Presence of social workers in nongovernment organizations.

Claiborne, Nancy

More and more, social workers, like other helping professionals, are being asked to address global issues. But social work's contributions to international social development, policy formulation, services provision, and advocacy have not, as yet, been well defined. One measure of the extent to which social workers contribute to international development is their prevalence in nongovernment organizations (NGOs), frequently international not-for-profit organizations that serve the public interest, are independent of government, and have humanitarian objectives.

The NGOs vary widely in their activities, countries in which they operate, size, and number and type of workers they employ. International NGOs operate in more than one country (for example, Amnesty International, Oxford Committee on Famine). National NGOs operate within a single country or geographic area (for example, Epilepsy Foundation in the United States). Furthermore, distinctions among NGOs can also be made with respect to missions. Charitable NGOs generally provide relief efforts or attempt to meet the needs of refugees and people who are poor, by distributing food, clothing, and medicine (for example, Doctors without Borders, American Refugee Committee). They also provide housing and schooling (for example, Habitat for Humanity International, Save the Children).

Community development and policy analysis NGOs serve to strengthen the capacity of local organizations and communities by collaboration and empowerment for social and economic development (for example, Amigos de las Americas, Volunteers in Technical Assistance). Environmental NGOs work to create sustainable social and economic development by using environmental practices and policies (for example, Rainforest Action Network, Heifer Project International, Green Peace).

In general, services NGOs commonly provide health, family planning, and educational programs in situations in which the beneficiaries are expected to participate in program implementation. Participatory NGOs use community organization models, assisting local people to identify their own needs and to help with planning and implementation. Empowerment-focused NGOs raise the political, social, and economic consciousness of people who ate poor, strengthening their power to control their lives. Here, the NGO acts as facilitator for autonomous, self-managing groups, using community-based methods that are respectful of diversity within communities (Campfens, 1996).

The International Professional Organization in Social Welfare (IFSW) and the International Association of Schools of Social Work are NGOs. Social work practice, as defined by the IFSW (2001), "addresses the barriers, inequities and injustices that exist in society. The holistic focus of social work is universal, but the priorities of social work practice will vary from country to country and from time to time depending on cultural, historical, and socio-economic conditions" (p. 2).

NGOs and social work are both committed to a wide range of activities advancing cultural and racial diversity and serving vulnerable and oppressed populations. Social workers operating in NGOs may find themselves working with rural or urban populations experiencing poverty-related factors such as low income, poor food distribution, low education, and large family size; people decimated by famine, disease, environmental contamination, or population shifts from agrarian to industrial society; or people marginalized by dominant groups. Social workers endeavor to provide skills required for individuals and families to succeed in modern society by identifying local needs, developing programs, and coordinating and providing services.

The numbers of NGOs and their influence have grown tremendously since their inclusion in the United Nations (UN). In 1948, 41 NGOs were formally recognized as organizations to consult with the UN's Economic and Social Council. This number grew to 2,091 by 2001 (UN, 2003). The number of international, national, and indigenous NGOs not formally accredited by the UN is much higher. International NGO work has been crucial in setting and realizing policy agendas during peace efforts (for example, the 1997 treaty banning land mines); addressing environmental concerns (for example, the UN moratorium on driftnet fishing in 1992 and the U.S. International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1994) and human rights issues (for example, creation of an International Criminal Court); and realizing such development issues as pressures for greater openness and accountability in world development.

NGOs were involved in about 50 percent of the World Bank's lending projects (Simmons, 1998). The international community has grown to rely on NGOs because of their perceived neutrality and their experience and also because of frequent reductions in government resources resulting from public sector downsizing. International NGOs provided approximately $8 billion in assistance in 1992. This was 13 percent of the total development assistance to developing nations and greater than the total amount provided by the UN (Simmons, 1998).

Method

Sixty NGOs were randomly selected from a list of those registered with the UN. The sample was inspected to ensure that it represented the full scope of services provided by NGOs. Fifty-seven listed their headquarters in the United States, one in Africa, one in Great Britain, and one in Canada. A questionnaire was mailed to the human resources director (or equivalent) requesting

* general information about the organization--scope of operations, populations served, and financial information

* employment categories within the organization, number of employees in those positions, and required education level for each category

* number and education level of employees possessing a social work degree

* number and education level of employment positions requiring a social work degree.

The NGO respondents drew on their organizational policies to identify the positions requiring a social work degree. The NGO human resources directors were asked to return the anonymous questionnaire and a coded postcard simultaneously but separately. In this way, confidentiality was protected while identifying those NGOs that required further prompting. A human resources director received as many as four mailings within an eight-week period in an attempt to achieve maximal response (Mangione, 1995).

Findings

Twenty-two (37 percent) of the human resources directors responded. Two indicated they were unable to complete the survey because their organizational structure consisted of multiple autonomous agencies keeping separate financial and personnel records. The remaining 20 were international NGOs operating across Africa, Asia, Australia, Eastern Europe, Europe, the Middle East, North America, and South America (see Table 1).

The sample reflects a wide scope of operational activities: health care and economic development (n = 11, 55 percent); community development and training or technical assistance (n = 9, 45 percent); education (n = 8, 40 percent); disaster relief and poverty (n = 7, 35 percent); human and leadership development and human rights (n = 6, 30 percent); agricultural development, hunger, and social justice (n = 5, 25 percent); environmental sustainability and housing, homelessness, and population (n = 4, 20 percent); labor and employment (n = 3, 15 percent); peace and information technology (n = 2, 10 percent); and policy analysis, political activism, and research (n = 1, 5 percent).

The NGOs sampled also served a wide array of populations: women (n = 12, 60 percent), children (n = 9, 45 percent), men (n = 9, 45 percent), indigenous peoples (n = 9, 45 percent), refugees (n = 6, 30 percent), people with HIV/AIDS (n = 5, 25 percent), senior citizens (n = 4, 20 percent), people with disabilities (n = 4, 20 percent); poor and low-income entrepreneurs (n = 1, 5 percent); and poor rural women (n = 1, 5 percent).

Nine NGOs (45 percent) reported the number served annually, which ranged from 50,000 to 150,000,000 individuals. The mean was 120,681,111 and the median was 300,000 individuals served. Six (30 percent) of the NGOs reported dispersing from $482,000 to $120,000,000 annually to other organizations. The mean was $22,948,086 and the median was $2,000,000.

Nineteen of the 20 NGOs reported an annual budget ranging from $800,000 to $350,000,000, with a mean of $31,819,562 and a median of $5,100,000. All of the NGOs reported individual donors and foundation or corporate grants as sources of revenue. Other sources included government grants and contracts (n = 13, 65 percent), investment income (n = 10, 50 percent), sales from publications (n = 9, 45 percent), fees for services (n = 7, 35 percent), memberships (n = 5, 25 percent), sales from products (n = 4, 20 percent), and contributions from religious organizations (n = 4, 20 percent).

Job Categories and Employee Education Levels

I examined the presence and career opportunities for social workers in these NGOs and probed for the overall number of full-time employees (FTEs), their education levels, the number with a social work degree, and the employment positions requiring a social work degree. The occupational roles fall into the following categories:

* administration, consisting of chief executive officers, financial officers, and operations officers

* human resources directors

* country directors

* program directors or coordinators

* direct services providers

* development, that is, fundraising and grant writing

* researchers

* policy analysts

* political activists

* accounting and business office personnel

* support services personnel consisting of receptionists, secretaries, and so forth

* consultants.

A total of 44,608 employees held full-time positions in the 20 NGOs. Forty-five percent of the employees were employed as support staff and 7 percent worked in the accounting or business office. The combined categories made up approximately 53 percent of all empLoyed (Figure 1). The second largest category was program director or coordinator, in which 38 percent of the total FTEs were employed. When direct services staff was combined with program directors and coordinators, the combined categories were approximately 44 percent of the total workforce. Development staff made up 2 percent of the workforce. All other job categories constituted less than 2 percent of the workforce.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

I then examined each job category and the education level of the employee holding the position (see Table 2). Support staff (that is, secretaries, receptionists, and so forth) was the largest group of employees (n = 20,339, 45 percent); program directors or program coordinators was the second largest group (n = 17,090, 38 percent); and accounting and business office staff ( n = 3,141, 7 percent) was the third largest group. Considerable numbers of support staff had some college education (n = 10,083), and many others held bachelor's and master's degrees (n = 5,029 and n = 5,000, respectively).

Program directors or program coordinators consistently had higher education credentials, with 4,869 holding bachelor's degrees, 10,239 holding master's degrees, and 1,502 holding doctoral degrees. Most accounting and business office staff held bachelor's and master's degrees (n = 1,546 and n = 1,502, respectively).

The majority of the direct services staff (n = 2,326, 5 percent), the fourth largest number of FTEs, had somewhat lower education levels. The most common were high school graduates (n = 822), some college education (n = 683), and bachelor's degrees (n = 671). No direct services staff member held a PhD degree.

Most development employees (n = 1,059, 2 percent), ranked fifth, held either bachelor's (n = 121) or master's (n = 912) degrees. Administration, consisting of chief executive officers, chief operating officers, and chief financial officers, ranked sixth (n = 229, 0.51 percent). A greater number of administrators held master's degrees (n = 164), followed by 50 having bachelor's degrees, 10 having

PhDs, and five having some college education. Country directors (n = 153, 0.35 percent) and human resources directors (n = 135, 0.30 percent) ranked seventh and eighth, followed by research employees (n = 51, 0.12 percent) and policy analysts (n = 39, 0.09 percent). The majority of country directors held either bachelor's (n = 50) or master's (n = 75) degrees. Human resources directors were often college educated, with 133 having bachelor's degrees and two possessing master's degrees. Policy analysts possessed either bachelor's degrees (n = 18) or master's degrees (n = 21). The fewest number of FTEs were political activists and consultants (n = 23, 0.05 percent each). Employee educational levels ranged from some college experience to holding master's degrees.

Social Work Positions and Education Levels

To assess the presence of social workers in the NGOs sample, the total number of FTEs was compared to the number of FTEs possessing a social work degree. Of the 44,608 total workforce, 16,616 (37 percent) held social work degrees. Social workers holding an MSW were the greatest number employed (n = 10,197), then bachelor's-level social workers (n = 4,919), followed by doctoral--level social workers (n = 1,500) (Table 3).

The greatest number of social workers employed were in program director or coordinator positions (n = 16,180). These social workers held BSWs (n = 4,650), MSW (n = 10,030), and PhDs (n = 1,500), representing 97 percent of FTEs having social work degrees and 95 percent of the total workforce in this job category. In addition, 406 social workers (BSW: n = 268; MSW: n = 138) were employed as direct services staff, representing 2 percent of FTEs with social work degrees and 17 percent of the total direct services FTEs.

Thirty social workers were employed in positions other than program director or direct services categories. These included administration (n = 12), country directors (n = 14), development (n = 2), and consultants (n = 2). All these social workers held an MSW degree, except for one BSW social worker employed as an administrator.

Caution must be taken in analyzing this information because social workers were not employed across all 20 NGOs. Only eight of the 20 NGOs reported employing social workers and of those, only four employed the majority of the social workers holding direct services and program director positions. It can be surmised that social workers were employed predominately in program director and direct services positions. However, not every NGO employed social workers. Of those that did, they did so in varying numbers. Services need, size of operating budget, and mission were important factors that may have an influence on the use of social workers.

Relationship of Social Work Employment and Organizational Variables

I performed bivariate correlations to identify significant relationships between employment and organizational variables. Organizational variables included financial indicators, and employment variables were the total number of FTEs, total number of employees holding a social work degree, number of social workers employed as program directors or in direct services, and non--social workers employed in the same two categories. NGOs' annual budgets were significantly related at the .01 level to the number of individuals served, the amount of money dispersed to other organizations, the number of direct services staff, and the number of social workers serving as direct services staff. These findings indicated that the number of direct services staff, including social workers, was associated with organizational revenues and program activity. There was no significant relationship between the total number of FTEs and the total number of social workers (Table 4).

Implications for Social Work Leadership Positions

The finding that only 12 of 229 top administrative positions were occupied by social workers was surprising. These are positions for which they are trained and in which they are experienced. In addition, social workers held only 14 of 153 country director positions, two of 1,059 development positions, and two of 23 consultant positions. In this sample, no social worker held a position as a human resources director, researcher, policy analyst, political activist, or accountant, or as a business office staff member. It thus appears that social workers were used mainly for their expertise in coordinating and providing direct services, but were not used, and thus perhaps were not perceived to be expert, in other positions. Social workers commonly hold administrative and development positions in other not-for-profit organizations (Kettner, 2002). However, in the NGOs surveyed, social workers rarely held higher-echelon positions. The major concern, therefore, is that social workers are not being sought for leadership positions. It can be inferred that they are not seen as the preferred professionals to provide organizational vision and direct the mission of NGOs.

Although many NGOs in essence practice international social work, a number of factors may act as barriers in terms of social workers attaining leadership positions. One factor may be that NGOs have developed from organizations staffed by non--social work activists. In fact, individuals emerging from traditions other than social work, such as faith-based organizations, economic development, or public administration, probably originally founded most NGOs. Because of these historical traditions, NGOs may not have considered seeking social workers for leadership positions. For them, reproduction of leadership has probably been by default a matter of traditional practice (Byrne & Neuman, 1992; Kanter, 1977).

Gender issues may also partially explain the limited numbers of social workers in leadership roles. An examination distinguished the gender of the executive director or CEO in 43 of the 60 NGOs. Thirty were men, and 13 were women. This may indicate that the "glass ceiling" reality U.S. women encounter obtaining upper management positions was also operating here (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992).

Perceptions that social workers do not have the necessary technical skills to manage large public organizations may further preclude opportunities for leadership in NGOs. Six of 16 NGOs indicated that social workers were not acceptable or appropriate for employment. Of those six, five employed non-social workers in program director positions. All six NGOs shared a similar scope of operations: training and technical assistance; economic or leadership development; human rights; and education. In addition, several included programs related to agriculture, health care, hunger, community development, and poverty. The profile for those employing social workers was slightly different. Their shared scope of operations included community development, disaster relief, health, hunger relief, poverty, housing, education, and labor issues. Social workers may be perceived as caring professionals who are capable of performing very specialized functions, such as counseling or grassroots activism, but also are insufficiently prepared for more global management, even though their education may have prepared them for these roles.

Finally, social workers may not direct their careers toward leadership positions in international organizations. Social work students in the United States have limited exposure to international social work practice (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995). There are also disproportionately fewer numbers of social work students preparing for management positions compared with those who ultimately become managers (Perlmutter, 1990). An important disconcerting trend is the growth of for profit entities and introduction of managed approaches to care attracting nontraditional disciplines (for example, business administration) into management of human services organizations that may not instill professional values supporting social justice and advocacy and values emphasizing human relations (Moran, Frans, & Gibson, 1995). Social work practitioners and educators should be especially aware of the need to provide training and education in market-based fiscal skills and technology to prepare social workers to be effective practitioners in the international environment and to maximize their contributions to NGOs.

Professional Services

The majority of the NGOs in this sample identified their mission as delivering services; thus it is understandable that the greatest numbers of FTEs are direct services staff and program directors or coordinators. Direct services, program directors, support services, and business office positions make up approximately 96 percent of the total workforce. In addition, these four categories are the only ones employing individuals holding high school degrees. A closer examination reveals that an "educational dichotomy" among direct services staff exists.

Direct services is the sole job category employing individuals with only high school diplomas or some college in greater numbers than those who have advanced degrees (high school and some college = 64 percent; BA or MA degree = 35 percent). Of the direct services staff holding higher degrees, fewer than half were social workers. Here, inquiries were made only regarding the employment of social workers. Therefore, we do not know what these other disciplines are. We can surmise that the NGOs sampled used a mix of social workers and personnel from other disciplines. Furthermore, individuals without higher degrees and paraprofessionals filled two-thirds of the direct services positions. Clearly, trained social workers, who were 17 percent of the direct services staff, are underrepresented in traditional social work roles. Such findings suggest that the NGOs in this sample have not professionalized their services.

There may be a number of valid reasons that NGOs use paraprofessionals. In countries of settings where there are few professionally trained social workers, it may be necessary to employ paraprofessionals to adequately meet client needs. Also, certain strategies for delivering services may require using local paraprofessional personnel. In addition, there may be concerns that professional social workers may become too specialized in their approach, reducing their effectiveness in specific settings (Brawley & Schindler, 1989; Shetty, 1996).

Funding sources now call for increased NGO accountability, and for all social welfare organizations to operate efficiently and effectively. In response, these organizations have implemented restructuring analogous to for-profit management practices, which sometimes prompt deprofessionalization and de-skilling (Dressel, Waters, Sweat, Clayton, & Chandler-Clayton, 1988). These practices include forcing workers to over-specialize, allowing greater numbers of paraprofessional staff to be supervised by fewer professionals; using technology to streamline services and replace personnel; and "flattening" the organization's structure by laying off professionals and shifting work to the staff retained.

The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that social work positions in the United States would increase through the year 2005. Yet it added that organizations would continue to restructure services and hire lower paid human services workers in greater numbers than social workers (U.S. Department of Labor, 1996). If this pattern persists, we can expect to see fewer social workers providing direct services, but supervising greater numbers of paraprofessional staff. This pattern is likely to occur internationally as well. This pattern of delegating the natural roles of trained social workers to non--social workers is evident in this study. It revealed that the largest numbers of social workers were employed as program directors. Program directors are held accountable for the overall outcome of services in specified regions, and their responsibilities usually include the supervision of paraprofessionals delivering services. The largest numbers of paraprofessionals are employed in direct services, a position usually requiring professional supervision. It is likely that the program directors in this study were providing some direct services, but mainly supervising employees and coordinating and supervising volunteers (Figure 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Comparative studies reveal that there is not a common global definition of social work, and practice and education vary from country to country (Raskin, 1994; Wagner, 1996). Entry-level social work schools include diploma-granting programs as well as baccalaureate programs. A1though field education is a universal component of international social work curricula, Skolnik, Wayne, and Raskin (1999) found there are significant variations. Whereas 95 percent of diploma and baccalaureate programs reported practicum requirements, only 39 percent of master's level and 3 percent of doctoral programs had such requirements. Also, student practicum experiences ranged from observational visits to year-long placements. Such variations were echoed in the present study. The scope of variation becomes more appreciable when examining the four NGOs in this survey employing the greatest number of social workers. One NGO listed 108 separate countries in which it was providing services; the remaining three NGOs listed 57 countries, 23 countries, and 18 countries.

Organizational Resources

This study indicates that the number of direct services staff, including social workers, was associated with both organizational revenues and program activity. The organization's ability to sustain activities was linked with its capacity to generate revenue. It also suggests that the NGO's ability to provide services requires employing greater numbers of direct services staff, including those possessing specialized social work expertise. Larger organizations have the ability to dedicate resources by hiring more educated, experienced, and specialized workers. Such organizations can develop new services requiring additional staff, and administrative and technological support (Haveman, 1993).

Limitations of the Study

A sampling bias may exist which poses limitations on generalizing this exploratory study's findings. The majority of NGOs contacted did not return the survey, and 18 of the 20 NGOs have their headquarters in the United States. A prevalence of a Western-dominated perspective on NGOs' employment of social workers may exist. A greater number of international NGOs headquartered in other countries should be integrated into future studies. Also, future studies would probably have a higher response rate using telephone interviews. It would be helpful to identify the functions that social workers perform within their job categories. Furthermore, it would be interesting to identify the disciplines, work experiences, and job functions of non--social work employees. An examination of management structures should include such variables as the discipline, work experience, and gender of employees occupying leadership positions.

Conclusion

NGOs are overextended because of scarce resources and staff. They often struggle to provide sustainable programs, rather than mere crisis services. Greater demands are placed on practitioners to act within a dynamic global environment, and to structure and coordinate flexible organizational functions (Bowie & Potocky, 1998). Mahajan (1994) called for NGO-employed practitioners to have broad-based knowledge in organizational collaboration; effective use of financial resources; and understanding of technology, market dynamics, and the policy context of services; as well as the ability to work with diverse groups of people and diverse agendas.

It can be argued that social workers are uniquely suited to meet the needs of NGOs because they are skilled in collaboration and in understanding the policy context of services (Midgley, 1995). They advocate for the needs and rights of vulnerable and oppressed people and can work effectively with diverse groups (Healy, 1995). However, challenges for social workers attaining positions in NGOs include limited educational exposure to international social work practice, disproportionately fewer numbers of social work students preparing for management positions, and expansion of nontraditional disciplines entering into the management of not-for-profit organizations. These factors may diminish the opportunity for social workers to attain employment positions in international practice and leadership.

Table 1
Characteristics of Nongovernment Organizations (N = 20)

Characteristic n %

Scope of operations (a)
 Agricultural development 5 25
 Community development 9 45
 Disaster relief 7 35
 Economic development 11 55
 Education 8 40
 Environmental sustain 4 20
 Health care 11 55
 Housing/homelessness 4 20
 Human/leadership development 6 30
 Human rights 6 30
 Hunger 5 25
 Information technology 2 10
 Labor/employment 3 15
 Peace 2 10
 Policy analysis 1 5
 Political activism 1 5
 Population 4 20
 Poverty 7 35
 Research 1 5
 Social justice 5 25
 Training/technical assistance 9 45

Populations served (a)
 Children 9 45
 Women 12 60
 Men 9 45
 Senior citizens 4 20
 Refugees 6 30
 Indigenous people 9 45
 People with disabilities 4 20
 People with HIV/AIDS 5 25
 Poor and low-income people 1 5
 Entrepreneurs 1 5
 Poor rural women
Revenue sources (a)
 Individual donors 20 100
 Membership 5 25
 Foundation/corporate grants 20 100
 Government grants/contracts 13 65
 Fee for services 7 35
 Investment/interest income 10 50
 Sales from products 4 20
 Sales from publications 9 45
 Religious organizations 4 20

Characteristic n % M Mdn

Annual budget
 Range $800,000-$350,000,000 19 95 $31,819,562 $5,100,000
Number individuals served
annually
 Range 50,000-150,000,000 9 45 20,681,111 300,000
Money dispersed to other
organizations
 Range $482,000-$120,000,000
 annually 6 30 22,948,086 $2,000,000

(a) Does not equal 100% in that respondents could answer in multiple
categories.

Table 2
Jopb Categories and Education Levels of Employees of NGOs (N = 20)

 High Some BA MA
Job Category School College Degree Degree

Administration 0 5 50 164
Human resources director 0 0 133 2
Country director 0 28 50 75
Program director or coordinator 100 380 4,869 10,239
Direct services 822 683 671 150
Development 0 26 121 912
Research 0 0 11 35
Policy analysis 0 0 18 21
Political activism 0 7 16 0
Accounting/business office 39 54 1,546 1,502
Support staff 227 10,083 5,029 5,000
Consultant 0 0 14 9
Total number FTEs per education 1,188 11,266 12,528 18,109
Total percentage FTEs per education 3 25 28 41

 Total Total
 FTEs FTEs
 per Job per Job
 PhD Category Category
Job Category Degree (n) (%)

Administration 10 229 0.51
Human resources director 0 135 0.30
Country director 0 153 0.35
Program director or coordinator 1,502 17,090 38.31
Direct services 0 2,326 5.22
Development 0 1,059 2.37
Research 5 51 0.12
Policy analysis 0 39 0.09
Political activism 0 23 0.05
Accounting/business office 0 3,141 7.04
Support staff 0 20,339 45.59
Consultant 0 23 0.05
Total number FTEs per education 1,517 44,608
Total percentage FTEs per education 3 100

NOTES: NGO = nongovernment organization; FTEs = full-time employees.

Table 3
Full-Time Employees Possessing Social Work Degees and Total
Workforce in NGOs (N = 20)

 Total FTEs Possessing Social Work Degree

 BSW MSW PhD Total
Job Category (n) (n) (n) (N) %

Administration 1 11 12 0.08
Human resources director 0
Country director 14 14 0.09
Program director 4,650 10,030 1,500 16,180 97.37
Direct services 268 138 406 2.44
Development 2 2 0.01
Research 0
Policy analysis 0
Political activism 0
Account/business 0
Support staff 0
Consultant 2 2 0.01

Total 4,919 10,197 1,500 16,616 100

 Total Workforce

 Social Social
 Workers Workers
 Total by Each Job per Total
 FTEs Category Workforce
Job Category (N) (%) (%)

Administration 229 5.0 .03
Human resources director 135 0 0
Country director 153 9.0 .03
Program director 17,090 95.0 36.00
Direct services 2,326 17.0 .91
Development 1,059 0.2 .01
Research 51 0 0
Policy analysis 39 0 0
Political activism 23 0 0
Account/business 3,141 0 0
Support staff 20,339 0 0
Consultant 23 0.2 .01

Total 44,608 -- 36.99

NOTES: NGOs = nongovernment organizations; FTEs = full-time employees.

Table 4
Correlation of Organizational and Employment Characteristics in
NGOs (N = 20)

 Annual
 Annual Amount
 Annual Number Dispersed
Characteristic Budget Served ($)

Annual budget 1.00
Annual number served .907 ** 1.00
Annual amount dispersed .939 ** .976 ** 1.00
Total FTEs -.034 .140 -.014
Total social work FTEs -.076 .098 -.057
Direct services FTEs .976 ** .964 ** .977 **
Program director FTEs -.076 .097 -.056
Social work direct services FTEs .647 ** .282 .367
Social work program director FTEs -.088 .092 -.064

 Total Direct
 Total Social Work Services
Characteristic FTEs FTEs FTEs

Annual budget
Annual number served
Annual amount dispersed
Total FTEs 1.00
Total social work FTEs .999 ** 1.00
Direct services FTEs .033 -.010 1.00
Program director FTEs .999 ** .999 ** -.010
Social work direct services FTEs -.039 -.053 .512 *
Social work program director FTEs .998 ** 1.000 ** -.020

 Social Work Social Work
 Program Direct Program
 Director Services Director
Characteristic FTEs FTEs FTEs

Annual budget
Annual number served
Annual amount dispersed
Total FTEs
Total social work FTEs
Direct services FTEs
Program director FTEs 1.00
Social work direct services FTEs -.062 1.00
Social work program director FTEs .999 ** -.072 1.00

NOTES: NGOs = nongovernment organizations; FTEs = full-time employees.
* p<.05.** p<.01.

References

Bowie, S. L., & Potocky, M. (1998). Social service and health organizations in Haiti: A resource assessment. Social Development Issues, 20, 77-90.

Brawley, E. A., & Schindler, R. (1989). Professional--paraprofessional relationships in four countries: A comparative analysis. International Social Work, 32, 91-106.

Byrne, D., & Neuman, N. H. (1992). The implication of attraction research for organizational issues. In K. Keney (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/ organizational psychology (pp. 29-70). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Campfens, H. (1996). Partnerships in international social development: Evolution in practice and concept. International Social Work, 39, 201-223.

Dressel, P., Waters, M., Sweat, M., Clayton, O., & Chandler-Clayton, A. (1988). Deprofessionalization, proletarianization, and social welfare work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 15, 113-131.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-32.

Haveman, H. A. (1993). Organizational size and change: Diversification in the savings and loan industry after deregulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 20-50.

Healy, L. M. (1995). International social welfare: Organizations and activities. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1499-1510). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Hokenstad, M. C., & Kendall, K. A. (1995). International social work education. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1511-1520).

International Federation of Social Workers. (2001). Definition of social work. Retrieved September 28, 2001, from http://www.ifsw.org/Publications/4.6e.pub.html

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kettner, P. M. (2002). Achieving excellence in the management of human service organizations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Mahajan, V. (1994). Promoting sustainable livelihoods for the poor: What NGOs have to learn. Indian Journal of Social Work, 55, 173-182.

Mangione, T. W. (1995). Mail survey: Improving the quality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Midgley, J. (1995). International and comparative social welfare. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1490-1499). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Moran, J. R., Frans, D., & Gibson, P. A. (1995). A comparison of beginning MSW and MBA students on their aptitudes for human service management. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 95-105.

Perlmutter, F. D. (1990). Changing hats: From social work practice to administration. Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press.

Raskin, M. S. (1994). The Delphi study in field instruction revisited: Expert consensus on issues and research priorities. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 75-89.

Shetty, L. (1996). Professionalisation of social work in the United States and India. Indian Journal of Social Work, 57, 258-275.

Simmons, P. J. (1998, Fall). Learning to live with NGOs. Foreign Policy, 112, 82-97.

Skolnik, L., Wayne, J., & Raskin, M. S. (1999). A worldwide view of field education structures and curricula. International Social Work, 42, 471-483.

United Nations. (2003). NGOs and the UN. Retrieved September 22, 2003, from http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/nog-un/

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1996). Occupational outlook handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wagner, A. (1996). chanenges to social work: Europe. In L. Healy (Ed.), The global--local link: International challenges to social work practice (pp. 29-31). Storrs: University of Connecticut, School of Social Work.

Nancy Claiborne, PhD, ACSW, is assistant professor, School of Social Welfare, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222; e-mail: [email protected].

Original manuscript submitted December 2, 2001

Final revision received July 15, 2002

Accepted September 16, 2002