URBAN
INSTITUTE
Center on
Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CONTENTS
National Study of
Nonprofit-Government
Contracting
State Profiles
Elizabeth T. Boris, Erwin de Leon, Katie L. Roeger, and Milena Nikolova
Data presented for each state:
Nonprofit-Government Contracts and Grants: Overview
Human Service Nonprofits with Government Contracts/Grants
Types of Nonprofits with Government Contracts/Grants
Nonprofits with Government Contracts/Grants, by Level
2009 Government Contracting Experience Compared to Prior
Years
Number of Government Contracts/Grants per Nonprofit
Total Nonprofit Government Contracts/Grants, by Level
Contracting Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
State Ranking: Small and Big Problems
Nonprofits with Late Payments from Government
Most Common Past Due Period for Government Contract/
Grant Payments, by Level
Contract Limitations
Nonprofits Reporting Contract Limitations, by Type
Accountability and Reporting
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or Give Feedback to the
Government
Recession
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure Size
State Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in Revenue
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
INTRODUCTION....................................1
NATIONAL............................................7
ALABAMA ............................................9
ALASKA .............................................11
ARIZONA ............................................13
ARKANSAS .........................................15
CALIFORNIA ......................................17
COLORADO ........................................19
CONNECTICUT ...................................21
DELAWARE ........................................23
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA...................25
FLORIDA ............................................27
GEORGIA ...........................................29
HAWAII ..............................................31
IDAHO ................................................33
ILLINOIS ............................................35
INDIANA .............................................37
IOWA ..................................................39
KANSAS ..............................................41
KENTUCKY ........................................43
LOUISIANA .........................................45
MAINE................................................47
MARYLAND ........................................49
MASSACHUSETTS ..............................51
MICHIGAN .........................................53
MINNESOTA .......................................55
MISSISSIPPI........................................57
MISSOURI ..........................................59
MONTANA ..........................................61
NEBRASKA .........................................63
NEVADA .............................................65
NEW HAMPSHIRE ..............................67
NEW JERSEY......................................69
NEW MEXICO ....................................71
NEW YORK ........................................73
NORTH CAROLINA ............................75
NORTH DAKOTA................................77
OHIO ..................................................79
OKLAHOMA .......................................81
OREGON ............................................83
PENNSYLVANIA..................................85
RHODE ISLAND ..................................87
SOUTH CAROLINA .............................89
SOUTH DAKOTA ................................91
TENNESSEE ........................................93
TEXAS ................................................95
UTAH .................................................97
VERMONT ..........................................99
VIRGINIA .........................................101
WASHINGTON ..................................103
WEST VIRGINIA ..............................105
WISCONSIN ......................................107
WYOMING........................................109
STATE RANKINGS ............................111
METHODOLOGY ..............................141
APPENDIX ........................................143
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
URBAN INSTITUTE
INTRODUCTION
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
Survey Results (2009 Data)
Governments contract with human service nonprofit organizations to deliver pivotal services to
individuals, families, and communities. The U.S. economic recession has depleted many nonprofit
budgets while increasing the demand for their services. Many state governments—which are large
providers of government contracts and grants—are in a fiscal crisis.1 As a result, many nonprofits were
forced to freeze or reduce salaries, draw on reserves, or scale back their operations.
Each state is faced with unique financial challenges and employs different policies and
procedures which are affecting the nonprofit-government contracting relationships in various ways. This
report provides state by state data on government contracts and grants with human service nonprofits,
problems encountered, and the effect of the recession.
Government contracting problems are widespread at the federal, state, and local levels. Key
problems facing nonprofits were identified in this study and include late payments, changes to contracts,
complexity of application and reporting requirements, and insufficient payments. Whether these were
large or small problems, well over half of all nonprofits experience problems with their contracts and
grants.2
Nationwide, nearly 33,0003 human service providers had almost 200,000 government contracts
and grants in 2009. Government contracting is more widespread in Arizona, where human service
nonprofits averaged six contracts each, than in South Carolina, where nonprofits averaged three contracts
each.
The types and sizes of government contracts are as varied as the organizations that receive them.
Nationwide, 54 percent of human service nonprofits have government contracts and grants that require
matching or sharing of costs. The number ranges from 82 percent of nonprofits in New Hampshire to 37
percent of organizations in Arizona. In addition, many contracts and grants limit the amount of money
that can be used for program or organizational administrative costs. In Utah, 78 percent of organizations
report limits on program administrative-overhead costs. In North Dakota, only 29 percent report such
limits.
1
Dollars from federal grants often flow through to states and local governments. Examples of federal programs set
up as large grants to state and local governments which are then passed through to nonprofits include the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (Department of Agriculture) and the Social Services Block Grant (Department of Health
and Human Services) (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009).
2
Grants and contracts are used interchangeably in this report. Definitions are not uniform and often nonprofits
cannot differentiate between them. Both contracts and grants refer to formal agreements with governments to
produce specified products for a specified payment method.
3
This number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
See the methodology section for additional details.
1
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
Human service nonprofits have been hit hard by the recession. Revenues from major sources such
as government and donations have declined, and about 42 percent of human service nonprofits faced a
budget deficit in 2009. Half of all organizations froze or reduced employee salaries, and almost 40 percent
drew on reserves or reduced staff size. There were notable differences by state; 66 percent of nonprofits in
Connecticut froze or reduced salaries but only 24 percent in Arkansas took this action. In Indiana, 62
percent of organizations drew on reserves but just 22 percent did in South Dakota.
This study also identifies key problems with government contracts and grants. The problems
include insufficient payments to cover the cost of services provided, complexity of and time required to
apply for and report on outcomes of contracts and grants, changes made by governments to existing
contracts and grants, and late payments. The results varied significantly by state with some states
reporting fewer problems than others. For example, 84 percent of organizations in Rhode Island had
problems with payments not covering the full cost of contracted services, compared to just 37 percent of
Montana nonprofits. Eighty-three percent of organizations in Illinois reported that late payments were a
problem, but only 11 percent of organizations in South Dakota report that late payments were a problem.
The policies, procedures, and budget situations of each state are affecting the nonprofitgovernment contracting relationships in different ways. This report provides state-by-state data on the
government contracting experience in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as well as an overview of
the nation. It also includes state rankings for contract limitations, the effects of the recession, and
problems experienced by nonprofits with government contracts and grants.
The state profiles provide details on
¾ the number and types of human service nonprofits.
¾ the number and source (local, state, federal) of government contracts and grants.
¾ nonprofits’ contracting experience in 2009 compared to prior years.
¾ key problems facing nonprofits such as late payments, insufficient payments, difficulty with
the application or reporting process, and changes to government contacts.
¾ contract limitations and reporting requirements.
¾ nonprofits’ budget deficits and decreases in revenue during the recession.
¾ cutbacks human service organizations made in 2009 such as reducing salaries and benefits,
reducing staff size, drawing on reserves, and borrowing or expanding lines of credit.
The state rankings provide details on
¾ the number of human service nonprofits and government contracts.
¾ nonprofits’ contracting experience in 2009 compared to prior years.
¾ the variations on contract requirements, limitations, and reporting.
2
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
¾ percent of organizations in states hardest hit by the recession and those facing the largest
declines in revenue from major sources: local, state, and federal government and donations
from individuals, corporations, and private foundations.
¾ percent of organizations in states experiencing the most problems with their government
contracts, including rankings on late payments, changes to government contracts, and
insufficient payments.
We hope these state profiles and state rankings will help organizations assess their government
contracting experiences and compare their state to other states. States with fewer problems may have
policies that can provide clues to more efficient and effective government contracting practices.
The findings reported here are based on a national study of human service nonprofits. A random
sample of direct human service providers with more than $100,000 in expenditures was surveyed. Figures
are based on the organizations that completed the questionnaire. All estimates presented here have been
weighted to represent the part of the U.S. human service nonprofit sector that had government contracts
and grants in 2009. For more details on the study please see the methodology section at the end of this
report.
The full report, “Human Service Nonprofits and Government Collaboration: Findings from the
2010 National Survey of Nonprofit Government Contracting and Grants,” and an eight-page brief
summarizing the findings, “Contracts and Grants between Human Service Nonprofits and Governments,”
can be found on the Urban Institute web site; the full report is available at
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
3
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
4
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
STATE PROFILES
5
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
6
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NATIONAL
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,693
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52%
Community and economic development . . . . . .7%
Total contracts/grants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Worse, 31%
Better, 5%
About the same, 64%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .32%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
32%
37%
39%
24%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
37%
39%
25%
26%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
24%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
44%
24%
Small problem
31%
29%
42%
47%
Big problem
7
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Nationwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
43%
40%
42%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Overall
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . . 54%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . . 62%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . . 58%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 89%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .62%
Nationwide Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
Draw on reserves
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
23%
22%
21%
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
8
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
ALABAMA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .423
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 3%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 28%
About the same, 72%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .24%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
21%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
24%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
23%
18%
43
33%
46%
28
40%
36%
35%
36%
24
45%
26
26%
22%
Small problem
22
42%
52%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
9
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
40%
43%
42%
40%
34%
30%
25%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .63%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .61%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .52%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 97%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .62%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Alabama
Overall
Nationwide
Alabama Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
59%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
Draw on reserves
41%
39%
Reduce number of employees
41%
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
17%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
21%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
24%
21%
Alabama
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
10
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
ALASKA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 15%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
Community and economic development . . . . . 29%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
About the same, 68%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .33%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
28%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
22%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
20%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
9%
Not a problem
18
36%
36%
30%
29%
16%
Worse, 17%
27%
22
49%
7
55%
39
53%
41
28%
Small problem
63%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
11
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
40%
42% 43%
35%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .73%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .64%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .72%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 89%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .53%
42%
40%
24%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Alaska
Overall
Nationwide
Alaska Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
29%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
31%
Draw on reserves
39%
27%
Reduce number of employees
38%
35%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
23%
10%
22%
Alaska
12%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
12
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
ARIZONA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .355
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 8%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 2%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 27%
About the same, 65%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .22%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
53%
18%
29%
14
35%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
47%
18%
13
31%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
50%
19%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
25%
24%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
20
17
38%
38%
20
29%
Small problem
47%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
13
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
100%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .37%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .73%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .71%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 81%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .60%
47%
38%
$100,000–
$249,999
43%
$250,000–
$999,999
46%
40%
$1 million or
more
Arizona
48%
42%
Overall
Nationwide
Arizona Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
56%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
Draw on reserves
33%
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
48%
11%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
19%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
19%
21%
Arizona
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
14
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
ARKANSAS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 9%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Community and economic development . . . . . 20%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
About the same, 85%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .27%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
49
19%
23%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
32%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
4%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
4%
48%
50
12%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
58%
51
20%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Worse, 6%
46%
42%
50
22%
74%
50
17%
Not a problem
79%
Small problem
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
15
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
36%
43%
42%
40%
38%
32%
14%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .48%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .45%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .42%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 91%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .71%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Arkansas
Overall
Nationwide
Arkansas Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
24%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
36%
39%
Draw on reserves
Reduce number of employees
12%
38%
24%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
12%
22%
27%
21%
Arkansas
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
16
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
CALIFORNIA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .3,196
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 7%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
Worse, 31%
About the same, 64%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .34%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
18%
58%
8
24%
24%
34%
36%
39%
25%
31%
27%
26%
Small problem
41%
28
28
22
42%
11
34%
40%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
17
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
63%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 days
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
58%
47%
55%
51%
43%
42%
40%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .59%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .65%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .64%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 89%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .55%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
California
Overall
Nationwide
California Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
60%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
45%
Draw on reserves
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
56%
29%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
21%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
27%
21%
California
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
18
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
COLORADO
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .649
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
Worse, 24%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 3%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 71%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .29%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
16%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
37%
18%
14
45%
58%
26%
29%
18%
13%
15
49%
26%
26%
7
39
53%
33
28%
Small problem
59%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
19
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
56%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .60%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .51%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .45%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 93%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .54%
43%
40%
35%
$100,000–
$249,999
39%
42%
33%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Colorado
Overall
Nationwide
Colorado Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
55%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
36%
39%
Draw on reserves
29%
Reduce number of employees
38%
26%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
19%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
Colorado
12%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
20
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
CONNECTICUT
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .509
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 3%
Worse, 24%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 5%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 73%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .24%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
50%
27%
23%
41
26%
30%
43%
42%
25%
43
33%
8
23%
32%
27%
27%
Small problem
7
45%
3
45%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
21
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .48%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .68%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .75%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 86%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
73%
50%
47%
43%
33%
33%
40%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Connecticut
42%
Overall
Nationwide
Connecticut Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
66%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
48%
Draw on reserves
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
52%
28%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
17%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
21%
21%
Connecticut
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
22
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
DELAWARE
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 1%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 25%
About the same, 75%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .40%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
33%
8
31%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
54%
15%
13
15%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
65%
19%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
9%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
9%
Not a problem
25
54%
13%
43
35%
57%
24
41%
Small problem
50%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
23
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
57%
50%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
43%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 90%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .66%
42%
33%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Delaware
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .50%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .70%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .57%
47%
40%
Overall
Nationwide
Delaware Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
47%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
Draw on reserves
37%
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
47%
10%
23%
13%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
22%
Delaware
7%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
24
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .289
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 7%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Worse, 25%
About the same, 75%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .16%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.a.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
17%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
30%
30%
Small problem
13
50%
33%
58%
33%
33%
33%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Not a problem
43%
33%
8%
41
43%
14%
1
11
40%
Big problem
4
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
25
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
District of Columbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50% 47%
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .41%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .68%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .61%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 94%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .50%
$100,000–
$249,999
53%
43%
40%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.a.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
56%
50%
District of Columbia
42%
Overall
Nationwide
District of Columbia Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n/a%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
26%
Draw on reserves
39%
37%
38%
Reduce number of employees
21%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
63%
11%
22%
21%
32%
District of Columbia
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
n.a. Not applicable
26
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
FLORIDA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .1,512
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 4%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 2%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 33%
About the same, 63%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .21%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
34%
38%
40%
20
38%
40%
22
21%
23%
11
26%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
29
45%
20%
33%
41%
41
19%
19%
Small problem
62%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
27
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 days
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .52%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .65%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .68%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 88%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .64%
39%
43%
39% 40%
42%
36%
20%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Florida
$1 million or
more
Overall
Nationwide
Florida Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
46%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
31%
Draw on reserves
39%
43%
38%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
21%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
25%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
21%
21%
Florida
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
28
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
GEORGIA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .675
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 6%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 6%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 38%
About the same, 56%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .34%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
44%
27%
23%
13%
35
35%
38%
31%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
42
32%
24%
22
46%
44
29%
23%
Small problem
58%
14
35%
42%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
29
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 days
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
56%
53%
43%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 88%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .63%
42%
40%
25%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Georgia
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .41%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .75%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .74%
50%
Overall
Nationwide
Georgia Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
63%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
Draw on reserves
25%
Reduce number of employees
25%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
39%
38%
22%
23%
22%
22%
41%
21%
Georgia
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
30
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
HAWAII
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 1%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 44%
Worse, 56%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .32%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
54%
18%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
29%
24%
28
45%
31%
20
34%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
20
45%
21%
8
Government changes to
contracts/grants
56%
12%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
32%
18%
Not a problem
Small problem
15
39%
43%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
31
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
63%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
47%
43%
42%
40%
35%
17%
0%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Hawaii
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .53%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .62%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .68%
Overall
Nationwide
Hawaii Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . .100%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .64%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
56%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
38%
39%
Draw on reserves
41%
38%
Reduce number of employees
18%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
23%
15%
22%
Hawaii
12%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
32
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
IDAHO
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 7%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 3%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 37%
About the same, 56%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .26%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
46
35%
17%
48%
42%
8%
38%
12%
50%
1
50%
3
32
14%
36%
19%
Small problem
50%
26
29%
52%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
33
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
54%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
43%
40% 40%
44% 42%
33%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Idaho
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .74%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .75%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .74%
Overall
Nationwide
Idaho Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . .100%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .66%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
50%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
38%
39%
Draw on reserves
29%
Reduce number of employees
38%
35%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
23%
18%
22%
Idaho
15%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
34
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
ILLINOIS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,385
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 4%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 2%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 39%
Worse, 57%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .37%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
24%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Not a problem
38%
16%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
59%
22%
19%
27%
17%
26
3
41%
60%
23%
Small problem
9
47%
37%
39%
33%
Big problem
3
1
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
35
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 days
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
42%
$100,000–
$249,999
46%
43%
39%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Illinois
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .66%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .67%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .67%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 85%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .72%
43% 42%
40%
Overall
Nationwide
Illinois Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
65%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
Draw on reserves
38%
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
54%
28%
23%
42%
22%
31%
21%
Illinois
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
36
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
INDIANA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .709
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67%
Community and economic development . . . . . 10%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 32%
About the same, 63%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .29%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Not a problem
37%
40%
42%
36
42%
39%
13
41%
7
42%
8
31%
28%
19%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
36
23%
28%
31%
23%
Small problem
35%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
37
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
57%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
44% 43%
45% 42%
40% 40%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .55%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .61%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .60%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 98%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .59%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Indiana
Overall
Nationwide
Indiana Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
57%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
62%
Draw on reserves
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
45%
31%
23%
36%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
21%
21%
Indiana
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
38
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
IOWA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .468
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32%
Community and economic development . . . . . 16%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 45%
About the same, 55%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .22%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Not a problem
5
32
48%
26%
26%
2
32%
59%
9%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
57%
22%
22%
33%
29%
38%
18
38%
15
19%
Small problem
43%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
39
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
60%
50%
48%
47%
43%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
42%
38% 40%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .53%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .69%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .58%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 77%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .65%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Iowa
$1 million or
more
Overall
Nationwide
Iowa Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
44%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
Draw on reserves
34%
39%
Reduce number of employees
34%
38%
22%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
16%
22%
22%
21%
Iowa
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
40
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
KANSAS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 6%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 2%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 43%
About the same, 51%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .32%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full cost of
contracted services
25%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
31%
31%
31%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
31%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
40
38%
50%
30%
6
12
11%
41%
Small problem
42
38%
20%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
13
43%
32%
48%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
41
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .59%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .58%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .56%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 80%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .60%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
43%
47%
43%
42%
38% 40%
36%
30%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Kansas
$1 million or
more
Overall
Nationwide
Kansas Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
54%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
Draw on reserves
35%
39%
Reduce number of employees
35%
38%
22%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
14%
22%
22%
21%
Kansas
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
42
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
KENTUCKY
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .393
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Worse, 25%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
About the same, 75%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .29%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54%
Community and economic development . . . . . 23%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
24%
62%
24%
14%
53%
26%
21%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
17%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
17%
Not a problem
8
47%
29%
20
11
50%
33%
10
39%
Small problem
6
44%
Big problem
1=highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51=lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
43
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
46%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
50%
43%
40%
42% 42%
0%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .61%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .50%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .54%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 92%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .71%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Kentucky
Overall
Nationwide
Kentucky Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
38%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
42%
39%
Draw on reserves
17%
Reduce number of employees
38%
21%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
17%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
Kentucky
8%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
44
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
LOUISIANA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .473
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 6%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 4%
Worse, 25%
About the same, 71%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .25%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69%
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
35%
47%
18%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
27%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
33%
40%
41%
29%
29%
31%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
44%
28%
28%
31%
Small problem
18
14
33
4
6
38%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
45
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
44% 47%
45% 43%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .59%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .67%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .54%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 92%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .65%
50%
46%
40%
$1 million or
more
Louisiana
42%
Overall
Nationwide
Louisiana Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
46%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
43%
39%
Draw on reserves
46%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
38%
18%
23%
25%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
Louisiana
14%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
46
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MAINE
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68%
Community and economic development . . . . .< 1%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 38%
About the same, 57%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .27%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
59%
18%
2
24%
4
47%
40%
13%
33%
17%
9
50%
1
47%
35%
18%
2
27%
53%
20%
Small problem
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
47
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Maine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .57%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .59%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .41%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 90%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .86%
43%
42% 40%
38%
42%
20%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Maine
Overall
Nationwide
Maine Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
32%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
32%
Draw on reserves
39%
59%
Reduce number of employees
38%
32%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
23%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
27%
21%
Maine
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
48
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MARYLAND
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .717
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 9%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
Community and economic development . . . . . 10%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 28%
About the same, 63%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .47%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
37%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
26%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
23%
26%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
25%
37%
32
52%
28
36%
39%
27%
27%
26
46%
31
20%
23%
Small problem
33
57%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
49
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .64%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .73%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .72%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 91%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .66%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
70%
47%
43%
33%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Maryland
47%
38% 40%
$1 million or
more
42%
Overall
Nationwide
Maryland Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
47%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
41%
39%
Draw on reserves
29%
Reduce number of employees
38%
26%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
21%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Maryland
Reduce number of programs or services
15%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
50
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MASSACHUSETTS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .932
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 14%
Worse, 26%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 7%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 60%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .33%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
21%
Not a problem
42
31%
49%
31
26%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
42%
20%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Government changes to
contracts/grants
39
36%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
49%
26%
36
16%
32%
51%
39
14%
25%
Small problem
61%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
51
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
82%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
54%
47%
43%
40%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 88%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .64%
42%
19%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Massachusetts
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .44%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .54%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .45%
48%
Overall
Nationwide
Massachusetts Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
49%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
Draw on reserves
35%
39%
Reduce number of employees
35%
38%
21%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
14%
22%
28%
21%
Massachusetts
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
52
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MICHIGAN
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .997
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 11%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64%
Community and economic development . . . . . 13%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 30%
About the same, 59%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .35%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
55%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
21%
24%
22
44%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
34%
22%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
27%
47
34%
39%
27%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
32%
8
41%
24
30%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
20%
Not a problem
8
Small problem
50%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
53
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .51%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .76%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .64%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 89%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .62%
44% 43%
40%
42%
36%
21%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Michigan
Overall
Nationwide
Michigan Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
45%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
33%
Draw on reserves
39%
Reduce number of employees
24%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
24%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
24%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
22%
21%
38%
Michigan
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
54
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MINNESOTA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .854
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44%
Community and economic development . . . . . 10%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
Worse, 27%
About the same, 68%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .20%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
43%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
23%
22%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
9
16%
39%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
5
47%
13%
24%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
5
35%
26
30%
46%
33
5%
Not a problem
35%
Small problem
Big problem
59%
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
55
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50%
47%
40%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
43%
37%
40%
40% 42%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
$100,000–
$249,999
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .50%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .48%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .36%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 91%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .77%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Minnesota
Overall
Nationwide
Minnesota Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
Draw on reserves
36%
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
64%
38%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
18%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
20%
21%
Minnesota
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
56
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MISSISSIPPI
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 11%
Worse, 21%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Community and economic development . . . . . 54%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 68%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .25%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
50
10%
29%
23%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
50
32%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Government changes to
contracts/grants
62%
21%
45%
50
38%
42%
14%
46
24%
62%
31
19%
24%
Small problem
57%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
57
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
45% 47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .50%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .56%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .52%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 81%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .58%
43% 43%
40%
38%
42%
25%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Mississippi
Overall
Nationwide
Mississippi Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
29%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
39%
39%
Draw on reserves
36%
38%
Reduce number of employees
18%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
23%
29%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
22%
Mississippi
7%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
58
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MISSOURI
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .723
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 11%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 1%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 69%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .34%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
36%
30%
33%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
Worse, 20%
25
3
38%
51%
11%
11
42%
39%
18%
21%
36%
22
42%
29
17%
29%
Small problem
Big problem
54%
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
59
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
60%
53%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .66%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .71%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .68%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 89%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .58%
46%
43%
40%
42%
29%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Missouri
Overall
Nationwide
Missouri Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
45%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
36%
39%
Draw on reserves
30%
Reduce number of employees
38%
26%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
15%
22%
19%
21%
Missouri
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
60
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
MONTANA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 8%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
About the same, 76%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .33%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56%
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
20%
17%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
51
63%
25%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
19%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
17
56%
37
35%
35%
29%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
20%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
3%
Not a problem
Worse, 19%
27%
39
53%
48
23%
Small problem
74%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
61
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
40%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
$100,000–
$249,999
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 95%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .53%
40%
42%
37%
29%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .67%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .61%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .58%
43%
38%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Montana
Overall
Nationwide
Montana Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
36%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
41%
39%
Draw on reserves
31%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
38%
5%
23%
3%
22%
Montana
Reduce number of programs or services
15%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
62
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NEBRASKA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 3%
Worse, 25%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
Community and economic development . . . . . 24%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 72%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .29%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
13
33%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
46%
29%
25%
25
43%
23%
13
39%
42%
19%
20%
38
28%
16%
Small problem
52%
26
32%
Big problem
52%
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
63
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .58%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .53%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .50%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 82%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .41%
33%
43%
42%
40%
36%
29%
18%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Nebraska
Overall
Nationwide
Nebraska Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
38%
Draw on reserves
39%
50%
44%
41%
38%
Reduce number of employees
21%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
12%
22%
26%
21%
Nebraska
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
64
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NEVADA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54%
Community and economic development . . . . . 10%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 41%
About the same, 59%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .38%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
38%
29%
33%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
48%
24%
28%
52%
30%
17%
38%
33%
29%
32%
36%
32%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
25
Small problem
Big problem
36
9
4
7
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
65
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .55%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .75%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .64%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 96%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .71%
45%
43%
33%
33%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
40%
38%
$1 million or
more
Nevada
42%
Overall
Nationwide
Nevada Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
52%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
Draw on reserves
34%
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
48%
17%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
23%
7%
22%
Nevada
14%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
66
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 3%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 5%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 39%
About the same, 58%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .36%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
9
23%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
61%
16%
28%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
28%
29%
25%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
4
55%
24%
21%
26
46%
21
7%
Not a problem
35
45%
44%
48%
Small problem
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
67
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
46% 47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .82%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .38%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .50%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 91%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .52%
45% 43%
41% 42%
40%
25%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
New Hampshire
Overall
Nationwide
New Hampshire Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
39%
Draw on reserves
39%
39%
50%
33%
38%
Reduce number of employees
15%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
23%
9%
22%
New Hampshire
12%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
68
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NEW JERSEY
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .743
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 6%
Worse, 23%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 1%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 71%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .44%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
54%
18%
29%
20
38%
41%
21%
35
21%
52%
28%
17%
33%
32
50%
12
22%
37%
41%
Small problem
20
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
69
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
75%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .56%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .69%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .71%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 97%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .69%
47%
50%
43%
40%
37%
42%
22%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
New Jersey
Overall
Nationwide
New Jersey Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
38%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
41%
39%
Draw on reserves
31%
Reduce number of employees
38%
22%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
25%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
New Jersey
16%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
70
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NEW MEXICO
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 8%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 3%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 28%
About the same, 64%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .28%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Not a problem
8
47%
4
47%
18
40%
13%
20%
33%
30%
35%
35%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
52%
24%
24%
46
14%
19%
Small problem
15
67%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
71
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
57%
53%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 days
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .44%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .47%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .44%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 89%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .54%
50%
43%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
42%
42% 40%
$1 million or
more
New Mexico
Overall
Nationwide
New Mexico Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
44%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
42%
39%
Draw on reserves
39%
38%
Reduce number of employees
17%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
23%
14%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
22%
New Mexico
8%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
72
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NEW YORK
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,758
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 4%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 9%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 32%
About the same, 64%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .36%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
40%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
32%
29%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
28%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
26%
20
37%
35%
36
35%
39%
31
Government changes to
contracts/grants
35%
32%
33%
11
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
30%
33%
37%
9
Not a problem
Small problem
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
73
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .48%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .66%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .61%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 96%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .68%
43%
33%
33%
29%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
42%
40%
37%
$1 million or
more
New York
Overall
Nationwide
New York Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
47%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
Draw on reserves
34%
39%
Reduce number of employees
38%
44%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
23%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
23%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
17%
21%
New York
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
74
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NORTH CAROLINA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .972
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 9%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 41%
About the same, 54%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .29%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
32
40%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
24%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
37
43%
29%
29%
30%
32%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Not a problem
25
40%
36%
23%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
36%
19
39%
33
16%
25%
Small problem
59%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
75
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
71%
57%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .59%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .59%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .46%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 86%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .64%
47%
52%
43%
42%
40%
32%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
North Carolina
Overall
Nationwide
North Carolina Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
60%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
40%
39%
Draw on reserves
44%
38%
Reduce number of employees
23%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
18%
22%
North Carolina
13%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
76
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
NORTH DAKOTA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 8%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..< 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 5%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 81%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .30%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
22%
47%
44
45
23%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
44
31%
36%
31%
33%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
7%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
Worse, 11%
40%
37%
49
30%
63%
33
9%
32%
Small problem
59%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
77
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 days
42% 43%
42%
40%
36%
35%
27%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .65%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .29%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .28%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 93%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .68%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
North Dakota
Overall
Nationwide
North Dakota Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
25%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
40%
39%
Draw on reserves
Reduce number of employees
8%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
8%
38%
23%
23%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
North Dakota
15%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
78
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
OHIO
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1,562
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 2%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 5%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 36%
About the same, 62%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .42%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
43%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
24%
42%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
8
33%
23%
37%
18%
25
35%
11
45%
21%
36
28%
51%
18
18%
38%
Small problem
44%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
79
79
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
61%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 days
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .57%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .71%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .59%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 86%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .57%
47%
43%
40%
42%
30%
24%
$100,000–
$249,999
38%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Ohio
Overall
Nationwide
Ohio Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
57%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
33%
Draw on reserves
39%
43%
38%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
30%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
20%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
17%
21%
Ohio
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
80
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
OKLAHOMA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 3%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 4%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 31%
About the same, 66%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .38%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
36%
41%
44
43%
35%
43%
17%
Small problem
19
39%
26%
26%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
47
22%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
33
38%
23%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Government changes to
contracts/grants
46%
17%
Big problem
21
48%
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
81
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50%
47%
50%
43%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .41%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .38%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .34%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 83%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .72%
43% 42%
40%
33%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Oklahoma
Overall
Nationwide
Oklahoma Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
41%
Draw on reserves
41%
39%
50%
34%
38%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
14%
23%
10%
22%
28%
21%
Oklahoma
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
82
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
OREGON
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .508
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Worse, 25%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 5%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 75%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .32%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
30%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
51%
24%
37%
39%
29%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
27%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
10%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
10%
15%
Not a problem
47
19%
28%
Small problem
28
33
44%
46
62%
48
74%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
83
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
56%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .41%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .52%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .48%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 88%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .58%
38%
43%
40%
38%
42%
19%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Oregon
$1 million or
more
Overall
Nationwide
Oregon Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
40%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
36%
39%
Draw on reserves
26%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
38%
10%
23%
14%
22%
18%
21%
Oregon
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
84
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
PENNSYLVANIA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1,651
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 5%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65%
Community and economic development . . . . . 10%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 45%
About the same, 50%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .52%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
40%
29%
39%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
27%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
33%
29%
30%
Small problem
40
28
35%
25%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
25
33%
31%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Not a problem
48%
18%
Big problem
21
41%
41%
4
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
85
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .51%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .67%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .60%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 90%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .60%
38%
33%
$100,000–
$249,999
43%
35%
$250,000–
$999,999
40%
$1 million or
more
Pennsylvania
42%
36%
Overall
Nationwide
Pennsylvania Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
47%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
46%
Draw on reserves
39%
32%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
38%
14%
23%
32%
22%
28%
21%
Pennsylvania
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
86
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
RHODE ISLAND
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 9%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 4%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 35%
About the same, 56%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .54%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
68%
16%
16%
60%
30%
10%
50%
35%
15%
20%
25%
33%
47%
1
2
6
2
18
31%
Small problem
44%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
87
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
67%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
47%
43%
40%
33%
42%
33%
22%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .67%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .58%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .67%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 91%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .55%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Rhode Island
Overall
Nationwide
Rhode Island Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
63%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
29%
Draw on reserves
39%
29%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
38%
29%
23%
29%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
21%
29%
Rhode Island
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
88
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
SOUTH CAROLINA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 4%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 6%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 37%
About the same, 59%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .11%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
37%
21%
29%
29%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
24%
22%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Not a problem
47
41%
35%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
39
42%
12%
Small problem
49
41%
32
28%
50%
29%
Big problem
33
59%
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
89
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .48%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .44%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .36%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 85%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .59%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
63%
44% 47%
38%
$100,000–
$249,999
48%
43%
40%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
South Carolina
42%
Overall
Nationwide
South Carolina Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
50%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
Draw on reserves
36%
39%
Reduce number of employees
39%
38%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
36%
23%
29%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
21%
21%
South Carolina
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
90
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
SOUTH DAKOTA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 13%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
Community and economic development . . . . . 25%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
Worse, 26%
About the same, 61%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .30%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57%
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
31%
38%
31%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
22%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
26%
32
52%
37
24%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
24
29%
5%
Late payments (beyond 0%
contract specifications)
Not a problem
48%
51
11%
84%
51
11%
Small problem
89%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
91
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
South Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
75%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .44%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .56%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .48%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 92%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .52%
47%
43%
42%
40%
30%
20%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
22%
$1 million or
more
South Dakota
Overall
Nationwide
South Dakota Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
41%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
22%
Draw on reserves
39%
26%
Reduce number of employees
38%
22%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
7%
22%
South Dakota
7%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
92
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
TENNESSEE
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .661
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 10%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 7%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 73%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .19%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
30%
30%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required
by application process
19%
Not a problem
17
44%
12%
68%
20%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
35
39%
37%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
22%
Worse, 17%
30%
18
30
48%
15
9%
48%
43%
Small problem
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
93
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
55%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 days
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .41%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .63%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .62%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 90%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .53%
56%
43%
42%
40%
38%
$100,000–
$249,999
50%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Tennessee
Overall
Nationwide
Tennessee Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
59%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
25%
Draw on reserves
39%
31%
Reduce number of employees
38%
22%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
22%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
Tennessee
13%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
94
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
TEXAS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,706
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 6%
Worse, 24%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 5%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 70%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .17%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
38
41%
23%
33%
44
43%
40
40%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Government changes to
contracts/grants
38%
21%
29%
31%
26%
26%
30
48%
38
19%
21%
Small problem
60%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
95
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50%
52%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .46%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .56%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .57%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 89%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .61%
43%
36%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Texas
45% 42%
40%
$1 million or
more
Overall
Nationwide
Texas Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
38%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
39%
39%
Draw on reserves
28%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
38%
14%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
19%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
18%
21%
Texas
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
96
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
UTAH
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 1%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 6%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 33%
About the same, 67%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .51%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
48
57%
19%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
21%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
13%
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
12%
47
39%
39%
34%
39
53%
43
24%
Small problem
36
53%
28%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Not a problem
30%
13%
64%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
97
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50%
47%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .55%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .78%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .70%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 93%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .56%
43%
32%
$100,000–
$249,999
42%
40%
33%
29%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Utah
Overall
Nationwide
Utah Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
49%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
44%
Draw on reserves
39%
32%
Reduce number of employees
38%
20%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
12%
22%
17%
21%
Utah
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
98
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
VERMONT
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 8%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 5%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 33%
About the same, 59%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .40%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Not a problem
15
45%
9
39%
16%
3
44%
44%
13%
21%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
52%
23%
26%
34%
11%
24
45%
43
25%
Small problem
64%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
99
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
44% 47%
43%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .56%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .56%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .63%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 90%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .60%
42%
40% 40%
33%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Vermont
$1 million or
more
Overall
Nationwide
Vermont Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
51%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
28%
Draw on reserves
39%
40%
38%
Reduce number of employees
23%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
19%
22%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
Vermont
7%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
100
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
VIRGINIA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .700
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
Community and economic development . . . . . 20%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84%
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Worse, 26%
About the same, 74%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .39%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
23%
30
42%
35%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
31%
34%
34%
46
Complexity of/time required
by application process
34%
34%
31%
40
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Not a problem
10%
32%
58%
30
21%
24%
Small problem
44
56%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
101
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
50%
47%
47%
43%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 days or more
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .57%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .52%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .45%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 88%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .62%
40%
40%
42%
28%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
Virginia
$1 million or
more
Overall
Nationwide
Virginia Nonprofits Experiencing Declines in
Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
55%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
43%
Draw on reserves
39%
Reduce number of employees
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
23%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
38%
27%
22%
25%
21%
Virginia
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
102
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
WASHINGTON
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .823
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 2%
Worse, 20%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68%
Community and economic development . . . . . . 1%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 78%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .36%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
45%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
20%
43%
43%
14%
37%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
19%
Not a problem
6
13
44%
28%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
30
35%
15
37%
35%
11%
46
22%
Small problem
67%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
103
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .50%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .62%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .57%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 91%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .64%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
52%
47%
44%
43%
44% 42%
40%
33%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Washington
Overall
Nationwide
Washington Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
45%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
42%
39%
Draw on reserves
41%
38%
Reduce number of employees
25%
23%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
9%
22%
19%
21%
Washington
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
104
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
WEST VIRGINIA
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 0%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66%
Community and economic development . . . . . 14%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 83%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .59%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
44%
16%
19%
49
38%
42%
23%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
23%
Not a problem
36
40%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
Worse, 17%
46
38%
38%
32
27%
50%
36%
16%
Small problem
21
48%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
105
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
67%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .69%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .59%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .59%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 90%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .64%
47%
43%
42%
40%
36%
31%
17%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
West Virginia
Overall
Nationwide
West Virginia Nonprofits Experiencing
Declines in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
31%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
38%
39%
Draw on reserves
17%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
38%
10%
23%
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
24%
22%
Reduce number of programs or services
24%
21%
West Virginia
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
106
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
WISCONSIN
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .738
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 3%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55%
Community and economic development . . . . . 18%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
Worse, 31%
About the same, 66%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .28%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
17
27%
34%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
24%
19
46%
20%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
42%
33%
26
18%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
55%
18%
35%
6%
Not a problem
29
47%
39
32%
Small problem
61%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
107
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 days
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n.r.
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .51%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .41%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .44%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 79%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .65%
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
56%
43%
47%
$100,000–
$249,999
53%
43%
53%
42%
40%
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Wisconsin
Overall
Nationwide
Wisconsin Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
50%
50%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
Draw on reserves
39%
45%
Reduce number of employees
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
38%
33%
23%
30%
22%
25%
21%
Wisconsin
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
108
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
WYOMING
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFIT-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS: OVERVIEW
Human Service Nonprofits
with Government Contracts/Grantsa
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
2009 Government Contracting Experience
Compared to Prior Years
Better, 4%
Worse, 20%
Types of Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants
Crime and legal-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Food, agriculture, and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Housing and shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
Public safety and disaster relief . . . . . . . . . . . .< 1%
Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
Human service: multipurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71%
Community and economic development . . . . .< 1%
Total contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100%
About the same, 76%
Number of Government Contracts/Grants
per Nonprofit
1 government contract/grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
2–4 government contracts/grants . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
5 or more government contracts/grants . . . . . . . .38%
Nonprofits with Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85%
Total Nonprofit Government
Contracts/Grants, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46%
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS
State Rankingb:
Small and Big Problems
Key Problems Reported for Government Contracts
26%
26%
Payments do not cover full
cost of contracted services
51%
Complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
22
27%
22%
31%
Complexity of/time required
by application process
23%
19%
19%
Government changes to
contracts/grants
Late payments (beyond
contract specifications)
44
47%
3%
Not a problem
22
46%
46
62%
45
31%
Small problem
66%
Big problem
1 = highest percentage of
nonprofits with problems;
51 = lowest percentage of
nonprofits with problems
109
CONTRACTING PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Nonprofits with Late Payments
from Government
Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%
Nationwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%
Most Common Past Due Period for Government
Contract/Grant Payments, by Level
Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .n.r.
State government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
Federal government . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 days or more
RECESSION
Nonprofits with Deficits, by Expenditure
Size
47%
40%
43%
42% 40%
39%
42%
33%
CONTRACT LIMITATIONS
Nonprofits Reporting Contract
Limitations, by Type
Require matching or sharing costs. . . . . . . . . . .66%
Limit program administrative/overhead. . . . . . .65%
Limit organization administrative/overhead . . .71%
ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING
Nonprofits That Report Outcomes or
Give Feedback to the Government
Report results/outcomes of programs . . . . . . . . 93%
Give feedback on contracting procedures . . . . .72%
$100,000–
$249,999
$250,000–
$999,999
$1 million or
more
Wyoming
Overall
Nationwide
Wyoming Nonprofits Experiencing Declines
in Revenue
Local government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41%
State government agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
Federal government agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37%
Individual donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%
Private foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
Corporate donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
Investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81%
Actions Taken by Human Service Nonprofits in 2009
38%
Freeze or reduce employee salaries
50%
46%
Draw on reserves
39%
25%
Reduce number of employees
38%
13%
Reduce health, retirement, or other staff benefits
Borrow funds or increase lines of credit
Reduce number of programs or services
23%
10%
22%
Wyoming
8%
21%
Nationwide
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Full report available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID = 412159.
a. Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
b. See appendix for more details on state rankings.
n.r. Data not reported or too few respondents answered the question.
110
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
STATE RANKINGS
111
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
112
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NUMBER OF HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS WITH CONTRACTS
Nationwide
32,697 human service organizations have government contracts and grants*
RANK
STATE
NUMBER*
RANK
STATE
NUMBER*
3,196
2,758
1,706
1,651
1,562
1,512
1,385
997
972
932
854
823
743
738
723
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Kentucky
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Arizona
Kansas
Arkansas
District of Columbia
New Mexico
Nebraska
West Virginia
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Montana
Maine
Rhode Island
393
373
359
355
341
309
289
265
260
257
242
218
209
202
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
California
New York
Texas
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
North Carolina
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Washington
New Jersey
Wisconsin
Missouri
16
Maryland
717
42
Utah
182
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Indiana
Virginia
Georgia
Tennessee
Colorado
Connecticut
Oregon
Louisiana
Iowa
Alabama
709
700
675
661
649
509
508
473
468
423
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Vermont
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Wyoming
Idaho
162
161
142
136
128
127
120
118
113
1=largest number of organizations with contracts;
51=smallest number of organizations with contracts
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
*Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
113
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS
Nationwide
There are 188,719 human service nonprofit-government contracts and grants*
RANK
STATE
NUMBER*
RANK
STATE
NUMBER*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
California
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Illinois
Florida
Washington
Texas
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Maryland
Virginia
Minnesota
Missouri
22,489
18,101
14,023
9,762
8,578
7,625
7,583
7,167
6,776
4,804
4,767
4,617
4,405
4,383
4,059
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
37
39
40
41
Tennessee
Kansas
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Alabama
Mississippi
Hawaii
New Hampshire
Utah
Montana
Nebraska
South Carolina
New Mexico
Arkansas
2,108
1,638
1,630
1,587
1,562
1,372
1,226
1,220
1,217
1,194
1,154
1,154
1,133
1,111
1,068
16
North Carolina
3,886
42
Vermont
995
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Wisconsin
Arizona
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Connecticut
Kentucky
Colorado
Louisiana
Oregon
3,553
3,467
3,269
3,007
2,690
2,599
2,505
2,449
2,264
2,122
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Maine
District of Columbia
Alaska
Delaware
North Dakota
Nevada
South Dakota
Wyoming
Idaho
991
882
878
745
658
637
609
515
486
1=largest number of government contracts and grants;
51=smallest number of government contracts and grants
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
*Number is based on a selected group of direct human service providers with budgets greater than $100,000.
114
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
2009 GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING EXPERIENCE COMPARED TO PRIOR YEARS
Nationwide
31% of human service nonprofits had a worse experience in 2009 compared to prior years
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
3
5
6
6
8
9
9
11
11
13
14
15
Illinois
Hawaii
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Kansas
North Carolina
Nevada
New Hampshire
Georgia
Maine
Idaho
South Carolina
Ohio
Rhode Island
Florida
57
56
45
45
43
41
41
39
38
38
37
37
36
35
33
27
27
29
29
29
32
32
32
32
32
32
38
38
38
41
Arizona
Minnesota
Massachusetts
South Dakota
Virginia
District of Columbia
Delaware
Kentucky
Louisiana
Nebraska
Oregon
Colorado
Connecticut
Texas
New Jersey
27
27
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
23
15
Utah
33
42
Mississippi
21
15
18
18
20
20
20
23
24
24
24
Vermont
Indiana
New York
California
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Michigan
Alabama
Maryland
New Mexico
33
32
32
31
31
31
30
28
28
28
43
43
43
46
47
47
47
50
51
Missouri
Washington
Wyoming
Montana
Alaska
Tennessee
West Virginia
North Dakota
Arkansas
20
20
20
19
17
17
17
11
6
1=highest percentage of nonprofits reporting worse experiences;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits reporting worse experiences
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
115
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS WITH LATE PAYMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT
Nationwide
41% of human service nonprofits reported late payments
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
2
4
5
6
6
8
8
10
10
12
12
12
15
Illinois
Maine
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Georgia
District of Columbia
Hawaii
California
Indiana
Nevada
New York
Maryland
Michigan
Ohio
Alabama
72
64
64
61
55
50
50
49
49
48
48
44
44
44
43
26
28
29
29
29
32
32
32
35
35
35
38
39
40
40
North Dakota
Iowa
Nebraska
Vermont
Wisconsin
Idaho
Minnesota
Virginia
Arizona
New Mexico
Utah
New Hampshire
Florida
Alaska
Oregon
37
35
33
33
33
32
32
32
31
31
31
30
28
27
27
15
Connecticut
43
42
Massachusetts
26
17
17
17
20
21
22
22
22
25
26
Kentucky
North Carolina
New Jersey
West Virginia
Tennessee
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Delaware
42
42
42
41
40
39
39
39
38
37
42
44
45
46
46
48
49
50
51
Wyoming
Missouri
Texas
Colorado
South Carolina
Washington
Montana
South Dakota
Arkansas
26
25
24
22
22
21
16
13
12
1=highest percentage of nonprofits reporting late payments;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits reporting late payments
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
116
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS REQUIRE MATCHING OR SHARING COSTS
Nationwide
54% of human service nonprofits have contracts or grants that require matching or sharing of costs
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
7
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
New Hampshire
Idaho
Alaska
West Virginia
Montana
Rhode Island
Illinois
Missouri
Wyoming
North Dakota
Maryland
Alabama
Kentucky
Colorado
California
82
74
73
69
67
67
66
66
66
65
64
63
61
60
59
25
28
28
30
31
31
31
34
34
34
34
38
38
38
38
Utah
Hawaii
Iowa
Florida
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Delaware
Minnesota
Mississippi
Washington
Arkansas
Connecticut
New York
South Carolina
55
53
53
52
51
51
51
50
50
50
50
48
48
48
48
15
Kansas
59
42
Texas
46
15
15
19
20
20
20
23
23
25
25
Louisiana
North Carolina
Nebraska
Maine
Ohio
Virginia
New Jersey
Vermont
Indiana
Nevada
59
59
58
57
57
57
56
56
55
55
43
43
43
46
46
46
46
46
51
Massachusetts
New Mexico
South Dakota
District of Columbia
Georgia
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Arizona
44
44
44
41
41
41
41
41
37
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that require matching;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that require matching
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
117
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS LIMIT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE/OVERHEAD COSTS
Nationwide
62% of human service nonprofits have contracts or grants that limit program
administrative/overhead costs
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
3
3
6
6
8
8
10
11
11
13
13
15
Utah
Michigan
Georgia
Idaho
Nevada
Arizona
Maryland
Missouri
Ohio
Delaware
Iowa
New Jersey
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Illinois
78
76
75
75
75
73
73
71
71
70
69
69
68
68
67
26
26
29
29
29
32
32
34
34
34
34
38
39
40
40
Indiana
Montana
Maine
North Carolina
West Virginia
Kansas
Rhode Island
Mississippi
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Massachusetts
Nebraska
Oregon
Virginia
61
61
59
59
59
58
58
56
56
56
56
54
53
52
52
15
Louisiana
67
42
Colorado
51
15
18
19
19
19
22
23
24
24
26
Pennsylvania
New York
California
Florida
Wyoming
Alaska
Tennessee
Hawaii
Washington
Alabama
67
66
65
65
65
64
63
62
62
61
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
49
51
Kentucky
Minnesota
New Mexico
Arkansas
South Carolina
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
North Dakota
50
48
47
45
44
41
38
38
29
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that limit program/administrative overhead;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that limit program/administrative overhead
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
118
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS LIMIT GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/OVERHEAD
Nationwide
58% of human service nonprofits have contracts or grants that limit general
administrative/overhead costs
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
2
4
4
6
6
6
9
10
10
10
13
13
15
Connecticut
Georgia
Idaho
Alaska
Maryland
Arizona
New Jersey
Wyoming
Utah
Florida
Hawaii
Missouri
Illinois
Rhode Island
California
75
74
74
72
72
71
71
71
70
68
68
68
67
67
64
26
28
28
28
31
32
32
34
34
36
36
38
38
40
41
Montana
Delaware
Texas
Washington
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Alabama
Mississippi
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Oregon
South Dakota
North Carolina
Colorado
58
57
57
57
56
54
54
52
52
50
50
48
48
46
45
15
Michigan
64
41
Massachusetts
45
15
18
19
20
20
22
22
24
24
26
Nevada
Vermont
Tennessee
District of Columbia
New York
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Ohio
West Virginia
Iowa
64
63
62
61
61
60
60
59
59
58
41
44
44
46
47
48
48
50
51
Virginia
New Mexico
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Maine
Minnesota
South Carolina
Oklahoma
North Dakota
45
44
44
42
41
36
36
34
28
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that have limits on organization overhead;
51= lowest percentage of nonprofits that have limits on organization overhead
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
119
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS REQUIRE NONPROFITS TO REPORT
RESULTS/OUTCOMES OF PROGRAMS
Nationwide
89% of human service nonprofits report results or outcomes of programs
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
1
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
10
10
10
10
14
14
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Alabama
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Montana
District of Columbia
Colorado
North Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Kentucky
Louisiana
100
100
98
97
97
96
96
95
94
93
93
93
93
92
92
23
23
29
29
29
29
29
29
35
35
35
35
35
40
40
Vermont
West Virginia
Alaska
California
Michigan
Missouri
New Mexico
Texas
Florida
Georgia
Massachusetts
Oregon
Virginia
Connecticut
North Carolina
90
90
89
89
89
89
89
89
88
88
88
88
88
86
86
14
South Dakota
92
40
Ohio
86
17
17
17
17
17
17
23
23
23
23
Arkansas
Maryland
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Washington
Delaware
Maine
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
90
90
90
43
43
45
46
47
47
49
50
51
Illinois
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Arizona
Mississippi
Kansas
Wisconsin
Iowa
85
85
83
82
81
81
80
79
77
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that report results/outcomes of programs;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that report results/outcomes of programs
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
120
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THE GOVERNMENT ON
CONTRACTING PROCEDURES
Nationwide
62% of human service nonprofits provide feedback to government on contracting
procedures
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
9
10
10
12
12
12
15
Maine
Minnesota
Illinois
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Arkansas
Kentucky
Nevada
New Jersey
North Dakota
New York
Delaware
Idaho
Maryland
Iowa
86
77
72
72
72
71
71
71
69
68
68
66
66
66
65
25
28
29
29
29
29
33
33
35
35
35
38
39
40
40
Virginia
Texas
Arizona
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Indiana
South Carolina
Missouri
Mississippi
Oregon
Ohio
Utah
California
Rhode Island
62
61
60
60
60
60
59
59
58
58
58
57
56
55
55
15
Louisiana
65
42
Colorado
54
15
18
18
18
18
18
18
24
25
25
Wisconsin
Florida
Hawaii
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Washington
West Virginia
Georgia
Alabama
Michigan
65
64
64
64
64
64
64
63
62
62
42
44
44
44
47
47
49
50
50
New Mexico
Alaska
Montana
Tennessee
New Hampshire
South Dakota
District of Columbia
Connecticut
Nebraska
54
53
53
53
52
52
50
41
41
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that give feedback to the government on contracting procedures;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that give feedback to the government on contracting procedures
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
121
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
PERCENT OF NONPROFITS REPORTING DEFICITS
Nationwide
42% of human service nonprofits reported deficits
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
2
4
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
9
13
13
15
California
District of Columbia
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Connecticut
Georgia
New Mexico
Tennessee
Arizona
Iowa
Massachusetts
South Carolina
Delaware
Maryland
Louisiana
55
53
53
52
50
50
50
50
48
48
48
48
47
47
46
26
28
28
30
30
30
30
30
35
35
37
37
37
37
41
Virginia
Colorado
Wyoming
Maine
Mississippi
Nevada
Ohio
Oregon
Montana
New Jersey
Florida
Kansas
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Alaska
40
39
39
38
38
38
38
38
37
37
36
36
36
36
35
15
Missouri
46
41
Hawaii
35
17
17
19
19
19
22
22
24
25
26
Indiana
Texas
Idaho
Vermont
Washington
Illinois
Oklahoma
Kentucky
New Hampshire
Minnesota
45
45
44
44
44
43
43
42
41
40
41
44
45
45
45
48
49
50
51
North Dakota
Alabama
New York
Rhode Island
Utah
Arkansas
West Virginia
South Dakota
Nebraska
35
34
33
33
33
32
31
30
29
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with deficits;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with deficits
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
122
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS EXPERIENCING REDUCED REVENUE FROM
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Nationwide
49% of human service nonprofits experienced reduced revenue from local government
agencies
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
13
13
15
Arizona
South Carolina
New Hampshire
Minnesota
Virginia
District of Columbia
Georgia
Wisconsin
Florida
Ohio
Hawaii
Maine
Illinois
Nevada
New York
80
73
68
67
66
64
62
61
60
60
59
58
55
55
54
27
27
27
27
27
32
33
33
35
35
35
38
39
39
41
Alabama
Colorado
Delaware
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Montana
Michigan
New Mexico
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Wyoming
Alaska
Indiana
Oregon
Connecticut
45
45
45
45
45
43
42
42
41
41
41
39
38
38
35
16
Kansas
52
41
Vermont
35
16
16
16
16
21
21
21
24
25
26
Massachusetts
Maryland
North Carolina
Washington
Mississippi
New Jersey
Utah
Tennessee
Louisiana
California
52
52
52
52
50
50
50
48
47
46
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Missouri
Idaho
Nebraska
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Texas
North Dakota
West Virginia
34
32
29
25
23
21
19
15
6
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with declines from local government agencies;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with declines from local government agencies
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
123
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS EXPERIENCING REDUCED REVENUE FROM
STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Nationwide
56% of human service nonprofits experienced reduced revenue from state government
agencies
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
4
6
7
7
7
10
11
11
13
13
15
Kansas
Maine
Hawaii
New Mexico
Utah
Maryland
Delaware
Georgia
North Carolina
Louisiana
Arizona
Massachusetts
Ohio
South Carolina
Virginia
81
78
76
73
73
71
70
70
70
68
67
67
64
64
63
27
27
27
27
31
31
33
34
34
36
36
38
39
40
41
Iowa
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Idaho
New Hampshire
Washington
Missouri
Oregon
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Connecticut
New Jersey
Indiana
54
54
54
54
52
52
51
50
50
47
47
45
44
43
39
16
New York
62
41
Nebraska
39
17
17
19
20
20
22
23
23
23
23
California
Illinois
Alabama
Florida
Oklahoma
Colorado
Michigan
Nevada
Vermont
Wyoming
60
60
59
58
58
57
55
55
55
55
43
44
45
46
47
47
49
50
0
Arkansas
Texas
Montana
West Virginia
Mississippi
South Dakota
Alaska
North Dakota
District of Columbia
36
34
29
23
21
21
18
12
0
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with declines from state government agencies;
50=lowest percentage of nonprofits with declines from state government agencies
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
124
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS EXPERIENCING REDUCED REVENUE FROM
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Nationwide
31% of human service nonprofits experienced reduced revenue from federal government
agencies
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
9
9
12
12
14
14
Louisiana
Alabama
Georgia
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Utah
Ohio
Minnesota
Iowa
Idaho
Vermont
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Illinois
Indiana
62
56
48
45
42
42
41
40
38
38
38
37
37
36
36
27
27
27
27
27
32
33
33
35
35
35
35
39
40
41
Kansas
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Alaska
Massachusetts
California
Montana
Oregon
Virginia
Arizona
Tennessee
Washington
29
29
29
29
29
28
27
27
26
26
26
26
25
24
23
14
New Mexico
36
42
Kentucky
22
17
17
17
17
21
22
22
22
25
26
Connecticut
Maryland
Michigan
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
Nevada
South Carolina
Maine
Texas
35
35
35
35
34
33
33
33
32
31
43
43
43
46
47
48
49
50
51
Arkansas
Florida
Rhode Island
Delaware
Colorado
West Virginia
South Dakota
Hawaii
North Dakota
21
21
21
19
18
17
16
9
7
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with declines from federal government agencies;
50=lowest percentage of nonprofits with declines from federal government agencies
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
125
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS EXPERIENCING REDUCED REVENUE FROM
INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS
Nationwide
50% of human service nonprofits experienced reduced revenue from individual donations
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
8
10
10
10
13
13
15
Louisiana
New Mexico
Mississippi
Nevada
Indiana
Colorado
Iowa
California
Connecticut
Kansas
Kentucky
Montana
Illinois
South Carolina
Georgia
78
75
72
71
66
63
63
61
61
59
59
59
58
58
57
26
26
26
30
30
32
32
34
35
36
37
38
38
38
41
District of Columbia
Texas
Washington
Michigan
North Carolina
Florida
North Dakota
South Dakota
Virginia
Vermont
Delaware
Massachusetts
Minnesota
West Virginia
Missouri
50
50
50
49
49
48
48
47
45
44
43
41
41
41
40
16
Maine
56
42
Pennsylvania
39
16
18
19
20
21
21
21
21
25
26
Tennessee
New Jersey
Utah
Ohio
Alabama
Hawaii
Idaho
Oklahoma
Alaska
Arkansas
56
55
54
53
52
52
52
52
51
50
42
44
44
44
47
48
49
50
51
Wisconsin
Arizona
Nebraska
Wyoming
Maryland
New York
New Hampshire
Oregon
Rhode Island
39
38
38
38
37
36
35
28
23
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with declines from individual donations;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with declines from individual donations
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
126
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS EXPERIENCING REDUCED REVENUE FROM
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
Nationwide
53% of human service nonprofits experienced reduced revenue from private foundations
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
11
13
14
14
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Alabama
District of Columbia
New Mexico
Nevada
Illinois
Utah
California
Georgia
Hawaii
Montana
Idaho
North Carolina
79
78
73
71
67
65
64
62
62
61
60
60
59
58
58
26
26
26
26
26
32
33
34
34
34
37
37
37
40
40
Kansas
Maryland
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Vermont
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Texas
West Virginia
Kentucky
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Virginia
Washington
50
50
50
50
50
49
48
47
47
47
46
46
46
44
44
16
Indiana
57
42
Connecticut
43
17
17
17
17
21
21
23
24
24
26
Arizona
Mississippi
North Dakota
Wyoming
Alaska
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Colorado
New York
Arkansas
56
56
56
56
55
55
52
51
51
50
42
42
45
46
46
46
46
50
51
Maine
Tennessee
Iowa
Delaware
Florida
New Hampshire
Oregon
South Dakota
Rhode Island
43
43
42
39
39
39
39
31
21
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with declines from private foundations;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with declines from private foundations
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
127
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS EXPERIENCING REDUCED REVENUE FROM
CORPORATE DONATIONS
Nationwide
59% of human service nonprofits experienced reduced revenue from corporate donations
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
3
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
12
13
14
15
Louisiana
Illinois
Montana
New Mexico
Nevada
Tennessee
Alabama
California
Georgia
Hawaii
Kansas
Utah
North Carolina
Florida
Colorado
93
78
74
74
73
73
68
68
68
68
68
67
64
63
61
27
27
27
27
27
32
32
32
32
32
37
37
37
40
41
District of Columbia
Kentucky
Oregon
Texas
West Virginia
Iowa
Idaho
Michigan
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Arizona
Pennsylvania
Wyoming
Alaska
Arkansas
53
53
53
53
53
52
52
52
52
52
50
50
50
49
48
15
Mississippi
61
41
North Dakota
48
17
18
18
18
21
21
23
24
24
24
Washington
Indiana
New Jersey
Oklahoma
New York
South Carolina
Connecticut
Nebraska
Ohio
Vermont
60
59
59
59
58
58
57
56
56
56
43
43
43
43
43
48
49
50
51
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
South Dakota
Virginia
New Hampshire
Maryland
Maine
Delaware
47
47
47
47
47
46
44
43
42
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with declines from corporate donations;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with declines from corporate donations
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
128
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS EXPERIENCING REDUCED REVENUE FROM
INVESTMENT INCOME
Nationwide
72% of human service nonprofits experienced reduced revenue from investment income
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
3
3
6
7
8
8
8
11
11
13
13
15
Arizona
Georgia
Kentucky
Maine
Nevada
Colorado
Illinois
Delaware
Indiana
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Wyoming
Iowa
New Mexico
New Jersey
95
94
93
93
93
88
86
83
83
83
81
81
80
80
78
24
24
24
30
30
32
32
34
35
36
37
37
39
40
41
Montana
Vermont
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Utah
North Dakota
Virginia
New York
Washington
Alaska
Mississippi
Ohio
Louisiana
Maryland
Nebraska
71
71
71
70
70
69
69
67
66
65
64
64
63
62
60
16
New Hampshire
77
41
Rhode Island
60
16
18
19
19
21
22
22
24
24
24
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Alabama
South Carolina
Oklahoma
California
Florida
Arkansas
Connecticut
Idaho
77
76
75
75
74
72
72
71
71
71
43
43
43
46
47
48
48
50
51
Hawaii
Kansas
Missouri
Michigan
District of Columbia
Oregon
South Dakota
West Virginia
Texas
59
59
59
58
57
56
56
53
51
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with declines from investment income;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with declines from investment income
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
129
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS FROZE OR REDUCED SALARIES
Nationwide
50% of human service nonprofits froze or reduced salaries
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
4
4
7
7
9
9
11
11
13
13
15
Connecticut
Illinois
Minnesota
District of Columbia
Georgia
Rhode Island
California
North Carolina
Alabama
Tennessee
Indiana
Ohio
Arizona
Hawaii
Colorado
66
65
64
63
63
63
60
60
59
59
57
57
56
56
55
25
25
29
29
31
31
31
34
34
36
36
38
39
40
40
New York
Pennsylvania
Florida
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Washington
Iowa
New Mexico
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Oregon
New Hampshire
Kentucky
Nebraska
47
47
46
46
45
45
45
44
44
41
41
40
39
38
38
15
Virginia
55
40
New Jersey
38
17
18
19
20
20
20
23
23
25
25
Kansas
Nevada
Vermont
Idaho
South Carolina
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Utah
Delaware
Maryland
54
52
51
50
50
50
49
49
47
47
40
40
45
46
47
48
48
50
51
Texas
Wyoming
Montana
Maine
West Virginia
Alaska
Mississippi
North Dakota
Arkansas
38
38
36
32
31
29
29
25
24
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that froze or reduced salaries;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that froze or reduced salaries
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
130
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS DREW ON RESERVES
Nationwide
39% of human service nonprofits drew on reserves
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
4
6
7
7
9
9
11
11
11
14
14
Indiana
Wisconsin
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
Wyoming
California
Nebraska
Utah
Louisiana
Virginia
Kentucky
New Mexico
Washington
Alabama
Maryland
62
50
48
46
46
45
44
44
43
43
42
42
42
41
41
24
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
35
35
37
37
37
40
40
West Virginia
Delaware
Arkansas
Colorado
Minnesota
Missouri
Oregon
South Carolina
Kansas
Massachusetts
Iowa
Nevada
New York
Arizona
Michigan
38
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
35
34
34
34
33
33
14
Montana
41
40
Ohio
33
14
14
19
19
21
21
21
24
24
24
New Jersey
Oklahoma
North Carolina
North Dakota
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Texas
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
41
41
40
40
39
39
39
38
38
38
43
44
44
46
47
48
49
49
51
Maine
Alaska
Florida
Rhode Island
Vermont
District of Columbia
Georgia
Tennessee
South Dakota
32
31
31
29
28
26
25
25
22
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that drew on reserves;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that drew on reserves
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
131
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS REDUCED THEIR NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Nationwide
38% of human service nonprofits reduced their number of employees
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
9
11
11
13
13
15
Maine
California
Illinois
Connecticut
Arizona
Nevada
Delaware
Louisiana
Indiana
Wisconsin
North Carolina
New York
Florida
Ohio
Alabama
59
56
54
52
48
48
47
46
45
45
44
44
43
43
41
27
27
29
30
30
32
32
32
35
36
36
36
36
40
41
Iowa
Oklahoma
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Utah
Montana
New Jersey
Tennessee
Missouri
Colorado
Idaho
Maryland
Rhode Island
Texas
Alaska
34
34
33
32
32
31
31
31
30
29
29
29
29
28
27
15
Hawaii
41
42
Oregon
26
15
15
19
20
20
22
23
24
25
25
Nebraska
Washington
Vermont
New Mexico
South Carolina
Minnesota
District of Columbia
Mississippi
Kansas
Massachusetts
41
41
40
39
39
38
37
36
35
35
42
44
44
46
47
48
48
50
51
South Dakota
Georgia
Wyoming
Michigan
Virginia
Kentucky
West Virginia
Arkansas
North Dakota
26
25
25
24
23
17
17
12
8
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that reduced number of employees;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that reduced number of employees
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
132
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS REDUCED HEALTH, RETIREMENT, OR OTHER BENEFITS
Nationwide
23% of human service nonprofits reduced health, retirement, or other benefits
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
11
13
13
13
Minnesota
South Carolina
Alaska
Idaho
Wisconsin
Maine
Indiana
Ohio
California
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Illinois
Colorado
Maryland
Missouri
38
36
35
35
33
32
31
30
29
29
28
28
26
26
26
23
23
29
29
29
29
29
34
35
35
35
38
38
38
41
South Dakota
Tennessee
District of Columbia
Florida
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Nebraska
Utah
Hawaii
Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
New Mexico
Nevada
New Hampshire
22
22
21
21
21
21
21
20
18
18
18
17
17
17
15
16
Washington
25
42
Oklahoma
14
17
17
19
19
19
19
23
23
23
23
Arkansas
Michigan
North Carolina
New York
Virginia
Vermont
Georgia
Iowa
Kansas
New Jersey
24
24
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
42
42
45
46
47
47
47
50
51
Pennsylvania
Texas
Wyoming
Arizona
Delaware
Oregon
West Virginia
North Dakota
Montana
14
14
13
11
10
10
10
8
5
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that reduced benefits;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that reduced benefits
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
133
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS BORROWED FUNDS OR INCREASED LINES OF CREDIT
Nationwide
22% of human service nonprofits borrowed funds or increased lines of credit
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
8
9
9
9
12
12
14
14
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Mississippi
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virginia
Florida
Louisiana
New Jersey
Michigan
West Virginia
Maine
North Dakota
42
36
32
30
29
29
29
27
25
25
25
24
24
23
23
27
27
27
30
30
32
33
33
35
35
35
35
39
40
40
Idaho
Minnesota
North Carolina
Connecticut
Kentucky
Iowa
Hawaii
Missouri
Kansas
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Oregon
Delaware
Arkansas
Nebraska
18
18
18
17
17
16
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
12
12
14
New York
23
40
Utah
12
17
17
19
19
19
22
23
23
23
23
Georgia
Tennessee
Alabama
California
Maryland
Ohio
Arizona
Colorado
Texas
Vermont
22
22
21
21
21
20
19
19
19
19
43
44
44
44
47
47
49
49
51
District of Columbia
Alaska
Oklahoma
Wyoming
New Hampshire
Washington
Nevada
South Dakota
Montana
11
10
10
10
9
9
7
7
3
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that borrowed funds;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that borrowed funds
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
134
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
NONPROFITS REDUCED NUMBER OF PROGARMS OR SERVICES
Nationwide
21% of human service nonprofits reduced their number of programs or services
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
8
8
8
11
12
12
14
14
Georgia
District of Columbia
Illinois
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
California
Maine
Nebraska
Virginia
Wisconsin
Alabama
West Virginia
41
32
31
29
28
28
28
27
27
27
26
25
25
24
24
27
27
29
29
29
32
33
33
33
33
37
37
39
39
41
Oregon
Texas
New York
Ohio
Utah
New Jersey
Idaho
Maryland
Montana
North Dakota
Louisiana
Nevada
North Carolina
Tennessee
Alaska
18
18
17
17
17
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
13
13
12
16
Iowa
22
41
Colorado
12
16
16
19
19
19
19
23
24
24
24
Kansas
Michigan
Connecticut
Florida
Indiana
South Carolina
Minnesota
Arizona
Missouri
Washington
22
22
21
21
21
21
20
19
19
19
41
41
45
45
45
48
48
48
48
Hawaii
New Hampshire
Kentucky
New Mexico
Wyoming
Delaware
Mississippi
South Dakota
Vermont
12
12
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
1=highest percentage of nonprofits that reduced number of programs or services;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits that reduced number of programs or services
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
135
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
PROBLEMS: PAYMENTS DO NOT COVER FULL COST OF CONTRACTED SERVICES
Nationwide
68% of human service nonprofits reported problems with payments not covering the full
cost of contracted services
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
8
8
8
8
13
13
15
Rhode Island
Maine
Illinois
New Hampshire
Iowa
Minnesota
Connecticut
Kentucky
Michigan
Ohio
New Mexico
California
Kansas
Nebraska
Colorado
84
82
81
79
78
78
77
76
76
76
76
76
75
75
74
25
25
29
30
30
32
33
33
35
36
36
38
39
39
41
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Florida
Washington
Virginia
North Carolina
Maryland
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Indiana
West Virginia
Texas
South Carolina
Massachusetts
District of Columbia
67
67
66
65
65
64
63
63
61
60
60
59
58
58
57
15
Vermont
74
42
Georgia
56
17
18
18
20
20
20
20
24
25
25
Wisconsin
Alaska
Louisiana
Hawaii
New Jersey
New York
Arizona
South Dakota
Delaware
Missouri
73
72
72
71
71
71
71
69
67
67
43
44
44
46
47
48
49
50
51
Alabama
North Dakota
Wyoming
Idaho
Oregon
Utah
Arkansas
Mississippi
Montana
54
53
53
52
49
43
42
38
37
1=highest percentage of nonprofits having problems with payments not covering full cost;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits having problems with payments not covering full cost
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
136
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
PROBLEMS: COMPLEXITY OF /TIME REQUIRED FOR REPORTING ON
GRANTS/CONTRACTS
Nationwide
76% of human service nonprofits reported problems with complexity of/time required for
reporting on grants/contracts
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
9
9
9
13
14
14
Idaho
Rhode Island
Missouri
Maine
New Mexico
Kentucky
Washington
Delaware
Illinois
New Hampshire
Vermont
Minnesota
District of Columbia
Arizona
Louisiana
92
90
89
87
87
86
86
85
84
84
84
84
83
82
82
25
28
28
28
28
32
32
32
35
36
36
36
36
40
41
North Carolina
Alabama
California
Hawaii
Oregon
Maryland
Iowa
South Dakota
Georgia
New York
Indiana
Nevada
Utah
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
77
76
76
76
76
74
74
74
73
72
72
72
72
71
70
14
Colorado
82
42
Kansas
69
17
17
19
20
20
22
22
22
25
25
Tennessee
Montana
Wisconsin
New Jersey
Florida
Alaska
Michigan
Wyoming
Ohio
Nebraska
81
81
80
79
79
78
78
78
77
77
42
44
44
46
47
47
49
50
51
Massachusetts
North Dakota
Texas
Virginia
Oklahoma
South Carolina
West Virginia
Mississippi
Arkansas
69
67
67
66
59
59
58
55
52
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with problems with complexity of/time required for reporting on grants/contracts;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with problems with complexity of/time required for reporting on grants/contracts
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
137
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
PROBLEMS: COMPLEXITY OF/TIME REQUIRED BY APPLICATION PROCESS
Nationwide
76% of human service nonprofits reported problems with complexity of/time required by
the application process
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
7
9
9
11
11
13
13
13
District of Columbia
Iowa
Idaho
Vermont
Minnesota
Rhode Island
Alaska
Colorado
Maine
Nevada
Ohio
Missouri
Arizona
Delaware
Washington
92
91
88
88
87
85
84
84
83
83
82
82
81
81
81
26
28
28
28
31
31
33
33
35
35
37
37
37
40
40
Wisconsin
California
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New York
Massachusetts
Louisiana
Oregon
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
South Dakota
Montana
Texas
Kansas
76
75
75
75
74
74
73
73
72
72
71
71
71
69
69
13
Nebraska
81
40
Virginia
69
13
18
18
20
20
22
22
22
22
26
Indiana
New Mexico
Tennessee
Hawaii
Kentucky
Florida
Alabama
Georgia
Wyoming
Illinois
81
80
80
79
79
77
77
77
77
76
43
44
45
46
47
47
49
50
50
Connecticut
Oklahoma
North Dakota
West Virginia
Michigan
Utah
South Carolina
Mississippi
Arkansas
67
65
63
62
61
61
59
58
58
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with problems with complexity of/time required by the application process;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with problems with complexity of/time required by the application process
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
138
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
PROBLEMS: GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO CONTRACTS AND GRANTS
Nationwide
57% of human service nonprofits reported problems with government changes to contracts
or grants
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
4
6
7
8
8
8
11
11
11
11
15
Maine
Rhode Island
Illinois
Nevada
Louisiana
Kansas
Indiana
Connecticut
Hawaii
Michigan
Florida
District of Columbia
Kentucky
New York
New Mexico
82
80
73
71
71
70
69
68
68
68
67
67
67
67
65
26
26
29
30
30
32
32
32
32
36
36
38
39
39
39
Maryland
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Texas
Idaho
New Jersey
South Carolina
West Virginia
Ohio
Massachusetts
Nebraska
Colorado
Utah
Alaska
54
54
53
52
52
50
50
50
50
49
49
48
47
47
47
15
Washington
65
39
Montana
47
17
18
19
19
21
22
22
24
24
26
Arizona
Iowa
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
California
Missouri
Vermont
Alabama
Minnesota
63
62
61
61
59
58
58
55
55
54
43
44
44
46
46
46
49
50
51
Delaware
Virginia
Georgia
Oregon
Mississippi
Wyoming
North Dakota
Arkansas
South Dakota
43
42
42
38
38
38
37
26
16
1=highest percentage of nonprofits having problems with government changes to contracts or grants;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits having problems with government changes to contracts or grants
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
139
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
STATE RANKINGS
Survey Results (2009 Data)
PROBLEMS: LATE PAYMENTS (BEYOND CONTRACT SPECIFICATION)
Nationwide
53% of human service nonprofits reported problems with late payments
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
RANK
STATE
PERCENT
1
2
3
4
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
15
Illinois
Maine
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Pennsylvania
Louisiana
Nevada
Indiana
New York
Kentucky
California
Kansas
New Jersey
Georgia
Hawaii
83
80
73
70
70
69
68
65
63
61
60
59
59
58
57
26
26
29
30
31
31
33
33
33
33
33
38
39
39
41
Alabama
Idaho
Missouri
Virginia
Maryland
Mississippi
North Dakota
South Carolina
North Carolina
Colorado
Minnesota
Texas
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Florida
48
48
46
44
43
43
41
41
41
41
41
40
39
39
38
15
Iowa
57
41
Alaska
38
15
18
18
20
21
21
21
24
24
26
Tennessee
Rhode Island
Ohio
Arizona
Oklahoma
West Virginia
New Hampshire
Delaware
Michigan
Nebraska
57
56
56
53
52
52
52
50
50
48
43
43
45
46
46
48
48
50
51
Utah
Vermont
Wyoming
New Mexico
Washington
Montana
Oregon
Arkansas
South Dakota
36
36
34
33
33
26
26
21
11
1=highest percentage of nonprofits with problems with late payments;
51=lowest percentage of nonprofits with problems with late payments
Source: The Urban Institute, National Survey of Nonprofit-Government Contracting and Grants, 2010.
Notes: The full report is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159. Rankings are based on survey results and may
not be statistically significant because they are subject to sampling error. See appendix for details on state rankings.
140
URBAN INSTITUTE
METHODOLOGY
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
National Study of NonprofitGovernment Contracting
Survey Results (2009 Data)
The data for the state profiles are based on the results of a national survey of human service providers
about their contracts and grants with government. The sample of 501(c)(3) human service nonprofits was
selected at random from the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) files. The
sample was limited to organizations that are required to file a Form 990 (an annual financial statement)
with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and had more than $100,000 in expenditures in 2007─ the latest
data available at the time the survey was drawn. The human service organizations included in the study
were limited to those that provide direct support to children, youth, families, adults, and people with
disabilities. Sports and recreation, homeowners associations, labor unions, benevolent associations (fire or
police employee groups), farm bureaus, and other select groups were excluded from the study.
The NCCS database consisted of 55,785 human service nonprofits, encompassing crime and
legal-related, employment, food and nutrition, housing and shelter, public safety, youth development,
multipurpose human service (children and family services, homeless shelters, etc.), and community and
economic development organizations. The random stratified sample for this survey contained 9,000
organizations from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. To ensure a representative sample, the list
was stratified by region, type of nonprofit, and size of nonprofit. Smaller states were oversampled to
ensure adequate sample sizes for making state-level comparisons.
The Social and Economic Sciences Research Center at Washington State University collected the
survey data for the Urban Institute. A total of 3,500 nonprofits contacted us with information about the
survey. More than 1,000 organizations indicated at the outset of the questionnaire that they had no
relationship or dealings with government and did not fill out the rest of the questions. Of the 9,000
organizations surveyed, 2,497 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 36 percent response rate. In
addition, 344 respondents that completed the questionnaire did not have government contracts or grants.
Consequently, the analysis data file contains a total of 2,497 organizations that completed the
questionnaire, 2,153 of which have government contracts and grants. The types and sizes of organizations
that participated in the study were not noticeably different from organizations that did not participate.
Hence, the potential of nonresponse bias for this study is rather small.
The analysis in this report is limited to the organizations that completed the survey and had
government contracts. Each of these organizations was assigned a survey weight to adjust for the
disproportionate sampling done to increase the sample sizes in smaller states. All estimates in this report
are appropriately weighted and therefore the estimates can be generalized to the sector as a whole. For
addition information on the methodology please see the full report at
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412159.
141
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
142
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
APPENDIX
143
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
144
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
2009 GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING EXPERICE COMPARED TO PRIOR YEARS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
28
17
27
6
31
24
24
25
25
33
38
56
37
57
32
45
43
25
25
38
28
26
30
27
21
20
19
25
41
39
23
28
32
41
11
36
31
25
45
35
37
26
17
24
33
33
26
20
17
31
20
Standard
error
8.13
4.92
8.52
4.14
4.55
6.91
7.81
7.58
10.65
6.17
8.45
7.96
8.03
5.82
7.15
8.75
8.09
8.69
8.69
10.30
7.83
6.70
6.57
6.61
7.49
5.84
6.06
7.34
8.88
8.12
7.42
7.15
4.72
6.45
4.46
6.16
8.39
6.07
5.47
9.53
9.10
8.64
6.91
5.00
6.88
6.80
6.54
4.90
6.76
7.28
5.13
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
11.66
43.52
7.75
27.03
10.22
43.62
0.00
15.30
21.78
39.60
10.77
37.87
8.83
39.45
10.15
39.85
4.13
45.87
21.24
45.42
20.94
54.06
40.27
71.49
20.93
52.41
45.74
68.54
17.70
45.72
28.02
62.30
27.01
58.71
7.97
42.03
7.97
42.03
17.90
58.30
12.78
43.48
13.06
39.32
16.91
42.67
14.31
40.23
6.75
36.11
8.55
31.45
7.05
30.79
10.61
39.39
23.34
58.14
23.48
55.30
8.03
37.13
13.77
41.79
23.05
41.53
28.44
53.70
1.80
19.26
23.51
47.67
14.59
47.47
13.10
36.90
34.27
55.73
16.10
53.46
19.20
54.88
9.15
43.03
3.70
30.78
14.14
33.74
19.02
45.98
19.16
45.84
12.76
38.40
10.70
29.92
4.00
30.48
16.51
45.03
9.94
30.06
145
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
NONPROFITS WITH LATE PAYMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
43
27
31
12
49
22
43
37
50
28
55
50
32
72
49
35
39
42
39
64
44
26
44
32
39
25
16
33
48
30
42
31
48
42
37
44
38
27
64
61
22
13
40
24
31
33
32
21
41
33
26
Standard
error
9.16
5.80
8.87
5.50
4.93
6.34
9.20
8.15
12.29
5.88
8.82
8.02
7.66
5.25
7.68
8.41
7.85
9.89
10.01
9.97
8.64
6.70
7.05
6.92
8.91
6.40
5.56
7.87
9.03
7.63
8.76
7.35
5.09
6.24
7.00
6.39
8.80
6.12
5.14
9.77
7.83
6.63
8.81
4.94
6.87
6.80
6.90
5.04
8.81
7.43
5.57
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
24.91
60.81
15.30
38.04
13.39
48.15
1.34
22.90
38.85
58.17
9.53
34.37
24.84
60.88
20.70
52.64
25.91
74.09
16.55
39.59
37.54
72.14
34.28
65.72
17.24
47.28
61.54
82.12
33.73
63.83
19.00
51.96
23.49
54.29
22.28
61.06
19.52
58.74
44.10
83.18
26.81
60.69
13.06
39.32
29.92
57.58
18.27
45.37
21.82
56.76
12.46
37.54
4.89
26.69
17.90
48.76
30.46
65.84
15.34
45.26
24.76
59.12
16.15
44.97
37.89
57.85
29.44
53.90
23.11
50.57
31.54
56.60
20.69
55.17
14.53
38.53
54.21
74.37
41.73
80.01
6.86
37.58
0.05
26.03
22.74
57.26
13.93
33.29
17.31
44.23
19.16
45.84
18.29
45.35
11.09
30.85
24.11
58.65
18.77
47.89
15.17
37.01
146
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS THAT REQUIRE MATCHING OR SHARING COSTS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
63
73
37
48
59
60
48
50
41
52
41
53
74
66
55
53
59
61
59
57
64
44
51
50
50
66
67
58
55
82
56
44
48
59
65
57
41
41
51
67
48
44
41
46
55
56
57
50
69
51
66
Standard
error
9.10
5.64
9.11
8.42
4.78
7.59
9.12
8.45
11.74
6.48
8.57
8.01
6.91
5.52
7.55
8.63
7.80
10.01
9.30
10.50
8.25
7.65
7.04
7.42
9.13
6.77
7.10
8.25
8.67
6.41
8.67
7.93
4.94
6.17
6.75
6.32
8.93
6.82
5.37
9.24
9.42
9.03
9.01
5.84
7.31
6.96
7.34
6.09
8.27
7.88
5.95
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
45.12
80.80
61.86
83.98
19.19
54.89
31.98
64.98
49.27
68.03
45.12
74.88
30.40
66.16
33.43
66.57
18.17
64.19
39.02
64.42
23.83
57.43
37.25
68.63
59.99
87.07
55.38
77.02
39.95
69.57
36.21
70.05
44.17
74.75
41.26
80.48
41.04
77.48
36.56
77.72
47.47
79.81
28.90
58.90
37.23
64.81
35.45
64.55
32.11
67.89
52.68
79.24
52.75
80.59
41.41
73.75
38.18
72.16
69.26
94.38
39.26
73.24
28.90
59.98
38.32
57.68
46.92
71.12
51.77
78.23
44.27
69.07
23.88
58.88
27.46
54.18
40.67
61.71
48.57
84.77
29.69
66.61
26.75
62.13
23.73
59.03
35.03
57.93
40.68
69.32
42.17
69.45
42.43
71.21
38.06
61.94
52.75
85.19
35.84
66.72
54.30
77.62
147
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS THAT LIMIT GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/OVERHEAD COSTS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
52
72
71
42
64
45
75
57
61
68
74
68
74
67
60
58
56
54
54
41
72
45
64
36
52
68
58
50
64
50
71
44
61
46
28
59
34
48
60
67
36
48
62
57
70
63
45
57
59
44
71
Standard
error
9.09
5.84
9.09
8.33
4.72
7.71
8.05
8.38
11.30
6.08
7.76
7.50
7.17
5.52
7.45
8.67
8.01
10.00
9.61
10.19
7.83
7.58
6.69
7.14
9.29
6.88
7.53
8.48
8.50
8.43
8.06
7.93
4.85
6.47
6.45
6.50
8.62
7.15
5.33
9.24
8.87
9.08
8.87
5.76
6.73
6.77
7.55
6.17
8.81
7.82
5.81
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
33.91
69.53
60.29
83.19
53.01
88.65
26.10
58.74
54.49
72.97
29.89
60.11
59.23
90.77
40.25
73.09
38.96
83.26
56.50
80.34
58.98
89.40
52.94
82.36
60.13
88.25
56.32
77.96
44.92
74.12
41.06
75.06
39.87
71.25
34.57
73.77
35.01
72.69
20.93
60.89
56.53
87.23
30.38
60.10
50.89
77.11
22.36
50.36
33.65
70.05
54.69
81.67
43.12
72.66
33.38
66.62
47.63
80.95
33.47
66.53
55.17
86.77
28.90
59.98
51.10
70.12
32.93
58.29
15.57
40.85
46.19
71.67
17.59
51.37
33.81
61.85
49.32
70.20
48.57
84.77
18.33
53.09
30.36
65.94
44.68
79.46
45.65
68.23
56.81
83.19
49.52
76.06
30.44
60.04
45.28
69.48
41.35
75.89
28.27
58.91
59.71
82.51
148
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS THAT LIMIT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE/OVERHEAD COSTS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
61
64
73
45
65
51
68
70
68
65
75
62
75
67
61
69
58
50
67
59
73
54
76
48
56
71
61
53
75
38
69
47
66
59
29
71
38
52
67
58
44
56
63
56
78
56
52
62
59
41
65
Standard
error
9.04
6.17
8.52
8.39
4.65
7.65
8.68
7.75
10.49
6.24
7.56
7.79
6.99
5.52
7.49
8.02
7.94
10.03
8.92
10.19
7.64
7.69
5.85
7.42
9.24
6.62
7.46
8.21
7.68
8.17
8.10
7.97
4.72
6.27
6.58
5.83
8.80
7.15
5.06
9.66
9.36
9.03
8.66
5.78
6.13
6.96
7.40
5.96
8.81
7.75
6.04
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
43.00
78.42
51.74
75.92
56.38
89.78
29.01
61.89
55.93
74.17
36.22
66.22
50.85
84.87
54.82
85.18
47.86
88.98
52.67
77.15
60.19
89.81
46.48
77.04
61.30
88.70
56.32
77.96
46.29
75.67
53.04
84.46
42.76
73.90
30.33
69.67
49.19
84.15
39.11
79.07
57.76
87.70
38.59
68.73
65.00
87.94
33.19
62.27
37.46
73.66
58.13
84.09
45.91
75.15
36.85
69.03
59.94
90.06
21.50
53.50
52.87
84.63
31.61
62.83
57.08
75.58
47.03
71.61
16.04
41.86
59.76
82.62
20.69
55.17
38.15
66.19
56.75
76.59
39.40
77.26
26.09
62.79
37.87
73.25
46.35
80.31
44.23
66.89
65.48
89.52
42.17
69.45
37.76
66.78
50.21
73.59
41.35
75.89
25.83
56.23
53.38
77.06
149
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CONTRACTS AND GRANTS THAT REQUIRE NONPROFITS TO REPORT ON PROGRAMS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
97
89
81
91
89
93
86
90
94
88
88
100
100
85
98
77
80
92
92
90
91
88
89
91
81
89
95
82
96
91
97
89
96
86
93
86
83
88
90
91
85
92
90
89
93
90
88
91
90
79
93
Standard
error
3.32
4.04
7.57
4.84
3.07
3.99
6.30
5.07
5.61
4.16
5.77
0.00
0.00
4.22
2.37
7.55
6.54
5.55
5.55
6.52
5.08
5.05
4.43
4.27
7.47
4.69
3.41
6.27
3.29
4.77
3.04
5.01
1.98
4.37
3.73
4.41
6.85
4.64
3.26
5.64
6.69
5.32
5.39
3.66
3.87
4.26
4.81
3.55
5.45
6.51
3.13
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
88.52
100.00
81.22
97.04
65.93
95.61
81.22
100.00
83.09
95.13
84.62
100.00
73.87
98.55
80.06
99.94
80.56
100.00
79.99
96.29
76.19
98.81
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
76.23
92.79
91.81
100.00
61.86
91.48
67.19
92.81
79.53
100.00
79.53
100.00
75.82
100.00
80.39
100.00
77.91
97.69
80.67
98.05
82.54
99.28
66.14
95.40
79.45
97.83
87.36
100.00
70.06
94.64
88.54
100.00
81.42
100.00
89.51
100.00
79.06
98.72
92.05
99.79
77.87
95.01
85.19
99.81
77.80
95.08
69.34
96.18
78.41
96.59
83.73
96.51
79.07
100.00
72.07
98.31
80.18
100.00
79.14
100.00
81.73
96.05
84.88
100.00
81.89
98.59
78.95
97.79
83.67
97.59
78.82
100.00
66.19
91.71
87.34
99.62
150
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
NONPROFITS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO GOVERNMENT
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
62
53
60
71
55
54
41
66
50
64
63
64
66
72
59
65
60
71
65
86
66
64
62
77
58
58
53
41
71
52
69
54
68
64
68
57
72
58
60
55
59
52
53
61
56
60
62
64
64
65
72
Standard
error
8.82
6.40
9.60
7.89
4.88
7.63
9.30
8.17
12.29
6.32
8.45
7.83
7.66
5.25
7.57
8.41
8.01
9.12
9.76
7.43
8.27
7.30
6.99
6.22
9.36
7.37
7.62
8.10
8.01
8.30
8.10
8.06
4.68
6.11
6.63
6.32
8.10
6.91
5.34
10.19
9.26
9.83
8.97
5.72
7.38
7.12
7.37
5.99
8.72
7.73
5.71
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
44.78
79.36
40.64
65.74
41.19
78.81
55.51
86.43
45.33
64.47
38.70
68.62
22.52
58.96
49.50
81.54
25.91
74.09
51.90
76.68
45.94
79.06
48.29
78.99
50.61
80.65
61.54
82.12
43.71
73.37
48.04
81.00
44.31
75.69
52.95
88.71
46.08
84.36
71.02
100.00
49.41
81.85
49.98
78.60
48.01
75.39
65.07
89.47
39.35
76.03
43.69
72.59
37.70
67.56
25.31
57.05
55.72
87.14
35.25
67.79
52.87
84.63
38.49
70.09
58.87
77.21
52.43
76.39
54.51
80.49
44.27
69.07
56.53
88.29
44.79
71.87
50.01
70.97
34.58
74.52
41.11
77.41
32.90
71.44
35.75
70.91
49.34
71.78
41.95
70.87
46.05
73.95
47.46
76.34
52.18
75.68
47.19
81.39
49.72
80.00
60.54
82.94
151
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
NONPROFITS REPORTING DEFICITS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
34
35
48
32
55
39
50
47
53
36
50
35
44
43
45
48
36
42
46
38
47
48
36
40
38
46
37
29
38
41
37
50
33
52
35
38
43
38
36
33
48
30
50
45
33
44
40
44
31
53
39
Standard
error
8.64
6.18
10.20
8.13
4.98
7.47
9.64
8.43
11.91
6.32
9.01
7.66
8.01
5.82
7.74
9.08
8.10
9.89
10.00
10.30
8.69
7.80
7.03
7.46
9.22
7.63
7.36
7.82
8.96
8.28
8.70
7.98
4.79
6.55
7.02
6.30
9.13
7.02
5.34
9.87
9.79
9.05
9.31
6.00
7.01
7.12
7.33
6.10
8.27
7.97
6.56
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
17.54
51.42
22.67
46.89
27.83
67.83
16.33
48.19
45.34
64.86
24.39
53.65
31.10
68.90
30.14
63.20
29.61
76.27
23.32
48.10
32.34
67.66
20.27
50.31
28.06
59.44
31.46
54.26
29.84
60.16
30.49
66.07
20.49
52.23
22.28
61.06
26.23
65.43
17.90
58.30
29.84
63.92
32.22
62.78
21.78
49.34
25.86
55.10
20.40
56.52
31.38
61.30
22.41
51.27
13.70
44.36
20.91
56.01
24.39
56.87
19.62
53.72
34.36
65.64
23.59
42.37
38.96
64.62
21.37
48.91
25.58
50.28
24.97
60.75
24.02
51.54
25.42
46.38
13.98
52.68
28.82
67.18
12.68
48.18
31.76
68.24
33.03
56.53
19.59
47.07
29.94
57.86
25.16
53.90
32.48
56.40
14.81
47.25
37.00
68.26
26.17
51.87
152
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
DECLINES IN REVENUE FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
45
39
80
21
46
45
35
45
64
60
62
59
32
55
38
45
52
25
47
58
52
52
42
67
50
34
43
29
55
68
50
42
54
52
15
60
23
38
45
41
73
41
48
19
50
35
66
52
6
61
41
Standard
error
10.40
7.15
10.12
10.61
5.46
9.05
10.49
10.30
12.59
7.21
9.42
9.80
9.73
6.85
8.42
10.39
9.30
12.29
11.26
13.84
9.85
10.28
8.73
8.48
12.07
8.23
10.16
8.90
10.44
9.47
10.09
9.63
5.80
7.56
6.33
6.64
11.41
8.09
6.12
11.46
11.18
11.27
10.26
5.86
8.78
9.12
7.89
7.34
5.83
9.09
7.26
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
25.08
65.82
24.88
52.90
60.17
99.83
0.63
42.23
35.65
57.03
27.09
62.57
14.45
55.55
24.81
65.19
39.61
88.97
45.86
74.14
43.08
80.00
39.88
78.30
12.50
50.66
41.47
68.33
21.00
54.00
25.09
65.81
33.63
70.07
0.91
49.09
25.30
69.44
31.21
85.45
32.70
71.30
32.01
72.33
24.82
59.06
50.06
83.28
26.34
73.66
18.25
50.51
22.95
62.77
11.73
46.61
34.53
75.47
49.61
86.75
30.22
69.78
22.79
60.55
42.80
65.54
37.57
67.19
2.97
27.79
47.36
73.40
0.72
45.44
22.38
54.10
33.31
57.31
18.72
63.64
51.41
95.25
19.10
63.26
27.73
67.93
7.12
30.08
32.80
67.20
16.90
52.66
50.25
81.17
37.88
66.66
0.00
20.26
42.90
78.52
26.94
55.42
153
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
DECLINES IN REVENUE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
59
18
67
36
60
57
44
70
0
58
70
76
52
60
39
54
81
47
68
78
71
67
55
54
21
50
29
39
55
52
43
73
62
70
12
64
58
50
54
54
64
21
45
34
73
55
63
51
23
47
55
Standard
error
10.26
5.12
11.92
9.29
5.37
8.87
9.76
8.14
0.00
7.27
8.68
6.98
9.12
6.32
9.08
9.22
7.23
11.90
9.17
9.53
8.41
8.10
7.75
8.07
9.03
7.95
7.35
8.39
9.96
8.85
9.25
7.73
5.14
6.35
4.94
6.93
9.82
8.09
5.86
9.76
10.04
8.83
10.45
6.24
7.50
7.41
8.03
6.96
7.96
8.97
6.61
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
38.97
79.21
8.15
28.21
43.30
90.04
17.79
54.21
49.24
70.28
39.29
74.05
24.87
63.13
54.42
86.32
n.a
n.a
43.53
72.03
53.37
87.37
62.09
89.43
34.12
69.88
47.96
72.72
21.50
57.08
35.50
71.64
67.31
95.65
23.73
70.39
50.02
85.98
59.11
96.45
54.94
87.92
50.79
82.55
39.81
70.19
38.23
69.87
3.35
38.75
34.42
65.58
15.01
43.81
22.26
55.16
35.02
74.08
34.37
69.07
24.74
60.98
58.18
88.48
51.99
72.15
57.55
82.45
2.07
21.45
50.25
77.41
39.07
77.59
34.14
65.86
42.81
65.77
35.04
73.30
43.96
83.32
3.75
38.35
24.96
65.94
21.69
46.17
58.63
88.03
40.73
69.79
47.12
78.60
37.38
64.66
7.48
38.68
29.09
64.25
41.81
67.71
154
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
DECLINES IN REVENUE FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
56
27
25
21
26
18
35
19
33
21
48
9
38
36
36
38
29
22
62
32
35
27
35
40
45
29
26
28
33
42
29
36
29
35
7
41
37
26
34
21
33
16
24
31
42
38
26
23
17
29
37
Standard
error
11.47
6.82
10.61
8.02
5.30
7.09
9.76
7.93
11.97
6.39
10.76
5.73
8.71
7.27
8.24
10.37
8.25
9.63
10.42
10.37
10.51
7.97
8.47
8.81
10.25
8.37
7.39
8.61
9.66
9.24
9.75
9.82
5.70
7.70
4.51
7.61
10.80
7.35
5.99
8.98
10.07
7.90
9.15
6.41
7.99
8.28
7.44
6.44
7.61
8.03
6.47
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
33.08
78.04
13.90
40.64
4.21
45.79
5.11
36.55
16.08
36.86
3.96
31.76
15.64
53.92
3.50
34.60
9.87
56.79
8.00
33.02
26.53
68.71
0.00
21.40
21.39
55.53
21.46
49.96
20.22
52.50
17.78
58.42
12.39
44.75
3.34
41.10
41.48
82.32
11.26
51.90
14.40
55.60
11.04
42.30
18.89
52.07
22.73
57.27
25.35
65.55
12.17
44.97
11.32
40.30
11.12
44.88
14.40
52.26
24.19
60.43
9.47
47.67
17.12
55.60
17.86
40.20
20.06
50.22
0.00
16.97
26.55
56.37
15.67
58.01
12.07
40.87
22.70
46.16
3.46
38.64
13.59
53.07
0.32
31.26
5.87
41.75
18.80
43.94
26.76
58.08
21.70
54.16
11.89
41.05
9.89
35.11
2.47
32.31
13.30
44.76
23.90
49.28
155
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
DECLINES IN REVENUE FROM INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
52
51
38
50
61
63
61
43
50
48
57
52
52
58
66
63
59
59
78
56
37
41
49
41
72
40
59
38
71
35
55
75
36
49
48
53
52
28
39
23
58
47
56
50
54
44
45
50
41
39
38
Standard
error
10.20
6.56
10.38
9.88
4.96
7.67
10.01
8.66
12.29
6.98
8.93
8.99
8.47
6.07
7.89
9.09
8.84
11.74
8.46
11.39
9.16
7.97
7.51
7.58
10.20
7.42
8.17
8.64
8.01
8.90
9.13
7.83
5.43
6.86
8.30
6.66
9.75
7.00
5.86
8.58
9.86
12.16
9.42
6.27
7.82
7.12
7.93
6.51
10.10
8.37
6.86
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
32.18
72.16
38.26
63.96
17.75
58.45
30.64
69.36
51.33
70.77
48.13
78.19
41.26
80.48
25.89
59.83
25.91
74.09
34.32
61.68
39.16
74.18
34.22
69.48
35.12
68.32
45.91
69.71
50.24
81.18
45.14
80.78
41.29
75.95
35.82
81.82
61.69
94.83
33.24
77.88
19.09
54.99
24.92
56.16
34.12
63.56
26.61
56.31
52.23
92.21
25.93
55.03
43.38
75.38
20.99
54.87
55.72
87.14
17.17
52.07
37.27
73.07
59.65
90.35
24.90
46.16
35.57
62.47
32.00
64.56
39.68
65.78
32.88
71.12
14.49
41.93
27.33
50.29
5.92
39.54
39.01
77.65
22.84
70.50
37.10
74.02
37.72
62.28
38.96
69.62
29.94
57.86
29.19
60.29
37.24
62.76
21.12
60.70
22.98
55.80
24.39
51.29
156
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
DECLINES IN REVENUE FROM PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
71
55
56
50
61
51
43
39
67
39
60
60
58
62
57
42
50
46
73
43
50
47
50
48
56
50
59
46
64
39
79
65
51
58
56
50
78
39
52
21
55
31
43
47
62
49
44
44
47
46
56
Standard
error
9.65
7.10
11.47
11.41
5.34
8.28
10.62
9.42
11.97
7.52
9.67
8.36
8.84
6.44
8.23
11.08
10.31
13.59
11.23
12.86
9.66
8.45
7.79
8.57
11.31
8.17
8.89
9.04
9.63
9.71
8.20
8.93
5.99
6.84
8.89
7.14
9.57
8.26
6.57
8.98
10.40
10.94
10.18
6.64
8.37
7.55
8.37
7.55
12.41
9.28
8.23
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
52.51
90.35
41.35
69.17
33.07
78.05
27.64
72.36
50.52
71.44
35.20
67.66
22.05
63.67
20.66
57.60
43.21
90.13
24.27
53.77
41.04
78.96
43.61
76.39
40.35
75.03
49.19
74.45
41.01
73.27
20.39
63.83
29.80
70.20
19.51
72.79
51.33
95.33
17.65
68.07
31.06
68.94
30.49
63.63
34.73
65.27
31.69
65.27
33.39
77.73
33.99
66.01
41.83
76.69
28.71
64.15
44.77
82.51
20.10
58.16
63.11
95.23
47.87
82.89
39.73
63.21
44.59
71.41
38.59
73.41
36.01
63.99
59.03
96.53
23.20
55.58
38.91
64.67
3.46
38.64
34.17
74.93
9.82
52.68
23.53
63.43
34.25
60.29
45.67
78.47
33.85
63.45
27.71
60.53
29.09
58.71
22.35
70.99
28.24
64.62
39.43
71.69
157
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
DECLINES IN REVENUE FROM CORPORATE DONATIONS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
68
49
50
48
68
61
57
42
53
63
68
68
52
78
59
52
68
53
93
43
44
47
52
47
61
47
74
56
73
46
59
74
58
64
48
56
59
53
50
52
58
47
73
53
67
56
47
60
53
52
50
Standard
error
9.72
6.87
10.95
10.55
5.09
8.57
10.62
9.32
12.67
6.90
9.21
8.72
9.12
5.23
8.54
10.19
9.02
12.66
6.33
12.86
9.42
8.99
8.57
8.19
11.10
7.94
7.93
9.17
8.17
9.33
9.35
8.77
5.79
7.25
8.61
7.32
10.23
8.31
6.25
10.46
9.86
11.43
9.35
6.46
7.62
7.61
8.42
6.75
12.41
9.14
7.86
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
49.12
87.24
35.32
62.24
28.53
71.47
26.95
68.29
58.31
78.27
44.49
78.09
36.33
77.95
23.41
59.93
28.50
78.16
48.97
76.03
49.95
86.05
50.90
85.10
34.12
69.88
68.08
88.58
42.64
76.12
32.20
72.14
50.32
85.68
28.51
78.15
78.04
100.00
17.65
68.07
25.97
62.91
29.04
64.30
34.72
68.32
31.16
63.28
39.36
82.86
31.81
62.93
58.52
89.62
37.58
73.54
57.08
89.08
27.87
64.43
40.94
77.58
56.73
91.09
46.39
69.11
50.08
78.50
31.28
65.02
41.21
69.91
39.03
79.15
36.65
69.23
37.75
62.25
31.88
72.88
39.01
77.65
24.67
69.45
54.40
91.06
40.78
66.12
51.73
81.61
40.65
70.47
30.56
63.56
46.76
73.24
29.01
77.65
33.82
69.62
34.60
65.40
158
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
DECLINES IN REVENUE FROM INVESTMENT INCOME
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
75
65
95
71
72
88
71
83
57
72
94
59
71
86
83
80
59
93
63
93
62
83
58
70
64
59
71
60
93
77
78
80
67
81
69
64
74
56
77
60
75
56
76
51
70
71
69
66
53
71
81
Standard
error
9.48
7.21
4.55
11.68
5.76
6.14
10.87
7.32
13.01
7.85
5.63
11.16
10.09
4.74
6.69
8.75
10.13
6.77
16.83
6.69
10.44
7.80
8.73
8.65
12.37
8.27
9.27
10.51
6.46
7.88
8.50
8.56
6.17
6.31
7.33
7.06
9.86
8.27
5.75
10.51
10.60
11.70
9.15
7.90
8.16
7.84
8.45
7.50
11.66
8.03
6.11
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
56.42
93.58
50.58
78.84
84.24
100.00
48.53
94.33
60.37
82.97
76.18
100.00
49.29
91.89
68.27
96.95
31.65
82.63
56.50
87.26
80.50
100.00
36.94
80.70
50.82
90.36
76.98
95.56
70.21
96.45
62.85
97.15
39.23
78.95
76.54
100.00
29.52
95.48
76.76
100.00
41.43
82.37
67.32
97.90
40.94
75.18
53.41
87.33
40.05
88.53
42.61
75.03
53.26
89.60
39.41
80.59
77.44
100.00
61.47
92.37
61.59
94.93
63.22
96.78
54.57
78.77
68.71
93.45
54.38
83.12
50.61
78.27
54.35
93.01
39.67
72.09
65.65
88.19
39.39
80.61
54.22
95.78
33.31
79.19
58.25
94.13
35.80
66.76
54.37
86.37
56.06
86.80
52.41
85.53
51.09
80.49
30.08
75.80
55.24
86.70
68.68
92.62
159
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CUTBACKS: FROZE OR REDUCED SALARIES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
59
29
56
24
60
55
66
47
63
46
63
56
50
65
57
44
54
38
46
32
47
49
45
64
29
45
36
38
52
39
38
44
47
60
25
57
41
40
47
63
50
41
59
38
49
51
55
45
31
50
38
Standard
error
8.96
5.68
9.37
7.22
4.67
7.53
8.68
8.43
10.88
6.30
8.45
7.96
7.83
5.57
7.51
8.58
7.92
9.72
9.27
9.66
8.44
7.53
6.87
7.03
8.25
7.11
7.22
7.99
8.71
8.12
8.46
7.93
4.91
6.11
6.13
6.32
8.93
6.73
5.33
9.49
9.25
8.92
8.55
5.63
7.25
7.00
7.38
6.07
8.27
7.78
6.01
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
41.07
76.17
17.44
39.70
37.20
73.92
10.09
38.39
51.04
69.34
40.01
69.51
48.51
82.53
30.14
63.20
41.83
84.49
33.55
58.25
45.94
79.06
40.27
71.49
34.66
65.34
53.86
75.72
42.42
71.86
26.93
60.57
38.53
69.57
18.46
56.54
28.27
64.59
12.90
50.74
30.53
63.59
34.09
63.59
31.64
58.56
50.66
78.22
12.41
44.73
30.75
58.61
21.74
50.06
22.57
53.91
34.65
68.79
23.48
55.30
20.92
54.08
28.90
59.98
36.92
56.14
47.71
71.65
12.99
37.01
44.27
69.07
23.88
58.88
26.81
53.19
36.62
57.50
43.91
81.09
31.86
68.14
23.25
58.23
42.62
76.14
26.46
48.54
34.57
62.99
37.43
64.89
40.08
69.02
33.42
57.20
14.81
47.25
34.75
65.25
25.71
49.29
160
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CUTBACKS: DREW ON RESERVES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
41
31
33
36
45
36
48
37
26
31
25
38
38
38
62
34
35
42
43
32
41
35
33
36
39
36
41
44
34
39
41
42
34
40
40
33
41
36
46
29
36
22
25
39
44
28
43
42
38
50
46
Standard
error
8.96
5.79
8.89
8.10
4.75
7.25
9.12
8.15
9.94
5.86
7.56
7.79
7.61
5.67
7.37
8.22
7.59
9.89
9.20
9.66
8.32
7.18
6.50
7.03
8.91
6.87
7.41
8.17
8.29
8.12
8.58
7.87
4.65
6.11
6.93
6.02
8.93
6.59
5.32
8.91
8.87
7.55
7.54
5.67
7.20
6.29
7.34
6.02
8.68
7.78
6.19
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
23.83
58.93
19.26
41.96
15.91
50.75
20.48
52.24
36.07
54.67
21.51
49.91
30.40
66.16
20.70
52.64
6.85
45.79
19.67
42.63
10.19
39.81
22.96
53.52
23.33
53.15
26.92
49.14
47.45
76.35
18.28
50.48
20.27
50.01
22.28
61.06
24.84
60.88
12.90
50.74
24.88
57.48
20.81
48.95
20.58
46.08
21.78
49.34
21.82
56.76
22.71
49.63
26.51
55.55
28.11
60.13
18.24
50.72
23.48
55.30
23.80
57.46
26.25
57.09
24.55
42.77
28.35
52.29
26.41
53.59
21.54
45.12
23.88
58.88
23.08
48.92
35.46
56.30
11.71
46.63
18.33
53.09
7.42
37.02
10.23
39.77
27.78
50.00
29.79
58.01
15.59
40.23
28.79
57.57
30.40
53.98
20.92
54.94
34.75
65.25
33.70
57.96
161
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CUTBACKS: REDUCED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
41
27
48
12
56
29
52
47
37
43
25
41
29
54
45
34
35
17
46
59
29
35
24
38
36
30
31
41
48
33
31
39
44
44
8
43
34
26
32
29
39
26
31
28
32
40
23
41
17
45
25
Standard
error
8.96
5.55
9.42
5.50
4.74
6.83
9.12
8.43
10.88
6.25
7.56
7.89
7.13
5.82
7.55
8.22
7.59
7.48
9.27
10.19
7.70
7.18
5.85
7.12
8.75
6.54
6.95
8.10
8.71
7.83
8.10
7.78
4.88
6.17
3.73
6.32
8.62
6.02
4.97
8.91
9.04
7.96
8.07
5.21
6.75
6.85
6.21
5.98
6.76
7.74
5.38
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
23.83
58.93
15.65
37.41
29.68
66.62
1.34
22.90
46.27
64.85
15.18
41.96
33.84
69.60
30.14
63.20
15.51
58.17
30.36
54.88
10.19
39.81
25.71
56.65
15.43
43.39
42.11
64.93
30.43
60.05
18.28
50.48
20.27
50.01
2.01
31.33
28.27
64.59
39.11
79.07
14.32
44.50
20.81
48.95
12.06
35.00
23.83
51.73
18.57
52.85
16.98
42.60
17.15
44.39
25.31
57.05
31.21
65.35
17.98
48.68
15.37
47.13
23.64
54.14
34.00
53.12
31.45
55.65
0.19
14.81
30.93
55.73
17.59
51.37
14.19
37.81
22.02
41.50
11.71
46.63
21.57
57.01
10.33
41.53
15.43
47.07
17.57
37.99
18.48
44.94
26.10
52.96
10.55
34.91
28.90
52.36
4.00
30.48
29.82
60.18
14.46
35.54
162
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CUTBACKS: REDUCED HEALTH, RETIREMENT, OR OTHER BENEFITS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
17
35
11
24
29
26
28
10
21
21
22
18
35
28
31
22
22
21
18
32
26
21
24
38
18
26
5
21
17
15
22
17
23
23
8
30
14
10
14
29
36
22
22
14
20
23
23
25
10
33
13
Standard
error
6.87
5.98
5.93
7.22
4.31
6.65
8.16
5.07
9.20
5.18
7.22
6.11
7.48
5.25
7.02
7.15
6.54
8.15
7.12
9.66
7.46
6.13
5.85
7.12
6.99
6.23
3.32
6.65
6.58
5.95
7.23
5.95
4.12
5.21
3.73
5.85
6.25
4.12
3.72
8.91
8.87
7.55
7.20
4.02
5.75
5.92
6.21
5.28
5.45
7.29
4.11
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
3.78
30.70
22.96
46.42
0.00
22.98
10.09
38.39
20.25
37.15
13.16
39.22
11.59
43.59
0.06
19.94
3.02
39.08
11.16
31.46
7.74
36.02
5.67
29.63
20.63
49.95
17.88
38.46
17.20
44.70
7.86
35.90
8.80
34.44
4.86
36.80
3.91
31.81
12.90
50.74
11.86
41.08
8.92
32.94
12.06
35.00
23.83
51.73
4.16
31.56
13.31
37.75
0.00
12.33
7.55
33.63
4.33
30.15
3.48
26.82
7.72
36.04
5.01
28.33
14.69
30.85
12.38
32.78
0.19
14.81
18.54
41.46
1.54
26.04
1.92
18.08
6.84
21.40
11.71
46.63
18.33
53.09
7.42
37.02
7.77
35.99
6.01
21.77
8.24
30.78
11.66
34.86
10.55
34.91
14.66
35.34
0.00
21.18
18.21
46.79
4.45
20.55
163
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CUTBACKS: BORROWED OR INCREASED LINES OF CREDIT
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
21
10
19
12
21
19
17
13
11
25
22
15
18
42
36
16
14
17
25
23
21
14
24
18
29
15
3
12
7
9
25
14
23
18
23
20
10
14
32
29
29
7
22
19
12
19
27
9
24
30
10
Standard
error
7.37
3.80
7.32
5.50
3.90
5.94
6.90
5.75
6.93
5.44
7.22
5.68
5.97
5.77
7.27
6.28
5.43
7.48
8.05
8.69
6.83
5.22
5.85
5.61
8.25
5.09
2.38
5.30
4.42
4.77
7.57
5.52
4.12
4.76
5.91
5.11
5.52
4.77
4.97
8.91
8.36
4.76
7.20
4.60
4.75
5.45
6.60
3.55
7.65
7.13
3.79
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
6.25
35.13
2.74
17.66
4.16
32.88
1.34
22.90
13.65
28.95
7.41
30.69
3.72
30.76
2.07
24.59
0.00
25.63
13.92
35.26
7.74
36.02
3.58
25.84
5.95
29.35
30.95
53.55
21.46
49.96
3.32
27.94
2.86
24.16
2.01
31.33
9.23
40.77
5.70
39.76
7.20
33.98
3.72
24.18
12.06
35.00
6.78
28.78
12.41
44.73
4.91
24.87
0.00
8.27
1.37
22.15
0.00
16.44
0.00
18.58
10.17
39.83
3.07
24.71
14.69
30.85
8.42
27.06
10.92
34.08
9.99
30.01
0.00
21.40
4.66
23.34
22.02
41.50
11.71
46.63
12.18
44.96
0.00
17.69
7.77
35.99
10.42
28.46
2.89
21.51
7.91
29.29
14.33
40.21
2.42
16.34
9.14
39.14
16.02
43.98
2.98
17.86
164
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
CUTBACKS: REDUCED NUMBER OF PROGRAMS OR SERVICES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
24
12
19
27
27
12
21
7
32
21
41
12
15
31
21
22
22
8
14
27
15
28
22
20
7
19
15
26
14
12
16
8
17
13
15
17
28
18
28
29
21
7
13
18
17
7
25
19
24
25
8
Standard
error
7.78
4.12
7.32
7.50
4.23
4.90
7.40
4.22
10.49
5.18
8.57
5.17
5.55
5.40
6.23
7.15
6.54
5.55
6.50
9.23
5.99
6.75
5.67
5.87
4.70
5.63
5.43
7.26
6.01
5.42
6.35
4.41
3.68
4.17
5.05
4.76
8.10
5.28
4.80
8.91
7.59
4.76
5.76
4.47
5.46
3.57
6.42
4.76
7.65
6.74
3.43
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
8.89
39.39
4.17
20.31
4.16
32.88
12.56
41.98
18.57
35.13
2.30
21.50
6.19
35.19
0.00
15.73
11.02
52.14
11.16
31.46
23.83
57.43
1.63
21.89
3.84
25.58
20.41
41.57
9.22
33.64
7.86
35.90
8.80
34.44
0.00
20.47
1.54
27.04
9.18
45.36
2.98
26.44
14.67
41.15
10.45
32.69
8.49
31.51
0.00
17.39
8.12
30.18
4.73
26.03
12.25
40.69
2.01
25.57
1.50
22.74
3.19
28.07
0.00
17.13
9.62
24.04
4.72
21.08
5.10
24.90
7.35
25.99
11.71
43.47
7.66
28.34
18.82
37.66
11.71
46.63
6.55
36.31
0.00
17.69
1.22
23.78
9.29
26.83
6.37
27.77
0.00
13.99
12.42
37.58
9.43
28.07
9.14
39.14
11.79
38.21
1.60
15.06
165
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
PROBLEMS: PAYMENTS NOT COVERING FULL COST OF CONTRACTED SERVICES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
54
72
71
42
76
74
77
67
57
66
56
71
52
81
60
78
75
76
72
82
63
58
76
78
38
67
37
75
67
79
71
76
71
64
53
76
63
49
67
84
58
69
61
59
43
74
65
65
60
73
53
Standard
error
9.96
6.57
10.83
9.38
4.82
7.24
8.79
8.91
18.40
7.06
9.80
7.98
9.51
5.20
8.14
8.42
7.91
10.11
10.38
8.99
9.16
8.49
6.79
6.50
10.24
8.04
8.28
7.85
9.66
7.18
8.44
8.18
5.24
7.00
7.90
6.22
9.65
7.98
5.71
8.03
11.09
10.94
10.02
6.21
8.40
7.22
8.45
6.63
9.44
7.63
6.97
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
34.65
73.69
59.35
85.09
49.37
91.81
23.93
60.69
66.20
85.08
60.10
88.48
60.05
94.49
49.21
84.13
21.09
93.19
52.08
79.74
36.79
75.21
55.78
87.08
33.53
70.81
71.29
91.67
44.04
75.96
61.77
94.75
59.49
90.51
56.64
96.30
51.87
92.57
64.73
99.97
45.01
80.91
40.93
74.23
63.00
89.64
64.75
90.25
18.04
58.16
50.91
82.43
20.45
52.89
59.62
90.38
47.74
85.60
65.24
93.38
54.89
87.97
59.97
92.03
60.97
81.49
50.73
78.15
37.66
68.60
63.90
88.28
43.59
81.41
33.01
64.29
55.48
77.86
68.47
99.95
36.15
79.63
47.32
90.18
41.23
80.51
46.84
71.20
26.86
59.80
60.04
88.34
47.96
81.08
52.32
78.30
41.50
78.50
57.77
87.69
38.97
66.29
166
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
PROBLEMS: COMPLEXITY OF/TIME REQUIRED FOR REPORTING ON GRANTS/CONTRACTS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
76
78
82
52
76
82
70
85
83
79
73
76
92
84
72
74
69
86
82
87
74
69
78
84
55
89
81
77
72
84
79
87
72
77
67
77
59
76
71
90
59
74
81
67
72
84
66
86
58
80
78
Standard
error
8.36
5.95
9.06
9.67
4.55
6.16
9.43
6.55
10.58
5.59
8.59
7.43
4.77
4.68
7.34
8.96
7.92
7.51
9.09
8.53
7.74
7.75
6.37
5.97
10.25
5.00
6.20
7.41
8.43
6.30
7.44
5.94
4.86
6.06
7.03
5.78
10.23
6.51
5.27
6.44
11.69
8.64
7.36
5.60
7.38
6.07
7.89
4.56
9.33
6.66
5.56
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
59.61
92.39
66.71
90.05
64.54
100.00
33.05
70.95
66.95
84.77
69.50
93.66
51.08
88.06
71.78
97.46
60.56
100.00
67.89
89.81
56.25
89.91
61.29
90.43
82.13
100.00
75.31
93.65
57.83
86.61
56.35
91.47
53.22
84.28
70.78
100.00
64.45
100.00
68.25
100.00
59.01
89.37
53.38
83.76
65.57
90.53
72.08
95.48
34.45
74.65
79.38
99.00
68.40
92.72
62.15
91.19
55.48
88.52
71.52
96.22
64.73
93.89
75.03
98.31
62.77
81.81
64.73
88.47
52.89
80.45
65.60
88.24
39.03
79.15
62.85
88.37
60.50
81.16
76.07
100.00
35.91
81.73
56.97
90.85
67.05
95.91
55.69
77.65
57.41
86.35
71.97
95.77
50.25
81.17
76.78
94.64
39.40
75.98
66.95
93.05
67.15
88.95
167
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
PROBLEMS: COMPLEXITY OF/TIME REQUIRED BY APPLICATION PROCESS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
77
84
81
58
75
84
67
81
92
77
77
79
88
76
81
91
69
79
73
83
75
74
61
87
58
82
71
81
83
72
72
80
74
71
63
82
65
73
75
85
59
71
80
69
61
88
69
81
62
76
77
Standard
error
8.09
5.20
9.56
9.38
4.57
5.80
9.46
7.16
7.85
5.99
8.16
7.03
5.72
5.72
6.49
6.00
8.31
9.20
11.23
8.54
8.06
7.29
7.51
5.40
9.72
6.16
7.35
6.81
7.42
7.92
8.21
6.99
4.76
6.83
7.31
5.47
9.69
6.72
5.08
7.66
11.69
9.30
7.88
5.65
7.90
5.37
7.72
5.33
9.19
7.34
5.81
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
61.06
92.78
74.01
94.41
62.51
99.99
39.31
76.07
66.04
83.96
72.85
95.57
48.13
85.21
66.74
94.80
72.77
100.00
65.34
88.82
60.93
92.91
65.52
93.10
77.25
99.67
64.72
87.14
67.85
93.27
77.83
100.00
52.69
85.25
60.93
96.97
51.33
95.33
66.55
100.00
59.20
90.80
59.99
88.59
46.27
75.69
76.25
97.43
39.28
77.38
69.50
93.66
56.19
84.99
67.31
93.99
68.07
97.15
56.89
87.93
56.33
88.49
66.30
93.70
65.05
83.73
58.03
84.83
48.53
77.19
70.91
92.35
46.22
84.22
60.00
86.34
64.69
84.61
69.97
100.00
35.91
81.73
53.20
89.66
64.56
95.44
58.16
80.30
45.12
76.10
76.97
98.03
53.45
83.69
70.33
91.21
43.53
79.55
61.37
90.15
65.54
88.30
168
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
PROBLEMS: GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO CONTACTS GRANTS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
55
47
63
26
58
47
68
43
67
67
42
68
50
73
69
62
70
67
71
82
54
49
68
54
38
58
47
48
71
54
50
65
67
61
37
49
61
38
59
80
50
16
52
52
47
55
42
65
50
53
38
Standard
error
10.40
8.01
11.86
8.86
5.54
8.39
9.76
9.57
13.38
6.83
9.94
8.72
9.73
6.20
8.45
10.37
8.09
10.92
10.87
8.99
9.63
8.11
7.58
8.07
10.24
8.43
8.57
9.58
9.25
8.99
10.09
9.51
5.38
7.20
7.87
7.54
9.93
7.56
6.04
9.91
11.54
7.90
10.26
6.71
8.19
8.49
8.71
6.84
10.27
8.43
6.86
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
34.18
74.92
30.96
62.38
39.26
85.74
8.72
43.46
46.83
68.55
30.62
63.50
49.04
87.32
24.72
62.24
40.44
92.90
54.01
80.77
22.20
61.14
50.90
85.10
30.93
69.07
61.31
85.63
52.41
85.53
41.58
82.22
54.15
85.85
45.26
88.08
49.29
91.89
64.73
99.97
34.97
72.73
32.75
64.55
52.71
82.43
38.23
69.87
18.04
58.16
41.05
74.11
29.88
63.46
29.22
66.78
53.29
89.57
35.94
71.20
30.22
69.78
46.59
83.85
56.13
77.21
47.25
75.47
21.24
52.10
34.07
63.61
41.40
80.34
23.63
53.29
47.54
71.22
60.57
99.43
27.38
72.62
0.32
31.26
32.07
72.27
38.70
65.00
30.82
62.94
38.54
71.80
24.86
59.02
51.80
78.64
29.87
70.13
36.42
69.46
24.39
51.29
169
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
PROBLEMS: LATE PAYMENTS
State Names
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Percent
48
38
53
21
60
41
73
50
70
38
58
57
48
83
65
57
59
61
69
80
43
39
50
41
43
46
26
48
68
52
59
33
63
41
41
56
52
26
70
56
41
11
57
40
36
36
44
33
52
39
34
Standard
error
10.20
7.53
11.86
8.02
5.15
8.51
9.34
9.87
14.25
7.00
9.57
8.75
9.95
4.73
8.45
10.57
9.14
11.30
11.39
10.04
8.92
8.02
7.79
7.95
10.43
8.25
7.39
8.61
9.32
9.17
9.35
9.85
5.30
7.27
7.55
6.94
10.17
6.79
5.39
11.90
11.69
6.99
10.18
6.63
7.78
8.32
8.37
6.74
9.62
8.61
6.90
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
27.84
67.82
22.74
52.26
29.69
76.19
5.11
36.55
49.45
69.65
23.95
57.31
54.43
91.03
30.66
69.34
42.07
97.93
24.58
52.02
38.94
76.44
40.00
74.28
28.12
67.12
74.05
92.61
47.95
81.09
36.43
77.85
41.34
77.18
38.97
83.25
46.42
91.08
60.32
99.68
25.86
60.80
23.17
54.61
34.73
65.27
24.96
56.12
22.42
63.30
29.53
61.89
11.32
40.30
31.52
65.26
49.91
86.45
33.87
69.83
40.94
77.58
14.03
52.63
52.57
73.35
26.67
55.15
26.37
55.99
42.40
69.60
32.24
72.10
12.33
38.95
59.44
80.56
32.92
79.58
18.27
64.09
0.00
26.11
36.57
76.47
26.62
52.62
21.11
51.61
19.40
52.02
27.71
60.53
19.41
45.81
33.14
70.86
21.83
55.59
20.76
47.82
170
URBAN INSTITUTE
Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy
URBAN
INSTITUTE
URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037-1231
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage PAID
Easton, MD
Permit No. 8098
return service requested
Center on
Nonprofits and Philanthropy
The Center on Nonprofits and
Philanthropy (CNP) conducts
and disseminates research on
the role and impact of nonprofit organizations and
philanthropy. CNP’s mission
is to promote understanding
of civil society and improve
nonprofit sector performance
through rigorous research,
clear analysis, and
informed policy.
Copyright © September 2010. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved. Except
for short quotes, no part of this paper may be reproduced in any form or used
in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written
permission from the Urban Institute.
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on
timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of
the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or
its funders