They can be very congruent, as this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy notes.
An excerpt.
“As the world has discovered through the grass-roots revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia —driven in part by messages on Twitter and Facebook—online social media can be powerful tools for spurring social change. And increasingly, both fledgling nonprofits and long-established charities are taking up those tools in issue advocacy.
“The trick, say nonprofit advocacy experts, is to pair virtual campaigns with flesh-and-blood action. “I don’t think broad change is likely to happen exclusively online,” says Chris Sarette, director of business operations at Invisible Children, a charity started in 2004 by young filmmakers to raise awareness about the plight of young people in war-torn East Africa.
“The charity has used Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and its own video-rich Web site to organize hundreds of student rallies across America to oppose the use of child soldiers in northern Uganda. In 2009 the San Diego group’s protest outside Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios, in Chicago, covered on Twitter by protestors, became one of the top-10 Twitter topics of that day and resulted in a very visible guest spot for Invisible Children on Ms. Winfrey’s talk show.
“Last May, when President Obama signed a bill that is expected to reduce child soldiering, leaders of Invisible Children were invited to the White House for the signing.
“An astounding 97 percent of nonprofits are using social media, far surpassing even the business world,” says Nora Ganim Barnes, co-author of a study released last year by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research.
“The embrace of such embryonic media (Facebook started in 2004, Twitter in 2006) has led to an era of creative experimentation, says Jamie Henn, communications director for the environmental activist group 350.org, in Oakland, Calif.
“And, he says, such experiments are seeing results. Last fall, through digital organizing on its Web and Facebook sites, his group mobilized people in all but three countries around the world to work on climate change in their own communities. In 7,347 places, people planted trees, installed solar panels and wind turbines, weatherized buildings, and planted urban gardens.
“Social media provides a place where people can share the work they are doing in the real world and gain a sense of momentum and community by seeing similar stories from around the planet,” Mr. Henn says. “It meant a lot for a group of friends in Las Cruces, N.M., after putting up a solar panel on a homeless shelter, to see a story about a group from Johannesburg, South Africa, doing the same thing. People get drawn into the Web site and see these amazing things others are doing, and they figure they can go out and do them as well.”
“Using social media to spur activism is such a new approach that many groups are still learning what works and what doesn’t.”
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Programs That Work
Many of the nonprofit organizations that are primarily funded by government are seeing their funds shrink or at worst, disappear, as government struggles with less revenue.
This article from Governing suggests ways to determine what programs work before reducing or removing funding, which is a very good idea.
An excerpt.
“Nearly all states have imposed some level of budget cuts -- some quite deep -- since the recession began in 2008. But very few have established systematic ways of sorting programs that are working from those that aren't.
“That's problematic. Without a serious evaluation of program effectiveness, politics tend to dictate important budget decisions, and arguments over stakeholder interests and political palatability drown out important questions of real-world impact.
“As a result, states and cities respond to record budget shortfalls with across-the-board cuts, and some vital public services end up on the chopping block unnecessarily.
“That's why we've developed the "Reviewing What Works" tools, a process for evaluating the effectiveness of government programs. They are part of a Center for American Progress report entitled The Secret to Programs that Work.
“The key to the Reviewing What Works approach is an interagency assessment of effectiveness with specific, concrete steps to compare various programs. The tools include a series of basic questions that should be asked of every existing program: What impact has it had on the problem it's trying to solve? How does it compare to other programs with similar goals? Is it well run?
“Given the grim budget picture, statehouses need to focus on cost effectiveness.
"Openly measuring the performance of our public institutions, and communicating that performance to citizens, has never been more important," Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said at Governing magazine's annual Outlook in the States and Localities conference. "The states that win will be the states that...manage for results."
This article from Governing suggests ways to determine what programs work before reducing or removing funding, which is a very good idea.
An excerpt.
“Nearly all states have imposed some level of budget cuts -- some quite deep -- since the recession began in 2008. But very few have established systematic ways of sorting programs that are working from those that aren't.
“That's problematic. Without a serious evaluation of program effectiveness, politics tend to dictate important budget decisions, and arguments over stakeholder interests and political palatability drown out important questions of real-world impact.
“As a result, states and cities respond to record budget shortfalls with across-the-board cuts, and some vital public services end up on the chopping block unnecessarily.
“That's why we've developed the "Reviewing What Works" tools, a process for evaluating the effectiveness of government programs. They are part of a Center for American Progress report entitled The Secret to Programs that Work.
“The key to the Reviewing What Works approach is an interagency assessment of effectiveness with specific, concrete steps to compare various programs. The tools include a series of basic questions that should be asked of every existing program: What impact has it had on the problem it's trying to solve? How does it compare to other programs with similar goals? Is it well run?
“Given the grim budget picture, statehouses need to focus on cost effectiveness.
"Openly measuring the performance of our public institutions, and communicating that performance to citizens, has never been more important," Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said at Governing magazine's annual Outlook in the States and Localities conference. "The states that win will be the states that...manage for results."
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Therapy for Nonprofits
A very intriguing article, but remember, an active confessional life with your parish priest may be an even better tool than the therapy described in this article from Blue Avocado.
An excerpt.
“I worked most of my career in nonprofits, but I experienced so much dysfunction -- including my own! -- that in 2007 I decided to train as a psychotherapist.
“The very dynamics that motivate us to change the world can also create unnecessary personal, psychic suffering and result in a need for psychotherapy for some. Many of us hold ourselves to an ethic of sacrifice and self-deprivation as well, often stemming from some variety of guilt or survivor guilt. Of course, we have clear, ethical, intelligent reasons to change the world. But we need personal freedom in addition to social freedom.
“Top 7 reasons nonprofit people may find therapy helpful
“7. You will be able to plan creatively for your own future.
“People in the nonprofit world can sometimes lose sight of our personal future, in our eagerness to win victories for others. Therapy can help you sketch out your own career dreams. You can't advocate for yourself in an effective way if you're not sure what you want. I had a client tell me recently, "Once I was able to ask for the promotion I wanted and get it, I felt appreciated and naturally generous, instead of guilty."
“6. You will learn how to really not take things personally.
“In therapy, many of us work on perceiving what is real. Do I really want to be a doctor, or was that my dad's wish? Why am I drawn to this person who does not seem to want me? Does my supervisor hate me, or is she stressed out and scared about funding? Not taking things personally means we can communicate like adults, take responsibility for ourselves, and have clearer interactions.”
An excerpt.
“I worked most of my career in nonprofits, but I experienced so much dysfunction -- including my own! -- that in 2007 I decided to train as a psychotherapist.
“The very dynamics that motivate us to change the world can also create unnecessary personal, psychic suffering and result in a need for psychotherapy for some. Many of us hold ourselves to an ethic of sacrifice and self-deprivation as well, often stemming from some variety of guilt or survivor guilt. Of course, we have clear, ethical, intelligent reasons to change the world. But we need personal freedom in addition to social freedom.
“Top 7 reasons nonprofit people may find therapy helpful
“7. You will be able to plan creatively for your own future.
“People in the nonprofit world can sometimes lose sight of our personal future, in our eagerness to win victories for others. Therapy can help you sketch out your own career dreams. You can't advocate for yourself in an effective way if you're not sure what you want. I had a client tell me recently, "Once I was able to ask for the promotion I wanted and get it, I felt appreciated and naturally generous, instead of guilty."
“6. You will learn how to really not take things personally.
“In therapy, many of us work on perceiving what is real. Do I really want to be a doctor, or was that my dad's wish? Why am I drawn to this person who does not seem to want me? Does my supervisor hate me, or is she stressed out and scared about funding? Not taking things personally means we can communicate like adults, take responsibility for ourselves, and have clearer interactions.”
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
True to Mission
This is equivalent to staying on message and this article from Contributions Magazine examines how to do that.
An excerpt.
“I was part of a team conducting a focus group for a large nonprofit client. The focus group comprised representatives from the financial sector, a target audience this particular national nonprofit was most interested in cultivating through its messaging.
“One or more of the messages we were about to test had the words “partners” and “partnership” in them, which we thought were no-brainers. After all, they are simple, easy-to-understand words that convey affiliation, cooperation, collaboration, alliance, all the good stuff, right?
“Wrong!
“As the messages came up for the group’s reaction, two bankers immediately raised their hands.
“In our industry, the words ‘partners’ and ‘partnership’ are loaded with legal implications,” said one. “We don’t mind being recognized as ‘working together’ with the organization, but we’d rather not be identified as ‘partners,’” said the other.
“Bah-dah-bing!
“Had we allowed our client to go public with the original messages, chances are the impact that they might have had on their intended audience, namely potential financial sector funders, would have been the opposite from what the organization was hoping for.
“The lesson learned: It’s not about how your message is delivered, but rather how it is received that makes all the difference.
“Fact is most organizations shoot from the hip when it comes to talking about themselves. They don’t pay enough attention to the messages they send out and often have no idea how those messages are resonating with the very audiences they are seeking to reach.
“Gain control over your messages.
“Gain control over your messaging process by creating a “messaging package,” namely by compiling the core messages you want to convey to your target audiences. The purpose of your messaging package is to help everyone affiliated with your organization stay on message.”
An excerpt.
“I was part of a team conducting a focus group for a large nonprofit client. The focus group comprised representatives from the financial sector, a target audience this particular national nonprofit was most interested in cultivating through its messaging.
“One or more of the messages we were about to test had the words “partners” and “partnership” in them, which we thought were no-brainers. After all, they are simple, easy-to-understand words that convey affiliation, cooperation, collaboration, alliance, all the good stuff, right?
“Wrong!
“As the messages came up for the group’s reaction, two bankers immediately raised their hands.
“In our industry, the words ‘partners’ and ‘partnership’ are loaded with legal implications,” said one. “We don’t mind being recognized as ‘working together’ with the organization, but we’d rather not be identified as ‘partners,’” said the other.
“Bah-dah-bing!
“Had we allowed our client to go public with the original messages, chances are the impact that they might have had on their intended audience, namely potential financial sector funders, would have been the opposite from what the organization was hoping for.
“The lesson learned: It’s not about how your message is delivered, but rather how it is received that makes all the difference.
“Fact is most organizations shoot from the hip when it comes to talking about themselves. They don’t pay enough attention to the messages they send out and often have no idea how those messages are resonating with the very audiences they are seeking to reach.
“Gain control over your messages.
“Gain control over your messaging process by creating a “messaging package,” namely by compiling the core messages you want to convey to your target audiences. The purpose of your messaging package is to help everyone affiliated with your organization stay on message.”
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Carnegie Corporation
Andrew Carnegie played a major role in the philanthropic history of America, and his famous essay, The Gospel of Wealth, should be required reading, along with Democracy in America, for anyone in the nonprofit field.
This article from the Philanthropy Roundtable notes the 100 year anniversary of the Carnegie Corporation.
An excerpt.
“In 1889, in the first of two essays that have come to be known as “The Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie warned of the perils the wealthy faced if they were insufficiently philanthropic during their lifetimes:
“. . . the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free to him to administer during life, will pass away “unwept, unhonored, and unsung,” no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him.
“About such people, he judged, “the public verdict will then be: ‘The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.’”
“In 1911, during his 76th year, Carnegie realized that he was at risk of this fate himself. Despite having already given $150 million away, he had seen his fortune grow more rapidly and remained an extremely wealthy man. As a result, with initial gifts totaling $125 million (close to $3 billion today), he established the Carnegie Corporation, a philanthropic trust with a broad mission to “promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.”
“Along with the creation of the Russell Sage Foundation in 1907 and the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913, this marked the beginning of the modern era of foundation philanthropy. Smaller funds with more limited purposes had existed before, but according to the Foundation Center, the combined assets of foundations with endowments of at least $1 million in 1909 amounted to about $1.5 billion (in present-day dollars). Carnegie’s gift alone surpassed that, and others soon followed suit. In the second decade of the 20th century, 78 large foundations were set up, with endowments that would amount to over $16 billion today; during the next, another $16 billion was added in 173 grantmaking organizations. Most are still operating.
“But more than size and scope made the Carnegie Corporation stand out. It also embraced a philosophy of giving known as “scientific philanthropy,” which sought to apply the knowledge of experts, particularly those in the medical and social sciences, to the problems donors wanted to address. “Scientific philanthropy” promised more innovative approaches and more cost-efficient returns, making it especially congenial to an industrialist like Carnegie. After all, both innovation and efficiency were key factors in his business success. Carnegie was among the very first to adopt the Bessemer process and the Siemens-Martin “open-hearth” method for steel-making. In addition, he loathed waste—his motto to managers was, “Well, boys, what can we throw away this year?”—and was eager to see every philanthropic dollar as effectively invested as possible.”
“With a staff heavy in experts and close ties to leading universities and research institutions, the Carnegie Corporation, along with Rockefeller, quickly became known as a principal exponent of this philosophy—and a leader in the world of institutional philanthropy. Even today, though its giving barely places it among the top 50, it remains one of the most prestigious of grantmaking organizations.”
This article from the Philanthropy Roundtable notes the 100 year anniversary of the Carnegie Corporation.
An excerpt.
“In 1889, in the first of two essays that have come to be known as “The Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie warned of the perils the wealthy faced if they were insufficiently philanthropic during their lifetimes:
“. . . the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free to him to administer during life, will pass away “unwept, unhonored, and unsung,” no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him.
“About such people, he judged, “the public verdict will then be: ‘The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.’”
“In 1911, during his 76th year, Carnegie realized that he was at risk of this fate himself. Despite having already given $150 million away, he had seen his fortune grow more rapidly and remained an extremely wealthy man. As a result, with initial gifts totaling $125 million (close to $3 billion today), he established the Carnegie Corporation, a philanthropic trust with a broad mission to “promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.”
“Along with the creation of the Russell Sage Foundation in 1907 and the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913, this marked the beginning of the modern era of foundation philanthropy. Smaller funds with more limited purposes had existed before, but according to the Foundation Center, the combined assets of foundations with endowments of at least $1 million in 1909 amounted to about $1.5 billion (in present-day dollars). Carnegie’s gift alone surpassed that, and others soon followed suit. In the second decade of the 20th century, 78 large foundations were set up, with endowments that would amount to over $16 billion today; during the next, another $16 billion was added in 173 grantmaking organizations. Most are still operating.
“But more than size and scope made the Carnegie Corporation stand out. It also embraced a philosophy of giving known as “scientific philanthropy,” which sought to apply the knowledge of experts, particularly those in the medical and social sciences, to the problems donors wanted to address. “Scientific philanthropy” promised more innovative approaches and more cost-efficient returns, making it especially congenial to an industrialist like Carnegie. After all, both innovation and efficiency were key factors in his business success. Carnegie was among the very first to adopt the Bessemer process and the Siemens-Martin “open-hearth” method for steel-making. In addition, he loathed waste—his motto to managers was, “Well, boys, what can we throw away this year?”—and was eager to see every philanthropic dollar as effectively invested as possible.”
“With a staff heavy in experts and close ties to leading universities and research institutions, the Carnegie Corporation, along with Rockefeller, quickly became known as a principal exponent of this philosophy—and a leader in the world of institutional philanthropy. Even today, though its giving barely places it among the top 50, it remains one of the most prestigious of grantmaking organizations.”
Friday, February 18, 2011
Program Needs Replication
Turning over job development efforts—from government to a nonprofit— as the Columbus Dispatch reports, makes perfect sense, as the connection to the private sector, the largest producer of jobs in the American economy, will be strengthened.
An excerpt.
“Gov. John Kasich will set in motion one of his key campaign promises when he signs a bill Friday allowing him to privatize Ohio's economic-development efforts.
“Swift action by state lawmakers culminated yesterday in a bipartisan vote in the Senate and another contentious debate in the House over whether JobsOhio, the new nonprofit corporation, would be constitutionally sound and transparent enough to avoid scandal.
“The bill "will enable Ohio to begin the process of fielding a top-flight development team that speaks the language of business and moves at the rapid pace of today's world economy," said Sen. Mark Wagoner, R-Toledo.
“The bill allows Kasich's team, headed by his development director, California venture capitalist Mark Kvamme, to replace the Department of Development with a nonprofit corporation headed by a board of business leaders appointed by the governor.
“Kvamme and other supporters, including a number of business groups, have argued that Ohio's current economic-development efforts are not fast or flexible enough to keep up with competition from other states and countries for jobs.
“The board would use potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in publicly funded incentives to help attract jobs and grow companies. It also plans to raise millions in private dollars that can be used to take equity in companies, with the goal of one day making JobsOhio a self-sustaining entity.
“House Democrats said Kasich suggested to them in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday that the state might direct some money from the sale or lease of the turnpike to JobsOhio, which they said raised constitutional questions.
“Republicans called JobsOhio a vital first step toward stopping the state's economic slide.
"Ohio must embrace new, innovative job-creation methods, and with JobsOhio we will be able to pursue economic opportunities otherwise unattainable through our outdated development structure," Kasich said in a statement.
“The Senate passed the bill 31-2 with wide Democratic support, after majority Republicans agreed to a number of changes that strengthened or clarified provisions related to JobsOhio operations.”
An excerpt.
“Gov. John Kasich will set in motion one of his key campaign promises when he signs a bill Friday allowing him to privatize Ohio's economic-development efforts.
“Swift action by state lawmakers culminated yesterday in a bipartisan vote in the Senate and another contentious debate in the House over whether JobsOhio, the new nonprofit corporation, would be constitutionally sound and transparent enough to avoid scandal.
“The bill "will enable Ohio to begin the process of fielding a top-flight development team that speaks the language of business and moves at the rapid pace of today's world economy," said Sen. Mark Wagoner, R-Toledo.
“The bill allows Kasich's team, headed by his development director, California venture capitalist Mark Kvamme, to replace the Department of Development with a nonprofit corporation headed by a board of business leaders appointed by the governor.
“Kvamme and other supporters, including a number of business groups, have argued that Ohio's current economic-development efforts are not fast or flexible enough to keep up with competition from other states and countries for jobs.
“The board would use potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in publicly funded incentives to help attract jobs and grow companies. It also plans to raise millions in private dollars that can be used to take equity in companies, with the goal of one day making JobsOhio a self-sustaining entity.
“House Democrats said Kasich suggested to them in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday that the state might direct some money from the sale or lease of the turnpike to JobsOhio, which they said raised constitutional questions.
“Republicans called JobsOhio a vital first step toward stopping the state's economic slide.
"Ohio must embrace new, innovative job-creation methods, and with JobsOhio we will be able to pursue economic opportunities otherwise unattainable through our outdated development structure," Kasich said in a statement.
“The Senate passed the bill 31-2 with wide Democratic support, after majority Republicans agreed to a number of changes that strengthened or clarified provisions related to JobsOhio operations.”
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Nonprofit News Site in LA?
As reported by the Los Angeles Times, this new resource could come online in the future.
An excerpt.
“I've been wondering for a couple of years whether someone would bring Los Angeles the kind of not-for-profit news website that has popped up in cities like San Diego, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Austin and Chicago.
“That day may be drawing closer, as venture capitalist and former newspaper executive Tom Unterman has been quietly exploring the formation of such an organization to focus on public policy issues.
“Unterman has been quietly discussing the idea with a handful of community leaders around Los Angeles on and off for at least a year, with his deliberations picking up momentum of late. He still doesn't have a formal plan or the partners he would seek to launch the site, but told me he expects to decide this spring whether to go ahead.
"A good, smart, nonprofit journalism effort could be a very nice complementary piece to the media picture here in L.A.," said Unterman, former chief financial officer for Times Mirror Co., which published the Los Angeles Times before it was bought by the Tribune Co. in 2000. "Particularly if it focused on investigative work and filled a gap in the kind of stories that for-profit media can't persistently fill now because of changes in the economics of the news business."
“While "very hopeful" about making the site a reality, the founder of the Santa Monica-based investment firm Rustic Canyon Partners said the key would be coming up with a plan to sustain such a venture beyond the startup phase — which he estimated would last three years and cost $10 million.
“While reserving judgment on the many particulars that remain unclear, I can't think of any substantial reason not to root for the opening of another news outlet in our region. Yes, it would bring more competition for stories and perhaps for journalists. But there are plenty of good unemployed scribes raring to get back at it, and more being minted every day.
“Journalists should operate from the assumption that more information — as long as it's thoughtfully collected and delivered — is better. Most of the cities that have been home to nonprofit news ventures over the last half-dozen years have seen a nice flowering of stories and competition. In most of those cities, the operators will concede they don't have the size to do a lot of the daily coverage established news outlets still provide.”
An excerpt.
“I've been wondering for a couple of years whether someone would bring Los Angeles the kind of not-for-profit news website that has popped up in cities like San Diego, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Austin and Chicago.
“That day may be drawing closer, as venture capitalist and former newspaper executive Tom Unterman has been quietly exploring the formation of such an organization to focus on public policy issues.
“Unterman has been quietly discussing the idea with a handful of community leaders around Los Angeles on and off for at least a year, with his deliberations picking up momentum of late. He still doesn't have a formal plan or the partners he would seek to launch the site, but told me he expects to decide this spring whether to go ahead.
"A good, smart, nonprofit journalism effort could be a very nice complementary piece to the media picture here in L.A.," said Unterman, former chief financial officer for Times Mirror Co., which published the Los Angeles Times before it was bought by the Tribune Co. in 2000. "Particularly if it focused on investigative work and filled a gap in the kind of stories that for-profit media can't persistently fill now because of changes in the economics of the news business."
“While "very hopeful" about making the site a reality, the founder of the Santa Monica-based investment firm Rustic Canyon Partners said the key would be coming up with a plan to sustain such a venture beyond the startup phase — which he estimated would last three years and cost $10 million.
“While reserving judgment on the many particulars that remain unclear, I can't think of any substantial reason not to root for the opening of another news outlet in our region. Yes, it would bring more competition for stories and perhaps for journalists. But there are plenty of good unemployed scribes raring to get back at it, and more being minted every day.
“Journalists should operate from the assumption that more information — as long as it's thoughtfully collected and delivered — is better. Most of the cities that have been home to nonprofit news ventures over the last half-dozen years have seen a nice flowering of stories and competition. In most of those cities, the operators will concede they don't have the size to do a lot of the daily coverage established news outlets still provide.”
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Capital Campaigns
They are one of the most difficult aspects—and the most rewarding—of fundraising, yet crucial when contemplating raising large sums of money.
This article from Contributions Magazine, “Confessions of a Capital Campaign Chair” is excellent.
An excerpt.
“It’s almost 8:00 pm and I am sitting in my hotel room: day four of a ten-day trip. I’ve spent the last twelve hours facilitating a fundraising training, returning phone calls, checking my email, and wolfing down a couple of unremarkable meals.
“A file sits on the desk in front of me: Beth Jacob Synagogue Capital Campaign. I open it with a mild sense of dread. My call list. Good news: so many prospects. Bad news: so few of them have been contacted. I am way behind.
“If I start now, I think, I can get in an hour of calls, maybe talk to a few folks. I could set up an ask meeting for next month. I could get a pledge or two over the phone. I could check a few names off the list. Wouldn’t that feel good? If I don’t start now, I can watch something mindless on television. Wouldn’t that feel really good? God knows I’ve earned it.
“I groan, knowing that karma always wins. I’ve spent the day teaching people that fundraising is not as difficult as they think – it just requires passion, persistence, and patience. At the moment I’m not doing so great in the passion department, but I pick up the phone anyway. In the words of the Hebrew sage Hillel, if not me, who? And if not now, when?
“Mrs. Bernstein? This is Andy Robinson. I’m calling from Beth Jacob – do you have a moment?”
“Let me tell you about our synagogue. First of all, Beth Jacob is a small community –about 90 member households – comprised of every sort of Jew, ranging from very traditional to very secular. We have four different sets of prayer books, each representing a different branch of Judaism. As I like to tell my gentile friends, if you can imagine a church comprised of ten Catholics, five Baptists, some Lutherans and Methodists, a few evangelicals, three Unitarians, two Quakers, a Mormon, and a couple of people who don’t really care about religion one way or the other – well, that’s our synagogue.
“Founded nearly 100 years ago, Beth Jacob has survived and sometimes prospered thanks to the work of many volunteer lay leaders and the occasional part-time, circuit-riding rabbi. We have no full-time rabbi, and have employed one for only three of the last 70 years. We now have a part-time rabbi to supplement the efforts of perhaps half a dozen different people who lead services, choosing the prayer book they prefer. I like to think of Beth Jacob as an experiment in grassroots democracy: messy, complicated, non-hierarchical, opinionated, and at times transcendent.
“We occupy a small two-room building on a residential street in Montpelier, Vermont’s capital city. It’s an old house made more tenuous by poor design and deferred maintenance. When it rains, water flows through the basement, undermining the foundation. We were advised by an engineer that we really shouldn’t use the sanctuary in winter – after a big snow storm, he said, the roof might cave in. Well, this is Vermont and we get a lot of snow…
“So now we’re in the middle of a capital campaign.
“I am meeting with a donor, a well-respected member of the community. Because he’s so prominent, we really need to have him involved. He asks a lot of thoughtful questions: “Has the entire board pledged? How much have you raised so far? When you’re talking to people, what are you hearing?”
“Finally he says to me, “You know, I gave to the building fund years ago. Nothing happened then, and I’m not convinced it’s going to happen now. So here’s my offer – I will make an additional pledge, but I’m not writing the check until construction begins.”
“Fair enough,” I say, thinking – not for the first time – every gift is an act of trust. We better deliver on our promises.
“I’ve been raising money for thirty years, including staff positions at five different nonprofits, and consulting for more than fifteen years. However, this is my first time chairing a capital campaign – for the record, I don’t even have the title of “chair,” but apparently I am the lead volunteer. The experience has forced me rethink some of my assumptions about how fundraising works. Out of necessity, we’ve ignored several best practices and modified others – and we’re having success. Despite the current recession, we’ve raised more than $465,000.
“Here’s what I’ve learned so far.
“1. There is no perfect time to raise money, so ask for it anyway. We began the process with about $150,000 available from our existing building fund, a surprise bequest, and a large anonymous pledge. This was very encouraging; less encouraging was the state of the congregation, which has been perennially divided over a variety of issues: modes of worship, membership dues, the need (or not) for a full-time rabbi, whether we should require donations for admission to High Holiday services (many congregations do, we don’t), and of course the question of Israel and Palestine, which divides Jewish communities across North America and around the world.
“As I have told the synagogue’s board and members many times, had I been hired as their fundraising consultant, I would have advised against launching this campaign until the community was more united and confident. Unfortunately, given the sorry state of the building, waiting for a better moment wasn’t really an option.”
This article from Contributions Magazine, “Confessions of a Capital Campaign Chair” is excellent.
An excerpt.
“It’s almost 8:00 pm and I am sitting in my hotel room: day four of a ten-day trip. I’ve spent the last twelve hours facilitating a fundraising training, returning phone calls, checking my email, and wolfing down a couple of unremarkable meals.
“A file sits on the desk in front of me: Beth Jacob Synagogue Capital Campaign. I open it with a mild sense of dread. My call list. Good news: so many prospects. Bad news: so few of them have been contacted. I am way behind.
“If I start now, I think, I can get in an hour of calls, maybe talk to a few folks. I could set up an ask meeting for next month. I could get a pledge or two over the phone. I could check a few names off the list. Wouldn’t that feel good? If I don’t start now, I can watch something mindless on television. Wouldn’t that feel really good? God knows I’ve earned it.
“I groan, knowing that karma always wins. I’ve spent the day teaching people that fundraising is not as difficult as they think – it just requires passion, persistence, and patience. At the moment I’m not doing so great in the passion department, but I pick up the phone anyway. In the words of the Hebrew sage Hillel, if not me, who? And if not now, when?
“Mrs. Bernstein? This is Andy Robinson. I’m calling from Beth Jacob – do you have a moment?”
“Let me tell you about our synagogue. First of all, Beth Jacob is a small community –about 90 member households – comprised of every sort of Jew, ranging from very traditional to very secular. We have four different sets of prayer books, each representing a different branch of Judaism. As I like to tell my gentile friends, if you can imagine a church comprised of ten Catholics, five Baptists, some Lutherans and Methodists, a few evangelicals, three Unitarians, two Quakers, a Mormon, and a couple of people who don’t really care about religion one way or the other – well, that’s our synagogue.
“Founded nearly 100 years ago, Beth Jacob has survived and sometimes prospered thanks to the work of many volunteer lay leaders and the occasional part-time, circuit-riding rabbi. We have no full-time rabbi, and have employed one for only three of the last 70 years. We now have a part-time rabbi to supplement the efforts of perhaps half a dozen different people who lead services, choosing the prayer book they prefer. I like to think of Beth Jacob as an experiment in grassroots democracy: messy, complicated, non-hierarchical, opinionated, and at times transcendent.
“We occupy a small two-room building on a residential street in Montpelier, Vermont’s capital city. It’s an old house made more tenuous by poor design and deferred maintenance. When it rains, water flows through the basement, undermining the foundation. We were advised by an engineer that we really shouldn’t use the sanctuary in winter – after a big snow storm, he said, the roof might cave in. Well, this is Vermont and we get a lot of snow…
“So now we’re in the middle of a capital campaign.
“I am meeting with a donor, a well-respected member of the community. Because he’s so prominent, we really need to have him involved. He asks a lot of thoughtful questions: “Has the entire board pledged? How much have you raised so far? When you’re talking to people, what are you hearing?”
“Finally he says to me, “You know, I gave to the building fund years ago. Nothing happened then, and I’m not convinced it’s going to happen now. So here’s my offer – I will make an additional pledge, but I’m not writing the check until construction begins.”
“Fair enough,” I say, thinking – not for the first time – every gift is an act of trust. We better deliver on our promises.
“I’ve been raising money for thirty years, including staff positions at five different nonprofits, and consulting for more than fifteen years. However, this is my first time chairing a capital campaign – for the record, I don’t even have the title of “chair,” but apparently I am the lead volunteer. The experience has forced me rethink some of my assumptions about how fundraising works. Out of necessity, we’ve ignored several best practices and modified others – and we’re having success. Despite the current recession, we’ve raised more than $465,000.
“Here’s what I’ve learned so far.
“1. There is no perfect time to raise money, so ask for it anyway. We began the process with about $150,000 available from our existing building fund, a surprise bequest, and a large anonymous pledge. This was very encouraging; less encouraging was the state of the congregation, which has been perennially divided over a variety of issues: modes of worship, membership dues, the need (or not) for a full-time rabbi, whether we should require donations for admission to High Holiday services (many congregations do, we don’t), and of course the question of Israel and Palestine, which divides Jewish communities across North America and around the world.
“As I have told the synagogue’s board and members many times, had I been hired as their fundraising consultant, I would have advised against launching this campaign until the community was more united and confident. Unfortunately, given the sorry state of the building, waiting for a better moment wasn’t really an option.”
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Generous People of Faith
More research, as reported by Belief Net, indicating what has been known for some tine, that people who attend church regularly are very generous, to their church and charity in general.
An excerpt.
“(RNS) Houses of worship and other charities often aren't in competition for dollars but instead tend to reap donations from similar donors, a new study shows.
“Slightly more than 50 percent of people who financially supported congregations also gave to at least one charitable organization in the last year, according to a study conducted by Phoenix-based Grey Matter Research Consulting.
“Researchers also found that the more Americans give to a house of worship, the more they donate to other groups. And the trend continues with the generosity of the donor.
“For example, donors who gave less than $100 to a house of worship also donated an average of $208 to other charities. Those who gave between $100 and $499 to a congregation gave an average of $376 to others. Donors of between $500 and $999 to places of worship gave an average of $916 to others.”
An excerpt.
“(RNS) Houses of worship and other charities often aren't in competition for dollars but instead tend to reap donations from similar donors, a new study shows.
“Slightly more than 50 percent of people who financially supported congregations also gave to at least one charitable organization in the last year, according to a study conducted by Phoenix-based Grey Matter Research Consulting.
“Researchers also found that the more Americans give to a house of worship, the more they donate to other groups. And the trend continues with the generosity of the donor.
“For example, donors who gave less than $100 to a house of worship also donated an average of $208 to other charities. Those who gave between $100 and $499 to a congregation gave an average of $376 to others. Donors of between $500 and $999 to places of worship gave an average of $916 to others.”
Generous People of Faith
More research, as reported by Belief Net, indicating what has been known for some tine, that people who attend church regularly are very generous, to their church and charity in general.
An excerpt.
“(RNS) Houses of worship and other charities often aren't in competition for dollars but instead tend to reap donations from similar donors, a new study shows.
“Slightly more than 50 percent of people who financially supported congregations also gave to at least one charitable organization in the last year, according to a study conducted by Phoenix-based Grey Matter Research Consulting.
“Researchers also found that the more Americans give to a house of worship, the more they donate to other groups. And the trend continues with the generosity of the donor.
“For example, donors who gave less than $100 to a house of worship also donated an average of $208 to other charities. Those who gave between $100 and $499 to a congregation gave an average of $376 to others. Donors of between $500 and $999 to places of worship gave an average of $916 to others.”
An excerpt.
“(RNS) Houses of worship and other charities often aren't in competition for dollars but instead tend to reap donations from similar donors, a new study shows.
“Slightly more than 50 percent of people who financially supported congregations also gave to at least one charitable organization in the last year, according to a study conducted by Phoenix-based Grey Matter Research Consulting.
“Researchers also found that the more Americans give to a house of worship, the more they donate to other groups. And the trend continues with the generosity of the donor.
“For example, donors who gave less than $100 to a house of worship also donated an average of $208 to other charities. Those who gave between $100 and $499 to a congregation gave an average of $376 to others. Donors of between $500 and $999 to places of worship gave an average of $916 to others.”
Monday, February 14, 2011
New Journal on Nonprofit Policy
It is being produced by the Berkeley Electronic Press from the University of California, Berkeley, and the first issue was in December of 2010.
About the Journal
“Nonprofit Policy Forum (NPF) provides academics, policy-makers, and nonprofit leaders access to the information they require in a form relevant to their scholarly, professional, and organizational needs. NPF responds to the direct concerns of nonprofit policy-makers and policy advocates. Through the thinking, experience, and the advice of its editorial and policy board members, NPF (1) identifies and frames nonprofit policy issues in a concise and responsive way, (2) provides essential information to public and private organizations, and (3) is particularly pertinent to the fast growing nonprofit sector. No other public policy or nonprofit-related journal focuses on the nexus of public policy and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Policy Forum is an international journal that seeks to contribute to the development of the field of nonprofit related policy research, more clearly define the role of the sector in the policy and advocacy process, and build a stronger research base on public policy and nonprofit organizations. Our goal is to develop a critical mass of research that examines the role of nonprofits in shaping public policy and the impact of public policies on the nonprofit sector.”
About the Journal
“Nonprofit Policy Forum (NPF) provides academics, policy-makers, and nonprofit leaders access to the information they require in a form relevant to their scholarly, professional, and organizational needs. NPF responds to the direct concerns of nonprofit policy-makers and policy advocates. Through the thinking, experience, and the advice of its editorial and policy board members, NPF (1) identifies and frames nonprofit policy issues in a concise and responsive way, (2) provides essential information to public and private organizations, and (3) is particularly pertinent to the fast growing nonprofit sector. No other public policy or nonprofit-related journal focuses on the nexus of public policy and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Policy Forum is an international journal that seeks to contribute to the development of the field of nonprofit related policy research, more clearly define the role of the sector in the policy and advocacy process, and build a stronger research base on public policy and nonprofit organizations. Our goal is to develop a critical mass of research that examines the role of nonprofits in shaping public policy and the impact of public policies on the nonprofit sector.”
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Our America & Valentines Day in Iran
As Tocqueville noted almost 2 centuries ago:
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools….Thus the most democratic country on earth is found to be, above all, the one where men in our day have most perfected the art of pursuing the object of their common desires in common and have applied this new science to the most objects. Does this result from an accident or could it be that there in fact exists a necessary relation between associations and equality?”
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2000 translation by H. C. Mansfield and D. Winthrop. pp. 489-490)
With that as a backdrop, consider this article in the Wall Street Journal discussing Iran’s attempt to ban Valentines Day.
An excerpt.
“In another sign of its ever more improvisational approach to governance, the Iranian regime has outlawed Valentine's Day. "Symbols of hearts, half-hearts, red roses, and any activities promoting this day are banned," announced state media last month. "Authorities will take legal action against those who ignore the ban."
“Some 70% of Iran's population is said to be under the age of 30, so it seems natural that Valentine's Day has caught on in a country where the young keep trying to find non-state-mandated rituals to call their own. The state, for its part, continues to respond with a Whack-a-Mole approach to any social ripple not dreamt of in its philosophy.
“Theocratic regimes invariably suffer from the same besetting sin: As the world evolves, they must either revise their antiquated doctrines or try to hold the world rigidly in stasis. Iran's ruling mullahs keep choosing the latter option. And with mosque and state firmly conjoined, there's no stray detail of daily life so arcane that the scriptures can't be mobilized to rein it in.
“The Iranian state has pronounced against unauthorized mingling of the sexes, rap music, rock music, Western music, women playing in bands, too-bright nail polish, laughter in hospital corridors, ancient Persian rites-of-spring celebrations (Nowrooz), and even the mention of foreign food recipes in state media. This last may sound comically implausible, but it was officially announced by a state-run website on Feb. 6. So now the true nature of pasta as an instrument of Western subversion has been revealed.
“The regime's posture turns the smallest garden-variety gestures into thrilling acts of subversion. Slipping a Valentine card to a girlfriend takes on the significance of samizdat. Every firecracker set off during Nowrooz diminishes the police state's claims to omniscience. The mullahs have appointed themselves the enemy of fun; as a result, wherever fun herniates into view, it is a politicized irruption of defiance….
“In the end, Iran's rulers face an impossible task. Their genesis myth of a society based on a codified schema of sacred laws looks neither codified nor sacred. It convinces no one. Instead, the regime seems dedicated above all to stamping out joy wherever it may accidentally arise—a sour, paranoid struggle against irrepressible forces of nature, change, the seasons, music, romance and laughter. The Iranian people can take comfort: No earthly authority has won that particular contest for long.”
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools….Thus the most democratic country on earth is found to be, above all, the one where men in our day have most perfected the art of pursuing the object of their common desires in common and have applied this new science to the most objects. Does this result from an accident or could it be that there in fact exists a necessary relation between associations and equality?”
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2000 translation by H. C. Mansfield and D. Winthrop. pp. 489-490)
With that as a backdrop, consider this article in the Wall Street Journal discussing Iran’s attempt to ban Valentines Day.
An excerpt.
“In another sign of its ever more improvisational approach to governance, the Iranian regime has outlawed Valentine's Day. "Symbols of hearts, half-hearts, red roses, and any activities promoting this day are banned," announced state media last month. "Authorities will take legal action against those who ignore the ban."
“Some 70% of Iran's population is said to be under the age of 30, so it seems natural that Valentine's Day has caught on in a country where the young keep trying to find non-state-mandated rituals to call their own. The state, for its part, continues to respond with a Whack-a-Mole approach to any social ripple not dreamt of in its philosophy.
“Theocratic regimes invariably suffer from the same besetting sin: As the world evolves, they must either revise their antiquated doctrines or try to hold the world rigidly in stasis. Iran's ruling mullahs keep choosing the latter option. And with mosque and state firmly conjoined, there's no stray detail of daily life so arcane that the scriptures can't be mobilized to rein it in.
“The Iranian state has pronounced against unauthorized mingling of the sexes, rap music, rock music, Western music, women playing in bands, too-bright nail polish, laughter in hospital corridors, ancient Persian rites-of-spring celebrations (Nowrooz), and even the mention of foreign food recipes in state media. This last may sound comically implausible, but it was officially announced by a state-run website on Feb. 6. So now the true nature of pasta as an instrument of Western subversion has been revealed.
“The regime's posture turns the smallest garden-variety gestures into thrilling acts of subversion. Slipping a Valentine card to a girlfriend takes on the significance of samizdat. Every firecracker set off during Nowrooz diminishes the police state's claims to omniscience. The mullahs have appointed themselves the enemy of fun; as a result, wherever fun herniates into view, it is a politicized irruption of defiance….
“In the end, Iran's rulers face an impossible task. Their genesis myth of a society based on a codified schema of sacred laws looks neither codified nor sacred. It convinces no one. Instead, the regime seems dedicated above all to stamping out joy wherever it may accidentally arise—a sour, paranoid struggle against irrepressible forces of nature, change, the seasons, music, romance and laughter. The Iranian people can take comfort: No earthly authority has won that particular contest for long.”
Thursday, February 10, 2011
American Philanthropy
As a result of working on yesterday’s post I came across an excellent article by Heather Mac Donald in City Journal focusing on the efforts to infuse American Philanthropy with identity politics.
An excerpt.
“American philanthropy is the envy of the world. Since colonial times, when Benjamin Franklin’s Junto Society, a proto–think tank of public-minded Philadelphia citizens, developed volunteer fire departments and a lending library, Americans have evolved a unique civic culture of giving and entrepreneurial problem solving. From 1995 to 2002, charitable donations as a percentage of GDP were nearly six times higher in the United States than in France and 14 times higher than in Germany. In 2007, America’s charitable giving amounted to $306 billion. No wonder that European universities and arts organizations look first to their American alumni and patrons for support when their government funding dries up.
“Yet American generosity is under fire. A growing number of activists and politicians argue that foundations should meet diversity targets in their giving and on their staffs. If foundations fail to diversify “voluntarily,” threaten the race, ethnicity, and gender enforcers, they risk legislation requiring them to do so. In other words, the diversity police, having helped bring on the subprime meltdown through mortgage-lending quotas, now want to fix philanthropy. And instead of rebuffing this power grab, the leaders in the field have rolled over and played dead.
“The idea that foundations should view the world through the trivializing lens of identity politics dates back to the 1980s, when some liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, started asking groups seeking grants to report the race and sex of their staff and board members. But today, politicians are getting into the act. This latest diversity push began in 2005, when the Greenlining Institute, a “multiethnic advocacy group” in Berkeley, started pumping out studies claiming that foundations were ignoring “communities of color.” (This despite the fact that in California, 39 percent of large foundations’ grants primarily benefit minorities, according to the Foundation Center, a respected research body.) Greenlining’s definition of helping a community of color: bestowing foundation grants on a nonprofit whose staff and board are at least 50 percent minority. In other words, the Greenlining effort is purely a jobs racket. The racial composition of a nonprofit’s staff and board has exactly zero relation to whether it is actually helping minorities. Agronomists supported by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations helped wipe out famine in Southeast Asia by developing high-yield cereal crops; pressure to diversify their labs would have hindered their research, not advanced it.”
An excerpt.
“American philanthropy is the envy of the world. Since colonial times, when Benjamin Franklin’s Junto Society, a proto–think tank of public-minded Philadelphia citizens, developed volunteer fire departments and a lending library, Americans have evolved a unique civic culture of giving and entrepreneurial problem solving. From 1995 to 2002, charitable donations as a percentage of GDP were nearly six times higher in the United States than in France and 14 times higher than in Germany. In 2007, America’s charitable giving amounted to $306 billion. No wonder that European universities and arts organizations look first to their American alumni and patrons for support when their government funding dries up.
“Yet American generosity is under fire. A growing number of activists and politicians argue that foundations should meet diversity targets in their giving and on their staffs. If foundations fail to diversify “voluntarily,” threaten the race, ethnicity, and gender enforcers, they risk legislation requiring them to do so. In other words, the diversity police, having helped bring on the subprime meltdown through mortgage-lending quotas, now want to fix philanthropy. And instead of rebuffing this power grab, the leaders in the field have rolled over and played dead.
“The idea that foundations should view the world through the trivializing lens of identity politics dates back to the 1980s, when some liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, started asking groups seeking grants to report the race and sex of their staff and board members. But today, politicians are getting into the act. This latest diversity push began in 2005, when the Greenlining Institute, a “multiethnic advocacy group” in Berkeley, started pumping out studies claiming that foundations were ignoring “communities of color.” (This despite the fact that in California, 39 percent of large foundations’ grants primarily benefit minorities, according to the Foundation Center, a respected research body.) Greenlining’s definition of helping a community of color: bestowing foundation grants on a nonprofit whose staff and board are at least 50 percent minority. In other words, the Greenlining effort is purely a jobs racket. The racial composition of a nonprofit’s staff and board has exactly zero relation to whether it is actually helping minorities. Agronomists supported by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations helped wipe out famine in Southeast Asia by developing high-yield cereal crops; pressure to diversify their labs would have hindered their research, not advanced it.”
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Philanthropy & Government
There is an accepted level of tension between the two, but as government extends its reach deeper and deeper into work generally associated with private philanthropy—and without much programmatic success—the tension increases.
That is the subject of a new book—which I have just begun to read—Generosity Unbound: How American Philanthropy Can Strengthen the Economy and Expand the Middle Class reviewed in City Journal.
An excerpt.
“The past decade has been a disquieting one for private philanthropic foundations in the United States. Not in a pecuniary sense: while foundation endowments were hit hard in 2008 and 2009, the last ten years have brought plenty of new wealth and energy into philanthropy. On the regulatory front, though, foundations have faced years of uncertainty about heightened government intrusion.
“In 2004, the Senate Finance Committee raised the prospect of new regulations as part of its examination of accountability at philanthropic organizations. And in 2008, most significantly, a bill introduced into the California legislature would have required large foundations in the state to provide information on the racial composition of their boards, staff, and grantees. This episode, known as “Greenlining” after the organization whose work inspired the pending legislation, resulted in an extortive deal, whereby the largest foundations in the state set aside $30 million for minority-led nonprofits; the legislation then died.
“The next year, the influential National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), which receives funding from private foundations, issued a report claiming to outline “philanthropy at its best.” The substance of such grant-making, according to NCRP, requires that foundations dedicate 50 percent of their spending to organizations that help “marginalized” populations, and another 25 percent to social-justice “advocacy.” Many foundations expressed dismay, albeit quietly, that their grant-making in areas such as the arts and health care would not meet such arbitrary standards.
“Several state legislators around the country have expressed interest in pursuing their own “Greenlining” strategy. One California congressman articulated the worldview behind these episodes: foundation dollars, he asserted, are really just “earmarks.” Because foundations enjoy favorable tax status and are devoted to public benefit, their philanthropic funds are “public money.”
“This is quite the rhetorical trick. As Claire Gaudiani writes in her new book, Generosity Unbound: “There are great dangers in treating foundation assets as a piggybank. Foundation endowments are private property held for the public benefit according to the donor’s intent. Tax deductions for charitable donations were established to provide an incentive to sustain our tradition of citizen generosity. . . . Deductible contributions do not, however, make foundation endowments any more public than are the homes of citizens who have elected to deduct their mortgage-interest payments from their taxes.”
“Gaudiani’s book is a patient explanation of the enduring vitality of American philanthropy and an all-too-necessary reminder to policymakers and critics across the political spectrum that government is not, and never can be, a substitute for private philanthropy. Prompted to write the book by the Greenlining episode and the NCRP report, she seeks to ground philanthropy in the values of the Declaration of Independence and insulate it from efforts at government expropriation.”
That is the subject of a new book—which I have just begun to read—Generosity Unbound: How American Philanthropy Can Strengthen the Economy and Expand the Middle Class reviewed in City Journal.
An excerpt.
“The past decade has been a disquieting one for private philanthropic foundations in the United States. Not in a pecuniary sense: while foundation endowments were hit hard in 2008 and 2009, the last ten years have brought plenty of new wealth and energy into philanthropy. On the regulatory front, though, foundations have faced years of uncertainty about heightened government intrusion.
“In 2004, the Senate Finance Committee raised the prospect of new regulations as part of its examination of accountability at philanthropic organizations. And in 2008, most significantly, a bill introduced into the California legislature would have required large foundations in the state to provide information on the racial composition of their boards, staff, and grantees. This episode, known as “Greenlining” after the organization whose work inspired the pending legislation, resulted in an extortive deal, whereby the largest foundations in the state set aside $30 million for minority-led nonprofits; the legislation then died.
“The next year, the influential National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), which receives funding from private foundations, issued a report claiming to outline “philanthropy at its best.” The substance of such grant-making, according to NCRP, requires that foundations dedicate 50 percent of their spending to organizations that help “marginalized” populations, and another 25 percent to social-justice “advocacy.” Many foundations expressed dismay, albeit quietly, that their grant-making in areas such as the arts and health care would not meet such arbitrary standards.
“Several state legislators around the country have expressed interest in pursuing their own “Greenlining” strategy. One California congressman articulated the worldview behind these episodes: foundation dollars, he asserted, are really just “earmarks.” Because foundations enjoy favorable tax status and are devoted to public benefit, their philanthropic funds are “public money.”
“This is quite the rhetorical trick. As Claire Gaudiani writes in her new book, Generosity Unbound: “There are great dangers in treating foundation assets as a piggybank. Foundation endowments are private property held for the public benefit according to the donor’s intent. Tax deductions for charitable donations were established to provide an incentive to sustain our tradition of citizen generosity. . . . Deductible contributions do not, however, make foundation endowments any more public than are the homes of citizens who have elected to deduct their mortgage-interest payments from their taxes.”
“Gaudiani’s book is a patient explanation of the enduring vitality of American philanthropy and an all-too-necessary reminder to policymakers and critics across the political spectrum that government is not, and never can be, a substitute for private philanthropy. Prompted to write the book by the Greenlining episode and the NCRP report, she seeks to ground philanthropy in the values of the Declaration of Independence and insulate it from efforts at government expropriation.”
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Democracy & Nonprofits
So much of the organized effort to ensure freedom arises and is sustained in the world comes from the nonprofit sector, and that effort is inspired by great ideas, a foundational one of which is explored by the seminal 2004 book by Natan Sharansky, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror.
Against the background of what is now occurring in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reports on Mr. Sharansky's current perspective.
An excerpt.
“If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, 'The Case for Democracy.'" With that comment in 2005, George W. Bush created a best seller, impelling hordes of statesmen, policy wonks and journalists to decode this Rosetta Stone of the "freedom agenda."
“In the book, Mr. Sharansky argues that all people, in all cultures, want to live in freedom; that all dictatorships are inherently unstable and therefore threaten the security of other countries; and that Western powers can and should influence how free other countries are. Rarely have these arguments been dramatized as during the past weeks—in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and especially Egypt. So late Wednesday night I interviewed Mr. Sharansky to hear his explanation of our current revolutionary moment.
"The reason people are going to the streets and making revolution is their desire not to live in a fear society," Mr. Sharansky says. In his taxonomy, the world is divided between "fear societies" and "free societies," with the difference between them determinable by what he calls a "town square test": Are the people in a given society free to stand in their town square and express their opinions without fear of arrest or physical harm? The answer in Tunisia and Egypt, of course, has long been "no"—as it was in the Soviet bloc countries that faced popular revolutions in 1989.
“The comparison of today's events with 1989 is a common one, but for Mr. Sharansky it is personal. He was born in 1948 in Donetsk (then called Stalino), Ukraine, and in the 1970s and 1980s he was one of the most famous dissidents in the Soviet Union—first as an aide to the nuclear physicist-turned-human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, then as a champion for the rights of Soviet Jews like himself to emigrate. His outspoken advocacy landed him in the Soviet Gulag for nine years (including 200 days on hunger strike).
“Mr. Sharansky was released from prison in 1986, after his wife Avital's tireless campaigning earned his case international renown and the strong support of President Ronald Reagan. He moved to Israel, where he eventually entered politics and served until 2006 in various ministerial posts and in the parliament. Throughout, he preached and wrote about, as his book's subtitle puts it, "the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror."
“This idea is the animating feature of a worldview that bucks much conventional wisdom. Uprisings like Tunisia's and Egypt's, he says, make "specialists—Sovietologists, Arabists—say 'Who could have thought only two weeks ago that this will happen?'" But "look at what Middle Eastern democratic dissidents were saying for all these years about the weakness of these regimes from the inside," and you won't be surprised when they topple, he says.
“And yet policy makers from Washington to Tel Aviv have seemingly been in shock. Many of them—on the right and the left—look upon the demise of Hosni Mubarak and the potential rise of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood with dread.
"Why is there such a big danger that if now there will be free choice for Egyptians, then the Muslim Brotherhood can rise to power?" Mr. Sharansky asks. "Because they are the only organized force which exists in addition to Mubarak's regime." Mr. Mubarak quashed almost all political dissent, with the general acquiescence of his American patrons. But he couldn't stop the Brotherhood from spreading its message in mosques. Meanwhile, he used the Brotherhood as a bogeyman, telling the U.S. that only he stood between radical Islamists and the seat of power.”
Against the background of what is now occurring in the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reports on Mr. Sharansky's current perspective.
An excerpt.
“If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book, 'The Case for Democracy.'" With that comment in 2005, George W. Bush created a best seller, impelling hordes of statesmen, policy wonks and journalists to decode this Rosetta Stone of the "freedom agenda."
“In the book, Mr. Sharansky argues that all people, in all cultures, want to live in freedom; that all dictatorships are inherently unstable and therefore threaten the security of other countries; and that Western powers can and should influence how free other countries are. Rarely have these arguments been dramatized as during the past weeks—in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and especially Egypt. So late Wednesday night I interviewed Mr. Sharansky to hear his explanation of our current revolutionary moment.
"The reason people are going to the streets and making revolution is their desire not to live in a fear society," Mr. Sharansky says. In his taxonomy, the world is divided between "fear societies" and "free societies," with the difference between them determinable by what he calls a "town square test": Are the people in a given society free to stand in their town square and express their opinions without fear of arrest or physical harm? The answer in Tunisia and Egypt, of course, has long been "no"—as it was in the Soviet bloc countries that faced popular revolutions in 1989.
“The comparison of today's events with 1989 is a common one, but for Mr. Sharansky it is personal. He was born in 1948 in Donetsk (then called Stalino), Ukraine, and in the 1970s and 1980s he was one of the most famous dissidents in the Soviet Union—first as an aide to the nuclear physicist-turned-human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, then as a champion for the rights of Soviet Jews like himself to emigrate. His outspoken advocacy landed him in the Soviet Gulag for nine years (including 200 days on hunger strike).
“Mr. Sharansky was released from prison in 1986, after his wife Avital's tireless campaigning earned his case international renown and the strong support of President Ronald Reagan. He moved to Israel, where he eventually entered politics and served until 2006 in various ministerial posts and in the parliament. Throughout, he preached and wrote about, as his book's subtitle puts it, "the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror."
“This idea is the animating feature of a worldview that bucks much conventional wisdom. Uprisings like Tunisia's and Egypt's, he says, make "specialists—Sovietologists, Arabists—say 'Who could have thought only two weeks ago that this will happen?'" But "look at what Middle Eastern democratic dissidents were saying for all these years about the weakness of these regimes from the inside," and you won't be surprised when they topple, he says.
“And yet policy makers from Washington to Tel Aviv have seemingly been in shock. Many of them—on the right and the left—look upon the demise of Hosni Mubarak and the potential rise of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood with dread.
"Why is there such a big danger that if now there will be free choice for Egyptians, then the Muslim Brotherhood can rise to power?" Mr. Sharansky asks. "Because they are the only organized force which exists in addition to Mubarak's regime." Mr. Mubarak quashed almost all political dissent, with the general acquiescence of his American patrons. But he couldn't stop the Brotherhood from spreading its message in mosques. Meanwhile, he used the Brotherhood as a bogeyman, telling the U.S. that only he stood between radical Islamists and the seat of power.”
Monday, February 7, 2011
New Donors
For small nonprofits, building the donor base is a mandated chore, and this article from Guidestar provides some guidance in getting started.
An excerpt.
“In today's tough economic environment, many not-for-profit organizations are struggling to grow donations. For many, the impact of a relatively weak economy has affected the quality and quantity of gifts. Taking a more strategic approach to donor development has never been more important. When our principals meet with those seeking donations, we hear common themes of why many are struggling to find new opportunities. See whether any of these reasons apply to you:
• No time—Most of those responsible for development are busy. Even the best are bogged down with multiple organizational tasks (returning calls and e-mails, attending conferences, stuffing envelopes, to name a few). Not-for-profit employees wear many hats, and just keeping existing donors happy can be a stretch.
• Not sure whom to target—Taking a shotgun approach to calling on "everybody who has a heartbeat" or cold calling potential donors rarely results in producing quality prospective donors who are ready to write a check.
• Prospecting potential donors is a low return activity—Given the amount of time involved in prospecting for new donors and the difficulty in landing a good prospect, many responsible for development question whether the effort provides a reasonable return. (Note: Some development officers equate prospecting donors with "cold calling," which is usually a waste of time. We believe there are other, more productive ways to attract new donors—see below.)
• Prospecting new donors is frustrating—Nobody likes rejection. The research is pretty clear: donations have decreased over 25 percent from 2009 to 2010; many donors are not in the mood to entertain giving money away.
“Getting new donors is tough. Making sure you have done everything possible to make it easier is not to say it will be easy. Here are some techniques being used by some of the most successful organizations:
"1. Make sure your organization is targeting the right prospective donors. The responsibility for providing clear direction starts at the executive level. Organizations need to understand the necessity of creating a target profile that gives staff and volunteers clear direction about the types of industries and individuals that provide the best opportunities for developing partnerships. If you don't like pizza parlors for donations, say so. If you overdepend on doctors for donations, say so. But also be explicit about what the most desirable industry segments are for the organization and why. Time is a very precious commodity; wasting time on the "wrong" donors' takes away time from the "right" donors.”
An excerpt.
“In today's tough economic environment, many not-for-profit organizations are struggling to grow donations. For many, the impact of a relatively weak economy has affected the quality and quantity of gifts. Taking a more strategic approach to donor development has never been more important. When our principals meet with those seeking donations, we hear common themes of why many are struggling to find new opportunities. See whether any of these reasons apply to you:
• No time—Most of those responsible for development are busy. Even the best are bogged down with multiple organizational tasks (returning calls and e-mails, attending conferences, stuffing envelopes, to name a few). Not-for-profit employees wear many hats, and just keeping existing donors happy can be a stretch.
• Not sure whom to target—Taking a shotgun approach to calling on "everybody who has a heartbeat" or cold calling potential donors rarely results in producing quality prospective donors who are ready to write a check.
• Prospecting potential donors is a low return activity—Given the amount of time involved in prospecting for new donors and the difficulty in landing a good prospect, many responsible for development question whether the effort provides a reasonable return. (Note: Some development officers equate prospecting donors with "cold calling," which is usually a waste of time. We believe there are other, more productive ways to attract new donors—see below.)
• Prospecting new donors is frustrating—Nobody likes rejection. The research is pretty clear: donations have decreased over 25 percent from 2009 to 2010; many donors are not in the mood to entertain giving money away.
“Getting new donors is tough. Making sure you have done everything possible to make it easier is not to say it will be easy. Here are some techniques being used by some of the most successful organizations:
"1. Make sure your organization is targeting the right prospective donors. The responsibility for providing clear direction starts at the executive level. Organizations need to understand the necessity of creating a target profile that gives staff and volunteers clear direction about the types of industries and individuals that provide the best opportunities for developing partnerships. If you don't like pizza parlors for donations, say so. If you overdepend on doctors for donations, say so. But also be explicit about what the most desirable industry segments are for the organization and why. Time is a very precious commodity; wasting time on the "wrong" donors' takes away time from the "right" donors.”
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Government & Catholic Nonprofits
The Catholic Church essentially began the institutional charitable effort in Western civilization—as recounted in the book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, which notes: “The Catholic Church invented charity as we know it in the West.” (p. 170)—and their work today remains crucial, as reported by this article from America.
An excerpt.
“Whether measured by annual revenues, number of employees or the market value of property holdings, the nonprofit sector has grown dramatically in recent decades. Indeed, it has grown faster than either the public sector or the business sector.
“Today, with over a trillion dollars a year in revenues, hundreds of thousands of nonprofit organizations of all sorts and sizes qualify under federal, state and local laws for multiple tax benefits. Nonprofit organizations pay no property taxes. Their donors may get federal tax deductions. Their members (like students at private colleges) may get tax-funded grants or vouchers (like loans to pay college tuition). And their leaders may apply for government aid or compete for government contracts to fund employees’ salaries or to cover certain operating expenses.
“What would it cost Uncle Sam to replace Catholic agencies?
“As the fiscal crisis, which first showed itself in 2007, continues, ever more federal, state and local policymakers in both parties are asking tough but timely questions about the nonprofit sector: How much does it lighten local property tax coffers and reduce federal tax revenues? What is the total tab for all the tax-funded subsidies? And what does the wider public actually get in return for all the tax breaks and government funding?
“Studies are underway, but nobody knows for sure what the results will be. Yet no matter what the research ultimately shows, public pressure for accountability will continue to grow as more media attention is focused on corruption scandals involving nonprofits and as the public sees and hears more about nonprofit executives who make really big bucks (like the many private university presidents with million-dollar-plus annual compensation packages).
“Already some city governments have experimented with payment in lieu of taxes or so-called PILOT arrangements, by which properties owned by large nonprofit organizations are taxed at a rate higher than zero but lower than the same properties would be taxed were they owned by a for-profit firm. And at the federal level, nonprofit hospitals in particular have come in for ever-greater scrutiny of their balance sheets, executive pay and service to low-income communities.
“Grandstanding politicians and sensationalizing journalists can quickly turn legitimate concerns about accountability or performance into a three-ring circus. But, putting that prospect to one side, do nonprofit leaders have more to hope or to fear from calls demanding that they justify their tax-exempted properties and tax-subsidized personnel or programs?
“At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large.”
An excerpt.
“Whether measured by annual revenues, number of employees or the market value of property holdings, the nonprofit sector has grown dramatically in recent decades. Indeed, it has grown faster than either the public sector or the business sector.
“Today, with over a trillion dollars a year in revenues, hundreds of thousands of nonprofit organizations of all sorts and sizes qualify under federal, state and local laws for multiple tax benefits. Nonprofit organizations pay no property taxes. Their donors may get federal tax deductions. Their members (like students at private colleges) may get tax-funded grants or vouchers (like loans to pay college tuition). And their leaders may apply for government aid or compete for government contracts to fund employees’ salaries or to cover certain operating expenses.
“What would it cost Uncle Sam to replace Catholic agencies?
“As the fiscal crisis, which first showed itself in 2007, continues, ever more federal, state and local policymakers in both parties are asking tough but timely questions about the nonprofit sector: How much does it lighten local property tax coffers and reduce federal tax revenues? What is the total tab for all the tax-funded subsidies? And what does the wider public actually get in return for all the tax breaks and government funding?
“Studies are underway, but nobody knows for sure what the results will be. Yet no matter what the research ultimately shows, public pressure for accountability will continue to grow as more media attention is focused on corruption scandals involving nonprofits and as the public sees and hears more about nonprofit executives who make really big bucks (like the many private university presidents with million-dollar-plus annual compensation packages).
“Already some city governments have experimented with payment in lieu of taxes or so-called PILOT arrangements, by which properties owned by large nonprofit organizations are taxed at a rate higher than zero but lower than the same properties would be taxed were they owned by a for-profit firm. And at the federal level, nonprofit hospitals in particular have come in for ever-greater scrutiny of their balance sheets, executive pay and service to low-income communities.
“Grandstanding politicians and sensationalizing journalists can quickly turn legitimate concerns about accountability or performance into a three-ring circus. But, putting that prospect to one side, do nonprofit leaders have more to hope or to fear from calls demanding that they justify their tax-exempted properties and tax-subsidized personnel or programs?
“At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large.”
Friday, February 4, 2011
Redevelopment Funds
As many states, ours is one, debate the future of redevelopment funds which have driven some urban development for several years, it is worthwhile to consider, as this article from the Wall Street Journal does, allowing the effort to become a nonprofit enterprise.
An excerpt.
“Some cash-strapped states have identified another job they want to shift to the private sector: economic development.
“A number of governors are working to turn their development offices into some form of nonprofit private entity, a move that would transfer the task of giving out state grants, tax breaks and other economic incentives from the hands of government.
“The idea, which has as much to do with economic philosophies as with saving money, is mainly gaining ground in states with Republican governors, including Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Arizona.
"It's a matter of greater flexibility and the ability to act more like a chamber [of commerce] rather than a state agency," said Wisconsin's new Republican governor Scott Walker, adding that private groups are better equipped to create jobs and attract companies.
“As tax revenue has shriveled in recent years, cities and states have moved to privatize various operations, such as state-run liquor stores, local libraries and parking meters.
“Seven states, including Michigan and Florida, already have some form of private group filling the economic-development role. Critics say handing this power to a private entity can create conflicts of interest, because the nonprofits usually have boards made up of public officials and private business leaders. This can create conflicts as these boards help steer tax breaks and incentives.
“Also, in many cases private economic-development agencies aren't subject to the same standards for public disclosure as government agencies, even though they receive government money. In Ohio, where newly elected Gov. John Kasich has proposed dissolving the state's Department of Development and creating an entity called JobsOhio, lawmakers have pushed to increase disclosures and allow the state's inspector general to investigate the proposed entity.
“Advocates say it makes sense to separate the task of creating jobs from large government agencies that often have a broader mission. In Wisconsin, the current Department of Commerce has responsibility for regulation as well as economic development. Among the 400 employees in Ohio's Department of Development, 60 are focused on economic development; the balance handle areas including homeless programs, community development and home energy assistance.”
An excerpt.
“Some cash-strapped states have identified another job they want to shift to the private sector: economic development.
“A number of governors are working to turn their development offices into some form of nonprofit private entity, a move that would transfer the task of giving out state grants, tax breaks and other economic incentives from the hands of government.
“The idea, which has as much to do with economic philosophies as with saving money, is mainly gaining ground in states with Republican governors, including Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Arizona.
"It's a matter of greater flexibility and the ability to act more like a chamber [of commerce] rather than a state agency," said Wisconsin's new Republican governor Scott Walker, adding that private groups are better equipped to create jobs and attract companies.
“As tax revenue has shriveled in recent years, cities and states have moved to privatize various operations, such as state-run liquor stores, local libraries and parking meters.
“Seven states, including Michigan and Florida, already have some form of private group filling the economic-development role. Critics say handing this power to a private entity can create conflicts of interest, because the nonprofits usually have boards made up of public officials and private business leaders. This can create conflicts as these boards help steer tax breaks and incentives.
“Also, in many cases private economic-development agencies aren't subject to the same standards for public disclosure as government agencies, even though they receive government money. In Ohio, where newly elected Gov. John Kasich has proposed dissolving the state's Department of Development and creating an entity called JobsOhio, lawmakers have pushed to increase disclosures and allow the state's inspector general to investigate the proposed entity.
“Advocates say it makes sense to separate the task of creating jobs from large government agencies that often have a broader mission. In Wisconsin, the current Department of Commerce has responsibility for regulation as well as economic development. Among the 400 employees in Ohio's Department of Development, 60 are focused on economic development; the balance handle areas including homeless programs, community development and home energy assistance.”
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Social Innovation
How to do it, or is our particular nonprofit effort engaged in it, are becoming key questions for nonprofit executives, especially as more and more funders see it as a marker for funding.
A great source to look to is Dr. Paul Light, and in this article by him from the Nonprofit Quarterly, that is examined.
An excerpt.
“How do societies create the breakthroughs needed for a more just, tolerant, healthy, educated, and equitable world? How do they challenge the prevailing wisdom without losing hope? How do they enact lasting change and protect it from the inevitable backlash?
“Many of us look to 24/7 heroes and highly visible organizations for the answers. After all, they get the uncommon hero awards and the public admiration, often because they have forged their brand identities around big-ticket change. They are easy to identify and admire.
“However, there are dangers in focusing almost exclusively on what I call Type-A, hero-driven social entrepreneurship as the central driver of change. First, we may underappreciate the new combinations of ideas that come from Type-B, team-driven social entrepreneurship, which may yet prove to be a more effective approach for challenging the status quo.
“Second, we may underinvest in other, equally powerful drivers of social change needed for the enactment (broadly defined), implementation, expansion, and defense of past breakthroughs.
“And, third, we may underestimate the impact of the challenges embedded in the larger breakthrough cycle that ignites, frustrates, and sustains change from the initial commitment to act all the way through to the full embrace of a new prevailing wisdom….”
A great source to look to is Dr. Paul Light, and in this article by him from the Nonprofit Quarterly, that is examined.
An excerpt.
“How do societies create the breakthroughs needed for a more just, tolerant, healthy, educated, and equitable world? How do they challenge the prevailing wisdom without losing hope? How do they enact lasting change and protect it from the inevitable backlash?
“Many of us look to 24/7 heroes and highly visible organizations for the answers. After all, they get the uncommon hero awards and the public admiration, often because they have forged their brand identities around big-ticket change. They are easy to identify and admire.
“However, there are dangers in focusing almost exclusively on what I call Type-A, hero-driven social entrepreneurship as the central driver of change. First, we may underappreciate the new combinations of ideas that come from Type-B, team-driven social entrepreneurship, which may yet prove to be a more effective approach for challenging the status quo.
“Second, we may underinvest in other, equally powerful drivers of social change needed for the enactment (broadly defined), implementation, expansion, and defense of past breakthroughs.
“And, third, we may underestimate the impact of the challenges embedded in the larger breakthrough cycle that ignites, frustrates, and sustains change from the initial commitment to act all the way through to the full embrace of a new prevailing wisdom….”
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Donor’s Influence
In an ongoing discussion spanning generations, the ability of donors to influence the nonprofits they support, is examined in this article from the New York Times resulting from one major college donor wanting his money back after the school did not consult him on a recent personnel decision.
An excerpt.
“In the past week, Robert G. Burton has been portrayed as the flawed face of highly commercialized intercollegiate athletics.
“In a scathing letter to Jeff Hathaway, the University of Connecticut athletic director, Burton demanded the return of $3 million because he felt he had not been sufficiently consulted in the hiring of Paul Pasqualoni as the Huskies’ football coach. He demanded that his family’s name be removed from the team’s training complex.
“Now Burton, the chief executive of Burton Capital Management based in Greenwich, Conn., has been cast as a spoiled booster who feels that a $7 million contribution to the football program over the years gives him the right to be included in decision-making. Criticize him all you like, but Burton is the face of UConn’s new reality. The university embraced big-time football; now it must deal with the attendant big-time headaches.
“Philip E. Austin, UConn’s interim president, and Lawrence D. McHugh, the board chairman, have privately tried to mend fences with Burton, their largest sports donor.
“If the incoming president, Susan Herbst, who takes over in July, is wise, she will phone Burton now, assuring him that no disrespect was intended. If Burton insists that Hathaway be fired, Herbst should gently tell him that $7 million is not nearly enough to influence personnel decisions.
“The question raised by Burton is whether large donors have the right to call the shots.
“In almost any area of life, yes, but not in the university,” said James W. Earl, a professor of medieval literature at the University of Oregon. “A general rule is that your money does not win you influence. When word gets out that the donor is pulling this string, it’s a scandal.”
“Earl has been a voice of resistance at Oregon for years, protesting in particular that the presence of Phil Knight and Nike, the company Knight helped found, has injured the university even while elevating the football team into national title contention. During a telephone interview Thursday, Earl said he had raised the white flag.
“I’ve given up the fight,” he said. “We’re so deep in this that we can never go back. A professor can only do so much, and money talks. Phil Knight is a major donor. You really don’t want to get in his way or cross him. It does not take much to get him to walk away.”
An excerpt.
“In the past week, Robert G. Burton has been portrayed as the flawed face of highly commercialized intercollegiate athletics.
“In a scathing letter to Jeff Hathaway, the University of Connecticut athletic director, Burton demanded the return of $3 million because he felt he had not been sufficiently consulted in the hiring of Paul Pasqualoni as the Huskies’ football coach. He demanded that his family’s name be removed from the team’s training complex.
“Now Burton, the chief executive of Burton Capital Management based in Greenwich, Conn., has been cast as a spoiled booster who feels that a $7 million contribution to the football program over the years gives him the right to be included in decision-making. Criticize him all you like, but Burton is the face of UConn’s new reality. The university embraced big-time football; now it must deal with the attendant big-time headaches.
“Philip E. Austin, UConn’s interim president, and Lawrence D. McHugh, the board chairman, have privately tried to mend fences with Burton, their largest sports donor.
“If the incoming president, Susan Herbst, who takes over in July, is wise, she will phone Burton now, assuring him that no disrespect was intended. If Burton insists that Hathaway be fired, Herbst should gently tell him that $7 million is not nearly enough to influence personnel decisions.
“The question raised by Burton is whether large donors have the right to call the shots.
“In almost any area of life, yes, but not in the university,” said James W. Earl, a professor of medieval literature at the University of Oregon. “A general rule is that your money does not win you influence. When word gets out that the donor is pulling this string, it’s a scandal.”
“Earl has been a voice of resistance at Oregon for years, protesting in particular that the presence of Phil Knight and Nike, the company Knight helped found, has injured the university even while elevating the football team into national title contention. During a telephone interview Thursday, Earl said he had raised the white flag.
“I’ve given up the fight,” he said. “We’re so deep in this that we can never go back. A professor can only do so much, and money talks. Phil Knight is a major donor. You really don’t want to get in his way or cross him. It does not take much to get him to walk away.”
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Microcredit Pioneer’s Troubles
One of the founding leaders of one of the most promising nonprofit innovations—microcredit—in years, is experiencing some difficulties, as reported by the New York Times.
An excerpt.
“DHAKA, Bangladesh — Any other year Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a pioneer of microcredit, would be in Davos, Switzerland, this week. For years he has been celebrated at global gatherings like the World Economic Forum there for helping move millions of impoverished women toward a better life through tiny but transformational loans.
“Instead, he was in court again on Thursday, facing accusations, considered frivolous by most accounts, that one of his nonprofit companies adulterated vitamin-fortified yogurt. On Jan. 18, he was summoned to a rural courtroom to face charges of defamation lodged by a local politician.
“Microcredit, the idea that Mr. Yunus popularized as a path out of penury for those long excluded from the banking system, has increasingly come under scrutiny. Scholars have cast doubt on its effectiveness in fighting poverty, and politicians and other critics accuse microfinanciers, many of whom, unlike Mr. Yunus, profit from the loans, of getting rich off the poor.
“Now, the government of Bangladesh has ordered a wide-ranging inquiry into the microfinance institution he founded 34 years ago, Grameen Bank, after a Norwegian documentary accused him of mishandling donors’ money. Norway’s government has said no money was misused. Still, Mr. Yunus’s troubles will deepen what has become a global crisis in microfinance that threatens to undermine the very concept — small loans to poor people without collateral — on which his reputation rests.
“Long accustomed to adulation at home and abroad, suddenly, at 70, Mr. Yunus, Bangladesh’s best-known citizen, finds himself very much on the defensive. In an interview at his office here, Mr. Yunus seemed stunned and deeply stung.
“There is some kind of misinformation,” he said, his voice trailing off. “I shouldn’t say more.”
“A pause.
“Every word I say will be held against me,” he said finally.
“On one level, his troubles seem to be largely political. Mr. Yunus, who leads a spartan life, has for decades floated well above the muck of Bangladeshi politics. Then in 2007, while a caretaker government backed by the military ruled Bangladesh, he waded in, egged on by supporters who argued that his leadership was needed in a time of crisis.
“He declared in an interview that Bangladeshi politics were riddled with corruption. He floated a short-lived political party. Bangladesh’s political class did not take kindly to being lectured by the Nobel laureate. The steely leader of one of the main political parties, Sheikh Hasina Wazed, took umbrage, analysts say.”
An excerpt.
“DHAKA, Bangladesh — Any other year Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a pioneer of microcredit, would be in Davos, Switzerland, this week. For years he has been celebrated at global gatherings like the World Economic Forum there for helping move millions of impoverished women toward a better life through tiny but transformational loans.
“Instead, he was in court again on Thursday, facing accusations, considered frivolous by most accounts, that one of his nonprofit companies adulterated vitamin-fortified yogurt. On Jan. 18, he was summoned to a rural courtroom to face charges of defamation lodged by a local politician.
“Microcredit, the idea that Mr. Yunus popularized as a path out of penury for those long excluded from the banking system, has increasingly come under scrutiny. Scholars have cast doubt on its effectiveness in fighting poverty, and politicians and other critics accuse microfinanciers, many of whom, unlike Mr. Yunus, profit from the loans, of getting rich off the poor.
“Now, the government of Bangladesh has ordered a wide-ranging inquiry into the microfinance institution he founded 34 years ago, Grameen Bank, after a Norwegian documentary accused him of mishandling donors’ money. Norway’s government has said no money was misused. Still, Mr. Yunus’s troubles will deepen what has become a global crisis in microfinance that threatens to undermine the very concept — small loans to poor people without collateral — on which his reputation rests.
“Long accustomed to adulation at home and abroad, suddenly, at 70, Mr. Yunus, Bangladesh’s best-known citizen, finds himself very much on the defensive. In an interview at his office here, Mr. Yunus seemed stunned and deeply stung.
“There is some kind of misinformation,” he said, his voice trailing off. “I shouldn’t say more.”
“A pause.
“Every word I say will be held against me,” he said finally.
“On one level, his troubles seem to be largely political. Mr. Yunus, who leads a spartan life, has for decades floated well above the muck of Bangladeshi politics. Then in 2007, while a caretaker government backed by the military ruled Bangladesh, he waded in, egged on by supporters who argued that his leadership was needed in a time of crisis.
“He declared in an interview that Bangladeshi politics were riddled with corruption. He floated a short-lived political party. Bangladesh’s political class did not take kindly to being lectured by the Nobel laureate. The steely leader of one of the main political parties, Sheikh Hasina Wazed, took umbrage, analysts say.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
