So you wanna be a Ph.D. student, eh?

Well, for those of you following the facial hair challenge and my quest for PhD candidacy, I thought I'd share with you the questions that I was asked about the nonprofit sector and its management. I bet you could do reasonably well with these questions. So go ahead, in your spare time, take out some paper and you have four hours to answer these. On your mark, get set, go!

1) Discuss the growth of the nonprofit sector in the US in terms of trends and legislation. Be specific as to at least two subsectors that have shown high percentages of growth and the federal legislation that this has prompted. What are tthe implications of this growth for NPOs, the for profit sector, and government services? Speculate here, specific references are not required.

2) In the W. K. Kellogg Foundation's report Blurred Boundaries, they suggest that there are five flashpoints of change. What are these flashpoints of change, and what are the potential implications for the nonprofit sector? You may cite recent examples based on your knowledge of current events.

3) Lester Salamon (2002) discusses some of the challenges and opportunities the nonprofit sector faces. Discuss these in terms of relevance to the nonprofit field of most interest to you.

4) What is the common theme of the nonprofit management handbooks and supporting articles from scholarly nonprofit journals and trade publications. Please describe the theme and discuss the supporting elements.

"Gator Gala is biggest single UF fundraiser"

This doesn't have anything to do with this coming week's readings, but I thought some might be interested in reading this Gainesville Sun article about this year's Gator Gala, celebrating 100 years of Florida football.

Some interesting facts/highlights of the article:

• $50,000 a table for attendees
• $5 million raised (100 donors including Emmitt Smith)
• Money goes to "endowed athletic scholarships for Gators in every sport."
• UF spends 4 percent of endowed funds every year, "aiming to recover those expenditures through investments and thereby making the endowment 'permanent'."
• 416 Gators on athletic scholarships this year totalling $6.9 million
• UF's capital campaign aims to raise $1.2 billion by 2012 -- this goal "places UF in unchartered fundraising terrority, looking for a single donor who will give $75 million to help complete the 'gift pyramid'."
• UF's largest donation = $15 million given by Evelyn & William McKnight to the Brain Institute.

This week we talked about accountability as far as making sure donations go where they are expected to go. Danny Ponce, Gator Gala organizer, said he "wanted to ensure donors that their money would go toward scholarships and not simply be blown on an extravagant event. He estimates that tonight's party will cost about '10 percent of what we've raised,' but said all teh expenses are being covered by corporate sponors and not donors' funds for scholarships."

What do you all think about the Gator Gala? What do you think about this "gift pyramid" or do you know anything about it?

The Prague Blog

So I wanted to make sure you had a chance to look at Dr. Hall's blog. This won't count as one of your required blog postings for the week, but I would be very interested in feedback on Dr. Hall's presentation--anything that really surprised, impressed, etc., you?

The yin and yang of celebrity attachment to charitable causes

This quote from the Salamon readings caught my attention:
"Another source of tension is that, while the UN agencies are mandated to set up operations in any and all areas of need, NGO's are free to pick and choose their countries of operation. This results, UN personnel argue, in an overwhelming number of actors responding in situations that attract media interest and a dearth of agencies responding to the "forgotten emergencies", leaving gaps in basic service provision"(p.247).

Taking their use of actors literally, it made me think about celebrities that have been very active in philanthropy, namely Angelina Jolie and Bono. They're the two that come to mind as examples of public figures who use their powers for good and not evil, so to speak. It could be argued that through their participation in various UN and other NGO missions, they've brought media attention where there might previously have been none. The Salamon quote sounds resentful of this concept - but I have to wonder, is it really a bad thing? I guess in situations when the celebrity (ie. a Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton) is really only involved to boost their public image, the criticism is warranted. But when celebrities with legitimate interests in certain causes get involved, and they're able to generate interest through the sheer power of the media,which evokes a greater public awareness and response- it's hard to see that as negative.

It would seem to me that with the scope of the UN's mandate to help "any and all areas of need", as well as the sheer number of NGOs, there shouldn't be any "forgotten areas" (theoretically, of course - I know a number tend to slip through the cracks). So that's a legitimate criticism of celebrity attachment to causes - but it also seems wrong to criticize the celebrities who choose to use their power and resources to truly make a difference. I guess it's a double-edged sword.

This article about George Clooney's recent activities in Darfur also brings up some of the same points and criticisms.

What do y'all think?

FYI...
Angelina Jolie's UN journals
DATA, Bono's organization dedicated to Africa

Legit Fundraising? Or PR nightmare?

Recently I was approached (unfortunately, by a family member) to join in a quest to get rich quick. All my dreams can come true if I pay a nominal up front fee and some elbow grease. So I'm thinking..."Yeah I've heard this all before when I was hit up for AmWay, RexAll, and the air purifier sales plan. Why on earth would I want to hear about another one of these not-really a pyramid, but look like a pyramid schemes?" "Oh but this one is different." I am told. Yeah right. So the premise is...You pay a fee for this company, YTB, to set up a website for you. Then you tell your friends to use your website to book all their travel. They get discounts, you get commission. It's a win-win according to them. Eventually, you start signing up your pals to have their own websites, and you get a cut of their commissions. Pyramid right? But here's where the talk got really interesting, and for me, downright scary. They want me to sign up the Museum as a non-profit under this plan. Apparently, this company figured out they could get more people using their website for travel bookings if they encouraged non-profs to sign up. The non-prof gets a cut (40%), which is not termed a commission but is called a licensing fee, when their supporters use their website. The non-prof provides YTB with their subscriber/member lists. YTB produces email blasts that go out to those members advertising "Deals and Steals" for travel every 7 to 10 days with the non-profs logo on it (hence the licensing fee deal). YTB has a legal department that draws up the contract to make sure that the non-prof is not put in jeopardy legally. However, my question to you is....what does this do to the Museum in the eyes of the members? The other problem I saw with it is that the Museum does not have the first right of refusal for the email blasts. They will never see them before they go out. Granted, they should just be advertising travel deals, but who knows what could be put on there that could offend the members? What are your thoughts?

NGOs... Providing Relief with a Dose of Religion?

Looking at the Philanthropy 400 reveals a large number of NGOs that are Christian relief and development organizations working in impoverished areas in Africa, Asia, and beyond.

Feed the Children (#3), Food for the Poor (#13), World Vision (#15), and MAP International (#37) are just a few of the top fundraising organizations providing relief and Christian education throughout the world.

This Christian Science Monitor article discusses some of the concerns that countries impacted by the December 2004 tsunami had about Christian organizations, such as "offering money, food, employment, or other inducements to convert people to Christianity."

Vince Isner with the National Council of Churches USA commented, "When others offer aid and ask, 'By the way, do you know why this happened to you? There's a better way,' it becomes a delicate power struggle."

Can religious organizations truly be faithful (sorry, no pun intended) to their values if they are banned from bringing religion to their NGO relief work?

The Big Scam of NGO's

This one paragraph from The Big Scam of NGO's really presents an interesting comparison of the then and now of NGOs:

"In the old times, the leaders of NGO’s used to be working in the field, dressed simply, lived in humble dwellings, and had minimal salaries, sufficient for their most essential needs. But nowadays, the new breed of NGOs you meet in Delhi, or Bombay, is smartly dressed in jeans, he or she usually comes from India’s upper elite class, carry the latest laptop and often travel around in a/c cars. These NGO’s spend half of their time abroad, in London, Paris, or New York, doing smart presentations, with mesmerizing slides and Excel spreadsheets, in front of gullible westerners, always ready to shed a tear for the poor "downtrodden Indians", so as to convince them to grant more funds."

Given this is one person's perspective and shouldn't be taken as fact, it does raise an interesting question though: which type of nonprofit is better at meetings its mission--the humble one working closely with clients or the business-focused one working to ensure longevity by meeting with donors and other business partners?

NGO Accountability Charter

I was trying to find some information on a certain nonprofit organization when I ran across this International Nongovernmental Organization Accountability Charter. The charter says that the participating NGOs will provide at least one report per year that addresses:

· Mission and values;
· Objectives and outcomes achieved in programme and advocacy;
· Environmental impact;
· Governance structure and processes, and main office bearers;
· Main sources of funding (corps, fdns, govts, and individuals);
· Financial performance;
· Compliance with this Charter; and
· Contact details.

Side note, these will be some of the things you'll be looking for in the Annual Report project, which we'll talk about in greater detail in mid-October.

Say you're in charge of public relations at an NGO and were asked to create a priority list of your publics... would you order them in the same manner as the charter does in the "Our Stakeholders" section?

Culture Wars: NPO Art and Public Funds

Writes Wyszomirski, "For much of the decade, controversies raged around government funding for the arts and about the nonprofit institutions that were involved in the "culture wars." Debates concerning allegedly obscene, pornographic, blasphemous, or otherwise offensive art exhibited in museums and galleries or performed on stage and in theaters raised public awareness and conc ern about the content of the so-called "high arts" that are generally seen as the purview of the nonprofits arts sector." (pg 195)

No image better epitomizes this "culture war" than Chris Ofili's elephant dung-"splattered" Holy Virgin Mary displayed as a part of the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s controversial exhibit Sensation ("splattered" was the term used by critics who had not viewed the piece; truly, the dung is carefully sculpted into a bare left breast and allegedly meant to symbolize fertility, as dung was used as a fertilizer in the artist’s native Nigeria). Though the book references the exhibit for the financing by "people with a direct commercial interest in the work of the artists" and the commercial issues it raised, it serves as a better example of the "culture war" described by Wyszomirski.

The 1999 U.S. premier of the British exhibit brought with it a host of angry critics. Catholics gnashed their teeth and declared the piece "blasphemous." Activists threw horse manure at the Brooklyn Museum and succeeded in pouring white paint on the body of the Virgin. But the worst behavior came from New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (what did he do with all those homeless people? New York Republican dark magic?).

Under the battle cry of the exhibit's "disrespectful" handling of Christianity, Giuliani withheld the museum’s monthly local funding and threatened eviction unless the exhibit was sent back from whence it came. After the case went to court, the museum was the victor and the exhibit stayed.

Giuliani’s team should have done a little more research into public opinion before knotting the City purse strings. In 1999, The First Amendment Center commissioned the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut to conduct a study of Americans' attitudes toward freedom of expression issues arising from the Brooklyn Museum's decision to host the controversial "Sensation" exhibit.
Six in ten Americans (60%) thought that the government should not have the power to ban the "Sensation" exhibit, even though the Brooklyn Museum is partially supported by public funds. The same proportion (60%) also felt that the government did not have the right to withdraw public funds from the museum because of its display of controversial artwork.
CPANDA.org - Cultural Policy and the Arts National Data Archive

Had the mayor realized that most Americans were not in favor of using funding as a means of content control, perhaps he wouldn’t have ended up with so much egg on his face. In the end, Giuliani’s attempt at censorship only made the exhibit more popular and increased attendance.

*****
The major source of funding for the Brooklyn Museum comes from New York City tax dollars through the City’s Department of Cultural Affairs. I’ll pose the same question I asked last time: does some state (or in this case city) funding allow for some control?

Do the study’s findings surprise you? Is 60% a surprisingly small or large percentage in support of the creative independence of nonprofit art?

Is there a line? Should funding be withheld for the truly obscene (and what is that?)? Are violent images still worthy of public funds (one of the other pieces of the exhibit that received far less media attention was the 25-foot high black and white portrait of Myra Hindley, a young woman infamous for the torture and murder of several London children, painted out of small child-sized handprints)? Should curators be given the burden of proof for the social value of an exhibit or piece? Seems like a very slippery slope.


P.S. Less of an debate issue, but certainly a point of note: The "butterflies’ surrounding the Virgin are actually magazine cutouts of buttocks. The artist offered no explanation for the flying tushies. Thought you should know…

The "Most Beautiful" Foundation

So I thought you all might be interested to know that baby Shiloh isn't Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's only collaborative effort ... they now have their own foundation, the Jolie/Pitt Foundation. According to an article on PEOPLE.com, the purpose of the foundation is to "aid humanitarian causes across the globe." The foundation is already giving away $1 million to Doctors Without Borders and $1 million to Global Action for Children.

The article quotes the couple's spokesperson: "Angelina and Brad are committed to using their resources to help the world's most vulnerable people." I tried to find a Web site for the foundation but didn't have any luck.

So do you love Brad Pitt (or Angelina Jolie) even more now? Or do you not care? Do you know of any other celebs who have their own foundations?

And if anyone wants to see pics of baby Shiloh, click here... =)

"N***a, please"

So how ‘bout them Cavs? No, I don’t mean their loss to Western Michigan this Saturday. I’m talking about some much bigger players, specifically Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Last week a firestorm arose after The University of Virginia’s independent student publication, The Cavalier Daily, ran two controversial cartoons that sparked heated debate and caused an onslaught of angry responses. Sounds familiar to the situation recently faced by the University of Florida’s independent student paper, The Alligator, though the issue was handled much differently.

When the Alligator ran a racially insensitive cartoon, UF administrators and student leaders became involved directly with the issue in what one editorial called “sweaty, disingenuous protest,” apologizing on behalf of a publication for which the University provides no direct funding or support. Mr. Machen makes the point best himself: “We were disgusted by the image and discouraged that such an insensitive cartoon could be published in a newspaper that, while independent from the university, is written and edited by UF students.” (The bold and italics are my own and not Mr. Machen's )

Compare this reaction to that of University of Virginia officials, who bite their tongue to the tune of 1st Amendment and “student writers will be student writers.”

FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214059,00.html
College Newspaper in Virginia Removes Jesus Cartoons at Artist's Request
Friday, September 15, 2006
Associated Press

RICHMOND, Virginia — A University of Virginia student newspaper on Friday removed from its Web site cartoons featuring Jesus Christ that prompted a barrage of e-mails to the paper and school from people who thought the comics were blasphemous.
The Charlottesville, Virginia, university and The Cavalier Daily received about 2,500 messages about the comics, many of them form-letter e-mails that were overwhelmingly from people outside the school community.
The strips were removed at the request of the artist, U.Va. student Grant Woolard.
"The sole intent of my comic strip is to present situations that provoke thought and amusement," Woolard said in a statement on the newspaper's Web site. "As this comic did not achieve that goal, I have requested that it be taken down from the Cavalier Daily website. I apologize for the offense that this comic has produced."
The Jesus cartoons ran in The Cavalier Daily's Aug. 23 and 24 editions and featured "Christ on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane," with the figure of Jesus crucified on X and Y axes of a mathematical graph. Another, "A Nativity Ob-scene," showed Joseph and the Virgin Mary talking about Mary's rash, with her saying, "I swear, it was Immaculately Transmitted!"

The controversy began last week when the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded an apology from The Cavalier Daily. The paper declined, saying that the comics did not violate any newspaper policy.
U.Va. was then bombarded by e-mails and phone calls, but spokeswoman Carol Wood said that the university has no editorial control over the newspaper, which receives no school funding, and must uphold freedoms of speech, expression and the press.
After discussing the matter further Thursday, The Cavalier Daily changed its position.
"We are regretful that many took offense to them," the editors said in a statement Friday on the paper's Web site. "Offense was not our intent — neither the intent of the artist, nor the intent of the newspaper, which seeks to provide contributors an open forum to present their ideas."
Catholic League President Bill Donohue said that he was satisfied with the removal of the cartoons and the paper's apology.
"Obviously, I would have liked it to be a little more complete," Donohue said Friday in a phone interview. "They're young, they're college kids. The message has been delivered and we don't expect to revisit this again."
Wood said that dealing with the controversy is part of the student editors' learning experience.
"We know that mistakes will be made and the purpose of a higher education and learning community is to learn from mistakes and take accountability for your actions," she said. "Better when you're 18 to 21 than 35 in a job."

1. To what extent should a non-profit organization be held responsible/liable for a separate entity that conducts its business on their property and bears their unstated stamp of approval?
   
   
2. Is this a different circumstance than the one faced by The Alligator? Does the nature of the cartoons (racially insensitive v.s. religiously insensitive) place a different burden of reaction on the associated institution?
   
   The real question is, how can I tie this all to this week’s readings? Well, the issue of government-nonprofit relations fits (if you push hard enough).
3. Under "Finance and Endowment", the UVA website reveals that in the 2005 and 2006 academic year, state appropriations accounted for 13.4% of all revenues; the same chart notes that between 1989 and 1990, state appropriations accounted for a walloping 33.2% of revenues.
   Does this decrease in state funding have an impact on just how accountable the University must be to their state sugar-daddies? While none of the articles I’ve read specifically mention any statements or push for action from conservative state government officials, I’ve got to think they have an interest in keeping the jewel of Virginia untarnished by religious scandal. In one religious publication, The University of Virginia has been slammed as “anti-Christian,” despite the fact that the paper is independent from the university.
   While in this case, the university washed their hands of involvement with the issue, do you think that the university’s status as a public nonprofit state-run institution could affect their reaction? For example, would you expect state officials to say, "Tax payers prefer their Mary herpes-free, so do what it takes to make those kids shut up." Does some government funding allow for some government pull?
   

* I hope the blog title was not offensive. It was a parody of a parody and meant to spark discussion. If you want to read more about last year’s Alligator scandal, their website has a vast archive of the many letters to the editor and opinion articles surrounding this issue.

A Non-Profit for Non-Profits

I’ve got what I think is a bright idea. Let’s form a non-profit to help non-profit social service agencies. Clearly, they are at-risk and are need of some assistance.

Although non-profits continue to proliferate, private giving is on the decline and public funding is up but it’s not on par with what it is costing to run nonprofit organizations.

Here are some of the services that we could offer:
.Fundraising and development training

.Accounting and bookkeeping

. Corporate finance; investing
. Lobbying and government representation
. Executive training and headhunter services
. Board training and development
. Volunteer database
. Technical assistance
. Grantsmanship
. Organizational development/management
. Mergers, partnerships and acquisitions

Many social service agencies were designed with the purest of intent; to help those in need. Their allegiance to the cause has been the day-to-day focus and little attention has been paid to basic organization management, recordkeeping or long-term financial sustenance. Many of the leaders of these agencies are sincerely dedicated to the cause, but they have very little knowledge of business and management. They are not prepared to respond to today's challenges of competition, resource development, executive staff development, etc.

I would like to see government funding sources and nonprofit associations step up to the plate and provide the training, development and technical assistance that today’s nonprofit social service agencies most assuredly need. These agencies are providing much-needed services to vulnerable segments of the populace. I think they deserve some help and assistance in retrofitting their organizations to meet today’s demands.

Meanwhile, there’s a new industry on the horizon…nonprofit entities comprised of smart, business-savvy folks who can help the existing non-profits strengthen their infrastructure.

What Should We Expect from SS Agencies?

What is your expectation of the social service agencies today?

I’ve just finished reading Chapter Four, “Social Services,” and for me this has been like a walk down memory lane because I can honestly recall what social services used to mean in this country. Quite frankly, if you weren’t around during the 1960s through the 1990s, I don’t think you can truly appreciate the dramatic changes we have seen in America as it pertains to social services.

Steven Smith begins this chapter with a statement that really speaks volumes to the overwhelming presence that social service agencies have had in this country. He states, “For many citizens, nonprofit social service agencies are the nonprofit sector.” Truer words were never spoken. When I think about the non-profit sector, I don’t immediately consider hospitals, universities, or private schools. What I think of are the basic survival services that provide food, shelter, clothing and care; the social services. And I think many Americans share this same line of thinking because that’s what social service agencies used to be.

There really has been a fundamental transformation of nonprofit social services in the past 30-40 years and, as indicated in this chapter, one of the most dramatic changes has to do with our expectations of how individual and social problems should be resolved and what the role of social service agencies should be. As a matter of fact, I think it is accurate to say that the other dimensions of our transformed social services (i.e., role of government, blurring of boundaries and state spending) are a direct result of this change in societal expectations.

I can remember a time when no one talked about AIDS and most people had never even heard of it. I can also remember when women who wanted to pursue serious careers were considered “women’s libbers” (as in dangerously liberated women that did not embrace the traditional American family values). Sexual harassment in the workplace was just coming into definition, childcare was referred to as babysitting, and there were very limited resources for women and children living in violent households. If you were confined to a wheel chair your life was limited to a miniscule number of homes and establishments that could accommodate you because no one even thought about it. Social services for these causes were limited or nonexistent because we didn’t recognize them as social problems.

There were shelters and soup kitchens for “wayward” men who were down on their luck or suffering under their addictions to alcohol. There were clothes closets and soup kitchens for the most needy. And you could count on groups like the American Red Cross, the Community Chest or the Salvation Army to help everyone else in need. But that was when most needs were considered temporary and social service agencies were there to give you a “helping hand” until you could get ‘on your feet’ again.

The 1960s were a time of awareness and people became enlightened about the real truth of poverty, hunger, racism, sexism, ageism, homelessness, disabilities, illnesses and more. The government stepped in and many new social programs were created. Thousands of people who had silently suffered under the societal veils of ignorance, hatred and shame were finally extended the much-needed assistance that they needed to improve the quality of their lives.

What should we expect our social service agencies to do today? Clearly today's challenges to social service agencies are serious and threaten the long-term viability for many of them. Are we expecting our social service agencies to do too much or have our social problems really become so intense that we now need a stronger, better, more resilient army of SS agencies to solve them?

Lawyers: Do all nonprofits need them?

After reading the pdf articles about the legal acts the government has passed in reaction to the September 11 incident, I would take them as scare tactics if I were a director at a nonprofit organization. The articles make it seem that the government is watching and tracking every monetary transaction that every nonprofit organization makes. I have worked with a few different nonprofits and neither of them was closely tied to legal counsel.

These articles make it appear that it is essential for a nonprofit to have legal counsel in order assure safe operation no matter the size of the operation. I spent a little time working with a controller that has worked in private and public companies and how Sarbanes-Oxley has changed the workplace environment. If there is a call for nonprofits to start using these guidelines, as the nonprofit director I would have no choice but to seek legal counsel to understand all of the implications.

Small nonprofit directors may be scared into believing a lawyer is necessary in order to continue safe operation and medium to large size organizations would believe a lawyer is necessary as well because their assets and donor base could potentially be linked to terrorist persons. So do all nonprofits need a lawyer to sort through the legal acts, or can nonprofits continue their business as usual without legal counsel?

Google's For Profit Foundation

Continuing our discussion of tax exemptions...

On 9/14/06 the New York Times posted this article about Google.org, which is Google's for profit philanthropy. To quote the article, its for profit structure allows "it to fund start-up companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists and even lobby Congress. It will also pay taxes."

Only time can tell whether this type of philanthropy can actually last, but it seems that they are off to a good start. Instead of throwing tax-deductable dollars at organizations working on the global warming issue (one of Google.org's mandates), the for profit philanthropy is using it funds to "develop an ultra-fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid car engine that runs on ethanol, electricity and gasoline." A traditional nonprofit organization would never be able to invest the capital needed in such a venture. And although traditional nonprofits may have contributed much to the reseaerch needed to build our collective understanding of global warming and its causes and effects, these organizations are limited in their ability to catalyze change. For profit organizations are also limited in their ability to find a solution because the must be conscious of the bottom line. Google.org has neither of these limitations; rather it is able to invest as much money as necessary and does not depend on financial success, but it can profit from any financial returns. Not to mention, if it succeeds, a portion of those returns go back to the government.

In response to one of Paul's earlier comments, there is no impetus here to desert the mission in the interest of money. In fact, Google.org was created with the intention to spend its funds in the next 20 years or sooner.

I've never heard of this before today, but I'm interested to see where it goes...

New tax laws benefit some nonprofits, hurts others

I encourage you to read this Chronicle of Philanthropy article before they take it off of the free section. It describes how the latest changes to the tax laws will have a tremendous impact on nonprofit organizations.

Based on the examples they use, education and museums may suffer the most while conservation and historic preservation groups may wind up making significant gains.

It poses a very interesting public relations dilemma. We've already discussed that people have very different motives for why they give, some selfless, some more selfish.

The question I pose is this: You're a nonprofit fundraiser in an organization likely to be negatively impacted by this legislation. What strategies would you use to communicate to donors about the legislation?

Target sued over Web site design?

Ah, Berkeley. Man, I miss those people!

I don't know if you saw it, but this past week a federal court judge authorized the lawsuit of a UC-Berkeley student who was suing Target over its Web site's design. As detailed in this San Francisco Chronicle online story, the Target Web site does not use software that allows it to be viewed by the blind. So, according to the law suit, Target is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I can't say that I understand the technology behind it, but I know that all Web sites with the *.ufl.edu extension can be heard with special software designed for the blind.

Think of the implications... Target is a huge retailer with substantial profits. The National Federation of the Blind and other advocates are using this lawsuit as a warning for others to make their Web sites compatible. The costs of revamping Web sites with the new technology could potentially be devastating for those nonprofits without the huge endowments.

Let's not even think about a potential law suit... but imagine yourself as an executive director of a nonprofit organization, and you just read about this law suit. Your Web site isn't compatible, and you have no idea how to make it compatible. Given the context of our readings this week on the legal, what would you do to your Web site if anything?

Is passivity an innate trait in a nonprofit organization?

Be honest.

Does anyone feel that working at a non-profit is less like having a job and more like supporting a cause? Jobs mean you’re making money. A cause means you sacrifice. Reading through complitchick’s entry made me realize that whenever I think of nonprofits I don’t think of business growth and job markets. I think of causes and for the community. I think of filling a niche the for-profit world does not choose to engage in.

It’s not really an obvious thought that normally occurs to me. Instead, it is the conceptualization I hold that emerges below the surface like a large rock in a stream. I don’t usually see it, but it does change my thought-flow.

I realize that my underlying understanding of nonprofit is the same one that parts of the nonprofit sector had about itself. Does the need to ask the general public for funds cause the nonprofit world (that engages in fundraising) to put itself in a place of servitude more-so than a for-profit company? Certainly influential donors sit on the board of directors and can carry as much clout as an investor. What is the investment? Success is defined by fulfilling its purpose for existence and making enough money to do the same thing next year. The locus of control is put into the general public or its donors.

A for-profit company puts its locus of control into its shareholders. Which shareholders run the company? The ones that have put the most stock into them. Money, the bottom line, it has been said a number of times is what drives a for-profit company. Otherwise they wouldn’t be called for-profits. The locus of control is given to the people that hold the greatest financial investment.

As you can see, the two are very similar. The difference is that a non-profit has to scramble to change for the purpose they serve while at the same time make money. A for-profit, however, has only to change enough to maximize its ultimate goal – make money. Being that that is the main focus, a for-profit puts all its energy into making more money – a singular definition of success. The NPO has its double-definition of success: Fulfill the purpose for which they exist (not money) and make enough money to continue striving for its goal. Ultimately both are only as good as their publics will let them be. They both answer to key shareholders/board members.

There are plenty of aggressive nonprofits whose aim it seems is to make more money to put into the organization so it can make more money to do better next year and certainly there are passive for-profits, though I fail to come up with any examples off the top of my head.

I rhetorically ask the title question to provoke thought. It may or may not be true. I am not asking a question of reality, but one of context. What do you think when you think of nonprofit? We are learning of the many different roles non-profits play in our society. So, think back to your high school, or perhaps undergrad class and do a free-writing exercise while thinking of nonprofit. What is the feeling that you get when you think of a nonprofit? What do thoughts of a for-profit company conjure up in you? Where do the respective industries stand themselves?

Non-Profit Education Challenges: For-Profit Competition

One of the potential challenges faced by private higher education is competition from the for-profit sector. Stewart, Kane and Scruggs raise the issue of distance e-learning programs as an alternative for “nontraditional” students, ie: part-time, working adult students (the most notable example is the ubiquitous University of Phoenix). The authors note that less than 2 percent of nontraditional students are involved in a for-profit “cyber learning” experience. Additionally, many of these “universities” came to a cyber pop with the tech bubble of the late 1990s. Yet, despite their general financial instability, I think they bear further consideration in lieu of our interest in non-profit education challenges.

Western Governors University (WGU) and the California Virtual University (CVU) are two failed online university ventures noted in Ch 3. A more detailed analysis of the issues facing these organizations can be found with Berg (1998), who cites both WGU and CVU as “revealing examples of the complex issues involved in implementing distance learning.” Below is an excerpt from Berg’s Public Policy on Distance Learning in Higher Education.

"Distance learning has become the focus of a great deal of attention in higher education circles in the past few years. While a fascination with the technology has led to enthusiasm from many, it has met with equally intense opposition from others. On the policy level, the Western Governors University (WGU) and the California Virtual University (CVU) are revealing examples of the complex issues involved in implementing distance learning. Although the technology is certainly important, it has masked the fact that the WGU and CVU initiatives mark the rise of learner-centered higher education and the increased role of business in the academy.”

In comparing and contrasting these two policy efforts the following key issues emerge:

* private industry in higher education
* competency-based vs. seat time credit
* university governance/faculty labor issues
* accreditation
* education vs. training
* state residency and funding
* consumerism in education

Of the key issues identified by Berg, a few stand out as especially important for our discussion.
Consumerism in education is one:

“For many critics of the use of distance learning in higher education, the issue is not the use of technology but the perceived commercialization of the academy. The strong reaction to The California Educational Technology Initiative (CETI) proposed by CSU to contract with four large technology corporations (Microsoft, GTE, Fujitsu, and Hughes Electronics Corp.) to provide technology and networking to CSU campuses is a current example of this reaction. The deal was put on hold at the end of 1997 when faced with widespread criticism from students and non-participating companies with complaints about the privatization of CSU as a whole. The agreement has now been delayed until the May, 1998 Board of Trustees meeting. However, the state’s legislative counsel, Bion M. Gregory, released a 27- page review of the plan at the end of January, 1998, with the opinion that the deal was illegal because it would put the university in the role of a profit-making entity (Young, 1998). Contrary to this opinion, others defend the agreement because it provides much needed funding for technology infrastructure and allows for open bidding for services and equipment. Furthermore, it is argued that the agreement does allow CSU to go to other providers for a lower price if necessary (Wilson & David, 1998, p. B15).”

We can tie this all back to our non-profit private education sisters; should they try to reach out to nontraditional students and lure them away from the siren’s song of for-profit cyber learning? Or is 2 percent such a puny market share of nontraditional students interested in online learning that resources could be better spent elsewhere than bolstering their outreach for continuing education programs?

Berg, G.A. (1998). "Public Policy on Distance Learning in Higher Education: California State and Western Governors Association Initiatives." Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6 (11). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n11.html

Social Ventures: The New Nonprofits

Young and Salamon ask whether the non distribution of profits still makes sense, or if it is time to shift to social enterprises instead of traditional nonprofit organiztions. The example Richard mentions seems to suggest that it is time for such a shift. Instead of viewing marketization as a threat in which organizations must choose between mission and economic survival, we should be advocating marketization as a method of integrating the provision of common goods with the economy.

There is no question that nonprofits, as they exist, fill a necessary role. However, the growing social enterprise movement has the potential to replace some of our dependancy on charitable donations with profitable enterprise that contributes to economic growth. When organizations are providing a common good and maintain the ability to pay taxes, they are helping the community on two fronts: by directly serving the community and contributing tax revenue.

One example is the Economy of Communion developed within the (Catholic) Focolare Movement. www.focolare.org In brief, the Economy of Communion teaches entrepreneurs to keep their businesses profiable so they can help people by providing jobs and perpetuate a culture of giving through their own organizational and community cultures. By adhering to this or similar business ethics, the haves can help the have nots get what they need for themselves while at the same time stimulating the local economy. This type of strategy reduces the need for common goods while providing more tax revenue for public goods.

Although such an idea may result in financial and job losses to the nonprofit sector, the individuals affected could easily recover. A stronger economy would mean higher job availablity and the shift to social business ventures would inevetably prompt new needs from the nonprofit sector. Anyone care to brainstorm about the ways in which the nonprofit sector would be affected by such a shift?

President Machen the Fundraiser

In today's Gainesville Sun an article says that fundraising is a key part of UF President Bernie Machen's contract. Specifically, the "trustees grade him on bringing in more endowments, alumni gifts, scholarships and new faculty." The article also notes that under the system that evaluates Machen's performance, "60 to 70 percent of his evaluation is tied in some way to bringing more money into the university." I was kind of surprised to see that 60 to 70 percent of Machen's evaluation was related to fundraising, but perhaps I shouldn't have been.

Also, UF has launched a "capital campaign" under which Machen is "expected to sell, and sell hard."

The article says that this December Machen will be rated on his three-year goals, and the trustees expect the campaign to have raised $300 million. Right now supposedly $205 million has been raised. In 7 years, the campaign's aim is $1.2 billion -- at least.

Would you all have thought that fundraising is such a big part of a university president's job? What do you think his pitch is when he's asking for money? (We have a great football team!) Do you think that this job requirement varies at universities depending on their size and stature?

I would love to be a fly on the wall in Machen's office on a typical day.

What's Wrong With Commercial Success?

Private nonprofit institutions of higher research face many challenges today including escalating costs, reduced federal and state appropriations for research, unrelenting competition from the for-profit sector, and the shifting priorities of private philanthropy.

There are many ways that private nonprofit institutions of higher education will respond to these challenges. The authors mention a few of them in the chapter including aggressive marketing to students, commercializing research, and bypassing the competitive process in favor of direct appeals to state legislators and Congress for research dollars.

I take issue with the authors’ discussion of the commercialization of research as a viable response to the challenges listed above. With the passage of the Bayh-Doyle Act in 1980, universities and their research faculty were granted ownership rights for research results supported with federal funds. Because of this law, many universities have enjoyed tremendous commercial success as a result of trademarks, patents, and licenses that were developed at the university. (Can you say Gatorade?)

While I certainly understand the tension (and arguments) that exists between general research (knowledge for the sake of knowledge) and applied research (research for the solution of practical problems), I don’t think that it is appropriate for the authors to assume that one is better than the other. Are we assuming that academic excellence cannot be realized in research that results in commercial success and increased revenue for a university?

Today’s research universities can be both centers of academic excellence and engines of economic progress. If, as the authors suggest, this is not the intent of the major private research universities, then I don’t understand why. The authors state that, “the academic benefits of commercialization of research remain unclear,” and, “important academic values are being threatened.” Maybe I am missing something but I just don’t see how academic values are threatened when university professors are able to take their research, apply it to the solution of real world problems, and generate revenue for their institution as a result.

Rockefeller Foundation Upheaval

As of March 2005 the Rockefeller Foundation has been undergoing a major staff restructuring, eliminating or replacing over 25% of its' employees. They have also been evaluating their grant programs, and have already cut out a culture and arts granting program. The president of the foundation, Judith Rodin, says these changes are overdue and will help the organization reenergize itself, and reinvigorate its' employees. In its' 2005 annual report the foundation tried to warn grantees that 2005's grants were not an indicator of what would be awarded in 2006. The biggest issue for organizations that have been receiving awards from the Rockefeller Foundation, is that they are not saying what programs will be affected. Many organizations that had relied on the foundation for their funding are sitting in limbo waiting to see what will happen with their programs. This is causing great worry for them. Two problems emerge from this scenario:

1. Why is the Foundation being so secretive on its' reorganization? Is it right for them to keep so many institutions in limbo?

2. Most institutions are told that granting is not gauranteed every year by most foundations and grantors. So why do they not make provisions for the "lean" years, or have a backup plan in case funding is not awarded? Is it irresponsible for an organization to put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak, when it comes to their funding?

If you want more information on the Rockefeller Foundation upheaval please read: Big Changes at the Rockefeller Foundation by Ian Wilhelm.

An interesting approach to funding city projects...

So I was reading a story about how governments were slashing recreation department budgets and parks weren't being maintained as well as they have in the past because of the economic downturn, when all of a sudden in the last paragraph they mentioned what some local governments were doing to resolve the problem: soliciting donations from corporations and local nonprofits.

The recreation department supervisor said, "We want to reach out to the community. [Nonprofits and corporations] have their purposes and their goals. Why not join forces?"

Interestingly, she added that a lot of the organizations participated. Hmmm, I wonder why. How easy can it be to say no to government officials that could enact power to investigate the organization?

When government starts asking nonprofits for donations You have to wonder how much longer nonprofits don't have to pay taxes?

Is Higher Education Financial Aid Distributed Fairly?

Salamon's book starts off by saying that nonprofits were created to help serve the underserved when the government fails to provide adequate services (e.g., health, education). So it was a little disturbing to read a study that highlights this problem in my home state of Georgia. The Education Trust study looks at national college enrollment trends and the distribution of financial aid among the children of low-, middle-, and high-income families.

The study found that among the best-prepared low-income students, 20 percent did not go straight to college from highschool because of the availability of financial aid. Compare that to only 3 percent for the well-prepared high-income students.

The study cites the desire by universities and colleges to increase their average SAT scores to influence their U.S. News and World Report rankings as one of the reasons that financial aid is being diverted more to middle-income students than low-income students who have higher test scores on average.

So if the university's scholarships are going to the middle-income students, then the government is stepping in to help the low-income, right? Wrong. Pell grants have not kept up with the soaring costs of tuition/fees, and they only cover around 1/3 of the overall cost of higher education.

What can be done to boost the enrollment of low-income students in colleges and universities? It seems somewhat unrealistic to ask someone who grew up with a family income under the federal poverty limit to take out $20,000 in loans.

Should legislation be considered requiring a certain portion of universities' endowments to be dedicated to serving the poor?

Michigan distributes $100 million in start up capital

The state of Michigan gave out 61 grants totaling $100 million to several groups this past week. The grants were part of the state's new 21st Century Job Fund. Reminiscent of the week's readings on the competitive nature between nonprofits and for-profits, the 61 grants were distributed to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. The organizations could have proposed to use the money for any type of project--though most went to innovative medical proposals. The most interesting part of the grant requirements is that there is an expected rate of return that the organizations must bring to the state in exchange for the start up capital.

Do you think this approach will be helpful for new nonprofits? It does give them the much needed start up funding, but is asking them to become self-funding in addition to giving back to the state too much?

America's Constantly Shifting Mixed Economy

In Chapter Three (“Education and Training”) we are introduced to the world of private nonprofit education including K-12, higher education and workforce training and development. While I found the entire chapter interesting enough, I was especially drawn into the authors’ discussions about private, nonprofit higher education. Perhaps this is because I’ve worked in public higher education, both in a professional administrative capacity in the past and presently as a visiting university professor.

I particularly agree with the “constantly shifting mixed economy” concept that seems to be the recurring thread throughout this chapter. This concept is critically important to the continued strength of our country and is one of the things that make America great and powerful. The authors remind us that we consistently seek to balance private for-profit enterprise, public governance and nonprofit activity in an effort to serve both the public and private good. Clearly, our educational system (comprised of public and private institutions, nonprofit and for-profit, and supported by a menu of resources) reflects this same desire to achieve a balance that will serve the needs of all.

Before the Declaration of Independence has been written, America had institutions of higher education (colonial colleges). And much like that famous document penned by our founding fathers, many of the early colleges and universities also declared an independence from state subsidies so that they could enjoy institutional autonomy.

Throughout the history of higher education in America we continue to see our country’s dedication to a “constantly shifting mixed economy” as laws, bills and federal resources are reshaped to accommodate women, blacks, war veterans, individuals from families with exceptional needs, and more. One of the challenges inherent in a society that allows a mixed economy is that the consumer has the luxury of shopping for the educational opportunity that is best suited for them.

Over time, as the menu of choices for a higher educational experience becomes more extensive, the consumer has questioned the higher costs that are typically associated with private nonprofit institutions. Many are not convinced that the exclusivity of private education is worth the dollars spent. This is particularly evident in the “middle-class-melt”; a phrase coined by the authors to indicate families who can clearly afford a private education but choose a lower-priced public institution instead.

In addition to the affordability factor, there are other challenges as well including the questionable relevance of liberal arts colleges today, dwindling research support from the federal government, competition from for-profit entities and philanthropy’s growing interest in K-12.

The private nonprofit higher education response to these challenges mirrors the tried and true path that we continue to honor in this country; the constantly shifting mixed economy. When I look at the way private institutions are now reengineering their platforms to address the 21st century consumer as well as the 21st century workplace, I see an important element of our educational system shifting and exploring new ways to ‘mix’ their components so that they can continue to thrive. They are a vital player in the balancing act that serves the public and private good.

Paying for a non-profit service

I can only speak about hospitals in regards to health care non-profits charging to fund themselves, as this is the only form of medical service I have used that was talked about in the chapter. As decided in discussion, we derived a charitable service to be on that not everyone pays for, but everyone can use if they need it. So why does the individual get billed when they use the charitable hospital service?

I cannot walk into a hospital and know if they are non-profit or for-profit. I receive treatment and then pay for said treatment. I am paying for the staff that treated me, the staff that handles my paperwork, the staff that runs the hospital, and all of the costs associated in the equipment that is needed for a hospital to function (i.e. the building, lighting, medical devices, etc.).

If the majority of the operating costs needed come from patients paying for the services, and very little comes from donations as pointed out in chapter 2, what is the major difference between a non-profit and for-profit hospital? The salary requirements of a non-profit hospital should be close to that of a for-profit's in order to entice staff to stay and not seek opportunities at a for-profit hospital. Outside of salaries, the operating costs of the two types of hospitals should be pretty equal. So if non-profit and for-profit hospitals produce similar revenues, where does the extra money go in a non-profit hospital that in a for-profit hospital goes to the investors?

Toward Convergence

In Chapter Two of the textbook, the authors Gray and Schlesinger take a necessarily lengthy approach to the exploration of the nonprofit health care industry. In particular they identify twelve major service domains that comprise the industry and then examine the role of nonprofits in each of these domains (or sub-sectors). The authors also highlight major challenges that nonprofits in the health care industry are facing, how the industry has responded to these challenges, and alternative approaches that nonprofits can use to protect their distinctive contributions.

My strongest reactions to this chapter were twofold. First, I am surprised to learn that 50% of the revenues of the entire nonprofit sector come from health service organizations. That statistic alone speaks to the importance of this industry. Second, I am a bit overwhelmed in my efforts to think in a clear and meaningful way about this industry that is so monolithic in scope yet organizationally heterogeneous. Health care easily interfaces with all aspects of our society and our world. The success or failure of it greatly impacts everything that we do.

I believe that if nonprofit health care is going to survive it must reengineer its business model to accommodate important partnerships, collaborations, and relationships that will sustain its growth over the long-term. The authors write about convergence as one of the ways in which the nonprofit sector is responding to the challenges. This is a sensible, logical and thoughtful solution that will reap many benefits for all. Some suggestions are:

1. I think it is time for us to shift the mental paradigms and the unrealistic expectations that continue to shape the health care industry in this country. Medical care is not a bottomless pit of free-flowing services underwritten by insurance premiums and government aid. We need to get a handle on the real costs and then identify creative solutions (a portfolio of revenue sources) to cover those costs.

2. Profit-making entities are not reliable over the long-term for owning health care domains. Profit-making entities are driven by profit and must answer to investors and stakeholders first and foremost. The business model within which they operate demands that once they cannot realize a certain percentage of profit, they cannot remain in the industry as an honest competitor. This means that they will eventually either exit the industry or practice fraudulent behaviors to remain in it. Profit-making entities should be looked to as possible partners or collaborators in the health care industry, but there is huge risk associated with any domain over which they dominate. Privatizing the provisions of specific goods and services to the for-profit sector seems feasible.

3. The health care industry must remain under the auspices of the non-profit sector because there are tremendous community benefits that must be provided by this industry. What’s more, the trustworthiness and professional values that are embodied in the nonprofit sector cannot be duplicated in the for-profit world.

4. Operating a non-profit entity should not be synonymous with poor business practices. Non-profits are granted a tax-exempt status. This does not mean that they cannot adopt some of the sound business practices that are used in corporate America. The authors advise that nonprofits must become a commercial success if they are going to survive in health care. Sound business practices are the map to commercial success.

5. The health care industry is dynamic. Change is inevitable and constant. Non-profits must seek to keep up with those changes.

Are you ready for some football?

Okay so college football is back (thank the gods above, and Go Dawgies!). But there's no team more thankful this week than the Oklahoma State Cowboys. This past summer, OSU athletics received a donation of $165 million to the program from one donor, Mr. Boone Pickens. To put it in perspective, OSU atheletics usually raised around $7 million per year.

Two very interesting points of view are brought up in the article and in the letters to the editor that USA Today received after running the story:

(1) Given the magnitude of this gift, what power will Pickens have in the nonprofit-donor relationship? What happens if OSU continues to be among the worst in the Big 12 athletics (avg. 9th in the league standings)? One former team member commented "The winning better come."

(2) The article quotes faculty members at OSU who criticized the gift because of its focus on academics, and letters to the editor attempt to shame Pickens for not giving to Nicaragua families and educational scholarships. Who are they to criticize someone else's charitable donation? People are certainly well within their rights to donate to any cause they want, and amateur athletics falls within the realm of the nonprofit sector. OSU's president even says in the article, "I'm getting ready to do a huge campaign for student scholarships, and I can go to donors and say, 'Look what Boone did to help us with athletics. Can you help us with academics?'"

If you were the university, how would you respond to the criticism of the gift?

Relationship this, Relationship that

Public relations is the "management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics on whom its success or failure depends" (Cutlip, Center, Broom, 1994, p.2).

Fundraising is "the management of relationships between a charitable organization and its donor publics" (Kelly, 1998, p. 8).

Okay, I'm sure by this point, you've had it drilled into your heads that public relations is not just media relations. We keep saying we're working to build relationships with donors, investors, communities, customers, etc.

We've made some pretty good progress in measuring relationships by focusing on the key components of relationships: trust, satisfaction, commitment, and the balance of power.

But something is missing. Any ideas as to what else could be measured to evaluate a relationship between an organization and its stakeholders? Do you think that virtual relationships (e.g., donating via ePhilanthropy) is the same as "real world" relationships?

Text messaging a donation

Think back to the December 2004 tsunami. The images of families being torn apart by the tides, people being washed out to sea, the destruction of homes and businesses throughout Southeast Asia. It was pretty difficult to watch, especially with it being replayed over and over on the 24-hr news networks.

If you were inclined to make a donation, where did you turn? Probably the Internet, maybe a phone number if you found an 800# to call.

Would you have ever thought of sending a text message to donate?

Throughout Asia and Europe, there were millions who sent donations this way. In Italy, France, and Portugal, telecom companies donated 1 Euro per text message in the time following the response. An interesting gimmick to get more to use the feature, but Asia actually was conducting fundraising campaigns via text message

In Korea and Japan, individuals could text an amount to a certain phone number and that amount would be donated in their name to the International Red Cross. The donation would then appear on their next cellphone bill. An interesting approach to fundraising, especially given the crisis nature of the tsunami.

What do you think? Is this a positive method to raise funds? Do you see any downsides to it?

Is there a way to protect the vulnerable from fundraising scams?

Well last week in class we talked about the American Cancer Society vs. the Cancer Society of America, and wouldn't you know that another scam was reported this week out in CA. The Daily Bulletin out in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., detailed the scam:

"The elderly woman, whose name was not released, was in a shopping center on Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue when she was approached by a woman in her 40s who spoke accented and broken English. The accented woman appeared upset as she asked for the victim's help raising money for African children, according to a sheriff's department statement.

As the victim spoke with the first woman, a second woman, also in her 40s, approached and asked if she could help with a donation of her own. Upon hearing about the charity drive, the second suspect offered to donate $10,000 to the cause. The first suspect then offered to drive the two other women to a bank.

The second suspect entered the bank and returned with an envelope she claimed contained $10,000. The victim then offered to donate $5,000 and asked for a ride to her bank, according to the statement.

The victim gave the $5,000 to the first suspect who appeared to put the cash in an envelope with the first donation of $10,000. The first suspect then put the cash into a piece of knotted up cloth.

The first woman asked the victim to take the money home and keep it for a few days until she could contact her.

The victim found nothing but shredded newspaper once she got home and opened up the cloth, according to the statement."

The one thing I find truly amazing here is that the San Bernardino sheriff said that this would be a very difficult crime to prosecute since the victim willingly gave the "fundraiser" cash.

So I pose two questions to you:

1) Given the lack of regulation or at least the very difficult task of regulating the nonprofit sector's (think about the IRS discussion as an example), what exactly can be done to prevent these type of scams from happening in the future?

and

2) If you were a public relations practitioner for a nonprofit agency, what could you do to distance yourself from such scams being conducted in the name of your cause?