Abstract COVID-19 created an extraordinary social situation in which governments struggle to mitigate the harmful consequences of the pandemic. Challenging times show a society’s resilience and capacity for solidarity and cohesion, the government’s ability to deal with emergencies effectively, the stability and inclusiveness of political systems, and their aptitude to respect democratic values. It is particularly important to examine this period from the point of view of civil society and civil society organizations (CSOs), since civil society plays a pivotal role in the alleviation and dissipation of societal troubles associated with the epidemic, indeed a vital role in curbing the virus. The civil sector’s strength and resilience too is tested. As the studies in this Special Issue show, exploiting the potential of civil society was an option that only some countries have been able to seize - as a result of which they have effectively reduced the consequences of the calamity while increasing a sense of solidarity and belonging in their societies. Others, however, failed to recognize the importance of civil society and interpreted the situation as a “single-actor play on stage”. Neither solidarity nor cohesion play out as values in these latter cases; instead the single actor – government – grabs the opportunity to play the role of the heroic savior and the exclusive problem solver, grabbing for itself both symbolic gains and increasing concentration of power. Citizens are expected to trust no one or no organization except the charismatic leader (or party). Thereby is forged a vertical and hierarchical chain of control, rather than a horizontally linked network of trust and cooperation. The studies and commentaries in this issue cover nine countries located on an imaginary line beginning in the United Kingdom, and extending through Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Israel, India, China and South Korea, representing various socio-political and economic systems. Embedded in elaborated theoretical understandings, this introductory essay examines the research articles of this Special Issue in which authors unfold the dynamics of CSO-government relations in the context of the world pandemic. These accounts sharpen our understanding of the preexisting shape of government–CSO relations. The introduction places the countries on a scale which classifies them according to the characteristics of civil society–government relations unfolding during the pandemic. One of the endpoints is represented by those countries where the CSO’s creative and constructive responses to the social challenges were prevented or blocked by the government. In this setup, CSOs were ignored at best, and restrictions undercut their abilities to contribute to the process of mitigating the pandemic and its consequences. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of this scale, are countries where the government, both central and local, invited civil society partners in the response to COVID-19,
{"title":"The Relationship between Government and Civil Society in the Era of COVID-19","authors":"Á. Kövér","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract COVID-19 created an extraordinary social situation in which governments struggle to mitigate the harmful consequences of the pandemic. Challenging times show a society’s resilience and capacity for solidarity and cohesion, the government’s ability to deal with emergencies effectively, the stability and inclusiveness of political systems, and their aptitude to respect democratic values. It is particularly important to examine this period from the point of view of civil society and civil society organizations (CSOs), since civil society plays a pivotal role in the alleviation and dissipation of societal troubles associated with the epidemic, indeed a vital role in curbing the virus. The civil sector’s strength and resilience too is tested. As the studies in this Special Issue show, exploiting the potential of civil society was an option that only some countries have been able to seize - as a result of which they have effectively reduced the consequences of the calamity while increasing a sense of solidarity and belonging in their societies. Others, however, failed to recognize the importance of civil society and interpreted the situation as a “single-actor play on stage”. Neither solidarity nor cohesion play out as values in these latter cases; instead the single actor – government – grabs the opportunity to play the role of the heroic savior and the exclusive problem solver, grabbing for itself both symbolic gains and increasing concentration of power. Citizens are expected to trust no one or no organization except the charismatic leader (or party). Thereby is forged a vertical and hierarchical chain of control, rather than a horizontally linked network of trust and cooperation. The studies and commentaries in this issue cover nine countries located on an imaginary line beginning in the United Kingdom, and extending through Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Israel, India, China and South Korea, representing various socio-political and economic systems. Embedded in elaborated theoretical understandings, this introductory essay examines the research articles of this Special Issue in which authors unfold the dynamics of CSO-government relations in the context of the world pandemic. These accounts sharpen our understanding of the preexisting shape of government–CSO relations. The introduction places the countries on a scale which classifies them according to the characteristics of civil society–government relations unfolding during the pandemic. One of the endpoints is represented by those countries where the CSO’s creative and constructive responses to the social challenges were prevented or blocked by the government. In this setup, CSOs were ignored at best, and restrictions undercut their abilities to contribute to the process of mitigating the pandemic and its consequences. Meanwhile, at the opposite end of this scale, are countries where the government, both central and local, invited civil society partners in the response to COVID-19, ","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"6 1","pages":"1 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82533230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The paper examines the CSOs – government relations during the COVID-19 pandemic, first introducing how the pandemic affected the already authoritarian regime in Hungary and how this regime utilized the epidemic to extend and fortify its power. Then the paper presents the antecedents of the relationship between civil society and government in the frame of the National System of Cooperation (NSC). This relationship is unilaterally dominated by the government, and it may appear as a “4C strategy”: Cooptation, Coercion, Crowding out, Creation (the creation of a new, loyal civil society). Exploring the civil society and government relations during the pandemic, the study will conclude that there was no government attempt to coordinate the activities of CSOs or to try to harmonize sectoral cooperation from a broader perspective. The occurrences demonstrated the explosion of solidarity and the carnival of solidarity. These forms of solidarity, however, remain informal and leave deepening structural problems untouched. The paper presents the results of an empirical research which was conducted between March and September of 2020. The nodal points of the research include the resilience and flexibility of the organizations, their efforts to assist during the emergency and lockdown, as well as the issues of networking and the nature of their relations with the national and local authorities.
{"title":"Civil Society and COVID-19 in Hungary: The Complete Annexation of Civil Space","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0060","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper examines the CSOs – government relations during the COVID-19 pandemic, first introducing how the pandemic affected the already authoritarian regime in Hungary and how this regime utilized the epidemic to extend and fortify its power. Then the paper presents the antecedents of the relationship between civil society and government in the frame of the National System of Cooperation (NSC). This relationship is unilaterally dominated by the government, and it may appear as a “4C strategy”: Cooptation, Coercion, Crowding out, Creation (the creation of a new, loyal civil society). Exploring the civil society and government relations during the pandemic, the study will conclude that there was no government attempt to coordinate the activities of CSOs or to try to harmonize sectoral cooperation from a broader perspective. The occurrences demonstrated the explosion of solidarity and the carnival of solidarity. These forms of solidarity, however, remain informal and leave deepening structural problems untouched. The paper presents the results of an empirical research which was conducted between March and September of 2020. The nodal points of the research include the resilience and flexibility of the organizations, their efforts to assist during the emergency and lockdown, as well as the issues of networking and the nature of their relations with the national and local authorities.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"226 1","pages":"93 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89189669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"George E. Mitchell, Hans Peter Schmitz and Tosca Bruno-van Vijfeijken: Between Power and Irrelevance: The Future of Transnational NGOs","authors":"J. Fisher","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"16 1","pages":"213 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81222032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract National service operates as a workforce development system for nonprofits by offering individuals a paid opportunity to develop real-world skills through hands-on service. A service year before, during, or after college – or as a way to get back on track – gives Americans of all ages, but especially young adults, the chance to transform their lives, make an impact in their community, and become the active citizens and leaders our nation needs.
{"title":"Civic Apprenticeship: Build The Talent Pipeline For The Nonprofit Sector By Expanding National Service And Recognizing Its Role In Workforce Development","authors":"Shirley Sagawa","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0031","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract National service operates as a workforce development system for nonprofits by offering individuals a paid opportunity to develop real-world skills through hands-on service. A service year before, during, or after college – or as a way to get back on track – gives Americans of all ages, but especially young adults, the chance to transform their lives, make an impact in their community, and become the active citizens and leaders our nation needs.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73851180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Consistently low rates of voter turnout in U.S. elections demand remedy. Antiquated legislation limits the ability of nonprofits to contribute to nonpartisan voter engagement. The article focuses on one piece of such legislation, section 4945(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. First, the article outlines the legislative history of this provision and highlights the racist and classist basis of its passage. Through discussion of the ongoing harm caused by section 4945(f)(2), the article demonstrates the need for reform of this provision.
{"title":"The Five-State Requirement of IRC Section 4945(f)(2)","authors":"R. Brooks","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Consistently low rates of voter turnout in U.S. elections demand remedy. Antiquated legislation limits the ability of nonprofits to contribute to nonpartisan voter engagement. The article focuses on one piece of such legislation, section 4945(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. First, the article outlines the legislative history of this provision and highlights the racist and classist basis of its passage. Through discussion of the ongoing harm caused by section 4945(f)(2), the article demonstrates the need for reform of this provision.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80040063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper presents results of a German-Chinese comparative research project on the provision of services by non-profit organizations (NPOs) in the field of migration. It argues that NPOs and local governments deploy similar strategies in their joint attempt to tackle social problems, regardless of their political backgrounds. From a top-down perspective German and Chinese local governments show similar outsourcing modes, while from a bottom-up perspective NPOs show similar practices of network governance.
{"title":"Outsourcing and Networking: Similar Trends in Local State-NPO Cooperation in Germany and China","authors":"Katja Levy, Anja Ketels","doi":"10.17169/REFUBIUM-25654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17169/REFUBIUM-25654","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents results of a German-Chinese comparative research project on the provision of services by non-profit organizations (NPOs) in the field of migration. It argues that NPOs and local governments deploy similar strategies in their joint attempt to tackle social problems, regardless of their political backgrounds. From a top-down perspective German and Chinese local governments show similar outsourcing modes, while from a bottom-up perspective NPOs show similar practices of network governance.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"190 1","pages":"243 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75222150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The U.S. nonprofit sector plays a critical role in American society. Nonprofits partner with government to deliver vital health, human, educational, and other services; they are a significant economic force that employs 10 percent of the private workforce; they serve as an important voice for many groups – the disabled, the discriminated against, the poor, the infirm – thatmight not otherwise be represented in the policymaking process; they are receptive to the selfexpression of artistic, religious, and other values; and they help bind diverse individuals together through volunteering, board membership, and other types of shared service and civic engagement. Unfortunately, despite the significant contribution that the nonprofit sector makes to society, the sector remains a mystery to many policymakers who seem to know that the sector exists but who often overlook its capacities and needs when making important policy decisions. When Americans are unemployed, policymakers fail to look to the nonprofit sector as an important place to put people back to work. When people are sick or in need of help, policymakers don’t understand the important role the nonprofit sector plays in providing assistance and restoring hope. When society frays, policymakers miss the potential of the nonprofit sector to bring us together through common service. And policymakers typically fail to recognize the ways government and public policy can help strengthen the nonprofit sector and improve its capacity for doing its important work.
{"title":"Strengthening the U.S. Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy: Policy Proposals from the 2019 ARNOVA-Independent Sector Symposium on Nonprofit Public Policy Research","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0058","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. nonprofit sector plays a critical role in American society. Nonprofits partner with government to deliver vital health, human, educational, and other services; they are a significant economic force that employs 10 percent of the private workforce; they serve as an important voice for many groups – the disabled, the discriminated against, the poor, the infirm – thatmight not otherwise be represented in the policymaking process; they are receptive to the selfexpression of artistic, religious, and other values; and they help bind diverse individuals together through volunteering, board membership, and other types of shared service and civic engagement. Unfortunately, despite the significant contribution that the nonprofit sector makes to society, the sector remains a mystery to many policymakers who seem to know that the sector exists but who often overlook its capacities and needs when making important policy decisions. When Americans are unemployed, policymakers fail to look to the nonprofit sector as an important place to put people back to work. When people are sick or in need of help, policymakers don’t understand the important role the nonprofit sector plays in providing assistance and restoring hope. When society frays, policymakers miss the potential of the nonprofit sector to bring us together through common service. And policymakers typically fail to recognize the ways government and public policy can help strengthen the nonprofit sector and improve its capacity for doing its important work.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85841881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract About $450 billion were donated to U.S. nonprofits in 2019 according to the most recently available data (Giving USA Foundation 2020). However, despite the increases in charitable dollars, the share of households that donate has been declining: in 2000, 67 percent of American households donated to nonprofits, but in 2016, only 53 percent of American households donated (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy 2019). This trend in decreasing share of U.S. households that donate to charitable causes pre-dates the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but could be accelerated by the recent policy changes. TCJA significantly changed federal tax policy and these changes are expected to affect charitable giving (Brill and Choe 2018; Ricco 2018; Rooney et al. 2017). Nonprofit leaders, as well as policymakers, have been exploring additional policy proposals to offset the potential negative impact on charitable giving. This paper investigates the estimated effects of potential policy proposals on charitable giving, donor incidence rates, and Treasury revenue. This study used the Penn Wharton Budget Model (Penn 2019a, 2019b) to run microsimulations of the effects of five tax policy proposals on charitable giving dollars, the number of households that donate, and the forgone Treasury revenue. The five proposals included: a non-itemizer charitable deduction; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a cap; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a floor; an enhanced non-itemizer charitable deduction, which provides a higher value deduction for low- and middle-income households; and a non-itemizer non-refundable 25 percent charitable giving tax credit. Of the five policy options analyzed, providing a non-refundable 25% charitable giving tax credit to non-itemizers has the largest positive impact, increasing both the amount of charitable giving dollars ($37 billion in 2018 dollars) and the number of donor households (10.6 million) of the five policy options analyzed. However, it is also the most “expensive” proposal (measured in terms of forgone Treasury revenue) for United States (U.S.) Treasury revenue (−$33.0 billion). Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than are lost in Treasury revenue. Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than were projected to have been lost as a result of TCJA. All five proposals bring in more donor households that were expected to be lost as a result of TCJA. This paper is based on a published report written and researched by [school] in partnership with the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and commissioned by Independent Sector. The report, “Charitable Giving and Tax Incentives Estimating changes in charitable dollars and number of donors resulting from five policy proposals,” can be found at this link: http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515.
根据最新数据(Giving USA Foundation 2020)， 2019年向美国非营利组织捐赠了约4500亿美元。然而，尽管慈善资金增加，但捐赠家庭的比例一直在下降:2000年，67%的美国家庭向非营利组织捐款，但在2016年，只有53%的美国家庭捐款(印第安纳大学莉莉家族慈善学院2019年)。这种向慈善事业捐款的美国家庭比例下降的趋势早在2017年《减税和就业法案》(TCJA)通过之前就出现了，但最近的政策变化可能会加速这种趋势。TCJA显著改变了联邦税收政策，这些变化预计将影响慈善捐赠(Brill and Choe 2018;Ricco 2018;Rooney et al. 2017)。非营利组织的领导人和政策制定者一直在探索更多的政策建议，以抵消对慈善捐赠的潜在负面影响。本文研究了潜在的政策建议对慈善捐赠、捐赠者发生率和财政收入的估计影响。本研究使用宾大沃顿预算模型(Penn 2019a, 2019b)对五项税收政策提案对慈善捐赠金额、捐赠家庭数量和放弃的财政收入的影响进行了微观模拟。这五项建议包括:非分项慈善扣除;有上限的非分项慈善扣除额;非分项慈善扣除额有下限;加强非分项慈善扣除额，为中低收入家庭提供更高的扣除额;还有25%的慈善捐赠税收抵免。在分析的五种政策选择中，向非逐项者提供不可退还的25%慈善捐赠税收抵免的积极影响最大，在分析的五种政策选择中，增加了慈善捐赠金额(按2018年美元计算为370亿美元)和捐赠家庭数量(1060万)。然而，它也是美国最“昂贵”的提案(以放弃的财政收入来衡量)。国库收入(- 330亿美元)。五项政策提案中有四项带来的慈善捐款超过了国库收入的损失。五项政策提案中有四项带来的慈善资金比预计TCJA造成的损失要多。所有五项提议都带来了更多的捐赠家庭，这些家庭原本预计会因为TCJA而失去。本文基于一份已发表的报告，由[学院]与宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院合作撰写和研究，并受独立部门委托。这份名为《慈善捐赠和税收激励——估计五项政策提案导致的慈善资金和捐赠者数量变化》的报告可在以下链接中找到:http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515。
{"title":"The Impact of Five Different Tax Policy Changes on Household Giving in the United States","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract About $450 billion were donated to U.S. nonprofits in 2019 according to the most recently available data (Giving USA Foundation 2020). However, despite the increases in charitable dollars, the share of households that donate has been declining: in 2000, 67 percent of American households donated to nonprofits, but in 2016, only 53 percent of American households donated (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy 2019). This trend in decreasing share of U.S. households that donate to charitable causes pre-dates the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but could be accelerated by the recent policy changes. TCJA significantly changed federal tax policy and these changes are expected to affect charitable giving (Brill and Choe 2018; Ricco 2018; Rooney et al. 2017). Nonprofit leaders, as well as policymakers, have been exploring additional policy proposals to offset the potential negative impact on charitable giving. This paper investigates the estimated effects of potential policy proposals on charitable giving, donor incidence rates, and Treasury revenue. This study used the Penn Wharton Budget Model (Penn 2019a, 2019b) to run microsimulations of the effects of five tax policy proposals on charitable giving dollars, the number of households that donate, and the forgone Treasury revenue. The five proposals included: a non-itemizer charitable deduction; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a cap; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a floor; an enhanced non-itemizer charitable deduction, which provides a higher value deduction for low- and middle-income households; and a non-itemizer non-refundable 25 percent charitable giving tax credit. Of the five policy options analyzed, providing a non-refundable 25% charitable giving tax credit to non-itemizers has the largest positive impact, increasing both the amount of charitable giving dollars ($37 billion in 2018 dollars) and the number of donor households (10.6 million) of the five policy options analyzed. However, it is also the most “expensive” proposal (measured in terms of forgone Treasury revenue) for United States (U.S.) Treasury revenue (−$33.0 billion). Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than are lost in Treasury revenue. Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than were projected to have been lost as a result of TCJA. All five proposals bring in more donor households that were expected to be lost as a result of TCJA. This paper is based on a published report written and researched by [school] in partnership with the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and commissioned by Independent Sector. The report, “Charitable Giving and Tax Incentives Estimating changes in charitable dollars and number of donors resulting from five policy proposals,” can be found at this link: http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90692295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Tax-exempt organizations in the United States are, in general, required to file regular reports on their operations with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These filings represent a significant burden for the filing organizations, are a critical source of information for many observers, and are relied upon by regulators and donors as indicators of the organizations’ commitment to achieving the wide variety of purposes for which the exemptions are granted. This paper recommends that the resources of the IRS be refocused so that greater attention can be paid to complex organizations, while the burden of preparing annual filings by simpler organization is also reduced. More generally, this paper also recommends that new attention be paid to the information collected and to its publication. It argues that the needs of the public and other regulatory agencies are not well-served by the current information and that the limitations on currently available information contribute to misunderstanding of and cynicism about the role of charitable nonprofits in American life.
{"title":"Regulation of “Classic” Community-Based Charitable Organizations","authors":"Putnam Barber, S. Smith","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Tax-exempt organizations in the United States are, in general, required to file regular reports on their operations with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These filings represent a significant burden for the filing organizations, are a critical source of information for many observers, and are relied upon by regulators and donors as indicators of the organizations’ commitment to achieving the wide variety of purposes for which the exemptions are granted. This paper recommends that the resources of the IRS be refocused so that greater attention can be paid to complex organizations, while the burden of preparing annual filings by simpler organization is also reduced. More generally, this paper also recommends that new attention be paid to the information collected and to its publication. It argues that the needs of the public and other regulatory agencies are not well-served by the current information and that the limitations on currently available information contribute to misunderstanding of and cynicism about the role of charitable nonprofits in American life.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81306096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：