“…But perhaps more telling are the internal strategies they reported using that are not likely to be sustainable over time. These strategies are consistent with recent literature (Marwell and Calabrese 2014;Parsons, Pryor, and Roberts 2016;Sloan, Charles, and Kim 2016), and are summarized below in Table 3.…”
Section: Making Ends Meet: Compensating Strategiessupporting
confidence: 90%
“…By documenting actual experiences and insights from California nonprofit executives in the real world, this research reinforced a growing consensus in the field that nonprofit overhead rates are problematic for nonprofit organizations (Garven, Hofmann, and McSwain 2016;Gregory & Howard, 009;Marwell and Calabrese 2014;Parsons, Pryor, and Roberts 2016;Sloan, Charles, and Kim 2016;Urban Institute 2013;Wing et al 2006). Nonprofits are frequently unable to cover the full costs of funded programs and to bridge the gap, they have to accelerate their fundraising from private sources, reduce salaries and benefits, under-invest in facilities and technology, and spend down reserves.…”
Nonprofit overhead is a prevalent and controversial topic in the nonprofit and philanthropic sector. Online raters (such as Charity Navigator) point to the overhead rate as a key indicator of nonprofit worthiness. Different government entities use wildly different indirect cost rates when contracting with nonprofits, which translate into billions of dollars of funding being gained or lost. Foundations rarely have explicit guidelines, but most have informal rules of thumb that affect how a nonprofit can use grant funds. Meanwhile, nonprofit executives struggle to make sense of it all as they manage their operations amidst the conflicting requirements of their funding sources. To gain insights into how overhead costs are handled in nonprofits, the California Association of Nonprofits (CalNonprofits) conducted a survey of 451 California nonprofit executives, as well as interviews with elected members of county boards of supervisors and their staff throughout California in the spring of 2016. This paper reports on both of these, which were part of a larger initiative of CalNonprofits called The Nonprofit Overhead Project.
“…But perhaps more telling are the internal strategies they reported using that are not likely to be sustainable over time. These strategies are consistent with recent literature (Marwell and Calabrese 2014;Parsons, Pryor, and Roberts 2016;Sloan, Charles, and Kim 2016), and are summarized below in Table 3.…”
Section: Making Ends Meet: Compensating Strategiessupporting
confidence: 90%
“…By documenting actual experiences and insights from California nonprofit executives in the real world, this research reinforced a growing consensus in the field that nonprofit overhead rates are problematic for nonprofit organizations (Garven, Hofmann, and McSwain 2016;Gregory & Howard, 009;Marwell and Calabrese 2014;Parsons, Pryor, and Roberts 2016;Sloan, Charles, and Kim 2016;Urban Institute 2013;Wing et al 2006). Nonprofits are frequently unable to cover the full costs of funded programs and to bridge the gap, they have to accelerate their fundraising from private sources, reduce salaries and benefits, under-invest in facilities and technology, and spend down reserves.…”
Nonprofit overhead is a prevalent and controversial topic in the nonprofit and philanthropic sector. Online raters (such as Charity Navigator) point to the overhead rate as a key indicator of nonprofit worthiness. Different government entities use wildly different indirect cost rates when contracting with nonprofits, which translate into billions of dollars of funding being gained or lost. Foundations rarely have explicit guidelines, but most have informal rules of thumb that affect how a nonprofit can use grant funds. Meanwhile, nonprofit executives struggle to make sense of it all as they manage their operations amidst the conflicting requirements of their funding sources. To gain insights into how overhead costs are handled in nonprofits, the California Association of Nonprofits (CalNonprofits) conducted a survey of 451 California nonprofit executives, as well as interviews with elected members of county boards of supervisors and their staff throughout California in the spring of 2016. This paper reports on both of these, which were part of a larger initiative of CalNonprofits called The Nonprofit Overhead Project.
“…Relational contracting can help public managers navigate thin markets and incomplete contracts (Girth et al ; Sclar ). Public sector investments in nonprofit contractors’ organizational health can promote effective public service delivery (Marwell and Calabrese ). While effective management strategies reduce the risks associated with any given contract or program, these approaches tend to sidestep the policy consequences of outsourcing public service delivery to nonprofits.…”
Section: A Contradiction Between Nonprofit Weakness and Strengthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Not all public managers have the contract management or network leadership skills required for effective cross‐sector service arrangements (Brown and Potoski ; McGuire and Silvia ). Nonprofit providers may lack the organizational capacity or fiscal health to ensure high‐quality service delivery (Fredericksen and London ; Marwell and Calabrese ). While some research suggests that alternative service delivery arrangements may reduce government effectiveness, this perspective tends to presume that a weakened public sector also hurts nonprofits.…”
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.
“…Such SONPOs define their work as a complement (Najam 2000) or an Organizations provide commercial services on nonprofit basis to specific categories of population by participating in procurement programs and/ or by re-directing part of the profits toward funding nonprofit initiatives b Organizations monetize nonprofit activities by identifying specific categories of their target groups as consumers alternative to a failing social welfare system, because they address social issues that state authorities (local, regional or national) overlook due to lack of competence, or are unable to manage due to curtailment of public social commitments. Whether organizations use public funds or rely on revenues from for-profit activities, they formulate their strategies and evaluate their results based on how they can secure particularistic interests of target groups as social rights, even though nonprofits usually cannot provide universal guarantees for those rights (Marwell and Calabrese 2015). For instance, head of the for-profit division of an organization that provides medical and rehabilitation care to children with a rare genetic disorder (SONPO4) emphasized that one of their main achievements is getting acknowledgment of the disease by the Ministry of Health, and making the affected families visible in the current diagnostic practice.…”
Section: Nonprofit Institutional Logic Tensions and Organizational Amentioning
Nonprofit organizations in Russia are introducing for-profit activities as a means of gaining autonomy from external donors, and as instruments of strategic planning and sustainable development. This study focuses on organizations that work with welfare provision and explores how they reconcile entrepreneurial activities with their social mission. More specifically, we interrogate how two institutional logics, business and nonprofit, are defined and reconciled in organizational identities, structures and hierarchies. Socially oriented nonprofits define their mission through service to beneficiaries, through personal and professional dedication to beneficiaries' well-being, and through making an impact on public policies and the society at large. They mimic a business approach in strategic planning and meticulous reporting, but subordinate profit-seeking to social mission by integrating entrepreneurial activities into already existing organizational structures, or by separating them into independent entities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
