Data, Theory and Policy

1
Data, Theory and Policy

• 1st West Coast Nonprofit Data Seminar
• UCLA, January 23-24, 2004
• Kirsten A. Grønbjerg, Indiana University

2
Why we need data on nonprofits

• Sector appears to be growing, changing in
  composition
• Increasing size, economic force doubling over
  25-30 years
• Growing visibility, policy relevance
• Long-term devolution from federal to
  state/local levels
• Long-term efforts to privatize government -
  nonprofits
• Increased political/policy role of religious and
  other nonprofit institutions
• Sector appears to be in decline, endangered
• Claims about declining civic engagement (Bowling
  Alone)
• Questions about state of community capacity
  (inner cities)
• Concerns about declining or shifting resources
• Host of other challenges
• To answer need solid data, careful methodology

3
Methodology, Content Concepts Matter

• How broadly to define the sector (and why and
  how)
• Field of service/industry and/or beneficiary
  group
• Charities (congregations, faith-based, and/or
  secular)
• Civic groups
• Advocacy, political organizations
• Clubs and other mutual benefit associations
• What types of geographic boundaries (and why)
• Which units headquarter, entities, programs
  (and how)
• What information (and how)
• Activities/practices, features, resources,
  networks
• Time frame and frequency
• What context and relationships to
• Individuals, households, communities
• Government market sectors
• Nonprofit infrastructure organizations
• Community social, economic, political
  characteristics

4
The Indiana Nonprofit Sector Project

• Leadership build community capacity
• Enhance understanding of sectors role in state
  and communities
• Scope and characteristics
• Challenges, capacities, and policy impacts
• Deepen appreciation of context in which sector
  operates
• Benchmarks across diverse communities
• Comparisons across fields of operation
• Research fill knowledge gaps
• Utility of nonprofit databases
• Networks and Linkages opportunities, challenges
• Contributions/characteristics of all types of
  nonprofits
• Training develop curriculum modules
• Meet professional training needs
• Build organizational capacity

5
What Does the Project Involve?

• A comprehensive effort
• Focus on all types of nonprofits
• Statewide analysis plus community dimensions
• 7 metropolitan regions
• 5 non-metropolitan counties
• Completed or in process
• Build comprehensive database of Indiana
  nonprofits
• Model for other states and regions
• Survey of Indiana residents on nonprofit
  affiliations
• Survey of Indiana nonprofits
• Model for other states and regions
• Compile and analyze other relevant information
• Nonprofit employment, finances (Form 990)
• Planned
• Nonprofit community profiles
• In-depth case studies of nonprofit linkages
• Curriculum material and technical support

6
I. Build Comprehensive Nonprofit Database

• Institutional database approach model for other
  states
• Merge IRS (32,600), SOS (29,400), CL (9,000) ?
  71,000
• Eliminate duplicates ? 54,100
• Low overlap of IRS/SOS 23 percent
• IRS lags SOS by 2.4 years
• Informant/community based approach
• Supplement institutional database approach
• Added 25 percent in most communities ? total of
  59,400
• Now available in web-searchable format from IHC
• Analyses completed (5 papers)
• Community profiles vary by database listing
• Nonprofit density is a function of supply,
  community structure
• Database overlap high for some fields, larger
  older NP
• Database assessment validity, response rates,
  distortions

7
II. Survey Residents on their NP Affiliations

• Hyper-network approach - alternative sampling
  strategy
• Telephone survey of 526 Indiana residents
• Focus on nonprofit affiliations
• Worship (86 percent), meeting/event attendance
  (67 percent), volunteering (43 percent), work (11
  percent)
• Use named nonprofits as sampling frame, avoid
  database
• 30 percent not included in comprehensive database
• Analyses completed (3 papers)
• Types of volunteer work, associations attended
• Patterns vary by type and are related to
• Family status (few cases), SES (education),
  community attachment (voter registration),
  religious attendance

8
III. Survey Indiana Nonprofits

• Purpose
• Document sectors contribution to state
  communities
• Lay foundation for more effective collaboration
  among nonprofits
• Establish benchmarks for management
  organizational practices
• Document major nonprofit strengths challenges
• Identify differences similarities by
  communities fields of activity
• Random sample stratified by listings community
• 2,205 respondents 30 response rate
• Topics adapted by other states and regions
• General information programs and services
• Impact of community policy changes advocacy
  activities
• Relationship with other organizations
• Human resources management finances
• Special membership mutual-benefit activities
  faith-based organizations
• Analyses completed 3 reports/papers,
• Management capacities and challenges
  (Indianapolis vs. rest of state)
• Role of congregations in delivering human
  services
• Profile of Indiana nonprofit sector (5 others
  under development)

9
IV. Analyze Nonprofit Employment

• First documentation of nonprofit employment in
  Indiana
• Establishments, employees, payroll, weekly wages
• By industry and by region
• For three points in time 1995, 2000, and 2001
• Adapted from methodology used elsewhere
• ES-202 reports by (almost all) employers
• Link to IRS list of tax-exempt entities under
  501(c)
• Underestimates nonprofit employment
• May overestimate nonprofit growth
• Analysis completed 1 report
• Employment share, growth, wage levels