Some Interesting Numbers

In 2008, as reported by the National Center for Charitable Statistics, there were 947,274 nonprofit 501 c (3) organizations in the United States registered with the IRS, but only 343,169 had annual receipts levels above $25,000, leaving 604,105, or 64%, the overwhelming majority, as small organizations.

Giving Well

In a follow-up to yesterday's post, I found a reading from Seneca in a marvelous book, Giving Well, Doing Good: Readings for Thoughtful Philanthropists, that was complimentary to it.

An excerpt.

“Among the numerous faults of those who pass their lives recklessly and without due reflection, my good friend Liberalis, I should say that there is hardly any one so hurtful to society as this, that we neither know how to bestow or how to receive a benefit…As it is, virtue consists in bestowing benefits for which we are not certain of meeting with any return, but whose fruit is at once enjoyed by noble minds. So little influence ought [the anticipation of return] have in restraining us from doing good actions, that even though I were denied the hope of meeting with a grateful man, yet the fear of not having my benefits returned would not prevent my bestowing them…

“…The book-keeping of benefits is simple: it is all expenditure; if any one returns it, that is clear gain; if he does not return it, it is not lost, I gave it for the sake of giving. No one writes down his gifts in a ledger, or like a grasping creditor demands repayment to the day and hour. A good man never thinks of such matters, unless reminded of them by some one returning his gifts; otherwise they become debts owing to him.” (p. 77)

Needing to Give

A surprising element of the human service charitable sector—who receive much of their funding from government—is realization that there is value on both sides of the individual donor equation.

That to the receiver is obvious, but that to the donor is less so, and this value is important to understand, especially for nonprofit organizational leadership.

The book I’ve been reading, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, remarks on this:

“But the value of charity is not limited to those who receive the services that giving makes possible. The evidence in this book shows that charity unleashes enormous benefits not only to the givers themselves but also to their families, communities, and the nation. Everyone understands that charitable organizations create value by providing for the needy. What many organizations misunderstand is who the “needy” truly are. In addition to those in need of food, shelter, education, the needy are also those who need to attain their full potential in happiness, health, and material prosperity—which is every one of us.

“To give away money is an easy matter and in any man’s power,” Aristotle said. “But to decide to whom to give it, and how large, and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every man’s power nor an easy matter.” This is a problem almost everyone faces when thinking about charity. Rockefeller solved the problem by hiring a brilliant manager to administer his “scientific philanthropy.” Most of us rely on reputable charitable institutions to steward our donations properly to create the social value we seek. Charitable causes—for the most part, nonprofit organizations in the United State and Europe—therefore have a crucial role in the prosperity of our societies: They are the conduits between those who need services and those who need to give. I’ll go even further: For a nonprofit organization to pass up a donation, or to neglect to raise private donations, is tantamount to leaving a person hungry.

“Do most nonprofit organizations comprehend this? Apparently not. Consider the data on social welfare nonprofit organizations in the United States in 2002. Approximately 35,000 in the areas of human services—services for the poor, the disabled, and so forth—have annual revenues above $25,000. of these organizations, 19 percent do not receive any donations. Even further, 65 percent say they do not spend any money at all to raise funds.”

Technology Helping Charities

Online giving is still in its infancy but developing into a powerful tool when used well, as this story from the Sacramento Bee reports.

An excerpt.

“No longer just a device for idle chatting and "American Idol" voting, text messaging has emerged as a powerful tool for social good.

“In just two weeks since a disastrous earthquake struck Haiti, people across the globe have texted more than $33 million in relief donations through their mobile phones, $5 and $10 at a time.

“Charities have found success in recent years using Web pages, e-mail appeals and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to solicit donations and volunteers.

“But few anticipated the impact of the Haiti "mobile giving" phenomenon, the most successful such campaign in American history.

"It's astounding what has happened," said Trista Jensen of the Sacramento Sierra chapter of the American Red Cross. "It's like nothing we have seen before."

"Mobile giving" made its debut in the aftermath of the Asian tsunamis five years ago, and was used to raise funds after Hurricane Katrina, said Verizon Wireless spokesman Chuck Hamby in Florida. Those efforts netted about $400,000.

“Since then, "texting has really taken off, and people are comfortable with it," said Jensen.”

Nonprofit Leadership Support

The James Irvine Foundation reports on the support its leadership program has provided during the current troubled financial environment for nonprofits.

Education and training are vital for the nonprofit leader under any circumstances, but especially crucial when the circumstances become trying, and funding sources that provide them are acting on a basic and sound element of philanthropic investing—helping ensure your funds are used wisely.

An excerpt.

“When the financial crisis struck in the fall of 2008, Jan Karlin was in the middle of her two-year grant from Irvine’s Fund for Leadership Advancement (FLA). Karlin had had great success as cofounder and executive director of Southwest Chamber Music in Pasadena. The ensemble had won two Grammy Awards, been on three world tours in the previous four years, and secured federal funding for the largest-ever cultural exchange with Vietnam, sponsored by the U.S. State Department.

“As an organization, we were looking at what we could do next,” Karlin says. “I thought the FLA grant would help move us to the next level.” Karlin used FLA funds to hire an executive coach, take seminars, and boost the capacity of her staff and board to help realize the vision she was creating. “So by the time the recession hit, we had a lot of things in place to be able to weather the recession,” Karlin recalls. “I won’t say it’s been easy, but I don’t think we’re in any danger as an organization.”

“Launched in 2006, the Fund for Leadership Advancement was designed to help the executive directors of selected Irvine grantee organizations improve their leadership skills, so they can be better equipped to take advantage of growth opportunities. The fund was specifically not intended to help organizations respond to short-term crises. But as the recession has unfolded, many FLA grantees are finding that the program’s leadership support is helping them remain focused on the organization’s longer term goals in the face of momentary challenges.”

Deceptive Fund Raising

Fund raisers—often using deceptive or misleading tactics—that take an inordinate amount of the money they collect, leaving little for the nonprofit organizations in whose names they raise that money, and their tactics often corroding the organization's good name in the community, are a bane on the sector.

This story from the New York Times reports on the efforts of the state government to regulate this practice and it is welcome news.

An excerpt.

“The telephone solicitor for the local Police Benevolent Association was polite at first, but when Toby Morse explained that she had decided not to give money this year, his tone shifted. He read aloud her address and wondered how sturdy her locks were. Over the following weeks, she received dozens of phone calls at all times of the day to press her for donations, including one from a man pretending to be a police officer.

“On Wednesday, a year after Ms. Morse reported the harassing phone calls, the state attorney general’s office announced that it was suing to shut down four telemarketing companies in New York that provide fund-raising services for nonprofit organizations.

“The companies…were accused of repeatedly breaking state laws that make it illegal to use deceptive or misleading tactics to do fund-raising. The lawsuit follows a six-month undercover investigation.

“It really leaves a bad taste in the mouth of people who do like to donate,” said Ms. Morse, 40, a state court officer who lives near Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

“The attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, said the companies undermined the faith of philanthropically inclined New Yorkers. He noted that the companies, all of which are for-profit, kept 76 percent of the money they ostensibly raised for charity.”

Strategic Planning

For generations the multi-year strategic plan was a standard part of the well managed nonprofit’s resume and indeed, many funders actually required one to be in place before awarding funds.

While that aspect of strategic planning may not change soon, the reality of relying on strategic plans to navigate the future are not as important as well-versed executives in tune with what is going on now, and able to discern short and long-term philanthropic and program trends; an executive perspective always crucial to organizational strategy.

This article from the Wall Street Journal, while focusing on business, concerns nonprofits as well, for the ways of the world today, impacts all sectors.

An excerpt.

“During the recession, as business forecasts based on seemingly plausible swings in sales smacked up against reality, executives discovered that strategic planning doesn't always work.

“Some business leaders came away convinced that the new priority was to be able to shift course on the fly. Office Depot Inc., for example, began updating its annual budget every month, starting in early 2009. Other companies started to factor more extreme scenarios into their thinking. A few even set up "situation rooms,'' where staffers glued to computer screens monitored developments affecting sales and finances.

“Now, even though the economy is slowly picking up, those fresh habits aren't fading. "This downturn has changed the way we will think about our business for many years to come," says Steve Odland, Office Depot's chairman and chief executive.

“Walt Shill, head of the North American management consulting practice for Accenture Ltd., is even more blunt: "Strategy, as we knew it, is dead,'' he contends. "Corporate clients decided that increased flexibility and accelerated decision making are much more important than simply predicting the future."

“Companies have long planned for changing circumstances. What's new—and a switch from the distant calendars and rigid forecasts of the past—is the heavy dose of opportunism. Office Depot stuck with its three-year planning process after the recession hit, largely to make sure employees had a common plan to rally around, Mr. Odland says. But the CEO decided to review the budget every month rather than quarterly so the office-supply chain could react faster to changes in customers' needs.”

Irving Kristal & Philanthropy

He was one of the great public policy thinkers in America—he died last year—and had a lot to say about the world of philanthropy.

In this profile in Philanthropy magazine, his thoughts on what foundations should be doing through their grantmaking is very sound, though quite contrary to what most large foundations see as their role.

An excerpt.

“Few pretensions are as cherished in the philanthropic world as the notion that giving can change the world. When John D. Rockefeller’s foundation opened its doors in 1913, its stated mission was to “improve the well-being of mankind throughout the world.” His contemporary descendant, Bill Gates, has more than a few times announced his ambition to cure the world’s 20 deadliest diseases. Along with a host of public and private “partners,” the Pew Charitable Trusts responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001, by launching a national initiative to achieve “the ambitious goal of ensuring that every three- and four-year-old has access to a quality pre-kindergarten education”—one of the more recent in a long line of such disappointing efforts.

“Indeed, generation after generation of “philanthropoids” (as Frederick Keppel, president of the Carnegie Corporation from 1923 to 1941, once termed them) has been taught to distinguish the work they do as staff members for foundations or large nonprofit organizations from the activities of charities by emphasizing that they are committed to social change, not just helping the needy. Even “social entrepreneurs,” a new and supposedly more realistic group of philanthropists, often define their objective as not just giving someone a fish or even teaching them to fish, but rather revolutionizing the fishing industry.

“Irving Kristol aimed squarely at this posture. Philanthropists who thought they could change the world, he said in a remarkable 1980 speech at the Council on Foundations, were succumbing to hubris, the Greek word for the “sin of pride.” They should strive instead to accomplish worthwhile, but less ambitious, feats, such as establishing schools, rather than trying to reconstruct school systems.

“Kristol died on September 18, 2009, widely and justly acclaimed as one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century and the intellectual godfather of neo-conservatism. Although his recommendations went largely unheeded in the world of elite grantmakers, several foundations that Kristol advised have had an impact far greater than he would have foretold.”

Sacramento Nonprofit Resources

One of the best resources in Sacramento for nonprofit organizations is the Nonprofit Resource Center.

Their library is invaluable—it is where I began writing my first grant (which was funded) over 30 years ago when they were still in the downtown library—now they are housed in a lovely building along the Sacramento River.

It is a wonderful Sacramento tradition still providing help to the local nonprofit community.

Evaluating Nonprofits

This is a tough job, especially in the human services area of nonprofit work where much of the personal change the organization seeks to stimulate as part of its mission, is often difficult to quantify.

This article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review is from a grantor with a venture philanthropy perspective who has struggled with the issue.

An excerpt.

“Despite my many years of stridently stressing the importance of outcomes and assessment for nonprofits, I have grown increasingly worried that the vast majority of outcomes efforts will yield, at best, marginal benefit.

“Granted, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and a few others have keenly focused on the challenge of social outcomes and have dealt with them well. Yet many other efforts may end up misdirecting, even wasting, precious time and financial resources. In some extreme situations, well-intentioned efforts may actually risk producing adverse effects on nonprofits and those they serve.

“To What End?

“The main reason the dialogue on social outcomes is off track is because we have failed to keep our eyes fixed on the ends we are trying to advance. Every ounce of our effort on social outcomes should be with one end in mind: helping nonprofits create greater benefits for the people and causes they serve.

“Most outcomes efforts today have drifted far from that end. Too often, measurement has become an end in and of itself.

“- If greater benefits were the end, the sector’s dialogue on outcomes would be 95% about mission and 5% about metrics. Today, we have the ratio reversed.

“- If greater benefits were the end, nonprofits would be driving the discussion about outcomes—not funders. Attempts to define outcomes seldom produce positive benefits when they are imposed on organizations from the outside.

“- If greater benefits were the end, we would be working to help nonprofits clarify the end results they are trying to achieve. Achieving clarity of purpose produces increased benefits even if you never put a single metric in place!

“- If greater benefits were the end, we would properly differentiate between operational performance and organizational effectiveness. What good is it to focus on an organization’s overhead costs or fund development levels if we don’t have a clue as to how effective the organization is at creating benefits for those it serves?”

Government Funding & Small Nonprofits

It is appropriate that some government funding be directed to public needs that are best addressed by small nonprofits within the community; but it is incumbent upon the small nonprofit to develop a private funding base—preferably through small individual donations—for organizational stability.

Though it is difficult to raise funds privately, and all too tempting to just continue to rely on the relatively steady government funding—at least when budgets are high—it can cause irreparable harm to the small nonprofit whose mission is one that the community resonates with, and will support with their donations if asked effectively.

Unfortunately, too many of the groups that fall into this category do not develop a private funding base, and have to close when government funding dries up, which it often does.

This article from the Northwest Herald reports on one example.

An excerpt.

“WOODSTOCK – The McHenry County Latino Coalition has closed up shop, apparently for good.

“The coalition’s office closed at the end of October, although its executive director, Carlos Acosta, continued on until the end of the year. The coalition still exists as a nonprofit corporation, but it is not providing services and effectively has ceased to exist.

“The coalition was a victim of the recession,” said Larry Wilbrandt, an attorney for the coalition board.

“Wilbrandt said the coalition largely relied on state grants. Those grants dried up during the state’s fiscal crisis.

“Wilbrandt said the coalition probably officially would dissolve in the next two or three months. However, it is possible that the organization could be resurrected in some form someday, he said.

“Once the recession is over, it will come back,” Wilbrandt said. “The needs still exist.”

“The coalition provided various services, including immigration consultation and referrals to professionals who deal with immigration issues. It also provided counseling and outreach services for the Latino community.

“The coalition was one of the sponsors of the community resource center at Garden Quarter Apartments in McHenry, providing $10,000 in funding.

“Acosta, the public face of the coalition for several years, is working in the area as a counselor.

“2009 was not a good year for nonprofits,” Acosta said.

“Acosta said state or county grants accounted for about 80 percent of the foundation’s revenues. He said the coalition did not have a strong fundraising mechanism in place to offset the loss of grant money.”

State Budgets & Nonprofits

Unfortunately, many nonprofits are dependent upon government for a major source—if not all—of their funding, and the future is looking as bad as the present in that regards, as this article from the Nonprofit Quarterly reports.

An excerpt.

“State budgets were a mess in FY2009, a debacle in FY2010, and look like impending catastrophes in FY2011. We've been visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present this past holiday season with rampaging budget deficits and corresponding cuts in critical social safety net programs and services. Knocking at the door is the ghost of Christmas future with warnings of continuing program rescissions and terminations unless governments and voters, like a dumbfounded Scrooge, come to their senses and radically change their revenue-raising and budget-allocating ways.

“Looking back at this holiday season, the news about state budget deficits affecting critical nonprofit concerns could have been accompanied by the sounds of the chains dragged by Jacob Marley's ghost.

“In Nebraska, a survey of state legislators pondering budget cutting• strategies revealed some discussing the elimination of entire agencies, not just programs.

“In California, Governor Schwarzenegger has come up with a budget cutting• strategy of asking the feds to relieve the state from federally mandated social service and health care delivery mandates. The result is the same as a budget cut—less services for people in need. The state's budget problems reverberate down to other levels of government, with the likelihood that some small California cities may end up going Chapter 9 (the municipal government version of chapter 11 bankruptcy). Among the state programs potentially on the chopping block if new federal stimulus aid or budget gimmicks don't work are three "safety net" programs: CalWORKs, Healthy Families, and In-Home Supportive Services. Securing new federal stimulus moneys and exemption from federal performance standards with those moneys and others will require the Governor to buddy up to his new pals, House Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, though Schwarzenegger is probably not the only governor asking for papal dispensation.”

Sacramento Wins Service Award

A very nice acknowledgement is this award reported by the Sacramento Business Journal.

An excerpt.

"The city of Sacramento is one of 10 cities nationwide that will receive a new $200,000 grant with which to hire a chief service officer to develop and carry out a citywide plan to increase volunteerism.

"Cities of Service and the Rockefeller Foundation announced the recipients of the first-ever Cities of Service Leadership grants on Monday.

"Cities of Service is a coalition of U.S. mayors that encourages volunteerism. The Rockefeller Foundation is funding the grants.

"The cities chosen to receive the grants have “displayed a strong commitment to service and outlined thoughtful, thorough, and creative approaches to expanding local opportunities for volunteers to make an impact in their city,” a news release said.

"Five of the 10 cities are founding members of the Cities of Service coalition, including Sacramento.

"In addition to Sacramento, the recipients are Los Angeles; Seattle; Chicago; Detroit; Omaha, Neb.; Nashville, Tenn.; Savannah, Ga.; Philadelphia; and Newark, N.J."

Family Foundations

Though the major source of philanthropic funding in the United States continues to be the individual donor, the role of the family foundation is significant.

Through their giving, generations of a family come together around helping others and one of the most beautiful aspects of wealth accumulation, the ability to help in a sustainable way, is realized.

In this story from Philanthropy, one family’s giving is profiled.

An excerpt.

“But as with their career in business, the Anschutzes’ philanthropy started much more modestly. In the beginning, they gave here and there, as things occurred to them. “For many years, Phil had been doing a variety of things anonymously that nobody ever knew,” explains Mrs. Anschutz. By the late ’70s, however, they recognized that “it was time to pull it all together and put it into one entity.”

“I helped my father set up a foundation in 1978,” Mr. Anschutz explains. “That led us to begin thinking about setting up a foundation as well—a foundation for ourselves. We finally did in 1983. We started at that time with a lot of good intentions, not a lot of capital, because we were still very much in the business of building capital.”

“I never had a mid-life crisis, thank goodness,” Mr. Anschutz chuckles. “So we began to see this instead as a mid-life opportunity to do things.” They started small. “When we first started,” says Mrs. Anschutz, “we tried to look at areas that were maybe not covered by some of the major organizations that were already in place, where maybe our smaller dollars could have an impact. One of the first things that we actually looked at, because of Phil’s father, was health care.”

“Mrs. Anschutz continues, “There were early commitments to health research. Also, we made commitments to people who were on the streets, the homeless, and shelters for abused women. There were commitments to church and faith-related organizations.” As the foundation grew, so did the spectrum of gifts. Today, the list of organizations receiving support from the Anschutzes runs to the hundreds.

“The Anschutzes credit their children for the expansion of the charitable interests. Now adults, all three of the children play leadership roles and have joined the board. “Our universe of gifts continues to grow and broaden, particularly as the children get older and are now active participants,” says Mr. Anschutz. Mrs. Anschutz adds, “They are bringing in more diverse interests than what we first started with, certainly.” One of the areas their children and their children’s spouses—who now have children of their own—are passionate about is education.”

Who Cares

In the world of nonprofit work, there are few things more important than understanding who cares, as the more you know about that, the more effectively you can direct your fund raising work to sustain your organization.

In this book—I’ve posted on this before—by Arthur C. Brooks Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, is called by James Q. Wilson, one of the most eminent public policy thinkers in the country—who wrote the introduction—that: “It is the best study of charity that I have read, and I think you will find that as well.” (p. xiii)

I have found that to be the case, this is the best book I have ever read on charity.

The author accessed ten major data bases and drew from them informative conclusions about philanthropy that seemed counter-intuitive, until it is fully fleshed out.

One major conclusion is that the conservative donor gives more, a lot more, about 30% more, than his liberal counterpart.

Another is that being charitable will increase your—and the nation’s—income, as Brooks notes:

“Once again, what we find is evidence that GDP and giving are mutually reinforcing: Economic growth pushes up charitable giving, and charitable giving pushes up economic growth. For example, in 2004, $100 in extra income per American drove about $1.47 in charitable giving per person. At the same time, a dollar in charitable giving stimulated more than $19 in income. At the national level, a I percent increase in national giving—about $1.9 billion in 2004—appeared to increase real GDP by about $36 billion.” (p. 148)

Nonprofits & Partnership

This story from the Sacramento Bee profiles an example of how nonprofits can partner with others to provide a service both wish to provide but can only do so at the highest level, in partnership.

In this case, of a physician—Dr. Karen Hart, Hart Medical— who wants to help homeless women by providing her medical expertise to them for free, works with a nonprofit—Women’s Empowerment—whose mission is empowering homeless women, by providing the connection to the most essential service upon which any future empowerment can be built, good health.

This is a four-way-win with the client, the program, the doctor, and society all benefiting, and is truly the way helping others can be done when really done well.

An excerpt.

“Christine Wheat has endured endless hours in emergency rooms and county clinics, waiting for care for her chronic ear infections and abdominal pain. She is used to the humiliating questions and pitying looks she gets when people find out she is homeless and has no insurance.

"There have been times when I have prayed to just get through the night or cried myself to sleep because I was in pain and had nowhere to go to get help," Wheat said. "You just go without."

“Not any longer, thanks to a local physician who has opened her heart and her practice to homeless women.

“Family practitioner Karen Hart is treating graduates of Women's Empowerment, a nonprofit program that helps homeless women get back on their feet and land jobs, for free. Free consultations. Free exams. Free treatment for everything from heart ailments to breast lumps. For conditions that require specialists, Hart is assembling a group of doctors who will provide care at low or no cost.

“It's simply part of a "business plan" that allows Hart to earn a modest living while giving back to her community, she said.

"It's something I've wanted to do for a long time," said Hart. "I've found the perfect nonprofit to work with me."

“Hart, who spent a decade working in a managed care system that she argues puts too much emphasis on the bottom line and shortchanges patients, opened her east Sacramento practice about a year ago. It offers both standard and alternative medicine, including massage therapy.”

Trends

Convergence: How Five Trends Will Reshape the Social Sector, is a very nice monograph produced by LaPiana Consulting, commissioned by the Irvine Foundation.

It is well worth a read.

Human Service Work

This is the area of nonprofit work that has occupied the majority of my time in the nonprofit sector, and the lack of accountability has always been the operational dynamic.

Lately, another trend—evidence based practice—the new name for what we called evaluation when I first entered the field, has come calling, as this article from Governing reports, and one hopes it has more success than the first.

An excerpt.

“Lately I've been hearing more and more people in the health and human services world use the phrase "evidence-based practice." This represents real progress in a field that's been widely resistant to the concept.

“Why the resistance? The argument among those in the health and human services game was always that any results they might achieve were so heavily dependent on human behavior — that is, changing human behavior — or socioeconomic factors beyond anyone's control that it simply wasn't fair to hold those administering and delivering health and human services to the same standards as the people filling potholes, processing small business tax returns or arresting bad guys.

“I never had much patience with that argument. After all, if you're accepting public money to run a program that is supposed to reduce drug and alcohol addiction among your clients, or to help mentally-disabled adults find work, then it seems perfectly reasonable that you ought to be held accountable to those that you have agreed to help.

“But that kind of resistance to data-informed policy and practice seems to be fading and fading quickly. From juvenile justice, to hospital care, to children and family services, more and more people seem to be figuring out that ignoring data is a losing strategy when it comes to helping people become healthy, productive, engaged citizens.

“In fact, one of the most coherent and articulate mini-disquisitions on the necessity of managing to data I have heard lately was delivered to me just last fall by a front-line foster care supervisor in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. This woman meant business. "In the past we invested in services and had no idea if they were making a difference," said Juanita Beasley. "We had no quantitative way of knowing if we were getting any bang for our buck. Now we're using data to manage our investments; to see if what we're investing in is really helping kids."

Venture Philanthropy

This variation of philanthropy has taken hold in California, and its most valuable contribution to philanthropy is the focus on results, or seeing a social return on a social investment.

This article from Philanthropy examines it’s manifestation in Silicon Valley.

An excerpt.

“For the wealthy of Silicon Valley, if you want to make serious money in venture capital and make a serious impact when you give it away, it is all about getting into the right networks.

“Silicon Valley has produced some of America’s richest people and biggest philanthropists of the last 30 years. Early information technology pioneers like Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard waited until they had retired before getting serious about their giving. Today, the trend among a new generation of donors, such as Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll of eBay, has been to get moving on their philanthropy a lot younger. Men like Packard and Hewlett must take some of the credit for making philanthropy just as much a part of the tech entrepreneur’s way of life as starting your business in a garage. Now, the new generation’s enthusiasm for giving has also been a product of the success of California’s venture capital business in growing companies quickly, allowing entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into serious wealth at an early age through an IPO.

“The movement we have described as “philanthrocapitalism” is all about harnessing the best techniques in business for doing good. In the venture capital world of Silicon Valley, one of the leading examples of this movement is Legacy Venture, a Palo Alto–based venture capital fund of funds. While venture capital continues to thrive in Silicon Valley, not all funds are equal. Success breeds success, so a select few venture capital firms get access to the best deals, and those firms can pick and choose their investors—if you want to make serious money you have to get in the right fund. The thing that sets Legacy apart from other Silicon Valley venture funds is that every dollar it earns for its investors will go back to philanthropy. It is this commitment to giving that helps Legacy gain access to the best funds that offer the biggest returns—itself a form of philanthropy by the funds that take its money.

“Legacy was the brainchild of venture capitalist Jim Anderson, who founded it in 1999 with Russ Hall, one of his associates a decade earlier at venture firm Merrill Pickard Anderson & Eyre. Together they raised $40 million from individuals willing to commit that every penny the firm makes for them by investing in the top Silicon Valley venture capital funds would go to philanthropy. They could hardly have picked a worse time to start, just before the dotcom bubble went pop in 2000. Yet Legacy has gone from strength to strength, investing in start-ups that have become some of the hottest companies, like YouTube and Netflix. Hall and his fellow managing partner, Alan Marty, who joined the firm in 2008 from NASA, predict that investors in the first fund, which is already distributing profits, will easily return their money and then some. (Legacy’s third managing partner, Chris Eyre, who also co-founded Merrill Pickard Anderson & Eyre, is currently on an extended sabbatical.)”

Strategic Mergers

Here is another look at merging nonprofits, following up on yesterday’s post about nonprofits merging primarily for economic reasons.

This article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review examines mergers done for strategic reasons and concerns organizations in Arizona.

An excerpt.

“In strategic mergers, organizations consciously choose to acquire certain nonprofits which add a specific type of value to their mission, program portfolio, and/or economies of scale. Rather than raise all the capital, grow the competencies, and build the capability to add new programs themselves which can take a long time (and may be virtually impossible in this market), organizations are seeking to partner or even merge with organizations that have the specific skill set, the proper government contracts, and appropriate licensing to go support their services. This can be done in a shorter timeframe with a merger.

“I have been particularly taken with one example of a strategic merger model that Bridgespan wrote about in their wonderful piece of research: M&A: Not Just A Tool for Hard Times, published in February, 2009. The Arizona Children’s Association (AzCa) was highlighted as an example of a strategic merger in the Bridgespan article. AzCa grew from $4.5M annual budget in 1999, to a $40M annual budget through six strategic mergers. But AzCa’s merger strategy was not driven by finances; instead it grew out their desire to expand services to the youth and families they were serving.

“I was curious how the rest of the mergers proceeded, so I called Fred Chaffee, the Pres/CEO of AzCa to ask him more:

“Mission + Strategy: Could you list the chronological order of the mergers you did?
Fred Chaffee: The first one was in 1999, in Tucson, called Parent Connection. It works with evidence-based family life education, children 0-6 years of age. Their budget at the time was between $300 -$ 400,000.

“Our second merger was in 2000, Child Haven, based in Prescott, Arizona, a child crisis center. We helped start this agency about 8 years before; their budget was $200,000 when we merged.

“Our third merger in 2002 was with Las Familias, in Tucson, with a budget of $1.5M.

Their mission was to provide services for victims of sexual abuse, both children and adults who had been victimized as children.

“Our fourth merger was in 2004, with Golden Gate Community Center in Phoenix with a budget of $1.8M. It is a 70-year old settlement house in a working class Hispanic neighborhood. It is a great community center.

“Our fifth merger was in 2006, with New Directions Institute for Infant Brain Development, with a budget of $600,000. New Directions translates the neuro science of brain development into a curriculum to train people to deliver.

“Our sixth merger was in 2008, the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault, with a budget of $2M. This organization focuses on the prevention of violence against women. “

Nonprofit Merger

In this wonderful story of a very successful nonprofit merger, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, we get a sense of what type of survival strategies may need to be employed, especially during times of economic downturns and the resulting drop in donations.

An excerpt.

“For nearly 15 years, Ride & Shine offered disabled children and adults the chance to build physical and emotional strength by working with horses in El Dorado County.

“Then the economy tanked.

“Donations plummeted. Feed and veterinary costs skyrocketed. Clients cut back on what they could pay for services.

“This summer, with bills piling up, the nonprofit group's board of directors pondered closing. Instead, they turned to another charity with similar goals, and found new life.

“Ride & Shine is now part of the Grace Foundation, a horse rescue organization based in El Dorado Hills.

"We were in bad shape, but we just didn't want to let this program go," board member Ed Kaufmann said. "Grace seemed like a perfect fit."

“Across the region and the state, as nonprofit groups struggle to stay afloat, many are turning to one another for survival. Collaborations, partnerships and mergers are becoming more and more common, said Ann Lucas, executive director of the Nonprofit Resource Center in Sacramento.”

Giving Circles

As a fairly recent trend in philanthropy—though the seminal family philanthropic foundation is certainly an element in their development—giving circles seems to be somewhat resistant to the down economy, as reported by National Public Radio.

The charity mentioned in the article, Pathways to Housing, is one I am long familiar with for their exceptional work with the chronic homeless.

An excerpt.

“Charitable donations have been declining, along with the economy. But one type of giving appears to be on the rise: giving circles. Many people are forming these groups where they pool their funds so they can have a greater impact on a charitable cause. Their growth comes at a time when donors say they want more control over how their charitable dollars are spent.

“A new study published Thursday says those who belong to such circles tend to give more money.

“One such circle, in Washington D.C., is called Gather and Give, Let's Eat, or GAGLE for short. It's a group of about two dozen young professionals who have each contributed between $75 and $200, for a total of almost $2,000. They hope to decide by June where to donate the funds.

“Most of the members of GAGLE are women in their mid-20s. They met at college, work or through mutual friends, and their monthly meetings are, in part, a chance to socialize. It's also a chance to eat — they always start with a potluck dinner.

“But it's the giving part that really ties GAGLE together. The members don't have much money, but they still want to make a difference.

“Making The Pitch

“On a recent weekday night, GAGLE invited Linda Kaufman, from a charity called Pathways to Housing, to address the group. They wanted her to explain why they should give their money to her organization, as they whittle down a list of possibilities. The circle's organizer Sunitha Malepati, who works for a nonprofit organization by day, tells Kaufman the circle has decided it wants to help alleviate homelessness.

"So we wanted to get a sense of what you guys do, how you're different from other organizations in the city," she says. "And give us a sense of your needs as an organization and how we can make a difference, whether that's volunteering there, making a one-time contribution."

“So Kaufman makes her pitch. She explains that Pathways works with the chronically homeless and mentally ill, first by getting them into housing. She says $2,000 might not seem like a lot of money, but it can set up two people in apartments, with furniture and supplies. She appears to win the group over with poignant stories of people whose lives have been turned around.

"I can't tell who's going to make it and who is not, but I think we have an obligation as a country to offer people the possibility of the dignity of housing," she tells the group gathered in Malepati's living room. There's a silence, and then everyone breaks into applause.”

Central Park Conservancy

It is truly amazing what a well-run nonprofit can accomplish for the public good and one premier example is the Central Park Conservancy, the nonprofit organization which manages Central Park in New York City under contract with the city, raising 85% of the required funding for the Park in the process.

The other innovations that they have been able to bring to Central Park are remarkable and were written about in this article from the Property & Environment Research Center .

An excerpt.

“Most people consider New York City more a concrete jungle than an environmental oasis. Gotham’s seemingly endless cement, asphalt, and steel keep it almost beyond nature. Yet an environmental hot spot has bloomed within America’s largest, most dense metropolitan center. Central Park’s 843 acres of lawns, trees, and lakes, make excellent habitat for, among others, nesting woodpeckers, migrating chickadees, and vacationing Homo sapiens. Thanks to an initiative that employs many of the free-market-environmentalist principles that PERC espouses, Central Park may be in its most magnificent shape since opening in 1859.

“After its mid-1970s near-bankruptcy, New York and Central Park were in similarly precarious shape. This former urban refuge had devolved into a rectangular showcase of despair. The Great Lawn was nicknamed “The Municipal Great Dustbowl.” Next to a torched building, trash floated in the Harlem Meer. Few could sit and lament this, since so many benches were broken.

“It was another park and another era when I was a university student and our horticulture class made a field trip to Central Park,” Douglas Blonsky recalls. “It was in such disrepair— landscapes were reduced to bare ground, historic buildings and structures were dilapidated and covered with graffiti, garbage was strewn everywhere—that we soon retreated to a bar on Madison Avenue.”

“In 1980, several philanthropists and activists launched the organization that Blonsky now leads. The Central Park Conservancy informally began to address the Park’s urgent needs. It privately funded overdue repairs to Gotham’s battered retreat and rehabilitated the Great Lawn, Turtle Pond, and Azalea Walk, among other areas.

“The Conservancy turned a literal tragedy of the commons into acres of accountability. Under “Zone Management,” the Conservancy divided the Park into 49 separate sectors.

“Each Park supervisor and uniformed gardener is now held accountable for the condition of his or her zone,” explains Conservancy spokesperson Kate Sheleg. “Accountability is the single most important factor that the Conservancy employs in the management of Central Park.” She says this policy “fosters a sense of ownership and pride among the gardeners as well as the volunteers assigned to each zone.” Merit-based pay for Conservancy employees partially reflects how well they clean and cultivate their respective zones.

“Graffiti is removed within 24 hours,” Sheleg adds. “Visible litter is removed by 9:00 each morning and continuously throughout the day; trash receptacles are emptied daily; lawns are carefully maintained; broken benches and playground equipment are fixed on the spot.” Roughly 180 regular volunteers help perform this ongoing maintenance.”

Vision, Mission, & Responsibility

The posts over the past few days looked at the giving patterns of people in America and what is implicit in the revelation that the religious and the conservative give more, turns on their vision of responsibility; both to the God who created them and to their neighbor—which the religious see as everyone—and in this vision we find the support for that work which stabilizes and informs our communities.

I’ve written about this on the Lukenbill & Associates website.

In government sponsored social programs, the vision of responsibility is too often replaced by coercion and the results too often typify that root, added to the fact that government rarely funds social programs that actually work.

This article from Governing examines that tendency via a new funding policy directed to evidence-based programs, and offers suggestions.

An excerpt.

“On the surface, expanding successful evidence-based programs is compelling. Many of the nation's expenditures aimed at addressing persistent social ills, after all, fund programs which have not been evaluated for their benefits and long term cost-effectiveness. The numbers suggest we have yet to find reliable combinations of services to stem or reverse the socio-economic problems plaguing low-wealth communities. Given the leverage that experimental money and federal attention may provide, what could have greater appeal than directing scarce public or private dollars with greater confidence that they will achieve what is intended?

“Of course, it's not that simple. Public managers intrigued by the possibilities of new program models should start with some critical thinking about how to judge the results of pilot demonstrations and to assess the implications of expansion. Philanthropic and non-profit advocates should anticipate and support the perspectives that public managers bring to these initiatives.

“Here's a simple framework that may help.

“Results. Is there quantifiable evidence that an approach or program has produced results? Is the program cost-effective? For example, does the front-end investment have pay-off in reduced public downstream costs? If cost-effectiveness is established in terms of, for example, improved health or school performance, how durable is the improvement? How rigorous is the evaluation? Was the evaluation conducted or supervised by an independent analyst? If the evaluation does not meet the gold standard of control group comparison, is there other evidence to suggest the positive results can really be tied to the investment?

“Replicability. Often, as programs expand to new sites, administrators change the intervention, dilute the resources or skip important program "glue," such as program monitoring, quality assurance or staff training. Strong results arise from a combination of features in a pilot, relating to both content and style, and understanding which factors are most critical is essential to replication. How much did the program's success depend, for example, on a charismatic leader who was able to align diverse interests into a cohesive program operation?”

Volunteers

The Sacramento Bee carried a good article about local nonprofits and the youth volunteers who work with them, creating a mutually beneficial situation where the youth gain from the experience—and in some cases gain school credit—and the organizations get vitally needed volunteer help.

Developing and sustaining the organizational environment to attract and benefit from volunteers—of any age—is an art unto itself, but one necessary to many nonprofits who have labor needs their available funding cannot afford, and it is good to see that many local nonprofits have created that environment.

An excerpt.

“When the region's school leaders began requiring students to perform community service about 10 years ago, they were largely motivated by what the experience could give to teenagers: character, civic engagement, a sense of purpose.

“A major side effect, it turns out, is what the requirement has given to local nonprofits.

"It's a whole volunteer force, or work force, that wasn't there before," said Christine Wallace, community resource coordinator at the Volunteer Center of Sacramento.

“She used to take the calls one by one from students (or their frantic parents) wanting to fulfill a school's community service requirement. Wallace tried to match each student with an organization that needed volunteers – but found that many were not set up to work with youth.

“All that's changed in the decade or so since it became common for schools to ask students to help their community, or engage in what educators call "service learning." Most charitable organizations in the Sacramento area now rely heavily on student volunteers.

"That's a huge trend," Wallace said. "In fact so much so that we … created an entire directory specifically for junior high and high school students."

“Dozens of community service opportunities for children and teens are now listed on the Web sites of the Volunteer Center of Sacramento and Hands On Sacramento: The Sacramento Area Emergency Housing Center is looking for kids age 16 and up to help homeless children with homework. Children age 10 and up can volunteer for Harvest Sacramento, gleaning fruit from area backyards and donating it to the hungry. And the Sacramento Tree Foundation takes volunteers as young as 5 years old, Wallace says, (as long as they bring mom or dad along).”

Thrift Stores

These have traditionally been an excellent way for nonprofits to add to their income—I once spent some time developing and managing a thrift store for a nonprofit—and this story from the Sacramento Bee profiles one nonprofit in our area that has taken their social enterprise to the next level; a very good thing.

An excerpt.

“A reluctance to say, "No, thank you," has led a small group of nonprofit thrift stores to turn a once costly nuisance into an environmentally friendly and moneymaking enterprise.

"The thrift model is truly 'green.' It is all about reuse," said Ravel Buckley, manager of retail operations for Placerville-based Snowline Hospice.

“But Snowline, which operates thrift shops in Folsom, Cameron Park, Camino and Placerville, has taken reuse beyond retail to recycling.

“Since opening a processing center in Diamond Springs in January 2008, Snowline has diverted more than 6.2 million pounds of materials from landfills, said Dave Risso, processing center manager.

“The center also is grossing about $400,000 annually, not counting items that are sorted there and redistributed to the four stores for sale, he said.

“Organizations with large thrift store operations, such as Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army, have recycling and processing centers, but such facilities are rare among small nonprofits, Buckley said. Snowline Hospice's retail and recycling efforts help fund services for terminally ill individuals and their families in the city of Folsom and El Dorado County.

“Donors sometimes are put off by thrift stores that are picky and unwilling to accept certain items, Buckley said. But many items aren't suitable for resale in the shops.

“The stores also have had to deal with clandestine dumping of unwanted items and the subsequent cost of having them hauled to a dump or recycling center.

"Now we have the ability to accept almost anything, unless it's complete trash," Buckley said.”

Compassionate Conservative Philanthropy

As revealed in the book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, profiled in yesterday’s post,the charitable giving of conservatives outweighs that of liberals.

A recent Wall Street Journal article commenting on the 2009 inauguration speech of our president by the book's author, shows how the principle has sustained itself since he wrote the book.

An excerpt.

"What is required of us now," President Barack Obama said in his inaugural address this week, "is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." It is a message that nonprofit organizations would like our nation to take to heart, as 2009 fund-raising begins.

“Unfortunately, we nonprofit leaders, like our for-profit counterparts, are laying awake nights. The end of 2008 was disappointing for philanthropy, and some believe that 2009 will be difficult as well. Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy publishes the Philanthropic Giving Index (PGI), which tracks the predictions of nonprofit leaders about charitable giving. Like the more-famous Consumer Confidence Index, it shows a level of gloom not seen in years, falling from 83 to 65 (on a 0-100 scale) in just six months.

“The PGI is useful, but it is a blunt tool for predicting charitable giving by individuals or to specific charities. It does not tell us that all nonprofits will experience equal pain. Nor does it tell us that all givers will lower their giving by the same amount. In fact, there is good evidence that some Americans will maintain their giving levels far more than others in spite of the recession. One beleaguered group in particular promises to hold up their charitable end in spite of the sputtering economy: political conservatives.

“Over the past several years, studies have consistently shown that people on the political right outperform those on the left when it comes to charity. This pattern appears to have held -- increased, even -- in 2008.

“In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.

“These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.

“A common explanation for this pattern is that conservatives are more religious than liberals, and are simply giving to their churches. My own research in the past showed that religion was a major reason conservatives donated so much, and that secular conservatives gave even less than secular liberals.

“It appears this is no longer the case, however: The 2008 data tell us that secular conservatives are now outperforming their secular liberal counterparts. Compare two people who attend religious services less than once per year (or never) and who are also identical in terms of income, education, sex, age and family status -- but one is on the political right while the other is on the left. The secular liberal will give, on average, $1,100 less to charity per year than the secular conservative. The conservative charity edge cannot be explained away by gifts to churches.”

Who is Most Charitable

In what was counter-intuitive for many, it turns out that the most charitable people in America are those who are also most conservative in their political outlook.

This is what emerged from the study forming the basis of the 2006 book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks—here is a great excerpt from it—that has generated much discussion, including this review from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

An excerpt.

“In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

“Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."

“Some scholars say Who Really Cares builds on the work of Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, which was published in 2000.

'Call to Action for the Left'

“Mr. Brooks is Roman Catholic and politically independent, and has registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past decade. In an interview, he says he set out to write a book about values and philanthropy, with no hidden agenda.

“He believes liberal Democrats must ignore their leaders who sometimes disdain charity, and demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still welcoming to people of faith, if they hope to prove that they are, in fact, the more compassionate party.

"This book is a call to action for the left, not a celebration of the right," Mr. Brooks says.

“That's a claim that some liberals may have a tough time believing, given Mr. Brooks's withering criticism in the book of liberal icons like Ralph Nader, Mr. Brooks's work for The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative op-ed page, and a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party. There's a keynote address at a Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dinner, a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute, and an interviews with John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 and radio talk-show host Michael Medved — two people known for conservative views.

“Patrick Rooney, director of research at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, says Mr. Brooks's inclusion of strongly worded personal opinions is "a doubled-edged blade."

"He will certainly get more attention," Mr. Rooney says. "But at the same time, it might invite more criticism and skepticism."

“Mr. Brooks says he is ready to take the heat. "If I did my job, this will stimulate a whole bunch of new work," he says. "In five years, I'd be delighted to say that in certain ways, I was wrong."

Happiness & Politics

This article from the Wall Street Journal examines the results from a recent study indicating the happiest people hail from red—conservative—states, while the unhappiest come from blue—liberal—states.

It is also true that conservatives tend to be more charitable—about 30% more.

An excerpt.

“Does living in a blue state make people blue? It seems so, according to a new study in Science magazine that ranks states according to their happiness. The study finds that New Yorkers are the unhappiest people in America and their neighbors in Connecticut come in a close second, followed by Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. And the happiest states? Drum roll, please…Louisiana, Hawaii, Florida, Tennessee, and Arizona.

“Eight of the ten happiest states lean right while eight of the ten unhappiest tilt left. While the study by no means proves that being liberal makes people unhappy, it does reflect some of the unfortunate implications of living in a blue state.

“But first a note on the study. Using data from the 2005-2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a 2003 economics paper examining quality-of-life indicators, economists regressed the subjective measure of well-being (how people rate their satisfaction) against the objective measure (states' quality-of-life rankings based on compensating differentials). A compensating differential in labor economics refers to the additional amount of income an employer must pay a worker to compensate for the undesirability of a job or the location's lack of amenities (e.g. local and state tax levels, climate, environmental conditions, quality of schools, and crime rates).

“For example, employers in New York would have to pay higher wages to compensate for New York's high taxes, traffic congestion, cold weather, and poor schools. Due to these "disamenities," New York ranked lowest on the quality-of-life index.

“What's noteworthy about the study is that states' quality-of-life rankings (measured by their compensating differentials) correlated exceedingly well with residents' satisfaction ratings. The correlation between quality of life and satisfaction is statistically significant (P=0.0001; r=0.6; r2=0.36). The coefficient of determination r2 shows how well the regression line fits the data points. While an r2 of 0.36 may not seem large---and in some studies may not be statistically significant---it is unusually high by the standards of behavioral science. To give an idea of the magnitude of this correlation, the r2 of people's satisfaction ratings taken two weeks apart is also 0.36.

“The study suggests that quality of life heavily influences happiness. This may seem obvious, but until this study, social scientists have struggled to develop a model that supports this hypothesis. Now we know that people who say they're satisfied with their lives aren't just delusional or overly optimistic, and people who say they're unsatisfied aren't just pessimists. People have legitimate reasons to be happy or unhappy.

“And well, high taxes seem to be a big reason---ostensibly an even bigger reason than weather given that California is one of the unhappiest states and inclement Louisiana is the happiest. Further, considering how much New York's crime rate has dropped and schools have improved in the last decade, taxes seem to overwhelm even these two critical factors in the happiness equation. According to the Tax Foundation 2008 analysis, three of the top five unhappiest states—New York, Connecticut and New Jersey—have the highest state-local tax burdens. On the other hand, four of the top five happiest states—Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee and Arizona—are among the states with the lowest state-local tax burdens. True, correlation doesn't prove causation, and high taxes alone don't always make people miserable, but there's something going on here.”

Remember the Mission

A foundational element of a successful nonprofit organization is to remember—and remain true to—the founding mission which inspired its creation.

If, for some reason, the organization chooses to change its mission, it must come from an extensive strategic process culminating in a new organizational presence, message, and vision congruent with the new mission.

This article from Peggy Noonan, reminds us of the importance of mission.

An excerpt.

“The accomplished and sophisticated attorney was asked what attitude he was bringing to the new year. "Stoicism and mindless optimism," he laughed, which sounded just about right. He meant it, he said, about the stoicism. He had immersed himself in that rough old philosophy after 9/11, and had come to adopt it as his own. But he meant it about the optimism, too: You never know, things get better, begin with good cheer, maintain your equilibrium, don't lose your peace.

“We're at the clean start of a new decade, and it wouldn't be bad if the national watchwords were repair, rebuild and return, with an eye toward what is now our central project, though we haven't fully noticed, and that is keeping our country together. So many forces exist to tear us apart. We have to do what we can to hold together in the long run.

“We have been through a hard 10 years. They were not, as some have argued, the worst ever, or even the worst of the past century. The '30s started with the Great Depression, featured the rise of Hitler and Stalin, and ended with World War II. That's a bad decade for you. In the '60s we saw our leaders assassinated, our great cities hit by riots, a war tear our country apart.

“But the 'OOs were hard, starting with a disputed presidential election, moving on to the shocked pain of 9/11, marked by an effort to absorb the fact that we had entered the age of terror, and ending with a historic, world-shaking economic crash.

“Maybe the most worrying trend the past 10 years can be found in this phrase: "They forgot the mission." So many great American institutions—institutions that every day help hold us together—acted as if they had forgotten their mission, forgotten what they were about, what their role and purpose was, what they existed to do. You, as you read, can probably think of an institution that has forgotten its reason for being. Maybe it's the one you're part of.

“We saw an example this week with the federal government, which whatever else it does has a few very essential missions to perform that only it can perform, such as maintaining the national defense. Our federal government now does 10 million things, many of them not so well. Its attention is scattered. It loses sight of the essentials, which is part of the reason underpants bombers wind up on airplanes.”

Happy New Year!

Have a wonderful New Year, and enjoy the weather (it looks like a little rain) the holiday, and the football games!