Learning how to use existing media to help get your message out to the community on a regular basis is vital to fulfilling your mission, and though it can take some time, it is something that the leader of the organization needs to do.
Third Sector has a good article about it.
An excerpt.
“It makes perfect sense: of course you want to get your organization’s good deeds covered by the press. But for many nonprofits, there is often a detour on the road between goals and reality. Resources are limited, and it can often seem like a stark choice: do the work, or publicize it. For mission-driven groups, the decision isn’t hard.
“Overcoming Fear of the Media
“Some organizations - such as human service groups - have developed an instinctual fear of the media, thanks to outlets who only cover them when something goes awry. Others may want to engage the press, but aren’t sure where to begin. After all, most nonprofits haven’t received $10 million donations or won Nobel Prizes lately - what would reporters find newsworthy, anyway?
“The process of courting the media may seem mysterious - or even dangerous. But more and more nonprofits are finding that it is necessary. Any group that relies on private donors will benefit from positive stories, which reinforce their belief that you’re doing good work. Nonprofits that have a stake in building community goodwill - from Harvard University to residential care facilities for drug addicts - know that it’s easier to answer questions and assuage fears upfront, rather than face irate neighbors after the fact. Finally, even organizations that subsist solely on government earmarks are helped by good local coverage, which legislators’ offices devour and analyze to determine if their actions will meet with public approval.”
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
E Mail Fundraising
A good article from Third Sector about it, and the strategic use of electronic resources is both crucial and within the budgets of even the smallest nonprofits.
An excerpt.
“As nonprofits look for new ways to raise money in the digital age, email fundraising is beginning to stand out as a compelling option. Many of the larger and nationally active nonprofits already use this approach to save money and reach broader constituencies. Can it work as well for small and mid-sized organizations?
“Non-profit organizations of all sizes increasingly use email to create contact points with constituents, and many have moved to online newsletters and e-blasts about events and new happenings as ways of keeping in touch. Email fundraising seems to be the logical extension of such communication, but many nonprofits are finding that last step difficult – even if they already have the tools in place.
“If you are already using email communication tools and are equipped to receive online donations through your website, email fundraising is an easy step forward. Taking the plunge into online fundraising can effectively complement your direct mail campaigns – all it takes is a little planning and the willingness to try. For a better sense of what’s involved, let’s look at two organizations and their first attempts at email fundraising.”
An excerpt.
“As nonprofits look for new ways to raise money in the digital age, email fundraising is beginning to stand out as a compelling option. Many of the larger and nationally active nonprofits already use this approach to save money and reach broader constituencies. Can it work as well for small and mid-sized organizations?
“Non-profit organizations of all sizes increasingly use email to create contact points with constituents, and many have moved to online newsletters and e-blasts about events and new happenings as ways of keeping in touch. Email fundraising seems to be the logical extension of such communication, but many nonprofits are finding that last step difficult – even if they already have the tools in place.
“If you are already using email communication tools and are equipped to receive online donations through your website, email fundraising is an easy step forward. Taking the plunge into online fundraising can effectively complement your direct mail campaigns – all it takes is a little planning and the willingness to try. For a better sense of what’s involved, let’s look at two organizations and their first attempts at email fundraising.”
Friday, February 26, 2010
Oakland Nonprofit Expanding
In these tough times, it is always heartening to hear of a nonprofit that is not only doing good, but expanding, and the Bread Project in Oakland is doing both, as reported by the Oakland Tribune.
A great example of social enterprise.
An excerpt.
“EMERYVILLE — The recent expansion of an East Bay baking school, one that targets low-income residents in need of food industry job skills and employment, opens up the opportunity for a host of silly puns.
"You can go with how it's a great way to make some dough, or make some bread, or how everything is rising — it's almost too much," said Matt Lonner, a partnerships manager with Chevron, which has helped fund The Bread Project.
“The baking school celebrated Wednesday the grand opening of a new location at 1555 Park Ave., 8,000 square feet of warehouse and work space that will nearly double the amount of training and production it will be able to do, board President Jason Pena said.
“Founded 10 years ago in Kensington, The Bread Project interviews and accepts low-income students, about half from Oakland, and many struggling with the impacts of homelessness, criminal backgrounds, addiction and poverty.
“Many students come in with no kitchen knowledge — some not even knowing the names of basic appliances — and are helped through the entire process, including training in how to find, attain and keep a job.”
A great example of social enterprise.
An excerpt.
“EMERYVILLE — The recent expansion of an East Bay baking school, one that targets low-income residents in need of food industry job skills and employment, opens up the opportunity for a host of silly puns.
"You can go with how it's a great way to make some dough, or make some bread, or how everything is rising — it's almost too much," said Matt Lonner, a partnerships manager with Chevron, which has helped fund The Bread Project.
“The baking school celebrated Wednesday the grand opening of a new location at 1555 Park Ave., 8,000 square feet of warehouse and work space that will nearly double the amount of training and production it will be able to do, board President Jason Pena said.
“Founded 10 years ago in Kensington, The Bread Project interviews and accepts low-income students, about half from Oakland, and many struggling with the impacts of homelessness, criminal backgrounds, addiction and poverty.
“Many students come in with no kitchen knowledge — some not even knowing the names of basic appliances — and are helped through the entire process, including training in how to find, attain and keep a job.”
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Green Revolution & Foundations
The primary role that philanthropic foundations played in the beginning years of the green revolution are a wonderful story, and a bit of it is told in this profile of one of the founders of that revolution, Norman Borlaug, from the Philanthropy Roundtable.
An excerpt.
“Something has happened,” USAID administrator William Gaud marveled in 1968. “Pakistan is self-sufficient in wheat and rice, and India is moving towards it. It wasn’t a red, bloody revolution as predicted. It was a green revolution.”
“The phenomenon Gaud described was well known to his listeners, including Norman Borlaug, the Rockefeller Foundation agronomist who later recalled the conversation. Borlaug, who died on September 12, 2009, at the age of 95, was a principal leader of the Green Revolution. He is one of only six people to have won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and the Nobel Peace Prize. He is frequently credited with having saved one billion lives.
“The story of this “green revolution” is a story of foundation resources marshaled to tremendous effect. Indeed, it is one of the great success stories in philanthropic history. Because of visionary philanthropy, world food production has steadily outstripped global population growth, and the threat of mass starvation looms less heavily over the developing world.
“That success began in 1940, when Vice President–elect Henry Wallace traveled to Mexico. At the time, Mexico was forced to import over half its wheat and a significant portion of its maize. Appalled by the conditions he saw, Wallace met with Rockefeller Foundation officials, including the foundation’s president, Raymond Fosdick. Describing the plight of the Mexican poor, Wallace emphasized to Fosdick “that the all-important thing was to expand the means of subsistence.” For Rockefeller, hunger and malnutrition were tied closely to its longstanding efforts to combat disease among the poor. So, in 1943, the Rockefeller Foundation embarked with Mexico’s Ministry of Agriculture on the Mexican Agricultural Project (MAP), starting with an outlay of $20,000 for a survey, followed in 1944 by a $192,800 initial grant. Led by George Harrar (later the foundation’s president), the group included Borlaug and four other agricultural specialists.
“Of them, it was Borlaug who would be credited as the movement’s hero. Born in 1914 in his grandfather’s farmhouse in northeastern Iowa, Borlaug initially studied forestry. Later, he switched to plant pathology at the urging of a mentor who later convinced him to join MAP. Borlaug established winter and summer operations in far-flung parts of Mexico, and he lived close to the land—fighting illness, floods, mudslides, and bad roads.”
An excerpt.
“Something has happened,” USAID administrator William Gaud marveled in 1968. “Pakistan is self-sufficient in wheat and rice, and India is moving towards it. It wasn’t a red, bloody revolution as predicted. It was a green revolution.”
“The phenomenon Gaud described was well known to his listeners, including Norman Borlaug, the Rockefeller Foundation agronomist who later recalled the conversation. Borlaug, who died on September 12, 2009, at the age of 95, was a principal leader of the Green Revolution. He is one of only six people to have won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and the Nobel Peace Prize. He is frequently credited with having saved one billion lives.
“The story of this “green revolution” is a story of foundation resources marshaled to tremendous effect. Indeed, it is one of the great success stories in philanthropic history. Because of visionary philanthropy, world food production has steadily outstripped global population growth, and the threat of mass starvation looms less heavily over the developing world.
“That success began in 1940, when Vice President–elect Henry Wallace traveled to Mexico. At the time, Mexico was forced to import over half its wheat and a significant portion of its maize. Appalled by the conditions he saw, Wallace met with Rockefeller Foundation officials, including the foundation’s president, Raymond Fosdick. Describing the plight of the Mexican poor, Wallace emphasized to Fosdick “that the all-important thing was to expand the means of subsistence.” For Rockefeller, hunger and malnutrition were tied closely to its longstanding efforts to combat disease among the poor. So, in 1943, the Rockefeller Foundation embarked with Mexico’s Ministry of Agriculture on the Mexican Agricultural Project (MAP), starting with an outlay of $20,000 for a survey, followed in 1944 by a $192,800 initial grant. Led by George Harrar (later the foundation’s president), the group included Borlaug and four other agricultural specialists.
“Of them, it was Borlaug who would be credited as the movement’s hero. Born in 1914 in his grandfather’s farmhouse in northeastern Iowa, Borlaug initially studied forestry. Later, he switched to plant pathology at the urging of a mentor who later convinced him to join MAP. Borlaug established winter and summer operations in far-flung parts of Mexico, and he lived close to the land—fighting illness, floods, mudslides, and bad roads.”
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Nonprofits & Government Funding
As we blogged on earlier, reliance on government funding is very risky for nonprofits, and causes them to either curtail whatever private fundraising from individual donors they have been doing, or in more cases than not, they don’t do any at all.
Every year about 80% of all philanthropy comes from individuals and considering that last year about $300 billion was donated, it is obviously the deepest pool of generosity nonprofits need to reach out to, especially smaller organizations.
This article from Pennsylvania reveals the tragedy striking human service nonprofits in that state that are too reliant on government funding.
An excerpt.
“More than half of the midstate's human-service agencies are still feeling the financial impact of last year's state budget impasse.
“Last year, human-service agencies throughout Pennsylvania went almost four months without state aid during the standoff. From July 1 through Oct. 9, state money for day cares, drug and alcohol treatment services, emergency shelters, food banks and more was held up while Gov. Ed Rendell and state lawmakers fought over taxes and spending.
“A statewide survey of nearly 350 agencies conducted by the United Way of Pennsylvania indicates that the impasse hurt social-service agencies at precisely the time when more residents were turning to them for help. Some are still recovering.”
Every year about 80% of all philanthropy comes from individuals and considering that last year about $300 billion was donated, it is obviously the deepest pool of generosity nonprofits need to reach out to, especially smaller organizations.
This article from Pennsylvania reveals the tragedy striking human service nonprofits in that state that are too reliant on government funding.
An excerpt.
“More than half of the midstate's human-service agencies are still feeling the financial impact of last year's state budget impasse.
“Last year, human-service agencies throughout Pennsylvania went almost four months without state aid during the standoff. From July 1 through Oct. 9, state money for day cares, drug and alcohol treatment services, emergency shelters, food banks and more was held up while Gov. Ed Rendell and state lawmakers fought over taxes and spending.
“A statewide survey of nearly 350 agencies conducted by the United Way of Pennsylvania indicates that the impasse hurt social-service agencies at precisely the time when more residents were turning to them for help. Some are still recovering.”
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Nonprofit News & Associated Press
Six months ago the Associated Press made a commitment to bring the investigative journalism being practiced by four of the leading nonprofit news organizations to its 1,500 member news sources.
After that initial period, as reported by the Nieman Journalism Lab, the kinks are still getting worked out, and though the immediate results are still not all that pleasing to the nonprofits, the concept is sound, built on great technology, and will work over time.
An excerpt.
“This summer the Associated Press made a surprise announcement at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Baltimore. As part of a six-month pilot project, the wire service was going to begin distributing content from four top nonprofit news outlets: ProPublica, Center for Public Integrity, Center for Investigative Reporting, and the Investigative Reporting Workshop. It looked like a win all around: Newspapers could run in-depth content from well respected outlets, and nonprofits could broaden their audience.
“This pathbreaking agreement will make an enormous difference in helping us reach the largest possible audience and maximizing the impact of our work,” Robert Rosenthal, the Center for Investigative Reporting’s executive director, said in a statement at the time. “We are deeply appreciative of AP’s commitment to public interest journalism.”
“So how did AP’s experiment go? In conversations with some of the nonprofit participants and the AP, it appears that AP members have used little if any nonprofit content.
“We wish it had gone better,” Bill Buzenberg, executive director of Center for Public Integrity, told me. “They announced it with great fanfare at the IRE conference. They haven’t done the technical backup work to really make it work…They haven’t made it a priority.”
“Buzenberg said he wanted to temper his criticism. “This is a good idea. I’d like it to work,” he said. “The potential of this remains.”
After that initial period, as reported by the Nieman Journalism Lab, the kinks are still getting worked out, and though the immediate results are still not all that pleasing to the nonprofits, the concept is sound, built on great technology, and will work over time.
An excerpt.
“This summer the Associated Press made a surprise announcement at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Baltimore. As part of a six-month pilot project, the wire service was going to begin distributing content from four top nonprofit news outlets: ProPublica, Center for Public Integrity, Center for Investigative Reporting, and the Investigative Reporting Workshop. It looked like a win all around: Newspapers could run in-depth content from well respected outlets, and nonprofits could broaden their audience.
“This pathbreaking agreement will make an enormous difference in helping us reach the largest possible audience and maximizing the impact of our work,” Robert Rosenthal, the Center for Investigative Reporting’s executive director, said in a statement at the time. “We are deeply appreciative of AP’s commitment to public interest journalism.”
“So how did AP’s experiment go? In conversations with some of the nonprofit participants and the AP, it appears that AP members have used little if any nonprofit content.
“We wish it had gone better,” Bill Buzenberg, executive director of Center for Public Integrity, told me. “They announced it with great fanfare at the IRE conference. They haven’t done the technical backup work to really make it work…They haven’t made it a priority.”
“Buzenberg said he wanted to temper his criticism. “This is a good idea. I’d like it to work,” he said. “The potential of this remains.”
Monday, February 22, 2010
Government Funding & Foundations
The tendency to quit raising money through philanthropy, once your nonprofit, or the local mission it represents, starts getting government money, is wide-spread.
A story from New Jersey, as reported by the Randolph Reporter, concerns one such situation.
A foundation, that allowed itself to become dormant, is now ramping up to stave off the severe reduction in government funding.
It is a strategy that should also be replicated elsewhere—including Sacramento—where many nonprofits once founded to serve as fund raising foundations took over other tasks while government funding was plentiful but now that it isn’t, are not prepared to make up the shortage.
Of course, the obvious question is why do foundations established to provide supplemental funding shut down in times of plenty when experience has taught us that times of funding famine always come around.
An excerpt.
“RANDOLPH TWP. -- A local non-profit group has undergone a rebirth of sorts in what organizers hope will help alleviate the sting of Trenton's plan to cut state aid to local schools.
“The Randolph Education Foundation will hold a wine and cheese reception at 7:30 p.m. tomorrow, Friday, Feb. 19, at the Shongum Clubhouse on Shongum Road. Future events, including a 5K run, are also planned, according to a Foundation statement.
“Chair Margaret Clark said the group has three primary goals: To develop alternative funding sources to support “high quality education” in the district; provide funding for “innovative programs that prepare Randolph students for the world of tomorrow; and to celebrate “the many successes experienced by Randolph students and teachers each year.”
“Our state’s existing system for funding public education makes it difficult to provide some desired services and programs," Clarke said. “We need to help our graduates be competitive in today’s world. Faced with decreasing revenues, public school districts not developing new sources of funding will find it increasingly difficult to offer educational excellence and innovative programming.”
“The group is actually the re-birth of an older organization that was formed some time ago but then went dormant, said Board of Education member Jeanne Stifelman.”
A story from New Jersey, as reported by the Randolph Reporter, concerns one such situation.
A foundation, that allowed itself to become dormant, is now ramping up to stave off the severe reduction in government funding.
It is a strategy that should also be replicated elsewhere—including Sacramento—where many nonprofits once founded to serve as fund raising foundations took over other tasks while government funding was plentiful but now that it isn’t, are not prepared to make up the shortage.
Of course, the obvious question is why do foundations established to provide supplemental funding shut down in times of plenty when experience has taught us that times of funding famine always come around.
An excerpt.
“RANDOLPH TWP. -- A local non-profit group has undergone a rebirth of sorts in what organizers hope will help alleviate the sting of Trenton's plan to cut state aid to local schools.
“The Randolph Education Foundation will hold a wine and cheese reception at 7:30 p.m. tomorrow, Friday, Feb. 19, at the Shongum Clubhouse on Shongum Road. Future events, including a 5K run, are also planned, according to a Foundation statement.
“Chair Margaret Clark said the group has three primary goals: To develop alternative funding sources to support “high quality education” in the district; provide funding for “innovative programs that prepare Randolph students for the world of tomorrow; and to celebrate “the many successes experienced by Randolph students and teachers each year.”
“Our state’s existing system for funding public education makes it difficult to provide some desired services and programs," Clarke said. “We need to help our graduates be competitive in today’s world. Faced with decreasing revenues, public school districts not developing new sources of funding will find it increasingly difficult to offer educational excellence and innovative programming.”
“The group is actually the re-birth of an older organization that was formed some time ago but then went dormant, said Board of Education member Jeanne Stifelman.”
Sunday, February 21, 2010
San Francisco Nonprofits
In what is a sad event, the final report of the University of San Francisco’s—USF is my alma mater—Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management, which closed in March 2009, focused on the nonprofit community in San Francisco.
In just one of many significant facts, there are 7,093 registered nonprofits in San Francisco and 46% have incomes below $25,000 annually, a situation paralleled by most cities, including Sacramento, which has 7,978 nonprofits.
In just one of many significant facts, there are 7,093 registered nonprofits in San Francisco and 46% have incomes below $25,000 annually, a situation paralleled by most cities, including Sacramento, which has 7,978 nonprofits.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
American Philanthropy
This is an excellent talk, given at Hillsdale College, by the President of The Philanthropy Roundtable about philanthropy in America, with a bit about its history and some more about American’s reasons for giving so much—about $300 billion last year—for so many years.
An excerpt.
“This tradition of private support for education has continued in the 20th and 21st centuries, even as government has assumed a much greater funding role through federal student loans and scholarships, scientific research grants, and state appropriations. The growth of the modern research university received an enormous boost from philanthropists such as Johns Hopkins, Leland Stanford, and James Buchanan Duke. Private support has continued to sustain Hillsdale’s independence by enabling it to forego state and federal government support altogether. Charitable giving has also helped to create entire new fields of academic study. We owe the field of law and economics to the John M. Olin Foundation. And the Whitaker Foundation launched the field of biomedical engineering, which has been so important in providing new limbs for the wounded veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Today, Americans voluntarily give over $30 billion a year to support higher education, and—thanks in part to philanthropy—America has the best colleges and universities in the world. Even our great flagship state universities depend on private contributions for much of their excellence. The University of Virginia, for instance, receives more revenue from private gifts and endowment income than it does from Virginia state appropriations. And in a time of state budget cuts and the stifling impulse toward sameness that results from bureaucratic rules, public universities across the country rely on private contributions for many of their unique attributes and distinctive achievements.
“I have dwelt at length on higher education, but I could offer similar remarks about museums and orchestras, hospitals and health clinics, churches and synagogues, refuges for animals, protection of habitat, youth programs such as scouting and little league and boys and girls clubs, and grassroots problem-solvers who help the needy and homeless in their neighborhoods. Private charitable giving sustains all of these institutions and gives them the freedom to make their own decisions.
“Private charitable giving is also at the heart and soul of public discourse in our democracy. It makes possible our great think tanks, whether left, right or center. Name a great issue of public debate today: climate change, the role of government in health care, school choice, stem cell research, same-sex marriage. On all these issues, private philanthropy enriches debate by enabling organizations with diverse viewpoints to articulate and spread their message.”
An excerpt.
“This tradition of private support for education has continued in the 20th and 21st centuries, even as government has assumed a much greater funding role through federal student loans and scholarships, scientific research grants, and state appropriations. The growth of the modern research university received an enormous boost from philanthropists such as Johns Hopkins, Leland Stanford, and James Buchanan Duke. Private support has continued to sustain Hillsdale’s independence by enabling it to forego state and federal government support altogether. Charitable giving has also helped to create entire new fields of academic study. We owe the field of law and economics to the John M. Olin Foundation. And the Whitaker Foundation launched the field of biomedical engineering, which has been so important in providing new limbs for the wounded veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Today, Americans voluntarily give over $30 billion a year to support higher education, and—thanks in part to philanthropy—America has the best colleges and universities in the world. Even our great flagship state universities depend on private contributions for much of their excellence. The University of Virginia, for instance, receives more revenue from private gifts and endowment income than it does from Virginia state appropriations. And in a time of state budget cuts and the stifling impulse toward sameness that results from bureaucratic rules, public universities across the country rely on private contributions for many of their unique attributes and distinctive achievements.
“I have dwelt at length on higher education, but I could offer similar remarks about museums and orchestras, hospitals and health clinics, churches and synagogues, refuges for animals, protection of habitat, youth programs such as scouting and little league and boys and girls clubs, and grassroots problem-solvers who help the needy and homeless in their neighborhoods. Private charitable giving sustains all of these institutions and gives them the freedom to make their own decisions.
“Private charitable giving is also at the heart and soul of public discourse in our democracy. It makes possible our great think tanks, whether left, right or center. Name a great issue of public debate today: climate change, the role of government in health care, school choice, stem cell research, same-sex marriage. On all these issues, private philanthropy enriches debate by enabling organizations with diverse viewpoints to articulate and spread their message.”
Friday, February 19, 2010
Local Nonprofits
The Nonprofit Quarterly Newswire (free daily e-delivery) makes a good point about the value of local nonprofits referencing an article from the Durango Herald in Colorado.
An excerpt from the Newswire.
“This little article in a Colorado paper tells the story of a local CDC closing its doors. Its lead sentence is “A local housing group has done so well at providing affordable homes that it put itself out of business.” But as you read on, of course, into not only the article but the comments, the real story begins to peek out from behind the curtain….So why do we report on this? There is so much about the story and the commentary that follows it that speaks to the unique value of local nonprofits that are fueled and informed by local people and conditions. We don’t talk enough on a national basis about valuing and preserving the richness of our mostly very local sector as an important legacy for our children.”
An excerpt from the Newswire.
“This little article in a Colorado paper tells the story of a local CDC closing its doors. Its lead sentence is “A local housing group has done so well at providing affordable homes that it put itself out of business.” But as you read on, of course, into not only the article but the comments, the real story begins to peek out from behind the curtain….So why do we report on this? There is so much about the story and the commentary that follows it that speaks to the unique value of local nonprofits that are fueled and informed by local people and conditions. We don’t talk enough on a national basis about valuing and preserving the richness of our mostly very local sector as an important legacy for our children.”
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Sacramento is Doing Okay
This article from the Sacramento Business Journal indicates that, as reported by Gallup, and compared to other cities nationally—our region is doing okay in terms of its sense of general well being; good news for philanthropy.
An excerpt.
“The Sacramento region is far from the happiest place, but it’s certainly much better than Bakersfield, Modesto — or anywhere in Ohio or West Virginia, according to a just-released report.
“The four-county region — from Auburn to Woodland — ranked No. 56 as the happiest and healthiest community in the nation, nestled between Harrisburg, Pa., and Phoenix.
“Sacramento was in the middle of the pack in four of the five categories that determined the overall score, but finished at No. 25 for healthy behaviors, a category led by Santa Cruz.
“Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index ranked 162 communities nationwide, based on interviews with more than 353,000 people last year. Respondents were asked about their jobs, finances, physical health, emotional state of mind and communities.
“Boulder, Colo., topped the list, finishing in the top 10 in four of the five categories. Holland-Grand Haven, Mich., and Honolulu finished second and third. Four California communities finished in the top 10 — Santa Rosa (No. 5), Santa Barbara (No. 6) San Jose-Santa Clara (No. 7) and Thousand Oaks (No. 10). Santa Cruz ranked No. 14, while San Francisco-Oakland and Los Angeles finished at Nos. 20 and 71, respectively.”
An excerpt.
“The Sacramento region is far from the happiest place, but it’s certainly much better than Bakersfield, Modesto — or anywhere in Ohio or West Virginia, according to a just-released report.
“The four-county region — from Auburn to Woodland — ranked No. 56 as the happiest and healthiest community in the nation, nestled between Harrisburg, Pa., and Phoenix.
“Sacramento was in the middle of the pack in four of the five categories that determined the overall score, but finished at No. 25 for healthy behaviors, a category led by Santa Cruz.
“Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index ranked 162 communities nationwide, based on interviews with more than 353,000 people last year. Respondents were asked about their jobs, finances, physical health, emotional state of mind and communities.
“Boulder, Colo., topped the list, finishing in the top 10 in four of the five categories. Holland-Grand Haven, Mich., and Honolulu finished second and third. Four California communities finished in the top 10 — Santa Rosa (No. 5), Santa Barbara (No. 6) San Jose-Santa Clara (No. 7) and Thousand Oaks (No. 10). Santa Cruz ranked No. 14, while San Francisco-Oakland and Los Angeles finished at Nos. 20 and 71, respectively.”
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Wonderful Story of Philanthropy
It is rare that a family leaves all of its assets to a charitable foundation, but it does happen, as it did recently in Ohio, and the wonderful gift is surely a testament to the foundation’s good works.
This story from the Columbus Dispatch describes the multi-million dollar bequest's impact.
An excerpt.
“Robert M. Wopat wanted to share his wealth with neighbors in need.
“Before his death in 2008, the retired GTE executive and his wife, Dorothy, donated $200,000 to the Marion Community Foundation and created charitable funds in their name.
“The couple ultimately gave much more. When Mrs. Wopat passed away in October, she bequeathed $16 million to the foundation.
“That gift will double the nonprofit foundation's size and the amount of money awarded to the community through annual grants and scholarships, said Brad Bebout, the foundation's president.
"They gave us everything they had," he said. "It's just mind-boggling."
“The Wopats' legacy includes a $9.7 million community fund, a $3.3 million college-scholarship fund for county high-school graduates and a $3.2 million fund designated for the Marion Family YMCA.
"The timing is good from a community standpoint because we're still hurting (from the recession), and we have the ability to spend that in areas for people that are hurting," Bebout said.”
This story from the Columbus Dispatch describes the multi-million dollar bequest's impact.
An excerpt.
“Robert M. Wopat wanted to share his wealth with neighbors in need.
“Before his death in 2008, the retired GTE executive and his wife, Dorothy, donated $200,000 to the Marion Community Foundation and created charitable funds in their name.
“The couple ultimately gave much more. When Mrs. Wopat passed away in October, she bequeathed $16 million to the foundation.
“That gift will double the nonprofit foundation's size and the amount of money awarded to the community through annual grants and scholarships, said Brad Bebout, the foundation's president.
"They gave us everything they had," he said. "It's just mind-boggling."
“The Wopats' legacy includes a $9.7 million community fund, a $3.3 million college-scholarship fund for county high-school graduates and a $3.2 million fund designated for the Marion Family YMCA.
"The timing is good from a community standpoint because we're still hurting (from the recession), and we have the ability to spend that in areas for people that are hurting," Bebout said.”
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Evaluation Makes Everyone Better
The ideal outcome of measuring outcomes—especially crucial for human service nonprofits—is that it can spur everyone to do better, and sometimes it actually works out that way, as this article from Governing reports.
An excerpt.
“Here's something that just about every state and local public official is loath to admit: Comparison is a powerful motivator. States don't like being ranked, and localities hate being rated (unless of course, they're sitting pretty in the top five). The fact is, though, those types of rankings and ratings get people's and the media's attention, and they spur action.
“If anyone doubts the power of comparison, consider just one example: When former Governor Tim Kaine took office in Virginia in 2006, the state's ranking on finding permanent, stable placements for kids in foster care was 50th, aka dead last. Kaine didn't care for the distinction one bit, which is why the state's poor national standing ultimately led to a sweeping overhaul of how the state does children and family services, a transformation initiative led by his wife, First Lady Anne Holton.
"When we saw the data we realized that what we knew anecdotally to be the problem was in fact persistent and pervasive," says Kaine; "that Virginia was a clear outlier, with fewer discharges from foster care to permanency of any state."
“That single stat led to an ambitious, multiyear overhaul of the state's children and family services system resulting in impressive gains in areas that include adoption rates, decreases in incidences of repeat maltreatment of kids and a decrease in kids in foster care overall.
“The effort has been so successful that the new Republican administration in Richmond is picking up the standard. "We hope to expand transformation to every agency that touches at-risk children, including juvenile justice, mental health and the office of special education," says Bill Mims, former attorney general and co-chair of Governor Bob McDonnell's transition team. "We would hope that we'll see the same improvement in results in all those areas that we've been seeing in foster care."
“That transformative power of comparison is exactly why every state official in the child welfare and public assistance world ought to check out two new reports compiled and published by the Council of State Governments in partnership with the Urban Institute, and funded by an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant. By way of full disclosure, I was part of the 24-member steering committee that helped guide the comparative performance measurement effort. The idea was to choose three significant areas of state policy, and then focus on key performance measures in those areas, resulting in state-by-state comparisons of performance. The three areas that the CSG steering committee picked were transportation, child welfare and public assistance.”
An excerpt.
“Here's something that just about every state and local public official is loath to admit: Comparison is a powerful motivator. States don't like being ranked, and localities hate being rated (unless of course, they're sitting pretty in the top five). The fact is, though, those types of rankings and ratings get people's and the media's attention, and they spur action.
“If anyone doubts the power of comparison, consider just one example: When former Governor Tim Kaine took office in Virginia in 2006, the state's ranking on finding permanent, stable placements for kids in foster care was 50th, aka dead last. Kaine didn't care for the distinction one bit, which is why the state's poor national standing ultimately led to a sweeping overhaul of how the state does children and family services, a transformation initiative led by his wife, First Lady Anne Holton.
"When we saw the data we realized that what we knew anecdotally to be the problem was in fact persistent and pervasive," says Kaine; "that Virginia was a clear outlier, with fewer discharges from foster care to permanency of any state."
“That single stat led to an ambitious, multiyear overhaul of the state's children and family services system resulting in impressive gains in areas that include adoption rates, decreases in incidences of repeat maltreatment of kids and a decrease in kids in foster care overall.
“The effort has been so successful that the new Republican administration in Richmond is picking up the standard. "We hope to expand transformation to every agency that touches at-risk children, including juvenile justice, mental health and the office of special education," says Bill Mims, former attorney general and co-chair of Governor Bob McDonnell's transition team. "We would hope that we'll see the same improvement in results in all those areas that we've been seeing in foster care."
“That transformative power of comparison is exactly why every state official in the child welfare and public assistance world ought to check out two new reports compiled and published by the Council of State Governments in partnership with the Urban Institute, and funded by an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant. By way of full disclosure, I was part of the 24-member steering committee that helped guide the comparative performance measurement effort. The idea was to choose three significant areas of state policy, and then focus on key performance measures in those areas, resulting in state-by-state comparisons of performance. The three areas that the CSG steering committee picked were transportation, child welfare and public assistance.”
Monday, February 15, 2010
Mission & Management
Following up on our post from yesterday about mission as the first principle of nonprofit management, it is a sad fact that many nonprofit organizations do not have their mission front and center in all of their public expressions—website, newsletters, reports—and this lack can be a problem.
It can be a problem if it impacts organizational culture to the point where mission is forgotten or garbled.
As often happens, without the mission front and center, the work can drift from it, and even become ineffective.
It can also become a legal problem, as the foundation for receiving tax exemption is performing the mission as promised in the founding documents; consequently, organizational mission and capacity should be reviewed regularly.
Brinckerhoff (2000) in his best of class book, Mission–Based Management: Leading Your Not-For-Profit in the 21st Century, (a newer edition came out recently) notes:
“If you do not perform your mission, the IRS can take away your tax exempt status under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code….
“Every three years (at the same time that you will be writing your strategic plan…) you need to revisit your mission statement. You need to take the opportunity to get your staff and board input into what your mission should be. In most cases, it will be the same as it is now, only you will have a renewed sense of its urgency as a result of the discussion.” (p. 36)
It can be a problem if it impacts organizational culture to the point where mission is forgotten or garbled.
As often happens, without the mission front and center, the work can drift from it, and even become ineffective.
It can also become a legal problem, as the foundation for receiving tax exemption is performing the mission as promised in the founding documents; consequently, organizational mission and capacity should be reviewed regularly.
Brinckerhoff (2000) in his best of class book, Mission–Based Management: Leading Your Not-For-Profit in the 21st Century, (a newer edition came out recently) notes:
“If you do not perform your mission, the IRS can take away your tax exempt status under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code….
“Every three years (at the same time that you will be writing your strategic plan…) you need to revisit your mission statement. You need to take the opportunity to get your staff and board input into what your mission should be. In most cases, it will be the same as it is now, only you will have a renewed sense of its urgency as a result of the discussion.” (p. 36)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Nonprofit Management
This period we are now in is one of great challenge for nonprofit organizations and many are failing—particularly those relying on government funding—and as always during trying times, a remembrance of first principles is helpful.
The most important thinker on management in America over the past several decades has been Peter F. Drucker, who passed away in 2005, and his seminal book, Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices, is a brief 250 pages on just that.
Here are the opening two paragraphs.
“The non-profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and society. The first thing to talk about is what missions work and what missions don’t work, and how to define the mission. For the ultimate test is not the beauty of the mission statement. The ultimate test is right action.
“The most common question asked me by non-profit executives is: What are the qualities of a leader? The question seems to assume that leadership is something you can learn in a charm school. But it also assumes that leadership by itself is not enough, that it’s an end. And that’s misleadership. The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission. Therefore, the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” (p. 3)
The most important thinker on management in America over the past several decades has been Peter F. Drucker, who passed away in 2005, and his seminal book, Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices, is a brief 250 pages on just that.
Here are the opening two paragraphs.
“The non-profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and society. The first thing to talk about is what missions work and what missions don’t work, and how to define the mission. For the ultimate test is not the beauty of the mission statement. The ultimate test is right action.
“The most common question asked me by non-profit executives is: What are the qualities of a leader? The question seems to assume that leadership is something you can learn in a charm school. But it also assumes that leadership by itself is not enough, that it’s an end. And that’s misleadership. The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission. Therefore, the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” (p. 3)
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Philanthropy & High Tax States
As California is a high-tax state, the impact on philanthropy can be significant, as this article from the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports.
An excerpt.
[A new study of the period 1999-2008, Migration of Wealth in New Jersey and the Impact on Wealth and Philanthropy]… “found that in the decade’s first half New Jersey experienced a “substantial increase in both household wealth and charitable capacity,” otherwise known as “expected giving”. During those five years, the Garden State had a $98 billion net influx of capital due to wealthy households moving into the state, and it enjoyed a corresponding $881 million increase in “charitable capacity.”
“The Garden State was booming. Then the trend reversed. From 2004-2008, author John Havens found “a large decline in the number of wealthy households entering New Jersey” as well as “a moderate increase in the outflow of wealthy households leaving.” The result: a net decline of $70 billion in household wealth while the “expected giving” became a net outflow of $1.132 billion.
“So what happened in 2004? The study doesn’t purport to explain what caused the wealth movements. But the state’s most notable economic policy event that year was an increase in its top income tax rate to 8.97% from 6.37%, on incomes starting at $500,000. That’s a 40% increase.”
An excerpt.
[A new study of the period 1999-2008, Migration of Wealth in New Jersey and the Impact on Wealth and Philanthropy]… “found that in the decade’s first half New Jersey experienced a “substantial increase in both household wealth and charitable capacity,” otherwise known as “expected giving”. During those five years, the Garden State had a $98 billion net influx of capital due to wealthy households moving into the state, and it enjoyed a corresponding $881 million increase in “charitable capacity.”
“The Garden State was booming. Then the trend reversed. From 2004-2008, author John Havens found “a large decline in the number of wealthy households entering New Jersey” as well as “a moderate increase in the outflow of wealthy households leaving.” The result: a net decline of $70 billion in household wealth while the “expected giving” became a net outflow of $1.132 billion.
“So what happened in 2004? The study doesn’t purport to explain what caused the wealth movements. But the state’s most notable economic policy event that year was an increase in its top income tax rate to 8.97% from 6.37%, on incomes starting at $500,000. That’s a 40% increase.”
Friday, February 12, 2010
IRS Exempt Organizations Newsletter
This is a very valuable and virtually indispensible, periodic newsletter from the IRS Charitable division that every nonprofit should subscribe to, and you can do so here.
Site excerpt:
“Sign up to receive free e-mail updates from the IRS about issues of tax policy, services and available information that impact tax-exempt organizations, such as:
• news releases from the IRS related to exempt organizations;
• new forms, guidance and other publications;
• changes and additions to the IRS Charities and Nonprofits Web site; and
• upcoming IRS training and outreach events
“The updates are brief summaries with links to more extended discussions of content available on the irs.gov website.”
Site excerpt:
“Sign up to receive free e-mail updates from the IRS about issues of tax policy, services and available information that impact tax-exempt organizations, such as:
• news releases from the IRS related to exempt organizations;
• new forms, guidance and other publications;
• changes and additions to the IRS Charities and Nonprofits Web site; and
• upcoming IRS training and outreach events
“The updates are brief summaries with links to more extended discussions of content available on the irs.gov website.”
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Private Foundations & Innovation
Private foundations have the same ability—in relation to government—to innovate in serving the public, as small nonprofits do in relation to large nonprofits; and in the field of medical research it can be dramatic, as reported by the Philanthropy Roundtable.
An excerpt.
“In the field of medical research, private philanthropy is a relatively small player. According to the Foundation Center, foundations spent less than $5 billion on medicine in 2007, and less than half of that went to research. Compare either number with the $40 billion that government agencies, primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spend on biomedical research, as well as the $80 billion that private pharmaceutical and biotech firms invest in research and development each year.
“Even though the philanthropic sector’s resources are dwarfed by those of the public and for-profit sectors, private philanthropy still has one crucial advantage. Private donors do not answer to voters or shareholders, and they are not constrained by the peer-review protocols that dominate government funding. They are free to innovate, to experiment, to take risks, and to find and occupy their own distinctive niche.
“A Legacy of Leadership
“American medicine has long been a partnership between public resources and private philanthropy. The nation’s first hospital, established in the 1750s by that congenital organizer, Benjamin Franklin, was funded by both the state assembly and private donors in what is thought to be the earliest instance of a matching grant. In the decades that followed, several other medical institutions were funded by private philanthropy, including most notably the prestigious hospital, nursing school, and medical school underwritten by Johns Hopkins, and John D. Rockefeller’s creation in 1901 of the first American medical research institute.
“By the dawn of the 20th century, medicine in the United States was rapidly evolving from a craft and a vocation to a scientific profession. That transition was cemented—and modern medicine was in large part created—by interventions from the nation’s large philanthropic foundations in the early 20th century. The Rockefeller Foundation (and its predecessor entities) undertook a series of hugely ambitious campaigns to fight killer diseases around the globe: hookworm, yellow fever, malaria. And a scathing 1910 report commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation helped instigate a massive overhaul of American medical education. Abraham Flexner, the report’s author, argued that medical schools should be reformed along more scientific lines—and then worked assiduously, as a Rockefeller Foundation employee, to push for such reforms across the country.
“Although the federal government was involved in large-scale public health efforts during the first half of the 20th century, its investment in medical research was minimal. The experience of World War II, however, convinced Washington that government, industry, and science could collaborate successfully on projects of critical national importance. Federal spending on nearly every kind of science and technology rapidly rose in the postwar years—including medicine and health. Thanks in part to lobbying from the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the NIH annual budget rose from about $3 million in 1945 to $30 million by the end of the 1940s, $300 million by the end of the 1950s, and $3 billion by the end of the 1970s. For fiscal year 2010, the NIH has requested a $31 billion budget.”
An excerpt.
“In the field of medical research, private philanthropy is a relatively small player. According to the Foundation Center, foundations spent less than $5 billion on medicine in 2007, and less than half of that went to research. Compare either number with the $40 billion that government agencies, primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spend on biomedical research, as well as the $80 billion that private pharmaceutical and biotech firms invest in research and development each year.
“Even though the philanthropic sector’s resources are dwarfed by those of the public and for-profit sectors, private philanthropy still has one crucial advantage. Private donors do not answer to voters or shareholders, and they are not constrained by the peer-review protocols that dominate government funding. They are free to innovate, to experiment, to take risks, and to find and occupy their own distinctive niche.
“A Legacy of Leadership
“American medicine has long been a partnership between public resources and private philanthropy. The nation’s first hospital, established in the 1750s by that congenital organizer, Benjamin Franklin, was funded by both the state assembly and private donors in what is thought to be the earliest instance of a matching grant. In the decades that followed, several other medical institutions were funded by private philanthropy, including most notably the prestigious hospital, nursing school, and medical school underwritten by Johns Hopkins, and John D. Rockefeller’s creation in 1901 of the first American medical research institute.
“By the dawn of the 20th century, medicine in the United States was rapidly evolving from a craft and a vocation to a scientific profession. That transition was cemented—and modern medicine was in large part created—by interventions from the nation’s large philanthropic foundations in the early 20th century. The Rockefeller Foundation (and its predecessor entities) undertook a series of hugely ambitious campaigns to fight killer diseases around the globe: hookworm, yellow fever, malaria. And a scathing 1910 report commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation helped instigate a massive overhaul of American medical education. Abraham Flexner, the report’s author, argued that medical schools should be reformed along more scientific lines—and then worked assiduously, as a Rockefeller Foundation employee, to push for such reforms across the country.
“Although the federal government was involved in large-scale public health efforts during the first half of the 20th century, its investment in medical research was minimal. The experience of World War II, however, convinced Washington that government, industry, and science could collaborate successfully on projects of critical national importance. Federal spending on nearly every kind of science and technology rapidly rose in the postwar years—including medicine and health. Thanks in part to lobbying from the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the NIH annual budget rose from about $3 million in 1945 to $30 million by the end of the 1940s, $300 million by the end of the 1950s, and $3 billion by the end of the 1970s. For fiscal year 2010, the NIH has requested a $31 billion budget.”
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Leadership & American Exceptionalism
Nonprofits began in this country, primarily because of America's marvelous sense of itself as a land where the ability of individuals was not hampered by ancient class systems and cultural narratives of ineffectiveness.
This article from the American Spectator briefs us on the history—and connection with the other English speaking peoples—that underlies the importance of American exceptionalism remaining a vital strain within the American character.
An excerpt.
"I do not think America is going to smash,” Winston Churchill told his American stockbroker in the depths of the Great Depression. “On the contrary I believe that they will quite soon begin to recover…. They carved it out of the prairie and the forests. They are going to have a strong national resurgence in the near future.”
"Churchill’s own belief in the massive regenerative power of the United States was a constant in his life. He believed that given the will, Americans could achieve anything, because America was special. Yet today it is precisely this trust in the exceptionalism of America that is currently being called into question. History shows that nations that retain self-belief are indeed capable of astonishing feats, but those that suspect their time in the sun has passed cannot be saved, however rich they are or successful they have been.
"Joyce Carol Oates, the award-winning novelist and Princeton professor, has written in the Atlantic: “How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first… years of the 21st century, of the American idea! Speak with any non-American, travel to any foreign country, and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids, consequently low on natural testosterone, deranged and myopic, dangerous.” Such searing hatred of the American Idea from within American society—indeed from inside its cultural elite—is far more dangerous than what non-Americans feel. Of course, it couldn’t matter less what one writer feels if she does not represent the zeitgeist, but much more worrying was President Barack Obama’s reply in April to a question from a Financial Times reporter about whether he believed in American exceptionalism. He said: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
"This is reminiscent of what the Dodo says in Alice in Wonderland: “Everyone has won and all must have prizes.” Yet that is simply not how international relations work. Greeks might indeed believe in their own exceptionalism, as might Belgians, Thais, or Finns for that matter, but they are not truly exceptional in the light of global current affairs. The West once again looks to America for leadership in a risky world, as we so often have in the past. Although the U.S. economy was in recession in the second quarter of 2009, she pulled out of it in the third quarter. My country, Britain, is still heavily mired in recession, but nothing so cheers our markets as much as knowing that you are finally out of it. American optimism, free market beliefs, and the can-do spirit will raise the Western world out of these doldrums—at least, they will if they are permitted to by your Congress and administration."
This article from the American Spectator briefs us on the history—and connection with the other English speaking peoples—that underlies the importance of American exceptionalism remaining a vital strain within the American character.
An excerpt.
"I do not think America is going to smash,” Winston Churchill told his American stockbroker in the depths of the Great Depression. “On the contrary I believe that they will quite soon begin to recover…. They carved it out of the prairie and the forests. They are going to have a strong national resurgence in the near future.”
"Churchill’s own belief in the massive regenerative power of the United States was a constant in his life. He believed that given the will, Americans could achieve anything, because America was special. Yet today it is precisely this trust in the exceptionalism of America that is currently being called into question. History shows that nations that retain self-belief are indeed capable of astonishing feats, but those that suspect their time in the sun has passed cannot be saved, however rich they are or successful they have been.
"Joyce Carol Oates, the award-winning novelist and Princeton professor, has written in the Atlantic: “How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first… years of the 21st century, of the American idea! Speak with any non-American, travel to any foreign country, and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids, consequently low on natural testosterone, deranged and myopic, dangerous.” Such searing hatred of the American Idea from within American society—indeed from inside its cultural elite—is far more dangerous than what non-Americans feel. Of course, it couldn’t matter less what one writer feels if she does not represent the zeitgeist, but much more worrying was President Barack Obama’s reply in April to a question from a Financial Times reporter about whether he believed in American exceptionalism. He said: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
"This is reminiscent of what the Dodo says in Alice in Wonderland: “Everyone has won and all must have prizes.” Yet that is simply not how international relations work. Greeks might indeed believe in their own exceptionalism, as might Belgians, Thais, or Finns for that matter, but they are not truly exceptional in the light of global current affairs. The West once again looks to America for leadership in a risky world, as we so often have in the past. Although the U.S. economy was in recession in the second quarter of 2009, she pulled out of it in the third quarter. My country, Britain, is still heavily mired in recession, but nothing so cheers our markets as much as knowing that you are finally out of it. American optimism, free market beliefs, and the can-do spirit will raise the Western world out of these doldrums—at least, they will if they are permitted to by your Congress and administration."
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Contemplation, Reflection & Leadership
It is well understood that it is crucial for effective leadership to have the opportunity for long periods of reflection and contemplation to charge the internal batteries and ponder longer term strategy.
Within the nonprofit sector—and the small nonprofit organizational world in particular—the wherewithal to enjoy the benefits of this type of retreat are rare.
This is a news release about a report from Compass Point that examines the terrain, and with a link to a free download of the report.
An excerpt.
“Sabbaticals for nonprofit leaders can be a relatively inexpensive but highly productive capacity-building tool that yields measurable results. Creative Disruption: Sabbaticals for Capacity Building and Leadership Development in the Nonprofit Sector provides emerging evidence of the benefits to nonprofit organizations, leaders, funders, and the sector.
“This study exposes the myth that an executive sabbatical will be a chaotic disruption, finding instead that the creative disruption of a well-planned sabbatical can be productive for the entire leadership of an organization.
“Organizational capacity is increased as the second tier of leadership takes on new responsibilities. Governance is strengthened as a result of the planning and learning that goes with a sabbatical process. Executive directors come back rejuvenated, with a fresh vision and innovative ideas, and tend to extend their tenure with the organization. And funders gain a deeper perspective on community needs from the feedback, networking, and innovative ideas that sabbatical alumni bring.”
Within the nonprofit sector—and the small nonprofit organizational world in particular—the wherewithal to enjoy the benefits of this type of retreat are rare.
This is a news release about a report from Compass Point that examines the terrain, and with a link to a free download of the report.
An excerpt.
“Sabbaticals for nonprofit leaders can be a relatively inexpensive but highly productive capacity-building tool that yields measurable results. Creative Disruption: Sabbaticals for Capacity Building and Leadership Development in the Nonprofit Sector provides emerging evidence of the benefits to nonprofit organizations, leaders, funders, and the sector.
“This study exposes the myth that an executive sabbatical will be a chaotic disruption, finding instead that the creative disruption of a well-planned sabbatical can be productive for the entire leadership of an organization.
“Organizational capacity is increased as the second tier of leadership takes on new responsibilities. Governance is strengthened as a result of the planning and learning that goes with a sabbatical process. Executive directors come back rejuvenated, with a fresh vision and innovative ideas, and tend to extend their tenure with the organization. And funders gain a deeper perspective on community needs from the feedback, networking, and innovative ideas that sabbatical alumni bring.”
Monday, February 8, 2010
Going Solo
Becoming an independent business or nonprofit executive or consultant—which I am, running two nonprofits and a consultancy for nonprofits from home—is a wonderful way to work, but does take some getting used to.
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article about the transition in today’s paper.
An excerpt.
“Today, with unemployment rates hovering at 10%, and all our worries about the job market rooted in the moment, we are in danger of failing to see an important longer-term trend: More Americans are working as consultants or freelancers, either having given up or been forced out of the salaried world of 9 to 5.
“It's a trend that began after the economic downturn of the late 1980s, as many laid-off professionals became consultants. Then it seemed temporary, though, tied to bad times. Evidence now suggests that this is our new economic condition. Today, in fact, 20% to 23% of U.S. workers are operating as consultants, freelancers, free agents, contractors or micropreneurs. Current projections see the number only rising in coming years.
“The implications for the American workplace are profound. Imagine one in four workers, of all collars, working on a contingent basis. Whole career paths and professions have shifted from stable full-time jobs with definable career ladders and benefits to almost completely contingent work forces that shift from project to project.
“We can rightly bemoan the loss of security, the shifting of economic risk from institutions to individuals. But crying foul will not change the circumstances that many Americans find themselves facing. Righteous indignation will not turn back time. We can, however, better prepare ourselves for the future.
“The image of the freelancer is too often that of the struggling journalist or writer, who needs to wait tables to pay the rent. No doubt there are many such examples still out there. But there also are plenty of consultants and freelancers who are earning real income and enjoying real success in their careers (as well as redefining what it means to be a success).
“So, what do these thriving solo artists have in common? What is the recipe for their good fortune? My research points to five ingredients to keep in mind.”
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article about the transition in today’s paper.
An excerpt.
“Today, with unemployment rates hovering at 10%, and all our worries about the job market rooted in the moment, we are in danger of failing to see an important longer-term trend: More Americans are working as consultants or freelancers, either having given up or been forced out of the salaried world of 9 to 5.
“It's a trend that began after the economic downturn of the late 1980s, as many laid-off professionals became consultants. Then it seemed temporary, though, tied to bad times. Evidence now suggests that this is our new economic condition. Today, in fact, 20% to 23% of U.S. workers are operating as consultants, freelancers, free agents, contractors or micropreneurs. Current projections see the number only rising in coming years.
“The implications for the American workplace are profound. Imagine one in four workers, of all collars, working on a contingent basis. Whole career paths and professions have shifted from stable full-time jobs with definable career ladders and benefits to almost completely contingent work forces that shift from project to project.
“We can rightly bemoan the loss of security, the shifting of economic risk from institutions to individuals. But crying foul will not change the circumstances that many Americans find themselves facing. Righteous indignation will not turn back time. We can, however, better prepare ourselves for the future.
“The image of the freelancer is too often that of the struggling journalist or writer, who needs to wait tables to pay the rent. No doubt there are many such examples still out there. But there also are plenty of consultants and freelancers who are earning real income and enjoying real success in their careers (as well as redefining what it means to be a success).
“So, what do these thriving solo artists have in common? What is the recipe for their good fortune? My research points to five ingredients to keep in mind.”
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Executive Leadership
All entities—public and private—operate better when executive leadership is vested in one person, when all can see that at some point, someone is responsible.
The opening paragraph of one of the most important books on executive leadership, The Effective Executive, by Peter Drucker, says it all:
“To be effective is the job of the executive. “To effect” and “to execute” are, after all, near–synonyms. Whether he works in a business or in a hospital, in a government agency or in a labor union, in a university or in the army, the executive is, first of all, expected to get the right things done. And this is simply that he is expected to be effective.” (p. 1)
In the continuing search for creating publically elected executive leadership within Sacramento's city government, this column from Marcos Breton in the Sacramento Bee reports on the current status.
An excerpt.
“Danny DeVito was once Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie twin. Mayor Kevin Johnson is becoming Schwarzenegger's political twin.
“They were celebrities elected to political office on a wave of optimism that was soon undermined by inexperience and a gantlet of opponents, unions and lawsuits.
“Right now, it appears that Johnson's big plans for shaking up Sacramento's power structure are dead.
“He tried placing a ballot initiative before voters that would have greatly enhanced his powers as mayor. A local union leader sued to stop him and won.
“Even though some aspects of Johnson's plan were troubling – such as having the city attorney and city manager report to him instead of the full council – there is a flip side here:
“The city of Sacramento is stagnant. And a single leader is prevented from taking bold steps to shake up the status quo.
“The city charter is written so that power is spread thinly between bureaucrats and elected officials. California's Constitution states that major changes to a charter can be placed on a public ballot only by a City Council vote or by an elected charter commission. That was the ruling of a Superior Court judge who tossed "strong mayor" off the June ballot.”
The opening paragraph of one of the most important books on executive leadership, The Effective Executive, by Peter Drucker, says it all:
“To be effective is the job of the executive. “To effect” and “to execute” are, after all, near–synonyms. Whether he works in a business or in a hospital, in a government agency or in a labor union, in a university or in the army, the executive is, first of all, expected to get the right things done. And this is simply that he is expected to be effective.” (p. 1)
In the continuing search for creating publically elected executive leadership within Sacramento's city government, this column from Marcos Breton in the Sacramento Bee reports on the current status.
An excerpt.
“Danny DeVito was once Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie twin. Mayor Kevin Johnson is becoming Schwarzenegger's political twin.
“They were celebrities elected to political office on a wave of optimism that was soon undermined by inexperience and a gantlet of opponents, unions and lawsuits.
“Right now, it appears that Johnson's big plans for shaking up Sacramento's power structure are dead.
“He tried placing a ballot initiative before voters that would have greatly enhanced his powers as mayor. A local union leader sued to stop him and won.
“Even though some aspects of Johnson's plan were troubling – such as having the city attorney and city manager report to him instead of the full council – there is a flip side here:
“The city of Sacramento is stagnant. And a single leader is prevented from taking bold steps to shake up the status quo.
“The city charter is written so that power is spread thinly between bureaucrats and elected officials. California's Constitution states that major changes to a charter can be placed on a public ballot only by a City Council vote or by an elected charter commission. That was the ruling of a Superior Court judge who tossed "strong mayor" off the June ballot.”
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Results Based Philanthropy
I have been an advocate of evaluation for nonprofit organizations—even within the most difficult sector to evaluate, human service—since working on a action research project to develop an evaluation model for community based corrections programs in the first year of my involvement in the sector.
It is crucial to know if programs that claim to help others, actually do so.
Because of this need, and because so few nonprofits have been able to prove they’re effective, a strong movement is developing for evaluative strategy (and even examining the concept of seeking results-based social solutions outside of the nonprofit sector) connected to funding.
This interview with a foundation executive, from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines that.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit Quarterly: Over the past 10 years, what has changed in the relationship between foundation philanthropy and nonprofits?
“Ralph Smith: Foundation philanthropy is increasingly sector agnostic. Many of us believe that foundation philanthropy is at its best when its resources are directed toward pursuing, finding, testing, demonstrating, and promoting solutions for the most pervasive and urgent social problems. In other words, foundation philanthropy is in the solutions business and can succeed only if and to the extent it is willing to pursue solutions wherever it finds them, regardless of whether they are in the public, private, or social sector. As a consequence, the assumed exclusive relationship between foundations and nonprofits has become much less so. Foundations are going to support and invest with a much wider range of partners than in the past.
“At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that foundation philanthropy has yet to take up its special responsibility to create a capital market for the people and organizations doing the important work in the social sector. As things stand now, organizations that are effective and have a real track record are often as financially frail and vulnerable as organizations that are doing far less and far less effectively. The absence of a capital market makes it difficult to reward good performance. And this continuing failure to reward performance undergirds a compact of mutually low expectations. Organizations should know that performance matters and that superior performance matters in terms of the ability to raise capital. At present, the social-capital market is at best chaotic and, in certain respects, nonexistent.
“NPQ: Under the new framework that you have described, what would happen to the run-of-the mill but nonetheless challenging tasks in which so many nonprofits are involved: that is, the tasks of maintaining and reweaving the social fabric?
“RS: Nonprofits have an important, though not exclusive, role to play in maintaining the social fabric. But underperformance is consequential regardless of role or aspiration. Whether defined as maintaining the social fabric, protecting the safety net, nurturing the democratic impulse or just, on a very mundane level, providing services and support, underperformance matters, and it matters a lot.”
It is crucial to know if programs that claim to help others, actually do so.
Because of this need, and because so few nonprofits have been able to prove they’re effective, a strong movement is developing for evaluative strategy (and even examining the concept of seeking results-based social solutions outside of the nonprofit sector) connected to funding.
This interview with a foundation executive, from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines that.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit Quarterly: Over the past 10 years, what has changed in the relationship between foundation philanthropy and nonprofits?
“Ralph Smith: Foundation philanthropy is increasingly sector agnostic. Many of us believe that foundation philanthropy is at its best when its resources are directed toward pursuing, finding, testing, demonstrating, and promoting solutions for the most pervasive and urgent social problems. In other words, foundation philanthropy is in the solutions business and can succeed only if and to the extent it is willing to pursue solutions wherever it finds them, regardless of whether they are in the public, private, or social sector. As a consequence, the assumed exclusive relationship between foundations and nonprofits has become much less so. Foundations are going to support and invest with a much wider range of partners than in the past.
“At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that foundation philanthropy has yet to take up its special responsibility to create a capital market for the people and organizations doing the important work in the social sector. As things stand now, organizations that are effective and have a real track record are often as financially frail and vulnerable as organizations that are doing far less and far less effectively. The absence of a capital market makes it difficult to reward good performance. And this continuing failure to reward performance undergirds a compact of mutually low expectations. Organizations should know that performance matters and that superior performance matters in terms of the ability to raise capital. At present, the social-capital market is at best chaotic and, in certain respects, nonexistent.
“NPQ: Under the new framework that you have described, what would happen to the run-of-the mill but nonetheless challenging tasks in which so many nonprofits are involved: that is, the tasks of maintaining and reweaving the social fabric?
“RS: Nonprofits have an important, though not exclusive, role to play in maintaining the social fabric. But underperformance is consequential regardless of role or aspiration. Whether defined as maintaining the social fabric, protecting the safety net, nurturing the democratic impulse or just, on a very mundane level, providing services and support, underperformance matters, and it matters a lot.”
Friday, February 5, 2010
Nonprofit News & Bias
In a little kerfuffle that is indicative of tin ears, the Columbia Spectator bewails the bias of a new nonprofit news source that has contracted with the Washington Post; while probably retaining their tin ear in regards to the historic bias conservatives have long decried, of that other nonprofit news source, the Public Broadcasting Company.
America is a maturing national population that has access to an incredible array of news sources, virtually all of them biased in one way or another, and the intelligence of the American population is that we are learning to do our own research—by utilizing many news and information sources—and reaching our own decisions, a result not always appreciated by the powers that may be at any given time.
An excerpt from the Columbia Spectator article.
“Who knew that the latest chapter in the sad decline of mainstream American journalism would take place at the Washington Post?
“A sorry episode involving the paper that spoke truth to power during the Watergate scandal began quietly last month, with a press release about a new digital publication called “The Fiscal Times.” According to the release, TFT’s purpose is to report on U.S. fiscal, budgetary, and economic issues that the struggling corporate-owned media increasingly lack the resources to cover regularly.
“TFT, with a staff of veteran Washington reporters, “will provide supplemental content to publications for free,” said the release, “benefiting from the exposure of a byline in established platforms.” It had already formed a “content-sharing agreement” with one major daily: the Washington Post, whose executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, CC ‘83, will be the keynote speaker at the Spectator’s annual Blue Pencil Dinner on Feb. 13.
“On the surface, it all sounded fine. U.S. fiscal policy and the federal budget process affect us all and deserve more coverage. TFT, evidently, is just the latest in a new collection of nonprofit, nontraditional news organizations, like Politico.com and ProPublica.org, rushing to fill gaps in mainstream news.
“Or is it? TFT is bankrolled by Pete Peterson, the Wall Street baron who co-founded hedge fund giant the Blackstone Group. Peterson has also been crusading for 30 years to convince Americans that the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, the only solution being drastic cuts in domestic social programs like Social Security and Medicare. While he’s managed to convince some powerful figures, including members of Congress, plenty of prominent economists disagree. They point out that millions of vulnerable people would be thrown into poverty if his prescriptions were ever adopted.”
America is a maturing national population that has access to an incredible array of news sources, virtually all of them biased in one way or another, and the intelligence of the American population is that we are learning to do our own research—by utilizing many news and information sources—and reaching our own decisions, a result not always appreciated by the powers that may be at any given time.
An excerpt from the Columbia Spectator article.
“Who knew that the latest chapter in the sad decline of mainstream American journalism would take place at the Washington Post?
“A sorry episode involving the paper that spoke truth to power during the Watergate scandal began quietly last month, with a press release about a new digital publication called “The Fiscal Times.” According to the release, TFT’s purpose is to report on U.S. fiscal, budgetary, and economic issues that the struggling corporate-owned media increasingly lack the resources to cover regularly.
“TFT, with a staff of veteran Washington reporters, “will provide supplemental content to publications for free,” said the release, “benefiting from the exposure of a byline in established platforms.” It had already formed a “content-sharing agreement” with one major daily: the Washington Post, whose executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, CC ‘83, will be the keynote speaker at the Spectator’s annual Blue Pencil Dinner on Feb. 13.
“On the surface, it all sounded fine. U.S. fiscal policy and the federal budget process affect us all and deserve more coverage. TFT, evidently, is just the latest in a new collection of nonprofit, nontraditional news organizations, like Politico.com and ProPublica.org, rushing to fill gaps in mainstream news.
“Or is it? TFT is bankrolled by Pete Peterson, the Wall Street baron who co-founded hedge fund giant the Blackstone Group. Peterson has also been crusading for 30 years to convince Americans that the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, the only solution being drastic cuts in domestic social programs like Social Security and Medicare. While he’s managed to convince some powerful figures, including members of Congress, plenty of prominent economists disagree. They point out that millions of vulnerable people would be thrown into poverty if his prescriptions were ever adopted.”
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Cultural Diversity
Sacramento has long been known as one of the most well-balanced and diverse cities in the country—with Time Magazine making it official in 2002—and that is a very good thing for a city, and very good for those of us lucky enough to live here.
What this means for the nonprofit world has been long studied and most recently written about by a local nonprofit leader, Janice Gow Pettey, in—among other works on the subject—her recent book Cultivating Diversity in Fundraising.
Underlying much of the success of our country over the past several decades and stretching far into the future, is this same diversity, which continues to build upon the historic vision of the solidarity of America, always welcoming everyone.
From that welcome, great power is growing, and Joel Kotkin at New Geography writes about this.
An excerpt.
“When Americans think of our nation's power (or our imminent lack of it) we tend to point to the national debts, GDP or military prowess. Few have focused on what may well be the country's most historically significant and powerful weapon: its emergence as the modern world's first multiracial superpower.
“This evolution, after centuries of racial wrangling and struggle, will prove particularly critical in a world in which the power of the "white" race will likely diminish as power shifts to China, India and other developing countries. By 2039, due largely to immigrants and their offspring, non-Europeans will constitute the majority of working-age Americans, and by around 2050 non-Hispanic whites could well be in the minority.
“But this should not be seen so much as a matter of ethnic succession as multiracial amalgamation. The group likely to grow fastest, for example, will be made up of people, like President Obama himself, who are of mixed race. Theirs is no more demonstrable evidence of the changing racial attitudes of Americans. As recently as 1987 slightly less than half of Americans approved of interracial couples. By 2007, according to the Pew Center, 83% supported them. Among the millennial generation, who will make up the majority of adults in 2050, 94% approve of such matches.
“Today roughly 20% of Americans, according to Pew Research Center, say they have a relative married to someone of another race. Mixed-race couples tend to be younger; over two-fifths of mixed-race Americans are under 18 years of age. In the coming decades this group will play an ever greater role in society. According to sociologists at UC, Irvine, by 2050 mixed-race people could account for one in five Americans.
“The result will be a U.S. best described in Walt Whitman's prophetic phrase as "the race of races." No other advanced, populous country will enjoy such ethnic diversity.”
What this means for the nonprofit world has been long studied and most recently written about by a local nonprofit leader, Janice Gow Pettey, in—among other works on the subject—her recent book Cultivating Diversity in Fundraising.
Underlying much of the success of our country over the past several decades and stretching far into the future, is this same diversity, which continues to build upon the historic vision of the solidarity of America, always welcoming everyone.
From that welcome, great power is growing, and Joel Kotkin at New Geography writes about this.
An excerpt.
“When Americans think of our nation's power (or our imminent lack of it) we tend to point to the national debts, GDP or military prowess. Few have focused on what may well be the country's most historically significant and powerful weapon: its emergence as the modern world's first multiracial superpower.
“This evolution, after centuries of racial wrangling and struggle, will prove particularly critical in a world in which the power of the "white" race will likely diminish as power shifts to China, India and other developing countries. By 2039, due largely to immigrants and their offspring, non-Europeans will constitute the majority of working-age Americans, and by around 2050 non-Hispanic whites could well be in the minority.
“But this should not be seen so much as a matter of ethnic succession as multiracial amalgamation. The group likely to grow fastest, for example, will be made up of people, like President Obama himself, who are of mixed race. Theirs is no more demonstrable evidence of the changing racial attitudes of Americans. As recently as 1987 slightly less than half of Americans approved of interracial couples. By 2007, according to the Pew Center, 83% supported them. Among the millennial generation, who will make up the majority of adults in 2050, 94% approve of such matches.
“Today roughly 20% of Americans, according to Pew Research Center, say they have a relative married to someone of another race. Mixed-race couples tend to be younger; over two-fifths of mixed-race Americans are under 18 years of age. In the coming decades this group will play an ever greater role in society. According to sociologists at UC, Irvine, by 2050 mixed-race people could account for one in five Americans.
“The result will be a U.S. best described in Walt Whitman's prophetic phrase as "the race of races." No other advanced, populous country will enjoy such ethnic diversity.”
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Social Capitalists
Fast Company profiles five companies who are doing some good and making some money.
An excerpt.
“Jeff Froikin Gordon and Giulia Stellari
AgSquared
Stonybrook, New York, and Washington, D.C.
“After getting their biology PhDs at Cornell in May, Gordon and Stellari headed not for a research lab but a tech startup. Their product: the first-ever enterprise software system made for farmers. Yes, farmers, especially the small farmers who make up 90% of the nation's 2 million farms, and who are increasingly interested in going organic. "Record keeping has been an age old problem," says Gordon. "With sustainable practices, there's a lot more to think about. For a long time, if you had a problem, you could just spray better chemicals. Now you have to think about what you can do to make the soil stronger, or introducing beneficial insects." Beyond basic accounting of seeds in and fruits out, the computer system integrates U.S. soil data and weather mapping, and even makes analyses and recommendations based on best practices and eventually the collective wisdom of the community. Launched in beta this month (February 2010), AgSquared, which is free to farmers (paid for by sponsorships from fertilizer companies and the like) is getting rapturous reactions.” "There's one guy out in Amherst who has these spreadsheets that he made himself that he'll send to other farmers for $25," says Gordon. "He told us, please make my system obsolete!"
An excerpt.
“Jeff Froikin Gordon and Giulia Stellari
AgSquared
Stonybrook, New York, and Washington, D.C.
“After getting their biology PhDs at Cornell in May, Gordon and Stellari headed not for a research lab but a tech startup. Their product: the first-ever enterprise software system made for farmers. Yes, farmers, especially the small farmers who make up 90% of the nation's 2 million farms, and who are increasingly interested in going organic. "Record keeping has been an age old problem," says Gordon. "With sustainable practices, there's a lot more to think about. For a long time, if you had a problem, you could just spray better chemicals. Now you have to think about what you can do to make the soil stronger, or introducing beneficial insects." Beyond basic accounting of seeds in and fruits out, the computer system integrates U.S. soil data and weather mapping, and even makes analyses and recommendations based on best practices and eventually the collective wisdom of the community. Launched in beta this month (February 2010), AgSquared, which is free to farmers (paid for by sponsorships from fertilizer companies and the like) is getting rapturous reactions.” "There's one guy out in Amherst who has these spreadsheets that he made himself that he'll send to other farmers for $25," says Gordon. "He told us, please make my system obsolete!"
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Nonprofit Workforce
An interesting report from the John Hopkins Center in Maryland shows that nonprofit employment went up while the economy went down.
That makes sense, as people who've lost higher paying jobs in the private sector could migrate to lower paying ones in the nonprofit sector and be warmly received, especially those with business, marketing, or fundraising skills to help the nonprofits, who also have to compensate for the reduced funding streams they're experiencing.
An excerpt.
“New data on recent nonprofit employment trends in Maryland confirm an earlier finding of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: nonprofit organizations are a counter-cyclical force in the economy, actually adding workers in times of economic downturn.
“The new Maryland data draw on the state’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for 2007 and 2008. Assembled by state labor departments in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics through quarterly surveys of places of employment, the QCEW is a carefully assembled and monitored data source that provides more timely data on nonprofit employment and wages than any other source.1
“Growth During the Recession
“• Despite the recession underway at the time, nonprofit employment in Maryland continued its growth in 2008, increasing by 2.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2008.
“• By contrast, for-profit employment in Maryland decreased by 3.3 percent during this same period, eliminating over 61,000 jobs. Demonstrating the nonprofit sector’s role as a critical counter-cyclical force, nonprofits thus accounted for all of the state’s private employment growth between 2007 and 2008.”
That makes sense, as people who've lost higher paying jobs in the private sector could migrate to lower paying ones in the nonprofit sector and be warmly received, especially those with business, marketing, or fundraising skills to help the nonprofits, who also have to compensate for the reduced funding streams they're experiencing.
An excerpt.
“New data on recent nonprofit employment trends in Maryland confirm an earlier finding of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: nonprofit organizations are a counter-cyclical force in the economy, actually adding workers in times of economic downturn.
“The new Maryland data draw on the state’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for 2007 and 2008. Assembled by state labor departments in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics through quarterly surveys of places of employment, the QCEW is a carefully assembled and monitored data source that provides more timely data on nonprofit employment and wages than any other source.1
“Growth During the Recession
“• Despite the recession underway at the time, nonprofit employment in Maryland continued its growth in 2008, increasing by 2.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2008.
“• By contrast, for-profit employment in Maryland decreased by 3.3 percent during this same period, eliminating over 61,000 jobs. Demonstrating the nonprofit sector’s role as a critical counter-cyclical force, nonprofits thus accounted for all of the state’s private employment growth between 2007 and 2008.”
Monday, February 1, 2010
Nonprofits Struggling
Nonprofits across the country, especially those funded largely by government, are struggling to stay afloat, and it points out—once again—the importance of establishing and sustaining a viable individual donor base; as that is the only sure harbor in rough weather.
An article from the Wall Street Journal examines the situation.
An excerpt.
“Hearth, a Boston-based nonprofit, has a mission of helping people like Yvonne Rock find housing and medical care.
“Ms. Rock, a 59-year-old former mental-health counsellor, has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and can no longer work. After nearly a year on Hearth's waiting list for an apartment, she still has nowhere to live.
“But Hearth is badly in need of charity itself. The group lost $325,000 in government contracts last year, laid off five employees and cut managers' pay. Its plans to add housing units are stalled because it hasn't been able to raise the final $600,000 from private donors to qualify for matching government funds. Yet Hearth is receiving more applications for housing than it can process.
"We've had funding cut after funding cut, and we never know when the next shoe is going to drop," says May Shields, Hearth's chief operating officer.
“The story is the same across the country. The once-booming nonprofit sector is in the midst of a shakeout, leaving many Americans without services and culling weak groups from the strong. Hit by a drop in donations and government funding in the wake of a deep recession, nonprofits—from arts councils to food banks—are undergoing a painful restructuring, including mergers, acquisitions, collaborations, cutbacks and closings.
"Like in the animal kingdom, at some point, the weaker organizations will not be able to survive," says Diana Aviv, chief executive of Independent Sector, a coalition of 600 nonprofits.”
An article from the Wall Street Journal examines the situation.
An excerpt.
“Hearth, a Boston-based nonprofit, has a mission of helping people like Yvonne Rock find housing and medical care.
“Ms. Rock, a 59-year-old former mental-health counsellor, has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and can no longer work. After nearly a year on Hearth's waiting list for an apartment, she still has nowhere to live.
“But Hearth is badly in need of charity itself. The group lost $325,000 in government contracts last year, laid off five employees and cut managers' pay. Its plans to add housing units are stalled because it hasn't been able to raise the final $600,000 from private donors to qualify for matching government funds. Yet Hearth is receiving more applications for housing than it can process.
"We've had funding cut after funding cut, and we never know when the next shoe is going to drop," says May Shields, Hearth's chief operating officer.
“The story is the same across the country. The once-booming nonprofit sector is in the midst of a shakeout, leaving many Americans without services and culling weak groups from the strong. Hit by a drop in donations and government funding in the wake of a deep recession, nonprofits—from arts councils to food banks—are undergoing a painful restructuring, including mergers, acquisitions, collaborations, cutbacks and closings.
"Like in the animal kingdom, at some point, the weaker organizations will not be able to survive," says Diana Aviv, chief executive of Independent Sector, a coalition of 600 nonprofits.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
