Feeding the Flock: The Role of the Revenue Portfolio in the Financial Growth of Congregations and Religious Organizations
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
ABSTRACT There have been fewer population‐level studies of religious organization revenues compared to other nonprofit organizations. This discrepancy is due to the exemption of houses of worship from filing the U.S. Form 990, which is the basis for most nonprofit financial analysis in academic literature. Using granular financial data on over 30,000 religious organizations in Canada from 2009 to 2016, we explore the characteristics of the revenue portfolios for this under‐studied subsector of tax‐exempt organizations. In addition to providing useful descriptive information, such as the differences between funding portfolios by religion or denomination, we identify characteristics associated with financial growth using dynamic difference‐generalized method of moments estimations. We find that donations where receipts were given drive almost all portfolios, while revenues that comprise the portfolio fringe vary widely in form and importance for growth. This study yields information useful to practitioners and researchers interested in nonprofit finance and the financial management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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