Jeffrey Jones and Dr. Jay Goodliffe, Political Science
The massive proliferation of public interest groups in the past forty years appears to have surpassed our understanding of how these groups form, function, and maintain members. The purpose of my research is not to attempt to answer all the questions of how groups form and stay afloat, but to shed light from both a theoretical and practical perspective how public interest group leaders maintain membership and explain the demise of respective groups in their field.
My research set out initially to find a large number of leaders and groups that had failed in maintaining environmental public interest groups, but I soon learned the difficulty of searching for groups that no longer exist. I was able to track down just a few defunct groups; but because of the difficulties of working with such a small sample, I resorted most of my efforts in gathering input from leaders of current environmental groups explaining what attributes they found in their practical experience that differentiate successful groups from failed groups. I learned quickly the importance of adapting my research to the means I had available. I also quickly realized that it was almost impossible to focus just on group maintenance without taking into consideration how groups formed in the first place. My original expectations were that I could single out a few attributes that led to group failure, and contrarily, group success. I hypothesized those groups with continual sources of funding, whether through patrons or membership dues, together with strong leadership organizations would flourish while groups lacking these traits would eventually collapse.
I used a large database of environmental public interest groups and was able to access email addresses for over 400 groups. I created an email survey asking group leaders to input their opinions and experiences on the secrets to the success of their groups and what factors cause groups to fail. This being the first time I had created such a survey, it was a learning experience and I discovered very quickly that the content and phrasing of questions played a large part in what type of answers I would receive back. After many revisions, I emailed over 400 environmental groups and received over 150 replies; about one-third were insightful and contributed to my research, while the other two-thirds were quick and unhelpful responses. From the approximately 50 helpful replies, I was able to compare my findings with other research on interest group maintenance, and determine whether my expectations and other theoretical hypotheses matched the majority of responses I collected.
My findings were diverse, but included many of the expectations I originally held. Yet, I discovered that many important factors combine to make up the issues so generically labeled as funding, or financial status, and group organization and leadership. I do not suggest that any of my findings are new, but together with common collective action theories and other group maintenance research, they provide a more in depth, practical approach to understanding what factors make or break public interest groups. Unfortunately, I feel as if my research did fall short in explaining the link between group origins of formation and their later maintenance or success. Nonetheless, my research has paved the way for further investigation regarding the link between group formation and maintenance, as well as providing realistic feedback from group organizers on what issues affect them most. 1 One factor, surprisingly mentioned almost more than funding and maintaining members, was psychological burnout of group activists and volunteers, especially leaders. This provides insight into why many low budget groups are started by concerned activists who later lose steam and fail after startup. Over 15 of the 50 email replies pointed to burnout of unpaid or underpaid staff as a reason for failure and group demise. They reported that many times the success of an organization is due to the dedication of a core group of individuals in charge of fund raising, activities, and member support. Half of these replies on burnout suggested that regardless of volunteer support, an executive director who is dedicated and makes members feel efficacious in progressing their interest is the essential keystone in holding an organization together. On the other hand, a group may encounter failure and dissolve if the executive director experiences psychological burnout and there is nobody to replace him/her. In fact, a majority of the 15 replies made comments that they were in favor of establishing an organization to help deal with leadership burnout and train and support leaders to prevent psychological burnout with activists and leaders devoting so much time to their organizational causes that they neglect their own personal needs.
The use of newer, cheaper technologies also allows groups to communicate and organize like never before. The fact that I was able to locate and communicate with so many different leaders is a testimonial to that. A substantial amount of the surveys, 8 of the 50, indicated that the use of the internet (i.e., easily accessible web-sites, email, etc.), affordable desktop publishing, and other advances in bulk mailing procedures have helped their smaller groups achieve success and give the impression to potential members that they are as professional as larger, well-funded groups. The significance of these advances is that now participation comes at a lower cost for both group organizers and members. Lower entrance and maintenance costs could explain why the number of public interest groups is continuing to explode. Previous research on group formation and maintenance may becoming outdated, as patrons and funding play a smaller role in group survival.
Nownes and Cigler’s research in 1995 suggested that patrons are vital for initial mobilization of groups, but the key to long-term public interest group survival lies in the ability to maintain a large membership base that produce large contributions.1 Yet, Nownes and Neeley’s research a year later reveals “individuals, especially entrepreneurs and their friends, are the driving force behind public interest group formation.”2 This finding may shed light on the diminishing importance of patrons and outside funding, and expose the large role dedicated and committed group leaders play in public interest group maintenance.
In Summary, the results of my research strengthen Nownes and Neeley’s 1996 interviews with over 60 national public interest group founders and entrepreneurs. Their research was more in depth, but when studying all 16 of the entrepreneurial group founders in their sample of splinter groups, each entrepreneur cited “a deep-seated commitment to a cause as a motivation factor”, yet most lacked government or group experience. Their summaries found that about half the groups in their sample were “started by individuals who did not act primarily in response to disturbances and are not recruited and funded by patrons.3 How long these group leaders can remain dedicated and committed to their causes without experiencing psychological burnout may hold the key to public interest group maintenance.
References
- Nownes, Anthony J. and Allan J. Cigler. “Public interest groups and the road to survival.” Polity 27 (Spring 1995): 379.
- Nownes, Anthony J. and Grant Neeley. “Public interest group entrepreneurship and theories of group mobilization.” Political Research Quarterly 49 (March 1996): 119-21.
- Nownes, Anthony and Grant Neeley. “Toward an explanation for public interest group formation and proliferation.” Policy Studies Journal 24 (Spring 1996): 74-85.