Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. (YAP) is a registered as a nonprofit corporation, licensed to conduct business in the United States according to rules and regulations of not for profit companies in the states in which the corporation operates. The YAP Institute as it is better known derives most of its revenues cash contributions made by private charitable sources. According to the Institute's 2009 IRS 990, those sources are undisclosed, and line itemed according to a general statement about cash contributions in support of the organization's mission and programs. Some grant monies are also mentioned in the federal reporting narrative, yet the title to those sources of contribution also unmentioned with exception of annual totals.
External granting to YAP's international programs is mentioned, and is listed as earmarked funds for programmatic and operational support in those countries. YAP's connection to the court system, law enforcement agencies and continued integration into the community has been by way of the constructive efforts of the agency's Board of Directors, and the network of professional contacts brought to the support of the organization through stewardship in public partnership. A portfolio of investments is procured to the end of the support of the agency in its short-term and long-term goals.
The development of significant funds intended for the sustainability of the organization in perpetuity is evidenced in the large budget allocation of private resources by individuals with interest in the continuation and expansion of the agency's objectives in underserved communities. Ongoing attention to capitalization on investments is designed to serve endowment and other long-term purposes of the nonprofit corporation. In sum, YAP is relatively 'internal' in its public reporting mechanism, and there is not additional fiscal information available on the agency website. The organization's IRS 990 was resourced at Guidestar.org.
As a nonprofit, consideration of competition in YAP's strategic planning model is inferred where foundation and government grants or private funds might be allocated to other parallel agencies. The scope of competition in the nonprofit arena in general is distinct from that of a publically held company, in that stockholders are not present with representative interest of gaining profit. Nonprofit stakeholders and this includes charitable contributors, invest time and finance toward realization of revenues in support of the recipient organization's mission and programs. Surplus cash and other assets are of course intended to promote 'profit,' yet to the end that those resources are invested back into the nonprofit's continued activities.
In the last decade, the advancement of the concept 'capacity building' within nonprofit funding circles is largely the result of policy-based mandates designed with allocation of 'block' granting or capital funding in mind. Part of this shift in allocations from the earlier 'program support' model to one of operational or organizational funding has been in response to the long-term prospectus of 'expanded services' where large budget or lead organizations provide oversight to a consortium or partnership of smaller nonprofits. Researched outcomes to feasibility in planning of those projects is typically part of the temporal framework to incremental funding strategies, where preliminary assessment of a project is proposed as part of a series of implementation phases to a grant mandate.
The impact of capacity building as a movement within the nonprofit fundraising sphere has been furthered by the evidence-based practice of those feasibility studies, and ongoing research on the progress of those programs chosen by the funder as 'replicable models.' Hence, 'competition' is rarely discussed in the market sense, but is certainly a structural factor informed by scientific objectivity and other interdisciplinary approaches drawn from fields like urban planning where grants mandates are concerned. The popularity of the capacity building statement has become so commonplace, that expectations previously promoted through highly organized sources of funding, has disseminated through the activities of nonprofit charities into the areas of funding previously designated as individual contributor or donor steward relationships. Increased 'certainty' found in formal capacity building strategy now means that individual donors are faced with less random probability that their matching dollars will be fettered away.
YAP's capacity building statement on the agency's website is presented through a traditional CEO letter to supporters, where discussion of the recent devolution of the economy since 2008 has affected the agency's…