Abstract
Investments to build nonprofit organizational capacity have increased rapidly in recent years as both funders and nonprofits seek ways to improve performance. Yet, while research has elucidated the variety of capacity areas organizations generally depend on, we do not yet have a clear empirical understanding of which capacity areas are important to focus on developing or how these capacity needs vary across organizations. Using a life-cycle perspective and extensive data on 71 human service organizations, we examine the relative strength of ten capacity areas at different stages of the nonprofit life-cycle. Findings contribute greater empirical grounding for research on organizational capacity development and have implications for researchers, managers, and funders interested in nonprofit capacity building.
Résumé
Les investissements destinés à renforcer les capacités des organisations à but non lucratif ont rapidement augmenté ces dernières années puisque les bailleurs de fonds et les organisations à but non lucratif cherchent des moyens d’améliorer les performances. Pourtant, tandis que la recherche a élucidé la diversité des domaines liés aux capacités dont dépendent généralement les organisations, nous n’avons toujours pas de compréhension claire empirique des domaines qui sont importants pour se concentrer sur le développement ou de la façon dont ces besoins en capacités varient selon les organisations. En utilisant un point de vue du cycle de vie et de nombreuses données sur 71 organisations de services sociaux, nous examinons la force relative des 10 domaines liés aux capacités à différents stades du cycle de vie des organisations à but non lucratif. Les observations contribuent à des fondements plus empiriques pour la recherche sur le développement des capacités des organisations et ont des conséquences pour les chercheurs, les responsables et les bailleurs de fonds intéressés par le renforcement des capacités des organisations à but non lucratif.
Zusammenfassung
Die Investitionen für den Aufbau von Kapazitäten gemeinnütziger Organisationen sind in den letzten Jahren rapide angestiegen; denn sowohl die Geldgeber als auch die gemeinnützigen Organisationen suchen Mittel und Wege zur Leistungsverbesserung. Während in Studien die verschiedenen Kapazitätsbereiche, auf die die Organisationen im Allgemeinen angewiesen sind, erläutert wurden, haben wir noch immer kein eindeutiges empirisches Verständnis darüber, welche wichtigen Kapazitätsbereiche man insbesondere entwickeln sollte oder wie die Kapazitätsbedürfnisse für verschiedene Organisationen variieren. Unter Verwendung einer Lebenszyklusperspektive und umfassender Daten über 71 Human-Service-Organisationen untersuchen wir die relative Stärke von 10 Kapazitätsbereichen in verschiedenen Phasen des Lebenszyklus gemeinnütziger Organisationen. Die Ergebnisse stellen ein größeres empirisches Fundament für die Forschung über die Entwicklung der organisatorischen Kapazität zur Verfügung und sind für Forscher, Manager und Geldgeber, die am Kapazitätsaufbau im gemeinnützigen Bereich interessiert sind, von Bedeutung.
Resumen
Las inversiones para crear la capacidad organizativa de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro han aumentado rápidamente en los últimos años ya que tanto los financiadores como las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro buscan formas de mejorar el rendimiento. Sin embargo, aunque la investigación ha esclarecido la variedad de áreas de capacidad de las que dependen normalmente las organizaciones, no tenemos todavía una comprensión empírica clara de qué áreas de capacidad son importantes para centrarse en el desarrollo o cómo estas necesidades de capacidad varían en las organizaciones. Utilizando una perspectiva de ciclo de vida y los extensos datos sobre 71 organizaciones de servicios humanos, examinamos la fortaleza relativa de 10 áreas de capacidad en diferentes etapas del ciclo de vida de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. Los hallazgos contribuyen a una base empírica mayor para la investigación sobre el desarrollo de la capacidad organizativa y tienen implicaciones para los investigadores, los gestores y los financiadores interesados en la creación de capacidad de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro.
摘要
最近几年, 由于投资者和 非盈利机构 都在寻找提高组织机构表现的途径, 因此, 非盈利性机构的能力建设投资增长很快, 但是,虽然有研究揭示了组织机构通常所需的各种能力,但从经验主义角度,我们尚不清楚需要着重发展哪种能力或不同机构在对这些能力的需求有何差异。我们 根据71个人类服务机构的数据, 从生命周期角度,考察了10种能力在非盈利机构生命周期的各个阶段中的相对优势, 我们的发现为组织机构能力发展研究提供了经验主义基础, 对非盈利机构能力建设感兴趣的 研究人员、经理人 和 投资人 有具有重要意义。
ملخص
زادت الإستثمارات لبناء القدرات التنظيمية الغير ربحية بسرعة في السنوات الأخيرة كل من الممولين والمنظمات الغير ربحية يبحثون عن سبل لتحسين الأداء. حتى اﻵن، في حين أن الأبحاث تقوم بتوضيح قدرة المجالات المتنوعة التي تعتمد المنظمات عليها بشكل عام ، نحن لم يكن لدينا فهم واضح تجريبي عن أي مناطق االقدرات مهمة للتركيز علىها في التطوير أو كيف يمكن لهذه الإحتياجات للقدرات تتفاوت بين المنظمات. بإستخدام منظور دورة الحياة وبيانات واسعة من 71 من منظمات خدمة الإنسان، نحن نفحص القوة النسبية ل 10 مناطق قدرات على مراحل مختلفة لدورة حياة غير ربحية. النتائج تساهم في أكبر أسس تجريبية للبحوث في مجال تنمية القدرات التنظيمية و لها تأثير للباحثين والمديرين والممولين المهتمين بمجال بناء القدرات الغير ربحية.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The National Center for Charitable Statistics estimates that approximately 1.6 million nonprofit organizations exist in the United States. This figure includes a diverse group of organizations, both in size and mission, which range from health, education and human service organizations to advocacy groups and chambers of commerce. Close to two-thirds of these organizations are registered with the IRS as 501(c)(3) public charities. Since the late 1990s, this group of nonprofits has grown by more than 60 % and consisted of close to 1 million registered and reporting organizations at the time of this study.
This includes religious establishments and community development corporations, which we control for in the analysis due to the differences in these organizations’ capacity needs and attributes compared to the general human services sector. Because of the sampling method employed that was intended to maximize the visibility of the call and openness of participation, it is impossible to know the exact size of the sample pool. Based on 990 Data (NCCS), the population of Human Services organizations reporting under $1 million in revenue in the Jackson and Johnson counties was 492 in 2010. However, 990 data exclude many religious organizations and organizations under $25,000 in revenues, which the sample for this analysis includes.
For example, under the Financial capacity area, the element “Financial Planning/Budgeting” is indicated as a Level 1 if the organization demonstrates “no or very limited financial planning; general budget developed; only one budget for entire central organization; performance against budget loosely or not monitored.” Conversely, a Level 4 rating in this element is demonstrated by “very solid financial plans, continuously updated; budget integrated into full operations; as strategic tool, it develops from process that incorporates and reflects organizational needs and objectives; well-understood divisional (program or geographical) budgets within overall central budget; performance-to-budget closely and regularly monitored.”
As discussed above, each organization had two raters. Ratings for each capacity item were averaged across raters. Therefore, an organization with a capacity score coded 1 for the Low Capacity variable had at least one rater score that capacity item as a “1” (below a basic level of capacity) on the 4 point scale.
Sensitivity analyses using a 0--1 dummy for having high capacity (a capacity score greater than 3) and using a continuous dependent variable of the raw capacity score (ranging 1–4) were also conducted. These analyses demonstrate consistent findings as those shown in this analysis in terms of the substance and significance of the effects and the relative capacity levels and bundles across life stages.
The equations for the level-1 model for each capacity element score m in each organization j are:
$$\begin{aligned} & {\text{Probability that}}\left( {{\text{Low Capacity}}_{{mj}} = {\text{ 1}}|\psi _{j} } \right){\text{ }} = \phi _{{mj}} \hfill \\ &\ln \left( {\frac{{\phi _{{mj}} }}{{1 - \phi _{{mj}} }}} \right) = \eta _{{mj}} \hfill \\ &\eta _{{mj}} = \psi _{{1j}} *{\text{Mission}}_{{mj}} + \psi _{{2j}} *{\text{Program}}_{{mj}} + \psi _{{3j}} *HR_{{mj}} + \psi _{{4j}} *{\text{Leadership}}_{{mj}} \hfill \\ & \quad\quad+ \;\psi _{{5j}} *{\text{Technology}}_{{mj}} + \psi _{{6j}} *{\text{Financial}}_{{mj}} + \psi _{{7j}} *{\text{Fund Development}}_{{mj}} + \psi _{{8j}} *{\text{Board}}_{{mj}} \hfill \\ &\quad\quad+ \;\psi _{{9j}} *{\text{Legal}}_{{mj}} + \psi _{{10j}} *{\text{Marketing}}_{{mj}} \hfill \\ & {\text{And the equation for the level}}{\text{-2 model for each capacity area}}\;c\;{\text{is}}: \hfill \\ & \psi _{{cj}} = \gamma _{{c0}} + \gamma _{{c1}} *{\text{Growth}}_{j} + \gamma _{{c2}} *{\text{Mature}}_{j} + \gamma _{{c3}} *{\text{Declining}}_{j} + \gamma _{{c4}} *{\text{Turnaround}}_{j} \hfill \\ & \quad\quad+ \;\gamma _{{c5}} *{\text{Church}}_{j} + \gamma _{{c6}} *{\text{Development Corporation}}_{j} + \gamma _{{c7}} *Age_{j} + \gamma _{{c8}} *{\text{Size}}_{j} + u_{{cj}} \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$Sensitivity analyses using revenue size categories in the place of staff size and models that omit subsector controls yield consistent results as those shown in the analysis below. The final models using the continuous staff size variable were preferred over ones using size categories because they explain greater variance in the τc0 variance across capacity areas, demonstrating better overall fit. The continuous staff size variable also facilitates more uniform interpretation across organizations and is measured as a continuous variable instead of through a set of ordinal categorical dummy variables.
Sensitivity analyses explaining high capacity levels demonstrate consistent findings as those that explain low capacity. Mature organizations in particular stand out as having greater overall capacity across capacity areas than organizations in other life stages. Alternative models explaining the raw capacity score demonstrate additional robustness in the life stage measures, showing the same differences across life stages as shown in this analysis. Organizational size is also a robust measure across models. Size is an important driver of attaining higher capacity levels across capacity areas, which provides further support to the findings shown.
References
Adizes, I. (1979). Organizational passages: Diagnosing and treating life cycle problems in organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 8(1), 3–25.
Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage.
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 29–49.
Auster, R. D. (1974). The GPITPC and institutional entropy. Public Choice, 19(1), 77–83.
Balduck, A. L., Lucidarme, S., Marlier, M., & Willem, A. (2014). Organizational capacity and organizational ambition in nonprofit and voluntary sports clubs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9502-x.
Bess, G. (1998). A first stage organization life cycle study of six emerging nonprofit organizations in Los Angeles. Administration in Social Work, 22(4), 35–52.
Blumenthal, B. (2003). Investing in capacity building: A guide to high-impact approaches. New York: Foundation Center.
Brinckerhoff, P. (2000). Social entrepreneurship. New York: Wiley.
Brothers, J., & Sherman, A. (2012). Building nonprofit capacity: A guide to managing change through organizational lifecycles. Wiley, New York
Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Young, P. (2005). Building the capacity of the voluntary nonprofit sector: Challenges of theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 869–885.
Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Models of the organizational life-cycle: applications to higher education. Review of Higher Education, 6, 269–299.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany Good to Great. New York: Collins.
Connolly, P. (2006). Navigating the organizational lifecycle: A capacity-building guide for nonprofit leaders. Washington, DC: Boardsource.
Cornforth, C., Mordaunt, J., Aiken, M., and Otto, S. (2008). Learning from capacity building and lessons for other funders. Research report conducted for The Charities Aid Foundation Grant Programme.
Dart, R., Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1996). Boards of directors in nonprofit organizations do they follow a life-cycle model? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6(4), 367–379.
Davidsson, P., & Klofsten, M. (2003). The business platform: Developing an instrument to gauge and assist the development of young firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 1–26.
Doorenbos, A. Z., Verbitsky, N., Given, B., & Given, C. W. (2005). An analytic strategy for modeling multiple-item responses: A breast cancer symptom example. Nursing Research, 54(4), 229–234.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Gibb, A., & Scott, M. (1986). Understanding small firms growth. In M. Scott, et al. (Eds.), Small business growth and development (pp. 81–104). London: Gower.
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55–60.
Hanks, S. (1990). An empirical examination of the organizational life cycle in high technology firms. Doctoral dissertation. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 107–126.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Research and Theory: Nine Theses. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(4), 399–415.
Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric and public management. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hoy, F. (1995). Researching the entrepreneurial venture. In J. A. Katz & R. H. Brockhaus Sr (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (pp. 145–174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hoy, F. (2006). The complicating factor of life cycles in corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 831–836.
Jacobs, B. (2001). Echoes from the field: Proven capacity-building principles for nonprofits. Washington, DC: Innovation Network Inc.
Kearns, K. (2000). Private sector strategies for social sector success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Keehley, P., Medlin, S., Longmire, L., & MacBride, S. A. (1997). Benchmarking for best practices in the public sector: Achieving performance breakthrough in federal, state, and local Agencies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lecy, J. D., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2013). Nonprofit sector growth and density: Testing theories of government support. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 189–214.
Lester, D. L., Parnell, J. A., & Carraher, S. (2003). Organizational life cycle: A five-stage empirical scale. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 339–354.
Letts, C. W., Ryan, W., & Grossman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact. New York: Wiley.
Light, P. C., & Hubbard, E. T. (2004). The capacity building challenge: A research perspective. In P. Patrizi, K. Sherwood and A. Spector (Eds.) Practice matters: The Improving philanthropy project (pp. 3–60.). New York: The Foundation Center.
Lippitt, G. L., & Schmidt, W. H. (1967). Crises in a developing organization. Harvard Business Review, 45, 102–112.
McPhee, P., & Bare, J. (2001). Introduction. In C. J. De Vita & C. Fleming (Eds.), Building capacity in nonprofit organizations (pp. 1–3). Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Millesen, J. L., Carman, J. G., & Bies, A. L. (2010). Why engage? Understanding the incentive to build nonprofit capacity. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(1), 5–20.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organisation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
NCCS (2015). Nonprofit program classification. National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS). http://nccs.urban.org/classification/NPC.cfm
Paton, R., & Foot, J. (2000). Nonprofit’s use of awards to improve and demonstrate performance: valuable discipline or burdensome formalities? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(4), 329–353.
Patrizi, P., Sherwood, K., & Spector, A. (Eds.). (2004). The capacity building challenge. Practice matters: The improving philanthropy project. New York: The Foundation Center.
Phelps, R., Adams, R., & Bessant, J. (2007). Life cycles of growing organizations: A review with implications for knowledge and learning. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 1–30.
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33–51.
Rasch, G. (1966). An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19, 49–57.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
Raudenbush, S. W., Johnson, C., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). A multivariate, multilevel Rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. Sociological Methodology, 33, 169–211.
Rijmen, F., Tuerlinckx, F., De Boeck, P., & Kuppens, P. (2003). A nonlinear mixed model framework for item response theory. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 185–205.
Roberts, J. K., & Herrington, R. (2004). Demonstration of software programs for estimating multilevel measurement model parameters. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(3), 255–272.
Rojas, R. R. (2000). A review of models for measuring organizational effectiveness among for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(1), 97–104.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 701–728.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 3–61). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Schmid, H. (2006). Leadership styles and leadership change in human and community service organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(2), 179–194.
Scott, B. R. (1971). Stages of corporate development—Part I. Boston: Intercollegiate Case Clearing House, Harvard University.
Simon, J. S. (2001). Five life stages of nonprofit organizations: where you are, where you’re going, and what to expect when you get there. Saint Paul, MN: Fieldstone Alliance.
Stevens, S. K. (2001). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofit capacity. Wayzata, MN: Stagewise Enterprises.
Stevens, S. K. (2008). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofit capacity (2nd ed.). Long Lake, Minnesota: Stagewise Enterprises.
Strichman, N., Bickel, W. E., & Marshood, F. (2008). Adaptive capacity in Israeli social change nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 224–248.
Stubbart, C. I., & Smalley, R. D. (1999). The deceptive allure of stage models of strategic processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 273–287.
Venture Philanthropy Partners (VPP). (2001). Effective capacity building in nonprofit organizations. Report for VPP prepared by McKinsey & Company. Reston, VA
Wing, K. T. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of capacity-building initiatives: Seven issues for the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 153–160.
Young, D. R. (1983). If not for profit, for what? A behavioral theory of the nonprofit sector based on entrepreneurship. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank David O. Renz, Robert D. Herman, Dennis R. Young, and Edmund C. Stazyk for comments on earlier drafts. This research was partially supported by the Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership, a service and outreach unit of the Department of Public Affairs in the Henry W. Bloch School of Management at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Special acknowledgement and thanks are given to David O. Renz and the Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership for development of the capacity and life stage instruments and support to develop the data used in this analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Andersson, F.O., Faulk, L. & Stewart, A.J. Toward More Targeted Capacity Building: Diagnosing Capacity Needs Across Organizational Life Stages. Voluntas 27, 2860–2888 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9634-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9634-7