Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Efficiency analysis for nonprofit organizations using DEA

Efficiency analysis for nonprofit organizations using DEA Purpose – The purpose of this study is to provide models to analyze the efficiency of programs and efficiency of fundraising to apply the models to non-profit organizations (NPOs) in Korea and to draw out improvement points of inefficiency using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Design/methodology/approach – Using DEA, this study analyzed the program efficiency and fundraising efficiency of 22 Korean NPOs in the field of humanitarian assistance. Findings – Of 22 NPOs, 15 were identified as being efficient in the program efficiency and 7 of 15 NPOs were found efficient in the fundraising efficiency. In all, four organizations were found efficientinboththe programand the fundraising efficiency. Using CCR and BCC model, this study proposed the cause of inefficiency and state of returns of scale. Practical implications – This study presents non-profitefficiency evaluation models regarding program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. This study provides the inefficient DMUs with their reference set of efficient DMUs to improve efficiency and the cause of inefficiency, whether the inefficiency is because of the pure technical inefficiency or the scale inefficiency. This study also indicates the state of variable returns to scale to propose the way of improving inefficiency by controlling the scale of inputs. The methods and the results of this study can serve as a model for researchers and practitioners to follow when evaluating efficiency in the NPOs. Originality/value – This study has the value of performing the empirical studies of efficiency analysis of Korean NPOs and providing non-profits with the model of efficiency analysis in programs and fundraising activities and basis for establishing strategies to improve both efficiencies. Keywords Non-profit, Data envelopment analysis, Fundraising efficiency, Program efficiency Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction A non-profit organization (NPO) is a term that refers to an institution that is legally constituted, non-governmental entities incorporated under the law as a charitable or non- © Hyunsoo Kim and Chang Won Lee. Published in Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at and Entrepreneurship http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode pp. 165-180 Emerald Publishing Limited This paper forms part of a special section “Global entrepreneurship and social innovation in the 2398-7812 fourth industrial revolution”, guest edited by Chang Won Lee. DOI 10.1108/APJIE-04-2018-0018 profit corporation that has been established to serve the public purpose and hold tax-exempt APJIE (Wolf, 2012). The performance measurement in NPOs has received relatively scant attention 12,2 compared to that of for-profit organizations. NPOs have tried to embed for-profit approach to their management (Han and Moon, 2003; Burnett and Campbell, 2011) and the performance evaluation has become a critical topic of NPO management. The efficiency in NPOs is hard to define, whereas that in for-profitis defined as the ratio relating outputs to inputs. Financial indicators such as net income and rates of return that provide operating efficiency in competitive output markets are not useful in non-profit entities (Nunamaker, 1985). NPOs are mission-oriented, and the missions are abstractly defined as solving social problems or pursuing public good. This makes NPOs hard to decide what to measure and how to measure their mission is achieved. Another difficulty of defining efficiency in non-profit entities is because of the complexity of theory of change. Theory of change is a visual representation of the presumed causal route linking a program’s activities and purposed outcomes (Anderson, 2005). There are many interventions and multilayers of stakeholders in the causal linkage that are not included in the theory of change but affect the results directly and indirectly when a non-profit design theory of change to solve a specific problem (Kim et al.,2017). The complexity of theory of change and multilayers of stakeholders make it difficult to measure the performance. Also, non-profit professionals hold the prevailing idea that it is not necessary to calculate the efficiency of meaningful social works with philanthropic. The purpose of non-profits is to make better lives of individuals, organizations, communities and society as a whole. Thus, the effectiveness that explains how well the mission is achieved is considered important, and the efficiency that explains output verse input has been considered less relevant. This was an obstacle for NPOs to develop the notion of efficiencies. Along with these difficulties, research on performance measurement in NPOs is still quite limited compared to that of for- profit organizations. However, working environment for an NPO has been changed. Donors’ interest and knowledge in where and how their gifts are spent are growing. The scandals of NPOs have multiplied donors’ concerns and suspects on the operation of NPOs. Excessive fundraising expense has raised an ethical issue, and the Korean law of regulating NPOs’ fundraising and spending imposes a limit on the ratio of fundraising expense by the amount of donation. NPOs have made efforts to make NPOs more accountable and reduce donors’ suspects by disclosing financial information online. Korean government regulated that NPOs with 10 billion KRW or more of the asset are obliged to disclose their financial information on the Korean tax information website. Most of the NPOs receive government’s grant. The issue of efficiency in NPOs has emerged as the amount of government’s spending in social welfare has been drastically growing. This is one of the reasons that NPOs should pursue efficiency and be accountable for their outcomes. Also, NPOs’ fundraising environment has changed. Fundraising in NPOs has become more competitive. To raise more gifts, NPOs have to compete with other organizations of the similar philanthropic goals and ones in different sectors. Nowadays, NPOs have to compete even with hybrid forms of philanthropic institutions. Social enterprises emerged to solve the problems caused by the failure of the market, government and voluntary sector (Yang et al., 2018). The emergence of corporate social responsibility and social enterprises made philanthropy not limited in the realm of traditional NPOs. The development of IT technology made donors access easily to acquire financial and performance information of an NPO. Donors are concerned with which NPO performs better among non-profits with a similar mission when they decide where to give. In the break of a series of NPOs’ malfunctioning, the public became aware of the fact that how good intentions an NPO has is not always consistent with how well it performs. Given the Efficiency importance of public trust to the sector, it is vital to restore public confidence in NPOs and analysis for survive sector-wide controversies. To respond to these changes in the environment where nonprofit NPOs are working, the betterment of efficiency has become vital. organizations The non-profit literature is not as rich as the public sector, while there is growing literature using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and other analytical methodologies to evaluate performance. Especially, the empirical studies in the non-profit sector need to be done more to respond to the challenges of evaluating non-profitefficiency. The purpose of the study is to analyze the efficiency of the NPOs, using DEA and to draw out improvement points of inefficiency. Specifically, this study attempts to make three primary contributions to the field of NPOs. First, it presents models that can evaluate NPOs by program efficiency and fundraising efficiency indicators. Second, the study attempts to analyze relative efficiency of NPOs in Korea, using DEA. Third, the study provides the cause of inefficiency and the information on the state of variable returns to scale and proposes the strategy to improve the efficiency. The paper is organized as follows. The next section contains the background and literature review. In the third section, research methodology is developed. The results of the analysis are discussed in the fourth section, with some brief concluding remarks and future research provided in the final section. 2. Background and literature review 2.1 Performance evaluation for non-profit Performance assessments for non-profit institutions can be analyzed regarding efficiency and effectiveness and include both financial and non-financial measures. To develop performance metrics that represent financial and non-financial performance, it has been tested to group the organization’s activities into five categories following the theory of change: input, activity, output, results and impact (Epstein and McFarlan, 2011). Both researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid their attention to the topics of efficiency and developed the efficiency indicators. Ritchie and Kolodinsky (2003) examined financial performance measurement ratios using data from 15 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 line items and interviewed key informants in NPOs. From these two sources, they categorized the performance factors as fundraising efficiency, public support and fiscal performance. Fundraising efficiency represents total amount raised relative to monies spent on the fundraising activities (Greenlee and Bukovinsky, 1998). The public support indicates an organization’s ability to generate revenue or the public support for an organization and the fiscal performance represents the ratio of total contributions relating to total expenses (Siciliano, 1996). Greenlee and Bukovinsky (1998) suggested that program service expense ratio and program service expense to total assets could measure how the resources were used to support the mission of the NPO. Program service expense ratio measures the relationship between funds spent performing charitable work and total expenses. Program service expense to total asset measures the efficient use of assets to provide services. Program efficiency can be approached in contrast to administrative expense. Greenlee and Brown (1999) analyzed the administrative expense and fundraising expense from approximately 700 NPOs in Pennsylvania and found that administrative expense, fundraising expense and the contributions are the factors affecting fundraising amount. Okten and Weisbrod (2000) analyzed the effects of NPOs’ operating expenses and advertising and publicity costs on the contributions given to NPOs. As a result, the general administration expenditure has a negative effect on donation amount. Fundraising efficiency is important regarding the NPO–donor relationship and public APJIE relations. From the stewardship point of view, NPOs need to ensure that their fundraising 12,2 activities are as efficient as possible by not spending excessive amount to raise donations. Waters (2011) contended that developing the NPO–donor relationship is an effective strategy to raise more funds by encouraging loyalty. From public relations perspective, they need to demonstrate their efforts to their donors and stakeholders (Sargeant and Shang, 2010). Greenfield (1996) proposed six fundraising performance measurement indices: percent participants representing participants divided by total solicitations made, average gift size, net income, the average cost per gift representing expenses divided by income received and return representing net income divided by expenses. There have been some conflicting studies regarding the relationship between administration costs and fundraising results. Frumkin and Kim (2001) classified NPOs into six groups according to institutional characteristics and analyzed the relationship between the administration efficiency and donations. The results of the analysis show that administrative efficiency does not have a significant effect on donations. Shin and Lee (2008) analyzed the financial data of 12 NPOs and found that the increase of the administration cost to the donation has likely to have a negative influence on the donor’s donation intention. Jacobs and Marudas (2003) found that the increase in administrative costs at the end of the year has a negative impact on donations. Chung (2003) contended that it would be possible to attract more donors if administrative efficiency is improved through the establishment and management of thorough business strategies while seeking the administrative efficiency and efficiency in consideration of the characteristics of NPOs. Medina-Borja and Triantis (2014) focused on the need of considering multiple dimensions of NPO’s performance measurement system. They modeled a four-stage DEA approach to evaluate fundraising efficiency, capacity building, service quality and effectiveness by incorporating administration and fundraising, program efficiency and outcome and effectiveness. 2.2 Data envelopment analysis There have been developed three methodologies to analyze the efficiency of the institution: ratio analysis, regression analysis and DEA. Ratio analysis provides only the relationship between two variables with the same unit, and it is difficult to evaluate the efficiency of the institution of which activities consists of many inputs and outputs. Regression analysis evaluates efficiency by average, so there is a limit to the efficiency analysis of institutions with a variety of service level (Park et al., 2009). DEA began with the work of Charnes et al. (1978). DEA was developed based on the fact that organizations produce outputs by transforming inputs. It is a way of analyzing relative efficiency to answer to whether the inputs are being translated into outputs most efficiently. The efficiency in DEA is a relative efficiency in which the level of efficiency is measured by setting a frontier that can be reached empirically and using the best practice point as an evaluation criterion. When evaluating the efficiency of a decision unit (DMU) in DEA, the inputs or outputs are compared with a similar reference set to assess the efficiency (Choi et al.,2010). A collection of possible combinations of input and output is a production possibility set if a certain level of input produces a certain level of output. The outer boundary of the production possibility set is the production frontier, and the observed value on the production frontier is in an efficient state. As shown in Figure 1, the production frontier satisfying the constant returns to scale (CRS) is given as a straight line passing from Efficiency analysis for nonprofit organizations Figure 1. An example of the production frontier starting point to point B given A, B, C and D production possibility set. The production frontier is given by the line connecting Points A, B and C, the vertical line from Point A and the horizontal line from Point C. As the input of D can be reduced to that of D , the efficiency value is given as D D /DD in the condition of variable returns to scale (VRS). 1 2 2 DEA has the advantages as follows. First, DEA can measure relative efficiency. Efficiency can be divided into absolute efficiency and relative efficiency. Absolute efficiency means the ratio of the output to the input of the entity. Relative efficiency is the efficiency value of an entity compared to that of other entities. DEA is a key method to suggest relative competitiveness by measuring the relative efficiency of the entity subject to the most efficient entity. The second advantage of DEA is that it can consider simultaneously multiple outputs and inputs. The third advantage of DEA is it can find if the inefficiency is because of the inefficiency of the scale or technical inefficiency and suggest potential improvements. The fourth advantage of DEA lies in its non-statistical attribute. In regression analysis, statistical assumptions are made for the distribution of residuals to estimate the production function. However, as DEA has its non-statistical attribute, it is not necessary to make statistical assumptions about this residual, and the efficiency is estimated by estimating the production relation with only given data. The fifth advantage of DEA is its non-parametrical attribute. In general, a production function is assumed, and its parameter is estimated. However, DEA does not make assumptions on the production function. It has a property of non-parametrically estimating the relationship between inputs and outputs with given data only. This has the advantage of avoiding errors in the function setting of the analyst. DEA has been used consistently to assess the efficiency of public organizations such as libraries, hospitals, universities and art and culture centers because they have many types of input and output and they often have outputs without price (Hollingsworth, 2008; Reichmann and Sommersguter-Reichmann, 2006; Colbert et al.,2000; Lee and Kim, 2016). 2.3 Non-profit organizations in Korea According to the Korea National Tax Service, there are 33,888 NPOs registered in Korea. The number of NPOs registered with the Korean Tax Service has increased 23 per cent in past ten years. Since the late 1990s, the Korean NPOs have actively begun to raise donations from the private sector, and the contribution amount has grown rapidly since the 2000s. As the number of Korean NPOs and the giving amount increases, the demand for non-profit’s accountability and quality of services does as well. Korean NPOs are classified into seven sectors: religion, social welfare, education, academy, art and culture, medical care and others. The majority of Korean NPOs are religious institutions and non-profit institutions providing services for the academy and social welfare following religious institutions take the portion of 12.9 and 10.2 per cent, APJIE respectively. Table I presents the current status of Korean NPOs. 12,2 3. Methodology 3.1 Humanitarian assistance organizations The non-profit sector is diverse in terms of the organizational objectives the institutions pursue. As the purpose of the study is to analyze the relative efficiency in the non-profit sector, it is important to compare an organization against organizations with similar missions and service programs. This study selected 22 humanitarian assistance organizations located in Korea as the subjects of the analysis. Humanitarian assistance refers to the activities that are purposed for social, economic and environmental improvements including humanitarian relief or emergency aid as well as development assistance for a long-term sustainable change (Sowers and Rowe, 2007; Bess and Link, 2011). The data were collected from information that was disclosed through the information disclosure system of Korea National Tax Service. This system requires financial information of NPOs with more than 10 billion KRW of assets to be disclosed and recommend organizations with less size of assets to. Among 9,713 NPOs whose information was released in 2017, the study selected 22 humanitarian assistance organizations that are actively working for children and adolescents’ relief and development in Korea or internationally with all contributions more than 1 billion KRW and program expenditure 1 billion KRW. They belong to the social welfare or others by the sector standard of Korea National Tax Statistic. By sorting the description of the mission and programs, the 22 NPOs were identified as pursuing the similar mission and serve similar beneficiaries. Table II presents the descriptive statistics of the selected 22 NPOs for the study. In DEA, a subject of analysis is referred to a decision-making unit (DMU). The total number of DMUs is 22, which is more than three times the sum of the number of the input and output variables. Thus, the size of DMUs was qualified for further analysis (Kim and Choi, 2005). 3.2 Performance measures The primary work of scope in NPOs is to execute purposed programs that pursue the missions such as relief of hunger, natural crisis, environmental protection and so on and to raise funds to meet the financial needs required to perform the purposed programs of the institutions. For-profits sell products and services, and in return, users pay for them. NPOs operate differently. Those who use products and services and those who pay for them are different. NPOs work on two major pillars: program execution and fundraising activities. An Sectors No. of NPOs (%) Religion 17,978 53.1 Social welfare 3,461 10.2 Education 1,736 5.1 Academy 4,369 12.9 Art and culture 1,331 3.9 Medical care 953 2.8 Others 4,060 12.0 Table I. Total 33,888 100.0 Current status of Korean NPOs Source: Korea National Tax Service (2018) Efficiency analysis for nonprofit organizations Table II. Descriptive statistics of 22 NPOs Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Years in operation 27 26 3 113 Number of employees 361 768 7 3,500 Asset (KRW) 82,136,693,091 182,656,297,139 715,036,000 690,425,219,000 Revenue (KRW) 108,007,168,727 193,665,653,320 1,529,414,000 717,234,064,000 Purposed program expenditure (KRW) 83,561,185,273 147,086,292,670 1,323,864,000 576,618,709,000 General management and fundraising expense (KRW) 10,283,246,136 13,310,891,549 220,017,000 42,717,990,000 Labor cost (KRW) 15,779,661,227 38,831,922,799 156,775,000 181,280,785,000 All contributions 95,752,274,682 160,323,308,682 1,528,680,000 615,602,573,000 Donations (KRW) 68,010,786,857 126,227,478,769 345,820,560 574,204,679,669 Number of beneficiaries 2,067,192 4,523,816 383 18,983,891 NPO set its mission and goals and plan programs to achieve the goals. The resource for the APJIE program is funded mainly through donations and grants, and the funds are used for the 12,2 planned programs and beneficiaries. Thus, the study divided efficiency into program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. 3.2.1 Program efficiency. Inputs are tangible and intangible factors including cash, personnel, equipment and other material items, that enable a non-profit to perform its tasks. Outputs are the tangible and intangible products and services that are resulted from the organization’s activities. Outcomes are the specific changes in behaviors affected by the delivery of the products and service at the level of an individuals or society as a whole. Efficiency is a term that relates outputs to inputs in quantitative terms, whereas outcomes can be described in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Program efficiency was evaluated for the purpose of measuring how efficiently the input has produced the purposed outputs in the service programs. It is to select the adequate input and output variables that are relevant to the input–output transforming process and can express the purpose of the NPO. In Son’s study (2003) to evaluate the relative efficiency of social work centers using DEA, the number of employees, the total annual operating expenses and the number of volunteers per year, and the total operating years were selected as input, and the output was selected as the number of program users per year. In the study of Kim (2004), the number of social workers, the number of volunteers, the budget amount and donation were used as inputs, and the output was assumed to be the number of users and the number of programs in measuring the relative efficiency of social work centers. Similar to this study, the number of employees, labor cost, all contributions including donation, grants and in-kind giving, management and fundraising expense were selected as the inputs. The amount of money that has been spent on the purposed program and the number of beneficiaries are the critical outputs of NPOs that can apply to the non-profits. If the number of decision-making units may not be sufficient but the number of variables included in the model increases, then the analysis result may be distorted. Therefore, in this study, we selected variables within the limits of using available data set and maintaining the characteristics of output and input variables. Table III presents inputs and outputs for program efficiency. 3.2.2 Fundraising efficiency. Non-profits’ fundraising activities include prospect donor research, donor relationship management, donor stewardship and online and offline giving channel management. Labor cost and expenses spent in these fundraising activities are inputs in the fundraising activities. In the study, fundraising expense and management and fundraising labor cost were selected as input variables, and the amount of donation raised was output variable. Because of the format of disclosed information, fundraising labor expense could not be separated from fundraising and management labor expense, and the sum amount of fundraising and management labor cost was used as input. The output in the fundraising activities can be the donation amount raised and the number of donors; however, the information on the number of donors was not disclosed in the information Categories Inputs Outputs Variables Number of employees Purposed program expenditure Table III. Labor cost Number of beneficiaries Inputs and outputs All contributions including donation, grants and (program recipients) for program in-kind giving efficiency Management and fundraising expense disclosure system and could not be able to be included as the output variable. Table IV Efficiency presents inputs and outputs for fundraising efficiency. analysis for The relative efficiency of fundraising activities was calculated by using DEA. Of the 22 nonprofit DMUs analyzed for the program efficiency, 15 DMUs with valid input information for organizations fundraising efficiency were selected. 3.3 DEA model To evaluate the efficiency of Korean NPOs, DEA technique was used to measure a relative efficiency. DEA model is divided into CCR model developed by Charnes et al. (1978) and BCC model developed by Banker et al. (1984). The CCR model assumes constant returns to scale technology, and BCC model was proposed assuming a variable returns to scale model and alleviating the limit of the constant returns to scale model. In general, public institutions use the input-based BCC model because they implement a management policy that improves efficiency by adjusting the level of input variables and the history and size of an NPO and staff skill affect the returns to scale. NPOs working in the field of humanitarian assistance set the number of beneficiaries and fundraising goals in line with the recipient area and nature of the project. The goal is achieved by adjusting the input with the output determined. Thus, the input-based DEA analysis was adopted in the study. In the study, the CCR model was additionally used to analyze the causes of inefficiency. The DEA method is a nonparametric statistic using linear programming. However, the correlation between variables was analyzed to see if there is a significant relationship between variables. Suppose that there are M kinds of inputs and N kinds of outputs and J numbers of DMUs. The DEA model for calculating the efficiency of a particular DMU based on input-based BCC model can be formulated as follows: k;* k u ¼ minu u ;l subject to k k j j u x  x lðÞ m ¼ 1; 2; :::;M ; m m j¼1 k j j y # y lðÞ n ¼ 1; 2; :::;N n n j¼1 l ¼ 1; j¼1 l  0ðÞ j ¼ 1; 2; :::;J In this study, the efficiency was analyzed using R Studio, an open source data analysis software, and SPSS 22 was used additionally for analyzing collected data. 4. Results 4.1 Program efficiency The correlation between variables was analyzed to see if there is a significant relationship between variables as presented in Table V. There was a significant correlation with the Table IV. Categories Inputs Outputs Inputs and outputs for fundraising Variables Fundraising expense The amount of donation Management and fundraising labor cost efficiency APJIE Management 12,2 and Purposed No. of Labor All fundraising program No. of Items employees cost contributions expense expense beneficiaries Number of employees 1 Labor cost 1.992** 1 All contributions 1.661** 1.656** 1 Management and fundraising expense 1.696** 1.669** 1.944** 1 Purposed program expense 1.642** 1.639** 1.999** 1.930** 1 Table V. Number of beneficiaries 1.261 1.163 1.269 1.467* 1.247 1 Correlation matrix ** * for all variables Notes: p > 0.01; p > 0.05 obtained coefficient of 1.999 between all contributions and purposed program expense. The coefficient of 1.930 between management and fundraising expense and purposed program expense indicates a strong correlation. It is because the largest sources of the spending of NPOs come from donations and grants and the management and fundraising expense affects the size of all contribution and purposed program expense. Table VI presents the relative efficiency scores of 22 NPOs calculated based on input- oriented and BCC model. The highest level of efficiency can be normalized to 1 or 100 per cent, and the relative efficiency can be expressed as, for example, 0.75 or 75 per cent. Among 22 NPOs, 15 non-profits (DMU 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22) are identified as being efficient with a relative efficiency score of 1. 7 NPOs are identified as being inefficient in the program efficiency. DMU Efficiency Reference set (reference weights) 1 0.738 DMU4 (0.043), DMU7 (0.957) 2 1.000 3 1.000 4 1.000 5 1.000 6 1.000 7 1.000 8 0.663 DMU 3 (0.165), DMU 4 (0.512), DMU 6 (0.007), DMU 12 (0.316) 9 1.000 10 0.689 DMU 3 (0.504), DMU 7 (0.496) 11 0.717 DMU 4 (0.649), DMU 6 (0.016), DMU12 (0.335) 12 1.000 13 1.000 14 1.000 15 1.000 16 1.000 17 1.000 18 0.764 DMU 14 (0.634), DMU 2 (0.002), DMU 22 (0.357) Table VI. 19 0.900 DMU 4 (0.002), DMU 17 (0.795), DMU 20 (0.153) Program efficiency 20 1.000 score and 21 0.593 DMU 13 (0.172), DMU 14 (0.537), DMU 16 (0.014), DMU 22 (0.277) reference set 22 1.000 DEA provides a reference set of efficient DMUs to which the assessed inefficient DMU is Efficiency directly compared to obtain its efficiency. The reference set has a similar input combination analysis for to the assessed DMU, thus offers a direction to improve efficiency while maintaining the nonprofit current production structure as a whole. Reference set information offers peer DMUs and organizations their weights to refer to. For example, DMU 1 can refer to DMU 4 and DMU 7 to improve its efficiency by controlling the inputs reflecting the reference weights of DMU 4 and 7. According to Farrell (1957), production efficiency is divided into technical efficiency and allocative efficiency. Technical efficiency is calculated as the relative ratio of organizations’ production factor vectors to that of the organization using the least amount of inputs in the production of a certain amount of output. Technical inefficiency refers to the extent to which the maximum output that can be produced from the combination of a given input component is not met. Technical efficiency is again classified into pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency. Pure technology efficiency refers to the effect of eliminating the effect of scale efficiency on technological efficiency. The inefficiency of scale means that the scale of production is outside the optimal size. It can establish a strategy for efficiency improvement through analyzing whether the cause of inefficiency is in pure technical efficiency or scale efficiency. The efficiency of the scale can be calculated by dividing the efficiency of the CCR model considering the technical efficiency by the efficiency of the BCC model considering only the pure technical efficiency. Table VII presents whether the cause of inefficiency is in pure technical efficiency or scale efficiency. The causes of five inefficient NPOs were in pure technical efficiency, and six Cause of Pure inefficiency in Cause of The total Technical technical Scale pure technical inefficiency in value of Returns DMU efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency scale efficiency Lambda to scale 1 0.519 0.738 0.704 * 0.388 IRS 2 0.691 1.000 0.691 * 48.345 DRS 3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 5 0.522 1.000 0.522 * 1.296 DRS 6 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 7 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 8 0.629 0.663 0.948 * 1.191 DRS 9 0.609 1.000 0.609 * 0.386 IRS 10 0.661 0.689 0.959 * 0.821 IRS 11 0.631 0.717 0.880 * 0.344 IRS 12 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 13 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 14 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 15 0.474 1.000 0.474 * 1.296 DRS 16 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 17 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 18 0.626 0.764 0.820 * 1.384 DRS 19 0.739 0.900 0.821 * 0.422 IRS 20 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 21 0.591 0.593 0.996 * 1.994 DRS 22 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS Table VII. Notes: IRS: Increased returns to scale; DRS: Decreased returns to scale; CRS: Constant returns to scale; *cause of the inefficiency exists Cause of inefficiency were in the efficiency of scale. Among the 22 institutions, 11 were efficient in the CCR model, APJIE and 15 were efficient in the BCC model. 12,2 If the cause of inefficiency is in the scale inefficiency (DMU 1, 2, 5, 9, 15 and 19), then it is possible to eliminate the inefficiency by adjusting the budget and the number of employees. If the cause of inefficiency is in the pure technology inefficiency (DMU 8, 10, 11, 18 and 21), then education and training for the professionals can improve the efficiency. Variable returns to scale encompass three states to scale: constant returns to scale (CRS), increasing returns to scale (IRS) and decreasing returns to scale (DRS). The increasing returns to scale mean that 1 per cent increase in the size of the input factor will increase the output factor by more than 1 per cent. Decreasing returns to scale mean that 1 per cent increase of the input produces less than 1 per cent of output increase. Thus, if a DMU is in increasing returns to scale, then the proportion of output to the input can be improved by increasing the size of inputs. Conversely, if there is decreasing returns to scale, then the ratio of output to the input can be improved by reducing the input size. In Table VII, it can be judged whether the profit of the scale is in the state of CRS, DRS or IRS according to the total Lambda value. If the total value of Lambda is less than 1, then there is increasing returns to scale. If it is higher than 1, then there is decreasing returns to scale. If it is 1, then the DMU is the constant returns to scale. In the case of DMU 2, it is necessary to reduce the size of inputs to improve the efficiency because it is in the state of decreasing returns to scale. In case of DMU 1, it is in the state of increasing returns to scale. Thus, it needs to expand their scale of inputs to improve the efficiency. 4.2 Fundraising efficiency As a result of the correlation analysis, no significant correlation was found between the donation income and the fundraising expense and between donation income and management and fundraising labor costs. Table VIII presents the correlation matrix for all variables. This seems to be because of the insufficient number of samples. However, fundraising expense and fundraising labor costs are still valid input to analyze efficiency because DEA is an analytical method that does not make any parametric assumptions. There were 8 inefficient DMUs in the fundraising efficiency out of 15 DMUs as shown in Table IX. Taking the program efficiency analysis results together, only four DMUs (DMU 2, 4, 6 and 13) were identified as being efficient in both program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. Studying the characteristics of these four DMUs reveals that three of them were ranked top ten organizations in the donation amount given by individuals and international organizations. They have 38 years of operation on average, and their parent body organizations are international humanitarian assistance organizations. The DMU 13 which is 1 out of 4 DMUs scoring 100 per cent efficiency in both program and fundraising has a relatively short history of 18 years in operation and a small number of employees of 35. Management and Items Fundraising expense fundraising labor cost Donations Fundraising expense 1 Management and fundraising labor cost 1.876* 1 Table VIII. Donations 0.46 0.277 1 Correlation matrix for all variables Note: p > 0.01 Efficiency DMU Efficiency Reference set (reference weights) analysis for 1 1.000 nonprofit 2 1.000 organizations 3 0.648 DMU 1 (0.957), DMU 4 (0.043) 4 1.000 5 0.239 DMU 1 (0.295), DMU 6 (0.022), DMU 10 (0.683) 6 1.000 7 0.361 DMU 2 (0.486), DMU 13 (0.514) 8 0.330 DMU 1 (0.114), DMU 6 (0.079), DMU 10 (0.807) 9 0.372 DMU 2 (0.025), DMU 13 (0.975) 10 1.000 11 1.000 Table IX. 12 0.052 DMU 1 (0.130), DMU 6 (0.129), DMU 10 (0.741) Fundraising 13 1.000 efficiency score and 14 0.996 DMU 10 (0.975), DMU 11 (0.025) reference set 15 0.144 DMU 10 (0.105), DMU 11 (0.895) Inefficient DMUs with a short history and small numbers of employees can refer to DMU 13 to improve their inefficiency. Table X presents the cause of inefficiency. Eight DMUs were identified as inefficient in pure technical efficiency. This proposes that these DMUs can improve the efficiency by providing quality of education and training to fundraising professionals, sharing the best practice of fundraising and changing the fundraising team structure. Of 15 DMUs, 10 are in the state of increasing returns to scale. This implies that DMUs with increasing returns to scale need to scale up the size of inputs and, thus, the number of fundraising professionals and the amount of fundraising budget to improve the fundraising efficiency. Cause of Pure inefficiency in Cause of The total Technical technical Scale pure technical inefficiency in value of DMU efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency scale efficiency Lambda Returns to scale 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 2 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 3 0.606 0.648 0.936 * 1.098 DRS 4 0.583 1.000 0.583 * 1.950 DRS 5 0.235 0.239 0.984 * 0.382 IRS 6 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 7 0.354 0.361 0.980 * 0.535 IRS 8 0.319 0.330 0.967 * 0.268 IRS 9 0.316 0.372 0.850 * 0.118 IRS 10 0.871 1.000 0.871 0.091 IRS 11 0.207 1.000 0.207 0.014 IRS 12 0.050 0.052 0.974 * 0.328 IRS 13 0.846 1.000 0.846 0.098 IRS 14 0.675 0.996 0.678 * 0.071 IRS 15 0.023 0.144 0.159 * 0.012 IRS Table X. Notes: IRS: Increased returns to scale; DRS: Decreased returns to scale and CRS: Constant returns to scale; *cause of the inefficiency exists Cause of inefficiency 5. Conclusion APJIE Non-profit institutions work for public good and raise financial resources to achieve the 12,2 goals. Efficiency in the program and fundraising activities should be obtained in the process of achieving the goals. In spite of its importance, there has been scant research in evaluating efficiencies in the nonprofit sector. In the study, the efficiency of the purposed program and the efficiency of fundraising activities were analyzed by applying DEA model. To pursue the validity of the analysis, the study focused on analyzing 22 non-profit institutions in Korea working in the field of humanitarian assistance. The data were based on the disclosed information in Korea Tax Bureau. The contribution of this study is as follows. First, it presents non-profitefficiency evaluation models in terms of program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. It is important to measure not only the program efficiency but also the fundraising efficiency because NPOs fulfill their goals by providing service and goods to the needy and creating financial resources by raising gifts as well. Second, the study provides the inefficient DMUs with their reference set of efficient DMUs. By referring to the reference set of DMUs, inefficient DMUs can improve their inefficiency. Third, the study provides the cause of inefficiency; whether the inefficiency is because of the pure technical inefficiency or the scale inefficiency. Fourth, the study also indicates the state of variable returns to scale to propose the way of improving inefficiency by controlling the scale of inputs. The methods and the results of this study can serve as a model for researchers and practitioners to follow when evaluating efficiency in the non-profit sectors. This study has limitations as follows. First, the DEA model was applied to the limited numbers of Korean NPOs in the field of humanitarian assistance and mostly raking at the top tier of fundraising amount. Second, the qualitative factors were not applied to the analysis. Third, the form and selection of the input and output variables were limited only in the available data of the government’s information disclosure system. The further study in multiple stage organizational performance assessment using DEA would embrace the holistic efficiency measurement. Future studies may include suggesting improvement values in inputs and outputs, analyzing productivity changes by combining inputs and outputs over many years and using Tobit regression to find effective causes. In spite of the limitations, the study has the value of performing the empirical studies of efficiency analysis of Korean NPOs and providing non-profits with the model of efficiency analysis in programs and fundraising activities and basis for establishing strategies to improve both efficiencies. References Anderson,A.(2005), “An introduction to theory of change”, Evaluation Exchange, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 12-19. Banker, R.D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984), “Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1078-1092. Bess, A. and Link, R.J. (2011), “International careers in social work”, in Healy, L.M. and Link, R.J. (Eds), Handbook of International Social Work: Human Rights, Development, and the Global Profession, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, NY. Burnett, H.H. and Campbell, A. (2011), “Embracing business principles in the third sector: How not-for- profits take the route from ‘traditional charity’ income streams to more entrepreneurial ‘self- generating’ income models”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 31-48. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 429-444. Choi, H.K., Oh, M.S. and Park, S.M. (2010), “A study of measuring the efficiency of non-profit Efficiency organization (NPO) applying data envelopment analysis (DEA)”, Korean NPO Review, Vol. 9 analysis for No. 2, pp. 33-59. nonprofit Chung, M.S. (2003), “The application of the concept of efficiency to the human service organization”, organizations Social Welfare Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Colbert, A., Levary, R.R. and Shaner, M.C. (2000), “Determining the relative efficiency of MBA programs using DEA”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 656-669. Epstein, M.J. and McFarlan, F.W. (2011), “Measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of a nonprofit’s performance”, Strategic Finance, Vol. 4 No. 93, pp. 27-35. Farrell, M.J. (1957), “The measurement of productive efficiency”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 253-290. Frumkin, P. and Kim, M.T. (2001), “Strategic positioning and the financing of nonprofit organizations: Is efficiency rewarded in the contributions marketplace?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 266-275. Greenfield, J.M. (1996), Fund-Raising Cost Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Workbook, Wiley, New York, NY. Greenlee, J.S. and Brown, K.L. (1999), “The impact of accounting information on contributions organizations”, Research in Accounting Regulation, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 113-128. Greenlee, J.S. and Bukovinsky, D. (1998), “Financial ratios for use in the analytical review of charitable organizations”, Ohio CPA Journal, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 32-38. Han, J.G. and Moon, H.K. (2003), “Business perspectives to not-for-profit organizations: research trends and future directions”, Korean NPO Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 47-98. Hollingsworth, B. (2008), “The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care delivery”, Health Economics, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 1107-1128. Jacobs, F.A. and Marudas, N.P. (2003), “Whether US donors reward nonprofit organization operating efficiency: an examination of Frumkin and Kim”, Conference of the International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines, New Orleans: LA. Kim, Y.M. (2004), “A measurement of community welfare center’s relative efficiency using DEA”, Journal of Korean Association for Local Government Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 133-153. Kim, K.W. and Choi, H.J. (2005), “A critical review on the measurement of local governments’ relative efficiency using the DEA model”, Korea Local Administration Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 213-244. Kim, H., Lethem, F.J. and Lee, C.W. (2017), “The ethical issue of contemporary philanthropy: Unintended negative consequences of philanthropy”, Management Review: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 12, pp. 4-25.a Korea National Tax Service (2018), “Korea tax statistics report, 2017”, available at: http://stats.nts.go. kr/national/major_detail.asp?year=2016&catecode=A04052# (accessed 12 April 2018). Lee, C.W. and Kim, H. (2016), “Study on measuring the efficiency of nonprofit organization using DEA: focusing on public art centers in Korea”, Logos Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 14, pp. 155-172. Medina-Borja, A. and Triantis, K. (2014), “Modeling social services performance: a four-stage DEA approach to evaluate fundraising efficiency, capacity building, service quality, and effectiveness in the nonprofit sector”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 221 No. 1, pp. 285-307. Nunamaker, T.R. (1985), “Using data envelopment analysis to measure the efficiency of non-profit organizations: a critical evaluation”, Managerial and Decision Economics,Vol.6 No. 1, pp. 50-58. Okten, C. and Weisbrod, B.A. (2000), “Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 255-272. Park, B.-S., Lee, Y.-K. and Kim, Y.-S. (2009), “Efficiency evaluation of general hospitals using DEA”, Journal of the Korea Contents Association, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 299-312. Reichmann, G. and Sommersguter-Reichmann, M. (2006), “University library benchmarking: an APJIE international comparison using DEA”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 100 12,2 No. 1, pp. 131-147. Ritchie, W.J. and Kolodinsky, R.W. (2003), “Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement: an evaluation of new and existing financial performance measures”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 367-381. Sargeant, A. and Shang, J. (2010), Fundraising Principles and Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Shin, H.-J. and Lee, S.-W. (2008), “Analysis on the administrative efficiency related to donations in nonprofit organizations”, Korean Policy Sciences Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 275-296. Siciliano, J.I. (1996), “The relationship between formal planning and performance in nonprofit organizations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 387-403. Son, K.-H. (2003), “A study on utilizing DEA in efficiency evaluation of social welfare agencies”, Korean Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 117-141. Sowers, K.M. and Rowe, W.S. (2007), Social Work Practice and Social Justice: From Local to Global Perspectives, Thompson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA. Waters, R.D. (2011), “Increasing fundraising efficiency through evaluation: Applying communication theory to the nonprofit organization – donor relationship”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 458-475. Wolf, T. (2012), Managing a Nonprofit Organization, Updated Twenty-First-Century Edition, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Yang, Y.L., Lee, S. and Kim, S. (2018), “Locus of legitimacy and startup resource acquisition strategies: evidence from social enterprises in South Korea and Taiwan”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 32-44. Further reading Sheldon, D.R. (1996), Achieving Accountability in Business and Government: Managing for Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Economy, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport. Corresponding author Chang Won Lee can be contacted at: leecw@hanyang.ac.kr For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Emerald Publishing

Efficiency analysis for nonprofit organizations using DEA

Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/efficiency-analysis-for-nonprofit-organizations-using-dea-57qQqbGJ88

References (46)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Hyunsoo Kim and Chang Won Lee.
ISSN
2398-7812
DOI
10.1108/apjie-04-2018-0018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to provide models to analyze the efficiency of programs and efficiency of fundraising to apply the models to non-profit organizations (NPOs) in Korea and to draw out improvement points of inefficiency using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Design/methodology/approach – Using DEA, this study analyzed the program efficiency and fundraising efficiency of 22 Korean NPOs in the field of humanitarian assistance. Findings – Of 22 NPOs, 15 were identified as being efficient in the program efficiency and 7 of 15 NPOs were found efficient in the fundraising efficiency. In all, four organizations were found efficientinboththe programand the fundraising efficiency. Using CCR and BCC model, this study proposed the cause of inefficiency and state of returns of scale. Practical implications – This study presents non-profitefficiency evaluation models regarding program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. This study provides the inefficient DMUs with their reference set of efficient DMUs to improve efficiency and the cause of inefficiency, whether the inefficiency is because of the pure technical inefficiency or the scale inefficiency. This study also indicates the state of variable returns to scale to propose the way of improving inefficiency by controlling the scale of inputs. The methods and the results of this study can serve as a model for researchers and practitioners to follow when evaluating efficiency in the NPOs. Originality/value – This study has the value of performing the empirical studies of efficiency analysis of Korean NPOs and providing non-profits with the model of efficiency analysis in programs and fundraising activities and basis for establishing strategies to improve both efficiencies. Keywords Non-profit, Data envelopment analysis, Fundraising efficiency, Program efficiency Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction A non-profit organization (NPO) is a term that refers to an institution that is legally constituted, non-governmental entities incorporated under the law as a charitable or non- © Hyunsoo Kim and Chang Won Lee. Published in Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at and Entrepreneurship http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode pp. 165-180 Emerald Publishing Limited This paper forms part of a special section “Global entrepreneurship and social innovation in the 2398-7812 fourth industrial revolution”, guest edited by Chang Won Lee. DOI 10.1108/APJIE-04-2018-0018 profit corporation that has been established to serve the public purpose and hold tax-exempt APJIE (Wolf, 2012). The performance measurement in NPOs has received relatively scant attention 12,2 compared to that of for-profit organizations. NPOs have tried to embed for-profit approach to their management (Han and Moon, 2003; Burnett and Campbell, 2011) and the performance evaluation has become a critical topic of NPO management. The efficiency in NPOs is hard to define, whereas that in for-profitis defined as the ratio relating outputs to inputs. Financial indicators such as net income and rates of return that provide operating efficiency in competitive output markets are not useful in non-profit entities (Nunamaker, 1985). NPOs are mission-oriented, and the missions are abstractly defined as solving social problems or pursuing public good. This makes NPOs hard to decide what to measure and how to measure their mission is achieved. Another difficulty of defining efficiency in non-profit entities is because of the complexity of theory of change. Theory of change is a visual representation of the presumed causal route linking a program’s activities and purposed outcomes (Anderson, 2005). There are many interventions and multilayers of stakeholders in the causal linkage that are not included in the theory of change but affect the results directly and indirectly when a non-profit design theory of change to solve a specific problem (Kim et al.,2017). The complexity of theory of change and multilayers of stakeholders make it difficult to measure the performance. Also, non-profit professionals hold the prevailing idea that it is not necessary to calculate the efficiency of meaningful social works with philanthropic. The purpose of non-profits is to make better lives of individuals, organizations, communities and society as a whole. Thus, the effectiveness that explains how well the mission is achieved is considered important, and the efficiency that explains output verse input has been considered less relevant. This was an obstacle for NPOs to develop the notion of efficiencies. Along with these difficulties, research on performance measurement in NPOs is still quite limited compared to that of for- profit organizations. However, working environment for an NPO has been changed. Donors’ interest and knowledge in where and how their gifts are spent are growing. The scandals of NPOs have multiplied donors’ concerns and suspects on the operation of NPOs. Excessive fundraising expense has raised an ethical issue, and the Korean law of regulating NPOs’ fundraising and spending imposes a limit on the ratio of fundraising expense by the amount of donation. NPOs have made efforts to make NPOs more accountable and reduce donors’ suspects by disclosing financial information online. Korean government regulated that NPOs with 10 billion KRW or more of the asset are obliged to disclose their financial information on the Korean tax information website. Most of the NPOs receive government’s grant. The issue of efficiency in NPOs has emerged as the amount of government’s spending in social welfare has been drastically growing. This is one of the reasons that NPOs should pursue efficiency and be accountable for their outcomes. Also, NPOs’ fundraising environment has changed. Fundraising in NPOs has become more competitive. To raise more gifts, NPOs have to compete with other organizations of the similar philanthropic goals and ones in different sectors. Nowadays, NPOs have to compete even with hybrid forms of philanthropic institutions. Social enterprises emerged to solve the problems caused by the failure of the market, government and voluntary sector (Yang et al., 2018). The emergence of corporate social responsibility and social enterprises made philanthropy not limited in the realm of traditional NPOs. The development of IT technology made donors access easily to acquire financial and performance information of an NPO. Donors are concerned with which NPO performs better among non-profits with a similar mission when they decide where to give. In the break of a series of NPOs’ malfunctioning, the public became aware of the fact that how good intentions an NPO has is not always consistent with how well it performs. Given the Efficiency importance of public trust to the sector, it is vital to restore public confidence in NPOs and analysis for survive sector-wide controversies. To respond to these changes in the environment where nonprofit NPOs are working, the betterment of efficiency has become vital. organizations The non-profit literature is not as rich as the public sector, while there is growing literature using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and other analytical methodologies to evaluate performance. Especially, the empirical studies in the non-profit sector need to be done more to respond to the challenges of evaluating non-profitefficiency. The purpose of the study is to analyze the efficiency of the NPOs, using DEA and to draw out improvement points of inefficiency. Specifically, this study attempts to make three primary contributions to the field of NPOs. First, it presents models that can evaluate NPOs by program efficiency and fundraising efficiency indicators. Second, the study attempts to analyze relative efficiency of NPOs in Korea, using DEA. Third, the study provides the cause of inefficiency and the information on the state of variable returns to scale and proposes the strategy to improve the efficiency. The paper is organized as follows. The next section contains the background and literature review. In the third section, research methodology is developed. The results of the analysis are discussed in the fourth section, with some brief concluding remarks and future research provided in the final section. 2. Background and literature review 2.1 Performance evaluation for non-profit Performance assessments for non-profit institutions can be analyzed regarding efficiency and effectiveness and include both financial and non-financial measures. To develop performance metrics that represent financial and non-financial performance, it has been tested to group the organization’s activities into five categories following the theory of change: input, activity, output, results and impact (Epstein and McFarlan, 2011). Both researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid their attention to the topics of efficiency and developed the efficiency indicators. Ritchie and Kolodinsky (2003) examined financial performance measurement ratios using data from 15 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 line items and interviewed key informants in NPOs. From these two sources, they categorized the performance factors as fundraising efficiency, public support and fiscal performance. Fundraising efficiency represents total amount raised relative to monies spent on the fundraising activities (Greenlee and Bukovinsky, 1998). The public support indicates an organization’s ability to generate revenue or the public support for an organization and the fiscal performance represents the ratio of total contributions relating to total expenses (Siciliano, 1996). Greenlee and Bukovinsky (1998) suggested that program service expense ratio and program service expense to total assets could measure how the resources were used to support the mission of the NPO. Program service expense ratio measures the relationship between funds spent performing charitable work and total expenses. Program service expense to total asset measures the efficient use of assets to provide services. Program efficiency can be approached in contrast to administrative expense. Greenlee and Brown (1999) analyzed the administrative expense and fundraising expense from approximately 700 NPOs in Pennsylvania and found that administrative expense, fundraising expense and the contributions are the factors affecting fundraising amount. Okten and Weisbrod (2000) analyzed the effects of NPOs’ operating expenses and advertising and publicity costs on the contributions given to NPOs. As a result, the general administration expenditure has a negative effect on donation amount. Fundraising efficiency is important regarding the NPO–donor relationship and public APJIE relations. From the stewardship point of view, NPOs need to ensure that their fundraising 12,2 activities are as efficient as possible by not spending excessive amount to raise donations. Waters (2011) contended that developing the NPO–donor relationship is an effective strategy to raise more funds by encouraging loyalty. From public relations perspective, they need to demonstrate their efforts to their donors and stakeholders (Sargeant and Shang, 2010). Greenfield (1996) proposed six fundraising performance measurement indices: percent participants representing participants divided by total solicitations made, average gift size, net income, the average cost per gift representing expenses divided by income received and return representing net income divided by expenses. There have been some conflicting studies regarding the relationship between administration costs and fundraising results. Frumkin and Kim (2001) classified NPOs into six groups according to institutional characteristics and analyzed the relationship between the administration efficiency and donations. The results of the analysis show that administrative efficiency does not have a significant effect on donations. Shin and Lee (2008) analyzed the financial data of 12 NPOs and found that the increase of the administration cost to the donation has likely to have a negative influence on the donor’s donation intention. Jacobs and Marudas (2003) found that the increase in administrative costs at the end of the year has a negative impact on donations. Chung (2003) contended that it would be possible to attract more donors if administrative efficiency is improved through the establishment and management of thorough business strategies while seeking the administrative efficiency and efficiency in consideration of the characteristics of NPOs. Medina-Borja and Triantis (2014) focused on the need of considering multiple dimensions of NPO’s performance measurement system. They modeled a four-stage DEA approach to evaluate fundraising efficiency, capacity building, service quality and effectiveness by incorporating administration and fundraising, program efficiency and outcome and effectiveness. 2.2 Data envelopment analysis There have been developed three methodologies to analyze the efficiency of the institution: ratio analysis, regression analysis and DEA. Ratio analysis provides only the relationship between two variables with the same unit, and it is difficult to evaluate the efficiency of the institution of which activities consists of many inputs and outputs. Regression analysis evaluates efficiency by average, so there is a limit to the efficiency analysis of institutions with a variety of service level (Park et al., 2009). DEA began with the work of Charnes et al. (1978). DEA was developed based on the fact that organizations produce outputs by transforming inputs. It is a way of analyzing relative efficiency to answer to whether the inputs are being translated into outputs most efficiently. The efficiency in DEA is a relative efficiency in which the level of efficiency is measured by setting a frontier that can be reached empirically and using the best practice point as an evaluation criterion. When evaluating the efficiency of a decision unit (DMU) in DEA, the inputs or outputs are compared with a similar reference set to assess the efficiency (Choi et al.,2010). A collection of possible combinations of input and output is a production possibility set if a certain level of input produces a certain level of output. The outer boundary of the production possibility set is the production frontier, and the observed value on the production frontier is in an efficient state. As shown in Figure 1, the production frontier satisfying the constant returns to scale (CRS) is given as a straight line passing from Efficiency analysis for nonprofit organizations Figure 1. An example of the production frontier starting point to point B given A, B, C and D production possibility set. The production frontier is given by the line connecting Points A, B and C, the vertical line from Point A and the horizontal line from Point C. As the input of D can be reduced to that of D , the efficiency value is given as D D /DD in the condition of variable returns to scale (VRS). 1 2 2 DEA has the advantages as follows. First, DEA can measure relative efficiency. Efficiency can be divided into absolute efficiency and relative efficiency. Absolute efficiency means the ratio of the output to the input of the entity. Relative efficiency is the efficiency value of an entity compared to that of other entities. DEA is a key method to suggest relative competitiveness by measuring the relative efficiency of the entity subject to the most efficient entity. The second advantage of DEA is that it can consider simultaneously multiple outputs and inputs. The third advantage of DEA is it can find if the inefficiency is because of the inefficiency of the scale or technical inefficiency and suggest potential improvements. The fourth advantage of DEA lies in its non-statistical attribute. In regression analysis, statistical assumptions are made for the distribution of residuals to estimate the production function. However, as DEA has its non-statistical attribute, it is not necessary to make statistical assumptions about this residual, and the efficiency is estimated by estimating the production relation with only given data. The fifth advantage of DEA is its non-parametrical attribute. In general, a production function is assumed, and its parameter is estimated. However, DEA does not make assumptions on the production function. It has a property of non-parametrically estimating the relationship between inputs and outputs with given data only. This has the advantage of avoiding errors in the function setting of the analyst. DEA has been used consistently to assess the efficiency of public organizations such as libraries, hospitals, universities and art and culture centers because they have many types of input and output and they often have outputs without price (Hollingsworth, 2008; Reichmann and Sommersguter-Reichmann, 2006; Colbert et al.,2000; Lee and Kim, 2016). 2.3 Non-profit organizations in Korea According to the Korea National Tax Service, there are 33,888 NPOs registered in Korea. The number of NPOs registered with the Korean Tax Service has increased 23 per cent in past ten years. Since the late 1990s, the Korean NPOs have actively begun to raise donations from the private sector, and the contribution amount has grown rapidly since the 2000s. As the number of Korean NPOs and the giving amount increases, the demand for non-profit’s accountability and quality of services does as well. Korean NPOs are classified into seven sectors: religion, social welfare, education, academy, art and culture, medical care and others. The majority of Korean NPOs are religious institutions and non-profit institutions providing services for the academy and social welfare following religious institutions take the portion of 12.9 and 10.2 per cent, APJIE respectively. Table I presents the current status of Korean NPOs. 12,2 3. Methodology 3.1 Humanitarian assistance organizations The non-profit sector is diverse in terms of the organizational objectives the institutions pursue. As the purpose of the study is to analyze the relative efficiency in the non-profit sector, it is important to compare an organization against organizations with similar missions and service programs. This study selected 22 humanitarian assistance organizations located in Korea as the subjects of the analysis. Humanitarian assistance refers to the activities that are purposed for social, economic and environmental improvements including humanitarian relief or emergency aid as well as development assistance for a long-term sustainable change (Sowers and Rowe, 2007; Bess and Link, 2011). The data were collected from information that was disclosed through the information disclosure system of Korea National Tax Service. This system requires financial information of NPOs with more than 10 billion KRW of assets to be disclosed and recommend organizations with less size of assets to. Among 9,713 NPOs whose information was released in 2017, the study selected 22 humanitarian assistance organizations that are actively working for children and adolescents’ relief and development in Korea or internationally with all contributions more than 1 billion KRW and program expenditure 1 billion KRW. They belong to the social welfare or others by the sector standard of Korea National Tax Statistic. By sorting the description of the mission and programs, the 22 NPOs were identified as pursuing the similar mission and serve similar beneficiaries. Table II presents the descriptive statistics of the selected 22 NPOs for the study. In DEA, a subject of analysis is referred to a decision-making unit (DMU). The total number of DMUs is 22, which is more than three times the sum of the number of the input and output variables. Thus, the size of DMUs was qualified for further analysis (Kim and Choi, 2005). 3.2 Performance measures The primary work of scope in NPOs is to execute purposed programs that pursue the missions such as relief of hunger, natural crisis, environmental protection and so on and to raise funds to meet the financial needs required to perform the purposed programs of the institutions. For-profits sell products and services, and in return, users pay for them. NPOs operate differently. Those who use products and services and those who pay for them are different. NPOs work on two major pillars: program execution and fundraising activities. An Sectors No. of NPOs (%) Religion 17,978 53.1 Social welfare 3,461 10.2 Education 1,736 5.1 Academy 4,369 12.9 Art and culture 1,331 3.9 Medical care 953 2.8 Others 4,060 12.0 Table I. Total 33,888 100.0 Current status of Korean NPOs Source: Korea National Tax Service (2018) Efficiency analysis for nonprofit organizations Table II. Descriptive statistics of 22 NPOs Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Years in operation 27 26 3 113 Number of employees 361 768 7 3,500 Asset (KRW) 82,136,693,091 182,656,297,139 715,036,000 690,425,219,000 Revenue (KRW) 108,007,168,727 193,665,653,320 1,529,414,000 717,234,064,000 Purposed program expenditure (KRW) 83,561,185,273 147,086,292,670 1,323,864,000 576,618,709,000 General management and fundraising expense (KRW) 10,283,246,136 13,310,891,549 220,017,000 42,717,990,000 Labor cost (KRW) 15,779,661,227 38,831,922,799 156,775,000 181,280,785,000 All contributions 95,752,274,682 160,323,308,682 1,528,680,000 615,602,573,000 Donations (KRW) 68,010,786,857 126,227,478,769 345,820,560 574,204,679,669 Number of beneficiaries 2,067,192 4,523,816 383 18,983,891 NPO set its mission and goals and plan programs to achieve the goals. The resource for the APJIE program is funded mainly through donations and grants, and the funds are used for the 12,2 planned programs and beneficiaries. Thus, the study divided efficiency into program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. 3.2.1 Program efficiency. Inputs are tangible and intangible factors including cash, personnel, equipment and other material items, that enable a non-profit to perform its tasks. Outputs are the tangible and intangible products and services that are resulted from the organization’s activities. Outcomes are the specific changes in behaviors affected by the delivery of the products and service at the level of an individuals or society as a whole. Efficiency is a term that relates outputs to inputs in quantitative terms, whereas outcomes can be described in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Program efficiency was evaluated for the purpose of measuring how efficiently the input has produced the purposed outputs in the service programs. It is to select the adequate input and output variables that are relevant to the input–output transforming process and can express the purpose of the NPO. In Son’s study (2003) to evaluate the relative efficiency of social work centers using DEA, the number of employees, the total annual operating expenses and the number of volunteers per year, and the total operating years were selected as input, and the output was selected as the number of program users per year. In the study of Kim (2004), the number of social workers, the number of volunteers, the budget amount and donation were used as inputs, and the output was assumed to be the number of users and the number of programs in measuring the relative efficiency of social work centers. Similar to this study, the number of employees, labor cost, all contributions including donation, grants and in-kind giving, management and fundraising expense were selected as the inputs. The amount of money that has been spent on the purposed program and the number of beneficiaries are the critical outputs of NPOs that can apply to the non-profits. If the number of decision-making units may not be sufficient but the number of variables included in the model increases, then the analysis result may be distorted. Therefore, in this study, we selected variables within the limits of using available data set and maintaining the characteristics of output and input variables. Table III presents inputs and outputs for program efficiency. 3.2.2 Fundraising efficiency. Non-profits’ fundraising activities include prospect donor research, donor relationship management, donor stewardship and online and offline giving channel management. Labor cost and expenses spent in these fundraising activities are inputs in the fundraising activities. In the study, fundraising expense and management and fundraising labor cost were selected as input variables, and the amount of donation raised was output variable. Because of the format of disclosed information, fundraising labor expense could not be separated from fundraising and management labor expense, and the sum amount of fundraising and management labor cost was used as input. The output in the fundraising activities can be the donation amount raised and the number of donors; however, the information on the number of donors was not disclosed in the information Categories Inputs Outputs Variables Number of employees Purposed program expenditure Table III. Labor cost Number of beneficiaries Inputs and outputs All contributions including donation, grants and (program recipients) for program in-kind giving efficiency Management and fundraising expense disclosure system and could not be able to be included as the output variable. Table IV Efficiency presents inputs and outputs for fundraising efficiency. analysis for The relative efficiency of fundraising activities was calculated by using DEA. Of the 22 nonprofit DMUs analyzed for the program efficiency, 15 DMUs with valid input information for organizations fundraising efficiency were selected. 3.3 DEA model To evaluate the efficiency of Korean NPOs, DEA technique was used to measure a relative efficiency. DEA model is divided into CCR model developed by Charnes et al. (1978) and BCC model developed by Banker et al. (1984). The CCR model assumes constant returns to scale technology, and BCC model was proposed assuming a variable returns to scale model and alleviating the limit of the constant returns to scale model. In general, public institutions use the input-based BCC model because they implement a management policy that improves efficiency by adjusting the level of input variables and the history and size of an NPO and staff skill affect the returns to scale. NPOs working in the field of humanitarian assistance set the number of beneficiaries and fundraising goals in line with the recipient area and nature of the project. The goal is achieved by adjusting the input with the output determined. Thus, the input-based DEA analysis was adopted in the study. In the study, the CCR model was additionally used to analyze the causes of inefficiency. The DEA method is a nonparametric statistic using linear programming. However, the correlation between variables was analyzed to see if there is a significant relationship between variables. Suppose that there are M kinds of inputs and N kinds of outputs and J numbers of DMUs. The DEA model for calculating the efficiency of a particular DMU based on input-based BCC model can be formulated as follows: k;* k u ¼ minu u ;l subject to k k j j u x  x lðÞ m ¼ 1; 2; :::;M ; m m j¼1 k j j y # y lðÞ n ¼ 1; 2; :::;N n n j¼1 l ¼ 1; j¼1 l  0ðÞ j ¼ 1; 2; :::;J In this study, the efficiency was analyzed using R Studio, an open source data analysis software, and SPSS 22 was used additionally for analyzing collected data. 4. Results 4.1 Program efficiency The correlation between variables was analyzed to see if there is a significant relationship between variables as presented in Table V. There was a significant correlation with the Table IV. Categories Inputs Outputs Inputs and outputs for fundraising Variables Fundraising expense The amount of donation Management and fundraising labor cost efficiency APJIE Management 12,2 and Purposed No. of Labor All fundraising program No. of Items employees cost contributions expense expense beneficiaries Number of employees 1 Labor cost 1.992** 1 All contributions 1.661** 1.656** 1 Management and fundraising expense 1.696** 1.669** 1.944** 1 Purposed program expense 1.642** 1.639** 1.999** 1.930** 1 Table V. Number of beneficiaries 1.261 1.163 1.269 1.467* 1.247 1 Correlation matrix ** * for all variables Notes: p > 0.01; p > 0.05 obtained coefficient of 1.999 between all contributions and purposed program expense. The coefficient of 1.930 between management and fundraising expense and purposed program expense indicates a strong correlation. It is because the largest sources of the spending of NPOs come from donations and grants and the management and fundraising expense affects the size of all contribution and purposed program expense. Table VI presents the relative efficiency scores of 22 NPOs calculated based on input- oriented and BCC model. The highest level of efficiency can be normalized to 1 or 100 per cent, and the relative efficiency can be expressed as, for example, 0.75 or 75 per cent. Among 22 NPOs, 15 non-profits (DMU 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22) are identified as being efficient with a relative efficiency score of 1. 7 NPOs are identified as being inefficient in the program efficiency. DMU Efficiency Reference set (reference weights) 1 0.738 DMU4 (0.043), DMU7 (0.957) 2 1.000 3 1.000 4 1.000 5 1.000 6 1.000 7 1.000 8 0.663 DMU 3 (0.165), DMU 4 (0.512), DMU 6 (0.007), DMU 12 (0.316) 9 1.000 10 0.689 DMU 3 (0.504), DMU 7 (0.496) 11 0.717 DMU 4 (0.649), DMU 6 (0.016), DMU12 (0.335) 12 1.000 13 1.000 14 1.000 15 1.000 16 1.000 17 1.000 18 0.764 DMU 14 (0.634), DMU 2 (0.002), DMU 22 (0.357) Table VI. 19 0.900 DMU 4 (0.002), DMU 17 (0.795), DMU 20 (0.153) Program efficiency 20 1.000 score and 21 0.593 DMU 13 (0.172), DMU 14 (0.537), DMU 16 (0.014), DMU 22 (0.277) reference set 22 1.000 DEA provides a reference set of efficient DMUs to which the assessed inefficient DMU is Efficiency directly compared to obtain its efficiency. The reference set has a similar input combination analysis for to the assessed DMU, thus offers a direction to improve efficiency while maintaining the nonprofit current production structure as a whole. Reference set information offers peer DMUs and organizations their weights to refer to. For example, DMU 1 can refer to DMU 4 and DMU 7 to improve its efficiency by controlling the inputs reflecting the reference weights of DMU 4 and 7. According to Farrell (1957), production efficiency is divided into technical efficiency and allocative efficiency. Technical efficiency is calculated as the relative ratio of organizations’ production factor vectors to that of the organization using the least amount of inputs in the production of a certain amount of output. Technical inefficiency refers to the extent to which the maximum output that can be produced from the combination of a given input component is not met. Technical efficiency is again classified into pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency. Pure technology efficiency refers to the effect of eliminating the effect of scale efficiency on technological efficiency. The inefficiency of scale means that the scale of production is outside the optimal size. It can establish a strategy for efficiency improvement through analyzing whether the cause of inefficiency is in pure technical efficiency or scale efficiency. The efficiency of the scale can be calculated by dividing the efficiency of the CCR model considering the technical efficiency by the efficiency of the BCC model considering only the pure technical efficiency. Table VII presents whether the cause of inefficiency is in pure technical efficiency or scale efficiency. The causes of five inefficient NPOs were in pure technical efficiency, and six Cause of Pure inefficiency in Cause of The total Technical technical Scale pure technical inefficiency in value of Returns DMU efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency scale efficiency Lambda to scale 1 0.519 0.738 0.704 * 0.388 IRS 2 0.691 1.000 0.691 * 48.345 DRS 3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 5 0.522 1.000 0.522 * 1.296 DRS 6 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 7 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 8 0.629 0.663 0.948 * 1.191 DRS 9 0.609 1.000 0.609 * 0.386 IRS 10 0.661 0.689 0.959 * 0.821 IRS 11 0.631 0.717 0.880 * 0.344 IRS 12 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 13 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 14 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 15 0.474 1.000 0.474 * 1.296 DRS 16 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 17 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 18 0.626 0.764 0.820 * 1.384 DRS 19 0.739 0.900 0.821 * 0.422 IRS 20 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 21 0.591 0.593 0.996 * 1.994 DRS 22 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS Table VII. Notes: IRS: Increased returns to scale; DRS: Decreased returns to scale; CRS: Constant returns to scale; *cause of the inefficiency exists Cause of inefficiency were in the efficiency of scale. Among the 22 institutions, 11 were efficient in the CCR model, APJIE and 15 were efficient in the BCC model. 12,2 If the cause of inefficiency is in the scale inefficiency (DMU 1, 2, 5, 9, 15 and 19), then it is possible to eliminate the inefficiency by adjusting the budget and the number of employees. If the cause of inefficiency is in the pure technology inefficiency (DMU 8, 10, 11, 18 and 21), then education and training for the professionals can improve the efficiency. Variable returns to scale encompass three states to scale: constant returns to scale (CRS), increasing returns to scale (IRS) and decreasing returns to scale (DRS). The increasing returns to scale mean that 1 per cent increase in the size of the input factor will increase the output factor by more than 1 per cent. Decreasing returns to scale mean that 1 per cent increase of the input produces less than 1 per cent of output increase. Thus, if a DMU is in increasing returns to scale, then the proportion of output to the input can be improved by increasing the size of inputs. Conversely, if there is decreasing returns to scale, then the ratio of output to the input can be improved by reducing the input size. In Table VII, it can be judged whether the profit of the scale is in the state of CRS, DRS or IRS according to the total Lambda value. If the total value of Lambda is less than 1, then there is increasing returns to scale. If it is higher than 1, then there is decreasing returns to scale. If it is 1, then the DMU is the constant returns to scale. In the case of DMU 2, it is necessary to reduce the size of inputs to improve the efficiency because it is in the state of decreasing returns to scale. In case of DMU 1, it is in the state of increasing returns to scale. Thus, it needs to expand their scale of inputs to improve the efficiency. 4.2 Fundraising efficiency As a result of the correlation analysis, no significant correlation was found between the donation income and the fundraising expense and between donation income and management and fundraising labor costs. Table VIII presents the correlation matrix for all variables. This seems to be because of the insufficient number of samples. However, fundraising expense and fundraising labor costs are still valid input to analyze efficiency because DEA is an analytical method that does not make any parametric assumptions. There were 8 inefficient DMUs in the fundraising efficiency out of 15 DMUs as shown in Table IX. Taking the program efficiency analysis results together, only four DMUs (DMU 2, 4, 6 and 13) were identified as being efficient in both program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. Studying the characteristics of these four DMUs reveals that three of them were ranked top ten organizations in the donation amount given by individuals and international organizations. They have 38 years of operation on average, and their parent body organizations are international humanitarian assistance organizations. The DMU 13 which is 1 out of 4 DMUs scoring 100 per cent efficiency in both program and fundraising has a relatively short history of 18 years in operation and a small number of employees of 35. Management and Items Fundraising expense fundraising labor cost Donations Fundraising expense 1 Management and fundraising labor cost 1.876* 1 Table VIII. Donations 0.46 0.277 1 Correlation matrix for all variables Note: p > 0.01 Efficiency DMU Efficiency Reference set (reference weights) analysis for 1 1.000 nonprofit 2 1.000 organizations 3 0.648 DMU 1 (0.957), DMU 4 (0.043) 4 1.000 5 0.239 DMU 1 (0.295), DMU 6 (0.022), DMU 10 (0.683) 6 1.000 7 0.361 DMU 2 (0.486), DMU 13 (0.514) 8 0.330 DMU 1 (0.114), DMU 6 (0.079), DMU 10 (0.807) 9 0.372 DMU 2 (0.025), DMU 13 (0.975) 10 1.000 11 1.000 Table IX. 12 0.052 DMU 1 (0.130), DMU 6 (0.129), DMU 10 (0.741) Fundraising 13 1.000 efficiency score and 14 0.996 DMU 10 (0.975), DMU 11 (0.025) reference set 15 0.144 DMU 10 (0.105), DMU 11 (0.895) Inefficient DMUs with a short history and small numbers of employees can refer to DMU 13 to improve their inefficiency. Table X presents the cause of inefficiency. Eight DMUs were identified as inefficient in pure technical efficiency. This proposes that these DMUs can improve the efficiency by providing quality of education and training to fundraising professionals, sharing the best practice of fundraising and changing the fundraising team structure. Of 15 DMUs, 10 are in the state of increasing returns to scale. This implies that DMUs with increasing returns to scale need to scale up the size of inputs and, thus, the number of fundraising professionals and the amount of fundraising budget to improve the fundraising efficiency. Cause of Pure inefficiency in Cause of The total Technical technical Scale pure technical inefficiency in value of DMU efficiency efficiency efficiency efficiency scale efficiency Lambda Returns to scale 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 2 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 3 0.606 0.648 0.936 * 1.098 DRS 4 0.583 1.000 0.583 * 1.950 DRS 5 0.235 0.239 0.984 * 0.382 IRS 6 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 CRS 7 0.354 0.361 0.980 * 0.535 IRS 8 0.319 0.330 0.967 * 0.268 IRS 9 0.316 0.372 0.850 * 0.118 IRS 10 0.871 1.000 0.871 0.091 IRS 11 0.207 1.000 0.207 0.014 IRS 12 0.050 0.052 0.974 * 0.328 IRS 13 0.846 1.000 0.846 0.098 IRS 14 0.675 0.996 0.678 * 0.071 IRS 15 0.023 0.144 0.159 * 0.012 IRS Table X. Notes: IRS: Increased returns to scale; DRS: Decreased returns to scale and CRS: Constant returns to scale; *cause of the inefficiency exists Cause of inefficiency 5. Conclusion APJIE Non-profit institutions work for public good and raise financial resources to achieve the 12,2 goals. Efficiency in the program and fundraising activities should be obtained in the process of achieving the goals. In spite of its importance, there has been scant research in evaluating efficiencies in the nonprofit sector. In the study, the efficiency of the purposed program and the efficiency of fundraising activities were analyzed by applying DEA model. To pursue the validity of the analysis, the study focused on analyzing 22 non-profit institutions in Korea working in the field of humanitarian assistance. The data were based on the disclosed information in Korea Tax Bureau. The contribution of this study is as follows. First, it presents non-profitefficiency evaluation models in terms of program efficiency and fundraising efficiency. It is important to measure not only the program efficiency but also the fundraising efficiency because NPOs fulfill their goals by providing service and goods to the needy and creating financial resources by raising gifts as well. Second, the study provides the inefficient DMUs with their reference set of efficient DMUs. By referring to the reference set of DMUs, inefficient DMUs can improve their inefficiency. Third, the study provides the cause of inefficiency; whether the inefficiency is because of the pure technical inefficiency or the scale inefficiency. Fourth, the study also indicates the state of variable returns to scale to propose the way of improving inefficiency by controlling the scale of inputs. The methods and the results of this study can serve as a model for researchers and practitioners to follow when evaluating efficiency in the non-profit sectors. This study has limitations as follows. First, the DEA model was applied to the limited numbers of Korean NPOs in the field of humanitarian assistance and mostly raking at the top tier of fundraising amount. Second, the qualitative factors were not applied to the analysis. Third, the form and selection of the input and output variables were limited only in the available data of the government’s information disclosure system. The further study in multiple stage organizational performance assessment using DEA would embrace the holistic efficiency measurement. Future studies may include suggesting improvement values in inputs and outputs, analyzing productivity changes by combining inputs and outputs over many years and using Tobit regression to find effective causes. In spite of the limitations, the study has the value of performing the empirical studies of efficiency analysis of Korean NPOs and providing non-profits with the model of efficiency analysis in programs and fundraising activities and basis for establishing strategies to improve both efficiencies. References Anderson,A.(2005), “An introduction to theory of change”, Evaluation Exchange, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 12-19. Banker, R.D., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W.W. (1984), “Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1078-1092. Bess, A. and Link, R.J. (2011), “International careers in social work”, in Healy, L.M. and Link, R.J. (Eds), Handbook of International Social Work: Human Rights, Development, and the Global Profession, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, NY. Burnett, H.H. and Campbell, A. (2011), “Embracing business principles in the third sector: How not-for- profits take the route from ‘traditional charity’ income streams to more entrepreneurial ‘self- generating’ income models”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 31-48. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 429-444. Choi, H.K., Oh, M.S. and Park, S.M. (2010), “A study of measuring the efficiency of non-profit Efficiency organization (NPO) applying data envelopment analysis (DEA)”, Korean NPO Review, Vol. 9 analysis for No. 2, pp. 33-59. nonprofit Chung, M.S. (2003), “The application of the concept of efficiency to the human service organization”, organizations Social Welfare Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Colbert, A., Levary, R.R. and Shaner, M.C. (2000), “Determining the relative efficiency of MBA programs using DEA”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 656-669. Epstein, M.J. and McFarlan, F.W. (2011), “Measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of a nonprofit’s performance”, Strategic Finance, Vol. 4 No. 93, pp. 27-35. Farrell, M.J. (1957), “The measurement of productive efficiency”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 253-290. Frumkin, P. and Kim, M.T. (2001), “Strategic positioning and the financing of nonprofit organizations: Is efficiency rewarded in the contributions marketplace?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 266-275. Greenfield, J.M. (1996), Fund-Raising Cost Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Workbook, Wiley, New York, NY. Greenlee, J.S. and Brown, K.L. (1999), “The impact of accounting information on contributions organizations”, Research in Accounting Regulation, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 113-128. Greenlee, J.S. and Bukovinsky, D. (1998), “Financial ratios for use in the analytical review of charitable organizations”, Ohio CPA Journal, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 32-38. Han, J.G. and Moon, H.K. (2003), “Business perspectives to not-for-profit organizations: research trends and future directions”, Korean NPO Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 47-98. Hollingsworth, B. (2008), “The measurement of efficiency and productivity of health care delivery”, Health Economics, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 1107-1128. Jacobs, F.A. and Marudas, N.P. (2003), “Whether US donors reward nonprofit organization operating efficiency: an examination of Frumkin and Kim”, Conference of the International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines, New Orleans: LA. Kim, Y.M. (2004), “A measurement of community welfare center’s relative efficiency using DEA”, Journal of Korean Association for Local Government Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 133-153. Kim, K.W. and Choi, H.J. (2005), “A critical review on the measurement of local governments’ relative efficiency using the DEA model”, Korea Local Administration Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 213-244. Kim, H., Lethem, F.J. and Lee, C.W. (2017), “The ethical issue of contemporary philanthropy: Unintended negative consequences of philanthropy”, Management Review: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 12, pp. 4-25.a Korea National Tax Service (2018), “Korea tax statistics report, 2017”, available at: http://stats.nts.go. kr/national/major_detail.asp?year=2016&catecode=A04052# (accessed 12 April 2018). Lee, C.W. and Kim, H. (2016), “Study on measuring the efficiency of nonprofit organization using DEA: focusing on public art centers in Korea”, Logos Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 14, pp. 155-172. Medina-Borja, A. and Triantis, K. (2014), “Modeling social services performance: a four-stage DEA approach to evaluate fundraising efficiency, capacity building, service quality, and effectiveness in the nonprofit sector”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 221 No. 1, pp. 285-307. Nunamaker, T.R. (1985), “Using data envelopment analysis to measure the efficiency of non-profit organizations: a critical evaluation”, Managerial and Decision Economics,Vol.6 No. 1, pp. 50-58. Okten, C. and Weisbrod, B.A. (2000), “Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 255-272. Park, B.-S., Lee, Y.-K. and Kim, Y.-S. (2009), “Efficiency evaluation of general hospitals using DEA”, Journal of the Korea Contents Association, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 299-312. Reichmann, G. and Sommersguter-Reichmann, M. (2006), “University library benchmarking: an APJIE international comparison using DEA”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 100 12,2 No. 1, pp. 131-147. Ritchie, W.J. and Kolodinsky, R.W. (2003), “Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement: an evaluation of new and existing financial performance measures”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 367-381. Sargeant, A. and Shang, J. (2010), Fundraising Principles and Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Shin, H.-J. and Lee, S.-W. (2008), “Analysis on the administrative efficiency related to donations in nonprofit organizations”, Korean Policy Sciences Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 275-296. Siciliano, J.I. (1996), “The relationship between formal planning and performance in nonprofit organizations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 387-403. Son, K.-H. (2003), “A study on utilizing DEA in efficiency evaluation of social welfare agencies”, Korean Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 117-141. Sowers, K.M. and Rowe, W.S. (2007), Social Work Practice and Social Justice: From Local to Global Perspectives, Thompson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA. Waters, R.D. (2011), “Increasing fundraising efficiency through evaluation: Applying communication theory to the nonprofit organization – donor relationship”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 458-475. Wolf, T. (2012), Managing a Nonprofit Organization, Updated Twenty-First-Century Edition, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Yang, Y.L., Lee, S. and Kim, S. (2018), “Locus of legitimacy and startup resource acquisition strategies: evidence from social enterprises in South Korea and Taiwan”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 32-44. Further reading Sheldon, D.R. (1996), Achieving Accountability in Business and Government: Managing for Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Economy, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport. Corresponding author Chang Won Lee can be contacted at: leecw@hanyang.ac.kr For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Journal

Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship – Emerald Publishing

Published: Sep 12, 2018

Keywords: Non-profit; Data envelopment analysis; Fundraising efficiency; Program efficiency

There are no references for this article.