Competition,commercialization, and the evolution of nonprofit organizational structures

This article explores competition both in settings where nonprofits compete among themselves and where they compete with for-profits. Growing competition among nonprofits raises questions as to the impacts of this rivalry. How does competition affect nonprofit behavior and does it cause nonprofits to become more commercial in orientation? Does it alter organizational structures and does it cause nonprofits to become less focused on their charitable missions? The answers to these questions can influence public policy toward the nonprofit sector. A definition of competition is presented and Porter's five competitive forces are introduced and used to explore competition in nonprofit marketplaces. Conditions under which commercialization is likely to occur are discussed and the nature of competition is then examined in settings where nonprofits compete in mixed (for-profit/nonprofit) markets. Organizational structures from the health care industry are then used to highlight the evolving legal structures that nonprofits employ in competition with for-profits. Five policy implications of the analysis are examined and the need for additional information is highlighted.     

Differential taxation of nonprofits and the commercialization of nonprofit revenues

The effects of the favorable tax treatment of nonprofit commercial activities are best understood in a framework that explicitly accounts for a number of interactions. These involve differential taxation of nonprofits and for-profits and of nonprofits’ “related” and “unrelated” activities; the preferences of nonprofit executives who may be averse to commercial activity; donors whose giving may be sensitive to nonprofit organization commercial activity; and cost-complementarities between nonprofit core mission-related activities and their secondary money-raising efforts. Differential taxation encourages nonprofits to pursue otherwise avoided commercial ventures by providing excess financial returns that nonprofits can exploit because of their tax-exempt status. Data from the 1992 Statistics of Income (SOI) public use file of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form-990 returns indicate that the propensity of nonprofit organizations to undertake both tax-exempt and taxable activities depends on their primary mission-related output and size, the relative importance of government versus private contributions, and the size of the excess return created by differential taxation of nonprofit and for-profit business. Additional analyses of SOI data also show that organizations that engage in taxable commercial activities are likely to allocate joint costs in ways that reduce, and in most cases eliminate, their taxable income.     

The nonprofit advantage: Producing quality in thick and thin child care markets

Nonprofit child care centers are frequently observed to produce child care which is, on average, of higher quality than care provided in commercial child care centers. In part, this nonprofit advantage is due to different input choices made by nonprofit centers—lower child‐staff ratios, better‐educated staff and directors, higher rates of professional development for staff. Nonprofit centers may have an additional productivity advantage, due to unmeasured staff motivation and abilities or to better management of the production of good‐quality child care. However, where nonprofit and for‐profit child care firms compete in the same local markets, we speculate that this extra advantage should only appear where demand is sufficiently “thick” to permit a quality differentiation strategy to be financially viable for nonprofits. We estimate the effect of nonprofit status on quality, controlling for differences in financial resources available to the center, differences in the clientele served, and differences in staff and center inputs. In this conventional examination, nonprofit status has a moderately positive impact on quality. However, when we account for the unobserved heterogeneity and separate markets into “thick” and “thin,” a particularly strong nonprofit advantage is found in thick markets, but no productivity advantage for nonprofits is found in thin markets. This finding suggests a clear role for nonprofit organizations in improving the cost‐quality trade‐off faced by parents, but also identifies the market conditions that affect the ability of nonprofit managers to employ this advantage. © 2009 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

How does government funding affect nonprofits' program spending? Evidence from international development organizations

Under the new governance models, the scope of government funding of nonprofit activities in service delivery and policy implementation is extensive. There is a long‐standing concern that government funding may compromise nonprofit operations and lead to unintended consequences. This research examines the concern by exploring the effect of government funding on nonprofits' spending on programs and services. Existing theories and empirical evidence propose competing arguments concerning the relationship between government funding and nonprofits' program spending. Using a 20‐year panel dataset of international development nonprofits registered with the United States Agency for International Development, we find that nonprofits receiving more government funding spend significantly higher proportions of their organizational resources on development programs. Government funding seems to increase nonprofits' program spending and to make them more focused on their mission‐related activities.     

Nonprofit housing and neighborhood spillovers

Nonprofit organizations play a critical role in U.S. housing policy, a role typically justified by the claim that their housing investments produce significant neighbor‐hood spillover benefits. However, little work has actually been done to measure these impacts on neighborhoods. This paper compares the neighborhood spillover effects of city‐supported rehabilitation of rental housing undertaken by nonprofit and for‐profit developers, using data from New York City. To measure these benefits, we use increases in neighboring property values, estimated from a difference‐in‐difference specification of a hedonic regression model. We study the impacts of about 43,000 units of city‐supported housing completed during the 1980s and 1990s, and our sample of property transactions includes nearly 300,000 individual sales. We find that both nonprofit and for‐profit projects generate significant, positive spillover effects. This finding in itself is significant, given the widespread skepticism about the impact of subsidized housing on neighborhoods. We also find some differences across sectors. First, the impact of nonprofit housing remains stable over time, whereas the effect of for‐profit housing declines slightly with time. Second, while large for‐profit and nonprofit developments deliver similar benefits, in the case of small projects, for‐profit developments generate greater impacts than their nonprofit counterparts. These differences are consistent with theoretical predictions. In particular, in the presence of information asymmetries with respect to housing quality, the non‐distribution constraint should lead nonprofits to invest more than for‐profits in developing and maintaining features that benefit the broader community. Meanwhile, the fact that scale makes a difference to nonprofit impacts may reflect the capacity constraints often faced by smaller nonprofits. ©2006 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management     

Are Public Service Nonprofit Boards Meeting Their Responsibilities?

Public service nonprofit organizations have long been "partners" in the delivery of public services. Such nonprofit organizations are governed by boards, typically composed of citizen volunteers, that are expected to meet substantial standards of accountability and performance. Previous research has raised questions about how well such boards are meeting their responsibilities. A 2007 Urban Institute study, based on the first large representative sample of U.S. public benefit nonprofits, provides important evidence about the extent to which nonprofit boards are meeting certain accountability and performance standards.     

The Power of Nonprofits: Mechanisms for Nonprofit Policy Influence

The dramatic increase in public funding for nonprofit organizations has raised concerns about the potential disadvantages of a nonprofit sector that is too reliant on government funding. Using nonprofits to deliver public programs also presents risks for the public sector, but the question of nonprofit policy influence is largely absent from discussions of public–nonprofit service collaborations. The motivation for this article stems from the contradiction between the perceived weakness of publicly funded nonprofits and their potential for policy influence. This research asks, how do nonprofits exert policy influence? Using a grounded theory approach, the research draws on the attitudes and experiences of professionals and elected officials involved in policy making and policy implementation in the area of low‐income housing. The findings indicate a variety of mechanisms through which the government–nonprofit relationship can strengthen the power of nonprofit organizations, sometimes while weakening their government counterparts.     

What do nonprofit organizations seek? (And why should policymakers care?)

The objectives of nonprofit managers are not immediately apparent. Indeed, nonprofits may seek to maximize their level of service or their budgets, or they may have undefined or unstable objectives. This paper presents a theoretical model of managerial objectives that yields testable hypotheses, which I test using 2001 data on 190,000 American nonprofits. While there is substantial variation between different types of nonprofits, they generally approach a service maximization objective, but maintain fundraising budgets that are insufficient to meet this objective. These findings have significant implications for policy and nonprofit management. © 2005 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management     

Regulation by Reputation: Monitoring and Sanctioning in Nonprofit Accountability Clubs

Nonprofits seek to enhance their reputation for responsible management by joining voluntary regulation mechanisms such as accountability clubs. Because external stakeholders cannot fully observe nonprofits’ compliance with club obligations, clubs incorporate mechanisms to monitor compliance and impose sanctions. Yet including monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms increases the cost of club membership for nonprofits. What factors account for the variation in the strength of monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms in voluntary accountability clubs? An analysis of 224 clubs suggests that stringent monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms are more likely in fund‐raising‐focused clubs, clubs that offer certification (as opposed to only outlining a code of conduct), and clubs with greater longevity. The macro context in which clubs function also shapes their institutional design: clubs in OECD countries and clubs with global membership are less likely to incorporate monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms than clubs in non‐OECD countries and single‐country clubs, respectively.     

Internal and External Determinants of Formal Plans in the Nonprofit Sector

ABSTRACT

The study of formal planning in nonprofits and the public sector is thriving, with management gurus providing abundant advice on its value and proper execution. We address a related, but broader issue: why has the management tool of formal planning become prevalent in organizations with a public goal in the first place? To answer this question, we draw on insights from institutional theories of organization, bringing a fresh perspective to the increasingly common practice of formal planning in the administration of public entities. Using a unique dataset constructed from interviews with a random, representative sample of the leaders of 200 nonprofits in the San Francisco Bay Area, we analyze the factors associated with the presence of a formal plan. We combine the interview data with details on organizational characteristics from tax reports and consider the features of nonprofits that plan using logistic regression. The findings reveal that size and capacity are important, but links to an external, rationalized environment dampen the effects of both. Thus, functional factors, while important, are insufficient to explain why nonprofits engage in planning. For those interested in promoting formal planning as a management tool, our findings provide insight into other organizational features that promote the use of planning. And for those concerned with the potentially deleterious effects of this tool in the nonprofit sector, we show that certain types of organizations seem adept at maintaining a less formal structure.     

Preserving the low‐income housing stock: What nonprofit organizations can do today and tomorrow

Abstract

In recent years, nonprofit organizations involved in housing have multiplied in number and expanded the size and scope of their activities in low‐income housing preservation. Newly available data show that nonprofits now constitute a significant sector in the upgrading, maintenance, and management of affordable housing and continue to focus their efforts on serving those most in need. Analysis also indicates that the potential exists for significant further expansion of their activities in the short and medium term. While nonprofits cannot by themselves meet the enormous needs for preserving low‐income housing, they can be major contributors, particularly if carefully designed expansion of federal support for projects and operations comes to complement their current resources.     

Nonprofits as Local Government Service Contractors

Despite the growing role that contracts with nonprofits play in local service delivery, only limited attention has been directed to why some cities rely more on nonprofit organizations to produce services or how political institutions influence the role nonprofits play in service delivery. To investigate these issues, the authors present a transaction cost explanation that focuses on how political system characteristics and structures of service markets shape the costs of negotiating, monitoring, and enforcing contracts for local governments. The findings indicate that forms of government, mayoral turnover, racial segregation, and the market of nonprofit producers influence the role of nonprofits in delivering elder services, but decisions to contract exclusively with nonprofits are subject to different influences than decisions to jointly produce service with a nonprofit organization.     

Exploring the Role of Nonprofits in Public Service Provision: Moving from Coproduction to Cogovernance

This article investigates the determinants of nonprofits' involvement in cogovernance, or the planning and design of public services, using a unique data set of park‐supporting nonprofit organizations in large U.S. cities. The results indicate that nonprofits are more likely to get involved in cogovernance when they are younger, larger, and operate in communities that are more resourceful and stable. In addition, the likelihood of nonprofits' involvement in cogovernance is negatively associated with the level of social capital and government capacity to provide corresponding public services. The article points to an emerging mode of government‐nonprofit collaboration that goes beyond the production and delivery of public services. As public managers face extensive challenges in sustaining the desired level of public services, these findings have important policy implications for efforts to promote citizen participation and cross‐sector solutions to complex social problems.     

Comment on Langley C. Keyes et al.’s “Networks and nonprofits: Opportunities and challenges in an era of federal devolution”

Abstract

Housing markets are determined by a complex interplay of consumers and suppliers. The Keyes et al. article discusses the changing landscape for nonprofit housing providers and what recent developments in federal housing assistance policy will mean to them. But this perspective is too narrow to predict the effects of changes in federal housing policy because all housing providers are somewhat interrelated. All housing providers need to be considered, and using the terms “for‐profit” and “nonprofit” to distinguish between the two types of providers is unfortunate and misleading.

For‐profits and nonprofits are fundamentally different: They place a different emphasis on community, and nonprofits can often deliver subsidies that for‐profits cannot. In addition, the strengths and the skills needed to produce housing under somewhat different objectives have led to some specialization. Ultimately, however, determining the optimal provider or mix of providers is best left to local and state governments as federal housing assistance devolves.     

The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government

The nonprofit sector—neither private enterprise nor governmental—is growing rapidly, and not only in the United States. This article explores three questions about the sector, which includes large elements of such service industries as universities, hospitals, nursing homes, day-care centers, museums, social services, and organizations promoting medical research, environmental protection, and the arts. These questions are: (a) Why is the nonprofit sector expanding worldwide?; (b) How is the growth of nonprofits affecting other parts of the economy?; and (c) What evidence is there that nonprofits make a difference, that they perform functions which private firms or government cannot perform? A major theme is that the sector's growth necessitates finding ways to increase revenues, and that has brought side effects, particularly as nonprofits have become more and more “commercial.” In the process, borders between the nonprofit and both the for-profit and public sectors are being crossed increasingly, and with consequences that often pose problems.     

Comment on William M. Rohe and Rachel G. Bratt's “Failures,downsizings, and mergers among community development corporations”: Merger does not mean failure

Abstract

In response to the article by Rohe and Bratt in which mergers among community development corporations (CDCs) were viewed as one type of response to organizational “failures,” this comment makes the case that many nonprofit mergers arise from a variety of motivations other than organizational crisis. Mergers are increasingly strategic partnerships in which two or more nonprofits seek mutual advantages, such as a larger market share, better access to capital, and other longer‐term goals.

Mergers are most successful when relatively strong organizations analyze their circumstances and determine that they can best advance their missions through working together. A merger has limited utility in saving an organization in crisis. Rather, it is a tool for advancing the missions of different organizations by combining their strengths. The relationship is best entered into freely, after a great deal of consideration, and with reasonable expectations for both the work ahead and the potential payoff.     

Embedded Government Control and Nonprofit Revenue Growth

This research combines insights from resource dependence and institutional theories to examine the growth of Chinese nonprofit revenues. The authors propose the concept of embedded government control (EGC) to capture the complexity of the government–nonprofit relationship along two dimensions: government regulation of nonprofits’ public fund‐raising qualifications and the political embeddedness of nonprofits with the government. Using a data set of 2,159 Chinese philanthropic foundations for the period 2005–12, the authors test hypotheses about the implications of EGC for nonprofit revenues in China following two major external shocks: the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 and the Guo Meimei scandal in 2011. The empirical analysis shows that EGC can help philanthropic foundations obtain more government subsidies, donations, and market revenues. However, external shocks may either strengthen or weaken the enabling role of EGC in helping foundations acquire relatively more donations.     

Strategic Positioning and the Financing of Nonprofit Organizations: Is Efficiency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace?

This article addresses the question of whether operational efficiency is recognized and rewarded by the private funders that support nonprofit organizations in fields ranging from education to social service to arts and beyond. Looking at the administrative efficiency and fundraising results of a large sample of nonprofit organizations over an 11-year period, we find that nonprofits that position themselves as cost efficient—reporting low administrative to total expense ratios—fared no better over time than less efficient appearing organizations in the market for individual, foundation, and corporate contributions. From this analysis, we suggest that economizing may not always be the best strategy in the nonprofit sector.     

THE “INVASION” OF MANUFACTURED CIVIL SOCIETY: GOVERNMENT–NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIPS IN A BRAZILIAN STATE

The growth of the nonprofit sector in Brazil has been conceptually similar to that of the Anglo‐Saxon Third Way, where the government promotes the creation of partnerships with civil society. This process has been criticized for creating a “manufactured civil society”. This study will investigate whether the same pattern can be observed in the Brazilian context, particularly within the Management Shock Reform implemented by Minas Gerais, one of the principal Brazilian states. Management Shock is guided by a governmental partnership discourse that promotes contractual partnerships with both businesses and nonprofits. We opted for a bottom‐up oriented research approach, aiming to comprehend the rationale for initiating and sustaining the partnerships revealed in the narratives that emerged from both government and nonprofit partners. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and content analysis of documents and the media. Results show the predominance of agency‐type partnerships, highlighting the centrality of the government and its techno‐bureaucratic role in fostering and maintaining Organização da Sociedade Civil de Interesse Público or Civil Society Organization of Public Interest designs. Differing from the Anglo‐Saxon context, we observed the “invasion” of market‐driven values in nonprofits and, to some extent, in government narratives. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.