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.
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.
The hard Right has long argued that government services were unnecessary because nonprofits could step into the breach. This claim was always nonsense; but at least its exponents didn’t also take on themselves the task of interfering with the charities’ overwhelmed attempts to do so. Wisconsinites will pay the same Federal taxes whether or not the state receives Federal grants to support its nonprofit sector. So clearly the point is not to shelter the state’s citizens from confiscatory taxes but to punish people who need help. Governor Walker’s ideology apparently requires not just that people in need of assistance seek private charity but that private charity be deprived of the means of assisting them.
And let’s be clear about the legal antecedents of what’s going on here. Groups of citizens of a single state are being deprived of access to something available to all other citizens of the United States—just as groups of citizens of the states of the Old Confederacy were once deprived of the vote. Then, “states’ rights” was a buzz-phrase meaning “the opportunity to mistreat black people without interference from those durned Feds.” Now, in Governor Walker’s view, the phrase is even more expansive, meaning “the opportunity to mistreat unhealthy and/or poor people of every color to make the point that those durned Feds have no right to interfere.” Anyone who’s enthusiastic about the states’ rights claims in the governors’ lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act should check out Wisconsin for a foretaste of what states’ rights really mean to the rights of states’ citizens.
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.
Who are these people, and how did they get to be so smart?
A new study has found that inverting state tax structures—whereby the highest income earners would be taxed at the current percentage of income for the lowest income earners, and vice versa—would collectively raise $490 billion in new revenue, immediately eliminating states’ budget deficits and avoiding the serious consequences of budget cuts.
What’s being “flipped,” of course, is the current regressive tax system, which depends on getting more and more money from those who have the least of it—or, as a study co-author bluntly phrased it, “squeez[ing] water out of a stone.”
Is there any possibility that state legislatures will accept this sensible suggestion? Maybe not this minute; but the Nonprofiteer suggests we all wait until crime spikes this summer (not enough police officers) and schools open this fall with huge classes (not enough teachers). Maybe then our elected officials will get a clue that dismantling workers’ compensation and blaming public employee unions will be insufficient to preserve essential services.
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.
In fundraising there’s an old saw that if you want someone’s money, you ask for his advice. Leave it to the ever-innovative Rahm Emanuel to turn this observation into an ultimatum, telling people equipped with useful advice that it won’t be heard unless it comes wrapped in money.
That, in effect, is the meaning of Mayor-elect Emanuel’s request to a group of Chicago foundations that they pay the costs of his transition, costs traditionally covered by leftover campaign funds, of which Emanuel has plenty. In a city whose political culture has long consisted of being punished for disagreeing with or disobeying the mayor, the foundations faced an unattractive choice: call the mayor-elect on his inappropriate pick-pocketing and look forward to 40 years in the desert, or pay the man the $2 (or $2 million, as the case may be) in order to be heard.
The Nonprofiteer doesn’t blame the foundations for ponying up, though she wishes they hadn’t: their job is to influence public policy and make change, and the mayor’s office is an important route (sometimes the only route) to doing so. But the Emanuel administration-in-waiting should never have asked for this sort of tribute. Whether intended or not, the request makes it appear that access to city government is restricted to those who tithe. There’s nothing new about that—the title “City That Works” has always ended in a silent “For Pay”—but Chicagoans might be excused for having hoped for something new post-Daley.
Many in the nonprofit sector are dismayed at having to compete with city government for the foundations’ largesse, and that’s a legitimate concern, though a belated one: the Daley administration never hesitated to ask private and foundation donors to subsidize city expenses with money that would otherwise have gone to independent community groups. (Can you say “Millennium Park”? “Olympic bid”?) But the Nonprofiteer is more concerned about a new mayor’s implying, and establishing a precedent for the idea, that even being heard on the 5th floor requires big bucks.
Some wag once said that New York was about culture and Washington about power, but Chicago was all about money. Plus ca change . . .
Here’s something strange: a concept thrown around routinely and casually in conversations among nonprofits and philanthropies is simultaneously the subject of fierce debate and sometime disapproval by the Internal Revenue Service, a committee of the American Bar Association, and other experts. What is going on?
The notion of Low Profit Limited Liability Corporations (L3Cs, for short) is that they’re a vehicle for doing well by doing good and therefore an improvement over the typical nonprofit structure. L3Cs are permitted to earn profits but proponents claim that their praiseworthy intentions—to end hunger or provide clean water or whatever—make those who lend to them eligible for the special tax benefits attached to program-related investments. In other words, this is a legal structure presented as a technique for gaining access to capital (always a struggle for nonprofits) by providing a tax benefit to lenders.
Of course, foundations already get a tax benefit for program-related investments in regular nonprofits, so what, exactly, is the appeal? In theory, foundations might be more interested in program-related investments that generate a reliable flow of capital (in the form of profit) than in program-related investments that generate nothing but additional nonprofit programs and services. Likewise in theory, regular venture capitalists outside of foundations will be more interested in making investments in profit-making entities than in pure nonprofits. This—the notion goes—will increase the amount of capital available to support general good-guy behavior.
However, a number of scholars and lawyers (Daniel Kleinberger of William Mitchell College of Law prominent among them) see the L3C as, at best, redundant and, at worst, an invitation to fraud. They point out that regular limited liability corporations can be organized for any purpose, including public-spirited and low-profit ones. They point out that the IRS has not yet issued (and does not seemed inclined to create) a rule awarding automatic program-related investment status to any investment in an L3C. So anyone who invests in an L3C on the basis that it provides a higher return than a regular nonprofit with the same tax benefits will find out to his/her sorrow that this is not the case.
What strikes the Nonprofiteer as peculiar, though, is that in the many discussions she’s heard and read about L3Cs, only one mention (specifically, Professor Kleinberger’s Nonprofit Quarterly article) has ever surfaced of this opposition from the bar and Federal regulators. Not until her tax lawyer Stuart Levine asked about the [successful] efforts in Illinois to create L3Cs did she realize there was anything controversial about the phenomenon. After bringing her up to speed Levine wisely said,
L3C’s don’t work unless there is a change in federal tax law. In other words, L3C’s are a little like Oreo-Tycin-Myacin—the wonder drug for which there is no known disease.
L3C’s raise difficult issues of fiduciary duty and the inherent conflict between “charitable” purposes and “business” purposes. At the least, these conflicts cannot be dealt with via a quick-fix state statute.
Doubtless the Nonprofiteer spaces out on frequent occasions and misses aspects of what’s said or done in the sector. But she suspects there’s also a disconnect between what nonprofit executives and L3C promoters expect and describe and what lawyers and regulators understand.
So if you’re considering investment in an L3C, be the aware buyer of whom you’ve heard.
Speaking of indispensable, the Fund’s founding Executive Director Clara Miller has just announced that she’s moving on to a job with the FB Heron Foundation. No doubt she’ll continue to be a leader in her new position, but her tenacity and vision in creating financial systems for nonprofits (including the Community Development Finance Institution, of which the Fund itself became a leading example) and her no-nonsense discussions of what the sector needs and what it lacks will be sorely missed.
We all owe Clara Miller a debt of gratitude. Maybe the Nonprofit Finance Fund’s expertise can help us figure out how to repay it!
