MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7068000629

Nonprofit Fundraising Study: Covering Charitable Receipts at U.S. and Canadian Nonprofit Organizations in 2012

2013· report· en· W7068000629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2013
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptRevenueNonprofit sectorGovernment (linguistics)Nonprofit organizationUnemploymentWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The economy is trending up, slightly and slowly, but upward. Unemployment is trending down, slightly and slowly, but downward. The historical record shows that these broad changes impact giving as donors gain more confidence in their own economic futures. This study reveals to what extent charitable organizations in the United States and Canada began to see changes in charitable receipts in 2012.This work is important because, as other studies show, nonprofit charitable organizations continue to face rising demands for services and lower revenues from government grants and fees paid, user fees, and other resources.Using effective fundraising to generate sustained philanthropic giving can be part of the solution to the growing pressures many nonprofit organization managers perceive.Nearly 1,200 organizations answered NRC survey questions in early 2013 about charitable receipts from January through December 2012. Responding charitable groups included large and small organizations (by budget size) and organizations fromevery sub-sector, from Arts, Culture & Humanities to Religion. The survey reached organizations in the United States and Canada.Questions ranged from changes in charitable receipt amounts in 2012 compared with 2011 to expectations for 2013. Sections of this report share findings from the major sections of the survey.The first section of this report shares results about charitable receipts in 2012 and compares them with results from similar surveys from 2002 through 2011. This first section also compares what charities expected would happen in 2012 with what actually did. Toward the middle of the report, we share findings from questions related to planned giving and whether nonprofit organizations in this study have a formal planned giving program. As part of a series of rotating questions, we also asked about specific methods that charitable organizations might use to keep donors informed and engaged. This report includes some key findings, such as the percentage of responding charities that send a thank you acknowledgement, how many in this study are using e-newsletters, and other aspects of donor engagement.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssue Lab (Candid)French-language works237,207