It is often suggested that nonprofit organizations positively impact our local communities. Studies, however, have consistently shown that the distribution of these organizations varies considerably from one community to the next. These differences have led some scholars to begin raising serious concern about the degree of “charitable equity” across communities. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how the makeup of a community’s nonprofit sector affects the views of those who potentially depend on nonprofit services. Specifically, using data from a countywide survey of public attitudes toward nonprofits in southern California (N = 1,002), we examined whether differences in the distribution of nonprofits affected individuals’ confidence in nonprofit performance as well as their awareness of what nonprofit organizations even are. Findings indicated that nonprofit density was strongly related to awareness of the sector, while awareness was, in turn, strongly related to confidence in nonprofit performance.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
AllardS. W. (2009). Out of reach: Place, poverty, and the new American welfare state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
AllardS. W.TolmanR.RosenD. (2003). The geography of need: Spatial distribution of barriers to employment in metropolitan Detroit. Policy Studies Journal, 31, 293-307.
Ben-NerA.Van HoomissenT. (1992). An empirical investigation of the joint determination of the size of the for-profit, non-profit and government sectors. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 63, 391-415.
6.
BielefeldW. (2000). Metropolitan nonprofit sectors: Findings from NCCS data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 298-314.
7.
BielefeldW.LindersK. (2004). Financial comparisons of the nonprofit sector in Indianapolis and eight other metropolitan areas (04-C05). Center for Urban Policy and the Environment: School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.
8.
BielefeldW.MurdochJ.WaddellP. (1997). The influence of demographics and distance on nonprofit location. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 207-225.
9.
ClotfelterC. (1992). Who benefits from the nonprofit sector?Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
CorbinJ. J. (1999). A study of factors influencing the growth of nonprofits in social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 296-313.
11.
CoultonC. J.KorbinJ.ChanT.SuM. (2001). Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: A methodological note. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 371-383.
12.
De VitaC. J.FlemingC.TwomblyE. C. (2001). Building nonprofit capacity: A framework for addressing the problem. In De VitaC. J.FlemingC. (Eds.), Building capacity in nonprofit organizations (pp. 5-32). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
13.
GrønbjergK. A. (2009). Indiana nonprofits scope and community dimensions: Are nonprofits trustworthy? A report from the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
14.
GrønbjergK. A.PaarlbergL. (2001). Community variations in the size and scope of the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 684-706.
15.
HagerM.GalaskiewiczJ.BielefeldW. (1996). Tales from the grave: Organizations accounts of their own demise. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 975-994.
16.
HansmannH. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835-899.
17.
HoyerW. D.BrownS. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 141-148.
18.
JamesE. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In PowellW. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (1st ed., pp. 397-415). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
Joassart-MarcelliP.WolchJ. R. (2003). The intrametropolitan geography of poverty and the nonprofit sector in southern California. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 70-96.
20.
KeirouzK. (1998). Public perceptions and confidence in Indiana nonprofit organizations. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.
21.
KissaneR. (2003). What’s need got to do with it? Barriers to the use of nonprofit social services. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30, 127-148.
22.
KissaneR. (2010). The client perspective on nonprofit social service organizations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 632-637.
23.
LightP. C. (2002). Trust in charitable organizations (Policy Brief #6). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
LightP. C. (2003). To give or not to give: The crisis of confidence in charities (Policy Brief #7). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
25.
LightP. C. (2004a). Sustaining nonprofit performance: The case for capacity building and the evidence to support it. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
LightP. C. (2004b). Fact sheet on the continued crisis in charitable confidence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
27.
LightP. C. (2005). Rebuilding public confidence in charitable organizations (Public Service Brief #1). Retrieved from http://wagner.nyu.edu/news/ wpb1_light.pdf
28.
LincolnJ. R. (1977). The urban distribution of voluntary organizations. Social Science Quarterly, 58, 473-480.
MatsunagaY.YamauchiN. (2004). Is the government failure theory still relevant? A panel analysis using US state level data. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75, 227-63.
31.
MauserE. (1998). The importance of organizational form: Parent perceptions versus reality in the day care industry. In PowellW.ClemensS. (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 124-134). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
MerollaD. M.HuntM. O.SerpeR. T. (2011). Concentrated disadvantage and beliefs about the causes of poverty: A multi-level analysis. Sociological Perspectives, 54, 205-228.
33.
MohanJ.TwigL.JonesK.BarnardS. (2006). Volunteering, geography, and welfare: A multilevel investigation of geographical variations in voluntary action. In MilliganC.OttS. J. (2001). The nonprofit sector’s distinctive values and contributions to society. In OttS. J. (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (pp. 47-56). Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
34.
PeckL. R. (2008). Do anti-poverty nonprofits locate where people need them? Evidence from a spatial analysis of Phoenix. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 138-151.
35.
PermutS. (1981). Consumer perceptions of nonprofit enterprise: A comment on Hansmann. Yale Law Journal, 90, 1623-1632.
36.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
37.
SalamonL. M.HemsL. C.ChinnockK. (2000). The nonprofit sector: For what and for whom? (Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no. 37). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
38.
SargeantA.LeeS. (2002). Improving public trust in the voluntary sector: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 68-83.
39.
SchlesingerM.MitchellS.GrayB. (2004). Restoring public legitimacy to the nonprofit sector: A survey experiment using descriptions of nonprofit ownership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 673-710.
40.
SmallM. L.McDermottM. (2006). The presence of organizational resources in poor urban neighborhoods: An analysis of average and contextual effects. Social Forces, 84, 1697-1724.
41.
Van SlykeD. M.RochC. H. (2004). What do they know, and whom do they hold accountable? Citizens in the government-nonprofit contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 191-209
42.
Van TilJ. (2000). Growing civil society: From third sector to third space. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
43.
WeisbrodB. A. (1986). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institution (pp. 21-44). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
WilsonM.HegartyN. (1997). Public perceptions of nonprofit organizations in Michigan (state of the state survey). Lansing, MI: Institute for Public Policy and Social Research.
