Summary of Results - Task Force Survey of Nonprofits
During summer, 2010, a subcommittee of task force members (Bee Moorhead, Barry Silverberg, and Angela Bies) and OneStar personnel (Anna McElearney, coordinating survey development, and Erin Brackney, providing substantive and research expertise) designed a survey of nonprofits to augment testimony provided at the spring, 2010 public hearings. The survey task force was charged with the tasks of eliciting input from nonprofits statewide; particular care was to be given to reach out to faith-based and community organizations, as well as the general population of Texas nonprofits.
Survey purposes were threefold:
Please review the full compendium of survey results. A synopsis of key findings follows below.
Survey purposes were threefold:
- to obtain feedback on perceptions of and how to strengthen nonprofit capacity in Texas;
- to document nonprofit barriers to funding and management of funding relationships and contracts; and
- to understand nonprofit collaboration.
Please review the full compendium of survey results. A synopsis of key findings follows below.
Research Design & Survey Respondent Profile
The task force subcommittee and OneStar Foundation contracted O’Neil Associates, Inc. to host and tabulate an online survey of Texas nonprofit organizations during August, 2010. The fifteen minute anonymous survey utilized a mix of open and closed questions, designed to garner both unguarded and systematic responses. The survey contained some 70 items, organized around the following substantive areas:
Texas, not unlike other states, does not have a central database of nonprofit addresses (this in and of itself poses challenges to nonprofit capacity building); rather, researchers must rely on a hodge-podge of sources including data from nonprofit financial returns to the IRS, corporate filings, and lists from a diffuse set of network organizations and nonprofit associations. Additionally, to date there has been no systematic data list of religiously exempt nonprofit organizations and very small organizations, two categorizations sometimes overlapping the classifications of FBCOs and CBOs. These problems are further exacerbated by the spotty, at best, inclusion of e-mail contact information in the extant and accessible lists of nonprofit organizations. The result of this in many large-scale surveys of nonprofits is an over-representation of large and formalized nonprofits, to the exclusion of the somewhat vast population of small, local, and faith-based organizations comprising the nonprofit landscape.
To overcome these challenges and to obtain adequate input from FCBOs and CBOs, in addition to the larger population of Texas nonprofits, a network sampling strategy was employed, which utilized distribution of the survey through more than forty core networks of community, faith-based, and other nonprofits. A total of 716 responses were collected between July 30 and August 30, 2010. As demonstrated in the profile of survey respondents below, the task force research is particularly useful because the survey respondents represent the distribution of the population of nonprofits, including small, faith-based, and community organizations. In addition, human service, education, and health organizations are over-represented in comparison to general population estimates of the Texas nonprofit sector, appropriate given that this is the largest proportion of nonprofits funded by public agencies, a key focus of the research. This outcome is particularly compelling for the appropriateness and utility of the research findings presented herein to informing HB 492.
The following is the profile of survey respondents:
- The vast majority of the organizations surveyed are 501(c)(3) organizations.
The task force subcommittee and OneStar Foundation contracted O’Neil Associates, Inc. to host and tabulate an online survey of Texas nonprofit organizations during August, 2010. The fifteen minute anonymous survey utilized a mix of open and closed questions, designed to garner both unguarded and systematic responses. The survey contained some 70 items, organized around the following substantive areas:
- strengthening nonprofit capacity, a set of open questions designed to mirror guidance provided at the public hearings regarding capacity building needs and recommendations followed by specific questions on perceptions of cost, accessibility and effectiveness of extant capacity building providers;
- relationships with funders, comprising largely closed questions on access to information, barrier to, and experiences with funding from federal, state, and local funders, as well as private/corporate funders;
- partnerships and collaborations, comprising open questions relating to non-financial aspects of relationships with funders and other key collaborators.
Texas, not unlike other states, does not have a central database of nonprofit addresses (this in and of itself poses challenges to nonprofit capacity building); rather, researchers must rely on a hodge-podge of sources including data from nonprofit financial returns to the IRS, corporate filings, and lists from a diffuse set of network organizations and nonprofit associations. Additionally, to date there has been no systematic data list of religiously exempt nonprofit organizations and very small organizations, two categorizations sometimes overlapping the classifications of FBCOs and CBOs. These problems are further exacerbated by the spotty, at best, inclusion of e-mail contact information in the extant and accessible lists of nonprofit organizations. The result of this in many large-scale surveys of nonprofits is an over-representation of large and formalized nonprofits, to the exclusion of the somewhat vast population of small, local, and faith-based organizations comprising the nonprofit landscape.
To overcome these challenges and to obtain adequate input from FCBOs and CBOs, in addition to the larger population of Texas nonprofits, a network sampling strategy was employed, which utilized distribution of the survey through more than forty core networks of community, faith-based, and other nonprofits. A total of 716 responses were collected between July 30 and August 30, 2010. As demonstrated in the profile of survey respondents below, the task force research is particularly useful because the survey respondents represent the distribution of the population of nonprofits, including small, faith-based, and community organizations. In addition, human service, education, and health organizations are over-represented in comparison to general population estimates of the Texas nonprofit sector, appropriate given that this is the largest proportion of nonprofits funded by public agencies, a key focus of the research. This outcome is particularly compelling for the appropriateness and utility of the research findings presented herein to informing HB 492.
The following is the profile of survey respondents:
- The vast majority of the organizations surveyed are 501(c)(3) organizations.
- The vast majority of organizations surveyed are involved in providing services (83%). Another 13% both provide funding and services. Only 4% of these organizations fund others but do not provide services.
- Nearly a third of organizations surveyed (31%) were human service organizations. Another 16 % were health related, and 15 % were education related. And 10% were a combination of community improvement, capacity building and philanthropy. Youth development organizations represented 8% of the sample, with arts, culture and humanities and religious organizations each representing an additional 5% of surveyed organizations.
- One-fifth (20%) are faith-based or religiously-affiliated. Of the one-fifth that identified as being faith-based, Christian affiliations (unclassified or of a specific denomination) were most common. Six percent identified Jewish affiliations. None indicated a Muslim affiliation. More than 30%, however, self-identified as either non-denominational or other. Faith-based organizations are more likely to be smaller organizations.
- On average, individual donations comprise the largest revenue stream (at 27% of revenue).
- Government Grants (17% each) and Government Contracts (10%) comprise the second largest areas of revenue.
- The next largest revenue stream represented is Private/Corporate Funding (16%).
- The median number of employees including both full and part-time employees is 12.
- Among those with no full-time employees, 60% consider volunteers to be very important. Among those with no paid employees whatsoever, this number rises to 70%.
- Volunteers are also more significant among faith-based organizations. Among this group, 45% consider volunteers to be very important and an additional 27% consider them to be important, a total of 73%.
Key Findings
Strengthening Nonprofit Capacity
- In response to the open question relating to the “number one capacity need for nonprofits”:
- Nonprofits were then asked to offer recommendations for addressing the capacity needs of Texas nonprofits.
- Nonprofit organizations were asked to identify to whom they look for assistance in strengthening their organization’s capacity and to assess accessibility, effectiveness, and cost.
Relationships with Funders
In terms of Information on Funding:
- The most common means that these nonprofits hear about funding opportunities is through existing relationships with funding or other agency staffs.
In terms of Barriers to Funding, variation exists among types of funding sources.
Barriers to Federal Funding:
- Organizations experience a wide range of barriers to federal funding.
Barriers to State Funding:
- Generally speaking, barriers to state funding were somewhat lower than barriers to federal funding
- When asked for the most significant barriers in state funding, three items predominated: inexperience at writing proposals or applications (24%), lack of fit with organization (28%), and restrictive applicant qualifications (10%).
Barriers to Local Funding:
- Barriers to local funding were generally lower than those for either federal or state funding.
Barriers to Private and Corporate Funding:
In terms of Challenges Post-funding, federal and state funding challenges were virtually identical; local funding challenges were considerably lower.
Partnerships and Collaborations
Nearly 40% of respondents reported not collaborating or partnering in any manner.
Of those who do partner or collaborate, respondents reported several key ways, including:
(Note: some individual respondents provided more than one response, which is why the proportion of responses exceeds 100%):
The following challenges to partnerships and collaboration were cited:
Strengthening Nonprofit Capacity
- In response to the open question relating to the “number one capacity need for nonprofits”:
- Fully 50%, with a great deal of unanimity, cited funding concerns, specifically the need for general operating support, multi-year support (particularly from foundations), and greater revenue diversification. Of these respondents, a common concern related to the “stigma of overhead” costs” or a desire to recognize reasonable overhead costs in nonprofits.
- Nearly one third of respondents, cited leadership and management capacity as lacking.
- Nonprofits were then asked to offer recommendations for addressing the capacity needs of Texas nonprofits.
- Relative to reporting and evaluation concerns, a majority of respondent (52%) indicated that given their frustration with reporting and a desire for greater use of reporting and evaluation findings by funders and nonprofit agencies themselves, so that such findings could be useful in building capacity. Illustrative of this point were numerous references to “the black hole” of reporting and evaluation; another offered an apt summary of this stream of responses, “If we are going to invest all of this time, effort, and money in meeting reporting requirements, let’s see them used.”
- Recommendations related to collaboration, networks, and associations were also common (expressed by 48% of respondents), expressed primarily in terms of: greater collaboration among/with funders on setting strategic goals; greater shared goals among nonprofits statewide; greater collaboration of nonprofits (illustrative response: “we are working in isolation”); collaborative work on shared policy interests (e.g., tax incentives for volunteering, retaining share of federal funds at state level, etc.)
- More than one-third (38%) recommended taking steps to improve public awareness of nonprofits and importance of nonprofit sector to state and citizens.
- And, 37% of respondents recommended strengthening “infrastructure”/information resources on capacity-building and technical resources for nonprofits. Questions identified relative to this recommendation included—Where are resources? How to access them? How to trust resources? How to use them?
- Nonprofit organizations were asked to identify to whom they look for assistance in strengthening their organization’s capacity and to assess accessibility, effectiveness, and cost.
- In the general categorizations by type of provider: Nearly one-third identified foundations or other nonprofits, 13% donors (with no other explanation), and government (11%).
- When categorized by specific providers: Foundations were identified most frequently (by 48% of respondents); all levels of government (30%); individuals, board members or internal nonprofit resources (30%) and local nonprofit management support centers and local United Ways (at 12% each).
- In terms of accessibility, effectiveness and cost of providers: the affordability of providers is ranked measurably lower than either the accessibility or effectiveness of these organizations.
- About five-in-six (83%*) respondents found those providers who assist in strengthening their organization’s capacity to be accessible. This includes one-in-five (21%) who find them to be very accessible.
- Generally speaking, those with fewer full-time employees found providers to be less accessible than those with more full-time employees.
- While a clear majority (59%) rated providers affordable, a considerable minority (41%) feel that these providers are expensive, including 6% who feel they are very expensive.
Relationships with Funders
In terms of Information on Funding:
- The most common means that these nonprofits hear about funding opportunities is through existing relationships with funding or other agency staffs.
- Existing relationships are particularly likely to be leveraged by larger organizations (whether measured by full-time employees or total number of employees).
- Existing relationships are also more likely to be used by that do not identify as faith-based.
- An implication of these findings is that small nonprofits and FBCOs may not operate within “networks” of government, private/corporate, or other institutional funders.
- Again, RFPs are especially likely to be used by larger organizations, whether measured by the total number of employees or the number of full-time employees.
- RFPs are also more likely to be used by organizations that provide services (58%) and organizations that are faith-based (57%).
In terms of Barriers to Funding, variation exists among types of funding sources.
Barriers to Federal Funding:
- Organizations experience a wide range of barriers to federal funding.
- The most commonly cited were narrow application windows (33%), inexperience at writing proposals (31%), lack of fit between application requirements and a particular organization (31%) and restrictive applicant qualifications (30%).
- Barriers mentioned slightly less often include an inability to raise match (26%), an inadequate overhead allowance (23%) and too low a level of funding for the effort required (21%).
- Less commonly mentioned were systemic biases against organizations like the respondent’s and faith-based or religiously-affiliated organizational restrictions. Interestingly, the faith-based restriction was cited by 41% of faith-based organizations but only 6% of non-faith-based organizations. For faith-based organizations, this 41% matched inexperience at writing proposals (also 41%) as the single greatest barrier to federal funding.
- While this finding was not surprising, the relationship was dramatic: The proportion doubled and was cited by a majority of small organizations.
Barriers to State Funding:
- Generally speaking, barriers to state funding were somewhat lower than barriers to federal funding
- When asked for the most significant barriers in state funding, three items predominated: inexperience at writing proposals or applications (24%), lack of fit with organization (28%), and restrictive applicant qualifications (10%).
- Once again, inexperience at writing proposals loomed large for those organizations with no full-time employees. This was cited as a reason by 58% of those with no paid employees and 52% of those with no full-time employees. Furthermore, it was cited as the most important obstacle by 34% of those with no paid employees and 30% of those with no full-time employees.
- Furthermore, faith-based or religious-based restrictions were an obstacle for 36% of faith-based organizations, and it was the most significant barrier for 16% of these organizations.
Barriers to Local Funding:
- Barriers to local funding were generally lower than those for either federal or state funding.
- Conspicuous exception--relatively small number who cited the amount of funding and brief grant period.
- Inexperience in grant writing was an especially noteworthy issue again for organizations without a full-time employee (48% among those with no paid employees and 40% among those with no full-time employees). Furthermore, it was the single most significant obstacle for among 30% of organizations with no paid employees and 35% of those with no full-time employees.
- One-third (33%) of faith-based organizations were far more likely to encounter faith-based restrictions in local funding, and 16% cited this as their most significant obstacle in obtaining local funding.
Barriers to Private and Corporate Funding:
- The most noteworthy obstacles to private and corporate funding were lack of fit (29%), small levels of funding or short grant periods (27%) and restrictive applicant qualifications (26%).
- Most other restrictions were generally lower than corresponding proportions for government funding.
- Thirty-nine percent (39%) of faith-based organizations found faith-based restrictions to be an obstacle in private or corporate funding.
- Twenty-three percent (23%) of faith-based organizations cited it as the most significant obstacle to receiving private or corporate funding.
In terms of Challenges Post-funding, federal and state funding challenges were virtually identical; local funding challenges were considerably lower.
- The most significant post funding challenge in federal contracts, the dominant response (given by 18% of respondents) was burdensome reporting requirements.
- Somewhat less frequently cited were insufficient operating or indirect cost support and a lack of personnel within the organization to manage the grant, cited by 9% in each case.
- Post funding challenges for state funding were virtually identical to those for federal funding.
- Post funding challenges for local funding are considerably lower than for federal or state funding. The rank ordering of problems, however, was virtually identical.
- Private /Corporate challenges post-funding are conspicuously different from that which is evident in all levels of government funding. The most frequently cited challenge was insufficient general operating support or indirect cost allowable. Most post-funding challenges were evaluated as being lower than those for government funding, however.
Partnerships and Collaborations
Nearly 40% of respondents reported not collaborating or partnering in any manner.
Of those who do partner or collaborate, respondents reported several key ways, including:
(Note: some individual respondents provided more than one response, which is why the proportion of responses exceeds 100%):
- combining programs or special events/activities (31% of respondents)
- sharing funding and other resources including staff (27%)
- sharing information/best practices/and networking ( 23%)
- Identifying service gaps and duplicated services (11%)
- referring clients to other nonprofits (11%)
- as part of a larger formal network (9%)
The following challenges to partnerships and collaboration were cited:
- lack of time (22% of respondents)
- identified competition (17%)
- inability to find funding (14%)
- organizational fit with other organizations (13%)
- lack of staff to operate a collaborative effort (12%)
- organizational capacity, finding willing organizations, and communication difficulties (approximately 10% each)
- Respondent nonprofits varied widely in terms of their use of volunteers.
- Volunteers are more significant to organizations with no or limited paid staff, small organizations, and faith-based organizations.
Study Implications
This study identifies central concerns of Texas nonprofits regarding their individual and collective capacity, and sheds light on the complexities of strengthening nonprofit capacity and points to some of the worrisome barriers and challenges facing nonprofits in Texas. Further, key results from the study are salient in understanding the situations of FCBOs and small nonprofits, organizations previously understudied in Texas and elsewhere. Task Force members appreciate the generous participation of so many Texas nonprofits and the network organizations that helped facilitate distribution of the survey. It is from this strong empirical base that the Task Force deliberated and determined recommendations. It is the hope of the Task Force that this research will be of use to others interested in and in a position to strengthen nonprofit capacity in Texas.
This study identifies central concerns of Texas nonprofits regarding their individual and collective capacity, and sheds light on the complexities of strengthening nonprofit capacity and points to some of the worrisome barriers and challenges facing nonprofits in Texas. Further, key results from the study are salient in understanding the situations of FCBOs and small nonprofits, organizations previously understudied in Texas and elsewhere. Task Force members appreciate the generous participation of so many Texas nonprofits and the network organizations that helped facilitate distribution of the survey. It is from this strong empirical base that the Task Force deliberated and determined recommendations. It is the hope of the Task Force that this research will be of use to others interested in and in a position to strengthen nonprofit capacity in Texas.
