Two major evolutions have been reported to occur in the nonprofit sector during the past decades. Both the nature of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and of volunteering style are changing. While this creates challenges for NPO governance and management, little is known about the process or the outcomes of these two developments. We propose a two-dimensional conceptual model to explain how the aforementioned evolutions influence the attitudes and behavior of volunteers, based on psychological contract theory. More specifically, we posit that both evolutions create tensions in volunteers’ psychological contracts that could lead to contract breach. We formulate twelve propositions on the nature of this psychological contract breach and the resulting attitudes and behavior of volunteers. Finally, we offer some possible solutions that NPO boards and managers can apply to cope with these challenges.

The long-term performance of NPOs is based on their ability to link and maximize social value as defined in their mission. This involves legitimacy obtained from stakeholders influenced by and influencing NPO activities, and their operational capacity or economic efficiency. Thus, NPOs have to utilize multiple level accountability systems which should be compatible with their multiple objectives and stakeholders’ claims. The accountability system of an NPO should focus on its operational capacity, because in order to maximize its efficiency, an NPO has to measure its resource use, cost structure, and financial structure. Legitimacy obtained from stakeholders is also integral. If an organization is considered a social contract between multiple stakeholders, it has to consider the social economic effects of its activities and it has the duty to account for them. However, since the mission of an NPO is to create and distribute social value to a certain specific group, its social value creation has the most important role and an NPO should measure the social value it has created. This article analyzes the accountability system of a specific type of Italian NPO called Centri di Servizio per il Volontariato (CSVs)—namely centers which provide services for voluntary associations. The aim of the research is to verify if the accountability system adopted by CSVs satisfies their need for multiple level information (operational, legitimacy, and social value) and accomplishes their stakeholder claims, and to determine its impact on the definition and implementation of their strategy and on their long-term performance. The research was carried out using the action research model, and the findings are based on the analysis of a sample of 64 CSVs situated throughout Italy.

Transparency concerns and the concomitant accountability challenges have motivated policy and legal scholars to explore information-based regulatory approaches. We examine their usefulness in the context of the nonprofit sector which tends to show signs of governance failure. Although nonprofits are required by law to disclose information on fund use, nonprofit donors face difficulties in accessing and interpreting information about how nonprofits are deploying resources. Charity watchdogs make this information available to donors in a convenient format. In theory, this should allow donors to reward nonprofits that devote resources to service delivery and to punish those that are less careful about controlling overheads. To test the relationship between charity ratings and donations, we examine 90 nonprofits in the state of Washington for the period 2004–2007. Drawing on ratings data provided by Charity Navigator, we find that changes in charity ratings tend not to affect donor support to these nonprofits. We explore this statistical finding via interviews with 10 charities located in Washington State. Supporting the statistical results, we find that charities believe that donors tend not to systematically embed ratings in their donation decisions. Instead, they believe that donors assess nonprofits’ effectiveness and trustworthiness via other means such as familiarity, word-of-mouth, or the visibility of the nonprofit in their community. In sum, the policy challenge is to provide information which users desire such as organizational effectiveness as opposed to basic fund allocation in the case of non-profits. What matters for policy efficacy is not how much information is provided but of what type.

Social capital is created when members and organizations in a society enact relationships with others. The outcome of these relationships includes new opportunities, information, and access to a variety of resources. The purpose of this article is to study donor communication and relationships that help to build social capital. The site for this study is the evolving nature of donor organization relations with voluntary associations in Croatia from 1999 to 2002. Using network analysis, this article traces how donor–NGO-media relations changed over time and provides suggestions for international donors and NGOs in transitions to maximize the outcome of their communicative relationships.

Religiosity has long been known to promote volunteering in the US and elsewhere. Despite the growing body of research examining religious correlates of volunteering, however, few studies have focused on whether and how religious attitudes affect volunteering. With data from the Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004–2006, we examine the influences of religious attitudes, namely, the religiously based feelings of exclusiveness and inclusiveness, and openness to other religious faiths, on volunteering. We find that while religious exclusiveness significantly promotes volunteering only in religious areas, religious inclusiveness promotes both religious and secular volunteering. Moreover, those who are open to other religious faiths are more likely to engage in both types of volunteer work. Implications of these findings are discussed for future research linking religious attitudes to volunteering.

This article tries to enhance knowledge about organizational characteristics and processes that are important for mitigating oligarchic tendencies in the governance of CSOs, and to discuss the factors that condition the operation of these characteristics and processes. Civil society is frequently seen as an important part of societal governance and discussed as the intermediary link between the individual and society. This connection is often made through the aggregate function of civil society organizations (CSOs). Currently there are discussions regarding the decline of traditional cross-class federative CSOs and the possible effect of this on democracy in society. This article presents a longitudinal case study of the governance within a large, membership-based federative CSO and illustrates the revitalization of a CSO and its mission through the influx of a new group of members from the surrounding environment. The author argues that this revitalization process was possible partly because the proposed changes were in keeping with the organization’s original ideological core and partly because of the organization’s open democratic governance system. This permeability is found at two levels: first, the borders are open for individuals to enter the organization as members, and second, the borders of the internal governance system are open for members to take part in the decision-making process. This enabled ideas to percolate up from the members through the democratic decision-making system to the top of the organization, and some ideas are translated into statutes and policies, which then trickle down to the members again through the executive structure. The conclusion is that a functioning democratic governance system, which is able to stay true to the organization’s ideological core at the same time as it is able to modify it in light of societal change, seems imperative for this kind of organization. By doing this, the organization is not just staying true to its original mission but also actively contributing to democracy in society by including new groups into the decision-making process.

This article examines the regulation of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Japan to answer two questions. First, to what extent has the domestic institutional context facing INGOs changed following dramatic attacks by transnational terrorists on Western liberal democracies? Second, what effect has new counterterrorism legislation had on the organizational and strategic decisions of INGOs, and thus their locations and operations, since 2001? We argue that formal regulations on non-profits have changed less than expected, given widespread alarm about counterterrorism legislation in non-profit communities around the world. However, a new climate of uncertainty has hampered INGOs ability to adjust appropriately to their new institutional environment. Counterterrorism regulations have thus generated unintended consequences, including inefficiencies, redistribution of resources, and self-censorship that may outweigh the benefits for national security given the limited nature of much of the regulatory change.

This article examines the unique roles of NGOs with special attention to the changing socio-political contexts of NGOs in terms of their partnerships with Rights-Holder Organizations (RHOs), which claim the rights of particular groups of excluded population. It reviews an example of the NGO working with RHOs in Nepal. NGO relationships with RHOs are delicate and not always equitable due to their different backgrounds and expertise. NGOs, comprising mostly people who are not members of the rights-holding groups, use their expertise to work for others over fixed periods, whilst RHOs work for their own constituencies through movements. Until the 1990s, NGOs supported so-called ‘beneficiaries’ who were members of excluded groups whose rights were being denied. Today, RHOs are formed directly by excluded groups. Some NGOs are trying to change their role to become promoters for RHOs, whilst others remain as their proxies, which merely creates an extra layer between RHOs and donors. The article attempts to prove that building equitable relationships between NGOs and RHOs is possible if NGOs have professionalism, expertise in capacity development and a readiness to become more inclusive. Though there are still several challenges ahead, such efforts by NGOs make it possible to change funding flows for RHOs and contribute to inclusive aid.

Third-sector organizations provide essential services, but not all types of organizations operate equally well given different intensities of public problems. This article argues for maps that would help social service funding bodies. Those maps would include three elements: (1) a measure of service demanded by a community, (2) data on the full range of organizations able to supply those services, and (3) a chart that identifies those organizations that provide services at different intensities of need. By providing information about the supply of organizations in a community, with measures of demand for services, state funding bodies, foundations, and individual philanthropists can make informed decisions about where to allocate funds. An ideal map is illustrated by using the case of the Holy Cross Dispute (2001), whereby a host of voluntary sector organizations provided a voice for residents in this divided Belfast community. The result is a call for more intensive mapping exercises of voluntary sector social service provision.

This paper addresses the governance of hybrid forms of organisation arising in new social movements, characterised by diverse institutional logics and democratic decision making. Our theoretical framework encompasses the governance theory of Kooiman with insights from new developments in institutional theory. This framework allows us to examine governance as the capacity to link together disparate institutions from the perspective of interactions between action, project and instrument, and to explore the institutional work that results from these interactions. By studying a French activist coalition, we explore the micro-processes that make it possible to accommodate diversity in an organisation intended to produce solid institutions. Our results show that the three elements of governance—action, project and instrument—have an impact on the cohesion of diversity-based organisations and on building and consolidating institutions. When these elements are flexible and versatile enough, and when they mutually nurture each other, a plurality of logics is possible, the coalition goes forward, and true institutional work can be accomplished. When one of these elements of governance—instruments in particular—becomes autonomous and rigid, diversity is more difficult to achieve and one logic is likely to prevail over the others, compromising the very survival of the coalition and impeding the emergence of a new institution.

Using interviews with senior level employees in the social sector, I analyze the interactions between organizations and individual potential and existing donors. I recommend a reevaluation of the sector’s use of what I term “agents of philanthropy,” as well as a reconsideration of the hesitation to introduce philanthropic giving to individuals and corporations. To support this assertion, I conduct a thematic content analysis of The New York Times to show how the transference of philanthropic information affects the cognitions and subsequent actions of readers. Using this analysis, I show how individuals may be primed for charitable giving if only these opportunities were presented. The design and focus of this research addresses what I have perceived as oversights in philanthropic research to date: the exclusion of psychology theory, an overemphasis on the conscious, stated motivations of donors, and the lack of interdisciplinary work on prosocial behaviors.

The article inquires into the role of the institutional context in explaining the governance of community co-operatives. These organizations do not solely focus on a member’s advantage but act on behalf of some collective identity. To enhance our understanding of the nature of co-operative governance on the neighborhood level, we draw on theoretical concepts that are context-sensitive, helping us to catch the institutional conditions in a specific place which are enabling individuals and groups to act and organize collectively. Thus, we enrich the abstract concept of governance put forward by New Institutional Economics. Based on a systematic analysis of case studies, the paper shows that the governance of community co-operatives is based on place-bound values. However, the encounter of divergent imaginations of the neighborhood results in different co-operative practices: e.g., either a government-directed practice to “discipline” the community or a community-initiated practice of self-organization.

Different disciplinary, theoretical, and empirical lenses have contributed to a kaleidoscopic picture of the governance of civil society organizations (CSOs). Most of the time, CSO governance is contrasted with corporate governance in business organizations; only rarely is the broad variety of CSOs taken into account. To widen this perspective, we develop an empirically grounded typology of five discourses of organization in CSOs: managerialist, domestic, professionalist, grassroots, and civic discourse. We argue that each of these discourses gives specific answers to the three core questions of governance: To whom is the CSO accountable, i.e., who are the key actors who need to be protected by governance mechanisms? For what kind of performance is the CSO accountable? And which structures and processes are appropriate to ensure accountability? The way in which different discourses answer these questions provides us with a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the manifold notions of governance in CSOs.