This study examined the impact of organizational characteristics and financial performance measures of faith based organizations (FBOS) in Pennsylvania and Ohio on the decisions of the funding sources. Organizational characteristics of size, age, and type of service, and financial performance measures such as expense, liquidity, and solvency ratios were gathered from the data on IRS form 990 for 97 FBOS for the period of 1995 to 2004. The study found that the 1996 Charitable Choice provisions and the 2001 Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives have led to increased government funding for FBOS. The results showed that government funding of FBOS is affected positively by age of the FBO, and negatively by its size. For smaller FBOS, savings ratio had a negative relationship to government funding and a positive relationship to direct public support. For social service FBOS government funding was positively affected by age and negatively affected by size and debt ratio, while days-cash-on-hand had a negative impact on direct public support. All of the above relationships were statistically significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CnaanR., and BoddieS.C. (2002). “Charitable choice and faith-based welfare: a call for social work”, Social Work, 47: 2: 224–235.
2.
DiMaggioP., and PowellW. (1991). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. In the New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by PowellWalter W. and DiMaggioPaul, 63–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
FischerR. L. (2004). “The devil is in the details: Implementing secular outcome measurement methods in faith based organizations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15:1: 25–40.
4.
ForbesD.P. (1998). “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Empirical studies of Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness from 1977 to 1997.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27: 2: 183–202.
5.
FroelichK.A., and KnoepfleT.W. (1996). “Internal Revenue Service 990 data: Fact or Fiction?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25:1: 40–52.
6.
GraddyE.A., and YeK. (2006). “Faith based secular providers of social services- differences in what, how, and where” JHHSA, 29:3: 309–335.
7.
GreenJ.C., and ShermanA.L. (2002). Fruitful collaborations: A survey of government-funded faith-based programs in 15 states. Charlottesville, VA: Hudson Institute.
8.
GreenleeJ.S., and BukovinskyD. (1998). “Financial ratios for use in the analytical review of charitable organizations.” Ohio CPA Journal, 57:1: 32–38.
9.
JohnsonB.R. (2002). Objective hope: Assessing the effectiveness of FBOS: A review of the literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society.
10.
KaplanR. S. (2001). “Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11:3: 353–370.
11.
KearnsK.P., ParkC., and YankoskiL. (2004). Comparing faith-based and secular community service corporations in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh: The Pittsburgh Foundation, The Forbes Funds.
12.
McCarthyJ., and CastelliJ. (1999). Religion-sponsored social service providers: The not-so-independent sector. Washington, D.C.: Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, The Aspen Institute. Working Paper Series.
13.
MontielL.M. (2003). The use of public funds for delivery of faith-based human services: A review of the research literature focusing on the public funding of FBOS in the delivery of social services. Albany, NY: The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
14.
RaganM., MontielL.M., and WrightD.J. (2003). Scanning the policy environment for faith-based social services in the United States: Results of a 50-state study. Albany, NY: The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
15.
RitchieW. J., and KolodinskyR. W. (2003). “Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement: An evaluation of new and existing financial performance measures”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13:4: 367–381.
16.
SahrR. (2006). Consumer Price Index (CPI) conversion factors based on CPI from Bureau of Labor Statistics. Oregon State University at http://oregonstate.edu/dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr.
17.
SalamonL. (1997). Holding the center: America's nonprofit sector at a crossroads. New York: Nathan Cummings Foundation.
18.
SawhillJ. C., and WilliamsonD. (2001). “Mission Impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit organizations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11:3: 371–386.
19.
ScottJ.D. (2002). The scope and scale of faith-based social services: A review of the literature focusing on the activities of FBOS in the delivery of social services. Albany, NY: The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
20.
ScottJ.D. (2003). Private-sector contributions to faith-based social service. Albany, NY: The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
21.
ScottJ.D. (2004). Exploring the funding relationships between community foundations and faith-based social service providers. Albany, NY: The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Nelson Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
22.
ScottW.R. (1987). Organizations: rational, natural and open systems. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
SiderR.J., and UnruhH.R. (2004). “Typology of religious characteristics of social service and educational organizations and programs”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33:1: 109–134.
25.
StoneM.M., HagerM.A, and GriffinJ.J. (2001). “Organizational characteristics and funding environments: a study of a population of United Way affiliated nonprofits”, Public Administration Review, 3 (May/June): 276–289.
26.
TwomblyE.C. (2002). “Religious versus secular human service organizations: Implications for public policy”, Social Science Quarterly, 83: 947–961.
27.
WeisbrodB. (1997). “The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16:4: 541–555.
