A marvelous book I’ve been reading, Giving Well, Doing Good: Readings for Thoughtful Philanthropists, has many excellent thoughts to ponder, and one comes in the discussion of the different levels within the reasons for giving; and the third level relates to the best reason.
An excerpt.
“The third level—which might be described as the most mature form of giving—is a way of participating in the life of others, or an expression of gratitude. Here the key element is the other, the recipient; not the self, the giver. The giver wishes to be, and becomes a genuine participant who shares in an achievement by facilitating it. This giving also has the reward of a beneficent return, although the benefits are primarily for others than oneself.” (p. 129)
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Immigrants & Nonprofits
This is a wonderful story, from the Stanford Social Innovation Review, about one person's vision--it all so often starts with just one person--and her nonprofit's work to help immigrants to America become productive.
An excerpt.
“In 2000, while working for a national refugee resettlement organization in New York City, Jane Leu decided that the federally funded system of matching immigrants to careers was a failure.
“We didn’t have an incentive to focus on [the] quality” of the placements, she remembers of her six years of putting highly educated, English-speaking foreigners in low-skill jobs. “It was just about quantity.”
“So with no funding, a borrowed laptop computer, and her kitchen table as a makeshift office, Leu started the nonprofit Upwardly Global, whose goal is to help highly skilled immigrants reclaim their careers in the United States.
“The beginning was rocky. With no funds and no employees, Leu was limited to one-on-one sessions with job seekers, reaching out to foundations for grants, and making employers aware of a hidden talent pool: 1.3 million bilingual workers with degrees and professional experience in every possible white-collar profession.
“Successes trickled in. By 2002, the organization received its first grant and hired its first paid employee. In 2003, Leu’s work was recognized by the Draper Richards Foundation when she became its first fellow, earning a $300,000 grant.
“Today, Upwardly Global employs 29 people to serve some 600 job seekers a year. With offices in San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, the organization also relies on its wide network of volunteers. Since 2006, it has helped place 400 people with 300 employers such as Google, Genentech, Wells Fargo, the Gap, Safeway, and the Fresh Air Fund. Although Upwardly Global remains a small nonprofit with an annual operating budget of less than $2 million, it is widely credited for highlighting decades of “brain waste,” says Jeanne Batalova, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. It is also the first organization that reintegrates professional immigrants into the American workforce.”
An excerpt.
“In 2000, while working for a national refugee resettlement organization in New York City, Jane Leu decided that the federally funded system of matching immigrants to careers was a failure.
“We didn’t have an incentive to focus on [the] quality” of the placements, she remembers of her six years of putting highly educated, English-speaking foreigners in low-skill jobs. “It was just about quantity.”
“So with no funding, a borrowed laptop computer, and her kitchen table as a makeshift office, Leu started the nonprofit Upwardly Global, whose goal is to help highly skilled immigrants reclaim their careers in the United States.
“The beginning was rocky. With no funds and no employees, Leu was limited to one-on-one sessions with job seekers, reaching out to foundations for grants, and making employers aware of a hidden talent pool: 1.3 million bilingual workers with degrees and professional experience in every possible white-collar profession.
“Successes trickled in. By 2002, the organization received its first grant and hired its first paid employee. In 2003, Leu’s work was recognized by the Draper Richards Foundation when she became its first fellow, earning a $300,000 grant.
“Today, Upwardly Global employs 29 people to serve some 600 job seekers a year. With offices in San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, the organization also relies on its wide network of volunteers. Since 2006, it has helped place 400 people with 300 employers such as Google, Genentech, Wells Fargo, the Gap, Safeway, and the Fresh Air Fund. Although Upwardly Global remains a small nonprofit with an annual operating budget of less than $2 million, it is widely credited for highlighting decades of “brain waste,” says Jeanne Batalova, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. It is also the first organization that reintegrates professional immigrants into the American workforce.”
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Arts, Nonprofits, & Local Economies
Most people are not aware of the large role that art—and the nonprofit cultural organizations that support them—play in the local economy, as they have in Midtown and North Sacramento.
A recent study in Boston, reported by the Boston Globe, reveals just how productive that role can be.
An excerpt.
“Each year, 30,000 people visit the Danforth Museum of Art. Hundreds of youths participate in its free school programs, thousands of all ages enroll in art classes, and still more view exhibitions.
“With this kind of score card, the Danforth finds it easy to convince the community of its value as a cultural asset.
“But an economic engine?
“A newly released study suggests that the Danforth and five other Framingham cultural institutions generate nearly double their budgets in local spending annually, creating scores of jobs along the way.
“For people who believe in the arts, they get it when we tell them art is good because we know it’s good,’’ said Danforth’s executive director, Katherine French. “But that’s preaching to the converted. When we go to funders or business leaders or town officials, we need to be able to point to an argument that isn’t a matter of opinion.’’
“So, the Danforth and five other Framingham cultural organizations — Amazing Things Arts Center, Framingham History Center, Framingham Public Library, Garden in the Woods, and Performing Arts Center of MetroWest — united for an economic impact study paid for by the Sudbury Foundation. It was no academic exercise.
“All six organizations are in the midst of, or are gearing up for, fund-raising campaigns to improve their facilities and ultimately make Framingham a tourist destination. They say proof of the jobs and business they create cinches their argument for financial support — especially during tough economic times.”
A recent study in Boston, reported by the Boston Globe, reveals just how productive that role can be.
An excerpt.
“Each year, 30,000 people visit the Danforth Museum of Art. Hundreds of youths participate in its free school programs, thousands of all ages enroll in art classes, and still more view exhibitions.
“With this kind of score card, the Danforth finds it easy to convince the community of its value as a cultural asset.
“But an economic engine?
“A newly released study suggests that the Danforth and five other Framingham cultural institutions generate nearly double their budgets in local spending annually, creating scores of jobs along the way.
“For people who believe in the arts, they get it when we tell them art is good because we know it’s good,’’ said Danforth’s executive director, Katherine French. “But that’s preaching to the converted. When we go to funders or business leaders or town officials, we need to be able to point to an argument that isn’t a matter of opinion.’’
“So, the Danforth and five other Framingham cultural organizations — Amazing Things Arts Center, Framingham History Center, Framingham Public Library, Garden in the Woods, and Performing Arts Center of MetroWest — united for an economic impact study paid for by the Sudbury Foundation. It was no academic exercise.
“All six organizations are in the midst of, or are gearing up for, fund-raising campaigns to improve their facilities and ultimately make Framingham a tourist destination. They say proof of the jobs and business they create cinches their argument for financial support — especially during tough economic times.”
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Nonprofits & Politics
The nonprofit world has long played an essential part in the nation’s politics. One of its earliest chroniclers, Count Alexis De Tocqueville, who came to America in the early 1800’s and met with many of the founders, 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)
Today, the work nonprofits do in the political world continues, as this report from OMB Watch notes.
An excerpt.
“Redistricting reform efforts have emerged as a key issue that could significantly impact our democracy in 2010 and beyond. While it does not appear that there will be nationwide redistricting reform, efforts are moving forward in several states. Nonprofits have taken a lead role in advocating for a process that is independent, nonpartisan, and fair while also ensuring that their constituencies' interests are represented.
“Americans for Redistricting Reform (ARR) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that bills itself as "committed to raising public awareness of redistricting abuses and promoting solutions that benefit voters and strengthen our democracy." Its website allows visitors to learn about redistricting reform efforts in jurisdictions across the country. The site also contains fact sheets, court cases, research studies, and state and federal legislation on redistricting reform efforts.
“ARR was launched by the Campaign Legal Center and includes major nonprofit organizations as advisory committee members, including the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, the Committee for Economic Development, Common Cause, Fair Vote, the League of Women Voters, the Reform Institute, the Republican Main Street Partnership, and U.S. PIRG.”
“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)
Today, the work nonprofits do in the political world continues, as this report from OMB Watch notes.
An excerpt.
“Redistricting reform efforts have emerged as a key issue that could significantly impact our democracy in 2010 and beyond. While it does not appear that there will be nationwide redistricting reform, efforts are moving forward in several states. Nonprofits have taken a lead role in advocating for a process that is independent, nonpartisan, and fair while also ensuring that their constituencies' interests are represented.
“Americans for Redistricting Reform (ARR) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that bills itself as "committed to raising public awareness of redistricting abuses and promoting solutions that benefit voters and strengthen our democracy." Its website allows visitors to learn about redistricting reform efforts in jurisdictions across the country. The site also contains fact sheets, court cases, research studies, and state and federal legislation on redistricting reform efforts.
“ARR was launched by the Campaign Legal Center and includes major nonprofit organizations as advisory committee members, including the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, the Committee for Economic Development, Common Cause, Fair Vote, the League of Women Voters, the Reform Institute, the Republican Main Street Partnership, and U.S. PIRG.”
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Program Accountability
It has many names, evaluation-outcomes-mission fulfillment, but whatever label is used, the point is that programs that ask for the public’s money—whether directly from the public in donations or indirectly from the public through government grants—to do something worthwhile, should be held accountable to have actually accomplished what it is they claim to have done.
VPP News has an excellent piece on this.
An excerpt.
“In my last column, “‘Social Outcomes’: Missing the Forest for the Trees?,” I wrote about my deep, nagging fear that many efforts to assess outcomes are woefully off track. I pointed to several wonderful beams of shining light in the field, from Youth Villages to the Cleveland Clinic. But my dominant message was that many efforts in our sector are causing more harm than good. That column hit a nerve, triggering a volume and intensity of responses far greater than I had expected.
“After struggling though literally 20 drafts, I wasn’t sure whether the piece was even coherent. Yet, it seemingly made some sense to a good number of thought leaders and practitioners I greatly respect—along with many others I don’t know who apparently care deeply about this issue as well.
“Of course, not everyone agreed with my analysis. In fact, I got hard pushback on some points, and a few commentators wondered why it had taken me so long to own up to my own limitations in my approach over the years to the topic of outcomes.
“The majority, however, agreed with the thesis that we’ve lost sight of the ends we’re trying to advance. In the wise words of David Hunter, Managing Partner of Hunter Consulting and former Director of Assessment for the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation: “It seems to me that the mess you describe indeed is enormous and very destructive—because few people involved in this work have thought deeply about managing towards outcomes and [they] have put the cart before the horse—focusing…on HOW to measure rather than on WHY measure…and WHAT to measure.”
“Sins of Commission, Sins of Omission
The feedback confirmed for me that nonprofit executives, staff, and boards; donors; and assessment experts are deeply frustrated with our sector’s work around outcomes.
• I heard a lot of anger at funders who don’t walk (or fund) their talk.
• I heard exasperation with nonprofits that are unwilling to embrace even basic methods of determining whether they’re doing what they say they do.
• I heard disappointment that outcomes assessment has become an exercise focused on cold numbers—the equivalent of Robert McNamara’s simplistic and terribly misleading Vietnam body counts—rather than an effort to help nonprofit leaders achieve lasting impact for those they serve.
“We must be intentional about surfacing these roiling frustrations that are rarely getting voiced. If we don’t, we’re going to continue to perpetrate sins of commission and omission that prevent us from making even the slightest dent in the failing status quo that defines education, healthcare, and social services in America.”
VPP News has an excellent piece on this.
An excerpt.
“In my last column, “‘Social Outcomes’: Missing the Forest for the Trees?,” I wrote about my deep, nagging fear that many efforts to assess outcomes are woefully off track. I pointed to several wonderful beams of shining light in the field, from Youth Villages to the Cleveland Clinic. But my dominant message was that many efforts in our sector are causing more harm than good. That column hit a nerve, triggering a volume and intensity of responses far greater than I had expected.
“After struggling though literally 20 drafts, I wasn’t sure whether the piece was even coherent. Yet, it seemingly made some sense to a good number of thought leaders and practitioners I greatly respect—along with many others I don’t know who apparently care deeply about this issue as well.
“Of course, not everyone agreed with my analysis. In fact, I got hard pushback on some points, and a few commentators wondered why it had taken me so long to own up to my own limitations in my approach over the years to the topic of outcomes.
“The majority, however, agreed with the thesis that we’ve lost sight of the ends we’re trying to advance. In the wise words of David Hunter, Managing Partner of Hunter Consulting and former Director of Assessment for the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation: “It seems to me that the mess you describe indeed is enormous and very destructive—because few people involved in this work have thought deeply about managing towards outcomes and [they] have put the cart before the horse—focusing…on HOW to measure rather than on WHY measure…and WHAT to measure.”
“Sins of Commission, Sins of Omission
The feedback confirmed for me that nonprofit executives, staff, and boards; donors; and assessment experts are deeply frustrated with our sector’s work around outcomes.
• I heard a lot of anger at funders who don’t walk (or fund) their talk.
• I heard exasperation with nonprofits that are unwilling to embrace even basic methods of determining whether they’re doing what they say they do.
• I heard disappointment that outcomes assessment has become an exercise focused on cold numbers—the equivalent of Robert McNamara’s simplistic and terribly misleading Vietnam body counts—rather than an effort to help nonprofit leaders achieve lasting impact for those they serve.
“We must be intentional about surfacing these roiling frustrations that are rarely getting voiced. If we don’t, we’re going to continue to perpetrate sins of commission and omission that prevent us from making even the slightest dent in the failing status quo that defines education, healthcare, and social services in America.”
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Catholic Schools
One of the truly great examples of nonprofit work in education is the story of Catholic schools in America and as they enter a trying period in their illuminating history, having help charting the waters is appreciated.
The Philanthropy Roundtable—itself a remarkable story of American philanthropy—has produced a marvelous resource, the 146 page publication Saving America’s Urban Catholic Schools: A Guide for Donors, which they have made available as a free pdf download.
The Philanthropy Roundtable—itself a remarkable story of American philanthropy—has produced a marvelous resource, the 146 page publication Saving America’s Urban Catholic Schools: A Guide for Donors, which they have made available as a free pdf download.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Nonprofits Managing Parks
One of the great nonprofit stories in the country is that of the Central Park Conservancy in New York City, which has been profiled many times, and again in this new story from City Journal.
It is a story with particular relevance to your blogger as I'm the founder and senior policy director of the American River Parkway Preservation Society, which has long promoted the Central Park Conservancy as a model that could be brought to the Parkway.
An excerpt from the City Journal article.
“It’s a beautiful day in New York’s Central Park, and Isabella Rossellini is whispering in my ear. “Beneath the leafy canopy, you are surrounded by miracles of nature,” she says of the scene that confronts me: the hilly, arboreal midsection of the park known as the Ramble. “Countless creatures call the Ramble home.” Rossellini’s is just one of about 30 famous voices that I can summon to describe the park by punching two digits on my phone. This cellular companionship is provided by the Central Park Conservancy, the innovative organization that, since 1980, has spearheaded the park’s spectacular rejuvenation.
“I remember a very different Central Park when I was a college student in Manhattan in the 1970s. I even recall passing through the Ramble. Countless creatures called it home then, too—most of whom you wouldn’t want to run into, day or night. The park’s lawns were dust bowls; its trees’ limbs were broken, their roots exposed; graffiti and inoperative lights marred the once-manicured landscape designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. “It was so awful,” recalls Elizabeth Barlow Rogers, an urban planner from Texas who became the park’s administrator in 1979. “Central Park was under a unionized, civil-service workforce. They were demoralized. It would take three men to prune a tree because of the job titles.”
“The change began when Rogers formed an alliance with Parks Commissioner Gordon Davis. Davis started cutting deadwood in his department, a traditional dumping ground for patronage jobs. He also decentralized his department’s operations—first down to the borough level, then to the park level. And Rogers championed the idea that private money and workers would play a key role in the park’s restoration. The Central Park Conservancy was born in 1980—what current park administrator Douglas Blonsky calls a “revolutionary public/private partnership that would bring private monies and expertise, in partnership with the City of New York, to manage and restore Central Park.”
“In this partnership, the Conservancy manages Central Park under a contract with the city. It also raises money for the park. Over its 30-year existence, the Conservancy has overseen $500 million of investment, nearly 80 percent of it from private sources. But the Conservancy owes its success less to its knack for holding soirées for wealthy donors than to its ability to tap into New Yorkers’ love for Central Park. Today, nearly 300 volunteers donate some 30,000 hours of labor each year. A generation ago, public employees ran the park; today, more than three-quarters of the workforce is private, either volunteers or Conservancy employees.”
It is a story with particular relevance to your blogger as I'm the founder and senior policy director of the American River Parkway Preservation Society, which has long promoted the Central Park Conservancy as a model that could be brought to the Parkway.
An excerpt from the City Journal article.
“It’s a beautiful day in New York’s Central Park, and Isabella Rossellini is whispering in my ear. “Beneath the leafy canopy, you are surrounded by miracles of nature,” she says of the scene that confronts me: the hilly, arboreal midsection of the park known as the Ramble. “Countless creatures call the Ramble home.” Rossellini’s is just one of about 30 famous voices that I can summon to describe the park by punching two digits on my phone. This cellular companionship is provided by the Central Park Conservancy, the innovative organization that, since 1980, has spearheaded the park’s spectacular rejuvenation.
“I remember a very different Central Park when I was a college student in Manhattan in the 1970s. I even recall passing through the Ramble. Countless creatures called it home then, too—most of whom you wouldn’t want to run into, day or night. The park’s lawns were dust bowls; its trees’ limbs were broken, their roots exposed; graffiti and inoperative lights marred the once-manicured landscape designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. “It was so awful,” recalls Elizabeth Barlow Rogers, an urban planner from Texas who became the park’s administrator in 1979. “Central Park was under a unionized, civil-service workforce. They were demoralized. It would take three men to prune a tree because of the job titles.”
“The change began when Rogers formed an alliance with Parks Commissioner Gordon Davis. Davis started cutting deadwood in his department, a traditional dumping ground for patronage jobs. He also decentralized his department’s operations—first down to the borough level, then to the park level. And Rogers championed the idea that private money and workers would play a key role in the park’s restoration. The Central Park Conservancy was born in 1980—what current park administrator Douglas Blonsky calls a “revolutionary public/private partnership that would bring private monies and expertise, in partnership with the City of New York, to manage and restore Central Park.”
“In this partnership, the Conservancy manages Central Park under a contract with the city. It also raises money for the park. Over its 30-year existence, the Conservancy has overseen $500 million of investment, nearly 80 percent of it from private sources. But the Conservancy owes its success less to its knack for holding soirées for wealthy donors than to its ability to tap into New Yorkers’ love for Central Park. Today, nearly 300 volunteers donate some 30,000 hours of labor each year. A generation ago, public employees ran the park; today, more than three-quarters of the workforce is private, either volunteers or Conservancy employees.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
