Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The authors examine technical aspects of surveying nonprofits to determine whether inferences about characteristics of the sector depend on how samples are selected. Using a stratified sample drawn from a comprehensive nonprofit database, they analyze how major profile features of the nonprofit sector vary by sampling source and by how broadly researchers define the sector. The results reveal significant differences in the accuracy, completeness, and response rates associated with alternative sampling sources. Nonprofits found on multiple listings respond at higher rates and are more formalized than those found on only one sampling source, and sampling sources vary in the profiles they generate for the nonprofit sector. The authors conclude that researchers who wish to generalize their findings to the full nonprofit sector should consider the list of incorporated nonprofits as a sampling frame—it is among the most efficient and produces the fewest distortions in nonprofit profile features.

Keywords

nonprofit databases sampling frames research methodologies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boraas, S. (2003). Volunteerism in the United States. Monthly Labor Review, 126, 3-11. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2003/08/art1full.pdf

Dale, H. (1993). On estimating the size of the nonprofit sector in the US economy. Voluntas, 4(2), 183-189.

Grønbjerg, K. A. (1989). Developing a universe of nonprofit organizations: Methodological considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(1), 63-80.

Grønbjerg, K. A. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social service and community development organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grønbjerg, K. A. (1994). The NTEE: Human service and regional applications. Voluntas, 5, 301-328.

Grønbjerg, K. A. (2002). Evaluating nonprofit databases. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1741-1778.

Grønbjerg, K. A. , & Paarlberg, L. (2002). Extent and nature of overlap between listings of IRS tax-exempt registration and nonprofit incorporation: The case of Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), 565-594.

Indiana nonprofits: Scope and community dimensions. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.indiana.edu/%7Enonprof/results/paperabstracts.html

Indiana Secretary of State . (n.d.). Business search. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from https://secure.in.gov/sos/bus_service/online_corps/default.asp

10.

Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management . (1995). California nonprofit organizations 1995. San Francisco: University of San Francisco.

11.

Internal Revenue Service Business Master File. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=97186,00.html

12.

National Center for Charitable Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=31

13.

Philanthropic Research, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.guidestar.org/

14.

Salamon, L. M. (Ed.).(2002a). The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

15.

Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002b). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

16.

Salamon, L. M. , & Tice, H. S. (2003). Capturing nonprofit institutions in national accounts. OECD Statistics Newsletter, 14, 2-4.

17.

Smith, D. H. (1997a). Grassroots associations are important: Some theory and a review of the impact literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 269-306.

18.

Smith, D. H. (1997b). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing ‘flat earth’ maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 114-131.

19.

Smith, D. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Smith, S. R. , & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21.

Tucker, D. J. , Baum, J. A. , & Singh, J. A. (1992). Institutional ecology of human service organizations. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (pp. 47-72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

22.

U.S. Bureau of the Census . (1999). Consolidated federal funds report, FY 1998: State and county areas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

23.

Weitzman, M. S. , Jalandoni, N. T. , Lampkin, L. M. , & Pollak, T. H. (2002). The new nonprofit almanac & desk reference: The essential facts and figures for managers, researchers, and volunteers (Independent Sector and Urban Institute). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.

Examining the Landscape of Indiana’s Nonprofit Sector

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References