Abstract
Governments depend on nonprofit, voluntary sector organisations to deliver social and community services, and public funding is the sector’s most important income source. However, in many countries, public funding for social services is becoming more limited, conditional and precarious, and governments are encouraging nonprofits to diversify their funding base, and shift their reliance to income from market activity and private donations. This article is concerned with access to philanthropic and commercial funding among nonprofits, and the factors affecting it. It firstly discusses an emerging policy agenda to promote private funding among nonprofit community service providers. Then, multivariate analysis of survey data from 521 Australian nonprofits shows which organisations access income from client fees, business activities, community fundraising, and philanthropic foundations. By exploring inequalities in the distribution of these main sources of private funding, the article helps identify the types of organisations that face challenges in establishing and sustaining streams of private income, and which are likely to require ongoing public support.
Resume
Les gouvernements dépendent d’organismes sans but lucratif bénévoles pour la prestation des services sociaux et communautaires et le financement public est la source de revenus la plus importante du secteur. Dans de nombreux pays, le financement public des services sociaux se fait toutefois de plus en plus restreint, conditionnel et précaire. Les gouvernements encouragent donc les OSBL à diversifier leur base de financement et à se fier de plus en plus aux revenus générés par les activités de marché et les dons privés. Cet article se penche sur l’accès au financement philanthropique et commercial dont jouissent les OSBL et sur les facteurs qui l’influencent. Il traite d’abord d’un programme politique émergent favorisant le financement privé au sein des prestataires sans but lucratif de services communautaires. Une analyse multivariable des données d’un sondage mené auprès de 521 OSBL australiens dévoile quelles organisations génèrent des revenus par l’intermédiaire de frais client, activités commerciales, campagnes de financement communautaires et fondations philanthropiques. En explorant les inégalités qui existent dans la répartition de ces principales sources de financement privé, le présent article identifie les types d’organisations qui peinent à établir et soutenir des flux de revenus privés et ceux qui devront vraisemblablement avoir continuellement recours au soutien du public.
Zusammenfassung
Regierungen sind bei der Bereitstellung sozialer und kommunaler Dienstleistungen von gemeinnützigen Organisationen im Freiweilligensektor abhängig, wobei öffentliche Mittel die wichtigste Einnahmenquelle des Sektors darstellen. Allerdings ist die öffentliche Finanzierung sozialer Dienstleistungen in vielen Ländern zunehmend eingeschränkt, konditional und unsicher, und Regierungen fordern gemeinnützige Organisationen dazu auf, ihre Finanzierungsbasis zu diversifizieren und sich vermehrt auf Einnahmen aus Marktaktivitäten und private Spenden zu stützen. Dieser Beitrag untersucht den Zugang der gemeinnützigen Organisationen zu philanthropischer und kommerzieller Finanzierung sowie die damit zusammenhängenden Einflussfaktoren. Zunächst wird eine neue politische Agenda zur Förderung einer privaten Finanzierung der gemeinnützigen kommunalen Dienstleistungsanbieter diskutiert. Anschließend zeigt eine multivariate Analyse von Daten aus einer Umfrage von 521 gemeinnützigen australischen Organisationen, welche Organisationen Einnahmen aus Kundengebühren, Geschäftstätigkeiten, kommunalen Spendenaktionen und philanthropischen Stiftungen beziehen. Der Beitrag erforscht die Ungleichheiten in der Verteilung dieser wichtigen privaten Finanzierungsquellen und identifiziert die Organisationstypen, die Probleme bei der Etablierung und Aufrechterhaltung privater Einkommensströme haben und die aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach dauerhaft auf öffentliche Unterstützung angewiesen sind.
Resumen
[Los gobiernos dependen de las organizaciones del sector voluntario sin ánimo de lucro para la entrega de servicios sociales y comunitarios, y la financiación pública es la fuente de ingresos más importante del sector. Sin embargo, en muchos países la financiación pública de servicios sociales cada vez está siendo más limitada, condicional y precaria, y los gobiernos están animando a las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro a que diversifiquen su base de financiación, y cambien su dependencia a ingresos procedentes de la actividad del mercado y donaciones privadas. Al presente artículo le preocupa el acceso a la financiación filantrópica y comercial entre las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro, y los factores que le afectan. En primer lugar, analiza una agenda política emergente para promover la financiación privada entre los proveedores de servicios comunitarios sin ánimo de lucro. Después, un análisis multivariable de datos de encuestas de 512 organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro australianas muestra que las organizaciones acceden a ingresos procedentes de tarifas de clientes, actividades comerciales, recaudación de fondos comunitarios y fundaciones filantrópicas. Mediante la exploración de las desigualdades en la distribución de estas principales fuentes de financiación privada, el artículo ayuda a identificar los tipos de organizaciones que se enfrentan a retos para establecer y sustentar corrientes de ingresos privadas, y que es probable que requieran apoyo público continuo.
政府依靠非盈利公益部门机构提供社会和社区服务,公共基金是这个部门最重要的收入来源。但在很多国家,社会服务的公共基金越来越有限,附加了各种条件并且岌岌可危,政府鼓励非盈利组织使其基金来源多样化,转变对市场活动和私人捐助收入的依赖性。 本文涉及非盈利组织对慈善基金和商业基金的使用,以及影响因素。首先,本文讨论了一个新兴政策议题,促进非盈利社区服务提供者之间的私募基金。然后,对于521个澳大利亚非盈利组织的调查数据展开多变量分析,说明通过客户付费、商业活动、社区集资和慈善基金会方式取得收入的组织。通过研究这些主要私募基金来源分布的不均衡性,本文有助于确定在建立并维持私募收入流时面对挑战的组织类型,以及可能需要不断公众支持的组织类型。
تعتمد الحكومات على مؤسسات القطاع الغير هادفة للربح ، تطوعية لتقديم الخدمات الإجتماعية والمجتمعية، والتمويل العام هو القطاع الأكثر أهمية لمصدر الدخل. مع ذلك، في كثير من البلدان، التمويل العام للخدمات الإجتماعية أصبح أكثر محدودية، مشروط وغير مستقر، والحكومات تشجع المنظمات الغير ربحية على تنويع قاعدتها التمويلية، وتحول إعتمادهم إلى الدخل من نشاط التعاملات التجارية والتبرعات الخاصة. تهتم هذه المقالة بالوصول إلى التمويل الخيري والتجاري بين المنظمات الغير ربحية، والعوامل المؤثرة عليه. تناقش أولا” جدول الأعمال السياسة الناشئة لتشجيع التمويل الخاص بين مقدمي الخدمة المجتمعية الغير ربحية. ثم، التحليل متعدد المتغيرات من بيانات إستطلاع الرأي من 521 عروض منظمات غير ربحية أسترالية التي تحصل المنظمات على الدخل من رسوم العملاء، الأنشطة التجارية، جمع تبرعات المجتمع، والمؤسسات الخيرية. من خلال إكتشاف عدم المساواة في توزيع هذه المصادر الرئيسية لتمويل القطاع الخاص، تساعد هذه المقالة على تحديد أنواع المنظمات التي تواجه تحديات تتمثل في إنشاء والمحافظة على تدفق الدخل الخاص، والتي من المرجح أن يتطلب دعم عام جاري.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
McClure’s 2014 interim report framed a privatisation agenda in welfare, claiming a need for Australia to “foster an environment which encourages businesses and high-net-worth individuals to engage in capacity building initiatives” (DSS 2014, p. 110), and stating that individual philanthropists, corporate and family foundations and private ancillary funds “are often better positioned [than government] to bring innovative solutions to complex social problems” (DSS 2014, p. 109).
Since 2012, the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission has kept a register of charities, and charities have been required to report annually since 2013. However, not all nonprofit community service providers are registered charities, making this an incomplete source of comparative information.
Respondents reported a small proportion of income in the ‘Other’ category. As no more details were provided, we were unable to categorise this as public, philanthropic or market, so excluded it from subsequent analysis.
Cortis et al. (2015) for example estimated that for social service charities with less than $250,000 in annual income, 25 % of income was from government funding, rising to 65 % for those with income over $10 million.
References
ACOSS (Australian Council of Social Service) (2014). Australian Community Sector Survey 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.acoss.org.au/images/uploads/ACSS2014_final.pdf.
ACPNS (Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies). (2014). Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) 2000–2012. ACPNS Current Issues Information Sheet 2014/3. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/74042/1/2014_3_PAFs.pdf.
Addis, R., Bowden, A., & Simpson, D. (2014). Delivering on impact: The Australian Advisory Board breakthrough strategy to catalyse impact investment, Impact Investing Australia, September 2014
Alcock, P., Kendall, J., & Parry, J. (2012). From the third sector to the Big Society: consensus or contention in the 2010 UK General Election. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(3), 347–363. doi:10.1332/204080512X658054.
Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anderson, G. (2013). Where the money goes: Private wealth for public good. Centre for Social Impact: University of New South Wales.
Australian Government. (2012). Government Response, Senate Economics References Committee Report—Investing for good: the development of a capital market for the not-for-profit sector in Australia. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/capitalmarket2011/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/economics_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/capital_market_2011/government_response/govt_response.ashx
Baines, D., & Cunningham, I. (2015). Care work in the context of austerity. Competition and Change, 19(3), 183–193. doi:10.1177/1024529415580263.
Body, A., & Breeze, B. (2016). What are ‘unpopular causes’ and how can they achieve fundraising success? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 57–70.
Butcher, J. (2015). The third sector and government in Australia: Not-for-profit reform under Labor, 2007–13. Australian Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 148–163. doi:10.1080/10361146.2014.994591.
Butcher, J., & Dalton, B. (2014). Cross-sector partnership and human services in Australian states and territories: Reflections on a mutable relationship. Policy and Society, 33(2), 141–153. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.05.001.
Carroll, D., & Stater, K. (2009). Revenue diversification in nonprofit organizations: Does it lead to financial stability? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 947–966. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun025.
Centre for Social Justice. (2014). Social solutions: Enabling grassroots charities to tackle poverty. London: Centre for Social Justice.
Chang, C., & Tuckman, H. (1994). Revenue diversification among non-profits. Voluntas, 5(3), 273–290. doi:10.1007/BF02354036.
Chikoto, G., & Neely, D. (2014). Building nonprofit financial capacity: The impact of revenue concentration and overhead costs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 570–588. doi:10.1177/0899764012474120.
Commission, Productivity. (2010). Contribution of the not-for-profit sector: Research report. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Committee on Community Services. (2013). Outsourcing community service delivery, New South Wales Parliament Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services Report 2/55. Retrieved April, 2015 from http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/89a082dfe5e9aaecca257c280018805c/$FILE/Outsourcing%20Community%20Service%20Delivery%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
Cortis, N., & Blaxland, M. (2014). The state of the community service sector in New South Wales 2014. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Australia.
Cortis, N., Lee, I., Powell, A., Simnett, R., & Reeve, R. (2015). Australian Charities Report 2014. UNSW Australia: Centre for Social Impact and Social Policy Research Centre.
Davies, S. (2011). Outsourcing, public sector reform and the changed character of the UK state-voluntary sector relationship. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(7), 641–649.
Department of Planning and Community Development. (2010). Funds Development for Community Foundations, Office for the Community Sector. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/770024/DPC116-OCS-FundsDev-FA-R4-web.pdf
Department of Planning and Community Development. (2012a). Community Sector and Business Partnerships Guide, Office for the Community Sector. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/770019/Community_sector_-and-_business_partnerships_guide.pdf
Department of Planning and Community Development. (2012b). Guiding Principles for Collaboration between Government and Philanthropy, Office for the Community Sector. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/770028/Guiding_Principles_Brochure.pdf
Dewberry, C. (2004). Statistical methods for organizational research. New York: Routledge.
DSS (Department of Social Service). (2014). A New System for Better Employment and Social Outcomes, Interim Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform to the Minister for Social Services.
DSS (Department of Social Service). (2015). A New System for Better Employment and Social Outcomes, Final Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform to the Minister for Social Services.
Eggers, W., & Macmillan, P. (2013). The solution revolution: How business, government, and social enterprises are teaming up to solve society’s toughest problems. Boston: Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu Ltd.
Evans, K. (2011). ‘Big Society’ in the UK: A policy review. Children and Society, 25(2), 164–171. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00351.x.
FACS (Family and Community Services, NSW) (2013). Family and Community Services Annual Report 2012–13. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0010/279037/3005_FACS_AR_2012-13_WEB_FACS_R.pdf.
Foster, M., & Meinhard, A. (2005). Diversifying revenue sources in Canada: Are women’s voluntary organizations different? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(1), 43–60.
Froelich, K. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2(3), 246–268.
Frumkin, P., & Keating, E. (2011). Diversification reconsidered: The risks and rewards of revenue concentration. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 151–164. doi:10.1080/19420676.2011.614630.
Furneaux, C., & Ryan, N. (2014). Modelling NPO-government relations: Australian case studies. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1113–1140. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.895030.
Gill-Atkinson, L., Vaughan, C., & Williams, H. (2014). Sexual and reproductive health and philanthropic funding in Australia. Sexual Health, 11, 298–304. doi:10.1071/SH13204.
Gray, M., Healy, K., & Crofts, P. (2003). Social Enterprise: is it the business of social work? Australian Social Work, 56(2), 141–154. doi:10.1046/j.0312-407X.2003.00060.x.
Gronbjerg, K. (1991). How nonprofit service organizations manage their funding sources: Key findings and policy implications. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(2), 159–175. doi:10.1002/nml.4130020206.
Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit? exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123–138. doi:10.1177/0899764005282482.
Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organization. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 27–42). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hogg, E., & Baines, S. (2011). Changing responsibilities and roles of the voluntary and community sector in the welfare mix: A review. Social Policy and Society, 10(3), 341–352. doi:10.1017/S1474746411000078.
Kearns, K., Bell, D., Deem, B., & McShane, L. (2014). How nonprofit leaders evaluate funding sources: An exploratory study of nonprofit leaders. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 121–143. doi:10.1177/0899764012458038.
Kramer, R. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: Dream or Nightmare? Social Service Review, 68, 33–60. doi:10.1086/604032.
Leat, D. (2010). Australian foundations and the downturn. The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies: Queensland University of Technology.
Magnus, S. (2002). Barriers to foundation funding of gay organizations. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(2), 125–145. doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_07.
Mayer, W., Wang, H., Egginton, H., & Flint, H. (2014). The impact of revenue diversification on expected revenue and volatility for nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 374–392. doi:10.1177/0899764012464696.
Morrison, S. (2015). ‘A good deal on welfare’, Ministerial address to ACOSS National Conference, Sydney, 26 June 2015.
Mosley, J., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2014). The relationship between philanthropic foundation funding and state-level policy in the era of welfare reform. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,. doi:10.1177/0899764014558932.
NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) (2015) UK Civil Society Almanac 2015. http://data.ncvo.org.uk/
OECD. (2015). Social impact investment: Building the evidence base. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/social-impact-investment.pdf.
Porter, A. (2013). Privatizing Social Policy in an Age of Austerity: The Canadian Case. In Paper presented at New Policies of Privatization, International Conference on Public Policy, Grenoble, June 26–28, 2013. http://www.icpublicpolicy.org/IMG/pdf/panel_39_s1_porter.pdf.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Fundraising Institute Australia and the Centre for Social Impact. (2009). Managing in a Downturn: A comprehensive survey of the impact of the economic downturn on not-for-profit organisations. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.csi.edu.au/media/uploads/Managing_in_a_downturn_-_Impact_of_economic_downturn_on_NfP_organisations_-_July_2009.pdf.
Saunders, P., & Wong, M. (2011). The social impact of the global financial crisis in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 46(3), 291–309.
Suarez, D. (2011). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 307–326. doi:10.1093/jpart/muq049.
Teasdale, S., Kerlin, J., Young, D. K., & Soh, J. (2013). Oil and water rarely mix: Exploring the relative stability of nonprofit revenue mixes over time. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 69–87. doi:10.1080/19420676.2012.762799.
Tomei, A. (2013). Foundations: Accountability and Legitimacy. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(3), 403–413. doi:10.1332/204080513X13808065558251.
Treasury (Australian Government) (2014). Financial System Inquiry Final Report, November 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://fsi.gov.au/files/2014/12/FSI_Final_Report_Consolidated20141210.pdf.
Weisbrod, B. (1988). The nonprofit economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilsker, A., & Young, D. (2010). How does program composition affect the revenues of nonprofit organizations? Investigating a benefits theory of nonprofit finance. Public Finance Review, 38(2), 193–216. doi:10.1177/1091142110369238.
Young, D., Wilsker, A., & Grinsfelder, M. (2010). Understanding the determinants of nonprofit income portfolios. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(2), 151–173. doi:10.1332/204080510X511229.
Zappala, G., & Lyons, M. (2008). Not-for-profit organisations and business: Mapping the extent and scope of community-business partnership in Australia. In J. Barraket (Ed.), Strategic issues for the not-for-profit sector. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Acknowledgments
The author is sincerely grateful for insightful comments on an earlier draft by Dr. Megan Blaxland, co-investigator on the ‘State of the Community Service Sector in NSW’ project from which data for the article were drawn. The article also benefited from helpful discussion at the ‘Reform and rhetoric in Australian social policy’ symposium hosted by the University of Sydney in September 2014, and discussion with Amanda Smithers from the Council of Social Service of New South Wales. Any errors or omissions are of course those of the author.
Grant-awarding Bodies
The article draws upon data collected for the State of the Community Services Sector Survey 2014, commissioned by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales on behalf of the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cortis, N. Access to Philanthropic and Commercial Income Among Nonprofit Community Service Organisations. Voluntas 28, 798–821 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9715-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9715-2