Toward a Theory of Limited Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness
K. Wing, T. Pollak, P. Rooney ICSTM 2004 Philadelphia, PA
A Conundrum
Funders increasingly concerned about
organizational effectiveness of grantees Yet, major funders frequently fail to fund administrative or infrastructure costs at levels that would permit grantees to be effective Such anomalies frequently imply existence of systemic structures Theory building may identify potential highleverage interventions
Nonprofit Fundraising and Administrative Cost Project
Supported by: Atlantic Philanthropies Ford Foundation Charles Stewart Mott Foundation David and Lucille Packard Foundation Rockefeller Brothers Fund Housed at: Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy Indiana University Center on Philanthropy
Study Goals
Understand how nonprofits raise, spend,
measure and report funds for fundraising and administration Work with practitioners, policy makers and the accounting profession to improve standards and practice
Multiple Research Phases
Analysis of IRS Form 990 data, n=228,000
Survey of fundraising and accounting
practices, n=1500 Detailed case studies, n=9
Case Study Findings
Functional classification of personnel
expense a low priority (i.e., program, M&G or fundraising) Glaring functional expense reporting errors Nonprofits responding to pressure to keep real and reported overhead low
Case Study Findings, Cont’d
Nonprofits vary widely in the strength of their
organizational infrastructure Inadequate infrastructure reduces organizational effectiveness Restricted funding and small size lead to inadequate infrastructure
1: The Virtuous Cycle of Effectiveness
Ability of NPO to raise funds
Ability of NPO to raise funds for infrastructure Organizational Effectiveness
Organizational spending for infrastructure
Staffing, Salaries and Supports
2: Reported O/H Cost Balances Ability to Raise Funds
Ability of NPO to raise funds
Reported infrastructure costs
Ability of NPO to raise funds for infrastructure
Organizational Effectiveness
Perceived pressure to keep infrastructure costs low
Organizational spending for infrastructure
Staffing, Salaries and Supports
3: Underreporting Adds Complexity
Ability of NPO to raise funds Reported infrastructure costs
Ability of NPO to raise funds for infrastructure
Underreporting
Organizational Effectiveness
Organizational spending for infrastructure
Conscious actions
Staffing, Salaries and Supports
Quality of functional expense tracking
Perceived pressure to keep infrastructure costs low
4: Adding the Major Funder
Major funder’s funding decision Major funder’s preferred level of infrastructure spending
Ability of NPO to raise funds
Reported infrastructure costs Ability of NPO to raise funds for infrastructure
Underreporting
Organizational Effectiveness
Organizational spending for infrastructure Staffing, Salaries and Supports Perceived pressure to keep infrastructure costs low
Conscious actions
Quality of functional expense tracking
5: Making Underreporting Endogenous
Major funder’s funding decision Ability of NPO to raise funds Reported infrastructure costs Ability of NPO to raise funds for infrastructure Major funder’s preferred level of infrastructure spending
Underreporting
Organizational Effectiveness
Organizational spending for infrastructure Staffing, Salaries and Supports
Conscious actions
Quality of functional expense tracking
Perceived pressure to keep infrastructure costs low
6: Limits to Growth is Too Simple
Ability of NPO to raise funds Organizational Effectiveness Major funder’s funding decision Major funder’s preferred level of infrastructure spending
Ability of NPO to raise funds for infrastructure Staffing, Salaries and Supports Organizational spending for infrastructure
Reported infrastructure costs
7: The Final Model
Organizational Effectiveness
Ability of NPO to raise funds
Major funder’s funding decision
Major funder’s preferred level of infrastructure spending
Ability of NPO to raise funds for infrastructure Staffing, Salaries and Supports Organizational spending for infrastructure Reported infrastructure costs
Underreporting
Conscious actions
Perceived pressure to keep infrastructure costs low
Model Implications
Infrastructure spending a key driver of
organizational effectiveness Infrastructure spending level driven by major funder preferences Major funder preferences not set with reference to organizational effectiveness criteria… But through fundraising dynamic where nonprofits compete on price with low O/H… And problem exacerbated by underreporting
Alternative Explanations
Exogenous Funder Preferences (Limits to
Growth):
“Peanut butter” approach Ideas of admin as waste leftover from volunteer era Competing for funding on low O/H basis, nonprofit staff internalize values for low overhead, and retain those values when they become funders
Endogenous Funder Preferences:
Conclusions
Nonprofits with restricted funding, esp. small
ones, clearly struggling with inadequate administrative and fundraising infrastructure Inadequate infrastructure reduces organizational effectiveness Current spending on O/H driven by major funder preferences, expressed in funding policies Current funding policies may be reinforced by significant underreporting
Contact Information
Thomas Pollak, Assistant Director, National Center
for Charitable Statistics, Urban Institute, 2100 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, 202-261-5536 tpollak@ui.urban.org Patrick Rooney, Ph. D., Director of Research, Center on Philanthropy, Indiana University, 550 West North St, Suite 301, Indianapolis, IN 46202-3272, 317-6848908, rooney@iupui.edu Ken Wing, Kennard T. Wing & Co., 224 Kathmere Rd., Havertown, PA 19083, 610-789-8727, kennarwing@aol.com