as they seem to have lost their own. Komen’s decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood at the behest of an anti-choice Board member reminds us how ready the right wing is to sacrifice women’s health for political gain.
There’s a petition to sign if you want to want to make your voice heard. If you’ve been a Komen supporter and you now de-fund the organization, your voice will be heard even louder.
Tags:501c3, charity, foundations, Fundraising, nonprofit, not for profit, politics, Poverty, Relations with funders, social services, women, Women's Issues
Posted in Advocacy, Advocacy groups, Boards of Directors, Charity scandals, Current Affairs, Disease charities, Foundation Hall of Shame/Stupid Foundation Tricks, Health care, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Poverty, Private Philanthropy, Social Service Agencies, Women's Issues | 3 Comments »
but she’d really have preferred not to have this as an inspiration. There is no excuse for the decision of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, until now a respected source of information and funding in the fight against breast cancer, to defund Planned Parenthood‘s program of providing breast exams to poor women.
In fact, the decision doesn’t even make sense–unless you consider that a recent addition to the Board of Komen is an anti-choice ex-politician from Georgia. As another commentator has wisely noted, Planned Parenthood will survive this latest injury–the Nonprofiteer’s determination to support the agency has just been redoubled, and probably her gift will be, too–but Komen may not.
Please join the Nonprofiteer in notifying Komen of your distress at its decision to let irrelevant politics endanger the lives and health of poor women, and of your decision to redirect to Planned Parenthood any support you may have been giving to Komen.
Tags:501c3, Advocacy, Board of Directors, charity, foundations, Fundraising, Komen, nonprofit, not for profit, philanthropy, Planned Parenthood, politics, Poverty, Relations with funders, social services, women, women's health, Women's Issues
Posted in Advocacy, Advocacy groups, Boards of Directors, Current Affairs, Disease charities, Finances, Foundation Hall of Shame/Stupid Foundation Tricks, Fundraising, Health care, Mission, Nonprofits--General, Poverty, Private Philanthropy, Social Service Agencies, Women's Issues | 2 Comments »
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 »
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.
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 »
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 »
Kudos to the Nonprofiteer’s nonprofit consulting colleagues Campbell and Co. for sponsoring a study by the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy to determine the impact on giving of increased marginal tax rates and a cap the charitable-giving deduction. While some of us have been arguing that both of these moves toward social justice should be supported by the nonprofit community, and others have been arguing that the world will come to an end if every penny of tax savings isn’t afforded to the generous rich, these institutions decided to look for the facts.
The facts–as elegantly stated in a Congressional Research Service study that came to the same conclusion–are these:
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, but if 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 subsidy value is limited, (2) only a fraction (about 16%) of charitable giving is affected, and (3) because evidence 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.
Tags:501c3, charitable tax deduction, charity, donors, Fundraising, IRS, nonprofit, nonprofits, not for profit, philanthropy
Posted in Advocacy, Arts Organizations, Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Disease charities, Education, Environmental, Finances, Fundraising, Health care, Higher education, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Private Philanthropy, Social Service Agencies | Leave a Comment »
Boy, this guy is the gift that just keeps on giving: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, not content to interfere with the provision of public services by destroying public-sector unions, has now decided to refuse to sign off on nonprofit grant applications to the Federal government that might “lead to ongoing programs that would need money from state taxpayers later.” The first wave of grant applications deprived of the state’s endorsement would have supported health services, including programs to reduce binge drinking, an unhealthy activity in which Wisconsin leads the nation.
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.
The good news is, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made clear that states’ rights are trumped by citizens’ right to vote. Thus—and despite many recent efforts to enact barriers to that right–-there’s a reasonable chance that Governor Walker will lose his legislative majority in the next few weeks, whereupon the appropriate state-federal balance can be restored.
Or, should I say, the Constitution can be restored.
——————
On Wisconsin! Part I appears here.
Tags:501c3, charity, Fundraising, grantmaking, grants, nonprofit, nonprofits, not for profit, politics, Poverty, recession, social services
Posted in Current Affairs, Disease charities, Finances, Fundraising, Government grants, Health care, Mission, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Poverty, Public private partnerships, Racism, Social Service Agencies | 2 Comments »
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?
Tags:501c3, Advocacy, charitable deduction, charity, deductibility, donors, Fundraising, IRS, nonprofit, nonprofits, not for profit, philanthropy, social services, taxation
Posted in Advocacy, Coverage of nonprofits, Current Affairs, Finances, Fundraising, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Private Philanthropy, Social Service Agencies | 5 Comments »
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 »
As governments at all levels scramble for resources, the idea of eliminating the charitable deduction from the income tax code has begun to attract support. Many people who work in nonprofits say this would damage the sector, because people would be less inclined to give and those who did give would give less. Let’s assume this is true (though Americans’ passion for voluntary organizations long predates the tax code; Tocqueville, anyone?). Is the health of “the sector” really the relevant concern?
It may be that people will give less to their churches or alma maters or prestige arts organizations if deprived of a tax benefit for doing so. But that money will be in the public treasury, where it will go for health care and education and environmental protection (and even a pittance for the arts). So wouldn’t the goals of nonprofit hospitals and nonprofit schools and environmental nonprofits and arts nonprofits actually be advanced if the government had more to spend on these essential services?
In other words, as with health care, the question isn’t whether people pay; it’s how. You either pay for health care by giving money to an insurance company, or by paying taxes and letting the government insure you. (The latter model, in use in this country only for the aged, produces the greatest efficiencies and greatest satisfaction among patients, families and caregivers; but of course extending it to the rest of the population would set us on the road to serfdom. Hayek himself endorsed public provision of health care, so what are we arguing about, again?)
Likewise, you pay either way for education and schools and environmental protection and so on; it’s just a matter of which pot you’re anteing up in: the private nonprofit or the public.
So there’s a real discussion to be had about whether the charitable deduction is a good idea for the entire sector, or whether in fact social service and social justice nonprofits–-the ones that struggle the most for philanthropic support–-would be better off without deductions but with a bigger public fisc.
(Yes, the money might go for defense, or subsidies for oil companies, or some other boondoggle. It’s our responsibility as citizens to prevent this; tax deductions were not designed to protect us from self-government.)
This is another version of the argument the Nonprofiteer has made elsewhere about the generosity of billionaires versus the reinstatement of a significant inheritance tax. (We Democrats should make a point of calling it “the inheritance tax,” because that’s the whole point: at the moment, people who work for their money pay income taxes on it while people who inherit their money don’t. Or we could call it “the windfall profits tax,” which is what it is: a tax on the windfall profits of people whose only contribution to society is having picked the right parents. And the Nonprofiteer speaks as a windfall recipient.)
When the government collects inheritance taxes it can spend the money on things we as a democratic society think important: health and education and social services and, yes, roads and weapons systems and a bunch of other things about which the Nonprofiteer’s opinions are in the minority. If the government doesn’t collect, billionaires’ offspring can spend the money on the things they as potentates think are important, which might be eradicating malaria and endowing charter schools but which might, yes, be paying scholars to produce support for the elimination of public education or the abolition of all regulation, or even paying legislators directly for said elimination and abolition.
The tax code is designed to provide the government with resources to do its job. Its job, among other things, is to provide essential services to citizens who cannot provide those services for themselves; and the more money it collects, the more services it can provide. What’s important is that those services get provided, not that they get provided by the sector that happens to employ the Nonprofiteer.
So the question here is not, “Is it good for the sector?” but “Is it good for social welfare and social justice?” The answer is not clear-–crunching the numbers would be a huge job for which the Nonprofiteer is totally unqualified-–but let’s make sure we’re asking the right question.
Tags:501c3, donors, IRS, nonprofit, nonprofits, not for profit, philanthropy, politics, Poverty, social services
Posted in Health care, Insurance, Nonprofit management, Nonprofits--General, Philanthropy and Taxation, Private Philanthropy, Public private partnerships, Social Service Agencies | 9 Comments »
 | Andrew Olsen on Dear Nonprofiteer, How dare th… |
 | Anita Bernstein on Dear Nonprofiteer, How dare th… |
 | Nonprofiteer on Foundation Friday: War Profite… |
 | Cuzierizkiey on Foundation Friday: War Profite… |
| Anita Bernstein on Give the people at Komen a pie… |
Theme: Kubrick. Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
