The Indiana Nonprofit Survey:

1

• The Indiana Nonprofit Survey
• Does What You Know Depend on How You Draw Your
  Sample?
• ARNOVA
• November 22, 2003
• Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Richard M. Clerkin
• School of Public and Environmental Affairs
• Indiana University Bloomington

2
INS Focus on Indiana Nonprofits

• General Purpose of Project
• Key questions project seeks to address
• What are the capacities and resources of Indiana
  nonprofits?
• What do they contribute to the state local
  communities?
• Which challenges are most prevalent or severe for
  them?
• Corollaries
• How do patterns differ by community, field of
  activity, type?
• How are patterns changing and what are the policy
  options?
• Funding
• Ct. on Philanthropy (Lilly), Efroymson Chair,
  Aspen NSRF, Others
• Focus of this Paper Need for solid data
  attention to full sector
• Focus and methodology matter a great deal
• Focus all types of nonprofits statewide
  selected communities
• Methodology triangulation by use of multiple
  approaches

3
What Does the Project Involve?

• Completed or in process
• Build comprehensive database of Indiana
  nonprofits
• Model for other states and regions
• Survey Indiana residents on nonprofit
  affiliations
• Survey Indiana nonprofits
• Model for other states and regions
• Additional Work
• Nonprofit community profiles
• In-depth case studies of nonprofit linkages (to
  come)
• Curriculum material and technical support
• Compile and analyze relevant information
• Nonprofit employment, finances (Form 990)

4
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
• 2,206 respondents 29 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
• Membership mutual-benefit activities
  faith-based organizations
• Human resources management finances

5
Nonprofit Survey Technical Analysis

• Database Hypernetwork analysis five key
  findings
• IRS ISOS lists produce different densities and
  field distribution
• So does adding community informant listings
• Low overlap between the IRS and ISOS databases
  (23)
• Each of these features vary by community (county)
• 30 of hyper-network nonprofits not in database
• Hypotheses
• The nonprofit listings on which nonprofits appear
  reflect the organizational characteristics of the
  nonprofits involved
• Older, larger, and more formalized nonprofits
  will appear on both the IRS and ISOS lists
• The observed characteristics of the nonprofit
  sector will vary by nonprofit sampling frame used
  to examine the sector

6
Few Defunct NPs, But Sample Quality Varies
7
Response Rates Also Vary by Listing
8
Predicting Response Rates

• IRS income category not related
• IRS asset category weak positive
• IRS sub-section
• 03 32, 04 29, other 22
• IRS ruling year not related
• ISOS incorporation year negative
• Higher for older nonprofits
• Number of Listings positive

9
Nonprofit Field Profile Varies by Listing
10
Nonprofit Size Profile Varies by Listing
11
Nonprofit Funding Profile Varies by Listing
12
Nonprofit Age Profile Varies by Listing
13
Conclusions Implications

• Listings vary in sampling efficiency
• High rates of valid entries
• ISOS
• Hyper-network (but pre-screened)
• Low costs ISOS
• Listings vary in how they map NP sector
• Depends on NP features (fields, revenues, age)
• Depends on NP landscape boundaries
• Key role of multiple listings and formalization

14
Decomposing Response Rates All Above Average
15
Multiply-listed NPs More Formal
16
Multiply-listed NPs Higher Response Rates