NVSQ Blog

How North Carolina’s Nonprofits Respond to the DEI Pendulum

Photo by Jose Manuel Gonzalez Lupiañez Photography on pexels.com

Jennifer Beightley¹ and Lauren Azevedo¹

¹University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA

Much like North Carolina is a political microcosm of the United States, our nonprofit sector within the state may be a microcosm of the American nonprofit landscape. North Carolina is a compelling paradox of study because not only does it consist of large hospital networks, competitive universities, and vital rural human services, it also operates within a unique purple tension. The space between a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature means politics, and currently diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ride a pendulum between the two. This pendulum space creates a distinctive environment where policy shifts have immediate, tangible effects on those dependent on government funding. Studying how North Carolina nonprofits adapt to this volatility around them at varying levels offer state-level understanding, but it may also offer broader insight into how the nonprofit sector across the country responds to a swinging political environment.

The DEI political pendulum swung left in the second half of 2020, propelled by movements and events such as Black Lives Matter, the murder of George Floyd, and #MeToo. It stayed left as President Joseph R. Biden took office in January 2021. Biden’s administration placed heavy emphasis on advancing DEI initiatives within the federal government, issuing 11 DEI-related Executive Orders in his first year in office. The DEI pendulum then began its swing to the right in the summer of 2024 when companies like John Deere and Harley Davidson announced they were discontinuing their DEI programs and DEI had become a pejorative term applied by some legislators to Kamala Harris, the first Black, Asian American, and female Vice President. And, the North Carolina higher education system had recently been affected by the Supreme Court decision in the Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard College, having been ordered to no longer use race in admissions. The timing of our study of North Carolina’s nonprofits and their commitment to DEI landed here, and provided unmistakable political and social context.

“I know where my boundaries are”: Understanding volunteer psychological contracts

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Michelle Cleveland¹, Debra Gray², Rachel Manning³, and Kim Bradley-Cole⁴

¹University of Chichester, UK, ²Kingston University, London, UK, ³University of Worcester, UK, ⁴University of Winchester, UK

“We want to volunteer because we want to be part of making the difference”

“We are all there for each other”

“I’m doing this because I don’t want to let my colleagues down”

Experiences of volunteering often highlight depth of commitment. This commitment is often collective in nature: We do it together, we do it for others. We do it because we are part of a ‘we’. And yet, while experiences of volunteering often highlight the profound impact on – or, indeed, how volunteering is part of – people’s identities, volunteers leave. So how well do we understand what volunteers expect from the organisations they give their time to?

Commitment to volunteering is finite and breakable. Volunteering commitments are not straightforward commitments: they are often conditional and are part of reciprocal expectations. Volunteer-organisation relationships also differ from employee-employer relationships in a variety of fundamentally different ways (Nichols, 2013). Volunteers don’t leave because they will get paid more somewhere else.

When North-South Partnerships Evolve: What Happens When the Balance Begins to Shift?

Photo by EVG Kowalievska on Pexels.com

Michel Majdalani¹, Lea Stadtler², and Charles-Clemens Rüling²

¹Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon, ²Grenoble Ecole de Management, France

Picture a familiar scene in international development: A well-established organization from the global North partners with a hospital, school, or community-based group in the global South. Expertise travels South. Funds travel South. Protocols and standards are adapted. Over time, the Southern partner grows stronger, but the partnership remains marked by asymmetry. So what happens when the Northern partner changes direction? And what possibilities arise when the Southern partner is ready not just to receive, but to lead?

Our recent study, published in NVSQ¹, examines exactly this question through the evolution of a long-standing North-South twinning relationship in global health. The case shows that partnerships do not have to end in conflict, withdrawal, or dependency. They can evolve.

More specifically, we show how a Southern organization built on the resources gained through collaboration, while the Northern organization shifted into a more supportive, less directive role. Over time, the relationship moved toward greater balance, not by cutting ties, but by reshaping them.