The question of what gets said to people who are getting fundraising letters over your signature—or at least under your aegis—is a separate one. You are utterly within your rights as a Board member to say “I’m happy to solicit my friends but I won’t send out a letter telling them how much to give,” so that the staff can prepare your letters without the offending terminology. Those letters are from you, and therefore should represent your own approach to the people you’re soliciting, whether that’s “This group is in desperate need” or “This is the only group I’m supporting this year because of the fabulous new program they’ve launched.”
In other words, it’s one thing to shake off what you consider a slight directed at you, and another to permit the agency to direct that slight at your friends. In that spirit, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to notify the agencies whose appeals have troubled you that you wouldn’t ask your friends for money with that inflection and that they might consider not asking their friends for money that way, either.
But consider this. The Nonprofiteer remembers being unable to ask how much something cost in Paris because the straightforward “Combien?” seemed so abrupt and rude but she lacked the syntax skills to soften it, not to mention the language facility to know what phraseology would constitute appropriate softening. People who ask for money and people who get asked are speaking different languages. Those doing the asking never mean to be rude—they just lack the skills to determine what constitutes being polite. Perhaps if you consider the transaction from that perspective you’ll be less annoyed.
Posted in Arts Organizations, Boards of Directors, Fundraising, Higher education, Management Advice Day tip, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders | 2 Comments »
January 10, 2012
From an article in the New York Times whose date the Nonprofiteer neglected to notice:
“It’s admirable when people back their charitable impulses up with donations,” said Scott Klinger, tax policy director of the group Business for Shared Prosperity. “But the tax code shouldn’t allow the wealthy the kind of loopholes that let them, essentially, force other taxpayers to underwrite donations to their pet causes.”
“The kind of loopholes . . . “ Is there some other kind? That is, can we have the tax code encourage individual generosity without delegating to private individuals decisions about what constitutes the public good? The Nonprofiteer doesn’t see how. Either you have a tax subsidy—which means by definition that other taxpayers bear a bigger burden—or you don’t.
Without the subsidy, current donors might give less but the government would have more to give out to public causes (health, education, welfare) now privately supported. And perhaps without the subsidy, current donors would be replaced by those less-burdened other taxpayers in a burst of their own generosity. And maybe this would mean fewer snow-globe museums and more attention to human services in the nonprofit sector.
Or maybe it would just mean a reduction in charity and an increase in the government’s resources, which could then be used on public education and public housing. Or missiles and drones.
This is why the Nonprofiteer remains at war with herself over the charitable deduction. She wants a thousand flowers to bloom. She believes any free society requires a counter-balance to whatever the current government has decided about anything. And she believes this counter-balance requires money. The whole point of the nonprofit sector is that it permits people to identify and respond to their own needs in their own communities, producing a closer fit between service and community than is possible with centralized programs.
But she also believes that society-wide priorities should be funded society-wide, which means limiting the number of pots of money exempted from inclusion in the public fisc. And she doesn’t want society-wide priorities to be determined by people who have so much money they can buy entire public school systems and experiment on them.
To quote the great Yul Brenner: Is a puzzlement.
Tags:501c3, charity, donors, Fundraising, IRS, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, politics, social services
Posted in Finances, Government grants, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders, Social Service Agencies | Leave a Comment »
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 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 »
October 31, 2011
Do you have any advice on getting phone numbers for donors not connected to board/staff/etc?
We’re finding it increasingly challenging, and people are understandably protective of personal info.
Signed, Waiting By The Phone
Dear Waiting:
I don’t, actually, though I’m a big user of WhitePages.com, where lots of people “protective of personal info” will find to their surprise that they’ve been listed. It’s worth checking, at least, because it’s much more comprehensive than the old phone book. You do risk having people say, “How did you get this number?” though relatively few will want to yell at you for saying thank you, and it doesn’t hurt to say, “Your number is published on WhitePages.com so we thought it was public information; if you’d rather it weren’t you might contact the site.”
Another thing: make sure your staff carefully examines the front of any check you receive (does anyone still send checks instead of credit card numbers?). It’s pretty standard to have phone numbers there, and that’s your first, last and only chance to copy down information you’ll need later.
Finally, modify your donor contribution card to ask for a phone number. Some people will refuse to complete the card, but many will fill it in just out of habit and then you’ve got them.
Tags:501c3, charity, donors, Fundraising, nonprofit, nonprofits, not for profit, philanthropy, Relations with funders, volunteer
Posted in Fundraising, Management Advice Day tip, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders, Technology | Leave a Comment »
October 28, 2011
So here’s something the Nonprofiteer heard yesterday: if an agency’s response to every initial donation is to have a Board member pick up the phone and call the donor to thank him/her, the likelihood of a second donation increases by something like 80%.
What’s terrific about that (other than the obvious, donor retention) is that picking up the phone is often the biggest hurdle Board members need to clear to become effective fundraisers. So if they get used to picking up the phone in a completely non-threatening situation–when their only task is to say, “Hi, I’m a volunteer Board member of agency X and I just wanted to thank you for your gift–we really appreciate your support”–you’re halfway (well, maybe one-third-way) to getting them to pick up the phone and ask their friends to come to a benefit event or a fundraising lunch.
Sounds like the ultimate low-cost high-yield endeavor. Has anyone tried it? Is it as good as it sounds?
Tags:501c3, Board of Directors, charity, charity promotion, donors, Fundraising, human resources, nonprofit, nonprofits, not for profit, personnel, philanthropy, Relations with funders, volunteer
Posted in Benefit events, Boards of Directors, Fundraising, Management Advice Day tip, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Personnel Issues, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders, Volunteers/Volunteerism | 3 Comments »
June 2, 2011
This branch of Habitat for Humanity has chosen to charge volunteers for the privilege of helping out.
When the Nonprofiteer pointed out that volunteers give more readily to the agencies they serve than non-volunteers, she wasn’t advocating admission fees. Volunteers may have paid to paint Tom Sawyer’s fence, but Twain’s point was that they were stupid. Your volunteers aren’t.
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.
Tags:501c3, charity, donors, Habitat, Habitat for Humanity, human resources, Marketing, nonprofit, nonprofits, not for profit, personnel, philanthropy, Relations with funders, volunteer, volunteering, volunteers
Posted in Benefit events, Charity scandals, Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Earned income, Finances, Fundraising, Housing, Management Advice Day tip, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Personnel Issues, Private Philanthropy, Relations with funders, Social Service Agencies, Volunteers/Volunteerism | 4 Comments »
