Archive for the ‘Coverage of nonprofits’ Category
April 24, 2012
An excellent piece of news today: the National Council of Nonprofits and the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest have merged. Why is this such good news? Because many nonprofits have let the fear of losing their 501(c)(3) status keep them from participating in the democratic process in appropriate and legal ways. And now, with budgets squeezed at the state and local as well as the national level, whatever organizations fail to put themselves in lawmakers’ faces will end up without the resources they require.
Lawmakers, like most other people, pay attention to what grabs their attention, which during a legislative session is whatever gets brought up by the people literally standing around the lobby waiting to talk to them. Human services agencies need to be in that cohort; so do arts groups and environmental groups. (Hospitals and universities long since figured out that they can conduct advocacy and still maintain their tax-exempt status.)
Not only will this merger give the National Council of Nonprofits a louder voice in legislative decision-making; it will signal clearly to nonprofits around the nation that lobbying in the public interest is indeed part of their mission—so much so that they won’t be able to pursue their mission without such lobbying.
Posted in Advocacy, Coverage of nonprofits, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Public private partnerships, Relations with funders | 3 Comments »
April 6, 2012
Dear Nonprofiteer:
I’d be interested in your take on the Tucker Max/Planned Parenthood issue. That whole issue, which I’m sure you’ve touched on before, of NPOs making tough decisions about accepting donations is one that constantly comes up.
Signed, Hoping to Keep Clean Hands and Full Coffers
Dear Hoping:
So Tucker Max (a blogger the Nonprofiteer had never heard of until this letter) tries to give half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood, which has just lost funding from the Komen Foundation and is at risk of losing Federal funding, and PP turns the money down.
Under ordinary circumstances the Nonprofiteer would say, “WTF? So he’s a sexist piece of dog excrement! So he’s trying to whitewash his reputation! Why shouldn’t we help impoverish sexists by accepting their contributions? Why shouldn’t they pay restitution for their crimes and sins?”
But these aren’t ordinary circumstances, because the donor describes himself as follows:
My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions . . . sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally act like a raging dickhead.
Years of public education about what Planned Parenthood actually does would go right down the drain if it permitted itself to be publicly tied to an advocate of reckless, consequence-free sex. The Republicans have clearly hit a responsive chord when they strive to outdo each other in demonizing PP, and that chord is that the very existence of Planned Parenthood represents an utter breakdown of sexual morals. Never mind that this isn’t true: Tucker Max actually DOES represent an utter breakdown of sexual morals, and Planned Parenthood can’t afford to be associated with him.
In general, though, the Nonprofiteer remains in favor of taking money from bad people: it’s not possible to eradicate them, and they ought to be good for something. If she still shudders (as she does) at entering the David H. Koch Theatre at Lincoln Center, she consoles herself that it represents millions of dollars the self-same Koch no longer has available to give to the Tea Party.
It’s fine if donating makes an evil donor look good. Just be sure that accepting doesn’t make you look bad.
Posted in Advocacy, Advocacy groups, Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Finances, Fundraising, Health care, Marketing, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders, Women's Issues | 5 Comments »
February 14, 2012
The Nonprofiteer would not be so taken with the following story were she not a formerly voracious reader of Harlequin romances and, in fact, the author of a romance novel rejected by Harlequin for having too much plot. (She even visited Harlequin headquarters in Stratford, Ontario, on her long-ago honeymoon, while pretending to be up there for the Shakespeare Festival.) The company’s More Than Words award “recognizes and rewards women making extraordinary contributions to their community. The story continues when the winning recipients are paired up with Harlequin authors and the recipients’ journeys become the inspiration for three fictional short stories.”
Is that phenomenal, or what? Who wouldn’t want to be a Harlequin heroine, her daily drudgery turned into purple prose? It’s not clear whether the short stories based on the selected heroines will include imaginary jut-jawed lovers, but one can always hope.
In any case, each heroine will receive $15,000 for her organization, while the story about her (and it) will be available for free download. The Nonprofiteer has written many a communications plan but none featuring anything so attention-grabbing as a romantic short story based on the agency’s work.
Bravo to this year’s winners—Mindy Atwood of Hilliard, Ohio, who runs Patches of Light, a nonprofit organization where anonymous angels pay the rent for parents of desperately ill children; Helen McGovern of Tacoma, Washington, who oversees Emergency Food Network, which distributes food to 67 food banks, meal sites and shelters, including those with health restrictions; and Sally Spencer of Sunderland, Ontario, who manages Youth Assisting Youth, a mentoring program that rescues at-risk children—and to Harlequin for this apt exercise in corporate generosity.
Posted in corporate giving, Coverage of nonprofits, Executive Directors, Marketing, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Women's Issues | Leave a Comment »
January 13, 2012
The Nonprofiteer’s readers might enjoy this account of a pissing match between Warren Buffett and Mitch McConnell. The Senator from Kentucky has been urging the Sage of Omaha to make voluntary contributions to the Treasury if he felt he was undertaxed. Buffett has now responded that he’ll match any such contributions made by Republican Senators.
This dialogue makes in a different form Milton Friedman’s point as recounted by the Nonprofiteer yesterday. Voluntary contributions to reduce poverty (or do any of the other things we rely on the government to do) are insufficient, because everyone would be willing to pay his/her share only if s/he could be sure that everyone else would be willing to pay his/her share. Otherwise, no dice.
Doubtless McConnell will ignore Buffett’s challenge and continue his nonsensical bluster about Buffett’s freedom to pay extra if he feels “guilty” about his low tax rate. But the point isn’t, of course, how Buffett feels, or even what he does—it’s what everyone else does. And if McConnell and his buddies don’t donate to the Treasury, then they are poster children for the free-rider problem—thereby proving Buffett right: philanthropy is not sufficient and taxation is necessary.
H/T the indispensable Rick Cohen at The Nonprofit Quarterly.
Tags:501c3, charity, donors, IRS, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, Poverty, social capital
Posted in Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Finances, Government grants, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Poverty, Private Philanthropy | Leave a Comment »
January 11, 2012
I am distressed by the sight of poverty; I am benefited by its alleviation; but I am benefited equally whether I or someone else pays for its alleviation; the benefits of other people’s charity therefore partly accrue to me. To put it differently, we might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing to contribute the same amount without such assurance.
Therefore, this wild-eyed radical continues, the government must step in. If poverty is to be alleviated, everyone must be taxed so that no one gets a free ride to the benefits of poverty eradication.
How appalling! How socialistic! Of course, what else could one expect from an ivory-tower academic complete with Nobel prize?
No, not that one (or even that one): Milton Friedman.
When the man said “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” he meant it.
H/t Allen R. Sanderson.
Tags:501c3, charity, donors, IRS, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, Poverty, taxation
Posted in Coverage of nonprofits, Finances, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Poverty, Private Philanthropy | 1 Comment »
January 4, 2012
Here’s a chronic story (h/t The Nonprofit Quarterly), about how the United States is the most generous nation on earth. This annual survey measures how often people donate money to charity, how often they volunteer and how often they help strangers in need—the distinction between #1 and #3 being a little vague.
While the Nonprofiteer salutes all the donors among us, she feels constrained to point out that the United States leaves to private charity a whole range of activities provided elsewhere by the government. Are the citizens of France really less giving, or are they just willing to give free public higher education through their taxes rather than depend on the kindness of strangers? Are the Swedes, who provide paid parenthood leave while Americans think they’re generous to provide unpaid leave, really stingier than we are? And do the English really turn their backs on the needy, or do they instead provide health care for everyone?
The Nonprofiteer is proud to be an American, but she prefers to be proud of the things we really do well rather than the things we do to compensate for what we do poorly, namely, supply adequate social services to all our citizens.
Posted in Coverage of nonprofits, Finances, Government grants, Health care, Higher education, International, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Poverty, Private Philanthropy | 2 Comments »
December 20, 2011
The most powerful argument Jack Shakely makes in his LA Times op-ed piece opposing the charitable tax deduction is that it’s a poor trade-off. The retired foundation executive points out that charities have permitted themselves to be shorn of their ability to influence policy and politics in return for a mess of pottage. Of course the restrictions on charitable participation in the public arena aren’t as draconian as nonprofit executives (and especially Boards) think they are—but the point is that nonprofits understand themselves to be constrained, and rather than bothering with the details remain quiescent politically.
As strong a proponent as the Nonprofiteer is of the pursuit of individual gifts, in the real world virtually every social service agency needs seriously more government money if it’s going to make any dent in the social problems it faces. The more social service agencies feel free to advocate for this particular budget bill or that particular provision in a piece of legislation—both prohibited by the current tax-code provisions—the more likely it is that those bills and provisions will pass, which would serve way more of the agencies’ clients than the most blue-sky estimates of their potential for growth in individual giving.
And for someone with foundation cred to say this! All hail Jack Shakely.
h/t The Nonprofit Quarterly Newswire.
Tags:501c3, Advocacy, charitable tax deduction, charity, donors, Executive Director, Fundraising, IRS, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, Relations with funders, social services
Posted in Advocacy, Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Fundraising, Government grants, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Private Philanthropy, Social Service Agencies | Leave a Comment »
November 18, 2011
While the Feds debate the future of the charitable deduction (among many other aspects of the tax code), some states are diving in with modifications to their own tax subsidies to charity. Michigan, for instance, will apparently permit a tax credit for donations (available for the past forty-plus years) to expire at year’s end.
Naturally, nonprofit leaders are distressed and are giving voice to their concerns. The Nonprofit Quarterly reports:
According to Michigan Radio, the credit allows Michigan taxpayers to essentially double their contribution when they give to community foundations, homeless shelters, food banks, and public institutions (such as Michigan universities, museums, public libraries, and public broadcasting stations).
The tax credit has been eliminated as part of the governor’s plan to pay for a business tax cut. According to the Detroit News, 250,000 made use of the credit in 2010, and it earned $100 million for Michigan charities and provided $40 million in write-offs.
You won’t find the Nonprofiteer cheering any endeavor designed to pay for a business tax cut, especially when it’s so well-documented that many businesses pay nothing like the nominal rate–or even pay nothing at all. But it’s too simple, and not exactly correct, to argue that the tax credit earned $100 million on a $40 million investment. First, we don’t know how many of those gifts to charities would have been made anyway. Second, as is the case with all tax subsidies, the money taken from the public fisc doesn’t support the same public purposes it would if the taxes were paid. If Michigan traded $40 million worth of public schools and police officers for $100 million worth of private schools and university police forces, is it really better off? The allocation of funds matters as much as, if not more than, the raw amounts.
NPQ further quotes a representative of the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan:
Studies have shown that people give to charity because they care about the cause, but tax policy influences how much people are able to give . . . . We anticipate that with the loss of the tax credit, people will give to charities they’ve supported in the past, but they will give less because it costs them more.
She may be correct, but that’s actually less an argument for maintaining the credit than for raising the tax rate on individuals. The higher the tax, the greater the value of any tax subsidy, and therefore the more likely individuals are to make tax-subsidized gifts.
That’s the theory, anyway. We’ll all be interested to see how this turns out.
And meanwhile, the Cook County Assessor has begun the process of returning Northwestern Memorial Hospital buildings to the property tax rolls, after a court ruled they were not “charities” and therefore not entitled to continued exemption under the state Constitution. The Illinois situation is worth watching because it represents a modification to tax subsidies not by the legislature but by the courts–meaning something not subject to public pressure or comment.
The Nonprofiteer is NOT arguing against “activist judges,” or any nonsense of that kind. The Illinois Supreme Court’s rulings in this area have been (in her view) utterly within the four corners of the Illinois Constitution. She’s merely making the point that sector-wide outcry will have no impact on judicial changes to the tax environment–which means that one way or another we’ll all find out soon how important tax subsidies really are.
Tags:501c3, charity, Chicago, donors, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy
Posted in Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Finances, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Private Philanthropy, Public private partnerships | 1 Comment »
November 17, 2011
There could be worse ways to handle succession planning than the one chosen by the Miami City Ballet, but it would be hard to think of one. The Board of Directors, concerned that the ballet company would collapse when its famous artistic director Edward Villella retired, decided to test its own theory by forcing him out before he was ready to leave. Some Board members blame the outcome on Mr. Villella, who apparently refused to greet several of them at the company’s gala; but it’s hard to blame him when one of them called a meeting with him for the purpose of handing him a book on succession planning.
The Times article reaches for the classic suits-versus-artists narrative, saying that Villella’s ouster reflected the Board’s determination to place business stability above artistic product; but that’s unfair. The Board is responsible for the continued health of the company, and a failure to consider new leadership when the current leader is 75 would be a dereliction of duty. But what we’ve got here is failure to communicate.
As Chicago’s Victory Gardens Theatre Board learned back in 2000, you don’t call in the company’s artistic engine and hand him his walking papers–or even the sort of broad hint contained in the gift of a book about succession planning. You’re talking to someone about his life’s work and his passion, and you can’t talk to him as if he were a CEO who had been recompensed all these years in cash and expected to be recompensed the same way in retirement. An artistic director who is compelled to retire–and yes, indeed, some of them need to be–has to be offered a form of compensation congruent with what he’s been receiving up until now, something involving artistic control–even if it’s only the control inherent in leading the search for his own successor.
And even if the artistic director’s retirement creates the opportunity for the Board to step into its proper role of leadership–say, supervising the managing director instead of having the artistic director do so–that’s an opportunity to be pursued once the new artistic director begins. From the Board’s standpoint, having the managing and artistic directors report co-equally is a way to lighten the artistic director’s load while assuring that the Board itself receives comprehensive information. But from the standpoint of the incumbent artistic director, it’s a slap in the face, and suggests that the Board wants to interpose a business person (and a businessperson’s veto) between the artist and his vision.
Of course the Board IS the boss of the company, including the artistic director. But the most effective bosses wear their power lightly, in cooperation rather than conflict with the artists they mean to be serving. By this measure, the Board of the Miami City Ballet just fell on its face.
A word to wise arts Boards everywhere.
Tags:501c3, arts groups, ballet, Board of Directors, Edward Villella, Executive Director, governance, human resources, nonprofit, not for profit, personnel, succession planning. Miami City Ballet, theater, Victory Gardens Theatre
Posted in Arts Organizations, Boards of Directors, Coverage of nonprofits, Executive Directors, Management Advice Day tip, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Personnel Issues, Succession planning | Leave a Comment »
November 10, 2011
It will be interesting to see how things develop at the Washington Post’s new On Giving section. Self-described as a “conversation about philanthropy and social entrepreneurship,” it at least aspires to talk about the nonprofit sector in more depth than the conventional scandal-or-gala approach. (The Nonprofiteer has long complained about the mainstream media’s coverage of the sector, which manages to be both narrow and shallow; in fact, those shortcomings account for the launching of this blog.)
But is a focus on mammoth gifts and efforts to up-end the nonprofit model really any better? Maybe those are the dog-bites-man stories. Maybe the day-to-day struggles of the majority of good-deed-doing agencies simply don’t lend themselves to the conventions of daily journalism—but the Nonprofiteer would give a lot to see someone try to find out.
Tags:501c3, charity, corporate giving, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthrocapitalism, philanthropy, social entrepreneurship, Washington Post
Posted in Charity scandals, Coverage of nonprofits, Nonprofits--General, Private Philanthropy, Social enterprise | Leave a Comment »
