Archive for the ‘Finances’ Category
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 »
December 6, 2011
The Nonprofiteer had a fascinating conversation with Margy Waller, a special advisor to Cincinnati’s ArtsWave, which leads the nation in evidence-based approaches to advocating for arts funding. Ms. Waller had reached out to correct the Nonprofiteer’s misunderstanding (and therefore misreporting) of ArtsWave’s efforts, noting that the argument is not that the public should fund the arts to promote economic recovery but that it should fund the arts to promote neighborhood vibrancy. This nuance turns out to make all the difference.
Here’s the ArtsWave insight: people are ready enough to agree with the notion that the arts are good for the economy. But if you probe deeper, and ask what top three things we should do to improve the economy, no one answers “subsidize the arts.” So apparently the argument that the arts are an economic engine (true or false) is unpersuasive, which is what really matters.
But the ArtsWave research also uncovered the fact that if you ask people what would improve their neighborhood the most, the arts come up time and time again. Why? Because artists’ residences are known to herald an improvement in real-estate values; because arts audiences mean feet on the street and therefore greater public safety; because arts venues are known to spawn coffee shops and restaurants and other places of urban liveliness.
Therefore, the argument for public funding needs to be focused not on the art but on the public benefits of art-making. This simultaneously ends the unwinnable argument about whether x or y is valid art or a useful expenditure of public funds and reminds people of what they believe anyway, that investment in arts-related infrastructure benefits everyone—not in some airy-fairy, soul-stirring, life-improving sense but in the grossest day-to-day experience of quality of life.
Thus an appeal to provide tax breaks to bring artists to a particular area would be framed not as a subsidy to these all-important art-making beings (read: overprivileged white people who ought to get jobs) but as a way to offset (maybe even reverse) the damage to property values wrought by foreclosures. The subsidy is to the value of private property (something that can be monetized) rather than to the value of art (something that cannot).
As instrumental and cold-blooded as this approach may seem, Ms. Waller makes the powerful point that vibrancy is what people love about the arts—and that weaving the arts into the fabric of other social needs and activities enables people to appreciate the arts “not as consumers but as citizens.”
The Nonprofiteer was particularly struck by that last point. Asked what citizens should do to respond to 9/11, then-President Bush had nothing more to offer than, “Go shopping.” Anything that enables us to respond to public concerns in a public spirit; anything that combats the notion that government is the problem and privatization the solution; anything that reminds us that we’re a republic if we can keep it; anything that illustrates we don’t have to buy something to value it—any of these is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
As a wise person once noted, the important thing is not to have BEEN right, but to BE right. The Nonprofiteer has been wrong in her blanket condemnation of public funding for the arts, because she thought of it exclusively in the frame established by its opponents: as subsidies to artists to create what might or might not actually be valuable. Once the framing shifts to “vibrancy,”* and to concrete benefits to the broader society, public arts support suddenly makes sense. No one else may care, but it will be a relief to her to stop being the only left-wing theater critic in the country opposed to public funding for the arts.
She continues to think that the NEA itself is a lost cause and that energy spent defending it would be better spent squeezing support for the arts out of HUD, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and local housing authorities. But that’s a matter of strategy. As a matter of principle, the Nonprofiteer is grateful to have discovered a valid way to defend taxpayer support to something that matters so much to her.
—————–
*Yes, “vibrancy” can be a euphemism for “gentrification,” or at least its prodroma. But if we plan for vibrancy (instead of simply hoping that lightening strikes in this ‘hood or that), we can also plan to prevent displacement. And without displacement, “gentrification” is just another word for “safe streets, amenities and public services”—for everyone, rich or poor.
Tags:501c3, Advocacy, arts groups, charity, nonprofit, not for profit, public funding for the arts
Posted in Advocacy, Advocacy groups, Arts Organizations, Finances, Government grants, Nonprofits--General | 7 Comments »
November 29, 2011
Look, there are numerous “good cases” where one can see that infusion of capital that doesn’t really have to be repaid at market rates makes good sense. (Actually, government loan guarantees of, say, solar power start-ups falls into this category.) The problem with allowing 501(c)(3)’s to make these sorts of investments is that the process is subject to abuse.
Say that I want to create “Stuart Levine’s Good Works Foundation.” The Foundation attracts $10M in tax deductible contributions. The Foundation uses the cash to “invest” in projects operated either by me or my Aunt Minnie. While Minnie and I invest our own funds in these businesses, our capital position is ahead of the Foundation’s and gets a higher return, so that the first profit out goes to pay us and, if the deal craters, the biggest part of the hit will fall on the foundation. (Did I mention the $250K a year consulting fee paid to me by the investment entity?)
I don’t for a minute believe that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is engaged in double-dealing of the sort that I described. I have less faith in the “Stuart Levine’s Good Works Foundation.” Has everyone forgotten the Pallottine Fathers? See here:
http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=254962
Or, as one might say, everything old is new again.
The burden of proof rests on those who believe L3Cs are essential. They must demonstrate that the entities’ potential for abuse is outweighed by their capacity to meet needs that are otherwise unmet. But all that’s unmet so far is that burden of proof.
Tags:501c3, charity, Conflict of Interest, donors, foundations, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthrocapitalism, philanthropy, Relations with funders, social entrepreneurship
Posted in Conflict of Interest, Finances, Foundation Hall of Shame/Stupid Foundation Tricks, Investment, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Relations with funders, Social enterprise | 3 Comments »
November 22, 2011
Now here’s something that breaks the Nonprofiteer’s heart: the MacArthur Foundation is making grants to a dozen libraries and museums nationwide to establish youth computer learning centers modeled on YOUMedia, the Chicago Public Library’s innovative youth learning project.
Why does such good news evoke such profound sorrow? Because the Nonprofiteer can remember when the notion was that the philanthropic sector would serve as a laboratory, trying out new approaches to solving social problems and then passing along the ones that worked to be funded by the government. What we have here, however, is a model already vetted in the public sector whose future sustenance apparently will have to come from private charity.
This role-reversal is particularly galling here in Chicago, where the reward for the library’s pioneering work has been a substantial chop in the city’s library budget.
It’s hard to read a computer screen, or learn anything, when the world is upside-down.
Tags:501c3, charity, Chicago, Chicago Public Library, donors, MacArthur Foundation, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, recession
Posted in Charity scandals, Current Affairs, Education, Finances, Government grants, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Poverty, Private Philanthropy, Public private partnerships, Technology | 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 7, 2011
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?
Especially as we contemplate this past weekend’s flood of accounts transferred to nonprofit credit unions in reaction to the obvious greed of the largest banks, particularly Bank of America. (Even a major philanthropist has moved his accounts to protest B of A’s failure or refusal to modify a reasonable number of mortgages). Maybe if the credit unions get wealthy enough they’ll be able to provide the rest of the sector with the working-capital loans it can rarely get from commercial banks. Maybe they’ll offer special water-and-sewer-bill loans.
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.
Tags:501c3, arts groups, charity, Chicago, credit, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, Real Estate, recession, Relations with funders, social services, taxation, water bills
Posted in Arts Organizations, Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Environmental, Finances, Government grants, Health care, Higher education, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Private Philanthropy, Public private partnerships, Real Estate, Relations with funders, Social Service Agencies | Leave a Comment »
November 4, 2011
The Nonprofiteer has never had much time for people who want to change the name of the sector to something non-”non”—something more positive, like “Civil Society Organization,” or less meaningful, like “independent.” But this article about the connection between Herman Cain’s campaign and a Tea Party front group funded by the Koch Brothers has her rethinking her position. Under the headline “Cain to Review Links to a Nonprofit” we learn that
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.
Tags:501c3, Advocacy, Americans for Prosperity, Cain, campaign finance, charity, Conflict of Interest, IRS, Koch, nonprofit, not for profit, politics, Tea Party
Posted in Advocacy, Advocacy groups, Campaign finance, Charity scandals, Coverage of nonprofits, Finances, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders | 6 Comments »
November 3, 2011
Thanks to Thomas Cott of You’ve Cott Mail for pointing the Nonprofiteer to this article in Crain’s New York Business about the value of collaboration among small arts organizations as typified by the Lower Manhattan Arts League.
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.
Tags:501c3, arts groups, charity, collaboration, donors, foundations, Fundraising, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, public funding for the arts, Relations with funders, theater
Posted in Advocacy, Arts Organizations, Coverage of nonprofits, Government grants, Management Advice Day tip, Mergers, acquisitions and consolidations, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Relations with funders | 3 Comments »
November 2, 2011
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?
Grrrr.
Tags:501c3, Board of Directors, charity, Conflict of Interest, donors, Endowment, foundations, Fundraising, grantmaking, grants, IRS, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, politics, recession, Relations with funders
Posted in Boards of Directors, Conflict of Interest, Coverage of nonprofits, Finances, Foundation Hall of Shame/Stupid Foundation Tricks, Fundraising, Investment, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders | Leave a Comment »
