Geah Pressgrove and Richard D. Waters
What do the Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Rifle Association of America, Harvard, Young Men's Christian Association, Chamber of Commerce, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Association of Realtors, and Feeding America have in common? While the missions and structures of these organizations are vastly different, each is part of the nonprofit sector. Also referred to as the third sector, voluntary sector, civil society or charitable sector, organizations in this sector operate outside of the government and for‐profit sectors.
Nonprofits play a unique and vital role in society, providing critical services, enriching cultural life, offering an outlet for political expression, and contributing to quality of life. As examples of the unique role of nonprofits, consider that most of the social movements that have taken place in the last century (e.g. civil rights, woman’s suffrage, antislavery) all operated through this sector. In America, over 90% of orchestras and operas, as well as over half of the nation’s hospitals are part of the nonprofit sector (Salamon, 2015). Further, nonprofit organizations provide individuals with the venues to act on matters that concern them in coordination with other like‐minded individuals. The significance of this last point is perhaps best illustrated by a report from the Corporation for National Community Service which found that over a quarter of Americans (62.8 million) volunteer an average of 32 volunteer hours per person, accumulating to an estimated value of $184 billion (Joseph, 2017). Further, approximately 71% of US charitable giving comes from individuals (MacLaughlin, 2016).
Beyond the important role the nonprofit sector plays in quality of life, the sector also represents an important cog in the national economy. Accounting for $1.7 trillion in revenue, nonprofits enhance local economic vitality, create jobs, and offer economic value (Salamon, 2012). In fact, in 2013, this sector included more than 1.4 million registered nonprofit organizations, accounting for approximately 5% of the gross domestic product and $634 billion in wages, and employing an estimated 14.4 million people or 10% of the domestic workforce (McKeever & Gaddy, 2016).
Domestically, a state has the authority to grant nonprofit status. Upon receiving this designation many organizations apply for federal tax‐exempt designations from the Internal Revenue Service. While there are 29 types of nonprofit organizations, the most common are public charities and private foundations with a 501(c)3 designation. These organizations enjoy many benefits, including exemption from federal, state, and local taxes; the opportunity to receive government and private foundation grants; and the ability to offer tax deductions to individual donors. Nonprofits that have this designation, however, may not engage in partisan activity, including intervening in political campaigns for candidates for public office. Additionally, these nonprofits are also prohibited from using funds attained from the government to lobby.
Around the world, the nonprofit sector encompasses a wide array of entities ranging from hospitals and universities, to day‐care centers, cultural organizations, social welfare organizations, community groups, disaster assistance services, religious congregations and foundations, to name a few. While seemingly disparate, these nonprofit organizations share similar functional characteristics that differentiate them from other sectors of the economy. For instance, Billis and Glennerster (1998) argue that the nonprofit sector provides efficient and effective services for those who suffer financial, personal, societal, or communal disadvantage by mobilizing assets to address public problems. Putman (1995) asserts that this sector fosters social capital that promotes economic growth and contributes to the functioning operation of a democratic society. Auger (2013) advances that nonprofit organizations serve an important role in democratic society by offering the opportunity for people with diverse viewpoints to assemble and share ideas.
Perhaps the most commonly accepted comprehensive definition of the sector, however, was developed as part of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, which empirically examines the scope, structure, funding bases, and special contributions of the sector in 42 countries in Western and Central Europe, Asia, Latin America, and North America. The “structural‐operational definition” identifies five key characteristics that these organizations must share (Salamon et al., 1999, p. 3):
At the core of nonprofit mission fulfillment is effective negotiation of complex relationships. Often, these nonprofits have limited budgets for expensive outreach and communication campaigns, making the necessity of strategic positioning even more vital. Further the audiences that a nonprofit must connect with range from service recipients, donors, and volunteers, to advocates and government. Sustaining and cultivating mutually beneficial relationships with each of these audiences is the lifeblood of the sector.
While some nonprofit organizations are adapting to and embracing market practices for strategic communication planning, the potential risks to the sector’s identity are considerable (Young & Salamon, 2002). As evidence of this, according to a report from Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Civil Society Studies, the nonprofit sector has seven core values: to be productive contributors to the economy, empowering, effective, enriching, reliable, responsive, and caring (Salamon, Geller, & Newhouse, 2012). While there is general consensus in the sector that these are shared core values, there is a rising concern that these values are not understood by key stakeholders in government, media, and the general public. Further, it is felt that the consequences of this lack of understanding could be detrimental.
The importance of strategically aligned relationship cultivation and maintenance is further complicated by the unique challenges faced by the sector. For instance, there are fiscal stressors such as tax reform and the related implications for charitable giving; increasing competition for donor and volunteer contributions; pressure to incorporate technology despite limited resources for training, purchase costs, and upkeep; and the need to recruit and retain quality employees despite lower salaries and benefits (Salamon, 2002). In each of these instances, public relations could play a role in sustaining the sector by reconnecting stakeholders to the sector’s mission and values, and enhancing public understanding of the function and role of the nonprofit sector (Salamon, 1999).
The National Center for Charitable Statistics identifies eight types of nonprofits. According to analysis conducted by Sisco, Pressgrove, and Collins (2013), nonprofit scholarship has explored each of these types, including research on arts; education; environment; health; human services; international issues; civil rights, social action, and advocacy; and other public benefit organizations (i.e. foundations). The authors also discovered that while much of nonprofit public relations scholarship focused on the public relations function, education of future practitioners, or solving practical problems faced by practitioners, research also included theory development and theory testing.
Theory‐driven research is important to the nonprofit sector. While many of the foundational public relations theories and paradigms have been used to predict outcomes in the nonprofit sector, the literature also suggests that the relationship between for‐profit and nonprofit publics is often quite different (Frumkin, 2002; M. O’Neill & Young, 1988). Thus, research has sought to shine light on some of the most pressing issues facing nonprofits, including increasing fiscal challenges (e.g. Hall, 2002; J. O’Neil, 2007), decreasing public confidence (e.g. McDougle & Lam, 2014), rapid technology changes (e.g. Hether, 2014), and human resource challenges (Swanger & Rodgers, 2013).
Reviewing nonprofit public relations research from the last decade further highlights the importance of theory in understanding how nonprofits might sustain and improve relationships with publics on whom the viability of the organization hinges. Among the most common theory‐building and theory‐testing research in these areas are investigations of relationships with stakeholders, technology and communication, crisis management, and advocacy communication. The following highlights theory‐based work in each area.
Perhaps the most robust area of theory‐based scholarship in nonprofit public relations focuses on improving relationships with key internal and external organizational stakeholders. In this area of research, substantial focus has been on the donor–organization relationship, both domestically (Powers & Yaros, 2013; Shen, 2016; Sisson, 2017) and internationally (Kashif & De Run, 2015; Wiggill, 2014). Another important area of relationship management research has focused on the organization–volunteer relationship (Bortree & Waters, 2014; Hyde et al., 2016; Kang, 2016). Research on internal stakeholders has explored important topics, such as diversity in fundraising roles (Tindall, Waters, & Kelly, 2014; Waters, Kelly, & Walker, 2012). Other less commonly explored relationships included grantor–grantee (Auger, 2015) and university alumni (Bowen & Sisson, 2015) relationships. Much of the work in the area of relationship management highlights the importance of tailoring communication for particular audiences (e.g. Cao, 2016; Maxwell & Carboni, 2014), while other work focuses on key variables that stimulate support for the organization (e.g. Pressgrove, 2017), and improved models for assessing relationship quality (e.g. Pressgrove & McKeever, 2016; Sargeant, Ford, & West, 2006).
Advances in communication technology have provided a staggering array of choices, challenges, and opportunities for nonprofits. Therefore, it is not surprising that the recent years have seen an explosion of research in this area. Published scholarship has included how nonprofits use social media to engage the public (e.g. Auger, 2014; Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Cho, Schweickart, & Haase, 2014; Ihm, 2015; Saxton & Waters, 2014), adopt social media within the organization (Nah & Saxton, 2013), and employ websites to fulfill organizational missions in domestic and emerging markets (Kirk, Ractham, & Abrahams, 2016; Patel & McKeever, 2014), as well as how nonprofits raise money through online fundraising and mobile campaigns (Weberling & Waters, 2012). While early research in the area of nonprofit new media communication highlighted ineffective use of online resources (e.g. Waters & Lord, 2009), an emerging body of theoretically grounded research is beginning to inform how these communication conduits can be used for mission fulfillment, relationship development, audience segmentation, and enhanced fundraising.
Crisis management nonprofit public relations research falls primarily into to two overarching categories. The first category is research that focuses on how nonprofits manage crisis that effect their reputation and viability (Lee & Rim, 2016; Long, 2016; Rasmussen, 2015; Sisco, 2012), and the effects of these crises on future supportive stakeholder behaviors (Kinsky et al., 2015; Kinsky, Drumheller, & Gerlich, 2014). The second category of nonprofit crisis management research focuses on the role that nonprofits play in relation to crises that effect the public (Liu, Jin, Briones, & Kuch, 2012; Waters, 2013). In these studies, theory provides a lens through which to consider message and response approaches, audience segmentation, and the role of new media in crisis response strategies.
In communication research, advocacy has been defined as “the set of skills used to create a shift in public opinion and mobilize the necessary resources and forces to support an issue, policy, or constituency” (Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan, & Themba, 1993, p. 27). While some public relations scholars eschew advocacy in public relations (see Edgett, 2002), ethical advocacy and nonprofit communications are inextricably linked. Thus, it makes sense that a portion of the theory‐based research on nonprofit public relations would explore this important topic. To this end, research in this area has examined the role of traditional and online communication channels for engaging audiences (Rudov et al., 2017; Weberling, 2012), fundraising and organizational support for advocacy‐based nonprofits (McKeever, 2013; McKeever, Pressgrove, McKeever, & Zheng, 2016), employing advocacy‐based frames to shift public opinion (Benson & Reber, 2015), and activist mobilization and engagement (Curtin, 2016; Sommerfeldt, 2013).
Numerous theories and paradigms from both within and outside of public relations scholarship have been used to explore the topics in nonprofit public relations outlined (for a summary of examples, see Table 8.1). While this section will not exhaust the theory‐driven scholarship in the area, it will illustrate numerous approaches and identify key theory‐testing and theory‐building work.
Table 8.1 Examples of public relations theories used in nonprofit work
Topics | Examples of theory |
Relationships with stakeholders | Organization–public relationship (OPR) |
Technology and communication | Dialogic communication; technology acceptance model |
Crisis communication | Situational crisis communication theory (SCCT); theory of planned behavior; organization–public relationship (OPR) |
Advocacy and fundraising | Framing; agenda building; situational theory of publics |
Given the prominence of relationship management theory more generally in public relations scholarship, it is not surprising that this paradigm offers a key framework for considering relationships with stakeholders. Initially work in this area explored the organization‐public relationship (OPR) to evaluate the donor relationship based on dimensions including trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality (e.g. Waters, 2008, 2011). Building on this foundation, other researchers have expanded nonprofit OPR research to include volunteers. For instance, one study explored the role of inclusion in predicting relationship quality and future volunteerism for participants of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds (Bortree & Waters, 2014). In the area of theory development, other scholars extended the OPR model to include other important nonprofit variables, including perceptions of stewardship and desired outcomes such as behavioral intent (donate, volunteer) and loyalty to the organization (Pressgrove & McKeever, 2016).
As outlined, another important area for scholarship has been to inform and understand the evolving role of technology in nonprofit public relations. Much of the work in this area has been theory testing in the realm of stakeholder engagement through online channels. For instance, numerous studies use dialogic theory to explore how nonprofits use social media to build relationships online (e.g. Briones et al., 2011; Hether, 2014). Other scholars have gone outside traditional public relations theories to find an appropriate lens for studying technology‐driven communication. For instance, Weberling and Waters (2012) employ the technology acceptance model to gauge public preparedness for campaigns based on text alerts on mobiles.
In research that explores how nonprofits manage crisis communication, numerous theories emerge. To study the response of nonprofit organizations to crises that affect their reputation and future supportive behaviors, one commonly employed framework has been the situational crisis communication theory (e.g. Sisco, 2012; Sisco, Collins, & Zoch, 2010). To better understand public sentiment for organizations embroiled in a high‐visibility crisis, other scholars have used the theory of planned behavior to predict donation behavior (Kinksy, Drumheller, & Gerlich, 2014; Kinsky et al., 2015). Still another study expanded the systems theory as it relates to decision‐making and strategies for managing conflict with titled volunteers, those with a significant job title and autonomy, of a nonprofit organization (Gallicano, 2013).
Given the restrictions on lobbying and intervening in political campaigns that many nonprofits face, research on advocacy in public relations typically focuses on fundraising and mobilizing stakeholders to support mission‐driven action. For instance, the situational theory of publics has been used to analyze communication and participation behaviors (McKeever, 2013). Agenda‐building theory and framing have been employed to better understand involvement in advocacy and fundraising efforts (Weberling, 2012).
Communication research on the nonprofit sector has increased in the last decade, but theory‐driven scholarship in this area is far from reaching saturation. Thus, there is much room for emerging scholarship to empirically explore and expand theory in the area of nonprofit public relations at the organizational, community, and societal levels. As outlined, nonprofits often do not have the same structure and mission as corporate and government institutions, and therefore the measurement and predictive validity of existing models may not be the same for this sector. Further, the diversity of the stakeholders on whom the organization’s success hinges, restrictions on lobbying, and competition in the sector lead to many distinctive challenges. For instance, a study of nonprofit communication challenges identified six common themes that nonprofits face: politics, law and regulation, media attention, evaluation, brand recognition, and employee engagement (Liu, 2012). Additionally, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that only 13% of Americans believe charities spend money wisely, 41% think leaders are paid too much, and 68% indicated that program effectiveness was a key factor in decisions to give (Perry, 2015). Further, for 20 years the Edelman Trust Barometer has indicated that trust in the nonprofit sector was unequaled by other institutions, but in 2016, trust in nonprofits dropped by 12% (Edelman, 2017).
These emerging and persistent challenges underscore the trials facing the nonprofit sector (both domestically and abroad) and provide a host of questions needing to be addressed by public relations theorists. While not a comprehensive list, the following issues highlight significant opportunities that would provide great value for practitioners, educators, researchers, and students:
Numerous case studies highlight the value of public relations theory in nonprofit communication (e.g. Curtin, 2016; Sisco & McCorkindale, 2013; Kirk et al., 2016). As an example of how these case studies inform the intersection of theory and practice, Worley and Little (2002) examine the role of stewardship in fundraising by focusing on the Coaches vs. Cancer campaign. The campaign, a partnership between the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the National Association of Basketball Coaches, was created to tap into the college basketball audience to find new donors and volunteers. While the program successfully generated enough funds through sponsorship and in‐kind donations to execute the campaign, the pledge drive did not meet its first‐year goals and only received limited media coverage. Further, as the authors point out, evaluating a campaign solely on impressions and dollars donated misses an opportunity to cultivate long‐term meaningful relationships.
A key aim of this case study was to use this campaign as a lens to highlight the limitations of current public relations models and advocate for the inclusion of stewardship as a final step in the campaign planning process. Fundraising experts and scholars alike agree that it is easier and more fiscally responsible to maintain a relationship with a supporter (e.g. donor) than recruit a new one (Kelly, 2001). Thus, public relations, with its focus on relationship management, potentially provides uniquely useful insight. Most students of the field are familiar with the RACE (research, action planning, communication, evaluation) and ROPE (research, objective development, programming, evaluation) models of communication. These models are intended to guide communicators through the processes for strategic public relations planning. However, these models are campaign‐centric. To overcome this limitation, Kelly (2001) proposed that stewardship be added as a final step to make the process cyclical and promote ethical behavior by practitioners and their organizations. In Kelly’s conceptualization, stewardship is comprised of four parts:
According to Worley and Little (2002), much of the Coaches vs. Cancer campaign’s lack of success can be attributed to problems of stewardship. First, while the campaign aimed to engage a new audience, planners failed to understand who among the audience truly supported ACS, thus limiting opportunities for proper recognition and gratitude (reciprocity). Next, planners did not sufficiently identify and understand audience expectations in their initial research (responsibility), thus leading to extensive production of pledge cards and other materials that were not appropriate. Further, planners focused their message on donation, or what the audience could do for ACS, rather than keeping the public informed (reporting). Finally, campaign planners maintained the same solicitation‐based message throughout the campaign without attempting to recognize or nurture prior relationships (relationship nurturing).
For a deeper exploration of theory and applied studies in the sector, the following compendium of research in the area of nonprofit public relations is recommended as a starting point.
3.139.82.4