Abstract Recent decades have seen a major political shift in many nations, manifested in democratic regression, rise of populist non-liberal democracies, resurgence of extreme right, infractions against democratic watchdogs, and increasing nationalism and unilateralism. A central manifestation of this process is the active encroachment by governments on civil society, and particularly on its liberal elements. These manifestations allegedly emanate from resistance to the liberal world order and to threats from pressures imported by national NGOs, and are made possible by changing political opportunity structures. We explore the case of Israel, through an analysis of the New Israel Fund (NIF), as a particular yet demonstrative example of these dynamics. The manifestations of civil society encroachment in Israel include concerted and coordinated actions meant to weaken and delegitimize left-wing civil society actors and their supporters and donors, by Israel’s right-wing governments and their NGO allies, through legislation and rhetorical assaults; attempts to curb international funding of human rights organizations; and differential treatment of civil society organizations according to political stance. Interviews with former and current leaders of the NIF show that the attacks have galvanized liberal civil society actors to counteract, and drove them from passive response to active and strategic engagement, professionalization of media work and program evaluation, adjustment of public relations and legal strategies, and even adjustment of programmatic choice, shifting focus to supporting the infrastructure of civil society and democracy. The discussion stresses pressures by international illiberal forces, alongside the backlash to liberal world society, as causes for encroachment, and highlights the less explored reactions of civil society actors to such encroachment.
{"title":"Encroachment and Reaction of Civil Society in Non-liberal Democracies: The Case of Israel and the New Israel Fund","authors":"Hagai Katz, B. Gidron","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent decades have seen a major political shift in many nations, manifested in democratic regression, rise of populist non-liberal democracies, resurgence of extreme right, infractions against democratic watchdogs, and increasing nationalism and unilateralism. A central manifestation of this process is the active encroachment by governments on civil society, and particularly on its liberal elements. These manifestations allegedly emanate from resistance to the liberal world order and to threats from pressures imported by national NGOs, and are made possible by changing political opportunity structures. We explore the case of Israel, through an analysis of the New Israel Fund (NIF), as a particular yet demonstrative example of these dynamics. The manifestations of civil society encroachment in Israel include concerted and coordinated actions meant to weaken and delegitimize left-wing civil society actors and their supporters and donors, by Israel’s right-wing governments and their NGO allies, through legislation and rhetorical assaults; attempts to curb international funding of human rights organizations; and differential treatment of civil society organizations according to political stance. Interviews with former and current leaders of the NIF show that the attacks have galvanized liberal civil society actors to counteract, and drove them from passive response to active and strategic engagement, professionalization of media work and program evaluation, adjustment of public relations and legal strategies, and even adjustment of programmatic choice, shifting focus to supporting the infrastructure of civil society and democracy. The discussion stresses pressures by international illiberal forces, alongside the backlash to liberal world society, as causes for encroachment, and highlights the less explored reactions of civil society actors to such encroachment.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"12 1","pages":"229 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72644620","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 2010 Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility to states’ residents with incomes below the federal poverty line, creating both opportunities and challenges to hospitals in states that adopted the new Medicaid eligibility. This article explores the effect of Medicaid expansions on nonprofit hospitals. Using data from Internal Revenue Service and a difference-in-differences design, this article examines the impact of the expansions on the number of, contributions to, and profitability of nonprofit hospitals. The results suggest that Medicaid expansions did not affect the number and profitability of nonprofit hospitals; however, the expansions were associated with a reduction in contributions to certain types of hospitals by around 23%. Therefore, the effects of policy changes vary by the type of nonprofit hospitals, which then need to find better strategies to cope with these changes.
{"title":"The Impact of Medicaid Expansions on Nonprofit Hospitals","authors":"Rui Wang, Khaldoun AbouAssi","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0053","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 2010 Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility to states’ residents with incomes below the federal poverty line, creating both opportunities and challenges to hospitals in states that adopted the new Medicaid eligibility. This article explores the effect of Medicaid expansions on nonprofit hospitals. Using data from Internal Revenue Service and a difference-in-differences design, this article examines the impact of the expansions on the number of, contributions to, and profitability of nonprofit hospitals. The results suggest that Medicaid expansions did not affect the number and profitability of nonprofit hospitals; however, the expansions were associated with a reduction in contributions to certain types of hospitals by around 23%. Therefore, the effects of policy changes vary by the type of nonprofit hospitals, which then need to find better strategies to cope with these changes.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"4 1","pages":"465 - 495"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85036322","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}
Susan D. Phillips, Katherine Dalziel, Keith Sjogren
Abstract Donor Advised Funds (DAFs) are the fastest growing destination for charitable giving, and subject to vigorous debate over whether they should be more tightly regulated. Virtually all of the research on DAFs and the arguments for increased regulation emanate from the US. This article compares regulation in Canada and Australia with the US to demonstrate how different regimes lead to different uses of DAFs and different ‘market’ configurations. The conceptual framework presents three motivational scenarios for their use: as pseudo foundations, tax savings and protection of privacy. The differential effects of regulation on these donor scenarios explains why total DAF assets in Australia are proportionately much lower than its North American counterparts, mainly because its regime is not skewed as heavily toward the tax savings motivated donor. The findings raise serious questions as to whether DAFs have actually democratized philanthropy, as is so often claimed. In terms of policy change, all three countries have experienced policy drift, although for different reasons. However, COVID-19 pandemic may have created new windows of opportunity for regulatory reform.
{"title":"Donor Advised Funds in Canada, Australia and the US: Differing Regulatory Regimes, Differing Streams of Policy Drift","authors":"Susan D. Phillips, Katherine Dalziel, Keith Sjogren","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0061","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Donor Advised Funds (DAFs) are the fastest growing destination for charitable giving, and subject to vigorous debate over whether they should be more tightly regulated. Virtually all of the research on DAFs and the arguments for increased regulation emanate from the US. This article compares regulation in Canada and Australia with the US to demonstrate how different regimes lead to different uses of DAFs and different ‘market’ configurations. The conceptual framework presents three motivational scenarios for their use: as pseudo foundations, tax savings and protection of privacy. The differential effects of regulation on these donor scenarios explains why total DAF assets in Australia are proportionately much lower than its North American counterparts, mainly because its regime is not skewed as heavily toward the tax savings motivated donor. The findings raise serious questions as to whether DAFs have actually democratized philanthropy, as is so often claimed. In terms of policy change, all three countries have experienced policy drift, although for different reasons. However, COVID-19 pandemic may have created new windows of opportunity for regulatory reform.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"124 1","pages":"409 - 441"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87920874","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 Nonprofit scholars have developed a rich literature on nonprofit advocacy. While the literature is rich, however, gaps remain in our collective knowledge, especially regarding specific sectors of nonprofit human service organizations. Here, we apply existing theory on advocacy by human service organizations to an important subset of the nonprofit community, that being immigrant-serving organizations (ISOs). Most prior research on nonprofit advocacy has not focused on politically polarized issues, such as contemporary immigration policy. Using a nationwide survey of ISOs, we find that unlike other types of human service organizations, the majority of ISOs do engage in at least some forms of policy advocacy. However, those that report using the H-election status on their Form 990s are significantly more likely to engage in advocacy and do so to a wide variety of policymakers, including legislators, chief executives, and even local law enforcement agencies. H-election groups are also more likely to perceive their advocacy activities as effective. These findings add to the evolving knowledge on when and how human service groups seek policy change for marginalized groups.
{"title":"Final Lines of Defense: Explaining Policy Advocacy by Immigrant-Serving Organizations","authors":"M. A. Calderon, Daniel E. Chand, Daniel P. Hawes","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Nonprofit scholars have developed a rich literature on nonprofit advocacy. While the literature is rich, however, gaps remain in our collective knowledge, especially regarding specific sectors of nonprofit human service organizations. Here, we apply existing theory on advocacy by human service organizations to an important subset of the nonprofit community, that being immigrant-serving organizations (ISOs). Most prior research on nonprofit advocacy has not focused on politically polarized issues, such as contemporary immigration policy. Using a nationwide survey of ISOs, we find that unlike other types of human service organizations, the majority of ISOs do engage in at least some forms of policy advocacy. However, those that report using the H-election status on their Form 990s are significantly more likely to engage in advocacy and do so to a wide variety of policymakers, including legislators, chief executives, and even local law enforcement agencies. H-election groups are also more likely to perceive their advocacy activities as effective. These findings add to the evolving knowledge on when and how human service groups seek policy change for marginalized groups.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"20 1","pages":"285 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82135981","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":"Chao Guo and Gregory D. Saxton: The Quest for Attention: Nonprofit Advocacy in a Social Media Age","authors":"D. A. Campbell","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0048","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"22 1","pages":"395 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90509385","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 In October of 1978, a committee met to explore the possibility of a merger between the National Council on Philanthropy (NCOP) and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations (CONVO). The vision was more than the mere marriage of two small organizations facing uncertain futures. Participants in this endeavor dreamed of an entity that would represent the entire nonprofit sector. The organization they birthed in 1979, Independent Sector (IS), was a meaningful step forward in unifying the sector. The IS board represented a broad range of sub-sectors and causes and also made strides in gender and, to a lesser extent, racial and religious diversity. Yet, there was an inherent tension in the project. Yes, it was true that people did not want to “interfere with pluralism” but they also wanted “a strong voice” to champion the sector—those involved called this dilemma a “persistent contradiction.” The tension was resolved in favor of the concerns of the powerful national non-profit institutions and foundations: tax policy, government relations, and sector advocacy. That is, the umbrella organization acted principally to preserve the sector, as constituted, and had little appetite for structural reform or discussion of competing notions of “the good” within the sector. Critics pointed to the exclusion of local organizations fighting issues that challenged societal injustice and inequitable distribution of power and resources. To them, and in retrospect to the authors of this paper, greater sector “unity” entailed consolidation of traditional power and continued marginalization of communities already on the periphery. Though four decades have passed, the same tension remains in the philanthropic sector. Contest and division between various interests and constituencies is as evident now as it was then. Enthusiastic support for the advancement of public goods often over-shadows issues of power—including the ability to impose one’s own definition of the public good on others. This critique has been leveled forcefully in recent years. Is it possible or even desirable to seek greater unity for the public good? Whose voices are privileged in the quest for greater sectoral unity? These are the questions this paper aspires to provoke and inform by examining the founding of the first major nonprofit sector association in the United States.
{"title":"Independent Sector: Preserving the Status Quo?","authors":"Andrew L. Williams, Dana R. H. Doan","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0014","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In October of 1978, a committee met to explore the possibility of a merger between the National Council on Philanthropy (NCOP) and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations (CONVO). The vision was more than the mere marriage of two small organizations facing uncertain futures. Participants in this endeavor dreamed of an entity that would represent the entire nonprofit sector. The organization they birthed in 1979, Independent Sector (IS), was a meaningful step forward in unifying the sector. The IS board represented a broad range of sub-sectors and causes and also made strides in gender and, to a lesser extent, racial and religious diversity. Yet, there was an inherent tension in the project. Yes, it was true that people did not want to “interfere with pluralism” but they also wanted “a strong voice” to champion the sector—those involved called this dilemma a “persistent contradiction.” The tension was resolved in favor of the concerns of the powerful national non-profit institutions and foundations: tax policy, government relations, and sector advocacy. That is, the umbrella organization acted principally to preserve the sector, as constituted, and had little appetite for structural reform or discussion of competing notions of “the good” within the sector. Critics pointed to the exclusion of local organizations fighting issues that challenged societal injustice and inequitable distribution of power and resources. To them, and in retrospect to the authors of this paper, greater sector “unity” entailed consolidation of traditional power and continued marginalization of communities already on the periphery. Though four decades have passed, the same tension remains in the philanthropic sector. Contest and division between various interests and constituencies is as evident now as it was then. Enthusiastic support for the advancement of public goods often over-shadows issues of power—including the ability to impose one’s own definition of the public good on others. This critique has been leveled forcefully in recent years. Is it possible or even desirable to seek greater unity for the public good? Whose voices are privileged in the quest for greater sectoral unity? These are the questions this paper aspires to provoke and inform by examining the founding of the first major nonprofit sector association in the United States.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"20 1","pages":"341 - 366"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76048652","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：