Board Composition, Committees, and Organizational Efficiency: The Case of Nonprofits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the relationship between nonprofit board composition and organizational efficiency. Overall,we find a significant statistical association between the presence of major donors on the board and indicators of organizational efficiency. Although causality cannot be demonstrated,our findings are consistent with the Fama and Jensen (1983) conjecture that major donors monitor nonprofit organizations at least in part through their board membership. The multivariate analysis shows that the ratio of total expenses to program expenses is significantly and negatively associated with higher donor representation. Decomposing the total expense ratio into its two components,we find that different factors affect the administrative and fundraising expense ratios. The percentage of major donors on the finance committee,a key committee overseeing budgets and administrative expenses,is negatively related to the organization’s administrative expenses ratio. The presence of major donors on other board committees is not significantly statistically associated with nonprofit efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it