If theres anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it’s always the same story: “Youre undeserving; so you cant have it.” But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow’s that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I dont need less than a deserving man: I need more. I dont eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I’m a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.
T]he mere fact that there is a valid moral distinction to be made does not entail that we want our public policies to make it. It is, after all, difficult to discern between the deserving and the undeserving – maybe especially for governments, but for private charities too.
And Jewish folklore provides yet another version. The story is told of a rabbi who gave a beggar $100 and then faced the reproaches of his wife, who’d seen the beggar’s wife wearing fur. “He told me he needed it, and I had it, so I gave it to him,” replied the rabbi. “What he does with it after is none of my concern.” The point is that generosity is the process of separating yourself from your money, not the process of evaluating someone else’s virtues.
Does the Nonprofiteer tend to give her money to causes she judges worthwhile (and therefore deserving) and to agencies she believes are efficient (and therefore deserving)? Of course. But does she worry about whether the UN Population Fund is providing assistance only to women who became pregnant by an angel, or whether the ACLU vindicates the rights only of upright church-goers? Of course not. People who need help, deserve help. End of conversation.
Alarms are sounding in the Nonprofiteer’s home town of Chicago today about the first budget proposed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, which requires nonprofits to pay for water and sewer services they previously received free. A sector-wide outcry produced one modification—a phasing-in of the charges over three years at smaller nonprofits—but generally the Mayor is keeping a campaign promise to ask nonprofits to bear their “fair share” of municipal costs.
He also seems to be following the lead of the Illinois courts which, as previously noted, are re-examining the nonprofit status of several of the state’s hospitals. The Nonprofiteer’s colleagues at The Nonprofit Quarterly characterize Emanuel’s move as over-reaching, in that it affects nonprofits other than hospitals. But the Nonprofiteer has no difficulty identifying non-hospital nonprofits whose water and sewer bills she doesn’t feel like subsidizing: the YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago (which, notwithstanding the social services it provides, is mostly a very successful health club that uses a lot of water); the Art Institute of Chicago (which, notwithstanding the educational programs it provides, is a wealthy institution with very low personnel costs because every art-history major wants to work there); the University of Chicago (whose housing and athletic facilities use as much water as any suburban development and whose property tax exemption is secured by the Illinois Constitution). And let’s remember that the smallest nonprofits are renters, most of whom get water and sewer as part of their leases from for-profit landlords, and won’t be affected in the least. So a bit less howling, okay?
And maybe a little taste of self-help will remind the sector that it’s supposed to be independent. Political trends come and go but the work we do must continue, and it’s our business to organize ourselves so it can.
An outside lawyer will review allegations that Herman Cain’s presidential campaign accepted tens of thousands of dollars in goods and services from a tax-exempt organization founded by his chief of staff . . .
The front group, “Americans for Prosperity,” is a Wisconsin nonprofit granted at least preliminary 501c3 recognition by the IRS. And if it were actually nothing more than a group of citizens banded together to advocate for policies they believe will lead to prosperity, there would be nothing wrong with that. But if instead it’s just a mouthpiece for the Koch brothers—an Astroturf, rather than a grassroots, organization—then there is something wrong.
The IRS requires 501c3s to raise a third of their money from the public precisely to prevent the creation of captive organizations of this kind. Use of a tax-exempt entity to promote the interests of a single individual or family is a violation of Federal tax law. Moreover, if the nonprofit paid some of the Cain campaign’s expenses, that’s a violation of Federal election law—perhaps one of the few activities left that is.
The Cain campaign may collapse under the weight of far more interesting allegations (sex beats money every time); but if in fact this nonprofit was nothing more than a campaign slush fund, its existence represents a taint on the “nonprofit” label. What a shame that “handmaiden to profit and to policies assuring that the profitable get more so and the rest of us get squat” is so unwieldy.
Maybe a new name for the sector wouldn’t come amiss; but let’s be realistic. The Iron Law of Euphemisms means that whatever name is adopted instead will soon become an epithet itself. This explains the “progress” in designating African-Americans, from “n****r” to “colored” to “Negro” to “black” to “Black” to “people of color”: as long as people using the term hate the people they’re describing, the term will be infected with their hatred and soon need to be abandoned.
And as long as the wealthiest people using the term “nonprofit” are determined to distort the form to support the worst excesses of the profit-driven world, it hardly matters what the rest of us call it.
The league — which includes small groups like Access Theater and larger organizations such as Dance New Amsterdam and the Children’s Museum of the Arts — has monthly meetings where constituents help each other with everything from fundraising to legal advice. The groups have created a downtown cultural festival, which they produce in the fall and spring. The members even apply for some grants as one entity and lobby the city government as a pack. Individually, some members with budgets as small as $100,000 are barely on funders’ radar, but as a group the members generate around $14 million in economic activity per year and employ roughly 1,200 people full- and part-time. After years when none of the groups were able to score a grant from American Express, for example, the consortium applied together in 2009 and was awarded $100,000. They divvied up the money according to the size of each budget.
While the cheery tone of the article elides some of the serious difficulties arts organizations face in aligning their missions and needs with one another, the point is nonetheless well-taken: organizations too small to get attention on their own may be big enough when combined with others to secure foundation funding and government cooperation.
Such collaborations also serve as living ripostes to the chronic funder complaint that the supply of arts organizations exceeds the demand for them: if these disparate groups can work together without cannibalizing their audiences or funding, they must not be duplicating each other’s work. Or, as it is written: the whole [collaborative network] is greater than the sum of its parts.
Ellen Alberding’s interview with the Chicago Tribune in advance of the Independent Sector‘s meeting in Chicago earlier this week pressed nearly every one of the Nonprofiteer’s buttons. Ms. Alberding, head of the Joyce Foundation, described the Foundation’s approach to what even she characterizes as a perfect storm of increased need and reduced resources in the nonprofit sector:
We do what any good business person would do when faced with reduced resources. We have become very focused on first maintaining support of our core grantees. Foundations are required to spend a minimum amount — 5 percent of our assets. On occasion, we will overspend that in order to keep our grantees whole.
In other words, business as usual. Most likely the Joyce Foundation’s governing documents prevent its Board from spending its assets down to zero, but there’s no reason why the Foundation shouldn’t use more than the statutory minimum 5% of its $800 million in assets to sustain the work it exists to support. Foundations are NOT businesses; they exist to give their money away, and only in some vague theoretical sense is an institution with $800 million facing constraints preventing it from giving away more than $40 million.
If Joyce gave only 6% instead, that would be another $8 million available to nonprofits in its areas of concern—a not-insubstantial 20% increase. What is stopping the Foundation from doing this, other than a misguided sense that preserving its capital is more important than doing its job?
And then the cherry on the sundae:
It’s the position of the Independent Sector that a cap [on charitable deductions] will reduce charitable contributions across the board and diminish support for nonprofit organizations. I believe it’s the administration’s view that the 28 percent cap might have some impact, but it wouldn’t have a dire impact. (But) I think we have to listen to the organizations themselves, who feel otherwise.
In other words, notwithstanding reality, the prejudices of self-interested parties will dictate the organization’s behavior. Their minds are made up—don’t confuse them with the facts. But as President of the organization, doesn’t it behoove Ms. Alberding to make sure her members don’t make their decisions based on fantasy?
The estimated effects of the cap and other elements of the budget package depend on whether the proposals are compared with the current tax rates of 33% and 35% or the rates scheduled for 2011, 36% and 39.6%. Compared with current rules, estimated effects are between one-half a percent and 1% decline in charitable giving . . . . When compared with tax rate provisions in 2011, charitable deductions are estimated to fall by about 1.5% if only the cap is considered, butif income effects from the entire budget package are included contributions actually rise 2.5%. The relatively modest effects of the proposal arise because (1) the effect of caps on the subsidyvalue is limited, (2) only a fraction (about 16%) of charitable giving is affected, and (3) becauseevidence suggests that behavioral responses to changes in subsidies are relatively small.
(Emphasis the Nonprofiteer’s.) To paraphrase: the tax subsidy isn’t much reduced; that small reduction doesn’t affect 84% of charitable giving; and, in fact, charitable giving isn’t all that tied to tax benefit.
So whether we take the IUPUI findings that charitable giving is likely to decline modestly if these tax reforms are enacted, or the CRS findings that it might actually go up, we should realize that everyone who’s hyperventilating about the impact of these changes on their poor struggling private school, museum or hospital should just take a deep breath. Given that the reforms will support many of the social programs, environmental protections, educational institutions and health care options the nonprofits themselves seek to provide, it’s about time for the community to stop whining and agree to pony up.
About a month ago the Nonprofiteer received a note from a public relations officer at the Jewish Federations of North America describing the Federations’ opposition to placing caps on tax deductions. Being well aware that the debt ceiling negotiations are completely out of her control (and probably out of anyone’s control at this point), this letter failed to move the Nonprofiteer to leap to her telephone and urge her Congressbeing to beat back this latest assault on the nonprofit sector.
But it wasn’t mere laziness that kept her from the front lines in this particular battle; it was actual disagreement, based on the letter’s own summary of the horrifying proposal:
Specifically, the Administration has proposed limiting tax benefits for charitable contributions for those earning over $250,000 (married) or $200,000 (single). The tax benefit of all itemized deductions, including charitable contributions, would be capped at 28 percent and the Jewish Federations want the charitable portion to be exempted.
Thus, an extremely modest proposal for assuring that the wealthiest citizens pay some additional portion of our shared tax burden is considered a threat to the health and well-being of the hundreds of thousands of people served by the Jewish Federations. This, despite the fact that deductibility’s impact on giving is far from clear.
Listen up, gang. You want to see a threat to health and well-being? How about cuts in Medicaid, in Medicare, in the Affordable Care Act, in Social Security, in food stamps, in child care, in education? The fundamental problem of the American economy is that we don’t pay enough in taxes to support the services we very reasonably demand. We don’t pay nearly as much in taxes as our quite conservative neighbors to the north, or our counterparts in Europe or Japan. So we don’t have the health care, the educational system or the family support services we need.
Even complete abolition of the charitable deduction wouldn’t make much of a dent in the shortfall we’ve created out of pure political cowardice and foolishness. The deficit is not the result of social spending but of three simultaneous wars piled on multiple tax cuts. So the hideous notion of a cap on deductions fails on the Willie Sutton basis: you don’t rob nonprofits because that’s not where the money is.
But. If there were what Everett Dirksen called “real money” hidden in the charitable deduction for wealthy families, it absolutely should be subject to revision, for the same reason every other deduction and credit and tax dodge should: because those dodges enable the wealthy to pay less than their share, and because this society needs more money than poor people’s taxes provide to continue those services necessary for us to remain a member in good standing of the developed world.
The Jewish Federations’ objection to this proposal—while completely understandable from their perspective—suggests that even the nonprofit sector has become infected with the shortsighted quarter-to-quarter thinking which addles Wall Street. Rather than consider the long-term good of the society they serve, the Federations are concerned about balancing next year’s budget. And while the Nonprofiteer doesn’t blame them for that—that’s their job—you’ll pardon her if she sides with (and cites) a different giant of the American Jewish community, Samuel Goldwyn*:
*Per Wikipedia: “In 1916, Goldfish partnered with Broadway producers Edgar and Archibald Selwyn, using a combination of both names to call their movie-making enterprise the Goldwyn Pictures Corporation. Seeing an opportunity, Samuel Gelbfisz then had his name legally changed to Samuel Goldwyn, which he used for the rest of his life. “
Could this possibly be because the alternative combination of their names is Selfish?
Even if mandatory “contributions” (oxymoron watch!) weren’t offensive in suggesting that volunteers’ time has less than no value, they’re practically the definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish: people will pay what you require (or not) and then regard their giving to the agency as being done for the year.
Or forever. Please stop this idea before it kills again.
So a couple of weeks ago the Nonprofiteer received a press release announcing “Redefining [of] the Nonprofit Model.” Doubtless you’re all familiar with the genre: a group of business people get together and decide that the nonprofit sector hasn’t cured cancer or ended poverty because people in the nonprofit sector are stupid and lazy, and that an infusion of good old hard-headed American for-profit business practices will compensate for that. Voila: instant Great Society!
This particular redefinition was truly revolutionary:
One hundred advisors, including many of Silicon Valley’s elite, are coming together to disrupt the nonprofit space. . . . [They] have committed to one full year of serving on the board of a nonprofit. . . . [and] attending monthly salons where they will discuss the specific pain points of their assigned nonprofits and attempt to find solutions as a team. . . . [This] is part of a larger movement . . . to make the non-profit world more efficient. . . . “This is just the start of how [we] will disrupt the nonprofit sector and create new, innovative ways for business leaders to contribute . . . . Before [this], there was no easy path for nonprofits to find experienced leaders to help them at a board management level. A board role is not just about fundraising, but includes developing growth plans, operational efficiency, cause marketing, customer relationship management, event planning, and much more.”. . . . In order to maximize results, [the group] carefully matches advisors to nonprofits based on their skills, interests and a nonprofit’s needs.
So let’s review: a bunch of business people are going to sit on nonprofit Boards of Directors! And then periodically those business people will get together and talk about how to be better Board members! As Board members, they will not only fundraise but contribute their skills! They’ll join Boards based on their interest in the nonprofit’s mission! And they’ll seek ways to improve the whole sector!
The accumulation of these radical notions caused the Nonprofiteer to swoon; but the one idea that really had her down for the count was that the entire purpose of the endeavor was to “disrupt the nonprofit space.” Because really, what nonprofits trying to serve their clients need most of all is disruption of their management to supplement the disruption of funding they face constantly, disruption of their staff produced by those funding crises, and disruption of their ability to operate smoothly or secure resources when their message is being drowned out by a constant drumbeat of demands for “reinvention.”
The Nonprofiteer understands that in the tech world, “disrupt” is a positive word, suggesting the kind of change-the-world ethic that fueled Microsoft and Facebook. But she urges everyone to notice that when those disruptive entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg moved into the nonprofit sector, what they did was to find nonprofits doing good work and give them lots of money to do more of it. If the disruptive “advisers” of the press release would just do the same thing, there would be less “news” but a healthier nonprofit sector.
As she fanned herself back to consciousness, the Nonprofiteer was struck once more. In this case, the weapon was yet another article about hybrid corporate forms designed to enable nonprofits to earn their own revenue and stop “begging.” Whether the discussion purports to be about L3Cs or public benefit corporations or Triple Bottom Lines, the argument is always the same: nonprofits should just get with the capitalist program, identify lucrative markets and earn their keep like every other good red-blooded American.
This approach ignores the fact that nonprofits’ markets usually consist of clients who are not profitable to serve—because if they were profitable to serve, the for-profit sector would be serving them. The better a nonprofit is at finding and serving its market, the poorer it will be, because though for-profit clients are a profit center, nonprofit clients are a cost center.
Fine, say the hybrid-benefit-earn-your-own-revenue people: so start a profitable business and funnel its profits into the charity. But this notion of a two-headed agency is, like most similar creatures, a monster. If nonprofits expend their limited energy on creating market-based revenue streams, they’ll be diverted from their mission-based activities. Either the marketing strategy succeeds, in which case the profit-generating people gain the power within the organization and mission falls to a sad second; or the marketing strategy fails, in which case it has consumed significant resources that should have gone to serving clients.
There are, of course, institutions for which running a business can be part and parcel of mission, for instance, job-training centers. But for mental health agencies, arts organizations, group homes, rape crisis hotlines and most of the other charities which do the important work in our society, running a business is a dangerous distraction.
What if, instead of spending time telling nonprofits how they should operate differently, business people re-examined their own operating principles? What if every business set aside 25% of its profits for investing not in the business itself but in the wider community?
In other words, instead of asking why a charity can’t be more like a business, let’s start asking why businesses don’t operate more like charities. Businesses receive all sorts of public services and protections, from the enforcement of contracts in the law courts to well-maintained roads along which to distribute their products. Why shouldn’t they be expected to contribute to the public good in return?
Most business people would say, “But our primary duty is to our shareholders, not to the public good” (and those over-influenced by Ayn Rand and the University of Chicago economics department would say “Our SOLE duty is to our shareholders, the public be damned”). Right: and the primary (or SOLE) duty of charities is to their/our clients. Anything that takes nonprofits away from that activity is perforce improper.
What’s the point of this thought experiment, in which charities chide businesses instead of the other way around? Simply to demonstrate how much business advice to charities is sheer nonsense. To presume that the voluntary sector doesn’t make a profit because it hasn’t thought about how to do so is to fundamentally misconceive its role in the wider economy.
Besides, what nonprofits need isn’t more advice: it’s more money. When business people are ready to provide that—when they’re ready to serve on Boards not as agents of disruption but as securers of resources; when they’re ready to advocate for a tax system which will underwrite the necessary work done by the voluntary sector—well, THAT will be the time for a press release.
she suggests you take a look at her version of Nonprofit 101, a presentation she delivered in January to the fellows of the University of Chicago Public Interest Program. These are recent college graduates serving one-year fellowships in nonprofit agencies; if their work experience doesn’t daunt them, this presentation might!
