Much prior research explores the relationship between nonprofit location and various community and market characteristics to determine whether citizen demand drives nonprofit supply. As a widely used “policy tool” of government, nonprofits are expected to be responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. However, results are mixed and it remains unclear whether nonprofit markets are ideally distributed. This article builds on previous scholarship by: first, improving the market characteristics under examination; second, introducing multidimensional constructs for modeling community need; third, applying methodologies that account for spatial dependencies; and fourth, replicating the sector-wide analysis in two nonprofit subsectors. Results indicate consistency across subsector and suggest greater nonprofit supply in areas with less even markets and greater population. Contrary to popular conception, findings indicate evidence of less nonprofit supply in areas with greater demand and some potential “crowding-in” where nonprofit supply rises coincident with for-profit supply.
AnheierH. K., LangM., and ToeplerS. (2020), Comparative nonprofit sector research: A critical assessment. In PowellW. W. and BromleyP. (Eds.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook (3rdEdition). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2.
BesagJ., and GreenP. J. (1993). Spatial Statistics and Bayesian Computation. J Roy Stat Soc B, 55, 25–37.
3.
BesagJ., YorkJ., and MolliéA. (1991). Bayesian image restoration, with two applications in spatial statistics. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 43, 1–20.
4.
BivandR., and Lewin-KohN. (2001). maptools: Tools for handling spatial objects.
5.
BivandR., RowlingsonB., and TimK. (2019). rgdal: Bindings for the ‘Geospatial’ data.
6.
BivandR. S., PebesmaE., and Gomez-RubioV. (n.d.). Applied spatial data analysis with R, New York: Springer.
7.
BivandR. S., and WongD. W. S. (2018). Comparing implementations of global and local indicators of spatial association, TEST, 27, 716–748.
8.
BlangiardoM., CamelettiM., BaioG., and RueH. (2013). Spatial and spatio-temporal models with R-INLA. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology, 4, 33–49.
9.
BrennanJ., PaarlbergL., and HoymanM. (2014). Assembling the puzzle of the nonprofit-economic development linkage. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 5, 45–65.
10.
CarmanJ. G., and NesbitR. (2013). Founding new nonprofit organizations: Syndrome or symptom?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 603–621.
11.
CarrollR. (2016). fillmap: Create maps with SpatialPolygons objects.
12.
CarrollR., LawsonA. B., FaesC., KirbyR. S., AregayM., and WatjouK. (2015). Comparing INLA and OpenBUGS for hierarchical Poisson modeling in disease mapping. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology, 14–15, 45–54.
13.
CutterS. L., BoruffB. J., and ShirleyW. L. (2003). Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards*. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 242–261.
14.
DeesJ. G., EmersonJ., and EconomyP. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits.New York: Wiley.
15.
FoxJ., and WeisbergS. (2019). An R companion to applied regression.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
16.
GarnierS. (2018). viridis: Default color maps from ‘matplotlib’.
17.
GhatakM. (2020). Economic theories of the social sector: From nonprofits to social enterprise. In PowellW. W. and BromleyP. (Eds.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook (3rdEdition). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
18.
HansmannH. B. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organization. In PowellW. W. (Ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook.New Haven: Yale University Press.
19.
HarrisonT., and ThorntonJ. (2014). Too many nonprofits? An empirical approach to estimating trends in nonprofit demand density. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 5, 213–229.
20.
HayesC., KingsleyT. G., BlackwoodA., and PollakT. (2015). Community-oriented nonprofits and neighborhood poverty: Spatial patterns.Washington, DC: Urban.
21.
JeongJ., and CuiT. S. (2020). The density of nonprofit organizations: Beyond community diversity and resource availability. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 213–226.
22.
KimM. (2015). Socioeconomic diversity, political engagement, and the density of nonprofit organizations in U.S. counties. The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 402–416.
23.
KingmaB. R. (1997). Public good theories of the non-profit sector: Weisbrod revisited. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8, 135–148.
24.
KleinbaumD. G., and KleinM. (2012). Evaluating the proportional hazards assumption. In GailM., KrickebergK., SametJ. M., TsiatisA., and WongW. (EDs.), Survival analysis: A self-learning text.New York, NY: Springer.
25.
LawsonA. B. (2013). Bayesian disease mapping: Hierarchical modeling in spatial epidemiology.Boca Raton: CRC Press.
26.
LawsonA., and LeeD. (2017). Bayesian disease mapping for public health. In Srinivasa RaoA. S. R., PyneS., and RaoR.C. (EDs), Handbook of Statistics.Elsevier.
27.
LesaffreE., and LawsonA. B. (2013). Bayesian biostatistics, West Sussex: Wiley.
28.
LiH., CalderC. A., and CressieN. (2007). Beyond Moran's I: Testing for spatial dependence based on the spatial autoregressive model. Geographical Analysis, 39, 357–375.
29.
LuJ. (2020). Does population heterogeneity really matter to nonprofit sector size? Revisiting Weisbrod's demand heterogeneity hypothesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 1077–1092.
30.
MartinsT. G., SimpsonD., LindgrenF., and RueH. (2013). Bayesian computing with INLA: New features. Computer Statistics & Data Analysis, 67, 68–83.
31.
MoranP. A. P. (1950). Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika, 37, 17.
32.
National Center for Charitable Statistics (2015). NCCS Core files. NCCS Data Archive, Urban Institute.
33.
NeverB. (2011). The case for better maps of social service provision: Using the Holy Cross dispute to illustrate more effective mapping. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 174–188.
34.
NeverB., and WestbergD. (2016). Place matters: The spatial effects of human service expenditures. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 7, 369–388.
35.
PaarlbergL. E., Seung-HoA., NesbitR., ChristensenR. K., and BullockJ. (2018). A field too crowded? How measures of market structure shape nonprofit fiscal health. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 453–473.
36.
PaarlbergL. E., and ZuhlkeS. (2019). Revisiting the theory of government failure in the face of heterogeneous demands. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2, 103–124.
37.
PeckL. R. (2008). Do antipoverty nonprofits locate where people need them? Evidence from a spatial analysis of Phoenix. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 138–151.
38.
PennerstorferA., and RutherfordA. C. (2019). Measuring growth of the nonprofit sector: The choice of indicator matters. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48, 440–456.
39.
PoisonE. C. (2017). Religious environments and the distribution of anti-poverty nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46, 156–174.
40.
PrenticeC. R., and BrudneyJ. L. (2016a). Contracting with nonprofit organizations. In ShickR. A. (Ed.), Government Contracting: A Public Solutions Handbook.New York: Routledge.
41.
PrenticeC. R., and BrudneyJ. L. (2016b). Definitions Do Make a Difference: County Managers and Their Conceptions of Collaboration. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40, 193–207.
42.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2015), R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
43.
RueH., MartinoS., and ChopinN. (2009). Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models using integrated nested Laplace approximations (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 71, 319–392.
44.
SalamonL. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Nonprofit and Vountary Sector Quarterly, 16, 29–49.
45.
SalamonL. M. (2012), America's nonprofit sector: A primer, New York: The Foundation Center.
46.
ScottT. (2016). Is collaboration a good investment? Modeling the link between funds given to collaborative watershed councils and water quality. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 769–786.
47.
SimpsonD., LindgrenF., and RueH. (2012). In order to make spatial statistics computationally feasible, we need to forget about the covariance function. Environmetrics, 23, 65–74.
48.
SpiegelhalterD. J., BestN. G., CarlinB. P., and van der LindeA. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 64, 583–639.
49.
SteinbergR. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In PowellW. W. and SteinbergR. (Eds.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 2ndEdition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
50.
WeiT., and SimkoV. (2017). corrplot: Visualization of a correlation matrix. Tierney, N. (2017). visdat: Visualising whole data frames. The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 355.
51.
Van PuyveldeS., and BrownW. A. (2016). Determinants of nonprofit sector density: A stakeholder approach. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1045–1063.
52.
WatanabeS. (2010). Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 3571–3594.
53.
WeisbrodB. A. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In PhelpsE. S. (ED.) Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory.New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
54.
WeisbrodB. A. (1977). The Nonprofit Economy.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
55.
WitesmanE. M., ChildC., and Breck WightmanG. (2019). Sector choice and sector regret. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1–21.
56.
WoJ. C. (2018). Understanding the density of nonprofit organizations across Los Angeles neighborhoods: Does concentrated disadvantage and violent crime matter. Social Science Research, 71, 56–71.
57.
YanJ., GuoC., and PaarlbergL. E. (2014). Are nonprofit antipoverty organizations located where they are needed? A spatial analysis of the greater Hartford region. The American Statistician, 68, 243–252.
