Evaluating Nonprofit Databases

1

• Evaluating Nonprofit Databases
• Kirsten A. Grønbjerg
• Indiana University
• ARNOVA Annual Conference, 2001
• Miami, November 29 - December 1

2
Why Evaluate Nonprofit Databases?

• Sectors Increasing size and economic force
• Doubling in size over 25-30 years
• Sectors growing visibility and policy relevance
• Long-term devolution from federal to
  state/local levels
• Long-term efforts to privatize government -
  nonprofits
• Increased political/policy role of religious
  institutions
• Charitable Choice Armies of Compassion
• Sectors visibility to social scientists
• Focus on building community capacity
• Concern about state of social capital, civic
  engagement
• Need data on sectors scope, characteristics,
  trends

3
Methodological Developments

• National data
• IRS registered tax-exempt nonprofits
• NCCS, IS, CNP analysis of charitable filers
• Guidestar web site of registered charities
• Foundation Center analysis of foundation grants
• Taxonomies (NTEE) and data quality efforts
• Census of service industry, population
• Nonprofit Almanac IRS and Census data
  national, state
• State level data
• State charity officials
• Employment registration data
• Incorporation listings
• Department of Revenues, Tax
• Local level data
• Variety of approaches, use of available lists

4
Statement of the Problem

• Main database (IRS) is problematic
• Registration requirements (churches, small)
• Filing requirements (small, affiliates)
• Geographic biases (headquarter/backwater fiscal
  agents)
• Datedness (young, defunct)
• Incomplete enforcement, quality control
• Non-registration/filing rates are substantial
• Vary by field, religion, age, size, revenues,
  region
• No common identifiers to link with most other
  databases
• Implications
• Knowledge about sector may be incomplete and/or
  biased

5
Indiana Nonprofit Sector Project

• Phase I in process
• Comprehensive database of Indiana nonprofits
• Examine gaps and overlaps in databases
• Survey nonprofits statewide and in 12 communities
• Profile sector and databases/approaches
• Phase II in planning stage
• Compare communities and their nonprofit profiles
• Phases III and IV - tentative
• Linkages/networks focus on role of
  congregations
• Curriculum additions adaptations (COP)

6
Building Comprehensive Nonprofit Database

• Institutional Database Approach
• Combine three databases IRS, SOS, CL
• Then draw sample
• Informant/Community Based Approach
• Supplement institutional database approach
• Then draw sample
• Hyper-network Approach
• Alternative sampling strategy
• Survey individuals on nonprofit affiliations,
  involvement
• Use listed nonprofits as sampling frame, avoid
  database

7
Institutional Approach

• Combine three databases
• All IRS BMF 501(c) and NCCS Core filers w/
  Indiana addresses
• 32,600 (ca. 1999, 2000) exclude affiliates
  located in other states, those with end-dates,
  internal duplicates
• SOS incorporated as nonprofits in Indiana
• 29,400 (2000, 2001) exclude out-of-state
  addresses, internal duplicates
• Congregational listings from yellow pages
• 9,000 (2000, 2001) exclude internal duplicates
• Total of 71,000 including cross-list duplicates

8
Assessing Institutional Approach

• Combined database 54,100 (from 71,000)
• Major gaps 71 percent on only one list
• IRS broadest coverage (60 percent)
• SOS substantial coverage (55 percent)
• CL narrowest coverage (17 percent)
• Small IRS/SOS overlap 23 percent
• Diverse institutional purposes
• Differ in combinations of active/defunct entities
• Differ in timing of listings
• Differ in nature of geographic biases
• Hidden duplicates (process, name/address
  differences)
• But broad consistency across communities

9
Informant/Community Based Approach

• Use of all available local listings
• 11 communities (size, region, characteristics)
• 8 local field associates
• Extensive field guide
• Added 5,000 for 11 communities
• Smallest additions 8-15 percent (fewest lists)
• Most communities 20-28 percent
• Extreme 64 percent (Scott County)
• If done for entire state perhaps 65,000 total

10
Personal Affiliation Approach

• Hyper-network approach
• Survey of 526 Indiana residents (May 2001)
• If work In Indiana? For nonprofit? Which (up to
  2)?
• If attend church In Indiana? Which?
• If attend membership events (21 types) In
  Indiana? Which (up to 5 for each type)?
• If do volunteer work (10 types) In Indiana?
  Which (up to 5 for each type)?
• Identified 1,290 organizations
• Deleted 184 (15) 113 public/for-profit, 71
  duplicates
• Remaining 1,106 57 on database, 13 incomplete
  ID, 30 added to database

11
Database Assessment

• Assessment of work
• Complicated, difficult process chart
• Special database review and source fields
• Tentative coding of nonprofit field, type
• Preliminary findings
• Incomplete nonprofit databases and sector
  definitions
• Differences in sector composition by database
• Community variations in database size and
  composition
• Extrapolating to the U.S. nonprofit sector
• IRS registered nonprofits 50 ? 2.5 million
• IRS-registered charitable filers 10 ? 2.7
  million
• Nonprofit density 100 per 10,000 residents ?
  2.8 million

12
Next Steps Nonprofit Survey

• Obtain more detailed information through survey
• Assess relevance of preliminary findings
• Address policy and substantive questions about
  sector
• Stratified sampling design
• Allow methodological comparisons of lists and
  approaches
• Allow Community comparisons expanded samples
• Survey design
• Format Mail questionnaire (20 minutes),
  extensive follow-up
• All Age, legal status, programs/services, impact
  of community/policy changes, relations with other
  organizations, human resources, finances,
  management
• Special Membership associations, congregations,
  advocacy nonprofits