Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2008. / Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 175-187).

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / For nonprofit organizations, securing and sustaining funding is essential to survival. Many nonprofit managers see government funding as ideal because of its perceived security (Grønbjerg, 1993; Froelich, 1999). However, there is little evidence to support the claim that such funds actually make nonprofits more sustainable, and some research has even suggested that nonprofits receiving “fickle” government funds are more likely to fail (Hager et al., 2004). The primary purpose of this work is to examine the relationship between government funding and nonprofit failure. Its secondary purpose is to understand the relationships between failure, government funding, and the causes for failure suggested by previous research—instability of the funding source and low funding diversification. To examine these relationships, I chose to use survival analysis and employed the Cox regression technique. Here, I analyzed the NCCS-Guidestar National Nonprofit Research Database, which archives nonprofit IRS filings from 1998 to 2003. This data set is noteworthy for its level of detail and its comprehensive nature. I found that organizations receiving government funding are less likely to fail, especially if this funding is part of a balanced portfolio. Organizations with higher percentages of nonprofit funding and organizations with less diversified overall portfolios do not. Furthermore, nonprofit organizations with less diversified portfolios were more likely to fail, and, among organizations receiving government funding, those with the highest percentage of their revenue from the government were more likely to fail than their counterparts with less funding.