It can—and perhaps already has—become somewhat of a trendy obsession, as this article from the Nonprofit Quarterly explains.
An excerpt.
“How to thrive in turbulent times, improve organizational sustainability, and generate significant social impact are crucial questions currently confronting many nonprofit leaders and boards. There appears to be an answer within reach, and its formula is as simple as it is powerful: you and your agency need to become more entrepreneurial.
“Over the last ten years, the fascination with and interest in social entrepreneurship seem to have grown exponentially. Today, this concept has positioned itself at the very heart of discussions about the future and evolution of the nonprofit sector, as a number of nonprofit executives have “embraced social entrepreneurship as a model of management.” There are several reasons behind this fast development, and I want to mention two in particular.
“First, despite the many constructive and positive impacts created by nonprofit organizations both locally and nationally, there exists a looming fear that our current efforts are not reaching far enough fast enough, and that traditional ways of addressing community needs and social issues lack the transformational capacity to deal with many of today’s complex and new social problems. In other words, the search is on for a new paradigm—a “game-changer”—based on fresh and different ways to create systemic change.
“Second, corresponding with this search for novel and innovative ways to deal with social issues, a new generation of philanthropists and institutional donors has been eager to promote the idea that the key to solving all sorts of pressing social predicaments is to be found in business principles and practices. As the story goes, the challenges and perceived inefficiencies of our current approach to social problems will, as Forbes.com described it, “ultimately be properly managed, or maybe even solved, when desperate governments and NGOs finally surrender their ideologies and tap the private sector for help.”
“Social entrepreneurship has united these two ideas to form a powerful fusion from which a new approach is indeed emerging, one that is backed by high-profile advocates like Bill Clinton and Nobel Peace Prize–winner Muhammad Yunus. The nonprofit literature has also noted that the means and tactics of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise “[are] being accorded a status of—if not quite a panacea—then at least a significantly important emergence in the societal management of key social needs.
“Despite the tremendous energy and excitement surrounding social entrepreneurship, many nonprofit practitioners find it a highly elusive and difficult topic. I believe that one of the fundamental reasons behind this elusiveness lies within the social entrepreneurship phenomenon itself. More specifically, in contrasting what is being said with what we know about this phenomenon, I have started to believe that in many aspects social entrepreneurship is a fetish, an object of desire—more important for what it symbolizes than for its substance and applicability to nonprofits. My purpose here, then, is to discuss some of these symbolic properties and illustrate what makes them powerful, but also what makes them problematic.
“Social Entrepreneurship as Dream Catcher
“What exactly does it take to be more (socially) entrepreneurial? Given the praise for the concept and the frequent calls for a more entrepreneurial nonprofit sector, one might think this basic and crucial question has an obvious answer, which is why it is almost ironic that one of the few areas of agreement in this field is that there is no agreement about how to define or operationalize social entrepreneurship. But rather than undermining its legitimacy, this lack of precision has only added to the mystique and power vested in the social entrepreneurship phenomenon. Absent any right or wrong way to conceptualize social entrepreneurship, it has transcended into a shape-shifter that can take on almost any form—or, as Humpty Dumpty formulated it: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” This becomes evident when one considers the vast number of activities that all manage to fit under the social entrepreneurship conceptual umbrella, ranging from seemingly vague efforts to be more “creative,” “innovative,” and “bold” to more targeted strategies such as the application of business/market principles or the creation of earned income–generating programs. As a consequence, there is a huge smorgasbord of options and recommendations from which nonprofits can pick and choose.
“The obvious problem with this Humpty Dumpty aspect of social entrepreneurship is that a concept that means everything means nothing, and therefore has virtually no utility for practitioners.”
Showing posts with label Community Social Entrepreneurship Nonprofit Management Mission Public Policy Resources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community Social Entrepreneurship Nonprofit Management Mission Public Policy Resources. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Learning Organization
Becoming one is a key attribute of success, whether forprofit or nonprofit and the leading thinker in this field is Peter Senge, whose magisterial, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, is the one book you need to have in your library.
This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review examines the difficulties involved in actually becoming a learning organization.
An excerpt.
“Reinventing the wheel—this well-worn phrase describes one of the oldest of human follies: undertaking a project or activity without tapping into the knowledge that already exists within a culture or community. Individuals are blessed with a brain that, some of the time, remembers what we’ve already learned—or at least that we’ve learned something. But what about organizations?
“Consider the views of Kim Oakes, director of sharing and communities of practice at the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a national network of 99 charter schools serving 27,000 students via 1,900 teachers. Oakes told Bridgespan’s research team: “We know that about 80 percent of our teachers create materials from scratch. … It became increasingly important to connect our teachers, so that they could build upon one another’s ideas rather than work in isolation.”
“Or consider World Vision, an international Christian development organization with an annual budget of more than $2 billion operating in 93 countries. World Vision was facing the consequences of rapid growth. In the words of Eleanor Monbiot, its senior director for knowledge management: “We were growing at 10 to 15 percent a year. We had moved from everybody knowing each other vaguely, to a breaking point. … The No. 1 need was to know what people were up to, where the best practices lay.”
“KIPP, World Vision, and a host of other nonprofits, large and small, are tackling the challenge of making their organizations as smart as the individuals who constitute them. In short, they are engaging in the hard work of organizational learning: The intentional practice of collecting information, reflecting on it, and sharing the findings, to improve the performance of an organization.
“Authors ranging from the late business historian Alfred D. Chandler Jr. to MIT Sloan School of Management senior lecturer Peter Senge have emphasized the value of knowledge and learning inside organizations. But, to use another well-worn phrase, this is easier said than done. In the fall of 2010, a Bridgespan Group team surveyed 116 nonprofits about how they learn—and how they translate the knowledge gained into practice, to increase their impact and fulfill their missions. We then explored these topics through interviews with more than half a dozen organizations, which were recommended by their peers for their innovative approaches to learning.
“The results of the survey indicate that nonprofit leaders care deeply about capturing and sharing knowledge across their programs and fields. But they also identify three significant impediments to organizational learning: a lack of clear and measurable goals about using knowledge to improve performance; insufficient incentives for individuals or teams to participate in organizational learning activities; and uncertainty about the most effective processes for capturing and sharing learning. These issues also surface in forprofit organizations, according to outside studies, where knowledge hoarding between business units can result from competition for resources. In the nonprofit sector, however, 97 percent of survey respondents said their leaders value knowledge sharing as a means to achieve their missions. Still, many of them struggle to do it well.”
This article from Stanford Social Innovation Review examines the difficulties involved in actually becoming a learning organization.
An excerpt.
“Reinventing the wheel—this well-worn phrase describes one of the oldest of human follies: undertaking a project or activity without tapping into the knowledge that already exists within a culture or community. Individuals are blessed with a brain that, some of the time, remembers what we’ve already learned—or at least that we’ve learned something. But what about organizations?
“Consider the views of Kim Oakes, director of sharing and communities of practice at the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), a national network of 99 charter schools serving 27,000 students via 1,900 teachers. Oakes told Bridgespan’s research team: “We know that about 80 percent of our teachers create materials from scratch. … It became increasingly important to connect our teachers, so that they could build upon one another’s ideas rather than work in isolation.”
“Or consider World Vision, an international Christian development organization with an annual budget of more than $2 billion operating in 93 countries. World Vision was facing the consequences of rapid growth. In the words of Eleanor Monbiot, its senior director for knowledge management: “We were growing at 10 to 15 percent a year. We had moved from everybody knowing each other vaguely, to a breaking point. … The No. 1 need was to know what people were up to, where the best practices lay.”
“KIPP, World Vision, and a host of other nonprofits, large and small, are tackling the challenge of making their organizations as smart as the individuals who constitute them. In short, they are engaging in the hard work of organizational learning: The intentional practice of collecting information, reflecting on it, and sharing the findings, to improve the performance of an organization.
“Authors ranging from the late business historian Alfred D. Chandler Jr. to MIT Sloan School of Management senior lecturer Peter Senge have emphasized the value of knowledge and learning inside organizations. But, to use another well-worn phrase, this is easier said than done. In the fall of 2010, a Bridgespan Group team surveyed 116 nonprofits about how they learn—and how they translate the knowledge gained into practice, to increase their impact and fulfill their missions. We then explored these topics through interviews with more than half a dozen organizations, which were recommended by their peers for their innovative approaches to learning.
“The results of the survey indicate that nonprofit leaders care deeply about capturing and sharing knowledge across their programs and fields. But they also identify three significant impediments to organizational learning: a lack of clear and measurable goals about using knowledge to improve performance; insufficient incentives for individuals or teams to participate in organizational learning activities; and uncertainty about the most effective processes for capturing and sharing learning. These issues also surface in forprofit organizations, according to outside studies, where knowledge hoarding between business units can result from competition for resources. In the nonprofit sector, however, 97 percent of survey respondents said their leaders value knowledge sharing as a means to achieve their missions. Still, many of them struggle to do it well.”
Monday, September 26, 2011
Keeping Donors
It is one of the most crucial aspects of operating a successful nonprofit, and the methods to accomplish it are well-known and commonsensical, as this article from Nonprofit About.Com notes.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Katya Andresen reported recently on a study that showed nonprofits in 2010 lost $5.54 for every $5.35 that they gained in donations. Donor attrition results in a net loss of nearly two percent.
“The good thing is that nonprofits may be getting better at engaging donors and keeping them since the attrition rate decreased from minus 3.2 percent in 2009….
“The difference between donors that stay around and increase their level of giving to a cause is commitment. Commitment is a scale from low to high that can be measured.
“For every 1000 donors that an organization can move from low commitment to high commitment, it could gain, on average, $200,000 more income.
“This study identified, out of many possibilities, seven key drivers of donor commitment. These are things that your nonprofit can do to improve donor commitment scores. Those seven drivers are:
1. Showing that you are effectively trying to achieve your mission.
2. Letting donors know what they can expect from every interaction.
3. Providing timely thank you's.
4. Giving donors the opportunity to express their views.
5. Helping the donor to feel that he or she is part of an important cause.
6. Making sure that donors feel involved and appreciated.
7. Providing information about who is being helped.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Katya Andresen reported recently on a study that showed nonprofits in 2010 lost $5.54 for every $5.35 that they gained in donations. Donor attrition results in a net loss of nearly two percent.
“The good thing is that nonprofits may be getting better at engaging donors and keeping them since the attrition rate decreased from minus 3.2 percent in 2009….
“The difference between donors that stay around and increase their level of giving to a cause is commitment. Commitment is a scale from low to high that can be measured.
“For every 1000 donors that an organization can move from low commitment to high commitment, it could gain, on average, $200,000 more income.
“This study identified, out of many possibilities, seven key drivers of donor commitment. These are things that your nonprofit can do to improve donor commitment scores. Those seven drivers are:
1. Showing that you are effectively trying to achieve your mission.
2. Letting donors know what they can expect from every interaction.
3. Providing timely thank you's.
4. Giving donors the opportunity to express their views.
5. Helping the donor to feel that he or she is part of an important cause.
6. Making sure that donors feel involved and appreciated.
7. Providing information about who is being helped.”
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
501 c 3 Nonprofit Startups
It is complicated, much more so than most people realize, and much more difficult than even a few years ago due to an increase in the IRS regulations around obtaining the tax exemption, yet it is one of my favorite tasks as a consultant, helping someone committed to a mission getting incorporated, grounded, and working.
This free online nonprofit management resource is terrific and this article from Nonprofit About.com is an excellent look at starting up.
An excerpt, with a bunch of links at the jump.
“Starting a nonprofit is complex, with many missteps possible at any point. Going from nothing to a sustainable and financially healthy nonprofit is not for the timid. Avoiding these common nonprofit startup mistakes will get you off to a great beginning.
“From a review of the literature already available on this topic and by posting the question on various social networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Quora, I found that these mistakes were the most likely to plague nonprofit startups:
“Lack of a business plan is one of the most prevalent mistakes that startup nonprofits make. In their enthusiasm to do good, many founders of nonprofits forget that a nonprofit is a type of business. Businesses have business plans in hand before launching. A business plan encompasses an evaluation of the competitive environment, sources of funding, potential products or services to be offered and to whom, and a needs assessment.
“Lack of Financial Savvy
“Close behind lack of planning is unrealistic expectations about funding for a startup nonprofit. Many founders do not anticipate what it will cost to start their nonprofit, much less have any idea of where to get the funds. Any nonprofit startup needs a funding plan, must decide if services provided will be available for a fee or be free, and should institute a good financial records system. A nonprofit that has weak funding at the beginning is unlikely to be able to sustain itself long enough to get a vigorous fundraising program going.”
This free online nonprofit management resource is terrific and this article from Nonprofit About.com is an excellent look at starting up.
An excerpt, with a bunch of links at the jump.
“Starting a nonprofit is complex, with many missteps possible at any point. Going from nothing to a sustainable and financially healthy nonprofit is not for the timid. Avoiding these common nonprofit startup mistakes will get you off to a great beginning.
“From a review of the literature already available on this topic and by posting the question on various social networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Quora, I found that these mistakes were the most likely to plague nonprofit startups:
“Lack of a business plan is one of the most prevalent mistakes that startup nonprofits make. In their enthusiasm to do good, many founders of nonprofits forget that a nonprofit is a type of business. Businesses have business plans in hand before launching. A business plan encompasses an evaluation of the competitive environment, sources of funding, potential products or services to be offered and to whom, and a needs assessment.
“Lack of Financial Savvy
“Close behind lack of planning is unrealistic expectations about funding for a startup nonprofit. Many founders do not anticipate what it will cost to start their nonprofit, much less have any idea of where to get the funds. Any nonprofit startup needs a funding plan, must decide if services provided will be available for a fee or be free, and should institute a good financial records system. A nonprofit that has weak funding at the beginning is unlikely to be able to sustain itself long enough to get a vigorous fundraising program going.”
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Public Private Partnerships
These are generally very good arrangements, allowing the public sector to maintain ownership—and ultimate control—over the commons, while having the private sector, either a forprofit or nonprofit, manage it.
However, some see problems with this, but those expressed in this article from My South End in Boston, appear more geared towards public safety, which most people visiting the park in question would probably applaud.
An excerpt.
“It’s lunchtime on a beautiful spring day in Boston. You sit on a bench in a park right in the middle of the city. You check out the buildings around you and marvel at how much they are worth thanks to the protected green space where you are sitting. Everyone loves this space.
“While you sit happily, enjoying the sun, it might bother you to learn that the land on which you bask is publicly owned -- but privately controlled. The City handed it to a private development group to build an underground garage topped with this park. The renowned private Friends group that keeps the park beautiful and decides who can use it is actually this for-profit development group, and their enormously profitable 1400-car garage is exempt from City property taxes, enjoying a tax break about ten times the amount of the park’s maintenance costs.
“While you ponder those troubling facts, don’t plan a protest: free speech and free assembly are prohibited in the park. Private surveillance cameras surround the park, and parents playing ball with a child, casual musicians, citizens collecting political signatures or distributing political information, groups of visitors, people wielding cameras and persons lying on benches or appearing to be asleep - don’t sit with your eyes closed sunning your face! -- may be asked to leave.
“Sound like something from George Orwell’s 1984? Or maybe you misunderstood and it’s a private garden?
“Nope. Welcome to the "public" Post Office Square Park, operated privately for the enjoyment of, well, desirable people, mainly the employees and clients of the nearby office-tower owners , and customers of the park’s up-scale cafe.
“Boston’s famed Post Office Square Park is a poster-child of public-realm philanthropy. It is a privately managed open space that has vastly enhanced the property values of its founding abutters, who otherwise faced the competition of a new tower on that site. The Park’s creators have won the trust and good will of public officials and city residents, who laud its manicured upkeep. But the City agreement anticipated $300,000 a year in profit-sharing to benefit other parks; none of that has materialized, because Park costs but not garage profits are attributed to the Friends.”
However, some see problems with this, but those expressed in this article from My South End in Boston, appear more geared towards public safety, which most people visiting the park in question would probably applaud.
An excerpt.
“It’s lunchtime on a beautiful spring day in Boston. You sit on a bench in a park right in the middle of the city. You check out the buildings around you and marvel at how much they are worth thanks to the protected green space where you are sitting. Everyone loves this space.
“While you sit happily, enjoying the sun, it might bother you to learn that the land on which you bask is publicly owned -- but privately controlled. The City handed it to a private development group to build an underground garage topped with this park. The renowned private Friends group that keeps the park beautiful and decides who can use it is actually this for-profit development group, and their enormously profitable 1400-car garage is exempt from City property taxes, enjoying a tax break about ten times the amount of the park’s maintenance costs.
“While you ponder those troubling facts, don’t plan a protest: free speech and free assembly are prohibited in the park. Private surveillance cameras surround the park, and parents playing ball with a child, casual musicians, citizens collecting political signatures or distributing political information, groups of visitors, people wielding cameras and persons lying on benches or appearing to be asleep - don’t sit with your eyes closed sunning your face! -- may be asked to leave.
“Sound like something from George Orwell’s 1984? Or maybe you misunderstood and it’s a private garden?
“Nope. Welcome to the "public" Post Office Square Park, operated privately for the enjoyment of, well, desirable people, mainly the employees and clients of the nearby office-tower owners , and customers of the park’s up-scale cafe.
“Boston’s famed Post Office Square Park is a poster-child of public-realm philanthropy. It is a privately managed open space that has vastly enhanced the property values of its founding abutters, who otherwise faced the competition of a new tower on that site. The Park’s creators have won the trust and good will of public officials and city residents, who laud its manicured upkeep. But the City agreement anticipated $300,000 a year in profit-sharing to benefit other parks; none of that has materialized, because Park costs but not garage profits are attributed to the Friends.”
Thursday, September 1, 2011
SCORE Helps Out
One of the great nonprofit organizations, and one I benefited from over thirty years ago in getting my first nonprofit started, is SCORE, noted in this article from the Sacramento Bee.
An excerpt.
“Starting a business in a recession is tough. Keeping it on course in a rough economy is even more of a challenge.
“Volunteer business counselors from the nonprofit organization SCORE see the challenges Sacramento-area business owners face as they reach the two-year mark.
“Seven of 10 new firms survive at least two years, but just half stay open at least five years, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration. Now SCORE is launching a program aimed at business owners looking to grow and expand during that critical time.
“Titled "Becoming a Well-Run Business," the first six-week class begins at 7 a.m. Sept. 7 at Maidu Branch Library, 1530 Maidu Drive in Roseville. It's the first site in a trio of Sacramento-area locations that will host the classes.
“Plans are to launch similar classes in El Dorado County in January and Sacramento County in March, said SCORE counselor Bill Duthler, who will teach the classes with fellow counselor Jack Mayfield.
“The course is designed by Duthler, a retired small-business owner and author whose book "Timeout: Strategies to Focus Your Business and Make It Thrive" makes up the course's foundation.”
An excerpt.
“Starting a business in a recession is tough. Keeping it on course in a rough economy is even more of a challenge.
“Volunteer business counselors from the nonprofit organization SCORE see the challenges Sacramento-area business owners face as they reach the two-year mark.
“Seven of 10 new firms survive at least two years, but just half stay open at least five years, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration. Now SCORE is launching a program aimed at business owners looking to grow and expand during that critical time.
“Titled "Becoming a Well-Run Business," the first six-week class begins at 7 a.m. Sept. 7 at Maidu Branch Library, 1530 Maidu Drive in Roseville. It's the first site in a trio of Sacramento-area locations that will host the classes.
“Plans are to launch similar classes in El Dorado County in January and Sacramento County in March, said SCORE counselor Bill Duthler, who will teach the classes with fellow counselor Jack Mayfield.
“The course is designed by Duthler, a retired small-business owner and author whose book "Timeout: Strategies to Focus Your Business and Make It Thrive" makes up the course's foundation.”
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Academy & Nonprofits
This is a natural connection, as noted in this article from the Houston Memorial Examiner.
For those organizations I work with who need to have an advisory board in addition to their governing board, I always recommended connecting with local universities for advisers, as it is a natural fit connecting the advisor's academic discipline that is congruent with the organizational mission.
An excerpt.
“For the fourth consecutive year, Rice University MBA students are making a mark on the city of Houston with their involvement in nonprofit boards as part of the Jones Graduate School of Business Board Fellows Program.
“The program matches Rice MBA students with Houston community-based nonprofit organizations. Students serve as nonvoting board members for either 12- or 18-month appointments and attend board sessions and relevant committee meetings under the mentorship of a current board member. As students become familiar with their organizations, they have additional opportunities to work with the board to develop special projects that will identify and address issues faced by the organization.
“The program is mutually beneficial for both students and the organizations involved, said Donna Platt, associate director of development for the Jones School and the program’s coordinator.
“It’s remarkable not only how much the students gain from the program, but how much it benefits the Greater Houston community,” Platt said. “Students develop valuable leadership skills and experience, and organizations gain access to the ideas and energy of future business leaders.”
“MBA students LaMecia Butler and Rahila Odhwani both serve on the Board Fellows Program’s student leadership team and have witnessed the program’s benefits firsthand. Butler served on the board for Amazing Place and said she especially appreciates the experience gained from applying classroom knowledge to business issues.
“As a board member, I’ve had to draw from my studied subjects to contribute in board meetings,” Butler said. “It might be something as simple as using what I learned in accounting to analyze financial statements. When you have to apply those principles in real time during the course of your studies, it further justifies the importance of the instruction we receive in the classroom for our post-MBA endeavors.”
“Odhwani, a fellow at the Women’s Home, said the program provides new and valuable learning opportunities for many students, herself included. “I get a glimpse of how boards make various decisions on sponsorships, budgets and future planning, and sit on a committee to strategize development opportunities.”
“Many of the students, including Butler, enter the program with prior experience serving nonprofits; however, Butler said she appreciates the opportunity to participate in the decisions affecting the long-term health of the organization. “As a (nonvoting) board member of a well-established nonprofit, I have the opportunity to witness more long-term strategic planning, which influences the future of the organization.”
For those organizations I work with who need to have an advisory board in addition to their governing board, I always recommended connecting with local universities for advisers, as it is a natural fit connecting the advisor's academic discipline that is congruent with the organizational mission.
An excerpt.
“For the fourth consecutive year, Rice University MBA students are making a mark on the city of Houston with their involvement in nonprofit boards as part of the Jones Graduate School of Business Board Fellows Program.
“The program matches Rice MBA students with Houston community-based nonprofit organizations. Students serve as nonvoting board members for either 12- or 18-month appointments and attend board sessions and relevant committee meetings under the mentorship of a current board member. As students become familiar with their organizations, they have additional opportunities to work with the board to develop special projects that will identify and address issues faced by the organization.
“The program is mutually beneficial for both students and the organizations involved, said Donna Platt, associate director of development for the Jones School and the program’s coordinator.
“It’s remarkable not only how much the students gain from the program, but how much it benefits the Greater Houston community,” Platt said. “Students develop valuable leadership skills and experience, and organizations gain access to the ideas and energy of future business leaders.”
“MBA students LaMecia Butler and Rahila Odhwani both serve on the Board Fellows Program’s student leadership team and have witnessed the program’s benefits firsthand. Butler served on the board for Amazing Place and said she especially appreciates the experience gained from applying classroom knowledge to business issues.
“As a board member, I’ve had to draw from my studied subjects to contribute in board meetings,” Butler said. “It might be something as simple as using what I learned in accounting to analyze financial statements. When you have to apply those principles in real time during the course of your studies, it further justifies the importance of the instruction we receive in the classroom for our post-MBA endeavors.”
“Odhwani, a fellow at the Women’s Home, said the program provides new and valuable learning opportunities for many students, herself included. “I get a glimpse of how boards make various decisions on sponsorships, budgets and future planning, and sit on a committee to strategize development opportunities.”
“Many of the students, including Butler, enter the program with prior experience serving nonprofits; however, Butler said she appreciates the opportunity to participate in the decisions affecting the long-term health of the organization. “As a (nonvoting) board member of a well-established nonprofit, I have the opportunity to witness more long-term strategic planning, which influences the future of the organization.”
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Nonprofits Sharing Space & Services
In an era of tight dollars—and actually anytime is that for most small nonprofits—being able to share space and services without sacrificing mission effectiveness is a real benefit, and this article from the Third Sector New England explains.
An excerpt with links at the jump.
“There are over 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations in the United States, and the majority operate with budgets under $100,000. These are very lean and efficient operations under stress due to increasing demand for services and continuing financial volatility.
“In my opinion, the easy opportunities to reduce operating costs have long ago been discovered and implemented. We’re now into a time of more creative transition. Sometimes strategies involve multiple organizations coming together to share services or space.
“What Are Shared Services?
I define shared services as the collaborative use of resources across traditional organizational boundaries. Shared resources might include:
Physical things: office space, meeting rooms, copiers and kitchens
Skills: human resources, financial management, security
Other programmatic tools: client intake forms, information management systems
“Any resource that is not uniquely developed for a specific organization offers an opportunity for sharing.
“Building Opportunities
Earlier this May the NonprofitCenters Network hosted Building Opportunities: the Nonprofit Shared Space and Services Conference. Over 300 attendees convened in downtown Los Angeles, representing dozens of organizations from the public, private and non-profit sectors, all providers or potential providers of shared services and space.
“The conference offered a staggering variety of presentations ranging from Planning and Visioning for Impact to Green Building Tools, to Evaluating Impact. One highlight (of many) was the discussion of results from the Network’s study of multi-tenant centers, Measuring Collaboration: the Benefits and Impacts of Nonprofit Centers. The executive summary of this fantastic study is available for free download at www.nonprofitcenters.org.
“Benefits and Impacts
Among the many interesting findings:
Some organizations have shared space for a while and many others are relatively new to the experience: 23% of nonprofit centers surveyed were founded over 20 years ago; at the same time nearly 33% of centers were less than 5 years old.
Shared services are often coupled with nonprofit centers: over 50% of nonprofit centers provide shared networking events, education services (including training), reception and information technology services. Collaboration extends among tenant organizations of nonprofit centers: 46% of tenant organizations reported collaborating with monthly frequency on programs or services.”
An excerpt with links at the jump.
“There are over 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations in the United States, and the majority operate with budgets under $100,000. These are very lean and efficient operations under stress due to increasing demand for services and continuing financial volatility.
“In my opinion, the easy opportunities to reduce operating costs have long ago been discovered and implemented. We’re now into a time of more creative transition. Sometimes strategies involve multiple organizations coming together to share services or space.
“What Are Shared Services?
I define shared services as the collaborative use of resources across traditional organizational boundaries. Shared resources might include:
Physical things: office space, meeting rooms, copiers and kitchens
Skills: human resources, financial management, security
Other programmatic tools: client intake forms, information management systems
“Any resource that is not uniquely developed for a specific organization offers an opportunity for sharing.
“Building Opportunities
Earlier this May the NonprofitCenters Network hosted Building Opportunities: the Nonprofit Shared Space and Services Conference. Over 300 attendees convened in downtown Los Angeles, representing dozens of organizations from the public, private and non-profit sectors, all providers or potential providers of shared services and space.
“The conference offered a staggering variety of presentations ranging from Planning and Visioning for Impact to Green Building Tools, to Evaluating Impact. One highlight (of many) was the discussion of results from the Network’s study of multi-tenant centers, Measuring Collaboration: the Benefits and Impacts of Nonprofit Centers. The executive summary of this fantastic study is available for free download at www.nonprofitcenters.org.
“Benefits and Impacts
Among the many interesting findings:
Some organizations have shared space for a while and many others are relatively new to the experience: 23% of nonprofit centers surveyed were founded over 20 years ago; at the same time nearly 33% of centers were less than 5 years old.
Shared services are often coupled with nonprofit centers: over 50% of nonprofit centers provide shared networking events, education services (including training), reception and information technology services. Collaboration extends among tenant organizations of nonprofit centers: 46% of tenant organizations reported collaborating with monthly frequency on programs or services.”
Monday, June 27, 2011
Ohio Nonprofit, Creating Jobs Nationally
An interesting nonprofit job creation model being spun out nationally, as reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
An excerpt.
“Can one region "JumpStart" a national economy?
“However unlikely the proposition, the Northeast Ohio region of 4 million people is giving it a real whirl.
“First, it's leading by practice. Drawing on the region's historically large foundation resources, since 2004 it has had a "Fund for Our Economic Future" focused on such goals as connecting cutting-edge industries.
"This is regional, collaborative and for the long haul," says its president, Brad Whitehead. He cites the sparks of creativity and growth potential in such innovations as taking "a Rolls-Royce facility in fuel cells in North Canton, hooking up with Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, with polymer technology in Akron, and then materials and metal strength in Youngstown."
“Now, the Ohioans' signature job-producing nonprofit — JumpStart, a 7-year-old organization that invests public and private funds in entrepreneurial startups — is "going national" with a new affiliate, JumpStart America, which aims to raise $2 billion in the next decade for investments in promising ventures across the country.
“That effort, in turn, is working with the Obama administration's recently announced Startup America campaign, designed to celebrate, inspire and accelerate high-growth entrepreneurship nationwide. That campaign is working, in turn, with the new Startup America Partnership, an alliance of venture capitalists, angel investors, universities and CEOs (AOL founder Steve Case chairs the group). A major focus: to encourage regional business-university-research coalitions (like Northeast Ohio's) to accelerate the creation of new companies and more jobs.
“All this falls under the classic notion of building interactive, idea-, product- and job-generating economic clusters. But it's needed with special urgency in the United States, right now.”
An excerpt.
“Can one region "JumpStart" a national economy?
“However unlikely the proposition, the Northeast Ohio region of 4 million people is giving it a real whirl.
“First, it's leading by practice. Drawing on the region's historically large foundation resources, since 2004 it has had a "Fund for Our Economic Future" focused on such goals as connecting cutting-edge industries.
"This is regional, collaborative and for the long haul," says its president, Brad Whitehead. He cites the sparks of creativity and growth potential in such innovations as taking "a Rolls-Royce facility in fuel cells in North Canton, hooking up with Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, with polymer technology in Akron, and then materials and metal strength in Youngstown."
“Now, the Ohioans' signature job-producing nonprofit — JumpStart, a 7-year-old organization that invests public and private funds in entrepreneurial startups — is "going national" with a new affiliate, JumpStart America, which aims to raise $2 billion in the next decade for investments in promising ventures across the country.
“That effort, in turn, is working with the Obama administration's recently announced Startup America campaign, designed to celebrate, inspire and accelerate high-growth entrepreneurship nationwide. That campaign is working, in turn, with the new Startup America Partnership, an alliance of venture capitalists, angel investors, universities and CEOs (AOL founder Steve Case chairs the group). A major focus: to encourage regional business-university-research coalitions (like Northeast Ohio's) to accelerate the creation of new companies and more jobs.
“All this falls under the classic notion of building interactive, idea-, product- and job-generating economic clusters. But it's needed with special urgency in the United States, right now.”
Friday, June 24, 2011
Poverty & Innovation
A great article from the Denver Post revealing how social entrepreneurs are engaging in poverty solutions around the world.
An excerpt,with links at the jump.
“More than 1 billion people on Earth earn less than $1 a day. Two billion earn less than $2, and 5 billion earn less than $10 per day. Roughly 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity. Some 1.2 billion lack clean water. And 22,000 children die from preventable causes each day.
“Of the world's total population of 6.5 billion, 90 percent have little or no access to most of the products and services many of us take for granted.
“Two remarkable Colorado men have led the way in helping to find innovative solutions to global poverty. Neither believes it is possible to donate people out of poverty, but rather they advocate that businesses and nonprofits provide low- cost, profitable means for people to earn their way out of financial impoverishment.
“Longtime Coloradan Paul Polak, the author of "Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail," seeks to foment a revolution in how businesses design, price, market and distribute their products. He believes that when industry designs products that are "radically affordable," with low profit margins and vast market potential, and utilizes profitable "last mile" distribution channels, hundreds of millions of people can lift themselves out of poverty and the businesses selling and distributing the products will prosper.
“In 1982, Polak founded International Development Enterprises (ideorg.org), a Colorado nonprofit that has received millions in grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others. IDE works with farmers in rural areas all over the world, empowering them to develop their land, create new businesses and establish market-based economies. To date, IDE's solutions have helped more than 19 million farmers lift themselves out of poverty. See Polak's recent TEDxMileHigh talk "The Future Corporation".
“Bernard Amadei is another Colorado visionary who has led a global movement to inspire engineers to design solutions for the other 90 percent of the planet's inhabitants. In 2000, Amadei learned that in San Pablo, Belize, schoolchild ren spent their days retrieving water from a nearby river instead of going to school. Along with eight engineering students from the University of Colorado at Boulder, he designed a sustainable clean-water-delivery system powered by a local waterfall at a cost of $14,000, solving the community's water needs and freeing the children to pursue their education.
“In 2002, Amadei founded Engineers Without Borders (ewb-usa.org), a Boulder-based nonprofit organization, to support community-driven development programs across the globe by collaborating with local partners to design and implement sustainable engineering projects. EWB now has more than 12,000 members working in 48 countries on 400 projects. Amadei sees "huge opportunities for doing well by doing good" by empowering the world's poor "in a respectful way where we create capacity at the local level." Watch Amadei's recent TEDxMileHigh talk "Technology with Soul".”
An excerpt,with links at the jump.
“More than 1 billion people on Earth earn less than $1 a day. Two billion earn less than $2, and 5 billion earn less than $10 per day. Roughly 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity. Some 1.2 billion lack clean water. And 22,000 children die from preventable causes each day.
“Of the world's total population of 6.5 billion, 90 percent have little or no access to most of the products and services many of us take for granted.
“Two remarkable Colorado men have led the way in helping to find innovative solutions to global poverty. Neither believes it is possible to donate people out of poverty, but rather they advocate that businesses and nonprofits provide low- cost, profitable means for people to earn their way out of financial impoverishment.
“Longtime Coloradan Paul Polak, the author of "Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail," seeks to foment a revolution in how businesses design, price, market and distribute their products. He believes that when industry designs products that are "radically affordable," with low profit margins and vast market potential, and utilizes profitable "last mile" distribution channels, hundreds of millions of people can lift themselves out of poverty and the businesses selling and distributing the products will prosper.
“In 1982, Polak founded International Development Enterprises (ideorg.org), a Colorado nonprofit that has received millions in grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others. IDE works with farmers in rural areas all over the world, empowering them to develop their land, create new businesses and establish market-based economies. To date, IDE's solutions have helped more than 19 million farmers lift themselves out of poverty. See Polak's recent TEDxMileHigh talk "The Future Corporation".
“Bernard Amadei is another Colorado visionary who has led a global movement to inspire engineers to design solutions for the other 90 percent of the planet's inhabitants. In 2000, Amadei learned that in San Pablo, Belize, schoolchild ren spent their days retrieving water from a nearby river instead of going to school. Along with eight engineering students from the University of Colorado at Boulder, he designed a sustainable clean-water-delivery system powered by a local waterfall at a cost of $14,000, solving the community's water needs and freeing the children to pursue their education.
“In 2002, Amadei founded Engineers Without Borders (ewb-usa.org), a Boulder-based nonprofit organization, to support community-driven development programs across the globe by collaborating with local partners to design and implement sustainable engineering projects. EWB now has more than 12,000 members working in 48 countries on 400 projects. Amadei sees "huge opportunities for doing well by doing good" by empowering the world's poor "in a respectful way where we create capacity at the local level." Watch Amadei's recent TEDxMileHigh talk "Technology with Soul".”
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Charitable Creativity Chastised
Over the past several decades many new ways of giving have evolved—some involving capitalism—which have generally deepened the ability of society to help the less fortunate.
Many in the nonprofit sector, who retain a distinct dislike for capitalism, will find a way to decry them, as does this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
An excerpt.
“Decades ago, when America’s nonprofits grew to about 5 percent of gross domestic product, it was pretty easy to guess that the market would start to find ways to peel off some of the larger and potentially more profitable parts of charitable activity.
“First it was nonprofit health care, with hospitals, clinics, and health-insurance groups like Blue Cross and Blue Shield converting to for-profit status. Next came higher education—colleges, universities, and vocational schools were acquired or started by for-profit corporations like the University of Phoenix/Apollo Group and Kaplan.
“While those were by far the most obvious and lucrative targets for profit-seeking investors, one had to wonder how long other parts of the nonprofit world, such as human services and antipoverty efforts, would be spared the avarice of capital. We need wonder no longer.
“Led by the United Kingdom’s Conservative government, and mimicked by the Obama administration and several states, social-impact bonds are the latest push to commercialize the financing of the nonprofit world. The idea is both to give nonprofits a way to pay for their programs and to give investors a way to achieve a financial return when they save government money, such as by reducing the number of criminal offenders who land back in prison after they are released.
“This is but the latest in a long string of efforts working to substitute market models—and values—for altruism, philanthropy, and government responsibility for the common good.
“Let’s quickly look at the recent history of benevolent capital’s efforts to do good while also doing well.
“First came corporate marketing deals that allowed businesses to boost their brand image and sales by tying some small portion of profit to a charity or social need. These arrangements—started by American Express in the 1980s to raise money for the Statue of Liberty renovation and now seen everywhere—do some good, but they almost always benefit the commercial enterprises more than the nonprofit organizations.”
Many in the nonprofit sector, who retain a distinct dislike for capitalism, will find a way to decry them, as does this article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
An excerpt.
“Decades ago, when America’s nonprofits grew to about 5 percent of gross domestic product, it was pretty easy to guess that the market would start to find ways to peel off some of the larger and potentially more profitable parts of charitable activity.
“First it was nonprofit health care, with hospitals, clinics, and health-insurance groups like Blue Cross and Blue Shield converting to for-profit status. Next came higher education—colleges, universities, and vocational schools were acquired or started by for-profit corporations like the University of Phoenix/Apollo Group and Kaplan.
“While those were by far the most obvious and lucrative targets for profit-seeking investors, one had to wonder how long other parts of the nonprofit world, such as human services and antipoverty efforts, would be spared the avarice of capital. We need wonder no longer.
“Led by the United Kingdom’s Conservative government, and mimicked by the Obama administration and several states, social-impact bonds are the latest push to commercialize the financing of the nonprofit world. The idea is both to give nonprofits a way to pay for their programs and to give investors a way to achieve a financial return when they save government money, such as by reducing the number of criminal offenders who land back in prison after they are released.
“This is but the latest in a long string of efforts working to substitute market models—and values—for altruism, philanthropy, and government responsibility for the common good.
“Let’s quickly look at the recent history of benevolent capital’s efforts to do good while also doing well.
“First came corporate marketing deals that allowed businesses to boost their brand image and sales by tying some small portion of profit to a charity or social need. These arrangements—started by American Express in the 1980s to raise money for the Statue of Liberty renovation and now seen everywhere—do some good, but they almost always benefit the commercial enterprises more than the nonprofit organizations.”
Monday, June 20, 2011
Fundraising
The tendency of many organizations which are primarily government funded is to remain complacent about the need to be creative and innovative in raising money, something all nonprofit organizations need to do on a regular basis (and there is plenty of money out there, note: individual, foundation and corporate giving went up to $290.89 billion in 2010 from $280.3 billion in 2009) rather than, as the article from the Sacramento Bee notes about this well-known local program, just beginning:
“One example is the agency's first private home fundraiser, which former California Arts Council head Muriel Johnson hosts Wednesday. Proceeds will go to SMAC's Cultural Arts Award program. Another fundraising event is planned for October.
"This is our first event like this and we're planning on doing more fundraising and more revenue-generating," Halpern said.”
“One example is the agency's first private home fundraiser, which former California Arts Council head Muriel Johnson hosts Wednesday. Proceeds will go to SMAC's Cultural Arts Award program. Another fundraising event is planned for October.
"This is our first event like this and we're planning on doing more fundraising and more revenue-generating," Halpern said.”
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Building Social Capital
It is the core mission of all nonprofit efforts (a good paper about social capital is here) and seeing the forprofit sector embrace it at a deeper level—under the rubric, ‘creating shared value’—is inspiring, as this article from Stanford Social Innovation Review does.
This would be a good area of research for nonprofits seeking corporate grants.
An excerpt.
“A growing number of multinational corporations—including Unilever, Intel, and Wal-Mart Stores—are embracing a new way of doing business, one that puts societal issues at the core of the company’s strategy and operations. This approach differs from traditional “corporate social responsibility,” which is often built around compliance with environmental and social regulations, improving the corporation’s reputation, and unfocused charitable giving to a variety of causes frequently unrelated to the business.
“The new approach to doing business, dubbed “creating shared value” by FSG co-founders Mark Kramer and Michael Porter, extends well beyond those practices. (See their cover story, “Creating Shared Value,” in the January-February 2011 issue of the Harvard Business Review.) Shared value is created when companies generate economic value for themselves in a way that simultaneously produces value for society by addressing social and environmental challenges. Companies can create shared value in three distinct ways: by reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and building supportive industry clusters at the company’s locations.
“Shared value taps the capacity of global businesses to solve social problems, just as social entrepreneurs do through smaller-scale enterprises. Porter and Kramer believe that widespread adoption of a shared value approach could reshape capitalism and its relationship to society. They also predict that it will drive the next wave of innovation and productivity growth in the global economy as it opens managers’ eyes to immense human needs that must be met, large new markets to be served, and the internal costs of social deficits—as well as the competitive advantages available from addressing them.
“The idea that companies should create shared value carries many implications that corporate leaders are only beginning to understand, which is why we brought together corporate practitioners to share their experiences and discuss evolving practices. On Dec. 8, 2010, executives from 10 major corporations gathered at Goldman Sachs’s New York City headquarters to discuss how their companies were implementing shared value. They were brought together by FSG, the Stanford Social Innovation Review, and the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP). Some of the companies—such as Cisco Systems, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM—have been taking a shared value approach for some time. Other companies—such as Western Union, Alcoa, and InterContinental Hotels Group—are new to the approach. But all of the participants—which also included Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical, Medtronic, and PG&E—are enthusiastic about the results and prospects for the future.
“The candid discussion, led by Kramer and FSG managing director John Kania, was wide ranging and posited a number of interesting shifts in the way companies address social problems when they pursue shared value. It profoundly changes the relationship between companies and nonprofit organizations, creating a mutual interdependence and heightened accountability for delivering results. Shared value engages companies more deeply in social issues, holding the promise of far greater resources and a multitude of innovations to address today’s most urgent needs. Above all, it accelerates and expands the potential for social impact as major corporations launch initiatives that reach millions of people at a pace and scale that have rarely been achieved by the nonprofit sector. At the same time, as the participating executives acknowledge, shared value demands a delicate balance between social needs and corporate profitability that is not easily achieved.”
This would be a good area of research for nonprofits seeking corporate grants.
An excerpt.
“A growing number of multinational corporations—including Unilever, Intel, and Wal-Mart Stores—are embracing a new way of doing business, one that puts societal issues at the core of the company’s strategy and operations. This approach differs from traditional “corporate social responsibility,” which is often built around compliance with environmental and social regulations, improving the corporation’s reputation, and unfocused charitable giving to a variety of causes frequently unrelated to the business.
“The new approach to doing business, dubbed “creating shared value” by FSG co-founders Mark Kramer and Michael Porter, extends well beyond those practices. (See their cover story, “Creating Shared Value,” in the January-February 2011 issue of the Harvard Business Review.) Shared value is created when companies generate economic value for themselves in a way that simultaneously produces value for society by addressing social and environmental challenges. Companies can create shared value in three distinct ways: by reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and building supportive industry clusters at the company’s locations.
“Shared value taps the capacity of global businesses to solve social problems, just as social entrepreneurs do through smaller-scale enterprises. Porter and Kramer believe that widespread adoption of a shared value approach could reshape capitalism and its relationship to society. They also predict that it will drive the next wave of innovation and productivity growth in the global economy as it opens managers’ eyes to immense human needs that must be met, large new markets to be served, and the internal costs of social deficits—as well as the competitive advantages available from addressing them.
“The idea that companies should create shared value carries many implications that corporate leaders are only beginning to understand, which is why we brought together corporate practitioners to share their experiences and discuss evolving practices. On Dec. 8, 2010, executives from 10 major corporations gathered at Goldman Sachs’s New York City headquarters to discuss how their companies were implementing shared value. They were brought together by FSG, the Stanford Social Innovation Review, and the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP). Some of the companies—such as Cisco Systems, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM—have been taking a shared value approach for some time. Other companies—such as Western Union, Alcoa, and InterContinental Hotels Group—are new to the approach. But all of the participants—which also included Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical, Medtronic, and PG&E—are enthusiastic about the results and prospects for the future.
“The candid discussion, led by Kramer and FSG managing director John Kania, was wide ranging and posited a number of interesting shifts in the way companies address social problems when they pursue shared value. It profoundly changes the relationship between companies and nonprofit organizations, creating a mutual interdependence and heightened accountability for delivering results. Shared value engages companies more deeply in social issues, holding the promise of far greater resources and a multitude of innovations to address today’s most urgent needs. Above all, it accelerates and expands the potential for social impact as major corporations launch initiatives that reach millions of people at a pace and scale that have rarely been achieved by the nonprofit sector. At the same time, as the participating executives acknowledge, shared value demands a delicate balance between social needs and corporate profitability that is not easily achieved.”
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Nonprofit Sector Reduction
This June 8th article from the New York Times puts the recent reduction of nonprofits by the IRS in context.
An excerpt.
“The I.R.S. announced on Wednesday that it had revoked the tax exemptions of 275,000 nonprofit organizations after they did not meet legal requirements to file annual tax forms.
“The action shrinks the nation’s growing nonprofit sector by roughly 17 percent, to about 1.3 million charities, trade associations, membership groups and labor unions.
“Lois Lerner, director of the division of the Internal Revenue Service that oversees tax-exempt groups, said the agency believed most of the organizations on the list were defunct, though there was really no way to know because so many of them simply could not be reached.
“In many cases, we didn’t have a good address because the last one was many years old and they hadn’t had to file since then because they weren’t big enough,” Ms. Lerner said.
“Leaders of several nonprofit groups predicted disruptions and nasty surprises as a result of the I.R.S. action, but most said it was necessary.
“In the long run, it is going to be a good thing because academics, researchers, policy makers and others will have more accurate data on the nonprofit sector,” said Tim Delaney, chief executive of the National Council of Nonprofits, a trade association.
“Until a change in federal law in 2006, only organizations with annual revenue of $25,000 or more — roughly one-third of the 1.6 million nonprofit groups — were required to file.
“That law, the Pension Protection Act, required all organizations to file returns, but because it was embedded in 393 pages of a law that otherwise dealt with pension issues, many nonprofit groups did not know that.
“When the deadline for complying with the law came last year, the I.R.S. realized as many as one-quarter of all nonprofit groups on the rolls, including charities as well as labor unions, membership organizations, trade associations and others, stood to lose their exemptions.
“The agency issued a reprieve and redoubled its efforts to alert nonprofit groups of the responsibility to file. It reached out to state nonprofit associations and umbrella groups, asking for their help in getting out the word about the new requirement, and made a big push to get local news media to report on it. “I spoke to a different TV station every 15 minutes for an entire day,” Ms. Lerner said. She said the impact of that effort and others was “quite big,” with many groups taking advantage of a program that helped them avoid revocation if they complied by Oct. 15, 2010.”
An excerpt.
“The I.R.S. announced on Wednesday that it had revoked the tax exemptions of 275,000 nonprofit organizations after they did not meet legal requirements to file annual tax forms.
“The action shrinks the nation’s growing nonprofit sector by roughly 17 percent, to about 1.3 million charities, trade associations, membership groups and labor unions.
“Lois Lerner, director of the division of the Internal Revenue Service that oversees tax-exempt groups, said the agency believed most of the organizations on the list were defunct, though there was really no way to know because so many of them simply could not be reached.
“In many cases, we didn’t have a good address because the last one was many years old and they hadn’t had to file since then because they weren’t big enough,” Ms. Lerner said.
“Leaders of several nonprofit groups predicted disruptions and nasty surprises as a result of the I.R.S. action, but most said it was necessary.
“In the long run, it is going to be a good thing because academics, researchers, policy makers and others will have more accurate data on the nonprofit sector,” said Tim Delaney, chief executive of the National Council of Nonprofits, a trade association.
“Until a change in federal law in 2006, only organizations with annual revenue of $25,000 or more — roughly one-third of the 1.6 million nonprofit groups — were required to file.
“That law, the Pension Protection Act, required all organizations to file returns, but because it was embedded in 393 pages of a law that otherwise dealt with pension issues, many nonprofit groups did not know that.
“When the deadline for complying with the law came last year, the I.R.S. realized as many as one-quarter of all nonprofit groups on the rolls, including charities as well as labor unions, membership organizations, trade associations and others, stood to lose their exemptions.
“The agency issued a reprieve and redoubled its efforts to alert nonprofit groups of the responsibility to file. It reached out to state nonprofit associations and umbrella groups, asking for their help in getting out the word about the new requirement, and made a big push to get local news media to report on it. “I spoke to a different TV station every 15 minutes for an entire day,” Ms. Lerner said. She said the impact of that effort and others was “quite big,” with many groups taking advantage of a program that helped them avoid revocation if they complied by Oct. 15, 2010.”
Monday, May 23, 2011
Nonprofit Mission
Mission is—as we write on our website—the central aspect of leadership and organizational strategy too often overlooked and underutilized, as this article from Harvard Business Review notes.
An excerpt.
“Mission" for nonprofits is the same as "profits" for private sector companies. In the private sector, corporations achieve their goals by carefully designing business operations that are reflected in a budget and then regularly reporting on how actual profits compare to that budget. If mission accomplishment is as important as profit attainment, why do most nonprofits not spend equivalent time in mission creation and monitoring?
“In reality, nonprofits often completely mess this up. As important as missions are, nonprofits frequently go off in ineffective directions by relying on mission statements that can be little more than slogans. At a time when nonprofits around the world are struggling both to stay afloat and to achieve their missions, they are missing out on one of the most valuable tools available to them.
“As important as they are, mission statements are frequently little more than slogans. Many are lengthy and ambiguous or, to be useful, they must be accompanied by vision statements and lists of values, goals, principles and objectives. Because they are not carefully constructed, most mission statements cannot be used for regular and rigorous analysis, as is the case with corporate sales and profits. Furthermore, many nonprofit managers do not instill the discipline in their organizations to use the mission on a regular basis as a tool to make decisions and achieve goals. Quite the opposite is true with the sales and profit budgets of successful corporations.
“An effective mission statement must be a clear description of where an organization is headed in the future that distinctly sets it apart from other entities and makes a compelling case for the need it fills. Furthermore, this mission must be short, memorable and appropriate for a variety of organizational stakeholders including, for example, employees, funding sources, served constituencies and the Board of Trustees.”
An excerpt.
“Mission" for nonprofits is the same as "profits" for private sector companies. In the private sector, corporations achieve their goals by carefully designing business operations that are reflected in a budget and then regularly reporting on how actual profits compare to that budget. If mission accomplishment is as important as profit attainment, why do most nonprofits not spend equivalent time in mission creation and monitoring?
“In reality, nonprofits often completely mess this up. As important as missions are, nonprofits frequently go off in ineffective directions by relying on mission statements that can be little more than slogans. At a time when nonprofits around the world are struggling both to stay afloat and to achieve their missions, they are missing out on one of the most valuable tools available to them.
“As important as they are, mission statements are frequently little more than slogans. Many are lengthy and ambiguous or, to be useful, they must be accompanied by vision statements and lists of values, goals, principles and objectives. Because they are not carefully constructed, most mission statements cannot be used for regular and rigorous analysis, as is the case with corporate sales and profits. Furthermore, many nonprofit managers do not instill the discipline in their organizations to use the mission on a regular basis as a tool to make decisions and achieve goals. Quite the opposite is true with the sales and profit budgets of successful corporations.
“An effective mission statement must be a clear description of where an organization is headed in the future that distinctly sets it apart from other entities and makes a compelling case for the need it fills. Furthermore, this mission must be short, memorable and appropriate for a variety of organizational stakeholders including, for example, employees, funding sources, served constituencies and the Board of Trustees.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
