The nonprofit starvation cycle is a debilitating trend of under-investment in organizational infrastructure that is fed by potentially misleading financial reporting and donor expectations of increasingly low overhead expenses. Since its original reporting in 2004, the phenomenon has been referenced several times, but seldom explored empirically. This study uses 25 years of nonprofit data to examine the existence, duration, and mechanics behind the nonprofit starvation cycle. Our results show a definite downward trend in reported overhead costs, reflecting a deep cut in administrative expenses partially offset by an increase in fundraising expenses. The organization’s size is instrumental to its behavior, with a sharp rise in reported overhead occurring when revenues equal $100,000, but diminishing at $550,000. Finally, the brunt of the cuts have fallen on nonexecutive staff wages and professional fees, which heightens the concern of potentially ill effects derived from a fixation on overhead cost reduction.

The ability of nonprofits to weather hard times is a popular theme in the literature, yet most of the research is spent on predicting organizational closure. Unfortunately, this offers little guidance to nonprofits attempting to both survive and deliver services during crises. We use the lived experiences of 31 nonprofits—a mix of umbrella groups and direct human service providers—during the Illinois state budget impasse to understand nonprofit organization resilience in times of crisis. We establish the Nonprofit Resiliency Framework using qualitative analysis, mapping tactics in five areas: financial, human resources, outreach, program and services, and management and leadership. This study not only provides further empirical investigation of organizational resilience, but also useful advice for nonprofits on how to weather a complex financial crisis.

Financial ratios are traditionally used to predict and diagnose financial vulnerability; this is helpful, but leaves unanswered how the vulnerable nonprofit should prioritize this information in order to survive. Using panel data, this empirical study observes the financial behaviors of distressed nonprofits for 4‐year periods where the first 2 years are financially vulnerable. Two definitions of vulnerability are tested: when liabilities exceed assets (insolvency) and when net assets shrink by more than 25% annually (financial disruption). In determining which nonprofits recover during the final 2 years, we find that the type of vulnerability impacts which financial indicators a nonprofit should target, and that common tactics such as improving profitability may be counterproductive. Finally, we do not find evidence for liabilities of newness or smallness in the statistical analysis.

The United States places great emphasis on the public administration–politics dichotomy, but what happens to public management when the dichotomy breaks down? The authors critically evaluate the public management frameworks, New Public Management and New Public Governance, in the context of two major public management failures: the U.S. State of Illinois Budget Impasse during 2015–2017 and the COVID-19 Pandemic. A definition of public management failure is proffered, and both public management frameworks are found to have polarized and opposing views on whether process or outcome should have priority in crisis. We question whether the two major seminal theories in our field are still generalizable when their assumptions about the dichotomy and political neutrality are challenged in times of crises. The polarized perspectives were found to contribute to the public management failures. Ultimately, both frameworks were found to minimize the political influences that public administration and public management operate under, leaving a need for a more holistic and realistic framework.

There is a robust literature examining financial vulnerability and demise of nonprofit organizations, particularly in the United States. However, much of this knowledge stems from inconsistent definitions of nonprofit demise. Using eight comparative case studies, this study revisits traditional definitions of nonprofit life and death to better reflect actual organizational operating status. Following this reclassification, findings from this study show that certain internal and external characteristics are more important in determining a nonprofit’s operational status. In particular, nonprofits whose missions involve a particular regulation are more likely to close due to mission completion or obsolescence; however, these nonprofits also tend to either reincarnate or expand scope if other factors are favorable. The findings also appear to show that the existence of conflict or competition with an outside entity boosts nonprofit cohesion. Internal tensions, however, are particularly harmful.