Band 7, Heft 1 - Special Issue on Nonprofit Organizations and Public Policy: Policy Briefs from the Fourth Annual ARNOVA Public Policy Symposium, Guest Editor: Chao Guo

We use data from a survey of Indiana local government officials (LGOs) to explore their attitudes towards PILOTs for major types of charities. We consider whether these attitudes are related to local economic conditions, political factors, LGOs’ attitudes towards the relationship between local government and nonprofits, and the extent to which LGOs are personally involved with nonprofits as leaders, members or volunteers. We also explore whether these attitudes vary by type of charity involved (hospitals, schools/universities, churches) and present preliminary data on LGO agreement with various justifications for PILOT policies.

Faith-based giving in the U.S. constitutes over one-third of all charity (Giving USA, 2013). The proliferation of policy initiatives that promoted faith-based giving and giving to humanitarian aid organizations post George W Bush’s establishment of the Office of Faith-based initiatives and community Partnerships has been controversial, to say the least. But despite this, the sector has been robust. One segment of philanthropy that has been unnecessarily controversial is that of Islamic charity. With the attacks of September 11, 2001, there were a slew of legislative as well as Executive reforms that put Islamic charities under the scanner. Executive Order 13224 and the subsequent initiatives under the PATRIOT Act have reduced donations to Islamic charities, in the initial year. In this short paper, I argue that some of the restrictive measures in place – that apply to NGOs working in conflict zones – should be removed, so aid can reach the beneficiaries, so that NGOs’ offering this aid to not fear being targeted by U.S. law enforcement authorities. Given the massive refugee crisis we are witnessing, the role of Muslim NGOs in conflict zones may become crucial for long-term rehabilitation and resettlement.

An individual who donates service to a nonprofit organization raises unsettled questions of that volunteer’s status under tort and labor law. Cryptic legislative language and inconsistent judicial precedent undermine predictability for volunteers and nonprofit managers alike, and the standards fail to reflect a coherent balance between the legitimate expectations of altruistic workers and the realities of the nonprofit-volunteer relationship.

Institutional processes for regulating government-nonprofit relations in the U.S. are experiencing substantial growth, particularly at the state level. First, cabinet-level nonprofit “tsars” are being appointed by state governments as point persons for communication and coordination with nonprofits. Second, high-level cross-sector task forces are being established to examine the current relations between the sectors and to recommend reforms in regulatory and oversight processes. Third, nonprofit industry associations are developing statements of operating standards that seek to promote greater discipline in operations. These processes are potentially harbingers of the creation of new institutionalized relationship systems (IRS). This paper examines the emergence of these new institutional arrangements, analyzes their short-term impacts and speculates about their durability.

Although nonprofit organizations are expected to engage in continuous evaluation, its effectiveness is hampered by limited resources and competing and untested instruments. This paper makes the case for the creation and use of more robust measures in nonprofit evaluation. Specifically, we argue for the involvement of nonprofits in the development of reliable and valid instruments that can be used to benchmark nonprofit organizations against one another and for funders and government to support these efforts through their investment in nonprofit measurement. We cite a particular measure, The Nonprofit Capacities Instrument, as an exemplar.

Conflicting cultural and religious values pose challenges – challenges that are too often ignored – to efforts to comprehend and to solve tough social problems. Value-conflict challenges call for much more thoughtful attention both by analysts seeking to understand the sources of problems, and by advocates for particular solutions. This contribution to the ARNOVA Policy Brief series draws on a wide range of historical and social research to advance its argument for recognizing value conflicts.

Nonprofit human service agencies are an essential part of the social safety net and their role in many policy fields such as community care, workforce development, and disability services is growing. The funding, delivery and entire configuration of human services systems is in transition in the US, as in many other countries, albeit with great variation depending upon local and regional circumstances. Consequently, nonprofit human service agencies need to develop sustainable program and business models that are also responsive to the heightened expectations on transparency and accountability. In addition, policymakers and government officials will need to work closely with nonprofit human service agencies in order to ensure effective and efficient service delivery. Drawing on evidence from the policy and nonprofit literatures, this brief offers a set of hypotheses about the implications, and possible paradoxes, for the nonprofit sector that are likely to emerge from the increasingly competitive environment among service providers and corresponding pressure by public and private funders for more collaboration among agencies. We explore both public policy for nonprofits in human services and strategic responses by this sector, considering the first order effects designed to enable nonprofits to adapt to a reconfigured model, and the second order effects in which governments and nonprofits address the consequences of the first round. These effects are likely to vary by organizational size and by service field, resulting in quite different outcomes and relationships with government for large multi-service agencies and those in highly regulated fields such as child protection versus small nonprofits, particularly in fields such as community care with closer connections to the informal sector.

Participatory processes – defined as formal efforts to involve constituents in government decision-making – are an increasingly common tool adopted by public agencies and other elite decision making bodies in many developed nations. Unfortunately, although conceptualized as a way to incorporate lay citizens as stakeholders, participation in such processes takes time and expertise that many citizens do not have. As a result, nonprofit leaders are often invited to participate as a logistical shortcut for citizen involvement. This representation, albeit nonelected and unaccountable, is an increasingly important way vulnerable groups are represented and a key aspect of many nonprofit organizations’ advocacy involvement. It is important to ask, then, how well nonprofits do when attempting to represent specific claimed constituents. It is likely their success varies greatly. While many organizations work to engage constituents in democratic ways – including ongoing outreach and communication strategies, establishing participatory mechanisms within their own organizations, and soliciting resident feedback – other nonprofits do not. Based on the authors’ collaborative research, his brief identifies four specific policy proposals that may help facilitate the inclusionary goals of participatory processes, promote democratic accountability among nonprofit representatives, and make sure the needs of vulnerable citizens are met.