1991) compared models from six different organizational domains—adult development, group development, organizational development, the history of science, biological evolution, and the physical sciences—to explain the various theoretical lenses of punctuated equilibrium while also applying those lenses broadly to organizational studies. Each domain leads to the development of a theoretical model, all of which are juxtaposed by Gersick to generate new research questions about what is referred to as “revolutionary change” in organizational settings (1991, p. 10). The questions posed by Gersick ask what triggers punctuations, how organizational systems function during periods of punctuation, and how those periods of punctuations conclude.

The research conducted by Gersick (1991) noted how the various lenses of PET have heavily influenced ways of thinking about processes of organizational change and development. For individuals, Gersick cited research by Levinson (1978) to note how the organization of an individual changes in a relatively ordered process that involves establishing periods of stability and periods of transition. Both periods of stability and periods of transition have developmental tasks for individual psychology, none of which are better and none of which are definitive. Gersick (1991) cited further research conducted by Levinson (1986, p. 6) about the life structure of individuals as an “underlying pattern or design of a person’s life at a given time” to answer questions of how an individual perceives one’s circumstances, as well as to answer questions about what holds importance to individuals and how that relates to personal circumstances

Generally, the organizational structure of individuals depends on relations to the external world. Moreover, the primary task of organizations is to build a structure similar to that of a living organism that involves making important decisions, developing structures based on those choices and, then pursuing objectives and values based on those structures. Citing Levinson (1986), Gersick (1991) addressed how the actual task of building structures based on important choices is itself a type of punctuation for individuals, with periods of stability characterized by the nonprofit's performance system of tasks specific to a general organizational structure. The tasks performed by an individual within an organization depend on the historical development of the strategies used that lead to periods of organizational stability.

When considering revolutionary periods of organizational change, Gersick cited research by Levinson (1986) that stated how periods of transition last about five years as much as they lead to the extinction one type of organizational practice into the development of a new type of practice. The essential tasks for developing new organizational structures are to re-evaluate the established organizational structure, explore possibilities for individual and societal change, and move toward committing to important decision-making tasks that lead towards new periods of stability after the period of transition. For Levinson (1986), the choices made in developing new organizational structures rest in the outcomes of a period of transition.

For groups, Gersick (1991) cited her previous research conducted that stated how organizations strive towards patterns of “punctuated equilibrium [sic]” by alternating between periods of stability and periods of transition, with those periods emphasized by changes in behaviors and schemas to approach their work (Gersick, 1988, p. 16). In this vein, Gersick (1991) cited research by herself and Davis (1990) to describe how groups do not develop in strictly linear stages with historical changes leading from one stage into the next. Groups continually invent new fundamental structures for working with issues outside of their usual scope while maintaining a core organizational objective despite acknowledging that there is no one best solution for problems. Gersick (1991) used her research to articulate a framework about how “sets of givens,” or embedded foundational assumptions, of the circumstances of groups and how each group will behave affect organizational patterns of stability (Gersick, 1988, pp. 17; 21). The “givens” of an organization are partially explicit, but they are mostly tacit. In other words, an organization’s fundamental operations use a set of often-unwritten rules based on personal and professional experience. Unwritten rules of organizational structures benefit those who have worked with a particular type of organization for an extended period; however, the same unwritten rules may not benefit the organization as a whole if those enforcing them are unwilling to consider alternative structures of operation. Thus, for Gersick, organizational frameworks comprise inter-related networks of performance strategies, patterns of interaction, and assumptions and approaches towards organizational objectives in consideration of external contexts.

Frameworks of organizational development involve the uses of two stages, or phases, set between a period of transition between the beginning of a specific task performed and the deadline set for completion of that task. During those phases, organizations approach the tasks performed by using firmly established assumptions, premises, and behavioral patterns adjusted according to specific activities, as they have proved useful and effective for different groups of organizations. This is the case despite how not all groups with common goals strive towards their objectives in similar ways. For each phase of organizational development, groups can either gain or lose work, knowledge, and experience within set parameters. Nonetheless, organizations do not change their fundamental approaches to their performed tasks. Yet, when considering periods of transition, Gersick (1991) cited her research conducted in 1989 to define these periods as representing small and brief opportunities to make radical progress by disrupting stable organizational patterns. When periods of transition are successful, organizations stop using what were initially considered traditional practices to consider new ideas drawn from external contexts. The new organizational procedures are determined via the consensus of each actor involved in the process of revising the overall organizational structure to formulate new objectives for future survival.

For organizations, Gersick cited research by Tushman and Romanelli (1985) that stated how organizations change by developing patterns similar to other organizations as they are punctuated by changes in internal organizational strategy that are markers of preparation for future instances where punctuation may occur. Along these lines, Gersick cites research conducted by the same authors stating how most of the literature on organizations assumes that they develop according to unique and linear sequences; rather, organizations develop by testing various available methods systematically as they apply to specific cases, leading to the potential for organizational innovation. Gersick cited research by Tushman and Romanelli (1985, p. 176) to briefly summarize how the testing of available methods can lead to a re-orientation of strategies by considering five different factors: core beliefs and values of an organization; products, markets, technology, and timing; distribution of power; organizational structure; and the pervasiveness of control systems in organizations. Organizations, in other words, do not develop by adhering to strict mechanisms; rather, they develop organically by considering what available options work best for everyone involved in helping an organization strive towards its objectives.

By developing organically, organizations can assess periods of convergence in which there are long spans of gradual change and adaptation that elaborate upon an organization’s structure, systems, controls, and resources that work towards achieving a type of congruence to organizations with similar characteristics. Periods of convergence are consistent with developing ways to perform organizational tasks more effectively by considering “duration, strategic orientation, [and] turbulence” (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985, p. 179). Generally, organizations develop their strategies by considering how the tasks performed by individuals working internally within one organization are similar to the tasks of individuals working in different but possibly similar, organizations. This is not to suggest that all organizations inherently attempt to develop a “one-size-fits-all” approach; on the contrary, organizations develop by considering themselves as individual entities with internal structures.

Organizations, whether they choose to admit it or not, depend on each other for their survival. Organizations are, ultimately, part of a larger social system comprised of individuals and groups that strive towards their objectives while considering the collective goals established while considering circumstances that necessitate organizational change. Whenever organizations make fundamental changes to their overall structure, the changes occur in what Tushman and Romanelli (1985) defined as reorientations. Here, the changes made are part of developing new bases of strategic alignment by, for instance, changing the overall power structure. Associated with reorientations are what Tushman and Romanelli defined as recreations in which fundamental organizational values and principles govern the types of decisions made. However, the difference between reorientations and recreations is that of decreased organizational stability and increase awareness of the potential for organizational change. Moreover, the strategies used in creating changes influence the general organizational structure.

For the history of science, referred to as “Grand Theory,” Gersick (1991) cited research by Prigogine and Stengers (1984) that stated how organizational systems change because they are characterized by both periods of stability and instability. Where there are periods of stability, strict regulations are governing the existence of an organization while there is a period of instability where an organization can choose whichever possible future it wishes to have. However, while fundamental changes to an organizational structure can occur, the assumptions behind those changes are based on idealizing an optimistic future. For Prigogine and Stengers, the development of optimistic futures based on strategy acknowledges neither the possibilities for punctuations to occur nor the internal processes that may eventually lead an organization into its dissolution. The type of future wanted by an organization depends on the parameters set by the collectivity of both individuals and structures. These collectivities define the overall organizational structure, and the parameters set are either material or symbolic. The parameters set by an organization lead to suggestions of how internal systems should operate. The setting of parameters determines which types of laws dominate the overall organizational structure to create what Prigogine and Stengers defined as "stable regions” (1984, p. 206), in which all individual initiative to change established systems plays an insignificant role. When attempts at changing firmly established organizational systems occur, the removal of those attempts to change the system will lead to desired periods of organizational stability. If the attempt to change the system is persistent, then the changes made to the overall organizational structure are slight and, hence, insignificant.

For biological evolution, Gersick cited research by Gould (1980) stating how historical trajectories of organizations change little during their lifetime, yet some moments fundamentally change (punctuate) the organizational structure. Punctuations, in turn, lead to organizational evolution. Gersick also cited research by Eldredge and Gould (1972) and by Gould (1977), stating how organizational evolution does not involve a process of unfolding by which there is the development of alternative organizational structures from gradual changes. In this view, organizational patterns are rarely punctuated, and organizational evolution does not necessarily equate with progress. Instead, Gersick cited research by Gould (1989) and Wake, Roth, and Wake (1983) to illustrate how organizational structures are similar to genetic (biological) programs with periods of stability as active features with limited developmental capacities. Here, organizational stability is important for maintaining overall health and survival; too many periods of instability, (punctuations) lead an organization to have unhealthy characteristics and, thus, are not likely to maintain firm operating structures for overall growth.

The overall health and survival of organizations depend on the types of specific internal processes used at specific moments. Any changes made to the fundamental structure of an organization must maintain that organization’s original (historical) functions. Moreover, any interactions made with external sources are within the scope of organizational practice, and no fundamental changes to the structure of an organization can take place outside of the organizational context. The same conditions apply for the activities performed by an organization, as well as to how organizations present themselves based on the activities they perform. Thus, organizations are similar to living organisms in that they have established themselves as forces resistance to change and by developing systematically, but not linearly. However, when minor adjustments to organizational structures occur, there is the use of a sequential and mutable process known as phyletic transformation (Gould, 1980). Here, the internal organizational structure changes little as it changes from one state to another. The only significant problem with the biological model is that organizations are likely to become extinct because there is no mechanism for recognizing various forms of external input. Thus, organizations that become extinct are most likely to become extinct because of their refusal to alter the overall organizational structure.

Finally, for research in the physical sciences, Gersick cited research by Kuhn (1970) that stated how most scientific researchers spend too much time assuming they know what the world is like; however, punctuations in scientific fields lead to the development of new and innovative methods of scientific research rooted in tradition. In other words, while new modes of research may develop in the physical sciences (as well as in the social sciences), all research must take account of the historical value that gives purpose to scientific inquiry. At the same time, scientific research must never assume that new developments will lead to discovering the truth. Almost all cases of developments in scientific research, as well as cases of developments in organizational research, rest on the notion of contingency. Organizational developments, particularly if those developments are characteristic of punctuations, do not lead to the development of definitive, rigid, or absolute structures. The punctuations experienced by organizations are characteristic of what Kuhn (1970) described as a scientific revolution that reconstructs the overall organizational structure based on the establishment of new paradigms. Scientific revolutions, moreover, are characteristic of complete periods of transition with new professional methods and organizational goals while reaffirming the scope of research.

The achievements made by organizations provide models and solutions to groups of followers wishing to internalize and emulate some, if not most or all, of the organizational practices. Gersick continued to cite research by Kuhn (1970) to illuminate organizational practices as paradigms indicating the types of data used in research and development, the instruments used to obtain data, and the concepts derived from the data. While organizational practices can indicate is important to consider, the types of practices used can either help or hinder an organization’s survival based on how flexible those practices are. If organizational practices are, indeed, inflexible, they are often relegated to the realm of what Kuhn (1970, p. 24) defined as “normal science” that explains the events and theoretical observations of a firmly established paradigm. Within the scope of normal science, there are three types of problems—the determination of facts, matching facts with theory, and the articulation of theory--describing the empirical and theoretical relations that, for Kuhn, “exhaust the literature” explaining how there are no alternative ways of conducting scientific research (1970, p. 34). The three types of problems in normal science are inter-related in that they maintain organizational functions to create periods of stability. However, because those problems work towards maintaining organizational functions, there is no possibility of exploring options that may lead to organizations to function better for everyone involved both internally and externally. When the lack of exploring alternatives for an organization occurs continually, the organization is likely to become extinct.

While all of the six theories described by Gersick have their different modes of analysis, one common element to acknowledge is that all systems change by alternating between periods of stability (equilibrium) and periods of revolution (punctuation) in which there is a change in the fundamental organizational structure. Another common element to acknowledge is that there is no singular or universal history of how organizations develop. Organizations, moreover, do not develop from “primitive” to more “advanced” states; in other words, no organizational structure is better than another is. A third common element to acknowledge is the notion of deep structure as a “network of fundamental, interdependent ‘choices’” of organizational structure and the activities that maintain organizational resources within a specific milieu. Deep structure is primarily an implicit organizational practice in that the choices made by those working within an organization rely on their own firmly established rules (or “givens”) known primarily to themselves. How an organization functions does not necessarily depend on the influence of outsiders, yet when an organization must rely on external factors, such reliance is within the scope of organizational practices. A fourth common element to acknowledge is how during a period of organizational stability, the choices of individual actors working internally have their foundation in deep structures. The choices made aim to protect organizations from internal and external disturbances (punctuations) as much as they aim towards the gradual development of deep structures.

While the choice to make deep structures for the continued survival of an organization appears disruptive, it is not the case. The pursuit of deep structure is also the pursuit of stability. However, whenever organizations experience punctuations, the deep organizational structures are in a state of disarray until the end of those revolutionary periods. Although the outcomes of revolutionary periods are contingent, once revolutionary periods end, organizations develop new, deep structures based on their established history. Yet the outcomes of developing new, deep structures are contingent in the relation to preceding revolutionary periods as those outcomes depend on the magnitude of the revolutionary period.

Recent Research on PET in Social Theory

The theory articulated by Gersick (1991) has extended to a rejuvenation of biological applications to PET as a study of internal changes made within an organization (Arrow, Poole, Henry, Wheelan, and Moreland, 2004). As organizations function similarly to biological organisms, understanding how internal changes affect an entire organizational entity is critical learning the history of an organization. Historical accounts of organizations, to some extent, can provide researchers and scholars a better and, perhaps, more accurate idea of how organizations strive towards their objectives. However, one key challenge is to identify the conditions and institutional arrangements that make punctuations more likely to occur.

Baumgartner and Jones (1993) first presented demonstrations of punctuated equilibrium in social theory. Their theoretical model has received substantial amounts of attention in the history of organizations (Pierson 2004). The model presented by Baumgartner and Jones (1993) stated that most policy changes are gradual because of constraints such as strict adherence to organizational culture, financial gain based on a personal investment in an organization, fiduciary responsibility, and the limits of decision making by organizational members (e.g., lack of information and meeting deadlines). As such, applications of public equilibrium theory for organizations have analyzed small workgroups (Gersick, 1988), geographic communities and corporate behavior (Tilcsik and Marquis, 2013), and technological change (Levinthal 1998). For geographic communities, the study conducted by Tilcsik and Marquis (2013, p. 112) demonstrated how local populations may be subject to abrupt changes—defined as “events”—at any time. However, criticisms of punctuated equilibrium in social theory by Tilcsik and Marquis (2013) argue about how the theoretical constructs may have lost sight of important ideas found in biological interpretations.

Political Science Research

Prior research in political science conducted by Givel (2010) cites significant differences between the use of PET in biology and PET in public policy by addressing periods for change, criteria for outside disturbances of equilibrium, locations where punctuations occur, levels of analysis for change, and patterns for change. Punctuations in public policy are often the result of an outside disturbance of a deep structure (referred to as “long-term and relatively incremental policy change”) resulting in a shift towards radical change (Givel, 2010, p. 189). Punctuations in public policy can also occur through what Baumgartner and Jones (2009, p. 285) defined as “disruptive dynamics” that reveal a general pattern of political change related to policymaking in nonprofit organizations and changes in party and electoral systems. In this respect, punctuations involve interactions between political parties, interest groups, and legislative committees. Punctuations that occur in public policy, in other words, are mostly an internal affair; governmental bodies can choose whether to take action or not on creating changes to public policy. No external influence from nonprofit organizations is necessary, although governmental bodies seem to appreciate their contributions.

While Givel (2010) notes how most policy research on punctuations has focused on the philanthropic tone of digital media coverage, he notes how some studies concluded that instances, where punctuations did not occur, were the result of either action or inaction from the government. The action from the government can become a type of resistance to policy change demanded by the people demanding them. Factors noted in the research conducted by Givel (2010, p. 188) include policy entrepreneurs, courts and rule of law, policy monopolies, bounded “and not comprehensive” rationality, and a “fragmented” U. S. political system in which only a small amount of people can take legislative action.

Givel (2006; 2010, p. 190), in particular, considers the role of policy monopolies, crucial. Policy monopolies are groups or coalitions holding a considerably powerful influence in a policy subsystem; the influence had by policy monopolies can potentially hinder the ability of external factors to have decisions in public policymaking. Another way to view this is to consider terms related to power. Policy monopolies with significant amounts of power (usually money) use their resources to secure lobbyists, lawyers, policy specialists, and public relations (PR) specialists. Moreover, resources used by policy monopolies help receive donations to campaign funds, gifts, honoraria (money received for services that are typically of no cost), entertainment events for public officials, and assistance from third party front groups (Givel and Glantz, 2001). Policy monopolies can, furthermore, build alliances and possibly merge with other, powerful organizations to put a halt on radical changes in public policy urged by outside groups. (Givel, 2010). Policy monopolies have the power to shape policy any way they wish as much as they push to keeping their policies in line with established tradition. This is especially the case when small governmental political jurisdictions act between and amongst the federal, state, and local governments to hinder policy changes that would affect an entire nation at once. As such, state and local governments have the power to form coalitions limiting the influence of nonprofit organizations in a specific geographical area. The geographical effects had by nonprofit organizations depend on the historical traditions of state and local politics.

Nonprofit Research

About local politics, nonprofit research conducted by Leland (1996) explored the results of a research project that determined the extent of challenges to community-based research based on the tax-exempt status of a nonprofit organization in the state of Pennsylvania. One important component of community-based research involves the suggestions of changes that will improve the quality of life of communities and as it applies to the people living within them (Leland, 1996). Community-based research has largely focused on individual non-profit, community-based organizations, groups of similar organizations, and/or the people served by those organizations. Questions considered for future community-based research by Leland (1996) ask how to better identity service needs, how to improve the delivery of services, how better to reach clients, and how to assess the models used for implementing the delivery of services to people. The questions considered by Leland (1996) are of importance to researchers nearly twenty years later, as the degree to which the overall structure of the nonprofit sector, as well as the degree to which the punctuations occurring in the nonprofit sector affect the capacity of a singular, community-based organization.

The research conducted by Leland (1996) has a link with the research on citizen participation and its role in the decision-making process for advancing policy change. While the influence of powerful policy monopolies can influence the effectiveness of community-based organizations, the same influence can influence the level of participation at the local level. In turn, participation at the local level may eventually lead to participation at the state level and, then, the federal level.

Research in Community Participation

Community participation in government decision making is one of the important benefits of having a membership in a nonprofit organization. As noted by Irvin and Stansbury (2004), a common argument made in nonprofit research is that citizen participation in community organizing entails the envisioning of nothing but positive outcomes while establishing connections with outside community members and reaching consensus towards affecting positive social change. Citizen participation in community organizing, as noted by Irvin and Stansbury (2004), has both negative and positive effects. On the one hand, citizen participation in community organizing has positive effects when there are both low-cost and ¬high-benefit indicators. The low-cost indicators include the readiness of citizens to volunteer for projects that benefit an entire community; local or regional concentrations of key stakeholders so that community members can easily participate in important meetings; having enough income to participate in meetings of community-based organizations without putting the ability to provide for a family or oneself; representing a unified interest so that there are fewer representatives of any special interest group; and disseminating information to a public audience without having to explain complex (perhaps, legalistic) terms (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). High-benefit indicators include the use of a citizen mandate to break the gridlock in decision-making processes; high levels of negative feelings towards government entities validating the need for community members to seek successful policy change; the willingness for highly influential community members to serve as representatives; credibility of facilitators at organizational meetings to all representatives; and high interest levels of organizational stakeholders to consider issues as “crisis stage” if there is no necessary change done to improve organizational health (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004, p. 62). On the other hand, the negative effects of citizen participation in community organizing may seem ineffective and wasteful when compared to traditional, “top-down” business and decision-making models.

Citizen participation in community organizing has negative effects when there both high-cost and low-benefit indicators (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). The high-cost indicators include a complacent public audience that is either reluctant to get involved in issues considered “too big” to achieve policy change at the local level, as it prefers to leave policy change at all levels of government; a geographical region that is too large or that presents obstacles making regular attendance of organizational meetings difficult; the need for a large participatory group based on competing factions and the diverse socioeconomic backgrounds of participating community members; community residents with lower incomes not participating in the decision-making process towards generating policy change because of priorities related to work and family; prerequisites of complex technical knowledge to aid in the decision-making process; and public dismissal of particular issues as unproblematic and, thus, irrelevant to a local community, along with the lack of public familiarity with specific issues affecting the community (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004, p. 62). Low-benefit indicators include the lack of public hostility towards government entities; prior success by community organizations in implementing policy change without the need for citizen participation, where the voting process is considered sufficient for generating policy change; large populations of some communities posing difficulties for stakeholders to have a positive impact on local residents; ignorance of group decisions despite the exhaustion of efforts put into generating policy change; and groups decisions operating similarly to decisions made by government entities (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004, p. 62). Where community organizations have less than ideal conditions for implementing policy change, it is because there is a tendency to dedicate resources towards general operations. As a result, Irvin and Stansbury (2004) argued that administrators of organizations might appear better qualified to use any revenues earned that can lead to a more efficient decision-making process. Of course, this does not necessitate the need only for a top-down model; on the contrary, it means having to organize the priorities needed to generate policy change based on both the context and the short- and long-term effects of a particular issue within a community.

To justify their argument, Irvin and Stansbury (2004) use a case study on unsuccessful efforts of citizen participation in a watershed management initiative in Pennsylvania to cite common strategies useful for constructing effective participatory practices. The practices suggested by Irvin and Stansbury (2004) apply not only to environmental research but also to the majority of nonprofit organizations; there is a cautionary note that successful outcomes in citizen participation in community organizing depend on the specific locale. The strategies considered useful for effective participatory practices cited by Irvin and Stansbury (2004) include the careful selection of a representative group of stakeholders; a transparent decision-making model to build trust among community members willing (or reluctant) to participate; competent and unbiased facilitators of organizational meetings; holding regularly scheduled meetings; and sufficient financial resources supportive of group decision-making processes, particularly when such processes can take an extended period of time (e.g., weeks, months).

Legal Research

One example of decision-making processes that affect community organization includes cases brought to the United States Supreme Court involving nonprofit organizations. Cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court by way of petitions for writs of certiorari (or “cert”); in other words, there is a petition to have a case reviewed by the U. S. Supreme Court. The Court gives cert only for what it considers “compelling reasons” as written in its Rule 10, such as: resolving a conflict in the interpretation of federal law or a provision of the U.S. Constitution, correcting a severely wrongful departure from an accepted and usual course of the legal decision-making process, and resolving important questions of federal or to review a decision by a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court. For instance, when there are conflicting interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers typically define this as a “circuit split.” Yet when the Supreme Court denies cert for a case, it does so without comment; however, denials of cert by the U.S. Supreme Court are not decisions about how worthy a case is. In this case, nevertheless, the decisions made by lower courts stand as the final ruling.

When the Court gives cert, it directs lower courts (e.g., State Supreme Court, Circuit Court, and District Court), military tribunals, and/or other public authorities to send the history of a case to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the U. S. Supreme Court can only give cert and, then, review cases if a State Supreme Court renders the highest possible decision made concerning the constitution of a specific state as it also applies to the United States Constitution. A plaintiff, also known as a petitioner, bringing a case to the U.S. Supreme Court acts against a respondent; this is so regardless of who brought the case to action in a trial court. For instance, in criminal prosecutions where the defendant is convicted and, then, the conviction is affirmed on appeal in the State Supreme court, the defendant can petition for cert in the U.S. Supreme Court, as in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), a well-known case in constitutional law that led to the use of Miranda Rights procedures in police arrests.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, can make original decisions not based on previous case history. Here, it is especially important to consider how decisions made on immediate cases by justices in the U.S. Supreme Court involve the use of past cases reviewed by the Court. This part of the decision-making process, known as precedent, involves past applications of the U.S. Constitution to determine the relevance of those cases to the immediate case. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court can still make original decisions when two states have a dispute against each other, or when there is a dispute between the entire United States against one specific state.

Two cases—Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) and United States v. Texas (1970), a Texas District Court decision—have set examples of what the Court defines as original jurisdiction. The first case involved the determination of whether a boundary line between two states was drawn incorrectly on a map and whether the State Supreme Court can have, that boundary line changed. The case also determined whether setting a correct boundary line between two states required Congressional approval. In Virginia, the Court decided that if a prior agreement between two states set the boundary, and both states consent to that agreement, if one state later discovers that the boundary was incorrectly drawn in the absence of the other state that originally consented, then the original agreement on where the border between two states is remains. If the Virginia case required Congressional approval for drawing state boundaries, it would have involved forming a compact that would increase the power of one state over another. A compact would have also involved one state sending information to Congress about an agreement and, then, having Congress accept and record the details of that agreement. Here, the two states (Virginia and Tennessee) had already informed Congress of the original agreement and, thus, the agreement was already approved. As a result, the original agreement stood.

The second exemplary case of original jurisdiction, United States v. Texas (1970), was a Texas District Court decision responsible for the desegregation of all public schools in Texas. Frequently named by its docket number, Civil Order 5281, the decision made in Texas was the first of a string of highly controversial rulings that not only affected public schools. Civil Order 5281 led to dramatic changes to institutions such as state reform schools, facilities for people with developmental disabilities, and state prisons. Civil Order 5281 originated with investigations in the late 1960s by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The investigations involved alleged discrimination in several small public school districts in eastern Texas. HEW did not have enforcement mechanisms regarding discrimination and, thus, referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, an institution at the forefront in efforts to desegregate schools in the United States. The Department of Justice sought to put the entire state under Court order for discriminatory practices by naming both the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the state of Texas itself as respondents. Although the case generated little media coverage, the decision made by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas gained the attention of public school officials and top state policymakers.

The District Court who issued the decision ordered the integration of all-black school districts in Texas with all-white school districts. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) was ordered to prohibit all other school districts in the state from assigning students to schools based on race or ethnicity. TEA was also prohibited from discriminating against black students for participation in extracurricular activities and personnel practices; moreover, the TEA was prohibited was operating racially segregated bus routes. Civil Order 5281 also ordered TEA to conduct an annual review of school districts with a minimum of 66 percent enrolled racial and ethnic minority students; the review of these schools is to ensure compliance with federal law in determining whether there is any type of segregation. If there were violations of federal desegregation laws, the TEA was to impose negative sanctions on the school, including denial of accreditation. One year after the ruling in the U.S. District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Texas District Court decision in 1971, but the Appeals Courts left out schools that were currently or would eventually come under orders of desegregation issued by other federal courts in the state of Texas. Civil Order 5281 eventually applied to more than 1,000 school districts and two million students in the state of Texas.

Based on the date of Civil Order 5281, the case occurred shortly after the height of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. It is possible to consider Civil Order 5281 punctuation in public policy. However, there is little research on how punctuated equilibrium theory might apply to legal policy changes based on rulings made by the Supreme Court, as well as by a District Court. Moreover, for this literature review, there is no research at all on how decisions made by the Supreme Court or a District Court affect donations organizations receive for mobilizing their campaigns. There is no research on how the litigants in Civil Order 5281 engaged in fundraising practices to achieve a victory in their case. This is so despite its relevance to the Civil Rights movement.

PET as Applied to Legal Research

Although there has been little examination of how PET might apply to legal policy changes generated by the Supreme Court (Robinson, 2013b), case study research conducted by Robinson (2013a, p. 3) argues that landmark decisions made in Supreme Court cases are “jurisprudential regimes” are worthy of analysis as those decisions apply to legal policy change. More specifically, jurisprudential regimes mark a period of time in which an opinion or sets of opinions frame legal analysis for a particular issue (Robinson, 2013a). As for punctuations as they occur in these instances, jurisprudential regimes rely on how the Court understands the fact of a presented case. By reviewing the Supreme Court case, Reed v. Reed (1971), Robinson notes how the case marked specific punctuation for drawing legal attention to gender discrimination.

Before the 1970s, gender discrimination was not considered a constitutional problem. Using the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Supreme Court ruled in Reed that discrimination based on perceived hierarchical notions of gender and gender roles were both, as noted by Robinson (2013a, p. 3) “unconstitutional and irrational.” As a result, the ruling in Reed marked punctuation for public policy. This particular type of punctuation was one of cultural competency, in which there were shifts in social and cultural schemas among both policy-makers and the public that ruptured what Gersick (1991) referred to as a deep structure.

Not only do punctuations of cultural competency have a radical effect on deep structures, but they also engage in the disruption of what Gillman (2002) referred as “entrenchment,” in which political parties use the Court to remove debates about public policy outside of anything involved with electoral campaigning for federal, state, and/or local office. Cultural competency, moreover, can explain how cultural construction effects perception and thought while, in turn, it affects support for facts presented in a case worth of attention (Robinson, 2013a). For the Supreme Court, radical shifts in Court opinion can stem from a current appointment of Justices chosen by the President of the United States. The President can appoint new justices of either liberal or conservative suasions after confirmation from the Senate. In turn, the political leanings of justices affect the types of decisions the Court makes, particularly as they coincide with the politics of the appointing President. Appointment of Supreme Court justices by the President is permanent or until the justice either retires or dies; a Court justice can also serve for a limited time if appointed during a Senate recess. It is also possible for Congress to impeach and convict justices. Justices also have the option to resign. Nevertheless, the certainty of punctuations of policy change to occur because of Supreme Court decisions is likely to happen (Robinson, 2013b); however, when those punctuations happen is uncertain because of potentially lingering effects of a past President’s politics as influencing future decisions made by the Court.

As noted by Robinson (2013a), the influence of past Presidential on Court decisions contributes to a type of cultural stagnation; this also affects what types of cases the Court is willing to consider. In terms of cases of discrimination presented before the Court, the decisions made by a majority five votes against four will have a larger, cultural impact regardless of whether the decision made received an either favorable or unfavorable opinion. The language used in Court decisions involving discrimination indirectly presents an ideological belief of egalitarianism if the Court decides that the treatment of those affected in a case is considered unconstitutional. Alternatively, the language used in similar cases can present an implicit ideological belief of segregations; although one must be careful to consider specific details of a case and who is specifically involved before decisions like these made the Court are publicly derided as such. In all cases, any opinion made by the Court will face at least some resistance and opposition leading to what, in reference to research conducted by Fowler, Johnson, Spriggs, Jeon, and Wahlbeck (2007), Robinson (2013b, p. 4) described as “precedential instability” to establish an annual, composite measure of the legal importance given to all decisions. Precedential instability acknowledges the shifts in agenda and ideology in Court opinions over an extended period.

The research conducted by Robinson (2013b) cites three historical periods with the highest peaks of instability: 1880 to 1900, 1930 to 1950, and 1960 to 1980. Each period contains punctuations that involve a dominant political party’s attempt to sway the focus of policy decision-making in its direction (Robinson, 2013b). In the Supreme Court, punctuations can determine which cases are considered important or landmark, particularly if they lead to a rupturing of organizationally embedded deep structures within and outside of the Court (Robinson, 2013b). However, as Robinson (2013b) notes, a thorough analysis of agenda shifts marked by punctuations from Supreme Court rulings on specific cases requires access to historical data from the Supreme Court Database and the Policy Agendas Project.

The major issue with accessing Court cases from those two databases is that neither contains cases before the mid-1940s (Robinson, 2013b). Nonetheless, for Robinson’s (2013b) research, cases from 1880 to 1900 that were considered markers of punctuations involved the addressing of the “Dormant Commerce Clause”; the entire top one hundred cases in this period were held together by a common agenda of promoting “economic nationalism” and the removal of state barriers to interstate commerce (Robinson, 2013b, p. 27). The punctuated cases in this period suggested a shift in determining what issues the Court considered important as much as they also suggested shifts in the ideological direction of legal policy (Robinson, 2013b). The rulings made by the Court in this period were the result of a blending of decisions from past cases considered more legally relevant, Court decisions made before a punctuation, and Court decisions early in the punctuation phase.

Personnel change, or a shift in the justices appointed by the President, is a marker of punctuations in the cases from the abovementioned period. However, before this period, in 1860, all justices (a maximum of eight at the time) were appointed by a President of the Democratic Party; by 1866, the majority of justices were appointed by a President of the Republican Party; by 1869, only one justice was appointed by a President of the Democratic Party (Robinson, 2013b). In other words, policy change according to political affiliations and influence from political executives is nothing out of the ordinary in the history of the Supreme Court and its role in deciding what is considered constitutional or not.

For Supreme Court cases with decisions made between 1930 and 1950, Robinson (2013b) noted how punctuations were markers corresponding to the New Deal era heralded by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). Important to this period is the fact that the Supreme Court decided to place legal policy decisions in the hands of Congressional legislators. Yet, as Robinson (2013b) continues, most of these cases simply dealt with commerce clauses (dormant or otherwise) that did not necessarily create punctuations in legal policy until after FDR began his appointing of justices in 1937. This period does not particularly fit well with the previous, possibly because of the Great Depression raising the level of importance given to economic disputes as they became more relevant to debates of legal policy (Robinson, 2013b). Many of the decisions made the Court were summarily embedded into a type of deep structure as changes made by the New Deal temporarily locked into place.

While cases with decisions made by the Supreme Court before the 1960s dealt mostly with economic issues, cases afterward mostly dealt with rights and civil liberties (Robinson 2013a; Robinson 2013b). Robinson (2013b) cites the Policy Agenda Project of 2012 to comment on how there was a dramatic shift of public concern for civil rights issues; a Gallup poll about the “nation’s most important problem” revealed that only eight percent of those polled considered civil rights issues as the most important problem, while forty-nine percent (!) of those polled in the following year thought similarly. During this time period, the Supreme Court embarked on a long-term, multi-year campaign devoted to focusing on civil rights issues as they are appropriate to the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Robinson, 2013b). An initial set of cases in this period focused on cases dealing with criminal law and procedure against the states. The early part of this period also saw a rise in cases involving the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech, religion, press, the right to assemble peacefully, and the right to seek legal assistance without fear of retaliation. It works to remove personal censorship in a self-governed society. Some of these cases helped to end teacher-led school prayer (Engel v. Vitale, 1962), expand protections offered to religious minorities (Sherbert v. Verner, 1963), strike down prior restraints used in the national of national security (New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964), and tighten the test for illegal advocacy (Yates v. United States, 1957). As with the previous historical periods analyzed by Robinson (2013b), personnel change of justices as appointed by the President marked significant changes in agenda. Between 1960 and 1980, the Court was controlled by a largely liberal (Democratic) majority that brought attention to newly relevant issues regarding individual and civil rights. Interestingly, while the Court focused its attention on individual and civil rights, it did not undo the deep structures made by the rulings during the New Deal era (Robinson, 2013b). This has important implications for understanding the links between issues of rights and issues belonging to the economic domain as affected by decisions on legal policy.

Robinson (2013b) argues that future research on punctuations in legal policy provided by Supreme Court cases should ask why and how those punctuations occur while also considering when and whether they do. While there is no universal mechanism for punctuations in legal policy, one obvious indicator of punctuations is personnel change of Court judges. Robinson (2013b) makes an added note about how and why punctuations can occur because of a personnel change. While the current number of judges on the Court is nine, one justice in some cases brought to the Court can prove a determining factor in which way, “left” or “right,” the Court will issue an opinion. With that stated, Robinson (2013b) argues that researchers should not overstate decisions made by the Court in this manner. Moreover, punctuations of legal policy decisions made by the Supreme Court, especially in cases focuses on the Second Amendment (the “right to bear arms”) and the application of the Equal Protection Clause (as applied to issues such as gender discrimination and, as discussed in this literature review, issues related to the legalization of same-sex marriage) provide rich amounts of qualitative, historical data for analyzing legal policy change.

Research conducted in the previous year by Robinson et al. (2012) argues by use of what they described as an “institutionalist model” that periods of punctuations in the budgets of organizations have a positive relation to the same types of punctuations in previous periods. The types of punctuations made in the budgets of an organization are specific to the organizations themselves (Robinson et al., 2012). Punctuations from previous periods, as determined by an organization, have a greater likelihood of leading to more punctuation for that organization. Punctuations of organizational budgets have links with punctuations of public policy in the sense that managerial leaders can determine what is the main issue or issues on which to focus their attention. The attention drawn to specific issues by organizational leaders, in turn, affects what the public will know about those issues. Moreover, what the public knows about specific issues has a potentially influential effect on what types of policies organizational may wish to implement. The types of changes made to the budgets of an organization, as well as the issues on which an organization would like to focus, depends on the level of exigency in which the public would like to see those changes happen. If the public wishes to have changes made immediately, they will likely place pressure on those organizations to ensure that those changes will happen now. On the other hand, if the public wishes to engage in more long-term projects, it should take into consideration that organizations have their long-term investment budget plans that may conflict with public needs.

Explanations of PET on Policy Change

Whatever the level of exigency regarding issues related to public policy, there are at least two mechanisms that can explain policy change. The first mechanism is that of disproportionate information processing, in which decision-makers respond disproportionately to new information for building and implements new policies (Jones 2001; Robinson et al., 2012). In instances where there is disproportionate information processing, there is a tendency towards underreacting to small changes as well as a tendency towards overreacting to large changes (Workman, Jones, and Jochim, 2009). The second mechanism is that of institutional friction, in which there is a focus on the role of institutional rules that make the processes of decision-making less efficient (Robinson et al., 2012). Decisions making processes such as veto points often pose barriers to rapid and comprehensive policy change.

Robinson et al. (2012) suggest considering the role of history in punctuation processes by focusing on two distinct models of punctuations in policy change. The first suggested model is that of error accumulation that begins with an assumption of how decision-making processes for policy change are not always in accordance with public opinion. In instances where error accumulation occurs, it is safe to assume that punctuations in policy changes should precede periods where punctuations are not as likely. The second suggested model is an institutional model, in which policy change is the product of institutions with a predisposition to create punctuations (Robinson et al., 2012). The institutional model emphasizes how punctuations occur randomly while also suggesting that punctuations are native to certain types of organizations. Some of the organizations that are likely to have punctuations may have poor management and/or a generally poor organizational design. Patterns of budgetary changes in organizations are, in such cases, highly erratic as those organizations strive to reach a state that resembles equilibrium. However, the budgetary changes place very little attention on the actual demand for change (Robinson et al., 2012). Moreover, organizations that are historically prone to punctuations are more likely to experience punctuations in the future; alternatively, organizations that do not have a history of punctuations are not as likely to continue experiencing punctuations in the future.

Robinson et al. (2012) note how if an organization has experienced punctuation within five years, it is likely to experience punctuation. This presents further challenges for measuring the levels of punctuations that occur in organizational budgets. Robinson et al. (2012) suggest that future research should focus only on large punctuations or it should focus on distinguishing between medium and large punctuations. As such, future research should consider categorizing changes in policy as either ”incremental” or “punctuated” to provide more analytic solutions that would, in turn, lead to a stronger and more precise basis (Robinson et al., 2012, p. 15). With the institutional model of punctuated policy change, it is possible to consider how some institutions with a predisposition for punctuations are structurally different (and less stable) than institutions that implement more incremental changes. Institutions with a greater likelihood for punctuations to occur face what Robinson et al. (2012, p. 15) describe as a “burden of newness” that is potentially overcome if those institutions survive; the same burden of newness can also apply to older organizations.

(Full document and references omitted for preview. Available via download)