Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Impact as a Community Outcomes Measurement in Nonprofit Program Evaluation: An Economic Analysis of the United Way of Southwest Alabama

  • RESEARCH PAPER
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nonprofit community service federations (CSFs) leverage collaborative relationships with community stakeholders and their own direct economic activity to impact local community outcomes. Under the Collective Impact Framework, CSFs influence community outcomes mainly by acting as backbone organizations, which provide central program support and fiscal management services for a nonprofit network of stakeholders and serve as a grantmaking fiscal intermediaries. There remains no standard approach to evaluate impact on community outcomes. Economic impact analysis has been underexamined in academic literature as an approach to community outcomes evaluation. This paper presents a case study of the United Way of Southwest Alabama (UWSWA) to demonstrate the use of economic impact as an outcomes measurement for use in collective impact program evaluation. Economic impact assessment using conventional input–output methodology provides a broad measure of the economic influence of the UWSWA on indicators of regional economic activity such as output, value-added, earnings, and employment. This study uses a 3-year (FY2017-FY2020) sample of financial data supplied by UWSWA to estimate its scope and scale of economic activity. The case of UWSWA demonstrates how economic impact analysis may complement other impact evaluation methods. The paper finds UWSWA generates substantial positive economic effects on its service region through both its grantmaking and business operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, J., Brudney, J. L., & Yang, K. (2010). Introduction to the symposium: Accountability and performance measurement: The evolving role of nonprofits in the hollow state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 565–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H. K., & Rudney, G. (1998). An input–output analysis of the nonprofit sector in the USA and Germany. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 69, 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, B. H. (1976). The anatomy of a multiplier. Regional Studies, 10, 71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artamonova, A. S., & Bazueva, E. V. (2022). Effectiveness of nonprofit organizations for the regional economy: Conceptual foundations for identification. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 15(6), 215–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, R., & Chernova, K. (2008). Absolute income, relative income, and happiness. Social Indicators Research, 88, 497–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, W. P. (2021, December 16). America’s top 100 charities. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/lists/top-charities/?sh=2e736a055f50

  • Bartczakis, L. (2014). The role of grantmakers in collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 435–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brilliant, E., and Young, D. R. (2013). The changing identity of federated community service organizations. In H. Schmid (ed.), Organizational and Structural Dilemmas in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations, Routledge, New York.

  • Bruening, K. S. (2002). Applying a not-for-profit outcomes assessment model to community-based nutrition interventions: The United Way-Central New York success by 6 hunger team. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 17, 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Economic Analysis (2021). Input-output accounts. Bureau of Economic Analysis. https://www.bea.gov/data/industries/input-output-accounts-data

  • Bureau of Economic Analysis (2021). Table 1.9.5. Net value added by sector. https://www.bea.gov/data

  • Cabaj, M. (2014). Evaluating collective impact: Five simple rules. The Philanthropist, 26, 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camayd-Freixas, Y., Karush, G., Nemon, M., and Koenig, R. (2008). 12 community capacity building through strategic philanthropy at the United Way. In D. Fabiani and T.F. Buss (eds.), Reengineering Community Development for the 21st Century, Routledge, New York.

  • Clark, C., & Brennan, L. (2012). Entrepreneurship with social value: A conceptual model for performance measurement. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 18(2), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., and Olsen, S. (2004). Double bottom line project report: Assessings social impact in double bottom line ventures. University of California.

  • Corvo, L., Pastore, L., Manti, A., & Iannaci, D. (2021). Mapping social impact assessment models: A literature overview for a future research agenda. Sustainability, 13(9), 4750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, E., & Pesci, C. (2022). Putting stakeholders at the centre: Multi-stakeholder approaches to social impact measurement. In R. Hazenberg & C. Paterson-Young (Eds.), Social impact measurement for a sustainable future (pp. 129–144). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DuBow, W., Hug, S., Serafini, B., & Litzler, E. (2018). Expanding our understanding of backbone organizations in collective impact initiatives. Community Development, 49, 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value preposition: Integrating social and financial return. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, G., & Tofa, M. (2020). Collective impact: A review of the peer-reviewed research. Australian Social Work, 73, 32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedderke, J., & Klitgaard, R. (1998). Economic growth and social indicators: An exploratory analysis. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 46, 455–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1173–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazenberg, R., Paterson-Young, C., Hazenberg, R., and Paterson-Young, C. (2022). Social Impact Measurement for a Sustainable Future (pp. 13–25). Springer International Publishing.

  • Hendricks, M., Plantz, M. C., & Pritchard, K. J. (2008). Measuring outcomes of United Way–funded programs: Expectations and reality. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008, 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Independent Sector. (2023). Health of the U.S. nonprofit sector. https://independentsector.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-Health-of-the-U.S.-Nonprofit-Sector-Annual-Review.pdf

  • IRS, SOI Tax Stats - Tax-Exempt Organizations and Nonexempt Charitable Trusts - IRS Data Book Table 14, 2023a.

  • IRS, Statistics of Income Division, Exempt Organizations (Except Private Foundations), April 2023b.

  • Jo, H., Kim, H., & Park, K. (2015). Corporate environmental responsibility and firm performance in the financial services sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 257–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JobsEQ. (2024). Annual Industry Employment, 2016–2020. Chmura Economics. https://jobseq.eqsuite.com/landing/economic-development/all-tools/data-explorer

  • Julian, D. A. (2001). A case study of the implementation of outcomes-based funding within a local United Way system: Some implications for practicing community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 851–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9, 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kania, J., and Kramer, M. (2013). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

  • Kerlinger, F. N., and Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Harcourt College Publishers.

  • Kramer, M. R., & Pfitzer, M. W. (2016). The ecosystem of shared value. Harvard Business Review, 94, 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. P., & Babiak, K. (2017). Measured societal value and its impact on donations and perception of corporate social responsibility: An experimental approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46, 1030–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liket, K. C., & Maas, K. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, J., Breckinridge, K., Denault, A., & Marvin, C. (2015). When backbone organizations become the funder: The use of fiscal intermediaries in the context of collective impact. The Foundation Review, 7, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. (1985). Human service organizations: Useful category or useless jargon? Australian Journal of Social Issues, 20, 124–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G. E. (2013). The construct of organizational effectiveness: Perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 324–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muukkonen, M. (2009). Framing the field: Civil society and related concepts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 684–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nizam, E., Ng, A., Dewandaru, G., Nagayev, R., & Nkoba, M. A. (2019). The impact of social and environmental sustainability on financial performance: A global analysis of the banking sector. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 49, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg, L. E., & Meinhold, S. S. (2012). Using institutional theory to explore local variations in United Way’s Community Impact model. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 826–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, H. (2014). Collective impact: Venturing on an unfamiliar road. The Philanthropist, 26, 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitsakis, K., Souitaris, V., & Nicolaou, N. (2015). The peripheral halo effect: Do academic spinoffs influence universities’ research income? Journal of Management Studies, 52(3), 321–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A., Wolf-Ditkoff, S., and Hassey, K. (2018). Value of collaboration research study. The Bridgespan Group. https://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/7b6f4822-34bd-4c10-97d8-ee41b2566063/bridgespan-value-of-philanthropic-collaboration-study-literature-review.pdf

  • Powell, A., Morfit, S., and John, M. (2021). Releasing the potential of philanthropic collaborations. The Bridgespan Group. https://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/3cd4466f-0977-4384-b89b-753c5d797af1/releasing-the-potential-of-philanthropic-collaborations-2021.pdf

  • Pritchett, L., & Summers, L. H. (1996). Wealthier is healthier. Journal of Human Resources, 31, 841–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranis, G., Stewart, F., & Ramirez, A. (2000). Economic growth and human development. World Development, 28(2), 197–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (1994). The rise of the nonprofit sector. Foreign Affairs, 73(4), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1997). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross-national analysis. Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Salazar, J., & J., Husted, B. W., and Biehl, M. (2012). Thoughts on the evaluation of corporate social performance through projects. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, R. S., & Almog-Bar, M. (2013). Revisiting collaborations between nonprofits and businesses: An NPO-centric view and typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 942–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sdunzik, J., Bampoh, D. K., Sinfield, J. V., McDavid, L., Burgess, D., & Burgess, W. D. (2022). An interdisciplinary perspective on private sector engagement in cross-sector partnerships: The why, where, and how. Business and Society Review, 127, 591–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J. W. (1998). Developmental dynamics in nonprofit-sector federations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9, 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snavely, K., & Tracy, M. B. (2000). Collaboration among rural nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobolewski, S. (2010). The economic impact of non-profit organizations [Thesis]. Williams College.

  • Soleimani, A., Schneper, W. D., & Newburry, W. (2014). The impact of stakeholder power on corporate reputation: A cross-country corporate governance perspective. Organization Science, 25(4), 991–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stachowiak, S., and Gase, L. (2018). Does collective impact really make an impact? Stanford Social Innovation Review.

  • Stewart, S. D. (2013). United way, healthy communities, and collective impact. National Civic Review, 102, 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez, D. F. (2011). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suri, T., Boozer, M. A., Ranis, G., & Stewart, F. (2011). Paths to success: The relationship between human development and economic growth. World Development, 39, 506–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J. J. X., Kraus, M. W., Carpenter, N. C., & Adler, N. E. (2020). The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 970–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrell, D., Virgets, S., Barnes, S.R., and Walker, B. (2020). The economic and social impact of Mississippi philanthropic grants. Mississippi Alliance of Nonprofits and Philanthropy. https://alliancems.org/wp-content/uploads/Economic-Report.pdf

  • Turner, S., Errecart, K., and Bhatt, A. (2013). Measuring backbone contributions to collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

  • United States Census Bureau (2023). American community survey (ACS). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html

  • USDA ERS. (2020). Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/

  • Varda, D. M. (2018). Are backbone organizations eroding the norms that make networks succeed. Nonprofit Quarterly, 6, 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, N., Weaver, L., & McGuire, C. (2016). Collective impact approaches and community development issues. Community Development, 47, 156–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, L. (2014). The promise and peril of collective impact. The Philanthropist, 26, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, T. (2016). Voices from the field: 10 places where collective impact gets it wrong. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 7(1).

  • Wright, K. (2001). Generosity vs. altruism: Philanthropy and charity in the United States and United Kingdom. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12, 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011). Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappalà, G., and Lyons, M. (2009). Recent approaches to measuring social impact in the third sector: An overview (Background Paper No. 5). Centre for Social Impact.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Leadership, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

    Bradley G. Winton

  2. School of Finance, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

    Christopher D. Smith

  3. Department of Marketing and Quantitative Methods, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA

    Misty A. Sabol

Authors
  1. Bradley G. Winton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher D. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Misty A. Sabol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley G. Winton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Winton, B.G., Smith, C.D. & Sabol, M.A. Economic Impact as a Community Outcomes Measurement in Nonprofit Program Evaluation: An Economic Analysis of the United Way of Southwest Alabama. Voluntas (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-024-00654-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-024-00654-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation