Holding Our Community Together:

Transcription

1 Holding Our Community Together: The Nonprofits of Greater Cincinnati March 2011 Dayle D. Deardurff, J.D. In cooperation with The Center for Economic Analysis & Development, Northern Kentucky University 1

2 Introduction Nonprofits are typically those community based organizations that provide services in the arts, recreation, economic development, health care, research, youth programs, human services, education and other areas. Today, in these difficult times, such organizations play a significant role in holding our community together. From food and shelter, to neighborhood development and health and educational services, these providers are critical to community stability and vitality. Who are these nonprofit organizations? What types and sizes are they? How many operate in the greater Cincinnati area? Do we have enough or too many? Are they meeting community needs or do they need more support to address the needs? How are these organizations operating under economic stress? Are the staff and volunteers supported and applauded for their labors of love? Holding together a community is an incredible task, so what can be done to bring these organizations together, to network for the common good, to share resources and enable stronger collective impact? Two years ago I began pondering these questions, among others, after I reviewed a list of nonprofits for a three-county area. While I knew there were many nonprofits in the region, these lists revealed that the vast majority of the nonprofits lack revenues and staff. For example, there are many clubs and associations which have filed for nonprofit status as a vehicle for raising money for a specific cause, activity, health issue, school, community project, sports club, etc. These are wonderful organizations serving a true purpose, though not the type of groups that provide the services that we typically think about when we talk about nonprofits such as human services, performing arts groups, private education, medical care, research, animal rescue or other direct services. Despite working in the nonprofit sector for over 25 years, I did not have a clear picture of the numbers, types, revenues and vast array of purposes for nonprofits. What if we could delve into these numbers, begin separating the types and budget sizes and lay the foundation for more effective community planning efforts? From this perspective, I began a series of conversations with researchers and funders, resulting in this study. We have examined nonprofit data for the greater Cincinnati region, covering the 15-county Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Specifically, we examined the data reported in the IRS 990 forms for organizations that are registered as 501(c)3 nonprofit corporations with mailing addresses in our MSA. We also examined five comparable MSAs, gaining insights into the numbers, distribution and revenues of nonprofits elsewhere in the Midwest. The full data report Non-profit Presence in the Cincinnati MSA with all detailed tables and charts can be found at Thanks to the Procter & Gamble Fund and the Center for Economic Analysis and Development (CEAD) and Office of Reginal Stewardship of Northern Kentucky University for supporting and partnering on this study. Special gratitude goes to the CEAD Senior Regional Economist, Anne Gallagher, who provided the technical and analytic skills, and countless hours of her research wisdom. This report was graciously supported by Victoria Ames, an NKU Masters of Public Administration candidate who serves as a professional development officer for a regional nonprofit, and Rebecca Vance, a VISTA volunteer serving as the Marketing & Program Coordinator in the Office of Regional Stewardship. Their hard work and support on this report is truly appreciated. Thanks to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, a division of the Urban Institute, which provided the raw data for the nonprofits in each region examined. On behalf of everyone who worked on this report, we hope this information helps you better understand the status of our nonprofit community. The presence and services of these organizations are a significant part of our wonderful Cincinnati community. Dayle D. Deardurff, J.D. 2

3 Holding Our Community Together: The Nonprofits of Greater Cincinnati March 2011 Dayle D. Deardurff, J.D. In cooperation with: The Center for Economic Analysis & Development Office of Regional Stewardship Northern Kentucky University Funded and Sponsored by Procter & Gamble Fund 2011 D. Deardurff 3

4 Executive Summary At the outset, the numbers of nonprofits for the Cincinnati area, and their total revenues, appear to be daunting. A different picture emerges however, as the information is more closely examined. This study presents new information that goes beyond a summary of statistics, numbers and dollars associated with our regional nonprofits. In a new approach, we compare the types and sizes of nonprofits in our region to those of other Midwestern cities and delve much more deeply into the categories or subsets of the types of the nonprofits in our region. The categories or subsets have never been examined before, shedding new light on what types of organizations of what sizes serve our community. The result is a clearer picture of the wide variety of subsets of nonprofits. Key findings include: Of the 7,700 nonprofits in the Cincinnati MSA, only 2,200 have over $25,000 of annual revenue When compared to other Midwestern cities, the proportional distribution in the 12 major groups of our nonprofits are similar to the distribution of nonprofits in other cities s in these 12 major groups are not similar when comparing cities, and present new questions The 12 major groups are divided into hundreds of categories or subsets, some of which are quite surprising; i.e., historical groups are listed under Arts and all sports related organizations are listed under Human Services Cross checking the total revenues for any subset against the number of organizations in that subset is illuminating; i.e., $1.5 in revenues for 729 small Education organizations means $2,000 per organization, many of which are PTAs Only 574 traditional Human Service organizations exist in Cincinnati, after subtracting the very small and unexpected listings, such as sports organizations Location by ZIP code does not provide a complete picture, as many organizations do not provide services at the ZIP code listed on their tax documents and/or are conduits for funding and are not service providers With new knowledge on subsets, there are new opportunities for collaborations among similar organizations 4

5 Is Cincinnati Typical? TABLE 1 Cincinnati Non-Profits Cincinnati Non-Profit Major Groups by Number Cincinnati Non-Profit Major Groups by The numbers speak for themselves: The Greater Cincinnati MSA has 7,700 nonprofits, though only about 2,200 have annual revenues more than $25,000. The majority of our nonprofits, 5,000 of them, have no revenues at all. Whether large or small, though, these nonprofits are better understood by looking through layers of numbers and asking questions that give new insights into their community impact. What are all of these organizations doing? What are their labors of love? They provide us with health services, recreation and sports; serve as clubs for community development and conversations on civil rights; bring together our business and community leaders; educate our children and our adults; provide funding vehicles to raise dollars for specific services, schools, research and more; they feed and house the poor, protect our pets, care for the elderly; they counsel the mentally ill and treat for substance abuse; they protect our heritage and teach us about historical events; they entertain us with plays, dance, and music and give us opportunities to learn the arts and build community arts centers; and they provide us with zoos, fire protection services and much more. In short, the nonprofits of our region hold together our community. 0.4% 18.4% 0.5% 0.8% 12.5% 18.5% 8.6% 8.7% 0.7% 0.5% 1.5% 2.3% 2.6% 0.9% 26.2% 2.8% 0.3% 14.1% 3.2% 7.5% 0.9% The tables provided in this study help explain some of the services. The starting point is that more than 5,000 nonprofits have no revenues, and another 461 have less than $25,000 and therefore are unlikely to have paid staff. In total, this means 5,461 nonprofits are in this group of very small organizations. These are clubs and associations that might be a group of volunteers who wanted to protect the revenues of their small fundraising events, or a service club that has no revenues. Some may be organizations that are not functioning, but never dissolved. The flip side: 2,200 organizations are providing arts, music, medical services, education, human services, research, shelters, athletic opportunities, fundraising, or distributing dollars to other service providers and more to the two residents in our region. Are these 2,200 organizations offering an appropriate array of services for a community our size? Is the quantity and distribution of these organizations typical for a community our size? 68.1% Arts & Humanities Higher Education Education Hospitals Environment Health Human Services International Mutual Benefit Societal Benefit Religion Unknown NOTE: All tables are reported in Nonprofit Presence in the Cincinnati MSA, 5

6 TABLE 7 Cincinnati Organizations by Major Group, by Ranges Major Category Low : $0 to $25,000 Moderate : $25,001 to $1 Million High : More than $1 Arts & Humanities Higher Education Education ,092 Hospitals Environment Health Human Services 9 1, ,032 International Mutual Benefit 0 30 N/A N/A 36 Societal benefit 10 1, ,424 Religion 2 1, ,434 Unknown ,461 1, ,748 An examination of the detailed breakdown of revenue in each category provides a picture on where the revenues are held. More than 80% of revenues, $11.6 billion, are in the hands of 1%, or 75 of the nonprofits in our region. The majority of these revenues are in the hands of our hospitals, which is not surprising, especially given that Cincinnati has several nationally recognized research hospitals. When we compared the Cincinnati MSA to the five other regional MSAs (Louisville, Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City), we found that these communities have comparable numbers of nonprofits whose revenues are large enough (more than $25,000) to support staff and services. Each MSA has about 2,000 to 2,200 organizations whose annual revenues are more than $25,000 except Louisville, which is a much smaller community. When we factor in population, median income and poverty levels, in this general overview, Cincinnati is not out of sync in the total number of nonprofits and the number that have more than $25,000 in annual revenues. From this perspective, Cincinnati is typical. TABLE 4 MSA Comparison Summary Cincinnati- Indianapolis- Middletown, Columbus, OH Kansas City, MO-KS Louisville-Jefferson St. Louis, MO-IL Carmel, IN County, KY-IN OH-KY-IN Populations 2,140,796 1,758,531 1,695,807 2,013,797 1,235,476 2,803,776 Median household income $53,329 $52,766 $53,059 $55,409 $47,797 $52,952 Population for whom poverty status is determined* 2,088,485 1,712,411 1,658,168 1,980,009 1,209,960 2,741,162 Population with income below the poverty level* 246, , , , , ,418 Percent of population below the poverty level* 11.5% 12.8% 11.4% 10.5% 12.8% 11.3% Non-Profits 7,748 7,549 6,739 8,891 4,431 11,362 Number of Non-Profit Organizations with $25,000 or More in s 2,244 2,247 2,010 2,132 1,195 2,244 * population and population for whom poverty status is determined are not the same. See the Census Bureau s Description of Income and Poverty and Data Sources for a detailed description of data sources for poverty estimates. Reviewing the breakdown of nonprofits by IRS major groups is also helpful when comparing and examining a specific community. There are 12 IRS major groups or types: 1. Arts Culture & Humanities 2. Education (higher) 3. Education 4 Hospitals 5. Environment 6. Health 7. Human Services 8. International 9. Mutual Benefit 10. Public & Societal Benefit 11. Religion 12. Unknown 6

7 The breakdown of nonprofits from each community or MSA into these 12 major groups of organizations, again, shows that Cincinnati is fairly comparable in our percentages in each of the 12 major groups. For example, of the total number of nonprofits in each MSA, those organizations that provide us with Arts, Culture and Humanities comprise between 7.4% and 8.7% of the total. Review Table #5 below and see how closely all six MSAs are aligned in the distribution of the types of nonprofits. The MSAs in this study birthed similar percentages of organizations that serve community needs in each category. In the end, it is quite refreshing to learn, that when compared to other Midwestern cities, Cincinnati is typical in the distribution of types of nonprofits. TABLE 5 MSA Comparison Summary of Organizations by Major Groups as Percent of all Non-Profits Major Category Cincinnati- Middletown, OH-KY-IN Columbus, OH Indianapolis- Carmel, IN Kansas City, MO-KS Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN St. Louis, MO-IL Overall Percentage Arts & Humanities 8.7% 7.9% 7.4% 8.7% 8.8% 8.4% 8.3% Higher Education 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% Education 14.1% 14.4% 15.3% 13.7% 14.6% 19.5% 15.6% Hospitals 0.9% 1.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% Environment 3.2% 3.1% 2.5% 2.4% 3.2% 2.7% 2.8% Health 7.5% 7.0% 7.8% 6.9% 7.9% 6.4% 7.1% Human Services 26.2% 30.2% 26.2% 27.8% 26.3% 23.0% 26.4% International 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% Mutual Benefit 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% Societal benefit 18.4% 14.2% 15.4% 16.8% 14.8% 15.4% 15.9% Religion 18.5% 18.8% 22.1% 20.2% 21.5% 21.5% 20.4% Unknown 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% A closer look at the 12 major groups and the revenues associated with each group begins to highlight the similarities and differences of these communities. For example, Cincinnati has.8% of our total number of nonprofits focused on international services, while Kansas City has 1.6%. What caused this? This could be affected by the amount of international trade, or quantity of immigrants, or even a donor base affiliated with international relations or research. This study does not make any attempt to examine or assess these differences. Cross check the total revenues reported by each city to learn that Kansas City also has significantly more dollars supporting their international organizations. In the International group for Cincinnati reports that $105, or.7%, of all Cincinnati nonprofit revenues, compared to the $277, or 3.0%, of total revenue available for International organizations in Kansas City. Without further exploration, cause and effect of these differences cannot be explained. Numbers of organizations, percentages or dollars alone cannot describe the impact or value of the organizations. That said, how do these numbers or dollars affect the quality of life or even the economy of these two comparable communities? TABLE A10 Detail Non-Profit s by Group: Kansas City, MO Moderate: Low: $0 to High: More than Kansas City, MO $25,001 to $25,000 $1 $1 International (1,400) 45,201 7,127, ,943, ,114,937 $(23,495,666) $5,699,654 $331,170,194 $8,841,095,072 $9,154,469,254 7

8 TABLE A4 Non-Profit s as a Percent of s by Group: Columbus, OH Arts & Humanities Higher Education Education Hospitals Environment Health Human Services International Mutual Benefit Societal Benefit Religion Unknown 37.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.1% 4.2% 7.2% 10.0% 17.3% 0.6% 32.0% TABLE A11 Non-Profit Number of Organizations as a Percent of Organizations by Group: Kansas City, MO Arts & Humanities Higher Education Education Hospitals Environment Health Human Services International Mutual Benefit Societal Benefit Religion Unknown 16.8% 0.1% 1.6% 20.2% 1.0% 27.8% 8.7% 0.3% 13.7% 0.6% 2.4% 6.9% Another example of a significant difference is in the Hospital group. Cincinnati reports 68.1% of total nonprofit revenues supporting hospitals while in Columbus reports 32% of the total nonprofit revenues. While this data does not separate research dollars from care dollars, nor does it include for-profit hospitals or government-operated hospitals, it is unclear if and how this affects access to health care. This difference might be best examined by a health collaborative or health researcher. Note that, like Hospital, some major groups may have service providers in the for-profit or government sector. In Education, for example, publically funded schools and colleges are not included. The Human Service group provides another example where the data presents some guidance on differences, but more information would help assess the impact of the differences. For example, the population of Kansas City is similar in size and it hosts a slightly greater number of nonprofits, has a slightly higher median income than Cincinnati, and a lower poverty rate. When looking to the group of nonprofits that are above $25,000, and hence more likely to have staffed services and programs, Kansas City is again comparable to Cincinnati. The total number of organizations that are listed in the Human Service group are similar for the two cities, 27.8% for Kansas City and 26.2% for Cincinnati. In revenues, Kansas City nonprofits generate slightly higher dollars ($1.249 billion) compared to Cincinnati ($1.233 billion). In the total picture of all nonprofit revenues, Human Services in Kansas City generate nearly 13.6% of the total nonprofit revenues vs. 8.6% in Cincinnati. Do these figures have any impact on the quantity or quality of services to the community? Comparing the Human Service group in Cincinnati to that of St. Louis, a larger city whose median income and poverty level is closer to that of Cincinnati, this report shows a lower percentage of total nonprofits (23% for St. Louis) but a much higher dollar amount for Human Service revenues ($1.683 billion) for St. Louis. Is there a difference in the impact of this dollar difference? Does this difference indicate fewer organizations serving more people? Examining the distribution of revenues per major group, the variances between communities are more pronounced than just examining the total numbers of the various types of nonprofits. It is less clear whether there is a typical in revenue distribution when comparing communities. To fully understand the cause and impact of each of these differences, closer examination into the economy and culture of each community would be warranted. Such an in-depth comparative socioeconomic study is beyond the scope of this review. While Cincinnati may be typical, when it comes to numbers and types of nonprofits, we cannot comment on how we compare in generating revenues, in total or per major group. We can, however, look more closely at each category within our own community. 8

9 TABLE A10 Detailed Non-Profit s by Group: Kansas City, MO Kansas City, MO Low: $0 to $25,000 Moderate: $25,001 to $1 High: More than $1 Arts & Humanities $(67,317) $650,691 $27,401,214 $182,716,450 $210,701,038 Higher Education , ,258, ,919,059 Education (253,241) 2,196,656 44,326, ,578, ,848,898 Hospitals ,126,345 4,024,971,328 4,026,097,692 Environment 0 131,307 9,304,746 22,637,628 32,073,681 Health (7,331,219) 336,539 46,758,793 1,344,492,931 1,384,257,044 Human Services (2,185,561) 1,208, ,241,081 1,134,389,907 1,248,653,727 International (1,400) 45,201 7,127, ,943, ,114,937 Mutual Benefit , ,375 Societal benefit (10,227,116) 719,298 51,823,634 1,054,197,122 1,096,512,938 Religion (3,429,812) 410,053 27,212,662 54,908,824 79,101,727 Unknown 0 1, , ,138 $(23,495,666) $5,699,654 $331,170,194 $8,841,095,072 $9,154,469,254 TABLE A18 Detail Non-Profit s by Group (Human Services example): St. Louis, MO Kansas City, MO Low: $0 to $25,000 Moderate: $25,001 to $1 High: More than $1 Human Services (1,533,506) 1,740, ,666, ,666,283 1,683,337,497 $(33,453,000) $6,353,990 $442,569,137 $19,660,036,563 $20,075,506,690 The Big Picture on Cincinnati Nonprofit s Looking into the variances of revenues of the 12 nonprofit groups in Cincinnati alone, we begin to uncover another layer of information. As we examine the amount of revenues per group, we see dollars that give us a sense of economic impact. For example, collectively, our hospitals comprise the largest dollar amount and percentage of all nonprofit dollars in Cincinnati. These organizations reported about $9.738 billion dollars, or 68.1% out of the $ billion for all nonprofits. The nonprofits that people most often think of when they hear the terms nonprofit or charity are the Arts and the Human Service organizations. Of the total revenues, Human Services reported $1.233 billion or 8.6% of the total nonprofit revenues, and Arts organizations reported $220, or 1.5% of total revenues. Together they comprise less than 11% of all nonprofit revenues. An important group that often goes unrecognized is Public and Societal Benefit. These organizations include chambers of commerce, neighborhood development organizations, community foundations, community service clubs, leadership development programs, federated giving programs and men s service clubs. Collectively, they report $372 dollars, or 2.6 % of the total nonprofit revenues. Another 1,400 religious organizations, typically houses of worship, report about $71, or 0.5% of all nonprofit revenues. The dollars denoted in each group are a general statement on the economic impact of these collective groups. Economic impacts by industry sector for many of these organizations, based on the Regional Input- Output Modeling System (RIMS II) produced by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, is provided in the addendum. It is a simplified means by which the number of jobs, direct and total, can be estimated by industry sector for every $1 of total revenue. The larger nonprofits provide the bulk of nonprofit services programming, due to their financial ability to hire staff. From the ballet, symphony and performing arts to food banks, mental health, medical care and research, the organizations with higher revenues are those that our community depends upon for services and programming. In the detailed CEAD report, the tables for each of the 12 major groups offer a summary of the types of subset organizations and their revenues in each respective group. In each group, it is apparent that a few organizations account for the majority of revenues. To build upon possible opportunities to collaborate within groups, further study is needed. 9

10 From another perspective, some figures can be slightly misleading. Table 9 shows $1.5 in revenues for small educational organizations, which may appear to be a significant amount of funds. If that figure is divided by the 729 small organizations in this group, suddenly there is an average of only $2,000 per organization. Who are these organizations? The Education tables provide a short example of the types of organizations within the group. For example, 161 of the 729 small organizations are parent-teacher associations, (see details in CEAD on-line report), others provide scholarships and some fundraising efforts for a single recipient organization. Now the impact of these small-budget organizations is apparent they TABLE 9 Cincinnati by Major Group, by Ranges Low : Major Category $0 to $25,000 Moderate : $25,001 to $1 Million High : More than $1 Higher Education $0 $16,657 $213,164 $325,162,190 $325,392,011 Education $(26,406,840) $1,543,241 $45,534,398 $375,195,728 $395,866,527 make a difference with their volunteer labor, and their dollars most likely supplement other educational institutions, but individually they are unlikely to be organizations that provide professionally staffed educational services. We found similar important but small-budget nonprofits within each of the twelve major groups. From soccer clubs, animal protection, historical societies and fire prevention to assistance in medical care and community development, every small organization has a purpose, an audience, and passionate volunteers who implement the mission. When debating value, impact and purpose of nonprofits, these smaller organizations emerge as valuable community-based organizations that provide assistance, services and financial conduits for a wide range of programs each of which help to hold our community together. Delving Further into Major Groups Nonprofits do not fall into any single category or purpose. Even within the 12 major groups, this study provides a new picture of the diversity, and complex array of community based services provided by organizations in our region. Within each group, we see many different types of organizations under its umbrella. It begins to emerge that there are countless organizations of significance whose purpose is important for the health and vitality of our community, regardless of their revenues. For example, Human Services is almost a catch-all group, as it includes a large number of sports and recreation organizations, and even fire prevention organizations. The Environment group includes animal protection. To simplify this picture, we provide a summary of each of the 12 groups, highlighting some of the findings. The full breakdown of each category can be found on the CEAD report. The categories within a major group pose a new opportunity. This information could be a starting point to recognize gaps and to create networks of similar organizations. Networks of nonprofits form a basis for sharing information, resources and best practices. Networking can lead to more effective organizations, which can then provide more effective services and programs. A few examples: In the Arts group, there are 159 organizations dedicated to some type of historical programming. Though 119 of these have very little funding, these small organizations are created to support a specific issue, event or structure that is of importance to a community. The passion with which the volunteers support a specific historic issue helps to keep the issue alive for the next generation. The 61 theater organizations include 34 whose tiny budgets are less than $25,000. These little entities might offer an arts experience to a special audience, or serve as a budget management vehicle for a community theater organizations. Are there networking opportunities here? ArtsWave, formerly the Fine Arts Fund, is already leading a strong effort to bring together many community arts organizations so that they can share information and resources. Maybe a similar approach could be replicated for historical organizations. Looking for support for veterans? There are about 25 organizations, most listed under Public and Societal Benefit. Is that adequate? Are they able to coordinate their important services? Concerned about pets and animals in these tough economic times? Listed under Environment are 92 Animal Protection organizations, but 56 have very little revenue. Could they be surveyed to learn what 10

11 they need and if they would like to coordinate any programming? Is there a value to funders to support such efforts? In Human Services, an interesting picture emerges. Of the 2,023 organizations, the breakdown within the umbrella group lists subset categories of organizations that often go unrecognized as Human Services yet are significant in providing services and opportunities for the community; specifically: four are dedicated to fire prevention, 33 are professional societies or union, four are law enforcement, 17 are search/rescue squads, 421 are sports associations, 231 are recreation centers or clubs, three are farm bureaus and 16 support fairs. To get a real picture on the traditional human service organizations, subtract: those above $25,000 in these subset areas, the small organizations, (1,203 under $25,000), those that lost revenues (nine), and those above TABLE 21 Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Human Services (Sample subset types) Kansas City, MO Low: $0 to $25,000 Moderate: $25,001 to $1 High: More than $1 Adoption Amateur Sports Camps Developmentally Disabled Centers Emergency Assistance Fire Prevention 0 42 N/A N/A 64 Football Foster Care 0 3 N/A 0 4 Homeowners and Tenants Associations 0 9 N/A N/A 16 Housing Development, Construction and Management Neighborhood Centers 0 N/A 12 N/A 22 Recreational Clubs Supportive Housing for Older Adults Youth Development Programs , ,032 $25,000 whose purpose is fundraising for a group or single organization. The remainder is a group of 574 organizations, out of the 2,032 in the Human Service group, that provides the traditional human services for our community of two people. Are 574 staffed organizations adequate? Or, could we examine the total revenues and community impact to help assess whether we are meeting community needs? Again, this is not a question that can be answered here. However, the fact that we have a group of 574 and not 2,032 as identified under the Human Service category, much less a group of 7,700 (total nonprofits), provides a new discussion starting point for an analysis of adequacy of services. Looking Into Locations Using the IRS 990 data for this study presents challenges in several directions, some of which are best resolved through direct contact with a non-profit representative. Reporting on nonprofit locations is one such challenge. The data reveals the mailing address and ZIP code of each nonprofit. The data does not indicate whether this address is a location where programming takes place or whether the organization has additional locations in our community. In examining the ZIP code breakdowns, the ZIP code for our MSA that hosts the largest number of nonprofits is 45202, the downtown area of Cincinnati. Logically, any metropolitan downtown area should be home to a large number of nonprofits, as this would include performing arts, museums, and organizations that need to be centrally located to be accessible to their clients and patrons. At first glance, the total number of 492 organizations in sounds like an unusually large number, but further analysis brought forth a different picture. Our data analysis showed that about half appeared to be located at the same address as other nonprofits. Are these office buildings, or are they connected to others at the same location? A graduate student closely examined the full list, even researching over a third whose descriptions or titles were not adequate to grasp the organization s programming. The in-depth ZIP code examination revealed various nuances, such as the fact that 13 organizations that 11

12 share the same address are inter-related providers of apartments buildings for the elderly. After subtracting: those that are just office sites and are not providing any type of direct services (such as foundations, student aid, professional associations, etc.), those that appear to be religious houses of worship, and those with less than $25,000 in annual revenues (assuming these are not staffed and not able to provide programming), we found 74 organizations that operate in with revenues above $25,000 and which provide some type of direct programming. Of the 74, 25 are categorized under Arts, Culture and Humanities, which is probably an appropriate grouping of nonprofits for a downtown metropolitan community that wants to draw visitors. Several others that provide direct programming were located in the United Way building, just outside of the downtown area. In the final analysis, we could not conclude that the number of nonprofits in was excessive or inappropriate for this community. Going Forward Holding Our Community Together The data revealed by this examination of numbers and types of nonprofits provides regional nonprofits, donors, funders and planners with a new perspective. While we can each come to our own conclusions from this data, we are now more aware of the types and sizes of the organizations that hold us together. There are not thousands of food banks or art centers, but an intricately developed set of organizations supporting our needs in a wide variety of areas. Nonprofits are the glue whose programs, missions, services, and activities hold us together and enable us to function as a healthy community. Moving forward, we have new opportunities to explore how community needs are being met and how to build new collaborative and enhanced efficiencies. Seeing the many subset types of organizations, further study could involve surveying a group of similar categories of subset types to learn what they provide and what they need to become more effective. Surveys could be used as a foundation to create new collaborations, which in turn become vehicles for shared ideas, processes and resources, and increased efficiencies. At a time when funding for all nonprofits is strained, building collaborations provides each participating organization with new supports from their collaborative partners. The outcome is a winning combination for our community: organizations develop new efficiencies and we keep the programs and services that are vital to our community. In the Greater Cincinnati area, we have several wonderful homegrown examples of nonprofit collaboration that have brought about new efficiencies and more services to our community. Of critical importance is that each of these examples are facilitated, led, researched, coordinated and managed by some type of a paid staff person housed at an umbrella organization. When people come together in a supported atmosphere, they are uplifted and begin to brainstorm and share resources in new ways. Relationships build and operations are enhanced as they experience the value of the partnerships. Find Your Center Now: From Covington to Evendale; from Evanston to Fairfield; from Sayler Park to Kennedy Heights, ArtsWave continues to be responsive to the many distinct municipalities that now offer arts programming in their own neighborhood communities. For the past two years, ArtsWave has hosted monthly gatherings of more than two dozen arts and civic center leaders to discuss mutual operational efficiencies, joint communications and programming. ArtsWave has become the virtual home for these community-based entities through the new website Freestore Foodbank Member Agency Network: In order to successfully distribute more than 18 pounds of food this year, Freestore Foodbank partners with a dedicated network of more than 35 local Member Agencies, including soup kitchens, pantries, shelters, community groups and other social services organizations. These agencies provide a valuable direct connection to Freestore Foodbank s 20-county reach in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. Freestore Foodbank s Agency Relations department provides support services to Member Agencies such as food purchase assistance, compliance with guidelines and procedures and capacity building, and training opportunities for their staff and volunteers. Safety Net Alliance: The Safety Net Alliance of Northern Kentucky is a collaboration of organizations whose mission is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of emergency assistance services provided to Northern Kentucky s low-income families. The SNA is a ground-breaking collaborative of social service agencies, government entities, and funding organizations that meet regularly to address issues that affect Northern Kentucky families. Meeting regularly, SNA member agencies have built and maintained a web site that shares knowledge of services, needs and emerging issues that directly affect the clients they 12

13 collectively serve. SNA is staffed by a VISTA AmeriCorps who is employed through Brighton Center, a comprehensive provider of services to vamilies and individuals. Two other well developed and funded collaborations in Cincinnati are Strive, a catalyst for working together, across sectors, and along the educational continuum, to drive better results in education and the Greater Cincinnati Workforce Network, a broad partnership of stakeholders that aims to help both employers and workers in workforce development. These two collaborations were formed by funders and have served as a base of both support and new funding opportunities for the organizations in those sectors. All of these examples could be replicated in other subject areas, if proper support and facilitation was available. Where do we go from here? This study offers a new starting place for Cincinnati nonprofit funders, planners and organizations. If, as a community, we want to see adequate, high quality or increased services for our residents, then we should bring together people whose organizations provide similar programming. This process ensures that we do not squash the passion of those who help hold our community together, give them a forum to build upon their impact, effectiveness and more. People who are supported and appreciated will accomplish more. It is also worth noting that when it comes to community issues, services and programs, one size, shape or style does not work for everyone, regardless of the topic or service. Diverse organizations address the diverse needs of a metropolitan population. If we allow diversity to remain, but provide collaborations to build, we all benefit. The examples above show how the organizations of all sizes have enhanced services and programming while retaining the connection to each community. A collective group of passionate people can collaborate to learn, share and address a similar community with new excitement and opportunities. Opportunities: 1. Survey the organizations in specific categories, to provide a study on their impact and collective vision and need. Invite the responders to network. 2. Study specific areas for collaborative opportunities. 3. Survey organizations to learn all locations of their operating sites, map these sites and compare to community demographics and needs. 4. What do you envision as the next opportunity? The organizations that hold our community together offer an amazing array of services and programs, each contributing to the health of the community as a whole. With the information from this report, we now have a better picture on what types on organizations provide these services and programming in Greater Cincinnati. 13

14 Contacts Dayle Deardurff, J. D. For a copy of this report see: For a copy of the detailed data report Nonprofit Presence in the Cincinnati MSA see: Design and layout: PHC Group, Inc. 14

15 Non-Profit Presence in the Cincinnati MSA Prepared for the Office of Regional Stewardship, Northern Kentucky University March 2011 By Center for Economic Analysis and Development Haile US Bank College of Business Northern Kentucky University 2622 Alexandria Pike Highland Heights, KY Janet Harrah, Senior Director Anne Gallagher, Senior Regional Economist

16 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 2 Introduction... 6 Methodology... 6 Data Source... 6 Analysis... 8 Cincinnati MSA Summary... 9 Table 1. Cincinnati Non-Profits by NTEE Major Groups... 9 Table 2. Cincinnati Non-Profit Number of Organizations by Ranges Table 3. Cincinnati Non-Profit s by Range ($1 s) Six MSA Comparison Summary Table 4. MSA Comparison Summary Table 5. MSA Comparison Summary of Organizations by Major Groups as Percent of all Non-Profits Detailed Cincinnati Analysis Location Table 6. Zip Code Non-Profit Number of Organizations by Range Major Group Break-Outs Table 7. Cincinnati Organizations by Major Group, by Range Table 8. Cincinnati Organizations as a Percent of Organizations Table 9. Cincinnati by Major Group, by Ranges Table 10. Cincinnati s as a Percent of s by Major Group Cincinnati: Detailed Categories Table 11. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Arts, Culture & Humanities Table 12. Cincinnati s by Detailed Category, by Range: Arts, Culture & Humanities Table 13. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Higher Education and Education Table 14. Cincinnati s by Detailed Category, by Range: Higher Education and Education Table 15. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Hospitals Table 16. Cincinnati s by Detailed Category, by Range: Hospitals

17 Table 17. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Health Table 18. Cincinnati s by Detailed Category, by Range: Health Table 19. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Environment Table 20. Cincinnati Income by Detailed Category, by Range: Environment Table 21. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Human Services Table 22. Cincinnati s by Detailed Category, by Range: Human Services Table 23. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: International Table 24.Cincinnati Income by Detailed Category, by Range: International Table 25. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Mutual Benefit Table 26. Cincinnati Income by Detailed Category, by Range: Mutual Benefit Table 27. Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Public and Societal Benefit Table 28. Cincinnati by Detailed Category, by Range: Public and Societal Benefit Table 29.Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Religion Table 30.Cincinnati s by Detailed Category, by Range: Religion Table 31.Cincinnati Organizations by Detailed Category, by Range: Unknown Table 32. Cincinnati Income by Detailed Category, by Range: Unknown Six MSA Summary Table 33. Demographics of MSAs Table 34. MSA Comparison Summary of Organizations by Major Groups as Percent of all Non- Profits Table 35. MSA Comparison of Organizations by MSA, by Major Group Table 36. Non-Profit Income by MSA, by Major Group (Millions) Table 37. Non-Profit revenues per Person by MSA, by Major Group Table 38. Non-Profit Income per Person below the Poverty Level by MSA, by Major Group Further Study For-Profit and Government Services Service Location Analysis Volunteer Impact Category Analysis Year over Year Analysis (New and Closed Organizations)

18 Networking for Further Information Appendix A: Organization Counts and s by Major Groups and Ranges for Comparison MSAs Table A1. Detailed Non-Profit Number of Organizations by Range: Columbus, OH Table A2. Detailed Non-Profit s by Range: Columbus, OH Table A3. Non-Profit Number of Organizations as a Percent of Organizations by Range: Columbus, OH Table A4. Non-Profit s as a Percent of s by Range: Columbus, OH 54 Table A5. Detailed Non-Profit Number of Organizations by Range: Indianapolis, IN Table A6. Detailed Non-Profit s by Range: Indianapolis, IN Table A7. Non-Profit Number of Organizations as a Percent of Organizations by Range: Indianapolis, IN Table A8. Non-Profit s as a Percent of s by Range: Indianapolis, IN Table A9. Detailed Non-Profit Number of Organizations by Range: Kansas City, MO Table A10. Detailed Non-Profit s by Range: Kansas City, MO Table A11. Non-Profit Number of Organizations as a Percent of Organizations by Range: Kansas City, MO Table A12. Non-Profit s as a Percent of s by Range: Kansas City, MO Table A13. Detailed Non-Profit Number of Organizations by Range: Louisville, KY Table A14. Detailed Non-Profit s by Range: Louisville, KY Table A15. Non-Profit Number of Organizations as a Percent of Organizations by Range: Louisville, KY Table A16. Non-Profit s as a Percent of s by Range: Louisville, KY 60 Table A17. Detailed Non-Profit Number of Organizations by Range: St. Louis, MO Table A18. Detailed Non-Profit s by Range: St. Louis, MO Table A19. Non-Profit Number of Organizations as a Percent of Organizations by Range: St. Louis, MO Table A20. Non-Profit s as a Percent of s by Range: St. Louis, MO 62 Appendix B: Economic Impacts of Selected Industry Sectors Economic Impacts

19 Table B1. Economic Impacts by IMPLAN Industry Appendix C: Table C1. Major Groups and Categories

20 Introduction The Northern Kentucky University (NKU) Office of Regional Stewardship (ORS) asked NKU s Center for Economic Analysis and Development (CEAD) to analyze IRS form 990 data for 501 (3) filing nonprofits, purchased from the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) as a first step in assessing nonprofit capacity in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). 1 Based on input from ORS, CEAD selected revenue data for the Cincinnati OH-KY-IN MSA as well as for three regional MSAs; Columbus OH, Indianapolis IN and Louisville KY-IN and two additional MSAs selected based on their multi-state geography; Kansas City, MO-KS and St Louis, MO-IL. The Cincinnati MSA was analyzed in detail by major group and detailed category within each major group. The comparison MSAs were analyzed by 12 major groups as defined by NCCS. Methodology Data Source The National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) 2 is the national repository of data on the nonprofit sector in the United States. Its mission is to develop and disseminate high quality data on nonprofit organizations and their activities for use in research on the relationships between the nonprofit sector, government, the commercial sector, and the broader civil society. Working closely with the IRS and other government agencies, private sector service organizations, and the scholarly community, NCCS builds compatible national, state, and regional databases and develops uniform standards for reporting on the activities of charitable organizations. NCCS has created a hierarchical classification system of 630 codes, 26 major groups, collapsed into major groups. CEAD has used the 12 major groups for all MSAs in this analysis, and the 630 categories for detailed analysis of the Cincinnati non-profits. Major groups and the corresponding number of detailed categories are as follows: 1 The Cincinnati MSA consists of: Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton and Pendleton Counties in Kentucky; Brown, Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio, and ;Dearborn, Franklin and Ohio Counties in Indiana. 2 National Center for Charitable Statistics, nccs.urban.org. 6

21 Arts, culture & humanities: 523 Education, higher: 5 Education: 42 Hospitals: 5 Environment: 37 Health: 97 In addition, there is an Unknown category within each major group. See Appendix C for detailed listing of major groups corresponding categories. Human services: 171 International: 31 Mutual benefit: 9 Public and societal benefit: 101 Religion: 27 Unknown: 56 NCCS data files are continuously updated, which allowed CEAD to obtain data through April 2010, while the most recent publicly available IRS data were for calendar year Approximately one-third of NCCS records did not include a taxable year, possibly because the organizations used the calendar year as their tax year. Of those that specified a tax year and month, 62 percent reported 2008 as the tax year; 23 percent reported 2009 as the tax year; seven percent reported 2007 the tax year; with the remaining eight percent reporting either 2010 or 1990 through The NCCS data converts the IRS Form 990 data filed by nonprofits into major groups and detailed categories based on activity within the nonprofit industry sector and into total revenue, which includes income from income-producing activity (such as Medicare or other paid services) and all other sources. Some caveats of using this data are that the data reported on the IRS form 990s are self-reported by the organizations and their representatives. The groups and categories used in the IRS form 990s may not tally with industry sector designations such as those used by state departments of labor statistics. The accuracy of the NCCS files is not guaranteed and it is possible that there are errors in the data. Further, the NCCS website states that: Organizations that report gross receipts of more than $25,000 in a fiscal year are generally required to file a Form 990 with the IRS unless they are religious congregations, denominations, or controlled by a congregation or denomination. (All private foundations, regardless of their level of gross receipts, are required to file annually.) Approximately two-thirds of the organizations that are registered with the IRS do NOT file a Form 990 with the IRS in any given year. Congregations and some other religious organizations as well as organizations with less than $25,000 in gross receipts fall in this category. Additionally, NCCS requires users of its data to sign a user agreement that requires the use of the data to be limited to aggregate use, and that the user is not to disclose data on individual records. Due to this requirement, detailed tables for the Cincinnati MSA reflect the need for data suppression. A further caveat is that many groups contain various categories for fund-raising, grant-making, foundations, etc., which may raise funds to support organizations within the group. This could mean that the total revenues within a group would overstate the amount of revenues and therefore services that are available to the community.