All entities—public and private—operate better when executive leadership is vested in one person, when all can see that at some point, someone is responsible.
The opening paragraph of one of the most important books on executive leadership, The Effective Executive, by Peter Drucker, says it all:
“To be effective is the job of the executive. “To effect” and “to execute” are, after all, near–synonyms. Whether he works in a business or in a hospital, in a government agency or in a labor union, in a university or in the army, the executive is, first of all, expected to get the right things done. And this is simply that he is expected to be effective.” (p. 1)
In the continuing search for creating publically elected executive leadership within Sacramento's city government, this column from Marcos Breton in the Sacramento Bee reports on the current status.
An excerpt.
“Danny DeVito was once Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie twin. Mayor Kevin Johnson is becoming Schwarzenegger's political twin.
“They were celebrities elected to political office on a wave of optimism that was soon undermined by inexperience and a gantlet of opponents, unions and lawsuits.
“Right now, it appears that Johnson's big plans for shaking up Sacramento's power structure are dead.
“He tried placing a ballot initiative before voters that would have greatly enhanced his powers as mayor. A local union leader sued to stop him and won.
“Even though some aspects of Johnson's plan were troubling – such as having the city attorney and city manager report to him instead of the full council – there is a flip side here:
“The city of Sacramento is stagnant. And a single leader is prevented from taking bold steps to shake up the status quo.
“The city charter is written so that power is spread thinly between bureaucrats and elected officials. California's Constitution states that major changes to a charter can be placed on a public ballot only by a City Council vote or by an elected charter commission. That was the ruling of a Superior Court judge who tossed "strong mayor" off the June ballot.”
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Results Based Philanthropy
I have been an advocate of evaluation for nonprofit organizations—even within the most difficult sector to evaluate, human service—since working on a action research project to develop an evaluation model for community based corrections programs in the first year of my involvement in the sector.
It is crucial to know if programs that claim to help others, actually do so.
Because of this need, and because so few nonprofits have been able to prove they’re effective, a strong movement is developing for evaluative strategy (and even examining the concept of seeking results-based social solutions outside of the nonprofit sector) connected to funding.
This interview with a foundation executive, from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines that.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit Quarterly: Over the past 10 years, what has changed in the relationship between foundation philanthropy and nonprofits?
“Ralph Smith: Foundation philanthropy is increasingly sector agnostic. Many of us believe that foundation philanthropy is at its best when its resources are directed toward pursuing, finding, testing, demonstrating, and promoting solutions for the most pervasive and urgent social problems. In other words, foundation philanthropy is in the solutions business and can succeed only if and to the extent it is willing to pursue solutions wherever it finds them, regardless of whether they are in the public, private, or social sector. As a consequence, the assumed exclusive relationship between foundations and nonprofits has become much less so. Foundations are going to support and invest with a much wider range of partners than in the past.
“At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that foundation philanthropy has yet to take up its special responsibility to create a capital market for the people and organizations doing the important work in the social sector. As things stand now, organizations that are effective and have a real track record are often as financially frail and vulnerable as organizations that are doing far less and far less effectively. The absence of a capital market makes it difficult to reward good performance. And this continuing failure to reward performance undergirds a compact of mutually low expectations. Organizations should know that performance matters and that superior performance matters in terms of the ability to raise capital. At present, the social-capital market is at best chaotic and, in certain respects, nonexistent.
“NPQ: Under the new framework that you have described, what would happen to the run-of-the mill but nonetheless challenging tasks in which so many nonprofits are involved: that is, the tasks of maintaining and reweaving the social fabric?
“RS: Nonprofits have an important, though not exclusive, role to play in maintaining the social fabric. But underperformance is consequential regardless of role or aspiration. Whether defined as maintaining the social fabric, protecting the safety net, nurturing the democratic impulse or just, on a very mundane level, providing services and support, underperformance matters, and it matters a lot.”
It is crucial to know if programs that claim to help others, actually do so.
Because of this need, and because so few nonprofits have been able to prove they’re effective, a strong movement is developing for evaluative strategy (and even examining the concept of seeking results-based social solutions outside of the nonprofit sector) connected to funding.
This interview with a foundation executive, from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines that.
An excerpt.
“Nonprofit Quarterly: Over the past 10 years, what has changed in the relationship between foundation philanthropy and nonprofits?
“Ralph Smith: Foundation philanthropy is increasingly sector agnostic. Many of us believe that foundation philanthropy is at its best when its resources are directed toward pursuing, finding, testing, demonstrating, and promoting solutions for the most pervasive and urgent social problems. In other words, foundation philanthropy is in the solutions business and can succeed only if and to the extent it is willing to pursue solutions wherever it finds them, regardless of whether they are in the public, private, or social sector. As a consequence, the assumed exclusive relationship between foundations and nonprofits has become much less so. Foundations are going to support and invest with a much wider range of partners than in the past.
“At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that foundation philanthropy has yet to take up its special responsibility to create a capital market for the people and organizations doing the important work in the social sector. As things stand now, organizations that are effective and have a real track record are often as financially frail and vulnerable as organizations that are doing far less and far less effectively. The absence of a capital market makes it difficult to reward good performance. And this continuing failure to reward performance undergirds a compact of mutually low expectations. Organizations should know that performance matters and that superior performance matters in terms of the ability to raise capital. At present, the social-capital market is at best chaotic and, in certain respects, nonexistent.
“NPQ: Under the new framework that you have described, what would happen to the run-of-the mill but nonetheless challenging tasks in which so many nonprofits are involved: that is, the tasks of maintaining and reweaving the social fabric?
“RS: Nonprofits have an important, though not exclusive, role to play in maintaining the social fabric. But underperformance is consequential regardless of role or aspiration. Whether defined as maintaining the social fabric, protecting the safety net, nurturing the democratic impulse or just, on a very mundane level, providing services and support, underperformance matters, and it matters a lot.”
Friday, February 5, 2010
Nonprofit News & Bias
In a little kerfuffle that is indicative of tin ears, the Columbia Spectator bewails the bias of a new nonprofit news source that has contracted with the Washington Post; while probably retaining their tin ear in regards to the historic bias conservatives have long decried, of that other nonprofit news source, the Public Broadcasting Company.
America is a maturing national population that has access to an incredible array of news sources, virtually all of them biased in one way or another, and the intelligence of the American population is that we are learning to do our own research—by utilizing many news and information sources—and reaching our own decisions, a result not always appreciated by the powers that may be at any given time.
An excerpt from the Columbia Spectator article.
“Who knew that the latest chapter in the sad decline of mainstream American journalism would take place at the Washington Post?
“A sorry episode involving the paper that spoke truth to power during the Watergate scandal began quietly last month, with a press release about a new digital publication called “The Fiscal Times.” According to the release, TFT’s purpose is to report on U.S. fiscal, budgetary, and economic issues that the struggling corporate-owned media increasingly lack the resources to cover regularly.
“TFT, with a staff of veteran Washington reporters, “will provide supplemental content to publications for free,” said the release, “benefiting from the exposure of a byline in established platforms.” It had already formed a “content-sharing agreement” with one major daily: the Washington Post, whose executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, CC ‘83, will be the keynote speaker at the Spectator’s annual Blue Pencil Dinner on Feb. 13.
“On the surface, it all sounded fine. U.S. fiscal policy and the federal budget process affect us all and deserve more coverage. TFT, evidently, is just the latest in a new collection of nonprofit, nontraditional news organizations, like Politico.com and ProPublica.org, rushing to fill gaps in mainstream news.
“Or is it? TFT is bankrolled by Pete Peterson, the Wall Street baron who co-founded hedge fund giant the Blackstone Group. Peterson has also been crusading for 30 years to convince Americans that the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, the only solution being drastic cuts in domestic social programs like Social Security and Medicare. While he’s managed to convince some powerful figures, including members of Congress, plenty of prominent economists disagree. They point out that millions of vulnerable people would be thrown into poverty if his prescriptions were ever adopted.”
America is a maturing national population that has access to an incredible array of news sources, virtually all of them biased in one way or another, and the intelligence of the American population is that we are learning to do our own research—by utilizing many news and information sources—and reaching our own decisions, a result not always appreciated by the powers that may be at any given time.
An excerpt from the Columbia Spectator article.
“Who knew that the latest chapter in the sad decline of mainstream American journalism would take place at the Washington Post?
“A sorry episode involving the paper that spoke truth to power during the Watergate scandal began quietly last month, with a press release about a new digital publication called “The Fiscal Times.” According to the release, TFT’s purpose is to report on U.S. fiscal, budgetary, and economic issues that the struggling corporate-owned media increasingly lack the resources to cover regularly.
“TFT, with a staff of veteran Washington reporters, “will provide supplemental content to publications for free,” said the release, “benefiting from the exposure of a byline in established platforms.” It had already formed a “content-sharing agreement” with one major daily: the Washington Post, whose executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, CC ‘83, will be the keynote speaker at the Spectator’s annual Blue Pencil Dinner on Feb. 13.
“On the surface, it all sounded fine. U.S. fiscal policy and the federal budget process affect us all and deserve more coverage. TFT, evidently, is just the latest in a new collection of nonprofit, nontraditional news organizations, like Politico.com and ProPublica.org, rushing to fill gaps in mainstream news.
“Or is it? TFT is bankrolled by Pete Peterson, the Wall Street baron who co-founded hedge fund giant the Blackstone Group. Peterson has also been crusading for 30 years to convince Americans that the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, the only solution being drastic cuts in domestic social programs like Social Security and Medicare. While he’s managed to convince some powerful figures, including members of Congress, plenty of prominent economists disagree. They point out that millions of vulnerable people would be thrown into poverty if his prescriptions were ever adopted.”
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Cultural Diversity
Sacramento has long been known as one of the most well-balanced and diverse cities in the country—with Time Magazine making it official in 2002—and that is a very good thing for a city, and very good for those of us lucky enough to live here.
What this means for the nonprofit world has been long studied and most recently written about by a local nonprofit leader, Janice Gow Pettey, in—among other works on the subject—her recent book Cultivating Diversity in Fundraising.
Underlying much of the success of our country over the past several decades and stretching far into the future, is this same diversity, which continues to build upon the historic vision of the solidarity of America, always welcoming everyone.
From that welcome, great power is growing, and Joel Kotkin at New Geography writes about this.
An excerpt.
“When Americans think of our nation's power (or our imminent lack of it) we tend to point to the national debts, GDP or military prowess. Few have focused on what may well be the country's most historically significant and powerful weapon: its emergence as the modern world's first multiracial superpower.
“This evolution, after centuries of racial wrangling and struggle, will prove particularly critical in a world in which the power of the "white" race will likely diminish as power shifts to China, India and other developing countries. By 2039, due largely to immigrants and their offspring, non-Europeans will constitute the majority of working-age Americans, and by around 2050 non-Hispanic whites could well be in the minority.
“But this should not be seen so much as a matter of ethnic succession as multiracial amalgamation. The group likely to grow fastest, for example, will be made up of people, like President Obama himself, who are of mixed race. Theirs is no more demonstrable evidence of the changing racial attitudes of Americans. As recently as 1987 slightly less than half of Americans approved of interracial couples. By 2007, according to the Pew Center, 83% supported them. Among the millennial generation, who will make up the majority of adults in 2050, 94% approve of such matches.
“Today roughly 20% of Americans, according to Pew Research Center, say they have a relative married to someone of another race. Mixed-race couples tend to be younger; over two-fifths of mixed-race Americans are under 18 years of age. In the coming decades this group will play an ever greater role in society. According to sociologists at UC, Irvine, by 2050 mixed-race people could account for one in five Americans.
“The result will be a U.S. best described in Walt Whitman's prophetic phrase as "the race of races." No other advanced, populous country will enjoy such ethnic diversity.”
What this means for the nonprofit world has been long studied and most recently written about by a local nonprofit leader, Janice Gow Pettey, in—among other works on the subject—her recent book Cultivating Diversity in Fundraising.
Underlying much of the success of our country over the past several decades and stretching far into the future, is this same diversity, which continues to build upon the historic vision of the solidarity of America, always welcoming everyone.
From that welcome, great power is growing, and Joel Kotkin at New Geography writes about this.
An excerpt.
“When Americans think of our nation's power (or our imminent lack of it) we tend to point to the national debts, GDP or military prowess. Few have focused on what may well be the country's most historically significant and powerful weapon: its emergence as the modern world's first multiracial superpower.
“This evolution, after centuries of racial wrangling and struggle, will prove particularly critical in a world in which the power of the "white" race will likely diminish as power shifts to China, India and other developing countries. By 2039, due largely to immigrants and their offspring, non-Europeans will constitute the majority of working-age Americans, and by around 2050 non-Hispanic whites could well be in the minority.
“But this should not be seen so much as a matter of ethnic succession as multiracial amalgamation. The group likely to grow fastest, for example, will be made up of people, like President Obama himself, who are of mixed race. Theirs is no more demonstrable evidence of the changing racial attitudes of Americans. As recently as 1987 slightly less than half of Americans approved of interracial couples. By 2007, according to the Pew Center, 83% supported them. Among the millennial generation, who will make up the majority of adults in 2050, 94% approve of such matches.
“Today roughly 20% of Americans, according to Pew Research Center, say they have a relative married to someone of another race. Mixed-race couples tend to be younger; over two-fifths of mixed-race Americans are under 18 years of age. In the coming decades this group will play an ever greater role in society. According to sociologists at UC, Irvine, by 2050 mixed-race people could account for one in five Americans.
“The result will be a U.S. best described in Walt Whitman's prophetic phrase as "the race of races." No other advanced, populous country will enjoy such ethnic diversity.”
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Social Capitalists
Fast Company profiles five companies who are doing some good and making some money.
An excerpt.
“Jeff Froikin Gordon and Giulia Stellari
AgSquared
Stonybrook, New York, and Washington, D.C.
“After getting their biology PhDs at Cornell in May, Gordon and Stellari headed not for a research lab but a tech startup. Their product: the first-ever enterprise software system made for farmers. Yes, farmers, especially the small farmers who make up 90% of the nation's 2 million farms, and who are increasingly interested in going organic. "Record keeping has been an age old problem," says Gordon. "With sustainable practices, there's a lot more to think about. For a long time, if you had a problem, you could just spray better chemicals. Now you have to think about what you can do to make the soil stronger, or introducing beneficial insects." Beyond basic accounting of seeds in and fruits out, the computer system integrates U.S. soil data and weather mapping, and even makes analyses and recommendations based on best practices and eventually the collective wisdom of the community. Launched in beta this month (February 2010), AgSquared, which is free to farmers (paid for by sponsorships from fertilizer companies and the like) is getting rapturous reactions.” "There's one guy out in Amherst who has these spreadsheets that he made himself that he'll send to other farmers for $25," says Gordon. "He told us, please make my system obsolete!"
An excerpt.
“Jeff Froikin Gordon and Giulia Stellari
AgSquared
Stonybrook, New York, and Washington, D.C.
“After getting their biology PhDs at Cornell in May, Gordon and Stellari headed not for a research lab but a tech startup. Their product: the first-ever enterprise software system made for farmers. Yes, farmers, especially the small farmers who make up 90% of the nation's 2 million farms, and who are increasingly interested in going organic. "Record keeping has been an age old problem," says Gordon. "With sustainable practices, there's a lot more to think about. For a long time, if you had a problem, you could just spray better chemicals. Now you have to think about what you can do to make the soil stronger, or introducing beneficial insects." Beyond basic accounting of seeds in and fruits out, the computer system integrates U.S. soil data and weather mapping, and even makes analyses and recommendations based on best practices and eventually the collective wisdom of the community. Launched in beta this month (February 2010), AgSquared, which is free to farmers (paid for by sponsorships from fertilizer companies and the like) is getting rapturous reactions.” "There's one guy out in Amherst who has these spreadsheets that he made himself that he'll send to other farmers for $25," says Gordon. "He told us, please make my system obsolete!"
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Nonprofit Workforce
An interesting report from the John Hopkins Center in Maryland shows that nonprofit employment went up while the economy went down.
That makes sense, as people who've lost higher paying jobs in the private sector could migrate to lower paying ones in the nonprofit sector and be warmly received, especially those with business, marketing, or fundraising skills to help the nonprofits, who also have to compensate for the reduced funding streams they're experiencing.
An excerpt.
“New data on recent nonprofit employment trends in Maryland confirm an earlier finding of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: nonprofit organizations are a counter-cyclical force in the economy, actually adding workers in times of economic downturn.
“The new Maryland data draw on the state’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for 2007 and 2008. Assembled by state labor departments in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics through quarterly surveys of places of employment, the QCEW is a carefully assembled and monitored data source that provides more timely data on nonprofit employment and wages than any other source.1
“Growth During the Recession
“• Despite the recession underway at the time, nonprofit employment in Maryland continued its growth in 2008, increasing by 2.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2008.
“• By contrast, for-profit employment in Maryland decreased by 3.3 percent during this same period, eliminating over 61,000 jobs. Demonstrating the nonprofit sector’s role as a critical counter-cyclical force, nonprofits thus accounted for all of the state’s private employment growth between 2007 and 2008.”
That makes sense, as people who've lost higher paying jobs in the private sector could migrate to lower paying ones in the nonprofit sector and be warmly received, especially those with business, marketing, or fundraising skills to help the nonprofits, who also have to compensate for the reduced funding streams they're experiencing.
An excerpt.
“New data on recent nonprofit employment trends in Maryland confirm an earlier finding of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: nonprofit organizations are a counter-cyclical force in the economy, actually adding workers in times of economic downturn.
“The new Maryland data draw on the state’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for 2007 and 2008. Assembled by state labor departments in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics through quarterly surveys of places of employment, the QCEW is a carefully assembled and monitored data source that provides more timely data on nonprofit employment and wages than any other source.1
“Growth During the Recession
“• Despite the recession underway at the time, nonprofit employment in Maryland continued its growth in 2008, increasing by 2.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2008.
“• By contrast, for-profit employment in Maryland decreased by 3.3 percent during this same period, eliminating over 61,000 jobs. Demonstrating the nonprofit sector’s role as a critical counter-cyclical force, nonprofits thus accounted for all of the state’s private employment growth between 2007 and 2008.”
Monday, February 1, 2010
Nonprofits Struggling
Nonprofits across the country, especially those funded largely by government, are struggling to stay afloat, and it points out—once again—the importance of establishing and sustaining a viable individual donor base; as that is the only sure harbor in rough weather.
An article from the Wall Street Journal examines the situation.
An excerpt.
“Hearth, a Boston-based nonprofit, has a mission of helping people like Yvonne Rock find housing and medical care.
“Ms. Rock, a 59-year-old former mental-health counsellor, has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and can no longer work. After nearly a year on Hearth's waiting list for an apartment, she still has nowhere to live.
“But Hearth is badly in need of charity itself. The group lost $325,000 in government contracts last year, laid off five employees and cut managers' pay. Its plans to add housing units are stalled because it hasn't been able to raise the final $600,000 from private donors to qualify for matching government funds. Yet Hearth is receiving more applications for housing than it can process.
"We've had funding cut after funding cut, and we never know when the next shoe is going to drop," says May Shields, Hearth's chief operating officer.
“The story is the same across the country. The once-booming nonprofit sector is in the midst of a shakeout, leaving many Americans without services and culling weak groups from the strong. Hit by a drop in donations and government funding in the wake of a deep recession, nonprofits—from arts councils to food banks—are undergoing a painful restructuring, including mergers, acquisitions, collaborations, cutbacks and closings.
"Like in the animal kingdom, at some point, the weaker organizations will not be able to survive," says Diana Aviv, chief executive of Independent Sector, a coalition of 600 nonprofits.”
An article from the Wall Street Journal examines the situation.
An excerpt.
“Hearth, a Boston-based nonprofit, has a mission of helping people like Yvonne Rock find housing and medical care.
“Ms. Rock, a 59-year-old former mental-health counsellor, has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and can no longer work. After nearly a year on Hearth's waiting list for an apartment, she still has nowhere to live.
“But Hearth is badly in need of charity itself. The group lost $325,000 in government contracts last year, laid off five employees and cut managers' pay. Its plans to add housing units are stalled because it hasn't been able to raise the final $600,000 from private donors to qualify for matching government funds. Yet Hearth is receiving more applications for housing than it can process.
"We've had funding cut after funding cut, and we never know when the next shoe is going to drop," says May Shields, Hearth's chief operating officer.
“The story is the same across the country. The once-booming nonprofit sector is in the midst of a shakeout, leaving many Americans without services and culling weak groups from the strong. Hit by a drop in donations and government funding in the wake of a deep recession, nonprofits—from arts councils to food banks—are undergoing a painful restructuring, including mergers, acquisitions, collaborations, cutbacks and closings.
"Like in the animal kingdom, at some point, the weaker organizations will not be able to survive," says Diana Aviv, chief executive of Independent Sector, a coalition of 600 nonprofits.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
