Research Results:
Indiana Nonprofit Survey

INDIANA NONPROFITS:
A PROFILE OF MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS

Survey Report #6

Indiana University
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Center on Philanthropy

Click here to read the press release for this study. Click here to access the full report Note: this is a large file (1.1 mb). You may wish to access separate sections of the report independently through links in the major sections below. Note, you will need a free copy of the Acrobat program to read any of these documents.

For information about the survey on which this report is based, please see Indiana Nonprofit Survey. For separate tables with data for selected Indiana regions, please see the Appendices at the bottom of this page.

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION

Click here to access the full introductory section of the report.

Membership organizations are integral to the social fabric of our society as mechanisms for people to pursue shared interests or address common concerns. Indeed, people active in associations are also more politically and socially engaged in general. However, declining memberships in locally based associations, such as labor unions, fraternal organizations, or parent-teacher associations, suggests to some observers that the nation's stock of social capital - the webs of interpersonal networks permeated by trust and agreed-upon norms - is declining; indeed, that our civic life is endangered.

This report provides new information on these important organizations. Because of our broad focus, however, we have necessarily had to group the organizations into broader categories in order to identify both common features and important differences. We present some data by membership status - comparing nonprofits with members to those without - but focus primarily on differences among six major types of membership organization, with particular attention to changes they have encountered, interactions with other organizations, human resources, and management challenges. We also consider whether there are notable differences among subgroups of each major type of membership organization.

This report is the sixth in a series based on a major survey of 2,206 Indiana charities, congregations, advocacy, and mutual benefit nonprofits completed in 2002 as part of the Indiana Nonprofits: Scope and Community Dimensions project. No other study has examined such a variety of nonprofits or done so in such detail. The survey had a response rate of 29 percent. Details of how the sample was developed and the data collected are described in technical reports available upon request.

Chapter I provides a profile of membership organizations. Chapter II examines changes affecting membership organizations. Chapter III explores interactions with other organizations. Chapter IV reviews human resources while Chapter V examines management challenges and capacities. Three appendices contain supplemental information on nonprofit fields of activity (Appendix A), the types of membership organizations in each type and sub-group (Appendix B), and regional variations in management challenges and organizational capacities (Appendix C).

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

EXECUTIVE SUMMMARY

1. Profile of membership organizations: We distinguish between six types of membership organizations and examine how they differ in service targets, size, age, funding profiles, dues structures, and legal status. Click here to access Chapter 1 of the report which details these findings.

• Three-fourths of Indiana nonprofits are membership organizations, which we group into six types: religious congregations (29 percent), civic associations (22 percent), mutual benefits (14 percent), recreation groups (8 percent), occupa-tion/industry groups (7 percent), and other member groups (all remaining organizations with members, 22 percent).
• The majority (76 percent) of membership organizations serve both their own members and the general public while one-fifth (19 percent) serve their own members only.
• Membership organizations target their services primarily by geographic location (48 percent) and age (47 percent). Religious congregations stand out as more likely to target services by age (71 percent), gender (48 percent) and religious faith (56 percent). They are also more likely to target multiple groups.
• In general, membership organizations are smaller and older than organizations without members although there is great variation among major types. Mutual benefits are the oldest, particularly fraternal beneficiary societies. Religious congregations are the largest in size followed by other member and occupation/industry groups.
• The majority (60 percent) of membership organizations rely on dues to some extent, particularly occupation/industry groups, recreation groups, and civic associations.
  

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

2. Changes Affecting Membership Organizations:We looked at perceptions of changes in demand for ser-vices, number of members, community conditions and government policies. Click here to access Chapter 2 of the report which details these findings.

• The majority (53 percent) of membership organizations report changes in their membership rolls with 26 percent noting increases and 27 percent decreases. Mutual benefit organizations stood out with almost half (47 percent) reporting a decrease in the number of members.
• About half (52 percent) of membership organizations say that demands for services stayed the same while almost two-thirds (63 percent) of organizations without members report that demands increased.
• The majority (71 percent) of membership organizations report at least one change in community conditions, especially population size or employment opportunities (48 percent each). Almost half (49 percent) report being impacted by the changes.
• Membership organizations are less likely to report government policy changes than organizations without members. Two-thirds (66 percent) of membership organizations report that policies did not change, and 78 percent report that they were not impacted by changes. Occupation/industry groups are most likely to perceive changes and impacts. They are also most likely to be involved in advocacy activities.

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

3. Interactions with Other Organizations: We examined the affiliations, collaborations, and competition among membership organizations. Click here to access Chapter 3 of the report which details these findings.

• Membership organizations are more likely to have affiliations than organizations without members. The majority (63 percent) of membership organizations are affiliated with other organizations, particularly religious congregations (79 percent) and occupation/industry groups (77 percent).
• Membership organizations are also more likely to have formal collaborations or informal networks than nonprofits without members. The majority of membership organizations (57 percent) are involved in collaborations. Other member groups (70 percent), occupation/industry groups (68 percent), and religious congrega- tions (67 percent) are most likely to be involved in collaborations or networks.
• Membership organizations are less likely to compete with other entities than organizations without members. Only two-fifths (40 percent) say they compete, with other member groups most likely to report competition (57 percent).

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

4. Human resources: We looked at the human resources present in membership organizations in the form of paid staff, volunteers, and boards of directors.Click here to access Chapter 4 of the report which details these findings.

• Over half (52 percent) of membership organizations have paid staff. However, this varies greatly among types of membership organizations from 87 percent of religious congregations to only 28 percent of mutual benefits and 27 percent of civic associations.
• Over three-fourths (76 percent) of membership organizations use volunteers. Membership organizations are more likely to use volunteers than nonprofits without members and they are more likely to value them highly.
• The majority of membership organizations have boards of directors, but boards are smaller than for nonprofits without members.
  

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

5. Management Challenges and Capacities: We analyzed the management challenges faced by membership organizations and the tools they utilize in man-agement. Click here to access Chapter 5 of the report which details these findings.

• The majority of membership organizations face challenges in enhancing visibility (76 percent), delivering high quality programs/services (72 percent), performing strategic planning (66 percent) and evaluating programs (62 percent). Enhancing visibility and service delivery are greater challenges for membership organiza-tions than for organizations without members.
• Attracting new members (or clients) is a greater challenge for membership organizations than for nonprofits without members. The majority (87 percent) of membership organizations say it is a challenge, with 54 percent reporting it is a major challenge.
• Obtaining funding is a challenge for two-thirds (66 percent) of membership organizations. It is less of a challenge for membership organizations than for organizations without members (81 percent).
• In terms of information technology tools, the majority of membership organiza- tions have computer access for key staff/volunteers (63 percent), computerized client/member records (60 percent), computerized financial records (58 percent), and internet access (51 percent). Membership organizations are less likely than organizations without members to have internet access or an organizational e-mail address.

• Three-fourths (75 percent) of membership organizations have an annual report and 60 percent have a recently completed financial audit. Membership organizations are more likely to have reserves dedicated to maintenance (46 percent) and capital improvement (37 percent) than organizations without members (36 percent and 27 percent respectively).

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

KEY FINDINGS

Four key findings stand out from our analysis of Indi-ana's membership organizations:

1. There are notable differences among the six major types of membership organizations: The six types of membership organizations - religious congrega-tions, civic associations, mutual benefit organizations, recreation groups, occupation /industry groups, and all other member groups - differ significantly on almost every dimension examined. This suggests that these six groupings do indeed capture important variations among membership organizations.

2. The six types of membership organizations group into two broader categories: Despite important differences among the six types of membership organizations, they appear to group into two broader cate-gories: (1) religious congregations, other member groups, and occupation/industry groups tend to have somewhat similar responses across most dimensions; (2) mutual benefit groups, civic associations, and recreation groups tend to answer in ways that are more similar to one another than to those in the first category.

3. Three types of membership organizations appear to face more threats to survival, but also to lack systemic capacity to overcome them than other membership organizations: Mutual benefit groups, civic associations, and to a lesser extent recreation groups have seen declines in membership numbers and stagnation in demands for services. However, they are also less likely to be aware of changes in community conditions or government policies, to be involved in collaborations or networks, and to consider themselves in competition with other groups. They have smaller boards, fewer paid staff and rely less on volunteers. Despite this evidence of decline and isolation, they are less likely to report facing management challenges. At the same time, they are also less likely to have important management tools in place.

4. We find notable differences among subgroups of the six major types of membership organizations for some dimensions: Despite these overarching patterns, there are notable subgroup differences within most of the six major types of membership organizations. We highlight these differences in more detail in the conclusions to each of the detailed sections.

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

APPENDICES

Our report includes several appendices with supplementary information. Click here to access the full set of appendix tables. These appendices include:

• Appendix A: Major nonprofit fields as defined by the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE).
• Appendix B: Types of membership organizations by NTEE code.
• Appendix C: Tables reporting on regional patterns in survey responses for selected Indiana communities: seven metropolitan regions (Indianapolis, Gary/Northwest, Fort Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, Bloomington, and Muncie) and five nonmetropolitan counties (Bartholomew, Cass, Dubois, Miami, and Scott).
• List of project publications and reports.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We express our deep-felt gratitude to the many Indiana nonprofits that completed our survey. Without their cooperation, we would have nothing to report. This report was prepared as part of an ongoing project on the Indiana Nonprofit Sector: Scope and Community Dimensions made possible by a grant from the Aspen Institute's Nonprofit Sector Research Fund and by support for the Efroymson Chair in Philanthropy by the Indianapolis Foundation at the Central Indiana Community Foundation and the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy's Indiana Research Fund, supported in part by Lilly Endowment Inc. Additional funding and in-kind support has been provided by Indiana University Foundation; the Chancellor's Office at Indiana University Bloomington; The Center for Urban Policy and the Environment at I.U.P.U.I.; WBH Evansville, Inc.; the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University on the Bloomington, Indianapolis, South Bend, Northwest, and Fort Wayne campuses; Ball State University; and the University of Southern Indiana.

Top | Introduction | Exec Summary | Key Findings | Regional Tables Acknowledgements

Home | Back to Top | Citing and Terms of Use | Restricted Access