Juniper Katz

Siting and permitting for renewable projects vary in process and authority structures. Such variation can create coordination challenges and inconsistent public participation processes. We develop a Governance Trade‐Off Matrix to classify permitting processes by (1) authority structure (polycentric vs. monocentric) and (2) procedural extensiveness (minimal vs. extensive). The matrix shows when jurisdictional dispersion enables timely implementation and when it creates coordination breakdowns. We propose testable hypotheses on how governance design affects project timelines, conflict escalation, and local acceptance. The framework highlights design levers, like single lead agencies, structured public involvement, and statutory shot clocks, to reconcile meaningful local input with urgent climate imperatives.

Despite the importance of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 to exempt organizations’ regulation, management, and accountability, scholars and practitioners have overlooked how the form evolved over time. This study uses public comments, submitted during the most recent revision of the form in 2007, to examine who participated, stakeholder priorities, and how the updated form was shaped by the federal rulemaking process. The study finds that (a) the submitters of public comments provide a comprehensive view of the nonprofit sector’s diverse set of stakeholders and (b) the public comments highlight substantive self-identified priorities for the sector that can serve as a guide to future research. Key takeaways include the need to consider for-profit and trade association influence in nonprofit policy formation, to recognize selective transparency in reporting requirements, and to understand how stakeholder interests shape regulatory outcomes. Implications suggest researchers should fully leverage Form 990’s extensive changes while remaining cognizant of information gaps.

Despite substantial progress on understanding the influence of nonprofits in the policy process, the role of nonprofits in local agenda setting remains under-examined. Policy for land conservation is a key plank in climate change mitigation strategies making the role of land trusts in agenda setting for land conservation votes an important topic. Prior studies demonstrate that temperature anomalies increase the likelihood that climate change policy appears on state political agendas. We propose that land trusts play a critical role in facilitating this connection at the local level. Temperature anomalies create a policy window which contributes to the likelihood that conservation measures make it onto the political agenda. Combining temperature, land trust presence, and local conservation vote data from U.S. counties from 2009 to 2019, we find that both temperature anomalies and the presence of land trusts increase the probability that a land conservation measure will appear on the local political agenda. Further, we find that the effect of temperature anomalies on the probability of a vote taking place is conditional on land trust presence within the county. The findings advance existing nonprofit theory on ways in which nonprofits engage in the policy process and hint towards promising avenues of future research. The findings also provide practical evidence for practitioners and hold implications for how local policymakers can leverage existing organizations to implement climate change policy.

Published for a global audience, JSEPA’s mission is to illuminate inequities and to provide a learning space. The journal’s content makes it possible for public service professionals, scholars, and students, to take note of what works, what fails, and what opportunities are available to advance justice and reduce disparity. Its pages lead the way for reforms, take account of successes and failures, and provide examples of reconciliation. jsepajournal.org

Most nonprofits lack a true endowment and endowment wealth is concentrated in a relatively small number of organizations and subsectors. This study supports an operational definition of material endowment, equal to or greater than annual expenses, and investigates how common it is for a nonprofit to establish a meaningful endowment over time. Specifically, we address whether the sector's enthusiasm over the potential of endowment building is reflected in charitable organizations' experiences. Using financial data, we find that building a meaningful permanent endowment is a rare achievement among public charities over a period of two decades. Meaningful endowment creation, achieved by less than 2% of the sample, is more common for organizations with donor attachments, the need for subsidization of mission services, those with more fundraising costs, and those with more donative revenue portfolios.

This paper identifies the coalitions involved in the topic of shale oil and gas development in India and identifies the circumstances surrounding a change in policy in 2013 by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to promote shale exploration. Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework as the theoretical lens, the data are collected primarily from newspaper articles from 2010 to 2015 to identify coalitions, including actors’ positions, priorities, and interactions. The findings show the presence of a dominant advocacy coalition in favor of shale oil and gas development with priorities about energy security and a regulatory framework. The findings indicate some internal coalition disagreement, but stronger internal coalition agreement. Policy change was preceded by a spike in disagreement internal to the dominant coalition. This paper shows how a change in a dominant coalition can precede a change in policy, offers a replicable method of identifying and measuring coalitions via newspaper content analysis, provides a rare application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework outside of North America and Western Europe, and provides evidence of support for shale oil and gas development in India.

Prior research on policy conflicts indicates a tendency among policy actors to misperceive the influence of actors engaged in policy debates based on the degree of distance between their relative policy positions. This research develops a measure for assessing the degree and direction of the misperception effect. This measure is then utilized as a dependent variable to assess the relationship between theoretically relevant factors and the degree to which actors will exaggerate the influence of their opponents and allies. The research uses original survey data of policy actors engaged in the debate over hydraulic fracturing in New York. The results indicate misperceptions of relative influence are prevalent and most associated with the experience of a policy loss and holding relatively extreme policy beliefs. The findings provide new insight into factors that influence the demonization of political opponents. These insights are timely in the context of polarized debates over environmental and energy policy in the United States.