Scholars and practitioners have argued that effective financial management, particularly the development of operating reserves, can help nonprofits survive economic shocks. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a significant impact on the nonprofit sector, provides an opportunity to test whether nonprofits have followed that recommendation, and if so, whether nonprofits with operating reserves were better prepared for the pandemic. Using data from an original survey of more than 600 nonprofit human service and arts organizations, administered when most states had stay-at-home restrictions, we show that most nonprofits experienced an immediate impact on their programs and financing. Yet, those nonprofits with more reserves were less likely to reduce operating hours, lose staff, or experience difficulty acquiring supplies or vendor services. Our study provides rare empirical data on the benefits of operating reserves for nonprofits. Our results also confirm that arts and culture nonprofits were more severely affected than human service nonprofits.

No abstract

In recent years, arts and culture nonprofits have sought to make themselves more relevant to community issues by engaging in advocacy. Based on survey data drawn from a national sample of arts nonprofits, this study compares the different levels of advocacy carried out by all arts nonprofits and by minority-led arts nonprofits. To explain the varying levels of advocacy, this study focuses on the diversity of an organization’s constituents and its surrounding community, as well as the ethnic or racial identity and the professional background of its leader. Our results indicate that constituent and community racial and ethnic compositions are associated with the level of advocacy at arts nonprofits. Also, arts nonprofits with leaders who have been in the arts industry for a significant time are more likely to be engaged in advocacy than otherwise similar organizations. We discuss the implication of diversity and professional leadership on arts nonprofits’ advocacy.

Keywords: advocacy , nonprofit , theoryNONPROFIT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS-and the leaders who lead them-have become central players in American political and policy processes by helping to connect citizens with their elected officials and other decision makers. These groups also help to frame issues, educate voters and other interested parties on the issues before them, and mobilize members of the public to take action (Berry 1993 ;Berry and Arons 2005 ;Child and Grønbjerg 2007 ;Jenkins 2006 ;Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995 ). However, the inner workings of these organizations, or how leaders make decisions in these organizations, are not well understood. Previous studies on nonprofit management and decision making focused mostly on the organization ' s board of directors rather than the executive or president. Additionally, nonprofit advocacy organizations are rarely evaluated independently as a discreet subsector in the wider nonprofit community. This article addresses these gaps in the literature by developing a new theoretical framework that may be used to better understand how and why organizations-or more specifically, their leaders and executives-make decisions on organizational activities, structure, and strategy in an environment with multiple stakeholders.Through the insights offered by agency theory (Eisenhardt 1989 ;Jensen and Meckling 1976 ), I use an extension of agency theory called common agency (Bernheim and Whinston

Since the early 1990s, diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts have received increasing attention among management scholars. Although the benefits and challenges of implementing D&I practices are now well established, few studies have explored the extent to which nonprofit associations, in particular, engage in D&I efforts. As such, we have no knowledge of the role that associations play in assisting with the diffusion of these practices throughout their respective professional fields or trades. Therefore, using a national survey of over 150 executives of nonprofit associations, this study explores the institutional and resource-based challenges associations face when seeking to implement D&I practices, both within their organizations and throughout their professional fields and trades. While the findings from this study suggest that nonprofit associations only engage in D&I practices to a modest degree, there is also evidence of institutional entrepreneurship. Implications of these findings for research on D&I practices in nonprofit associations as well as for association practitioners seeking to improve their D&I programming are provided.

The influence of nonprofit leaders in organizational advocacy strategies and outcomes has not been fully explored in the literature, despite the recognition that political or policy entrepreneurs are crucial to the American policy process. These leaders are placed squarely in the political arena with other political elites, including elected officials, and this study uses a common agency framework to describe the ways in which leaders should be expected to leverage their own personal preferences in guiding their organization's behavior. Using data from a unique survey of nonprofit leaders in California, I measure the ways that a leader's personal values and characteristics -specifically their political ideology on a left-right spectrum -have an effect on the organization's advocacy efforts. Results indicate that political ideology is related to whether or not a leader identifies their group as one that engages in political or policy issues, and what types of tactics they use.

No abstract

PurposeMany empirical studies have focused on whether public funding leverages (crowds in) or discourages (crowds out) private giving behavior, finding mixed results. Recent studies suggest the need to examine how nonprofits adjust their fundraising efforts after experiencing cuts or increases in government funding, which can then influence donor behavior.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, the authors conduct an online survey experiment with nonprofit managers to test how nonprofits respond to changes in government funding.FindingsThe authors find some evidence that nonprofit organizations would change their fundraising expenses when facing cuts in government funding, yet the authors also find that the change could be either to increase or decrease fundraising spending. Since decisions are made by executive directors, the study also considered how executive personality type as maximizers or satisficers may interact with institutional and environmental constraints in decision-making. When funding goals are met, executives tend to behave as “satisficers” and are unlikely to make significant changes, even when their individual personality is more consistent with being a “maximizer.”Research limitations/implicationsThe authors find these results to be the reflection of the current environment in which many nonprofits operate, characterized by pressures to keep operating costs low. The results of the experiment have implications for both funding agencies and nonprofits that strive to enhance the capacity of nonprofit services.Originality/valueThis study is the first attempt to untangle the multilayered relationships between government funding, fundraising, leader preferences and personalities, and donations using an experimental approach with current nonprofit leaders.