8
Nonprofits

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).

Defining the Concepts: What Is the Nonprofit Sector?

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):

  1. Organized: institutional presence and structure
  2. Private: institutionally separate from government
  3. Non‐profit‐distributing: do not return profits to managers or a set of owners
  4. Self‐governing: fundamentally in control of their own affairs
  5. Voluntary: membership is not legally required and they attract some level of voluntary contribution of time or money

How and Why Are Nonprofits of Concern to Public Relations?

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).

How, When, and Why Is Theory Applied within the Nonprofit Sector?

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.

Relationships with Stakeholders

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).

Technology and Communication

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

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.

Advocacy

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).

Examples of Theory Used by Nonprofits

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).

Major Topics/Questions Needing to Be Addressed by Public Relations Theorists Working with Nonprofits

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:

  • How can theory inform the renewal of the sector identity and increase public understanding?
  • Can image and reputation management research inform a path forward in response to the crisis of trust in the sector?
  • How can public relations add value to the relationship between a nonprofit and its many stakeholder types (e.g. government, volunteer, board, advocate, donor, employee)?
  • In what ways might innovation and technology be effectively used to overcome challenges facing the sector?
  • In what ways might research from the areas of ethics, political communication, international relations, and other interrelated fields inform nonprofit public relations domestically and internationally?
  • What are the key antecedents to relationship cultivation and maintenance for both internal and external publics?

Suggested Cases to Explore to Demonstrate Theory at Work in the Nonprofit Sector

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:

  1. Reciprocity: demonstration of gratitude for supportive behaviors
  2. Responsibility: acting in a socially responsible manner to supporters
  3. Reporting: keeping publics informed and being accountable
  4. Relationship nurturing: focusing on continuous relationship building

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).

Discussion Questions

  1. 1 Reviewing the characteristics that define a nonprofit, what special considerations should be given when applying existing theories to the sector?
  2. 2 Do you believe existing public relations theories are sufficient to explore the myriad challenges and relationships in the nonprofit sector?
  3. 3 Advances in technology continue to affect the interplay between stakeholders and organizations. What theories might provide a relevant framework for considering the role of emerging innovations in the nonprofit sector?
  4. 4 How can theory inform the role of nonprofits, in the current political landscape, to mobilize and engage audiences?
  5. 5 What do you believe are the key areas for theory development and testing needed in the nonprofit sector?

Suggested Reading

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.

  1. Waters, R. D. (Ed.). (2015). Public relations in the nonprofit sector: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

References

  1. Auger, G. A. (2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametrically opposed nonprofit advocacy organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 369–376.
  2. Auger, G. A. (2014). Rhetorical framing: Examining the message structure of nonprofit organizations on Twitter. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(4), 239–249.
  3. Auger, G. A. (2015). Building mutually beneficial relationships: Recommended best practices for online grant making procedures. In R. D. Waters (Ed.), Public Relations in the nonprofit sector: Theory and practice (pp. 154–166). New York: Routledge.
  4. Benson, B., & Reber, B. H. (2015). The Cape Wind debate: Framing by energy activist groups and frame salience for active online audiences. In R. D. Waters (Ed.), Public relations in the nonprofit sector: Theory and practice (pp. 203–218). New York: Routledge.
  5. Billis, D., & Glennerster, H. (1998). Human services and the voluntary sector: Towards a theory of comparative advantage. Journal of Social Policy, 27, 79–98.
  6. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319.
  7. Bortree, D. S., & Waters, R. D. (2014). Race and inclusion in volunteerism: Using communication theory to improve volunteer retention. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 215–234.
  8. Bowen, S. A., & Sisson, D. C. (2015). Alumni commitment, organization–public relationships, and ethics. In R. D. Waters (Ed.), Public Relations in the nonprofit sector: Theory and practice (pp. 66–83). New York: Routledge.
  9. Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 37–43.
  10. Cao, X. (2016). Framing charitable appeals: The effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12.
  11. Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567.
  12. Curtin, P. A. (2016). Exploring articulation in internal activism and public relations theory: A case study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(1), 19–34.
  13. Edelman. (2017). 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/trust2017/
  14. Edgett, R. (2002). Toward an ethical framework for advocacy in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 1–26.
  15. Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Gallicano, T. D. (2013). Internal conflict management and decision making: A qualitative study of a multitiered grassroots advocacy organization. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 368–388.
  17. Hall, M. R. (2002). Fundraising and public relations: A comparison of programme concepts and characteristics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(4), 368–381.
  18. Hether, H. J. (2014). Dialogic communication in the health care context: A case study of Kaiser Permanente's social media practices. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 856–858.
  19. Hyde, M. K., Dunn, J., Wust, N., Bax, C., & Chambers, S. K. (2016). Satisfaction, organizational commitment and future action in charity sport event volunteers. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(3), 148–167.
  20. Ihm, J. (2015). Network measures to evaluate stakeholder engagement with nonprofit organizations on social networking sites. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 501–503.
  21. Joseph, M. (2017, January 31). America does not have enough volunteers. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc‐joseph/america‐does‐not‐have‐eno_b_9032152.html
  22. Kang, M. (2016). Moderating effects of identification on volunteer engagement: An exploratory study of a faith‐based charity organization. Journal of Communication Management, 20(2), 102–117
  23. Kashif, M., & De Run, E. C. (2015). Money donations intentions among Muslim donors: An extended theory of planned behavior model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 20(1), 84–96.
  24. Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 279–289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Kinsky, E. S., Drumheller, K., & Gerlich, R. N. (2014). Weathering the storm: Best practices for nonprofits in crisis. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(4), 277–285.
  26. Kinsky, E. S., Drumheller, K., Gerlich, R. N., Brock‐Baskin, M. E., & Sollosy, M. (2015). The effect of socially mediated public relations crises on planned behavior: How TPB can help both corporations and nonprofits. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 136–157.
  27. Kirk, K., Ractham, P., & Abrahams, A. (2016). Website development by nonprofit organizations in an emerging market: A case study of Thai websites. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(3), 195–211.
  28. Lee, S. Y., & Rim, H. (2016). Negative spillover in corporate–nonprofit partnerships: Exploring the effects of company–cause congruence and organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 42(4), 710–712.
  29. Liu, B. F. (2012). Toward a better understanding of nonprofit communication management. Journal of Communication Management, 16(4), 388–404.
  30. Liu, B. F., Jin, Y., Briones, R., & Kuch, B. (2012). Managing turbulence in the blogosphere: Evaluating the blog‐mediated crisis communication model with the American Red Cross. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4), 353–370.
  31. Long, Z. (2016). Managing legitimacy crisis for state‐owned non‐profit organization: A case study of the Red Cross Society of China. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 372–374.
  32. MacLaughlin, S. (2016, October 17). 50 fascinating nonprofit statistics. npEngage. Retrieved from https://npengage.com/nonprofit‐news/50‐fascinating‐nonprofit‐statistics/
  33. Maxwell, S. P., & Carboni, J. L. (2014). Stakeholder communication in service implementation networks: Expanding relationship management theory to the nonprofit sector through organizational network analysis. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(4), 301–313.
  34. McDougle, L. M., & Lam, M. (2014). Indvidual‐ and community‐level determinants of public attitudes toward nonprofit organizations. Voluntary and Nonprofit Sector Quarterly, 43(4), 672–692.
  35. McKeever, B. W. (2013). From awareness to advocacy: Understanding nonprofit communication, participation, and support. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 307–328.
  36. McKeever, B. & Gaddy, M. (2016, October 24). The nonprofit workforce: By the numbers. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/10/24/nonprofit‐workforce‐numbers/
  37. McKeever, B. W., Pressgrove, G., McKeever, R., & Zheng, Y. (2016). Toward a theory of situational support: A model for exploring fundraising, advocacy and organizational support. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 219–222.
  38. Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2013). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media and Society, 15(2), 294–313.
  39. O’Neil, J. (2007). The link between strong public relationships and donor support. Public Relations Review, 33, 99–102.
  40. O’Neill, M. & Young, D. R. (Eds.). (1988). Educating managers of nonprofit organizations. New York: Praeger.
  41. Patel, S. J., & McKeever, B. W. (2014). Health nonprofits online: The use of frames and stewardship strategies to increase stakeholder involvement. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(4), 224–238.
  42. Perry, S. (2015, October 5). 1 in 3 Americans lacks faith in charities, Chronicle poll finds. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://www.philanthropy.com/article/1‐in‐3‐Americans‐Lacks‐Faith/233613
  43. Powers, E., & Yaros, R. A. (2013). Cultivating support for nonprofit news organizations: Commitment, trust and donating audiences. Journal of Communication Management, 17(2), 157–170.
  44. Pressgrove, G. (2017). Development of a scale to measure perceptions of stewardship strategies for nonprofit organizations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 102–123.
  45. Pressgrove, G. N., & McKeever, B. W. (2016). Nonprofit relationship management: Extending the organization–public relationship to loyalty and behaviors. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3–4), 193–211.
  46. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.
  47. Rasmussen, L. (2015). Planned Parenthood takes on Live Action: An analysis of media interplay and image restoration strategies in strategic conflict management. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 354–356.
  48. Rudov, L., McCormick‐Ricket, I., Kingsmill, D., Ledford, C., & Carton, T. (2017). Evaluation recommendations for nonprofit social marketing campaigns: An example from the Louisiana Campaign for Tobacco‐Free Living. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(1), e1570.
  49. Salamon, L. M. (1999). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(1), 5–23.
  50. Salamon, L. M. (2002) The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  51. Salamon, L. M. (2012). America’s nonprofit sector (3rd ed.). New York: Foundation Center.
  52. Salamon, L. M. (2015). The resilient sector revisited: The new challenge to nonprofit America (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  53. Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S. W., & Associates. (1999). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
  54. Salamon, L. M., Geller, S. L., & Newhouse, C. L. (2012, December). What do nonprofits stand for? Renewing the nonprofit value commitment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. Retrieved from http://ccss.jhu.edu/wp‐content/uploads/downloads/2012/12/What‐Do‐Nonprofits‐Stand‐For_JHUCCSS_12.2012.pdf
  55. Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165.
  56. Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community‐building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280–299.
  57. Shen, A. (2016). First‐year donation behavior and risk of supporter lapse. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(3), 212–224.
  58. Sisco, H. F. (2012). Nonprofit in crisis: An examination of the applicability of situational crisis communication theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 1–17.
  59. Sisco, H. F., Collins, E. L., & Zoch, L. M. (2010). Through the looking glass: A decade of Red Cross crisis response and situational crisis communication theory. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 21–27
  60. Sisco, H. F., & McCorkindale, T. (2013). Communicating “pink”: An analysis of the communication strategies, transparency, and credibility of breast cancer social media sites. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(4), 287–301.
  61. Sisco, H. F., Pressgrove, G., & Collins, E. L. (2013). Paralleling the practice: An analysis of the scholarly literature in nonprofit public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 282–306.
  62. Sisson, D. C. (2017). Control mutuality, social media, and organization‐public relationships: A study of local animal welfare organizations’ donors. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 179–189.
  63. Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2013). Online power resource management: Activist resource mobilization, communication strategy, and organizational structure. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 347–367.
  64. Swanger, W., & Rodgers, S. (2013). Revisiting fundraising encroachment of public relations in light of theory of donor relations. Public Relations Review, 39, 566–568.
  65. Tindall, N. T., Waters, R. D., & Kelly, K. S. (2014). A fractured glass ceiling in fundraising? Examining the careers of minority healthcare fundraisers using role theory. In R. D. Waters (Ed.), Public relations in the nonprofit sector: Theory and practice (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.
  66. Wallack, L., Dorfman, J., Jernigan, D., & Themba, M. (1993). Media advocacy and public health: Power for prevention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  67. Waters, R. D. (2008). Applying relationship management theory to the fundraising process for individual donors. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 73–87.
  68. Waters, R. D. (2011). Increasing fundraising efficiency through evaluation: Applying communication theory to the nonprofit organization–donor relationship. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 458–475.
  69. Waters, R. D. (2013). Tracing the impact of media relations and television coverage on US charitable relief fundraising: An application of agenda‐setting theory across three natural disasters. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 329–346.
  70. Waters, R. D., Kelly, K. S., & Lee Walker, M. (2012). Organizational roles enacted by healthcare fundraisers: A national study testing theory and assessing gender differences. Journal of Communication Management, 16(3), 244–263.
  71. Waters, R. D., & Lord, M. (2009). Examining how advocacy groups build relationships on the internet. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(3), 231–241.
  72. Weberling, B. (2012). Framing breast cancer: Building an agenda through online advocacy and fundraising. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 108–115.
  73. Weberling, B., & Waters, R. D. (2012). Gauging the public's preparedness for mobile public relations: The “Text for Haiti” campaign. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 51–55.
  74. Wiggill, M. N. (2014). Donor relationship management practices in the South African non‐profit sector. Public Relations Review, 40(2), 278–285.
  75. Worley, D. A., & Little, J. K. (2002). The critical role of stewardship in fund raising: The Coaches vs. Cancer campaign. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 99–112.
  76. Young, D. R., & Salamon, L. M. (2002) Commercialization, social ventures and for‐profit competition. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 423–446). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.139.82.4