When communities are struck by natural disasters, human service organizations play an important role in supplementing governmental aids and catering to immediate humanitarian needs. Social capital is one of many factors affecting resource mobilization directed toward human service organizations as a proxy for local philanthropy. This study analyzed the effect of social capital on local philanthropy in communities affected by natural disasters and compared it to the effect of corporate philanthropy. In addition, this study examined how the relationships among social capital, corporate philanthropy, and local philanthropy were moderated by racial diversity to answer a long-standing argument regarding the effect of racial diversity on philanthropy. To this end, a panel dataset covering three given years and 3121 US counties was analyzed using GEE models. The results suggest that social capital does not always facilitate local philanthropy and its influence on local philanthropy is catalyzed by racial diversity. Also, corporate philanthropy positively influences resource mobilization toward human service organizations, more noticeably in communities affected by natural disasters.

Whether commercialization crowds out nonprofit donations has been a concern for nonprofit professionals and scholars. If the crowding-out effect exists, is it because of donors’ reactions to nonprofit commercialization or nonprofits’ decisions to reduce efforts in fundraising? Using data from the National Center for Charitable Statistics on human service nonprofit organizations in the USA, this study examines the relationship between commercial revenues and donations, breaking the relationship into smaller parts to understand its composition. The results show that commercial revenues crowd out donations in human service organizations. An increase in 1 dollar of commercial revenues leads to a decrease in .14 dollar of donations. Up to 16% of the crowding-out effect is attributable to nonprofit organizations’ reducing fundraising activities. The crowding-out effect is not merely due to donors’ reactions to nonprofit commercialization.

CEO power and its implications are neglected in research on nonprofit governance. This is surprising considering the crucial role of CEOs and the importance of power analysis in understanding governance. This article addresses this gap by developing a two-dimensional framework for conceptualizing CEOs’ structural power and individual power in nonprofits, and proposes several indicators to operationalize these two kinds of power. Drawing on data from a survey of 163 CEOs of Chinese foundations, this study is among the first to specifically assess how much power a CEO has and the relationship between CEO power and nonprofit performance. The findings suggest that CEOs’ structural power has a double-edged effect on nonprofit financial performance: It is positively associated with public support but also increases overhead costs.

We examine whether third-party endorsement and institutional trust can mitigate the potential negative effects of higher levels of executive compensation on the likelihood of future donations to a nonprofit organization. Using an experimental design, we find support for prior expectations that paying higher executive compensation reduces the likelihood of future individual donations. We also find that this negative effect is only significant in the absence of a third-party endorsement so that individual donations significantly decrease when the nonprofit pay is high relative to moderate executive compensation levels. Finally, the likelihood of future individual donations is higher when institutional trust is high. However, high institutional trust does not validate the payment of higher levels of executive compensation. Our results have theoretical and practical implications by showing that nonprofits are better off paying moderate executive compensation levels but not paying too much if they have not attracted respectable third-party endorsers.

Social media platforms have gained wide attention in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors as an effective way to reach individuals at low cost. In the nonprofit sector, social media offers a new venue to engage supporters and raise funds. Unfortunately, the complexity of the media can prove a challenge for nonprofits looking to develop an effective social media strategy. The nascent nonprofit research provides glimpses into how to go about forming such a strategy. This paper aims to determine whether the optimal social media strategy for the nonprofit sector differs from that for the for-profit sector. We collected, over a 6-year period, daily donation data from the Chinese nonprofit Free Lunch for Children and their corresponding daily activities on the social media platform Weibo and analyzed the relationship between them. Results indicate interesting counterintuitive results showcasing a different optimal strategy for the nonprofit as compared to the for-profit sector.

Development in information technology enables nonprofit organizations to reach more potential donors in a fast and affordable way. To help nonprofits form evidence-based strategies that suit the digital era, we conducted a study on a random sample of 400 Chinese foundations, investigating to what extent organizational legitimacy, network, and political ties influence their ability to attract donation. Results show that in terms of legitimacy, comparing to the past, organizations need to disclose additional information beyond what is required by the government to foster a trusting relationship. In terms of network, online networking can not only bring in online donations but also potentially increase offline donations. In terms of political ties, implicit political ties are beneficial to the organization, whereas explicit political ties may have negative influences.

This study investigates a discourse about billionaire philanthropy established in letters submitted by 187 of 209 signatories of the Giving Pledge. The philanthropy of the wealthy is gaining increasing public attention and is subject to growing criticism, which demands additional study of how the wealthy collectively explain their generosity. The mixed-method analysis finds a strong emphasis on education and health causes and identifies two distinct and coherent rationales for being generous. The majority of letters express a social–normative rationale, consisting of two prevailing explanations: an expressed gratitude and desire to “give back” (1) and references to family upbringing as a socializing force (2). A minority of letters articulate a personal–consequentialist rationale, highlighting three separate explanations: a large inheritance may harm offspring (1), giving as personal gratification (2), and an acknowledgment of excess wealth with no better use (3). An expressed desire to have impact and make a difference appears in both rationales. The overall dominance of a social–normative rationale projects a discourse emphasizing benevolence as well as a narrative in which billionaires are an exceptionally productive and grateful subset of society. While previous studies have primarily focused on identifying individual psychological motives, this study shows how the Giving Pledge letters reflect a philanthropic discourse among the wealthy going back to Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth.