The Non Profit Organization

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

In the past, municipal swimming pools have been used mainly for exercise and offered little other than being in the water (Jenson & VanWezel, 2006). With housing developments in the past twenty years building community pools as part of their sales strategy and home swimming pools being less of an unattainable luxury item than in years past, today’s pool-goers are looking for something to entertain them. Municipal aquatic facilities have to sell an experience unavailable at home and that appeals to all varieties of aquatic tastes (Kapp, 2012) (Jenson & VanWezel, 2006). As home pools are so much more commonplace, this is one argument against a municipal waterpark. People may say that if they want to swim or play in the water, they can do so at home or at a natural body of water. As municipal waterparks are not large revenue generating projects, citizens may feel that it is an unnecessary expense to revamp an existing municipal pool or build a new facility. In addition, outdoor waterparks can only operate seasonally but must be maintained year round, creating costs when no revenue is being generated.

On the opposite side of the coin, not everyone has access to a swimming pool or the ability to get to a body of water should they wish to experience water play. As waterparks can cater to the needs of everyone from young to old, they are a service that the municipality can provide for its citizens. Splash areas can be used for toddlers, water slides can be enjoyed by people of all ages, and wave pools and lazy rivers can be used not only for relaxation but for exercise for the elderly. Waterparks provide an event and a destination that families can enjoy, and can even provide therapy for those with injuries or people with special needs (Grosse, 2008).

A municipally funded waterpark will have detractors. Depending on the area in which the facility is planned, nearby homeowners may oppose the site due to anticipated noise from the waterpark (Chancellor, Yu, & Cole, 2011). They may also feel that their property values may be affected negatively because although it is a municipal park facility, it is not a traditional green space park that may increase property value. Some people may feel that a municipality should focus its efforts on providing core services such as emergency response and infrastructure such as roads and water, without spending money on tourist attractions. There are also those people that may feel that with water rationing and demand outweighing supply of freshwater in many parts of the world (Phipps & Brace-Govan, 2011), a municipal waterpark is not an environmentally sound undertaking.

Groups that would support a municipally funded waterpark are likely those that include families with young children and business owners. By creating a tourist destination in a municipal waterpark, families will have a place to enjoy within their community, and businesses will likely benefit from sales generated by people outside the area coming to visit. Rather than being happy with the status quo, these groups might see having their community become an entertainment destination as a benefit to all citizens, even those who do not frequent the waterpark. In the middle of the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) metroplex, the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, built a municipal waterpark in 1995 and has seen the benefits in additional development. Phyl Baloga, the Assistant Director of Economic Development for North Richland Hills has said that city views itself as an entertainment destination in DFW. She stated "We have Iron Horse golf course, NRH20 Family Water Park, Mountasia Family Fun Center, Richland Tennis Center, NYTEX Sports Center, we’re home of the minor league hockey team the Brahmas, and have over 20 parks.  There is something for everyone in North Richland Hills" (Baloga, 2011).

A municipal waterpark would fall under the realm of a public park. As the main benefit of a public park is recreation opportunity and aesthetics, it can be difficult to assess a monetary benefit. Tourism development has the ability to create a stronger community and economic stability in an area if conducted properly. According to the World Waterpark Association, attendance at waterparks in North America is expected to grow between 3-5 percent each year. While the costs to build a municipal waterpark will be paid for by the taxpayers, the revenue will be generated through user charges. With a waterpark, the most important figures in estimating revenue are the number of attendees per season and the average ticket price (Sangree, 2012). In addition to entry fees the sale of concessions is an added source of revenue. In examining several municipal waterparks across the Southern United States, their experiences can provide a way to estimate cost and revenue of a similar project.

Upon analysis of waterparks in Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee, the costs involved came solely from construction of equipment as the land was already municipally owned or part of the public park system. Start-up costs were either paid through a combination of federal grants and municipal taxes, or special park tax districts that were created (Miller, 2012). Without having construction estimates in hand, cost estimation should involve answering the questions of how large the facility will be (acreage), how many rides will be offered, what type of theme will the park have, and what type of amenities will be provided in the form of concessions, games, or gift shops (Sangree, 2012).

Revenue estimates can be made through the same analysis. With the costs for day passes at municipal waterparks starting at around $7.00 per person, using attendance numbers from similar locales can provide a predictor of revenue. Splash in the Boro, in Statesboro, Georgia, had attendance of 90,000 the first year of operation and averages around 160,000 per year since. The Wetlands at Persimmon Ridge in Jonesborough, Tennessee has average revenue of about $100,000. Point Mallard in Decatur, Alabama averages revenues between $400,000 and $500,000 per year (Miller, 2012). Finally, at NRH2O in North Richland Hills, Texas, 2008 attendance was approximately 250,000 and revenue was about $4,000,000 (Seninsky, 2009). Using the low attendance number of 90,000 the first year and increasing to 160,000 in year two with a 20,000 per year attendance increase through year five at $10.00 per person, revenues could range from $900,000 the first year to $2,200,000 by year five.

To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of a municipal waterpark project, there are five steps that must be undertaken. First, the objectives of the project must be defined (Mikesell, 2011). In this case, the objectives of the municipality are to increase quality of life for its citizens by providing a positive and safe venue for family entertainment, and attract industry, business, and residents to the area. The second step is to estimate the value of the benefits of the waterpark. To do this, models must be used because a controlled experiment is not possible without building the park. In this case, the analysis of the aforementioned waterparks in the Southern United States can again be used. Officials commenting on Splash in the Boro report industrial, commercial, and residential growth in the 8 years following opening the park, with community pride as a factor. The Wetlands at Persimmon Ridge, while a small park, has given the community more confidence that they will succeed in their endeavors. Point Mallard has attracted tourists and new residents and people at national conferences identify with city with the park (Miller, 2012). With a municipally owned waterpark being a final product, the estimation of consumers’ surplus must be also used to estimate a benefit for a public waterpark. This is the difference between what a person is willing to pay to visit a waterpark and what the market charges to visit (Mikesell, 2011). One of the most popular private waterparks in the United States, Schlitterbahn in New Braunfels, Texas, has over 900,000 visitors per year (World Waterpark Association, 2005) and charges a one day general admission fee of $47.99 for 12-54 year olds (Schlitterbahn Waterparks and Resorts, 2013). With municipal waterparks charging considerably less, $10.00 for general admission in the case of our proposed waterpark, the consumer surplus for one visit per season is $37.99.

For project cost estimation, the $5.4 million start-up costs of Splash in the Boro could be used. The opportunity costs are those which include what the public land being used could have been used for, such as a green space park. Operating costs are estimated to be $470,000 per year after year one. This figure includes three full time employees with an average salary of $50,000 per year and 80 seasonal employees averaging $10.00 per hour working 20 hours per week for a five month long season. For the next part of the cost-benefit analysis, a discount rate must be chosen. Being that this municipal waterpark will generate revenue from the sale of a service similar to what private industry does, the Federal Reserve borrowing rate can be used (Mikesell, 2011). This is because it reflects the attitude of the market toward projects such as this. According to the Federal Reserve, the current bank prime loan rate is 3.25 percent (Federal Reserve, 2013). Using the previously stated revenue estimates compared to start-up costs and annual operating costs in a benefit-cost ratio (BCR), the BCR is 1.11. A BCR greater than 1 indicates economic efficiency and that the project will increase economic health of the area (Mikesell, 2011).

In order to progress on a municipal waterpark project, one of the first objectives is to determine location. NRH2O in North Richland Hills was built on a 17 acre site, which was ample room for them to eventually build their 20 water slides, uphill water coaster, and the largest interactive water playground in the State of Texas. On the site there are still open fields, shade trees, and trails that have not been developed (Seninsky, 2009). A site of approximately 10-15 acres would be sufficient to build the waterpark and still provide the type of green space that some detractors of the development would desire. To determine the exact site, a number of factors must be taken into consideration. Information such as the size of households in the area of the proposed site, the number of youths and adults within drive-time radius of the site, potential future expansion plans, and infrastructure affecting transportation in the area (Sangree, 2012). A time frame of one year for construction is reasonable, with the park opening occurring in late May or early June to take advantage of the traditional waterpark season, which is late May to Labor Day.

Several outside organizations have been identified that can be approached to collaborate on a municipal waterpark project and limit the financial risk (Kapp, 2012). Local school districts can be partnered with to provide discounts for students on individual or season pass tickets during the summer. Local food and beverage distributors can be contacted to provide the concessions and local restaurants can become partners for special events. All types of local businesses can be contacted for private rentals after closing or during off-peak times for company outings or parties. Areas of the park can be set aside for smaller event rentals such as birthday parties (Kapp, 2012). State and Federal grants may be available to defray the costs of construction or future expansion.

With these groups that would potentially collaborate on the project, there are also those that may actively campaign against it. Environmental activists may denounce the project as destruction of natural open space and a waste of fresh water resources. These complaints can possibly be assuaged through the use of the aforementioned green spaces left intact with trails and open fields. The use of water is easily controlled with the advent of water recirculation systems that clean and sanitize water from the attractions and run-off from pathways for reuse, limiting the amount of new water consumed (Jenson & VanWezel, 2006). Others that may actively campaign against a public waterpark are the owners of the private amusement parks in the city. They may feel that a municipal waterpark would take away from their potential customers. These groups would be best handled through approaching them for a partnership. Visitors to both the amusement parks and waterpark can receive discounted entry to the other if they visit one. There is also the potential for collaboration in selling combination passes that will allow entry into the amusement parks and municipal waterpark for one price.

In order to provide the appropriate venue for citizens and special interest groups to voice either their support or concerns for a waterpark project, public hearings must be scheduled and advertised. After these public hearings, the municipal council should hold one final public hearing to determine whether to put the waterpark project on the municipal ballot. With a potentially small number of vocal citizens at the public hearings, putting the project on the ballot will allow all citizens to voice either their approval or disapproval of this use of public funds.

While there are a variety of factors that can negatively affect the feasibility of a municipally owned waterpark in our area, the trends show that they have generally been successful and have at a minimum covered their operational costs (Sangree, Outdoor Waterparks: Private vs. Municipal, 2010). This is due in part to an increase in disposable income and society’s increasing interest in water-themed rides providing thrill and adventure instead of traditional swimming pools, lakes, and oceans. Municipal waterparks in particular are more popular that private waterparks due to their less-expensive entry costs and closer proximity to people (Sangree, 2010). Waterparks are more cost-effective than traditional municipal pools, offer a safer experience for younger children due to the lack of standing water in interactive water playgrounds, and offer something fun for guests of all ages (Jenson & VanWezel, 2006). Our city is already known as a tourist destination. Given the vast amount of literature showing that traditional municipal pools have become obsolete, I recommend that the city take advantage of currently existing customer base traveling to our city each year and move forward with a municipal waterpark.

A non-profit organization falls in the area between a government organization and a private for-profit company. They are chartered by each state, are exempt from state and federal taxes, and are generally eligible to receive grant funding from the federal and state governments. In order to be classified as non-profit, an organization must specifically define itself as such when it is organized, it cannot divide profits among members as dividends, and may only perform those functions that are allowed by law. Those non-profit organizations that serve a public purpose are called charitable non-profits. These organizations perform functions that have been given to them by the government that cannot be accomplished by the government or for-profit entities for some reason. Like public agencies, non-profit organizations are driven by their mission and the service they offer (Pynes, 2009).

A stakeholder can be defined as any person or group that is affected by or can claim an interest in an organization’s output or performance (Bryson, 2010). The non-profit organization being analyzed in this case is a prestigious organization based in Washington D.C. with a reputation for ethical behavior. This organization is successful and acts a clearinghouse for child abuse prevention information. It is largely funded by federal government grants and in turn provides services to state and local nonprofits and state and county child protection agencies. The stakeholders for this non-profit organization are extremely varied. Their clients are stakeholders, and include not only children suffering from abuse, but other non-profit organizations dedicated to child abuse prevention as well as government officials tasked with the efforts of protective services in their respective jurisdictions. Being funded largely by federal government grants, the federal government is a stakeholder in addition to any other philanthropic person or organization that donates money to further their cause. Each employee and volunteer of the non-profit can also be considered a stakeholder. In order to be successful, the non-profit leadership must pay attention to the wants and needs of its stakeholders (Bryson, 2010).

A non-profit organization is structured according to its bylaws, which regulate procedures and define the duties, powers, and limitations of each agent or employee from entry level to the board of directors. Non-profit organizations are suffering from increasingly difficult financial situations. Shrinking public funds and grant availability forces greater dependence on private funding sources, which are also diminishing due to an economic downturn. Non-profit leaders must engage in strategic planning to ensure performance outcomes are met, as greater scrutiny on the organizational effectiveness will often determine whether government grant money remains available (Pynes, 2009). Part of this focus on performance and effectiveness has been focused on controlling the performance of individual members. Whether or not the non-profit organization meets its goals is directly related to how its employees perform their jobs (Selden & Sowa, 2011).

The non-profit organization in this case has narrowed a field of job candidates to two finalists for an entry level position. The first candidate has no prior experience in the public sector, but possesses tremendous marketing skills and sales experience. This candidate has proposed that the organization should aggressively seek donors and grants even if they involve projects outside their mission statement. He also advocates getting rid of older employees and hiring younger ones who are into social networking. This candidate appears to believe in the concept of the open-systems theory. In this theory organizations are not simple bureaucratic structures, but are instead complex and ever-changing. This theory purports that organizations do not have clearly defined boundaries, and internal and external uncertainty should be expected and embraced as the manner in which the organization will find equilibrium (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009).

The second candidate has significant field experience with a local child protection agency and has recently received a Masters in Public Administration. This candidate advocates adherence to fiscal standards, providing public service, and utilizing benchmarking processes to achieve greater operating efficiency. This candidate seems to embrace the general characteristics of the Total Quality Management (TQM) theory. Under this theory there is a focus on customer satisfaction, productivity and quality goals, and the use of a measurement system to hold employees accountable for their performance (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009).

A non –profit organization falls under the category of public administration, the characteristics of which have several key differences from that of private administration. In both types of administration, managers expect their operations to be properly designed and achieve their goals effectively and efficiently. The difference in this aspect is that the public agency manager performs their functions for the good of society instead of on an individual basis. Public sector organizations are concerned not with profit, but with whether the programs and services being offered are meeting the needs of the public. The ultimate goal of the public agency is not a financial windfall, but the positive evaluation of outside forces such as the legislature, courts, and citizenry (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). While the lines between the public and private sector have been blurred in recent years and there has been much discussion on running public agencies like those in the private sector, the important distinction in ultimate goals can be lost on those who feel that they can step into the public sector and take off running. In analyzing the two candidates, there is clearly a significant difference in their backgrounds that illustrates this point.

Candidate one has a desire to aggressively seek donations and grants. This represents his lack of background in the purposes of public administrations. His background is in marketing and sales, so it is not surprising that this would be his focus. Candidate two, however, has significant experience working in a public agency. This candidate understands the ultimate goals of a public agency and wants to focus on fiscal responsibility. While it is true that a successful marketing campaign would be a benefit to a non-profit organization, the understanding of the mission is the point in this case.

Motivation is a crucial element in the arena of positive and effective job performance by employees. In the public sector, employees must be motivated to perform in their individual capacities while keeping the underlying social objectives in mind as well. Research has shown that public sector employees that have been properly recruited, selected, and integrated into the social aspect of the agency are less interested in external rewards such as more money, than they are in internal rewards such as a sense of accomplishment in providing an important service to the public (Park & Word, 2012). Progressive human resources strategies are essential if a non-profit organization is to be successful.

Motivation and performance go hand in hand. Research on motivation in non-profit organizations has revealed that participation has a strong positive impact on reaction to the organization, challenging and specific goals improve performance, and individual financial incentives are ineffective in traditional public sector settings (Perry, Mesch, & Paarlberg, 2006). These motivational elements and results mirror the desires of candidate two, which are to provide public service and utilize benchmarking processes. Non-profit organizations perform their functions at differing levels of ability, based on a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is a lack of staff experience (Leroux & Goerdel, 2009), would be exacerbated with the ideas of candidate one to fire older employees and bring in a young staff.

The values of the public form the basis of a public agency. Ethics in the public sector is different that ethics in the private sector. Ethics statements in the private sector are similar to those in the public sector with one underlying difference being the concern for financial success as a result of being ethical. Public sector ethics statements make no reference to any benefit obtained from acting ethically. The reward for ethics in the public sector is excellence in service to the public (Gueras & Garofalo, 2011).

The non-profit organization in this analysis has a reputation for ethical behavior. Organizational culture includes values, assumptions, and expectations that guide the daily direction of the structure. The American Society for Public Administration’s Code of Ethics identifies five key areas of ethical obligations a public servant must adhere to. The five areas are serving the public interest, respecting the Constitution and the law, demonstrating personal integrity, promoting ethical organizations, and striving for personal excellence (Gueras & Garofalo, 2011). Above all else, the ethical course of action as a public official is to serve the public and not oneself.

Part of the strategic planning process for non-profit organizations is to clarify the organizational mission. This organization is prestigious and well respected, and has a great deal of client stakeholders. The mission of a non-profit organization provides the social justification for its existence. In order to be successful, a non-profit organization must provide some sort of public value. There must be identifiable objectives established that benefit society, and non-profit organizations must recognize that they should "be seen as a means to an end, not as an end and of itself" (Bryson, 2010, p. 191). Candidate one wishes to seek donors and grants regardless of whether they fall within the mission statement, while candidate two seeks to provide the public service while streamlining the process.

Non-profit human resource managers must understand the legal environment in which they work, social and cultural changes, generational changes, and changes in educational needs. Non-profit organizations must engage in succession planning (Pynes, 2009). The three primary elements to succession planning are specifically identified and defined as Entry: Hiring for the Present and the Future, Career: Workforce Development Planning, and Employee Separation: Responding to Attrition. These are the components, but it must also be recognized that political and financial backing are part of the backbone of succession planning. If an organization is committed to succession planning, the costs can be absorbed and reduced by a more efficient organization that has a continuity of operations. Although the model of succession planning is circular, it usually starts with the exit process (Lynch & Lynch, 2005). The exit of employees can occur in many ways, including retirement, resignation, termination, death, and disability.

With the recent lessening of the retirement age and requirements for retirement, upper management can control their own careers and when they want to leave. Recruitment, screening, selection, and training are crucial to an organization’s succession planning involving the element of Entry. Diversity in the world around us must be reflected in the recruitment and hiring process. Diversity includes gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and cultural background. Once recruitment has taken place, retention of employees is equally as important. Finally, workforce planning is a continual process and requires commitment from all members of an organization. Leaders must use four basic steps to prepare a workforce plan. They must identify the requirements to meet present and future work demands, counsel employees to determine career interests, develop plans to fulfill those interests, and find methods to bring together what the organization needs and what the current workforce provides (Lynch & Lynch, 2005). These things can be accomplished by things such as mentoring programs, leadership training, tuition reimbursement, supervisory training, and participation in the promotional process. Workforce and succession planning should not begin with firing all the older employees to bring in a new young staff.

For both the non-profit organization and its client organizations, candidate two is the best choice for the position. As previously discussed, candidate one possesses too many traits and operational desires that do not fall within the objectives of a non-profit organization with a prestigious and long-standing reputation as an ethical organization. Seeking grants and donors outside of the mission statement and firing older employees to bring in a young staff threaten the reputation of the organization and could alienate client stakeholders that would not want that association. In addition, candidate one does not seem to understand the underlying foundation of a non-profit organization, which is to perform a service. While growth and expansion through marketing and social networking is a positive result when it involves the original objectives of the organization, the ultimate goal of a non-profit organization is not to expand its holdings to areas outside of its scope. Candidate two has a long history in child advocacy, which is the mission station of this organization. This candidate also has an understanding of what motivates public sector employees to excel in their performance. Candidate two will be able to communicate effectively with both client stakeholders and funding stakeholders about objectives that are mutually understood.

In Centennial, Colorado, a town of over 100,000 residents, there are four city employees other than those providing police and fire services. All remaining public functions are performed by staff under the direction of a private management firm (Saffell & Basehart, 2009). Public administration is tasked with carrying out the day to day operations of government in accordance with laws and rules put forth by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. More and more, public administrators are being asked to perform a larger number of tasks with fewer resources. Federal and state mandates often require governmental entities to perform tasks without providing additional funding to accomplish those tasks. Public administrators today are expected to embrace creativity and innovation. To accomplish this, new tactics and ideas are required to improve their organizations, creative thinking by employees must be fostered, and pioneering programs must be implemented (Pynes, 2009).

Although there are major differences between public and private sector administration, this need for innovation in the public sector has led to experimentation with privatization, which includes partnerships with outside entities of a non-profit and for-profit nature (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). Since the early 1990’s, governmental entities have gradually begun using private companies to provide public services in an attempt to save money (Saffell & Basehart, 2009). The boundaries between what were once thought to be completely public services are changing. Governments are now routinely contracting with private companies to provide public services such as corrections, garbage collection, and even military and homeland security (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). Those who favor privatization believe it saves money, is in line with our country’s free-market ideology, and forces responsiveness to the needs of citizens. Those in opposition feel it actually increases costs due to the necessity of paying governmental employees to oversee the contracts, provides inferior service due to using the lowest bidder on contracts, and encourages corruption through bribery and kickbacks (Saffell & Basehart, 2009).

A recent survey of local government officials participating in collaborative efforts with non-profit organizations reveals the overwhelming key benefit to be more efficient responsiveness and fulfillment of the needs of the people. The most significant barrier identified in this same study was a lack of any sense of responsibility on the part of government officials for the outcomes of the programs being collaborated on (Kozuch & Kozuch, 2012). When governmental entities enter into agreements with private, non-profit, or faith-based organizations to provide services, it is difficult to consider these agreements true partnerships. While there are times that is the case, most often the governmental entity retains decision making power and the identity of the program. In this manner, the term relationship may be better used to define the role the outside organizations play (Batley & Rose, 2011).

Privatization is commonly viewed as the transfer of any duties or activities normally provided by the government to any outside source, whether non-profit, faith-based, or for-profit (Kosar, 2006). There are five types of privatization that have been identified, including complete privatization, privatization of operations, use of contracts, franchising, and open competition (Brooks, 2004). Rarely used in the United States, complete privatization is the complete sale of assets and transfer of responsibilities from the government to a private company. Privatization of operations is turning over the management and operations of a government function to the private sector. Under this arrangement the private organization will collect any fees generated through the operations as their payment. Contracting out involves a private organization managing and operating the public function, with the government still collecting any revenue and paying the contract through taxes and fees collected. Franchising involves the government giving the exclusive right to perform a function in a specific area to a private entity and collecting payment for that right. Finally, open competition is allowing multiple private entities to perform a function in a specific area, leaving the choice of which private entity to choose up to the citizens (Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, 2006).

Private entity administrations define their own markets and create their own goals, which they can change relatively easily. Public administrations must deal with social objectives that are defined outside of their scope of control. The general management concept of both public and private organizations, however, is results oriented (Grossman, 2012). In order for a public agency to enter into a successful relationship or partnership with a private or non-profit organization, there are several items that must be considered. The first step is to determine if the outside source can actually perform the services in a more efficient and effective manner. Public administrators must remember that a private organization is looking to make a profit, and a non-profit organization may make claims in their abilities that are not accurate in an attempt to build their status or obtain legitimacy in the community. Once the proper entity is chosen to perform the function, the public administration must maintain oversight on the operation. Government must ensure that public funds are spent properly and no portions of the service removed or altered in a way inconsistent with its intended purpose. Finally, the public agency must still participate in the service. Whether this participation is in the actual function or a continuing evaluation and analysis, the public agency cannot simply hand the service off and wipe their hands of the duty (Nichols, 2010).

In an example of an innovative public and private collaboration on the local level that falls outside of traditional partnerships, the actions of unified government (UG) of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas has been tremendously successful. With only three municipalities in Wyandotte County and Kansas City covering 85 percent of the jurisdiction, citizens voted in 1997 to consolidate the city and county governments to reduce duplication of services and reduce taxes. At the same time, the International Speedway Corporation (ISC) was looking for a site for a new raceway in the Midwest. The two areas in question were Kansas City, Kansas or Kansas City, Missouri. The UG knew that their jurisdiction, with older neighborhoods, few national retailers, no tourist destinations, and low property values was not viewed as a prime area for new commercial development (Musser & Ward, 2009).

Taking advantage of Kansas law that allowed bond sales to fund tourism development, the UG sold bonds and acquired 400 acres adjacent to one of the proposed 1,100 acre sites for the raceway. The UG then entered into discussions with the ISC, and was ultimately awarded the raceway. With the raceway project in place, the UG then partnered with several private development companies to create the tourism destination known as Village West. With tenants such as Cabela’s, the Great Wolf Lodge, Schlitterbahn Waterpark, the UG owned Community America Ballpark, and a development agreement with a national commercial developer, Village West is now an incredible tax generating location that gives the UG statewide economic influence (Musser & Ward, 2009).

On the state level, Texas has entered into a cooperative agreement with private business to build and operate toll roads across the state. These types of agreements fall under two categories, known as Brownfield or Greenfield projects. Brownfield projects involve private vendors leasing the use of infrastructure that is already in place for one large payment, or a combination of an upfront payment and revenue sharing in the future. Greenfield projects are similar, but the facilities must be built as there is no infrastructure in place (Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, 2006).

Texas’ project involves a 40 mile extension of State Highway 130 from Austin to Seguin. The company Texas has partnered with, the SH130 Concession Company, is an independent company formed by Cinta and Zachry American Infrastructure (ZAI). Cinta manages 21 toll highways across the world, including the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road. ZAI is based in San Antonio, Texas, and was formed in 2005 to help develop U.S. infrastructure (SH 130 Concession Company, 2012). Under a public-private partnership with the SH130 Concession Company, the company will design, build, operate, and maintain the toll road for 50 years. All costs involved are being absorbed by the company, with no financial burden being passed on to the counties through which the toll road will pass. In addition, the SH 130 Concession Company has provided employment for over 3000 central Texas residents. The total investment made by the company is expected to reach 1.3 billion dollars, and the state will receive a share of the toll revenue (Texas Department of Transportation, 2012).

In 1993, the federal government created the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). This federal agency is tasked with carrying out federally funded service programs across the country. In doing so, CNCS collaborates with over 70,000 volunteer and non-profit organizations. These collaborations provide services to address community challenges such as responding to natural disasters, after school programs, and assisting the elderly live on their own. In 2009, President Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which reauthorized the CNCS to perform its mission, while adding new areas of emphasis (United States Government Accountability Office, 2012). The Serve America Act directs the CNCS to expand the opportunities that are available for Americans to serve.

Through a large number of varied non-profit and faith based organizations across the country, the CNCS administers three core programs, AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and the Social Innovation Fund. AmeriCorps was started in 1994 and involves significant commitments from over 75,000 people each year. Senior Corp focuses on providing opportunities for America’s older population to serve. The Social Innovation Fund allows the CNCS to discover effective community based non-profit organizations and mobilize efforts to keep them funded through public and private sources (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2013).

Governments at the national, state, and local levels all have opportunities for partnerships or relationships with private or non-profit entities. Operating toll roads, bridges, and tunnels, utilities, corrections, lotteries, and airports are some of the common enterprises that have been turned over to the private sector. Services such as homeless shelters, community centers, and after-school programs are often handled by non-profit or faith-based organizations. Public agencies have moved toward outsourcing these services for a variety of reasons including cost reduction, risk transfer, and expertise (Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, 2006). Traditionally, public administrators do not have the personnel on staff with a background in these services and transferring the cost to hire, train, and implement the programs to an outside source would better serve the public’s needs. While it will continue to be debated, the use of resources outside of the governmental realm has been happening since the federal government was created in 1789 (Kosar, 2006), and it will continue to be used as public administrators search for creative and innovative ways to serve the public.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (Harr & Hess, 2008, p. 379). This is a part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, that were added to aid in the ratification process which was threatened due to anti-federalists’ belief that the Constitution infringed on individual liberties and States’ rights. The anti-federalists where comprised of those colonists who opposed a strong central (Federal) government. Federalism was designed to prevent a concentration of power in one place, such as that experienced by the Colonists under the British Monarchy (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). Under the Articles of Confederation, which was the predecessor to the Constitution, individual states were recognized as sovereign entities and were bound together by what was identified simply as a "firm league of friendship" (Harr & Hess, 2008, p. 14). Under the Tenth Amendment, the concept of federalism was born. Federalism is the form of government under which power is shared between a central government and the states. Those powers not specifically withheld from the states or specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states.

Inter-Governmental Relations (IGR) is the term used to describe how all levels of government in the United States interact and coordinate with each other, and is a more recent way to explain how federalism operates today. How federalism is supposed to function continues to be debated, and the concept has been interpreted in several ways (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). Two of the most basic interpretations are dual federalism and cooperative federalism. Dual federalism describes the separation of the powers of the federal government and states like that of a "layer cake." Each has its own distinct realm of authority that does not interfere with the other. Under cooperative federalism, the state and federal governments are interwoven and support each other. Cooperative federalism is described like a "marble cake" (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009, p. 115).

Dual federalism is a much older interpretation than cooperative federalism. Dual federalism is based on the principles that federal and state governments have exclusive authority that does not overlap, the federal government regulates some things and the states regulate completely different things, and the courts maintain the boundaries between the two (Schapiro, 2006). In that the United States Supreme Court holds the final say in Constitutional matters, the Court’s actions since 1937 have moved us away from the dual federalism interpretation by realizing that there are many areas which fall under concurrent jurisdiction of the state and federal government (Schapiro, 2006). Cooperative federalism seeks to understand how the state and federal governments can work together to achieve the goals of public policy. As such, once the courts set broad boundaries that cannot be crossed it is up to the actions and outlooks of elected and appointed public officials to determine the extent of the interaction (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009).

Over the course of our country’s history, there have been several federal mandates that affect states significantly and embody the concept of cooperative federalism. In 2002 the No Child Left Behind Act expanded the federal government’s role in public education, an area historically left to the states to administer. This Act created a joint effort to improve the educational system, with the states and federal governments working together. While there are federal guidelines that must be followed, the states are allowed a certain level of discretion in implementing the program (Pursley, 2011). Under cooperative federalism, the states enforce federal law by Congress granting them the authority to do so. A recent example of this can be seen in federal immigration law. Although controversial, several states have followed in the footsteps of Arizona by passing laws that require state enforcement of the federal immigration laws. Federal law requires the Department of Homeland Security to respond to state and local agency requests for immigration status checks. Arizona’s law requires state and local law enforcement to perform those checks on all arrestees (Bulman-Pozen, 2012).

Regardless of the interpretation, federalism is what has allowed the United States to grow and thrive. The fact that the Tenth Amendment did not name the powers granted to the states should not be lost on those that promote a more expansive federal government. The arguments for a strong federal government are valid on the surface. Without federal mandates and enforcement the civil rights movement in the 1960’s would not have been successful (Gerstle, 2010). Without federal regulation there is no telling what type of damage might be done to the environment and what natural resources may be destroyed. At the same time, however, without states’ rights there would be no end to the power the federal government could force on the people.

The powers granted to the states create a type of competitive federalism that allows our country to progress. As each state is free to create its own environment for its citizens, it is more likely to respond like the private market to the desires of the people. If a citizen does not like the environment created, they are free to move to a different state (McGinnis, 2004). This provides immediate feedback for those law and policy-makers at the state and federal levels at to what the citizens truly desire. Federalism as it was designed allows a diverse population to make choices. Like the private market, both the state and federal governments must change in response to the will of the people (McGinnis, 2004). Federalism allows the United States, through states’ rights, to experiment with what works for the people and make the best choices to continue moving forward.

Public policy is the way government deals with societal problems, and the public administrator is responsible for seeing those policies put into action. Federalism drives public policy in that inter-governmental relationships are often required to achieve public policy goals. This can cause complications for the public administrator when those within their bureaucracy can call on other units of government for support when they are disagreed with. The public administrator must also be aware of the financial impact that federalism has on public policy. Financial struggles by one unit of government can lead to its dependence on support and assistance, leaving it with no way to accomplish its goals on its own. Federal financial grants to states and local units of government, as well as state grants to local entities, often have requirements attached to them. The public administrator that receives grants such as these must be able to ensure they remain in compliance (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). Today’s public administrators must continue to remain informed regarding the ever-changing interpretation of federalism by the courts. In order to achieve public policy goals and provide effective public service, knowledge of Congressional mandates and judicial opinions regarding allowable and prohibited actions under the Constitution is imperative (Christensen & Wise, 2009).

Politics and Public Administration

When examining public administration as a process, it is clear that politics are not only a part of public administration, they are essential. Public administration has been a political process since the beginning of our country (Kettl & Fesler, 2009). Politics are the way in which the public expresses their desires for government to work through elected legislatures, and public administration is the vehicle in which to make those desires a reality. Public administration is commonly identified as a bureaucracy, with specialized division of labor, formal organization, and a strict chain of command (Milakovich & Gordon, 2009). The politics-administration dichotomy is the theory of public administration based on ideas put forth by Woodrow Wilson in 1887. The theory states that politics and administration are distinctly separate, with politics being the superior handing down the value-based policies and administration being the subordinate that puts policies into practice through bureaucratic proficiency. Discredited by many scholars after World War II, this theory continues to drive the actual practice of public administration (Demir & Nyham, 2008).

Politics and administration are difficult to keep separate for several reasons. To begin, public administrators initiate policy, shape policy after implementation, and their actions have political consequences. Also, although most claim otherwise, civil servants are not politically neutral. It is unrealistic to believe that the political beliefs of public administrators will have no part in their shaping of the policy after initial implementation. Finally, political bodies such as legislatures routinely keep oversight of the administrative process (Skelley, 2008). Although the dichotomy theory is no longer generally endorsed, one enduring component remains – that of the desirable characteristic of political neutrality in public administrators. While this characteristic is referred to as neutrality, it is more correct to call it impartiality. The concept of a politically impartial public administrator who performs the work of government to objective standards rather than personal loyalties is what is truly desired (Overeem, 2005).

One of the main reasons the politics-administration dichotomy was rejected was the confusion and often synonymous use of the term policy in place of politics. The core components of the dichotomy are sound when you differentiate these two and provide some clarification. Policy politics are those which are involved the contents of decisions, such as in the creation, implementation, and oversight of public policy. In this manner legislative bodies are essential and necessary, as previously stated. Partisan politics, however, are those which are involved in gaining the power to make decisions. A public administrator should absolutely be involved in policy politics, but should never participate in partisan politics (Overeem, 2005). Some public administration theorists have even determined that administrators that actively participate in politics are more accountable to the public because they are more likely to repel pressure from interest groups (Nicholson-Crotty, 2009).

Public policy has no real meaning without public administration, and the public expects accountability from its public administrators in three key areas. The first, fiscal accountability, seeks to ensure that public funds are spent efficiently and effectively on the programs the public has asked for through their elected officials. Next is process accountability, concerned with the manner in which government performs its functions and provides services. Finally, program accountability is where public administration and politics come together again after policy implementation. Whether the public administrators are achieving the goals set forth in public policy is measured through performance analysis and legislative oversight (Kettl & Fesler, 2009). Legislative oversight ensures that public administrators are following the intention of public policies and investigates fraud, waste, and misuse of resources. Oversight also serves to evaluate the effectiveness of public policies and reverse those actions that are deemed unpopular, unnecessary, or inefficient (Kettl & Fesler, 2009). This demand for accountability from public administration and legislative oversight can lead to tension within the government.

In November of 2012 John Pistole, the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), part of the United States Department of Homeland Security, issued a statement in response to a request to participate in an aviation security hearing held by the U.S. House of Representatives transportation and infrastructure committee. The statement expressed that the committee had no jurisdiction over the TSA, therefore no representative would be present (Pistole, 2012). Several months prior, in May of 2012, a report issued by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee stated that the TSA is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, has serious management problems, intentionally delayed Congressional oversight investigations, and potentially violated the law by knowingly providing inaccurate reports to Congressional staff. The aviation subcommittee referred to the TSA as a "massive, inflexible, backward-looking bureaucracy of more than 65,000…in need of reform" (U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2012).

In another example of tension between federal administration and legislature, an Air Force Times article from March 25, 2013 discusses the dissention between United States Air Force leaders and Congress over base realignment and closure. The Air Force is under pressure to shrink their budget and have identified closing bases as a pressing need, as they are spending money on excess infrastructure. Congress, however, is opposed to the idea even as they pressure the Air Force on budget issues. The process to close bases cannot begin unless legislation is passed authorizing a study on capacity to determine how much excess is present. With a 2004 study showing 24 percent excess capacity, only about a 0.8 percent reduction occurred the next year (Everstine, 2013). Public administrators face the problem of being given the proper power to achieve the work legislatures want done, while at the same time legislators face the problem of becoming too involved in the administrative function at times for their own self-interest (Kettl & Fesler, 2009).

Public and Private Realms

The practices that guide a public agency are rooted in the values of the society it serves. Those societal values are embodied in the laws and policies that are handed down to public administrators from officials that are elected to represent the citizens and what they want. Public organizations exist in order to administer the law, and our country operates under the concept of the rule of law (Gueras & Garofalo, 2011). The concept of rule of law implies that laws must have explicit standards that are applied fairly and equally to all members of society. These laws must also be accepted and approved by society. Rule of law also implies that when a member of society acts outside of these laws, there must be consequences. Therefore, public administrators are responsible for controlling or regulating the actions of citizens (Barnett, 2010).

In order to enforce one value that society has embraced, public administrators will inevitably need to violate some other value. While this may infringe upon what someone believes, it is not in line with what society wants. Public administrators must be able to understand the concept of value pluralism, where decisions and judgments must be made about these value conflicts that are regulatory and affect a large number of people (Spicer, 2009). When these value conflicts move into areas of debate over the private activities of citizens that have historically been left out of public policy, the decisions become more difficult.

Public policy that affects these areas of a citizen’s private life has become known as morality policy. These policy areas include such issues as gay rights, abortion, alcohol and drug use, gambling, and pornography. Morality policies involve controversial issues where at least one group views the issue as threatening to its core values or principles. The public arguments regarding these issues will likely be fixed in morality and the concept of sin. These public policy issues are more about personal conduct done in private than those which will affect society (Mucciaroni, 2011). The most important aspect of a public administrators job in debates such as these are to remember that the goals of government are broad and affect the entire public interest. They cannot become mired in the narrow goals of a smaller less representative group of citizens when developing policy (Foster, 1981). However, this is not to say that the needs of these smaller groups cannot be accommodated if possible.

All of public policy is based on widely accepted values such as freedom, equality, fairness, and justice. When contemplating policies that have blurred the lines between public good and private action, these must be remembered. When a policy concerning gay rights is debated, the debate should not focus on whether being a homosexual is morally correct, but instead on fairness and equality for all people. Embracing gay rights does not equate to approval of the private conduct. Debates over abortion should focus on a woman’s right to make a choice, not over the morality of the act (Mucciaroni, 2011). The morality debates concerning these two issues are based more in religious morality, and have less of an impact on society’s overall well-being than drug use and gambling. While the use of drugs and gambling are still personal choices generally conducted in private, they are theoretically more likely to have an impact on society in general.

When considering any public policy, the difficulty for the public administrator is weighing the rights of the individual against the rights of society. A differentiation can be made between morality that is a duty and morality that is a goal. Morality that is a duty includes basic respect for other people and their property and the rules that the vast majority of the public feels they should abide by. Morality that is a goal should be left for the individual to decide, such as whether or not to use alcohol or foul language (Cole, 2008). The law provides a benefit to society that is not inconsequential. It provides a context for prevailing social values, preserves or improves the reputation of society as a whole, and maintains trust and the concept of fairness (Barnett, 2010). Public administrators must remember that decision making is a central element to their duty, and their decisions must focus on what is best for society.

As a result of the state budget crisis, Mt. Rossmoor Community College (MRCC) is facing a budget reduction of 15 percent. However, with the state’s public university system facing similar budget cuts MRCC can take advantage of the opportunity to move from the fifth fastest growing community college in the nation to the fastest. MRCC is situated in a community that has seen incredible growth in the housing market, resulting in a 24 percent increase in student population in the last five years. With state universities increasing tuition by 14 percent last year and anticipating another eight percent increase this year, MRCC can step in and fill the higher education goals of many students that would traditionally not attend MRCC.

The issue we face is how to address our own budget reduction of 15 percent while anticipating continued increase in the student population. A variety of options are available to address this issue. By maintaining our current course of action regarding tuition fees, we will be forced to draw on our budget reserves. This may be a short-term solution, however the state budget situation does not appear to be changing anytime soon, and it is apparent that our situation will not change significantly in the next several years. Raising our tuition significantly will prevent depleting the budgetary reserve, but may drive away potential students that can no longer afford the state universities and feel MRCC’s tuition fees are too high to benefit them in transferring to our campus.

Another option that could be considered relates to course offerings, and whether they should be increased or decreased. Increasing course offerings would require keeping staffing levels current and having a larger instructor to student ratio, as budget restrictions will prevent adding additional instructors. By decreasing course offerings, MRCC would be required to either lay-off instructors, force retirements, or participate in mandatory furlough days to meet the budget. Still another option regarding course options is to increase online availability, reducing the need for some campus buildings which could save on operational costs in the form of utilities.

For MRCC, how we respond to this situation will determine our future success. This is a situation that demands immediate attention, as we must begin planning for upcoming semesters. The stakeholders affected by this dilemma include each employee of MRCC, from support staff to instructors to directors, all current and potential students, and even includes local elected officials and local homeowners. Community colleges such as ours have grown at a faster rate than four-year institutions over the past 40 years (Romano, 2012). In addition, public community colleges enroll about 40 percent of all undergraduate students (The College Board, 2012). This is due in part to what community colleges provide, which is ease of access, more creativity, community responsiveness, and a focus on learning. The faculty and leadership of community colleges have been more innovative than four-year college counterparts in making higher education accessible to a more diverse student body (Boggs, 2011), and we must continue that trend at MRCC.

Convenience for students plays a large part in what community colleges are designed for. Enrollments occur for reasons as varied as taking a single course for a promotion or specific skill, taking general education classes prior to completing courses at a four-year college, or completing a technical program to enter the job market (Boggs, 2011). No longer are community colleges seen as a stepping stone between high school and a four-year college for students lacking the necessary skills or financial ability. Community colleges are experiencing a much larger number of four-year college students coming back to community colleges before finally earning their degree (Kalogrides & Grodsky, 2011). This is the situation that we see ourselves in now, and we must capitalize on that fact.

Community colleges are funded by a combination of tuition, fees, state funding, and local community funding through tax districts. State and local funds generally make up about two-thirds of the operating funds of a community college. With state funding support being reduced significantly (Arizona went from funding 25 percent of community college expenses to less than 1 percent), community colleges across the nation are being forced to find new ways to operate (Bradley, 2012). In 2009-2010, tuition and fees at community colleges across the nation increased by 7.3 percent to an average of $2,544.00, while tuition and fees at public four-year colleges averaged $7,020.00 (The College Board, 2010). Community college tuition has generally held steady at around 36 percent of four-year colleges (Fonte, 2011).

In applying these average costs, the state university system raised tuition by 14 percent last year, to $8,003.00, and plans to raise tuition another 8 percent this year, to $8,643.00. Using this as a baseline, average community college tuition in the upcoming year could be $3,111.00 and still stay consistent with the average. However, our goal is to capitalize on four-year college students being priced out while at the same time keeping our current student population enrolled. As part of that strategy, MRCC will remain consistent with the national average and raise its tuition rates by 7 percent to $2,722.00. This will make MRCC’s tuition and fees approximately 31 percent of the state four-year college tuition and fees, below