Texas Nonprofit Employment...

The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies

The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies seeks to improve understanding and the effective functioning of not-for-profit, philanthropic, or "civil society" organizations in the United States and throughout the world in order to enhance the contribution these organizations can make to democracy and the quality of human life. The Center is part of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies and carries out its work through a combination of research, training, and information sharing both domestically and internationally. The Center's Nonprofit Economic Data Project draws on a variety of data sources to provide new insights into the scope and structure of America's non-profit sector. Full text versions of all project reports are available at http://www.ccss.jhu.edu.

OneStar Foundation: Texas Center for Social Impact

OneStar supports the nonprofit sector and its stakeholders through initiatives that increase civic engagement, research, rigorous evaluation and nonprofit organizational excellence. Its goal is to achieve sustainable social impact throughout the larger nonprofit infrastructure. OneStar also serves as the state's National Service Commission administering the AmeriCorps grant program and serves as the Faith-Based and Community Initiative office.

Center for Civil Society StudiesInstitute for Policy Studies

The Johns Hopkins University3400 N. Charles St.

Wyman Park Bldg., 5th FloorBaltimore, MD 21218-2688, USA

Phone: 410-516-4327Fax: 410-516-7818

E-mail: [email protected]: www.ccss.jhu.edu


816 Congress AvenueSuite 900

Austin, TX 78701

Phone: 512-287-2000Fax: 512-287-2039

E-mail: [email protected]: www.onestarfoundation.orgTexas Nonprofit Employment Update

Texas Nonprofit Employment Update

Lester M. SalamonStephanie Lessans Gellerwith the technical assistance ofKasey L. Mengel and S. Wojciech Sokolowski

A Joint Product of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies

and OneStar Foundation: Texas Center for Social Impact

Joh

ns

Ho

pki

ns

No

np

rofi

t Ec

on

om

ic D

ata

Pro

jec

t

Nonprofit Employment Bulletin Number 35

August 2010

Copyright 2010, Lester M. Salamon


Key Findings

The nonprofit sector is a major economic force in Texas, employing more than 1. eight times as many workers as the state’s utilities industry and nearly five times as many workers as the state’s oil and gas extraction industry (see page 1).

The 403,196 nonprofit employees in Texas earned nearly $16.8 billion wages in 2. 2008, which translates into roughly $1.6 billion in state and local tax revenues (see page 2).

While nonprofit employment in Texas is primarily concentrated in the state’s 3. metropolitan areas, it is not restricted to any one region. In fact, the nonprofit sector accounts for a significant share of total private employment in both urban and rural areas of the state (see page 2).

Over half of all nonprofit jobs in the state are in the health services field (see page 4. 2).

Despite the ongoing recession, nonprofit employment in Texas grew by 3.1 percent 5. between 2007 and 2008, adding over 12,022 jobs to the state’s total (see page 4).

Nonprofit job growth was especially strong in the professional, scientific, and 6. technical services field. By contrast, nonprofit home health providers experienced a decline in jobs (see pages 5 and 6).

Because for-profits operating in many of the fields in which nonprofits have a 7. strong presence in Texas have grown faster than their nonprofit counterparts between 2002 and 2008, nonprofits have lost significant market share over this six-year period (see page 6).

Overall weekly wages of nonprofit employees are lower than those of for-profit 8. workers. But, in industries in which nonprofits and for-profits are both signifi-cantly involved, nonprofit average weekly wages generally outpace for-profit wages (see pages 8 and 9).

Texas nonproFiT

employmenT UpdaTe

a joinT reporT oF

The johns hopKins nonproFiT economic

daTa projecT and onesTar

FoUndaTion: Texas cenTer For social impacT

sTephanie lessans geller lesTer m. salamon

WiTh The Technical assisTance oF

Kasey l. mengel

Copyright 2010, Lester M. Salamon1

inTrodUcTion

This report presents new information on the size, compo-sition, distribution, and growth of paid employment in the private nonprofit sector in Texas as of the second quarter of 2008, the latest period for which data are available. The report updates two earlier analyses of private nonprofit employment in Texas covering 2000 and 2004.1

Like the earlier studies, this report draws on data generated by the Texas Workforce Commission through the quarterly surveys of Texas workplaces it conducts under the national Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of the unemployment insurance program. These data are compiled from quarterly reports submitted by employers in compliance with U.S. and Texas law. All nonprofit places of employment with at least four employees are required to complete these quarterly surveys. The one major exclusion is religious congregations, which are not required to take part in the unemployment insurance system, although the significance of this exclusion is unknown as some religious organizations nevertheless elect to be covered by unem-ployment insurance.

For the purpose of this report, we have chosen to focus on the “charitable” portion of the nonprofit sector. This includes organizations registered with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which embraces private, not-for-profit hospitals, clinics, colleges, universities, elementary schools, social service agencies, day care centers, orchestras, museums, theaters, environmental organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and many more.

For further information on the QCEW data source, the defi-nition of the nonprofit sector, and the method used here to extract data on nonprofit organizations from the Texas QCEW records, see Appendix A.

deTailed Findings

i. a major economic Force

The private nonprofit sector in Texas, including private hospitals, clinics, colleges, universities, schools, day care centers, social service providers, museums, theaters, soup kitchens, and many more, is a major economic force in the state.

Employment. Texas’ private, nonprofit organizations employed 403,196 paid workers as of the second quarter of 2008, adding roughly 18,650 jobs since the second quarter of 2004. This makes the Texas nonprofit workforce the fifth largest nonprofit workforce in the nation.2

• This represents 3.8 percent of the total Texas workforce (or 1 out of every 26 workers) and 4.6 percent of the state’s private workforce (or 1 out of every 22 private workers).

• Although, as shown in Figure 1, the nonprofit share of total employment in Texas is well below the U.S. average (3.8 percent vs. 7.2 percent), the Texas nonprofit sector still employs:

- More than eight times as many workers as the state’s utilities industry;3

- Nearly five times as many workers as the state’s oil and gas extraction industry;

- More than twice as many workers as the state’s real es-tate and leasing industry;

- More than one and a half times as many workers as the state’s information industry;4

- Twenty percent more people than the entire Texas state government (see Figure 2).

7.2%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Figure 1: Nonprofit share of total employment, Texas vs. the na�on, 2008

3.8%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

Texas Na�on

Non

profi

t sha

re o

f tot

al e

mpl

oym

ent

Source: Johns Hopkins Nonprofit Economic Data Project based on QCEW Data

Copyright 2010, Lester M. Salamon 2


Payroll. The 403,196 nonprofit employees in Texas earned nearly $16.8 billion in wages in 2008.5

• Nonprofit organizations thus accounted for 3.6 percent of the state’s total payroll.

• Nonprofit payrolls exceeded those for:

- Utilities ($3.8 billion);

- Real estate and leasing ($8.1 billion);

- Oil and gas extraction ($13.2 billion);

- Information ($13.5 billion); and

- State government ($14.6 billion).

Moreover, through the $16.8 billion in wages and compen-sation that they paid, Texas nonprofits contributed roughly $1.6 billion to state and local tax revenues.6

ii. regional presence

Nonprofit employment is not restricted to any one region in Texas. Rather, it is distributed broadly throughout the state.

Similar to Texas’ population, most of the state’s nonprofit employment is located in the state’s metropolitan areas.

• Nearly 91 percent of Texas’ nonprofit employment is lo-cated in the state’s urbanized Metropolitan Statistical Ar-eas (MSAs).7 This is roughly equivalent to the proportion of all private jobs in these areas (88 percent).8

• The urbanized areas with the largest shares of the state’s nonprofit employment are the Houston-Sugar Land-Bay-town MSA and the Dallas-Plano-Irving MSA. Combined, these areas account for nearly 42 percent of the state’s to-tal nonprofit employment (see Figure 3).

However, nonprofit employment is hardly an exclusively urban and suburban phenomenon in Texas. Rather, it accounts for a significant share of private employment in all regions of the state (see Figure 4). In particular:

• Nonprofits actually account for a slightly larger share of Texas’ private employment in the rural areas for which data are available than in urbanized areas (5.0 percent vs. 4.8 percent, respectively).

• MSAs in which nonprofit organizations comprise an espe-cially large share of private employment include Abilene (13.0 percent), Tyler (13.0 percent), Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood (11.4 percent), Waco (11.3 percent), and Texarkana (11.0 percent).

• Rural counties in which nonprofit organizations comprise an especially large share of private employment include Kerr (12.7 percent), Trinity (11.1 percent), and Colorado (10.9 percent).

For a county-by-county breakdown of nonprofit employ-ment, see Appendix B.

iii. healTh dominance

Health organizations account for the vast majority of Texas’ nonprofit jobs, but educational and social service organiza-tions also account for significant shares (see Figure 5 and Appendix C). In particular:

• Fifty-five percent of all nonprofit jobs in Texas (over 219,650 jobs) are in health services. Hospitals account for the bulk of these jobs, employing 39 percent of the state’s nonprofit workforce, or roughly 2 out of every 5 nonprofit workers, and health clinics and nursing and resi-dential care facilities account for 16 percent.

• Another 15 percent of all nonprofit jobs in Texas (nearly 59,900 jobs) are in educational services, including el-ementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universi-ties.

403

336

300

350

400

450

Figure 2: Employment in the Texas nonprofit sector in comparison to selected Texas industries, 2008

217

187

83

48

0

50

100

150

200

250

Nonprofit sector

Real estate & leasing

Oil & gas extrac�on

Num

ber o

f em

ploy

ees

(in th

ousa

nds)


State government

Informa�on U�li�es



Figure 3: Distribu�on of Texas nonprofit employment by region, 2008

Texarakana0.9%

Victoria0.4%

San Angelo0.9%

Sherman-Denison0.6%

Witchita Falls1.0%

Abilene1.6%

Odessa0.2%

College Station-Bryan1.1%

Midland0.6%

Laredo0.3%

Tyler2.7%

Longview1.1%Waco

2.4%

Kileen-Temple-Fort Hood2.5%

Amarillo1.6%

Brownville-Harlingen1.7%

Beaumont-Port Arthur1.6%

Corpus Christi2.3%

McAllen-Edinburg1.2%

El Paso1.9%

Austin-Round Rock5.4%

San Antonio7.3%

Fort Worth-Arlington9.2% Dallas-Plano-Irving

15.9%

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown25.7%

Rural Areas5.1%

Lubbock2.1%


Figure 4: Nonprofit employment as a percent of private employment by region, 2008

Texarakana11.0%

Victoria4.6%

San Angelo9.9%

Sherman-Denison6.5%

Witchita Falls8.7%

Abilene13.0%

Odessa1.8%

College Station-Bryan8.2%

Midland3.7%

Laredo1.7%

Tyler13.0%

Longview5.2%Waco

11.3%

Kileen-Temple-Fort Hood11.4%

Amarillo7.3%

Brownville-Harlingen6.9%

4.7%

Corpus Christi6.3%

McAllen-Edinburg3.0%

El Paso3.7%

Austin-Round Rock3.6%

San Antonio4.3%

Fort Worth-Arlington5.1% Dallas-Plano-Irving

3.5%

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown4.7%

Rural Areas5.0%

Lubbock8.5%


Beaumont-Port Arthur



• Twelve percent of all nonprofit jobs in Texas (over 48,500 jobs) are in social assistance. This includes employment in individual and family services, community food ser-vices, housing services, and vocational rehabilitation.

• Eight percent of all nonprofit jobs are in various mem-bership organizations (nearly 32,300 jobs). This includes jobs in religious organizations, grantmaking and giving services, advocacy organizations, civic and social orga-nizations, and the charitable arms of various professional associations.

As shown in Figure 6, the distribution of nonprofit employ-ment in Texas diverges somewhat from that of the nation:

• In particular, Texas has a considerably larger share of non-profit employment in the hospital field (39 percent vs. 32 percent) and a noticeably smaller share in nursing and residential care (7 percent vs. 12 percent) and social as-sistance (12 percent vs. 15 percent) than the nation.

• The fact that the nonprofit share of employment in social assistance and nursing and residential care is unusually low in Texas is likely due in part to the fact that for-profits

have gained an unusually large foothold in these tradition-ally nonprofit fields in this state. Thus, for example:

- For-profits in Texas represent 63 percent of private em-ployment in social assistance versus just 39 percent na-tionally;

- Similarly, for-profits in Texas represent 82 percent of private employment in nursing and residential care ver-sus just 62 percent nationally.

iV. a groWing secTor

The nonprofit sector is an important driver of Texas’ economy, adding new jobs to the state in recent years.

Overall growth. Despite the recession that began in December of 2007, nonprofit employment in Texas grew by 3.1 percent between 2007 and 2008, adding over 12,022 jobs to the state’s total.

• This suggests that the nonprofit sector is a particularly strong counter-cyclical force.

Professional, scien�fic, and technical services

2%

Membership organiza�ons

8%

Social assistance12%

Figure 5: Distribu�on of Texas nonprofit employment by field, 2008

Hospitals39%

Ambulatory health care 9%

Nursing and residen�al care facili�es

7%

Educa�onal services15%

Other services 8%

Arts, entertainment, recrea�on3%




• By contrast, Texas’ for-profit sector grew by just 2.1 per-cent during this same period (see Figure 7).

Variations by field. Although nonprofit employment grew overall between 2007 and 2008, in certain fields it clearly did better than in others. In particular, as shown in Figure 8:

• Nonprofit employment growth was especially strong in the professional, scientific, and technical services field (11.6 percent).

• Other fields that experienced above average nonprofit job growth include ambulatory health care (4.8 percent) and arts, entertainment, and recreation (4.3 percent).

• By contrast, nonprofit home health care services experi-enced a 1.5 percent decline in nonprofit employment over this same period, perhaps because of increased costs or reduced Medicare reimbursements.9

39%

32%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

mpl

oym

ent

Figure 6: Distribu�on of nonprofit employment, Texas vs. the na�on, 2008

Texas

12%

8% 8%7%

3%2%

15%

8%7%

12%

3% 2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Hospitals Social assistance Colleges & universi�es


Nursing & residen�al care

Arts, entertainment, recrea�on

Professional & scien�fic services

Perc

ent o

f non

profi

t e United States


3.1%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2008

Figure 7: Change in nonprofit vs. for-profit employment in Texas, 2007-2008

2.1%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

tiforpnoN For-profit

Perc

ent c

hang

e fr

om 2

007

to 2




Changing market share. When our analysis broadens to the past six years, a different pattern of nonprofit vs. for-profit employment growth emerges: for-profit employment actually experienced more rapid growth than nonprofit employment.

• Thus, between 2002 and 2008, nonprofit employment grew by 6 percent in Texas, while for-profit employment grew by a sizeable 15 percent.

• Moreover, for-profits operating in many of the fields in which nonprofits have a strong presence in Texas, such as professional services, higher education, social assistance, hospitals, home health care, and nursing home care, actu-ally grew considerably faster than their nonprofit counter-parts (see Figure 9). This may in part reflect the uneven playing field facing nonprofits with respect to access to capital.10

• As such, in most major fields, nonprofits lost significant market share over this six-year period. Most notably, as shown in Figure 10:

- The nonprofit share of private jobs in the hospital field declined from 65 percent in 2002 to 57 percent in 2008;

- The nonprofit share of private jobs in social assistance fell from 45 percent in 2002 to 37 percent in 2008;

- The nonprofit share of private jobs in nursing and resi-dential care fell from 22 percent in 2002 to 18 percent in 2008; and

- The nonprofit share of private jobs in home health care fell from 6 percent in 2002 to 4 percent in 2008.

• The only major field in which nonprofits gained significant market share was the membership organizations field. Between 2002 and 2008, the nonprofit share of private jobs increased from 41 percent to 51 percent.

3 3%

3.4%

4.3%

4.8%

11.6%

3.1%

H it l

Educa�onal services


Ambulatory health care

Professional, scien�fic, and technical services

State total

Figure 8: Percent change in Texas nonprofit employment by field, 2007-2008

-1.5%

0.2%

0.3%

1.2%

1.6%

1.8%

3.3%

- %51%01%5%0%5

Home health care services

Social assistance

Nursing & residen�al care facili�es

Junior colleges, colleges & universi�es

Other services


Hospitals

Percent change in employment from 2007 to 2008




127.1%

90%

110%

130%

150%

02-2

008

Figure 9: Percent change in employment, nonprofit vs. for-profit in Texas, by field, 2002-2008

Nonprofit

For-profit-

5.7%

34.1%

1.0%

-15.9%

-2.4%

-10.0%

0.2%7.3%

68.0%

14.7%

43.3%47.9%

38.4%

16.4%

35.5%

16.0%12.6%

-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

State total


Colleges & universi�es


Nursing & residen�al care

Social assistance



Perc

ent c

hang

e fr

om 2

00


Hospitals

93%

65%

90%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

loym

ent

Figure 10: Changes in nonprofit share of Texas private employment, by field, 2002-2008

2002 share

2008 share

41%45%

22%

12%

6%3%

51%

37%

18%

11%

4%2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Colleges & universi�es


Social assistance Nursing & residen�al care


Home health care service


Perc

ent o

f pri

vate

em

p


Hospitals

57%



Regional patterns. While overall for-profit job growth outpaced overall nonprofit job growth between 2002 and 2008, in some large metropolitan areas the nonprofit sector has been an important driver of the economy. Thus, as shown in Figure 11:

• In the state’s largest urbanized region, the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA, nonprofit job growth outpaced for-profit growth between 2002 and 2008 (17.7 percent vs. 14.7 percent, respectively).

• Nonprofit job growth also outpaced for-profit growth in the state’s sizeable Fort Worth-Arlington MSA (14.7 per-cent vs. 11.7 percent, respectively).

• By contrast, the San Antonio and Austin-Round Rock MSAs experienced a sharp reduction in nonprofit em-ployment over this same period (-7.0 percent and -14.8 percent, respectively).

V. relaTiVely higher Wages

Overall average weekly wages of nonprofit employees are lower than those of for-profit and some government employees in Texas, as elsewhere. However, in industries in which nonprofits and for-profits are both significantly involved, average weekly wages of nonprofit employees often exceed those of for-profit workers.

• At $801, nonprofit average weekly wages are 7 percent be-low those of for-profit workers, and 6 percent below those of state government workers. However, the wage gap be-tween nonprofits and for-profits has narrowed compared to what it was in 2004, when nonprofit wages trailed for-profit wages by 13 percent. In addition, nonprofit work-ers, on average, make a sizeable 11 percent more than those who work for local government (see Figure 12).

• These averages obscure some significant variations in the average wages of nonprofit workers in different fields,

21.5%

12.8%

14.7%

17.7%

2.8%

5.3%

5.7%

Houston-Sugarland-Baytown

Non-metropolitan areas-

Metropolitan areas

State total

Figure 11: Changes in Texas nonprofit and for-profit employment by region, 2002-2008

Employment in metropolian areas*:

15.0%

22.1%

18.2%

9.4%

11.7%

14.7%

3.4%

-14.8%

-7.0%

8.0%

14.7%

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Other MSAs

Aus�n-Round Rock

San Antonio

Dallas-Plano-Irving

Fort Worth-Arlington

Percent change from 2002 to 2008

Nonprofit

For-profit

* The five MSAs account for 78% of total private MSA employment in Texas


Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown



$860$852

$801800

850

900Figure 12: Nonprofit, for-profit, and government

average weekly wages, Texas, 2008

$724

650

700

750

For-profit


NonprofitState government Local government

Aver

age

wee

kly

wag

e

however. Thus, as shown in Figure 13, average nonprofit weekly wages range from a low of $458 in the field of social assistance to a high of $1,075 in the ambulatory health care field.

• As Figure 13 also shows, in the fields where both nonprof-its and for-profits are involved, the average weekly wage of the nonprofit workers is actually often higher than that of the for-profit workers. This indicates that the lower overall average wage of nonprofit employees is more a function of the industry mix of nonprofit employment than it is of the wage levels of nonprofit organizations.

• Thus:11

- Nonprofit home heath care providers earn 48 percent more, on average, than their for-profit counterparts;

- Nonprofit social assistance providers earn 40 percent more than their counterparts at for-profit facilities;

- Similarly, in the ambulatory health and educational ser-vices fields, nonprofit salaries average 35 percent more than for-profit ones.

conclUsion

Throughout the state of Texas, nonprofit organizations serve citizens and communities, addressing issues of concern and improving the quality of life. Texas’ nonprofits range from hospitals to after-school enrichment programs, from univer-sities to environmental groups, and from museums and theaters to organizations working with the elderly, veterans, and people with disabilities.

This report, like the earlier ones covering 2000 and 2004, demonstrates that nonprofits are a major force in the Texas economy and in the economies of the state’s regions, employing more people than many traditional industries including utilities, oil and gas extraction, real estate, infor-mation, and even state government. Texas nonprofit orga-nizations also contribute significantly to the state’s total payroll. Because nonprofit employees pay state sales taxes on their purchases, this translates into significant revenues for the state government.

However, this report also points to some real challenges facing the nonprofit sector. Most notably, while our 2004 report found that the nonprofit sector was the only source of private job growth between 2002 and 2004, when the for-profit sector actually lost jobs, this is no longer the



case. Thus, Texas’ for-profit sector actually grew more than twice as fast as the nonprofit sector over the past six years. Moreover, as some of the for-profit sector’s most dynamic growth has been in industries in which both nonprofits and for-profits operate, the nonprofit sector has lost significant market share between 2002 and 2008.

Finally, while this report indicates a narrowing between overall nonprofit and for-profit wages, it also highlights once again the relatively low wages available to the front-line workers in our human and community service indus-tries. This should raise important concerns about the ability of nonprofits in these critical fields to attract and retain quality workers.

All of this demonstrates the need for information of the sort reported here to put the state’s nonprofit sector on the radar screen of state policymakers and to alert leaders within the sector of the important challenges it is facing. Hopefully, this report has usefully served both of these needs.

$1,075

$977

$847

$796

$916

$661

800

1000

1200

wag

e

Figure 13: Compara�ve nonprofit and for-profit average weekly wages in selected service fields, Texas, 2008

Nonprofit

For-profit-

$518 $512$474 $468 $458

$513$471

$320 $326

0

200

400

600

Ambulatory health care


Residen�al care facili�es


Member organiza�ons

Social assistance

Ave

rage

wee

kly

w


Hospitals Educa�onal services

$626



AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Elizabeth M. Darling and her staff at OneStar Foundation: Texas Center for Social Impact; Barry Silverberg and his team at the Texas Association of Nonprofit Organizations for funding the first report on Texas nonprofit employment published in 2003, and to Hillary Belzer (design and production), Mimi Bilzor (editorial guidance), Kasey Mengel and Wojciech Sokolowski (data analysis) at The Johns Hopkins University.

Suggested CitationTexas Nonprofit Employment Update by Lester M. Salamon and Stephanie Lessans Geller (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, July 2010). The full text of this report is available on the OneStar Foundation’s website (www.onestarfoundation.org) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies website (www.ccss.jhu.edu).

OneStar Foundation: Texas Center for Social Impact, 816 Congress, Suite 900, Austin, Texas 78701; phone: 512-287-2000; fax: 512-287-2039; website: www.onestarfoundation.org.

Center for Civil Society Studies, Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Stud-ies, Wyman Park Building, 5th Floor, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218; phone: 410-516-5463; fax: 410-516-7818; email: [email protected]; web-site: www.ccss.jhu.edu.

1 See Texas Nonprofit Employment, by Lester M. Salamon and Stephanie Lessans Geller (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, February 2003) and Texas Nonprofit Employment Update, by Lester M. Salamon and Steph-anie Lessans Geller (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, May 2007).

2 According to data from the 2009 Current Population Survey, Texas’ nonprofit workforce is the fifth largest among all states. The four states with larger nonprofit workforces include California, Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio.

3 The utilities industry includes establishments that provide electric power, natural gas, steam supply, water supply, or sewage removal.

4 The information industry includes publishing industries, broadcasting and tele-communications, information and data processing services, and the motion picture and sound recording industries.

5 All payroll data are annual estimates computed by multiplying second quarter data by four. Actual annual payrolls may differ slightly due to seasonal varia-tions.

6 Texas tax data come from the 2007 Census of Government Finance retrieved from the Census Bureau website. Our estimate was calculated by multiplying these figures by the estimated nonprofit share of taxes. We estimated the nonprofit shares by taking the wage share of personal income (calculated from BEA Regional Economic Accounts tables retrieved from their website) and multiplying it by the nonprofit share of wages.

7 According to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, an MSA is: 1) a county or group of contiguous counties that contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or 2) an urbanized area of at least 50,000 inhabitants and a total MSA population of at least 100,000 inhabitants. The contiguous counties are included in an MSA if, according to certain criteria, they are essentially metropolitan in character and are socially and economically integrated with the central city or cities. For a list of Texas MSAs and their component counties, see Appendix B.

8 Due to disclosure limitations, county-by-country data are only available for private employers (i.e., nonprofit and for-profit employers, but not government employers). As such, sections of this report relating to the regional breakdown of employment compare nonprofit employment to private employment rather than to total employment.

9 According to the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administratively enacted a 2.75 percent across-the-board rate reduction for home health services for 2008 (see Congress Web: http://www.congressweb.com/nahc/docfiles/08-AdequatePayment-v4.pdf).

10 On the relationship between nonprofit capital and nonprofits’ ability to expand, see Lester Salamon and Stephanie Geller, Investment Capital: The New Challenge for American Nonprofits, 2006. Available online: http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/pdfs/LP_Communiques/LP_Communique5_InvestmentCapital_2006.pdf.

11 Since the average weekly wage reported in the QCEW data makes no adjustment for full-time or part-time work, the variations in comparative earnings may be a result of a heavier use of part-time workers on the part of for-profit employers.



appendix a: The QceW UnemploymenT insUrance labor marKeT inFormaTion program

soUrce oF daTa

The major source of employment and wage data for this report is the Covered Employment and Wages Program, commonly referred to as the QCEW program, a coop-erative initiative involving State Employment Security Agencies and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The QCEW program produces a comprehensive tabulation of employ-ment and wage information for workers covered by state Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws and federal workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees Program. Data contained in this report repre-sent all employees covered by the Unemployment Insur-ance (UI) Law of Texas as well as federal workers covered by the Unemployment Compensation of Federal Employees Program. The data on state-insured workers are compiled from quarterly contribution reports submitted by employers subject to Texas law. Employment data pertaining to the federal government are obtained from similarly required reports submitted by the various government installations in Texas.

Scope oF coVerage

The QCEW program accounts for approximately 98 percent of all wage and salary civilian employment nationally (the program does not cover self-employed and family workers). The principal exclusions from the QCEW data set are employees of religious organizations, railroad workers, small-scale agriculture, domestic service, crew members on small vessels, state and local government elected officials, and insurance and real estate agents who receive payment solely by commission. In terms of nonprofit employment, the exclusion of religious organizations is the most signifi-cant; however, religious organizations may elect to be covered by the UI program and those that do are covered in the data. At this time, the level of noncoverage is unknown. The number of employees is measured by the number of filled jobs for the pay period that includes the 12th day of each month as reported by the employer. Both part-time and full-time employees are included in the data set. If a person holds two jobs, that person would be counted twice in the data set. Wages include bonuses, stock options, the cash value of meals and lodging, and tips and other gratuities.

The employment data for nonprofit organizations were identified by matching QCEW files for Texas with registries of tax-exempt firms provided by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

For the purpose of this report, we have chosen to focus on the “charitable” portion of the nonprofit sector. This includes organizations registered with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which embraces private, not-for-profit hospitals, clinics, colleges, universities, elementary schools, social service agencies, day care centers, orchestras, museums, theaters, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and many more. In addition to Section 501(c)(3), the Internal Revenue Code contains 25 other subsections under which organizations can claim exemption from federal income taxation as nonprofit organizations. Section 501(c)(3) is by far the most important of these, the one that covers the bulk of nonprofit organiza-tions, and the one with the organizations most commonly associated with the nonprofit sector.



Region

Nonprofit employment

501(c)3Private

employment

Nonprofit employ-ment as a share of

private employment

Nonprofit employ-ment in county/

region as a share of nonprofit employ-

ment in stateHouston-Sugar Land-BaytownAustin [D] [D] [D] [D]Brazoria 2,036 69,546 2.9% 0.5%Chambers [D] [D] [D] [D]Fort Bend 2,615 108,569 2.4% 0.6%Galveston 3,482 70,916 4.9% 0.9%Harris 92,324 1,822,103 5.1% 22.9%Liberty [D] [D] [D] [D]Montgomery 2,706 106,154 2.5% 0.7%San Jacinto [D] [D] [D] [D]Waller 563 9,789 5.8% 0.1%Total 103,726 2,187,077 4.7% 25.7%

Dallas-Plano IrvingCollin 5,048 261,183 1.9% 1.3%Dallas 54,458 1,333,600 4.1% 13.5%Delta [D] [D] [D] [D]Denton 2,501 138,721 1.8% 0.6%Ellis 1,066 32,962 3.2% 0.3%Hunt 437 22,255 2.0% 0.1%Kaufman 561 20,544 2.7% 0.1%Rockwall [D] [D] [D] [D]Total 64,071 1,809,265 3.5% 15.9%

Fort Worth-ArlingtonJohnson 798 34,275 2.3% 0.2%Parker 684 21,676 3.2% 0.2%Tarrant 35,596 675,375 5.3% 8.8%Wise [D] [D] [D] [D]Total 37,078 731,326 5.1% 9.2%

San AntonioAtascosa 104 7,363 1.4% 0.0%Bandera [D] [D] [D] [D]Bexar 26,273 604,186 4.3% 6.5%Comal 2,015 35,333 5.7% 0.5%Guadalupe 661 24,400 2.7% 0.2%Kendall 253 8,864 2.9% 0.1%Medina 157 5,662 2.8% 0.0%Wilson 144 4,321 3.3% 0.0%Total 29,607 690,129 4.3% 7.3%

appendix b: nonproFiT employmenT in Texas, by region, in comparison To priVaTe employmenT, 2008



Region


501(c)3Private

employment

Nonprofit employment as a share of private

employment

Nonprofit employment in county/region as a share of nonprofit

employment in stateAustin-Round RockBastrop 186 9,821 1.9% 0.0%Caldwell 320 5,104 6.3% 0.1%Hays 1,489 36,220 4.1% 0.4%Travis 16,389 457,102 3.6% 4.1%Williamson 3,427 103,959 3.3% 0.8%Total 21,811 612,206 3.6% 5.4%

TylerSmith 10,720 82,339 13.0% 2.7%Total 10,720 82,339 13.0% 2.7%

Killeen-Temple-Fort HoodBell 9,678 76,982 12.6% 2.4%Coryell 229 9,996 2.3% 0.1%Lampasas [D] [D] [D] [D]Total 9,907 86,978 11.4% 2.5%

WacoMcLennan 9,818 86,635 11.3% 2.4%Total 9,818 86,635 11.3% 2.4%

Corpus ChristiAransas 127 5,048 2.5% 0.0%Nueces 8,989 128,487 7.0% 2.2%San Patricio 197 13,912 1.4% 0.0%Total 9,313 147,447 6.3% 2.3%

LubbockLubbock 8,353 98,735 8.5% 2.1%Crosby [D] [D] [D] [D]Total 8,353 98,735 8.5% 2.1%

El PasoEl Paso 7,731 208,618 3.7% 1.9%Total 7,731 208,618 3.7% 1.9%

Brownsville-HarlingenCameron 6,674 96,265 6.9% 1.7%Total 6,674 96,265 6.9% 1.7%



Region


501(c)3 Private employment


private employment


employment in stateBeaumont-Port ArthurHardin 42 9,913 0.4% 0.0%Jefferson 5,761 107,825 5.3% 1.4%Orange 601 18,865 3.2% 0.1%Total 6,404 136,603 4.7% 1.6%

AmarilloArmstrong [D] [D] [D] [D]Carson [D] [D] [D] [D]Potter 5,313 63,604 8.4% 1.3%Randall 1,075 23,716 4.5% 0.3%Total 6,388 87,320 7.3% 1.6%

AbileneCallahan [D] [D] [D] [D]Jones [D] [D] [D] [D]Taylor 6,333 48,610 13.0% 1.6%Total 6,333 48,610 13.0% 1.6%

McAllen-Edinburg-MissionHidalgo 4,989 166,535 3.0% 1.2%Total 4,989 166,535 3.0% 1.2%

LongviewGregg 3,811 68,044 5.6% 0.9%Rusk 405 12,042 3.4% 0.1%Upshur 239 4,866 4.9% 0.1%Total 4,455 84,952 5.2% 1.1%

College Station-BryanBrazos 4,353 53,265 8.2% 1.1%Burleson [D] [D] [D] [D]Robertson [D] [D] [D] [D]Total 4,353 53,265 8.2% 1.1%

Witchita FallsArcher [D] [D] [D] [D]Clay [D] [D] [D] [D]Wichita 3,919 45,112 8.7% 1.0%Total 3,919 45,112 8.7% 1.0%



Region


501(c)3Private

employment


private employment


employment in stateTexarakanaBowie 3,597 32,619 11.0% 0.9%Total 3,597 32,619 11.0% 0.9%

San Angelo 3,569 36,170 9.9% 0.9%Irion [D] [D] [D] [D]Tom Green 3,569 36,170 9.9% 0.9%Total 3,569 36,170 9.9% 0.9%

Sherman-DenisonGrayson 2,373 36,568 6.5% 0.6%Total 2,373 36,568 6.5% 0.6%

MidlandMidland 2,254 61,202 3.7% 0.6%Total 2,254 61,202 3.7% 0.6%

VictoriaCalhoun [D] [D] [D] [D]Goliad [D] [D] [D] [D]Victoria 1,522 33,376 4.6% 0.4%Total 1,522 33,376 4.6% 0.4%

LaredoWebb 1,158 68,204 1.7% 0.3%Total 1,158 68,204 1.7% 0.3%

OdessaEctor 960 52,755 1.8% 0.2%Total 960 52,755 1.8% 0.2%

ALL MSAs 366,628 7,695,359 4.8% 90.9%

[D] Data unavailable because of federal restrictions on the disclosure of data that can identify individual employers. The total nonprofit employment in the counties with such disclosure restrictions is 15,776 or 3.0 percent of private employment in those areas.



Region


501(c)3Private

employment


employment


employment in stateRural RegionsAnderson 388 12,717 3.1% 0.1%Andrews [D] [D] [D] [D]Angelina 1,906 30,165 6.3% 0.5%Bailey [D] [D] [D] [D]Baylor [D] [D] [D] [D]Bee 419 4,880 8.6% 0.1%Blanco [D] [D] [D] [D]Borden [D] [D] [D] [D]Bosque [D] [D] [D] [D]Brewster 75 3,071 2.4% 0.0%Briscoe [D] [D] [D] [D]Brooks 68 1,831 3.7% 0.0%Brown 527 12,729 4.1% 0.1%Burnet 302 10,444 2.9% 0.1%Camp [D] [D] [D] [D]Cass [D] [D] [D] [D]Castro [D] [D] [D] [D]Cherokee 593 11,157 5.3% 0.1%Childress [D] [D] [D] [D]Cochran [D] [D] [D] [D]Coke [D] [D] [D] [D]Coleman [D] [D] [D] [D]Collingsworth [D] [D] [D] [D]Colorado 654 6,028 10.8% 0.2%Comanche [D] [D] [D] [D]Concho [D] [D] [D] [D]Cooke 231 13,598 1.7% 0.1%Cottle [D] [D] [D] [D]Crane [D] [D] [D] [D]Crockett [D] [D] [D] [D]Culberson [D] [D] [D] [D]Dallam [D] [D] [D] [D]Dawson [D] [D] [D] [D]Deaf Smith [D] [D] [D] [D]DeWitt [D] [D] [D] [D]Dickens [D] [D] [D] [D]Dimmit 128 1,855 6.9% 0.0%Donley [D] [D] [D] [D]Duval [D] [D] [D] [D]



Region


501(c)3Private

employment


employment


employment in stateEastland [D] [D] [D] [D]Edwards [D] [D] [D] [D]Erath 486 12,041 4.0% 0.1%Falls [D] [D] [D] [D]Fannin 80 4,714 1.7% 0.0%Fayette 373 7,368 5.1% 0.1%Fisher [D] [D] [D] [D]Floyd [D] [D] [D] [D]Foard [D] [D] [D] [D]Franklin [D] [D] [D] [D]Freestone [D] [D] [D] [D]Frio [D] [D] [D] [D]Gaines [D] [D] [D] [D]Garza [D] [D] [D] [D]Gillespie [D] [D] [D] [D]Glasscock [D] [D] [D] [D]Gonzales 189 5,107 3.7% 0.0%Gray 118 7,387 1.6% 0.0%Grimes [D] [D] [D] [D]Hale 1,096 11,705 9.4% 0.3%Hall [D] [D] [D] [D]Hamilton [D] [D] [D] [D]Hansford [D] [D] [D] [D]Hardeman [D] [D] [D] [D]Harrison 1,242 20,286 6.1% 0.3%Hartley [D] [D] [D] [D]Haskell [D] [D] [D] [D]Hemphill [D] [D] [D] [D]Henderson 897 13,055 6.9% 0.2%Hill [D] [D] [D] [D]Hockley [D] [D] [D] [D]Hood [D] [D] [D] [D]Hopkins [D] [D] [D] [D]Houston 356 4,340 8.2% 0.1%Howard 134 9,529 1.4% 0.0%Hudspeth [D] [D] [D] [D]Hutchinson [D] [D] [D] [D]



Region


501(c)3Private

employment


employment

Nonprofit employment in county/region as a share of nonprofit employment

in stateJack [D] [D] [D] [D]Jackson [D] [D] [D] [D]Jasper 566 8,791 6.4% 0.1%Jeff Davis [D] [D] [D] [D]Jim Hogg [D] [D] [D] [D]Jim Wells 946 16,130 5.9% 0.2%Karnes [D] [D] [D] [D]Kenedy [D] [D] [D] [D]Kent [D] [D] [D] [D]Kerr 1,953 15,392 12.7% 0.5%Kimble [D] [D] [D] [D]King [D] [D] [D] [D]Kinney [D] [D] [D] [D]Kleberg 491 8,345 5.9% 0.1%Knox [D] [D] [D] [D]Lamar 240 17,574 1.4% 0.1%Lamb [D] [D] [D] [D]La Salle [D] [D] [D] [D]Lavaca [D] [D] [D] [D]Lee [D] [D] [D] [D]Leon [D] [D] [D] [D]Limestone [D] [D] [D] [D]Lipscomb [D] [D] [D] [D]Live Oak [D] [D] [D] [D]Llano [D] [D] [D] [D]Loving [D] [D] [D] [D]Lynn [D] [D] [D] [D]McCulloch [D] [D] [D] [D]McMullen [D] [D] [D] [D]Madison [D] [D] [D] [D]Marion [D] [D] [D] [D]Martin [D] [D] [D] [D]Mason [D] [D] [D] [D]Matagorda 180 8,593 2.1% 0.0%Maverick 336 10,428 3.2% 0.1%Menard [D] [D] [D] [D]Milam [D] [D] [D] [D]Mills [D] [D] [D] [D]Mitchell [D] [D] [D] [D]Montague [D] [D] [D] [D]Moore [D] [D] [D] [D]



Region


501(c)3Private

employment


private employment


employment in stateMorris [D] [D] [D] [D]Motley [D] [D] [D] [D]Nacogdoches 409 17,730 2.3% 0.1%Navarro 519 12,145 4.3% 0.1%Newton [D] [D] [D] [D]Nolan [D] [D] [D] [D]Ochiltree [D] [D] [D] [D]Oldham [D] [D] [D] [D]Palo Pinto [D] [D] [D] [D]Panola 300 7,540 4.0% 0.1%Parmer [D] [D] [D] [D]Pecos [D] [D] [D] [D]Polk [D] [D] [D] [D]Presidio [D] [D] [D] [D]Rains [D] [D] [D] [D]Reagan [D] [D] [D] [D]Real [D] [D] [D] [D]Red River [D] [D] [D] [D]Reeves [D] [D] [D] [D]Refugio [D] [D] [D] [D]Roberts [D] [D] [D] [D]Runnels [D] [D] [D] [D]Sabine [D] [D] [D] [D]San Augustine [D] [D] [D] [D]San Saba [D] [D] [D] [D]Schleicher [D] [D] [D] [D]Scurry [D] [D] [D] [D]Shackelford [D] [D] [D] [D]Shelby [D] [D] [D] [D]Sherman [D] [D] [D] [D]Somervell [D] [D] [D] [D]Starr 275 7,698 3.6% 0.1%Stephens [D] [D] [D] [D]Sterling [D] [D] [D] [D]Stonewall [D] [D] [D] [D]Sutton [D] [D] [D] [D]Swisher [D] [D] [D] [D]



Region


501(c)3Private

employment


private employment


employment in stateTerrell [D] [D] [D] [D]Terry [D] [D] [D] [D]Throckmorton [D] [D] [D] [D]Titus [D] [D] [D] [D]Trinity 197 1,779 11.1% 0.0%Tyler [D] [D] [D] [D]Upton [D] [D] [D] [D]Uvalde 330 7,113 4.6% 0.1%Val Verde 627 12,547 5.0% 0.2%Van Zandt 181 8,440 2.1% 0.0%Walker 1,055 10,854 9.7% 0.3%Ward [D] [D] [D] [D]Washington 763 11,634 6.6% 0.2%Wharton 191 12,424 1.5% 0.0%Wheeler [D] [D] [D] [D]Wilbarger [D] [D] [D] [D]Willacy 143 2,487 5.7% 0.0%Winkler [D] [D] [D] [D]Wood 571 7,742 7.4% 0.1%Yoakum [D] [D] [D] [D]Young [D] [D] [D] [D]Zapata [D] [D] [D] [D]Zavala [D] [D] [D] [D]

Non-metropolitan areas

20,535 409,393 5.0% 5.1%

Balance of state 15,776 531,171 3.0% 3.9%Grand total for state

403,196 8,780,104 4.6% 100%

[D] Data unavailable because of federal restrictions on the disclosure of data that can identify individual employers. The total nonprofit employment in the counties with such disclosure restrictions is 15,776 or 3.0 percent of private employment in those areas.



NAICS Codes* Industry Type of organization

Number of nonprofit

employees

Percent of nonprofit

employees541 Professional,

scientific, and technical services

Legal services; accounting and tax services; architectural and engineering services; specialized design services; computer services; management, scien-tific, and technical consulting services; and research and development services

9,008 2.2%

611 Educational services

Elementary and secondary schools, junior colleges, colleges, universities, profes-sional schools, and technical and trade schools

59,898 14.9%

621 Ambulatory health care

Outpatient care center, family planning centers, medical laboratories, and home health care services

35,653 8.8%

622 Hospitals General medical and surgical hospitals, psychiatric and substance abuse hospi-tals, specialty hospitals

156,289 38.8%

623 Nursing and residential care facilities

Nursing care facilities; residential mental retardation, mental health, and substance abuse facilities; and elderly care commu-nity facilities

27,712 6.9%

624 Social assistance Individual and family services, youth services, elderly and disabled services, community food services, commu-nity housing services, emergency relief services, vocational rehabilitation services, and child day care

48,516 12.0%

712 Museums, historical sites, and similar institu-tions

Museums, historical sites, and similar institutions

7,402 1.8%

813 Religious, grant-making, civic, professional, membership and similar organiza-tions

Religious organizations; grantmaking and giving services; social advocacy orga-nizations; civil and social organizations; business, professional, labor, political organizations, and membership organi-zations

32,296 8.0%

All other Other Credit intermediation, visitors bureaus, waste management and remediation services, and others

26,422 7.0%

All State total 403,196 100.0%*NAICS codes are based on the North American Industry Classification System (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2002)

appendix c: disTribUTion oF nonproFiT employmenT in Texas, by indUsTry, 2008

The johns hopKins nonproFiT economic daTa projecT

State and Regional Nonprofit Economic Data BulletinsCalifornia Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 7, 2001)Connecticut Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 8, 2002)Florida’s Nonprofit Sector: An Economic Force (Nonprofit Economic Data Bulletin No. 29, 2008)Georgia Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 16, 2004)Illinois Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 21, 2005)Illinois Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 4, 2001)Indiana Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 22 ,2005)Louisiana Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 24, 2005)Louisiana Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 5, 2001)Maine Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 34, 2010)Maine Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 12, 2003)Nonprofits and Recessions: New Data from Maryland (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 33, 2010)Maryland Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 31, 2008)Maryland Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 25, 2006)Maryland Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 23, 2005)Maryland Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 17, 2004)Maryland Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 11, 2003)Maryland Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 9, 2002)Maryland Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 3, 2001)Maryland’s Nonprofit Sector: A Major Economic Force (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 1, 2000)North Carolina Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 19, 2005)Ohio Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 15, 2004)Pennsylvania Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 18, 2005) Return on Investment: The Economic Impact of the Nonprofit Sector in Colorado (Nonprofit Economic Data Bulletin No. 30, 2008)South Carolina Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 6, 2001)Texas Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 10, 2003)Texas Nonprofit Employment Update (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 27, 2007)Virginia’s Nonprofit Sector: An Economic Force (Nonprofit Economic Data Bulletin No. 32, 2008)Washington, D.C.—Nonprofit Employment in the Greater Washington Region(Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 20, 2005)West Virginia Nonprofit Employment (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 2, 2001)

National Nonprofit Economic Data BulletinsEmployment in America’s Charities: A National Overview (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 26, 2006)In Search of the Nonprofit Sector: Improving the State of the Art (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 13, 2003). Also pub-lished as: Salamon, Lester M., and Sarah Dewees. 2001. In Search of the Nonprofit Sector: Improving the State of the Art. Work-ing Papers of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

What Nonprofit Wage Deficit? (Nonprofit Employment Bulletin No. 14, 2003). Also published as: Salamon, Lester M. Winter 2002. “What Nonprofit Wage Deficit?” The Nonprofit Quarterly, pp. 61–62. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

Nonprofit Organizations: New Insights from QCEW Data (September 2005). Also published as: Salamon, Lester M., and S. Wojciech Sokolowski. September 2005. “Nonprofit Organizations: New Insight from QCEW Data.” Monthly Labor Review, pp. 19–26. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Full text available on the Center for Civil Society Studies website: www.ccss.jhu.edu.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies

The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies seeks to improve understanding and the effective functioning of not-for-profit, philanthropic, or "civil society" organizations in the United States and throughout the world in order to enhance the contribution these organizations can make to democracy and the quality of human life. The Center is part of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies and carries out its work through a combination of research, training, and information sharing both domestically and internationally. The Center's Nonprofit Economic Data Project draws on a variety of data sources to provide new insights into the scope and structure of America's non-profit sector. Full text versions of all project reports are available at http://www.ccss.jhu.edu.


OneStar supports the nonprofit sector and its stakeholders through initiatives that increase civic engagement, research, rigorous evaluation and nonprofit organizational excellence. Its goal is to achieve sustainable social impact throughout the larger nonprofit infrastructure. OneStar also serves as the state's National Service Commission administering the AmeriCorps grant program and serves as the Faith-Based and Community Initiative office.

Center for Civil Society StudiesInstitute for Policy Studies

The Johns Hopkins University3400 N. Charles St.

Wyman Park Bldg., 5th FloorBaltimore, MD 21218-2688, USA

Phone: 410-516-4327Fax: 410-516-7818

E-mail: [email protected]: www.ccss.jhu.edu


816 Congress AvenueSuite 900

Austin, TX 78701

Phone: 512-287-2000Fax: 512-287-2039

E-mail: [email protected]: www.onestarfoundation.orgTexas Nonprofit Employment Update


Lester M. SalamonStephanie Lessans Gellerwith the technical assistance ofKasey L. Mengel and S. Wojciech Sokolowski

A Joint Product of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies

and OneStar Foundation: Texas Center for Social Impact

Joh

ns

Ho

pki

ns

No

np

rofi

t Ec

on

om

ic D

ata

Pro

jec

t

Nonprofit Employment Bulletin Number 35

August 2010

Texas Nonprofit Employment...

Documents

Transcript of Texas Nonprofit Employment...