This is not how it is supposed to work, but as this story from USA Today reports, it does all too often.
An excerpt.
“WASHINGTON — At first glance, Congressmen Hal Rogers and Chaka Fattah don't have much in common. Rogers, a Republican, represents a rural district in Kentucky. Fattah, a Democrat, hails from an urban district in Philadelphia.
“Thanks to Rogers, this year's federal spending will include $18.9 million funneled to a half-dozen non-profit groups he founded that do everything from research homeland security technologies to clean litter along his district's highways. One sponsors summer camps for students called "Rogers Scholars" and "Rogers Explorers."
“Fattah directed $3.5 million this year to three non-profit groups he founded that provide scholarships and educational programs. One organizes the annual "Fattah Conference on Higher Education."
“Fattah and Rogers are among eight lawmakers who have used special legislative provisions called "earmarks" to fund charities with close personal connections. A USA TODAY review of federal spending legislation and non-profit records identified $30.6 million this year — and more than $89 million over the past three years — directed to groups closely tied to the lawmakers. That included $38.1 million over three years to groups founded by the lawmaker sponsoring the earmark and $2 million since 2008 to groups where earmark sponsors' spouses have been unpaid directors.
“In March, House Democrats banned earmarks that go to for-profit companies, while most House Republicans, including Rogers, have chosen not to request any earmarks for the next budget cycle. Neither moratorium was adopted by the Senate.”
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Nonprofits & Government
The major challenge facing a nonprofit organization taking over a government enterprise—unless the nonprofit has already demonstrated a capacity to raise the amount of funding needed—is transitioning to the type of organizational culture in which substantial fundraising from philanthropic sources is second-nature rather than an alien creature.
The situation with the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, while a good County strategy, brings with it several issues, the cultural issue just mentioned, and those outlined in the Bee article.
An excerpt.
“If you take your kids to the Effie Yeaw Nature Center on July 4, you might not notice the difference. The trails will still wind to the river. Wild flowers and grasses will still grow. The deer and turkeys will still confer near the path's edge.
“Invisible, however, will be the shift in control of the center and the 77-acre nature preserve from Sacramento County to the American River Natural History Association.
“County officials have billed the move as a success story – a last-minute stay of execution for the nature center from the budget ax, thanks to the creativity of county officials and the dedication of local volunteers. It's part of a broader strategy to shift programs and services from local government to nonprofits.
“This spring, Volunteers of America took over the Mather Community Campus, which houses programs for the homeless, while the county handed off its Meals on Wheels program to the Asian Community Center.
“The approach appears to be unique to Sacramento County, a spokeswoman for the California State Association of Counties said, adding that she is unaware of any other counties making similar moves.
“The Effie Yeaw shift, however, is causing concern among some advocates who fear that the transfer is happening too quickly and that funding woes could be just as pronounced under a nonprofit as they have been under the county.
"There are people on our board who are saying, 'What are we – suckers?' " said Greg Voelm, an American River Natural History Association member who is helping to finalize the deal with the county.
“The biggest concern for Voelm and others is the clean break the county is making from the center.
“Several local attractions have shifted from government control to nonprofits in recent years. The Sacramento Zoo and Fairytale Town are two notable examples.
“But in those cases, the city of Sacramento provided ongoing funding to help the nonprofits get up and running. Sacramento County won't be giving anything to the association.
"At this point the only offer is, 'Suck it up. We're broke,' " Voelm said.
“This means the association – which has typically given $40,000 to $60,000 a year in donations to the county for Effie Yeaw – will suddenly need to find enough money to run the center, which the county has operated with a budget topping $600,000 a year.
"It puts a lot of weight on a little organization like ARNHA," Voelm said. "It may be a bad tax year for the county, but we have no ability to collect anything. We have to rely on the kindness of others."
“The association, along with other parks advocacy groups, has raised about $300,000 so far, Voelm added.”
The situation with the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, while a good County strategy, brings with it several issues, the cultural issue just mentioned, and those outlined in the Bee article.
An excerpt.
“If you take your kids to the Effie Yeaw Nature Center on July 4, you might not notice the difference. The trails will still wind to the river. Wild flowers and grasses will still grow. The deer and turkeys will still confer near the path's edge.
“Invisible, however, will be the shift in control of the center and the 77-acre nature preserve from Sacramento County to the American River Natural History Association.
“County officials have billed the move as a success story – a last-minute stay of execution for the nature center from the budget ax, thanks to the creativity of county officials and the dedication of local volunteers. It's part of a broader strategy to shift programs and services from local government to nonprofits.
“This spring, Volunteers of America took over the Mather Community Campus, which houses programs for the homeless, while the county handed off its Meals on Wheels program to the Asian Community Center.
“The approach appears to be unique to Sacramento County, a spokeswoman for the California State Association of Counties said, adding that she is unaware of any other counties making similar moves.
“The Effie Yeaw shift, however, is causing concern among some advocates who fear that the transfer is happening too quickly and that funding woes could be just as pronounced under a nonprofit as they have been under the county.
"There are people on our board who are saying, 'What are we – suckers?' " said Greg Voelm, an American River Natural History Association member who is helping to finalize the deal with the county.
“The biggest concern for Voelm and others is the clean break the county is making from the center.
“Several local attractions have shifted from government control to nonprofits in recent years. The Sacramento Zoo and Fairytale Town are two notable examples.
“But in those cases, the city of Sacramento provided ongoing funding to help the nonprofits get up and running. Sacramento County won't be giving anything to the association.
"At this point the only offer is, 'Suck it up. We're broke,' " Voelm said.
“This means the association – which has typically given $40,000 to $60,000 a year in donations to the county for Effie Yeaw – will suddenly need to find enough money to run the center, which the county has operated with a budget topping $600,000 a year.
"It puts a lot of weight on a little organization like ARNHA," Voelm said. "It may be a bad tax year for the county, but we have no ability to collect anything. We have to rely on the kindness of others."
“The association, along with other parks advocacy groups, has raised about $300,000 so far, Voelm added.”
Monday, June 28, 2010
Solitude & Contemplation
They are absolutely necessary practices to become a good leader in the hurly-burly world of managing a nonprofit organization, and this article from the American Scholar explains.
An excerpt.
“My title must seem like a contradiction. What can solitude have to do with leadership? Solitude means being alone, and leadership necessitates the presence of others—the people you’re leading. When we think about leadership in American history we are likely to think of Washington, at the head of an army, or Lincoln, at the head of a nation, or King, at the head of a movement—people with multitudes behind them, looking to them for direction. And when we think of solitude, we are apt to think of Thoreau, a man alone in the woods, keeping a journal and communing with nature in silence.
“Leadership is what you are here to learn—the qualities of character and mind that will make you fit to command a platoon, and beyond that, perhaps, a company, a battalion, or, if you leave the military, a corporation, a foundation, a department of government. Solitude is what you have the least of here, especially as plebes. You don’t even have privacy, the opportunity simply to be physically alone, never mind solitude, the ability to be alone with your thoughts. And yet I submit to you that solitude is one of the most important necessities of true leadership. This lecture will be an attempt to explain why.
“We need to begin by talking about what leadership really means. I just spent 10 years teaching at another institution that, like West Point, liked to talk a lot about leadership, Yale University. A school that some of you might have gone to had you not come here, that some of your friends might be going to. And if not Yale, then Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and so forth. These institutions, like West Point, also see their role as the training of leaders, constantly encourage their students, like West Point, to regard themselves as leaders among their peers and future leaders of society. Indeed, when we look around at the American elite, the people in charge of government, business, academia, and all our other major institutions—senators, judges, CEOs, college presidents, and so forth—we find that they come overwhelmingly either from the Ivy League and its peer institutions or from the service academies, especially West Point.
“So I began to wonder, as I taught at Yale, what leadership really consists of. My students, like you, were energetic, accomplished, smart, and often ferociously ambitious, but was that enough to make them leaders? Most of them, as much as I liked and even admired them, certainly didn’t seem to me like leaders. Does being a leader, I wondered, just mean being accomplished, being successful? Does getting straight As make you a leader? I didn’t think so. Great heart surgeons or great novelists or great shortstops may be terrific at what they do, but that doesn’t mean they’re leaders. Leadership and aptitude, leadership and achievement, leadership and even ex¬cellence have to be different things, otherwise the concept of leadership has no meaning. And it seemed to me that that had to be especially true of the kind of excellence I saw in the students around me.
“See, things have changed since I went to college in the ’80s. Everything has gotten much more intense. You have to do much more now to get into a top school like Yale or West Point, and you have to start a lot earlier. We didn’t begin thinking about college until we were juniors, and maybe we each did a couple of extracurriculars. But I know what it’s like for you guys now. It’s an endless series of hoops that you have to jump through, starting from way back, maybe as early as junior high school. Classes, standardized tests, extracurriculars in school, extracurriculars outside of school. Test prep courses, admissions coaches, private tutors. I sat on the Yale College admissions committee a couple of years ago. The first thing the admissions officer would do when presenting a case to the rest of the committee was read what they call the “brag” in admissions lingo, the list of the student’s extracurriculars. Well, it turned out that a student who had six or seven extracurriculars was already in trouble. Because the students who got in—in addition to perfect grades and top scores—usually had 10 or 12.”
An excerpt.
“My title must seem like a contradiction. What can solitude have to do with leadership? Solitude means being alone, and leadership necessitates the presence of others—the people you’re leading. When we think about leadership in American history we are likely to think of Washington, at the head of an army, or Lincoln, at the head of a nation, or King, at the head of a movement—people with multitudes behind them, looking to them for direction. And when we think of solitude, we are apt to think of Thoreau, a man alone in the woods, keeping a journal and communing with nature in silence.
“Leadership is what you are here to learn—the qualities of character and mind that will make you fit to command a platoon, and beyond that, perhaps, a company, a battalion, or, if you leave the military, a corporation, a foundation, a department of government. Solitude is what you have the least of here, especially as plebes. You don’t even have privacy, the opportunity simply to be physically alone, never mind solitude, the ability to be alone with your thoughts. And yet I submit to you that solitude is one of the most important necessities of true leadership. This lecture will be an attempt to explain why.
“We need to begin by talking about what leadership really means. I just spent 10 years teaching at another institution that, like West Point, liked to talk a lot about leadership, Yale University. A school that some of you might have gone to had you not come here, that some of your friends might be going to. And if not Yale, then Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and so forth. These institutions, like West Point, also see their role as the training of leaders, constantly encourage their students, like West Point, to regard themselves as leaders among their peers and future leaders of society. Indeed, when we look around at the American elite, the people in charge of government, business, academia, and all our other major institutions—senators, judges, CEOs, college presidents, and so forth—we find that they come overwhelmingly either from the Ivy League and its peer institutions or from the service academies, especially West Point.
“So I began to wonder, as I taught at Yale, what leadership really consists of. My students, like you, were energetic, accomplished, smart, and often ferociously ambitious, but was that enough to make them leaders? Most of them, as much as I liked and even admired them, certainly didn’t seem to me like leaders. Does being a leader, I wondered, just mean being accomplished, being successful? Does getting straight As make you a leader? I didn’t think so. Great heart surgeons or great novelists or great shortstops may be terrific at what they do, but that doesn’t mean they’re leaders. Leadership and aptitude, leadership and achievement, leadership and even ex¬cellence have to be different things, otherwise the concept of leadership has no meaning. And it seemed to me that that had to be especially true of the kind of excellence I saw in the students around me.
“See, things have changed since I went to college in the ’80s. Everything has gotten much more intense. You have to do much more now to get into a top school like Yale or West Point, and you have to start a lot earlier. We didn’t begin thinking about college until we were juniors, and maybe we each did a couple of extracurriculars. But I know what it’s like for you guys now. It’s an endless series of hoops that you have to jump through, starting from way back, maybe as early as junior high school. Classes, standardized tests, extracurriculars in school, extracurriculars outside of school. Test prep courses, admissions coaches, private tutors. I sat on the Yale College admissions committee a couple of years ago. The first thing the admissions officer would do when presenting a case to the rest of the committee was read what they call the “brag” in admissions lingo, the list of the student’s extracurriculars. Well, it turned out that a student who had six or seven extracurriculars was already in trouble. Because the students who got in—in addition to perfect grades and top scores—usually had 10 or 12.”
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Faithful Philanthropist
A wonderful interview with a wonderful philanthropist, from Philanthropy Magazine.
An excerpt.
“John V. Saeman is a devout Roman Catholic, whose loyalty to the Catholic Church has been expressed through generous contributions of time, treasure, and talent. Indeed, fidelity seems to be the hallmark of his philanthropy, characterizing his life, his friendships, and his charitable giving.
“In every sense,” says Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, “the Saemans are a heroic example of public service, fidelity to the Church, and love for her good works.” Mr. Saeman is the founding chairman of the Catholic Foundation for the Archdiocese of Denver and a former board member of two Catholic colleges, Loras College and Regis University. Carol, his wife of 46 years, has chaired the development committee of St. John Vianney Theological Seminary. Together, they are founding trustees of the Seeds of Hope Charitable Trust, which provides scholarships to low-income students in the greater Denver area to attend Catholic schools.Both Saemans have served on the board of the Papal Foundation.
“Mr. Saeman is likewise faithful to his friends, past and present. Through his service on the board of the $1 billion Daniels Fund, he worked to ensure loyalty to the philanthropic vision of his late friend, business partner, and mentor, Bill Daniels. As chairman of the board, Mr. Saeman led a systematic effort to recover, refine, and realize Daniels’ charitable intent. His efforts serve as a model of the proper stewardship of philanthropic assets.
“He is equally committed to the charities he supports, whether in Denver or the developing world. Mr. Saeman has given of himself to the Catholic Radio Network and the National Jewish Hospital, to the Boy Scouts and the Young Presidents Organization, to Catholic Charities and the Colorado Alliance for Reform in Education. But he also expects from these charities a measure of fidelity in return—and structures his giving accordingly.
“Philanthropy spoke with Mr. Saeman about his work in service to the Catholic Church and his efforts to honor the intent of his friend Bill Daniels—and to ensure his own philanthropic legacy.
“PHILANTHROPY: You were born and raised in a small town in Wisconsin. How does that experience inform your giving today?
“MR. SAEMAN: I grew up in a Midwestern farming community with a population of about 350 people. Generosity was a way of life. We didn’t have homeless people walking the streets. If people came to our town, they had a place to stay. If they were looking for a job, there was always work. People ate regular meals. Some were more fortunate than others, but there was a spirit—not published, not public, not profiled in any way—that people took care of people. If somebody had a need, somehow people were always there to take care of it. If somebody’s barn burned down, there was a barn-raising group that would get together and volunteer to help the farmer put his barn back up.
“My parents were of modest means, but they were very generous. When I was a kid, my dad made $350 per month. I specifically remember one time that they budgeted $1,000 for a local church campaign. I thought, “Wow, how do you do that?” I was just a boy, so it didn’t quite register, but I knew that my parents were committed to the things in life that mattered to them—and that they were willing to make the sacrifices necessary to see them succeed. A person doesn’t forget those things later in life.
“PHILANTHROPY: For 34 years, you worked alongside telecom pioneer Bill Daniels. Would you mind saying a few words about your business partnership?
“MR. SAEMAN: I graduated from Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa, in 1958. Like most people coming out of college back then, I went straight into military service. I joined the Marine Corps. After that, I didn’t know what I was going to do. I didn’t know what my real ambitions were, what my calling in life might be. I would say I went through my first two jobs without any direction.
“Then I met Bill Daniels. He was already a major figure in the cable television industry. He took a liking to me, and I to him, and the rest is history. Bill brought out the best in me, without really trying, just by being who he was and acting how he acted. I watched him closely. I listened to him, I was motivated by him—and I wanted to be a success like him. I wanted to do all the things he did so well: making money, putting people together, being an entrepreneur. He wasn’t a hands-on mentor; he was very much a global guy. He saw everything from 30,000 feet.”
An excerpt.
“John V. Saeman is a devout Roman Catholic, whose loyalty to the Catholic Church has been expressed through generous contributions of time, treasure, and talent. Indeed, fidelity seems to be the hallmark of his philanthropy, characterizing his life, his friendships, and his charitable giving.
“In every sense,” says Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, “the Saemans are a heroic example of public service, fidelity to the Church, and love for her good works.” Mr. Saeman is the founding chairman of the Catholic Foundation for the Archdiocese of Denver and a former board member of two Catholic colleges, Loras College and Regis University. Carol, his wife of 46 years, has chaired the development committee of St. John Vianney Theological Seminary. Together, they are founding trustees of the Seeds of Hope Charitable Trust, which provides scholarships to low-income students in the greater Denver area to attend Catholic schools.Both Saemans have served on the board of the Papal Foundation.
“Mr. Saeman is likewise faithful to his friends, past and present. Through his service on the board of the $1 billion Daniels Fund, he worked to ensure loyalty to the philanthropic vision of his late friend, business partner, and mentor, Bill Daniels. As chairman of the board, Mr. Saeman led a systematic effort to recover, refine, and realize Daniels’ charitable intent. His efforts serve as a model of the proper stewardship of philanthropic assets.
“He is equally committed to the charities he supports, whether in Denver or the developing world. Mr. Saeman has given of himself to the Catholic Radio Network and the National Jewish Hospital, to the Boy Scouts and the Young Presidents Organization, to Catholic Charities and the Colorado Alliance for Reform in Education. But he also expects from these charities a measure of fidelity in return—and structures his giving accordingly.
“Philanthropy spoke with Mr. Saeman about his work in service to the Catholic Church and his efforts to honor the intent of his friend Bill Daniels—and to ensure his own philanthropic legacy.
“PHILANTHROPY: You were born and raised in a small town in Wisconsin. How does that experience inform your giving today?
“MR. SAEMAN: I grew up in a Midwestern farming community with a population of about 350 people. Generosity was a way of life. We didn’t have homeless people walking the streets. If people came to our town, they had a place to stay. If they were looking for a job, there was always work. People ate regular meals. Some were more fortunate than others, but there was a spirit—not published, not public, not profiled in any way—that people took care of people. If somebody had a need, somehow people were always there to take care of it. If somebody’s barn burned down, there was a barn-raising group that would get together and volunteer to help the farmer put his barn back up.
“My parents were of modest means, but they were very generous. When I was a kid, my dad made $350 per month. I specifically remember one time that they budgeted $1,000 for a local church campaign. I thought, “Wow, how do you do that?” I was just a boy, so it didn’t quite register, but I knew that my parents were committed to the things in life that mattered to them—and that they were willing to make the sacrifices necessary to see them succeed. A person doesn’t forget those things later in life.
“PHILANTHROPY: For 34 years, you worked alongside telecom pioneer Bill Daniels. Would you mind saying a few words about your business partnership?
“MR. SAEMAN: I graduated from Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa, in 1958. Like most people coming out of college back then, I went straight into military service. I joined the Marine Corps. After that, I didn’t know what I was going to do. I didn’t know what my real ambitions were, what my calling in life might be. I would say I went through my first two jobs without any direction.
“Then I met Bill Daniels. He was already a major figure in the cable television industry. He took a liking to me, and I to him, and the rest is history. Bill brought out the best in me, without really trying, just by being who he was and acting how he acted. I watched him closely. I listened to him, I was motivated by him—and I wanted to be a success like him. I wanted to do all the things he did so well: making money, putting people together, being an entrepreneur. He wasn’t a hands-on mentor; he was very much a global guy. He saw everything from 30,000 feet.”
Friday, June 25, 2010
Developing Leaders
It is true that in many ways, leaders are born rather than made, but natural-born leadership can be dramatically refined with education and training and this nonprofit organization, Bizdom, is proving that with its work to help revitalize Detroit.
An excerpt from the New York Times article.
“James Smith Moore, the son of a single mother on Detroit’s east side, knows how to hustle.
“He started a lizard-breeding business at age 15 and sold more than 500 hatchlings online for $15 to $80 apiece.
“At 16, after local stores ran out of a certain popular Nike sneaker, he hired a manufacturer in China to supply him with knock-offs, which he sold for $80 to $200 a pair on his own Web site as well as eBay and other auction sites. Four months later, he received a cease-and-desist letter, but he had made a $14,000 profit, enough to buy his first car.
“This bootstrapping spirit got Mr. Moore, now 21, accepted into Bizdom U, an intense boot camp for aspiring entrepreneurs who aim to start high-growth businesses in Detroit. Bizdom U is the brainchild of Dan Gilbert, a Motor City native who is founder and chairman of the online mortgage lender Quicken Loans. He also hopes to help revitalize his hometown.
“Mr. Gilbert, who owns the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team, is hardly the first wealthy businessman to promote entrepreneurship. Among others, he joins self-made businessmen like Clayton Mathile, the former owner of Iams who also founded Aileron, an academy in Dayton, Ohio, that helps small-business owners with strategic planning; Adeo Ressi, who after a series of lucrative start-ups began the Founder Institute to mentor promising entrepreneurs; and Jeff Sandefer, the energy mogul behind the Acton School of Business in Austin, Tex.
“Bizdom U, however, is unique in its focus on a single city. “Detroit is completely missing an entrepreneurial ecosystem,” said Bo Fishback, who is vice president for entrepreneurship at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which gave Bizdom U a $500,000 grant in 2008.
“Bizdom isn’t catalyzing an existing system; it’s trying to create something almost from scratch,” he said. “It’s an experiment, and we probably won’t know the result for another five years, but if they can build three scalable companies, it could change the landscape of an entire city.”
“Founded in 2006, Bizdom U operates on the principle that entrepreneurs are born, not made. Its program leaders do not necessarily believe entrepreneurship can be taught. “Instead, an essential part of Bizdom U’s job is to unearth candidates with a distinct combination of vision, ambition, drive and risk tolerance, and then mold them into business owners.”
An excerpt from the New York Times article.
“James Smith Moore, the son of a single mother on Detroit’s east side, knows how to hustle.
“He started a lizard-breeding business at age 15 and sold more than 500 hatchlings online for $15 to $80 apiece.
“At 16, after local stores ran out of a certain popular Nike sneaker, he hired a manufacturer in China to supply him with knock-offs, which he sold for $80 to $200 a pair on his own Web site as well as eBay and other auction sites. Four months later, he received a cease-and-desist letter, but he had made a $14,000 profit, enough to buy his first car.
“This bootstrapping spirit got Mr. Moore, now 21, accepted into Bizdom U, an intense boot camp for aspiring entrepreneurs who aim to start high-growth businesses in Detroit. Bizdom U is the brainchild of Dan Gilbert, a Motor City native who is founder and chairman of the online mortgage lender Quicken Loans. He also hopes to help revitalize his hometown.
“Mr. Gilbert, who owns the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team, is hardly the first wealthy businessman to promote entrepreneurship. Among others, he joins self-made businessmen like Clayton Mathile, the former owner of Iams who also founded Aileron, an academy in Dayton, Ohio, that helps small-business owners with strategic planning; Adeo Ressi, who after a series of lucrative start-ups began the Founder Institute to mentor promising entrepreneurs; and Jeff Sandefer, the energy mogul behind the Acton School of Business in Austin, Tex.
“Bizdom U, however, is unique in its focus on a single city. “Detroit is completely missing an entrepreneurial ecosystem,” said Bo Fishback, who is vice president for entrepreneurship at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which gave Bizdom U a $500,000 grant in 2008.
“Bizdom isn’t catalyzing an existing system; it’s trying to create something almost from scratch,” he said. “It’s an experiment, and we probably won’t know the result for another five years, but if they can build three scalable companies, it could change the landscape of an entire city.”
“Founded in 2006, Bizdom U operates on the principle that entrepreneurs are born, not made. Its program leaders do not necessarily believe entrepreneurship can be taught. “Instead, an essential part of Bizdom U’s job is to unearth candidates with a distinct combination of vision, ambition, drive and risk tolerance, and then mold them into business owners.”
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Appeal Letter Tip?
Writing at a 6th grade level, argues this post from Future Fundraising Now, results in more donations.
Personally, I believe you should write letters in the normal way you write, be yourself, and share your passion about your work in the way that is most comfortable and congruent with who you are as the leader of an organization.
An excerpt from the post.
“1) Somebody has no doubt told you this: The best fundraising copy is not higher than the 6th grade reading ease level.
“2) Someone else has told you Our donors are highly educated, it would be a big mistake to talk down to them by writing at a low grade level.
“Statement #1 is correct. Statement #2 is wrong.
“The standard way reading ease is measured is the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, which applies a calculation to sentence length and number of three-syllable words to come up with a "grade level."
“Here's the important thing about reading grade levels: It's not about education. It's about ease of comprehension. Low grade level copy is not "talking down" to educated readers or treating them like children. Think of it instead as a form of courtesy, like enunciating clearly when you talk. The most super-educated PhD. will appreciate and respond to copy that's easy to read.”
Personally, I believe you should write letters in the normal way you write, be yourself, and share your passion about your work in the way that is most comfortable and congruent with who you are as the leader of an organization.
An excerpt from the post.
“1) Somebody has no doubt told you this: The best fundraising copy is not higher than the 6th grade reading ease level.
“2) Someone else has told you Our donors are highly educated, it would be a big mistake to talk down to them by writing at a low grade level.
“Statement #1 is correct. Statement #2 is wrong.
“The standard way reading ease is measured is the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, which applies a calculation to sentence length and number of three-syllable words to come up with a "grade level."
“Here's the important thing about reading grade levels: It's not about education. It's about ease of comprehension. Low grade level copy is not "talking down" to educated readers or treating them like children. Think of it instead as a form of courtesy, like enunciating clearly when you talk. The most super-educated PhD. will appreciate and respond to copy that's easy to read.”
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
County Moves Program to Nonprofit
In what is becoming a timely strategy—see previous post—Sacramento County moves another of its programs to a nonprofit, as reported by the Sacramento Bee.
An excerpt.
“A longtime provider of a range of programs for Sacramento's elderly population, the nonprofit Asian Community Center takes over sponsorship and operation of Sacramento County's 35-year-old senior nutrition program on July 1.
“Meals on Wheels provides lunches for 1,400 older adults.
"Our big hope is that in August, most of our consumers will say, 'What change?' " said Donna Yee, ACC's chief operating officer. "Our intent is to serve all the seniors being served now and to do some outreach.
"There's more capacity in the program to serve more seniors in congregant sites as well as at home."
“Under its new stewardship, a separate nonprofit called Meals on Wheels by ACC, the nutrition program will continue delivering boxes of frozen meals each week to most of its participants, said Yee.
“The county switched to weekly frozen five-packs from daily hot lunches late last year in an effort to trim costs and save the program, which faced elimination because of massive budget cuts.
“About 150 frail seniors will continue receiving hot meals daily, Yee said, and will thus receive daily monitoring by program volunteers and staff.”
An excerpt.
“A longtime provider of a range of programs for Sacramento's elderly population, the nonprofit Asian Community Center takes over sponsorship and operation of Sacramento County's 35-year-old senior nutrition program on July 1.
“Meals on Wheels provides lunches for 1,400 older adults.
"Our big hope is that in August, most of our consumers will say, 'What change?' " said Donna Yee, ACC's chief operating officer. "Our intent is to serve all the seniors being served now and to do some outreach.
"There's more capacity in the program to serve more seniors in congregant sites as well as at home."
“Under its new stewardship, a separate nonprofit called Meals on Wheels by ACC, the nutrition program will continue delivering boxes of frozen meals each week to most of its participants, said Yee.
“The county switched to weekly frozen five-packs from daily hot lunches late last year in an effort to trim costs and save the program, which faced elimination because of massive budget cuts.
“About 150 frail seniors will continue receiving hot meals daily, Yee said, and will thus receive daily monitoring by program volunteers and staff.”
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Local Groups Funded
A local foundation granted funds to several local organizations, as reported by the Sacramento Business Journal.
An excerpt.
“Nine local nonprofits collectively have received $216,009 from Sierra Health Foundation.
“The Sacramento-based foundation awarded 21 grants totaling more than $500,000 in this year’s first funding round of the organization’s Responsive Grants Program. Of those, nine went to nonprofits and public agencies in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Yolo counties.
“Sierra Health Foundation plans to give a total of $1 million to the program this year….
“The local recipients in the first round are: KidsFirst in Placer County; Yolo Family Service Agency in Yolo County; New Morning Youth and Family Services and Tahoe Youth and Family Services, both in El Dorado County; and in Sacramento County, Challenging Their Destiny Dream Builders, Hmong Women’s Heritage Association, Linkage to Education, River City Community Services and Triad Family Services.”
An excerpt.
“Nine local nonprofits collectively have received $216,009 from Sierra Health Foundation.
“The Sacramento-based foundation awarded 21 grants totaling more than $500,000 in this year’s first funding round of the organization’s Responsive Grants Program. Of those, nine went to nonprofits and public agencies in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Yolo counties.
“Sierra Health Foundation plans to give a total of $1 million to the program this year….
“The local recipients in the first round are: KidsFirst in Placer County; Yolo Family Service Agency in Yolo County; New Morning Youth and Family Services and Tahoe Youth and Family Services, both in El Dorado County; and in Sacramento County, Challenging Their Destiny Dream Builders, Hmong Women’s Heritage Association, Linkage to Education, River City Community Services and Triad Family Services.”
Monday, June 21, 2010
Government Funded Nonprofits
During good times these groups do very well, but during times like we are now living under, not so good, as reported by the Nonprofit Quarterly.
An excerpt.
“In Pennsylvania, the prospect of a prolonged state budget battle isn’t new. Last year, the legislature passed a budget three months after the state’s constitutionally mandated June 30th deadline. Nonprofits are girding themselves for another prolonged state budget battle. There’s no penalty on the state for missing the deadline, but there is a cost to nonprofits if they have to wait indefinitely for state funding contingent on passage of a permanent budget.
“Pennsylvania’s budget impasse was headline stuff in 2009, but other states seem ready to compete for blowing budget deadlines this year. California’s budget deadline was June 15, but the legislature is going to miss that deadline again, unable to agree on how to resolve a $19 billion projected deficit. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed ending the state’s welfare programs as one way of reducing the budget gap.
“In Illinois, the projected cuts to close that state’s $13 billion deficit will whack numerous nonprofit services, including eliminating all non-Medicaid funding for community-based mental health providers. One way Illinois appears to handle its budget is by not paying its vendors: the state is already overdue on $5.5 billion in payments to contractors.
“In New York State, the government operates by virtue of temporary budget extender bills, but that doesn’t mean timely payments to nonprofit service providers. Mental health groups in New York State waiting for payments that will not be made in July are facing a “crisis of immense proportion,” according to advocates.”
An excerpt.
“In Pennsylvania, the prospect of a prolonged state budget battle isn’t new. Last year, the legislature passed a budget three months after the state’s constitutionally mandated June 30th deadline. Nonprofits are girding themselves for another prolonged state budget battle. There’s no penalty on the state for missing the deadline, but there is a cost to nonprofits if they have to wait indefinitely for state funding contingent on passage of a permanent budget.
“Pennsylvania’s budget impasse was headline stuff in 2009, but other states seem ready to compete for blowing budget deadlines this year. California’s budget deadline was June 15, but the legislature is going to miss that deadline again, unable to agree on how to resolve a $19 billion projected deficit. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed ending the state’s welfare programs as one way of reducing the budget gap.
“In Illinois, the projected cuts to close that state’s $13 billion deficit will whack numerous nonprofit services, including eliminating all non-Medicaid funding for community-based mental health providers. One way Illinois appears to handle its budget is by not paying its vendors: the state is already overdue on $5.5 billion in payments to contractors.
“In New York State, the government operates by virtue of temporary budget extender bills, but that doesn’t mean timely payments to nonprofit service providers. Mental health groups in New York State waiting for payments that will not be made in July are facing a “crisis of immense proportion,” according to advocates.”
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Local Nonprofit & Social Enterprise
It is always encouraging when grassroots nonprofits (as has this program helping families without fathers) develop a social enterprise capability—the Social Enterprise Alliance has great expertise in the field—reported by the Sacramento Business Journal.
An excerpt.
“St. John’s Shelter Program for Women & Children, a Sacramento shelter for homeless women with children, is launching a restaurant and catering service next week.
“Plates Cafe and Catering Project is scheduled to open June 23 in the Depot Park industrial complex at Florin-Perkins and Fruitridge roads in Sacramento, St. John’s executive director Michele Steeb said.
“Plates Cafe will serve breakfast and lunch Monday though Friday, as the only on-site food-service provider for the 2,500 workers at the industrial park. Catering services will start later.
“The cafe and catering service will provide employment to women being served by St. John’s while training them for careers in food service, catering, retail and hospitality, according to a program summary. The goal is to prepare these women with children for industries that tend to offer flexible work schedules, and help them become self-sufficient.
“Simultaneously, Plates will generate funds for St. John’s.”
An excerpt.
“St. John’s Shelter Program for Women & Children, a Sacramento shelter for homeless women with children, is launching a restaurant and catering service next week.
“Plates Cafe and Catering Project is scheduled to open June 23 in the Depot Park industrial complex at Florin-Perkins and Fruitridge roads in Sacramento, St. John’s executive director Michele Steeb said.
“Plates Cafe will serve breakfast and lunch Monday though Friday, as the only on-site food-service provider for the 2,500 workers at the industrial park. Catering services will start later.
“The cafe and catering service will provide employment to women being served by St. John’s while training them for careers in food service, catering, retail and hospitality, according to a program summary. The goal is to prepare these women with children for industries that tend to offer flexible work schedules, and help them become self-sufficient.
“Simultaneously, Plates will generate funds for St. John’s.”
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Sacramento’s Volunteers
1) The Sacramento Business Journal reports that volunteering in Sacramento has increased, and that is very good news, though other areas of the country are still doing better.
An excerpt.
“More Sacramento-area residents volunteered and donated more hours to nonprofits last year since 2005, according to a closely watched report released Tuesday.
“Almost 415,000 residents in the region donated time to nonprofits last year, with the average person volunteering 40.1 hours per year — both are the highest rates since the 423,000 volunteers and 56.7 hours in 2005, the height of the boom market. However, a lower percentage of Sacramento-area residents volunteered last year, 25.8 percent compared to 28 percent in 2008 and 29.3 percent in 2005, the highest-ever percentage of participation.
“The average annual hours donated and the percentage of participation in the Sacramento region are higher than the statewide average, but pale compared to many other cities and states.”
2) The national volunteering picture is noted in the news release from the Corporation for National and Community Service.
An excerpt.
“Washington, DC – Despite difficult economic times, the number of Americans volunteering in their communities jumped by 1.6 million last year, the largest increase in six years, according to a report released today by the Corporation for National and Community Service.
“The Corporation's annual Volunteering in America report found that 63.4 million Americans volunteered through a formal organization last year, giving more than 8.1 billion hours of volunteer service worth an estimated $169 billion.
“Americans have responded to tough economic times by volunteering in big numbers,” said Patrick Corvington, the Corporation's CEO. “What we're seeing is the depth of the American spirit and generosity at its best. People are turning toward problems, working with their neighbors to find solutions to real problems, from homelessness to the dropout crisis.”
“Previous research would suggest that volunteering should drop during an economic downturn, because volunteer rates are higher among job-holders and homeowners. Instead, volunteering increased at the fastest rate in six years, and the volunteer rate went up among all race and ethnic groups.”
An excerpt.
“More Sacramento-area residents volunteered and donated more hours to nonprofits last year since 2005, according to a closely watched report released Tuesday.
“Almost 415,000 residents in the region donated time to nonprofits last year, with the average person volunteering 40.1 hours per year — both are the highest rates since the 423,000 volunteers and 56.7 hours in 2005, the height of the boom market. However, a lower percentage of Sacramento-area residents volunteered last year, 25.8 percent compared to 28 percent in 2008 and 29.3 percent in 2005, the highest-ever percentage of participation.
“The average annual hours donated and the percentage of participation in the Sacramento region are higher than the statewide average, but pale compared to many other cities and states.”
2) The national volunteering picture is noted in the news release from the Corporation for National and Community Service.
An excerpt.
“Washington, DC – Despite difficult economic times, the number of Americans volunteering in their communities jumped by 1.6 million last year, the largest increase in six years, according to a report released today by the Corporation for National and Community Service.
“The Corporation's annual Volunteering in America report found that 63.4 million Americans volunteered through a formal organization last year, giving more than 8.1 billion hours of volunteer service worth an estimated $169 billion.
“Americans have responded to tough economic times by volunteering in big numbers,” said Patrick Corvington, the Corporation's CEO. “What we're seeing is the depth of the American spirit and generosity at its best. People are turning toward problems, working with their neighbors to find solutions to real problems, from homelessness to the dropout crisis.”
“Previous research would suggest that volunteering should drop during an economic downturn, because volunteer rates are higher among job-holders and homeowners. Instead, volunteering increased at the fastest rate in six years, and the volunteer rate went up among all race and ethnic groups.”
Friday, June 18, 2010
Foundation Mystique, Funding, & Support
This study validates the accepted wisdom among most nonprofits who seek foundation funding—that the foundations are aloof and isolated—rather than effective partners in the important work of community and individual transformation animating nonprofits.
1) Foundations as partners with nonprofits is noted by McIlnay:
“Foundations and nonprofit organizations are often thought of as partners in solving the nation’s problems, but the evidence shows that the partnership is troubled at best. Both parties often violate each other’s trust.
“The Metaphor of Foundations as Partners.
“Foundations and nonprofits are an alliance in the search for solutions to society’s problems, according to this metaphor. But though foundation rhetoric often agrees, the analogy is not especially true because the association is asymmetric: foundations have the money and applicants do not. The metaphor of foundations as partners, therefore, like the metaphors of foundations as activists and entrepreneurs, is more perception than reality.
“The imbalance of power gives foundation philanthropy a mystique that is difficult to penetrate and causes considerable apprehension and intimidation in nonprofits, contributing to their perception of themselves as subservient to foundations. There is power in making grant decisions and a certain arbitrariness as well; some grantseekers believe that the more freedom foundations have, the more that prejudice and even abuse enter the decision-making process.” (pp. 150-151)
McIlnay, D.P. (1998). How foundations work: What grantseekers need to know about the many faces of foundations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2) An excerpt from the press release announcing the study about foundations.
“A new report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) finds that nonprofits do not perceive funders to have communicated their responses to the economic downturn clearly, if at all. They also report that funders have offered them little useful help in responding to the challenges of the downturn.
“CEP began asking grantees about their funders’ communications and helpfulness in response to the downturn in the last half of 2009. A Time of Need: Nonprofits Report Poor Communication and Little Help from Foundations During the Economic Downturn, analyzes data gathered from surveys of over 6,000 grantees of 37 foundations.
• Thirty percent of grantees indicated that there was no communication from their funders about their own response to the economic climate, and of those that did report receiving communication, 22 percent indicate that the funder’s response was unclear.
“These findings are sobering,” says Ellie Buteau, vice president – research. “This is almost three times the number of grantees that rate other communications from their funder as unclear.”
• Buteau and research analyst Shahryar Minhas, the report’s co-authors, also found that a full third of grantees surveyed indicated that their funders had not helped them at all during the downturn.”
1) Foundations as partners with nonprofits is noted by McIlnay:
“Foundations and nonprofit organizations are often thought of as partners in solving the nation’s problems, but the evidence shows that the partnership is troubled at best. Both parties often violate each other’s trust.
“The Metaphor of Foundations as Partners.
“Foundations and nonprofits are an alliance in the search for solutions to society’s problems, according to this metaphor. But though foundation rhetoric often agrees, the analogy is not especially true because the association is asymmetric: foundations have the money and applicants do not. The metaphor of foundations as partners, therefore, like the metaphors of foundations as activists and entrepreneurs, is more perception than reality.
“The imbalance of power gives foundation philanthropy a mystique that is difficult to penetrate and causes considerable apprehension and intimidation in nonprofits, contributing to their perception of themselves as subservient to foundations. There is power in making grant decisions and a certain arbitrariness as well; some grantseekers believe that the more freedom foundations have, the more that prejudice and even abuse enter the decision-making process.” (pp. 150-151)
McIlnay, D.P. (1998). How foundations work: What grantseekers need to know about the many faces of foundations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2) An excerpt from the press release announcing the study about foundations.
“A new report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) finds that nonprofits do not perceive funders to have communicated their responses to the economic downturn clearly, if at all. They also report that funders have offered them little useful help in responding to the challenges of the downturn.
“CEP began asking grantees about their funders’ communications and helpfulness in response to the downturn in the last half of 2009. A Time of Need: Nonprofits Report Poor Communication and Little Help from Foundations During the Economic Downturn, analyzes data gathered from surveys of over 6,000 grantees of 37 foundations.
• Thirty percent of grantees indicated that there was no communication from their funders about their own response to the economic climate, and of those that did report receiving communication, 22 percent indicate that the funder’s response was unclear.
“These findings are sobering,” says Ellie Buteau, vice president – research. “This is almost three times the number of grantees that rate other communications from their funder as unclear.”
• Buteau and research analyst Shahryar Minhas, the report’s co-authors, also found that a full third of grantees surveyed indicated that their funders had not helped them at all during the downturn.”
Thursday, June 17, 2010
New Resource
SubsidyScope, a project of the Pew Charitable Trust, has opened a website to present data on the nonprofit/federal government linkage.
An excerpt from the website Overview.
“Subsidyscope presents government data and summary statistics on federal programs and tax policies that provide subsidies to nonprofit organizations. It is challenging to assemble and present spending and subsidy data regarding the nonprofit sector because the federal government does not identify nonprofits as a distinct budget category. Further, federal budget data are of uncertain quality; specifically, the data available through USAspending.gov are incomplete because certain program information is missing for a number of records, making it difficult to discern which specific agencies and programs may be awarding funds to nonprofits.
“Nonetheless, while Subsidyscope’s analysis found many data quality issues with grant, contract and risk transfer information, we discovered that the nonprofit sector is overwhelmingly subsidized through indirect means, namely through tax subsidies. Subsidyscope determined that the government data on tax subsidies is generally of higher quality than data on grants, contracts and risk transfers because tax expenditures are estimated by one agency, the Treasury Department, while the data on grants, contracts and risk transfers originate from many different agencies that differ in interpretation of, and compliance with, reporting requirements. Thus, the highest quality data coincide with the largest source of subsidies to the nonprofit sector.
“One of the oldest sectors in our economy, nonprofits have had a constantly evolving relationship with the federal government—from their roots in colonial voluntary organizations to the robust sector of nearly 1.8 million nonprofits that exists today in the United States. As the Urban Institute reports, in 2007:
• the nonprofit sector accounted for 5 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product;
• the sector owns close to 5 percent of private sector net worth; and
• it employs over 8 percent of the labor force (excluding volunteers).”
An excerpt from the website Overview.
“Subsidyscope presents government data and summary statistics on federal programs and tax policies that provide subsidies to nonprofit organizations. It is challenging to assemble and present spending and subsidy data regarding the nonprofit sector because the federal government does not identify nonprofits as a distinct budget category. Further, federal budget data are of uncertain quality; specifically, the data available through USAspending.gov are incomplete because certain program information is missing for a number of records, making it difficult to discern which specific agencies and programs may be awarding funds to nonprofits.
“Nonetheless, while Subsidyscope’s analysis found many data quality issues with grant, contract and risk transfer information, we discovered that the nonprofit sector is overwhelmingly subsidized through indirect means, namely through tax subsidies. Subsidyscope determined that the government data on tax subsidies is generally of higher quality than data on grants, contracts and risk transfers because tax expenditures are estimated by one agency, the Treasury Department, while the data on grants, contracts and risk transfers originate from many different agencies that differ in interpretation of, and compliance with, reporting requirements. Thus, the highest quality data coincide with the largest source of subsidies to the nonprofit sector.
“One of the oldest sectors in our economy, nonprofits have had a constantly evolving relationship with the federal government—from their roots in colonial voluntary organizations to the robust sector of nearly 1.8 million nonprofits that exists today in the United States. As the Urban Institute reports, in 2007:
• the nonprofit sector accounted for 5 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product;
• the sector owns close to 5 percent of private sector net worth; and
• it employs over 8 percent of the labor force (excluding volunteers).”
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Cause Marketing
Many nonprofits use this format to reach people, and done well, it is a very good thing, but done to excess, it is a very bad thing.
This post from the Advertising Age blog looks at that.
An excerpt.
“Those of us engaged in cause branding in 2010 can't conceive of its demise. But as true believers, we also must avoid being naive about practices that can erode its effectiveness as a brand builder and a vehicle for societal change. A recent unscientific poll conducted here on AdAge.com asked for our collective opinions about whether or not cause marketing was doomed because of overexposure to the consumer. A wide margin of those who responded said consumer fatigue was going to happen. Are they right, or were they just the usual vocal minority of people who find it easy to criticize without offering suggestions?
“What I do believe consumers will grow tired of are product promotions that masquerade as cause marketing programs. Product promotions are designed to do one thing: Sell products. Simply adding a donation from the sales proceeds doesn't qualify as real cause branding anymore. Cause has to be about engaging the consumer beyond the sale of one product. Companies need to demonstrate that they care about the cause every day, not just the day of the transaction.
“Likewise, nonprofits need to be mindful of the types of corporate partnerships they pursue. While the money from a purely transactional cause-marketing program may be tempting, nonprofits should make sure the partnership makes sense. Is there a natural tie between the corporation and the nonprofit, or is it forced? Will the consumer remember anything about the cause once the promotion ends? And what will the money being donated specifically fund?
“When cause marketing is done well, no explanation is needed. The partnership instantly makes sense. The consumer is engaged repeatedly throughout the year. And everyone knows where the money is going and what it will accomplish. The true power and reach of cause marketing is missed if companies are simply slapping a nonprofit logo on a consumer product and thinking the consumer will remember them after the transaction is over.”
This post from the Advertising Age blog looks at that.
An excerpt.
“Those of us engaged in cause branding in 2010 can't conceive of its demise. But as true believers, we also must avoid being naive about practices that can erode its effectiveness as a brand builder and a vehicle for societal change. A recent unscientific poll conducted here on AdAge.com asked for our collective opinions about whether or not cause marketing was doomed because of overexposure to the consumer. A wide margin of those who responded said consumer fatigue was going to happen. Are they right, or were they just the usual vocal minority of people who find it easy to criticize without offering suggestions?
“What I do believe consumers will grow tired of are product promotions that masquerade as cause marketing programs. Product promotions are designed to do one thing: Sell products. Simply adding a donation from the sales proceeds doesn't qualify as real cause branding anymore. Cause has to be about engaging the consumer beyond the sale of one product. Companies need to demonstrate that they care about the cause every day, not just the day of the transaction.
“Likewise, nonprofits need to be mindful of the types of corporate partnerships they pursue. While the money from a purely transactional cause-marketing program may be tempting, nonprofits should make sure the partnership makes sense. Is there a natural tie between the corporation and the nonprofit, or is it forced? Will the consumer remember anything about the cause once the promotion ends? And what will the money being donated specifically fund?
“When cause marketing is done well, no explanation is needed. The partnership instantly makes sense. The consumer is engaged repeatedly throughout the year. And everyone knows where the money is going and what it will accomplish. The true power and reach of cause marketing is missed if companies are simply slapping a nonprofit logo on a consumer product and thinking the consumer will remember them after the transaction is over.”
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Nonprofits & Transformation
Transformation, whether of individuals or communities, is often the animating drive of nonprofit formation, and when it is combined with individual talent, ample resources—which can be passion and persistence as much as money—the transformation desired can occur, and this article from Governing is about transformation from the ground up.
An excerpt.
“Government reformers often seem to believe that transformation is a matter of simply showing officials a better, proven way to "do government" better, faster and cheaper. As though all we need to do is spread the good word, provide technical assistance and then watch in delight as governments transform themselves across the country.
“Transformation doesn't work that way.
“Increasing the "supply" of government transformation is not enough. The Center for Creative Leadership posits that transformation happens when the combination of demand, vision, knowledge and belief exceed resistance. Reformers have worked hard on creating and sharing the vision, knowledge and examples of transformed government. Unfortunately, we have yet to significantly increase the demand side of the equation among the general public or the public workforce.
“Without a strong "demand," transformation will continue to muddle forward haltingly at best. Even with today's revenue crunch and drastic cuts screaming that we cannot incrementally improve our way forward, we continue to resist big change. Such is the power of the bureaucratic paradigm. Too often, demand for change is low and resistance wins.
“Most observers also realize that simply railing at government and "starving the beast" does not produce better government, just less government, sometimes. A better option exists. Instead of painfully cutting money and people out of the way we do things now, transformation presents a better path -- though certainly not an easy one -- to closing budget gaps without raising taxes.
“So what does constructive "demand" for transformed government look like? A couple of examples come to mind.
“In Virginia, the business community became frustrated with state government's short-term thinking, exacerbated by governors limited to one term. Led by John "Dubby" Wynne, the Virginia Business Council approached the governor at that time, Mark Warner, and basically said that political campaign contributions would cease unless state government became more strategic and performance oriented.
“Warner responded and subsequent governors have built on that progress. The Council on Virginia's Future, Virginia Performs and the rest of the state's performance system are now award-winning national models. The business community still solidly backs these efforts, regularly seeking commitments from gubernatorial candidates to maintain a strategic and performance focus for the state.
“In Dallas, former CEO Don Williams illustrates how one person can create "demand." On stepping down from full-time leadership at Trammel Crow, a major real estate firm, Don launched himself into making Dallas a better place, particularly for those in South Dallas areas blighted by the legacies of segregation, poverty and neglect.
“He created the Foundation for Community Empowerment to be "a change agent to marshall people, data, ideas and resources to lift up South Dallas and make Dallas a whole city." Don's civic engagement and leadership have led to:
• Dallas Achieves, a strategy to improve challenged urban schools;
• Frazier Redevelopment Initiative, a community redevelopment arm for Dallas’s "Lower Ninth Ward;" and
• The J. MacDonald Williams Institute, gathering, analyzing and sharing data to "prove up" anecdotal claims of poor residents to guide and support improvements in housing, health, civic culture, economic development and political engagement.”
An excerpt.
“Government reformers often seem to believe that transformation is a matter of simply showing officials a better, proven way to "do government" better, faster and cheaper. As though all we need to do is spread the good word, provide technical assistance and then watch in delight as governments transform themselves across the country.
“Transformation doesn't work that way.
“Increasing the "supply" of government transformation is not enough. The Center for Creative Leadership posits that transformation happens when the combination of demand, vision, knowledge and belief exceed resistance. Reformers have worked hard on creating and sharing the vision, knowledge and examples of transformed government. Unfortunately, we have yet to significantly increase the demand side of the equation among the general public or the public workforce.
“Without a strong "demand," transformation will continue to muddle forward haltingly at best. Even with today's revenue crunch and drastic cuts screaming that we cannot incrementally improve our way forward, we continue to resist big change. Such is the power of the bureaucratic paradigm. Too often, demand for change is low and resistance wins.
“Most observers also realize that simply railing at government and "starving the beast" does not produce better government, just less government, sometimes. A better option exists. Instead of painfully cutting money and people out of the way we do things now, transformation presents a better path -- though certainly not an easy one -- to closing budget gaps without raising taxes.
“So what does constructive "demand" for transformed government look like? A couple of examples come to mind.
“In Virginia, the business community became frustrated with state government's short-term thinking, exacerbated by governors limited to one term. Led by John "Dubby" Wynne, the Virginia Business Council approached the governor at that time, Mark Warner, and basically said that political campaign contributions would cease unless state government became more strategic and performance oriented.
“Warner responded and subsequent governors have built on that progress. The Council on Virginia's Future, Virginia Performs and the rest of the state's performance system are now award-winning national models. The business community still solidly backs these efforts, regularly seeking commitments from gubernatorial candidates to maintain a strategic and performance focus for the state.
“In Dallas, former CEO Don Williams illustrates how one person can create "demand." On stepping down from full-time leadership at Trammel Crow, a major real estate firm, Don launched himself into making Dallas a better place, particularly for those in South Dallas areas blighted by the legacies of segregation, poverty and neglect.
“He created the Foundation for Community Empowerment to be "a change agent to marshall people, data, ideas and resources to lift up South Dallas and make Dallas a whole city." Don's civic engagement and leadership have led to:
• Dallas Achieves, a strategy to improve challenged urban schools;
• Frazier Redevelopment Initiative, a community redevelopment arm for Dallas’s "Lower Ninth Ward;" and
• The J. MacDonald Williams Institute, gathering, analyzing and sharing data to "prove up" anecdotal claims of poor residents to guide and support improvements in housing, health, civic culture, economic development and political engagement.”
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Government & Nonprofits
This article from the San Mateo Daily Journal raises the question if government should fund nonprofits and the answer is yes and no.
Yes, if there is a mutual mission addressing the public good, which government and specific nonprofits are partnering on; and no, if not.
Subsidairity should also play a role here, and each mutual mission decision should be decided at the local level, so this local discussion is an excellent one.
An excerpt.
“Before Charlie Bronitsky was elected to the Foster City Council in November he did not realize the city was in the practice of doling out money to area nonprofits every year.
“Monday night, freshman councilman Bronitsky voted against all 12 requests the city received by nonprofit agencies for funding, with Mayor Rick Wykoff voting against the funding for most of the requests as well.
"Bronitsky’s stance is that the city should not be spending taxpayer money to fund nonprofit agencies at all.
“Wykoff, however, considers the request on a case-by-case basis, he said. Councilmembers Art Kiesel, Pam Frisella and Linda Koelling, however, approved most of the requests, although many were lower than the dollar amount sought.
“The city’s website currently features an opinion piece authored by Bronitsky that states the city should stop funding nonprofit agencies altogether.
“His contention worries some local nonprofit leaders, though, who hope his wave of thought doesn’t spread to other councilmembers in other cities.
“The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County provided services to 43 low-income households in Foster City last year, said Executive Director Lauren Zorfas.
“The society helped keep families in their homes who may have faced foreclosure due to medical conditions, for instance, Zorfas said.
“Cities and nonprofits need to get creative in leveraging limited resources to keep people housed, healthy and fed,” Zorfas said. Cities would have to pay more for public safety and other services without the support nonprofits provide for the most vulnerable, she said.
“The nonprofits that requested funding were CALL Primrose, PARCA, Samaritan House, San Mateo County Jobs for Youth, Shelter Network, Foster City Amateur Radio Emergency Services, Hillbarn Theatre, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, Sustainable San Mateo County, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Sustainable Silicon Valley.”
Yes, if there is a mutual mission addressing the public good, which government and specific nonprofits are partnering on; and no, if not.
Subsidairity should also play a role here, and each mutual mission decision should be decided at the local level, so this local discussion is an excellent one.
An excerpt.
“Before Charlie Bronitsky was elected to the Foster City Council in November he did not realize the city was in the practice of doling out money to area nonprofits every year.
“Monday night, freshman councilman Bronitsky voted against all 12 requests the city received by nonprofit agencies for funding, with Mayor Rick Wykoff voting against the funding for most of the requests as well.
"Bronitsky’s stance is that the city should not be spending taxpayer money to fund nonprofit agencies at all.
“Wykoff, however, considers the request on a case-by-case basis, he said. Councilmembers Art Kiesel, Pam Frisella and Linda Koelling, however, approved most of the requests, although many were lower than the dollar amount sought.
“The city’s website currently features an opinion piece authored by Bronitsky that states the city should stop funding nonprofit agencies altogether.
“His contention worries some local nonprofit leaders, though, who hope his wave of thought doesn’t spread to other councilmembers in other cities.
“The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County provided services to 43 low-income households in Foster City last year, said Executive Director Lauren Zorfas.
“The society helped keep families in their homes who may have faced foreclosure due to medical conditions, for instance, Zorfas said.
“Cities and nonprofits need to get creative in leveraging limited resources to keep people housed, healthy and fed,” Zorfas said. Cities would have to pay more for public safety and other services without the support nonprofits provide for the most vulnerable, she said.
“The nonprofits that requested funding were CALL Primrose, PARCA, Samaritan House, San Mateo County Jobs for Youth, Shelter Network, Foster City Amateur Radio Emergency Services, Hillbarn Theatre, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, Sustainable San Mateo County, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Sustainable Silicon Valley.”
Friday, June 11, 2010
Growing to Scale
Being able to grow your nonprofit organization to the size your mission and social needs indicate is possible, is very difficult, and many attempts to replicate a successful organization fail.
This article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review discusses that.
An excerpt.
“Fifteen years ago, I started doing research on the challenges of taking nonprofits to scale. The topic was still under the radar both in the university and out in the field. My focus was growth through replication, and when I presented papers and case studies, nonprofit audiences often dismissed the ideas as “too corporate.” As one audience member said to me: “We are not McDonald’s. You cannot use a cookie cutter to replicate the work we do.”
“At almost exactly the same time, however, social entrepreneurs began developing new models for expanding organizations through replication in new locations. Their organizations grew to become nationally recognized nonprofits such as Teach for America and Habitat for Humanity, as well as internationally known nongovernmental organizations such as Bangladesh-based BRAC. These organizations have found that scaling is anything but an exercise in cutting cookies, as it requires not only fidelity to core processes and programs, but also constant adjustments to local needs and resources.
“Today, there may be no idea with greater currency in the social sector than “scaling what works.” In its first year, the Obama administration announced several multimillion- or billion-dollar programs that focus on expanding proven-effective programs to new locations. As the president put it, “Instead of wasting taxpayer money on programs that are obsolete or ineffective, government should be seeking out creative, results-oriented programs … and helping them replicate their efforts across America.”
“This effort builds on the work of innovative social entrepreneurs and represents an opportunity to address some of society’s most intractable problems. At the same time, however, nonprofit leaders and philanthropists are searching for ways to scale impact beyond adding sites. Put simply, the question now is “How can we get 100x the impact with only a 2x change in the size of the organization?”
“Because this way of thinking about growth is quite new, social entrepreneurs are still figuring out the best ways to scale impact. But pioneers have identified some tools and strategies that expand the impact of organizations well beyond what their size would seem capable of generating.
“CONVERT BRICKS TO CLICKS
“Many organizations are using the Web to expand their impact without increasing their numbers of boots on the ground. In these so-called “bricks-to-clicks” models, they create toolkits and platforms that users can readily adopt. For example, KaBOOM! helps communities build new playgrounds for children. In its first 10 years, KaBOOM! built nearly 750 playgrounds. But its reach was partly limited by the number of staff it could deploy to each site.
“Then KaBOOM! shifted from hands-on management to a Webbased platform that helps communities organize their projects. The result: approximately 4,000 more playgrounds in just three years. Similar bricks-to-clicks models are under way in mentoring, advocacy, and other fields.
“Social media likewise hold much promise for scaling impact through knowledge sharing, network building, campaigns, and collaborations. Wikimedia is perhaps the most well-known social media outlet, with a global community of about 100,000 citizen-editors and 345 million unique visitors a month on Wikipedia. Another site, Ushahidi, founded in Kenya to expose election fraud, has been used to expose government violence in Iran and to locate trapped victims of the Haiti earthquake.”
This article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review discusses that.
An excerpt.
“Fifteen years ago, I started doing research on the challenges of taking nonprofits to scale. The topic was still under the radar both in the university and out in the field. My focus was growth through replication, and when I presented papers and case studies, nonprofit audiences often dismissed the ideas as “too corporate.” As one audience member said to me: “We are not McDonald’s. You cannot use a cookie cutter to replicate the work we do.”
“At almost exactly the same time, however, social entrepreneurs began developing new models for expanding organizations through replication in new locations. Their organizations grew to become nationally recognized nonprofits such as Teach for America and Habitat for Humanity, as well as internationally known nongovernmental organizations such as Bangladesh-based BRAC. These organizations have found that scaling is anything but an exercise in cutting cookies, as it requires not only fidelity to core processes and programs, but also constant adjustments to local needs and resources.
“Today, there may be no idea with greater currency in the social sector than “scaling what works.” In its first year, the Obama administration announced several multimillion- or billion-dollar programs that focus on expanding proven-effective programs to new locations. As the president put it, “Instead of wasting taxpayer money on programs that are obsolete or ineffective, government should be seeking out creative, results-oriented programs … and helping them replicate their efforts across America.”
“This effort builds on the work of innovative social entrepreneurs and represents an opportunity to address some of society’s most intractable problems. At the same time, however, nonprofit leaders and philanthropists are searching for ways to scale impact beyond adding sites. Put simply, the question now is “How can we get 100x the impact with only a 2x change in the size of the organization?”
“Because this way of thinking about growth is quite new, social entrepreneurs are still figuring out the best ways to scale impact. But pioneers have identified some tools and strategies that expand the impact of organizations well beyond what their size would seem capable of generating.
“CONVERT BRICKS TO CLICKS
“Many organizations are using the Web to expand their impact without increasing their numbers of boots on the ground. In these so-called “bricks-to-clicks” models, they create toolkits and platforms that users can readily adopt. For example, KaBOOM! helps communities build new playgrounds for children. In its first 10 years, KaBOOM! built nearly 750 playgrounds. But its reach was partly limited by the number of staff it could deploy to each site.
“Then KaBOOM! shifted from hands-on management to a Webbased platform that helps communities organize their projects. The result: approximately 4,000 more playgrounds in just three years. Similar bricks-to-clicks models are under way in mentoring, advocacy, and other fields.
“Social media likewise hold much promise for scaling impact through knowledge sharing, network building, campaigns, and collaborations. Wikimedia is perhaps the most well-known social media outlet, with a global community of about 100,000 citizen-editors and 345 million unique visitors a month on Wikipedia. Another site, Ushahidi, founded in Kenya to expose election fraud, has been used to expose government violence in Iran and to locate trapped victims of the Haiti earthquake.”
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Online Fund Raising
Nonprofit Quarterly Newswire reports on a new study of online giving.
An excerpt.
“A study released on Tuesday shows that online giving is on the rise, increasing 14 percent last year, despite challenging economic conditions. Other findings from the annual Convio Online Marketing and Nonprofit Benchmark Index Study include: overall, some 69 percent of the 499 organizations surveyed reported an increase in online fundraising over the previous year, with the balance reporting a dip in giving. The jump was attributed to numbers of gifts, with 92 percent of respondents reporting an increase, while 43 percent saw the amount of their average gift climb over 2009.
“Smaller organizations—those with fewer than 10,000 email addresses on file—also seemed to do the best. Their online revenues increased by 26 percent and numbers of gifts were up 32 percent.”
An excerpt.
“A study released on Tuesday shows that online giving is on the rise, increasing 14 percent last year, despite challenging economic conditions. Other findings from the annual Convio Online Marketing and Nonprofit Benchmark Index Study include: overall, some 69 percent of the 499 organizations surveyed reported an increase in online fundraising over the previous year, with the balance reporting a dip in giving. The jump was attributed to numbers of gifts, with 92 percent of respondents reporting an increase, while 43 percent saw the amount of their average gift climb over 2009.
“Smaller organizations—those with fewer than 10,000 email addresses on file—also seemed to do the best. Their online revenues increased by 26 percent and numbers of gifts were up 32 percent.”
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Reforming Criminals
This jobs for ex-criminals idea, reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, has had some success in different places in the past, but is no longer as effective.
Nonprofits working with government to help reform criminals are attempting the most difficult work imaginable, in an environment where fully 70% of criminals being released from prisons, return within three years.
The only thing that will work, as is true with most service work involving a personal change in behavior, is an internal conversion to a way of life that is diametrically opposed to that of the criminal world, rather than just a delivery of a specific service—like a job—or two.
Internal conversion is the core of our criminal reformation work at the Lampstand Foundation.
An excerpt from the Inquirer article.
“It was an idea successfully peddled by Michael Nutter even before his mayoral election: Offer tax credits to businesses that hire ex-offenders.
“But with the program up and running for nearly three years now, the administration finds itself working to save it, acknowledging that while it earned Nutter national recognition early on, no employer to date has actually applied for one dime of the $5 million in tax credits available each year. And nobody has been hired.
"We try to fix a lot of things at once, and it does take time around here," said Everett Gillison, Nutter's deputy mayor for public safety, who oversees the initiative.
“Nutter had conceived of the program as a crime-fighting tool, anticipating that providing jobs to former prisoners would help keep them from committing crimes again.
“Businesses that participate can receive tax breaks of $10,000 a year, for up to three years, on the business-privilege tax they pay for each ex-offender they hire for at least six months.
“To pay for the program, the administration put aside $5 million annually, restricting participation to 500 ex-offenders yearly.
“Upon its implementation in 2007, media outlets invited Nutter to publicize the program. A national nonprofit, the Democratic Leadership Council, christened him as the "New Dem of the Week" for implementing it.
“But locally, employers and ex-offender allies alike complained about the program's burdensome requirements - requirements that the administration is now asking City Council to lift before recessing June 17.
"It wasn't working the way it was envisioned to work, so we had to figure out how to make it easier," Gillison said. New legislation was approved last week by Council's Committee on Commerce and Economic Development.
“Among the changes, the administration is hoping to remove a stipulation that employers provide $5,000 worth of tuition assistance to the ex-offenders they hire.”
Nonprofits working with government to help reform criminals are attempting the most difficult work imaginable, in an environment where fully 70% of criminals being released from prisons, return within three years.
The only thing that will work, as is true with most service work involving a personal change in behavior, is an internal conversion to a way of life that is diametrically opposed to that of the criminal world, rather than just a delivery of a specific service—like a job—or two.
Internal conversion is the core of our criminal reformation work at the Lampstand Foundation.
An excerpt from the Inquirer article.
“It was an idea successfully peddled by Michael Nutter even before his mayoral election: Offer tax credits to businesses that hire ex-offenders.
“But with the program up and running for nearly three years now, the administration finds itself working to save it, acknowledging that while it earned Nutter national recognition early on, no employer to date has actually applied for one dime of the $5 million in tax credits available each year. And nobody has been hired.
"We try to fix a lot of things at once, and it does take time around here," said Everett Gillison, Nutter's deputy mayor for public safety, who oversees the initiative.
“Nutter had conceived of the program as a crime-fighting tool, anticipating that providing jobs to former prisoners would help keep them from committing crimes again.
“Businesses that participate can receive tax breaks of $10,000 a year, for up to three years, on the business-privilege tax they pay for each ex-offender they hire for at least six months.
“To pay for the program, the administration put aside $5 million annually, restricting participation to 500 ex-offenders yearly.
“Upon its implementation in 2007, media outlets invited Nutter to publicize the program. A national nonprofit, the Democratic Leadership Council, christened him as the "New Dem of the Week" for implementing it.
“But locally, employers and ex-offender allies alike complained about the program's burdensome requirements - requirements that the administration is now asking City Council to lift before recessing June 17.
"It wasn't working the way it was envisioned to work, so we had to figure out how to make it easier," Gillison said. New legislation was approved last week by Council's Committee on Commerce and Economic Development.
“Among the changes, the administration is hoping to remove a stipulation that employers provide $5,000 worth of tuition assistance to the ex-offenders they hire.”
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
County Asks Nonprofit to Take Over Nature Center
In a strategy being used very successfully with many public resources—such as the Sacramento Zoo which the city of Sacramento transitioned management and fund raising to the nonprofit Sacramento Zoological Society in 1997—County government, struggling with being able to adequately fund the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, has asked for proposals from nonprofits.
While the time frames are probably too tight—without continued County support—to manage a seamless transition, it is nonetheless, a wise strategy.
One of the nonprofits submitting a proposal will be the American River Natural History Association—for which I served as board president several years ago—and they have commented about the situation.
An excerpt.
“Sacramento County officials have requested detailed proposals from four local nonprofit organizations on how they would manage the Effie Yeaw Nature Center if selected when county operation is scheduled to end June 30.
“Four nonprofits stepped up when a budget crunch threatened closure of the center: the American River Natural History Association (ARNHA), the American River Parkway Foundation, the Sacramento County Office of Education, and the Discovery Museum on Auburn Blvd., Sacramento.
“Each organization was asked to provide information on such key subjects as anticipated revenue and expenditures, and plans for fulfilling the nature center's basic services for children, teens and adults such as nature tours, animal care and exhibits. The deadline for submitting the proposals is June 4.
“The requests for proposals were issued following a Board of Supervisors May 12 Workshop on future of the financially struggling regional parks system.”
While the time frames are probably too tight—without continued County support—to manage a seamless transition, it is nonetheless, a wise strategy.
One of the nonprofits submitting a proposal will be the American River Natural History Association—for which I served as board president several years ago—and they have commented about the situation.
An excerpt.
“Sacramento County officials have requested detailed proposals from four local nonprofit organizations on how they would manage the Effie Yeaw Nature Center if selected when county operation is scheduled to end June 30.
“Four nonprofits stepped up when a budget crunch threatened closure of the center: the American River Natural History Association (ARNHA), the American River Parkway Foundation, the Sacramento County Office of Education, and the Discovery Museum on Auburn Blvd., Sacramento.
“Each organization was asked to provide information on such key subjects as anticipated revenue and expenditures, and plans for fulfilling the nature center's basic services for children, teens and adults such as nature tours, animal care and exhibits. The deadline for submitting the proposals is June 4.
“The requests for proposals were issued following a Board of Supervisors May 12 Workshop on future of the financially struggling regional parks system.”
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Homeless Funds
The Sacramento Bee reports that many wonder what is happening with the funds recently raised for the homeless.
The Sacramento Regional Foundation, who sponsored the program, also has reported on its success.
An excerpt from the Sacramento Bee.
“They raised money for the homeless in a highly publicized campaign. Now people are trying to figure out how to get it.
“Those in need say they are confused about how to receive the funds raised from the "One Day to Prevent Homelessness" drive and are frustrated by the lack of information available.
“But officials in charge of the program say they are still working on ways of letting people know about how the funds are disbursed – and how to receive them. Demand for funds is also very high, they say.
"Unfortunately, we cannot help everyone who needs help," said Cindy Cavanaugh, assistant director of policy and planning for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. She said applicants must go through the correct process. "They should not call a provider directly."
"One Day to Prevent Homelessness" is a regionwide fundraising drive that included a telethon and faith leaders from about 80 houses of worship asking congregants to donate one day's worth of their rent or monthly mortgage.
“The appeals worked. Last week, organizers announced they had passed its goal in two months by raising $410,479.
“The goal of the campaign was to reach $400,000 to qualify for $1.6 million in federal funds. Faith-based groups raised $141,914. Individual and corporate donors raised the rest.
“Since then, homeless and homeless advocates say they have been calling the three agencies listed as responsible for disbursing the funds but have had little luck.”
The Sacramento Regional Foundation, who sponsored the program, also has reported on its success.
An excerpt from the Sacramento Bee.
“They raised money for the homeless in a highly publicized campaign. Now people are trying to figure out how to get it.
“Those in need say they are confused about how to receive the funds raised from the "One Day to Prevent Homelessness" drive and are frustrated by the lack of information available.
“But officials in charge of the program say they are still working on ways of letting people know about how the funds are disbursed – and how to receive them. Demand for funds is also very high, they say.
"Unfortunately, we cannot help everyone who needs help," said Cindy Cavanaugh, assistant director of policy and planning for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. She said applicants must go through the correct process. "They should not call a provider directly."
"One Day to Prevent Homelessness" is a regionwide fundraising drive that included a telethon and faith leaders from about 80 houses of worship asking congregants to donate one day's worth of their rent or monthly mortgage.
“The appeals worked. Last week, organizers announced they had passed its goal in two months by raising $410,479.
“The goal of the campaign was to reach $400,000 to qualify for $1.6 million in federal funds. Faith-based groups raised $141,914. Individual and corporate donors raised the rest.
“Since then, homeless and homeless advocates say they have been calling the three agencies listed as responsible for disbursing the funds but have had little luck.”
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Politics & Philanthropy II
In a follow-up to yesterday’s post, this editorial from the Chronicle of Philanthropy questions the government’s role in the Social Innovation Fund.
An excerpt.
“Last week’s announcement that five large foundations plan to add a total of $45-million to the federal government’s Social Innovation Fund has stirred much excitement in nonprofit circles.
“So did the news that a coalition of 20 other foundations had pledged to spend nearly an additional $5-million to heighten the impact of the fund and share the lessons learned among nonprofit groups.
“Why such a fuss about a relatively small amount of philanthropic money? It must be that many in the nonprofit world were pleased to see a gesture that solidifies the partnership between the federal government and foundations. But the Obama administration could do much more to help the nonprofit world in these tough financial times than soliciting the nearly $50-million in matching money.
“The Social Innovation Fund is now in the process of selecting 7 to 10 foundations that will award money to nonprofit groups with solid track records and can serve as models to spread good ideas. The foundations as well as the nonprofit groups they support are expected to come up with their own matching funds. Those requirements mean that the government's $50-million is supposed to be matched with a total of $150-million from private sources.
“The program is at the heart of the Obama administration’s efforts to encourage nonprofit innovation and strengthen high-performance organizations. It also appears to be an attempt to attract more foundation money for nonprofit activities.
“One can question, however, the seriousness with which the administration is pursuing these goals. The $50-million the federal government has provided to the Social Innovation Fund, after all, is a drop in the bucket, even though it just attracted nearly $50-million last week.”
An excerpt.
“Last week’s announcement that five large foundations plan to add a total of $45-million to the federal government’s Social Innovation Fund has stirred much excitement in nonprofit circles.
“So did the news that a coalition of 20 other foundations had pledged to spend nearly an additional $5-million to heighten the impact of the fund and share the lessons learned among nonprofit groups.
“Why such a fuss about a relatively small amount of philanthropic money? It must be that many in the nonprofit world were pleased to see a gesture that solidifies the partnership between the federal government and foundations. But the Obama administration could do much more to help the nonprofit world in these tough financial times than soliciting the nearly $50-million in matching money.
“The Social Innovation Fund is now in the process of selecting 7 to 10 foundations that will award money to nonprofit groups with solid track records and can serve as models to spread good ideas. The foundations as well as the nonprofit groups they support are expected to come up with their own matching funds. Those requirements mean that the government's $50-million is supposed to be matched with a total of $150-million from private sources.
“The program is at the heart of the Obama administration’s efforts to encourage nonprofit innovation and strengthen high-performance organizations. It also appears to be an attempt to attract more foundation money for nonprofit activities.
“One can question, however, the seriousness with which the administration is pursuing these goals. The $50-million the federal government has provided to the Social Innovation Fund, after all, is a drop in the bucket, even though it just attracted nearly $50-million last week.”
Friday, June 4, 2010
Politics and Philanthropy
They go together, and a different administration creates a different direction, as this article from the Nonprofit Quarterly notes.
An excerpt.
“Every administration has its own distinctive policy fix on the nonprofit sector. With the Bush Administration, it was faith-based organizations. With the Obama Administration, the nonprofit credo centers on nonprofit social entrepreneurs.
“Last Thursday’s news event was an announcement by First Lady Michelle Obama and the Corporation for National and Community Service CEO, Patrick Corvington, of $50 million in grants from a number of foundations to or for the Social Innovation Fund—above and beyond philanthropic commitments to specific Social Innovation Fund grantees and subgrantees. That’s $50 million from foundations on top of the $50 million appropriated to the Fund, the latter in line for matching fund commitments of perhaps three or four to one.
“On one hand, it is a big number compared to the philanthropic capital flows that most nonprofits ever have the opportunity to experience in their organizational lifetimes. On the other hand, for a national program whose mission language is to support “solutions to social problems,” $250 to $300 million, to be spent over a period of a couple of years, isn’t much in the grand scheme of federal budget commitments. The “news” is more than money, as the director of the Social Innovation Fund, Paul Carttar, takes pains to point out.
“From this vantage point, there is an alternative narrative discernable in statements by the First Lady and CNCS CEO Patrick Corvington, the latter writing in Government Monitor. The Obama Administration is committed to leveraging the capital and the intelligence of a distinctive swath of foundations dedicated to identifying and promoting social entrepreneurs to bring resources, flexibility, and considerable credibility to the fledgling Social Innovation Fund.
“Philanthropic support from social entrepreneurs: Five foundations have committed $45 million to be spent mostly over two years as a resource pool supplementing what the Social Innovation Fund managers have at their disposal. They might use these funds to supplement or add to the moneys in the projects they pick for SIF grants, they might use them for special SIF initiatives, or more. Carttar is clear that these five are not just foundations, they are the philanthropic arms of recognized social entrepreneurs.
“A Social Innovation Fund fact sheet identifies the five funders as the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation ($10 million over two years), John and Ann Doerr's Family Foundation ($5 million over two years), the Omidyar Network ($10 million over two years), the Open Society Foundations’ Special Fund for Poverty Alleviation ($10 million for one year), and the Skoll Foundation ($10 million over two years). Who are the entrepreneurs behind them and what makes them social entrepreneurs?”
An excerpt.
“Every administration has its own distinctive policy fix on the nonprofit sector. With the Bush Administration, it was faith-based organizations. With the Obama Administration, the nonprofit credo centers on nonprofit social entrepreneurs.
“Last Thursday’s news event was an announcement by First Lady Michelle Obama and the Corporation for National and Community Service CEO, Patrick Corvington, of $50 million in grants from a number of foundations to or for the Social Innovation Fund—above and beyond philanthropic commitments to specific Social Innovation Fund grantees and subgrantees. That’s $50 million from foundations on top of the $50 million appropriated to the Fund, the latter in line for matching fund commitments of perhaps three or four to one.
“On one hand, it is a big number compared to the philanthropic capital flows that most nonprofits ever have the opportunity to experience in their organizational lifetimes. On the other hand, for a national program whose mission language is to support “solutions to social problems,” $250 to $300 million, to be spent over a period of a couple of years, isn’t much in the grand scheme of federal budget commitments. The “news” is more than money, as the director of the Social Innovation Fund, Paul Carttar, takes pains to point out.
“From this vantage point, there is an alternative narrative discernable in statements by the First Lady and CNCS CEO Patrick Corvington, the latter writing in Government Monitor. The Obama Administration is committed to leveraging the capital and the intelligence of a distinctive swath of foundations dedicated to identifying and promoting social entrepreneurs to bring resources, flexibility, and considerable credibility to the fledgling Social Innovation Fund.
“Philanthropic support from social entrepreneurs: Five foundations have committed $45 million to be spent mostly over two years as a resource pool supplementing what the Social Innovation Fund managers have at their disposal. They might use these funds to supplement or add to the moneys in the projects they pick for SIF grants, they might use them for special SIF initiatives, or more. Carttar is clear that these five are not just foundations, they are the philanthropic arms of recognized social entrepreneurs.
“A Social Innovation Fund fact sheet identifies the five funders as the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation ($10 million over two years), John and Ann Doerr's Family Foundation ($5 million over two years), the Omidyar Network ($10 million over two years), the Open Society Foundations’ Special Fund for Poverty Alleviation ($10 million for one year), and the Skoll Foundation ($10 million over two years). Who are the entrepreneurs behind them and what makes them social entrepreneurs?”
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Fundraising Tools Training
This will be an excellent event, put on by the Association of Fundraising Professionals, California Capital Chapter, (registration at the jump) and well worth your time and expense.
Information
The Complete Fundraising Tool Kit - Round Table Discussions Led by Expert Panel Hosts
The Complete Fundraising Tool Kit: Round Table Discussions Led by Expert Panel Hosts -- Everything from Major Gifts to Marketing
Join area experts for a unique luncheon. You'll select your topic of interest and sit with an area expert over lunch. We'll switch mid-way through the event to allow you to delve into two topics that are most important to your fundraising plan, or you can stay with your current topic.
Speakers and Topics include:
Major Gifts - Cheryl Cobbs, CFRE, UC Davis
Marketing - Scot Crocker, Crocker Marketing
Grants (Foundations, Government, & Corp) - Miriam Houghton, EXPRESSIONS
Capital Campaigns - William Schopfer, Fund Development Associates
Special Events - Emily Delk, Emily Delk Events
Annual Gifts - Tom Venturino, CFRE, UC Davis
Planned Giving - Steve de Graaf, ChFC
This small forum format will allow you to ask questions and participate in an in-depth dialogue, so come prepared with questions in hand.
Attendees can either stay at one round table for the duration or switch to a second table half way through the program.
11:30 a.m. - Registration opens
11:45 to 12:15 p.m. - Lunch
12:15 - 12:30 p.m. - Announcements/Introductions
12:30 - 12:50 p.m. - Round Table Session #1
12:50 - 1:15 p.m. - Round Table Session #2 (optional if want to change)
1:15 - 1:30 p.m. - Take-Away Messages and Best Ideas Shared
Special AFP Anniversary Pricing - $25 for all registrants, includes lunch buffet
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
Sierra Health Foundation
1321 Garden Highway
Sacramento, California 95833
Information
The Complete Fundraising Tool Kit - Round Table Discussions Led by Expert Panel Hosts
The Complete Fundraising Tool Kit: Round Table Discussions Led by Expert Panel Hosts -- Everything from Major Gifts to Marketing
Join area experts for a unique luncheon. You'll select your topic of interest and sit with an area expert over lunch. We'll switch mid-way through the event to allow you to delve into two topics that are most important to your fundraising plan, or you can stay with your current topic.
Speakers and Topics include:
Major Gifts - Cheryl Cobbs, CFRE, UC Davis
Marketing - Scot Crocker, Crocker Marketing
Grants (Foundations, Government, & Corp) - Miriam Houghton, EXPRESSIONS
Capital Campaigns - William Schopfer, Fund Development Associates
Special Events - Emily Delk, Emily Delk Events
Annual Gifts - Tom Venturino, CFRE, UC Davis
Planned Giving - Steve de Graaf, ChFC
This small forum format will allow you to ask questions and participate in an in-depth dialogue, so come prepared with questions in hand.
Attendees can either stay at one round table for the duration or switch to a second table half way through the program.
11:30 a.m. - Registration opens
11:45 to 12:15 p.m. - Lunch
12:15 - 12:30 p.m. - Announcements/Introductions
12:30 - 12:50 p.m. - Round Table Session #1
12:50 - 1:15 p.m. - Round Table Session #2 (optional if want to change)
1:15 - 1:30 p.m. - Take-Away Messages and Best Ideas Shared
Special AFP Anniversary Pricing - $25 for all registrants, includes lunch buffet
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
Sierra Health Foundation
1321 Garden Highway
Sacramento, California 95833
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Philanthropy Down in 2009
Though it is expected to increase in 2010, the almost 5% drop last year is significant, but not nearly as bad as it could have been, given the horrible economy.
A news release from the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College notes the drop.
An excerpt.
"May, 2010 - Individual charitable giving in 2009 amounted to $217.3 billion, a decline of $11.2 billion or 4.9 percent from the estimated $228.5 billion total in 2008, according to the latest report by researchers at the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College and published by the Association of Fundraising Professionals. This 5% decline is in addition to the 6 percent decline that the Center calculated in 2008.
"For 2010, the researchers project annualized individual giving totals (also known as household giving) will range between approximately $222 billion and $227 billion, an increase between 3 and 4.5 percent over the estimated total for 2009. The projected growth is based on analysis of the first two quarters according to scenarios that assume relatively low and high economic growth.
"The full report, will be published in the July/August 2010 issue of Advancing Philanthropy, the magazine of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. The report's findings are based on estimates produced quarterly by the Individual Giving Model developed and housed at the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy. It is the nation's first model designed to estimate future and real-time charitable giving by households on a quarterly basis."
A news release from the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College notes the drop.
An excerpt.
"May, 2010 - Individual charitable giving in 2009 amounted to $217.3 billion, a decline of $11.2 billion or 4.9 percent from the estimated $228.5 billion total in 2008, according to the latest report by researchers at the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College and published by the Association of Fundraising Professionals. This 5% decline is in addition to the 6 percent decline that the Center calculated in 2008.
"For 2010, the researchers project annualized individual giving totals (also known as household giving) will range between approximately $222 billion and $227 billion, an increase between 3 and 4.5 percent over the estimated total for 2009. The projected growth is based on analysis of the first two quarters according to scenarios that assume relatively low and high economic growth.
"The full report, will be published in the July/August 2010 issue of Advancing Philanthropy, the magazine of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. The report's findings are based on estimates produced quarterly by the Individual Giving Model developed and housed at the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy. It is the nation's first model designed to estimate future and real-time charitable giving by households on a quarterly basis."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Nonprofits & Community Colleges
For nonprofit organizations providing services to people to help them improve their lives, the California Community College system is a valuable asset, providing educational and vocational resources at a very reasonable cost.
Consequently, this new infusion of funds, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, is very good news.
An excerpt.
“President Obama's Bay Area visit last week highlighted his support for the green-tech industry, but for out-of-work Californians, the more important initiative may be the administration's little-noticed plan to give community colleges $2 billion in retraining funds over the next four years.
"This is the largest federal investment in the community colleges since the GI Bill," said Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter, who had been chancellor of the Foothill-De Anza Community College District before being elevated to the department's No. 2 post.
“The funding plan, which became law in March, was championed by Bay Area lawmakers and local administration appointees who shared the Silicon Valley view that two-year colleges don't just assist young people in parlaying their high school diplomas into higher degrees, but also help workers make the leap from career to career in a fast-changing world.
"This is especially true in a place like Silicon Valley, where we are constantly creating new industries and obsoleting old ones, forcing people to transition every few years," said Russell Hancock, chief executive of Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a business-backed public policy group that believes community colleges are essential to providing skilled technical workers.
“Money at right time
“At a time when California's budget crisis has forced an 8 percent cut in funding for the state's 112 community colleges, the Obama plan, whose backers included Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, offers a symbolic and practical boost for the vocational and technical career courses that make up about 40 percent of two-year college offerings.
"We didn't get all the money we wanted, but now it's up to us to do the best we can with federal, state and private-sector funds combined," said Terri Carbaugh, spokeswoman for the California Community College Chancellor's Office in Sacramento.”
Consequently, this new infusion of funds, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, is very good news.
An excerpt.
“President Obama's Bay Area visit last week highlighted his support for the green-tech industry, but for out-of-work Californians, the more important initiative may be the administration's little-noticed plan to give community colleges $2 billion in retraining funds over the next four years.
"This is the largest federal investment in the community colleges since the GI Bill," said Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter, who had been chancellor of the Foothill-De Anza Community College District before being elevated to the department's No. 2 post.
“The funding plan, which became law in March, was championed by Bay Area lawmakers and local administration appointees who shared the Silicon Valley view that two-year colleges don't just assist young people in parlaying their high school diplomas into higher degrees, but also help workers make the leap from career to career in a fast-changing world.
"This is especially true in a place like Silicon Valley, where we are constantly creating new industries and obsoleting old ones, forcing people to transition every few years," said Russell Hancock, chief executive of Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a business-backed public policy group that believes community colleges are essential to providing skilled technical workers.
“Money at right time
“At a time when California's budget crisis has forced an 8 percent cut in funding for the state's 112 community colleges, the Obama plan, whose backers included Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, offers a symbolic and practical boost for the vocational and technical career courses that make up about 40 percent of two-year college offerings.
"We didn't get all the money we wanted, but now it's up to us to do the best we can with federal, state and private-sector funds combined," said Terri Carbaugh, spokeswoman for the California Community College Chancellor's Office in Sacramento.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
