Operating reserves allow nonprofit organizations to smooth out imbalances between revenues and expenses, helping to maintain program output in the presence of fiscal shocks. We know surprisingly little about why nonprofits might save operating reserves and what factors explain variation between organizations' savings behavior. Findings suggest that operating reserves are reduced in the presence of concentrated public funds, access to debt, fixed assets, and endowment. However, size is not an important predictor, indicating that the lack of reserves is not limited to small nonprofit organizations but is instead a sectorwide issue. Significant numbers of nonprofits maintain no operating reserves at all. One potential explanation is that organizations discount the benefits of reserves because they are evaluated on spending, focusing instead on the “benefits of costs.” This preference for spending over reserving may also help explain the general lack of liquidity in the sector beyond operating reserves alone.

The static trade-off and pecking order capital structure theories are analyzed and applied to nonprofit organizations. In addition, this paper also considers how nonprofits adjust their leverage over time. The analyses consider the unique role of donor-restricted endowments in the decision to borrow, as well as different types of borrowing by nonprofits. The results indicate that nonprofit capital structure choices are best explained using the pecking order theory, in which internal funds are preferred over external borrowing. Further, nonprofit endowment is not found to increase leverage. Despite the unambiguous findings across varying definitions of leverage, the results also suggest that a "modified pecking order" is a more apt descriptor of nonprofit behavior.

Does current accumulated wealth by nonprofi t organizations infl uence contributions from individuals?Existing research demonstrates that fi nancial reserves aid program continuity during economic downturns. Yet donors, charity watchdogs, and policy makers voice concern about accumulated wealth in nonprofi ts. Th is empirical analysis examines whether the expected negative relationship occurs when donors perceive accumulated wealth as excessive. Th e results support the conclusion that future contributions are negatively aff ected when wealth levels are deemed excessive. Nonprofi t managers concerned that accumulated wealth will diminish donations should consider fi nancial strategies that will allow their organizations to build modest-but not excessive-reserves.

No abstract

No abstract

Notwithstanding its importance as an internal source of financing, no analysis has examined why nonprofits choose to retain unrestricted net assets. As restricted net assets might not be used as desired by the nonprofit manager, unrestricted net assets are a more accurate definition of available internal resources than total net assets. This article tests several theories that might motivate nonprofit accumulation of unrestricted net assets. Furthermore, the empirical strategy employed allows an analysis of unrestricted net asset accumulation over time and overcomes several significant statistical estimation issues. The results suggest that nonprofits target profits and seek their accumulation over time, although targets may be set at very low levels. Furthermore, the results suggest that the low levels of profits accumulated annually are for the purpose of reducing organizational financial vulnerability. The results also suggest that many nonprofits behave as if leverage and unrestricted net assets are substitutes.

Whereas the field of public administration has benefited from periods of critical reflection and reform aimed at reexamining the field’s traditional management paradigms, the related field of nonprofit management has generally lacked such an analogously explicit and sustained research program to reevaluate its own conventional wisdoms. Meanwhile, accumulated findings from the last several decades of nonprofit management research have problematized many traditional assumptions and practices in nonprofit management, specifically regarding the soundness of nomothetic management theory, the unintended negative consequences of certain management norms, and underlying assumptions about the nature and purpose of nonprofit management. This article critically reexamines four well-known “proverbs” of nonprofit financial management—minimize overhead, diversify revenues, be lean, and avoid debt—to demonstrate the need for a critical and reflective research program that takes stock and reconsiders the field’s foundational principles and assumptions. Implications are derived for scholars and practitioners, as well as for information intermediaries that evaluate nonprofits based on financial information.

This note delineates different motivations for holding endowment by nonprofits, analyzes the definitions and measurement of endowment in the literature, and details newly available data on endowment contained in the Form 990 since 2008. More than 43% of organizations report owning an endowment, and the overwhelming majority of endowment funds are held by higher education nonprofits. One third of endowment funds are unrestricted and 41% are permanently restricted, with heterogeneity across subsectors. Endowed nonprofits exceed average payout rates each year of 5%. Annual endowment payouts average 4.1% of total organizational expenses, which measures the sector’s dependence on endowment revenue for operations. We evaluate past endowment measurement approaches using actual endowment data and find wide variation in validity. Although still imperfect, the new endowment data allow researchers to better understand a key distinguishing financial feature of the nonprofit sector.