The Philanthropy Roundtable Magazine excels at publishing wonderful stories of philanthropists, how they came to be so and the causes they believe in.
This recent story is another great look at a philanthropist.
An excerpt.
“Hank Rowan was shocked. He paused for a moment, not sure if he had heard correctly. Sometimes he wondered why he even bothered with his hearing aid. No, he thought to himself, I’m pretty sure I heard that correctly. Astonishing, he thought, really astonishing. “This,” he finally told his guests, “is extraordinary.”
“It was early March 2008. The men had gathered at Rowan’s offices in suburban Rancocas, New Jersey, 20 miles east of Philadelphia. Outside the air was warm and wet, hinting at an early spring. The visitors were from nearby Media, Pennsylvania. They represented the Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades. Rowan was one of their foremost benefactors.
“Rowan was first introduced to the school by Mike Piotrowicz, a Williamson trustee and booster. What Rowan found was a residential junior college dedicated to teaching skilled trades: carpentry, masonry, painting, landscaping, metalwork, and power plant management. Admissions are limited to unmarried men under the age of 20, all of whom come from families at no more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Each of the school’s 275 students receives a full scholarship.
“Rowan also knew that the 120-year-old school was facing an increasingly uncertain future. Williamson accepts no federal support, and the (now discontinued) stipend it received from the state came to just $64,000 annually. Over the course of the previous decade, its endowment had grown 20 percent, while its operating costs had risen 60 percent. Capital improvements were needed across the century-old campus. Fundraising was consuming ever more time and energy among the school’s senior leadership. The board became increasingly uncomfortable with the financial outlook. In order to secure the long-term viability of the school, it approved a $50 million capital campaign—a seemingly insurmountable sum for a school whose most successful campaign had netted $11 million.
“This, Rowan decided, is a unique opportunity to help a unique charity. In November 2007, five months before the meeting in his office, Rowan had issued a $5 million challenge to Williamson—in nominal terms, the largest gift in the school’s history. It was carefully structured, intending to open new funding sources for the school. It promised to match, dollar for dollar, any gifts from first-time donors, any gifts from people whose lifetime giving was less than $5,000, and any other gift at least five times larger than the previous largest gift. “Try this out,” Rowan said at the time. “I’d like to see how you do.”
“On that warm March morning, Rowan had expected an update about the challenge grant. He knew that the school had raised about $2 million so far, and he was curious how much more progress had been made. But the men who went to Rancocas on that March morning had unexpected news for Rowan. Paul Reid, then the president of Williamson, delivered the message.
“Reid told Rowan that he had visited another local philanthropist about the challenge. Rowan didn’t recognize the other man’s name. This gentleman, Reid continued, had a counter-offer of his own. If I were to put up $20 million, he had proposed, would Hank Rowan be willing to match me?
“Forge of Experience
“Henry Rowan is not easily surprised. An engineer by temperament as well as training, he has long been a methodical planner and a careful thinker. Tall, with erect posture and bright, alert eyes, the 87-year-old Rowan still strides purposefully and speaks in crisply formed sentences. Those traits have served him well throughout his storied career. Rowan is the founder of Inductotherm Industries, the global leader in the manufacture of induction systems for melting, heating, holding, and pouring metal.
“If anything, Rowan is accustomed to surprising others. In August 1945, for example, he dumbfounded the head finance officer at Roswell Air Force Base. Rowan had been training to be a bomber pilot since June 1943. The Germans surrendered shortly after he qualified on the B-17 Flying Fortress. He never deployed overseas. After V-J Day, the other pilots on base took it easy, passing time by playing cards, shooting pool, or knocking around volleyballs. Not Hank Rowan. He realized that he knew nothing about making payroll, but thought it was a skill that might someday be useful. So Rowan badgered the finance officer until he was given permission to spend his last two months in the military handling personnel compensation.
“After he was discharged, Rowan and his new wife, Betty, packed their belongings into a beat-up 1929 Chevy Coupe. In a car that topped out at 28 miles per hour, stopping five times along the way to retighten the engine bearings, they puttered from New Mexico to Massachusetts. There, Rowan re-enrolled at MIT. Supported by the G.I. Bill and savings from his service pay, he completed his degree in electrical engineering in 20 months—during which time, Betty gave birth to their first two children. The day after graduation, Rowan went to work. He took a job with Ajax Electrothermic Corporation in Trenton, New Jersey, then the world’s leading manufacturer of induction furnaces. Rowan was excited to come on board.
“He was soon disappointed. Since the discovery of the induction melting process in 1915, Ajax had enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the market. The company had grown comfortable, complacent. It expected customers to adjust to its expectations, rather than the other way around. Rowan chafed at its self-satisfaction, leaving the company in August 1952. But his restless mind kept grasping at missed opportunities, at the improvements that Ajax had always been reluctant to pursue. In April 1953, a friend and former customer named Paul Foley approached Rowan, telling him about his need for a furnace to melt beryllium copper. Rowan was plenty busy, but he was interested in the technical challenge. Over the next six weeks, he and Betty spent their free time in the backyard, building a 50-pound induction furnace.
“That furnace marked the launch of Inductotherm Industries. On June 6, 1954—exactly 10 years after D-Day—Rowan returned to the induction business as CEO, chief engineer, and, with Foley, half-owner of Inductotherm.”
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
Ken Kesey & Sacramento
When Ken Kesey spoke in Sacramento on the Quad at Sac State in the halcyon days of love, beads, and flower power, I was there, and it was a memorable event in my life forming the foundation of the thinking that led me to a lifetime of work in the nonprofit sector.
But that was not all he did while visiting Sacramento, as the last paragraph in this excerpt from an article about him & Jack Kerouac in the American Scholar notes.
An excerpt.
“If the 1950s and ’60s belonged to Jack Kerouac, then the ’60s and ’70s belonged to Ken Kesey. Both of them were my clients, and I liked and admired each of them. Although they differed in age, personality, and writing styles, they overlapped as writers of their times, and there was room for both. Each man was an iconoclastic thinker whose writing and philosophy inspired passionate devotion in his readers.
“Before I ever met Kesey, Tom Guinzburg, president of Viking Press, called me one day in 1961 to ask whether Kerouac would write a blurb for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Kesey’s first novel. Tom had bought the book, but Viking had not yet published it. Publishers are always looking for well-known writers to offer positive comments for the book jacket or a press release. A blurb can be particularly helpful if readers feel there is a creative relationship between the two writers. I had no idea whether Kerouac would help, because I couldn’t remember his having blurbed before, but I didn’t think he would be offended if I asked. I thought he might even be flattered. So I told Tom to send me the manuscript. I read it before passing it on to Jack, and I knew right then that I wanted to work with Kesey. His novel was a bold, creative story of what happens in a mental institution—a very daring subject for his time. In the end, Jack did not write a blurb; he felt uncomfortable doing it, perhaps not wanting to get into that arena and all that went with it, and I respected that….
“Kesey had an open mind, but once he had made up his mind, he stuck to it. People often associate One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest with the movie and Jack Nicholson’s outstanding performance in it. But Kesey never saw it. Shortly before the movie was released, he and Faye met with a studio lawyer to clear up questions related to its future earnings. The lawyer managed to offend both Ken and Faye, and at one point he became so irate with Ken that he yelled, “When the movie comes out, you’ll be the first in line to see it.” Ken just glared at him and swore to himself he would never see it—and he never did.
“When I was with him in New York City in 2001, a few months before he died, he still hadn’t seen the movie that so many people associate with him. We were sitting in the Royale Theater with David Stanford, Ken’s editor and longtime friend, and a reporter for The New York Times who was doing a story about Ken. We were watching a revival of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by the Steppenwolf Theatre Company from Chicago. I could tell that Ken was interested in the performance but not very enthusiastic about it. So I asked him, “Ken, what’s the best theatrical performance of Cuckoo’s Nest you’ve ever seen?” Without a moment’s hesitation, he said, “Sacramento High School.” I was really surprised. And then he added, “They caught the ambiance better than anyone before or since.” Age hadn’t changed him or dimmed his perception in any way. He was the same Ken I had come to know so well.” (highlighting added)
But that was not all he did while visiting Sacramento, as the last paragraph in this excerpt from an article about him & Jack Kerouac in the American Scholar notes.
An excerpt.
“If the 1950s and ’60s belonged to Jack Kerouac, then the ’60s and ’70s belonged to Ken Kesey. Both of them were my clients, and I liked and admired each of them. Although they differed in age, personality, and writing styles, they overlapped as writers of their times, and there was room for both. Each man was an iconoclastic thinker whose writing and philosophy inspired passionate devotion in his readers.
“Before I ever met Kesey, Tom Guinzburg, president of Viking Press, called me one day in 1961 to ask whether Kerouac would write a blurb for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Kesey’s first novel. Tom had bought the book, but Viking had not yet published it. Publishers are always looking for well-known writers to offer positive comments for the book jacket or a press release. A blurb can be particularly helpful if readers feel there is a creative relationship between the two writers. I had no idea whether Kerouac would help, because I couldn’t remember his having blurbed before, but I didn’t think he would be offended if I asked. I thought he might even be flattered. So I told Tom to send me the manuscript. I read it before passing it on to Jack, and I knew right then that I wanted to work with Kesey. His novel was a bold, creative story of what happens in a mental institution—a very daring subject for his time. In the end, Jack did not write a blurb; he felt uncomfortable doing it, perhaps not wanting to get into that arena and all that went with it, and I respected that….
“Kesey had an open mind, but once he had made up his mind, he stuck to it. People often associate One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest with the movie and Jack Nicholson’s outstanding performance in it. But Kesey never saw it. Shortly before the movie was released, he and Faye met with a studio lawyer to clear up questions related to its future earnings. The lawyer managed to offend both Ken and Faye, and at one point he became so irate with Ken that he yelled, “When the movie comes out, you’ll be the first in line to see it.” Ken just glared at him and swore to himself he would never see it—and he never did.
“When I was with him in New York City in 2001, a few months before he died, he still hadn’t seen the movie that so many people associate with him. We were sitting in the Royale Theater with David Stanford, Ken’s editor and longtime friend, and a reporter for The New York Times who was doing a story about Ken. We were watching a revival of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by the Steppenwolf Theatre Company from Chicago. I could tell that Ken was interested in the performance but not very enthusiastic about it. So I asked him, “Ken, what’s the best theatrical performance of Cuckoo’s Nest you’ve ever seen?” Without a moment’s hesitation, he said, “Sacramento High School.” I was really surprised. And then he added, “They caught the ambiance better than anyone before or since.” Age hadn’t changed him or dimmed his perception in any way. He was the same Ken I had come to know so well.” (highlighting added)
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Nonprofit Resource Book
The new book, Nonprofit Management 101, which I recently purchased and am now perusing, is an excellent resource, but, like many books about the nonprofit sector, it consistently omits inclusion of the foundational aspect of religion in its pages.
As an example, consider this quote from one article in the book:
“More democratic efforts to encourage and professionalize philanthropy arose, with two important community-based models arising at the same place and time. The Community Chest, founded in Cleveland in 1913, was the first major effort to collect money from a broad community for a variety of causes. Its successor, the United Way, is today joined by many other such efforts.” (p. 13)
Reading this, in the article entitled, The Role of Nonprofits in American Life, (pp. 5-19) leads one to assume that secular nonprofits pretty much set the pace and tone, but, that is not the case, as Wikipedia notes speaking about Catholic Charities:
“Catholic Charities, USA (CCUSA), with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, was founded in 1910 as the National Conference of Catholic Charities. In 2010, Catholic Charities' centennial year,[8] more than 1,700 agencies, institutions and organizations composed the Catholic Charities network - including individual organizations of the dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Chicago. Nearly 90 cents of every dollar donated to Catholic Charities agencies goes directly to programs and services.[9] In 2008, Catholic Charities agencies served over 8 million individuals.
“Together, with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, it is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government. Throughout the centennial year, Catholic Charities USA worked together with their member agencies to find pathways out of poverty for more people than ever and to draw the country's attention to the people in our country who are struggling to find work and feed their families.”
Adding to the omission in the article (and pretty much in the entire book) of the Catholic role in American charity, is the curious fact that the author of the article is a faculty member at the University of San Francisco, a Catholic Jesuit University (also my alma mater}.
That being said, it is still an excellent resource, and another book, Catholic Charities USA: 100 Years at the Intersection of Charity and Justice, provides the definitive history of Catholic charity in America.
As an example, consider this quote from one article in the book:
“More democratic efforts to encourage and professionalize philanthropy arose, with two important community-based models arising at the same place and time. The Community Chest, founded in Cleveland in 1913, was the first major effort to collect money from a broad community for a variety of causes. Its successor, the United Way, is today joined by many other such efforts.” (p. 13)
Reading this, in the article entitled, The Role of Nonprofits in American Life, (pp. 5-19) leads one to assume that secular nonprofits pretty much set the pace and tone, but, that is not the case, as Wikipedia notes speaking about Catholic Charities:
“Catholic Charities, USA (CCUSA), with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, was founded in 1910 as the National Conference of Catholic Charities. In 2010, Catholic Charities' centennial year,[8] more than 1,700 agencies, institutions and organizations composed the Catholic Charities network - including individual organizations of the dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Chicago. Nearly 90 cents of every dollar donated to Catholic Charities agencies goes directly to programs and services.[9] In 2008, Catholic Charities agencies served over 8 million individuals.
“Together, with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, it is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government. Throughout the centennial year, Catholic Charities USA worked together with their member agencies to find pathways out of poverty for more people than ever and to draw the country's attention to the people in our country who are struggling to find work and feed their families.”
Adding to the omission in the article (and pretty much in the entire book) of the Catholic role in American charity, is the curious fact that the author of the article is a faculty member at the University of San Francisco, a Catholic Jesuit University (also my alma mater}.
That being said, it is still an excellent resource, and another book, Catholic Charities USA: 100 Years at the Intersection of Charity and Justice, provides the definitive history of Catholic charity in America.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Firing the Founder
One of the first pieces of advice I give to any founding executive director of an organization I am consulting with, is to be on the board of directors and the executive committee, and this story from Blue Avocado relates what can happen otherwise.
The firing of the founding visionary of any nonprofit organization is something that should only occur after extraordinary attempts have been undertaken, with the founder involved every step of the way, to resolve organizational issues; and in most cases, especially involving one or two dissatisfied board members, they should resign rather that forcing the founder out.
If legal or malfeasance issues are involved, then of course, that is another story.
An excerpt.
“Four weeks and five days ago from this moment -- at 4 pm on a May afternoon -- I was fired. That morning the board chair told me our afternoon meeting would not be a finance committee meeting after all, but, rather, "about your future with the organization." The meeting lasted, at the most, 6 minutes.
"We would like you to resign," the board chair said.
"I have already submitted my resignation," I replied. Three weeks ago I had told the board I would be leaving in November. We were about to embark on a strategic planning process, and our big conference -- the one I created 11 years ago -- would be in the fall. That seemed like a fitting exit point.
"It's not acceptable to wait until November," he said. "We are terminating you effective immediately. Please turn in your keys and key card right now."
“I was furious, white hot mad. I narrowed my eyes and "did a Harold" (my father's name was Harold).
“He went on to tell me that I was not to go to the office to pick up my personal items unless a member of the board was present, and he would let me know who on the board to contact for that purpose.
“And that was it.
“I'm still furious. I'm mad at all the board members. I'm pissed at the new board members that I recruited because they didn't stop it. I'm mad at the old guard for being so sanctimonious. They don't have a clue. I'm angry because I should have been treated better and there's nothing I can do about it. And that's NOT FAIR.
"Since the morning call had been pretty clear about the purpose of the meeting, I had had a few hours to prepare. I told each staff member that I might be fired that afternoon. We had a fantastic team of five at the organization, and I believed it was important for them to know what might be coming down the road.
“After my meeting with the board chair, I went back to the office to tell the staff what had happened. The door was locked, although everyone's cars were still in the lot. There was no answer to my knock. I was struck with a huge, hurt fear that they were sitting in there having been told not to let me in. I later learned that, at the same time I was meeting with the two officers who fired me, another group of board members had gone to the office and taken everyone across the street to a coffee shop to tell them what was happening.
“So I went home. I cried. I slept.
“The next day a friend forwarded an email to me that had been sent to everyone on our distribution list -- about 2,500 people. It started like this: "Effective immediately, ____ is no longer the Executive Director of ____. Our organization is in trouble and the most significant issues relate to our finances."
“Should have seen the signs
“I should have seen the signs. But I didn't. Looking back now, I can pinpoint when the shift in board personality began: about 6 years ago. There was an evolution of the board from a group of enthusiastic, flexible individuals to a collection of people who engage in inwardly-focused groupthink. They were unwilling to engage in any sort of healthy debate. They consistently ignored the financial warning signs I pointed out, and they flat-out saw only limited responsibility for themselves to be fundraisers.
“Nearly three years ago I missed another piece of evidence. A long time board member remarked that boards should have executive sessions at every meeting -- without the CEO. And so they did.”
The firing of the founding visionary of any nonprofit organization is something that should only occur after extraordinary attempts have been undertaken, with the founder involved every step of the way, to resolve organizational issues; and in most cases, especially involving one or two dissatisfied board members, they should resign rather that forcing the founder out.
If legal or malfeasance issues are involved, then of course, that is another story.
An excerpt.
“Four weeks and five days ago from this moment -- at 4 pm on a May afternoon -- I was fired. That morning the board chair told me our afternoon meeting would not be a finance committee meeting after all, but, rather, "about your future with the organization." The meeting lasted, at the most, 6 minutes.
"We would like you to resign," the board chair said.
"I have already submitted my resignation," I replied. Three weeks ago I had told the board I would be leaving in November. We were about to embark on a strategic planning process, and our big conference -- the one I created 11 years ago -- would be in the fall. That seemed like a fitting exit point.
"It's not acceptable to wait until November," he said. "We are terminating you effective immediately. Please turn in your keys and key card right now."
“I was furious, white hot mad. I narrowed my eyes and "did a Harold" (my father's name was Harold).
“He went on to tell me that I was not to go to the office to pick up my personal items unless a member of the board was present, and he would let me know who on the board to contact for that purpose.
“And that was it.
“I'm still furious. I'm mad at all the board members. I'm pissed at the new board members that I recruited because they didn't stop it. I'm mad at the old guard for being so sanctimonious. They don't have a clue. I'm angry because I should have been treated better and there's nothing I can do about it. And that's NOT FAIR.
"Since the morning call had been pretty clear about the purpose of the meeting, I had had a few hours to prepare. I told each staff member that I might be fired that afternoon. We had a fantastic team of five at the organization, and I believed it was important for them to know what might be coming down the road.
“After my meeting with the board chair, I went back to the office to tell the staff what had happened. The door was locked, although everyone's cars were still in the lot. There was no answer to my knock. I was struck with a huge, hurt fear that they were sitting in there having been told not to let me in. I later learned that, at the same time I was meeting with the two officers who fired me, another group of board members had gone to the office and taken everyone across the street to a coffee shop to tell them what was happening.
“So I went home. I cried. I slept.
“The next day a friend forwarded an email to me that had been sent to everyone on our distribution list -- about 2,500 people. It started like this: "Effective immediately, ____ is no longer the Executive Director of ____. Our organization is in trouble and the most significant issues relate to our finances."
“Should have seen the signs
“I should have seen the signs. But I didn't. Looking back now, I can pinpoint when the shift in board personality began: about 6 years ago. There was an evolution of the board from a group of enthusiastic, flexible individuals to a collection of people who engage in inwardly-focused groupthink. They were unwilling to engage in any sort of healthy debate. They consistently ignored the financial warning signs I pointed out, and they flat-out saw only limited responsibility for themselves to be fundraisers.
“Nearly three years ago I missed another piece of evidence. A long time board member remarked that boards should have executive sessions at every meeting -- without the CEO. And so they did.”
Monday, July 18, 2011
Poverty in America
It is not what most Americans think it is, based on what the vast social industry—of nonprofits and government—portrays, according to this report from The Heritage Foundation.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.
“Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?
“For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: “How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?” The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.
“Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.
“As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4]“In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
“The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
“Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.
“Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons [5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.
“Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.
“Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?
“For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: “How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?” The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.
“Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.
“As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4]“In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
“The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
“Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.
“Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons [5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.
“Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.”
Thursday, May 5, 2011
American Philanthropy, European Perspective
In this article from Stanford Social Innovation Review (free access until 5/11 then requires a subscription, well worth it by the way) , the author examines the state of philanthropy since Democracy in America, which everyone in nonprofit work should have a copy of.
An excerpt from the article.
“The locus classicus of European bewilderment with the United States is Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal study Democracy in America, first published in 1835. Some of the original wonder at the American way of life has never left Europeans. Somehow the English colonies pulled off a societal experiment, which so far Europeans had dreamed of only in complex works of political philosophy or smothered in the bloodshed of failed revolutions. In this new land of milk and honey, commoners could make a fortune, citizens united in liberty to pursue matters of mutual gain, and equality ran deeper than anywhere else.
“Much has changed in 175 years. And yet a quick glance at the latest thinking about not-for-profit management and philanthropy reveals some profound differences between the ways American and European practitioners look at today’s major societal challenges.
“I went to Stanford University last fall to attend “Leading During Times of Change,” a nonprofit management conference organized by this magazine and the Association of Fundraising Professionals. I was with a group of peers from the Dutch charity sector, leaders in the fields of child welfare, health care, and philanthropic management. We enjoyed an excellent seminar complemented with instructive field visits to nonprofit organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
“What probably struck me most during our visit is the almost unquestioned belief Americans have in the value of an entrepreneurial approach to just about everything—and with it, a deep-seated suspicion of anything that smells of government. Hospitals are better off if they are run like health care businesses, with clients rather than patients. Unemployment is best tackled by social entrepreneurs, who help people set up their own (small) businesses. Philanthropy is largely redefined as social innovation. And market failures are often seen as the root cause of societal problems. An entire worldview transpires through these assumptions, a worldview I only partly share.
ACT AS A CATALYST
“I believe that the three main actors in society must all pay their dues. Businesses create economic value, provide jobs, and lay the basis for material prosperity. Governments set the stage, create and maintain a level playing field, pass laws, make sure there is an independent judiciary, keep us away from war and crime, collect taxes, protect the weak and vulnerable, and generally look after the public good. Civil society provides the checks and balances that are needed to hold government accountable and businesses transparent. It is that most valued place in democratic society where citizens rally together to pursue a common goal on a voluntary basis beyond the nucleus of their family or the context of their employer or political party.
“In my preferred blueprint, civil society organizations are privately funded, to prevent collusion or mission creep; governments leave the provision of commercial services to entrepreneurs; and businessmen mind their business rather than tell us how to live or who should lead. Seen from this perspective, a thriving civil society is a good indicator of the health and wealth of any democracy. For nonprofit leaders, it is important to figure out where you stand in this tangled trio, to determine what type of mission you will try to accomplish and which management principles you will adopt before you frame an issue.”
An excerpt from the article.
“The locus classicus of European bewilderment with the United States is Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal study Democracy in America, first published in 1835. Some of the original wonder at the American way of life has never left Europeans. Somehow the English colonies pulled off a societal experiment, which so far Europeans had dreamed of only in complex works of political philosophy or smothered in the bloodshed of failed revolutions. In this new land of milk and honey, commoners could make a fortune, citizens united in liberty to pursue matters of mutual gain, and equality ran deeper than anywhere else.
“Much has changed in 175 years. And yet a quick glance at the latest thinking about not-for-profit management and philanthropy reveals some profound differences between the ways American and European practitioners look at today’s major societal challenges.
“I went to Stanford University last fall to attend “Leading During Times of Change,” a nonprofit management conference organized by this magazine and the Association of Fundraising Professionals. I was with a group of peers from the Dutch charity sector, leaders in the fields of child welfare, health care, and philanthropic management. We enjoyed an excellent seminar complemented with instructive field visits to nonprofit organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
“What probably struck me most during our visit is the almost unquestioned belief Americans have in the value of an entrepreneurial approach to just about everything—and with it, a deep-seated suspicion of anything that smells of government. Hospitals are better off if they are run like health care businesses, with clients rather than patients. Unemployment is best tackled by social entrepreneurs, who help people set up their own (small) businesses. Philanthropy is largely redefined as social innovation. And market failures are often seen as the root cause of societal problems. An entire worldview transpires through these assumptions, a worldview I only partly share.
ACT AS A CATALYST
“I believe that the three main actors in society must all pay their dues. Businesses create economic value, provide jobs, and lay the basis for material prosperity. Governments set the stage, create and maintain a level playing field, pass laws, make sure there is an independent judiciary, keep us away from war and crime, collect taxes, protect the weak and vulnerable, and generally look after the public good. Civil society provides the checks and balances that are needed to hold government accountable and businesses transparent. It is that most valued place in democratic society where citizens rally together to pursue a common goal on a voluntary basis beyond the nucleus of their family or the context of their employer or political party.
“In my preferred blueprint, civil society organizations are privately funded, to prevent collusion or mission creep; governments leave the provision of commercial services to entrepreneurs; and businessmen mind their business rather than tell us how to live or who should lead. Seen from this perspective, a thriving civil society is a good indicator of the health and wealth of any democracy. For nonprofit leaders, it is important to figure out where you stand in this tangled trio, to determine what type of mission you will try to accomplish and which management principles you will adopt before you frame an issue.”
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
De Tocqueville & Neighborhood Associations
The neighborhood association, one example of which we posted on yesterday, is an American venue remarked on by Count Alexis De Tocqueville, who came to America in the early 1800’s, met with many of the founders and wrote one of the most perceptive books ever written about America and nonprofit organizations.
Here is but a small part of what he said about voluntary associations—nonprofits, in the remarkable book he wrote, Democracy in America.
“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. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.
“I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.
“It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.
“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. (2000). Translation by H. C. Mansfield and D. Winthrop. (pp. 489-490)
Here is but a small part of what he said about voluntary associations—nonprofits, in the remarkable book he wrote, Democracy in America.
“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. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.
“I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.
“It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.
“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. (2000). Translation by H. C. Mansfield and D. Winthrop. (pp. 489-490)
Monday, March 14, 2011
Donor Privacy
Bemoaning donor privacy during the process of acquiring nonprofit status, as this article from the Washington Post does, does not mention the American tradition of protecting donor privacy as part of the overall right to privacy Americans come to expect in much of their daily life, and that omission somewhat negates their argument.
An excerpt.
“American Crossroads GPS, an advocacy group that reported spending about $17 million on advertising before the midterm elections, generated controversy by using its nonprofit status to shield donors' identities.
“As it turns out, the Internal Revenue Service hasn't even approved the group's nonprofit status. Crossroads filed an application in September but the agency has not acted on it.
“That's not a problem as far as the law is concerned - the tax code allows an organization to operate as a nonprofit before it receives such status. Many groups do not file the paperwork until it is time to send in their first tax return.
“The issue is more than a matter of paperwork, however. Watchdog groups say that Crossroads and other groups active in campaigns are taking advantage of lax IRS enforcement to offer political donors anonymity.”
An excerpt.
“American Crossroads GPS, an advocacy group that reported spending about $17 million on advertising before the midterm elections, generated controversy by using its nonprofit status to shield donors' identities.
“As it turns out, the Internal Revenue Service hasn't even approved the group's nonprofit status. Crossroads filed an application in September but the agency has not acted on it.
“That's not a problem as far as the law is concerned - the tax code allows an organization to operate as a nonprofit before it receives such status. Many groups do not file the paperwork until it is time to send in their first tax return.
“The issue is more than a matter of paperwork, however. Watchdog groups say that Crossroads and other groups active in campaigns are taking advantage of lax IRS enforcement to offer political donors anonymity.”
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Good Men
The nonprofit sector has traditionally been the place in the American working world where women have taken the lead, and that lead has now extended into other areas of life, leaving many to ask the question which is the title of this article in the Wall Street Journal, Where Have The Good Men Gone?
An excerpt.
“Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.
"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between. "Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home." One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner's book wrote, "I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?"
“For most of us, the cultural habitat of pre-adulthood no longer seems noteworthy. After all, popular culture has been crowded with pre-adults for almost two decades. Hollywood started the affair in the early 1990s with movies like "Singles," "Reality Bites," "Single White Female" and "Swingers." Television soon deepened the relationship, giving us the agreeable company of Monica, Joey, Rachel and Ross; Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer; Carrie, Miranda, et al.
“But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It's no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today's pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.
“What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.
“Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup.”
An excerpt.
“Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.
"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between. "Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home." One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner's book wrote, "I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?"
“For most of us, the cultural habitat of pre-adulthood no longer seems noteworthy. After all, popular culture has been crowded with pre-adults for almost two decades. Hollywood started the affair in the early 1990s with movies like "Singles," "Reality Bites," "Single White Female" and "Swingers." Television soon deepened the relationship, giving us the agreeable company of Monica, Joey, Rachel and Ross; Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer; Carrie, Miranda, et al.
“But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It's no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today's pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.
“What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.
“Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
Monday, January 17, 2011
Catholic Church Defaced
In this article from California Catholic Daily, the eternal discrimination against the Catholic Church—the oldest nonprofit organization in the world—continues.
An excerpt.
“The vandals who spray-painted “Kill the Cathlics” on a wall of a Catholic church in Anaheim a week ago apparently traveled about 20 miles to a parish in Irvine to scrawl an identical message on a walkway at St. Thomas More parish.
“An identical phrase (with misspelling) was spray-painted on a wall at Saint Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim,” the Orange County Register reported in a three-paragraph story on Jan. 13. “Both incidents were discovered (last) Tuesday morning.”
“Saint Thomas More Catholic Church is located at 51 Marketplace in Irvine.
“The graphic graffiti saddened parishioners, and church officials are working with police to find whoever is responsible for the crime, diocese spokesman Ryan Lilyengren said,” according to the Register.
“No additional details were provided.
“California Catholic Daily reported on Jan. 12 that Graffiti reading “Kill THE CATHLICS” had been spray-painted on a wall of St. Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim, but at the time it was not known that an identical misspelled message had been painted on a wall at St. Thomas More in Irvine, a 20-mile drive from Anaheim.”
An excerpt.
“The vandals who spray-painted “Kill the Cathlics” on a wall of a Catholic church in Anaheim a week ago apparently traveled about 20 miles to a parish in Irvine to scrawl an identical message on a walkway at St. Thomas More parish.
“An identical phrase (with misspelling) was spray-painted on a wall at Saint Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim,” the Orange County Register reported in a three-paragraph story on Jan. 13. “Both incidents were discovered (last) Tuesday morning.”
“Saint Thomas More Catholic Church is located at 51 Marketplace in Irvine.
“The graphic graffiti saddened parishioners, and church officials are working with police to find whoever is responsible for the crime, diocese spokesman Ryan Lilyengren said,” according to the Register.
“No additional details were provided.
“California Catholic Daily reported on Jan. 12 that Graffiti reading “Kill THE CATHLICS” had been spray-painted on a wall of St. Boniface Catholic Church in Anaheim, but at the time it was not known that an identical misspelled message had been painted on a wall at St. Thomas More in Irvine, a 20-mile drive from Anaheim.”
Friday, January 7, 2011
Estate Tax Law
Many nonprofits and especially the associations of nonprofits representing them, have called for retaining and even increasing estate taxes as a method of increasing donations.
I feel this position is counter to the founding roots of the nonprofit sector: built on faith, an American philanthropic culture animated by the donor’s freedom of charitable choice, rather than being spurred by the coercive effect of taxation
Forbes Magazine reports on the new estate tax law.
An excerpt.
“For donors, a crucial question has always been how much to give to charity while alive and what to leave as charitable bequests in their wills or trusts. The economic crisis has caused many people to cut back on current charitable giving, perhaps figuring they could always make up for it with bequests. But changes in the federal estate tax system signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 17 may well lead some of those who had postponed charitable giving to cut back on future bequests too.
“The new tax law raises the exemption from federal estate tax to $5 million a person ($10 million per couple) for deaths in 2011 and 2012. As a result, fewer families will even come close to paying the tax. That means that, except for the super wealthy, the tax benefits of giving through an estate plan have been wiped out.
“Previously, charities could point to the estate planning benefits of both lifetime gifts and charitable bequests. There’s an income tax deduction associated with gifts during life--adjusted gross income can be reduced up to 50% for cash gifts to public charities and by up to 30% for donations of appreciated assets, such as stock held longer than 12 months. But charities could also make another argument: If you’re not comfortable making a large gift now, remember your favorite cause or alma mater money in your will and you will be leaving less for Uncle Sam.”
I feel this position is counter to the founding roots of the nonprofit sector: built on faith, an American philanthropic culture animated by the donor’s freedom of charitable choice, rather than being spurred by the coercive effect of taxation
Forbes Magazine reports on the new estate tax law.
An excerpt.
“For donors, a crucial question has always been how much to give to charity while alive and what to leave as charitable bequests in their wills or trusts. The economic crisis has caused many people to cut back on current charitable giving, perhaps figuring they could always make up for it with bequests. But changes in the federal estate tax system signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 17 may well lead some of those who had postponed charitable giving to cut back on future bequests too.
“The new tax law raises the exemption from federal estate tax to $5 million a person ($10 million per couple) for deaths in 2011 and 2012. As a result, fewer families will even come close to paying the tax. That means that, except for the super wealthy, the tax benefits of giving through an estate plan have been wiped out.
“Previously, charities could point to the estate planning benefits of both lifetime gifts and charitable bequests. There’s an income tax deduction associated with gifts during life--adjusted gross income can be reduced up to 50% for cash gifts to public charities and by up to 30% for donations of appreciated assets, such as stock held longer than 12 months. But charities could also make another argument: If you’re not comfortable making a large gift now, remember your favorite cause or alma mater money in your will and you will be leaving less for Uncle Sam.”
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tax Policy & Nonprofits
An article—Talking About Taxes, (pp.18-23)—in the current issue of the Nonprofit Quarterly tries to make the case that taxes should be raised to support nonprofits dependent on government, which instead makes the case of why government dependent nonprofits, especially those in the human service area, continue to fail.
Government does have a role in the nonprofit sector—encouraging and initial funding in some cases—but it needs to be a limited role rather than a permanent one.
The nonprofit sector works best when it remains true to its faith-based roots, expressed by Count Alexis De Tocqueville, who came to America in the early 1800’s, met with many of the founders and wrote one of the most perceptive books ever written about America. Here is but a small part of what he said about voluntary associations—nonprofits.
“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. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.
“I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.
“It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.
“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)
Government does have a role in the nonprofit sector—encouraging and initial funding in some cases—but it needs to be a limited role rather than a permanent one.
The nonprofit sector works best when it remains true to its faith-based roots, expressed by Count Alexis De Tocqueville, who came to America in the early 1800’s, met with many of the founders and wrote one of the most perceptive books ever written about America. Here is but a small part of what he said about voluntary associations—nonprofits.
“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. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.
“I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.
“It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.
“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)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Future & Reason
In times of great uncertainty, words of wisdom are always appreciated and this short excerpt in today’s Wall Street Journal, written in 1953, is timeless.
An excerpt.
“When I was a younger man, I believed that progress was inevitable—that the world would be better tomorrow and better still the day after. The thunder of war, the stench of concentration camps, the mushroom cloud of the atomic bomb are, however, not conducive to optimism. All our tomorrows for years to come will be clouded by the threat of a terrible holocaust.
“Yet my faith in the future, though somewhat shaken, is not destroyed. I still believe in it. If I sometimes doubt that man will achieve his mortal potentialities, I never doubt that he can.
“I believe that these potentialities promise all men a measure beyond reckoning of the joys and comforts, material and spiritual, that life offers. Not utopia, to be sure. I do not believe in utopias. Man may achieve all but perfection.
“Paradise is not for this world. All men cannot be masters, but none need to be a slave. We cannot cast out pain from the world, but needless suffering we can. Tragedy will be with us in some degree as long as there is life, but misery we can banish. Injustice will raise its head in the best of all possible worlds, but tyranny we can conquer. Evil will invade some men's hearts, intolerance will twist some men's minds, but decency is a far more common human attribute, and it can be made to prevail in our daily lives.
“I believe all this because I believe, above all else, in reason—in the power of the human mind to cope with the problems of life. Any calamity visited upon man, either by his own hand or by a more omnipotent nature, could have been avoided or at least mitigated by a measure of thought. To nothing so much as the abandonment of reason does humanity owe its sorrows. Whatever failures I have known, whatever errors I have committed, whatever follies I have witnessed in private and public life, have been the consequence of action without thought.”
An excerpt.
“When I was a younger man, I believed that progress was inevitable—that the world would be better tomorrow and better still the day after. The thunder of war, the stench of concentration camps, the mushroom cloud of the atomic bomb are, however, not conducive to optimism. All our tomorrows for years to come will be clouded by the threat of a terrible holocaust.
“Yet my faith in the future, though somewhat shaken, is not destroyed. I still believe in it. If I sometimes doubt that man will achieve his mortal potentialities, I never doubt that he can.
“I believe that these potentialities promise all men a measure beyond reckoning of the joys and comforts, material and spiritual, that life offers. Not utopia, to be sure. I do not believe in utopias. Man may achieve all but perfection.
“Paradise is not for this world. All men cannot be masters, but none need to be a slave. We cannot cast out pain from the world, but needless suffering we can. Tragedy will be with us in some degree as long as there is life, but misery we can banish. Injustice will raise its head in the best of all possible worlds, but tyranny we can conquer. Evil will invade some men's hearts, intolerance will twist some men's minds, but decency is a far more common human attribute, and it can be made to prevail in our daily lives.
“I believe all this because I believe, above all else, in reason—in the power of the human mind to cope with the problems of life. Any calamity visited upon man, either by his own hand or by a more omnipotent nature, could have been avoided or at least mitigated by a measure of thought. To nothing so much as the abandonment of reason does humanity owe its sorrows. Whatever failures I have known, whatever errors I have committed, whatever follies I have witnessed in private and public life, have been the consequence of action without thought.”
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Election Blogging Break
Dear Reader:
I’ll be taking an election period break from blogging until Wednesday, November 3rd, when I hope we will all share in a great wave of common sense voting, bringing committed public leadership to serve this great nation and our beloved communities.
Take care.
David H. Lukenbill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
