Golden Gate University

Edward S. Ageno School o f Business

Department o f Public Administration and
Doctor o f Business Administration Program

DISSERTATION

REVISITING DOMAIN THEORY

THROUGH COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS:
CASE STUDIES FROM SAN FRANCISCO

by

PAUL R. MICO

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration

is approved by

Joaquin L. Gonzalez IfMPh.D.

Committee Chair

Mickey P. Mcoee, DP A Willie L. Britt, DPA

Committee Member Committee Member

September 2015
 ProQuest Number: 3664490

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

Que
ProQuest
ProQuest 3664490

Published by ProQuest LLC(2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 1

T ab le o f C o n ten ts

CHAPTER I: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY..............................................................6

A INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................6
B. THE SEARCH FOR THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR................... 8
C. FORT HELP: A CASE STUDY (Fort, J. & Salin, L., 1979).......................................... 24
D. RECAPPING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED STUDY......................... 31
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 3 4
A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 34
B. DEFINITIONS.................................................... 35
C. THEMES............................................................................................................................. 35
Theme One: Domain Theory and Spheres o f Influence........................................................... 35
Theme Two: Organization Change and Organization Behavior .......................................... 38
Theme Three: Community-Based Organizations, and Case Studies .................................... 40
D. LOOKING AHEAD........................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................... 4 3
A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 43
B. PLANNED........................................................................................................................... 44
C. ACTUAL.............................................................................................................................45
ABCD Orientation Review .................................................................................................... 45
BADC Orientation Review No. 2, BADC (see Figure 14) .................................................... 47
CDBA Orientation Review No. 3, CDBA (see Figure 15) .................................................... 50
DABC Orientation Review No. 4, DABC (see Figure 16)...................................................... 52
D. HOW DONE: SELECTION OF FOUR CBOS FOR CASE STUDIES........................ 58
CHAPTER IV: CASE STUDIES, FINDINGS, AND ANALYSES..............................6 0
A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 60
B. CASE: GLIDE MEMORIAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND GLIDE
FOUNDATION........................................................................................................................61
CASE STUDY, GLIDE .......................................................................................................... 61
CASE FINDINGS, GLIDE .....................................................................................................74
CASE ANALYSIS, GLIDE ..................................................................................................... 77
C. CASE: KIMOCHI, Inc....................................................................................................... 79
CASE STUDY, KIMOCHI..................................................................................................... 79
CASE FINDINGS, KIMOCHI................................................................................................84
CASE ANALYSIS, KIMOCHI............................................................................................ 86
D. CASE: REBUILDING TOGETHER SAN FRANCISCO.............................................. 89
CASE STUDY, RTSF..............................................................................................................89
CASE FINDINGS, RTSF ..................................................................................................... 100
CASE ANALYSIS, RTSF ......................................................................................................103
E. CASE: WEST BAY PELIPINO MULTI-SERVICE, INC............................................ 104
CASE STUDY, WEST BAY...................................................................................................104
CASE FINDINGS, WEST B A Y ............................................................................................... I l l
CASE ANALYSIS, WEST BAY..............................................................................................114
 2

F. CROSS-TABLE REVIEW.............................................................................................. 116

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 116
TABLES.................................................................................................................................... 117
G. SUMMARY, DOMAIN THEORY, 2015....................................................................... 129
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AREAS FOR
FURTHER STUDY.................................................................................................131
A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 131
B. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................132
C. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 138
D. AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY................................................................................. 139
APPENDICES......................................................................................................... 140
APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEWED.................................................................... 141
APPENDIX A. 1 REFERENCES, GLIDE MEMORIAL CASE STUDY............................... 147
APPENDIXA.2 REFERENCES, KIMOCHI CASE STUDY................................................148
APPENDIX A. 3 REFERENCES, REBUILDING TOGETHER SAN FRANCISCO CASE
STUDY...................................................................................................................................... 149
APPENDIX A. 4 REFERENCES, WEST BAY PILIPINO MULTI SERVE CASE STUDY. 150
APPENDIX B: PARTIAL LIST OF CBOS IN SAN FRANCISCO.............................. 151
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY RESUME’ ........................................................................... 153
APPPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORMS FOR USES OF CASE STUDIES IN
DOCTORAL RESEARCH................................................................................................. 154
APPENDIX E....................................................................................................................... 155
 3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Linear Theory........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2. Concensus Theory................................................................................................. 12
Figure 3. Domain Theory, Early Insights............................................................................ 13
Figure 4. Domains, Operational Principles.......................................................................... 14
Figure 5. Policy Domain Functioning...................................................................................15
Figure 6. Management Domain Functioning....................................................................... 17
Figure 7. Services Delivery Domain Functioning...............................................................18
Figure 8. Union Domain Functioning...................................................................................19
Figure 9. Domain Theory, Tensions and Contentions........................................................ 21
Figure 10. Conjoint Domaain...............................................................................................24
Figure 11. Fort Help: A Dominant Service Domain........................................................... 28
Figure 12. Other Possible Domains......................................................................................33
Figure 13. Orientation Review, ABCD................................................................................ 47
Figure 14. Orientation Review, BADC................................................................................ 49
Figure 15. Orientation Review, CDBA................................................................................ 52
Figure 16. Orientation Review, DABC................................................................................ 54
Figure 17. Orientation Review, CCBA................................................................................ 56
Figure 18. Organization Chart, Glide Memorial, March 15, 2013.................................... 73
Figure 19. GLIDE Memorial Spheres of Influence........................................................... 79
Figure 20. Kimochi Organization Chart.............................................................................. 82
Figure 21. Kimochi Spheres of Influence............................................................................ 86
Figure 22. Rebuilding Together San Francisco, Organization Chart................................ 92
Figure 23. Rebuilding Together San Francisco, Spheres o f Influence............................102
Figure 24. West Bay, Organization C hart,....................................................................... 107
Figure 25. West Bay, Spheres of Influence....................................................................... 113
Figure 26. Domain Theory Revisited, 1980-2015.............................................................131
 4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Types of CBOs.................................................................................................... 118

Table 2. Environmental Forces Impacting on CBOs.......................................................119
Table 3. Leadership and CBOs.......................................................................................... 120
Table 4. Staffing and the Uses o f Volunteers................................................................... 121
Table 5. Governance...........................................................................................................122
Table 6. Operations.............................................................................................................123
Table 7. Unions...................................................................................................................124
Table 8. Service Delivery................................................................................................... 125
Table 9. Conjoint Roles and Processes.............................................................................. 126
Table 10. Special Events Help Shape the CBOs................................................................ 127
Table 11. The Power of the Constituency.......................................................................... 128
Table 12. Beneficiaries....................................................................................................... 129

LIST OF CASE STUDIES

Fort Help....................................................................................................................25
Glide Memorial Church and Foundation.................................................................62
Kimochi, Inc..............................................................................................................80
Rebuilding Together San Francisco.........................................................................90
West Bay Pilipino Multi Service........................................................................... 105
 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would not have started and completed this dissertation were it not for the following:

Golden Gate University, for readmitting me after I had been away for so many
years,

The Committee of Drs. Jay Gonzalez, Mickey McGee, and Willie Britt for
guiding me through this academic exercise,

Jay Gonzalez for keeping me focused and Mickey McGee for your tutorials on
literature review,

Aira Lipson of the GGU Library staff for your tutorials on ProQuest,

The Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto and James Lin o f Glide Memorial; Steve Nakajo of
Kimochi, Inc.; Rachel Fontenot o f Rebuilding Together San Francisco; and
Vivian Araullo o f West Bay Pilipino Multi Service for introducing me to your
community-based organizations,

Family and friends, all of you, for your encouragement and support,

Tenzin Samphel and Kunchok Sangmo for your electronic wizardry in fashioning
the many graphics used in this study and in formatting the text, and,

Roxy Mico for your editing and cheerleading.

Thank you.

Paul
 6

CHAPTER I: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

A. INTRODUCTION

This study is important because it becomes both a current and a longitudinal study in the
development o f a theory of behavior in a class of organizations known as community-
based organizations (CBOs). It began in 1979 here in the Bay Area by two Organization
Development (OD) specialists working together on a three-year action study designed to
promote constructive change processes among a study group o f nine CBOs. One of those
specialists then enrolled separately in the Golden Gate University doctoral program in
Public Administration. During the course of his studies, he chanced upon a professional
relationship with the founder of a CBO operating in a social-action setting in San
Francisco. The founder had strong opinions about how a CBO should be operated, which
made it a perfect case study application of the CBO behavioral theory. Time ran out on
the doctoral student’s studies, so he dropped out. That student was and is me. I recently
re-entered the program and am revisiting the theory I helped create. The theory is called
Domain Theory. The time lapse provides an opportunity for a longitudinal perspective.

Domain Theory, as an explanation for the behavior of CBOs, was introduced into the
professional literature in 1979 by James M. Kouzes and Paul R. Mico, in an article
published in The Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science (Kouzes, J.M. and P.R.Mico,
1979). At the time, he, Kouzes, was Manager, Joint Center for Human Services
Development, School of Social Work, San Jose State University, California. This
dissertation author was an independent consultant based in Oakland, California, and
served as a Senior Consultant to the Center.

A CBO Principle. It is a fundamental American principle that human services

should be planned and managed by the people for whom they are intended. This belief
helps account for the proliferation of CBOs that we see today. However, the exercise of
an organizational right does not mean automatic organizational success. The people in
those organizations have a responsibility to work together as effectively as they can in the
 7

discharging of those duties. This responsibility gave us opportunities to seek funding for
providing training, technical assistance, team development, and consultation services to
such agencies. We knew that we could be more successful if we could maintain a long­
term assistance relationship with them. We were fortunate in obtaining a three-year
consultation grant to work with a group of nine CBOs in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Most CBOs have boards of directors, management teams, and service deliverers. Not all
have unions or employee associations. We required the agencies to organize themselves
into teams made up of some directors, some managers, and some service deliverers. Our
design for helping them was to bring all eight teams together into workshop settings
every three or four months, followed by onsite consultations. When they were in
workshop settings we would alternate exercises: one, for having all eight teams meet and
work together in the total group; two, then break up into cross-team exercises (all
directors in one group, all managers in another, etc., and all service deliverers in another)
to work on common issues; and three, then regroup into agency teams to work on their
‘back home’ issues. It was an ideal project for testing organizational interventions.
 8

B. THE SEARCH FOR THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

We integrated several levels of theories in our work with them: personal and
interpersonal behaviors; intra-group and group theory; and inter-group behavior. When it
came to theories of organizational behavior, we started off deferring to the literature. The
basic theories at the time were focused around organizations being driven by (1) linear
processes, or (2) by the pursuit of collegial consensus processes. Linear Theory (see
Figure 1). Linear Theory describes CBOs as structured to take Inputs o f money, material,
and/or personnel, convert them by Throughputs, in order to produce Outputs.
 Inputs

I
V ✓

Throughputs

✓ v ✓
Outputs

Figure 1. Linear Theory

 10

Consensus Theory (see Figure 2). Consensus Theory holds that CBOs function most
effectively when their members are collegial, collaborative, and in consensus regarding
the services they should provide and how they should provide them. This was the theory
behind the Fort Help CBO.

Domain Theory (see Figure 3). Neither Linear Theory nor Consensus Theory explained
what we were seeing in our group of CBOs. We had invited the teams to come into our
project organized as subgroups made up of directors, managers, and deliverers. We
provided them with team development services and expected them to function as unified
CBO teams the more we worked with them. Instead, we noticed that while they worked
together as teams on some issues they behaved differently when they worked in their own
subgroups. They had different points of view regarding the same issues. We later called
these levels “domains,” defining the term to mean “a sphere of influence or control
claimed by a social entity.” We identified three such domains in the early part of our
work: a Policy Domain, made up o f boards of directors or policy boards, also known as
governing bodies; a Management Domain, made up o f administrators; and a Service
Domain, made of those who delivered human services. We later became aware of a
Union Domain, made up of those who were part of Employee Associations or who
represented unions.
Operational Principles (see Figure 4). We observed that the domains were
differentiated by certain principles, which we called “operational principles:”
Governance, Measures of Success, Structure, and Work Modes. Policy Domain (see
Figure 5). The governing board or board of director’s level of the organization is one
usually accorded the role of formulating policies and directions. Typically, it is composed
of elected or appointed representatives who have a public constituency of one kind or
another to whom they feel accountable. It is this constituency and this sense of
accountability that provides the Policy Domain with one of its basic principles:
legitimacy by consent of the governed. All members are equal, with participation based
on “one-person, one-vote.” All work modes are based on uses o f negotiating, bargaining,
and voting. Success is measured on the basis o f equity or impartial and fair policy
decisions for themselves and their constituencies.
 11

o o In p u ts

oo T h ro u g h p u ts

O u tp u ts

Figure 2. Consensus Theory

 12

Policy

Union
MGT.

Service

Figure 3. Domain Theory. Early Insights

 13

• Governance
• Measure of Sucess
• Structures
• Work Modes

Figure 4. Domains, Operational Principles

 14

1
Principles: Consent of the Governed
Success Measures: Equity in Decision Making
Structure: Representative
Work Modes: One Person, One Vote

Figure 5. Policy Domain Functioning

 15

Management Domain (see Figure 6). Management follows the dominant

paradigm. It attempts to mirror the model of business and industrial management. Its
governing principles are: legitimacy by technical expertise; hierarchal control and
coordination; a structure based on bureaucratized units of resources and coordination;
work modes utilizing linear tools and procedures; and success based on productivity and
cost-efficiency.
Service Domain (see Figure 7). The workers who make up the program or service
delivery domain generally have a background o f many years of study, training, and
experience. They see themselves as “professionals,” possessing the expertise to respond
to the needs and demands of their clients, and having the values and ethics needed for
self-governance. Their governing principles are: legitimacy by professional expertise; the
reliance on autonomy and self-regulation; the preference for collegial, team-like
structures; the use of client-oriented, problem-solving methods which are adaptable to
various contingencies; and success based on the quality of care provided to the client, or
on the personal satisfaction of having lived up to one’s professional standards.

Union Domain (see Figure 8). Not all CBOs have Union Domains. They are
usually made up o f service deliverers, although in recent years there have been efforts by
some national unions to organize lower level management employees of the Management
Domain. Otherwise, the Service Deliverers of the CBO are usually recruited to become
the Union members for their CBOs when they take off their “service hats” and put on
their “union hats.” They undergo changes in their behavior that conforms to union
principles, which are: success is measured by improvements in work conditions and
compensation; solidarity in membership and positions taken; and readiness to confront
and exercise sanctions in the form of strikes or work stoppages against the organization.
 16

I
Principles: Hierarchical Control and
Coordination
Success M easures:
Cost-Efficiency and Effectiveness
Work Modes: Linear Techniques
Structure: Bureaucratic

Figure 6. M anagement Domain Functioning

 17

Principles: Autonomy, Self-Regulation

Success Measures:
• Quality of Services Deliverd
• High Standards of Practice
Structure: Collegial
Work Modes: Client-Specific Problem Solving

Figure 7. Services: Delivery Domain Functioning

 18

oooo
oooo

Principles: • Exercise of Sanctions

• Contracts
Success Measures:
• Improvements in Compensation
and Working Conditions
Structure: Representative
Work Modes: Solidarity

Figure 8. Union Domain Functioning

 19

Tensions and Contentions (see Figure 9). The very sense of separate identities, if
nothing else, appears to create a tension and distance between and among the four
domains. It makes the development and preservation of a shared common vision or
mission among the four difficult. Often, it seems, the domains appear to be moving in
different directions. The tensions that are created involve contrasting principles, different
rhythms of change, power and control, and limited domain capacities:

The Tension of Contrasting Principles. The Policy Domain derives its legitimacy
from the consent o f its constituency, or the governed. This contrasts sharply with
Management’s legitimacy by technical expertise, Service’s legitimacy by professional
expertise, and Union’s solidarity. When legitimacy is an issue the conflict can be sharp.
There is tension between the principle of ‘one-person one-vote, which characterizes the
Policy Domain, with those o f Management’s hierarchical control and coordination,
Service’s autonomy and self-regulation, and Union’s contracts. Policy’s representative,
participative structure contrasts with Management’s bureaucratic, Service’s collegial, and
Union’s solidarity preferences. Policy’s use o f negotiation, bargaining, and voting
contrasts with Management’s bureaucratic, Service’s collegial, and Union’s solidarity
preferences. Policy’s uses o f negotiating, bargaining, and voting contrasts with
management’s linear tools, and Service’s client-oriented, contingency problem solving,
and Union’s confrontation and readiness to exercise sanctions. Finally, Policy’s reliance
on the success measures of equity differs significantly from Management’s productivity
and cost-effectiveness, from Services quality o f services and the applications of
professional standards, and from Union’s improvements in compensation and working
conditions.
The Tension of Different Change Rhythms. The drumbeat of change is different
for each domain. The Policy Domain must be responsive to its political environment.
Change, therefore, is cyclical, dependent on the outcome of the next two-to-four year
election cycles, when new forces may be brought into power or incumbent forces
retained. For the CBO, the political issue may be repeated annually, when a third of its
board member’ terms expire and the chance to put some “new blood” on it is presented.
 20

Union

Figure 9. Domain Theory, Tensions and Contentions

 21

For the Management Domain, the rhythm is both economic and technologic:
economic, ranging from annual organizational budget cycles, to broader issues of
inflation and money markets; technologic, in terms of the rapid developments affecting
data processing and other linear procedures, as well as the basic roles and functions of the
personnel who handle them. For the Service Domain, the rhythm of change is long range;
the causes of the problems which bring the clients and the program professionals together
sometimes can barely be altered from one generation to another, since they may require
years of intensive social problem solving, involving large macro system efforts; in
addition, changes in professional practice are slow. For the Union Domain the timing of
the next contract affects whether the working relationships may be contentious. Finally,
what the managers may believe to be a good strategy for the development of the
organization may not be politically expedient from the policy perspective, and may be
very disruptive to the program efforts o f the professionals and Union members.
The Tension of Power and Control. In the business and industrial world, managers
have powerful discretionary uses of rewards, structural arrangements, information
processes, leadership initiatives, and task assignments, which enable them to maintain a
high degree of control over their organizations. In CBOs, the situation is different. The
Management Domain is accountable to the Policy Domain, supposedly, but nevertheless
may attempt to impose its will on its governing body by formulating policies itself, by
withholding information on other decision options, or by intimidating the body members
with technical and professional expertise. Managers exert dominance over the Service
Domain by controlling budget data and rewards, and by enforcing conformity on the
linear management tools, which the professionals find irrelevant and time consuming.
The Policy Domain exerts its control over the Management Domain by the exercise of
hiring-and-firing authority over the top managers, by approving or fixing the budget, but
accepting or rejecting reports, and by the close monitoring of day-to-day management
operations. The Union Domain exercises its power by resisting the demands of the
managers or policy makers, by the use or threat of strike, by building support for the next
contract, and by members who bypass management and take their needs or demands
directly to sympathetic policy makers, and by having their power needs fulfilled through
the support of other unions.
 22

The Tension of Limited Domain Capacities. There is nothing that equips a new
member o f a policy board or management group with an automatic understanding of the
principles that characterize the domain that he or she has joined, so that he or she can
perform effectively in the required role. Members of a Policy Domain are volunteers, and
not always experienced in serving on other governing bodies. They may be managers or
program professionals of other organizations, and bring those domain perspectives to the
policy body. Managers of CBOs rarely are trained formally for their role, unlike business
or industrial managers who have their MBA’s or other higher education and training.
Usually, they are program professionals who move up into management because of long
service or, more likely, for the higher salaries and status not available to them as Service
deliverers. If any domain approaches the desired state of having it members understand
its operating principles, it is the Service Domain, particularly of the personnel who are
professionally trained. These principles are modeled by the university instructors, but
they are part of the Service Domain in their own academic organizations. They are
promoted by professional associations, but those values are Service-Domain oriented
also. But it is not always that simple for the Service Domain: many organizations use
volunteers or nonprofessionals to deliver services who have not had the advantage of
academic values training for their domain roles. We theorized that the push and pull of
these influences exerted by these domains, over how the CBO should function, causes the
behaviors noted.

Conjoint Domain (see Figure 10). We introduced the term, Conjoint Domain, into
our work with our group of CBOs when we were helping the CBO teams with their
organizational problem solving. We encouraged them to create “conjoint domains” made
up o f representatives from each o f the four domains - Policy, Management, Service, and
Union - to deal with issues that affected the entire organization and not the specific
purview o f any one domain.
 23

Union Conjoint / m g T.

Principles: For the Good of the Organization

Sucoess Measures: Consensus
Structure: Representative
Work Modes: Solidarity

Figure 10. Conjoint Domain

 24

C. FORT HELP: A CASE STUDY (Fort, J. & Salin, L., 1979).

By coincidence, Mico and Fort met at Golden Gate University when both were teaching
courses as adjunct staff. Mico became interested in the story of Fort Help and published it
as a book, To Dream the Perfect Organization, in 1979. The following is a short case
study of how it fits into Domain Theory.

The Beginning. The most direct antecedent of Fort Help was the original San
Francisco Health Department’s Center for Special Problems, which started in 1965. Dr.
Fort, a psychiatrist, was the founder and driving force behind the program. It was the time
of the ‘flower children’ in America: many people flocking to the Haight area from around
the country, creating problems of drug use, sexual disease and gender (LGBT) issues, and
crime. The Center assumed the primary role in providing psychological and medical
services.
However, because o f tax cuts, the pressure was on to seek new resources and
operational freedom. Also, Fort had his own beliefs about how to organize and provide
services to the community. He resisted directions from administrators and public
officials. This came to a head in 1971 when he left the health department and formed his
own organization, incorporating as a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization (CBO), to
provide services as a community clinic. Because of his personality, his organization
became known as Fort Help. At about the same time he met Salin, who shared Fort’s
thoughts and wanted to become part o f something new and different. The two o f them
developed a close working relationship.

Their dream: As Fort and Salin noted, “We are a bureaucratic, organizational
society. We are bom in bureaucratic hospitals and educated in bureaucratic schools. Most
o f us spend our work lives in highly bureaucratic institutions, involving rigid hierarchical
and authoritarian structures.” Fort Help was and is different. In order to provide a new
and successful approach some of the major social and health problems o f our society, we
developed a rare organizational style that had built into it participatory democracy for our
staff. Rather than structuring and ordering each aspect of a program, we encouraged
 25

individual growth and leadership. Sometimes such freedom can be difficult, but we know
that ultimately we are stronger for the trying.

“We fuse the individual and the organization so that both, simultaneously, obtain
optimal effectiveness. We have employee-centered consensual leadership, flexible and
tailored to the situation, and groupings that are more rational and humane while
preserving basic human rights. We minimize organizational side effects in order to
provide much satisfaction to the individual.

“We intended from the beginning to replace bureaucracy with an adaptive,

problem solving system of diverse specialists and generalists, linked together by
coordinating ‘executives’ moving back and forth from management to service. We
believe that a mature person learns from a ‘perfect organization; to cope with rapid
change, live with ambiguity, identify with the adaptive process, and be self-directed.
Individuals working in such a system derive their satisfaction, identity, and status from
helping others and from solving problems. This was, and is still, our dream.”

Fort Help was organized around four premises:

• The emphasis on a non-medical model: they treated ‘guests’ rather

than ‘clients’; ‘social health’ rather than ‘mental health’.
• One does not have to be a mental health professional in order to help
people.
• No hierarchy; no differentiation based on diverse skills.
• Emphasis on the smorgasbord approach: help the total person through
a wide range o f methods.

A Domain Theory Analysis of the Fort Help Experience. As we analyzed it, Fort
Help was intended to be a Service Domain organization, exclusively. A board of directors
was created only because it was required as a part of the legal incorporation for nonprofit,
tax-exempt status. The board’s role was established to be advisory rather than for policy­
making, and for help in fund raising and publicity. It was kept at an arm’s distance
 26

throughout the experience. For all intents and purposes, Fort, himself, created the basic
mission and policies for the organization.
Anti-Management. The effort to prevent a management locus of influence from
forming was a conscious strategy from the beginning. Management was equated with
bureaucracy and Fort’s negative experiences with bureaucracy had resulted in his
determination that Fort Help would never become bureaucratic. Therefore, management-
type decision-making, supervision, and coordination were handled on a collegial-
consensus basis rather than hierarchically, until a staff revolt threatened to change the
nature of the organization, and Dr. Fort had to intervene “as the manager.” The use o f
such management tools as budgeting, billing and collections, cost accounting, fee setting,
and service statistics were accorded low-priority status - task responsibilities to be
avoided, interferences with the preoccupation of services to guests - until a Medi-Cal
legal-financial crisis hit the organization and almost destroyed it.
Operational Domain Principles. A Dominant Service Domain (see Figure 11, page
28). What evolves, then, is a classic case study of a Service-Domain organization which
placed high emphasis on the following domain principles:
• A competency-based, rather than credential-based, determinant o f staff
capability.
• Peer review as the basis for improving both competency and quality o f
care.
• Collegial (team) work groupings.
• Consensus decision making, with some representation-type decision­
making structures.
• Autonomy and self-regulation.
A Single-Domain Organization? Can a single-domain organization survive and
provide human services effectively in today’s turbulent, complex society? The answer is
‘yes,’ but under certain conditions. It would have to be free of legal and financial
accountability. For example, Fort and Salin speculated that the reason they were not able
to obtain foundation grants was because they could not convince the foundations that
they were well-managed and responsible.
 27

Figure 11. Fort Help: A Dominant Service Domain

 28

No Policy Domain? To really get by without a Policy Domain requires some

process whereby the service deliverers are able to stay in close touch with constituents
and clients alike. Fort Help was battered by its environment: by advocacy groups,
regulatory agencies, stakeholder funding agencies, governmental counterparts, media
(when it got in trouble), and clients who coalesced with dissident staff to try and gain
control of the organization. A properly designed Policy Domain develops and maintains
effective linkages with these external forces, helping to bring relevancy and stability to
the organization. This linking would have to be done by the service deliverers. The Fort
Help personnel did not do this. They concentrated on serving their guests. Only Dr. Fort,
it seemed, dealt with these external forces, and most often on a reactive basis (after a
problem had developed) rather than on a proactive, prevention-oriented basis. It is
interesting to note that Fort and Salin conclude that the one thing they would do
differently, if they had to do it over again, would be to create an operating board of
directors.

No Management Domain To really get by without a Management Domain

requires that the basic management functions be conducted, anyway, without the
existence of a “domain force,” as such. Two options seem obvious: one, service
deliverers should learn how to use necessary management tools, and agree to share the
responsibilities equitably; or, two, a contract should be let to an external person or firm to
provide this function for the organization. What is even more important is that a basic
positive value would have to be inculcated into the behavioral processes of the service
deliverers - that good management is also good service delivery. At Fort Help,
management as a negative value was a dominant norm.

No Union Domain. There was no Union as such, but the employees functioned as
one. They fought for control of the organization and confronted Dr. Fort over the services
they provided.

Competency-Based Performance. One of the important lessons learned from Fort

Help was the way by which competency-based performance began to be developed and
 29

refined. Levels of competency were established, with clear indications of how one could
move upward from one level to another. The concept o f apprenticeship was established,
heavy emphasis was placed on training, and excellent peer review processes became an
integral part o f the collegial operations. This latter point is significant. There is a myth
that human service professionals value peer review as a standard-maintaining process.
Our experience with CBOs suggests that peer review is a highly threatening process and
that efforts to introduce it are usually unsuccessful. Fort Help is an example of how it can
be institutionalized and used productively. However, it should also be noted that most
CBOs depend on credential-based professionals to deliver their services. In Fort Help’s
situation, many of the staff did not have professional degrees (they were not credential-
based). They needed the training.

Coping with dissident staff. Some of the more eloquent parts of the Fort Help
experiences are the insights garnered from the types of personnel attracted to alternative
organizations and how to cope with them. Dissidents almost won a revolution to take
control of Fort Help at one time, and a strong self-interest group almost changed the
mission of it at another. The insights are: awareness that stringent selection is essential to
the recruitment o f personnel whose primary motivation is to help other people rather than
to meet their own needs; and that ‘weeding out’ of those who are not able to demonstrate
that motivation may be necessary from time to time. Unfortunately, few bureaucratic
organizations can control either process very effectively.

Rewards. A basic value at Fort Help was the notion of equal rewards (stipends)
for all. Although the financial remuneration was low, the fact that the value was
emphasized prevented what might otherwise have been a serious problem - conflict over
perceived inequities in pay. Since there was no higher pay established for managerial
work, no one felt the need to give up the satisfaction of one task in order to gain more
money for doing another one not as satisfying. What comes through the experience is the
sense of task satisfaction as the basic reward with Fort Helpers wanted and received.
They liked what they were doing and left only when they found a more satisfying job or
were forced to seek a better salary elsewhere.
 30

Conclusion. Fort Help, from an organizational behavior point of view, is

testimony to the functioning of a dominant Service Domain. It has lessons for every
CBO, if for no other reason than to arrive at a better understanding of this one domain. It
is essential reading for others who would create single Service-Domain alternative
organizations. It suggests what strengths can be emphasized and what problems avoided.
In addition, Domain Theory serves to explain the properties that are essential for a well-
functioning domain. The better that staff can understand and utilize those properties; the
more successful they should be in what they are trying to do.
 31

D. RECAPPING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED STUDY

There are several reasons why the proposed study is significant:

1. More than thirty years have passed since the original work was done on the
formulation of Domain Theory. An opportunity is presented for an updating to be
undertaken. For example, major changes in the computer sciences and
information technology fields have occurred. Have these changed the
Management Domain in any observable, significant way? Have they changed any
of the other domains and, if so, how?

2. Many people elected or appointed to the Policy Domain these days are expected
to raise money or make financial contributions to the CBO. An opportunity is
presented to determine how this activity changes the principles and functioning of
the Policy Domain.

3. The Union Domain came into the formulation of Domain Theory late in our
original work. Not all CBOs have employee associations or belong to unions, but
it is presumed to be a much more frequent occurrence then it used to be. An
opportunity is presented to update and refine this part of Domain Theory.

4. We introduced Conjoint Domain as a neutral meeting ground for CBOs engaged

in organization-wide problem solving. We have the opportunity to explore that
viability further.

5. It seems logical to assume that there are additional domains to be explored in the
overall Domain Theory picture (see Figure 12). One is a possible “Constituency
Domain.” We have said that some characteristics o f the Policy Domain reflect the
rights and interests of a larger constituency, those that show up at public board
meetings to argue for or against certain issues. Another is a possible “Consumer
Domain,” a mechanism for the provision of feedback to the
 32

Constituent Domain

/ ^ \
Union
A
/ m gt \ I

Service

„ Consumer Domain

/ %
i i
%
/

Figure 12. Other Possible Domains

 33

CBO regarding the services it provides. An opportunity is provided to study these

and comment on them.

6. The Fort Help case study was an important example of what happens to a CBO
when the Service Domain dominates how the organization functions. Are there
other CBOs who have a primary Domain dominance?

7. Finally, a refinement of Domain Theory is important because it provides another

tool in the armamentarium of public administration practitioners to use in their
enhancement of services for improvements in the lives and concerns o f their
citizenry.
 34

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

A. INTRODUCTION

The initial expectation was that there would be a wealth o f literature references to
Domain Theory, making it easy to document its development over the years since its
creation. That turned out not to be the case. Instead of too many references to study, the
problem turned out to be a lack o f references, or difficulty in sorting through which
references were related to Domain Theory and which were not.

I had the naieve notion when I started this review that I would key in the words,
“Domain Theory,” to the ProQuest academic electronic search engine and up would jump
hundreds of literature references to my earlier work. After all, these had been waiting for
me for the past forty years, when I helped introduce the theory to the literature. Imagine
my surprise when thousands of references did in fact appear but were authored by
professionals from such technical fields as physics and math, electrical engineering, and
microbiology, to name a few. It was as though others had taken over domain theory, and I
realized my work had just begun.

My other surprise was that there were very few references to domain theory
regarding the behavior o f community-based organizations. Is this because the theory is
not relevant or that there are few researchers interested in studying it? Revisiting domain
theory takes on more significance than when I started the literature review. The search
broadened the phrases used. Several themes have evolved out of the fields of
Organization Development (OD) and community organization that have been searched.
Out o f the OD fields come numerous references to organization behavior and
organization change, including many from CBOs. Since this dissertation uses case studies
as a data collection vehicle, many references to CBO case studies were studied.
 35

B. DEFINITIONS

The multiplicity of fields that use the same terms for different purposes make it
important that we define how these terms are used. We define the term, domain theory, to
refer to the presence and interaction of teams or organizational units within, or related to,
community-based organizations. These are called “spheres of influence” because the end
result is that the behavior of other domains or spheres is influenced. The term, spheres o f
influence, originates from the field of international geopolitics, and is likened to domain
theory for the purposes of this study.

Discussing theories of organizational change lead inevitably to exploring the OD

field, from which much o f the research and development into organizational change and
behavior has evolved. “Change” is defined as an active process of moving from one
condition to another, and “behavior” as the dynamic that the change purports to alter.
The final field o f interest related to this review of scholarly literature is related to
community-based organizations (CBOs), commonly made up o f nonprofit groups who
serve the community in which they are based. We propose to conduct a few case studies
o f some CBOs for our data base.

C. THEMES

Three broad themes evolve for our literature review. Theme One is a review of domain
theory and spheres of influence; Theme Two is a limited review of organizational change
and behavior; and Theme Three is a review of CBOs and case studies.

Theme One: Domain Theory and Spheres o f Influence.

This theme speaks more directly to the nature of our study. The term, “domain,” is used
interchangedly with the term, “spheres o f influence.” A domain is a key unit of people,
related to a particular CBO, either internal, such as a management team, or external, such
as a constituency. They share the same perceptions of their roles in the organization. A
sphere of influence is a concept borrowed from the field of international geopolitics to
 36

manage the relationship between nations. It is the subject of research in the management
literature, where it’s traditional use has been in enabling large corporations to launch win-
lose strategies against each other in order to comer competetive markets.

Meanwhile, few references were found on Domain Theory, as specifically as we

have used and developed it. One is from Dappen, L.D. & Gulkin, T.B. (1986). They
examined the validity of Domain Theory, as used with public school personnel. They
concluded that viewing human service institutions in terms of three distinct domains
(policy, management, and service) helps to explain and predict many individual and
group behaviors. Dappen and Gulkin’s study of these three public school domains is the
closest reference we found that shows an awareness of our theory.

Madden, S.J. (1995), undertook a test o f domain theory in hospitals, in a study of

organizational communication. This study identified a subunit or group of employees in
hospital organizations that had not been previously explored. The distinction between
domains may provide a middle-level analysis that could improve organizational research
and organizational effectiveness; and, finally, the combination of interpersonal and
organizational theory allows for a more thorough and complete picture of the
organization and its internal population. Madden also displayed an understanding of
Domain Theory in his study of organizational communication. He makes distinctions
between units or groups of employees and explain these as domains.

Goodman, P.S. & Ramanujam, R. (2012) examined the relationship between

types of organizational change (i.e., changes across multiple domains, e.g. employees,
structure, and technology) and the incidence o f latent errors. The reference to the three
domains listed suggests some understanding of our domain theory, but cannot be
substantiated.

The term, spheres of influence, was used in conjunction with domain theory, and
there were some scholarly references to it. For example, Bealieu (2002) used it for
conducting a study o f social workers’ spheres o f influence, comparing the relative
 37

influence o f social workers who provide only direct social services with those whose
roles include administrative responsibilities. Beaulieu concluded that administrative
responsibilities augment the influence of the social worker role. We could see this being a
distinction studied within a domain, although our work has been a little broader,
examining instead the behaviors between and among domains.

The term, Spheres o f Influence, is sometimes likened to ’’culture.” Culture is

everywhere in organizational life (Schein, E., 1999). Schein, formerly of the MIT Sloan
School of Management, identified six ways in which culture can develop:
1. Organizational evolution, where business adapts naturally to the environment.
2. Group evolution, when teams or sub-groups work actively to facilitate change.
3. Guided evolution, when leaders develop and use personal insights to help their
organizations change.
4. Autonomous evolution, when teams learn from each other.
5. Planned and managed culture change, as when steering committees or task
forces play active roles.
6. Part or total cultural destruction when new leadership comes in and gets rid o f
former culture carriers.

Schein’s work, in likening Spheres of Influence to ’’culture,” is different. It is

more an explanation of how culture develops within an organization, listing his six steps.
His “organizational evolution” is likened to our “environmental forces,” resulting from
our case studies. Schein’s “autonomous evolution,” when teams leam from each other,
is what we say happens in Conjoint Domains, where teams from various parts of the
organization come together to plan and solve problems. We are certainly in agreement
with Schein regarding the use of “steering committees or task forces” to play active roles
in cultural change.

O f interest to us was what we found at the web address, www.MindTools.com

(2014). This company has built a business on the model o f testing and improving the
Sphere of Influence one is able to develop and exercise over others. They see it as way to
become more personally influential in an organization. The tool it markets is called
Enlarging Your Sphere o f Influence in Your Organization: Your Learning and
 38

Development Guide to Gettng People on Your Side. It is interesting to see a company,

such as MindTools.com, running a business that tests for and improves the Sphere of
Influence one is able to exert and exercise over others. It lends credence to our theory.

Theme Two: Organization Change and Organization Behavior

The term, “change,” is used here to refer to a process o f moving from one condition to
another, while “behavioral,” as used here, is that condition. Therefore, organizational
change is defined to be a process of moving from one type of behavior to another.
Facilitating that change encompasses a broad set of methodologies arising from the field
o f Organization Development, or OD. The scientists and practitioners who developed the
field created their own Network to advance their knowledge and skills. It was called the
Organization Development Network, founded in the mid-1960s); Beckhard (1969)
defined OD as an effort that is (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from
the top, to (4) increase organizational effectiveness and health through (5) planned
interventions in the organization’s “processes,” using behavioral science knowledge.

OD is the arts and sciences o f organizational change. As summarized before, it

evolved out of the studies o f why Sensitivity Training did not work well when it was
taken from offsite training events and used onsite in such organizations as schools, banks,
and CBOs. Sensitivity Training is an effective methodology for individual change and
behavior, but it was found that organization change requires a different set of
methodologies. Adding to Beckhard’s definition, above, other OD methodologies include
team development, strategic planning, conflict management, leadership skills, and
communication skills, among others.

Burke, W.W. (2014), also one of the early founders of the OD field (he was
Director of the Center for Organization Development, for the National Training
Laboratories Institute for the Applied Behavioral Sciences, in the 1960s. At the same
time this doctoral student was on the staff there as the Director of the Center for
MacroSystem Change. Dr. Burke played an active role in research, consulting, and
 39

teaching for the past half-century. His most recent book is a report on and interpretation
of the current knowledge o f organization change. It includes the review of a wide variety
of methodologies that help make up the OD field, and planned change, such as team­
building, leadership development, strategic planning, conflict management, data-
feedback, and/or reorganization. These are all parts of it. That was before Kouses and I
did our work on Domain Theory, in the late 1970s. Dr. Burke would argue that OD
encompasses such processes as Domain Theory and Spheres of Influence as parts of such
OD methodologies such as Team Building and Leadership Development, among other
change methodologies, and I would agree.

Many factors give rise to change processes in organizations, says Lewis, L.K.
(2011). The success o f change in organizations can be measured by a wide variety of
perspectives, and is a major determinant o f outcomes. Miner, J.B. (2002) suggests that
the study of organizational behavior ranks as a social science discipline, much like
cultural anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. Pettinger
(2009) has produced a book that is packed with references to current topics, practical
examples, and case studies from around the world.

At least two references focused on the measurements o f organizational behavior

and change. Chaudoir and others (2013) conducted a systematic literature review to
identify published articles reporting on the use and development o f measures designed to
assess constructs that predict the implementation of evidence-based health innovations.
Cassandra and others (2015) sought to describe the development of surveys on adherence
to and implementation of CBPR/CE principles at two CNP centers and examine
commonalities and differences in program-versus project-level CBPR evaluations.
 40

Theme Three: Community-Based Organizations, and Case Studies

There are many definitions of CBOs with general agreement on most of their elements.
The University of Maryland, Health Science and Health Services Library, (2011) defines
it as “a community-based organization, public or private nonprofit (including a church or
religious entity) that is representative of a community or a significant segment of a
community, and is engaged in meeting human, educational, environmental, or public
safety needs. U.S.Legal (2013) defines it as a term meaning a public or private nonprofit
organization of demonstrated effectiveness that (A) is representative of a community or
significant segments of a community; and (B) provides educational or related services to
individuals in the community. CBOs are defined a little differently by those who work in
the international governmental setting (Doh, 2009), where they use the term,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), that aim to serve particular societal interests by
focusing advocacy and/or operational efforts on social, political, and economic goals,
including equity, education, health, environmental protection and human rights, a vehicle
used by NGOs to advance their agenda by shareholder activities. The National
Community-Based Organization Network (2004) is perhaps a little more specific. “A
Community-Based Organization is one that is driven by community residents in all
aspects of its existence. By that we mean:
• The majority of the governing body and staff consists of local residents.
• The main operating offices are in the community.
• Priority issue areas are identified and defined by residents.
• Solutions to address priority issues are developed with residents, and
• Program design, implementation, and evaluation components have residents
intimately involved in leadership positions.

Speer and Perkins (2002) lend a historical note of interest: “Following the
American Civil War, there was a rapid rise in the number of charitable agencies designed
to lend assistance to those displaced, disabled, or impoverished by the war.” And then the
Northern California Community Loan Fund (2015) developed a list of “the top
Community and Non-Profit Organizations in San Francisco:
 41

• Northern California Community Loan Fund

• Lighthouse for the Blind
• Community Center Project of San Francisco
• Planned Parenthood
• United Way of the Bay Area
• San Francisco Railway Museum
• Neighborhood Parks Council
• Alcatraz Island
• Fort Point National Historic Site
 42

D. LOOKING AHEAD

We started this chapter with the desire to review the literature relative to three themes of
interest to us. One was Domain Theory and Spheres of Influence. A strong argument can
be made for saying that domains and spheres are essentially the same, and that the
literature reviews showed that to us. A second theme is that of organizational change and
behavior. The fields of change and behavior are dynamic, in a constant state of flux. The
better we understand them the more successful we can be in working with them. And the
third theme is that of community-based organizations. Our whole study is of CBOs,
desiring to arrive at a better understanding of how they behave, and deciding that one
way o f doing that is to conduct some case studies. We do that in the next chapter of this
dissertation. Our themes, then, as we end this review and venture forth into our own study
is to repeat the themes that brought us here and will carry us into our selection o f
methodologies for our own research.

We end this chapter with a strong desire to again present the case for Domain
Theory and Spheres of Influence. Our earlier research provided evidence that there are
internal forces which influence how CBOs behave. The literature review brought home
the awareness that our original work was not seen as a contribution to the field, as we had
hoped. We have an opportunity now to demonstrate once again that our perceptions have
merit, that our contributions are intended to burnish the arts and sciences of those who
labor in the fields of Organization Development. Looking ahead, we believe our revisited
study will demonstrate again the evidence to support our original contentions, and
perhaps expound on them even further.
 43

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. INTRODUCTION

The wisdom of the Dissertation Committee, in our working relationship, has been very
instructive. We planned that a “re-visitation of Domain Theory” would be the basis for
the study. We selected five CBOs in San Francisco for the doctoral student to visit
initially; then we selected four CBOs for the actual in depth development of case studies.
This Chapter describes how the were data.
 44

B. PLANNED

We determined that we needed to get reoriented to domain theory and community-based

organizations (CBOs), and the best way to do that would be by “visiting” some to see if they
still worked the way they used to. We would collect and record data by survey methodologies,
using a combination of forced choice and open-ended questions, and by using interview
techniques (see Appendix E for a draft of the survey instrument used). We promised
confidentiality o f data. We thought an hour interview would give us the information we
needed. What we were looking for was the following information:
• What was the purpose of the CBO?
• What was its history?
• How was it organized?
• What services did it deliver?
• Who were its constituents and beneficiaries?
• What forces shaped how it was influenced and how it influenced others?

The members of the Dissertation Committee, along with this student, selected five
CBOs in which the CBO had a good reputation and in which the Committee knew a member of
the board o f directors or staff, who would serve as the respondent. The student made the
contacts. Every CBO agreed to participate. They were:
• Human Rights Campaign (ABCD)
• Kimochi (BADC)
• Public Health Institute (CDBA)
• San Francisco Aids Foundation (DABC)
• San Francisco Immunization Coalition (CCBA)
 45

C. ACTUAL
ABCD Orientation Review

The Respondent for ABCD is a Volunteer in the organization. The interview was
conducted on October 15,2014. ABCD was founded in 1980. Its mission is to achieve
equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGTB) Americans. It is the largest
organization of its nature in the country. Today it has more than one million members and
supporters. It advocates on behalf of LGBT Americans, mobilizing grassroots actions in
diverse communities, investing strategically to elect fair-minded individuals to office, and
educating the public about LGBT issues (see Figure 13).
Governing Body Domain: ABCD has a national Board o f Directors and is based
in Washington, D.C. This, alone, might remove ABCD from consideration as a CBO. It is
an NBO, a National-Based Organization. It has several regional-level boards - one in
Northern California, two in Southern California. Representatives from these regional
boards serve on the national board. The Regional Boards take their direction from the
National Board.
Constituency Domain. It is likely that the constituency for national ABCD, if
there is one, is in the membership of the Regional Boards._Service Domain. ABCD
employs a national staff of one hundred fifty legal, fund-raising, and educational
personnel, and it has large numbers o f volunteers (of which the Respondent is one), who
help organize and conduct special educational and fund-raising events.
 National

O O C 3 Volunteers

Figure 13. Orientation Review, ABCD

 47

Consumer Domain. It is likely that the Consumer Domain is loosely held between the
members of the Constituency Domain, the Volunteers, and those who participate in the
special events conducted by the Volunteers. Union Domain. There was no suggestion of a
Union Domain operating within ABCD. Conclusion. ABCD is a non-CBO. Its structure
enables it to draw its action upward into the organization toward its Washington, D.C.
level.

BADC Orientation Review No. 2, BADC (see Figure 14)

To know the story of BADC is to know the story of its co-founder and director. He is of
the third-generation Japanese-American Sansei, bom in Salt Lake City. His formulating
years were in Yokohama, Japan, and he was raised in San Francisco, centered in the
community of Japantown. He grew up being acutely aware of the cultural and language
barriers facing the first-generation Japanese-American, the Issei, and the second-
generation, the Nisei. He saw these in his own family. Not only were the elderly
prevented by these barriers from utilizing the services they needed, they were devastated
by the losses of their civil rights and properties when they were uprooted and incarcerated
into remote, barren, concentration camps during World War II. No sooner had they
returned and tried to build a new life when they were displaced again during the San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency’s urban renewal upheaval o f the Japantown
community.
Then in the late 1960s, he and a small band o f like-minded individuals began to
take serious their desire to help their people. They organized themselves to create a force
for change. They shared ideas, sought resources and supporters, and taught themselves
the skills of community organization, grantsmanship, and OD.
In 1971, they formed the nonprofit organization, BADC, “feelings for the older
generations.” The mission o f BADC is to provide a continuum of culturally sensitive
programs and services to all seniors and their families, with a focus on Japanese-
Americans and the Japanese-speaking community.
 Constituents

mgt :

Consumers

Figure 14. Orientation Review, BADC

 49

Today, BADC provides care and support to more than three thousand seniors and
their families throughout San Francisco, with an annual operating budget o f two million
dollarrs and a staff o f fifty employees. Two interviews were conducted with the
Executive Director. Some o f the implications of the BADC experience for this CBO
research are as follows:

1. Continuity of Staff Leadership. The Respondent has been Executive Director

for forty-four years. He is a charismatic figure, a civic leader, and a driving force behind
the growth and development of the organization. He knows everyone and is well-liked by
all. Continuity of staff leadership will be an important consideration when he is ready to
retire.
2. Domain Interactions. Working relationships between and among the domains
appear to be constructive. The Executive Director heads up the Management Domain.
Management staff has long tenure and know their roles well. Interactions are productive.
The Policy Domain is made up of the Board o f Directors. It works well. The Service
Domain is made up of staff that delivers the services in the many BADC programs. There
is no Union Domain or Employee Association. The long history between and among the
domains, on the one hand, and the personnel who make them up, on the other, provides
for constructive interactions.
3. Constituent Domain. The original constituents were the First-Generation
Japanese-American Issei and the Second-Generation Nisei. The original services were
designed to meet their needs and interests. There has been a gradual change in the
constituency-base of BADC over the recent years. Some of the Japanese-American are
moving away from the City, causing BADC to adapt by expanding the Constituency base
to include other South-East Asians who live in the area. In another example of adaptation,
BADC is now in the process of extending geographically to a South Bay community in
need. Proposed: the Japanese Americans of BADC San Mateo, “A Community Care
Center for Seniors.”
 50

4. Consumer Domain. Most of the seniors who partake of the lunches and other
direct services offered by BADC, beneficiaries, are also members of its Constituent base.
The constant feedback o f satisfied Consumers makes for a satisfied Constituency.

CDBA Orientation Review No. 3, CDBA (see Figure 15)

The Respondent is the General Counsel to the Board of CDBA. He concluded, and I
agreed, that CDBA is not a CBO. It may have been when it first started out, fifty years
ago. Today, it has an annual budget of one hundred million dollars; it has seven hundred
fifty employees, of which one hundred are management staff; and it has offices located
conjointly in the facilities of many state and federal agencies, and in several countries.
CDBA has a Board of Directors made up of thirteen members - two from
California - that meets four times a year. The Board’s basic role is to provide strategic
planning and wise counsel to the organization, through an Executive Committee made up
of five members who meet monthly.
The staff is headed up by a President/Chief Executive Officer, who reports
directly to the Board. The General Counsel, also, reports directly to the Board, providing
legal counsel. The two, along with the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating
Officer, and two additional Executive Leadership Officers, provide the staff direction to
the organization.
 51

Figure 15. Orientation Review, CDBA

 52

The Respondent made several suggestions that have possible implications for this
research:
• “A CBO should be answerable to a constituency. We (CDBA) don’t have a
constituency. We serve the people who serve the people. Our leaders are out there
in the communities and countries. CDBA’s nature is that of “asset,” providing
knowledge and assistance for communities of leaders and experts seeking to
advance social welfare and, ultimately, benefit segments of the general populace
(what is known popularly as “the community”) to lead healthy and satisfying
lives.”
• The need for us (CDBA) has to be discerned, rather than evident. There is always
a need for services but not necessarily a need for us.
• Staff development is what it is all about. Our (CDBA) role is to build the next
generation of leaders. We do that through the programs and projects we carry out.
• We (CDBA) should be modest in our reach and take pride in what we do.
• To look for CBOs, look at faith-based organizations, such as:
o Episcopal Community Services of San Francisco
o Glide Memorial Church
o The list of programs supported by the East Bay Community Foundation
might be an interesting resource, also.

DABC Orientation Review No. 4, DABC (see Figure 16)

The Respondent is Director of one o f the major programs o f this CBO.

DABC was founded in 1982, at the height of the Aids epidemic. It has a staff of 140
personnel and operates on an annual budget of twenty-seven million dollars derived from
state and federal grants, foundation grants, and fund-raising activities. It is a community-
based organization, not part of any state or national agency. A review o f its operation
follows:

It has a Board of Directors who is self-appointed. There is no defined

constituency base, as a result of the way the board members are nominated and elected.
 Prog ams

Community Advisory Board

Figure 16. Orientation Review, DABC

 54

There is a strong management team, composed of the following Executive Leadership:

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Executive Assistant to the CEO
Vice President (VP) for Philanthropy and Public Affairs
Vice President (VP) for Human Resources and Administration, and
Information Technology
Senior Director, Programs and Services
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Chief Medical Officer (CMO)
Service Delivery. The Line Staff are organized around the delivery of thirteen
programs. Consumer Representation. The community is organized and represented by a
series of thirteen Community Advisory Boards. Union:_There is no employee association
or Union, as such Domain Theory Analysis. The Management Domain tightly controls
this Community-Based Organization. It dominates the appointment o f members to its
Policy Domain, which accounts for the lack o f a functioning Constituency Domain. It
tightly controls the delivery of services through the Service Domain, which has
contributed to inter-domain tensions in the past. It must be noted that the CBO has a
strong connection with its Consumer Domain through the mechanism and functioning o f
the thirteen Community Advisory Boards. Executive Director, Programs and Services,
Gay Men’s Health and Wellness.

CCBA Orientation Review No. 5, CCBA (see Figure 17)

The Respondent is the part-time director o f CCBA. We agreed that the CCBA, currently
in a state o f reorganization, is not a CBO as it is currently organized. CCBA was founded
in 1996. There are fifty-six member agencies that make up the Coalition. Thirteen are
members of an Advisory Board, which works through Work Groups.
 - »" **
.' , '
/ /'Advisory''*
' #
/t Board \ % ''
•
f
%
i
tia
%
♦ t
9
9
1■ «i
• I
i •
a
■ a
«

Fiscal
9
9
9
r Agent
9

9
2\ Director
9
9

9 %

( Im m unization: ,
\ \ Program s / /
% ' /

( Under Reorganization)

Rgure 17. Orientation Review, OCBA

 56

It is unclear whether the members of the Coalition are just a listing o f agencies,
which should be interested, or whether they have to make a commitment of some sort to
participate in the work. The role of the Fiscal Agent is invested in a separate
organization. The goal of the CCBA is to attain full immunizations for every child. The
Respondent is the only staff member, serving as a part-time Director. As noted above, he
is in the process of reorganizing the CCBA. His initial focus will be on obtaining funds
and setting up a functioning advisory committee.

Implications of the interviews for this dissertation are as follows: Summary of

insights from interviews:
• Not all “CBOs” are CBOs, as we define the term (see below).
• Management Domains dominate the organizations we looked at. They also tend to
dominate their Policy Domains.
• Constituency Domains were more involved in this sample; so were Consumer
Domains.
• Union Domains were non-existent in this sample.

Toward a Definition of Community-Based Organizations. Given the wide variety

of organizations that fall under the rubric of “community-based organization,” a
definition is in order - at least for the purposes of this research. Going into our research,
we would move with the following definition - it might change:
• Its main office is located in the community it calls “home.”
• It is not controlled by a state or national organization in the way that such
“chapters” are.
• It has a well-defined Policy Board, whose members are elected or appointed by a
well-defined constituency.
• It has a well-defined Management group, with a well-functioning command and
control structure.
• It has a well-defined Service Delivery structure, with a well-defined Consumer
base that is involved through participative, planning and feedback processes.
• All domains are in play, with the possible exception o f the Union Domain.

Out of these orientation interviews came the names o f four CBOs that we decided to
include as case studies for participation in our study. Our methodology included open-ended
interviews, recorded for follow-up study, and Survey methodologies. The recorder turned out
to be especially important. We were able to capture our interviews and then replay them at our
 57

convenience to make sure we captured the data we were looking for. If we could learn as much
from these cases as we did from the Fort Help case, we would have a rich body of learning to
contribute to the literature.
 58

D. HOW DONE: SELECTION OF FOUR CBOS FOR CASE STUDIES

The CBOs we selected were rich with potential contributions to Domain Theory. They were:
GLIDE Memorial Church and Foundation
Kimochi, Inc.
Rebuilding Together San Francisco
West Bay Pilipino Multi-Service
The methodology changed considerably from the beginning to the end, from survey
methodology in the beginning to open-ended, recorded interviews at the end. The development
o f the case studies provided far more insight regarding organization behavior than did the
survey data.

1. GLIDE Memorial Church and Foundation. GLIDE Memorial turns out to be a dual-purpose
CBO. It is both a faith-based church and a social-change-based organization. It operates under
a single board of trustees, as a foundation, which does an excellent job of keeping “church and
state” separate. It has been led over the past fifty years by the founding minister and his wife,
both personality-driven leaders. The CBO faces a future of moving from a personality-driven
organization to a mission-driven one. Their constituency base is the Tenderloin District,
probably the most needy and difficult in the City.

2. Kimochi, Inc. Kimochi is a cultural social-change-based CBO. It serves a constituency based

in Japantown, in San Francisco, made up of elderly Japanese-American seniors. It has a
personality-driven leader as executive director, who has served in that position for forty-four
years. Kimochi, also, like Glide, faces a future of changing from a personality-driven
organization to a mission-driven one. Cultural-based, in terms o f service Japanese-Americans,
but it does serve people o f other cultures who present themselves for services. One o f the key
findings in this case is the shifting of its constituency base. Because of Gentrification, the costs
o f housing in Japantown have forced many of the beneficiaries of services to move out o f
Japantown, including a focus on relocating from San Francisco to the Daly City/Peninsula,
south of San Francisco, which is where many have moved. This has caused Kimochi to
construct a service center in the Peninsula, to serve the seniors who live there, in addition to
 59

those o f Japantown - an excellent example of a powerful “sphere of influence” making a

change in a CBO.

3. Rebuilding Together San Francisco. RTSF is different from the others in that it is part o f a
national-based organization, Rebuilding Together, which has one hundred sixty chartered
CBOs throughout the nation as part of its operation —RTSF is one. We struggled with whether
to include it in our study because o f the CBO being chartered by a national organization rather
than being independent, as are the others. We decided to keep it since it presented an excellent
opportunity to see what we could learn from it.

4. West Bay Pilipino Multi-Service. West Bay is a cultural-based, social-action-based CBO,

like Kimochi. It addresses the needs and interests o f a Pilipino constituency, though, like
Kimochi, it does serve people from other cultures who present themselves for services. West
Bay is small and struggling. It has one full-time executive director and three part-time staff. It
was once part of a larger, more powerful CBO, but was almost destroyed by a Medicare-billing
scandal that continues to plague the organization at this time, even though it was eventually
cleared of any involvement.

We started out by trying to make data collection as consistent as possible, but tended to
move toward open-ended recorded interviews as a way of capturing the richness of our
database.
 60

CHAPTER IV: CASE STUDIES, FINDINGS, AND ANALYSES

A. INTRODUCTION

This Chapter is organized so as to highlight the findings and analyses of the four case
studies. Each case is presented separately, followed by the findings and analyses derived
from that case. Then the four cases are analyzed through a series of Tables which pull
together the findings from each case. This sets the stage for the Chapter V discussion of
the Conclusions, Recommendations, and Areas for Further Study.
 61

B. CASE: GLIDE MEMORIAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND

GLIDE FOUNDATION
CASE STUDY, GLIDE

GLIDE Memorial is a dual-purpose community-based organization (CBO). It started as a

Faith-Based Organization (FBO) that began to address the social problems among its
constituency and, in the process, it also became a Social-Change-Based Organization
(SCBO). Today it continues to address separate-but-related missions while, at the same
time, establishing and maintaining the legal “separation of Church and State.” Perhaps
the best way to describe the evolution is to summarize the history of the key people who
played leadership roles and of the programs they developed.

The Faith-Based History: GLIDE Memorial United Methodist Church, Key Leaders
Lizzie Glide, Benefactor
The Rev. Cecil Williams, Founder
The Rev. Donald Tippett, UMC Bishop of San Francisco
The Rev. Dr. Karen P. Oliveto, Senior Pastor, Faith-Based Program

Glide Memorial UMC: Lizzie Glide, Benefactor. The Church came first. Glide
Memorial UMC was named to honor a deceased millionaire cattleman, H.L. Glide, by his
wife, Lizzie Glide. They lived in San Francisco. To honor his memory, she had purchased
a coveted comer property at the lower end of Nob Hill, in the Tenderloin District, in
1929, in collaboration with the United Methodist Diocese of San Francisco. The Church
was constructed and opened in 1931. She established a sizeable endowment for the
operation of the Church. The endowment became the Foundation o f today.

For a time, well-to-do congregants followed Lizzie’s vision of a traditional

Sunday church where people dressed up, sang hymns, and read scriptures. However, their
attendance slowed as Prohibition was enacted in 1920, and the Tenderloin gradually
filled with “speakeasies” and “gambling parlors.” The wealthy congregants began to
move away, most of them up to Nob Hill. (A.I., p. 50).
 62

The Rev. Cecil Williams, Founder._The Rev. Cecil Williams has been the inspirational
leader behind this phenomenon known as GLIDE. He was bom in 1931 in the small
community of San Angelo, in western Texas. He grew up in a nurturing family of
parents, the third of four boys, and one sister. However, San Angelo was a racist,
segregated community; African Americans endured constant humiliation. Their chinch,
Wesley Methodist, was a classic black church, a place of safety and comfort from the
racism, and very much like an extended family, with inspiring sermons and soaring
choral voices.

Custom was that the eldest family son would enter the ministry, but the elder boys
were not interested. So his mother was determined that Cecil become the “reverend in the
family.” He welcomed the nomination. He was nicknamed “Rev” and one of his favorite
games growing up was “playing church.”

In 1952, Cecil Williams was about to graduate from college when a group of
Methodist seminarians invited him to become one o f five African-Americans to apply to
and study at the all-white Perkins School o f Theology at Southern Methodist University.
The students there had made a formal request to desegregate their campus and the request
had been approved by the faculty. Despite the many problems the five encountered
during this experiment, they graduated with the rest of their class in 1955. (Williams and
Kirikitani, A -l, p. 37).

From 1955 to 1963, the Reverend Cecil Williams ministered to a small but
growing congregation in a very poor, mostly African-American section of Kansas City.
Because o f his interests, he ended up also co-chairing the local CORE (Congress of
Racial Equality) chapter that led protests against segregation at lunch counters and
department stores downtown. The word spread of what this man was doing, and over
time he built Sunday attendance from fifty or so to more than eight hundred. His fame
began to grow.
 63

The Rev. Donald Tippett, UMC Bishop of San Francisco. In 1963, Rev. Donald Tippett,
the Methodist Bishop of San Francisco, invited Rev. Cecil Williams to visit GLIDE
Church with the idea of, hopefully, getting him, Williams, becoming its minister. The
Bishop said, “There is no way to soft pedal this. GLIDE is dying, and unless somebody
comes in with some major changes, we will have to close it down.” There were but thirty-
five members in GLIDE’S congregation at the time, with a choir of about a dozen people
who sang traditional hymns. They hated what the Tenderloin had become. Therefore,
keeping their church “pristine and ceremonious” was important to them. That meant,
essentially, keeping visitors from using the Church for other than at the Sunday services.
“Bishop,” Rev. Williams said, “If I become minister here, I’m going to turn this church
upside down.” “Brother Cecil,” the Bishop said, “Welcome to GLIDE Memorial!”

However, the dynamics between the gang of thirty-five congregants and Rev.
Williams became heated over time and endured. At one point, the congregants demanded
of the Bishop that Rev. Williams be replaced; the Bishop refused. At another time, the
Rev. Williams demanded o f the Bishop that he be released from his agreement; the
Bishop refused. Suffice it to say that GLIDE and Rev. Williams eventually got the best o f
the struggle.

The Rev. Dr. Karen P. Oliveto, Senior Pastor. The Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto joined GLIDE
Memorial in 2008 as Senior Pastor. Originally from Long Island, New York, she has
been a campus and parish minister in rural and urban settings in New York and
California. Before that, even before she was a teenager, she felt the calling of the
ministry. She pursued her calling. She arrived in San Francisco in 1989, first as a campus
minister at San Francisco State University, and then, in 1992, as the pastor and leader o f
the Bethany United Methodist Church in Noe Valley. While there, she expanded the
congregation, and was instrumental in the effort to open the doors o f the United
Methodist Church to all persons, including gays and lesbians and their families. She
holds a Ph.D. degree in Religion and Society from Drew University, and recently served
as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Pacific School of Religion, where she
 64

continues as adjunct professor (teaching all the courses) of United Methodist Studies.
She is also an adjunct professor at Drew University’s Doctor of Ministry program.

The Rev. Dr. Karen was pursued by Rev. Williams to join the GLIDE cause, and
she finally did, in 2008. She continues GLIDE’S commitment to unconditional love and
unconditional acceptance. She enjoys working with diverse communities to create a
more-just world. She encourages the GLIDE community to connect with one another, to
engage more deeply with spiritual traditions, and to be empowered to be change agents at
GLIDE and in the world. She is a leader in the Reconciling Ministries Network, a
grassroots organization of congregations and communities committed to the full inclusion
of Gay- Lesbian-Bi-Transgender-Queer (GLBTQ) persons in the life and ministries of the
United Methodist Church and has served as chair of their board. She is also on the board
of California Faith for Equality. She is co-author of Talking about Homosexuality: A
Congregational Resource (Pilgrim Press: 2005) and has written numerous articles,
hymns, and liturgies.

The Social-Change-Based History: The GLIDE Foundation: Key Leaders

Janice Mirikatani, Founding President
Rita Shimmin, Co-Executive Director
Kristen Growney Yamamoto, Co-Executive Director
Amy Errett, Chair, Board of Trustees

Janice Mirikitani, Founding President. Janice Mirikitani is a Japanese-American. She was

bom in Stockton, California, in 1941. Shortly afterward, she and her family were sent to
an internment camp during World War II, at Rohwer, Arkansas. Her family returned to
the Bay Area after their release at the end o f the war. She was four years old. The family,
like most internees, lost everything. She grew up in a broken family and was an incest
survivor. Her grandmother’s love saved her. She was a good student in school, receiving
a scholarship to UCLA. She went to graduate school at San Francisco State University,
studying for a secondary school teaching credential. She needed a part-time job to help
her with her expenses. She was referred to GLIDE Memorial by a friend, where a need
 65

existed for a part-time worker in a Citizens Alert program the organization was running.
She was interviewed and hired. Her writing and organizational skills soon made her a
valuable employee, and in the 1960s she was promoted to full-time status.
Janice married and had a daughter. The marriage did not last. The Rev. Cecil’s
marriage did not last either. He had two children. Janice and Cecil were married in 1982.
GLIDE Memorial expanded rapidly as a result of their joint efforts. She became the
Founding President of the GLIDE Foundation. Janice Mirikitani was given the
responsibility to reorganize GLIDE. The organizational chart that resulted shows five
religious and social-change managers operating at the same level o f responsibilities, all
reporting to the Board of Trustees.
There are many things to consider when focusing on the successes of the Rev.
Cecil Williams and of Janice Mirikitani. Of them, “Unconditional Love” is the most
crucial. The two are the union of a black Texas minister from a solid upbringing and a
Japanese American agnostic from a broken home.

Rita Shimmin, Co-Executive Director. Prior to her current role as Co-Executive Director
(CoED), Ms. Shimmin served as GLIDE’S Vice-President for Organizational Integration
(VPOI). As VPOI, she led GLIDE in the creation of Core Values and Community
Cultural Agreements, the foundational philosophies from which every branch of GLIDE
functions. Rita also heads the development of staff trainings in the areas of cultural
competence, personal transformation, and leadership development. Prior to her tenure as
VPOI, Rita served as Associate Executive Director and was in charge o f all Foundation
programs, including Health Services; Family, Youth and Childcare Services; Training
and Education Services; the Free Meals Program; and Urgent Care Services.

In addition to her management profession, Rita has been a trainer and coach for
more than thirty-five years. She has worked within educational institutions at all levels,
with kindergartners and university management teams, and with such business entities as
community-based non-profits and national investment firms. She also served as co­
director of the Bay Area Black Women’s Health project, and is currently a member o f the
San Francisco Community Justice Center’s Advisory Board.
 66

Kristen Growney Yamamoto, Co-Executive Director (CoED). Under the CoED

leadership model, Kristen and Rita oversee all areas of programs, evaluation, and
administrative operations at GLIDE. With a particular focus on integration and wellness,
GLIDE successfully operates a variety o f programs from daily free meals and a
community health clinic to family, youth, and childcare services. As CoEDs, they uphold
the vision of supporting and uplifting the disenfranchised through unconditional love,
acceptance, and respect.
Kristen holds an MBA (Master o f Business Administration) from Stanford
University’s Graduate School of Business and has twenty years o f experience as both a
not-for-profit and a for-profit professional. Prior to service as GLIDE’S Co-ED, Kristen
served as GLIDE’S Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, a position she has held
since she came to GLIDE in 2007. In this role, Kristen oversaw program evaluation
efforts and all aspects o f operations.
Prior to joining GLIDE, Kristen worked at Rubicon Programs, Inc. At Rubicon,
Kristen helped three social enterprises —social-change-based ventures that employed
formerly homeless individuals. Prior to Rubicon, she operated her own consulting firm,
advising high-tech clients in areas of financial and business planning. She has held
executive positions in software and medical device startups.
In September, 2010, Rita Shimmin and Kristen Growney Yamamoto were
appointed Co-Executive Directors (CoEDs) o f the Foundation at GLIDE, for advancing
the Social Change mission of the Church. They replaced founding Executive Director
Janice Mirikitani, who continues her role as Founding President.

Amy Errett, Chair, Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees o f the GLIDE Foundation
must preside with great care. They have a dual-purpose organization to steer: one, a faith-
based ministry; the other, a social-change organization. The Mission is a joint one, to
break the cycles of multi-generational dependency, poverty, and low self-worth by
providing a spiritual home o f unconditional love. GLIDE serves to create a healthy
community by offering effective services that foster holistic healing in an environment o f
cultural integrity and diversity. The Board must help staff maintain the “Separation of
 67

Church and State” while sharing facilities and developing programs of change that meet
the needs and interests o f a joint constituency.

Amy Errett brings that knowledge and skill to her position as Chair of the Board
o f Trustees. She is Founder and CEO of Madison Reed, and offers GLIDE more than
twenty-five years of business and operating expertise as a leading entrepreneur, senior
executive and social-mission visionary. She was a General Partner and Partner at
Maveron LLC, joining the team in 2008 and leading its San Francisco Bay Area office.
She served as Chief Executive Officer and Owner of The Olivia Companies, LLC,
repositioning the travel company as a complete lifestyle company for gay women. Errett
received the Israel Fellows Award, presented by the San Francisco-based Jewish
Community Federation, and in 2006 was named the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the
Year for Northern California. She makes frequent use of executive committee meetings
to manage the task.

The GLIDE Foundation is a nonprofit, charity organization, co-located with GLIDE

Memorial UMC. Legally, they are very separate entities. The GLIDE Memorial UMC is
the faith-based organization; the GLIDE Foundation is the social-change-based entity
through which most of the social-change funds flow. A listing of the programs conducted
by the two operations follows;

Faith-Based Programs

Sunday Celebrations. These are the church services. There are two Celebrations each
Sunday, one at 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. They feature the GLIDE Ensemble Choir and
Change Band. Alongside programs that feed the hungry and heal the sick, GLIDE Church
has been nourishing the spirits and healing hearts, transforming thousands o f lives every
Sunday Celebration for over fifty years. Two thousand people are uplifted each Sunday,
through the two Celebrations.
 68

Other programs include:

• Small groups and bible studies
• Meditation and yoga
• Recovery circles
• GLIDE Pride Team
• Groups for GLBQ individuals
• Teams devoted to social justice and racial justice
• Ray of Hope tours
• Handing out toys at Christmas
• Providing HIV counseling
• Tutoring children after school
• Music

Early Social Change-Based Programs. Free Meals Program. An example of what Janice
Mirikitani was able to bring to the development of the GLIDE Foundation is in the Free
Meals program. Early on, both she and Cecil recognized the need for free meals to serve
to the homeless and hungry. They started in 1981 with a program to feed fifty people one
meal a week. She took over the fundraising and organizing of volunteers and the program
began to grow. It now serves three meals a day, seven days a week, for a million meals a
year, with sixty-five thousand hours of volunteer help to carry it out. Other social change
programs, designed and instituted by the GLIDE Foundation, are as follows:

• Citizens Alert is a twenty-four hour hot line operated by GLIDE for people who
were harassed
• Bay View Elementary School. In 1965, Glide helped organize the Bay View-
Hunters Point Parents Action Committee; they initiated a program of
confrontations of School Board members, who eventually approved an allocation
of one million, eight hundred thousand dollars, that replaced the old school with a
new one
• The Janice Mirikitani Family, Youth, and Childcare Center (JMFYCC) was
opened in 1998
• C W House was opened in 1999 at 333 Taylor Street. It is valued at twelve million,
three hundred thousand dollars
• 125 Mason Street, opened in 2009 as a fourteen-story building with eighty-one
apartments for working poor families. It includes an outdoor courtyard/play space
for children, a landscaped terrace where residents can cultivate their own gardens,
indoor exercise facilities, and community spaces that can be used for classrooms,
receptions, meetings, and meals. 125 Mason was organized as a separate 501 ©(3)
organization, with its own staff to run it
 69

• 149 Mason Street, opened in 2011, is an eight-story building with fifty-six

furnished studio apartments
• Operational control of the Health Services Division went to HealthRight
360, as a result of a merger of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and Walden House;
it is serving more than three thousand patients
• In 2007, the Training and Education Services program was closed; it had operated
a charter high school and a Construction Skills training program

Programs that GLIDE helped develop and then gave to others to be operated by
them include:
• Hospitality House
• Huckleberry Youth
• Baker Places West
• V ietnamese Y outh Development
• Temple Sha’ ar Zahan
• GLIDE Health Services, started in 1998, affected by the advent of the Affordable
Health Care Act
• Children’s Program, directed by Joyce Hayes
• HR360, enough patients regionally to operate viably in the capitation model of the
new Healthcare system

In the last ten years, they have started the following:

• Men in Progress (batterers intervention program)
• GLIDE Women’s Center
• Shelter Reservations Program
• Family Resource Center
• Rooftop Farm
• Syringe Exchange (expansion of HIV preventive services)
• Senior Breakfast Program (expansion of Meals)
• Two apartment buildings (for homeless individuals and working families)

The two Co-Executive Directors manage the program delivery and funding
systems: one handles GLIDE Health Services, CBO, and HRO; the other supervises Fund
Development, FYCC, Operations, and Finance. Two others handle the faith side of the
equation: Founder Rev. Cecil Williams and Founding President Janice Mirikitani, who
supervise the “Celebration” program; and Pastor Karen Oliveto, who manages
“Congregational Life.” All managers are responsible to the Board of Trustees.
 70

Today, GLIDE Memorial/Foundation operates on an annual budget of sixteen million

dollars. It has eleven thousand members o f the Church (faith-based constituents), one
hundred seventy-five employees, and twenty-five thousand volunteers. Warren Buffett,
the financial investment banker, dedicates an annual key event “Auction for Lunch with
Warren Buffett” each year, with the proceeds going to the GLIDE Foundation. The
record for the most anyone has paid, so far, to have lunch with Mr. Buffett is three
million, four hundred fifty-six thousand, seven-hundred eighty-nine dollars. Over the past
fifteen years, this auction has raised over eighteen million dollars for GLIDE.
The individual contributions that flow into the GLIDE Church each Sunday
account for only a small portion of its annual budget of around six hundred forty
thousand dollars. Additional funds derive from other various fund-raising activities.

The primary constituency for GLIDE Memorial is the Tenderloin district of San
Francisco. It is a geographical rectangle of about thirty blocks backed up against the San
Francisco’s glittsy hotel and shopping district known as Union Square, only minutes
away from the city’s famous St. Francis Hotel and the City of Paris department store. It
was and is home to panhandlers, muggers, pickpockets, alcoholics, illegal immigrants,
and teenage male and female prostitutes. It was also known as the “meat rack” district,
with its “ALL NUDE” strip clubs, gay bars, adult bookstores, hardcore movie theaters,
roaming prostitutes, and peep shows. It was an urban ghetto filled with exhausted and
broken homeless people shuffling from one comer to the next. They were every city’s
visible poor - the sick, addicted, desperate, hopeless - and they could not be “fixed” by
charities, flophouses, or soup kitchens. The constituency is further characterized by the
following problems, based on survey data:
• Twelve percent of San Franciscans are living in poverty
• Fifteen percent, or approximately eighty-two thousand, San Franciscans between
the ages of eighteen and sixty-five years are uninsured
• Eighteen percent of San Francisco’s homeless are experiencing chronic health
problems
• Eighteen percent of San Francisco’s homeless needed medical care but were
unable to receive it since becoming homeless
• Twenty-eight percent of San Francisco’s homeless are currently experiencing
mental illness
• Seventy-eight percent o f GHS clients surveyed are unemployed
 71

• The GHS clients surveyed average eight hundred twenty-two dollars per month in
income, which is only thirty-eight percent of the San Francisco sufficiency
standard. (GLIDE Annual Evaluation Survey, year 2012)

Services (see Figure 18). GLIDE Health Services (GHS) provides affordable, accessible,
and high-quality healthcare to homeless and poor individuals. GHS offers a full range of
traditional health care services, as well as mental health care, substance abuse treatment,
non-Westem medicine, HIV/AIDS testing and counseling, and more. GHS provided care
to two thousand, seven hundred twenty-nine individuals in fiscal year 2011-2012.
Primary Healthcare Services. GHS offers complete primary health care services that meet
the basic health needs o f each patient. Primary healthcare services include urgent care,
immunizations, screenings, chronic disease management, and more.
Wellness Services. GHS provides regular education sessions on diabetes, healthy eating,
medication management, chronic pain, youth health education, and a smoking cessation
program. Exercise classes include Tai-Chi, restorative yoga, on-site walking classes, and
acupuncture. Health screenings and prevention services include: retinal screenings for
diabetic participants, prevention clinics to ensure participants are up to date on routine
immunizations and preventive health procedures, flu vaccine clinics, and more.
Behavioral Health Services. GHS provides a range of mental health services, including
urgent care, medicine management, case management, and group visits.

Substance Abuse Services. GHS also offers recovery services through case management,
psycho-education classes, and a ninety-day recovery program.
• HIV Services. GHS provides free, confidential, and friendly HIV testing and
counseling. In 2010, GHS provided six hundred forty counseling and testing
sessions, and distributed eighteen thousand condoms. The HIV Outreach Program
conducted four hundred eighteen hours o f street outreach.
 72

Board of TrustM*

K tiM U M h a n I K riafc n Q ro w iN y .Ym n n m I& v-

ICangnuM tooal LM»

1 c I
t»*ifop8

J
I ana 11 cw> I i

]
hw«

Figure 18. Organization Chart, March 15,2015

 73

Programs remaining stable:

• Free Meals Program
• Walk-in Center
• After-School Enrichment
• Child Care
• Sunday Celebrations
• Other core services

The GLIDE Annual Evaluation Survey Data of 2012, of its beneficiaries, relative to
GLIDE Health Services, are very positive:
• Ninety-seven percent of clients surveyed say that staff treats them with respect.
• Ninety-five percent trust GHS staff.
• Ninety-seven percent are satisfied with GHS.
• Ninety-nine percent say the quality of care given is good.
• Ninety-three percent are more aware of ways to take care of their health.
• Eighty-two percent report improvements in their physical health.
• Eighty-three percent have decreased the number o f times they go to the hospital
or emergency room as a result of coming to GHS.

Direct feedback from clients was as follows:

• “It’s a blessing to have GHS in this neighborhood. It’s a wonderful facility,
complemented by a wonderful staff.”
• “They’re really good; they go above and beyond.”
• “I’m very pleased. I don’t feel like an orphan.”
• “Please continue to keep caring. They have a great team.”
• “GHS addresses a population that has been left in the cold. Without GLIDE, there
would be no place for us.”
• “Everywhere else they treat you like a number. Here they really listen and care.”
• “I’m overwhelmed by the work here and what they do for the homeless people.”
• “It’s the best thing that has happened to poor people.”

Maya Angelou, the famed poet, said that “Rev. Williams and Janice Mirikitani welcomed
the underground characters, criminals, prostitutes, drug dealers, and everyone into the
church. They offered joy to all o f us. We learned and we grew and I am one o f one
thousand to join tens of thousands to say thank you to Cecil and Jan.” (Joy! Maya
Angelou, back cover of the Williams and Mirikitani book, Beyond the Possible.)
 74

CASE FINDINGS, GLIDE

We can deduce several findings from the study o f the GLIDE case. They are:

1. Leadership. Both Rev. Williams and Janice Mirikltani have been leading the growth
and development of Glide Memorial for close to fifty years, achieving a personality status
above and beyond organizational leadership. They are semi-retired but still take part in
key organizational decision making. Leadership. One of the processes to be developed, as
Rev. Williams and Janice Mirikatani retire, is the conversion of Glide Memorial from a
personality-driven, faith-based, social-change organization to a mission-driven, faith-
based, social-change one.

2. Constituency. The Tenderloin is changing due to gentrification of housing, forcing

many families to move out because of high rental and ownership costs. The Tenderloin
geographical area remains the same. What is changing is the mix of the constituency:
Asian-Islanders are being forced out; Hispanics are moving in. New companies are
moving into the Tenderloin. Many contact GLIDE as part of their orientation to their new
neighborhood and their desire to participate in community services. Some of the After
School programs conducted by GLIDE draw children and their parents from other parts
of the City and County of San Francisco, outside the Tenderloin, thereby expanding the
constituency base o f the organization. Also, there is some talk of opening a station in the
Bay View, which would expand the constituency base significantly.

The faith-based church has eleven thousand members, many in other parts of the
country and beyond, though most are in the Bay Area’s nine county area. One becomes a
member by: 1) attending a Sunday morning Celebration; 2) signing a Pledge; and 3)
participating in an Orientation Class. The Glide Memorial Building, which is located in
the heart of the Tenderloin, is considered an “open building,” which means that anyone
can walk in and roam the hallways. Doors to offices are not locked unless no one is in.
 75

3. Key Event. The Annual Auction for Lunch with Warren Buffett is a key event,
bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and nationwide favorable
publicity.

4. Environmental Forces. The external forces that help to shape GLIDE include the rise
and fall of the economic condition; the availability and affordability of the Health Care
Act, known as Obama Care; the Fair Housing Act; the rise o f the Minimum Hourly Wage
and its budgetary impacts, gentrification (the high cost of rent and housing prices that
forces poorer individuals and families to move elsewhere into more affordable housing),
and local and national political issues, which affect local support for social change
causes.

5. Staffing. Large numbers o f volunteers take part in GLIDE programs. There appears to
be no problem in the management of them. Volunteers at GLIDE seem to have a moral
responsibility to deliver the services they perform, to the constituents they serve, which
means that there are little or no “labor problems” that might otherwise be the case in
other CBOs. The Human Resources department keeps the organization compliant with
the laws. Background checks are done on those who would end up working with youth
and children. The Executive Committee o f the GLIDE Foundation meets frequently,
often on a weekly basis, in the fulfillment of its mission. Key staff participate in those
meetings, in addition to the staff Management Team, thereby contributing to a high level
o f consensus.

6. Governance and Operations. According to the organization chart depicted on Figure

18, page 73, all key units report directly to the Board of Trustees. It is not likely that the
organization actually operates that way, but the power of the leadership makes it work.
Operationally, the Foundation owns and operates the Church rather than the other way
around. There is no Union or Employee Association, as such, due to the high ’’moral
sense of service” held by the staff and volunteers.
 76

7. Beneficiaries. There is an excellent research and evaluation process that is ongoing

with all services delivered. The use of this provides data feedback to staff in the design
and delivery of services, as well as demonstrating measures of effectiveness to the donors
who make the services possible. “Miracles happen everyday,” as one staff person noted.

8. Services. There is an excellent array of both faith-based and social-action-based

services developed and administered by GLIDE.
 77

CASE ANALYSIS, GLIDE

The uniqueness of the GLIDE Memorial/Foundation is that it is a dual-purpose

community-based organization (CBO) (see Figure 19). It is a faith-based church and it is
also a social-change-based CBO at the same time. It is unique also in that it has been a
leader-driven, personality driven organization for the past fifty years. It gives leadership a
domain influence of its own. It is separated by a Foundation that keeps “Church and
State” separate. It is influenced in part by such Environmental Forces as the Affordable
Health Care Act, fund-raising with the annual collaboration of Warren Buffett, and the
City and County political parties and their programs. It uses large numbers of volunteer
workers, it provides services that target the homeless and the hungry and the down-and-
outers, it has a Constituency base that is shifting from the Tenderloin and extending into
the broader districts because of its youth-based programs, and it has a well-documented
assessment of how its Beneficiaries benefit. It faces a future of transitioning from a
personality-driven organization to a mission-driven one.
 78

Domain Theory: Glide Memorial

Environmental
Forces

Leadership

Constituents Constituents
Faith-based Social change

Governance
Foundation

Foeth Social
[operations Change

9 a ng 9 a ng

Services Services

Beni d a te s

Figure 19. Spheres of In uence: Glide Memorial

 79

C. CASE: KIMOCHI, Inc.

CASE STUDY, KIMOCHI

The co-founder and Executive Director o f Kimochi is Steve Nakajo. As noted earlier in
this study he is o f the third-generation Japanese-American Sansei. He was bom in Salt
Lake City and his formulating years were in Yokohama, Japan. He was raised in San
Francisco and called Japantown his home. He grew up being acutely aware of the cultural
and language barriers facing the first-generation Japanese-American, the Issei, and the
second-generation, the Nisei. He saw these in his own family.
Not only were the elderly prevented by these barriers from utilizing the services
they needed, they were devastated by the losses o f their civil rights and properties when
they were uprooted and incarcerated into remote, barren, concentration camps during
World War II. No sooner had they returned after the war and tried to build a new life
when they were displaced again during the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency’s
urban renewal upheaval of the Japantown community.
Then in the late 1960s, Mr. Nakajo and a small band of like-minded individuals
began to take serious their desire to help their people. They organized themselves to
create a force for change. They shared ideas, sought resources and supporters, and taught
themselves the skills of community organization, grantsmanship, and organization
development.
In 1971, they formed a nonprofit organization and gave it the name, Kimochi,
which means, feelings fo r the older generations. The mission o f Kimochi was, and still is,
“to provide a continuum o f culturally sensitive programs and services to all seniors and
their families, with a focus on Japanese-Americans and the Japanese-speaking
community.”

Kimochi Today. Kimochi is a cultural-based community-based organization, bom of

services to Japanese-Americans, though it serves others. It provides care, social services,
nutrition, residential respite, and support to more than three thousand seniors and their
families throughout the City and County o f San Francisco. It has an annual operating
budget of two million dollars and a staff of fifty employees.
 80

Constituents. In the beginning, the constituency was Japantown, for all intents and
purposes. Then the older first-generation Issei began to die off. It was the second-
generation Nisei who began to move up and out, leaving Japantown and tending to
relocate in the broader San Francisco City and County geographical area, or further down
the Peninsula to the San Mateo area. Kimochi responded initially by opening its services
to South-East Asians in need of the services that Kimochi could provide. In another
example o f adaptation, Kimochi is now in the process o f extending its constituency base
to the South Bay community in need, Kimochi San Mateo, by building and operating “A
Community Care Center for Seniors” there.

Spirit Awards. Each year, Kimochi takes the time to celebrate the incredible dedication
and contribution made by both individuals and organizations in support of its Mission to
provide care to the seniors in the community, fittingly so during the Asia Pacific
American Heritage Month. As Kimochi continues to grow and expand its programs and
services into the Peninsula, “we know our success would not be possible without the
hard work of our staff and community members, all of whom embody the spirit of
Kimochi.” Spirit is when the constituency celebrates the accomplishments of its
community-based organization.

Administration (see Figure 20). Kimochi has a Board of Directors that supervises the
Executive Director and has access to Funding Committees and Auditor/Legal Counsel,
among others. The Executive Director is responsible to the Board for the command and
control of his personnel. He has three direct reports:
An Associate Director for Administration
A Program Director for all Programs
A part-time Fundraising Coordinator
 81

Board of Directors

Executive
Director

Program
Fundraising
Associate Director Director,
Coordinator
for Administration All Programs
(Part-Time)

Figure 20. Organization Chart, Kimochi, Inc.

 82

Continuity of Leadership. Mr. Nakajo has been the Executive Director for forty-four
years. He is a charismatic figure, a civic leader, and the driving force behind the growth
and development of the organization. He is regarded as a quiet leader who leads by
example. He “knows everyone” and is well-liked by all. He plans to stay for a forty-fifth
year and then step aside. In the beginning, he “handpicked” board members based on
their roles in the community and how well they would support him and his staff. The
constituency has become so well-developed over the years that he no longer worries
about that. He and the board have picked the Associate Executive Director to replace him
and they have been grooming him for that eventual responsibility. One way in which they
are doing that is by placing him in charge of the program and construction development
in the San Mateo Peninsula.

Services. Kimochi offers a range of programs for San Francisco Bay Area seniors and
their families, everything from hot lunches to twenty-four hour residential programs.
Kimochi, Inc. is based upon sincere respect and appreciation for seniors. While Kimochi
has its roots in San Francisco’s Japantown and many o f the programs offer bilingual
services, programs, and services are open to all San Franciscan seniors. Kimochi:
• Provides care and support for San Francisco Bay Area seniors and their families.
• Offers culturally sensitive, innovative senior services.
• Encourages and helps maintain the autonomy and dignity o f seniors.
• Provides support for seniors who must depend on others.
• Operates from a tradition of intergenerational care based on respect and
appreciation for elders.
• Seeks to enhance the quality of life both of seniors and the community at large.

Senior Center
• The Senior Center embodies Kimochi’s commitment to intergenerational,
volunteer-based senior programs by offering a range of exciting activities
developed by volunteers and staff specifically for independent, active seniors.
• Activities include ceramics, arts and crafts, exercise, Tai Chi, overnight Reno
trips, day trips, karaoke and group singing.
• Services are offered from two sites in San Francisco’s Japantown.
 83

• Social Services Program

• Whether it’s a Medicare question or a family crisis, Kimochi’s social workers
provide personalized, culturally sensitive service to seniors, their families and
friends, including Information and Referral, Translation Services, Hospital and
Home Visitations, Medical Escorts, Assistance with Government Benefits,
Advocacy for the Elderly.
• In-Home Support Services link seniors with providers to assist with household
chores and personal care.
• Senior Caregiver Support Groups offer families and friends a place to discuss and
share concerns regarding care of seniors.

Transportation
• Kimochi offers safe and reliable door-to-door van service for individuals and
groups.
• Service to Kimochi program sites, medical appointments, shopping trips,
recreational outings, church, and cemetery visits.

Congregate Nutrition
• Hot Japanese-style lunches are prepared and served in San Francisco’s
Japantown.
• Meals are carefully planned and prepared by the senior center coordinator,
nutrition consultant, and kitchen staff.
• Group settings, which are a good place to meet and make friends.
• Educational presentations and information are provided to assist in maintaining
health and wellbeing.

Home Delivered Meals

• Nutrition service provides homebound seniors with a nutritional, well-balanced
meal.
• Kimochi delivers over a hundred Japanese-style hot lunches a day to San
Francisco residents.
• Each participant is assessed quarterly for any changes in his or her physical
and/or mental health needs, and appropriate referrals or information are provided
by Kimochi.

Adult Social Day Care

• A program o f a supervised, structured set of daytime social, cultural, and
recreational activities for seniors are offered at Kimochi Home.
• Activities include daily exercise hot lunch, weekly mini-trips, monthly tea parties,
singing and art classes, bingo, videos and unique intergenerational, after-school
programs.
 84

• Provides respite for caregiver family members. The program assures that loved
ones are active and entertained in a safe environment.

Residential/Respite Care
• Kimochi Home has space for twenty ambulatory seniors for either long-term or
short-term stays.
• The Residential Program provides twenty-four hour supervised, non-medical care;
three Japanese-style meals a day; recreation, exercise and a host o f services;
single or shared rooms are available.
• The Respite Program provides temporary senior care during periods of stress
caregiver burnout, or during family vacation, and as a transition point between
hospital and home.

Beneficiaries. Most of the seniors who partake o f the lunches and other direct services
offered by Kimochi are also members of its Constituent base. The constant feedback of
satisfied beneficiaries makes for a satisfied constituency.

CASE FINDINGS, KIMOCHI

The key findings of the Kimochi experience, and their rankings, are as follows (see
Figure 21):

Kimochi presents a successful personality-driven Executive Director for the past forty-
four years. The CBO a cultural-based, social-change, community-based organization,
having been founded on the need to serve elderly Japanese-Americans in the Japantown
area of San Francisco. He plans to retire in another year and is in the process of grooming
his successor. A key major force the organization has been dealing with has been the shift
in the constituency, which is being forced out o f Japantown because o f high housing
costs and beginning to relocate in the Daly City Peninsula area.

Governance. In the beginning, Mr. Nakajo handpicked his board members based on their
roles in the community, and how well they would support the Executive Director and his
staff. His successor will need to determine what kind of a role, policy-making or
administrative, his board will play. As the constituency shifts to the Peninsula, newer
board members, who have not experienced Japantown’s consensus history, may introduce
 85

Domain Theory: Kimochi

Environmental
Forces

Leadership

Cbnstituents Cbnstituents
San Mateo Japantown

Governance

Cbnjoint 3 a ng Operations

Services

Beni daries

Figure 21. Spheres of In uence: Kimochi

 86

conflict as they change the culture of the board - potential Peninsula vs. Japantown
differences.

Operations. There is a process underway in San Francisco to bring together

representatives of CBOs in order to obtain more resources and political support, from
local and state resources. Too much time is spent in fund raising. The high cost of land
and construction is forcing Kimochi to borrow funds for the Peninsula building project.
Operations. Kimochi employees do not have good pension and retirement plans, which
may make it more difficult to attract and retain good staff.

Staffing. Staff have worked together for many years. They get along. There is no union
or employee association. Working issues, if any, are resolved constructively in the course
of everyday interpersonal relationships. Board members and staff serve together on
committees, which builds consensus for decision making.

Services. Kimochi provides an excellent array of services. It’s research and evaluation
personnel are excellent in collecting data regarding the effectiveness of services provided.

CASE ANALYSIS, KIMOCHI

The Executive Director of Kimochi heads up the Management Domain. Management

staff have long tenure and know their roles well. Interactions are productive. The policy
Domain is made up of a Board o f Directors. It works well. The Service Domain is made
up o f staff that deliver the services to the Kimochi programs. Working relationships
between and among domains appear to be constructive.
There is no Union Domain or Employee Association. The long history between and
among the domains, on the one hand, and the personnel who make them up, on the other,
provides for constructive interactions.
 87

The Environmental Forces which influences the directions Kimochi takes, include the
rise in the Minimum Hourly Wage, which affects its budget. Kimochi provides meals for
its members and uses large numbers of volunteers. The shifting constituency-base
demonstrates the power of the constituency, causing a splitting of the constituency base
from Japantown to the San Mateo Peninsula. The Gentrification of the Japantown area
forced the relocation of many constituents from Japantown to the Peninsula area.

Kimochi also faces a future of transitioning from a personality-driven organization to a

mission-driven one. The current Executive Director plans to retire after one more year. A
successor has ben chosen and has been placed in charge of the program development for
the Peninsula extension as part o f his preparation.

The external forces, over which Komochi has little control, include the raising of the
Minimum Hourly Wage, which will affect Kimochi’s labor costs; the Affordable Health
Care Act, which could be the source of future grants and contracts and the cost of land
and construction for the proposed Peninsula facility. “We will be hard put to keep up with
the raising of wages and salaries for our forty-five employees,” said Mr. Nakajo.

There has been a decided shift in the Kimochi constituency base, from Japantown to the
broader City-County geographical area and, more apparent, to the Daly City Peninsula.
The Peninsula has been chosen as the site for the development of services. “Build it and
they will come,” to quote a popular baseball movie’s theme. A building is being
constructed in the Peninsula for services to the constituents who have moved there. This
is expected to attract those in need of housing and social services. The annual “Spirit
Award” is seen as an excellent example o f a constituency honoring its service provider,
and others. Newer generations o f Japanese-Americans do not have the same interests in
Kimochi that the earlier generations had. They are harder to reach and harder to seek
funds from. Gentrification and the costs o f housing and land are forcing constituents out
o f traditional places and into new places.
 88

Governance/Board o f Directors. In the beginning, Mr. Nakajo handpicked his board

members based on their roles in the community, and how well they would support the
Executive Director and his staff. His successor will need to determine what kind of a role,
policy-making or administrative, his board will play. Governance. As constituency shifts
to the Peninsula, newer board members, who have not experienced Japantown’s
consensus history, may introduce conflict as they change the culture of the board -
potential Peninsula vs. Japantown differences.

Operations/Collaboration. There is a process underwaay in San Francisco to bring

together representatives o f CBOs in order to obtain more resources and political support,
from local and state resources. Too much time is spent in fund raising. The high cost o f
land and construction is forcing Kimochi to borrow funds for the Peninsula building
project. Operations. Kimochi employees do not have good pension and retirement plans,
which may make it more difficult to attract and retain good staff There is no union or
employee association. Working issues, if any, are resolved constructively in the course o f
everyday interpersonal relationships. Staffing/conjoint. Board members and staff serve
together on committees, which builds consensus for decision making. Kimochi provides
an excellent array of services. Kimochi research and evaluation personnel are excellent in
collecting data regarding the effectiveness o f services provided.
 89

D. CASE: REBUILDING TOGETHER SAN FRANCISCO

CASE STUDY, RTSF

Rebuilding Together San Francisco (RTSF) is what could be called a “chartered

community-based organization (CCBO). It is part of a national network of CCBOs
carrying out the same mission in their respective communities around the country. It is
the largest national volunteer home rehabilitation organization in the United States. It
started in Midland, Texas, in the early 1970s. A local group of homeowners and
neighbors in Midland, Texas came together to help each other make repairs to their
homes and properties. They could not afford the cost of contractors to do the work for
them privately. They settled on the idea o f picking one day each year to come together
for a full day of exchanging the basic skills among them of carpentry, plumbing, painting,
electrical, roofing, gardening, etc., with special emphasis on installing home-safety
repairs for the elderly. They selected a day in the month of April for their “day,” and they
called it “Christmas in April.” “Christmas,” meaning the Christmas custom o f giving gifts
— except their “gifts” would be o f personal services to each other.

Other communities began to hear o f the Midland, Texas experiment and wanted to
organize themselves accordingly. However, there was some resistance to the use of the
word, “Christmas,” in the title, which made it seem as though the organization was
“faith-based.” So they dropped the word, “Christmas,” and changed their name to
“Rebuilding Together.” Today there are more than one hundred sixty CCBOs of
Rebuilding Together (RT) throughout the United States. A National organization was
created and its office is now based in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Department of Housing
is one of the key national agencies that collaborate with RT. Currently, the national office
is undergoing reorganization and transitioning, which has been unsettling to local units.

RTSF started off with the name, “Christmas in April San Francisco,” but changed
it when the others did. Following the disaster o f the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, the
need for an organization like this became evident. Four local agencies collaborated with
RTSF in the beginning. They were:
 90

• Building Trades Council

• Pacific Gas and Electric
• San Francisco Department o f Public Health
• Junior League of San Francisco

Corporate sponsorships are important since they provide the resources used in the
projects that RTSF undertakes. In the community outreach and engagement following
this earthquake disaster, it became apparent that there were many low-income
homeowners throughout San Francisco, especially senior citizens, who were living in
increasingly unsafe and hazardous housing conditions. Other CBOs that ordinarily
provided such services were struggling to stretch their budgets. So there was a need to be
met, and RTSF stepped in to meet the need.

RTSF is chartered as a CCBO of National. It is registered as a 501©(3) non-profit

organization. Its main charter office is in San Francisco, at Suite 100, Pier 28, The
Embarcadero. Its website is www.rebuildingtogethersf.org. (Its organization chart is
shown in Figure 22).

Today, RTSF’s mission is leveraging donations with volunteer labor and discounted
materials to provide home repairs for low-income seniors, families, and individuals with
disabilities so they can remain safe and healthy in their homes, (see Appendix A, Staff
documents, Rebuilding Together San Francisco, “Goals and Objectives”)
Its nationwide organizing focus is still on a single date - a National Rebuilding
Day, always in the month o f April, honored by the one hundred sixty or more CCBOs.
On April 27, 2012, for example, RTSF organized nine hundred volunteers to complete
 91

[ National Board o f Directors

Local Board o f Directors

• Establish Policies
• FundraisiBg
• BceottiveDneelor oversight
• Fiscal oveaigi*

•StH m litt Dteectoc

• IfrU fg fr pHaadiag> / -
• t Matalini "Tlj IHIntjownliipi Bookkeeper
». FinancialMaaaymwit ., • M m dAH t
,*ProgramPsvcltyoieat a d Fvat&atioo Moatfciy Financial fepcrtt
• tbnaoIUaowces ? ' • it iiiIMimuiaraim'snmnit

• 403b«d TASC

• Program Dcvctopmcm A Oversight

• Project AMaicMc$
• R em it Project Leads A SkiBsd # QianfelMttageiaest
- * z,
, t/ ^ ' >*7 ,
t Sponsor Rccniibneat wm!
• Rocreit tmv V m lon JL P sfo m
• Progffvo Budgets Md EvsluttKNi *. lw fitiliiil flfrfrf
• Fundraising Fvcots
'a* Mqg£Mt'.~ J ' '

t X
Prograaa Manager
* ReM U iaaEkqfa,aff
r»------ ol
* Munsgp VoL Capteins
* ManageSkiQodVohntocn
* AxwriCerps Supwviiiow
-ipe
%* »x
* PvogpradatacoOactiottml
■»■»>—•
Home Safety Coordhatc r
NeedAarfgenacaf
ifsystet&s and rapport
StrMfta~a«''
• PttgiamBAauipaetsak'-
• ' PoMfcAgmcyAFeefor -
ServiceContractssod
fmaidi|f , ✓ t,
• Voiootecr Installer
RacmiOBent A Management
•; ? Warefaousafleventaty A -
Orderia* ■
.. .pPs^-.vreHipS?'3SWpg£-IISWSpHSSKJUSI • .

Figure 22. Rebuilding Together San Francisco Organizational Chart - 2015

 92

significant repairs on nine homes, two schools, eight community facilities, and two small
businesses. Local companies, faith-based communities, and membership organizations
contributed two hundred twenty thousand dollars, which was leveraged to produce a
market value of seven hundred thousand dollars worth of repairs.
However, each CCBO can take on special projects the year around. Using this
prerogative, RTSF seeks to reduce the impact of health and safety hazards in the home by
using the Healthy Housing Standards (HHS) Tool developed by the National Center for
Safe and Healthy Housing to identify and eliminate risks in the homes of our most
vulnerable residents.
The Seven Principles of a Healthy Home are:
1. Keep it Dry,
2. Keep it Clean,
3. Keep it Pest-Free.
4. Keep it Safe,
5. Keep it Contaminant Free,
6. Keep it Well-Ventilated, and
7. Keep it Maintained.

The nature and extent of the problems to be addressed are suggested in the
following study: “The home is the most dangerous place for U.S. families, according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly six million families live in
housing rivaling that o f developing countries, with broken heating and plumbing, holes in
walls and windows, roach and rodent infestation, falling plaster, crumbling foundations,
and leaking roofs. Furthermore, the Home Safety Council reports that unintentional
injuries in the home cause more than twenty-one million medical visits per year at a cost
o f more than two hundred twenty-two billion dollars per year; falls in the home account
for more than one hundred billion dollars per year, alone. Each broken hip costs thirty-
seven thousand dollars on average.” (1)

In 2013, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee commented, “Rebuilding Together SF has

helped create meaningful change in our diverse neighborhoods by restoring existing
homes, revitalizing community facilities, and connecting neighbors. Every San
Franciscan deserves a safe, clean place to call home. We need to protect our City’s
 93

precious housing stock, and everyone should consider donating their time or money to
help rebuild San Francisco together.”
‘Today, Rebuilding Together San Francisco works closely with a number of city
departments and social service agencies. They have an ongoing partnership with the
Mayor’s Office of Housing and the Mayor’s Office of Community Development. RTSF
works with about a dozen senior and family social services agencies, including Meals on
Wheels, Network for Elders, and the Institute on Aging. RTSF receives frequent referrals
from them, and they work closely with them to better serve their clients. RTSF also
works in collaboration with occupational therapists to assess home hazards, make
recommendations, and offer training and support to homeowners. Additionally, they
provide volunteer opportunities for members of the Swords to Plowshares and New Life
organizations throughout the year.” (1)
On the Annual Rebuilding Day, held in April of each year, RTSF bring together
over a thousand volunteers to provide such repairs as painting, clearing debris, repairing
fixed or replaced steps, stair railings, and wall damage in homes. As funds allow, skilled
volunteers help remediate risks identified through the HHS Tool, such as repairing
ventilation of gas appliances, repairing water leaks, plumbing, and faulty wiring.” (1)
The goals are:
1. Preserve affordable housing in San Francisco.
2. Allow seniors and individuals with disabilities to remain safely in their homes.
3. Reduce health risk factors in the homes of low-income homeowners in San
Francisco.
4. Install seismic retrofits for low-income homeowners to improve home safety
and to increase the chances that vulnerable homeowners can shelter-in-place
after the next earthquake.

Constituency. Generally speaking, RTSF’s constituency is composed o f the vulnerable

homeowners and the under-served neighborhoods within the City and County of San
Francisco. The Client Ethnicity of this population is as follows:
• African American, thirty-six percent
• Asian, twenty percent
• Latino/Hispanic, nine percent
• Other Pacific Islanders, two percent
• White/Non-Hispanic, nineteen percent
• Other/Multi-Ethnic, fifteen percent
 94

The Average Household Income (AHI) of service recipients is seventeen thousand, six
hundred seventy-eight dollars:
• One hundred sixteen houses = thirty percent of AHI
• Sixty-nine houses = thirty-oneto 50 percent of AHI
• Fifty-three houses = fifty-one to eighty percent of AHI

The other CCBOs in the broader Bay Area are based in:
• Oakland
• Peninsula
• Rohnert Park-Cotati
• Sebastopol
• Silicon Valley
• Solano County

Administration. RTSF has a Board o f Directors. It is composed o f eleven members,

mostly representatives of donor agencies. The Board president is Timothy Dupre, who is
Talent Acquisitioner for the Bank of the West, in San Francisco. The Executive Director,
Karen Mensick, is a non-voting member of the board. The directors are drawn mostly
from the same donor agencies that provide the human and materiel resources used by
RTSF in delivering its services. At the present time, no one from the San Francisco board
has a seat on the National Board. A Continuity Plan has been adopted by the board, as it
looks to the future._The main local functions o f the board are:
• To establish policies
• To help with fund-raising
• To provide oversight to the Executive Director
• To help represent RTSF to the National Board and organization

The Executive Director is responsible to the board for administering the San
Francisco program. RTSF pays National ten thousand dollars in annual dues, and pays
five thousand dollars per month for its lease on the Pier 28 facilities. Its budget for 2015
is based on projected income of eight hundred fifty-two thousand, six hundred seventy-
six dollars, and projected expenses of eight hundred forty-nine thousand, five hundred
five dollars and fifty-eight cents, for a net ordinary income of three thousand, one
hundred seventy-seven dollars and forty-two cents.
 95

One of the tools used by National to manage the one hundred sixty CCBOs is a
National Standards o f Excellence document. Adherance to these Standards produces
quality in the services performed. In addition, National uses a Best Practices tool to help
the local CCBOs share their ideas with each other.
The organization chart (see Figure 22, page 92) shows two groupings of units:
Administrative and Program. There are four units that are administrative-oriented, with
functions as follows:

Executive Director
• Strategic Planning
• Fund-Raising, Marketing, City Relationships
• Financial Management
• Program Development and Evaluation
• Human Resources

Bookkeeper
• A/P and A/R
• Monthly Financial Reports
• Audit Preparation Support
• Benefits and Insurance
• 403b and TASC

Development Manager
• Grants Management
• Sponsor Recruitment and Recognition
• Individual Giving
• Fundraising Events

There are four full-time managers, in addition to the Executive Director, to coordinate the
programs and services provided:
Program Director
• Program Development and Oversight
• Project Selection and Matching
• Recruit Project Leads and Skilled Volunteers
• Recruit New Vendors and Partners
 96

• Program Budgets and Evaluation

Program Manager
• Rebuilding Days, O ff Season, and Seismic
• Manage Volunteer Captains
• Manage Skilled Volunteers
• AmeriCorps Supervision
• Volunteer Events Hospitality and Trainings
• Program Data Collection and Reporting

Home Safety Coordinator

• Client Intake/Application Processing
• Program Management
• Public Agency and Fee-for-Service Contracts and Invoicing
• Volunteer Installer, Recruitment, and Management
• Warehouse Inventory and Ordering
• Home Safety Installations

Outreach/Volunteer AmeriCorps
• Client Outreach
• Community Presentations
• Social Media
• Volunteer Event Coordination
• Volunteer Communications
• Recruit, Train, and Retain Office Volunteers

Services. The processes inherent in these service headings produce Programs and
Services, as follows: Safe Housing. The Home Safety and Rebuilding Day programs
repair stairs, and install grab bars, hand rails, and smoke/CO detectors, clearing clutter,
and upgrading old electrical and plumbing systems in over two hundred twenty homes
annually. These repairs reduce the incidents of falls and other injuries in the home, and
subsequently, reduced the risk that homeowners could lose their homes due to injuries
suffered from unsafe conditions in the homes. Helping senior homeowners age-in-place
also increases the potential that their homes will be passed on to their children or
grandchildren, thereby maintaining affordable housing for the next generation.
 97

Home Injury Prevention. RTSF is helping the Department o f Public Health reduce
injuries in the home through their Community and Home Injury Prevention Program for
Seniors (CHIPPs). They recruit and manage home safety contractors who install grab
bars, shower benches, hand rails, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and other
repairs in the homes of senenty low-income seniors and disabled persons annually.

Community Action Grants. In 2010, RTSF began partnering with the Mayor’s
Office of Housing to administer Community Action Grants in the OMI neighborhood.
Through this partnership, they worked to build neighborhood resiliency by teaching
community groups to develop and maintain their own community projects. They did this
by providing technical assistance and resources to successfully complete Action Grant
projects on budget and on time. The Mayor’s Office o f Housing staff were sufficiently
satisfied with RTSF efforts during the first year of the grant that they expanded the
partnership to include the Excelsior neighborhood in 2012 and the SoMA neighborhood
in 2013. They see this pilot as a model for community involvement projects in other
neighborhoods throughout the City.

Seismic Retrofits. Working with the City Administrator’s Office and CAPSS,
they launched a pilot seismic retrofit program for low-income homeowners. In February,
2013, twenty volunteer tradespeople partnered with engineers and leaders from CAPSS to
install basic retrofits on three homes. The data collected during this pilot will be used by
CAPSS to create a program to encourage more homeowners to install retrofits. This
partnership is only beginning, but it is hoped that RTSF will participate not only on
installation of repairs, but also in training contractors and engineers to design and install
retrofits in San Francisco. While the actual repair work will be directed to low-income
households, this project will provide education and resources to all homeowners in the
City for voluntary seismic upgrades.

Staffing. There are only four full-time staff, in addition to the Executive Director, so
great dependency is placed on the use of volunteers. Services provided include:
 98

• Eight thousand volunteers and two hundred eighty-five thousand volunteer

hours
• Two thousand homes made more safe and healthy for vulnerable residents
• Three hundred community facilities and schools renovated

Of the year 2012 volunteers, the breakdown was as follows:

• Twenty-one projects were undertaken
• One hundred six total skilled volunteers
• One thousand one hundred total Rebuilding Day volunteers
• Two thousand two hundred twenty-six volunteer hours for skilled volunteers
(estimated)
• Eight thousand volunteer hours for unskilled volunteers (estimated)

The four million, one hundred thousand dollars donated by local companies (since Year
2000) directed to neighborhood revitalization activities was leveraged for an estimated
ten million dollars worth of repairs provided by volunteers.

Conjoint Processes. There are only a few full-time staff so they all are invited to sit in on
all board and management staff meetings.

Beneficiaries. The impact o f the services provided by RTSF will be measured through
quantitative and qualitative analyses. RTSF evaluated Rebuilding Day and Home Safety
programs primarily through survey: Quantitative surveys measure the number of people
served, number of volunteers engaged, and costs per program; and Qualitative
measurements are obtained through surveys of all stakeholders —homeowners, facility
managers, sponsors, volunteers - to assess their satisfaction with the repair or volunteer
work, to self-report on the incidence of falls at home, and to obtain feedback as to how
they can improve the programs.
Last year RTSF developed further measurements based on strategic goals,
including improvements to our Scope o f Work process. These improvements are directed
at managing expectations on Rebuilding Day for homeowner clients as well as volunteer
teams. The goal is to increase satisfaction for all stakeholders involved in Rebuilding Day
and to provide necessary and efficient repairs for homes, schools, and nonprofit facilities.
 99

The quality of the impact of the services documented above are heartwarming.
Some individual stories follow:

• Bernal Heights family home, year 2012. Mrs. E. has lived in her home for
thirty years. She shares the space with one o f her sons, who is studying to be a
chef. The back stairs and deck were rotting away from the second story home
and in dangerous need o f fixing or replacing. A local construction team
recruited by RTSF completed this entire project pro bono. Inside the house, a
team removed old dirty carpeting in the foyer and stairwell, removed clutter
from the home, and painted the interior o f the entire upstairs.

• Youth Guidance Center, year 2011. YGC administers three main programs in
a run-down former one-story elementary school located literally in the shadow
of Juvenile Hall. RTSF recruited a local law firm to brighten the space.
Volunteers improved lighting throughout the lounge and computer lab,
installed twenty bookshelves throughout the space, and painted the exterior
walls. They also purchased new furniture for the reception area, cleared
clutter, and installed bright landscaping in the courtyard.

• Daniel Webster Elementary School, years 2008-2009. This school was on

SFUSD’s closure list due to low attendance, when a parent, trying to save the
school, contacted RTSF to request critical repairs for the school. Over the
course of a year, three volunteer teams sponsored by local businesses painted
eight classrooms, the cafeteria, and the school’s exterior, removed concrete
fixtures so as to plant native trees and shrubbery, installed planter boxes, and
painted colorful murals on the schoolyard walls. Parents credit this work with
increasing interest in the school and removing it from the closure list.
 100

CASE FINDINGS, RTSF

Introduction. Rebuilding Together San Francisco is a different kind of community-based

organization, different from the others in this study. It is part of a national organization,
Rebuilding Together (RT). RT charters one hundred sixty local CBOs throughout the
United States, one o f which is RTSF, in the pursuit of a national mission. Technically,
then, RTSF is a chartered Social-Change-based CBO, a CCBO. RTSF has one domain
that the other CBOs in this research does not have - It has a National Domain. A review
of RTSF’s domain influences, ranked, follows.

Environmental Forces. RTSF exists because it is a charter of its national organization,

RT. RT could withdraw its charter if RTSF gave it cause. But RT wants RTSF to
succeed, so it organizes and delivers its services accordingly. It has an array of programs
that have been developed and refined over the years, shared among the CCBOs in
collaborative procedures, known as Best Practices. This enables CCBOs to learn from
each other. It also has a National Standards of Excellence, designed to enable RTSF and
the others to organize and deliver their administrative roles and functions in self-study
processes.

Among the Environmental Forces affecting RTSF are federal policies of the U.S.
Department of Housing and increases in the minimum hourly wage (see Figure 23,
Spheres of Influence). Also, it is important for RTSF to be on the good side of local
political parties in power, since they provide resources for programs. RTSF has the
advantage o f being helped by Standards of Excellence, with improves its operational
procedures, and of Best Practices, which improves the quality of its services. It has the
disadvantage of being limited to its constituency base and in fund-raising practices not
authorized by National. One such area o f fund-raising problems is when Donor agencies
cross constituency lines to make resource or financial contributions. RTSF is not
represented on the RT National Board of Directors, which limits its influence in national
decision-making. RTSF cannot negotiate “private fees for services,” other than what is
provided by donor agencies, even if a request for private services was made..
 101

Domain Theory: RTSF

Environmental Forces

National

Charter

1 DonorAgendas Constituents )

Governance

ng

Services

Figure 23. Spheres of In uence, Rebuilding Together San Francisco

 102

There is a need for standardization between and among the local CCBOs. There are
differences in the type o f housing problems presented by them. For example, San Jose
has large mobile homes its CCBO addresses, while RTSF addresses the needs of
neighborhoods. Also, some inter-CCBO fond raising issues develop when Donor
agencies spill over to cover more than one CCBO. The National Office is in the process
o f reorganizing, which produces unsettling feelings at the local level.

Constituency. RTSF’s constituency is geographical based. It covers the City and County
o f San Francisco. Other CCBOs in the broader Bay Area have other parts of the
constituency allocated to them. The other CCBOs in the Bay Area are based in:
• Oakland
• San Mateo Peninsula
• Rohnert Park-Cotati
• Sebastopol
• Silicon Valley
• Solano County

Leadership. Influences not expressed openly enough. Board members tend to be donor
agency representatives. Governance. All staff participate with board members on both
board and staff committees, making for the development and maintenance of consensus
decision making.

Operations. A Highlight o f operations is the planning and preparation for RTSF’s

Annual Rebuild Day, RTSF’S key event occasion.

Staffing. Because o f the nature o f the construction-oriented services provided, and the
large number of volunteers recruited and used, assessment of workers is on the basis of
“skilled vs. non-skilled.”
 103

Services are of high quality due to the skills of the volunteer staff and of the “best
practices” mandate of National, which means the adoption o f high quality services. The
skilled use of quantitative and qualitative survey methodologies produces excellent
program practices, which, in turn, reduces the health and safety hazards among the
beneficiaries.

CASE ANALYSIS, RTSF

RTSF is presented as a model of a local community-based organization (CBO) which is

chartered by a national organization. Rebuilding Together is the national organization. It
has one hundred sixty chartered CBO members throughout the United States. Several are
in the Bay Area, one of which is based in San Francisco. National controls the chartered
CBOs. It uses two basic tools: Standards of Excellence and Best Practices.

The Standards of Excellence tool shapes how the local CBO organizes and
manages itself; the Best Practices tool helps member CBOs improve the services they
offer their constituents. Constituent bases are determined by National, in collaboration
with the local. The constituency for RTSF is the City and County of San Francisco.
Because of the dependence on donor agencies, most of the members of RTSF’s board o f
directors tend to be from the Donor Agencies.

RT/RTSF’s Mission is to help its constituency improve housing and community

facility conditions. Donor agencies provide both financial and material support. It
depends on Donor Agencies to contribute both funds and construction resources used in
the repairs of houses and community facilities. Some problems develop when donor
agencies overlap the foundation o f the various CBO constituencies. A major program
effort of RT is to conduct a nationwide Annual Rebuilding Day, wherein volunteers and
the skilled come together to fix as many properties as is possible. They conduct other
programs the rest of the time.
 104

E. CASE: WEST BAY FILIPINO MULTI-SERVICE, INC.

CASE STUDY, WEST BAY

The West Bay Pilipino Multi-Service, Inc. (West Bay), of San Francisco, was founded in
1968 by Ed de la Cruz, a Pilipino activist who has since passed away. He had the vision
of bringing about a merger of six existing smaller community groups serving Pilipinos to
form one larger organization, believing that one larger-sized organization could do more
good than several smaller ones that competed with each other. Programs were
consolidated, overhead costs were reduced, and fund-raising efforts were coordinated.

The founders gave the new group the name of West Bay Pilipino Multi-Service,
Inc. Its mission was, and is yet, “to address the socio-economic challenges facing the
Pilipino community living in the South o f Market (SoMA) District. It quickly became the
oldest and biggest Pilipino-led nonprofit, community-based organization in Northern
California. In 1977, it was incorporated as a 501©(3) nonprofit organization. At its peak
it had a budget of over a million dollars a year and became a “one-stop shop” for
Pilipinos in the SoMA.

In the early 2000s, the organization was rocked by a financial scandal involving
the misappropriation of Medicare funds. Pride in the organization gave way to
organizational embarrassment and community distancing. Program participants broke off
from West Bay and formed their own new organizations, reversing the trend that had
formed West Bay in the beginning. Interim West Bay administrators managed to keep the
doors open, however. Eventually, the West Bay organization was cleared of any
responsibility in the scandal but the damage had been done.

A slow rebuilding has been underway. It has been hard to find administrators and
program specialists to stay at West Bay because of the poor public face West Bay has had
to endure. Still, services have been developed and maintained to Pilipino seniors and
children, especially the Kindergarten-Through-Fifth grades (K-5) children. Started in
 105

2004, the K-5 program was expanded in 2007 when West Bay was able to get its first
governmental grant.

Current Description of West Bay. West Bay has a professed theory o f change. “Today,
West Bay bridges generations and connects vital resources to those who need it most. We
improve the academic achievements of our students, improve the health of the
community, and advocate on behalf o f our families.” It is a cultural-based CBO in that it
addresses its constituency singularly, but does provide services to African Americans,
Vietnamese Americans, and Caucasians, among others, who present themselves.
Empowerment of the Pilipino community means advocating for causes that matter, such
as immigration reform, the use of the Tagalog language by governments, schools, and
corporations to communicate with their people, supporting the appointment and election
o f Filipinos and their supporters to offices, and raising the profile o f Filipinos in the
community-at-large, even more important now that Filipinos are the largest Asian
American community in California. They work to have a positive lasting impact,
especially in the lives of low income and immigrant families. Empowerment of the
Pilipino community means advocating for causes that matter, such as immigration
reform, the use of their Tagalog language by institutions.
Last year, West Bay entered into collaboration with two other CBOs - United
Playaz and City Crossroads (see Figure 24, organization chart) to form the SoMA Youth
collaborative (SYC). Both are “standard CBOs,” in that they serve multicultural
populations. The Mission o f CYC is to “instill protective and supportive factors in order
to direct youth away from the influences that sustain risky and criminal behaviors and
instead toward strengthening their skills to become agents o f change for themselves, their
families, their schools, and their communities.”
Perhaps the most exciting development has been the employment of a new
Executive Director for the West Bay, within the past year, Vivian Zalvidea Araullo, a
Philipino and an Emmy-award winning journalist, whose personal mission is to restore
West Bay to its former glory, or, at least, to a new-found glory.
 106

i Cbnstituents'i

Board of Directors
OOOOOOO
Resident, Archimedes Dayan
United
Rayaz
Bcecutive Director SYC
Mvian Zalvidea Araullo
Oty
Crosswords

K3 SENIORS
Youth R-ograms Family Support Services StC Services
PROGRAM
John Dizon Gedle Ascalon
decile Ascalon

AAVERK7 FSC&seMgt.

CPP APIFFN

K12S9/VBP

Fgure 24. Organization Chart, West Bay Multi-Service, Inc.

l l : y
 107

West Bay is a 5010(3) nonprofit organization. It has a Board of Directors and a full-time
Executive Director. All other staff are part-time. Staff are composed o f professionally
trained personnel and volunteers serving formal or informal internships, or donating time
in personal commitments toward helping others.
West Bay conducts the following programs:

• Youth Program Coordination. This includes the Afterschool Academic and

Values Enrichment Program for Grades K-Seven (AAVEP, K-7), the College
Preparatory Program (CPP) for Grades Eight to Twelve, and the K-twelve
Summer by the “West” Bay Program (SWBP).
• Kapihan, Kasamahan, and Kwentuhan (K3) Seniors Program. This program is
coordinated by the Family Support Case Manager.
• Family Support Case Management. This includes the Asian Pacific Islanders
Family Resources Network.
• SoMA Youth Collaborative, organized and delivered through the SYC
collaboration.

Constituency. The SoMA area of San Francisco is the primary focus of the West Bay
constituency because o f the history o f Pilipino migration into the San Francisco Bay
Area, and because of the significant presence of Pilipino Americans in the community.
Migrants bring with them a total array of unmet needs. No one CBO addresses all of the
needs of its constituency. Each carves out a niche and endeavors to address it. It requires
the art of presenting the skill-to-help on the one hand, and seeking-the-resources to
provide that help, on the other. Each constituent becomes a consumer when he or she is
served by West Bay; each consumer becomes a constituent when he or she learns
something separate and apart from the service received.

The Center is an important hub in the neighborhood, providing many services to

countless children, families, senior citizens, and World War II veterans. Because they
operate from a central location, they are able to address the expanding needs of their
clients, who are predominantly newly arrived immigrants from the Philippines. Aside
from these populations, non-Pilipinos are welcome.
They also provide a safe environment where people are able to receive additional
support and guidance amidst a neighborhood known for violence and crime. The success
 108

o f their organization stems from their passionate staff and their network of community
partners. Many individuals, corporations, and public agencies dedicate their expertise,
time, and resources to these efforts. West Bay believes in collective strength to ensure a
bright future for our community and for the City of San Francisco.

Partners and Volunteers. West Bay utilizes the concept of “partners” in the pursuit
o f its mission. The following agencies, among others, are partners in the efforts o f West
Bay:
• University o f California San Francisco
• San Francisco Police Department
• Pacific Gas & Electric
• University o f San Francisco
• San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and Families
• k *I*D*S*
• Central Coast Children’s Foundation
• Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy
• KA
• Maria Elena Uchangco Philippines Studies Program
• Stanford School of Medicine
• Recology
• Trumark Urban
• The Coffee Adventre Co.

The total Pilipino population of SoMA is estimated to be forty-five thousand; it is

higher for the broader City and County area. There are high incidences o f crime and
neglect among the constituency. Language barriers for the newly arrived are hard to
surmount. A study by the National Federation of Filipino American Associations
(NFFAA) found that Filipino American students were more likely to drop out of school
and never finish their education, and more likely to have lower test scores and overall
academic performance than any other Asian American ethnic group.

It is quite evident that West Bay, as part of its mission, helps its constituents in
whatever way it can. It also provides a mechanism for enabling constituents to become
members of the Board of Directors. There is a provision within the West Bay bylaws
(Article IV, Section 5, Nomination o f Board o f Directors) that makes it possible for a
 109

constituent to seek appointment to the West Bay Board o f Directors by submitting a letter
to the Secretary of the Board, indicating her or his interest, and describing briefly his or
her community service.

Administration. Policy. Policy is made by the Board of Directors, which is composed of

seven members (one current vacancy). The Executive Director serves as a non-voting
member of the Board. The Board operates under a set of Bylaws which spells out that the
’’specific and primary purpose of this Corporation, as set forth in the Articles of
Incorporation, is to provide social, health, legal, and economic services to the socio­
economic disadvantaged population residing in San Francisco, with special emphasis on
the Pilipino population in that section o f San Francisco commonly referred to as “South
of Market.”

The members of the Board of Directors are, as of March 15:

1) Archimedes Dayan, President (RN, Kaiser)
2) Rex Tabora, Vice President (President, Greenboxsf)
3) John Ngau, Secretary-Treasurer (Broker, New Pacific Realty, Inc.)
4) Joaquin Gonzalez, PhD (Professor, Golden Gate University)
5) Anthony Luna (LLB, Remo Lima Law)
6) Carmen Colet (Asian Art Museum)
7) (vacancy)
Vivian Zalvidea Araullo is Executive Director and ex-officio board member)

The Afterschool and Values Enrichment program is funded by both DCYF and CCSF
(City and County of San Francisco. It funds the Youth Program Coordinator and the lead
Mentor positions. The Family Support Services Program Coordinator position is funded
by APIFRN and CCSF. The K-3 Senior Program is not funded at this time.

Staffing. The Bylaws state that the Board of Directors shall have the authority, by
majority, to elect a chief administrative officer. That officer shall be known as the
Executive Director and shall be delegated the authority to manage the day-to-day affairs
 110

and operations of the corporation. That officer shall report to the president o f the
corporation. The staff person who occupies the position of Executive Director at this
time, as noted before, is Vivian Zalvidea Araullo. She is a full-time employee. The part-
time case manager for the K3 Seniors Program and the Family Support Services is Cecile
Ascalon; the part-time Youth Programs Coordinator is John Dizon; and the part-time staff
Lead Mentor for handling volunteer or internship positions, and accepting donations, is
Kirstie Dutton. At any given time there are up to twenty-five volunteers donating their
time and resources to assist the staff in the services it delivers.

The organization leases office and workspace at 175 - 7th Street, in SoMA, San
Francisco. The building is named after Edward de la Cruz, the community organizeer
who earlier had organized the six smaller Pilipino CBOs into becoming what is now
known as West Bay. Together with its partners, West Bay has been able to accomplish
great things on a tight budget in the 2014-2015 school year:

• Provided a safe environment, academic assistance, mentorships and free, daily

meals to approximately thirty-five students.
• Organized a Peace March against SoMA community violence on September 9,
2014, with more than one hundred people in attendance.
• Introduced the new West Bay Vow that summarizes all that West Bay wants to
achieve with our programs and our clients.
• Distributed healthy food to senior citizens and their families weekly, during the
K-3 Seniors Program.
• Launched their second year of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
(STEM) program, called “STEM Learning Community: with partners Techbridge
and the City of San Francisco.
• Received seventeen thousand dollars in grant funding from PG&E.
• Had record-breaking high attendance for both our “Back-to-School Night” and
“October Parent Night.”
• Collaborated with friends from Victoria Manalo Draves Park to have a Movie
Night in September.
• Had our second Distinguished Citizens Awards presentation on October 25,2014,
at USF’s Lone Mountain Campus, to honor select community leaders and raise
funds for our youth programs.
• Senior advocacy and support programs.
• Translation and interpretation services.
• Psycho-educational workshops.
• College Preparatory Program for under-served Pilipino youth.
 Ill

Services for Parents and Families include:

• Case Management and Social Services
• Housing Information Assistance
• Health and Special Needs
• Employment Opportunities and Vocational Training
• Food and Clothing
• Domestic Violence
• Legal or Immigration Assistance
• Transportation
• Family Relations and Parenting
• Seniors Food Distribution
• Early Literacy Program
• Parent Interaction/Workshops/Puppy Tales Reading

CASE FINDINGS, WEST BA Y

Environmental Forces (see Figure 25, Spheres of Influence). West Bay started off as a
significant CBO when Ed de la Cruz helped organize it by effecting a merger of several
small Pilipino CBOs. A few years ago, one o f the interim managers misappropriated the
Medicare funds. West Bay was cleared, eventually, but has had difficulty shaking off the
negative reputation it had gotten.

Constituency. West Bay is a cultural-based CBO. The name, Pilipino, is in the formal
Bylaws for the organization. SoMA was chosen as the site for West Bay because of the
Pilipino migration within the San Francisco Bay Area. It has been able to address the
expanding needs o f its clients, who are predominantly newly arrived from the
Philippines.” Aside from this priority population, non-Pilipino residents are welcome to
the programs. The need is greater. The NFFAA Study found that Filipino Americans
were more likely to have lower test scores and lower academic performance than any
other Asian American ethnic group. Key national organizations, of which West Bay is a
member, are Pilipino focused: APIFRN - Asia Pacific Islander Family Resources
Network; and NFFAA - National Federation o f Filipino American Associations. Some
recent activities carried out by the staff show evidence of addressing its constituency:
 112

Domain Theory: West Bay

Environmental
Forces

Constituents

Governance

SFSU

CYO
Operations
Staffing
Volunteers

Services

Benificiaries

Figure 25. Spheres of Influence: West Bay

 113

They organized a Distinguished Pilipino Citizen Awards program; they also organized a
group of Pilipinos to press upon the Philippine Embassy the desire to have their names
registered to vote in their home country o f the Philippines.

A distinction should be made between the terms “constituency” and

“beneficiaries.” Many of those who live in SoMA are both. They represent the overall
Pilipino citizenry who legitimize the efforts of West Bay and other CBOs to serve them.
They are committed to improving the Pilipino life in general. They are constituents. At
the same time many receive direct services from West Bay and therefore earn the right to
be called beneficiaries. They are both. West Bay’s Pilipino constituency has been
centered in the SoMA district of San Francisco. Gentrification is forcing many to relocate
to the lower rent areas of San Francisco, meaning that West Bay’s services will need to
follow them.

West Bay utilizes the concept of “partners” in the pursuit of its Mission. One of
these partnerships is the SoMA Youth Collaborative, made up o f West Bay, United
Playaz, and City Crossroads CBOs. The purpose of this partnership is to join forces in
appealing for program resources to be shared among them. Another partnership that
benefits West Bay is with San Francisco State University, who provide West Bay with
volunteers in helping to staff programs for youth.

Operations. With only one full-time and three part-time staff, operations give way to the
pressures of running an organization. There are no provisions in West Bay’s Bylaws
regarding the number of Terms a Director can serve on West Bay’s Board. It may be
useful to look at other CBO Bylaws to see how the Bylaws can facilitate or hinder
organizational behavior. West Bay introduces a concept of “partnerships”: it partners
with two other CBOs, United Playaz and City Crossroads, in the development of program
resources to be shared by them; and it has a partnership with one o f the courses offered
by San Francisco State University, in which the students become volunteers at West Bay
to help West Bay tutor the youths in its programs.
 114

Staffing. West Bay has a West Bay has a low number of staff: one full-time Executive
Director, three part-time professionals, who, primarily, deliver services to their programs,
with the help of a few volunteers. For an organization that has been around since 1968,
that seems to be a low staffing pattern. CBOs tend to grow in resources over time.The
current Executive Director is a former outstanding public communications specialist,
having won an Emmy for her efforts. She is expected to use those skills and connections
in helping West Bay grow again. West Bay and its partners excel in their youth service
programs.

Beneficiaries. Survey feedback from a beneficiary declared that “West Bay is the best
place to go every Thursday. It’s a Filipino seniors and non-seniors gathering that relaxes
us for two or three hours on Thursdays.

CASE ANALYSIS, WEST BAY

At the time of the CBO merger that formed West Bay, in 1968, the six agencies that
merged had offered a variety of services to its constituents: including vocational training
and employment opportunities, domestic violence services, transportation coordination,
early literary program for children ages 0-5, parenting workshops, legal and immigration
assistance, health care, housing information assistance, counseling, crisis hotline, and
case management.

One o f the key features o f the West Bay story is its use of collaborations with other
community-based organizations that provide youth development services to Pilipino
youth. It helped form the SoMA Youth Collaborative (SYC). SYC serves more than three
hundred children and their families each year. This partnership provides the SoMA
community with a full spectrum of services, including academic enrichment, life skills
training, workforce development, civic engagement, art and cultural activities, and sports
and recreational activities. SYC also works to bridge the gap between local service
providers and the Bessie Carmichael Elementary School, with the thriving business
community in SoMA.
 115

For more than forty-five years, West Bay has helped thousands o f recent
immigrants and low-income citizens, providing culturally sensitive academic, social,
health, and economic sustainability services to newly arrived immigrant youth, their
families, and to seniors in the SoMA community of San Francisco and the greater Bay
Area.
• Feedback from the K3 Seniors Program Attendees includes one, who said, “I
simply enjoy coming here at West Bay. This is a good place for the elderly.
There’s a lot of things to know, and talking to people near us is terrific, as most
elderly are forgetful.”
• Another, “I’m happy at West Bay because by being with other seniors, I’ve
learned more about how to deal with problems. Good people and good friends.
I’m happy at West Bay.”
• Another, “West Bay is the best place to go every Thursday. It’s a Filipino seniors
and non-seniors gathering that relaxes us for two to three hours on Thursdays. It’s
amazing!!”
• And, “West Bay is a very good place for seniors, adults, and all ages. The
program is very beneficial. You meet all the good people who make you feel at
home. You enjoy as you learn. West Bay invites speakers to talk on health, legal
matters, etc.”
 116

F. CROSS-TABLE REVIEW
SUMMARY

We are impressed with the depth to which each of the four cases brought to light the
clarity o f “Spheres of Influences.” Not only do they reaffirm what we learned in our
earlier study of 1980, about the basic domains of a CBO, they introduced us also to
several new domains - new to us. We will learn more about these in the section that
follows. We needed a way o f looking at the key findings simultaneously rather than one-
at-a-time, as we had just concluded. The construction of “tables” serves our purpose. We
identified twelve areas of findings as focal points for our reviews and then summarized
the insights we gained from each of the four case studies. The twelve focal points, and
their related tables, are as follows.

1. Types of CBOs
2. Environmental Forces Impacting on CBOs
3. Leadership and CBOs
4. Staffing and the Uses of Volunteers
5. Governance
6. Operations
7. Unions
8. Service Delivery
9. Conjoint Roles and Processes
10. Special Events Help Shape the CBOs
11. The Power of the Constituency
12. Beneficiaries
 117

TABLES

The Tables follow:

Table 1. Findings: Types of CBOs

Glide Memorial ♦Dual purpose: a Faith-Based and a Social-Action-Based CBO

♦One operation (Glide Foundation)

Kimochi, Inc. ♦Cultural-Based, Social-Action CBO

Rebuilding Together ♦National Chartered, Social-Action CBO

San Francisco

West Bay Pilipino ♦Cultural-Based, Social-Action CBO

Analyses ♦CBO structures o f Year 2015 are more sophisticated than those
o f 1980. (RTSF’s National Charter and Glide Memorial’s dual-
purpose CBOs are key examples.)
♦West Bay employs the concept of Partnerships with other CBOs
to obtain resources and serve joint beneficiaries.
 118

Table 2. Findings: Environmental Forces Impacting on CBOs

Glide Memorial ♦Fair Housing Act

* Affordable Health Care Act
♦Support of political party in power at City Hall
♦Gentrification that forces constituents to move
♦Support of Methodist Diocese of San Francisco

Kimochi, Inc. ♦Rise in Minimum Hourly Wage

♦Support of political party in power at City Hall
♦Cost of borrowing money in order to finish construction in the
Peninsula
♦Gentrification that forces residents to move from constituency
base
♦Affordable Health Care Act

Rebuilding Together
San Francisco ♦Fair Housing Act
♦Support of political party in power at City Hall

♦Partnerships with other agencies in seeking resources

West Bay Pilipino ♦Lingering, negative reputation resulting from Medicare fraud

Analyses The influence of Environmental Forces is a major factor in 2015

that was not evident in 1980, forcing CBOs to react to the
influences or take advantage of them.
 119

Table 3. Findings: Leadership and CBOs

Glide Memorial ♦Rev. Cecil Williams and Janice Mirikitani made leadership a
personality-driven force in the growth and development of Glide
Memorial over the period of fifty years. They have handled the
skills of leadership well.

Kimochi, Inc. ♦Steve Nakajo has been Executive Director for forty-four years, a
personality-driven force in the growth and development of the
Kimochi CBO. He has handled the skills of leadership well,
including the appointment of a successor for when he retires next
year.

Rebuilding Together ♦Leadership is not a factor, so far. The National Charter provides
San Francisco much of the direction that a local leader would otherwise provide.

West Bay Pilipino ♦Ed de la Cruz, now deceased, built West Bay by effecting a
merger of six smaller Pilipino-causes CBOs, but West Bay has
had difficulty going on from there. Cruz was undoubtedly a
personality-driven leader in order to accomplish what he did. The
building in which the current office is housed is named after Mr.
Ed de la Cruz.

Analyses ♦Leadership was not a factor in 1980, but is an important one

today. Glide Memorial and Kimochi may face problems o f their
organizations being converted from personality-driven leadership
to mission-driven leadership as the leaders move on.
 120

Table 4. Findings: Staffing and the Uses of Volunteers

Glide Memorial ♦Glide uses 25,000 volunteers on an annual basis.

* The lack of role conflicts between staff and volunteers is
attributed to the sense of moral commitment they make to
working with the faith-based organization.

Kimochi, Inc. ♦Kimochi uses 2,000 volunteers on an annual basis. Various

processes of staff and volunteers working together helps prevent
role conflicts from affecting their performance.

Rebuilding Together ♦RTSF uses a thousand volunteers on an annual basis. Volunteers

San Francisco are sorted on the basis of skilled vs. non-skilled rather than
credentialed vs. certifications, so they resolve issues, if any, on the
job.

West Bay Pilipino ♦West Bay uses twenty-five volunteers on an annual basis. There
are no performance issues with volunteers since they are members
of a college course at San Francisco State University, and their
volunteer service is part of their course work.

Analyses Volunteers were not part of the 1980 data, although employed
staff were. The combination o f ’’moral commitment” and “skilled
vs. non-skilled” work performance enables such resources to be
use constructively.
 121

Table 5. Findings: Governance

Glide Memorial ♦Glide is managed by a Board o f Trustees who over-see the Glide
Foundation. It has five senior managers, all on the same level on
the organization chart: two co-Executive Directors (one handles
the social-change programs and the other handles administration).
In addition, there is a Senior Pastor who manages the faith-based
services and programs. And there is Rev. Williams and Ms.
Mirikatani. The latter two are semi-retired but take part in key
decision making.

Kimochi, Inc. ♦Kimochi is managed by an Executive Director who has been

there for 44 years. In the beginning he handpicked board
members and staff; now he has processes underway for continuity
after he retires.

Rebuilding Together ♦Much of RTSF’s governance is determined by its charter

San Francisco relationship with National. The Standard of Excellence tool does
much to address governance issues a the CBO level just as Best
Practices tool does at the program level. What is left is the
organization and administration of Donor relationships and
programs.

West Bay Pilipino ♦West Bay is in a long rebuilding mode. It has a new Executive
Director and is rebuilding the Board o f Directors. It must find a
way to start getting new grants and hiring full-time staff in order
to grow the West Bay organization.

Analyses Governance, for Glide Memorial and Kimochi, has been shaped
over the years by long terms of effective leadership. West Bay is
too small for much governance issues, and RTSF’s national
Charter reduces governance issues.
 122

Table 6. Findings: Operations

Glide Memorial ♦Glide Memorial uses a management structure of two co-

Executive Directors (CoED) to manage the Social-Action-Based
programs, and a Senior Pastor to manage the Faith-Based side. All
are at the same level of ranking on the organization chart, all are
responsible to the Board of Trustees. They all say the structure
works well.

Kimochi, Inc. *Kimochi’s Executive Director has done a good job of managing
the organization while leading it toward its mission. He is setting
the stage for his Associate Executive Director to become
Executive Director when he retires.

Rebuilding Together ♦RTSF’s operations are well handled at the Executive Director
San Francisco level because of its Charter relationship with the National office,
leaving Operations to become a process of working with Donor
agencies and volunteers.

West Bay Pilipino ♦West Bay is so small that it is hard to break out how it handles
operations (one full-time executive and three part-time staff). It
does have a Partner relationship with two outside CBOs. The
Executive Director handles operations well with her small part-
time staff. West Bay also has a relationship with San Francisco
State University that provides student interns to West Bay for its
tutoring projects.

Analyses Long-time leaders at Glide Memorial and Kimochi have handled

operations well for larger CBOs. RTSF’s operations are guided by
its Charter. West Bay has more growing to do.
 123

Table 7. Findings: Unions

Glide Memorial *There are no Unions or Employee Associations at Glide

Memorial. The “moral” commitment to its religious mission gives
the staff and volunteers a sense of higher purpose. They work out
role issues among themselves.

Kimochi, Inc. ♦There are no Unions or Employee Associations at Kimochi. The

“moral commitment” here is to its mission of service to the elderly
Japanese-American generations.

Rebuilding Together ♦There is no union or employee association at RTSF1, and no

San Francisco conflict between or among staff and volunteers. Apparently,
skilled/unskilled issues are easier to resolve or prevent than issues
of credentialed/certificated.

West Bay Pilipino ♦West Bay has just three part-time staff. They have no problems
of staff conflict.

Analyses In 1980, all CBOs studied had unions or employee associations. In

2015, with this grouping, there are none.
 124

Table 8. Findings: Service Delivery

Glide Memorial ♦Faith-Based: Sunday mornings Celebrations and other services.

♦Social-Action-Based: numerous services developed over the
years. A million free, hot meals are served each year.

Kimochi, Inc. ♦Kimochi has many cultural-based social-action programs and

facilities for senior Japanese-Americans.

Rebuilding Together ♦Housing and facility repairs. Focus is on one big ‘rebuilding
San Francisco together’ day each year, plus some other year around activities.

West Bay Pilipino ♦Youth-oriented tutoring services, and social-change programs,

including social activities for Pilipino seniors.

Analyses Year 2015 CBOs are much more effective in developing and
managing services to their constituents than were the CBOs of
1980.
 125

Table 9. Findings: Conjoint Roles and Processes

Glide Memorial *The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees meets

frequently in the discharge of its duties.
*The use of CoEDs for social-change-based programming
responsibilities makes it essential that they collaborate in their
working relationships.
♦The Senior Pastor on the faith-based side meets frequently with
her staff.

Kimochi, Inc. ♦Kimochi uses a Management Committee in its operational

procedures.

Rebuilding Together ♦The full-time staff meets frequently with the committees of the
San Francisco Board of Directors in their planning and problem solving.

West Bay Pilipino ♦The Executive Director meets frequently and informally with her
three part-time staff.

Analyses Year 2015 CBOs all meet in conjoint settings, formally and
informally.
 126

Table 10. Finding: Special Events Help Shape the CBOs.

Glide Memorial *The Annual ’’Lunch with Warren Buffett” has raised millions of
dollars for Glide Memorial, and generated much favorable
national publicity.

Kimochi, Inc. ♦The Annual “Spirit Awards,” as organized and conducted, is

very much like the constituents celebrating its CBO.

Rebuilding Together ♦The “National Rebuilding Day” brings thousands o f donor

San Francisco agencies and volunteers together into a single day of rebuilding
and repairing projects throughout the country, as well as
throughout San Francisco, after months of planning, preparation,
and training.

West Bay Pilipino ♦West Bay organizes and carries out an “Annual Distinguished
Pilipino Citizen Award.”

Analyses In 2015, “Special Day Events” are a major source of funds, public
education, and CBO publicity that was not so evident in 1980.
 127

Table 11. Findings: The Power of the Constituency

Glide Memorial Glide Memorial’s constituency has been the homeless, hungry,
and down-and-outers of the Tenderloin District. Asian-Pacific
Islanders settled here when they moved into San Francisco.
Gentrification has caused many o f them to relocate. Hispanics are
moving in. So the constituency base is shifting, though Glide
continues to be committed to the Tenderloin District. Also,
Glide’s constituency base is expanding to other parts of the City
and County. The staff does a great job of measuring the needs and
interests of its constituency base.

Kimochi, Inc. *The change in Kimochi’s constituency base has been a powerful
force. Gentrification has caused many Japanese-Americans to
move out of Japantown and many o f them have relocated to the
San Mateo Peninsula, so much so that Kimochi is now building a
service center facility and expanding its services to include the
Peninsula. They, also, do a good job o f measuring the nature and
extent of their constituents.

Rebuilding Together ♦RTSF’s constituency is fixed to the boundaries of the City and
San Francisco County o f San Francisco (other charter RT-CBOs have
constituency bases that surround San Francisco.) They address the
needs of those who have housing and community facilities to be
repaired.

West Bay Pilipino ♦West Bay is also facing a shifting constituency, partly because of
gentrification in the SoMA district of San Francisco, causing
Pilipino-Americans to move out and into other parts of the City
and County of San Francisco, and elsewhere in the Bay Area.
Also, servicing youth in its programs means having parents
(constituents) who live in districts other than in SoMA.

Analyses Changes in the constituencies have been powerful forces in

reshaping the Year 2015 CBO’s constituencies. Also, the CBOs
have become experts in the planning and collecting of data to
measure the needs and interests o f their constituency base. They
know whom they represent.
 128

Table 12. Findings: Beneficiaries

Glide Memorial ♦Proficiency in measuring the delivery of services to their

beneficiaries.

Kimochi, Inc. * Proficiency in measuring the delivery of services to their

beneficiaries.

Rebuilding Together * Proficiency in measuring the delivery of services to their

San Francisco beneficiaries.

West Bay Pilipino * Proficiency in measuring the delivery of services to their

beneficiaries.

Analyses The staffs of all four CBOs show proficiency in measuring the
nature and extent of the services that have been delivered to them.
 129

G. SUMMARY, DOMAIN THEORY, 2015

There are Centers of Influences operating in the CBOs of 2015, as there were in 1980, but
today’s CBOs are more complex than they were before. Environmental Forces, powerful
today, were not considered in 1980. Gentrification has demonstrated the ability to change
the complexity and location of a constituency, forcing the CBO to shift the geographical
base o f the services it proposes to deliver. Leadership may prevail, as was shown in the
Glide Memorial and Kimochi cases, but it requires leaders to keep their followers
informed and involved. Successful leadership can become personality-driven especially
when it is extended over time. When the leaders leave, however, the successors are left
with trying to change personality-driven leadership to mission-driven leadership.

Unions, or Employee Associations, were important in 1980, but were not part of
the four cases we studied in 2015, despite the large numbers of volunteers who worked at
the dual-purpose (Faith-Based and Social-Action-Based) Glide Memorial. They felt a
moral obligation to perform their roles without creating performance issues. Rebuilding
Together San Francisco, and its National Charter relationship, introduces to us a class of
CBOs that were not studied by us in 1980. There are one hundred sixty nationally
chartered CBOs who are part of RTSF, who are tied together by Charters, such as
Standards of Excellence, which facilitates effective operations, and Best Practices, which
enables the CBOs to help each other improve their services.
Special Day Events are a major source of funds and publicity today that were not
evident in 1980, especially those that praised their constituents and beneficiaries. And
staffs have become very sophisticated when it comes to measuring the needs and effects
of services provided to the Beneficiaries.
Domain Theory Revisited. In summary, Domain Theory, in the year 2015, holds
that community-based organizations are made up of several groupings of people and
forces, called domains, which operate in ways that influence each other’s functioning.
This is similar to what it was in 1980. The nature o f the domains, or spheres, may change
but the theory is the same.
 130

Union

Domain Theory 1980

Environmental Forces
Gentrt cation
Housing Act
A ordabie Health Care
Minimum Wage

Leader National

[Constituents

3 a ng '
Vbiunteersj

Domain Theory 2015

Bene ciarles

Rgure 26. Domain Theory Revisited: 1980,2015

 131

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AREAS FOR

FURTHER STUDY

A. INTRODUCTION

It has been a purpose o f this research to study a selected group o f organizations that
represent community-based organizations (CBOs). The original study was conducted in
1980 when this doctoral student and a colleague conducted a small study of the behavior
of CBOs. The premise was that the people who work in CBOs tend to behave in ways
that influence others to their way of thinking and behaving, thus becoming “spheres of
influence,” (see Figure 28, Domain Theory, 1980-2015). In any given CBO there are
several of these “spheres), which we called “domains” then. The comparison between the
Domain Theory graphic that we created in 1980 and the most recent one here and now
provides the framework for our conclusions, recommendations, and areas for further
study.

The purpose o f this dissertation is to determine of Domain Theory is still valid and, if so,
to describe how it works now. Is it the same as it was in 1980? If so, reaffirm the
appropriateness of the theory for describing the behavior of CBOs today? If it is different,
then describe the differences.
 132

B. CONCLUSIONS

1. First and foremost, Domain Theory is still relevant for explaining the behavior of
community-based organizations (CBOs). Also important is the concept of Spheres of
Influence. They both say the same thing. We define it now: Domain Theory (Spheres of
Influence) suggests that community-based organizations (CBOs) are made up of several
groupings of people and forces which operate in ways that attempt to influence each other’s
functioning, thereby producing a state of tension and contention within the CBO. These forces
include, but are not limited to, such external ones as Environmental, Constituents, and
Beneficiaries, and such internal ones as Governance/Operations, Staffing/Volunteers, Charters,
Special Events, and Services. The Spheres of Influence may shift and change over the years but
the internal organizational tensions, however evident, will continue to be demonstrated.

2. CBOs are more complex today than they were back then. The four CBOs selected for study
prove to be instructive. Glide Memorial gives us a dual-purpose CBO, both a faith-based
church and a social-change-based organization, governed by a foundation board of trustees
that has been able to keep “Church and State” separate from financial mixing, as required by
law. Kimochi and West Bay give us singular cultural-based, social-change-based
organizations, one serving Japanese-Americans and the other serving Pilipino-Americans.
West Bay also gives us an example of CBOs joining together to pursue and share resources.
RebuildingTogether gives us a national-based organization which charters a network of one
hundred sixty CBOs, one located in San Francisco - and calling into consideration whether its
chartered CBOs should be included in this definition.

3. The Definition of a CBO is basically the same as before. The differences depend on where
one places the organization chart for Rebuilding Together San Francisco, with its ties to
national, through its national charter arrangement
 133

Definition of a community-based organization

• Its main office is located in the same community as its work place.

• It controls its own destiny, within the constraints of various governmental rules and
regulations. It is not controlled by a state or national agency in the way that many local
health, welfare, and social chapters are formed and controlled by their national
charters.

• It has a well-defined policy-making board of directors, whose members are elected or

appointed by a well-defined constituency. In Domain Theory, these are called a
Governance/Operations Domain and a Constituency Domain.

• It has a well-defined management team or group of administrators, who have a well-

functioning command-and-control structure that governs the functioning of their
personnel. In Domain Theory, it is called an Operations Domain.

• It has a well-defined program development and delivery structure, with a well-

defined consumer base that is involved through participative planning, evaluation, and
feedback processes. In Domain Theory, these are called a Service Domain and a
Consumer Domain.

• It has well-defined processes for resolving personnel issues, and communications

cross domain lines on a regular basis. In Domain Theory, these are called a Union
Domain and a Conjoint Domain, respectively.

4. Environmental Forces have a more powerful impact on CBOs today than before .
Gentrification, for example, forces higher rents and higher costs of housing on to constituents,
forcing many to move to areas where housing costs are lower, which changes the nature o f the
constituency being served. Three o f the cases we studied demonstrated that the CBOs had to
change the location of and delivery of their services to more adequately serve the constituents
who were forced to move. Other forces with disruptive impacts include homelessness, hunger,
and poor health, and increases in the minimum hourly wage, which raises the cost of the
services delivered. Even the Political Party in Power can exercise influence in determining
who can obtain resources from City Hall for serving their constituencies.

5. Spheres of Influence.. This is a more useful description o f the forces that shape the
behavior of CBOs than is the term, “domain theory.” The many figures or graphics that
 134

highlight this dissertation help display the concept of “spheres” more effectively than the
concept of “domain.”

6. Personality-Driven Leadership rather than Mission-Driven Leadership. Long-term

leadership is a force that must be addressed. The two powerful leaders of GLIDE Memorial
have presided for nearly fifty years; the leader of Kimochi has presided for forty-four years. In
addition, the powerful leader of the Pilipino community who brought about a merger o f six
CBOs to form the West Bay Pilipino CBO of today. All have used their leadership skills and
longevity to do good for their constituencies.

7. Dual-purpose CBOs. These CBOs are more effective than single-purpose CBOs. GLIDE
Memorial is an excellent example of a dual-purpose CBO, functioning as a church on the one
hand and as a social-change-based CBO on the other.

8. Cultural-based CBOs. Cultural-based CBOs can be thought o f as dual-purpose CBOs.

Kimochi, Inc. has very close ties to the elderly Japanese-American seniors they serve. West
Bay Pilipino Multi-Serve has close ties to the Pilipino community, particularly the ones who
immigrated into the SoMA district of San Francisco and are in basic need of human and social
services.

9. The Power o f the Constituency. The constituency is a powerful sphere of influence, forcing
Kimochi to relocate some basic services to Japanese-Americans from Japantown in San
Francisco to Japanese Americans who are relocating to the San Mateo Peninsula area, where
high housing and rental costs hve forced them to relocate. GLIDE Memorial has seen some
persons move from the Tenderloin district and are beginning to think about relocating some
services elsewhere in San Francisco. Also contributing to this trend is the fact that newer
social-change-based projects are being developed to serve youth who live with their parents
elsewhere in San Francisco. West Bay Pilipino has also noted that some of its constituents are
being forced out of SoMA into other districts and elsewhere in the Bay Area. Rebuilding
Together San Francisco has its constituency identification settled for it. Because of its
 135

relationship to its national organization, RTSF’s constituency has been established to be

within the boundaries of the City and County o f San Francisco, and is not likely to change.

10. Key Events._Based on our study group, all successful CBOs have a successful Annual
Key Event that is a source both of funds and of positive publicity. GLIDE Memorial has its
Annual Auction for Lunch with Warren Buffett; Kimochi has its Annual Spirit Awards; RTSF
has its National Rebuilding Day; and West Bay carries out its Annual Distinguished Pillipino
Citizens Award,

11. The Moral Commitment of Volunteers is Impressive. Impressive, also, is the large
numbers of volunteers brought together to provide services to beneficiaries, day in and day
out. Their moral commitment to that service helps contribute to the prevention or early
resolution of whatever roles and functions issues that may occur. This suggests that volunteers
and staff are less likely to push for the resolution of work issues by the exercise of strikes than
might otherwise be the case. Competency is more important than credentials for most o f the
tasks performed. Faith-based or cultural-based volunteers or staff may be more committed to
their service. GLIDE Memorial is a church; Kimochi serves elderly Japanese-Americans; and
West Bay serves incoming (to San Francisco) Pilipinos. RTSF’s volunteer issues are
organized around skilled-and-unskilled roles, because of the construction-type services
provided, whereas the other CBOs provide social services and deal with credentialed vs.
certification issues.

12. Collecting Feedback Data from Constituencies and Beneficiaries is done well and
routinely. What is impressive is the data collection which the CBOs are able to collect
regarding the needs and interests o f their constituents, and the quality feedback from their
beneficiaries regarding the nature and extent of the services delivered.

13. A National Organization Presents an Interesting Model of CBOs Helping Each Other.
RTSF manages a network o f one hundred sixty CBOs around the country. It has devised a
“Best Practices” tool that enables the CBOs chartered to it to learn from each other, in terms
o f developing and delivering quality services to its constituents.
 136

14. Conjoint practices are more routine, leading to member participation in organizational
decision making.

15. Special Events. Each of the four CBOs have at least one annual event that celebrates the
CBO’s mission and purpose. Most are tied to fund-raising events. They feature constituents
celebrating their CBOs. These events for the four CBOs have become so successful that they
have become Spheres of Influence in themselves. Glide’s annual “Auction for Lunch with
Warren Buffett” is an example. Every year it raises significant amounts o f money and brings
positive publicity about and to the organization.

16. Charters. RTSF is a charter extension of its national counterpart. According to the current
definition of a CBO it would not be considered one. However, a special case could be made for
including it. While it depends on its national office for its charter to operate, it has such tools
as “Best Practices” and “Standards of Excellence” to strengthen its operations.

17. Political support.. The support of local political parties is important for providing grants
and services that support the mission of the CBOs.

18. Beneficiaries. CBOs have a much closer relationship with their beneficiaries than was the
case before, and they have a better understanding of their needs and interests.

19. Unions. None of the four CBOs in our study had a union or employee association to deal
with. Part of this is due to the moral commitment that the staff and volunteers make to their
respective mission, and part is due to heavy use of competency-based volunteers who donate
physical skills rather than knowledge to their CBO missions.

20. Social sciences. The social and behavioral science technologies for improving the roles and
functions of CBOs is encompassed within the broader framework of Organizaetion
Development.
 137

21. IT._Informatiion Technology is an important factor in enabling the CBOs to assess the
needs of and interests of their constituencies, and the effectiveneess of the services provided to
their beneficiaries.

22. A single domain?_A single domain CBO, such as was attempted by Dr. Joel Fort (see Fort
Help case study, page 24), cannot operate effectively. The tasks required, such as meeting legal
requirements, raising funds, and providing services would have to be carried out by someone,
as Dr. Fort found out. As he noted, “If I had it to do over again, I would have included a
policy-making board of directors.”
 138

C. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are presented:

1. Prepare and submit an article to a professional journal, such as the The Journal o f Applied
Behavioral Science, introducing the findings o f this dissertation.

2. If there is not already a course or seminar on the “Principles and Practlices of Community-
Based Organizations” in San Francisco, being conducted by Golden Gate University or San
Francisco State University, for example, then there should be one. There are several hundred
CBOs in San Francisco, alone. The people who move up through governance/operations in
their organizations could benefit from the professional insights they would gather from such an
educational experience.

3. Conduct a leadership study of GLIDE Memorial’s Rev. Cecil Williams and Janice
Mirikitani, and Kimochi’s Steve Nakajo. This is a rare opportulnity to study the persons who
have been in office for such a long time and who have been so effective.

4. MindTools.com professes to offer an individual assessment tool on improving one’s skills in

influencing the behavior of others. This could be an important instrument for use in training
programs. It would link individual and organizational spheres of influence.

5. Although it was not an intent of this study to consult with any one of the four CBOs that
took part, an opportunity is provided. The review of the bylaws of the West Bay Pilipino Multi
Serve, Inc. revealed a potential problem with respect to the position of board o f directors: there
was no provision within the bylaws for the removal of a director after an oppropriate number
o f terms of office. That should be corrected.
 139

D. AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Several problems were identified during the course of this dissertation that would improve our
understanding of how CBOs are influenced, if additional studies were conducted. Some of
them are as follows:

1. What are the generic functions of all or most CBOs, and how can these be identified and
described?

2. What would be the equivalent of RTSF’s “Best Practices” and “Standards of Excellence” for
CBOs in general?

3. What can be learned from the long-term leadership examples in our study sample that would
benefit all CBOs?

4. What are the facets that emanate from Environmental Forces and how can they be modified
so that community leaders can work with them proactively rather than reactively?

5. What are the “moral values” that bind volunteers to the missions of their CBOs, and how can
these values be enhanced?

6. What changes would you make to the “definition o f a CBO” in order to keep
RTSF as a member?
 140

APPENDICES
 141

A P P E N D IX A L IT E R A T U R E R E V IE W E D

Beaulieu, E.M. (2002). A Guide fo r Nursing Home Social Workers. New York: Springer
Publishing Company.

This study provides insight into social workers’ spheres of influence and
distinguishes between the relative influence o f social workers who provide only
direct social services and those whose roles include administrative
responsibilities. Administrative responsibilities augment the influence of the
social work role.

Beckhard, R. (1969) “Organization Development Network,” Organization Development,

Strategies, and Models. New York.

Dr. Beckhard is one o f the early founders o f the Organization Development

Network and discipline.

Bielfeld, W. & Cleveland, W. S. (2013). Defining Faith-Based Organizations and

Understanding Them Through Research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly. 42.3.

The welfare reform discussions of the 1990s fostered a debate about the proper
relationship between faith-based organizations and the government, based on
numbers o f articles published.

This article focused on the frequency and span of publications, as well as the
definitions and types of organizations formed.

Burke, W.W. (2014). Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications.

Dr. Burke is one o f the founders of the Organization Development profession,

with a recent textbook on the arts and sciences o f the profession.

Bolander, J. (2011). Calculating Your Organization’s Center of Influence. The Daily

MBA.

“Your organizational Center of Influence is important to calculate since it’s really

the center of your organizational universe.” This article suggests that an
organization has only one Center and that it is related to factors other than
“behavior.”

Carlsmith, J. (2013). Expanding Men in Progress: A Report on Anti-violence training at

Glide. Program Evaluation document. In-house, at Glide Memorial.
 142

Descriptions o f both measurement of problems among Glide’s constituency, and

of services delivered to Glide’s beneficiaries.

Cassandro, A.J., & Allen, M.L., & eight others (2015). A Tale of Two Community
Networks Program Centers: Operationalizing and Assessing CBPR Principles and
Evaluating Partnership Outcomes. In Progress in Community Health
Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. Vol. 9, Special Issue.

The authors sought to describe the development of surveys on adherence to and

implementation of CBPR/CE principles at two CNP centers and examine
commonalities and differences in program-versus project-level CBPR evaluation.

Chudoir, S.R. & Dugan, A.G. & Barr, C.H. (2013). Health Innovations: A Systematic
Review o f Structural, Organizational, Provider, Patient, and Innovation Level
Measures. Worcester, MA, College of the Holy Cross.

He authors conducted a systematic literature review to identify articles reporting

the use or development of measures designed to assess constructs that predict the
implementation of evidence-based health innovations.

Clagett, B. (2013). “Who Are Your Centers o f Influence? CU Insight.

“Centers of Influence” are those people (or organizations) that can boost your
market access and creditability through referrals, testimonials, and simple,
undervalued word o f mouth.”

The focus of this study is on individual groupings of people, rather than on

“marketing,” as such.

Dappen, L. D. & Gulkin, T.B. “Domain Theory: Examining the validity of an

organizational theory with public school personnel. (1986), Professional School
Psychology, Vol. 1 (4) pp. 257-265.

(From abstract.) This study examined the validity of the Domain Theory (J.
Kouzes and P. Mico, 1979) with public school personnel. The theory suggest that
viewing human service institutions in terms of three distinct domains (policy,
management, and service) helps to explain and predict many individual and group
behaviors.

Doh, J.P. (2009). Nongovernmental Organizations. New Haven. Princeton University

Press.

Doh defines NGOs as “private, not-for-profit organizations that aim to serve

particular societal interests by focusing advocacy and/or operational efforts on
social, political, and economic goals, including equity, education, health,
environmental protection and human rights, a vehicle used by NGOs to advance
their agenda by shareholder activism.
 143

Goodman, P.S. & Ramanujam, R. (2013) “The Relationship Between Change Across
Multiple Organizational Domains and the Incidence of Latent Errors,” The
Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science. June, 49: (pp. 263-271).

The authors examined the relationship between types of organizational change

across multiple domains. “Domains” was defined as “employees structure, and
technology, rather than the interpersonal behaviors associated with Mico’s case
studies and interpretations.

Harder & Company Community Research (2010). Strengthening the Partnership ”

Recommendations fo r the City and CBOs.

Effective engagement between the City (San Francisco), CBOs and its CBO
partners. City and CBO partnerships reflect values of responsiveness,
transparency, quality and service.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management o f Organizational Behavior: Utilizing

Human Resources. New York, Prentice Hall.

Focus on the development of change forces, such as training and technical

assistance, but not on Centers of Influence, which was yet to be introduced into
the literature by Mico and Kouzes.

Jacques, E.H. (1976). A General Theory o f Bureaucracy. New York, Halstead Press.

More o f a linear theory treatment of organizational change than the

focus on Centers of Influence, as in this study.

KQED TV, Channel 9. (2014) PBS News Hour, San Francisco.

“There are 6,400 Charter Schools in the U.S. Today.” Data stated as part of a
Public Television segment on Charter Schools, December 8. Charter Schools are
community-based organizations, as defined in this study.

KQED TV, Channel 9, (2014). The Chronicle o f Philanthropy, Non-Profit Technology

Network

This commentary regarded the “ice bucket challenge” that was the rage on TV
last year, with people making contributions to ALS Lou Gehrig’s Disease for
having buckets of ice water dumped over them. The ALS organization, which
normally has problems meeting its fundraising goals, received over $220,000,000,
and didn’t have to do anything except receive the money. Online fundraising
continues to grow, but is difficult to estimate.
 144

Kouzes, J.M. & Mico, P.R. (1979). Domain Theory: An Introduction to Organizational
Behavior in Human Service Organizations. The Journal o f Applied Behavioral
Sciences, Nov. Dec., (pp. 449-469).

This is the original article that introduced Domain Theory to the literature.

Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational Change: Creating Change Through Strategic

Communication. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lucchesi, P. (2015). “Glide’s Free Meals Program Gets a Giant Helping Hand.” San
Francisco Chronicle, pp. A-l A-8.

This newspaper article announces a $500,000 makeover of Glide Memorial’s free

meals program and kitchen. Glide serves more than 2,000 meals a day. The rising
cost of food, utilities and salaries have forced Glide to cut back from a million
meals a year to 900,000 meals.

Madden, S.J. (1995). A Test of Domain Theory in Hospitals: A Study of Organizational

Communication.” (1995) Dissertation Archives Paper. #2846.

(1) This study identifies a subunit or group to employees in hospital organizations

that has not been previously explored (2) the distinctions between domains may
provide a middle level analysis that could improve organizational search and
organizational effectiveness; and finally (3) the combination of interpersonal and
organizational theory allows for a more thorough and complete picture of the
organization and its internal population.

Mico, P.R. (1981) Developing Your Community-Based Organization. Oakland. Third

Party Publishing Company.

Domain Theory was introduced to community organizers in a self-study format.

Mico, P.R. & Kouzes, J.M. (1981). A Domain Theory Analysis of the Fort Help
Experience. In Fort, J. & Salin, L. To Dream the Perfect Organization, Oakland,
(pp. 87-98).

Mico, P.R. & Kouzes, J.M. (1980), “What Makes Us Run? Domain Theory Applied to
Youth Services Organizations.” New Designs fo r Youth (5), pp. 1-5.

Introducing Domain Theory to a specific population of human services

professionals.
 145

Mico, P.R., & Kouzes, J.M., & Bergthold, G.D. (1980). In Sourcebook, Vol. I and Vol.
II. Chap. 1, Domain Theory: An Introduction to Organizational Behavior in
Human Service Organizations, pp. 1-24, and Chap 3, Domain Theory: An
Experiential Exercise, pp. 12-19.

Introduction o f Domain Theory to a population of Human Services professionals.

Miner, J.B. (2002). Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses. New
York: Oxford University OPress.

National Community-Based Organization Network (2004), Washington, DC.

Defines a Community-Based Organization as one that is driven by community

residents in all aspects of its existence.

Northern California Community Loan Fund, The Prime Buyer’s Report, (2015.

Lists the top 10 Community and Non-Profit Organizations in San Francisco.

Senge, P. (1990). “The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,” in The New
Paradigm in Business: Emerging Strategies fo r Learning and Organizational
Change. (Eds. Ray, M. & Rinzler, H.) New York, Jeremy P. Thatcher.

Describes systems thinking as understanding how our actions shaped our reality.
’’Small changes in one variable can cause huge changes in another.” This is about
as close as we could get to our idea of Spheres of Influence.

Speers, P.W. & Perkins, D.D. (2002) Community-Based Organizations, Agencies and
Groups. In J. Guthrie (ED) Encyclopedia o f Education, 2nd edition, p. 431. New
York, Maximillian Reference, USA.

Provides an historical note regarding the formation of CBO: Following the

American Civil War, there was aa rapid rise in the number of charitable agencies
designed to lend assistance to those displaced, disabled, or impoverished by the
war.

Tucker, J. (2015). ‘Tenderloin’s Respite From the Seedy Side,” San Francisco
Chronicle, July 13, pp. C-l, C-3.

Describes conditions in the Tenderloin District (Glide Memorial’s constituency).

Changes in the environmental forces affecting the Glide constituency.
 146

University of Maryland, Health Sciences and Human Services Library (2011).

Community-Based Organization Defined. Baltimore.

Defines a CBO as representative of a community or a significant segment of a

community, and is engaged in meeting human, educational, environmental, or
public safety community needs.

USLegal, (2012). Community-Based Organization Law & Legal Definition.

20 USCS 7801 (6).

Defines the term, CBO, as a “public or private nonprofit organization of

demonstrated effectivemess that is representative of a community and provides
services to individuals in the community.”

www.MindTools.com (2014). Enlarging Your Sphere o f Influence in Your Organization:

Your Learning and Development Guide to Getting People on Your Side.

This website promotes the sale and use of a training tool designed to improve
one’s ability to influence others.

Williams, C. & Mirikitani, J. (2013). Beyond the Possible: 50 Years o f Creating Radical
Change at a Community Called Glide. HarperColls and HarperOne. New York.

History of Glide Memorial and of its leaders, Cecil Williams and Janice
Mirikitani.

Williams, C., with Laird, R. (1992). No Hiding Place: Empowerment and Recovery fo r
Our Troubled Communities. New York. HarperCollins Publishers.

History of Rev. Cecil Williams and of Glide Memorial Church.

Williams, C. (1980). I ’m Alive! An Autobiography. San Francisco. Harper and Row,

Publishers.

Autobiographical History of Rev. Cecil Williams and Glide Memorial Church.

 147

APPENDIX A. 1 REFERENCES, GLIDE MEMORIAL CASE STUDY

Books:

Williams, C. & Mirikitami, J. (2013). Beyond the Possible: 50 Years

o f Creating Radical Change at a Community Called Glide. New York.
HarperCollins Publishers.

Williams, C., With Laird, R. (1992). No Hiding Place: Empowemment and Recovery
fo r Our Troubled Communities. New York. HarperCollins Publishers.

Williams, C. (1980). I ’m Alive: An Autobiography. New York. Harper & Row,

Publishers.

Staff Documents, Unpublished

Carlsmith, Joe. Expanding Men in Progress: A Report on Anti-Violence Training at

Glide. Program Evaluation. (Forwarded by James Lin, 3/15/13)

Organization Chart, March 15, 2013. (Forwarded to author by James Lin, 3/15/13)

GLIDE Annual Evaluation Survey 2012, Glide Efforts-to-Outcome Data base, San
Francisco Health Plan, Bay Area census.ca.gov.

On-line sources:

www.glide.org
 148

APPENDIX A.2 REFERENCES, KIMOCHI CASE STUDY

1. Staff documents:
a. Kimochi San Mateo Campaign Update
b. Services
c. Kimochi Historical Development
d. Kimochi History
e. Our Board of Directors
f. Kimochi, Inc. Continuing the Japanese Tradition of Care and Support for
Seniors
g. Kimochi History and Philosophy
h. Club Nikki
i. Background
 149

APPENDIX A.3 REFERENCES, REBUILDING TOGETHER SAN FRANCISCO

CASE STUDY

Sources, Staff Documents:

1. RTSF Goals and Objectives, by Rachel Fontenot
2. Organizational Chart, 2015
3. Annual Report, 2012
4. Budget, 2015
5. Form 990, 2012
6. Website: www.rebuildingtogethersf.org
 150

APPENDIX A. 4 REFERENCES, WEST BAY PILIPINO MULTI SERVE CASE

STUDY

1. Bylaws of The West Bay Pilipino Multi-Service, Inc., as specified in the Articles of
Incorporation filed with the Secretary of State of the State o f California, April 04, 1998,
as amended 9/29/12.
2. Interviews with, and handout materials provided by the Executive Director of West
Bay, Vivian Zalvidea Araullo. Monday, March 2, 2015 and March 25,2015.
3. Figures 1-4.
4. Postings on the website for West Bay:
APIFRN: Asia Pacific Islander Family Resources Network
NFFAA: National Federation o f Filipino American Associations
West Bay: About us. Meet the Staff
West Bay: Recent Posts
West Bay: Impact
West Bay: Partners, SYC
West Bay: Nonprofit Stories
 151

APPENDIX B: PARTIAL LIST OF CBOS IN SAN FRANCISCO

API Wellness Center 415-409-4101

American Jewish Committee 415-777-3820
121 Steuart, SF 94105
American Indian Film Organization
Asian-Pacific Legal Outreach
Banneker Homes 415-400-4103
725 Fulton, SF 94102
Bayview Hunters Point Beacon 415-337-6742
400 Mansell, SF 94134
Community United Against Violence 415-777-5500
427 Van Ness Ave., SF 94102
California State Friendship Committee 415-989-9989
636 Jackson, SF 94133
Community Counseling 415-392-0391
100 Montgomery St., 94104
Episcopal Community Service of San Francisco
Gilman Rec Connect 415-468-4098
825 Ingerson Ave., SF 94124
Glide Memorial
Human Rights Campaign
JBR Partners, Inc. 415-970-9051
1333 Evans Ave., SF 94124
Japanese Community Youth Council 415-202-7900
2012 Pine St., SF 94115
Japanese Cultural & Community Center
of Northern CA 415-920-1730
1740 Cesar Chavez, SF 94124
Nihonmachi Street Fair 415-771-9861
1581 Webster, SF 94115
On Loc
Recess Urban Recreation 415-701 -7529
470 Caroline, SF 94107
Renaissance Parents O f Success 415-837-1786
1245 Northpoint Drive., SF 94130
San Francisco Aids Foundation
San Francisco Community Power Coop 415-626-8746
2325 Third, SF 94102
San Francisco Community Center 415-467-1929
2798 San Bruno Ave., SF 94134
San Francisco Immunization Coalition
San Francisco Kroc Center 415-345-3400
240 Turk, SF 94102
Somcan 415-348-1945
 152

1070 Howard St., SF 94103

Southeast Community Development Corp 415-467-1115
5 Thomas Mellon Circle, SF 94134
T. Simpson 415-564-1016
120 Magellan Ave., SF 94116
The TLC Family Resource Center 415-822-9404
1601 Lane, SF 94124
The Tides Foundation Trust for Public Land 415-561-6400
101 Montgomery, SF 94104
Victory Outreach, San Francisco Central 415-834-5605
2982 Mission, SF 94110
Visitation Valley 415-859-5198
50 Raymond Ave., SF 94134
YMCA Of San Francisco Urban Services 415-563-8017
1426 Fillmore, SF 94115
Yerba Buena Community Benefit District 415-644-0728
5 Third, SF 94103
 153

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY RESUME’

PAUL R. MICO
6933 Armour Drive
Oakland, CA 94611-1317

Oct. 12, 1924. Bom, Dennison, Ohio. First Generation, Italian-American. Father a railroad laborer.
1942 Graduated, Dennison High School.
1943-1945 U.S. Army. Staff Sgt., 29th Infantry Division. Campaigns: Normandy/DDay, Northern
France, Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes), Rhineland.
1946 Married Mary Cummings, five children (divorced 1964).
1946-1949 B.S. in Physical Education, The Ohio State University (GI Bill).
1949-1950 M.A. in School Health, The Ohio State University (GI Bill).
1951-1956 Community Organizer, Tuscarawas Co. Tuberculosis and Health Association, Dover,
Ohio. Promoted Grade-A milk program, health levies, mental health clinic, chest x-ray
organizing, weekly radio program and weekly newspaper column on Health.
1956-1959 Director of Health Education, Wyoming State Dept, o f Health, Cheyenne, WY. Promoted
State-wide program of mental health services, public health programs, Indian Health, etc.
1957-1958 M.P.H. in Public Health, U.C. Berkeley School of Public Health. (U.S. Public Health
Service scholarship).
1959-1962 Field Director, Navajo Health Education Project, Tuba City, AZ and Lecturer, U.C.
Berkeley School of Public Health, Berkeley, CA.
1962-1964 Director, Community Action Studies Project, National Commission on Community Healt
Services, Bethesda, MD. Developed and field tested Comprehensive Health Planning
methodology (PL 89-749).
1964-1966 Director of Health and Social Planning, ABCD (Action for Boston Community
Development), Boston, MA. Helped develop Neighborhood Health Center model used b>
Sen. Kennedy for his national legislation.
1966-1971 President, Social Dynamics, Inc. Boston MA. Human relations training.
1971 -1974 Director, Center for MacroSystem Change, National Training Laboratories, Washington,
DC. Training program for activist Hawaiian-Americans, etc.
Mar. 16,1974. Married Dr. Helen S. Ross, Chair. Dept, of Health Sciences, San Jose State University.
We reside in Oakland, CA.
1974-present. President, Third Party Associates, Oakland, CA. Organization development, strategic
planning, conflict management.
1997-present. President, InQ Educational Materials, Oakland, CA. Training materials.

1980-1990 Doctoral Program in Public Administration, Golden Gate University, SanFrancisco.

Completed course work and exams. Dissertation time ran out.
2014 Readmitted into GGU doctoral program to complete dissertation.
2015 Completed doctoral studies. Received D.P.A. (Doctor o f Public Administration). Golden
Gate University, San Francisco, CA.
 154

APPPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORMS FOR USES OF CASE

STUDIES IN DOCTORAL RESEARCH

1. Glide Memorial

2. Kimochi, Inc.

3. Rebuilding Together San Francisco

4. West Bay Pilipino Multi-Service

 155

APPENDIX E

Doctoral Program in Public Administration

Golden Gate University
Paul R. Mico, Student

INTERVIEW FORM

Name of CBO____________________________ Date of Interview_______________

Name o f Respondent Position held in CBO Years with CBO

a.__________________ ______________________ _______________

b .__________________ ______________________ _______________

c .__________________ _______________________ _______________

GENERAL

1. What is the history of your CBO and what do you consider it to be your CBO’s main
purpose?

A. ENVIRONMENT DOMAIN OR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

2.What are the most significant state and national socio-economic-political forces
affecting your CBO?

3. How do these forces affect your CBO the most?

 156

B. LEADERSHIP

4. Who are the leaders in your CBO and how is their leadership displayed?

5. How is your CBO organized and administered?

C. CONSTITUENCY

6. How are the CBO’s constituency needs and interests understood and adopted?

D. GOVERNANCE

7. Does the Board influence the staff and, if so, how?

8. Does the staff influence the Board and, if so, how?

9. Do you believe that the CBO is being governed approprately? Explain:

10. How does Policy get made and implemented by the CBO?

E OPERATIONS

11. How does the CBO organize and deliver its services?
 157

F. STAFFING

12. What problems, if any, are there between the professional staff and the
nonprofessional volunteers?

13. If there are problems, how are they resolved?

G. BENEFICIARIES

14. Who benefits from the CBO’s services and how do they benefit?

OTHER