Transcript Economics of the Nonprofit Sector Introduction Introduction • Syllabus • Class format Key topics: • Funding mechanisms employed by nonprofits/charitable organizations • The relationship that exists between.

Economics of the
Nonprofit Sector Introduction
Introduction
• Syllabus
• Class format
Key topics:
• Funding mechanisms employed by nonprofits/charitable
organizations
• The relationship that exists between the government sector and the
Nonprofit Sector
• Details of the organizational characteristics of effective and
ineffective charitable organizations
• New forms of philanthropic organizations
• The implications of agency problems and possible solution
• Comprehensive analysis of how charitable organizations are assessed
Funding of Nonprofits
• Four major sources of funds and funding
•
•
•
•
Individual
Corporate
Foundations
Bequests
• Altruism(?)
• Donor control – do donors get what they want?
What Motivates Giving
• Individuals:
– Altruism
– Social Stature
– Warm-glow
• Businesses:
– Altruism of Managers
– Profit Motive
• Foundations
– Altruism
– Social Goals
Discussion
• Should donations be tax-deductible?
Looking Towards Meeting #2
• Familiarize yourself with Blackbaud Index, the Chronicle of
Philanthropy, Giving in Numbers
• These are major sources of data on charitable giving and
philanthropy
• Read Ott & Dicke, Chapters 10, 13 and 22.
• Read Van Slyke and Brooks piece and McClelland and Brooks
• Student Presenters:
Meeting 2
Ott & Dicke – Chapter 10, The Fundraising Process (Lindahl)
Planning for fundraising:
 SWOT analysis:
 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
 Analysis of a well-known local charity
Based on SWOT outcome, setting of goals
Operating, endowment, capital (facilities)
Establishing an Action Plan
Including cultivation and solicitations
Cultivation of long-term donors
Evaluation of Fundraising
• Steps
• Achievement of goals within certain constraints
• Achieved within a reasonable time
• Frugality – were goals achieved without spending large proportion of
raised funds to conduct campaign
• Don’t want to end up on this list:
Worst Charities
Rank
Charity name
Total raised by solicitors
Paid to solicitors
% spent on direct cash aid
1
Kids Wish Network
$137.9 million
$115.9 million
2.5%
2
Cancer Fund of America $86.8 million
$75.4 million
1.0%
3
Children's Wish
Foundation
International
$92.7 million
$61.2 million
10.6%
4
Firefighters Charitable
Foundation
$62.8 million
$53.8 million
7.4%
5
International Union of
Police Associations,
AFL-CIO
$66.6 million
$50.4 million
0.5%
6
Breast Cancer Relief
Foundation
$63.9 million
$44.8 million
2.2%
7
American Association of
$48.1 million
State Troopers
$38.6 million
8.9%
$36.9 million
7.8%
$34.4 million
4.6%
$28.9 million
0.7%
8
9
10
National Veterans
$70.2 million
Service Fund
Children's Cancer Fund
$43.7 million
of America
Children's Cancer
Recovery Foundation
$38.5 million
Ott & Dicke, Chapter 13 – Foundations (Boris)
 Types of Foundations
Private foundations
A private foundation is a legal entity set up by an individual, a family or a
group of individuals, for a purpose such as philanthropy or an object legal
in the economic operation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the
largest private foundation in the U.S. with over $38 billion in assets.[1]
However, most private foundations are much smaller. Approximately twothirds of the more than 84,000 foundations which file with the IRS, in
2008, have less than $1 million in assets, and 93% have less than $10
million in assets.[1] In aggregate, private foundations in the U.S. control
over $628 billion in assets[1] and made more than $44 billion in charitable
contributions in 2007
-Tax Laws more stringent: Deduction limited to 30% of income
Public foundations
A public foundation is also called a grantmaking public charity. They raise
money from the public (individuals, corporations, and other foundations) to
provide grants. The IRS does not consider these as private foundations since
their base of support is typically broad. Community foundations are
recognized as “public”.
Tax Laws less stringent: Donations up to 50% of income
Government Foundations
• Funded through tax dollars
• Fund through grant-making process
Foundation Governance
• Corporate Governance
• Donor
• Small Foundations – managed by family and small set of donors
• Administrator
• Board makes decisions on funds – Administered by small professional
staff
• Director
• Executive Director manages funding process
• Presidential Model
• Managed primarily by Nonprofits CEO
• ? Impact on the administrative costs of nonprofit?
Ott & Dicke (Drapkin and Hayden),
Chapter 22
• Managing Volunteers
• Nonprofit sector typically highly dependent on volunteers
• Lowers cost of operation – makes nonprofit expenditures a lower
proportion of donations
• Authors note the complexity of the volunteering population
• ex. Coerced versus free-will
• Politically motivated volunteerism
• Volunteers are not “free”, as supervision consumes staff time
• Ott & Dickey note that increased lifespan produces a larger pool
of potential volunteers
• Government programs such as AmeriCorps are providing more
outlets for volunteering
What Does philanthropy mean?
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ5t8xD7qGU
READINGS
• 3 of 5 assigned readings are primary data sources for
information on nonprofits and charitable giving:
• (Reading 2) Blackbaud Index (charitable giving report)
• Provides statistics on charitable giving by source, purpose and by
method by which it was raised
• Major findings are the rapidly rising importance of online giving,
along with a trend towards giving towards “international affairs”
causes
• Blackbaud targeted more towards nonprofits managers, less
towards researchers
Reading #3
• Chronicle of Philanthropy
• Comprehensive data on giving, including corporate giving (key
corporate donors)
• Includes the Philanthropy 400 – interactive database of
organizations
• Filtered by cause, location
• + information on America’s top donors
• Considered the premier source of data
Reading #4
• Conference Board, Giving in Numbers
• Best source of data on corporate giving
• Gives numbers by industry cross-referenced with cause
• E.g. what firms in the petroleum industry give to artistic causes
• Figures help illuminate corporate goals:
• Firms with P.R. problems (tobacco firms) might give to causes that are
highly visible and enlightened (the arts)
• Firms that need highly trained labor might give to educational causes
Further Reading: LeClair, M. and Gordon, K. (2000), “Corporate Support for Artistic and
Cultural Activities: What Determines the Composition of Corporate Giving?” Journal of
Cultural Economics, 24(3), 2000.
Article presentation
• Van Slyke and Brooks
• “Why do People Give?”
A. Point of article is to understand what motivates giving, and how
nonprofit managers can use that information
1. Authors note that philanthropy is no longer a private concern – part of
civil society
2. Competition among nonprofits for donors’ dollars is increasing
3. And, through the tax code, the public IS paying for part of each
nonprofit’s budget
4. Article focuses on which strategies work for which donors
B. Page 201 notes that the increasing availability of data means that
nonprofit managers have much more information to utilize in
setting strategies (e.g. Giving USA)
C. Page 202: Factors that correlate with giving
•
Age, gender, religiosity, income, wealth (difference?), taxes and
volunteerism
• +Tax Implications – note that if you do not itemize, the tax
deduction is of no value
• Up to 50% of AGI – anything near this will get you audited!
• Authors then apply empirical test to determine what variables
best determine giving (Page 308)
• >>>brief explanation of regression……
• Results on page 309 indicate that the following are significant:
• Income, age, Christian (5%), college-educated, married, nonwhite
(5%), civically active, volunteer
• Rest are at 1% level
• These can become the basis for targeted fund-raising
• Authors note that in some cases, the results may simply indicate
that potential donors had never been approached.
Looking towards next meeting
• Class Discussion on Effective Charitable Organizations
• Visit Charity Navigator and Charity Watch
• Pick one charity that is highly ranked and another that is poorly
ranked
• Find out why!
• Literature assignments:
• Bradshaw, P., Hayday, B. and Armstrong, R. (2007), “Nonprofit Governance Models:
Problems and Prospects,” Christopher Bernard
• Bekkers, R. and Wiepking, P. (2011). “A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of
Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving, Chris Cahill
• “How to Determine if a Charity is Effective,” online at:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323977304579000433238565
634, Jack Delaney
Effective and ineffective nonprofits
– Meeting #3
• TOPICS:
• Fundraising – methods and effectiveness
• Fundraising costs as a percentage of donations (or budget)
• Effectiveness of programs
• Who benefits in short- and long-run
• Management accountability and reporting
• Dedication to charter – do nonprofits follow the intentions of
their donors (financers)?
Case Studies – The Best Charities
(source: CS Monitor)
PERCENTAG SALARY &
PUBLIC
E OF TOTAL BENEFITS
WISE
CHARITYWA
SUPPORT IN EXPENSES OF
GIVING
TCH‡
MILLIONS SPENT ON HIGHESTALLIANCE
GRADE
(2011)
PROGRAMS PAID
‡‡
†
OFFICIAL†
RANK
NAME
WEBSITE
TOTAL
INCOME IN
CATEGORY
MILLIONS
(2011)
1
YMCA of the
USA
ymca.net
Social
services
$5986.1
$823.4
87.4
$441,438
A
MEETS
★★★★
STANDARDS
2
Goodwill
Industries
International
goodwill.org
Social
services
4,437.0
778.0
89.0‡‡
$508,571
A
MEETS
NO RATING
STANDARDS
3
Catholic
Charities USA
catholicchari Social
ties.usa.org services
4,422.8
679.2
79.6
$265,356
NO RATING
MEETS
★★★★
STANDARDS
4
United Way
unitedway.or Social
g
services
4,139.9
3,903.2
90.6
$763,394
NO RATING NO RATING ★★★★
5
American Red
Social
redcross.org
Cross
services
3,453.0
945.9
92.2
$568,594
A
MEETS
★★★
STANDARDS
6
The Salvation
Army
3,203.8
1,697.6
84.0
$216,182
A / A–
MEETS
NO RATING
STANDARDS
salvationarm Social
yusa.org
services
CHARITY
NAVIGATOR
†
Examination of American Red
Cross
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Website includes state goals and pricinples
+Governance Documents
Committees:
Audit and Risk Management Committee
Quality and Regulatory Compliance Subcommittee
Board of Trustees of the Endowment Fund
Compensation and Management Development Committee
Executive Committee
Governance and Board Development Committee
• Posted Ethical Rules by which the organization is run
• Strict guidelines and oversight have protected the organization
from scandal
• 92.2% of raised funds go to programs
• Volunteers used extensively to keep costs down
• Auditing process includes external oversight
The Bad – Angel Food Ministries
• Georgia-based nonprofit that used donations to buy food at
wholesale and sell it to the needy at bargain prices
• Operated out of numerous churches
• At pinnacle, Angel Food was providing discounted food to
500,000 families
• Problem: Cash-based business with poor accountability
• Also: Run entirely by close circle of family members with no external
auditing process
• Cash was siphoned off to purchase cars, real estate and even a
private jet.
• Raided by FBI in 2011 – had received substantial federal funding ($7
million), so federal government got involved.
• Ultimately led to jail time for those involved
• Most unfortunate part was loss of service to ½ million
beneficiaries
• Other very bad nonprofits:
• Foundation for New Philanthropy (Ponzi
scheme)
• United States Navy Veterans Association –
Collected $100 million dollars over 10 years –
no charitable activity of any kind
Readings for the week
• Ott & Dickey (Eadie): Chapter 2 – Governance Models
• Boards may be high impact or at arms length
• Meddlesome or arms length
• Authors note (page 20) that boards of small organizations may
find it difficult to separate themselves from day-to-day operations
of the entity, instead of providing oversight.
• Ideally, boards should provide oversight on:
• Strategic questions
• Operational questions
• Accountability questions – is the organizational accountable to its
stakeholders and the broader public
Four “Streams” of governance
identified by eadie
• Board self-management (who serves and what is expected of
them)
• Planning stream: strategic goals, annual budgets
• Performance oversight and monitoring stream
• External stakeholder stream – How to communicate with
donors and the community
high impact board
• High-stakes issues are addressed fully and in a timely fashion
• Board members (not bored members) are fully invested in the
success of the enterprise
• Board members work effectively with CEO of organization
The “old” model – The passivereactive board
• Board stays out of decision-making process (allows wide
leeway to CEO) until crisis
• Then reacts to problem rather than providing leadership
• CEO now views board action as interference – defensive posture
inevitable
• If CEO and Board are in partnership, this is avoided.
The high-impact board
• Requires:
• Strong mission statement to provide guidance
• Standing committees so the board’s work does not take place 4
days out of the year.
Class exercise
• Samaritan’s Purse v. Wishing Well Foundation
• Address four issues in group:
•
•
•
•
Overall and categorical rating of each
Effectiveness
Governance model
Malfeasance – is nonprofit doing anything under-handed? clue:
answer for one of these is “yes”
Ott & Dickey, Chapter 3 (American
Bar Association)
• Author provides look at impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on
nonprofits
• 10 General principles off corporate governance:
• Role of the Board – should provide oversight that ensures effective
and ethical management
• Importance of Independent Directors – Directors should not be
subservient to management, as is frequently the case when
nominated and appointed by management
• Need for an Audit Committee – lack of independent auditing and
cross-checking of finances a major source of problems
• Existence of a nominating committee for the Board
• Compensation Committee: Independent directors that examine pay
and compensation issues
• Should have intervened in United Way scandal
• Complete and accurate disclosure of the financials of the
nonprofit
• Appropriate business conduct and ethics codes in place
• Executive compensation should reflect responsibilities and
backgrounds of executive - problems arise when Board members
are appointed by executives and OK excess compensation
• Procedures should be in place to receive and respond to
complaints (ethical, financial)
• Document retention rules should be in place – rules should lay
out when documents may be destroyed
Looking towards Next week
• Begin look at effective fundraising, including new forms of
securing donations
• e.g. Crowd-funding
• First cover chapters 10-12 as background (O&D)
• Then, each group will design an on-line fundraising for a
designated charity
• I will be handing out assignments
• Work will be presented next week
Meeting #4 – Designing an effective
fundraising model
• O&D, Chapter 10 (Lindahl):
• The Fundraising Process
• Chapter emphasizes research on process, prospects, etc.
• Also, fully understanding one’s own organization, so its goals, etc.
can be explained to potential donors
• Lindahl, Page 119 – goal-setting
• Facilities, Endowment and Operating
• Some donors may be much more responsive to one type of donation
(e.g. some may only give to facilities improvement)
• Steps:
• Cultivation
• Fairfield example
• Solicitation
• Types of solicitations:
• Planned giving
• Major gift solicitations
• Role of Stewardship:
• Possible alternative goals of managers
• Self-interest, social status
• Good stewardship requires goals of nonprofit are paramount
• Lindahl (page 124) note that a ex post evaluation of how well
the fundraising worked is critical
• O&D, Chapter 11 (Pratt) – Analyzing the Dynamics of Funding
• Key focus of chapter is on the reliability of fund-raising and the
degree to which the funding binds the hand of the nonprofit
• Reliability:
• High: Individual donors, endowments, memberships, rental income,
advertising
• Medium: fees for services, continuing government contracts,
corporate charitable contributions
• Low: Government grants that are project-driven, foundation grants,
corporate sponsorships
• Autonomy:
• High: small- to medium-sized individual contributions,
foundations, fees for service, endowments, memberships
• Medium: large individual contributions, corporate contributions
• Low: project grants, government contracts, United Way support
• Pages 130-31 – Eight forms of funding and resulting reliability
and autonomy
• Discussion – particularly the issue of government-funded
nonprofits
Giving Circles and “crowdfunding”
• What happens when charity becomes a social act?
• Chapter12 focuses on giving circles:
• Groups that pool resources to leverage donations
• Eikenberry notes that these groups are educational in nature, and
that giving becomes part a member’s social life
• Giving can be more informed and members can find new ways to
engage with issues they are interested in
• Forms:
• Page 136 – Organizational form
• Most operate on a “fee” basis (which funds donations)
• Large donation groups typically have a more formalized grant-making
procedure
• Some are formal groups that meet, some are loose networks
Eikenberry Provide 2 case studies
• Shared Giving: Small (16 members) group that focuses on
leveraging individual donations
• Started by couple that realized they were giving away a lot of
money, but randomly and in small amounts
• Decided to increase the impact of giving by organizing and
targeting contributions
• Womenade: 38 giving circles under this name. Join for a small
fee ($35) – Money used to provide small donations to women
(families) experiencing financial stress
• Such as paying an over-due utility bill
Benefits of giving circles
• Charity as a way of life
• Giving is consistent and targeted
• More informed!
• Social aspect encourages participation
• List of Giving Circles can be found at:
http://www.givingcircles.org/
Crowdfunding
• Means by which to draw in many donors at a very small price
per donor.
• Cause and monetary goal posted on the web
• Rely upon social contacts to encourage participation
• Top ten sites can be found at:
http://www.crowdfunding.com/
Example: Kickstarter – seeks individual donations to fund
creative work that otherwise would not be funded (e.g. cinema)
• Crowdfunding also used to fund medical treatment for those
with serious long-term illnesses who are in financial stress
• Avoids costs of approaching donors, but visibility is an issue
Literature for Next Time
• 9.
• 10.
Heutel, Garth (2014). “Crowding Out and Crowding In of Private Donations and
Government Grants,” Public Finance Review 42, 143-75. (Christina Howell)
Brokaw, L. (2012, November 28). “The ‘Benefit Corporation’ Movement,” MIT
Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from
http://sloanreview.mot.edu/artucle/the-benefit-corporation-movement/
(Julie Labbadia)
Class Exercise
• Donation effectiveness
• Design a website that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotes Cause
Will be easily found by those searching
Details finances of nonprofit
Provides searchable statistics (why?)
Stories of assistance
Mission statement
History
Media resources
Major Donors (why might you want to omit this?)
Web design session
Handout
Meeting #5
• Return to Meeting #4 of Syllabus
• Ott/Dicke 28, Journal Readings 8/9
Presentations (Tom and Patrick)
• “How to Determine if a Charity is Effective,” online at:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014241278873239773
04579000433238565634
• Heutel, Garth (2014). “Crowding Out and Crowding In of Private
Donations and Government Grants,” Public Finance Review 42,
143-75.
The Economic Impact of the Nonprofit Sector
• Magnitude of donations and where they go
• Plus, further insights on crowding out/crowding in
• Data on total giving:
Total Giving by Source and as a Percentage of Total Giving, U.S., 1990-2012, Billions of
Dollars
Year
Corporations Percent
Foundations Percent
Bequests
Percent Individuals Percent
1990
5.46
5.54%
7.23
7.34%
6.79
6.89%
79.00
80.22%
1991
5.25
5.11
7.72
7.53
7.68
7.49
81.93
79.87
1992
5.91
5.31
8.64
7.76
9.54
8.57
87.20
78.35
1993
6.47
5.55
9.53
8.17
8.86
7.60
91.72
78.68
1994
6.98
5.81
9.66
8.05
11.13
9.27
92.28
76.87
1995
7.35
5.97
10.56
8.58
10.41
8.46
94.78
77.00
1996
7.51
5.41
12.00
8.64
12.03
8.66
107.35
77.29
1997
8.62
5.31
13.92
8.57
16.25
10.17
123.67
76.12
1998
8.46
4.79
17.01
9.63
13.41
7.60
137.68
77.98
1999
10.23
5.03
20.51
10.09
17.82
8.77
154.63
76.10
2000
10.74
4.68
24.58
10.70
20.25
8.82
174.09
75.80
2001
11.66
5.02
27.22
11.73
20.15
8.68
173.06
74.57
2002
10.79
4.64
26.98
11.59
21.16
9.09
173.79
74.68
2003
11.06
4.66
26.84
11.30
18.08
7.61
181.47
76.42
2004
11.36
4.36
28.41
10.92
18.53
7.12
201.96
77.60
2005
15.20
5.20
32.41
11.08
24.00
8.21
220.82
75.51
2006
14.52
4.90
34.91
11.79
21.90
7.40
224.76
75.91
2007
14.22
4.57
40.00
12.86
23.79
7.65
233.05
74.92
2008
12.40
4.14
42.21
14.09
31.24
10.43
213.76
71.35
2009
13.79
5.03
41.09
14.98
19.12
6.97
200.37
73.03
2010
15.82
5.40
40.95
13.97
22.97
7.84
213.30
72.79
2011
16.18
5.30
43.83
14.35
25.18
8.24
220.26
72.11
2012
18.15
5.74
45.74
14.46
23.41
7.40
228.93
72.39
Source: Derived from Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Giving USA
Total Giving by Type of Recipient, U.S., 1990-2012, Billions of Dollars and as a Percentage of
Total
Year
Religion Percent
Education Percent Human Serv.
Percent
Health
Percent
2000
76.95
33.51
28.81
12.54
20.79
9.05
15.30
6.66
2001
79.87
34.41
28.07
12.09
24.28
10.46
16.41
7.07
2002
82.98
35.66
27.25
11.71
22.71
9.76
15.70
6.75
2003
84.12
35.43
29.59
12.46
23.49
9.89
17.78
7.49
2004
87.51
33.62
31.66
12.16
26.10
10.02
19.06
7.32
2005
90.86
31.07
34.99
11.97
30.35
10.38
20.33
6.95
2006
94.63
31.96
40.07
13.53
30.74
10.38
24.22
8.18
2007
97.79
31.44
42.69
13.72
31.45
10.11
25.28
8.13
2008
98.22
32.78
35.89
11.98
35.44
11.83
24.14
8.06
2009
99.56
36.29
34.96
12.74
35.95
13.10
26.08
9.51
2010
97.54
33.29
37.32
12.74
38.25
13.06
26.64
9.09
2011 101.78
33.32
38.62
12.64
38.91
12.74
26.80
8.77
2012 101.54
32.11
41.33
13.07
40.40
12.74
28.12
8.89
Year
Public Society
Percent
Arts/Culture Percent
2000
International Affairs Percent
15.00
6.53
10.56
4.60
6.28
2.73
2001
16.56
7.14
9.73
4.19
6.68
2.88
2002
14.22
6.11
9.93
4.27
7.97
2.00
2003
15.96
6.72
11.11
4.68
9.44
3.98
2004
17.66
6.79
11.23
4.31
11.52
4.43
2005
20.76
7.10
12.43
4.25
12.71
4.35
2006
23.16
7.82
13.92
4.57
13.51
4.56
2007
19.99
6.43
14.92
4.80
15.78
5.07
2008
17.95
5.99
12.29
4.10
20.57
6.87
2009
17.31
6.31
12.59
4.59
16.39
5.07
2010
19.43
6.63
13.02
4.44
17.05
5.82
2011
20.52
6.72
13.39
4.38
18.65
6.11
2012
21.63
6.84
14.44
4.57
19.11
6.04
Individual Giving, Average and in Proportion to Income, 2011
Income (range)
Income (average) Donations (average)
Donations/Income
Less than $70,000
$31,842
$1,054
0.033
$70,000-79,999
$74,742
$2,019
0.027
$80,000-99,999
$89,108
$2,099
0.024
$100,000-119,000
$108,549
$2,179
0.020
$120,000-149,999
$133,318
$3,242
0.024
$150,000 and Over
$247,261
$6,059
0.025
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey
Examples of giving by State
Average Individual Giving, Total ($billions), and as a Percentage of AGI, by State, 2010
State
Charitable Contributions
Average/Itemizer
% of AGI
$2,832.0 B
$4,738
2.9
316.8
3,355
1.5
Arizona
2,726.4
2,959
1.9
Arkansas
1,336.2
4,407
2.3
California
21,297.0
3,515
2.1
Colorado
3,050.9
3,355
2.1
Connecticut
2,981.1
3,937
2.0
Delaware
466.6
3,035
2.0
District of Columbia
667.1
5,210
2.8
Florida
9,279.6
3,792
2.0
Georgia
6,302.1
3,929
2.9
Hawaii
554.0
2,682
1.7
Idaho
799.5
3,648
2.7
6,923.4
3,340
1.9
Alabama
Alaska
Illinois
Table 3.2
Central Government and Private Expenditures on Social Policy, % of GDP, Selected Countries
Country
Private
Public
Switzerland
1.0%
18.4%
Australia
3.1
17.8
17.4
Canada
5.1
19.2
26.6
Norway
2.3
23.3
9.9
Greece
1.8
23.9
7.5
Ireland
2.2
23.6
9.3
Japan
4.0
22.4
17.9
Spain
0.5
26.0
1.9
Portugal
1.9
25.6
7.4
10.6
19.2
55.2
Netherlands
6.7
23.2
28.9
Italy
2.3
27.8
8.3
Finland
1.2
29.4
4.1
Germany
3.2
27.8
11.5
Austria
2.1
29.1
7.2
Belgium
2.3
29.7
7.7
Sweden
3.2
29.8
10.7
Denmark
2.9
30.2
9.6
France
3.1
32.1
9.7
United States
Private as % of Public
5.4%
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Social Expenditure Database
Table 3.5
Regression Results, Estimation with Embedded Binary Variables
Variable
Intercept
Coefficient
z-score
-1.74
-0.63
Gross Domestic Product
0.22
11.52
Tax Burden
2.88
0.77
-.074
-9.89
Size of Government
6.75
1.38
Growth in GDP
2.25
0.84
Binary (U.S.)
1.22E11
10.79
Binary (U.K.)
-2.75E10
-4.48
Binary (Japan)
-1.19E10
-3.35
Social Spending
Wald X2 = 29,402
Overall R-Square = 0.997
____________________________________________________________________________
Source: LeClair, M., and Watts, A. (2013). “Charitable Contributions, Government Spending,
and Crowding Out: A Cross-National Analysis.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of
Northeast Business and Economics Association. Bretton-Woods, New Hampshire.
Assessing the Role of the
Nonprofit Sector
• Chapter 14 (Young) – Nonprofit Entrepreneurship:
• Innovation in the way a nonprofit raises money or pursues its
cause
• Traditional model: New methods of fundraising, new causes
• Less traditional model: Web-based philanthropy (crowd-funding,
etc.)
• This has, of course, also led to some malfeasance (fundraising that
seems too good to be true)
• Or, Innovation in causes
• Authors note that 57% of all nonprofits have come into
existence in the last 20 years
• Entrepreneurship is alive and well
• Motivators:
• Increased prestige and income
• Deep devotion to an idea or cause (e.g. religious causes)
• Young (page 167) notes that commercial operations frequently
become part of a nonprofits operations (logo-items)
American Cancer Society
Formulas for success
• Page 168
• Eisenberg’s 1986 piece:
• Ten characteristics of a successful style of management at a
nonprofit
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coherent aims and values
Focus on comparative advantage
Innovative decision-making
Adaptive environment
Excellence of execution
Staying power
Marshalling talent
Finesse with diverse constituencies
Knowledge of “where the action is”
Active-positive leadership
• Also present the list of abilities put forth by Young (1985,
1991)
• Many are appropriate for entrepreneurship in general, not just
nonprofits
• Chapter 17 – “Commercialization of nonprofits”
• Predicted by Hansmann (1989)
• Philanthropic sector would divide into two distinct components
• Traditional nonprofits
• Commercial nonprofits that sell a product in order to conduct business
• Hospitals, universities, nursing homes, daycare centers
• Commercialization has actually been much broader – gives example of PBS
marketing content (e.g. Sesame Street)
• Case Study of Metropolitan Museum of Art – operating revenue
• Traditional sources of revenues for nonprofits: Fees (museums, concerts),
grants, endowments, gifts
• Auxiliary: Merchandising
• As noted on page 194, merchandising was briefly very important, but has
declined to a minor source of revenue
• But, on page 195 – Total figures instead of Net
• Merchandising far more important
• Presents a puzzle – sales add a good deal to revenue, but little to
net revenue
• May be viewing merchandising mostly as another form of
advertising
• Table 7.3 is perhaps most important:
• Admissions and endowments are the only two sources of revenue
that are really growing
• Troubling, since admissions are hard to raise, placing the burden
on increasing endowment
• Museums are somewhat unique. Picture at a nonprofit
hospital would be quite different
Literature Assignments for Next Time
• O&D 14, 17
Brokaw, L. (2012, November 28). “The ‘Benefit Corporation’
Movement,” MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from
http://sloanreview.mot.edu/artucle/the-benefit-corporationmovement/
Crane, A. (2001). “Unpacking the Ethical Product,” Journal of
Business Ethics 30, 361-73.
Kannon, S., “Could Impact Investing Help India’s Poor?” BBC
News (Dehli), September 29, 2011.
Looking Towards Meeting
Meeting #6
• Philanthropic Models that involve purchasing a product and
simultaneously making a contribution to a cause
• Or, investing and making a contribution
• Class Project (2nd ½ of class):
• Design a product that will be sold to the general public that also
contains a contribution to a cause
• Carefully consider pricing and packaging
• How are cause and product related?
• How will you convey that to consumers
• Example: Fair Trade
What is Fair Trade all About?
• Origins:
• Edna Ruth Byler of the Mennonite Church frequently credited
with starting the Fair Trade movement
• Returned from a visit to Puerto Rico deeply concerned about
the plight of workers
• Began selling handicrafts out of the trunk of her car
• Increased proceeds enabled her to pay handicraft producers
higher prices for their products
• The Mennonite efforts eventually led to the establishment of
Ten Thousand Villages, most common retail example of Fair
Trade in the U.S.
Intended Message Apparent in Packaging
What does Fair Trade Cover?
• List of products that are sold through Fair Trade Channels
include:
• Commodities: Coffee, cocoa, chocolate, tea, honey, beans,
seafood, fruits, spices and vegetables
• Other: Handicrafts, apparel, wine
• List of Products available at Fair Trade USA
How it works
• Fair Trade products require certification
• Largest body is the Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO)
• Extensive set of criteria, including workers pay, production
methods, environmental standards, etc.
• Workers form a coop and work with FLO to achieve these
standards
• Products are then FLO-certified Fair Trade
After a cooperative if formed
• Coops contact a Fair Trade distributor:
• Oxfam, Equal Exchange, Ten Thousand Villages
• Distribution takes place through these organizations
• Workers receive a higher than market price for their products,
frequently with an established “floor” to eliminate the dips in
commodity prices
• Sometimes greater returns are distributed in-kind (medical,
educational services)
• Smaller producers may sell online only
• Fair Trade is certainly a form of philanthropy – Is it
charity?
Other models of giving-throughbuying
• This type of fund-raising is now pervasive in retailing
• e.g. Buy X and a $1 will be donated to breast cancer research
• Difficult to unravel whether product is bought because of the
donation or just because the consumer wanted the product
• Buyer knows very little about where $ is actually going.
• Raises (once again) the Principle-Agent Problem
• What is double bottom-line accounting
More formalized approaches
• Benefits Corporation model
• For-profit firm that also pursues a social goal
• Examples
• Agricultural businesses that support sustainability and land reclamation
• Or support the nearby food movement (Epiphany Farms)
• Commodity Sellers that support the well-being of growers (Moyee Coffee)
• Can find an extensive list of CERTIFIED B Corps at bcorporation.net
• Benefits corporations approved in 22 states and DC.
• Legislation important, since firms are technically violating their
fiduciary responsibility to stockholders (not maximizing profits)
Group exercise on Social market
enterprises
• Design an SME – domestic or international – and determine
how the organization creates “public good”