Bridging Divides or Widening Gaps? Nonprofit Organizations’ Efforts for Migrant Inclusion in Two Global Cities
Abstract
Nonprofit organizations are often expected to advance migrant inclusion, but their staffing and services may not reflect the migrant population in their local communities. Comparing Vienna and Shenzhen, this article develops the concept of “diversity alignment” to assess how closely nonprofit staff and beneficiaries correspond to neighborhood demographics. Surveys conducted from 2018 to 2020 show that migrants are generally underserved. Staff diversity improves beneficiary alignment when staff members have intensive personal interactions with beneficiaries, whereas weak contact can reduce responsiveness. Formal elections and representative mechanisms do not reliably improve alignment and may sometimes hinder it.
Summary
Research Question
How well do nonprofit organizations include, reach, and serve migrants relative to migrants’ presence in the surrounding community, and which organizational practices improve that alignment?
Main Argument and Findings
Migrants are generally underserved in both cities. Diverse staffing alone is not enough: its benefit depends on sustained personal contact with beneficiaries. Formal representative procedures do not automatically produce more inclusive organizations and can sometimes widen the gap between organizational practices and community demographics.
Data and Methods
Comparative organizational surveys conducted from 2018 to 2020. The analysis includes responses from 358 nonprofit organizations in Vienna and 203 in Shenzhen and compares organizational practices with local demographic conditions.
Contribution
The article introduces “diversity alignment” as a way to measure migrant inclusion and shows why representation must be examined together with everyday relational practices. It connects nonprofit governance, organizational diversity, and urban inequality across two different institutional settings.
Keywords
migrant inclusion · diversity alignment · nonprofit organizations · representative governance · staff–beneficiary contact · Vienna · Shenzhen · global cities