They are a pillar of much of American philanthropy, and through their work, often generations removed from the vision and interests of their founders, have influenced the direction of American public policy immeasurably.
In the marvelous book, Giving Well, Doing Good: Readings for Thoughtful Philanthropists, an essay from Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) reflects on the endowment.
An excerpt.
“To found, in the sense in which we are now using the word, is to assign a fund or a sum of money in order to it being employed in perpetuity for fulfilling the purpose the founder had in view, whether that purpose regards divine worship, or public utility, or the vanity of the founder—often the only real one, even while the two others serve to veil it…
“Our intention in this article is limited to examining the utility of foundations in general, in respect to the public good, and chiefly to demonstrating their impropriety. May the following considerations concur with the philosophic spirit of the age, in discouraging new foundations and in destroying all remains of superstitious respect for the old ones!
“1. A founder is a man who desires the effect of his own will to endure forever. Now, even if we suppose him to be actuated by the purest motives, how many reasons are there to question his enlightenment! How easy it is to do harm in wishing to do good! To foresee with certainty that an establishment will produce only the effect desired from it, and no effect at variance with its object; to discern, beyond the illusion of a near and apparent good, the real evils which a long series of unseen causes may bring about; to know what are the real sores of society, to arrive at their causes, to distinguish remedies from palliatives; to defend oneself against the prestige of a seductive project, to take a severe and tranquil view of it amidst that dazzling atmosphere in which the praises of a blind public, and our own enthusiasm, show it to us surrounded; this would need the effort of the most profound genius, and perhaps the political sciences of our time are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable the best genius here to succeed.
“By these institutions support is often given to a few individuals against an evil the cause of which is general, and sometimes the very remedy opposed to the effect increases the influence of the cause…
“2. But whatever utility a foundation might be at its conception, it bears within itself an irremediable defect which belongs to its nature—the impossibility of maintaining its fulfillment. Founders deceive themselves vastly if they imagine that their zeal can be communicated from age to age to persons employed to perpetuate its effects. There is no body that has not in the long run lost the spirit of its first origin. There is no sentiment that does not become weakened, by mere habit and by familiarity, with the objects which excite it.”(pp. 333-334)
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Online Donations are Increasing
While still a very small part of individual philanthropy, the practice is growing, as this report from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes.
An excerpt.
“Even if consumers aren't quite ready to abandon recessionary spending habits, they are opening their wallets a bit more for charities and more are tapping the Internet to make their contributions.
“Online gifts to nonprofits jumped 23 percent from March through May, compared with the same period of 2009, according to a new index that tracks donations. Total charitable contributions during that time -- including gifts made through traditional venues such as phone and mail -- increased 6.2 percent.
“The new report, The Blackbaud Index of Online Giving, looked at activity for nearly 1,800 nonprofits of various sizes that had combined annual online revenues of about $400 million.
“Blackbaud, a Charleston, S.C.-based consulting firm for nonprofits, launched the index for online giving because so-called "e-gifts" are the fastest-growing method of making donations, said Steve MacLaughlin, director of Internet solutions for Blackbaud.
“Giving online still makes up just a slice of total donations. Online revenue accounted for about 5.7 percent of overall fundraising revenue in the past year, the report said.
"We saw the growth and were interested in what percentage of total fundraising came from online," said Mr. MacLaughlin, who estimated more than $15 billion is raised in the U.S. online annually.”
An excerpt.
“Even if consumers aren't quite ready to abandon recessionary spending habits, they are opening their wallets a bit more for charities and more are tapping the Internet to make their contributions.
“Online gifts to nonprofits jumped 23 percent from March through May, compared with the same period of 2009, according to a new index that tracks donations. Total charitable contributions during that time -- including gifts made through traditional venues such as phone and mail -- increased 6.2 percent.
“The new report, The Blackbaud Index of Online Giving, looked at activity for nearly 1,800 nonprofits of various sizes that had combined annual online revenues of about $400 million.
“Blackbaud, a Charleston, S.C.-based consulting firm for nonprofits, launched the index for online giving because so-called "e-gifts" are the fastest-growing method of making donations, said Steve MacLaughlin, director of Internet solutions for Blackbaud.
“Giving online still makes up just a slice of total donations. Online revenue accounted for about 5.7 percent of overall fundraising revenue in the past year, the report said.
"We saw the growth and were interested in what percentage of total fundraising came from online," said Mr. MacLaughlin, who estimated more than $15 billion is raised in the U.S. online annually.”
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
IRS News Item
This is an important announcement allowing a one-time special filing relief for small nonprofits.
An excerpt, and be sure to go to site for important links.
“IRS Offers One-Time Special Filing Relief Program for Small Charities; Oct. 15 Due Date to Preserve Tax-Exempt Status
“IR-2010-87, July 26, 2010
“WASHINGTON — Small nonprofit organizations at risk of losing their tax-exempt status because they failed to file required returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 can preserve their status by filing returns by Oct. 15, 2010, under a one-time relief program, the Internal Revenue Service announced today…
“If an organization loses its exemption, it will have to reapply with the IRS to regain its tax-exempt status. Any income received between the revocation date and renewed exemption may be taxable.”
An excerpt, and be sure to go to site for important links.
“IRS Offers One-Time Special Filing Relief Program for Small Charities; Oct. 15 Due Date to Preserve Tax-Exempt Status
“IR-2010-87, July 26, 2010
“WASHINGTON — Small nonprofit organizations at risk of losing their tax-exempt status because they failed to file required returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 can preserve their status by filing returns by Oct. 15, 2010, under a one-time relief program, the Internal Revenue Service announced today…
“If an organization loses its exemption, it will have to reapply with the IRS to regain its tax-exempt status. Any income received between the revocation date and renewed exemption may be taxable.”
Monday, July 26, 2010
Nonprofits & Government
An article from the Nonprofit Quarterly Newswire highlighting one difficulty nonprofits can encounter contracting with government, in this case the city of Winston, Oregon and a local mental health center.
An excerpt.
“Winston gave the nonprofit a building on a 3.75-acre site with a deed containing a reverter clause allowing the city to take back the building if the Riverside Center were no longer “operating on a nonprofit basis a diagnosis treatment and care facility for handicapped adolescents.”
“The City wants the building back, claiming that the clause, drafted in 1993, has been violated. In the years since 1993, the Riverside Center has formed partnerships with other nonprofits to better deliver services to students with mental health problems. Part of the issue may be that the Riverside Center and its nonprofit partners are providing assistance to young people with dual diagnoses of mental health and substance abuse (“co-occurring”) disorders. Riverside also wants other services to move into the building, including a community health clinic and a Head Start program.
“The shift to treating teens with dual diagnoses may be the triggering event that has prompted the city to try to take back the building. In 1993 in Winston, Ore. maybe the prevailing wisdom was not to treat mental health and substance abuse issues as a single, co-occurring disorder. It’s best practice now.”
An excerpt.
“Winston gave the nonprofit a building on a 3.75-acre site with a deed containing a reverter clause allowing the city to take back the building if the Riverside Center were no longer “operating on a nonprofit basis a diagnosis treatment and care facility for handicapped adolescents.”
“The City wants the building back, claiming that the clause, drafted in 1993, has been violated. In the years since 1993, the Riverside Center has formed partnerships with other nonprofits to better deliver services to students with mental health problems. Part of the issue may be that the Riverside Center and its nonprofit partners are providing assistance to young people with dual diagnoses of mental health and substance abuse (“co-occurring”) disorders. Riverside also wants other services to move into the building, including a community health clinic and a Head Start program.
“The shift to treating teens with dual diagnoses may be the triggering event that has prompted the city to try to take back the building. In 1993 in Winston, Ore. maybe the prevailing wisdom was not to treat mental health and substance abuse issues as a single, co-occurring disorder. It’s best practice now.”
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Privatization & Nonprofits
The governor in New Jersey has just received a report on privatization and it has some interesting components that apply directly to nonprofits, as reported by Governing.
An excerpt.
“The New Jersey Privatization Task Force has delivered its final report to Gov. Chris Christie -- and he's excited about what he's reading, calling it a path to a more efficient, cost-effective government. The report highlights more than $200 million in potential cost savings.
"In March, I asked the Privatization Task Force to develop a strategy that would reduce the size, scope and cost of state government," said Christie. "What they have provided is a path for change that will benefit New Jersey's taxpayers..."
“The report recommended privatizing services in a wide variety of areas from highway maintenance to prison food services, from toll collection to vehicle inspection. It includes a brief overview of recent privatization efforts in New Jersey and other states. "There have been -- and continue to be -- numerous successful privatization successes in New Jersey," notes the report….
“Most interesting is the report's call for a centralized entity whose sole purpose is to promote competitive efficiency within New Jersey's state government:
“States that have had the most success in privatization created a permanent, centralized entity to manage both privatization and related policies aimed at increasing government efficiency. Such an entity can constantly evaluate agency performance, and implement and oversee privatization initiatives in a consistent way across state government. New Jersey would be well served by an entity whose mission is to seek government efficiency and create competition for service delivery. It should assist government agencies in developing a “business case,” for any proposed privatization...”
An excerpt.
“The New Jersey Privatization Task Force has delivered its final report to Gov. Chris Christie -- and he's excited about what he's reading, calling it a path to a more efficient, cost-effective government. The report highlights more than $200 million in potential cost savings.
"In March, I asked the Privatization Task Force to develop a strategy that would reduce the size, scope and cost of state government," said Christie. "What they have provided is a path for change that will benefit New Jersey's taxpayers..."
“The report recommended privatizing services in a wide variety of areas from highway maintenance to prison food services, from toll collection to vehicle inspection. It includes a brief overview of recent privatization efforts in New Jersey and other states. "There have been -- and continue to be -- numerous successful privatization successes in New Jersey," notes the report….
“Most interesting is the report's call for a centralized entity whose sole purpose is to promote competitive efficiency within New Jersey's state government:
“States that have had the most success in privatization created a permanent, centralized entity to manage both privatization and related policies aimed at increasing government efficiency. Such an entity can constantly evaluate agency performance, and implement and oversee privatization initiatives in a consistent way across state government. New Jersey would be well served by an entity whose mission is to seek government efficiency and create competition for service delivery. It should assist government agencies in developing a “business case,” for any proposed privatization...”
Friday, July 23, 2010
Organizational Congruence with Mission
It often happens that nonprofit organizational internals are not congruent with organizational mission, resulting in reduced mission fulfillment, as this article from Stanford Social Innovation Review notes.
For organizations understanding the connection between the discipline of organizational development and the management of nonprofit organizations—as posted previously—this would not be much of a problem
An excerpt from the Review article.
“In the 1980s, when I was a young executive director of a children’s mental health organization, I first noticed a phenomenon that I later discovered to be widespread throughout the nonprofit sector. The emotionally troubled young clients of one of our day treatment programs were increasingly acting out, reaching dangerous levels of distress and even violence. I had to find out why, and also how to reverse this dangerous behavioral trend. Observing the program in action, I immediately noticed that the staff members caring for these children were tense and unusually contentious, openly bickering among themselves and in front of the children.
“We held an off-site retreat for the staff soon thereafter. I encouraged participants to talk not about the kids, but about their own relationships with one another. They expressed their pent-up anger and frustration, and it was clear that communication within the group had broken down. Amid lots of tears and hard work, we first identified the main problems troubling the group: tensions about who worked harder, and longer, and better. Once the staff articulated their issues and feelings, they agreed to try to rebuild the team’s cohesion.
“As the retreat drew to a close, some people wondered aloud whether this clearing of the air would do anything to reduce the kids’ acting out. As staff members began to show each other increased respect and care, the kids did indeed calm down.
“When I reflected on this experience, it struck me as highly ironic, if not downright embarrassing, that an organization devoted to improving mental health had itself fallen so deeply into dysfunction. Yet in my 30 years working in and consulting to nonprofits, I have come to realize that this was not an isolated incident: Nonprofits tend to recreate within their own organizational cultures the problems they are trying to solve in society. I call this phenomenon the nonprofit paradox.
“Take, for instance, a human rights organization whose mission was to prevent torture. Despite this laudable goal, one of the group’s leaders left subordinates feeling terrorized. Staff members consequently—and without awareness of the irony—described working in the organization as “torture.”
“A national nonprofit dedicated to eradicating child abuse faced a similar issue. The staff perceived (with reason, in my opinion) their CEO to be abusive, neglectful, and power mad. As a result, they adopted classic abuse avoidance behaviors, such as avoiding contact with him, delaying the delivery of bad news, and generally making themselves invisible. In a family therapy context, these behaviors would be diagnosed as pathological.
“An environmental advocacy organization likewise recreated within its walls the very problem it was attempting to solve. Although aiming to save forests by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the organization mailed a prodigious number of paper fundraising solicitations and relied heavily on air travel, even when phone conferences would have sufficed. Consequently, it generated an enormous carbon footprint.”
For organizations understanding the connection between the discipline of organizational development and the management of nonprofit organizations—as posted previously—this would not be much of a problem
An excerpt from the Review article.
“In the 1980s, when I was a young executive director of a children’s mental health organization, I first noticed a phenomenon that I later discovered to be widespread throughout the nonprofit sector. The emotionally troubled young clients of one of our day treatment programs were increasingly acting out, reaching dangerous levels of distress and even violence. I had to find out why, and also how to reverse this dangerous behavioral trend. Observing the program in action, I immediately noticed that the staff members caring for these children were tense and unusually contentious, openly bickering among themselves and in front of the children.
“We held an off-site retreat for the staff soon thereafter. I encouraged participants to talk not about the kids, but about their own relationships with one another. They expressed their pent-up anger and frustration, and it was clear that communication within the group had broken down. Amid lots of tears and hard work, we first identified the main problems troubling the group: tensions about who worked harder, and longer, and better. Once the staff articulated their issues and feelings, they agreed to try to rebuild the team’s cohesion.
“As the retreat drew to a close, some people wondered aloud whether this clearing of the air would do anything to reduce the kids’ acting out. As staff members began to show each other increased respect and care, the kids did indeed calm down.
“When I reflected on this experience, it struck me as highly ironic, if not downright embarrassing, that an organization devoted to improving mental health had itself fallen so deeply into dysfunction. Yet in my 30 years working in and consulting to nonprofits, I have come to realize that this was not an isolated incident: Nonprofits tend to recreate within their own organizational cultures the problems they are trying to solve in society. I call this phenomenon the nonprofit paradox.
“Take, for instance, a human rights organization whose mission was to prevent torture. Despite this laudable goal, one of the group’s leaders left subordinates feeling terrorized. Staff members consequently—and without awareness of the irony—described working in the organization as “torture.”
“A national nonprofit dedicated to eradicating child abuse faced a similar issue. The staff perceived (with reason, in my opinion) their CEO to be abusive, neglectful, and power mad. As a result, they adopted classic abuse avoidance behaviors, such as avoiding contact with him, delaying the delivery of bad news, and generally making themselves invisible. In a family therapy context, these behaviors would be diagnosed as pathological.
“An environmental advocacy organization likewise recreated within its walls the very problem it was attempting to solve. Although aiming to save forests by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the organization mailed a prodigious number of paper fundraising solicitations and relied heavily on air travel, even when phone conferences would have sufficed. Consequently, it generated an enormous carbon footprint.”
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Six Social Service Practices
A great book about social service nonprofits is Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits, which provides a compilation of those six practices.
An excerpt.
1. Advocate and serve. High-impact organizations don’t just focus on doing one thing well. They may start out providing great programs, but eventually they realize that they cannot achieve systematic change through service delivery alone. So they add policy advocacy to access government resources or to change legislation, thus expanding their impact. Other nonprofits start out doing advocacy and later add grassroots programs to supercharge their strategy. Ultimately, all of them bridge the divide between service and advocacy, and become good at doing both. And the more they advocate and serve, the greater the levels of impact they achieve.
2. Make markets work. Tapping into the power of self-interest and the laws of economics is far more effective than appealing to pure altruism. No longer content to rely on traditional notions of charity or to see the private sector as the enemy, great nonprofits find ways to work with markets and help business “do well while doing good.” They influence business practices , build corporate partnerships, and develop earned-income ventures—all ways of leveraging market forces to achieve social change on a grander scale.
3. Inspire evangelists. Great nonprofits see volunteers as much more than a source of free labor or membership dues. They create meaningful ways to engage individuals in emotional experiences that help them connect to the group’s mission and core values. They see volunteers, donors, and advisers not only for what they can contribute to the organization in terms of time, money, and guidance but also for what they can do as evangelists for their cause. They build and sustain strong communities to help them achieve their larger goals.
4. Nurture nonprofit networks. Although most groups pay lip service to collaboration, many of them really see other nonprofits as competition for scarce resources. But high-impact organizations help the competition succeed, building networks of nonprofit allies and devoting remarkable time and energy to advancing their larger field. They freely share wealth, expertise, talent, and power with their peers, not because they are saints, but because it is in their self-interest to do so.
5. Master the art of adaptation. All the organizations in this book are exceptionally adaptive, modifying their tactics as needed to increase their success. They have responded to changing circumstances with one innovation after another. Along the way, they’ve made mistakes, and have even produced some flops. But unlike many nonprofits, they have also mastered the ability to listen, learn, and modify their approach based on external cues—allowing them to sustain their impact and stay relevant.
6. Share leadership. We witnessed much charisma among the leaders in this book, but that doesn’t mean they have oversize egos. These CEOs are exceptionally strategic and gifted entrepreneurs, but they also know they must share power in order to be a stronger force for good. They distribute leadership throughout their organization and their nonprofit network—empowering others to lead. And they cultivate a strong second-in-command, build enduring executive teams with long tenure, and develop highly engaged boards in order to have more impact. (pp. 21-22)
An excerpt.
1. Advocate and serve. High-impact organizations don’t just focus on doing one thing well. They may start out providing great programs, but eventually they realize that they cannot achieve systematic change through service delivery alone. So they add policy advocacy to access government resources or to change legislation, thus expanding their impact. Other nonprofits start out doing advocacy and later add grassroots programs to supercharge their strategy. Ultimately, all of them bridge the divide between service and advocacy, and become good at doing both. And the more they advocate and serve, the greater the levels of impact they achieve.
2. Make markets work. Tapping into the power of self-interest and the laws of economics is far more effective than appealing to pure altruism. No longer content to rely on traditional notions of charity or to see the private sector as the enemy, great nonprofits find ways to work with markets and help business “do well while doing good.” They influence business practices , build corporate partnerships, and develop earned-income ventures—all ways of leveraging market forces to achieve social change on a grander scale.
3. Inspire evangelists. Great nonprofits see volunteers as much more than a source of free labor or membership dues. They create meaningful ways to engage individuals in emotional experiences that help them connect to the group’s mission and core values. They see volunteers, donors, and advisers not only for what they can contribute to the organization in terms of time, money, and guidance but also for what they can do as evangelists for their cause. They build and sustain strong communities to help them achieve their larger goals.
4. Nurture nonprofit networks. Although most groups pay lip service to collaboration, many of them really see other nonprofits as competition for scarce resources. But high-impact organizations help the competition succeed, building networks of nonprofit allies and devoting remarkable time and energy to advancing their larger field. They freely share wealth, expertise, talent, and power with their peers, not because they are saints, but because it is in their self-interest to do so.
5. Master the art of adaptation. All the organizations in this book are exceptionally adaptive, modifying their tactics as needed to increase their success. They have responded to changing circumstances with one innovation after another. Along the way, they’ve made mistakes, and have even produced some flops. But unlike many nonprofits, they have also mastered the ability to listen, learn, and modify their approach based on external cues—allowing them to sustain their impact and stay relevant.
6. Share leadership. We witnessed much charisma among the leaders in this book, but that doesn’t mean they have oversize egos. These CEOs are exceptionally strategic and gifted entrepreneurs, but they also know they must share power in order to be a stronger force for good. They distribute leadership throughout their organization and their nonprofit network—empowering others to lead. And they cultivate a strong second-in-command, build enduring executive teams with long tenure, and develop highly engaged boards in order to have more impact. (pp. 21-22)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
