They are a pillar of much of American philanthropy, and through their work, often generations removed from the vision and interests of their founders, have influenced the direction of American public policy immeasurably.
In the marvelous book, Giving Well, Doing Good: Readings for Thoughtful Philanthropists, an essay from Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) reflects on the endowment.
An excerpt.
“To found, in the sense in which we are now using the word, is to assign a fund or a sum of money in order to it being employed in perpetuity for fulfilling the purpose the founder had in view, whether that purpose regards divine worship, or public utility, or the vanity of the founder—often the only real one, even while the two others serve to veil it…
“Our intention in this article is limited to examining the utility of foundations in general, in respect to the public good, and chiefly to demonstrating their impropriety. May the following considerations concur with the philosophic spirit of the age, in discouraging new foundations and in destroying all remains of superstitious respect for the old ones!
“1. A founder is a man who desires the effect of his own will to endure forever. Now, even if we suppose him to be actuated by the purest motives, how many reasons are there to question his enlightenment! How easy it is to do harm in wishing to do good! To foresee with certainty that an establishment will produce only the effect desired from it, and no effect at variance with its object; to discern, beyond the illusion of a near and apparent good, the real evils which a long series of unseen causes may bring about; to know what are the real sores of society, to arrive at their causes, to distinguish remedies from palliatives; to defend oneself against the prestige of a seductive project, to take a severe and tranquil view of it amidst that dazzling atmosphere in which the praises of a blind public, and our own enthusiasm, show it to us surrounded; this would need the effort of the most profound genius, and perhaps the political sciences of our time are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable the best genius here to succeed.
“By these institutions support is often given to a few individuals against an evil the cause of which is general, and sometimes the very remedy opposed to the effect increases the influence of the cause…
“2. But whatever utility a foundation might be at its conception, it bears within itself an irremediable defect which belongs to its nature—the impossibility of maintaining its fulfillment. Founders deceive themselves vastly if they imagine that their zeal can be communicated from age to age to persons employed to perpetuate its effects. There is no body that has not in the long run lost the spirit of its first origin. There is no sentiment that does not become weakened, by mere habit and by familiarity, with the objects which excite it.”(pp. 333-334)
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Online Donations are Increasing
While still a very small part of individual philanthropy, the practice is growing, as this report from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes.
An excerpt.
“Even if consumers aren't quite ready to abandon recessionary spending habits, they are opening their wallets a bit more for charities and more are tapping the Internet to make their contributions.
“Online gifts to nonprofits jumped 23 percent from March through May, compared with the same period of 2009, according to a new index that tracks donations. Total charitable contributions during that time -- including gifts made through traditional venues such as phone and mail -- increased 6.2 percent.
“The new report, The Blackbaud Index of Online Giving, looked at activity for nearly 1,800 nonprofits of various sizes that had combined annual online revenues of about $400 million.
“Blackbaud, a Charleston, S.C.-based consulting firm for nonprofits, launched the index for online giving because so-called "e-gifts" are the fastest-growing method of making donations, said Steve MacLaughlin, director of Internet solutions for Blackbaud.
“Giving online still makes up just a slice of total donations. Online revenue accounted for about 5.7 percent of overall fundraising revenue in the past year, the report said.
"We saw the growth and were interested in what percentage of total fundraising came from online," said Mr. MacLaughlin, who estimated more than $15 billion is raised in the U.S. online annually.”
An excerpt.
“Even if consumers aren't quite ready to abandon recessionary spending habits, they are opening their wallets a bit more for charities and more are tapping the Internet to make their contributions.
“Online gifts to nonprofits jumped 23 percent from March through May, compared with the same period of 2009, according to a new index that tracks donations. Total charitable contributions during that time -- including gifts made through traditional venues such as phone and mail -- increased 6.2 percent.
“The new report, The Blackbaud Index of Online Giving, looked at activity for nearly 1,800 nonprofits of various sizes that had combined annual online revenues of about $400 million.
“Blackbaud, a Charleston, S.C.-based consulting firm for nonprofits, launched the index for online giving because so-called "e-gifts" are the fastest-growing method of making donations, said Steve MacLaughlin, director of Internet solutions for Blackbaud.
“Giving online still makes up just a slice of total donations. Online revenue accounted for about 5.7 percent of overall fundraising revenue in the past year, the report said.
"We saw the growth and were interested in what percentage of total fundraising came from online," said Mr. MacLaughlin, who estimated more than $15 billion is raised in the U.S. online annually.”
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
IRS News Item
This is an important announcement allowing a one-time special filing relief for small nonprofits.
An excerpt, and be sure to go to site for important links.
“IRS Offers One-Time Special Filing Relief Program for Small Charities; Oct. 15 Due Date to Preserve Tax-Exempt Status
“IR-2010-87, July 26, 2010
“WASHINGTON — Small nonprofit organizations at risk of losing their tax-exempt status because they failed to file required returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 can preserve their status by filing returns by Oct. 15, 2010, under a one-time relief program, the Internal Revenue Service announced today…
“If an organization loses its exemption, it will have to reapply with the IRS to regain its tax-exempt status. Any income received between the revocation date and renewed exemption may be taxable.”
An excerpt, and be sure to go to site for important links.
“IRS Offers One-Time Special Filing Relief Program for Small Charities; Oct. 15 Due Date to Preserve Tax-Exempt Status
“IR-2010-87, July 26, 2010
“WASHINGTON — Small nonprofit organizations at risk of losing their tax-exempt status because they failed to file required returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 can preserve their status by filing returns by Oct. 15, 2010, under a one-time relief program, the Internal Revenue Service announced today…
“If an organization loses its exemption, it will have to reapply with the IRS to regain its tax-exempt status. Any income received between the revocation date and renewed exemption may be taxable.”
Monday, July 26, 2010
Nonprofits & Government
An article from the Nonprofit Quarterly Newswire highlighting one difficulty nonprofits can encounter contracting with government, in this case the city of Winston, Oregon and a local mental health center.
An excerpt.
“Winston gave the nonprofit a building on a 3.75-acre site with a deed containing a reverter clause allowing the city to take back the building if the Riverside Center were no longer “operating on a nonprofit basis a diagnosis treatment and care facility for handicapped adolescents.”
“The City wants the building back, claiming that the clause, drafted in 1993, has been violated. In the years since 1993, the Riverside Center has formed partnerships with other nonprofits to better deliver services to students with mental health problems. Part of the issue may be that the Riverside Center and its nonprofit partners are providing assistance to young people with dual diagnoses of mental health and substance abuse (“co-occurring”) disorders. Riverside also wants other services to move into the building, including a community health clinic and a Head Start program.
“The shift to treating teens with dual diagnoses may be the triggering event that has prompted the city to try to take back the building. In 1993 in Winston, Ore. maybe the prevailing wisdom was not to treat mental health and substance abuse issues as a single, co-occurring disorder. It’s best practice now.”
An excerpt.
“Winston gave the nonprofit a building on a 3.75-acre site with a deed containing a reverter clause allowing the city to take back the building if the Riverside Center were no longer “operating on a nonprofit basis a diagnosis treatment and care facility for handicapped adolescents.”
“The City wants the building back, claiming that the clause, drafted in 1993, has been violated. In the years since 1993, the Riverside Center has formed partnerships with other nonprofits to better deliver services to students with mental health problems. Part of the issue may be that the Riverside Center and its nonprofit partners are providing assistance to young people with dual diagnoses of mental health and substance abuse (“co-occurring”) disorders. Riverside also wants other services to move into the building, including a community health clinic and a Head Start program.
“The shift to treating teens with dual diagnoses may be the triggering event that has prompted the city to try to take back the building. In 1993 in Winston, Ore. maybe the prevailing wisdom was not to treat mental health and substance abuse issues as a single, co-occurring disorder. It’s best practice now.”
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Privatization & Nonprofits
The governor in New Jersey has just received a report on privatization and it has some interesting components that apply directly to nonprofits, as reported by Governing.
An excerpt.
“The New Jersey Privatization Task Force has delivered its final report to Gov. Chris Christie -- and he's excited about what he's reading, calling it a path to a more efficient, cost-effective government. The report highlights more than $200 million in potential cost savings.
"In March, I asked the Privatization Task Force to develop a strategy that would reduce the size, scope and cost of state government," said Christie. "What they have provided is a path for change that will benefit New Jersey's taxpayers..."
“The report recommended privatizing services in a wide variety of areas from highway maintenance to prison food services, from toll collection to vehicle inspection. It includes a brief overview of recent privatization efforts in New Jersey and other states. "There have been -- and continue to be -- numerous successful privatization successes in New Jersey," notes the report….
“Most interesting is the report's call for a centralized entity whose sole purpose is to promote competitive efficiency within New Jersey's state government:
“States that have had the most success in privatization created a permanent, centralized entity to manage both privatization and related policies aimed at increasing government efficiency. Such an entity can constantly evaluate agency performance, and implement and oversee privatization initiatives in a consistent way across state government. New Jersey would be well served by an entity whose mission is to seek government efficiency and create competition for service delivery. It should assist government agencies in developing a “business case,” for any proposed privatization...”
An excerpt.
“The New Jersey Privatization Task Force has delivered its final report to Gov. Chris Christie -- and he's excited about what he's reading, calling it a path to a more efficient, cost-effective government. The report highlights more than $200 million in potential cost savings.
"In March, I asked the Privatization Task Force to develop a strategy that would reduce the size, scope and cost of state government," said Christie. "What they have provided is a path for change that will benefit New Jersey's taxpayers..."
“The report recommended privatizing services in a wide variety of areas from highway maintenance to prison food services, from toll collection to vehicle inspection. It includes a brief overview of recent privatization efforts in New Jersey and other states. "There have been -- and continue to be -- numerous successful privatization successes in New Jersey," notes the report….
“Most interesting is the report's call for a centralized entity whose sole purpose is to promote competitive efficiency within New Jersey's state government:
“States that have had the most success in privatization created a permanent, centralized entity to manage both privatization and related policies aimed at increasing government efficiency. Such an entity can constantly evaluate agency performance, and implement and oversee privatization initiatives in a consistent way across state government. New Jersey would be well served by an entity whose mission is to seek government efficiency and create competition for service delivery. It should assist government agencies in developing a “business case,” for any proposed privatization...”
Friday, July 23, 2010
Organizational Congruence with Mission
It often happens that nonprofit organizational internals are not congruent with organizational mission, resulting in reduced mission fulfillment, as this article from Stanford Social Innovation Review notes.
For organizations understanding the connection between the discipline of organizational development and the management of nonprofit organizations—as posted previously—this would not be much of a problem
An excerpt from the Review article.
“In the 1980s, when I was a young executive director of a children’s mental health organization, I first noticed a phenomenon that I later discovered to be widespread throughout the nonprofit sector. The emotionally troubled young clients of one of our day treatment programs were increasingly acting out, reaching dangerous levels of distress and even violence. I had to find out why, and also how to reverse this dangerous behavioral trend. Observing the program in action, I immediately noticed that the staff members caring for these children were tense and unusually contentious, openly bickering among themselves and in front of the children.
“We held an off-site retreat for the staff soon thereafter. I encouraged participants to talk not about the kids, but about their own relationships with one another. They expressed their pent-up anger and frustration, and it was clear that communication within the group had broken down. Amid lots of tears and hard work, we first identified the main problems troubling the group: tensions about who worked harder, and longer, and better. Once the staff articulated their issues and feelings, they agreed to try to rebuild the team’s cohesion.
“As the retreat drew to a close, some people wondered aloud whether this clearing of the air would do anything to reduce the kids’ acting out. As staff members began to show each other increased respect and care, the kids did indeed calm down.
“When I reflected on this experience, it struck me as highly ironic, if not downright embarrassing, that an organization devoted to improving mental health had itself fallen so deeply into dysfunction. Yet in my 30 years working in and consulting to nonprofits, I have come to realize that this was not an isolated incident: Nonprofits tend to recreate within their own organizational cultures the problems they are trying to solve in society. I call this phenomenon the nonprofit paradox.
“Take, for instance, a human rights organization whose mission was to prevent torture. Despite this laudable goal, one of the group’s leaders left subordinates feeling terrorized. Staff members consequently—and without awareness of the irony—described working in the organization as “torture.”
“A national nonprofit dedicated to eradicating child abuse faced a similar issue. The staff perceived (with reason, in my opinion) their CEO to be abusive, neglectful, and power mad. As a result, they adopted classic abuse avoidance behaviors, such as avoiding contact with him, delaying the delivery of bad news, and generally making themselves invisible. In a family therapy context, these behaviors would be diagnosed as pathological.
“An environmental advocacy organization likewise recreated within its walls the very problem it was attempting to solve. Although aiming to save forests by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the organization mailed a prodigious number of paper fundraising solicitations and relied heavily on air travel, even when phone conferences would have sufficed. Consequently, it generated an enormous carbon footprint.”
For organizations understanding the connection between the discipline of organizational development and the management of nonprofit organizations—as posted previously—this would not be much of a problem
An excerpt from the Review article.
“In the 1980s, when I was a young executive director of a children’s mental health organization, I first noticed a phenomenon that I later discovered to be widespread throughout the nonprofit sector. The emotionally troubled young clients of one of our day treatment programs were increasingly acting out, reaching dangerous levels of distress and even violence. I had to find out why, and also how to reverse this dangerous behavioral trend. Observing the program in action, I immediately noticed that the staff members caring for these children were tense and unusually contentious, openly bickering among themselves and in front of the children.
“We held an off-site retreat for the staff soon thereafter. I encouraged participants to talk not about the kids, but about their own relationships with one another. They expressed their pent-up anger and frustration, and it was clear that communication within the group had broken down. Amid lots of tears and hard work, we first identified the main problems troubling the group: tensions about who worked harder, and longer, and better. Once the staff articulated their issues and feelings, they agreed to try to rebuild the team’s cohesion.
“As the retreat drew to a close, some people wondered aloud whether this clearing of the air would do anything to reduce the kids’ acting out. As staff members began to show each other increased respect and care, the kids did indeed calm down.
“When I reflected on this experience, it struck me as highly ironic, if not downright embarrassing, that an organization devoted to improving mental health had itself fallen so deeply into dysfunction. Yet in my 30 years working in and consulting to nonprofits, I have come to realize that this was not an isolated incident: Nonprofits tend to recreate within their own organizational cultures the problems they are trying to solve in society. I call this phenomenon the nonprofit paradox.
“Take, for instance, a human rights organization whose mission was to prevent torture. Despite this laudable goal, one of the group’s leaders left subordinates feeling terrorized. Staff members consequently—and without awareness of the irony—described working in the organization as “torture.”
“A national nonprofit dedicated to eradicating child abuse faced a similar issue. The staff perceived (with reason, in my opinion) their CEO to be abusive, neglectful, and power mad. As a result, they adopted classic abuse avoidance behaviors, such as avoiding contact with him, delaying the delivery of bad news, and generally making themselves invisible. In a family therapy context, these behaviors would be diagnosed as pathological.
“An environmental advocacy organization likewise recreated within its walls the very problem it was attempting to solve. Although aiming to save forests by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the organization mailed a prodigious number of paper fundraising solicitations and relied heavily on air travel, even when phone conferences would have sufficed. Consequently, it generated an enormous carbon footprint.”
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Six Social Service Practices
A great book about social service nonprofits is Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits, which provides a compilation of those six practices.
An excerpt.
1. Advocate and serve. High-impact organizations don’t just focus on doing one thing well. They may start out providing great programs, but eventually they realize that they cannot achieve systematic change through service delivery alone. So they add policy advocacy to access government resources or to change legislation, thus expanding their impact. Other nonprofits start out doing advocacy and later add grassroots programs to supercharge their strategy. Ultimately, all of them bridge the divide between service and advocacy, and become good at doing both. And the more they advocate and serve, the greater the levels of impact they achieve.
2. Make markets work. Tapping into the power of self-interest and the laws of economics is far more effective than appealing to pure altruism. No longer content to rely on traditional notions of charity or to see the private sector as the enemy, great nonprofits find ways to work with markets and help business “do well while doing good.” They influence business practices , build corporate partnerships, and develop earned-income ventures—all ways of leveraging market forces to achieve social change on a grander scale.
3. Inspire evangelists. Great nonprofits see volunteers as much more than a source of free labor or membership dues. They create meaningful ways to engage individuals in emotional experiences that help them connect to the group’s mission and core values. They see volunteers, donors, and advisers not only for what they can contribute to the organization in terms of time, money, and guidance but also for what they can do as evangelists for their cause. They build and sustain strong communities to help them achieve their larger goals.
4. Nurture nonprofit networks. Although most groups pay lip service to collaboration, many of them really see other nonprofits as competition for scarce resources. But high-impact organizations help the competition succeed, building networks of nonprofit allies and devoting remarkable time and energy to advancing their larger field. They freely share wealth, expertise, talent, and power with their peers, not because they are saints, but because it is in their self-interest to do so.
5. Master the art of adaptation. All the organizations in this book are exceptionally adaptive, modifying their tactics as needed to increase their success. They have responded to changing circumstances with one innovation after another. Along the way, they’ve made mistakes, and have even produced some flops. But unlike many nonprofits, they have also mastered the ability to listen, learn, and modify their approach based on external cues—allowing them to sustain their impact and stay relevant.
6. Share leadership. We witnessed much charisma among the leaders in this book, but that doesn’t mean they have oversize egos. These CEOs are exceptionally strategic and gifted entrepreneurs, but they also know they must share power in order to be a stronger force for good. They distribute leadership throughout their organization and their nonprofit network—empowering others to lead. And they cultivate a strong second-in-command, build enduring executive teams with long tenure, and develop highly engaged boards in order to have more impact. (pp. 21-22)
An excerpt.
1. Advocate and serve. High-impact organizations don’t just focus on doing one thing well. They may start out providing great programs, but eventually they realize that they cannot achieve systematic change through service delivery alone. So they add policy advocacy to access government resources or to change legislation, thus expanding their impact. Other nonprofits start out doing advocacy and later add grassroots programs to supercharge their strategy. Ultimately, all of them bridge the divide between service and advocacy, and become good at doing both. And the more they advocate and serve, the greater the levels of impact they achieve.
2. Make markets work. Tapping into the power of self-interest and the laws of economics is far more effective than appealing to pure altruism. No longer content to rely on traditional notions of charity or to see the private sector as the enemy, great nonprofits find ways to work with markets and help business “do well while doing good.” They influence business practices , build corporate partnerships, and develop earned-income ventures—all ways of leveraging market forces to achieve social change on a grander scale.
3. Inspire evangelists. Great nonprofits see volunteers as much more than a source of free labor or membership dues. They create meaningful ways to engage individuals in emotional experiences that help them connect to the group’s mission and core values. They see volunteers, donors, and advisers not only for what they can contribute to the organization in terms of time, money, and guidance but also for what they can do as evangelists for their cause. They build and sustain strong communities to help them achieve their larger goals.
4. Nurture nonprofit networks. Although most groups pay lip service to collaboration, many of them really see other nonprofits as competition for scarce resources. But high-impact organizations help the competition succeed, building networks of nonprofit allies and devoting remarkable time and energy to advancing their larger field. They freely share wealth, expertise, talent, and power with their peers, not because they are saints, but because it is in their self-interest to do so.
5. Master the art of adaptation. All the organizations in this book are exceptionally adaptive, modifying their tactics as needed to increase their success. They have responded to changing circumstances with one innovation after another. Along the way, they’ve made mistakes, and have even produced some flops. But unlike many nonprofits, they have also mastered the ability to listen, learn, and modify their approach based on external cues—allowing them to sustain their impact and stay relevant.
6. Share leadership. We witnessed much charisma among the leaders in this book, but that doesn’t mean they have oversize egos. These CEOs are exceptionally strategic and gifted entrepreneurs, but they also know they must share power in order to be a stronger force for good. They distribute leadership throughout their organization and their nonprofit network—empowering others to lead. And they cultivate a strong second-in-command, build enduring executive teams with long tenure, and develop highly engaged boards in order to have more impact. (pp. 21-22)
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Ethical Organizations
Here is a simple guide—and plan for implementation—from Governing, to ethical behavior that was written for public organizations, which 501 (c) 3 charitable public interest nonprofits are.
This is a very good thing!
An excerpt.
“I recently offered a wallet-sized code of ethics to replace -- or at least, mitigate -- the bureaucratic system of rules, supervision and oversight that stifles initiative and deadens workers' spirits. The ethical guides were simple:
“I will:
• Do my best at work
• Avoid conflict of interest
• Speak truth to power
• Be a good citizen
• Shun any private gain from public employment
• Act impartially
• Treat others the way I would like to be treated
• Report waste, fraud, and corruption
“When in doubt, my test is can I explain my actions to my mother or to my child.
“Many people are hungry for this sort of simple, straightforward guide and have asked me how they can introduce such a tool in their organizations. Here's what to do next:
• Decide on your organization's principles of ethical behavior.
• Print wallet-size cards (plastic is best) and hand them out like crazy.
• Teach: look for coachable moments to align people with the principles.
“First, what's right for your organization? Chances are the "Metropolis" code isn't perfect for you. Give the workers a chance to own the code. Announce that you're in the market for a new code of ethics that can fit on a wallet-size card. Offer a $100 prize (your $100!) for the best one submitted, and reserve to yourself the right to pick the winning entry and to make edits you deem necessary. This, because even in a participatory process, the leader must ultimately be responsible for setting standards. After you do your edits, let a couple of trusted writers and thinkers have a crack at it.”
This is a very good thing!
An excerpt.
“I recently offered a wallet-sized code of ethics to replace -- or at least, mitigate -- the bureaucratic system of rules, supervision and oversight that stifles initiative and deadens workers' spirits. The ethical guides were simple:
“I will:
• Do my best at work
• Avoid conflict of interest
• Speak truth to power
• Be a good citizen
• Shun any private gain from public employment
• Act impartially
• Treat others the way I would like to be treated
• Report waste, fraud, and corruption
“When in doubt, my test is can I explain my actions to my mother or to my child.
“Many people are hungry for this sort of simple, straightforward guide and have asked me how they can introduce such a tool in their organizations. Here's what to do next:
• Decide on your organization's principles of ethical behavior.
• Print wallet-size cards (plastic is best) and hand them out like crazy.
• Teach: look for coachable moments to align people with the principles.
“First, what's right for your organization? Chances are the "Metropolis" code isn't perfect for you. Give the workers a chance to own the code. Announce that you're in the market for a new code of ethics that can fit on a wallet-size card. Offer a $100 prize (your $100!) for the best one submitted, and reserve to yourself the right to pick the winning entry and to make edits you deem necessary. This, because even in a participatory process, the leader must ultimately be responsible for setting standards. After you do your edits, let a couple of trusted writers and thinkers have a crack at it.”
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Philanthropy in United Kingdom
Much of what is now happening in the UK in philanthropy has already happened in America, where venture philanthropy and social enterprise have well-established roots.
An excerpt from the Independent article.
“The co-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, is planning to give most of his $13.5bn (£8.8bn) fortune to charity after his death, on top of the $1bn he has given away in the past 20 years. Mr Allen revealed his intentions in response to a call in May from fellow Microsoft founder Bill Gates and investment guru Warren Buffett, urging US billionaires to pledge to give away half their wealth.
“British philanthropy took a significant hit from the recession, with total donations down by 11 per cent last year and pledges of £1m or more falling 13 per cent. But if the Gates "giving pledge" was heeded by all of the UK's billionaires, it could yield up to £60bn.
“Even in good times, British philanthropy is a shadow of that in the US, where benefactors are both more upfront about giving, and simply do more of it. However, the situation is changing.
“Theresa Lloyd, an expert adviser on philanthropy, said: "The idea of an obligation to fellow citizens and future generations is very powerful in the US, whereas here it is not. But things are changing, and over the next 10 or 20 years will change even more."
“The character of philanthropy itself is also changing. In 1989 three-quarters of Britain's richest people had inherited their wealth; by 2009 the same proportion had made it themselves. As a result, philanthropy is moving away from traditional trusts and towards a more entrepreneurial approach.
"The division between philanthropy and business is blurring, powered by philanthropists who are self-made and have a very active approach to bringing about social change," said Cheryl Chapman, the managing editor of Philanthropy UK, a government-funded project of the Association of Charitable Foundations.
“One such case is the "Big Give", set up by the Reed Recruitment founder Alec Reed, which links donors to relevant causes and offers match-funding. Another is the Fifteen Foundation, set up by Jamie Oliver in 2002 to train other chefs from disadvantaged backgrounds. Charities themselves are approaching fund-raising with a different attitude. The disability organisation, Scope, launched Britain's first private equity-style financing for the voluntary sector last month, under which donations of £1,750 and a three-year loan of £7,000 can be ramped up to £18,000.
“An industry is also developing to help potential philanthropists ensure their donations are as effective as possible. New Philanthropy Capital, a think tank and advisory service, was set up by two former Goldman Sachs partners who spotted that the mass of data available to mainstream investors had no parallel in the third sector. And Coutts, the private bank, has recently launched an advice service for clients wanting to get involved with social enterprises.
“The rise of self-made wealth is also boosting interest in education projects, says Salvatore LaSpada, the chief executive of the Institute for Philanthropy. "Many of our great entrepreneurs came from humble backgrounds and want to use their wealth to create opportunities for people coming behind them," he said.”
An excerpt from the Independent article.
“The co-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, is planning to give most of his $13.5bn (£8.8bn) fortune to charity after his death, on top of the $1bn he has given away in the past 20 years. Mr Allen revealed his intentions in response to a call in May from fellow Microsoft founder Bill Gates and investment guru Warren Buffett, urging US billionaires to pledge to give away half their wealth.
“British philanthropy took a significant hit from the recession, with total donations down by 11 per cent last year and pledges of £1m or more falling 13 per cent. But if the Gates "giving pledge" was heeded by all of the UK's billionaires, it could yield up to £60bn.
“Even in good times, British philanthropy is a shadow of that in the US, where benefactors are both more upfront about giving, and simply do more of it. However, the situation is changing.
“Theresa Lloyd, an expert adviser on philanthropy, said: "The idea of an obligation to fellow citizens and future generations is very powerful in the US, whereas here it is not. But things are changing, and over the next 10 or 20 years will change even more."
“The character of philanthropy itself is also changing. In 1989 three-quarters of Britain's richest people had inherited their wealth; by 2009 the same proportion had made it themselves. As a result, philanthropy is moving away from traditional trusts and towards a more entrepreneurial approach.
"The division between philanthropy and business is blurring, powered by philanthropists who are self-made and have a very active approach to bringing about social change," said Cheryl Chapman, the managing editor of Philanthropy UK, a government-funded project of the Association of Charitable Foundations.
“One such case is the "Big Give", set up by the Reed Recruitment founder Alec Reed, which links donors to relevant causes and offers match-funding. Another is the Fifteen Foundation, set up by Jamie Oliver in 2002 to train other chefs from disadvantaged backgrounds. Charities themselves are approaching fund-raising with a different attitude. The disability organisation, Scope, launched Britain's first private equity-style financing for the voluntary sector last month, under which donations of £1,750 and a three-year loan of £7,000 can be ramped up to £18,000.
“An industry is also developing to help potential philanthropists ensure their donations are as effective as possible. New Philanthropy Capital, a think tank and advisory service, was set up by two former Goldman Sachs partners who spotted that the mass of data available to mainstream investors had no parallel in the third sector. And Coutts, the private bank, has recently launched an advice service for clients wanting to get involved with social enterprises.
“The rise of self-made wealth is also boosting interest in education projects, says Salvatore LaSpada, the chief executive of the Institute for Philanthropy. "Many of our great entrepreneurs came from humble backgrounds and want to use their wealth to create opportunities for people coming behind them," he said.”
Monday, July 19, 2010
Parks Management by Nonprofits
A recent editorial in the Sacramento Bee commented on the recent deficit-driven decisions to seek another way to manage some parks in the County Regional Parks division through contracts with nonprofit organizations.
The American River Parkway, due to its signature status among regional parks, with core elements—the bike trail and Lake Natoma—even being known internationally, lends itself to the philanthropic fund raising crucial to survival under nonprofit management.
While that lofty status cannot necessarily be attached to the related decision to turn over the Effie Yeaw Nature Center to the nonprofit American River Natural History Association (ARNHA), where I served a term as president several years ago, we certainly wish ARNHA all the very best in their efforts to secure the future of this valued community resource.
An excerpt from the Bee Editorial.
“As Sacramento County moves to make drastic budget cuts across the board, the entire regional park system is threatened.
“Rangers are being cut by half, which means no routine patrols at many facilities, which will have to accept only "on-call" ranger services. Seasonal maintenance staff also are being cut by half, which means restrooms will be cleaned infrequently, and broken park amenities will be removed but not replaced or repaired.
“County funding has been zeroed out for the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, which has provided nature tours, Maidu Indian programs, camps, school field trips, wildlife counts, birding classes, art workshops, aquatic labs and live animal exhibits to thousands of people each year. …
“On July 3, the county turned over the Effie Yeaw Nature Center to the American River Natural History Association – with no county funds. The doors closed for 13 days, so ARNHA could set up a payroll, pay the costs of insurance, create all the details of a major business and continue to offer programs for children. It reopened on Saturday.
“For nearly 30 years, the center was open seven days a week. As part of a summer transition, beginning this week, the center will open Thursday through Sunday. It will close on Mondays and Tuesdays.
“The ARNHA volunteer organization will have to move from its old supportive role to active management, a major change for any organization. No one should underestimate the difficulty of the task. ARNHA estimates that it will need to raise $300,000 a year to operate the center. In the past, it contributed about $30,000 a year.
“ARNHA already has stepped up, with $300,000 in hand to date. It has hired an executive director, a volunteer coordinator and fundraising director. Where it relied on individuals in the past for donations, ARNHA now has begun discussions with Chevron Corp. and will also solicit grants from major corporations to keep the Effie Yeaw Nature Center running – and improving.
“ARNHA also is exploring ways to charge admission fees.”
The American River Parkway, due to its signature status among regional parks, with core elements—the bike trail and Lake Natoma—even being known internationally, lends itself to the philanthropic fund raising crucial to survival under nonprofit management.
While that lofty status cannot necessarily be attached to the related decision to turn over the Effie Yeaw Nature Center to the nonprofit American River Natural History Association (ARNHA), where I served a term as president several years ago, we certainly wish ARNHA all the very best in their efforts to secure the future of this valued community resource.
An excerpt from the Bee Editorial.
“As Sacramento County moves to make drastic budget cuts across the board, the entire regional park system is threatened.
“Rangers are being cut by half, which means no routine patrols at many facilities, which will have to accept only "on-call" ranger services. Seasonal maintenance staff also are being cut by half, which means restrooms will be cleaned infrequently, and broken park amenities will be removed but not replaced or repaired.
“County funding has been zeroed out for the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, which has provided nature tours, Maidu Indian programs, camps, school field trips, wildlife counts, birding classes, art workshops, aquatic labs and live animal exhibits to thousands of people each year. …
“On July 3, the county turned over the Effie Yeaw Nature Center to the American River Natural History Association – with no county funds. The doors closed for 13 days, so ARNHA could set up a payroll, pay the costs of insurance, create all the details of a major business and continue to offer programs for children. It reopened on Saturday.
“For nearly 30 years, the center was open seven days a week. As part of a summer transition, beginning this week, the center will open Thursday through Sunday. It will close on Mondays and Tuesdays.
“The ARNHA volunteer organization will have to move from its old supportive role to active management, a major change for any organization. No one should underestimate the difficulty of the task. ARNHA estimates that it will need to raise $300,000 a year to operate the center. In the past, it contributed about $30,000 a year.
“ARNHA already has stepped up, with $300,000 in hand to date. It has hired an executive director, a volunteer coordinator and fundraising director. Where it relied on individuals in the past for donations, ARNHA now has begun discussions with Chevron Corp. and will also solicit grants from major corporations to keep the Effie Yeaw Nature Center running – and improving.
“ARNHA also is exploring ways to charge admission fees.”
Friday, July 16, 2010
Faith Works
In the process of transforming lives, which is the essential mission of social service work, the element of faith is often foundational, and this article from Governing examines the interaction of innovative nonprofit social service organizations with government.
An excerpt.
“In 1993, Springfield, Ohio, faced crises of growing poverty and an astounding divorce rate. A new group of concerned citizens and civic leaders, calling themselves The Nehemiah Foundation, came together to change that. Using their collective leverage as a source of philanthropic funds, they worked to promote cooperation among Springfield's faith-based food banks, youth workers and more. Across the city these grassroots providers became known as "street saints" and today they reach 6,000 families every week.
“As director of the Ohio Governor's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Krista Sisterhen worked closely with the Nehemiah Foundation's CEO Wally Martinson. She calls his effort "the best model I have seen of a faith-based intermediary working with government and other private funders to make life better in their community."
“In our new book The Power of Social Innovation, we studied dozens of innovative organizations like the Nehemiah Foundation. We set out to learn how these social innovators -- some faith-based, many secular -- interact with public systems to produce social good. We also sought to understand the role that local government plays in social innovation -- both as impediment and as champion.
“Especially at this time of fiscal distress, the concept of social innovation offers great promise for government officials looking to create more public value. Collaboration between the nonprofit, philanthropic and public sectors is routine, of course. But with its potential to transform entrenched service networks and deliver results, social innovation promises something more.
“The social innovation trend follows on the heels of the effort to leverage the potential of faith-based providers that started roughly two decades ago.
“In the 1990s, lead author Stephen Goldsmith gained national attention for promoting collaboration between city government and the faith community as mayor of Indianapolis. His Front Porch Alliance was based on the belief that religious congregations can transform lives and communities in ways that government cannot. Goldsmith actively solicited feedback from religious leaders, forced city agencies to create new partnerships with faith providers and used the bully pulpit to encourage foundations and businesses to do the same.”
An excerpt.
“In 1993, Springfield, Ohio, faced crises of growing poverty and an astounding divorce rate. A new group of concerned citizens and civic leaders, calling themselves The Nehemiah Foundation, came together to change that. Using their collective leverage as a source of philanthropic funds, they worked to promote cooperation among Springfield's faith-based food banks, youth workers and more. Across the city these grassroots providers became known as "street saints" and today they reach 6,000 families every week.
“As director of the Ohio Governor's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Krista Sisterhen worked closely with the Nehemiah Foundation's CEO Wally Martinson. She calls his effort "the best model I have seen of a faith-based intermediary working with government and other private funders to make life better in their community."
“In our new book The Power of Social Innovation, we studied dozens of innovative organizations like the Nehemiah Foundation. We set out to learn how these social innovators -- some faith-based, many secular -- interact with public systems to produce social good. We also sought to understand the role that local government plays in social innovation -- both as impediment and as champion.
“Especially at this time of fiscal distress, the concept of social innovation offers great promise for government officials looking to create more public value. Collaboration between the nonprofit, philanthropic and public sectors is routine, of course. But with its potential to transform entrenched service networks and deliver results, social innovation promises something more.
“The social innovation trend follows on the heels of the effort to leverage the potential of faith-based providers that started roughly two decades ago.
“In the 1990s, lead author Stephen Goldsmith gained national attention for promoting collaboration between city government and the faith community as mayor of Indianapolis. His Front Porch Alliance was based on the belief that religious congregations can transform lives and communities in ways that government cannot. Goldsmith actively solicited feedback from religious leaders, forced city agencies to create new partnerships with faith providers and used the bully pulpit to encourage foundations and businesses to do the same.”
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Nonprofit Careers
An informative article from the Foundation Center.
An excerpt.
“Finance. Marketing. Facilities Management. These may not be the first words that come to mind when you think about nonprofits, but these are all crucial parts of most nonprofit organizations' abilities to succeed.
“Similar to corporations and small businesses, nonprofits strive to operate with method and within budget. It is especially important for nonprofits to run efficient operations and demonstrate measurable outcomes because they are accountable to funders, board members, and the government.
“What to Expect
“In any industry, the operations team is the infrastructure of an organization that works behind the scenes to keep things running. This is especially true in the nonprofit sector, where operations staff support an organization in a number of functional areas including accounting and finance, administration, human resources, information technology, marketing, and office management. All of these functions share one goal: to make sure an organization is operating efficiently and to its full potential.
“Most roles in nonprofit business operations require individuals to work with systems. This could mean working to devise an accounting system that helps departments process their invoices more efficiently, or following existing protocols for ordering supplies or on-boarding new employees. While the specific functional area of a role will dictate what type of systems an individual will be involved with, the ability to quickly understand business challenges and address them systematically is an asset to all operations roles. Generally, individuals who are highly organized, analytical, and adaptive do well in nonprofit business operations roles.”
An excerpt.
“Finance. Marketing. Facilities Management. These may not be the first words that come to mind when you think about nonprofits, but these are all crucial parts of most nonprofit organizations' abilities to succeed.
“Similar to corporations and small businesses, nonprofits strive to operate with method and within budget. It is especially important for nonprofits to run efficient operations and demonstrate measurable outcomes because they are accountable to funders, board members, and the government.
“What to Expect
“In any industry, the operations team is the infrastructure of an organization that works behind the scenes to keep things running. This is especially true in the nonprofit sector, where operations staff support an organization in a number of functional areas including accounting and finance, administration, human resources, information technology, marketing, and office management. All of these functions share one goal: to make sure an organization is operating efficiently and to its full potential.
“Most roles in nonprofit business operations require individuals to work with systems. This could mean working to devise an accounting system that helps departments process their invoices more efficiently, or following existing protocols for ordering supplies or on-boarding new employees. While the specific functional area of a role will dictate what type of systems an individual will be involved with, the ability to quickly understand business challenges and address them systematically is an asset to all operations roles. Generally, individuals who are highly organized, analytical, and adaptive do well in nonprofit business operations roles.”
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Microfinance
This has been a very popular method of helping people move out of poverty for many years, especially in third world countries, and this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy examines one effort which has surprised everyone by apparently shutting down.
An excerpt.
“A decade ago, Unitus set out to accelerate the commercial investment in microfinance—to prove that banks and other investors could earn a return on their loans while helping impoverished people move on to a better life.
“And by most accounts, the Seattle charity has succeeded, not only in the work it does with its 23 partner organizations in developing countries but also in adding some spark to the entire microfinance world, which now provides billions of dollars to poor people eager to start their own businesses.
“On July 2, the charity declared victory—and promptly announced it was laying off its entire 40-person staff.
“The charity’s decision to wind down its sole program shocked not just employees—who were expecting the charity to continue on in microfinance, although perhaps with a different focus—but also donors to the charity. One supporter of Unitus had been negotiating a large gift to the charity in recent weeks but was ultimately told the money was not needed, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.
“The unusual announcement has reverberated beyond microfinance and piqued the interest of many nonprofit experts. The questions they are asking: Is this one of the best examples to date of a charity preserving philanthropic capital by calling it quits when the job is done? Or is a more sinister reason lurking behind the positive spin in the charity’s press release?
'Why Aren’t They Sharing?’
“The announcement of Unitus’s closure came just before the long July 4 weekend—which to some observers calls to mind a “bury the news” ploy used frequently by for-profit corporations.
“The vast majority of Unitus’s employees will be gone within a few weeks. Most of the charity’s employees work in Seattle, but Unitus also is closing offices in Bangalore, India, and Nairobi, Kenya. Brigit Helms, the charity’s chief executive, who was hired just nine months ago, will serve as an adviser to Unitus as the charity figures out what to do next.
“The charity isn’t holding a meeting to celebrate its accomplishments in microfinance—it isn’t even letting Steve Schwartz, the charity’s former public-affairs manager, talk about them. A small public-relations firm in Utah is now handling journalists’ calls for Unitus.
“If this is a success story, then why aren’t they sharing information on the success story to help us learn?” says Holden Karnofsky, of GiveWell, a site that evaluates charities. GiveWell declined to recommend Unitus to donors even before the recent announcement because Mr. Karnofsky believed the charity had not adequately answered his questions about program effectiveness.”
An excerpt.
“A decade ago, Unitus set out to accelerate the commercial investment in microfinance—to prove that banks and other investors could earn a return on their loans while helping impoverished people move on to a better life.
“And by most accounts, the Seattle charity has succeeded, not only in the work it does with its 23 partner organizations in developing countries but also in adding some spark to the entire microfinance world, which now provides billions of dollars to poor people eager to start their own businesses.
“On July 2, the charity declared victory—and promptly announced it was laying off its entire 40-person staff.
“The charity’s decision to wind down its sole program shocked not just employees—who were expecting the charity to continue on in microfinance, although perhaps with a different focus—but also donors to the charity. One supporter of Unitus had been negotiating a large gift to the charity in recent weeks but was ultimately told the money was not needed, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.
“The unusual announcement has reverberated beyond microfinance and piqued the interest of many nonprofit experts. The questions they are asking: Is this one of the best examples to date of a charity preserving philanthropic capital by calling it quits when the job is done? Or is a more sinister reason lurking behind the positive spin in the charity’s press release?
'Why Aren’t They Sharing?’
“The announcement of Unitus’s closure came just before the long July 4 weekend—which to some observers calls to mind a “bury the news” ploy used frequently by for-profit corporations.
“The vast majority of Unitus’s employees will be gone within a few weeks. Most of the charity’s employees work in Seattle, but Unitus also is closing offices in Bangalore, India, and Nairobi, Kenya. Brigit Helms, the charity’s chief executive, who was hired just nine months ago, will serve as an adviser to Unitus as the charity figures out what to do next.
“The charity isn’t holding a meeting to celebrate its accomplishments in microfinance—it isn’t even letting Steve Schwartz, the charity’s former public-affairs manager, talk about them. A small public-relations firm in Utah is now handling journalists’ calls for Unitus.
“If this is a success story, then why aren’t they sharing information on the success story to help us learn?” says Holden Karnofsky, of GiveWell, a site that evaluates charities. GiveWell declined to recommend Unitus to donors even before the recent announcement because Mr. Karnofsky believed the charity had not adequately answered his questions about program effectiveness.”
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Individual Philanthropy
The individual philanthropist has always played a major role in the development of charitable activity in the United States and Philanthropy Magazine profiled one of them.
An excerpt.
“In 1969, legendary investor Richard Gilder moved his stockbrokerage firm’s offices from Wall Street to midtown Manhattan and started walking to work each day across Central Park. The native New Yorker had not realized until then how drastically a few years of bad government had ruined and degraded what he recalled as his idyllic childhood playground. Everywhere, he saw smashed streetlights, shattered benches, drug-dealing thugs, and spaced-out bums. He knew that the trash-choked weeds hid infected heroin needles, and the bushes, muggers. Hardly a blade of grass grew on the lawns, now pocked dustbowls that rain turned to mud.
“I was totally horrified,” Gilder says. “But I think horror is a tremendous thing to have on your side. It is so stark, it just drives you to action.” He launched a two-decade-long campaign to save the 843-acre park, which he capped in 1991 with a $17 million gift—over $27 million today—to restore the Great Lawn at the park’s heart to its Elysian green. That dramatic gesture of daring generosity made us demoralized New Yorkers believe for the first time that our crime-ridden, nearly bankrupt city could become the world’s capital once again. It restored our optimism and self-confidence, reminding us that human ingenuity can solve problems human folly has caused. Some philanthropic gifts, after all, can lift a whole community’s spirit.
“Gilder was only getting started as a benefactor. His specialty turned out to be fixing what wasn’t working, burnishing what others had neglected, sometimes even to the point of heroic rescue, as with Central Park. He shined up the dowdy New-York Historical Society, built a dazzling new planetarium for the American Museum of Natural History, supercharged the Yale endowment, and, with his investor-friend Lewis Lehrman, built the world’s finest private collection of American historical documents, which the pair then used as a tool to resuscitate and reinvigorate the study of the American past from kindergarten through professorial tenure in every one of the 50 states.
“He did all this with what Yale president Richard Levin calls a “deeply rooted entrepreneurial creativity” that could see the seeds of great projects in tentative, unformed ideas and could bring them to fruition not only through his own money and effort but also by finding innovative ways to mobilize the talents, energy, enthusiasm, and resources of others.
“Seed Capital
“Central Park had been Gilder’s backyard ever since he was a boy. In the 1930s, his New Orleans–born mother, the daughter of Jews from Alsace-Lorraine who settled in Mississippi in the 1830s, walked him daily around the park in his stylish wicker perambulator. He played softball there most afternoons after school at P.S. 166 and then P.S. 6. On weekends he rowed on the lake or sledded down the hills. When he returned to his hometown in the mid-1950s as a young stockbroker—a profession he fell into by accident after school at Mount Hermon, Yale, and an unhappy few months at Yale Law—he played a ferocious game of touch football there with fellow Wall Streeters every single fall and winter Sunday for years, rain, shine, or snow.
“In 1968, Gilder left A. G. Becker to start his own stockbrokerage firm “after I had a little disagreement with the boss.” By then, Mayor John V. Lindsay had transformed Central Park into a case study in how not to run a city. Lindsay, the quintessential 1960s limousine liberal, had turned almost every foolish idea of the era into public policy. His Welfare Commissioner, Mitchell “Come-and-Get-It” Ginsberg, had more than doubled the welfare rolls in the name of social justice, deepening the city’s social pathology; his Parks Commissioner, Thomas Hoving, had invited huge crowds to trample Central Park’s lawns into hardpan at rock concerts and at “Hoving’s Happenings,” celebrations of the era’s supposedly free spirit.
“Lindsay’s belief that police should ignore supposedly “victimless” crimes like graffiti vandalism, drug dealing, public urination, and public drunkenness defaced and despoiled public spaces, none more so than Central Park. As we New Yorkers walked across that desert in those days—through the dust and stink of human and canine waste, past the muttering and disheveled deinstitutionalized madmen, under the hard, aggressive stares of the drug dealers—we knew it was not our park. It was theirs. And since such disorder breeds serious crime, we also knew, as the city’s murder rate skyrocketed up to six per day, it was as unsafe as it was unsightly.
“Unlike most New Yorkers, Gilder would not stand for this. “You don’t really realize how something becomes a part of you and you come to love it, until someone insults its dignity,” he says. So he went to see Hoving’s successor, August Heckscher, to see what he could do. Wall Street tycoon George Soros made a similar offer of help shortly afterward, Gilder recalls. “They told him there was another crackpot who’d been messing around; maybe you two guys should get together.” So the two investors decided to go long on Central Park. They sponsored a study showing how private money, a private Board of Guardians, and modern management could rescue the derelict park, and they set up the Central Park Community Fund to begin turning the study into reality.”
An excerpt.
“In 1969, legendary investor Richard Gilder moved his stockbrokerage firm’s offices from Wall Street to midtown Manhattan and started walking to work each day across Central Park. The native New Yorker had not realized until then how drastically a few years of bad government had ruined and degraded what he recalled as his idyllic childhood playground. Everywhere, he saw smashed streetlights, shattered benches, drug-dealing thugs, and spaced-out bums. He knew that the trash-choked weeds hid infected heroin needles, and the bushes, muggers. Hardly a blade of grass grew on the lawns, now pocked dustbowls that rain turned to mud.
“I was totally horrified,” Gilder says. “But I think horror is a tremendous thing to have on your side. It is so stark, it just drives you to action.” He launched a two-decade-long campaign to save the 843-acre park, which he capped in 1991 with a $17 million gift—over $27 million today—to restore the Great Lawn at the park’s heart to its Elysian green. That dramatic gesture of daring generosity made us demoralized New Yorkers believe for the first time that our crime-ridden, nearly bankrupt city could become the world’s capital once again. It restored our optimism and self-confidence, reminding us that human ingenuity can solve problems human folly has caused. Some philanthropic gifts, after all, can lift a whole community’s spirit.
“Gilder was only getting started as a benefactor. His specialty turned out to be fixing what wasn’t working, burnishing what others had neglected, sometimes even to the point of heroic rescue, as with Central Park. He shined up the dowdy New-York Historical Society, built a dazzling new planetarium for the American Museum of Natural History, supercharged the Yale endowment, and, with his investor-friend Lewis Lehrman, built the world’s finest private collection of American historical documents, which the pair then used as a tool to resuscitate and reinvigorate the study of the American past from kindergarten through professorial tenure in every one of the 50 states.
“He did all this with what Yale president Richard Levin calls a “deeply rooted entrepreneurial creativity” that could see the seeds of great projects in tentative, unformed ideas and could bring them to fruition not only through his own money and effort but also by finding innovative ways to mobilize the talents, energy, enthusiasm, and resources of others.
“Seed Capital
“Central Park had been Gilder’s backyard ever since he was a boy. In the 1930s, his New Orleans–born mother, the daughter of Jews from Alsace-Lorraine who settled in Mississippi in the 1830s, walked him daily around the park in his stylish wicker perambulator. He played softball there most afternoons after school at P.S. 166 and then P.S. 6. On weekends he rowed on the lake or sledded down the hills. When he returned to his hometown in the mid-1950s as a young stockbroker—a profession he fell into by accident after school at Mount Hermon, Yale, and an unhappy few months at Yale Law—he played a ferocious game of touch football there with fellow Wall Streeters every single fall and winter Sunday for years, rain, shine, or snow.
“In 1968, Gilder left A. G. Becker to start his own stockbrokerage firm “after I had a little disagreement with the boss.” By then, Mayor John V. Lindsay had transformed Central Park into a case study in how not to run a city. Lindsay, the quintessential 1960s limousine liberal, had turned almost every foolish idea of the era into public policy. His Welfare Commissioner, Mitchell “Come-and-Get-It” Ginsberg, had more than doubled the welfare rolls in the name of social justice, deepening the city’s social pathology; his Parks Commissioner, Thomas Hoving, had invited huge crowds to trample Central Park’s lawns into hardpan at rock concerts and at “Hoving’s Happenings,” celebrations of the era’s supposedly free spirit.
“Lindsay’s belief that police should ignore supposedly “victimless” crimes like graffiti vandalism, drug dealing, public urination, and public drunkenness defaced and despoiled public spaces, none more so than Central Park. As we New Yorkers walked across that desert in those days—through the dust and stink of human and canine waste, past the muttering and disheveled deinstitutionalized madmen, under the hard, aggressive stares of the drug dealers—we knew it was not our park. It was theirs. And since such disorder breeds serious crime, we also knew, as the city’s murder rate skyrocketed up to six per day, it was as unsafe as it was unsightly.
“Unlike most New Yorkers, Gilder would not stand for this. “You don’t really realize how something becomes a part of you and you come to love it, until someone insults its dignity,” he says. So he went to see Hoving’s successor, August Heckscher, to see what he could do. Wall Street tycoon George Soros made a similar offer of help shortly afterward, Gilder recalls. “They told him there was another crackpot who’d been messing around; maybe you two guys should get together.” So the two investors decided to go long on Central Park. They sponsored a study showing how private money, a private Board of Guardians, and modern management could rescue the derelict park, and they set up the Central Park Community Fund to begin turning the study into reality.”
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Organizational Development
Following up on yesterday’s post, here is an article of mine about OD that was published in the OD Networks bi monthly e zine Volume 7, Issue 6, Year 07
OD, the Natural Language of Human Service Nonprofits: Congruence and Opportunity
Organization Development (OD) and the mission-driven organizational imperatives of human service nonprofit organizations (HSNOs) share common values and complementary realities. This congruence represents opportunities for HSNOs and OD practitioners alike.
Nonprofits and HSNOs
O’Neill (2002) defines nonprofits as:
"(1) organizations or institutions to some extent, (2) private or not part of government, (3) non-profit-distributing, (4) self-governing, (5) voluntary or noncompulsory and involving some meaningful degree of voluntary participation, and (6) of public benefit” (p. 2).
Nonprofits serve the public good by providing a public service, and they are humanistic by definition and function. HSNOs are the small to large nonprofit organizations that act as organizational change agents transforming individuals and communities. In the United States, there are 103,171 of them with revenue of $142.3 billion and assets of $209.3 billion (Nonprofit Almanac, 2007, p. 3).
Relevance, OD & HSNOs
While nonprofits are driven by their mission, bringing passion and commitment to their cause, they are often lacking in the internal organizational capacity building tools needed for sustainability. The specific tools they are most deficient in are strategic planning, fund development, board and staff development, and communications and marketing.
OD values include humanism, collaboration, cooperation, participation, knowledge of self and awareness of one’s affect, empowerment of individuals, groups, and organizations, and social responsibility and sustainability. These are also the values of HSNOs, and they can achieve individual and community transformation most effectively when embracing their own values, and those from OD congruent with their organizations, as applied to their own organizational development and functioning.
OD practitioners, working from their humanistic values, can help HSNOs with the technical organizational world needed to positively affect the governance, strategy, and fund development capability of the board and staff, which directly impacts the mission fulfillment—the core reason for their existence—of the nonprofit organization.
Two of the basic techniques of OD that could be most helpful to HSNOs would be the creation of a learning community, and using group work to help clients mentor board and staff members and board and staff members mentor clients. This would help co-create an environment where the inherent self-destructiveness of the HSNO client’s world can be mitigated through the inherent self-responsibility of the board and staff member’s world, leading to an organizational culture of mutual learning and healing in a transformative setting.
The author has worked with several small HSNO’s where this inability to connect the staff and board to the client’s world has dramatically affected the ability of the organization to help its client base, personally in the transformative process, and organizationally in growing to scale and developing effectiveness.
Individuals with humanistic ideals self-select into both non-profit environments and OD careers, actively choosing settings in which they feel comfortably challenged.
This would indicate that nonprofit staff and board may be open to operating according to OD organizational values, but do not yet have the exposure to the knowledge or the tools of change and capacity building. If they did so, they would be modeling and enhancing mission work, and becoming more aligned with the natural language of the nonprofit world.
Opportunity
Individual development, organization development, and development of the social environment cannot be truly separated; they are reciprocal. Many transforming nonprofits fail because they haven't transformed themselves organizationally.
OD has traditionally been marketed to for-profit organizations but HSNOs are generally more able to realize the organizational and values aspirations of OD because of their higher level of congruency with the humanistic values of traditional OD.
The absence of a profit motive for nonprofits creates a deeper ground for the enactment of OD and its values. Block (2002) defining OD, has referred to “organization” as the “construct of an engineer”, concerned with problem-solving, and “development” as the “construct of a healer”, concerned with relationships, feeling, and humanity.
The HSNO embodies both of these constructs as it is a problem-solving entity that heals. They are animated by an intuitive mission of individual and community transformation. To be more effective, they could embrace a technical mission of management—still imbued by values-driven transformation—consistent with the humanistic values and organizational practice of OD.
References
Block, P. (2002). Organization and Development. Practicing OD 2002, 3. Retrieved June 2006 from www.odnetwork.org .
Nonprofit Almanac (2007). The nonprofit sector in brief. Retrieved May 2007 from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311373_nonprofit_sector.pdf
O’Neill, M. (2002). Nonprofit nation: A new look at the third America. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
OD, the Natural Language of Human Service Nonprofits: Congruence and Opportunity
Organization Development (OD) and the mission-driven organizational imperatives of human service nonprofit organizations (HSNOs) share common values and complementary realities. This congruence represents opportunities for HSNOs and OD practitioners alike.
Nonprofits and HSNOs
O’Neill (2002) defines nonprofits as:
"(1) organizations or institutions to some extent, (2) private or not part of government, (3) non-profit-distributing, (4) self-governing, (5) voluntary or noncompulsory and involving some meaningful degree of voluntary participation, and (6) of public benefit” (p. 2).
Nonprofits serve the public good by providing a public service, and they are humanistic by definition and function. HSNOs are the small to large nonprofit organizations that act as organizational change agents transforming individuals and communities. In the United States, there are 103,171 of them with revenue of $142.3 billion and assets of $209.3 billion (Nonprofit Almanac, 2007, p. 3).
Relevance, OD & HSNOs
While nonprofits are driven by their mission, bringing passion and commitment to their cause, they are often lacking in the internal organizational capacity building tools needed for sustainability. The specific tools they are most deficient in are strategic planning, fund development, board and staff development, and communications and marketing.
OD values include humanism, collaboration, cooperation, participation, knowledge of self and awareness of one’s affect, empowerment of individuals, groups, and organizations, and social responsibility and sustainability. These are also the values of HSNOs, and they can achieve individual and community transformation most effectively when embracing their own values, and those from OD congruent with their organizations, as applied to their own organizational development and functioning.
OD practitioners, working from their humanistic values, can help HSNOs with the technical organizational world needed to positively affect the governance, strategy, and fund development capability of the board and staff, which directly impacts the mission fulfillment—the core reason for their existence—of the nonprofit organization.
Two of the basic techniques of OD that could be most helpful to HSNOs would be the creation of a learning community, and using group work to help clients mentor board and staff members and board and staff members mentor clients. This would help co-create an environment where the inherent self-destructiveness of the HSNO client’s world can be mitigated through the inherent self-responsibility of the board and staff member’s world, leading to an organizational culture of mutual learning and healing in a transformative setting.
The author has worked with several small HSNO’s where this inability to connect the staff and board to the client’s world has dramatically affected the ability of the organization to help its client base, personally in the transformative process, and organizationally in growing to scale and developing effectiveness.
Individuals with humanistic ideals self-select into both non-profit environments and OD careers, actively choosing settings in which they feel comfortably challenged.
This would indicate that nonprofit staff and board may be open to operating according to OD organizational values, but do not yet have the exposure to the knowledge or the tools of change and capacity building. If they did so, they would be modeling and enhancing mission work, and becoming more aligned with the natural language of the nonprofit world.
Opportunity
Individual development, organization development, and development of the social environment cannot be truly separated; they are reciprocal. Many transforming nonprofits fail because they haven't transformed themselves organizationally.
OD has traditionally been marketed to for-profit organizations but HSNOs are generally more able to realize the organizational and values aspirations of OD because of their higher level of congruency with the humanistic values of traditional OD.
The absence of a profit motive for nonprofits creates a deeper ground for the enactment of OD and its values. Block (2002) defining OD, has referred to “organization” as the “construct of an engineer”, concerned with problem-solving, and “development” as the “construct of a healer”, concerned with relationships, feeling, and humanity.
The HSNO embodies both of these constructs as it is a problem-solving entity that heals. They are animated by an intuitive mission of individual and community transformation. To be more effective, they could embrace a technical mission of management—still imbued by values-driven transformation—consistent with the humanistic values and organizational practice of OD.
References
Block, P. (2002). Organization and Development. Practicing OD 2002, 3. Retrieved June 2006 from www.odnetwork.org .
Nonprofit Almanac (2007). The nonprofit sector in brief. Retrieved May 2007 from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311373_nonprofit_sector.pdf
O’Neill, M. (2002). Nonprofit nation: A new look at the third America. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Deep OD
One of the strongest tools the manager of a nonprofit humanistic organization can have is a deep, professional-level of knowledge about Organizational Development (OD).
OD is a collection of planned organizational and individual self-actualizations built on social justice spiritual roots that seeks to evolve individual and organizational co-creativity and effectiveness, ultimately transforming the community.
The OD vision embraces human and organizational growth, collaborative and participative processes, and a spirit of self and organizational inquiry.
Deep OD embraces the invisible spiritual roots underlying the visible practice, and teaches others to visibilize the roots, entwining them around their practice, and allowing them to become the lens through which they view their work, their clients, their community.
Deep OD is built upon the principles embedded within integral humanism.
Integral humanism is the embracing conceptual framework Mounier (1938) describes as:
"By civilization in the strict sense we mean the coherent process of man’s biological and social adaptation to his body and his environment. By culture we mean the enlargement of his consciousness, the ease he acquires in the exercising of his spirit, his participation in a certain way of reacting and of thinking—all of this as peculiar to an epoch and a group even while tending to universality. By spirituality we mean the unfolding of the deeper life of his person. We have therewith defined the three ascending levels of an integral humanism." (p. 7, italics in original)
Humanistic Organizations
Humanistic organizations are not separate entities, though they appear to be. They act as elements in a complex organizational community, grown from spiritual roots and the mission driven mental model that defines them, hardwired for self-actualization.
The humanistic organizational community co-creatively evolves, based on spiritually defined values and directs itself upward.
Humanistic organizational communities are, at one level, composed of other humanistic organizations and the individuals within the organizations. They both influence the nature of their whole community. They can both play an active role in creating their dual future and become co-created entities, self-actualizing groups engaged in evolving metalogues.
OD Professionals
As OD has evolved and the acceptance of a deeper humanism permeate its work, a core challenge is, as Cummings & Worley (2005) note:
"OD professionals face serious challenges in simultaneously pursuing greater humanism and organizational effectiveness. More practitioners are experiencing situations in which there is a conflict between employee’s needs for greater meaning and the organization’s need for more effective and efficient use of its resources." (p. 57)
For an OD professional, this will not be seen as a challenge, as the need for greater meaning usually trumps efficiency; but the challenge will be in helping the organizations owners—driven by the need for efficient—see the value of reaching for greater meaning.
The consultant emphasizes collaboration and self-help, grounded in the underlying spiritual values of OD efforts.
Within the forest of organized life there are many trees rooted in the dark earth, reaching to heaven. Each tree has a clearly lighted path through the dark forest to its ground, inviting the traveler. Seeing the lighted path our organization makes in the dark is our initial task. Helping others see it is our next.
References
Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (2005). Organization development and change (8th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson Southwestern.
Mounier, E. (1938). A personalist manifesto. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
OD is a collection of planned organizational and individual self-actualizations built on social justice spiritual roots that seeks to evolve individual and organizational co-creativity and effectiveness, ultimately transforming the community.
The OD vision embraces human and organizational growth, collaborative and participative processes, and a spirit of self and organizational inquiry.
Deep OD embraces the invisible spiritual roots underlying the visible practice, and teaches others to visibilize the roots, entwining them around their practice, and allowing them to become the lens through which they view their work, their clients, their community.
Deep OD is built upon the principles embedded within integral humanism.
Integral humanism is the embracing conceptual framework Mounier (1938) describes as:
"By civilization in the strict sense we mean the coherent process of man’s biological and social adaptation to his body and his environment. By culture we mean the enlargement of his consciousness, the ease he acquires in the exercising of his spirit, his participation in a certain way of reacting and of thinking—all of this as peculiar to an epoch and a group even while tending to universality. By spirituality we mean the unfolding of the deeper life of his person. We have therewith defined the three ascending levels of an integral humanism." (p. 7, italics in original)
Humanistic Organizations
Humanistic organizations are not separate entities, though they appear to be. They act as elements in a complex organizational community, grown from spiritual roots and the mission driven mental model that defines them, hardwired for self-actualization.
The humanistic organizational community co-creatively evolves, based on spiritually defined values and directs itself upward.
Humanistic organizational communities are, at one level, composed of other humanistic organizations and the individuals within the organizations. They both influence the nature of their whole community. They can both play an active role in creating their dual future and become co-created entities, self-actualizing groups engaged in evolving metalogues.
OD Professionals
As OD has evolved and the acceptance of a deeper humanism permeate its work, a core challenge is, as Cummings & Worley (2005) note:
"OD professionals face serious challenges in simultaneously pursuing greater humanism and organizational effectiveness. More practitioners are experiencing situations in which there is a conflict between employee’s needs for greater meaning and the organization’s need for more effective and efficient use of its resources." (p. 57)
For an OD professional, this will not be seen as a challenge, as the need for greater meaning usually trumps efficiency; but the challenge will be in helping the organizations owners—driven by the need for efficient—see the value of reaching for greater meaning.
The consultant emphasizes collaboration and self-help, grounded in the underlying spiritual values of OD efforts.
Within the forest of organized life there are many trees rooted in the dark earth, reaching to heaven. Each tree has a clearly lighted path through the dark forest to its ground, inviting the traveler. Seeing the lighted path our organization makes in the dark is our initial task. Helping others see it is our next.
References
Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (2005). Organization development and change (8th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson Southwestern.
Mounier, E. (1938). A personalist manifesto. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Sacramento Parks Seeks Support
As Sacramento’s public funding continues to shrink, a new initiative from the city of Sacramento's Department of Parks and Recreation, is calling for the community to become more involved in the local parks.
An excerpt.
“Sacramento’s 200+ parks, state-of-the-art recreation facilities, and wide ranging programs help make Sacramento a more livable city for all. Now you can help support these important community programs and assets through sponsorships.
“The Department of Parks and Recreation has developed a new program called the Community Sponsorship Initiative (CSI). The goal of the program is to recruit individuals, groups, and local businesses to support the City’s parks and recreation system by sponsoring essential programs, services, and facilities, all of which serve the needs of children, youth, and older adults.
“Sponsors can be recognized in a wide variety of ways, including recognition through acknowledgement letters and certificates, on special event literature and materials, on CSI’s website, and also given the opportunity to place commercial advertising in the Department’s Recreation Magazine or at specific specialized facilities.”
An excerpt.
“Sacramento’s 200+ parks, state-of-the-art recreation facilities, and wide ranging programs help make Sacramento a more livable city for all. Now you can help support these important community programs and assets through sponsorships.
“The Department of Parks and Recreation has developed a new program called the Community Sponsorship Initiative (CSI). The goal of the program is to recruit individuals, groups, and local businesses to support the City’s parks and recreation system by sponsoring essential programs, services, and facilities, all of which serve the needs of children, youth, and older adults.
“Sponsors can be recognized in a wide variety of ways, including recognition through acknowledgement letters and certificates, on special event literature and materials, on CSI’s website, and also given the opportunity to place commercial advertising in the Department’s Recreation Magazine or at specific specialized facilities.”
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Some Local Nonprofits Hiring
As reported by the Sacramento Bee.
An excerpt.
“A recent spike in hiring among local arts nonprofit groups seems to suggest that jobs in that sector are not vanishing like jobs elsewhere.
“But arts groups aren't in the clear yet. Most of the hiring has been triggered by seasonal staffing, the expansion of the Crocker Art Museum and the replenishing or reconfiguring of administrative positions. Future hiring at most arts groups will remain flat or nonexistent, say local arts group leaders.
“At the Sacramento Philharmonic, which operates on a $1.5 million budget, four instrumental positions and two administrative positions have been added in the last year, said Marc Feldman, executive director of the Philharmonic. But no more such hiring is expected, he said.
“At present the orchestra is looking to replace a violinist and violist. "But, this is part of the normal churn," said Feldman.
“Some organizations, like the Sacramento Opera, are shrinking. The company recently furloughed music director Timm Rolek until September, and laid off its community engagement coordinator.
"We do not see adding staff for the next 12 months," said Rod Gideons, general director for the opera. "Certainly we're not in hiring mode and, if anything, we're running about 12 months behind the East Coast in terms of any recovery."
“Of all the local arts nonprofits, the Crocker Art Museum has done the most recent hiring. The museum hired 14 part-time art handlers, and is looking to staff two administrative positions.”
An excerpt.
“A recent spike in hiring among local arts nonprofit groups seems to suggest that jobs in that sector are not vanishing like jobs elsewhere.
“But arts groups aren't in the clear yet. Most of the hiring has been triggered by seasonal staffing, the expansion of the Crocker Art Museum and the replenishing or reconfiguring of administrative positions. Future hiring at most arts groups will remain flat or nonexistent, say local arts group leaders.
“At the Sacramento Philharmonic, which operates on a $1.5 million budget, four instrumental positions and two administrative positions have been added in the last year, said Marc Feldman, executive director of the Philharmonic. But no more such hiring is expected, he said.
“At present the orchestra is looking to replace a violinist and violist. "But, this is part of the normal churn," said Feldman.
“Some organizations, like the Sacramento Opera, are shrinking. The company recently furloughed music director Timm Rolek until September, and laid off its community engagement coordinator.
"We do not see adding staff for the next 12 months," said Rod Gideons, general director for the opera. "Certainly we're not in hiring mode and, if anything, we're running about 12 months behind the East Coast in terms of any recovery."
“Of all the local arts nonprofits, the Crocker Art Museum has done the most recent hiring. The museum hired 14 part-time art handlers, and is looking to staff two administrative positions.”
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Government Debt & Nonprofits
As governments struggle with debt they have legislated themselves into, the ability of nonprofits to count on government funding is being severely reduced, and that is a good thing.
The animating ethic of nonprofit work are the free gifts from philanthropists to perform valuable service for the public.
The coercive aspects of tax money funding such work has created a morass of nonprofits largely replicating the stifling atmosphere of bureaucracies where providing and accessing services to individuals is very burdensome.
As reported in Governing, this is a financial situation likely to get much worse, but it doesn’t have to.
An excerpt.
“States, cities and many nations around the globe are facing an existential threat in the form of a massive fiscal imbalance between expected revenues and promised expenditures. They are bracing before previously unseen levels of debt and deficits, many in fact may be on the verge of bankruptcy.
“Some are already feeling the effects of the wave of debt. The most notable example is Greece, but Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal are all dealing with serious fiscal distress, while countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are looking at sobering forecasts.
“States such as California, New Jersey and New York are currently staving off insolvency thanks to federal largesse in the form of the stimulus package -- and even with $30 billion in such "bailout" funds from Washington, D.C., California was issuing IOUs in lieu of payment during the summer of 2009 and faced a $20 billion gap at the start of 2010.
“Local governments from Vallejo, Calif., (which declared bankruptcy in 2008) to Detroit are looking at a death spiral of tax hikes and population flight.
“The underlying threat is something we call "the Gap." The Gap is a twofold problem, consisting of a fiscal gap between revenue and expenditures and a performance gap between the way government currently operates and the realities of the new economy.
“The fiscal gap has both a cyclical and a structural component. Its cyclical guise emerges when the economic cycle dips, causing public spending to outstrip revenues in the short to medium term. This is happening all over the world as it happened in previous recessions, and it will happen in future ones. The prevailing wisdom of 20th century economics was that these cyclical downturns were acceptable because the ups and downs of the economic cycle balance public finances.
“Given the fiscal outlook as we enter the 21st century, however, this is no longer valid. The structural nature of the current Gap, while exacerbated by the cyclical downturn, is more fundamental. That is, even if there is an economic upturn, a sizable Gap will persist. Democratic societies have over-committed their current and future resources. Steadily rising costs for social security, old-age pensions and health-care benefits, together with significant demographic shifts, mean that incremental changes will prove insufficient. Permanently dealing with The Gap requires fundamentally different thinking and actions.
“At first glance, closing the Gap appears to be an economic problem, a financial puzzle that can be solved by selecting the right set of policy choices. It is not. Rather, it is a challenge of the entire democratic governance model. Politicians, voters, political action groups, public employee unions and a whole slew of competing interests make the political reality of navigating the path to sustainability particularly daunting.”
The animating ethic of nonprofit work are the free gifts from philanthropists to perform valuable service for the public.
The coercive aspects of tax money funding such work has created a morass of nonprofits largely replicating the stifling atmosphere of bureaucracies where providing and accessing services to individuals is very burdensome.
As reported in Governing, this is a financial situation likely to get much worse, but it doesn’t have to.
An excerpt.
“States, cities and many nations around the globe are facing an existential threat in the form of a massive fiscal imbalance between expected revenues and promised expenditures. They are bracing before previously unseen levels of debt and deficits, many in fact may be on the verge of bankruptcy.
“Some are already feeling the effects of the wave of debt. The most notable example is Greece, but Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal are all dealing with serious fiscal distress, while countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are looking at sobering forecasts.
“States such as California, New Jersey and New York are currently staving off insolvency thanks to federal largesse in the form of the stimulus package -- and even with $30 billion in such "bailout" funds from Washington, D.C., California was issuing IOUs in lieu of payment during the summer of 2009 and faced a $20 billion gap at the start of 2010.
“Local governments from Vallejo, Calif., (which declared bankruptcy in 2008) to Detroit are looking at a death spiral of tax hikes and population flight.
“The underlying threat is something we call "the Gap." The Gap is a twofold problem, consisting of a fiscal gap between revenue and expenditures and a performance gap between the way government currently operates and the realities of the new economy.
“The fiscal gap has both a cyclical and a structural component. Its cyclical guise emerges when the economic cycle dips, causing public spending to outstrip revenues in the short to medium term. This is happening all over the world as it happened in previous recessions, and it will happen in future ones. The prevailing wisdom of 20th century economics was that these cyclical downturns were acceptable because the ups and downs of the economic cycle balance public finances.
“Given the fiscal outlook as we enter the 21st century, however, this is no longer valid. The structural nature of the current Gap, while exacerbated by the cyclical downturn, is more fundamental. That is, even if there is an economic upturn, a sizable Gap will persist. Democratic societies have over-committed their current and future resources. Steadily rising costs for social security, old-age pensions and health-care benefits, together with significant demographic shifts, mean that incremental changes will prove insufficient. Permanently dealing with The Gap requires fundamentally different thinking and actions.
“At first glance, closing the Gap appears to be an economic problem, a financial puzzle that can be solved by selecting the right set of policy choices. It is not. Rather, it is a challenge of the entire democratic governance model. Politicians, voters, political action groups, public employee unions and a whole slew of competing interests make the political reality of navigating the path to sustainability particularly daunting.”
Monday, July 5, 2010
Independence Reflection
Now that the fireworks are over, the flag is put away, and the barbeque is cool—though in our house the clean-up from the feast still lingers—it is a good time to reflect on the great and noble ideas upon which our country is founded, ideas which still ring true in the hearts of Americans.
An excerpt from an article from the Heritage Foundation.
“The Fourth of July is a great opportunity to renew our dedication to the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in what Thomas Jefferson called "the declaratory charter of our rights."
“As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence publicly announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. But its greater meaning-then as well as now-is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government, and its proclamation of a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people. "If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence," wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, "it would have been worthwhile."
“Although Congress had appointed a distinguished committee-including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston-the Declaration of Independence is chiefly the work of Thomas Jefferson. By his own account, Jefferson was neither aiming at originality nor taking from any particular writings but was expressing the "harmonizing sentiments of the day," as expressed in conversation, letters, essays, or "the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." Jefferson intended the Declaration to be "an expression of the American mind," and wrote so as to "place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent."
“The structure of the Declaration of Independence is that of a common law legal document. The ringing phrases of the document's famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty only in so far as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are naturally superior, and deserve to rule, or inferior, and deserve to be ruled. Because men are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends.
“The remainder of the document is a bill of indictment accusing King George III of some 30 offenses, some constitutional, some legal, and some matters of policy. The combined charges against the king were intended to demonstrate a history of repeated injuries, all having the object of establishing "an absolute tyranny" over America. Although the colonists were "disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable," the time had come to end the relationship: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
“One charge that Jefferson had included, but Congress removed, was that the king had "waged cruel war against human nature" by introducing slavery and allowing the slave trade into the American colonies. A few delegates were unwilling to acknowledge that slavery violated the "most sacred rights of life and liberty," and the passage was dropped for the sake of unanimity. Thus was foreshadowed the central debate of the American Civil War, which Abraham Lincoln saw as a test to determine whether a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" could long endure.
“The Declaration of Independence and the liberties recognized in it are grounded in a higher law to which all human laws are answerable. This higher law can be understood to derive from reason-the truths of the Declaration are held to be "self-evident"-but also revelation. There are four references to God in the document: to "the laws of nature and nature's God"; to all men being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"; to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"; and to "the protection of Divine Providence." The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others-God as creator, as judge, and as providence-are more biblical, and add a theological context to the document. "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?" Jefferson asked in his Notes on the State of Virginia.”
An excerpt from an article from the Heritage Foundation.
“The Fourth of July is a great opportunity to renew our dedication to the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in what Thomas Jefferson called "the declaratory charter of our rights."
“As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence publicly announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. But its greater meaning-then as well as now-is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government, and its proclamation of a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people. "If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence," wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, "it would have been worthwhile."
“Although Congress had appointed a distinguished committee-including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston-the Declaration of Independence is chiefly the work of Thomas Jefferson. By his own account, Jefferson was neither aiming at originality nor taking from any particular writings but was expressing the "harmonizing sentiments of the day," as expressed in conversation, letters, essays, or "the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." Jefferson intended the Declaration to be "an expression of the American mind," and wrote so as to "place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent."
“The structure of the Declaration of Independence is that of a common law legal document. The ringing phrases of the document's famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty only in so far as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are naturally superior, and deserve to rule, or inferior, and deserve to be ruled. Because men are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends.
“The remainder of the document is a bill of indictment accusing King George III of some 30 offenses, some constitutional, some legal, and some matters of policy. The combined charges against the king were intended to demonstrate a history of repeated injuries, all having the object of establishing "an absolute tyranny" over America. Although the colonists were "disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable," the time had come to end the relationship: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."
“One charge that Jefferson had included, but Congress removed, was that the king had "waged cruel war against human nature" by introducing slavery and allowing the slave trade into the American colonies. A few delegates were unwilling to acknowledge that slavery violated the "most sacred rights of life and liberty," and the passage was dropped for the sake of unanimity. Thus was foreshadowed the central debate of the American Civil War, which Abraham Lincoln saw as a test to determine whether a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" could long endure.
“The Declaration of Independence and the liberties recognized in it are grounded in a higher law to which all human laws are answerable. This higher law can be understood to derive from reason-the truths of the Declaration are held to be "self-evident"-but also revelation. There are four references to God in the document: to "the laws of nature and nature's God"; to all men being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"; to "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"; and to "the protection of Divine Providence." The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others-God as creator, as judge, and as providence-are more biblical, and add a theological context to the document. "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?" Jefferson asked in his Notes on the State of Virginia.”
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Growing to Scale
A good blog post on the issue—which has had an impact on many nonprofits in the past several years—from Stanford Social Innovation Review.
An excerpt.
“I was recently invited to attend the Social Impact Exchange Conference on Scaling held in New York City and thought the conference was a great experience. I actually was most in awe of the collection of people attending. I regard them so highly that I think on several occasions someone helped me remove my jaw from the floor and assisted me in grabbing my composure.
“In any sense, I noticed that the conference targeted several themes, including innovation, rethinking investment, and of course, scaling. Many times I heard different uses or versions of the word “new”. Often it was cast as a need for new directions in both philanthropy and the nonprofit sector. Sometimes it was cast as a plea to get rid of “the old and replace it with the new”. What I did not hear much of, but think it is important to consider, is the possibility of reconfiguring or even “re-propelling” organizations that have much longer histories. As you may know from reading my previous posts, I often draw comparisons between the nonprofit sector and popular culture. As I reflected on the SIE Scaling Conference, the movie Cocoon came to my mind. I promise I won’t reference Steve Guttenberg.
“If you don’t know or remember the movie, Cocoon is a movie about a swimming pool that houses the cocoons of aliens. Three older men start swimming in the pool and begin to obtain renewed energy, causing the older gentleman to feel much stronger. In thinking about this plot and some of the phraseology I heard at the conference, I wondered if it is possible to rethink our language and talk about how we can renew older organizations that some have labeled as dead or have forgotten about in the rush to recognize and highlight newer efforts.”
An excerpt.
“I was recently invited to attend the Social Impact Exchange Conference on Scaling held in New York City and thought the conference was a great experience. I actually was most in awe of the collection of people attending. I regard them so highly that I think on several occasions someone helped me remove my jaw from the floor and assisted me in grabbing my composure.
“In any sense, I noticed that the conference targeted several themes, including innovation, rethinking investment, and of course, scaling. Many times I heard different uses or versions of the word “new”. Often it was cast as a need for new directions in both philanthropy and the nonprofit sector. Sometimes it was cast as a plea to get rid of “the old and replace it with the new”. What I did not hear much of, but think it is important to consider, is the possibility of reconfiguring or even “re-propelling” organizations that have much longer histories. As you may know from reading my previous posts, I often draw comparisons between the nonprofit sector and popular culture. As I reflected on the SIE Scaling Conference, the movie Cocoon came to my mind. I promise I won’t reference Steve Guttenberg.
“If you don’t know or remember the movie, Cocoon is a movie about a swimming pool that houses the cocoons of aliens. Three older men start swimming in the pool and begin to obtain renewed energy, causing the older gentleman to feel much stronger. In thinking about this plot and some of the phraseology I heard at the conference, I wondered if it is possible to rethink our language and talk about how we can renew older organizations that some have labeled as dead or have forgotten about in the rush to recognize and highlight newer efforts.”
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Wealthy Give Less
In a rational response to tough economic times, the charitable activity of the wealthy has decreased somewhat, as this article from Bloomberg reports.
What hasn’t changed is the necessity for an organization to be philanthropically ready—being financially accountable and transparent—a cornerstone of the five steps my consulting practice works to ensure each client organization embraces.
An excerpt.
“Giving Less
“Philanthropy was another area where the wealthy have become more focused and cautious in the aftermath of the financial crisis, Van der Linde said. In the U.S., total charitable contributions fell 3.6 percent in 2009 to $303.75 billion from $315.08 billion in 2008, according to Giving USA Foundation.
“With less to give, donors are being more selective in their philanthropic activity.
“It’s not just blanketing several charities and hoping for the best,” said Van der Linde. “They are now looking to wealth management firms for advice on how to make philanthropy part of their investment planning.”
“The U.S. had 2.87 million millionaires, topping Japan and more than triple third-ranked Germany with 861,500, the report said. The number of millionaires in China soared 31 percent to 477,400, keeping the country ahead of the U.K. with 448,100.”
What hasn’t changed is the necessity for an organization to be philanthropically ready—being financially accountable and transparent—a cornerstone of the five steps my consulting practice works to ensure each client organization embraces.
An excerpt.
“Giving Less
“Philanthropy was another area where the wealthy have become more focused and cautious in the aftermath of the financial crisis, Van der Linde said. In the U.S., total charitable contributions fell 3.6 percent in 2009 to $303.75 billion from $315.08 billion in 2008, according to Giving USA Foundation.
“With less to give, donors are being more selective in their philanthropic activity.
“It’s not just blanketing several charities and hoping for the best,” said Van der Linde. “They are now looking to wealth management firms for advice on how to make philanthropy part of their investment planning.”
“The U.S. had 2.87 million millionaires, topping Japan and more than triple third-ranked Germany with 861,500, the report said. The number of millionaires in China soared 31 percent to 477,400, keeping the country ahead of the U.K. with 448,100.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
