Scholars and practitioners have argued that effective financial management, particularly the development of operating reserves, can help nonprofits survive economic shocks. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a significant impact on the nonprofit sector, provides an opportunity to test whether nonprofits have followed that recommendation, and if so, whether nonprofits with operating reserves were better prepared for the pandemic. Using data from an original survey of more than 600 nonprofit human service and arts organizations, administered when most states had stay-at-home restrictions, we show that most nonprofits experienced an immediate impact on their programs and financing. Yet, those nonprofits with more reserves were less likely to reduce operating hours, lose staff, or experience difficulty acquiring supplies or vendor services. Our study provides rare empirical data on the benefits of operating reserves for nonprofits. Our results also confirm that arts and culture nonprofits were more severely affected than human service nonprofits.

Local governments prioritize spending on various types and levels of public services. Although scholars have shown that citizen preferences and institutional factors, such as economic, political, and legal arrangements, play a role in resource allocation, scholars have not systematically examined the impact of local elected officials’ own ideological preferences on service prioritization. A better understanding of the impact of personal ideology on local government resource allocation is needed as this provision of funds has implications for democratic governance and responsiveness. We develop and use a novel measure of local elected official ideology using a 2011 survey of California local elected officials to test the hypothesis that local decision-maker ideology affects attitudes on funding-specific service categories. We find evidence that local elected officials’ attitudes toward service reductions are associated with both their own individual ideology, measured on the conservative–liberal spectrum, and the ideology of their constituents.

Most nonprofit organizations rely on gifts of time and money to support their operations. However, research by nonprofit scholars on the behavioral mechanisms of charity remains underdeveloped. One methodological tool, the randomized and controlled field experiment, has not been fully embraced by nonprofit scholars publishing in nonprofit journals. This is a missed opportunity. This essay argues that the leading theoretical models on charity can and should be tested by nonprofit scholars using field experiments in partnership with nonprofit organizations. The resultant findings may contribute to the literatures on giving, altruism and collective action. Importantly, field experiments can also provide tangible knowledge for nonprofit managers seeking to improve their operations, a common interest of both scholars and practitioners.

Within higher education, there is mounting pressure for increased discussions of diversity, inclusion, and social justice. Although these topics are particularly relevant to nonprofit management education (NME), instructors have expressed uncertainty about how they should proceed in incorporating these topics into their courses. Here, we argue a critical pedagogy framework can support instructors to address effectively topics of diversity, inclusion, and social justice within their classes. We identify three different but complementary critical pedagogical strategies that NME instructors can adopt in order to do so. We also provide resources for instructors and conclude with suggestions for future research.

Public management researchers are interested in many characteristics of organizations that cannot be directly captured, making aggregated attitudes from surveys an attractive proxy. Yet difficulties in measuring meaningful attributes over time and across organizations have frequently limited statistical designs to a single organization or time. We offer a method for creating such statistical measures across agencies and time using item response theory. Focusing our attention on US federal administrative agencies, we marshal a variety of questions from surveys commissioned by the Office of Personnel Management and Merit Systems Protection Board and employ statistical models to measure three important attributes—autonomy, job satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation—for 71 agencies between 1998–2010. Our study provides a wealth of data for quantitative public management research designs as well as an adaptable framework for measuring a wide range of concepts.

The study of nonprofit advocacy has evolved significantly over the past two decades, yet gaps still remain in our understanding of the processes and roles of nonprofit organizations in policymaking and policy change. In part, these gaps may be exacerbated by limitations in the methodologies and research designs used to examine advocacy, despite the growing scholarship base. To investigate this possibility, this article reports the findings of a systematic literature review of 264 scholarly articles that examine the antecedents, processes, and/or outcomes of nonprofit advocacy. The sampling method relies heavily on scholarship published in six leading nonprofit and public administration journals. Although theory suggests that nonprofit organizations have a vital role in facilitating policy processes, much of the advocacy research relies upon a limited form of research questions and methods. Findings also reveal a need for greater precision in describing data, design, and methods, and suggest a need for clearer, validated measures of both nonprofit advocacy efforts and the resulting outcomes. Finally, we suggest new areas for nonprofit advocacy research, including investigating new venues, different levels of analysis, employing emerging research methods, and examining advocacy over time.