 |
| |
 |
|
 |
|
New York City has long been recognized as the nation's
headquarters for major corporations and for its prominence
in the financial, fashion, and entertainment sectors.
Yet, New York is also renowned for its nonprofit sector.
It is this sector which provides most of our hospital
beds, much of our art and music, and many of the special
needs which we have come to rely on, like day care, services
for the disabled, protection of immigrant rights, and
support for the homeless.
New York City's nonprofits include major facilities like
the Museum of Natural History, Columbia University, and
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, but also small
neighborhood arts groups and employment training centers
like East Harlem Employment Services and the New York
Women's Employment Center, Inc. These institutions are
a source of employment and income for New York City residents,
but they also add significantly to the services that are
made available to local residents at reduced cost through
subsidies from charitable contributions and foundation
and government grants and contracts. The quality of life
in New York City is closely linked to the availability
of services provided by nonprofits. These nonprofit services
con-tribute to the satisfaction felt by residents of the
City and its attractiveness for private investment. The
evidence shows also that the financial health and well-being
of the non-profit sector provides early clues to the growth
or decline of the City's private sector. This report is
the result of a two-and-one-half year study conducted
between September 1999 and January of 2002 by the New
York City Nonprofits Project. The data sources consist
of IRS and other financial information and over 3,000
survey responses collected during 2000 and 2001. We employed
different survey instruments, each with a unique focus:
financial, technology, volunteers, services provided,
office/facility space, and employment issues. The goal
is to provide a comprehensive picture of the state of
nonprofits in New York City and information that will
highlight strengths and weaknesses. Our audiences are
potential employees, volunteers, community groups, funders
and supporters, government, the general public, and, of
course, nonprofits themselves.
The events of September 11, 2001, occurred after all the
data were collected. We have been able to identify 580
nonprofits within the immediate World Trade Center area.
In addition to these organizations that were affected
directly, September 11 has impacted the whole nonprofit
sector, but in ways which are not yet fully apparent.
Nonetheless, because of its import, we have included a
chapter in this report on known impacts so far and some
possible consequences.
Some of the trends we report, including financial pressures,
will be exacerbated due to September 11. Some nonprofits
may be forced to stop providing service, altogether. But
it is important to keep in mind that a number of economic,
political, and societal changes affecting the nonprofit
sector were at work before September 11 and are still
at work. In other words, the events of September 11 should
not be perceived as isolated from ongoing issues. We need
to understand base-line conditions prior to 9/11 as well
as the immediate implications and the longer-term nature
of changes in the nonprofit world.
The nonprofit sector in New York City is comprised of
some 27,474 charitable organizations that have annual
revenues generally over $5,000 and are registered with
the IRS as 501(c)(3)s. New York also has many other organizations
like block groups, religious congregations, and other
organizations that have not registered with the IRS.
This report focuses especially on 9,078 of the
27,474 registered organizations that are
referred to as �reporting public charities.�
They have annual revenues exceeding $25,000
and submit annual financial reports to the IRS
on Form 990. These reporting nonprofits are
divided into two categories: �operating public
charities� and �supporting public charities.�
In fact, the 9,078 reporting public charities are the
principal providers and supporters of nonprofit services
in the City and, from a more practical research perspective,
are the organizations for which financial information
is known and available. Although the others are often
critical to the health of our civil society, their limited
size and activities make their contribution less relevant
to the objectives of this study. For these reasons, this
report refers to the group of 9,078 �reporting public
charities� as �the nonprofits.� In addition, we report
selectively on the 4,762 New York City-based grant-making
foundations. The different types of nonprofit organizations
are explained further in Chapter 3.
These 9,078 nonprofits account directly for
$43 billion in annual expenditures, more than
528,000 jobs, or 14% of New York City's
employees, and an annual payroll of more
than $22.7 billion.
In addition, they had assets of $65 billion and revenues
of more than $48 billion in the year 2000, which is larger
than New York City's manufacturing sector. An estimated
200,000 additional jobs result indirectly from purchases
by nonprofits of goods and services from private firms.
The 4,762 New York City-based foundations have annual
expenditures of $5.2 billion, of which about $506 million
is devoted to administrative costs and salaries, much
of which is spent in New York.
Ten years ago, the Nonprofit Coordinating Committee of
New York, Inc., the Fund for the City of New York, and
the City of New York took a very important first step
in documenting the vital contributions of these non-profit
organizations to New York's economy through their publication
of a nonprofit report based on information available in
the late 1980s. The current project has updated and expanded
this information to the year 2001. A separate Technical
Report provides detailed information on the sources of
data for the study and its methodology. The online Service
Directory and Atlas makes use of recently developed techniques
for mapping and an interactive website to provide users
with an accessible way to find the location of nonprofits
and the services they provide. A CD-ROM includes the Technical
Report and tables summarizing the data findings as well
as other study results.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This second report of the NYC Nonprofits Project examines accessibility to nonprofit facilities and services. The location of these services within the city has a profound effect on their value to users. The analysis focuses on the fit between neighborhood service needs and the availability of local nonprofit providers. The objective is to identify significant gaps or saturation in coverage.
It is important at the outset to emphasize that New York City�s nonprofit sector is not like the complement of nonprofits elsewhere. The city is host to many headquarters or administrative offices of major national and international organizations and groups primarily engaged in fund raising and support of other nonprofits. Furthermore, many of New York�s nonprofits predated public and private sector provision of services and have retained a larger service role than in other places. Many are able to respond to service need more rapidly than their government counterparts. All of which is tempered by the fact that the city�s ethnic diversity and the magnitude of its recent immigration are not likely to be matched in other U.S. cities.
The findings show generally broad nonprofit coverage over the city�s neighborhoods, but significant unevenness attributable to:
|
 |
the preference by many nonprofits for proximity to the city�s commercial hub
|
|
|
the much denser infrastructure and support network for nonprofit organizations in long-established middle and upper income neighborhoods
|
|
|
more rapid demographic, ethnic, and social changes in some neighborhoods than nonprofits� ability to establish or relocate facilities |
|
|
zoning issues that limit the numbers of neighborhood sites for facilities, and |
|
|
rapid and large shifts in rental prices for facility space that affect location decisions |
The specific findings demonstrate that:
|
|
a large share of the city�s nonprofits are headquarters offices that carry out administrative functions largely from offices in commercial areas of mid- and downtown Manhattan and do not provide direct service to residents
|
|
|
an additional group of nonprofits (e.g. performing arts centers, museums, universities, major hospitals) provide city-wide and regional services from large scale facilities that are overwhelmingly concentrated in the most accessible and higher income areas in Manhattan and relatively deficient in other areas of the city;
|
|
|
nonprofits that provide direct neighborhood-based services are widely but very unevenly distributed among all the city�s neighborhoods, even after allowing for differences in neighborhood characteristics and local service needs
|
|
|
white middle and upper income communities have a rich and dense network of virtually all types of neighborhood based nonprofit services
|
|
|
on the other hand, significant service gaps include a relative shortage of virtually all types of services in lower income neighborhoods and especially those communities with significant numbers of recent Hispanic/Latino and Afro-Caribbean immigrants
|
|
|
the service deficiencies in low income and immigrant communities can be partially attributed to gaps in government contracted programs that provide much of the revenues of nonprofits that serve low income communities
|
|
|
NIMBY (i.e., not in my backyard ) facilities, including shelters and substance abuse centers, are more concentrated in high than low income neighborhoods
|
Policy implications include the following:
|
|
the rationale for facility sites in midtown Manhattan cannot be justified for many nonprofits that target their social services to user groups who are remote from these facilities
|
|
|
nonprofits and their donors in communities with an abundance of services can help to mitigate the deficiencies by establishing satellite facilities and relocating whenever feasible to areas of concentrated poverty, accompanied by some redirection of charitable contributions and grants to assist local providers in these communities
|
|
|
land use policy can help to ease the issue of scarcity of sites for facilities in residential areas through more flexible use of zoning variances
|
This study and its methodology may provide some guidance for analyses of location and proximity issues in other cities, regions, and states. We emphasize here the importance of:
|
|
devising a classification of nonprofit activities relevant for the specific locale;
|
|
|
developing a classification of neighborhoods or other sub-areas based upon commonalities in expected service needs;
|
|
|
the use of Geographic Information Systems (G.I.S.) for mapping and analyzing the geographic location of facilities;
|
|
|
the use of econometric methods for testing the relationships between facility location and neighborhood contexts; and
|
|
|
devising suitable measures of the match of types of service activities to types of neighborhood conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
A comprehensive survey and analysis of NYC�s nonprofit sector was completed and findings released immediately after the WTC disaster. The report, New York City�s Nonprofit Sector (May 2002), emphasized the significant role of nonprofits in the city�s economy and labor force. A second major report, Nonprofit Services in New York City�s Neighborhoods (June 2004), focused on service access, responsiveness, and coverage within the city�s diverse neighborhoods. (For copies of these reports, please go to our website: www.nycnonprofts.org.)
Yet, the events of the past several years since 9/11justify a fresh look at the financial vulnerability of nonprofits and especially the human service providers. The months after 9/11 were accompanied by an outpouring of immediate and generous support for local nonprofit agencies from government, private and corporate donors, and foundations. However, New York City has still not recovered fully from the recession that was compounded by the events of 9/11. The city�s unemployment and service-dependent population has increased while private and corporate donors have been less able to contribute at former levels.
Nonprofits that provide human services are also likely to be seriously affected by proposed cutbacks in revenues from government-contracted programs. Early indications of Congressional budget cutting efforts point to reductions of as much as 25 percent over the next several years in safety net social programs and Medicaid. Furthermore, budget deficits at both New York State and City levels will likely multiply the revenue problems for local service providers. Impacts are expected to be particularly severe for nursing homes, health care providers, social service agencies, Headstart, children�s health insurance, and senior and public housing. Human service agencies do not know if the anticipated cuts are temporary or if they represent a longer-run shift in political culture and policy direction.
Are New York City�s human service organizations on the verge of suffering major revenue cuts that will reduce their capacity to deliver needed services? Findings from a survey administered in late 2003 and early 2004 indicate some good news and some bad news:
|
|
Thirty percent of agencies expect revenues to be higher this fiscal year by five percent or more.
|
|
|
Yet, almost twenty percent expect revenue declines of five percent or more. These are primarily smaller organizations providing crisis intervention and social services. The revenue changes are directly related to the receipt and size of government contracts and donor contributions.
|
|
|
Reduced revenues translate into program and staff cut-backs affecting most seriously services to low-income families and children.
|
|
|
More than sixty percent of agencies experienced increased demand for their services and more than half were not fully able to meet the demand.
|
|
|
Most agencies are already attempting to increase their revenues and diversify revenue sources.
|
The full impacts of current and projected cutbacks in government funding for contracted services are likely to be felt later this year and should be monitored by an additional survey in the Fall of 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This report provides an assessment of the entire nonprofit sector�s evolution in New York during the past decade when the city has experienced growth spurts, recession, the World Trade Center tragedy, and some recent recovery. The objective of the report is to explore signs of financial health and vulnerability in the sector as a whole and among types of organizations that differ by service activity, size, longevity, and location within the city.
We assess how changes in the numbers of nonprofits and their distribution by size, service sector, and location over the past decade have been responsive to recent economic and social change in the city and to developments in private and public sectors. The findings include an assessment of the type and direction of growth in the nonprofit sector and its adaptability to the city�s rapidly changing environment. A final section targets financial issues among individual nonprofit organizations that affect their well-being and survival.
Major findings discussed in the repot include:
|
|
Currently, approximately 9,715 nonprofits are operating with revenues of more than $43 billion, including 3,699 that have been established in the past decade � the highest density of nonprofits of any city in the U.S.
|
|
|
The record shows healthy and responsive growth and a strong element of stability in the past decade
|
|
|
Growth demonstrated by an increase of 43% in the numbers of nonprofits and a doubling of total revenues, expenditures and assets in real dollars
|
|
|
Growth rates much faster than in private and public sectors.
|
|
|
Health demonstrated by enhancement in service capacity despite the effects of recent recession and World Trade Center catastrophe. More than four times as many new nonprofits were established in this decade than numbers terminated.
|
|
|
Responsiveness demonstrated by shifts in the numbers of nonprofits by service sector, size, and neighborhood location consistent with the city�s population growth and social and demographic change.
|
|
|
Stability represented by the survival and longevity of a large share of the city�s nonprofit organizations and their service capacity and infrastructure.
|
|
|
Growth in numbers of nonprofits was especially prominent in the zones of concentrated poverty and among the religiously-affiliated social services and slowest among services for seniors and youth
|
Despite these significant signs of sound financial health and development for the sector as a whole, some emerging trends are causes of concern.
|
|
Findings show that virtually all the expansion in revenues occurred among the very largest organizations while smaller nonprofits grew hardly at all
|
|
|
Contrary to national trends, revenue shares from contributions have been growing faster than income from program activities and fees
|
|
|
Few nonprofits are moving rapidly enough to diversify their revenue sources
|
|
|
In addition to the 776 nonprofits that closed down in the past decade, a number are in financial distress because of drastic decline in revenues, income from program activities, net revenues, fund balances, or combinations of these trends
|
|
|
Especially vulnerable are the smallest nonprofits and those in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
