This research examines the utility of spatial analysis for studying nonprofit sectors and the relations between nonprofits and for-profits. Information was obtained on nonprofit and for-profit education and human service providers in six metropolitan areas. Methods of spatial econometrics were used to examine the determinants of nonprofit locational patterns and the degree to which the locations of nonprofits were influenced by the locations of comparable nonprofits and for-profits. Similar nonprofits were found to be clustered, although the pattern differed across metropolitan areas. For the most part, a model of needs and resources explained the clustering. Exceptions were found, however, indicating clustering based on other factors over and above needs and resources. For educational support services, nonprofits were affected by comparable nonprofits in two sites. In youth services, nonprofits tend to locate near comparable for-profits. In Boston, nonprofits clustered with for-profits in a number of service categories.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic .
2.
Baum, J. A. C., & Haveman, H. A. (1997). Love thy neighbor? Differentiation and agglomeration in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898-1990 . Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 304-338 .
3.
Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1996). Toward an institutional ecology of organizational foundings . Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1378-1427 .
4.
Berry, B. J. L., & Parr, J. B. (1988). Market centers and retail location: Theory and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
5.
Bielefeld, W. (2000). Metropolitan nonprofit sectors: Findings from NCCS data . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 297-314 .
6.
Bielefeld, W. (2001). The geography of nonprofit sectors. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Bates (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 10688-10691). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier .
7.
Bielefeld, W., & Murdoch, J. C. (1995). Determinants of the spatial patterning of nonprofits in a metropolitan region (Political Economy Working Paper 95-15). Dallas: University of Texas at Dallas .
8.
Bielefeld, W., & Murdoch, J. C. (1997). The influence of demographics and distance on nonprofit location . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 207-225 .
9.
Burrough, P. A., & McDonnell, R. A. (1998). Principles of geographic information systems. New York: Oxford University Press .
10.
De Vita, C. J., Manjarrez, C., & Twombly, E. C. (1999) Organizations and neighborhood networks that strengthen families in the District of Columbia: Final report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute .
11.
Dun & Bradstreet. (1999). [Raw for-profit organization data]. Jersey City, NJ .
12.
Dun & Bradstreet. (2000). [Raw for-profit organization data]. Jersey City, NJ .
13.
Elazar, D. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell .
14.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (2000). Arcview GIS, Version 3.2. Redlands, CA: Author .
15.
Geolytics, Inc. (1999). Census CD + maps: Version 3. East Brunswick, NJ: Author .
16.
Ghosh, A., & Ingene, C. A. (1991). Spatial analysis in marketing: Theory, methods, and applications. Greenwich, CT: JAI .
17.
Greve, H. R. (2002). An ecological theory of spatial evolution: Local density dependence in Tokyo banking, 1894-1936 . Social Forces, 80, 847-879 .
18.
Hammack, D. C., & Young, D. R. (1993). Nonprofit organizations in a market economy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
19.
Hansmann, H. H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 27-42). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
20.
Hansmann, H. H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press .
21.
Haveman, H. A., & Nonnemaker, L. (2000). Competition in multiple geographic markets: The impact on growth and market entry . Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 232-267 .
22.
Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. (2001). Uncertainty, imitation, and plant location: Japanese multinational firms . Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 443-475 .
23.
Hirschmann, A. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
24.
James, E. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The non-profit sector: A research handbook (pp. 27-42). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
25.
Kincaid, J. (1980). Political culture and the urban quality of life . Publius, 10, 89-105 .
26.
McPherson, J. M. (1983). An ecology of affiliation . American Sociological Review, 48, 519-532 .
27.
Molotch, H., Freudenburg, W., & Paulsen, K. E. (2000). History repeats itself, but how? City characteristics, urban tradition, and the accomplishment of place . American Sociological Review, 65, 791-823 .
28.
National Center for Charitable Statistics, Center for Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute. (1999). [Unpublished IRS 1999 data]. (Available from National Center for Charitable Statistics, Center for Nonprofits and Philan thropy, The Urban Institute,2100M St. N.W., Washington, DC, 20037)
29.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Boston: Pitman .
30.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1986). The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy. New York: Oxford University Press .
31.
Rotolo, T. (2000). Town heterogeneity and affiliation: A multilevel analysis of voluntary association membership . Sociological Perspectives, 43, 271-290 .
32.
Salamon, L. (1987). Partners in public service: The scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 99-117). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
33.
Salamon, L. (1992). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. New York: The Foundation Center .
34.
Shughart, W. F., II. (1997). The organization of industry (2nd ed.). Houston, TX: Dame Publications .
35.
U.S.Department of Commerce. (1994). County and city data book: 1994. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office .
36.
Wallsten, S. J. (2001). An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and firm-level data . Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31, 571-599 .
37.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1988). The nonprofit economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
38.
Weisbrod, B. A. (Ed.). (1998). To profit or not to profit: The commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
39.
Wolch, J. (1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary sector in transition. New York: The Foundation Center .
40.
Wolch, J., & Geiger, R. K. (1983). The urban distribution of voluntary resources: An exploratory analysis . Environment and Planning A, 15, 1067-1082 .
41.
Wolch, J., Kim M. H., & Lee, J. G. (1990). A geography of children’s services in Los Angeles County (Working Paper #27, Dept. of Geography). Los Angeles: University of Southern California .
42.
Wolpert, J. (1988). The geography of generosity: Metropolitan disparities in donations and support for amenities . Annals of the American Association Geographers, 78, 665-679 .
43.
Wolpert, J. (1989a). Key indicators of generosity in communities. In V. A. Hodgkinson, R. W. Lyman, & Associates (Eds.), The future of the nonprofit sector (pp. 377-412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
44.
Wolpert, J. (1989b). Prudence and parsimony: A regional perspective . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18, 223-235 .
45.
Wolpert, J. (1993a). Decentralization and equity in public and nonprofit sectors . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22, 281-296 .
46.
Wolpert, J. (1993b). Patterns of generosity in America: Who’s holding the safety net? New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press .
47.
Wolpert, J. (1995). Giving and region: Generous and stingy communities. In C. H. Hamilton & W. F. Illchman (Eds.), Cultures of giving: How region and religion influence philanthropy (pp. 11-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
