What do Nonprofits Stand For? Renewing the Nonprofit Value Commitment

Nonprofit organizations are under assault today as perhaps never before, with consequences that could be profound for the future of these organizations and for those they serve. Proposals to cap the federal tax deduction for charitable contributions have become an increasingly common feature of budget-balancing measures from both ends of the political spectrum; a growing number of state and local governments have imposed new taxes and other fees on nonprofits, and shifts in government payment methods that advantage forprofit businesses have led to a significant loss of market share for nonprofits in a number of traditional nonprofit fields of activity.This report grows out of a first step toward meeting this challenge: to see whether there is a meaningful degree of consensus about the distinctive values of the nonprofit sector among a significant portion of the sector's organizations. More than that, the work on which this report is based also sought to explore two other matters: first, how well nonprofit organizations feel they actually embody the values they profess; and second, how successful they feel the sector has been in conveying these values to key stakeholders and supporters.To shed light on these matters, the Johns Hopkins Nonprofit Listening Post Project surveyed the 1,500 nonprofit organizations in the three core fields of human services, community development, and the arts that have agreed to serve as the Project's eyes and ears on major developments affecting the nonprofit sector across the country. The results reflect the responses of 731 organizations -- enough to provide a statistically significant sample of nonprofit organizations of various sizes, and of nonprofit activity, in these fields.While we do not claim these results are representative of the nonprofit sector as a whole (hospitals and higher education, for example, are not included), we do believe they are representative of both the total number of organizations and the lion's share of the nonprofit activity in these three core fields, which embrace a significant portion of all nonprofit organizations

Maryland Nonprofits by the Numbers: Key Findings

The 2021 Maryland Nonprofits by the Numbers survey investigates the size, scope, structure, and impact of nonprofits in the state, and demonstrates this vital set of organizations as essential drivers of community and economic development in Maryland. Maryland's nonprofits employ nearly 13% of all non-governmental workers in Maryland and paid over $15,000,000,000 in wages in 2017

Communiqué No. 22: What Do Nonprofits Stand For? Renewing the Nonprofit Value Commitment

This report aims to determine the core values of the nonprofit sector. It found that a broad group of nonprofits are in agreement about these value attributes, but feel that key stakeholders in government, the media, and the general public do not understand them and the consequences could be harmful for the sector unless steps are taken to correct this. With bibliographical references

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health