Search results

Previous research has found that nonprofit organizations pay lower wages than do other organizations. This has been attributed to altruism on the part of workers who are willing to donate some of the value of their time to organizations that support causes in which they believe. This paper extends that analysis to the cost of fringe benefits. Do nonprofit organizations spend less on fringe benefits than do other organizations? Utilizing a data set containing information on wages and fringe benefits in the nonprofit sector we estimate a standard wage equation to test for such a relationship. We find that not only are nonprofit organizations spending less on fringe benefits than are other organizations, but that they are spending significantly less than would be predicted by the previous research on nonprofit wage differentials.

By introducing business people to the frustrations of leadership roles in nonprofits and showing how executives with corporate experience have dealt with these challenges, the authors provide a guide for volunteers who serve as board members, executives, donors, consultants or partners in the nonprofit sector.

McKinsey & Company consultants interviewed executives who have served as both corporate and nonprofit leaders.

Corporate executives working with nonprofits need to take the time to get to know the organization and all its stakeholders before proposing any new practices or initiatives. They should avoid unilateral decisions – instead involving board, staff and key stakeholders as appropriate.

The sample interviewed was small, about a dozen top executives. However, as more corporate executive take leadership positions in nonprofits, there will be an opportunity to survey a much larger sample.

Business leaders serving as nonprofit board members will better understand their nonprofit roles. Donors will learn to use their financial clout to improve nonprofit performance. Cross‐sector partnerships – which are central to addressing society's most intractable problems – can anticipate and solve roadblocks caused by the nonprofit sector's different culture and demands. Top business executives will gain a better understanding of what makes the nonprofit world tick.

This article assesses the factors for nonprofit sector leadership success based on the first‐hand experience of top executives who have run major corporations.

The literature considers three main models of nonprofit sector structure and development: liberal, welfare partnership, and social democratic. This study analyzes the cases of Italian and Canadian nonprofit organizations (NPOs) that operate in two third-sector contexts, widely known as “hybrids.” In particular, we aim to verify whether some features of governance, leadership, and volunteer participation have impacts on the financial performances of selected Italian and Canadian NPOs.

Differences between the two studied nonprofit contexts influenced the sampling, the data collection, and the methods of analysis. Data on Italian and Canadian NPOs are analyzed both together and separately, using multiple regression models. Revenues, fund-raising and other grants from the general public, and program expenses are used as measurements of financial performance.

Our analysis demonstrates that some board characteristics, as well as volunteer participation and representation on the board, have impacts on the nonprofit financial performance. The characteristics of the CEO studied in this work are not significantly associated with the level of financial performance.

This study has several important implications for research on board characteristics, CEO characteristics and volunteer management and governance, as well as implications for practitioners. The limitations of this study are related mostly to the different methods used for sampling NPOs and collecting data in the two different country contexts due to the different level of availability of data.

The past literature has not adequately examined the relationships among the board and CEO characteristics, the role of volunteers in governance and financial performance.

Purpose – To examine the role of Latino community-based nonprofits in integrating first- and second-generation Latino immigrants into mainstream society.

Methodology/approach – This place-based study uses a mixed methods approach to analyze financial and administrative data from the National Center for Charitable Statistics and semi-structured interviews with organizational leaders.

Findings – Latino community-based nonprofits provide a wide range of programs and services to their constituents that promote the social and political mobility of Latino immigrants and their families. Findings also suggest a potential spatial mismatch between Latino-serving nonprofits and the people they serve. The organizations are concentrated in the Washington, DC metropolitan area while the Latino community is branching out into the outer suburbs of Maryland and Virginia. Moreover, different political and administrative structures and policies affect the ability of these nonprofits to serve their constituents.

Research limitations/implications – The study's geographic boundaries may limit the generalizability of spatial mismatch between Latino-serving nonprofits and their constituents. However, the findings about programs and services and the impact of political and administrative structures and policies can be applied to other immigrant-serving organizations.

Practical implications – Policy makers, elected officials, and other stakeholders can learn the importance of Latino and immigrant community-based nonprofits. These organizations act as bridges to the Latino and other immigrant communities.

Social implications – Latino and other immigrant community-based nonprofits are integral to the integration of immigrant communities as active and contributing members of wider society.

Originality/value of paper – This study looks at immigrant integration through the lens of community-based nonprofits.

Within the context of the nonprofit resiliency framework, the authors use nonprofit functional expenses and contribution revenue to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the ability of nonprofits in different subsectors to carry out their mission, as well as their ability to “pivot” fundraising strategies to integrate social media and digital engagement.

The authors use IRS form 990 return data for organizations with a year-end return that includes at least six months of COVID-19 impact (“Wave 1 Effects” period) and also have a prior-year return (“Business as Usual” period). The authors use Wilcoxon signed rank tests to examine whether there are differences in our variables of interest between the two periods.

While the majority of nonprofits in most subsectors experienced a significant decrease in program spending, fundraising spending and fundraising efficiency ratios between the two time periods, the authors found variation in the change in contribution revenue and fundraising ratio between the two periods between subsectors. The authors also find that the percentage of nonprofits able to “pivot” their fundraising strategies varies by subsector between 13.33 and 31.23%.

This paper provides new information regarding the pandemic's initial effect on nonprofit program and fundraising spending, the related contribution revenue and the ability of nonprofits to “pivot” fundraising to remote strategies. The authors propose a more robust fundraising efficiency measure and a new measure indicating a nonprofit's “ability to pivot” their fundraising strategy. The authors encourage future researchers to conduct further longitudinal studies to understand how these effects may continue or change.

This paper aims to demonstrate that Facebook likes affect outcomes in nonprofit settings. Specifically, Facebook likes influence affinity to nonprofits, which, in turn, affects fundraising outcomes.

The authors report three studies that establish that relationship. To examine social contagion, Study 1 – an auction field study – relies on selling artwork created by underprivileged youth. To isolate signaling, Study 2 manipulates the number of total Facebook likes on a page. To isolate commitment escalation, Study 3 manipulates whether a participant clicks a Facebook like.

The results show that Facebook likes increase willingness to contribute in nonprofit settings and that the process goes through affinity, as well as through Facebook impressions and bidding intensity. The total number of Facebook likes has a direct signaling effect and an indirect social contagion effect.

The effectiveness of the proposed mechanisms is limited to nonprofit settings and only applies to short-term effects.

Facebook likes serve as both a quality signal and a commitment mechanism. The magnitude of commitment escalation is larger, and the relationship is moderated by familiarity with the organization. Managers should target Facebook likes at those less familiar with the organization and should prioritize getting a potential donor to leave a like as a step leading to donation, in essence mapping a donor journey from prospective to active, where Facebook likes play an essential role in the journey. In a charity auction setting, the donor journey involves an additional step of bidder intensity.

The approach the authors study is shown effective in nonprofit settings but does not appear to extend to corporate social responsibility more broadly.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first investigation to map Facebook likes to a seller’s journey through signals and commitment, as well as the only investigation to map Facebook likes to charity auctions and show the effectiveness of this in the field.

This chapter reviews ethical challenges confronting nonprofit administration in relation to organizational managerial practices and leadership behaviors. Through a theoretical model of nonprofit-specific toxic leadership, it reviews the dynamics of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments in cases of unethical and corrupt nonprofit organizational behaviors. It provides a case for prioritizing oversight responsibilities of the board of directors, board supervision, promoting ethical culture in organizational leadership, and implementing policies for addressing destructive and corrupt nonprofit leaders. It reflects on how nonprofit toxic leadership primarily erodes public trust in the nonprofit sector and concludes with practical recommendations for recentering positive behaviors congruent with the nonprofit's social and public good mission.

Spirituality refers to the relationship that individuals have with something greater than themselves. It is an inner experience that includes a sense of transcendence, a connection to a higher power, or a sense of purpose or meaning. Nonprofit organizations can be defined as a unique category of organizations whose primary goal is not to make a profit. They represent a wide range of collective action and have long been collaborators with public governance systems in both developed and developing economies.

In the current socioeconomic structure, nonprofit organizations have become prominent policy actors, responsible for producing and distributing goods and services. To fulfill their responsibilities, these organizations rely on spirituality as a means of obtaining resources.

While contemporary nonprofit organizations have evolved from religious charities of the past, it would be incorrect to suggest that religious influences have disappeared completely. In fact, today's nonprofit organizations and charity sector exist on a spectrum that can be defined along a religious – secular axis, under the influence at different levels.

As modern nonprofit organizations are directly affected by contemporary organizational processes and principles, it is essential to examine spirituality in such organizations, regardless of whether they are religiously affiliated or not. This chapter examines the relationship between spirituality and nonprofit organizations, while also assessing their organizational effectiveness, career opportunities, leadership approaches, teamwork, job satisfaction and job dedication, in terms of spirituality and spiritual intelligence not only from a religious and cultural perspective, but also from an organizational one.

The nonprofit sector has come to deliver the majority of state-funded social services in the United States. Citizens depend on nonprofit organizations for these services, and nonprofits depend on government for financial support. Scholars have begun to ask important questions about the political and civic implications of this new organizational configuration. These questions have direct ramifications for the anti-prison movement given the explosive growth of nonprofit prison reentry organizations in recent years. To see how such organizations may impact political engagement and social movements, this chapter turns its focus on the intricate dynamics of client-staff interactions. Leveraging a yearlong ethnography of a government-funded prison reentry organization, I describe how such organizations can be politically active and at the same time contribute to their clients' political pacification. Staff members engaged in political activities in surrogate representation of their clients. While staffers advocated on their behalf, clients learned to avoid politics and community life, accept injustices for what they are, and focus instead on individual rehabilitation. By closely studying what goes on within a nonprofit service provider, I illustrate the nonprofit organization's dual political role and its implications for social movements and political change.

In 2009 and 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) adopted new accounting standards for nonprofit mergers and acquisitions. The new accounting standards are an example of the constitutive role accounting can play in how people think about economic events, since the FASB defined a new concept (the “inherent contribution”) and required valuation of intangible assets that were often previously unrecognized.

The FASB’s stated goals included minimizing “pooling” accounting and maximizing transparency regarding fair value information, acquired identifiable intangible assets, and the relation between consideration paid and the fair values of identifiable assets acquired. The FASB expected many combinations would involve little or no consideration. It also expressed concern that some organizations would undervalue assets acquired, especially intangible assets.

For a sample of 2012–2017 nonprofit hospital combinations, we find general agreement with the FASB’s expectations. Almost all combinations were accounted for as acquisitions, not mergers, even though there was frequently no consideration paid. More acquirers recorded “inherent contributions” than goodwill, because the net fair value of the acquired hospital’s identifiable assets exceeded the consideration paid. Acquirers ascribed value to assets, such as intangible assets, that would have gone unreported under the prior accounting rules, although lower levels of intangible assets were recognized in nonprofit business combinations, relative to total non-goodwill assets acquired, than in public companies’ acquisitions.