perspectives in public affairs - arizona state universityperspectives in public affairs perspectives...

Perspectives in Public affairsThe Student Journal of the Arizona State University School of Public Affairs

Letter from the Editors

Dear Reader,

We would like to welcome you to the fourth issue of Perspectives in Public Affairs. During this past year Perspectives in Public Affairs has undergone a variety of changes. With new leadership driving the journal, a fresh group of students joined on as members of the Editorial Board. These changes resulted in an

intelligent and enthusiastic group of ASU graduate students to carry Perspectives in Public Affairs into the future. Our goals for this year were to advance both the scholarly quality and commercial viability of the journal.

These goals have been achieved in this fourth issue. The articles in this issue exemplify the outstanding scholar-ship of the students in the School of Public Affairs at ASU. With topics such as child support collection and the changes taking place in university environments, Volume 4 highlights some of the most pressing issues in public administration and policy. In addition, we were able to raise additional funds to publish the journal in print form through an advertising campaign.

Many thanks to following Editorial Board members for taking the time and careful consideration to review each submission: Irene Hsiao, Greg Jordan, Patsy Kraeger, Leah Kritzer, Stacey Long, Meghna Sabharwal, Billie Sandberg, Mark Speicher, & Tanya Watt. A special thank you goes out to our faculty adviser, Dr. Laura Peck, for her continued technical and emotional support. We are indebted to the School of Public Affairs and its Director, Dr. Robert Denhardt, for financial support and encouragement. Without the support of the School of Public Affairs, we would be unable to provide this opportunity for student publication.

We also would like to extend a very grateful thank you to Michael Pearson for his donated time and energy. Michael was invaluable in formatting Perspectives in Public Affairs and this issue looks spectacular because of his efforts.

Please enjoy this latest issue of Perspectives in Public Affairs.

Sincerely,

Lindsey M. Gorzalski & Ian HagermanEditor-in-Chief Managing Editor

Staff

Editor-in-ChiefLindsey M. Gorzalski

Managing EditorIan Hagerman

Financial OfficerBrad Kendrex

Editorial BoardAnne EllisIrene HsiaoGreg Jordan

Patsy KraegerLeah KritzerStacey Long

Jeannine RellyMeghna Sabharwal

Billie SandbergMark Speicher

Tanya WattTina Wesoloskie

Faculty AdvisorDr. Laura R. Peck

Perspectives in Public Affairs

Perspectives in Public Affairs is the student Journal created by the Students of Public Affairs Network (SPAN), the student organization in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. The mission of the journal is to provide an avenue for graduate students to publish academic works and engage students, faculty, and other interested parties in a dialogue about on issues in public administration and public policy.

Perspectives in Public Affairs is an annual publication. Members of the School of Public Affairs community and graduate stu-dents in any department are encouraged to submit papers on topics relevant to the field of public affairs. Submissions are accepted throughout the year and considered for publication in the spring. All submission undergo a blind review process. More details about the submission process can be found on the Perspectives in Public Affairs website at http://asu.edu/mpa/aboutjournal.htm.

Perspectives in Public Affairs sells advertising space to the lo-cal public affairs community at the rate of $50 for a quarter page, $100 for a half page, and $200 for a full page. Any one interested in advertising in this publication can find more information on the website.

Correspondence for Perspectives in Public Affairs can be sent to:ASU School of Public AffairsAttn: Perspectives in Public Affairs411 N. Central Ave., Ste. 450Phoenix, AZ 85004

Spring 2007 �

Fundamental change is taking place in the practice of university governance in the U.S. (as well as elsewhere in the world) and that change may have profound impact on our educational products and processes (Waugh, 1998).

The ground is shifting beneath the contemporary university, and it is time to take stock of its precarious situation. The cultivation of intellect, long a central objective of university life, is threatened by political and economic pressures that are redefining and reshaping the functions of higher learning (Axelrod, 2002, p. 3).

Today public higher education is caught on the horns of a dilemma, for, although the public expects—indeed, demands—broad access to high-quality public education, it is unwilling to pay for this benefit either through taxes or tuition (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003, p. 79).

American Universities are currently facing a multitude of new, critical issues that impact their core struc-tures, threaten their traditional missions, and could

affect their very existence, as they are known. The authors quoted above are a sampling of many who recognize the pro-found changes that are taking place in the environment in which American Universities at all levels are trying to find their way. Universities are struggling to balance their explora-tion of financial support with their traditional core tenets of teaching and search for knowledge.

Clark (1998, 2000, 2004, 2005) has researched and writ-ten extensively on this issue. Clark has identified four key converging trends that create ever-increasingly turbulent uni-versity environments:

Demands for participation change student entry from elite to mass to universal. The growing entitlement of young people to receive more education after secondary schooling also now leads toward a lifelong entitlement for both repeated professional retraining and cultural enrichment that extends into their retirement years. More occupations exact requirements of knowledge and skill not provided by secondary education. The high-knowledge fields, changing faster than people are able to change their skills, lay their claim on universities and colleges for up-to-date education and training. The needs of the labor force cannot be denied.Government and the private sector increasingly exhort universities to assist them in solving societal problems as broad as poverty and poor health and as specific as city charter reform and local traffic control, with spe-cial emphasis on speeding economic and technological progress.Knowledge growth, I maintain, has become the most troubling trend of all. The globalization of knowledge propels its growth at an accelerating pace, rattling uni-versities to their very foundations (Clark 2000).

This paper explores one significant impact of these trends: the search for ongoing, stable funding of universities, their faculties and programs, and the emergence of an entrepre-neurial approach as a proposed solution. First, the theoretical foundations of academic capitalism and transactional ver-

1.

2.

3.

4.

Risks and Rewards of Academic Capitalism and the Effects of Presidential Leadership in the

Entrepreneurial Universityby Ira Rubins

Universities, like other institutions, are increasingly dependent on strong leadership and effective management to face the challenges and opportunities posed by a changing world. A common presumption is that the recent increased focus of non-profit colleges and universities on profit-generating, or at least revenue-generating, activities has altered the goals and leadership styles of college presidents. Some suggest that letting economic values become the foundation of university administration threatens the traditional core academic tenets of teaching and search for knowledge. Even authors in the popular culture, like Carl Schramm, President of the Kauffman Foundation, see the risk for universities: “Universities, of all the institutions of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, are the ones most at risk. They have, with some exceptions, developed a contemporary culture antithetical to entrepre-neurial activity” (Schramm, 2006, p. 253). Does academic capitalism threaten the accepted values of Mertonian norms for higher education and university research? Do economic priorities merely inform academic decisions or have they become guiding principles? Do college presidents behave in entrepreneurial fashion, and if so, is this behavior successful for them and their institutions? This paper explores the development of the so-called

“Entrepreneurial University,” and examines these questions in the context of theories of academic capitalism and transformational, or entrepreneurial, presidential leadership.

rubinS

� perSpectiveS in public AffAirS

Unlike the public good knowledge regime, the

academic capitalism knowledge regime values knowledge privatization

and profit taking in which institutions, faculty, and sponsoring corporations

have claims that come be-fore those of the public.

sus transformational leadership are explored. Then, a brief review of the history of the University in the United States provides the background for a closer look at the profound changes that have taken place in how higher education has been funded, beginning early in the 19th Century, through the World War II period with the advent of the GI Bill, and continuing through to today’s highly-touted business part-nerships in emerging technologies. Next, an examination of entrepreneurialism in general follows, along with an analysis of the entrepreneurial university in particular. Third, a va-riety of critical issues, questions, risks, and dilemmas are examined, along with the specific impact of leadership styles of university presidents in this context of change. Finally, this researcher looks at the future of the American University and concludes that a structural change is underway in how universities are funded, and the ability of university presidents to act in a transformational/entrepreneurial way, take measured risks outside of their traditional comfort zones, and adapt un-der the influences of academic capitalism is significant in determining whether their institutions will stay vibrant and relevant.

Theoretical Foundations of Aca-demic Capitalism and Presidential Leadership StylesSlaughter and Rhoades (2004) suggest that American colleges and universities are shifting from what they call a “public good knowledge regime” to an “academic capitalist knowl-edge regime”(Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 28). The public good knowledge regime is characterized by valuing knowl-edge as a public good to which the general citizenry has claims. Mertonian norms (Wikipedia, 2006), such as com-munalism, universality, the free flow of knowledge, and orga-nized skepticism, are associated with this public good model. The foundation of the public good knowledge regime is that basic science leads to the discovery of new knowledge with-in the academic disciplines, coincidentally leading to public benefits (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 28).

Unlike the public good knowledge regime, the academic capitalism knowledge regime values knowledge privatization and profit taking in which institutions, faculty, and sponsor-ing corporations have claims that come before those of the public. Knowledge is construed as a private good. The aca-demic capitalism model makes the case that science is em-bedded in its commercial possibilities. This model sees little separation between science and commercial activity. Discov-ery is valued because it leads to high-technology products for a knowledge economy (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 29).

The theory of academic capitalism focuses on networks that link institutions as well as faculty, administrators, aca-demic professionals and students to the new economy. These mechanisms and behaviors make up the academic capitalist knowledge regime (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 15). In this new regime, colleges and universities seek to generate revenue from their core educational, research and service functions, ranging from the production of knowledge, such as research leading to patents, to the faculty’s curriculum and instruction, like teaching materials that can be copyrighted and marketed

(Rhoades & Slaughter, 2004, p. 36). Re-search, education, and the nonacademic experience of higher education become commodities and consumable items.

Deem (2001), writing in Compara-tive Education (Deem, 2001), uses the term “academic capitalism” to define a narrow type of entrepreneurialism, “in which the academic staff of publicly funded uni-versities operate in an increasingly com-petitive environment, deploying their academic capital, which may comprise

teaching, research, consultancy skills or other applications of forms of academic knowledge” (Deem, 2001, p. 14). Accord-ing to Deem (2001), there is a strong risk for academics that pursue private sector funding using market-like behavior to begin to distance themselves from the idea that they are pub-lic employees.

The new economy values this theory of academic capi-talism, “which holds that departments and faculty undertake strategic initiatives partly in response to the push of resource constraints and the pull of various market opportunities be-yond those in technology transfer” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p.188). Nixon (2004) suggests one reason for embrac-ing academic capitalism:

One explanation for the adoption of academic capitalism in colleges is known as resource-dependence theory. In brief, the theory is that organizations depend upon the environment for essential resources. Academic capitalism is an organizational behavior that has occurred in response to the actions of external agents who control the resources (Nixon, 2004).

Resource-dependence theory suggests that organiza-tions deprived of crucial revenues will seek new resources. An embedded assumption of the theory of academic capital-ism is that shifting revenue streams shape strategic initiatives. This paper examines that assumption in the context of entre-preneurial universities as described and envisioned by Clark (1998, 2000, 2004, 2005).

Much has been written differentiating between trans-actional and transformational leadership. Virtually all modern discussions of presidential leadership in higher education are

Spring 2007 �

the entrepreneuriAl univerSity

based upon these two competing theories. “Briefly, the trans-actional position maintains that effective presidents are indi-viduals who democratically meet the needs of their campuses and who emphasize inclusive, participative governance pro-cesses based upon consensus” (Fisher & Koch, 1996, p. ix). Transactional university presidents, at the extreme, attempt to simply reflect the majority will of the various constituen-cies with which they deal. More often, they are individuals who according to Birnbaum (1992) are “engaged in … trans-actions with the environment and with internal subsystems in an effort to detect problems and to make the adjustments necessary to keep the institution in harmony with its environ-ment” (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 204).

Fisher and Koch (2004) describe these presidents as striving to avoid crises and who may make midcourse adjust-ments, but do not impose grand personal visions on their in-stitutions. They seek overwhelming consensus, though often at the cost of timely action. Consequently, they are seldom entrepreneurial. If their universities possess large endow-ments, and they are lucky enough not to be faced with a ma-jor crisis, these presidents will likely complete their tenure without a major tragedy or internal explosion. Because they have not offended anyone, they are often well regarded and fêted upon their retirement from the presidency. “Their in-stitutions, however, acquire inertia and slowly, incrementally garner the reputation of being dead in the water. In a world characterized by accelerating change, this can be a danger-ous circumstance for both leader and institution” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 33).

Transformational presidents, on the other hand, are those who possess a strong and captivating vision that they use to attempt to motivate and change their institutions (Fish-er & Koch, 2004, p. 16). “The transformational position dates back to the founding of Harvard and, with few exceptions, characterized presidential expectations until World War II” (Fisher & Koch, 1996, p. x). Transformational theory states that presidents with vision and energy can and should make a great deal of difference. The theory generally promotes shared governance, but holds that within such a system individual accountability must be maintained and that the president is the final authority under the board in all matters (Fisher & Koch, 2004). Fisher & Koch (2004) maintain that the imple-mentation of a superb vision and perhaps even its formation and explanation nearly always require entrepreneurial behav-ior on the part of the institution’s president. Consequently, university presidents who possess attractive visions also tend to be those presidents who are innovative or entrepreneurial, and hence, transformational (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 30).

In The Entrepreneurial College President, Fisher and Koch (2004) studied in depth the specific connection between successful transformational and entrepreneurial presidential leaders. Their results provide significant support for the no-tion of the transformational president as an entrepreneurial leader. They give empirical substance to the “anecdotal and

often normative speculations of hundreds of writers in the past about the nature of leadership and its connection to en-trepreneurial attitudes, values, and behavior” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 105). Fisher and Koch conclude that a distinctive class of entrepreneurial leaders does exist. Further, they sug-gest that these entrepreneurial leaders are innovative, flexible risk takers who are not afraid to violate the status quo, and that their peers view their performance as more successful than other nonentrepreneurial leaders. Finally, they believe these generalizations clearly apply to college presidents. “Suc-cessful presidents tend to be entrepreneurial and vice versa” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 105).

Although transformational leadership in higher educa-tion enjoys much rhetorical support, it is an approach that some researchers believe may not be compatible with the ethos, values, and organizational features of colleges and uni-versities (Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989). “Under normal circumstances, the exercise of transformational lead-ership in colleges and universities would be extremely diffi-cult, and in many cases it could have disastrous consequences for those who dare attempt it” (Bensimon et al., 1989, p. 73). This hypothesis is examined later with examples of successful university presidents.

History of the American University’s Financial SupportUniversities have been around in many forms for hundreds of years. In the United States Harvard was founded in 1636 (Bok, 1990, p. 1). The modern university, as it is known it today however, has its roots less than 200 years ago in 1809, when a German diplomat and civil servant, Wilhelm von Humboldt, founded the University of Berlin with the specific entrepreneurial objectives of stealing the existing intellectual and scientific leadership away from the French, and turning the energies released by the French Revolution against the French themselves.

The idea of the university as a change agent was picked up in the United States sixty years later, around the end of the Civil War, when the old colleges of the American colonial period were wasting away, and had lost their relevance to the changing times (Drucker, 1985, p. 23). In 1870, the United States had no more than half the college students it had had in 1830, even though the population had nearly tripled. By the turn of the century, however, a new generation of univer-sity presidents had created a distinctly “new American Uni-versity” (Drucker, 1985, p. 23) with distinctly different char-acteristics. Shortly thereafter, these universities were firmly established worldwide as leaders in scholarship and research, just as Humboldt’s University of Berlin had been a century earlier (Drucker, 1985, p. 23).

As late as 1936, though, American universities were elite institutions in a country where barely five percent of young people ever graduated from college. “Academic scientists

rubinS


were active in research, but their work attracted little notice in the outside world and brought only a pittance in support each year from the federal government” (Bok, 1990, p. 1). This all changed with World War II, which revolutionized the university’s place in American society. During the war, Presi-dent Truman was persuaded that university science would become a key to military preeminence abroad and increas-ing prosperity at home. For its part, Congress enacted the GI Bill in 1944, and thus “… began the transformation of higher education in the United States from a set of institutions ser-vicing an elite to one with an open door for all who were able and willing to seek further learning” (Bok, 1990, p. 2).

For the next thirty years the growth of higher education in America was sustained by growing public commitments. During this period public universities saw significant growth in their primary sources of support from state appropriations and from general tax revenues. Tuition and other student fees played a relatively minor role (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003, p. 78). Unfortunately, when state revenues declined, so did appropriations to public universities, and they were forced to tighten their belts, cut programs, and increase productivity.

Writing in the early 1900s, Veblen (1957) commented on the way universities conducted their financial affairs in A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men (Ve-blen, 1957). “There is always a dearth of funds, and there is always urgent use for more than can be had; for the enter-prising directorate is always eager to expand and project the business of the concern into new provinces of school work” (Veblen, 1957, p. 84). He foresaw the ever-increasing need for the university to search for secure financial support to grow and expand.

Veblen’s theoretical point became a reality when, in the late 1970s, the public’s support for higher education first be-gan to slow and then actually began to decline. State tax sup-port of public universities had provided a strong subsidy for higher education, allowing them to charge tuition consider-ably below actual costs. At all levels of government, public resistance to taxation coupled with shifting priorities led to constraints on tax revenues and the allocation of these re-duced and limited public resources to other priorities such as health care and law enforcement (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003, p. 78). As this public subsidy declined, the price of a college education at a public university, as represented by tu-ition, naturally increased. Soares and Amaral (1999) summa-rized the growing dilemma for higher education:

Universities were suddenly faced with very short budgets, demands for efficiency from governments and from society, criticism for not being able to meet immediate social demands and, at the same time, they were required to increase and diversify their sources of income, not only to accompany the increasing rapidity of the creation of knowledge but, in many cases, simply to survive (Soares & Amaral,

1999, p. 15).

The low level of state budgets was, and still is, a very powerful driving force for change. It comes as no surprise, then, that many leaders of public universities have tried to break the cycle and reduce their dependence upon state ap-propriations by developing alternative sources of funding. These university presidents see a more diverse resource port-folio as essential not only to building and sustaining the qual-ity of their institution, but also to providing the flexibility to ride out the inevitable downturns in state support. Because of the continuing decline in state funding, internal budgeting processes need to secure other sources of income, and these resources need to be reallocated according to a process that can be generally accepted by the academic community (Dud-erstadt & Womack, 2003, p. 106, Soares & Amaral, 1999, p. 15).

While it does seem likely that these budgetary diffi-culties have been a motivating factor in the entrepreneurial behavior of public institutions, it does not necessarily also follow that there is a lesser level of entrepreneurial activity in private institutions, where state legislatures hold considerably less sway. In fact, some of the major entrepreneurial ventures in modern higher education have occurred in independent institutions (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 26).

The changes in the United States economy of the 1970s put universities under financial pressures that continue even today. Writing in The Presidency (Rhodes, 1998), former Cor-nell University President Frank Rhodes described how the search for financial security can become all-encompassing:

Many presidents—never recognizing that the academic appetite is insatiable, as it should be—become slaves to a mendicant treadmill, camping out on unwelcoming legislators’ doorsteps, endlessly wandering inhospitable Capitol corridors, criss-crossing the globe in weary pursuit of prosperous, but uncaring alumni, exhausting themselves in the search for financial support (Rhodes, 1998, p. 4).

During the 1970s, another lasting change occurred. In the most promising sectors of the economy, like biotechnol-ogy, the truly high-level research was coming from industry as much as from the universities. The advances taking place outside of universities weakened the accepted view that they had a monopoly on basic research (Newfield, 2003, p. 173). It was a natural next step, then, for universities to look at indus-try and business as potential partners, and to seek closer ties in their quest for financial security.

Perhaps the biggest single stimulus for business and in-dustry partnerships was the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 (COGR, 1999). Congress was concerned about rising technological competition from Japan and other countries. The aim of Bayh-Dole was to facilitate a more rapid transfer of useful research findings from the laboratory to the market-

Spring 2007 7


place. It authorized universities to patent and license discov-eries stemming from federally funded research (Tighe, 2003, p. 141). “If a federally sponsored research project produced findings of potential commercial value, universities could li-cense the rights to such discoveries to U.S. companies that could then develop them for the marketplace in return for royalty and other payments to the universities” (Tighe, 2003, p. 141). Almost immediately, Bayh-Dole (COGR, 1999) re-sulted in a monumental change in the way in which universi-ties and their faculties viewed the results of research and their relations with the world of business and industry.

By the mid-1990s, state governments appeared no lon-ger interested in the more traditional forms of research at col-leges and universities. State legislative requests for research proposals often seemed centered on job creation as it related to high technology, for example, and allocations were tagged with demands for an “early turnaround” from the state’s fo-cused investments in research (Budig, 2002, p. 96). How best, then, for universities to broaden their financial revenue base while at the same time maintaining commitment to their core mission and values of teaching and search for knowledge? Soares and Amaral (1999) point out that this recent focus on the market, instead of the public community, as a new actor in the university funding mix, presents different and press-ing demands. These demands are strongly supported in the public discourse by weighty justifications like the economic competitiveness of society, and the need to keep up with the rapid changes in science and technology (Soares & Amaral, 1999, p. 13).

Soares and Amaral (1999) also suggest that business-like profit seeking behavior is clearly not an objective compatible with some of the objectives of universities, and an entrepre-neurial attitude does not necessarily mean that a public uni-versity should aim at behaving in all ways like the businesses with which it partners. Universities have a social mission that cannot be ignored. With state support insufficient to maintain universities at needed financial levels, however, it becomes necessary for them to look for funds elsewhere. How far they should go in the search for other income streams is a subject of considerable disagreement (Soares & Amaral, 1999, p. 19).

Clark (2004) states clearly that he thinks the search for financial self-reliance lies in a broad portfolio of income sources that are guided by the university’s core values. “The legitimacy of the portfolio depends on educational values guiding monetary decisions. There must be things the uni-versity will not do no matter how much money is offered, for example, permitting donors to select faculty” (Clark, 2004).

Clark (2004) details his suggestions for the possible sources of support from a diversified funding base. They are (1) other government sources, different from the core-support of state legislatures, (2) private organized sources, particu-larly business firms, philanthropic foundations, and profes-sional associations, and (3) university-generated income, like alumni fund-raising, garnered research contracts, and profits

from patents. “Each subcategory offers numerous possibili-ties, and the three major sources together imply virtually no limit on possible streams of support” (Clark, 2004).

The search for an entrepreneurial route for universities to secure continued funding is a perilous journey and while the idea of entrepreneurialism is part of an old and honored tradition in business, the application of this concept to high-er education is a relatively recent phenomenon. Fisher and Koch (2004) point out that, “The Carnegie Council’s 1980 final report, Three Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years for Higher Education, contains more than 400 subject index entries concerning the status and future of higher education, but not a single mention of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial atti-tudes, or entrepreneurial college presidents” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 9). What exactly, then, is an “entrepreneur” and what does “entrepreneurialism” mean, for business or academia? A closer look at some basic definitions is appropriate before going further.

Entrepreneurialism and the Entre-preneurial UniversityThe word “entrepreneur” derives from an Old French verb, entreprendre, which means, “to undertake.” The Encarta World English Dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary, 2006) de-fines an entrepreneur as “somebody who sets up and finances new commercial enterprises to make a profit,” while the Mer-riam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, Electronic Version (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2006) says an entrepreneur is “one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise.”

In the United States the term “entrepreneur” is often used to describe one who starts his own, new and small busi-ness. In describing entrepreneurial training, Peter Drucker (1985), the well-known business expert and management coach, notes that, in fact, courses in entrepreneurship that have become popular recently in American business schools are the direct descendants of earlier courses in starting one’s own small business that were offered in the mid-1950s, and in many cases, are not very different (Drucker, 1985, p. 21). Interestingly, other countries’ definitions do not necessarily coincide with U.S. usage. Germans identify entrepreneurship with power and property. In Germany, the word is used pri-marily to distinguish the “boss,” who also owns the business, from the “professional manager,” and from “hired hands” altogether (Drucker, 1985, p. 25).

American have become accustomed to defining the entrepreneur as “the free agent who has broken the chains of bureaucracy” (Newfield, 2003, p. 119). This assumption, however, reflects the current neoliberal moment in the ongo-ing history of economic ideology in this country, rather than any essential features of entrepreneurship.

There is resistance to utilizing the term to describe ac-tivities inside colleges and universities. The mere use of the

rubinS


term “entrepreneurial” evokes antipathy in higher education:

The first known English usage of the word was in 1852 by Thomas Carlyle, who spoke of gambling houses constructed by a French gambling entrepreneur. This somewhat unsavory connotation has colored the use of the word entrepreneur throughout the twentieth century and has made the label entrepreneurial college president a mixed compliment in some higher education circles (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 2).

“To some faculty, the adjective entrepreneurial manifests an objectionable vision of a nonacademic, profit-driven busi-ness firm that is uninterested in the traditional academic veri-ties” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 23). Compounding matters, recent financial abuse and fraud among self-described entre-preneurial corporate leaders and corporations such as Enron and WorldCom undoubtedly have sharpened this sense of unease in the academy.

What, then, is an “Entrepreneurial University?” Clearly the definitions that apply to profit-seeking businesses as dis-cussed above do not easily apply. When and how does it exist? And how impor-tant is the role of the university president in establishing and driving the university in an entrepreneurial direction?

In his early research on entrepre-neurial college presidents, Peck (1983) noted that positive entrepreneurship ap-pears at a university when, among other criteria, there is no precedent for a current problem; that is, when the problem cannot be understood on its face. Other criteria include “when an unprecedented or unanticipated change of circumstances calls for a change in priorities or an altogether new approach; or when actions depend—to a significant degree—on the skills, temperament, attitudes, and commitments of persons associated with the institution” (Peck, 1983, p. 19).

Peck cautions, though, that it would be incorrect to con-clude that all education endeavors are entrepreneurial. In his study, Peck (1983) found that entrepreneurial attitudes, en-deavors, and even entrepreneurs themselves often are found only in certain parts of an institution. He also noted that many colleges and universities that are entrepreneurial in an overall sense have many divisions and departments that are not entrepreneurial in character. Peck (1983) calls those in-dividuals who do exhibit entrepreneurial behaviors “future focused,” and he emphasizes that they do not concentrate on day-to-day operations. One of those sites in a university is the president’s office.

Röpke (1998), writing in Germany, focuses on the char-acteristics of an entrepreneurial university. He identifies three specific criteria that can be part of its structure. First, the uni-versity itself, as an organization, becomes entrepreneurial in its business activities. Secondly, the members of the univer-

sity—the faculty, students, and employees—turn themselves into entrepreneurs, through consulting or contract research, for example. Finally, the interaction of the university with its external environment, the “structural coupling” between the university and its environment, follows entrepreneurial patterns. Röpke (1998) posits that all three together are neces-sary and sufficient conditions to make a university entrepre-neurial. (Röpke, 1998, p. 2).

The risks involved in a blind pursuit of an entrepreneur-ial agenda are highlighted by Duke (2002), who suggests that a cynic might appropriately name the 21st century university the earning university (Duke, 2002, p. 34) as opposed to the learning university. Duke (2002) suggests, however, that an en-trepreneurial university is not in opposition to the idea of a learning university, “so long as it is not measured by a narrow price-of-everything-and-value-of-nothing calculus” (Duke, 2002, p. 34).

Whether it is a view that focuses strictly on faculty re-search, an emphasis on partnerships with business and in-dustry, or a more expansive approach that encompasses the

entire university, the entrepreneurial ap-proach that began in the business world is making the transition into an academic environment. Much of what is happen-ing on university campuses today is being driven by the need to be more innovative, responsive to the market, and to find new ways to make money. “This transition is requiring college and university manag-

ers to examine the way they operate, to reconsider their many functions, and, even, to question some of their most cher-ished values such as academic freedom and access” (Kozer-acki, 1998). Nixon (2004) remains confident (some would say naïve) that adept college and university presidents recognize that learning is their core business and students remain their reason for being. “They recognize the different overlapping spheres of the academic environment, the need for external funding, the need to remain learner-centered, and the need to keep the respect of the faculty” (Nixon, 2004).

Waugh (1998) strongly articulated the risks that a mar-ket-oriented approach presents:

The change is subtle in some institutions and not so subtle in others. At best, programs, faculty, students, and staff are facing uncertain futures. At worst, traditional academic interests will lose out to market forces and economic self-interest. Higher education may become intellectual fast food and the long-term needs of society will not be well served (Waugh, 1998).

Much of what is happening on university campuses today is being driven by the need to be more in-

novative, responsive to the market, and to find new ways to make money.

Spring 2007 �


Creating an Entrepreneurial University

Clark’s Creating Entrepreneurial Universities (1998) was rec-ognized as a seminal contribution at the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education in 1998, and was the focus of the biennial Higher Education Management Conference two years later. The research analyzes leadership and the capacity to thrive in new circumstances through a detailed examination of five universities and their paths to revitaliza-tion. Entrepreneurialism, according to Clark (1998), is an es-sential mode of adaptation to new expectations and demands. This major work set the stage for all subsequent research on the entrepreneurial university.

In his institutional study, Clark (1998) uses the term “entrepreneurial” to describe a characteristic of social sys-tems, and of entire universities and their internal depart-ments, research centers, faculties, and schools. “Entrepre-neurial universities seek to become ‘stand-up’ universities that are significant actors on their own terms. Institutional entrepreneurship can be seen as both process and outcome” (Clark, 1998, p. 3).

Clark (2004) recognizes the significant impact of markets on the university. “For as long as they have existed, universi-ties have had consumer markets in which they find students, labor markets in which they find faculty, and institutional markets in which they amass reputation” (Clark, 2004). He notes, however, that what has changed is that today’s complex universities have become involved in many more market-type relationships than in the past, and they have become greatly differentiated by the amount of self-control they are able to exercise. In this context, Clark looks to university entrepre-neurialism as a road to that strongly-desired high degree of market control (Clark, 2004).

Clark (1998) concludes that “only an overall organiza-tional realignment” (p. 137) will enable the university to sur-vive, much less thrive. A university can be productively entre-preneurial if it acquires the kind of organizational structure that allows the institution to be in a state of continuous trans-formation and effectively adapting to a changing society, as well as allowing groups and individuals to become more ef-fective than before. “The traditional box needs to be replaced by an organizational framework that encourages fluid action and change-oriented attitudes” (Clark, 2004, p. 355).

Clark (2000) identifies five tools as elements of “path-ways of transformation,” and he uses them to frame case-by-case developmental accounts of successful university growth. He concludes that together they constitute “an entrepreneurial response” to the growing demands of the 21st century (Clark, 1998, p. 140). These “pathways of transformation” can help universities reach an independent state of continuous growth and financial security. He has refined the five steps since the original research publication (Clark, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005), and the summary below incorporates his key points:

A strengthened steering core. Whatever its shape, Clark’s en-trepreneurial model starts with a strengthened steering core that consists of groups or agents who work dili-gently to find diverse streams of income for the entire institution, and who then make hard choices on inter-nal allocation from pooled resources. They seek mul-tiple other patrons instead of waiting passively for the government to return to full funding or to rescue the institution from unacceptable resource constraint. They work to diversify income and thereby enlarge the pool of discretionary money. Clark points out that the uni-versity is an extreme case of the maxim that all formal organizations are cooperative systems. The formulation and execution of important decisions, especially on a sustained basis, requires the structured involvement of many participants from top to bottom. The core gives the institution a greater collective ability to make hard choices among fields of knowledge, backing some to the disadvantage of others. This in turn shapes access pos-sibilities and job-market connections. Balancing influ-ence across multiple levels is an almost constant prob-lem in entrepreneurial universities.An enhanced developmental periphery. Clark identifies this as a larger, more complex set of units operating on the periphery of the traditional structure, reaching across old boundaries, and linking up with outside interests. The new peripheries that enterprising universities con-struct also take quite different specific forms. They consist of outreach administrative units that promote contract research, contract education, and consultancy. These units particularly take the form of interdisciplin-ary and transdisciplinary research centers focused on a wide range of societal problems, from global warming to improvement of public administration, from third world development to urban renewal. The developmen-tal peripheries Clark observed have a valuable common outcome: they move a university toward a dual structure in which traditional departments are supplemented by centers linked to the outside world. Since units of a de-velopmental periphery extend, cross, and blur boundar-ies, they can decisively shape the long-term character of a university. They can generate income that helps to di-versify funding. They answer the call for interdisciplin-ary efforts. In such units, according to Clark, knowledge becomes more “applications-generated,” and, of course, these units help generate income. An array of such units can serve as a portfolio of small experimental steps so that the institution need not stake everything on one grand investment. Clark cautions, however, that if these units are not judged by academic values as well as mana-gerial and budgetary interests for their appropriateness in a university, they can move an institution toward the character of a shopping mall.A diversified funding base. Student growth and knowledge

1.

2.

3.

rubinS

10 perSpectiveS in public AffAirS

growth together increase enormously the costs of higher education to government. What was once a minor item in governmental budgets has become a major expendi-ture, a big-ticket item thrown into direct competition with other primary interests, from military to welfare. As noted earlier, governments have become less willing to pay all the costs of these seemingly expensive places, and traditional public universities have come to the pro-verbial fork in the financial road. They can fall in line and undergo parallel financial increases and decreases as the government specifies. This approach leaves univer-sities waiting by the side of the road for government to come to its senses and give them the money they need. Or institutions can choose to become proactive finan-cially, seeking to develop dependable lines of income from other sources. Clark predicts that as new patrons, including more tuition-paying students, contribute, their expectations of what they should get in return may readily become new constraints on internal choices. Clark points out that income from industry is repeatedly outmatched by income from other government depart-ments where research monies are won competitively. Income from industry often contributes less than the monies gained annually from alumni and endowment. Diversifying income not only increases total resources, but also allows an institution to roll with the punches, replacing a loss here with a gain there, enhancing uni-versity discretion. A diversified funding base constructs a portfolio of patrons to share rising costs. A stimulated academic heartland. In the making of a strong-ly proactive university, Clark recognizes that much de-pends on acceptance of a new evolving posture by the traditional discipline-led departments that serve as what Clark calls the “academic heartland.” These departments have to accept the overall need for more enterprising ac-tion and learn how to engage in such action themselves. This shift is typically made in an uneven fashion. Clark recognizes that the humanities and arts departments have good reason at first to be resistant. New money does not readily flow their way from either governmen-tal or nongovernmental patrons, and deliberate effort to offer new services with income in mind may seem par-ticularly out of place. Clark’s research shows, however, that these departments can also find new ways to be educationally useful as they relate to new demands with, for example, policy analysis and multimedia explora-tions. One traditional department after another finds educational as well as economic value in becoming a more enterprising basic unit. Entrepreneurial universi-ties become based on entrepreneurial departments; that is, dynamic places attractive to faculty, students, and re-source providers. Altered heartland departments, then, according to Clark, are a necessary part of the process of transformation. As they work harder to acquire the

4.

habits of change for themselves, they become part of the sustaining foundation of the entrepreneurial university. When carried out effectively, a widespread embodiment of entrepreneurship in a university strengthens selective substantive growth in its basic units.An embracing entrepreneurial culture. New, institutionally defining ideas are typically tender and problematic at the outset of an important change, amounting to tenta-tive symbolic thrusts in the art of the possible. Institu-tional ideas that make headway in a university have to spread among many participants and link up with other ideas. They need to be tested, worked out, and refor-mulated, within the contexts of changing internal ca-pabilities and environmental possibilities. This cultural element, interacting with the structural ones, develops over time in stages that can be seen as movement from idea to belief to culture to saga. Clark acknowledges that in the academic world, entrepreneurial activity has gotten a particularly bad reputation. Entrepreneurial leaders, operating top-down, leave behind traditional collegiality, and entrepreneurial faculty members strike out on their own for personal profit, abusing peers and students along the way. Competitive striving for pres-tige intensifies an entrepreneurial culture. Internally introduced change is disturbing enough, and change promoted by entrepreneurial striving leaves faculty doubly apprehensive, fearful that it can and will change the whole tone of academic life. For this reason, Clark maintains that sustainable entrepreneurialism in higher education, while admitting individual expression, has to be heavily collegial and cooperative in nature. As the competition heats up, nationally and internationally, more universities become encouraged to move toward an entrepreneurial state of mind. If they reach high cul-tural intensity, they acquire confident self-images and strong public reputations that enable institutional ad-vancement. New true believers become affronted to even think of sliding back into a traditional box (Clark, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005).

Clark’s entrepreneurial approach theory is in line with Slaugh-ter and Leslie’s (1997) theory of academic capitalism. In Aca-demic Capitalism Slaughter and Leslie (1997) made the case that around 1980:

to maintain and expand resources faculty had to compete increasingly for external dollars that were tied to market-related research, which was referred to variously as applied, commercial, strategic, and targeted research, whether these moneys were in the form of research grants and contracts, service contracts, partnerships with industry and government, technology transfer, or the recruitment of more and higher fee-paying students (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997, p. 181).

5.

Spring 2007 11


More recently, Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) describe the academic capitalist knowledge regime as characterized by the development of “new networks of actors who develop organizations that span and blur the boundaries between public and private sectors” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 12). Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) identify colleges and uni-versities, as well as the academic managers, professors, and other professionals within them, as actors initiating academic capitalism, not just as players being “corporatized”. In this regard, academic capitalism theory helps explain Clark’s en-trepreneurial response model.

University and Corporate RelationshipsIt is tempting to offer the solution of welcoming corporate support while attempting to studiously draw the line on any-thing that risks the ideals of the university, recognizing that in real life, maintenance of principles is often a matter of de-gree and common sense (Tighe, 2003).

The public good knowledge regime theory presented by Slaughter and Rhoades (2004), and outlined at the beginning of this paper, had problems as it related to corporate relation-ships because it had an unacknowledged side:

In the 1945–1980 period, much scientific and engineering research depended on Department of Defense funding for weapons of mass destruction. The first university-industry-government partnerships were with military contractors such as General Electric and Westinghouse who built nuclear reactors as part of the Atoms for Peace program. Much scientific and engineering research was classified, and the need for secrecy fueled movements like McCarthyism, which created an unfavorable climate for academic freedom (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 29).

Harvard’s Emeritus President Derek Bok (2003), whose own institution has whole-heartedly participated in entrepre-neurial and commercialized ventures, suggests that govern-ment officials hope that closer cooperation between univer-sities and U.S. corporations will give American companies a technological advantage in the global marketplace. Corpo-rations are eager to gain new knowledge in growing fields like biogenetics, where discoveries hopefully lead quickly to profitable new products. Universities have not only been quick to utilize the benefits of the Bayh-Dole Act (COGR, 1999), where they can capitalize on opportunities to earn roy-alty income from successful patents, but they also have been anxious to gain corporate research funds in exchange for the promise of exclusive licenses on any discoveries that result (Bok, 1990, p. 21).

The approach generally taken by universities focuses on generating revenue through research collaborations with

government and industry. The launching of entrepreneurial ventures, when done in keeping with the social values of the university, can bring very positive results to the institutions, the students, and the tax-paying public (Kozeracki, 1998). While alliances with for-profit corporations have the advan-tage of positive links in applied science between university researchers and the executives and research leaders of indus-trial corporations, many problems and risks are also present. Tighe (2003) recognizes that in spite of the undoubted ben-efits of academic-corporate partnerships, these partnerships can pose serious problems for the universities:

All of these ties, in varying ways and to varying degrees, bring into direct conflict the opposing values and practices of the business and academic worlds. In essence, businesses are profit oriented, secretive, and narrowly focused, while universities are public spirited, open, and broadly encompassing (Tighe, 2003, p. 149).

Birnbaum (2000) notes that these differences between businesses and universities reflect, among other things, the need for each to conform to the expectation of the constitu-encies to which each is responsive. In spite of the fact, how-ever, that the similarities between businesses and universi-ties are mostly superficial, the more universities appear to be business enterprises, the greater the likelihood that business solutions are likely to be prescribed for their problems (Birn-baum, 2000, p. 217).

The main concern, then, is that the blending of corpo-rate and academic cultures will work against the university and lead to an erosion of the values of the academy, specifi-cally the long-standing traditions of disinterested inquiry, free sharing of information, and broad and balanced pursuit of knowledge. Tighe (2003) suggests that much of the evidence to date indicates that this concern is well grounded (Tighe, 2003, p. 149). Many contemporary universities already resem-ble shopping malls, with programs and activities determined largely by available resources rather than student needs. Wash-burn (2005) laments that current academic administrators are “so focused on maximizing revenue and prestige that they have become blind to the deleterious effects of commercial-ization” (Washburn, 2005). Veblen voiced similar conclusions much earlier in observing, “It appears, then, that the intru-sion of business principles in the universities goes to weaken and retard the pursuit of learning, and therefore to defeat the ends for which a university is maintained” (Veblen, 1957, p. 165). Balderston (1995) asks two key questions, “Will these arrangements weaken the independence of the university as an institution or the intellectual freedom of the research in-vestigator? Will the research agenda be modified in inappro-priate ways through the influence of industrial funding and relationships?” (Balderston, 1995, p. 190).

There are those who argue strongly that the risks to uni-versities are not worth the gains, that universities should be

rubinS


overwhelmingly funded from the public purse, or from the private purse without strings, and that they should reject any form of financial support that comes with its own agenda. On the other hand, Tighe (2003) points out that legitimate uni-versity research and scholarly enterprise may have grown in breadth and cost beyond the willingness or even the capacity of public funding to support it. “Over the past several de-cades, universities have gone from exploring private funding, to experiencing its benefits, to depending on it, and that is a hard course to reverse” (Tighe, 2003, p. 158).

Once again Bok (2003) provides some helpful guid-ance. He acknowledges that the attractiveness of corporate entrepreneurial influences may lead to short-term gains for universities, but he emphasizes that it can have harmful long-term effects. Bok advocates an approach that does not in-clude overwhelming corporate financial support. He urges that colleges and universities uphold academic values, even if this requires that they not pursue what appear to be profitable commercial avenues (Bok, 2003). He emphasizes, however, that they can do both, “Universities can contribute indirectly but significantly to almost all the efforts required to make our economy stronger and our society more humane” (Bok, 1990, p. 32).

The Role of the University President“Colleges are reportedly desperately seeking leadership. They seek leaders with vision who are not satisfied with the status quo—leaders who are unafraid of change and have the power and wherewithal to transform their organizations” (Bensi-mon et al., 1989, p. 73).

By the 1990s, leadership in higher education seemed to be in serious trouble, and the responsibility for rescuing higher education from falling into a deeper state of medioc-rity was placed on academic management (Bensimon et al., 1989). It almost goes without saying that university presidents need to be honorable individuals who are concerned about students and faculty. Bensimon et al, (1989) give numerous examples which suggest that yesterday’s individual presiden-tial success stories could be today’s failures, even though their qualities of leadership remained unchanged (Bensimon et al., 1989, p. 71).

In their book, The Entrepreneurial College President, Fish-er and Koch (2004) describe how the nature of the modern American university has changed significantly in recent years, and that conditions now call for academic leaders who are not only honest and caring individuals, but much more. “They must do more than react to circumstances; they must mold the circumstances and shape the future” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 25). Rhodes (1998), president emeritus of Cornell University, expressed a similar view in discussing the role of the university president:

In spite of financial pressures and political concerns, in spite of public disenchantment and campus

discontent, the academic presidency is one of the most influential, most important, and most powerful of all positions, and there is now both a critical need and an unusual opportunity for effective leadership (Rhodes, 1998, p. 1).

This was not always the case. In 1992, Birnbaum (1992) published an often-cited study of college presidents. With several colleagues, he followed 32 presidents for almost five years in the late 1980s, focusing attention on the transfor-mational versus transactional theories of presidential leader-ship. In essence, Birnbaum (1992) arrived at the unhelpful conclusion that, “In the real world, there is almost never a simple yes or no answer…” (Birnbaum, 1992). Birnbaum believes that leaders can make a difference, however only under certain conditions. He concludes that what works on one campus may not work on another, and strategies that are appropriate to one time period may not be appropriate to an-other. Additionally, Birnbaum points out that presidents may be important in some situations, but the performance of their university may be less dependent upon their leadership than most care to believe. He interprets his research to conclude that college and university presidents, for the most part, do not have major, long-term impacts on their institutions. Birn-baum (1992) suggests that presidents come to their positions with useful competencies, integrity, faith in their colleagues, and a firm belief that by listening carefully and working to-gether all will be well and the university will succeed. “In a turbulent uncertain world, what happens after that is as much in the laps of the gods as in the hands of the president” (Birn-baum, 1992, p. 196).

Most college presidents do the right things, and do things right most of the time. It is possible that college leaders can become marginally more effective. But those who seek major changes in the way presidents behave, or believe that such changes will make major differences on our campuses, are likely to be disappointed. (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 195).

Birnbaum (1992) also critiqued what he termed “presi-dential myths” (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 24–38). Summarized here, they are:

The Myth of Presidential Vision: Even though it is stated that successful presidents must possess an attractive vision, Birnbaum believes that most attractive visions were purloined and already existed on the campus. A successful president, he argues, simply finds that vision and exploits it.The Myth of the President as Transformational Leader: Many have contended that many of the problems of higher education could be minimized, or even solved, if college presidents acted in a transformational fashion. Birn-baum believes this approach often leads to disruption and failure.

1.

2.

Spring 2007 1�


The Myth of Presidential Charisma: Charisma is, according to Birnbaum, a “mysterious ability” (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 31), and is exceedingly difficult to define. He suggests that presidents who rely extensively on charisma fail to cultivate and utilize the internal workings of their insti-tutions and rely too much on their personal savvy and ability to sway. He adds that charisma can also be used for evil purposes.The Myth of Presidential Distance: Some researchers argue that effective leaders maintain social distance. Birn-baum says there is no support for this proposition.The Myth of Presidential Style and Traits: Birnbaum and his colleagues did not find any particular presidential style that uniformly results in success. In his words, “al-though some traits and skills appear frequently to be characteristics of leaders seen as effective, possession of such traits does not guarantee this effectiveness, nor does their absence proscribe it” (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 62–63). If there is a common thread that differentiates Birnbaum’s effective presidents from the rest, it is their popularity as represented by their standing with, and acceptance from, faculty, students, staff, alumni, and board members.

However, in reviewing Birnbaum’s (1992) work, Fisher and Koch (2004) observed:

Many observers of the modern American college presidency, while hardly discounting presidential popularity as an important element, nevertheless regard personal popularity (metaphorically) as more of a thermometer than a furnace. Effective presidents often are (but need not be) popular; their popularity and ability to get along with their constituents, however, is usually not the primary source of their effectiveness (Fisher & Koch, 2004).

Birnbaum (1992) did arrive at several conclusions re-garding university presidents’ ability to make a difference:

Most presidents have short-term, marginal, and positive incremental effects on their colleagues and these effects would likely not be different under another president with similar qualities. In the short term, effective instrumental activities of presidents satisfy the basic leadership needs of most colleges. Over the long term, colleges also need the inspiration and motivation of interpretive leadership (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 169).

Birnbaum (1992) noted that failed presidents, who take a linear view of administration, act preemptively or in an au-thoritarian manner, and fail to listen or to be seen as being influenced by others, are likely, over the short term, to have small, negative, marginal effects on an institution. How-ever, over the long term, the lack of faculty support leaves them unable to capitalize on institutional potential and of-

3.

4.

5.

ten makes their campuses contentious and difficult places to work (Birnbaum, 1992).

Not everyone agrees, however, with Birnbaum’s over-all conclusions. In particular, Fisher and Koch (2004), writ-ing more recently, take issue with Birnbaum’s research. They acknowledge that he is an experienced and highly published observer of higher education and college presidents, and they accept that his observations must therefore be accorded a cer-tain amount of respect. They note, however, that Birnbaum’s conclusions often are inconsistent with other research and existing empirical evidence, and his conclusions are highly dependent upon the impressions he and his colleagues sub-jectively divined from their interviews. “The evidence he presents is more normative than quantitative and is nonrepli-cable in a scientific sense. His work is not verifiable” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 21).

Peck (1983) was one of the early writers to explicitly consider the entrepreneurial attitudes and activities of college presidents. In his examination of 19 small, independent col-leges he argued that they all had successful, entrepreneurial presidents. “The concept of entrepreneurship … is required to comprehend the development of the American education system” (Peck, 1983, p. 20). In Peck’s analysis, effective, en-trepreneurial presidents are future oriented, although they resist obligating the university to long-term commitments. They think about the future and act upon it, but they iden-tify, and keep themselves open to, various courses of action. Peck’s observations lead him to conclude that successful, en-trepreneurial university presidents have a tendency to make decisions based significantly upon their own intuition. He emphasizes that this decision making approach is not, how-ever, irrational. It presumes much previous hard work, data gathering, and analysis. Peck (1983) sees this as a creative re-sponse to challenging circumstances, one necessarily involv-ing a high degree of risk (Peck, 1983).

Fisher and Koch (2004) also recognize this element of managed risk-taking:

Presidents seeking to transform their institutions must be willing to take intelligent risks and to engage in entrepreneurial activity. A president who does not take some risks is a president who likely accomplishes nothing, or at least nothing more than would have happened in her absence (p. 31).

Peck (1983) views this “future-focusing” approach as ad hoc in nature in that the president sorts out elements of the university that can exert the greatest influence on the course of action needed to achieve a goal at any given time. “It is ad hoc because it is opportunistic. The president is constantly on the lookout for opportunities that will move the institution toward its goal in ways consistent with its overall mission and purpose” (p. 18).

Others have expressed the fear that transformational leaders may eventually run their institutions into the prover-

rubinS

1� perSpectiveS in public AffAirS

bial ditch. Fisher & Koch (2004) detail several possible rea-sons for this:

Sometimes the risk-taking entrepreneur does not undertake appropriate due diligence of alternatives and thereafter takes unwise risks. Or, after a visible stream of successes, some leaders begin to believe they are infallible and have so much faith in themselves that they believe they cannot fail. And, after a period of time, it sometimes becomes clear that the audacious goals of some transformational leaders are shabby, immoral, or even illegal. (p. 18).

Peck (1983) concludes with two central questions. Where do the characteristics of the entrepreneurial president come from? What is the source of the president’s courage to take risks, ability to change and adapt, and propensity to innovate? “Only further investigations will tell,” he wryly ob-serves (Peck, 1983).

One of the better-known, future-focused, risk-taking, entrepreneurial university presidents in modern times was Frederick Terman. His successful post World War II effort to grow Stanford University’s Engineering School has sub-sequently become a blueprint for many university presidents, standing in stark contrast to Birnbaum’s Myth of the President as a Transformational Leader (Birnbaum, 1992, p. 24), and his expectation that transfor-mational presidential leaders ultimately destroy their institutions. Terman devel-oped what he termed “a recipe for dis-tinction” (Lenoir et al., 2005) that con-tained two key ingredients. The first was “The Mainstream Theory” in which Terman suggested that the university should be strong in areas of mainstream inter-est and importance rather than in “niche” areas, even though the university might be able to be the leader in some obscure and esoteric areas. The second component of Terman’s recipe was to increase the department’s faculty in key areas where funding could be attracted. He called this his “program for building steeples of excellence” (Lenoir et al., 2005).

Terman specifically pursued projects he thought could be “self-financing” and would eventually generate their own momentum of sustained growth. However Terman’s goal was not to just bring money into the university. Rather than sim-ply collecting contract research dollars, he used funding as a way to hire the best talent. His primary objective was to build the premier research program in electronics by obtaining the very best faculty in the field and building a graduate program around it. The training of graduate students and the produc-tion of Ph.D.s were as important as any other component of the program (Lenoir et al., 2005). Terman’s creative use of sal-ary grants proved both motivating and financially rewarding. “Rather than using government grants to increase salaries of faculty already on staff, Terman pursued what he termed ‘sal-ary splitting.’ The strategy was to pay for half of the salary of

a new faculty member from grants and contracts” (Lenoir et al., 2005).

Terman’s genius was to recognize that the university’s relationship to the federal government did not have to be seen as an alternative to a relationship to private industry. In fact, the university’s relationship to one almost had to be intricately bound up in the university’s relationship with the other if either were to prove profitable (Newfield, 2003, p. 253).

University presidents’ part in the development of an academic capitalism regime has not been extensively exam-ined. Yet presidents are now often called university CEOs, indicating that they have management powers similar to cor-porate CEOs. Colleges and universities could not engage in academic capitalism without the involvement of university presidents (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 207). College and university presidents can, then, have significant impact on their institutions, particularly if they take a transformational and entrepreneurial approach. Fisher and Koch (2004) found considerable overlap between the effective presidents and the entrepreneurial presidents. In fact, they conclude that the entrepreneurial character of many presidents, like Frederick Terman, is the mainspring of their success. “Entrepreneurial presidents are flexible, innovative, and especially capable of

perceiving relationships and opportuni-ties that ordinary presidents do not. They leverage resources, negotiate ground-breaking partnerships, turn their organi-zations in new directions, and clearly take risks, albeit well-calculated risks” (Fisher & Koch, 2004, p. 121). These presidents are more likely to develop creative struc-

tures to accomplish their goals; they are not afraid to disturb the status quo; and they personally generate many visionary and innovative ideas. It can be shown that their institutions are probably better off because of their leadership, and, in sig-nificant contrast to Birnbaum’s conclusions of presidents not making a difference, the prototype effective entrepreneurial president is a “pulsating energy source” who transforms the campus (Fisher & Koch, 2004).

Arizona State University is one public university that has embraced this approach in its attempt to create a “New American University” and a “New Gold Standard” of excel-lence and research (ASU, 2004b):

At ASU, we are committed to embedding entrepreneurship as a way of thinking into the culture of our institution and in our partnerships with our community. Through enterprising leadership and resources, we seek to inspire our students and faculty by equipping them with the skills to turn their innovative ideas into reality (ASU, 2004b).

A work-in-progress, Arizona State University is only one of a growing number of universities to attempt a ma-

Yet presidents are now often called university

CEOs, indicating that they have management powers similar to corporate CEOs.

Spring 2007 1�


jor restructuring of its core funding through this approach. Michael Crow’s current tenure as President of Arizona State University has been marked by his entrepreneurial vision to create the “New American University”. Schramm (2006), writing in The Entrepreneurial Imperative, singles out Arizona State as one of only a few universities pursuing an entrepre-neurial agenda through a new combination of existing ele-ments, striving for social impact, and working to distinguish itself from its competitors. “An even larger effort to explicitly change the entire course of a university is underway at Ari-zona State, where under the leadership of President Michael Crow, ASU has declared itself the new American university” (p. 142). As described in university publications, “The New American University is ASU’s vision for a university that is responsible for the economic, social, and cultural vitality of our region” (ASU, 2004a). As a New American University, ASU seeks to:

Provide quality education that is accessible to a broad population Create a highly educated workforce Generate economic growth Conduct transdisciplinary research for the public good Maintain a global perspective in our endeavors (ASU, 2004a)

In a recent personal interview with this author (Searle, 2006), Searle, Provost and Vice President for ASU at the West cam-pus, spoke candidly about his belief in a strong, president-led institution: “If there is no vision or higher expectations, then things just go along. The president needs to reposition the university to emphasize added value. Dr. Crow has pushed the vision” (Searle, 2006). Searle acknowledged that there has been a rapid expansion of programs and ideas at ASU, and that this is a good thing. “This has created an unsettled feel-ing for a lot of folks. For them there are too many things go-ing on at once. This management by disruption upsets their sense of complacency” (Searle, 2006). He suggests that out-side organizations need to see something different happening at the university for them to buy into the process. Searle also points out that the process of growth has specific steps: “In order to build a singular, world-class facility, you first learn how to build a number one-ranked program. The learning process can then extend to the rest of the university” (Searle, 2006).

Schramm (2006) points out that Dr. Crow is acting on what many in universities now know, that the division of knowledge into traditional departments and schools actually hinders progress. “By recombining various disciplines, ASU is developing an entirely new university from within, one pre-paring students for a new economic order” (Schramm, 2006, p. 143).

Trachtenberg (1999), former president George Washing-ton University, summed up the impact of the entrepreneurial president in a speech to the faculty:

•

••••

We benefit daily from what I call the “double-barreled” effect of academic entrepreneurship. You do a good job because you hold yourself up to your personal standards, which are very high. Then, having taken joy and pride in living up to yourself and your reputation, you discover you’ve had a real effect on the bottom line. And that effect is not abstract, not at all. It may mean, for example, that three adjuncts who were going to lose their jobs can be retained. It means the university can finally re-seed the south lawn, otherwise know as “the big muddy”.

Where To From Here?The organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrates the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. (Schumpeter, 1975, p. 82–89).

In Schumpeter’s (1975) view, innovations occur, and old ways die, because some individuals have the courage to do things differently, to take risks, and to place themselves and their institutions on the line. Duderstadt and Womack (2003), among others, recognize the significance of the choices that colleges and universities are confronted with as they face a growing imbalance in the environment-university relation-ship. Higher education can accept the challenge, and the risk, of transforming their institutions into new forms more ap-propriate to this age of knowledge, or they can accept the near-certainty of stagnation, decline, and deterioration in the capacity of traditional universities to serve this fast-chang-ing world. “They must demonstrate once again that they are willing to take the actions necessary to serve a changing soci-ety, thereby earning the renewed commitment of their many stakeholders” (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003, p. 219).

Clark (1998) offers a suggestion to universities on how to proceed. It is a step-by-step process of learning by experi-menting. “We need widespread experimentation that tests ways to move into the future. We need particularly to learn from efforts to innovate in the overall character of universi-ties” (Clark, 1998, p. xiv). For Clark this means universities need to develop an “entrepreneurial response” (1998, p. 8). He acknowledges that this is transforming work, and it must extend over years that often become decades. The sustained work calls for collective action throughout the university, leading to new practices and beliefs. He believes that these steps are entrepreneurial in character, with much risk-taking and flexible adjustment required along the way (Clark, 1998,

rubinS


p. 8).According to Clark (1998), the entrepreneurial response

gives universities a better chance to control their own des-tinies. He concludes that it can be seen as a way for univer-sities to recover their lost autonomy, as mounting demands dominate their capacity to respond using existing structures and systems. This new autonomy is different from the old system where pubic universities were given full state support, and then largely left alone to educate a few students, engage in limited basic research, and prepare students for several specific professional work fields (Clark, 1998, p. 146).

The subjective nature of university administration has made it difficult for researchers to focus on specific aspects of success and achievement in trying to measure the entrepreneurial response and to determine if it is, or can be, an ef-fective approach. There is much oppor-tunity for further research and study of the many universities that are currently pursuing some form of entrepreneurial-ism as part of their changing financial situations and revenue diversification.

The financial crises in American universities, both pub-lic and private, is real, and many of the accepted public fund-ing sources described in this paper, like state legislatures, are quickly drying up, if they are not already gone. In order to survive in the fast-paced, rapidly changing, hostile environ-ment in which they find themselves, colleges and universities are challenged to expand their fund-raising horizons, and, at the very least, to become more creative in their search for financial security. The availability of for-profit corporate dol-lars, for example, whether through business partnerships or direct funding, continues to be very strong, and these rela-tionships can greatly benefit the university. However, there can be considerable risk to the university’s core missions of search for knowledge, teaching, and service to the com-munity if the institution pursues a pure business model of operation.

As commercial activity expands in higher education there is the real risk that it may become an end in its own right. Public colleges and universities have no interest in becoming for-profits, but many public research universities make the case that they should become ‘private’ entities be-cause appropriations from the states in some cases provide very little of their institutional revenues. However, they do not want to pay taxes. Nor do they want to give up public subsidies in the form of state and federal student financial aid and loan program. In short, they want the protections and continued subsidies of the public sector, and flexibility, opportunities, and potential revenue streams of the private sector. (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 330)

If nothing is done differently, there exists an equal risk

to the university of becoming irrelevant; so many universi-ties are rethinking their traditional models of operation. A thorough and comprehensive re-evaluation of the university’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives may be required at many institutions in order to survive. This has long been gener-ally understood as a requirement of any institution that seeks to grow and adapt in a changing world. American colleges and universities have been lucky in that for a long time they have existed in the protective bubble of academic tradition

that kept them isolated from the capital-ist market around them. This isolation served them well for many decades and universities were able to focus their en-ergy within, on teaching and research.

Some ideas worth exploring include alternatives to current patterns of fac-ulty and institutional ownership of and claims to royalties from intellectual prop-erty. Overall, the educational mission of higher education could be reinvested in by prudent use of the proceeds from in-tellectual property. Perhaps a share of

revenues generated by intellectual property could be placed in a public trust that could have as its purpose directly aid-ing students and communities in a variety of ways, whether through scholarships, research internships, or direct grants toward community development.

With a few notable exceptions, like Frederick Terman at Stanford and Derek Bok at Harvard, the history of the finan-cial administration of American Universities in the last half of the 20th Century does not indicate a great deal of outstanding achievement or creative leadership. Clark’s “entrepreneurial response” (1998, p. 8) provides one comprehensive approach to long-term survival and growth for higher education. Ad-ditionally, just as there are many forms of capitalism, so there can be many forms of academic capitalism. Academic capital-ism does not have to take a laissez-faire form. Rather than simply seeking to maximize external revenue generation, col-leges and universities operating in an academic capitalism/entrepreneurialism environment could seek to enhance the social benefits of their intellectual property and educational services. “Colleges and universities’ commitment to revenue generation could also encompass commitments to increased access for underserved populations and expansion of op-portunity for women and minorities” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 336).

Finally, the ability of visionary, transformational univer-sity presidents, like Michael Crow at Arizona State University, to take managed risks for the prosperity of their institutions, continue to make a significant impact in the eventual success or failure of their endeavors to secure the financial health of the university. Arizona State’s focus on local needs, including attending to issues of immigration and integrating immigrant and low-income populations into the middle layers of the new

In order to survive in the fast-paced, rapidly chang-ing, hostile environment in which they find them-selves, colleges and uni-

versities are challenged to expand their fund-raising horizons, and, at the very

least, to become more creative in their search for

financial security.

Spring 2007 17


economy is an example of a positive direction for the aca-demic capitalism/entrepreneurialism process.

Clark (2004) effectively summarizes prospects for the future:

This side of the calamities of war, fire, and earthquake, and repressive governmental tyranny, the future of universities rests in their self-reliance. The study of modern academic entrepreneurialism teaches, and teaches well, that, one by one, as the twenty-first century unfolds, universities will largely get what they deserve. The lucky ones will have built the institutional habits of change (p. 10).

ReferencesASU. (2004a). A New American University. Retrieved

August, 2006, from http://www.asu.edu/president/ newamericanuniversity/

ASU. (2004b). University as Entrepreneur. Retrieved August, 2006, from http://www.asu.edu/ui/entrepreneurship/about/

Axelrod, P. (2002). Values in Conflict: The University, the Marketplace, and the Trials of Liberal Education. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Balderston, F. E. (1995). Managing Today’s University: Strategies for Viability, Change, and Excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The ‘L’ Word in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.

Birnbaum, R. (1992). How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management Fads in Higher Education: Where They Come From, What They Do, Why They Fail. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bok, D. (1990). Universities and the Future of America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Budig, G. A. (2002). A Game of Uncommon Skill: Leading the Modern College and University. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.

Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Clark, B. R. (2000). Collegial Entrepreneurialism In Proactive Universities. Change.

Clark, B. R. (2004). Delineating the Character of the Entrepreneurial University. Higher Education Policy, 17, 355–370.

Clark, B. R. (2005). The Character of the Entrepreneurial University. International Higher Education, Winter.

Council on Government Relations. (1999) The Bayh-Dole Act: A Guide to the Law and Implementing Regulations. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://www.cogr.edu/docs/Bayh_Dole.pdf.

Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurialism in Universities: Is the Local Dimension Still Important? Comparative Education, 37, 7–20.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Duderstadt, J. J., & Womack, F. W. (2003). The Future of the Public University in America: Beyond the Crossroads. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Duke, C. (2002). The Morning After the Millennium: Building the Long-haul Learning University. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21, 24–36.

Encarta World English Dictionary. (2006). Retrieved June 15, 2006, 2006, from http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx

Fisher, J. L., & Koch, J. V. (1996). Presidential Leadership: Making a Difference. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Fisher, J. L., & Koch, J. V. (2004). The Entrepreneurial College President. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kozeracki, C. (1998). Institutional Entrepreneurship in Higher Education. DIGEST, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education (Number 98-5).

Lenoir, T., Rosenberg, N., Rowen, H., Lécuyer, C., Colyvas, J., & Goldfarb, B. (2005). Inventing the Entrepreneurial University: Stanford and the Co-Evolution of Silicon Valley. Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://siepr.stanford.edu/programs/SST_Seminars/Lenoir.doc

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2006). Retrieved June 15, 2006, 2006, from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=entrepreneurshiphttp://www.answers.com/topic/enterprise

Newfield, C. (2003). Ivy and Industry: Business and the Making of the American University, 1880–1980. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Nixon, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurial College Leadership or Lessons in How to Juggle. Leadership Abstracts, 17 (12).

Peck, R. D. (1983). The Entrepreneurial College Presidency. Educational Record, 64, 18–25.

Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (2004). Academic Capitalism in the New Economy: Challenges and Choices. American Academic, 37–59.

Rhodes, F. (1998). The Art of the Presidency. The Presidency (Spring 1998), 1–6.

Röpke, J. (1998). The Entrepreneurial University: Innovation, Academic Knowledge Creation, and Regional Development in a Globalized Economy.Unpublished manuscript, Marburg, Germany.

Schramm, C. J. (2006). The Entrepreneurial Imperative: How

rubinS


America’s Economic Miracle Will Reshape the World. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1975). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Originally published 1942 ed.). New York, NY: Harper.

Searle, M. (2006). Personal Interview. In I. M. Rubins (Ed.). Phoenix, AZ.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Soares, V. A. M., & Amaral, A. M. S. C. (1999). The Entrepreneurial University: A Fine Answer to a Difficult Problem? Higher Education in Europe, XXIV, 11–21.

Tighe, T. J. (2003). Who’s in Charge of America’s Universities?: A Blueprint for Reform. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Trachtenberg, S. J. (1999). The New Entrepreneurial University. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.

Veblen, T. (1957). The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men. New York, NY: Sagamore Press.

Washburn, J. (2005, February 3, 2005). Colleges and Industry Can Work Together. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51.

Waugh, W. L., Jr. (1998). Conflicting Values and Cultures: The Managerial Threat to University Governance. Policy Studies Review, 15, 61–73.

Wikipedia. (2006). Robert K. Merton. Retrieved November 24, 2006, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton.

Spring 2007 1�

When one looks at homicide rates across states, one is struck by the variability in the numbers. Why do some states have a rate that is below two homi-

cides per 100,000 population while others approach ten? Are there factors that influence these rates that can be addressed legislatively or administratively? These are the questions that we sought to answer through our regression analysis of inter-state homicide rates.

CNNMoney.com recently developed a report on the best places to live in the United States. The criteria they used to determine which places were the best to live in included economic growth forecasts, cost of living figures, and qual-ity of life measures (Best Places to Live 2006). Of the seven items indexed to measure quality of life, four of them were related to crime rates. Forbes developed a report on the best states for business, and they also included measures on qual-ity of life (Badenhausen 2006). Quality of life is evidently of utmost importance in measurements of the best places to live and do business, and crime rates have an understandable im-pact on a state’s quality of life score. It is clearly in states’ best interests to minimize crime rates as best they can if it is their desire to attract new business and new residents.

There are many crimes that might affect an area’s de-sirability, and criminal activity in general detracts from an area’s appeal. One of the most violent crimes that must be ad-dressed and minimized if a state is to be safe is that of homi-cide. There is a wide variance in homicide rates among states, with North Dakota having a rate of 1.1 per 100,000 popula-tion and Louisiana and Maryland reporting 9.9 per 100,000 population. What factors influence a state’s homicide rate?

Why is there such disparity among them? Are there things that government can do to reduce the rate?

Literature ReviewA great number of research articles in the fields of so-

ciology and criminology have examined the phenomenon of homicide for the past few decades. Scholars sought a fairly definitive model and built up robust theories to determine what primary factors contribute to societal homicide rates. Their findings were mixed.

Blumstein and Rosenfeld (1998) observed that during the period of the 1980s and 1990s, the national homicide rate continuously fluctuated up and down. It reached its highest point in 1980 at 10.2 homicides per 100,000 population, and then kept going down until 1985. After the downward trend, the homicide rate again climbed year after year and reached a second peak in 1991 at 9.8 homicides per 100,000 population. It then fell sharply down to a level of 6.8 in 1997 (Blumstein and Rosenfeld 1998 pp. 1175–76). Blumstein and Rosenfeld were interested in the behind-the-scenes influences that af-fected the changing trend in homicide rates. They started an investigation that included state and city level research. According to their research, they set forth a couple of key variables for explaining the change of homicide rates during the late 1980s and early 1990s, such as age (younger people commit more homicides), demographic shifts (particularly age and African American population), the role of weapons, occurrence in large cities, drug markets, economic cycles, family structures, and relevant enforcement policies (Blum-stein and Rosenfeld 1998 p. 1175, pp. 1207–1216). Blumstein

Making Your State Safer: Factors Influencing Interstate Homicide

Rates in the United Statesby Tanya Watt and Chung-Chen Lee

When one looks at homicide rates across states, one is struck by the disparity in the numbers. Why do some states have a rate that is below two homicides per 100,000 population while others approach ten? Are there factors that influence these rates that can be addressed legislatively or admin-istratively? These are the questions that we sought to answer through our regression analysis of interstate homicide rates. After reviewing relevant lit-erature, we attempted to assess the following factors to determine whether they are predictive of a state’s homicide rate: income inequality, education rate, percentage of population that is African American, unemployment rate, age, whether a state has a large urban area, and the level of gun regulation. Important findings include that, when holding all other included independent variables constant: education rate is statistically significant, decreasing homicide rate by 0.29 for each one percent increase in education rate; the percentage of the population that is African American has a statistically significant impact on homicide rates, increasing rates by 0.11 for every one percent increase in African American population; whether a state has at least one of the largest cities in the U.S. has a statistically significant impact on the state’s homicide rate; and states that implemented restrictive gun laws were estimated to have a .6 decrease in homicide rates per 100,000 population compared with those states that did not. This result was not statistically significant, but may be cause for further research due to its policy implications. If focused legislative efforts can bring about such a reduction in homicide rates, they are clearly worthwhile.

WAtt And lee


and Rosenfeld’s contemporaries were also curious about the causal relationship between homicide rates and social forces such as income inequality and demographic shifts.

Tracing back to the 1970s, scholars have explored the relationship between homicide rates and income inequality and poverty. Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley (1998) believed that early studies in this area demonstrated a limited perspec-tive and claimed that poor economic conditions might in-duce more crime than previously thought. They worked with the theories of absolute and relative economic deprivation. The concept of absolute economic deprivation considers whether people who earn low incomes, obtain little education, and suffer unemployment are more likely to seek criminal approaches to solve their living crises. Relative deprivation considers whether individuals perceiving their relatively unfavorable socioeconomic circumstances and subsequent emotional frustrations are more easily involved in violent criminal be-haviors. It is expected that an increase in income inequality increases an individual’s relative or absolute deprivation and thus drive that individual to engage in highly violent crimes (Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley 1998 p. 571). The theory of economic deprivation has been further expanded to argue that the social values supportive of violence found in areas of deprivation are passed on within social organizations such as families, neighborhoods, and communities. Therefore, pov-erty, segregation, and isolation encountered by poor and mi-norities may lead to the creation violent subcultures (Kovan-dzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley 1998 pp. 570–574). In sum, research has established that factors affecting economic status and inequality, including unemployment, income, and education, (among others), are variables that may explain homicide rates (Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley 1998 pp. 576–577).

Though many studies probed the association between homicide rates and income inequality and poverty, they failed to establish a consensus regarding a comprehensive set of fac-tors that affect homicide rates (Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeis-ley 1998 p. 569). Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley (1998) reas-sessed theories and created a new model for analysis in order to attempt to address these problems. They concluded that homicide was largely a central city phenomenon, so instead of using states and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), they looked at U. S. cities having a population of 100,000 or more as the target analysis groups, and argued that employing cities as the unit of analysis made sense since they tended to be more homogenous social communities than larger aggregations (Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley 1998 p. 578).

In order to deal with multicollinearity between inde-pendent variables meant to measure poverty, Kovandzic, Vi-eraitis and Yeisley (1998) developed a new mechanism that rejected the measures that had been used before, including the Gini index. They argued that the Gini index’s inability

to detect changes in the tail end of the income distribution affected its usability and thus they devised an alternative way to manipulate inequality of income and poverty. They compared the ratio of the income received by the top 20% of families to that of the lowest 20% of families and also the share of the income received by the top 20% of families (Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley 1998 p. 582). As they were considering cities as their unit of analysis, such transforma-tion allowed them to compare income inequality and whether

this influenced homicide rates. The other independent variables they included in their model basically followed former theoretical and empirical studies which were relevant to homicide rate, such as percent black, percent young, and unem-ployment (Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeis-

ley 1998 pp. 582–584).Some researchers have argued that a southern culture

of violence exists. Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley (1998) in-cluded this regional factor in their model, but it did not yield a statistically significant result. Similar findings appeared in Huff-Corzine, Corzine and Moore’s research in 1985, where they indicated that high homicide rates among white south-erners and African Americans might tie to cultural difference; however, they could not support an argument that regional differences explain homicide rates (p. 919). We assume that variance in region does not play a role in predicting the level of homicide rate because of changes in social context and de-mographical conditions. We agree with the point Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley (1998) make: “migration of Southern-ers to the North, followed by migration of non-Southerners to the South during the Sunbelt expansion of the 1960s to 1980s” has caused the geographical dispersion of southern culture (p. 586).

Specification of the Theoretical ModelBased on our literature review, we included measures to ac-count for many items that previous theory indicates affect homicide rates. Using 2005 per capita state homicide rates as the measure of our dependent variable, we researched 2005 measurements for a number of independent variables in or-der to do a cross-sectional analysis. Blumstein and Rosen-feld (1998) found that age and African American population play an important role in homicide trends; we included 2005 census data for percent of state population between 18–24 years old and percent of state population that self-identified as African American or black to account for these items. They found that occurrence in large cities was important, as did Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley (1998). We included a dummy measure to determine whether states with the larg-est cities in the country have a statistically significant higher homicide rate than those that do not. To do this, we included

Tracing back to the 1970s, scholars have explored

the relationship between homicide rates and income

inequality and poverty.

Spring 2007 21

interStAte homicide rAteS

data for the 50 largest cities in the United States so that each state had an opportunity to be included.

Blumstein and Rosenfeld also found the role of weapons interesting, particularly juvenile use of weapons. The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence has created a 2005 report card for each state based on its gun laws1. The report card is based on an index that measures whether a state has the fol-lowing legal restrictions on weapons:

Juvenile Possession of Guns—Is it illegal for a child to possess a gun without supervision?Sale/Transfer of Guns to Juveniles—Is it illegal to sell a gun to a child?Safe Storage and Gun Owner Accountability—Are gun owners held responsible for leaving loaded guns easily accessible to children?Childproof Guns and Gun Design Safety—Are guns required to have child-safety locks, loaded-chamber in-dicators and other childproof designs? Are there restric-tions on unsafe Saturday night specials?Preemption—Do cities and counties have authority to enact local gun laws?Secondary “Private” Gun Sale Background Checks—Are background checks required at gun shows and be-tween “private” parties?Carrying Concealed Weapons (CCW)—Is it legal to carry concealed handguns in public?

We utilized the report card generated by these measures to test whether such bans and legal restrictions have a statis-tically significant impact on state homicide rates. If a state scored an A or a B on the report card, it was assigned a value of 1. If it scored less than a B, it was assigned a value of 0. We did this rather than assigning the variable an ordinal level of measure because the index seemed to be weighted such that a state could receive 2 F’s and 3A’s on index measurements and still receive a D or F overall. Since this indicated that the index was not precise, we divided the states into top and bot-tom tiers and assigned values this way.

Blumstein and Rosenfeld also found that other measures were important in understanding homicide rates, such as drug markets, economic cycles, family structures, and relevant en-forcement policies (Blumstein and Rosenfeld 1998 p. 1175, pp. 1207–1216). We found that there are not standardized measures to account for these variables across states; in fact these variables are much more standardized for microanalysis across metropolitan areas. The data across states were not re-liable and we often found that data that seemed to track one of these items actually did not. For example, to track enforce-ment we wanted to include a measure of the number of law enforcement officers in a state. Upon researching this item, though, we found that reliable data was not available for each

1 See http://www.stategunlaws.org/ for details regard-ing this report card; the index listed here that was utilized to grade states’ performance is taken verbatim from this website.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

state. The only measure that was available reported the num-ber of sworn highway patrol officers across states, and we had no reason to think that the number of highway patrol officers within a state would impact state homicide rates.

Kovandzic, Vieraitis and Yeisley (1998) noted that in-come inequality affected homicide rates, and we used state per capita income to measure state income and test the affect of inequality at a macro level2. They also found that education and unemployment rates affected homicide rates, and we in-cluded census data regarding these variables to measure their affect. We specified education as those in the population with at least a high school diploma based on Blumstein and Rosen-feld’s (1998) observation that younger people are more likely to be involved in homicides. By utilizing high school educa-tion as a measure we hope to capture educational attainment of the demographic most likely to be involved in homicides.

Heteroskedasticity is a concern when estimating a re-gression equation based on cross-sectional data. It is especial-ly a concern with state data since there is such variance be-tween their sizes, incomes, etc. Studenmund (2006) explains that “Heteroskedasticity often occurs in data sets in which there is a wide disparity between the largest and smallest ob-served value of the dependent variable” (p. 348). In order to ensure that the homicide rate data we used accounted for this possible problem, we used rate per 100,000 population. Di-viding by population allowed us to standardize raw numbers, which had an extremely large variance, to numbers with a much smaller variance that accurately reflected differences in homicide rates between states3.

We expect that all of our independent variables will

2 We discovered post-analysis that per capita income did not appropriately capture the effect of income inequality on ho-micide rates at the state level. Our analysis demonstrated that per capita state income is not a statistically significant predictor of a state’s homicide rate, but we only captured the affect of income on homicide rates rather than capturing the affect of income inequality.

3 We specified two equations for this analysis. The first included Washington, D.C. as a state and the second did not. The equation that excluded Washington, D.C. had a better over-all fit. Including Washington, D.C. was problematic on several levels. In some data we reviewed, it was reported as a city, in others it was reported as a state. Much control over D.C. is in the hands of Congress, so it is difficult to treat D.C. as an autono-mous unit in the same way as states are. Further, many of the trends D.C. demonstrates are congruent with that of large cities rather than those of states. It also had a homicide rate more than three times than that of the states, which significantly increased the variance in the dependent variable and thus increased the chance for heteroskedasticity to be present. Due to all of these items, this paper focuses only on the equation that estimated a model based on the states themselves and excludes Washington, D.C.

WAtt And lee


have a linear relationship with the dependent variable and that OLS will be the best linear unbiased estimator for our analysis.

Sign HypothesesWe hypothesize that the signs for each coefficient will be as follows:

Income (–)Research Hypothesis: This variable will have a negative relationship with the dependent variable in that as the income level increases the homicide rate will decrease.Education (–)Research Hypothesis: As education level increases ho-micide rate will decrease, meaning that this variable will also have a negative relationship with the dependent variable.Percentage of population that is African American (+)Research Hypothesis: Based on previously conducted research, we expect that the proportion of African American population will be positively correlated with homicide rate, meaning that as the proportion of Afri-can American population increases homicide rates will also increase.Brady Campaign Report Card (–)Research Hypothesis: If a state has an A or a B on the Brady Campaign Report Card it will have a lower homi-cide rate than those states that score below a B.State’s unemployment rate (+)Research Hypothesis: States with higher unemployment rates will have higher homicide rates than those with lower rates, meaning that we expect that they will be positively related.Percentage of population between 18–24 years old (+)Research Hypothesis: Those states with younger popu-lations will have higher homicide rates than those with older populations. Therefore, we expect that as the per-centage of the population 25 years old and younger in-

•

•

•

•

•

•

creases, homicide rates will also increase.Large City (+)Research Hypothesis: Per Blumstein and Rosenfeld (1998), changes in city aggregate homicide rates have a large affect on overall homicide rates. We expect that large cities will have higher homicide rates due to the concentration of population, and thus it is expected that states with large cities will have higher rates than those without them.

The equation we will estimate is:State Homicide Rates = B0 – B1 Income – B2 Education + B3 PercentPopAfricanAmerican – B4 BradyReport Card + B5 Unemployment + B6 PercentPop18–24 + B7 LargeCities + є

Data to be Analyzed and Descrip-tive StatisticsUtilizing 2005 data from the Census Bureau, the FBI, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Brady Campaign, we hope to capture the factors that influence homicide rates. There is variance within 2005 homicide rate among states, as reported by the FBI. In order to allow for easy state-to-state comparisons, homicide rates have been standardized to rate per 100,000 population. The education rate we use is based on the report-ed census rate for individuals in the state with at least a high school diploma. State per capita personal income represents our effort to determine whether the variance in interstate in-come has a statistically significant impact on homicide rates. Previous research in the field has shown that income variance has an impact in urban areas. African American population, also garnered through census data, has similarly been shown to influence homicide rates in urban areas. The younger the population demographic, the higher the crime rate is expected to be. To capture this, we used census data representing the 18–24 year old age group. Unemployment rate, as measured through Bureau of Labor Statistics data, is also expected to increase the crime rate in states.

Descriptive measures of the above data are listed below in Table 1:

•

Table 1. Descriptive Measures of Independent Variables

Descriptive Statistic

Homicide Rate

Education Rate

State Per Capita Income

Percent of Popu-lation African

American

Percent of Popula-tion 18–24

Unemployment Rate

Mean 4.71 85.69 33441.68 9.89 10.14 4.88

Median 4.70 86.30 32657.00 6.60 10.00 4.90

Maximum 9.90 91.30 47819.00 36.50 12.90 7.90

Minimum 1.10 78.50 24820.00 0.40 8.70 2.80

Std. Dev. 2.37 3.64 4894.02 9.54 0.79 1.06

n = 50

Spring 2007 2�


There is wide variance in some of the factors among states. For example, in 2005 Mississippi had an African American population of 36.5% while Idaho’s population was only 0.4%. Hawaii’s unemployment rate was only 2.8% while Mississippi’s was 7.9%. Such variance will allow us to better test whether these factors have a statistically significant im-pact on homicide rates.

We also included measures from the Brady Campaign Report Card in order to test whether a state’s gun laws influ-enced its homicide rates, assigning 1 to states with an A or B and 0 to states with less than a B. We did not assign an ordinal level measure to this due to the weighted index the campaign utilized to generate a final grade. Instead, we chose to con-sider top tier states compared with lower tiered states. With a mean of .2 for this variable, we can see that fewer states scored a 1 than those that scored a 0.

In addition, we utilized a measurement to account for the fact that many homicides occur in urban areas with dense populations. If a state had one of these urban areas, we ex-pected that it would have a higher homicide rate. We assigned those states with such urban areas a 1 and those without a 0. We included the top fifty most populous cities in the country so that each of the fifty states had a chance of ending up with a 1. With a mean of .58, we can see that slightly over half of the states have at least one of these urban centers, meaning several have more than one.

ResultsOur regression analysis yielded the following result:

The adjusted R-squared of .69 indicates that 69 percent of the variability in state homicide rates is explained by our estimation, controlling for the number of independent vari-ables. This means that about one third of the variability is not explained by this equation. Our F-statistic of 16.27 indicates

that we can reject the null hypothesis that our group of inde-pendent variables has no affect on the dependent variable.

State Per Capita Personal Income, a variable that we se-lected to measure income inequality among states, was not statistically significant and was actually found to be close to zero with a small positive coefficient. This was shocking, and leads us to believe that this variable was incorrectly speci-fied since the result is completely inconsistent with previously completed research. Clearly state per capita personal income is not the best mechanism to capture the affect of income inequality on interstate homicide rates. Much literature indi-cates that income should influence homicide rates, but this lit-erature focuses on a micro level view of homicide, specifically focusing on homicide in urban areas. It is possible that such an affect is more difficult to capture at the macro level. It is also possible that a measure that standardizes the percentage difference in income between the top and bottom tiers in a state would better capture the affect of income inequality on interstate homicide rates.

The t-statistic for Education of -3.41 indicates that this variable is strongly statistically significant at above the 95% confidence level, holding other included independent vari-ables constant. The coefficient of -0.29 indicates that for ev-ery one percentage point increase in high school education rates, homicide rates per 100,000 population will drop by 0.29. Though this number may seem small, it is important to remember that most states had a homicide rate around four per 100,000 population. For a state with exactly such a homi-cide rate, a single percentage point increase in education rate would drop the homicide rate by 0.29. For example, a state

with a population of 500,000 and a homicide rate of four per 100,000, a one percentage point increase in the number of people with at least a high school diploma would drop ho-micide rates from 20 per year (4 per 100,000 * 5) to 18.5 per year. Though this may seem like a small change, it is all the

Table 2. Regression Analysis Results

Variables Coefficients Standard Errors t-Statistics Probability

Constant 22.93 6.51 3.52 <0.01

Income .00006 .00007 0.91 0.37

Education -0.29 0.09 -3.41 <0.01

% Population African American

0.11 0.03 4.27 <0.01

Unemployment Rate 0.09 0.21 0.43 0.67

% Population 18–24 0.26 0.33 0.79 0.47

Brady Campaign Report Card -0.65 0.64 -1.01 0.32

Largest Cities 1.20 0.41 2.95 0.01

R-squared: 0.73 F-statistic: 16.27

Adjusted R-squared: 0.69 F-statistic probability: <0.01

WAtt And lee


change in the world to the family who does not lose a loved one. As population or homicide rate increases, the number of lives saved by increasing education rate also increases proportionally.

The percentage of a state’s population that is African American also has a strongly statistically significant impact on the state’s homicide rates, with a t-statistic of 4.27. The magnitude of the impact is 0.11 for ev-ery one percent change in population, holding all other included independent variables constant. This means that in our previous example, the homicide rate would increase from 20 per year to 20.55 if the state’s African American population increased by one percentage point. This clearly has important implications, especially for states with a high African American popula-tion. It is important to note that race itself is not necessar-ily the cause of the increase in homicide rates; the regression analysis tells us that an increase in the rate occurs as African American population increases, but it does not tell us why. Subculture values and socioeconomic systemic issues should be examined to determine their influence on the correlation between African American population and an increase in homicide rates. Such systemic issues may be reflected in an increased occurrence in the African American community of other areas that have been found to increase the rates (for example, increased income inequality).

The coefficient for unemployment, 0.09, indicates that for every one percentage point increase in unemployment, the homicide rate increases by 0.09. This relationship was not statistically significant, with a t-probability of 0.67. This find-ing is inconsistent with the previous research we reviewed. However, it is possible that unemployment does not play the role now that it did in the 1990s. It is also possible that unem-ployment plays a role on the urban level that it does not play on the state level.

Percentage of the population between 18–24 was also not statistically significant, with a t-statistic of only 0.79. Its coefficient indicates that for every percentage point increase in this demographic, the homicide rate would increase by .26. Strong theoretical evidence indicates that young people are more likely to be involved in homicide than other age de-mographics. It is possible that this variable was not correctly specified and did not capture enough of the under-24 age group to demonstrate a statistically significant impact on ho-micide rates. Perhaps reporting the age group demographic at the 15–24 level would have provided a better specification.

The Brady Campaign Report Card was not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, but the findings are nonetheless interesting. The findings indicated that a state scoring high on the Brady Campaign Report Card (either an A or B) has .65 fewer homicides per 100,000 population than those that scored below a B. In our example of a state with 500,000 people and a homicide rate of 4 per 100,000 people,

the annual homicide rate would go from 20 per year to 16.75. This comes to a 16.25% decrease in the homicide rate. If leg-islation can have such a strong impact, it is worth further research.

Finally, as expected, those states with one of the fifty largest cities in the United States can expect to have a higher homicide rate than those that do not. This finding is statisti-

cally significant at higher than the 95% confidence level, with a t-statistic of 2.95. Having at least one of the largest cities in the U.S. increases homicide rates by 1.2 per 100,000, holding all other included variables constant. This means that a

state with a population of 500,000 and four homicides a year would increase that rate to 10 per year if it had at least one of the country’s largest cities. Cities are truly hubs of homicidal activity.

ConclusionsThere are several important findings for states based on these results. First, education has a significant impact on homicide rates, and it doesn’t have to be a college degree to make a dif-ference. Simply increasing high school graduation rates can decrease homicide rates. This can be added to the many rea-sons states should emphasize high school completion. Hav-ing said that, there are ultimately limitations to this finding. It is probably unrealistic to expect that states will be able to in-crease their education rate by one percent or more each year, though our findings indicate that every increase in education rate, no matter how small, will have some impact on decreas-ing homicide rate.

Second, it is troubling to find that an increase in African American population increases homicide rates. This finding has implications beyond the state level and should be exam-ined to determine urban level consequences as well. New re-search questions emerge from this finding, such as whether aggregations of African American population increase homi-cide rates in urban areas, and if so, why? Our research is con-gruent with other research that indicates that a relationship exists, but it does not tell us why it exists.

Third, the results regarding the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence Report Card were not definitive but indicated that more research should be done to clarify the relationship between gun laws and homicide rates. If a state could signifi-cantly reduce its homicide rate simply by passing and enforc-ing more restrictive legislation, it seems that it would be a very worthwhile endeavor. It may also be worthwhile to run a regression analysis based on the grade each state received on each of the indexed items used to determine the Brady Campaign report card to see if each item has a statistically significant impact on a state’s homicide rate.

Fourth, it may be worthwhile for standardized measure-ments utilized in metropolitan areas to be utilized to exam-

Simply increasing high school graduation rates can decrease homicide

rates.

Spring 2007 2�


ine state-level data. As Blumstein and Rosenfeld (1998) noted that measures such as drug markets, economic cycles, family structures, and relevant enforcement policies are important in understanding homicide rates, developing and including standardized statewide measures to account for these within our model may increase its explanatory power.

Finally, if large cities are the locus of most homicides, states should review their partnerships with them to deter-mine whether there are ways to improve prevention. City law enforcement officials are on the frontlines and might offer valuable insight on how to best deter the crime to begin with. Enhancing partnerships in order to improve efforts to de-crease homicide rates can only benefit both states and cities as they both seek to improve the quality of life for residents and businesses.

ReferencesBadenhausen, K. (2006). The best States for business.

Retrieved December 3, 2006 from http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/9/06beststates_The-Best-States-For-Business_land.html

Best Places to Live 2006 (n.d.) Retrieved December 3, 2006 from http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/bestplaces/search.jsp

Blumstein A. and Rosenfeld R. (1998). Explaining recent trends in U. S. homicide rates. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminolog y, 88, 1175–1216.

Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence 2005 Report Card (n.d.) Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://www.stategunlaws.org/

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.) Crime in the United States by region, geographic division, and state, 2004–2005. Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html

Huff-Corzine L, Corzine J and Moore D. (1986). Southern Exposure: Deciphering the south’s influence on homicide rates. Social Forces, 64, June, 906–924.

Kovandzic T, Vieraitis L and Yeisley M. (1998). The structure covariates of urban homicide: Reassessing the impact of income inequality and poverty in the post-Reagan era. Criminolog y, 36, 569–600

Lenze, D.G. and Albetski, K. (2006). State Personal Income 2005. United States Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census, prepared for release March 28, 2006. Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/spi0306.htm

Studenmund, A.H. (2006). Using econometrics: A practical guide, 5th ed. Addison Wesley Longman: Boston.

Top 50 Cities in the U.S. by Population and Rank. (n.d.) Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.) Unemployment rates for states. Retrieved December

2, 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk05.htmUnited States Census Bureau (n.d.) 2005 American community

survey. Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://factf inder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_ id=04000US01&-_box_head_nbr=R1401&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_ lang=en&-format=US-30&-_sse=on

United States Census Bureau (n.d.) 2005 American community survey. Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://factf inder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&- ds _ na me=AC S _ 2 0 05 _ E ST_G 0 0 _ &-_col=disp_order&-CONTEXT=grt&-mt_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_R0202 _US30&-_source=mdr& -redoLog=false&-geo_id=04000US01&-format=US-30&-_lang=en

United States Census Bureau (n.d.) National and state population estimates. Retrieved December 2, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-EST2005-01.html


Child support noncompliance can have serious impli-cations for families, children, and taxpayers (Beron, 1988). In addition, child support collections can be

vital to the well-being and self-sufficiency of children and families. In an effort to minimize negative outcomes of such, states collect child support payments through various meth-ods including income withholding, unemployment compen-sation interception, and state or federal income tax refund offsets. Also, state agencies assist in establishing paternity and support obligations and enforcement. The Child Support Enforcement Program mandates that all states and territories run a child support enforcement program, with the assistance of prosecuting attorneys, district attorneys, law enforcement agencies, and family or domestic relations courts. Most im-portantly, the act requires families seeking government child support services to apply directly through their state, local, or tribal agency.

Public Law 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a new incentive system intended to be cost and budget neutral. The structure is based on five performance measures, which include paternity estab-lishment percentage, support order establishment percent-age, current collections performance level, arrears collection performance level, and cost effectiveness. The measures were put in place to create strong incentives for states to operate efficient and effective programs (“Child Support Enforce-ment,” 2004).

The success of state agencies in establishing child sup-port cases and collecting monies owed varies across the Unit-ed States. As such, the following research questions surfaces: how do out-of-wedlock births, paternity establishment, and volume of interstate cases affect child support collections? Other variables that may influence child support collections include state administrative authority regulations, tribal case-loads, enforcement tactics, and demographics.

Laura M. Argys and H. Elizabeth Peters (2003) studied

the effect of legislation and parental responsibility as it re-lates to child-support collections. The authors theorize that noncustodial parents’ willingness to pay child support and state child support guidelines and enforcement efforts relate to child support awards and compliance. Argys and Peters established a theoretical model that identifies three types of outcomes as related to parental involvement and state enforce-ment: cooperative and self-enforcing, noncooperative and self-enforcing, and noncooperative and state-enforced. They conclude that legislative policies can affect the type of out-come, as well as the amount of child support awards. Further, the findings indicate that guidelines and increased enforce-ment can increase payments when awards are court-ordered. Conversely, the same guidelines and increased enforcement may not increase and could even reduce child expenditures when the payment would have otherwise been received vol-untarily. Hence, child support awards must take into consid-eration both willingness to pay and state guidelines and en-forcement efforts already in place (Argys & Peters, 2003).

Causal ModelThe dependent measure, or construct of interest, is the dollar amount of child support collections. The question identifies explanatory variables of out-of-wedlock births, paternity es-tablishment, and interstate cases. Other variables that may surface include state administrative authority regulations, tribal caseloads, enforcement tactics, and demographics. Outcomes of child support collections will be compared by state. The below causal model outlines this scenario:Causal Model: Child support collectionsOut-of-wedlock births →Paternity establishment → Child support collectionsInterstate cases →

This causal model uses states as the unit of analysis. It is expected that out-of-wedlock births, paternity establishment,

State Performance in Child Support Collectionsby Mary Brandenberger

Child support noncompliance can have serious implications for families, children, and taxpayers (Beron, 1988). The success of state agencies in estab-lishing child support cases and collecting monies owed varies across the United States. Previous studies suggest that noncustodial parents’ willingness to pay child support and state child support guidelines and enforcement efforts relate to child support awards and compliance. Additional research theo-rizes that legislative policies can affect the type of outcome, as well as the amount of child support awards. This study addresses the following research question: how do out-of-wedlock births, paternity establishment, and volume of interstate cases affect child support collections? Data sources include reports released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. The total amount of child support collections in dollars is compared to the number of out-of-wedlock births, percentage of paternity establishments, and number of interstate cases by state. The multivariate analysis indicates the volume of interstate cases and out-of-wedlock births may have little effect on child support collections. However, all statistical analyses show a positive relationship between collections and paternity establishment. Further research is needed to determine the influence of other variables such as administrative authority regulations, tribal caseloads, enforcement tactics, and demographics.

Spring 2007 27

child Support collectionS

and interstate cases would determine the outcome of child support collections. Thus, the amount of child support col-lections represents the dependent measure, and out-of-wed-lock births, administrative authority regulations, and inter-state cases are key independent measures. That is, states with higher out-of-wedlock births, on average, are more likely to have lower child support collections than states with lower out-of-wedlock births. States with more cases in which pater-nity of the child is established take in more money in child support collections. States with a higher number of interstate cases are more likely to have a lesser amount of child support collections in dollars than states with fewer interstate cases.

In addition to the direct effects of most constructs of child support collections, other relationships among the vari-ables exist. Anne C. Case, I-fen Lin, and Sara S. McLanahan (2003) suggest that political, demographic, and economic forces influence child support payments. Specifically, the au-thors contend that inflation, the shift to unilateral divorce, changes in marital-status composition, changes in men’s and women’s earnings, and ineffective child-support laws factor into the stagnation of child support payments over a thirty-year period. Such conclusions were drawn from data taken from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) between 1968 and 1997. The longitudinal study isolated 5,000 U.S. households in 1968 and followed the households and their children over 30 years (Case, Lin & McLanahan, 2003).

The research methods utilized through use of PSID data had both advantages and disadvantages for studying child-support trends. The PSID, unlike any other national survey, was able to provide annual information on child-sup-port payments over an extended period of time, dating back to the 1960’s. This information was crucial in determining the effects of inflation, divorce laws, and shifts in fertility. However, the study also presented limitations. One disad-vantage was the absence of information indicating whether a mother ever actually obtained a child-support award or the amount of the award. The dependent variables in the analy-sis were whether the mother received any child support and the amount of child support received. Explanatory variables include mothers’ marital status, age, education, race, and the number of minor children in the household (Case et. al., 2003).

Through regression analyses, Case, Lin, and McLana-han discovered that marital status, number of children, and education affect the amount of child support receipts. Moth-ers who have never been married received 183 fewer dollars of child support than did mothers who had been married. An increase in mothers’ education positively affected child-support receipts for both mothers who had been married and mothers who had not. The study also demonstrated that states’ adoption of unilateral divorce legislation has a nega-tive, statistically significant effect on child-support receipt, and changes in demographics variables, such as marital status and fertility, had a negative effect. Further limitations were

present in these analyses. The data did not take remarried women who are eligible for child support into account. Also, the analysis did not include Hispanics who immigrated to the United States after 1968. The authors conclude that genetic testing, legislative guidelines, and universal wage withhold-ing are the most important determinants of child-support payments (Case et. al., 2003).

Jessica Pearson and Esther Ann Griswold (2000) argue that policymakers need to address this issue through incen-tive regulations. Research indicated that states are testing or employing an array of policies and practices aimed at the growth and impact of arrears payments. Pearson and Gris-wold advocate that child support workers should approach the treatment of various types of obligors in different ways. To do so, more research must be done to determine what strategies of recouping monies owed works best (Pearson & Griswold, 2000). Roger Muns (2004) adds to this theory, stressing the need for states to work together when dealing with intrastate cases. Collaborating on cases that transcend state and county lines could have great impact on child sup-port collections. Muns suggests that the interaction between child support workers across state lines has great impact on the success of collections (Muns, 2004).

Operationalization and MeasurementThe outcome of child support collections is measured in dol-lars. It is also necessary to measure and evaluate the number of out-of-wedlock births, paternity establishments, and inter-state cases by state. The number of unmarried women, ages 15 to 44, with a birth determines out-of-wedlock births. The paternity establishment percentage is calculated by dividing the number of minor children in the state born out-of-wed-lock with paternity established or acknowledged during the fiscal years by the number of children born out-of-wedlock during the preceding fiscal year. Interstate child support cas-es are composed of cases in which a child support order has been established, but the parent or child in the case lives in a state outside the state in which the order originated. The Office of Child Support Enforcement defines a child support case as a case in which a parent who is currently or eventually obligated under law to support a child or children.

Data CollectionData sources for this research project include a variety of federal reports. These reports include the Office of Child Support Enforcement Preliminary Data Report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004), the Births: Final Data for 2003 report released as part of the National Vital Statistics Reports by the National Center for Health Statistics (2005), and the Indicators of Marriage and Fertility in the United States from the American Commu-

brAndenberger


nity Survey: 2000 to 2003 released by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau (2005).

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Pre-liminary Data Report details financial and statistical data as provided through reports submitted by states on a quarterly basis. The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 requires states to maintain reliable data and federal au-ditors review the data annually. The act mandates families seeking government child support services to apply directly through their state, local, or tribal agency. States are required to report on and monitor the collection of data as it relates to total number of child support cases, child support collec-tions, established child support orders, interstate caseloads, and paternity establishment cases (“Child Support Enforce-ment,” 2006).

Data from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, and National Vital Statis-tics Reports (NVSR) indicate the number and percentage of births to unmarried women in the United States. The report is released annually by the Center for Disease Control Na-tional Center for Health Statistics. The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics compiles data as provided through con-tracts between vital registration systems operated throughout various jurisdictions of the United States, which are com-prised of 50 states, two cities, and five territories. The Births: Final Data for 2003 report presents 2003 data on births in the United States according to a wide variety of characteristics. In 2003, descriptive tabulations were based on data reported on the birth certificates of 4.09 million births that occurred that year. The report details demographic and health characteris-tics of births, as well as state-based data (Martin, Hamilton, Sutton, Ventura, Menacker, & Munson, 2005).

Data from the National Vital Statistics Report (2005) is based on 100 percent of the birth certificates registered in all states and the District of Columbia. More than 99 percent of births occurring in the United States are registered. Births to unmarried women are based on several methods that de-termine marital status. Birth certificates in 45 states and the District of Columbia include information about the mother’s marital status. In 1997, California and Nevada began deter-mining the marital status of women giving birth as deter-mined in the birth registration process. In 1998, Connecticut added a question to the State’s birth certificate that indicates the mother’s marital status. Michigan and New York use in-ferential procedures to compile birth statistics by marital sta-tus. In doing so, a birth is assumed to be that of an unmarried woman if a paternity acknowledgement was received or the father’s name is missing. In the last several years, many states have extended efforts to identify fathers when the parents are unmarried, in an effort to enforce child support obligations. In 2003, the mother’s marital status went unreported in 0.04 percent of birth records from 48 states and the District of Columbia (Martin et al., 2005).

Out-of-wedlock births are often connected to paternity establishment. Before a child support order can be created, paternity of the child must be determined. According to the Office of Child Support Enforcement, paternity establish-ment involves the legal establishment of fatherhood for a child (2006). The number and percentage of paternity estab-lishment cases by state can be determined as reported in the Child Support Enforcement, FY 2003 Preliminary Report (2004).

The third independent measure is that of interstate cas-es. The Office of Child Support Enforcement, under the De-partment of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families initiated the National Interstate Case Reconciliation Project Business Case in 2003. The project requires research into interstate child support cases. Inter-state child support cases present many problems for enforce-ment authorities. Incorrect or missing cases, cases which are open in one state and closed in another state, and cases that are presumed to be interstate by one state but of which the other state has no record are a few of the common problems encountered by child support enforcement agencies. Such conditions adversely affect the ability of states to efficiently manage interstate caseloads. As such, there may be a direct correlation to the amount of child support collections and the number of interstate cases by state. The volume of interstate cases by state can be defined by either the number of inter-state caseloads or as the number of those cases forwarded to or received from other states, as relative to the state’s overall caseload.

Data AnalysisThe total amount of child support collections in dollars is compared to the number of out-of-wedlock births, percentage of paternity establishments, and number of interstate cases by state. This cross-sectional study will be based on data report-ed for federal fiscal year 2003. In addition, the multivariate analysis will simultaneously examine the relationships among variables of out-of-wedlock births, paternity establishments, and intrastate cases by state as they relate to child support collections. Cross-tabulation and subgroup analyses make it possible to decipher the relationship between the indepen-dent and dependent variables.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Preliminary Data Report (2004) shows that more than $21.2 billion dollars in child support payments were collected na-tionwide in federal fiscal year 2003. This marks a 5.2 percent increase in collections from the previous fiscal year. Of the money collected, almost $19 billion dollars went to families, an increase of 6 percent from the previous year. In addition, more than 1.5 million paternities were established and ac-knowledged (see Figure 1) and 1.2 million new child support orders were established. Series 1 in Figure 1 represents hos-pital paternity establishments, and Series 2 represents state

Spring 2007 2�


paternity establishments. Of those paternities established in 2003, 663,000 were determined by the state child support enforcement agencies and 862,000 were determined in hos-pitals and otherwise. Thus, paternities acknowledged in hos-pitals and otherwise decreased. The total amount of paterni-ties established shows a nearly 5 percent decrease from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2003 (“Child Support Enforcement,” 2004).

755

845

687

867

791

777

830

697

862

663

0200400600800

1000120014001600

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal Year

Figure 1: State In-Hospital and OtherPaternities Acknowledged, FY 1999 -

FY 2003

Series2Series1

Thousand

The Center for Disease Control National Center for Health Statistics summarized 2003 births and birth rates for the United States. Key findings indicate that childbearing by unmarried women rose significantly in 2003. The birth rate per unmarried women aged 15 to 44 years increased 3 percent from the previous year to 44.9 births. Further, the number of births to unmarried women rose 4 percent to 1,415,995, mark-ing the highest number in more than six decades for which national data exists. When compared to all births, the pro-portion of births to unmarried women increased to 34.6 per-cent. Despite these increases, birth rates for unmarried teen-agers continued to decline (“Child Support Enforcement,” 2004).

Table 1. Number, rate, and percentage of births to unmarried women and birth rate for married women

Births to Unmarried Women

Year Number Rate1 Percent2 Birth Rate for Married Women3

2003 1,415,995 44.9 34.6 88.1

2002 1,365,966 43.7 34.0 86.3

2001 1,349,249 43.8 33.5 86.7

1 Births to unmarried women per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15–44 years.

2 Percent of all births to unmarried women.3 Births to married women per 1,000 married women

aged 15–44 years.

Births to Unmarried Women

Year Number Rate1 Percent2 Birth Rate for Married Women3

2000 1,347,043 44.0 33.2 87.4

1999 1,308,560 43.3 33.0 84.8

1998 1,293,567 43.3 32.8 84.2

1997 1,257,444 42.9 32.4 82.7

1996 1,260,306 43.8 32.4 82.3

1995 1,253,976 44.3 32.2 82.6

1994 1,289,592 46.2 32.6 82.9

1993 1,240,172 44.8 31.0 86.1

1992 1,224,876 44.9 30.1 88.5

1991 1,213,769 45.0 29.5 89.6

1990 1,165,384 43.8 28.0 93.2

1989 1,094,169 41.6 27.1 91.9

1988 1,005,299 38.5 25.7 90.8

1987 933,013 36.0 24.5 90.0

1986 878,477 34.2 23.4 90.7

1985 828,174 32.8 22.0 93.3

1980 665,747 29.4 18.4 97.0

In fiscal year 2003, interstate collections reached record levels. Collections made on behalf of families in other states totaled close to $1.3 billion dollars. As illustrated in Figure 2, this marked a nearly 18 percent increase from the $1.1 bil-lion dollars collected in fiscal year 1999. In addition, the over-all interstate caseload continues to rise. In fiscal year 2003, 1,083,336 cases were sent to another state, an 8 percent in-crease from fiscal year 1999. Also, cases received from other states totaled 948,581, a more than 3 percent increase over the previous five years (“Child Support Enforcement,” 2004).

The number of out-of-wedlock births, percentage of pa-ternity establishments, and number of interstate cases must be broken down by state to determine their effect on the total amount of child support collections in dollars. Collections are further broken down by method of collection. For the pur-pose of this analysis, total collections by state will measured.

The same analysis can be made for out-of-wedlock births, percentage of paternity establishments, and number of interstate cases by state. State data for out-of-wedlock births by percentage, the percentage of paternity of establishments, and number of interstate cases is compared to the total col-lections by state in the table in Appendix B. For purposes of comparison and analysis, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico have been removed from this comprehensive table.

Several analyses were employed in the interpretation of the aforementioned data. Correlation tests were applied to each of the independent variables and the dependent vari-able. There is a 0.8794 correlation between total collections and paternity establishment. As such, the higher the paternity establishment, the greater the amount of collections. In ad-

brAndenberger

�0 perSpectiveS in public AffAirS

dition, a correlation of 0.7761 exists between total collections and interstate cases, meaning that the more interstate cases there are, the higher the state’s amount of collections. There was no correlation between out-of-wedlock births and total child support collections. Also, states with higher numbers of single-parent families demonstrated a higher amount of child support collections, indicated by a correlation of 0.8995. In addition, a correlation of 0.9751 is measured between the number of single-parent families and paternity establishment rates.

Bivariate analyses of total collections by state, as grouped in quintiles, present additional findings. When com-paring the bottom, middle, and top quintiles, it appears there is no relation to total child support collections and the per-centage of births that are to unmarried women. The bottom quintile averaged a percentage of 36.1 of births to unmar-ried women. The middle quintile, as determined by amount of collections, averages 34 percent for births to unmarried women. The top quintile averages 34.2 percent for births to unmarried mothers. Hence, as the percentage of out-of-wedlock births increases or decreases, the amount of collec-tions is not affected. The opposite is true of the relationship between total collections and paternity establishment. The bottom quintile of total collections by state averages 4.037 paternity establishments, the middle quintile averages 17,901 paternity establishments, and the top quintile averages 76,965 paternity establishments. Thus, as the number of paternity establishment increases, so does the amount of collections. The number of interstate cases appears to have a direct re-lationship to amount of collections, as well. The bottom quintile of collections has an average of $6,122,561 dollars in interstate collections, which is an average of 8.9 percent of the total amount of collections. The middle quintile averages $17,497,891 dollars in interstate collections, which is an aver-age of 6.4 percent of total collections. Finally, the top quintile averages $56,782,189 in interstate collections with an average of 5 percent of the total amount of collections.

This subgroup analysis is illustrated in Table 2. High-lighted areas show direct relationships, when measured in quintiles. This table demonstrates that 90 percent of states with total collections in the top fifth have paternity establish-ments, number of interstate cases, or both measuring in the top fifth, as well. Only ten percent of states in the top fifth also have a percentage of out-of-wedlock births that rank in the top fifth. The middle quintile shows similar findings, with 9 out of 10 states in the middle quintile show paternity establishment, interstate cases, or both that also measure into the middle quintile. However, no states in the middle quintile show a measurement of out-of-wedlock births in the middle quintile. Lastly, all of the states in the bottom quintile of total collections show bottom fifth measurements of paternity es-tablishment, interstate cases, or both. This mirrors correlation findings, and indicates a direct relationship between the total amount of collections and paternity establishment, as well as

a direct relationship between total collections and both the number and percentage of interstate cases. There is no ob-servable relationship between the percentage of births that are out-of-wedlock and amount of child support collections.

Table 2. Total collections, out-of-wedlock birth rates, paternity estab-lishments, and interstate cases by state—in Quintiles

Total Collections

Out-of-Wed-lock Births

Paternity Es-tablishment

Interstate Cases

(Greatest to Least)

Top Quintile

California District of Columbia

California California

Texas New Mexico Texas Florida

Ohio Louisiana New York New York

Michigan Mississippi Florida Texas

New York Delaware Illinois Georgia

Pennsylvania Arizona Pennsylvania Virginia

Florida South Carolina Michigan New Jersey

Wisconsin Florida Georgia Pennsylvania

New Jersey Nevada Ohio North Carolina

Illinois Georgia Tennessee Washington

Washington Arkansas Arizona Illinois

Indiana Tennessee North Carolina Ohio

North Carolina Indiana New Jersey Maryland

Minnesota Oklahoma Missouri Colorado

Virginia New York Virginia Tennessee

Georgia Ohio Washington Arizona

Missouri Rhode Island Maryland Oregon

Arizona Missouri Connecticut Nevada

Massachusetts Illinois Minnesota Massachusetts

Maryland North Carolina Kansas Missouri

Middle Quintile

Tennessee Alabama Wisconsin Alabama

Alabama Maryland Massachusetts Michigan

Iowa Alaska Kentucky Louisiana

Kentucky Michigan Louisiana Minnesota

Oregon West Virginia Colorado Connecticut

Colorado Texas South Carolina Indiana

Louisiana South Dakota Mississippi Wisconsin

Connecticut Pennsylvania Oklahoma Oklahoma

South Carolina Kentucky Oregon Kentucky

Arkansas California Iowa Arkansas

Mississippi Hawaii Arkansas Iowa

West Virginia Maine Hawaii Alaska

Nebraska Wyoming Indiana South Carolina

Oklahoma Montana Idaho Kansas

Kansas Oregon Utah Idaho

Utah Kansas North Dakota Mississippi

Nevada Virginia Alabama Utah

Spring 2007 �1


Total Collections

Out-of-Wed-lock Births

Paternity Es-tablishment

Interstate Cases

(Greatest to Least)

Idaho Wisconsin New Mexico West Virginia

Maine Connecticut West Virginia Montana

Hawaii Vermont Nebraska Delaware

Bottom Quintile

Alaska Iowa Dist. Of Col. Dist. Of Col.

New Hampshire

Nebraska Rhode Island New Hampshire

Delaware New Jersey Delaware South Dakota

North Dakota Washington Nevada Nebraska

New Mexico North Dakota Alaska New Mexico

Rhode Island Massachusetts South Dakota Maine

South Dakota Minnesota Maine Hawaii

Wyoming Colorado Wyoming Wyoming

The same variables can be measured by comparing the percentage of cases with orders in which some child support was paid, percentages of births to unmarried women, pater-nity establishment percentages, and percentages of interstate collections by state. Paternity establishment percentages are calculated by dividing the number of children in fiscal year 2003 who were born out-of-wedlock with paternity estab-lished or acknowledged by the number of children in the preceding fiscal year who were born out-of-wedlock (“Child Support Enforcement,” 2004). By using percentages, rather than total amounts, allowance is given to differences in state populations. These values are reflected in the table in Appendix C. These calculations present a differ-ent set of correlations. A moderate correlation exists between the percentage of cases in which some child support was paid and the percentage of paternity establishment cases. There is a moderate inverse correlation between the percentages of cases in which some child support was paid and the percent-ages of out-of-wedlock births. There is no relationship be-tween the percentages of cases in which some child support was paid and the percentages of interstate cases. Numeric cal-culations for these correlations are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Selected Correlations, 2003

Correlation between… Percentage of cases with orders where some child

support was paid

Percentages of births to unmarried women

-0.353

Paternity Establishment Percentage

0.500

Percent of collections that are interstate

-0.035

Interpretation & ConclusionThis research analysis posed the following research question: how do out-of-wedlock births, paternity establishment, and volume of interstate cases affect child support collections? Analysis indicates that the volume of interstate cases and out-of-wedlock births may have little effect on child support col-lections. However, all statistical analyses show a relationship between collections and paternity establishment. As such, the greater the percentage of paternity establishments, the greater the amount of collections, whether measured by dol-lar amount, percentage of cases with orders in which some child support was paid, or by collections per capita.

One limitation of the aforementioned research design and analysis was the inability to accurately compare the amount of child support collections. A total dollar amount of collections per state was available. However, comparing this variable to the other factors was not completely precise, due to the difference in state populations. Measuring collec-tions per capita provided a closer comparison, but was not an exact match because the quantity of child support cases varies in every state. Further, weighing collections per single-family households was also incomplete because not all child support collections are made to unmarried parents. Mea-suring the percentage of open child support cases in which

some child support was paid against the other variables proved to be the most ac-curate comparison. Regardless, all mea-sures demonstrated a positive relation-ship between child support collections and paternity establishment. There are a variety of other factors that may lead to an increase or decrease in the amount of

child support collections, including state administrative au-thority regulations, tribal caseloads, enforcement tactics, and demographics. Further research and analysis is necessary to determine which factors pose the greatest influence on the outcome of child support collections.

As previously mentioned, the Child Support Perfor-mance and Incentive Act of 1998 dictates an incentive system based on paternity establishment percentage, support order establishment percentage, current collections performance level, arrears collection performance level, and cost effective-ness (“Child Support Enforcement,” 2004). This data is pre-sented in the Child Support Enforcement Data Report and can be seen as an annual report card. Yet the bigger picture is found in the story behind the numbers. Interpretation of that information allows child enforcement professionals to prioritize enforcement strategies, structure polices, and de-termine why performance has improved or failed to improve. In 2003, 90 percent of distributed child support collections went directly to families. Sherri Z. Heller, Commissioner of the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement, claims, “It’s partly an indicator of an amazing change in the very nature of the work we do and the families we serve. It represents a

Regardless, all measures demonstrated a positive

relationship between child support collections and paternity establishment.

brAndenberger


cultural turning point in our understanding of the purpose of the Federal/state partnership that is the national child sup-port enforcement program” (“Child Support Enforcement,” 2004). Collections in 2003 continued to increase and reached an unprecedented high of $21.2 billion dollars, representing a 5 percent increase from the previous year, and a 33 per-cent increase over five years. Heller urges child enforcement professionals to use the data in the Child Support Enforce-ment Data Report in talks with legislators, cabinet officials, judges, and other stakeholders to demonstrate how changes in administrative, court, funding, and other practices affect performance (“Child Support Enforcement,” 2004).

State child support professionals pay close attention to the numbers reported to the federal government, and seek the means to better serve their populations. Many states have the ability to enforce child support through automated credit bureau reporting notification, income taxes, administrative liens, driver’s license suspensions, professional license suspen-sions, recreational license suspensions, asset seizures, unem-ployment insurance interception, worker’s compensation in-terception, seizure of lottery winnings, income withholding, and other tactics (Sorenson & Harper, 1999). Child support orders can be established through respective state agencies, regardless of income. Once an order is established, paternity must be determined to collect child support. In the event pa-ternity is unknown, collectors face the obstacle of establish-ing such. Studies suggest that changes in laws and practices have increased paternity establishment, including mandating fathers’ names on birth certificates, the use of genetic testing, and paternity establishment in hospitals (Miller & Garfinkel, 1999). Further, the success of paternity establishment has a direct impact on four out of the five performance measures dictated in the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998.

Child support enforcement professionals have lobbied state and federal policymakers over the years to change child support enforcement laws. Case, Lin, and McLanahan (2003) cite several reasons for low child support collections. The au-thors blame ineffective child support policies and government failure, amongst other reasons, for a lack of improvement in the overall collection of child support payments. They argue that states have been slow to pass or implement child support enforcement policies, resulting in minimal effects of new leg-islation. Further studies indicate that policies such as wage withholding, legislative guidelines, paternity establishment statutes, and tax intercepts also impact the outcome of child support collections.

Also, it is possible that any positive effect of legislature may have been masked by inflation, shifts in marital status, changes in divorce laws, and the closing gap in men’s and women’s earnings (Case, Lin, & McLanahan, 2003).

The effect of the nation’s child support system reach-es far beyond children and families. Estimates from a 1999 study indicate that more than half of children today will

live apart from their biological parents at some point dur-ing childhood (Miller & Garfinkel, 1999). The proportion of these children born out-of-wedlock continues to increase. Almost all of these children will be poor, due partly to lack of financial assistance by an absent parent. Poverty during childhood often leads to low educational attainment and pro-ductivity during adulthood. “The future of these children depends in large part on the quality of the nation’s child sup-port system” (Miller & Garfinkel, 1999, p. 237). It is up to policymakers, child support enforcement professionals, and families to devise and enforce a framework that produces re-sults. “Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the child support enforcement program will result in greater numbers of single-mother families being able to count on child sup-port, thereby moving more of America’s poor families toward self sufficiency” (Sorenson & Halpern, 1999, p. 5). This can be achieved by looking at all factors that influence child sup-port collections. However, legislative change with regard to paternity establishment regulations may prove to be the most effective tactic in child support enforcement.

ReferencesArgys, L.M. & Peters, E. (2003). Can Adequate Child

Support Be Legislated? Responses to Guidelines and Enforcement. Economic Inquiry, 41, 463–479.

Beron, K.J. (1988). Applying the Economic Model of Crime to Child Support Enforcement: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 382–390.

Case, A.C., Lin, I. & McLanahan, S. (2003). Explaining Trends in Child Support: Economic, Demographic, and Policy Effects. Demography, 40, 171–189.

Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E., Sutton, P.D., Ventura, S.J., Menacker, & F.Munson, M.L. (2005). Births: Final Data for 2003, National Vital Statistics Reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Miller, C. & Garfinkel, I. (1999). The determinants of paternity establishment and child support award rates among unmarried women. Population Research and Policy Review, 18, 237–260.

Munns, R. (2004). You Succeed, I Succeed. Policy & Practice, 62, 22–25.

National Center for Health Statistics. (2004). Births: Preliminary Data for 2004. Hyattsville, MD.

Pearson, J. & Griswold, A.G. (2001). New Approaches to Child Support Arrears. Policy & Practice, 59, 33–38.

Sorenson, E. & Halpern, A. (1999, March). Child Support Enforcement Is Working Better Than We Think. New Federalism Issues and Options for States, Series A, 31, 1–5.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Indicators of Marriage and Fertility in the United States from the American Community Survey: 2000 to 2003. Washington, D.C.

Spring 2007 ��


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Child Support Enforcement, FY 2003 Preliminary Report. Washington, D.C.

Waller, M.R. & Plotnick, R. (2001). Effective child support policy for low-income families: evidence from street level research. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 89–110.

brAndenberger

�� perSpectiveS in public AffAirS

Appe

ndix

ATo

tal C

olle

ctio

ns M

ade

by M

etho

d of

Col

lect

ion,

FY

2003

Sta

tes

Off

set

of F

eder

al

Tax

Ref

un

dO

ffse

t of

Sta

te

Tax

Ref

un

dO

ffse

t U

nem

plo

ymen

t C

omp

ensa

tion

Oth

er S

ourc

esIn

com

e W

ith

hol

din

gO

ther

Sta

tes

Tota

l

Alab

ama

$21,

224,

222.

00$1

,738

,667

.00

$380

,451

.00

$64,

115,

056.

00$2

61,9

38,2

63.0

0$1

6,48

9,04

6.00

$365

,885

,705

.00

Alas

ka$4

,623

,018

.00

$0.0

0$3

,527

,820

.00

$26,

621,

564.

00$4

8,14

1,98

5.00

$9,8

75,8

85.0

0$9

2,79

0,27

2.00

Ariz

ona

$24,

529,

048.

00$2

,470

,777

.00

$5,7

86,7

91.0

0$1

00,1

34,5

13.0

0$3

43,1

59,3

77.0

0$1

9,96

0,84

2.00

$496

,041

,348

.00

Arka

nsas

$14,

154,

609.

00$2

,260

,083

.00

$3,4

45,3

88.0

0$2

9,85

8,29

3.00

$146

,105

,012

.00

$12,

468,

861.

00$2

08,2

92,2

46.0

0

Cal

iforn

ia$2

06,0

97,1

19.0

0$3

8,72

6,44

0.00

$76,

540,

347.

00$4

88,2

92,3

76.0

0$1

,357

,533

,427

.00

$82,

612,

240.

00$2

,249

,801

,949

.00

Colo

rado

$18,

217,

870.

00$2

,760

,149

.00

$5,8

33,4

37.0

0$6

3,67

4,16

6.00

$200

,168

,865

.00

$22,

672,

170.

00$3

13,3

26,6

57.0

0

Conn

ectic

ut$2

0,03

8,23

9.00

$3,0

51,7

50.0

0$9

,822

,806

.00

$46,

344,

081.

00$1

60,7

80,7

17.0

0$2

4,18

8,69

0.00

$264

,226

,283

.00

Del

awar

e$3

,039

,801

.00

$172

,561

.00

$2,6

73,4

50.0

0$8

,370

,776

.00

$52,

458,

040.

00$1

2,06

5,43

4.00

$78,

780,

062.

00

Dis

t. O

f Co

l.$4

,519

,779

.00

$598

,096

.00

$562

,592

.00

$8,5

65,7

47.0

0$4

0,15

3,68

9.00

$2,1

86,6

50.0

0$5

6,58

6,55

3.00

Flor

ida

$80,

507,

426.

00$0

.00

$13,

490,

795.

00$3

12,2

82,1

27.0

0$5

07,8

88,3

89.0

0$7

9,08

0,19

2.00

$993

,248

,929

.00

Geo

rgia

$30,

620,

451.

00$7

,471

,200

.00

$7,1

24,9

68.0

0$9

2,75

6,16

4.00

$335

,336

,125

.00

$55,

782,

056.

00$5

29,0

90,9

64.0

0

Gua

m$6

42,2

31.0

0$4

90,3

11.0

0$0

.00

$956

,737

.00

$5,5

80,8

78.0

0$1

,379

,067

.00

$9,0

49,2

24.0

0

Haw

aii

$8,4

37,5

97.0

0$1

,698

,532

.00

$1,3

61,0

67.0

0$1

4,57

1,61

7.00

$68,

077,

103.

00$3

,918

,955

.00

$98,

064,

871.

00

Idah

o$7

,530

,599

.00

$1,9

45,1

16.0

0$2

,331

,245

.00

$26,

517,

830.

00$6

0,09

4,01

6.00

$17,

679,

040.

00$1

16,0

97,8

46.0

0

Illin

ois

$46,

071,

226.

00$3

,419

,932

.00

$14,

691,

578.

00$1

02,1

84,4

99.0

0$7

22,7

02,0

29.0

0$1

90,0

45.0

0$8

89,2

59,3

09.0

0

Indi

ana

$42,

128,

472.

00$4

,184

,348

.00

$15,

795,

121.

00$1

06,4

26,3

45.0

0$4

73,9

29,7

65.0

0$1

4,39

8,42

7.00

$656

,862

,478

.00

Iow

a$1

8,54

9,06

8.00

$3,0

22,1

43.0

0$1

0,63

8,70

9.00

$33,

340,

556.

00$2

59,6

32,4

81.0

0$3

4,61

0,41

9.00

$359

,793

,376

.00

Kans

as$1

6,08

6,32

6.00

$3,2

18,4

96.0

0$6

,675

,928

.00

$32,

993,

401.

00$9

2,29

9,46

7.00

$0.0

0$1

51,2

73,6

18.0

0

Kent

ucky

$24,

265,

795.

00$2

,160

,337

.00

$2,8

31,2

64.0

0$8

0,02

5,06

2.00

$186

,704

,023

.00

$35,

485,

256.

00$3

31,4

71,7

37.0

0

Loui

sian

a$2

3,21

9,38

5.00

$972

,554

.00

$6,6

42,4

45.0

0$5

4,05

9,86

5.00

$186

,230

,910

.00

$23,

807,

926.

00$2

94,9

33,0

85.0

0

Mai

ne$9

,186

,763

.00

$1,4

03,4

92.0

0$2

,990

,390

.00

$19,

265,

313.

00$6

6,19

6,65

6.00

$7,1

10,9

78.0

0$1

06,1

53,5

92.0

0

Mar

ylan

d$2

2,32

2,21

1.00

$6,7

88,0

37.0

0$1

0,75

9,18

1.00

$78,

431,

564.

00$3

03,1

60,8

93.0

0$3

6,15

8,57

2.00

$457

,620

,458

.00

Mas

sach

uset

ts$1

8,32

9,04

3.00

$4,4

14,3

53.0

0$2

4,25

1,90

2.00

$86,

318,

611.

00$3

18,0

30,1

13.0

0$1

2,17

3,50

2.00

$463

,517

,524

.00

Mic

higa

n$8

4,69

6,46

4.00

$10,

468,

827.

00$2

9,03

7,22

9.00

$291

,177

,828

.00

$1,0

72,3

81,5

13.0

0$3

5,49

4,62

9.00

$1,5

23,2

56,4

90.0

0

Min

neso

ta$2

0,71

4,86

0.00

$9,1

08,0

06.0

0$2

2,32

0,12

9.00

$81,

827,

048.

00$4

15,6

89,5

73.0

0$2

9,35

1,74

3.00

$579

,011

,359

.00

Mis

siss

ippi

$18,

486,

517.

00$1

,106

,325

.00

$5,6

03,9

73.0

0$3

0,19

4,54

2.00

$127

,706

,643

.00

$23,

015,

067.

00$2

06,1

13,0

67.0

0

Mis

sour

i$3

9,50

9,20

3.00

$5,4

56,0

21.0

0$1

4,10

9,17

4.00

$120

,096

,743

.00

$317

,894

,696

.00

$26,

338,

240.

00$5

23,4

04,0

77.0

0

Mon

tana

$3,6

64,6

52.0

0$5

98,6

52.0

0$1

,141

,059

.00

$8,9

52,9

24.0

0$3

0,62

8,92

4.00

$8,6

62,9

84.0

0$5

3,64

9,19

5.00

Neb

rask

a$6

,588

,199

.00

$1,4

89,3

67.0

0$3

,811

,951

.00

$36,

789,

340.

00$1

04,0

61,0

21.0

0$1

3,73

8,41

0.00

$166

,478

,288

.00

Nev

ada

$8,7

32,7

95.0

0$0

.00

$4,2

21,6

11.0

0$1

6,67

0,80

6.00

$80,

007,

632.

00$1

5,73

7,15

2.00

$125

,369

,996

.00

Spring 2007 ��


Sta

tes

Off

set

of F

eder

al

Tax

Ref

un

dO

ffse

t of

Sta

te

Tax

Ref

un

dO

ffse

t U

nem

plo

ymen

t C

omp

ensa

tion

Oth

er S

ourc

esIn

com

e W

ith

hol

din

gO

ther

Sta

tes

Tota

l

New

Ham

pshi

re$4

,886

,108

.00

$0.0

0$2

70,0

65.0

0$1

8,41

7,70

9.00

$53,

618,

156.

00$6

,937

,250

.00

$84,

129,

288.

00

New

Jer

sey

$32,

535,

705.

00$6

,399

,630

.00

$41,

843,

637.

00$1

87,5

21,0

04.0

0$5

90,5

19,2

77.0

0$4

3,47

6,12

0.00

$902

,295

,373

.00

New

Mex

ico

$6,6

45,6

59.0

0$1

,228

,605

.00

$0.0

0$1

4,09

6,15

8.00

$46,

912,

467.

00$3

,421

,443

.00

$72,

304,

332.

00

New

Yor

k$4

3,23

3,11

6.00

$18,

943,

073.

00$5

2,92

2,96

3.00

$268

,148

,695

.00

$1,0

06,6

97,1

38.0

0$5

3,83

9,40

4.00

$1,4

43,7

84,3

89.0

0

Nor

th C

arol

ina

$27,

146,

179.

00$5

,484

,107

.00

$12,

810,

713.

00$1

03,2

22,5

45.0

0$3

92,0

94,0

55.0

0$4

5,42

2,09

2.00

$586

,179

,691

.00

Nor

th D

akot

a$4

,012

,827

.00

$203

,691

.00

$1,1

75,5

47.0

0$1

0,41

1,49

0.00

$54,

488,

452.

00$7

,801

,585

.00

$78,

093,

592.

00

Ohi

o$9

8,08

0,86

7.00

$12,

080,

999.

00$3

8,31

8,33

0.00

$262

,477

,268

.00

$1,4

29,6

81,5

55.0

0$3

5,75

6,40

3.00

$1,8

76,3

95,4

22.0

0

Okl

ahom

a$1

6,91

8,39

7.00

$2,5

59,5

67.0

0$1

,941

,227

.00

$30,

839,

004.

00$9

8,94

9,56

3.00

$13,

396,

360.

00$1

64,6

04,1

18.0

0

Ore

gon

$17,

541,

642.

00$2

,395

,182

.00

$16,

357,

928.

00$5

7,19

1,20

6.00

$182

,744

,181

.00

$39,

996,

216.

00$3

16,2

26,3

55.0

0

Penn

sylv

ania

$52,

987,

052.

00$5

,750

,195

.00

$66,

840,

072.

00$2

68,8

00,3

35.0

0$9

47,1

50,4

41.0

0$7

2,51

0,87

5.00

$1,4

14,0

38,9

70.0

0

Puer

to R

ico

$7,9

31,7

06.0

0$4

,206

,797

.00

$0.0

0$1

40,5

41,8

75.0

0$8

2,94

8,47

2.00

$10,

519,

810.

00$2

46,1

48,6

60.0

0

Rho

de I

slan

d$3

,345

,960

.00

$391

,475

.00

$2,4

07,6

34.0

0$1

3,83

2,97

6.00

$43,

702,

474.

00$6

,277

,421

.00

$69,

957,

940.

00

Sout

h Car

olin

a$1

2,23

0,26

1.00

$3,2

90,7

52.0

0$3

,386

,892

.00

$92,

260,

203.

00$1

32,6

16,9

78.0

0$1

,442

,699

.00

$245

,227

,785

.00

Sout

h D

akot

a$4

,232

,727

.00

$0.0

0$5

74,3

63.0

0$1

0,87

8,97

8.00

$40,

253,

020.

00$5

,399

,405

.00

$61,

338,

493.

00

Tenn

esse

e$2

9,53

1,25

7.00

$0.0

0$7

,521

,990

.00

$67,

468,

776.

00$2

85,9

41,4

29.0

0$3

3,72

6,53

0.00

$424

,189

,982

.00

Texa

s$1

23,7

91,2

43.0

0$0

.00

$40,

403,

871.

00$4

29,1

83,6

49.0

0$1

,258

,694

,640

.00

$49,

099,

041.

00$1

,901

,172

,444

.00

Uta

h$7

,929

,232

.00

$1,5

12,5

22.0

0$4

,847

,342

.00

$22,

522,

997.

00$1

00,9

99,5

98.0

0$1

0,13

9,88

8.00

$147

,951

,579

.00

Verm

ont

$2,7

80,9

19.0

0$6

37,0

68.0

0$1

,525

,915

.00

$7,0

18,8

42.0

0$3

5,78

6,96

4.00

$4,7

29,9

71.0

0$5

2,47

9,67

9.00

Virg

in I

slan

ds$5

52,1

83.0

0$4

9,72

9.00

$212

,307

.00

$1,9

49,5

82.0

0$5

,387

,171

.00

$875

,856

.00

$9,0

26,8

28.0

0

Virg

inia

$31,

999,

836.

00$2

,935

,839

.00

$10,

366,

255.

00$5

6,88

6,11

0.00

$398

,566

,341

.00

$34,

140,

286.

00$5

34,8

94,6

67.0

0

Was

hing

ton

$34,

977,

925.

00$0

.00

$35,

685,

471.

00$1

60,3

09,0

15.0

0$3

66,0

14,2

28.0

0$6

0,06

4,48

2.00

$657

,051

,121

.00

Wes

t Vi

rgin

ia$1

1,96

4,47

8.00

$1,1

05,5

10.0

0$2

,918

,240

.00

$25,

963,

165.

00$1

17,7

68,2

12.0

0$1

1,73

6,88

8.00

$171

,456

,493

.00

Wis

cons

in$3

4,08

8,93

3.00

$13,

680,

321.

00$3

0,86

2,23

4.00

$161

,523

,370

.00

$654

,087

,965

.00

$20,

812,

622.

00$9

15,0

55,4

45.0

0

Wyo

min

g$4

,914

,249

.00

$0.0

0$1

,137

,451

.00

$16,

069,

253.

00$3

1,49

6,57

6.00

$6,8

37,9

17.0

0$6

0,45

5,44

6.00

Tota

ls$1

,460

,991

,449

.00

$204

,049

,634

.00

$682

,733

,248

.00

$4,8

89,3

49,6

99.0

0$1

6,70

1,79

1,57

8.00

$1,2

54,9

93,0

42.0

0$2

5,19

3,90

8,65

0.00

brAndenberger


Appendix BTotal Collection, Out-of-Wedlock Births, Paternity Establishment, Interstate Cases, FY 2003, by Rank

Total Collections (Greatest to Least)

Total Collections (Least to Greatest)

Out-of-Wedlock Births (Greatest to Least)

Paternity Establish-ment (Greatest to

Least)

Interstate Cases (Greatest to Least)

California Vermont District Of Columbia California California

Texas Montana New Mexico Texas Florida

Ohio Dist. Of Col. Louisiana New York New York

Michigan Wyoming Mississippi Florida Texas

New York South Dakota Delaware Illinois Georgia

Pennsylvania Rhode Island Arizona Pennsylvania Virginia

Florida New Mexico South Carolina Michigan New Jersey

Wisconsin North Dakota Florida Georgia Pennsylvania

New Jersey Delaware Nevada Ohio North Carolina

Illinois New Hampshire Georgia Tennessee Washington

Washington Alaska Arkansas Arizona Illinois

Indiana Hawaii Tennessee North Carolina Ohio

North Carolina Maine Indiana New Jersey Maryland

Minnesota Idaho Oklahoma Missouri Colorado

Virginia Nevada New York Virginia Tennessee

Georgia Utah Ohio Washington Arizona

Missouri Kansas Rhode Island Maryland Oregon

Arizona Oklahoma Missouri Connecticut Nevada

Massachusetts Nebraska Illinois Minnesota Massachusetts

Maryland West Virginia North Carolina Kansas Missouri

Tennessee Mississippi Alabama Wisconsin Alabama

Alabama Arkansas Maryland Massachusetts Michigan

Iowa South Carolina Alaska Kentucky Louisiana

Kentucky Connecticut Michigan Louisiana Minnesota

Oregon Louisiana West Virginia Colorado Connecticut

Colorado Colorado Texas South Carolina Indiana

Louisiana Oregon South Dakota Mississippi Wisconsin

Connecticut Kentucky Pennsylvania Oklahoma Oklahoma

South Carolina Iowa Kentucky Oregon Kentucky

Arkansas Alabama California Iowa Arkansas

Mississippi Tennessee Hawaii Arkansas Iowa

West Virginia Maryland Maine Hawaii Alaska

Nebraska Massachusetts Wyoming Indiana South Carolina

Oklahoma Arizona Montana Idaho Kansas

Kansas Missouri Oregon Utah Idaho

Utah Georgia Kansas North Dakota Mississippi

Nevada Virginia Virginia Alabama Utah

Idaho Minnesota Wisconsin New Mexico West Virginia

Maine North Carolina Connecticut West Virginia Montana

Hawaii Indiana Vermont Nebraska Delaware

Alaska Washington Iowa Dist. Of Col. Dist. Of Col.

New Hampshire Illinois Nebraska Rhode Island New Hampshire

Delaware New Jersey New Jersey Delaware South Dakota

Spring 2007 �7


Total Collections (Greatest to Least)

Total Collections (Least to Greatest)

Out-of-Wedlock Births (Greatest to Least)

Paternity Establish-ment (Greatest to

Least)

Interstate Cases (Greatest to Least)

North Dakota Wisconsin Washington Nevada Nebraska

New Mexico Florida North Dakota Alaska New Mexico

Rhode Island Pennsylvania Massachusetts South Dakota Maine

South Dakota New York Minnesota Maine Hawaii

Wyoming Michigan Colorado Wyoming Wyoming

Dist. Of Col. Ohio New Hampshire Vermont Rhode Island

Montana Texas Idaho Montana North Dakota

Vermont California Utah New Hampshire Vermont

Appendix CPercentages of cases with orders where some child support was paid, Percentages of births to unmarried women, Paternity establishment percentage, and Percentage of interstate collections, FY 2003

State Percentage of cases with orders where some child support

was paid


Paternity Establish-ment Percentage

(PEP) 2003


Alabama 67.83 35.0 74.79% 5.3%

Alaska 78.69 34.6 113.76% 13.5%

Arizona 60.19 41.5 71.60% 5.1%

Arkansas 71.21 38.0 86.03% 6.5%

California 57.58 33.5 84.30% 5.0%

Colorado 51.66 26.7 93.27% 9.3%

Connecticut 60.88 30.0 84.20% 6.5%

Delaware 70.25 41.9 73.58% 9.0%

Dist. Of Col. 50.73 53.6 20.36% 12.0%

Florida 83.48 39.9 95.21% 10.7%

Georgia 60.29 38.1 50.70% 10.1%

Hawaii 47.86 33.5 85.00% 5.3%

Idaho 70.63 22.3 100.82% 8.7%

Illinois 60.17 35.3 46.11% 4.0%

Indiana 65.79 37.1 72.26% 2.6%

Iowa 87.05 29.9 98.56% 3.7%

Kansas 72.73 31.6 98.59% 6.7%

Kentucky 60.12 33.8 82.18% 4.4%

Louisiana 67.8 47.5 85.18% 6.3%

Maine 70.79 33.5 99.20% 5.0%

Maryland 70.69 34.8 75.55% 6.7%

Massachusetts 71.42 27.8 78.04% 4.5%

Michigan 57.59 34.6 63.48% 1.3%

Minnesota 80.45 27.7 84.94% 3.1%

Mississippi 71.62 47.0 66.79% 4.8%

Missouri 57.56 35.6 88.88% 3.9%

Montana 77.72 32.2 103.29% 14.3%

Nebraska 77.67 29.7 82.04% 3.5%

Nevada 65.49 39.1 66.20% 19.6%

New Hampshire 86.03 24.8 105.52% 7.3%

brAndenberger


State Percentage of cases with orders where some child support

was paid


Paternity Establish-ment Percentage

(PEP) 2003


New Jersey 82.81 29.3 83.39% 5.1%

New Mexico 77.99 48.4 168.24% 7.7%

New York 65.95 36.5 70.69% 6.5%

North Carolina 79.54 35.3 90.97% 6.8%

North Dakota 75.42 28.5 95.07% 4.9%

Ohio 75.02 36.2 74.78% 1.7%

Oklahoma 72.01 37.1 49.39% 9.1%

Oregon 69.19 31.7 76.35% 7.8%

Pennsylvania 89.43 33.9 88.33% 3.0%

Rhode Island 57.9 35.8 64.87% 5.9%

South Carolina 66.33 41.1 78.77% 5.0%

South Dakota 86.21 34.2 99.16% 9.7%

Tennessee 69.43 37.2 86.80% 6.8%

Texas 78.9 34.3 66.73% 4.4%

Utah 91.59 17.2 103.70% 6.6%

Vermont 74.77 30.0 96.11% 4.9%

Virginia 70.96 30.4 78.47% 8.8%

Washington 82.5 28.8 98.53% 5.9%

West Virginia 68.44 34.6 86.26% 5.5%

Wisconsin 80.11 30.4 97.92% 1.7%

Wyoming 73.76 32.6 79.93% 8.3%

Spring 2007 ��

The Dance of Leadership: The Art of Leading in Business, Government, and Society

by Robert B. Denhardt and Janet V. DenhardtM.E. Sharpe, 2006, 194 pages, $24.95

Reviewed by Leigh Hersey

Leadership is often sought after, studied and envied. Much research has focused on what makes a lead-er. Despite the volumes of research, no one has yet

reached a consensus answer. “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth” (Burns, 1978, p.4). A topic that has been heavily researched within the last century, early leadership studies examined the traits and characteristics of individual leaders. Initial research focused on the physical attributes of leadership figures such as their height and their attractiveness. In a review of early leadership literature, Stodgill (1948) noted that the personal character-istics that most researchers found in leaders included capac-ity, achievement, responsibility, participation, and status. As theories moved from focusing on traits to focusing on skills, they became more aware of the relationship between the leader and the follower. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) built on earlier studies by Ohio State University and the University of Michigan which found that strong leaders needed to pay attention to both the task at hand as well as the relationship with the follower. Hersey and Blanchard determined that the maturity of the relationship with the follower influenced how much attention a leader should pay to each of these two as-pects. More recently, research has shifted to the process of leadership. Unlike earlier leadership theories, process leader-ship theories allow anyone to be a leader, not just those in po-sitions of authority. It also acknowledges that people can be leaders at different times. Burns (1978) described two kinds of leaders—the transactional leader and transformational leader. Transactional leaders “approach followers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another” (p. 4). Transformation-al leaders institute change on a whole new level, improving both the organization and the people associated with it, based on high moral values. Burns views leadership as being value-laden, arguing that one can’t be a leader if the outcome is not for a betterment of society.

While many of these studies have taken a very quantita-tive approach to their methodology, in The Dance of Leadership: The Art of Leading in Business, Government, and Society, Robert Denhardt and Janet Denhardt explore the “special some-thing” (p. 4) that is hard to explain, but followers and leaders alike recognize as being the mark of a good leader. Denhardt and Denhardt consider this quality of leadership—the “ar-tistic dimension of leadership” (p. 10) that goes beyond what

can be explained through scientific measurements and ma-nipulation of numbers. They believe that “without art, lead-ership is merely management” (p. 11).

In a multi-year project that culminated with this book, the authors interviewed artists, musicians, dancers, and cho-reographers, along with traditional leaders in business, gov-ernment, and nonprofit organizations. Through this series of interviews, the authors were able to describe a unique set of leadership characteristics that have been given less attention by other leadership scholars. Common themes that surfaced with both the artistic individuals and the organizational lead-ers include:

An awareness of the importance of space, time and energy;Rhythm;The use of images and symbols in communicating;Improvising with creativity and spontaneity; andFocus, passion, and discipline.

The Denhardts dedicate a chapter to each of these aspects of the art of leadership. They include a variety of stories from those they interviewed to provide examples of how these as-pects are applicable in both the artistic world and the organi-zational world.

The understanding of space, time, and energy has an important place in leadership. “One of the important roles of the leader is to organize the flow of energy through time and space so as to best achieve valued results” (p. 27). The Denhardts maintain that organizations have a rhythm, much like that of a musical performance, reflecting the underlying activities of an organization. Leaders should recognize and coordinate the rhythms of their organizations, both in the cyclical aspect as different times of the year reflect different rhythms, and the different rhythms that exist between differ-ent departments. “A key element of the leader’s capacity to influence the emotional tenor of a group is the capacity to un-derstand and to shape the group’s rhythm” (p. 46). Imagery, symbols, and metaphors play an important role in both dance and leadership. Without the use of words, the use of images and symbols help portray the entire story. Improvisation is often connected with jazz bands and even comedy. However, improvisation is also important to leadership. “Improvisation is what allows leaders to respond to situations and opportuni-ties as they occur with both sensitivity and a sense of shared

•

••••

herSey


purpose and direction” (p. 133). In describing improvisation, the Denhardts examine three aspects (p. 115):

Creativity within a particular structure;Fusion of creation and execution based on expertise and skill; andThe evoking of and fueling by feelings and emotions.

It is important to remember that improvisation is not the same as chaos. A leader knows which bounds to stay within. Focus, passion, and discipline are among the most universal aspects of dedication for many people, whether it is about their pro-fessions, their hobbies, their families, or their faiths.

While the Denhardts dedicate the last chapter to “Learning the Art of Leadership,” they do not provide a step-by-step analysis to improving one’s leadership skills. Instead, they encourage one to learn the same way an artist learns—through practice. Much like a dancer improves his or her skills through studio work, the Denhardts suggest leaders can learn in a similar way, through 1) trial and error; 2) experimenta-tion and the contingent nature of the work; 3) collaboration and mutuality; and 4) self-reflection and vulnerability.

The Denhardts’ book is not a how-to book on being a good leader. Nor does it provide any statistical data on how many leaders think these characteristics are important in their leadership style. What it does provide is a different per-spective of leadership, enhanced through numerous accounts of how leaders and artists put these aspects of leadership into play every day.

The Dance of Leadership is also more an inspirational book than a teaching book. Its refreshing approach to leadership style will inspire many people to take a new look at their lead-ership experiences. It reminds the reader to refocus on the whole work of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel rather than the many brushstrokes that he made to create the final product. Anyone who has lived in the Phoenix area for several years can be influenced even more as many of the interviews—Lattie Coor, Bill Post, Judy Mohraz, for example—are from highly respected leaders right here in our community.

One concern surrounds the concept of “bad” leader-ship. Some scholars argue that only leaders striving for high-er moral purposes can be seen as legitimate leaders (Burns, 1978). Yet, not all leadership literature agrees. Kellerman (2004) does not sharply delineate the roles of power, author-ity, and leadership. She argues “that there’s something odd about the idea that somehow leadership can be distinguished from coercion, as if leadership and power were unrelated” (p. 4). Taking Kellerman’s view, there can be a “bad” leader who can use rhythm, timing and imagery for purposes less moral than those of the leadership exemplars interviewed by the authors. However, the Denhardts do not address whether the characteristics they outline are present only in “good” lead-ers. Values are not absent from this book as the Denhardts note that “…leaders provide the assurance that we need to pursue important values” (p. 165). However, the place val-ues have in leadership does lack the emphasis that is present

••

•

in other books by the Denhardts (see Denhardt and Den-hardt, 2003; Denhardt, Denhardt and Aristigueta, 2002). Understanding their perspective on the relationship between values and leadership puts the book in a different context—one where leadership and good leadership are synonymous. Values are particularly important in the public sector. When discussing public leadership, Denhardt, Denhardt, and Aris-tigueta (2002) point out that “Leaders challenge and mobilize communities to face problems and tackle tough issues” (p. 207). In this way, some of the values that public leaders in the United States must uphold are the values of democracy, equality, justice and freedom.

“The leader provides clues, impressions, symbols, meta-phors, interpretations as to the emotional engagement to which others might commit themselves in order to make a better future…[People] want to know that what they are do-ing will make a difference, that it will extend beyond the im-mediate moment and impact the future, hopefully in some positive way” (p. 156). The Denhardts remind the reader that an important part of being a leader is to inspire positive change. This book is well suited for those who want to leave a positive impact on the community. Whether it is in the pub-lic, private or nonprofit sector, we should all be able to take a kernel from this book and implement it into our lives. While it may be easier for those with an artistic bent, the book pro-vides the encouragement for all of us to find the inner artist and apply this towards becoming a better leader.

ReferencesBurns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row,

Publishers.Denhardt, J. V. & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The New Public

Service: Serving, Not Steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., and Aristigueta, M. P.

(2002). Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23 (5), 26–34.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psycholog y 25, 35–71.

perspectives in public affairs - arizona state universityperspectives in public affairs perspectives...

Documents