Bringing Fiscal Sponsorship into Focus: A Scoping Review to Support Nonprofits In a Resource-Constrained Sector

Background and Purpose
Fiscal sponsorship allows new projects to operate under the legal and tax-exempt status of an established 501(c)(3) organization, yet it remains relatively underrecognized. As nonprofits face tighter financial constraints, increased competition for funding, and rising demand for services, pressure has grown to adopt flexible and cost-efficient organizational models. Despite its increasing use, fiscal sponsorship remains underexamined in academic literature including in social work, and there is limited empirical evidence on how fiscal sponsorship operates in practice. This gap creates challenges for social workers supporting community-based initiatives, particularly those led by under-resourced or marginalized groups. This scoping review maps how fiscal sponsorship is represented in the literature and identifies patterns, gaps, and implications for research, policy, and practice. We asked: How is fiscal sponsorship conceptualized and discussed in the literature, particularly in terms of its definitions, models, functions, services, benefits, challenges, fees, duration, and equity implications?

Methods
We conducted a systematic search of bibliographic databases (e.g., ProQuest Central, ABI/INFORM Collection) using keywords. We applied a structured eligibility screening process in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Following screening, we included 29 sources spanning peer-reviewed and grey literature. We charted data using a framework capturing study characteristics, definitions, models, and key thematic dimensions. We used inductive and deductive coding to analyze definitions and models; core functions (e.g., legal identity, fiduciary oversight); services (e.g., human resources, donation processing); benefits; and challenges. We also assessed the depth of discussion for fees, duration, equity, and research gaps using ordinal coding scales. We conducted frequency counts and descriptive analyses to identify patterns across the dataset.

Results
The direct project model was the most frequently discussed (51.7%). The literature concentrated heavily on legal (79.3%), fiduciary (82.8%), and compliance-related functions (65.5%), with less attention to employment (13.8%), risk (34.5%), and organizational development (20.7%). Improved administrative efficiency (83.0%) and access to resources (65.5%) were the most reported benefits. Challenges spanned 11 domains, including governance, legal, financial, operational, relational, and sector-level issues, with governance and autonomy tensions (51.7%) cited most frequently. Although duration was widely acknowledged (51.7%), only a small subset of sources (10.3%) analytically developed it. Fee structures were inconsistently addressed, with limited (34.5%) or no discussion (17.2%) in many sources. Equity appeared in fewer than half of articles, and only a small subset engaged it substantively (13.8%). Overall, the literature remained largely descriptive, with limited theoretical and empirical development.

Conclusion
This study underscored the promise and limitations of fiscal sponsorship within a resource-constrained nonprofit environment. Findings highlight the need for more rigorous empirical research, comparative analyses of sponsorship models, and deeper examination of power, equity, and access. Greater attention to fees, duration, and long-term outcomes is necessary to strengthen the evidence base and support more effective use of fiscal sponsorship. The absence of clear regulatory frameworks contributes to variability and risk, underscoring the need for standardized guidance. Although fiscal sponsorship can reduce barriers to entry for social impact entrepreneurs, practitioners must critically assess governance structures, decision-making authority, and financial transparency to ensure alignment with equity and accountability.