Scholars have suggested myriad characterizations of the relationship between organizations of the nonprofit sector and government. We expand upon Young’s “slight twist” of the economic supplementary view of government/nonprofit partnership to develop a model to explain the variation in levels of funding by local educational foundations (LEFs) in New Jersey public school districts. Seeking to better understand this private financing of public education, we empirically test for correlates of these funding variations using Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 data. Although we could not empirically verify an inverse relationship between state aid to education and level of LEF granting, we did find some evidence of a direct relationship between such private financing and median household income. Our analysis supports a more historically nuanced explanation of the role of LEFs in New Jersey public education.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924-973.
6.
BevelockT. E. (1991). Public school financing reform: Renewed interest in the courthouse, but will the statehouse follow suit?St. John’s Law Review, 65, 467-493.
7.
BorisE. T.SteuerleC. E. (2006). Preface. In BorisE. T.SteuerleC. E. (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict. (2nd ed.). (pp. xi-xii). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. (Original work published 1999)
8.
BowmanW.BiesA. L. (2005). Can the charitable sector regulate itself?Nonprofit Quarterly, 12, 39-42.
9.
BrunnerE.ImazekiJ. (2004). Fiscal stress and voluntary contributions to public school. In FowlerW. C. (Ed.) Developments in school finance. (pp. 39-54), Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
10.
BrunnerE.SonstelieJ. (1997). Coping with Serrano: Private contributions to California’s public schools. In Proceedings of the Eighty-Ninth Annual Conference on Taxation (pp. 372-381). Boston, MA: National Tax Association.
11.
BrunnerE.SonstelieJ. (2003). School finance reform and voluntary fiscal federalism. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2157-2185.
12.
DaftR. L. (2013). Organization theory and design. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson.
13.
DuBardC. A.GizliceZ. (2008). Language spoken and differences in health status, access to care, and receipt of preventive services among US Hispanics. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 2021-2028.
14.
FiglioD. N.KennyL. W. (2009). Public sector performance measurement and stakeholder support. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1069-1077.
GronbjergK. A.PaarlbergL. (2001). Community variations in the size and score of the nonprofit sector: Theory and preliminary findings. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 684-706.
17.
HodgeG. A.GreveC. (2007). Public-private partnerships: An international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67, 545-558.
18.
HodgeG. A.GreveC. (2009). PPPs: The passage of time permits a sober reflection. Economic Affairs, 29, 33-39.
PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
RamseyJ. B. (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 31, 350-371.
26.
RobertsR. (1984). A positive model of private charity and public transfers. Journal of Political Economy, 92, 136-148.
27.
Rose-AckermanS. (1986). Do government grants to charity reduce private donations? In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy (pp. 313-329). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
SalamonL. M. (1987). Partners in public service: The scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In PowellW. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. (pp. 99-117). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
SalamonL. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
31.
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, (96 Cal. Rptr. 601). (1971).
32.
SmithS. R.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
SonstelieJ.BrunnerE.ArdonK. (2000). For better or for worse? School finance reform in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
34.
ToeplerS. (2003). Grassroots associations versus larger nonprofits: New evidence from a community case study in arts and culture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 236-251.
TullockG.SeldonA.BradyG. L. (2002). Government failure: A primer in public choice. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
37.
WarrP. (1982). Pareto optimal redistribution and private charity. Journal of Public Economics, 19, 131-138.
38.
WeisbrodB. (1977). Problems of enhancing the public interest: Toward a model of government failures. In WeisbrodB.HandlerJ.KomesarN. (Eds.), Public interest law. (pp. 30-41). London, England: University of California Press.
39.
YoungD. R. (2000). Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 149-172.
40.
YoungD. R. (2006). Complementary, supplementary, or adversarial? Nonprofit-government relations. In BorisE. T.SteuerleC. E. (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (2nd ed.) (pp.37-80). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. (Original work published 1999)
