Public Relations Commentary

Increasingly, public relations pracititioners have to know not only how to write for the Web, but also how to manage and respond to blog postings. This blog was created to use in my public relations courses to help my students prepare to blog and learn how to respond to others in a virtual yet professional manner.

Monday, October 30, 2006

"Red Cross Announces Management Overhaul"


I just read an article about major changes that are set to take place at the Red Cross.
Here are some issues their plan focuses on: (The reform must receive congressional approval).

*"Explicitly delegating responsibility for day-to-day operations to the Red Cross'full-time professional management, with the board focusing mainly on longer-term strategic oversight.
*Reducing the board of governors to between 12 and 20 members by March 31, 2012. An interim goal is to have no more than 25 members by 2009.
*Creating a single category of board members. Now, most are elected by local chapters, some are elected by the board, and others, including the chairman, are appointed by the U.S. president.
*Shifting seven of the presidentially appointed governors, all but the chairman, into a newly created Cabinet Council that will be merely advisory."

Read the whole article. It's interesting.

Team in Training

So I had my big week in Chicago. And the big event was the Chicago Marathon (which my boyfriend and his sister ran in). One thing I noticed, was how many non-profit organizations had people running for them in the marathon. Instead of paying the Marathon people directly for your entry fee, you could pay the organization a slightly higher fee to register for it through a non-profit. The LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon spokesperson reported that they had over 40 organizations registered for the race. Most of them were health related, like "Team in Training" who are people that run for the Lymphoma and Luekemia Association. They had the largest contingent, and they were all way too happy! The LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon even has a special website promoting "Run for Charity."
http://www.chicagomarathon.com/page_L2.aspx?subMenu=&Page_ID=5&Nav_2_ID=551&Page_Title=Official%20Charities
http://www.realbuzz.com/thelasallebankchicagomarathon/run_for_charity/
They already have 18 charities signed up for next year's race!! (and all are health realted)
Most orgs also had booths set up at the runners expo the 2 days prior to the race.

Another friend of mine ran the Marine Corps Marathon in DC this past weekend, and the regular registrations were all gone by the time he went to sign up, so he had to sign up through the Tourette's Syndrome Association. He wasn't even a supporter of the organization, but he really wanted to run in the race. So they got his extra money, as did many other organizations I'm sure. What a great way to get money even from people who aren't affiliated with your org.

I just thought this was an interesting observation that non-prof's were making money by affiliating themselves with these marathons.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

The power of AARP

In talking about non-profit organizations catering to a specific demographic, my mind instantly goes to AARP, one of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) non-profits in the country.

Originally created in 1958 to provide private insurance for retired teachers, AARP has branched out over the years to include a wealth of services and benefits for their membership. However, their mission has not changed:
  • To promote independence, dignity and purpose for older persons
  • To enhance the quality of life for older persons
  • To encourage older people "To serve, not to be served
These key principles are evident in their activities today. With a constituency of over 37 million members, AARP is a lobbying force to be reckoned with, advocating for issues that affect the 50+ demographic. But they're very quick to point out that they're a nonpartisan organization that does not support or oppose candidates for office - they concentrate solely on the issues.

Other benefits that AARP provides include discounts on a huge array of products and services, driver safety courses, help with tax preparation, social networking through online message boards and employment assistance, just to name a few.

I encourage you to check out their website (linked above) to learn more about their advocacy work as well as their services for this important demographic, even more so now as the baby boomers are beginning to reach retirement age.

Non-Profits Need a PR Campaign

Non-Profits Need A Serious Public Relations Campaign

So I’m reading Chapter 10 (“Infrastructure Organizations”) and I’m making my way through the material and, with each page turned, I am growing in my understanding of infrastructure organizations, how they serve the non-profit sector as a whole and how some of them serve individual non-profits and their staff.

Then I get to the section of the chapter that provides a history of the public policy challenges that IOs have faced since the 1950s and it becomes very clear to me that the third sector has been seriously attacked over the years and accused of everything from being “un-American subversive activities” to money laundering and tax evasion. The Cox Committee, the Reece Committee, Wright Patman, the one-two punch from the Reagan administration, and the Istook Amendment all represent times in American history when the non-profit world faced incredible problems.

While history also shows us that non-profits have defended themselves against these accusations, I am surprised that no one in the non-profit world has simply launched a common sense campaign that holds the figurative mirror up to the collective American ‘face’ and shows us how much our daily quality of life has been vastly improved (in major and minor) ways as a result of the work of non-profs.

In particular, on p.350 of the chapter, when the authors include the “need for a convincing rationale for the nonprofit sector” as one of the current challenges, I find this incredible. Given all that we enjoy today as a result of the work done by non-profits, how could we possibly question the need for a nonprofit sector? Domestic violence, child abuse, drunk driving, AIDS, the promotion of women in the workplace, the civil rights of minorities, the accurate representation of ingredients in foods, breast cancer, reproductive rights, the protection of our natural resources, forest fires, tobacco products and smoking, literacy, and the beautification of America are just a few of the major issues taken on by non-profits. How many of us are safer, healthier, smarter, happier and more aware today because of the work done by non-profits on these and other issues?

I think the authors present some very good solutions to this challenge; uncover the basic information about the sector and its contributions to society, make sure that nonprofit leaders gain a good grasp of the research-based information that exists, close the culture gap between researchers and practitioners, and identify the unique contributions of nonprofits and justify their special tax treatment.

To these recommendations I would add that the non-profit sector, the IOs in particular, should find a group of talented public relations professionals to plan and implement a long-term campaign that tells the story of what non-profits have accomplished.

Until the non-profit sector becomes better at showing their worth, they will continue to come under the attack of those in positions of power who just don’t understand.

Handling Non-Profit Freeloaders

Handling Freeloaders

Abramson and McCarthy’s chapter on Infrastructure Organizations (IOs) takes a look at a subsector of the non-profit that, quite frankly, I had completely overlooked. When I think about the third sector, it never occurs to me to include the non-profits that serve non-profits.

Throughout this chapter the authors consistently lament the fact that IOs face two incredible hurdles to their long-term success; the subsector orientation of many nonprofits and the difficulty of getting individual nonprofits to pay for the services provided by IOs.

To the first challenge (the subsector orientation of non-profits) I would suggest that any organization providing a service or product that duplicates an existing service or product should identify their value-added. IOs that cannot demonstrate to non-profits how they can add value should seriously question their mission.

The more difficult challenge is the second one; getting individual non-profits to pay for the services provided by the IO. This problem results in non-dues-paying nonprofits enjoying the collective goods that the associations (IOs) provide to the dues-paying members. I don’t think it is possible to completely eliminate “free riders.” However, I do think that there are some things that IOs can do to help reduce the number of non-profits who won’t pay their own way:

1. The authors mention that some IOs look to the larger, very well-established and moneyed non-profits to carry a large portion of the financial load. This allows smaller non-profs to be members without struggling to cover as much of the cost. I think use of a sliding-scale method for assessing membership dues is fair. But I would perhaps take it a step further by establishing an “adoption” or “buddy” program that partners big non-profs with tiny non-profs so that more of the smaller non-profs who perhaps cannot afford to pay the association dues can be involved.

2. The authors also mention that many non-profits want to be good citizens and will pay their membership dues as a show of solidarity. Solidarity (or the desire NOT to be seen as a freeloader in the non-profit community) makes for good publicity. With this in mind, IOs could provide a public list of those non-profits who are dues paying members. This list could be included in their annual reports, fund-raising programs, advertisements, website listings, etc.

3. Association fundraisers are another way to raise money to provide membership scholarships for smaller non-profs that cannot pay the membership dues.

4. Create meaningful incentives for those non-profs that pay the membership fees. Make it worth their while to pay the dues!

Friday, October 27, 2006

Class on Weds, Nov. 1

Hey everyone, just a quick note about class this week...

I should be back in Gainesville from my interview at NC State, but just in case, here's what I'd like for you to do:

1) Kirsten and Sara will start off class (with or without me there) talking about infrastructure nonprofits.

IF I'm not back, then get in your research groups and write up an exact plan with all the details (dates, etc.) of when you are going to collect the data for your research group--even if I am back, I'm going to let you break out into your groups near the end of class and prepare this information for me. So go ahead and start talking it over with your group members.

I'm scheduled to be back in town by noon, so I can't imagine that I wouldn't be back in Gainesville by the time the infrastructure presentation would be completed.

I'll cover the Salamon chapter on demographic, technology, and leadership changes in nonprofit organizations--but I'm mostly going to focus on leadership and we'll do some exercises to see what type of leaders we all are and the implications of those leadership styles for nonprofit organizations.

Y'all have a great wkend, and I'll be checking my email and the blog over the course of the next few days so if you have any questions feel free to contact me!

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Nature Conservancy in our backyard


I came across a story about the Nature Conservancy and Silver Springs, which is in Marion County.

"4,500-acre swath of environmentally sensitive land north of Ocala that developers once planned to flatten and carve into a 14,000-home subdivision will be spared that fate ... Under the agreement, the DEP will pay about two thirds of the $76 million, the Nature Conservancy will pay about one-third of the bill and Marion County will kick in $2.5 million. Next year, the state will buy out the Nature Conservancy's share, turning the property into public land, said Keith Fountain, Nature Conservancy director of protection."

Read the whole article.

(Photo from Ocala.com)

Monday, October 23, 2006

The Nature Conservancy, the Press, Accountability and Benoit

Reading over Stephenson and Chaves article “The Nature Conservancy, the Press and Accountability,” all I can think about is Benoit’s research in image repair and restoration.
Stephen and Chaves’ paper points out the change in TNC’s communications reaction to the Post’s series. Not only did real changes occur in the internal governance, but “the organization also underwent something of an attitude adjustment, moving from a publicly defensive stance to a considered posture of conciliation and cooperation,” (p. 361).

Benoit’s (1995) image repair strategies:
Denial (deny the act occurred or that the accused organization was involved)
Evasion of Responsibility (make excuses)
Minimization (justification for actions/wrong-doings)
Corrective Action (offer to repair damage and make changes to prevent reoccurance)
Mortification (apologize)

It seems to me that The Nature Conservancy began their reactive strategy with Evasion, Denial Minimization, during which Conservancy president McCormick provided a Post retort and website response; “although both the Web site critique and column acknowledged mistakes, neither offered and apology,” (p. 358). Later, real changes were made that were more in line with the Corrective Action response. Yet, I don’t believe that TNC ever crossed into the Mortification response, which would have included a public apology to all of the organization’s stakeholders.

I like Benoit’s ideas on image repair, but do you think it neatly applies to The Nature Conservancy’s issues? Would Mortification have been the next appropriate step?

Accountability should be the name of the game

I think it is great that non-profits are looking into the companies for which they own stock. Everyone in America should be holding corporations accountable for their actions, and having the non-profit sector participate in this awareness is great news. I see owning stock in a company that does not support he mission of the non-profit as a conflict in interest, and now some non-profits are seeing things the same way. Of course, many articles we have read for this week prove that not all companies are behaving in economically or socially responsible ways. Maybe others of you can comment more intelligently on shareholder resolutions and proxy, two terms in the foundation investment readings that I am encountering for the first time.

Shacking Up with the Enemy?

There is no question that, in its history, The Nature Conservancy has made great contributions to the environmentalist movement. Forming alliances with the opposition is an admirable way of attempting to reach mutual gains. Activist groups too often have negative experiences with corporate entities ranging from not having all of their demands met to (quite often) having corporations be unwilling to engage in dialogue or even worse, communicating for the sake of their image, yet having clear intentions to not make any modifications that will hurt profits—regardless of whatever moral implications might be involved. This dynamic too often leads activist groups to what (believe it or not) is a last resource: publicly criticizing the offending corporation(s).

If this three-part expose consists of true unveilings all around, I find it particularly shocking that The Nature Conservancy would not take an official stance on the two issues that environmental groups have devoted much effort to addressing: drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and Global Warming—especially if it had to do with its ties to corporations. In addition, having a close relationship with Exxon Mobil, a company that is notorious for its aggressive lobbying efforts against most environmental legislation, is to say the least questionable. However, as a public relations principle, the idea of an environmental group forming relationships with “the enemy,” as long as positive outcomes are being reached, is preferable to not having any dialogue at all.

Conserving Greed

I was very shocked to read how the Nature Conservancy handled Mobil Oil's generous land donation. From the Washington Post article titled, "How a Bid to Save a Species Came to Grief," it seemed like saving Attwater's prairie chicken was a second thought to the possible profits made from drilling. I can't understand any argument that says drilling is in line with nature conservancy.

If that wasn't enough, the Nature Conservancy stole and sold gas that wasn't even theirs. "Soon the Conservancy was selling gas owned by all the rights holders on the south and north tracts." Perhaps one of the final blows was the Nature Conservancy's responsibility in the death of more birds in what I consider a ridiculous oversight. "I was shocked to find, for example, that one of the release pens is subject to flooding in heavy rains, and that birds have drowned in the pen." How could the Nature Conservancy overlook that?

Yet after all the lawsuits and embarrassment, they still continue to pump gas from Texas City. How can a non-profit whose sole mission is to preserve land to protect species get away with these kind of practices and continue damaging this fragile environment? What does Mobil Oil have to say about what is happening to their donation and wish to protect this endangered species?

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Nonprofits, the latent public

This is a re-post, since I thought we were covering this last week...

The examples of Nature Conservancy land deals provided by the Chronicle of Philanthropy seem a gross misuse of charitable funds and an abuse of the organization’s tax exempt status. According to the organization’s website, www.nature.org, “The Nature Conservancy's mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” Rather than adhering to its mission, the land deals disclosed seem to focus on improving the organization’s financial return, as was the case with the foundation investing practices described in the other readings.To play devil’s advocate, there is no reason that conservancy lands must be open for public use, nor is it reprehensible that the organization tries to seek a balance between healthy industries and a protected environment, but none of these cases seem to benefit the environment. Driveways, tennis courts, and swimming pools amid a professional landscape architect’s botanical design may be greener than a tract of double-wide trailers or high rise condominiums, but it is still development that puts the desires of people above the needs of the “natural community” that would otherwise exist. If the Nature Conservancy was a for profit land developer, then their tactics might be considered admirable. However, since such an organization would not be very likely to turn a profit without a tax break, it is, in reality an opaque organization that showcases government’s lack of nonprofit regulation. The more we learn about nonprofits, the more I believe that the IRS is overlooking a profitable latent public that could result in huge increases in tax revenue at the cost of enforcing existing rules.

Hooray loopholes

The Nature Conservancy has gone whacko linking itself as closely as it has with Fortune500 companies. Board members of the nonprofit that are the heads of the companies paying multi-million dollar fines for violation of environmental rules. Who are they trying to fool. This has to be some form of corporate incest. The practice of purchasing land in order to conserve it seems like a noble mission. But using your own protected land to carry out a drilling experiment that is to prove land can be drilled without harming endangered species occupying that land and then having the experiment fail isn't justifiable. Why did the federal government allow this action when there are endangered species on the land.

And why not exploit the federal government even more while you're at it. There are so many loopholes with the IRS that we should even be surprised there is a story here. Because the source happens to be one of the largest nonprofit organizations we hear about it. But what about all of the nobody individuals that take advantage of IRS loopholes. Are news stories written about them so the public can learn what these loopholes are and take a stand against them.

Yes it does seem a bit odd to purchase land in order to conserve it and then sell it and allow many things to happen to it that can damage the land, the restrictions on the land do seem like they will do a good job conserving most of the land for many years. It was mentioned that the sold land is not marked for public access, but where did the Nature Conservancy say they are buying land in order to preserve for the public to access it. The land is being sold to Nature Conservancy trustees or board members past or present and if you are that involved in the organization you should support the organization’s goals. So give the benefit of the doubt to the land buyers that will preserve the land, minus how much is being used by the home built on it.

The Nature Conservancy's incestuous relations are awkward, but without them would the organization have gained as much power in order to purchase all the land they are preserving. And you can't fault the organization for selling a piece of preserved land to a trustee, because the trustee should be wanting to conserve the land. At fault is the loophole being exploited in order to receive the tax break.

A quick regression ...

I was watching the news today and heard about a church in California that is being investigated by the IRS and it's tax-exempt status is being threatened. So I did some quick Internet research because I thought you guys would be interested.

"The Internal Revenue Service began investigating whether All Saints, one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country, violated the prohibition against tax-exempt organizations intervening in election campaigns by supporting or opposing candidates."

All Saints is a church in Pasadena, Calif. The issue relates to a sermon that was given right before the 2004 election in which a preacher described a hypothetical conversation between Jesus, Bush and Kerry. Read the sermon. Read the letter the IRS sent to the church.

According to NPR, the IRS is examining about 60 churches over complaints stemming from endorsements by churches in the 2004 election. NPR also notes that it's illegal for a tax-exempt organization like a church to endorse or criticize candidates.

Here's an article in the San Francisco Chronicle for more info. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/02/CHURCH.TMP

Here's the church's Web site: http://www.allsaints-pas.org/all_saints_church.htm

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The Nature Conservancy

Hey everyone, thanks for a great class last night! For this coming week, please make at least one post about the Nature Conservancy--solely based on the readings that are on the class CD-Rom. What do you think of the organization based on the news articles? Did they make you reconsider how you picture the Nature Conservancy?

After you've read them and posted the blog, skim through the journal article on the Nature Conservancy--and we'll discuss that in class on Wednesday.

Also, if you picked up a copy of the blogging survey--remember you can use it to replace an extra blog for this wk, any previous wk, or any future wk. I just need them turned in next Wednesday night.

Have a good wkend--and the email with the link to the annual report project will be coming up shortly!

Monday, October 16, 2006

Put on your thinking caps!

Ok, so I am burning up this blog today ... I'll try not to make a habit of it. This has nothing to do with this week's topics, but I thought it was interesting. (Which means ya'll will too, right?)

UF donor resigns in stock scandal
THE CEO OF A HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY HAS UF BUILDINGS BEARING HIS NAME.

This article is in today's Alligator, BUT it's an AP article! If the AP picked it up ....

If you were in charge of public relations for the university, what would you do following the release of this news?

**Note: The museum students will probably know of this person.**

Are all non-profits protected equally? (Posting for Oaklianna)

According to the NY Times article, no. From licensing requirements, pension protection, unemployment benefits, to local property taxes, religious organizations are exempt from important legal requirements in which other non-profits are held accountable. I was most amazed that when it comes to the social service of child care, religious organizations are exempt from many federal, state, and local laws. Non-profits are given tax breaks because social needs are being met, but at what cost? When it comes to providing child care all organizations should be treated equal. The Alabama example states that a non-profit child day care center must pay licensing fees, have the building up to code, and even satisfies requirements on age appropriate toys, the religious organization providing the same service need not worry about any of these things (in legal terms only). If that wasn’t unfair to enough, when it comes to government aid to child care centers, both licensed and unlicensed can receive money. Now you have one segment of the population carrying a proportionately heavier percent of the burden, ie nonprofit day care centers v. religious day care centers.

Since the article mentioned Florida as a state that has exempted religious child care programs, I decided to look it up online. Here is some basic info:

A child care facility may claim Religious Exemption from
licensure if:

1) It is an integral part of a church or parochial schools conducting
regularly scheduled classes, courses of study or educational programs.
2) It is accredited by, or by a member of, an organization that publishes
and requires compliance with its standards for health, safety and
sanitation.
3) It meets background screening requirements in ss. 402.305, 402.3055,
and 435.04, Florida Statutes.

A list of accrediting organizations is maintained by the Department of Children
and Families and may be found on www.myflorida.com/childcare.

Religious exempt child care facilities must submit an affidavit annually to the Department of Children and Families stating all child care personnel have worked at the facility on a continuing basis since initial screening or have complied with screening requirements. This form is the Religious Exemption Statement (CFFSP 5215) and may be obtained on www.myflorida.com/childcare.

Section 402.316(1), F.S., provides religious exemption from the provisions of ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., except for the requirements regarding screening of child care personnel.

A child care program may not operate and care for children until these
requirements have been met. Please contact the licensing office in your area for further information on religious exemption.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/childcare/index.shtml

It seems that in the state of Florida there are at least two important safeguards in place. One is that the religious day care center must be accredited even if it is not licensed. And the second is that, when it comes to hiring staff, background checks are mandatory. Religious day care centers might not be the legal free for all the New York Times article makes them out to be. My only concern is keeping legalities for all non-profits equal and fair.

Holy Land exempt from property tax??

After reading Lisa's NYT article titled "Secular Laws Cede to Religious Exemptions," I came across an interesting passage that prompted me to do a little searching.

"In recent years, a church-run fitness center with a tanning bed and video arcade in Minnesota, a biblical theme park in Florida, a ministry's 1,800-acre training retreat, etc... have all been granted tax breaks by local officials, or when they balked, by the courts or state legislators."

And I'm thinking --- wait a minute! Shane and I just drove by said biblical theme park last weekend - I know that place... The Holy Land Experience. Ah yes, I've always wondered what delights a child could find in this mini Jerusalem right next to Disney and Universal Studios. Have you always wanted to see a musical version of the crucifixtion? If you answered - YES! - than you can start planning your next trip to Orlando.

Well apparently, The Holy Land Experience has gone through a very long and nasty legal battle to obtain some of these religious tax exemptions that Lisa's NYT article discussed. A BBC News article from July 2005 states:
"Despite its emphasis on entertainment, the Holy Land Experience has argued that it should be classed along with churches and museums and be exempt from property taxes. In her ruling, the judge said that it had not been proved that the Holy Land Experience was using its profits for anything other than "evangelising and worshipping". The Holy Land Experience was facing a demand for unpaid property taxes dating from 2001 that almost totalled $1m, a sum its lawyers argued would have forced the park to close down."

In addition to this report, further searching found an update to the situation in a recent Miami Herald article:
"The park scored a major victory this summer when Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill granting a property-tax exemption to nonprofit organizations that display biblical manuscripts or that stage scenes from the Bible. Holy Land paid a team of lobbyists between $10,000 and $30,000 to push the legislation through, according to lobbyists' records."

Wow! The Holy Land Experience isn't messing around is it? I'd love to hear some opinions on this one.



Pass the Plate

After reading the chapter on religious congregations, the part that was most interesting to me was that of "securing adequate financial resources." I already knew that most money that churches receive comes from individual donations. I just was surprised that "three-quarters of congregations receive at least 90 percent of their income from individual donations" (p. 283). I'm Catholic, and I cane think of many times at mass when the collection plate went around several times. Once for the parish, another time for a fund for some other party, and maybe on occassion a third time for something else.

I was SHOCKED that "the median congregation has only about $1,000 in a savings account" (p. 284). Maybe I'm really naive but that is amazing. How can these religious organizations reach out to the community and participate in various actitivies for the good of the less fortunate when they barely have enough money for the upkeep of facilities and paying the salaries of clergy members?

I was surprised by this quote: "...we might expect congregations to respond to the financial pressures exerted by demographic changes by seeking to reduce their dependence on individual donations" (p.285). But how is this possible? If 90 percent of their income is coming from individuals, how can they reduce this dependency?

I was looking at the Web site for the church I go to in Gainesville (ok, when I go..) and I thought this might be of interest.. parishoners can now donate online to the parish, and here is a breakdown of all of the things you can donate to (on that page, click on "click here to donate online") : http://holyfaithchurch.org/default.aspx

Also of interest is that during the weekend of Oct. 8, the parish raised $20,078.56. That amount is from 410 parishoners/families. Here is a break down of what people gave money to (see page 4 of this bulletin):
http://holyfaithchurch.org/bulletin/_upload/20061015_B_Bulletin%2010-15-06.pdf

What are your thoughts/reactions?

Disaster Relief exercise

Last week during the in-class exercise about the Red Cross disaster relief program I was surprised to discover that many of you did not choose to tackle the misunderstanding about the voucher program head-on. I was even more surprised as I began to realize that not explaining the voucher program right away was the correct answer. Most of you quickly recognized that you had an image problem and, due to the short time window, went after the image problem.

My inclination was that to address the image problem by direct mailing materials showing how successful the relief effort had been was dishonest and disrespectful to the donors, because it didn’t confront the actual problem. It has always been my approach to view donors as my peers, people who are capable of the same level of understanding that I am. If they do not understand the voucher program it is because it has not been described to them. If that lack of understanding of a program leads them to distrust the organization it is because the media has exploited their gut-level emotional response to the disaster for its own purposes.

The problem with taking the voucher program and grappling with it right away is, of course the outside chance that the American public is too slow to grasp it, and that it puts the organization in a confrontational position with the media. Saying, “the media exploited your emotional reaction to the disaster just to get you to sit through another eight commercials, whereas we exploited your emotional response to the disaster for the sake of hungry families” may not be a compelling enough reason to make people donate.

Interestingly, some of you knew that right away. What things came to mind that led you directly to the correct conclusion, whereas it has taken me almost a week?

The Catholic Church and Christian charity in Latin America


Since this week’s topic is religion, I thought it will be interesting to share some of the perspectives given in a book that I am reading about philanthropy in Latin America. In case if you are interested the name of the book is “philanthropy and social change in Latin America”.

I like to compare the cases/situations that we see in the U.S. with other cases from the Latin American region. At one point in our class I thought, do we (Latin Americans) really do philanthropy? The answer was some kind yes… We may not call the practices volunteerism or fundraising because we are more disorganized and perhaps forget to name the activities or practices, but philanthropy definitely exists. So, I started thinking when I was in a kid in Costa Rica about the number of times that my family and I visited the children’s hospital just to chat with ill orphans (volunteerism), the in kind donations that the community made to the retirement home in my town (donations) and the “x” number of hours that my grand father donated to the events organized by Catholic Church (volunteerism). These are just a couple of examples of philanthropic practices in my country that are strongly related with religion especially the Catholic.

I want to point out some facts that this book mentioned. In Latin America, it is not surprising that the Catholic Church has played a central role in the history of philanthropy, given that 80-95 % considered themselves of the Catholic faith. During the Colonial period, the Church was the principal provider of education, health and social welfare services. During the 20th century, social movements were inspired by the new ideals and a number of Catholic activists were founders and members of grassroots organizations, NGOs and human rights groups. At the end of the 20th century almost all doctrinal within the Church were reflected in hands-on initiatives with preferential concern for the poor.

Presently, things have changed for the Catholic Church. The Church continues to play an important role in all forms of philanthropy, even though its historical influence appears to have diminished in comparison with past eras. It is also interesting to highlight the diversity of religious faiths and organizations operating in the region today, including various strands of Judaism, Protestant, evangelical groups and even Muslim communities. Some examples of their work are: human rights movement in Peru, the campaign against the hunger in Brazil, and the mobilization of humanitarian responses to the Argentine crisis in 2000. The book also mentions an organization named Catholic Relief Services http://www.crs.org/ an organization that focus on development, human rights and social justice for low-income communities. It is the first time that I hear about this organization but I noticed that has projects in 99 countries.

It will be interesting to share the philanthropic practices from other religions in the U.S. or other countries, what do you think?

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Experiences with special events....

So I figured I would share this story with you all in an effort to show that special events aren't the greatest tactic to pursue, but they do have their places in nonprofits.

When I was coordinating the national Toys for Tots campaign, we were doing nationwide "first toy donation" days where city mayors were making the first official donations of toys to the campaign to kick it off in late October. Well, everything was going quite well until the mayor of an unnamed Michigan town (think the Tigers) said that he would be glad to participate. Then, shortly thereafter, his press secretary calls us to ask if he needed to buy his own toy to donate or if we would be providing one. Okay, that's a legitimate question. So we say that it would be preferrable if the mayor would make a genuine charitable contribution during the event just in case the media found out we provided the toy. She agreed. Then, two hours later, we got another phone call "should the toy be for a boy or for a girl?" We discussed beanie babies and all sorts of new, fun toys that were either "too expensive" or "not flashy enough." What took 30 minutes to set up with other cities wound up taking 4 days to finally get things approved with this administration. And, to top it all off, the mayor was late---but at least the toy wasn't forgotten. So I guess it could've been worse.

Anyone else have any special event stories--positive or negative--that they'd like to share? Run-in's with volunteers, carefree caterers?

Reminder for the Week!

Just wanted to give you a reminder that if you have any special requests for pizza (am planning on ordering at least one cheese/veggie one) to let me know. You'll probably want to bring your own drinks as I have no way of keeping them cold while I'm completing my oral defense.

Also, remember this week we'll be covering religious nonprofits (Lisa's presentation)--remember to read the NY Times article that was handed out in class--and special event management.

Then, nxt week, we'll get into the really fun ethics and crises topic.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Nonprofits, the latent public

The examples of Nature Conservancy land deals provided by the Chronicle of Philanthropy seem a gross misuse of charitable funds and an abuse of the organization’s tax exempt status. According to the organization’s website, www.nature.org, “The Nature Conservancy's mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” Rather than adhering to its mission, the land deals disclosed seem to focus on improving the organization’s financial return, as was the case with the foundation investing practices described in the other readings.

To play devil’s advocate, there is no reason that conservancy lands must be open for public use, nor is it reprehensible that the organization tries to seek a balance between healthy industries and a protected environment, but none of these cases seem to benefit the environment. Driveways, tennis courts, and swimming pools amid a professional landscape architect’s botanical design may be greener than a tract of double-wide trailers or high rise condominiums, but it is still development that puts the desires of people above the needs of the “natural community” that would otherwise exist.

If the Nature Conservancy was a for profit land developer, then their tactics might be considered admirable. However, since such an organization would not be very likely to turn a profit without a tax break, it is, in reality an opaque organization that showcases government’s lack of nonprofit regulation.

The more we learn about nonprofits, the more I believe that the IRS is overlooking a profitable latent public that could result in huge increases in tax revenue at the cost of enforcing existing rules.

Friday, October 13, 2006

"Nonprofits may be ensnared in lobbyist scandal"

Thought this CNN article might be of interest ...

"Five nonprofit groups, including one of President Bush's biggest supporters, may have broken tax laws and put their tax-exempt status at risk by helping convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a Senate Finance Committee report concludes."

Read entire article.

Go Gators!

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Who is responsible for evaluation?

Marilyn Wyatt (2002) on the Global Policy Forum (http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/credib/2002/08access.htm) suggested in her article that the board of directors are responsible for evaluation.

"Around the world, many nonprofit governing bodies—be they boards of directors, supervisory boards, management councils, or some other group—have yet to step up to the responsibilities that, at least theoretically, motivate their very existence."

This is a different view from the articles that we were assigned. In Hoefer (2000), the study showed that evaluation is often conducted under "coercion" or being pushed by their boards to evaluate.

Wyatt (2002) suggests that it is, in fact, the board of directors job to deal with evaluation so that the organization can continue with its mission. This would help to eliminate some of the concerns expressed by participants in Hoefer's (2000) study. These concerns include time, money, staff to do the job. Often evaluation is not conducted due to these restraints.

As it relates to the previous discussion about paying board members: Is this a reasonable expectation (expecting board members to conduct evaluation) given that they are traditionally volunteer advisors?

Whose job is it to do the evaluation? How much time would evaluation take from the organization's programs that are made to advance its mission?

"The absence of competent governance structures and processes hampers the development of both individual organisations as well as the sector as a whole." (Wyatt, 2002). This point is important, I think. How can non profits effectively evaluate themselves if there is no standard of evaluation. Ultimately, does evaluation count if there is nothing to compare it to?

Monday, October 09, 2006

“Why are evaluations not conducted and why are they conducted?”

Of all Hoefer’s research questions, I found the results of the agencies’ reasons for (and for not) conducting evaluation to be especially interesting.
Initially the Hoefer's agency excuses for lack of evaluation look the same: not enough money and not enough staff time. * Yawn * But look closer, dear readers, to see a new defense- the agency funder. 43% (we’ll say nearly half for impact’s sake) claimed that they had not conducted any sort of evaluation in the last two years because their funder didn’t require it. Is this a hint of apathy, or just plain old cost-benefit decision-making?
Furthermore, 39% said that they did conduct evaluation because their funders required one. Who knew the agency funders could play such a big role in evaluation plans?
Do the United Ways and other big funders have a responsibility to, as Hoefer asserts, “set the standard for what is acceptable organizational administrative practice”(p. 169)?

A final scary result from the above research question was that a whopping 14% felt there was no need to conduct an evaluation. Hell, make excuses, blame the budget, let your bottom lip quiver in fledgling non-profit glory, but to offer that evaluation wasn’t necessary is an issue in itself altogether. This is not a problem that can be solved by throwing a little more money at it. Rather, I place this back in the hands of funders to emphasize the necessity that is apparently missing. Sometimes a little red tape is a necessary evil.

Earthquake in Pakistan...so what?

The topic of accountability reminded me of the discussion that was held in class a couple of weeks ago related to celebrities being accountable when they become advocates for a cause. We discussed the Tsunami telethon and where those donations ended up; we even compared the aid pledged by the U.S. in comparison to other countries.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the magnitude 7.6 earthquake in the Pakistan and India border that killed 80,000 people and destroyed 600,000 homes, 6,500 schools, 800 clinics/hospitals, and 4,000 miles of roads. Something that I wondered last year and still wonder today is, "Why did the victims of this earthquake not receive the outpouring of aid and press coverage that the victims of the Tsunami did?"

If I recall correctly, the Tsunami occurred the day after Christmas in 2004, with its relief efforts occurring early in 2005, then Katrina devastated New Orleans in August. Understandably, there was an enormous amount of aid and coverage for Katrina victims because they are our own. Then the earthquake happened in October, and although it was covered, I certainly did not see the same level of coverage that I did for the other two disasters. I don't think that there was a telethon to help the earthquake victims. Does this mean that in 2005, after "dealing" with the Asian Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, the American public suffered from donation fatigue?


Here are a few paragraphs from the AP story on the anniversary of the earthquake (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061008/ap_on_re_as/quake_anniversary):

"But the IDPs (internally displaced people) we continue to serve tell us that the job is not over yet," said Kirsten Zaat, spokeswoman for the council's Pakistan-based operations. "Substantial humanitarian needs remain, and a predictably harsh Himalayan winter is just around the corner."

On the Indian side of disputed Kashmir — where more than 1,300 people were killed by the quake — hundreds of people staged a demonstration Sunday, complaining they had not received promised aid. A similar protest was staged in Islamabad on Saturday.

While hundreds of shiny tin roofs of makeshift shelters dot the tree-covered mountainsides, officials in Kashmir say only 5 percent of people will have finished permanent homes before winter arrives. Tens of thousands of people could migrate to tented camps from upland villages to escape the freezing weather.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Evaluation Monster Rears Its Pretty Head


If there's one thing I've learned during my time in the public relations Master's program, it's that evaluation is an ever elusive little monster. Public relations cannot seem to find a solid way to evaluate programs, and apparently the profession is not alone. Hoefer's article raises several interesting points regarding nonprofit accountability.
  • United Way of Dallas' initative "to work with local partner agencies to make program evaluation results a required part of the funding application process" (p. 169) seems to be a great start in promoting accountability in nonprofits. But what about those that aren't local partner agencies? How can they be spurred to pursue evaluation and in turn, accountability?
  • It seems imperative that nonprofits find some way to conduct better research. Hoefer notes that "conversations with agency directors and funders indicated that there would not be any evaluations in the Dallas area that used true experimental design" (p. 173). I realize that these findings cannot be generalized to all nonprofits, but how do "we" promote better research methods in nonprofit evaluation? Is it acceptable to do something rather than nothing? Should the results from "relatively weak designs" (p. 172) have much weight? Obviously, as mentioned in the article, evaluation takes time, money, and man-power therefore many nonprofits cannot afford to do evaluation. How do nonprofits solve this problem in the midst of trying to give as much money as possible to their clients while also fairly compensating employees, etc?
  • I found the following quote to be very telling: "The combination of weak designs and unknown measures is troubling because conclusions based on such research are not necessarily valid. Providing possibly inaccurate information to stakeholders, even in good faith, does not lead to a high level of accountability" (p. 174).

Does anyone have these answers? If so, you could probably make a lot of money ...

Accountability and the United Way

As you all know, I'm a big supporter of the United Way. Seeing as their name comes up any time that nonprofit scandals are mentioned (several of our readings this week were no exception), I decided to cruise over to their web site and see what they had to say about their standards of accountability. Brian Gallagher, the national president and CEO, had these thoughts on the matter....
The fact is, today’s increased expectations of nonprofit organizations by policymakers and the general public actually constitutes a positive development for our sector. Those organizations that deliver on these expectations will strengthen their reputations and increase their competitive standing. Those that fail to do so risk their very existence. The non-profit sector needs to become more market driven and more responsive to the needs of community investors, in addition to maintaining higher standards of accountability and transparency. Good intentions alone don’t merit good will.

Accordingly, United Way of America established new Standards of Excellence, a comprehensive description of aspirational benchmark standards and best practices that are designed to enhance the overall effectiveness of the 1,350 United Way affiliates. They reflect the organization’s fundamental shift from its traditional role as a “pass through” fund raising organization to working with community leaders to identify and address long-term societal needs and improve people’s lives.

The release of the Standards of Excellence follows the implementation of new, stringent membership requirements for financial reporting and accountability. For United Ways across the nation, these standards reaffirmed the values of transparency, accountability and disclosure through compliance with our robust membership accountability requirements. However, over the last three years, there have been more than 50 United Ways that could not meet one or more of our stringent standards and have been disaffiliated.

Today, the primary measure of the United Way’s success is no longer the fundraising thermometer, but rather how well we deliver on our mission to make measurable improvements in communities nationwide. Local United Ways throughout America will offer an accounting of their operations against this key metric and we look to our investors, volunteers, partners and society as a whole to hold us to this higher standard.

It would appear that Mr. Gallagher's vision for accountability and governance is working pretty well, as evident by the Snapshot of Resources for 2004-2005. However, while revenue is up in the majority of categories, their planned giving has dropped off by 30%. In contrast, "Leadership and Tocqueville giving continues to grow far faster than the overall campaign (124% for Leadership/Tocqueville vs. 15% for the campaign over the past decade)." If I read this right, it would appear that donors would much rather give money now (Tocqueville Society membership requires a $10,000+ annual contribution) than leave funds to the organization through their wills, estates, trusts, etc (I believe that's essentially what planned giving is - right, Richard?).

**EDIT**
While the United Way isn't using funds raised as their benchmark, the numbers on the report show that they've been pretty effective in their efforts to repair some of the damage done to their image by the scandals over the years. But should they be worried about the drop in planned giving? As Richard said, planned giving is usually donor-initiated, prompted by a long relationship with the organization. Do these numbers mean that the UW isn't doing enough to cultivate these long-term relationships? Or is it just that donors prefer to receive "instant gratification", as it were?

Thoughts?

Arts in Schools

Gainesville is lucky to have within its district a "Whole Schools Initiative" school. The "Whole Schools Initiative" is a model program that was begun in Mississippi. It's goal is to bring arts back to the classroom. Duval Elementary School in Gainesville is the only one outside of Mississippi participating in this program. Which I found very impressive. When grading began in Florida, Duval was graded an "F" school. The teachers and community rallied around the school and started teaching various culture and art classes against the authority of the school board. Within one year the school turned itself around and became an "A" school. Through the assistance of the WSI grant program it is able to get additional funding to support the arts in school model. They are now the crown jewel in the Alachua County School Board District. They are flaunted in front of the Governor's wife and other dignitaries, as well as, other school districts who wish to implement a similar model in their schools.

http://www.mswholeschools.org/

Two issues are very eveident by this story:

One: Schools are publicly funded entities. However, they are still in need of outside financial assistance for programs like the one listed above.

Two: Arts and culture are systematically being slashed from schools across the country. Programs like Duval's are proving that arts and culture make better and more well rounded students.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Oops, Nature Conservancy isn't this week after all...

Sorry about that everyone! The announcement I made this week about the Nature Conservancy isn't applicable after all. So, go ahead and make 2 posts about the accountability readings. I forgot that I moved the Nature Conservancy from the Accountability week to the Ethics and Crises week.

Sorry for the confusion, and have a good weekend!

Thursday, October 05, 2006

NCAA=Philanthropy?

The timing of this article is perfect, given our discussion of the Gator Gala last week and the fact that I'm watching my beloved 'Noles take on NCState as I type this. :-)

NCAA asked to justify tax-exempt status
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2528368


WASHINGTON - An influential member of Congress is questioning whether the NCAA, with its multimillion-dollar television contracts and million-dollar coaches, deserves its tax-exempt status.

"From the standpoint of a federal taxpayer, why should the federal government subsidize the athletic activities of educational institutions when that subsidy is being used to help pay for escalating coaches' salaries, costly chartered travel and state-of-the-art athletic facilities?" asked Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Thomas asked the NCAA to justify its tax-exempt status in a letter sent Tuesday to Myles Brand, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. He asked for a reply by the end of October.

Erik Christianson, a spokesman for the NCAA, said the organization challenged the fundamental assertions that athletics is not part of higher education or that not-for-profit status should be linked with the amount of revenue an organization generates. "We educate student-athletes; they are students first," he said.

Thomas noted that the annual returns filed by the NCAA with the IRS states that the primary purpose of the NCAA is to "maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body."

But he said corporate sponsorships and big television deals — he mentioned a $545 million deal with CBS for television coverage of the NCAA men's basketball tournament — have led many to believe that major college football and men's basketball more closely resemble professional sports.

"How does playing major college football or men's basketball in a highly commercialized, profit-seeking, entertainment environment further the educational purpose of your member institutions?" he asked.

Thomas also said that more than 35 college coaches reportedly receive salaries of at least $1 million a year.

"Paying coaches excessive compensation also makes less revenue available for other sports, causes many athletic departments to operate at a net loss, and may call into question the priorities of educational institutions," he said.

In a similar vein, he asked the NCAA to explain the educational value of public universities spending as much as $600,000 per men's basketball player during the 2004-2005 school year.

Thomas asked the NCAA to provide data on total annual revenues and expenditures for Division I-A football programs and Division I basketball programs.

Thomas in 2004 began a review of the tax-exempt sector. He has also looked into the tax-exempt status of nonprofit hospitals and credit unions.

I don't know about y'all, but I didn't realize that the NCAA had tax-exempt status. I have to agree with Rep.Thomas on this one - I think they're definitely toeing the line of being a charitable organization. His quote says it all - a "charity" whose member organizations have lucrative television deals and the ability to pay their coaches salaries upwards of $1 million.....something just doesn't sit right with me.

I realize that financial success doesn't necessarily determine worthiness as a nonprofit organization, and that, for example, the NCAA doesn't pay the coaches - but as a governing body, they sanction all activities of their member schools. While the athletes are students, the business of college athletics seems to contradict the NCAA's mission to "
"maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body."

What do y'all think? Do you think the NCAA should qualify as a tax-exempt organization, or is Rep. Thomas on the right track in trying to revoke their status?

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Want To Use Your Car To Promote Affordable Housing?



Gov. Bush and the Cabinet approved four new specialty license plates, according to an article in today's Gainesville Sun. One of them promotes affordable housing -- proceeds from the sale of the license plate will go to support affordable housing programs across Florida. Interesting timing considering our topic for this week. The Florida Association of Realtors sponsored a contest to find the design for the plate. The winner, Melissa Bourke, received $1,000. Don't mind me, but shouldn't she donate this money to an affordable housing program?! This makes me laugh. I suppose that if there wasn't an incentive to enter designs, no one would respond would they? Oh, the irony.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Waging a Living


A couple weeks ago, I mentioned a documentary in class that examines the lives of four people struggling to provide for their families while living paycheck to paycheck. While reading the chapter on Housing and Community Development, my thoughts came back to this film and the portraits of these people. The film is called "Waging a Living" and it aired on PBS's P.O.V. series.

I found a few quotes and related questions from the film and wanted to throw them into our discussion this week:

Jean described her frustration in obtaining benefits for her family: “I had gone back and forth to social services asking these people to help, and it just seemed like nobody was hearing me. I went and I explained that I was in dire straits. I needed a place to live. And they told me, ‘Well, this isn't a real estate office.’ And I just looked dumbfounded, I said, ‘You don't understand, I can't afford to live in the house anymore.’”

What are your thoughts when you read about Jean’s plight, and the response of the social workers? What would you advise Jean to do to obtain the help she needed?

"Barbara struggles to balance her responsibilities as a full-time college student, worker, and mother. She makes $8.25 per hour as a counselor at a juvenile detention facility, but her earnings are insufficient to make ends meet. To supplement her wages, Barbara receives a range of government benefits including Medicaid, food stamps, childcare assistance, utility assistance, and subsidized Section 8 housing. Barbara eventually receives a raise to $11 per hour, but her increased earnings make her ineligible for most government benefits. She calculates that by earning an additional $450 a month, she loses almost $600 a month in government aid."

What are your views about Barbara's situation? Particularly, how do you feel about her raise leading to a drastic reduction in her aid?

I'd strongly recommend this film to everyone - you can see a trailer and a few clips on its web site.

Waging a Living Web site

Miami's House of Lies

Miami’s “House of Lies”

In late July of this year, the Miami Herald newspaper published a five-part series that exposed a huge and horrible public housing scandal. Debbie Cenziper is the prolific writer who spent seven months investigating every major building program at the Housing agency in Miami. She is to be commended for her thorough, accurate and fair presentation of the sordid details that surround this story. As a result of the series of articles, much needed action has been taken to clean up the city’s public housing problem.

If you get a chance, you may want to go out to the Miami Herald online (www.miami.com) and pull up the articles. Or you can just “google” the key words “Miami public housing scandal” which will give you direct links to the articles.

I have attempted below to provide some of the major facts surrounding the story.

- In one instance, the Housing Agency paid more than $12 million to developers who promised dozens of houses but built only two, and years later, never returned the money

- In some cases, the Housing Agency allowed developers to take the cash without signing loan documents or pledging land as collateral

- The Housing Agency diverted another $5 – money earmarked to build homes for the poor – to pay for a new office building

- The Housing Agency repeatedly allowed developers to miss construction deadlines on buildings. On 12 projects alone, delays stretched a total of 13 years

- More than $22 million has been spent to replace dilapidated housing in Liberty City with 411 new homes. Only three houses have been built in six years.

- Oscar Rivero is chairman of the Miami Parking Authority and is also one of the developers who promised to build houses for low-income families. Miami-Dade Housing Agency and the Miami Department of Community Development paid Rivero $1.6 million to build 78 houses for low-income families; none of which were ever built.

- In the past five years, the Miami-Dade Housing Agency squandered millions of dollars on failed projects, pet programs and insider deals while thousands of families languished in rotting and unsafe homes.

- A cadre of developers raked in millions of dollars for homes that have never been built

- Overall the Housing Agency pledged more than $87 million to put up 72 developments for the poor, which would result in 8,300 new homes

- 40% of the projects funded between 2003 and 2005 have been canceled and others are being delayed for months and years. Only 14 projects (1/5 of what was pledged) have been completed

- Of the projects that were completed, in many instances the developers bypassed the poor and sold to real estate investors for tremendous profits


There’s a lot more to this story but time and space don’t allow me to cover it all in this blog.

This story made me sick when I read it the first time back in early August, and it sickens me now as I review it again.

Miami is the nation’s least affordable city when it comes to housing, so you can imagine the thousands of low-income families who scrape by in substandard and unsafe housing. Housing authorities are supposed to help families have safe, clean, stable places to live. The Miami Herald states that their city’s housing authority is “flush with land and money.” Instead, the Housing Agency (Miami’s housing authority equivalent) leaders made money for themselves.

This is an example of what happens when policies and procedures are pushed to the side so that insiders in leadership positions can get rich quick. As the author of Chapter Six indicated, the housing industry processes can be so confusing, the low-income residents it seeks to serve are typically not able to be fully engaged in the process because they don’t understand the financing, the partners, the permitting process, etc. As a result, residents are displaced and allowed to languish in horrible housing conditions while they blindly sit and wait for new housing to be built.

You get what you pay for,whether you pay or not.

I am in agreement with Mark Kramer’s argument that “it makes economic sense” to adequately compensate an effective CEO, or board member, as the case may be.

While Pablo Eisenberg, the article’s antagonist, opposes compensation of foundation CEOs in the interest of the foundation’s clients, he fails to account for the larger context of the foundation’s effectiveness. The simple decision to increase grant size or distribution does not, alone, help the organization carry out its mission. If that mission is simple, let’s say “feeding the homeless,” then it is silly to waste a salary on a CEO who simply must decide whether a given charity does or does not feed the homeless. However, if the foundation’s mission is more complex – ending hunger – then that CEO must invest the appropriate amount of time to determine whether a given organization is impacting that mission, with what results, and in what relationship to other organizations working towards the same ends. Any of us could do the work of the first CEO at the end of our 8-hour workday and without compensation. Conversely, we would be hard-put to play the role of the second CEO unless we were in the position to forego the 8-hour workday, working instead for our foundation.

One cannot end hunger, though, simply by feeding the homeless; one must approach the greater issue of hunger. In much the same way, housing subsidies alone cannot work without accompanying efforts towards community development.

While I am not arguing that all board members or foundation CEOs should be compensated, I believe that the decision to compensate must be made within the context in which the organization operates. If someone must work full time to ensure the completion of the mission, that person must be compensated for his or her efforts. Moreover, if your organization needs someone of true CEO caliber, then the organization must pay a true CEO salary.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Once again, a letter to the editor says it best (they should start paying those guys):
“I would never defend the multimillion-dollar salaries of corporate CEO's, and no one needs $400,000 to live comfortably. But the issue is much broader than that. Across the country, nonprofits and foundations seriously underpay their staff at all levels, and the result is deeply detrimental to the level of social impact those organizations achieve” (Kramer, Why Foundation CEO's Deserve to Be Well Paid).

Certainly foundation board executives aren’t asking for seconds of gruel (“Please, sir, may I have some more?”), but their compensation is generally moderate compared to members of corporate boards. Trying to tie a legal cap on the salary of nonprofit foundation executives while letting their corporate cousins run rampant denotes a ‘less than’ status that does nothing good for the legitimacy of nonprofit management. I further agree with Mark Kramer in that, “Taking a vow of poverty shouldn't be required to work constructively for the betterment of society.”

Kramer (and myself) would admit that there are the stories of excess and embarrassing abuses. “Paying millions to part-time trustees of small foundations is egregious and illegal. But surely we can tell the difference between coming closer to market-rate wages throughout the sector and the unmitigated greed of a few bad apples.” Since the compensation is public information, can’t we rely on the power of societal chagrin to help reign in wannabe-Steve-Jobs (who, while a public corporate executive, and not constrained by regulation of nonprofit foundations, has been tongue-lased by the media for his nine–digit yearly compensation)?

If appeals for equality between foundations doesn’t work for you, what about quality of foundations? Bryson and Schulz’s Board Debate argues that reasonable compensation is required to appeal to higher quality candidates, particularly those with strong technical, professional or subject matter expertise.
I’ll leave the group with Bryson and Schulz’s closing remarks:
“Both trusts and for-profit boards have a history of paying their trustees. Since the obligations and responsibilities are similar for foundation boards, why shouldn't they be paid the same for the same work?"

Is There A Place for Non-Profits in the Housing Industry?

Is There A Place for Non-Profits in the Housing Industry?

After reading the chapter on “Housing and Community Development” and thinking about the housing market in this country, I am beginning to think that the affordable/subsidized housing model that non-profits are attempting to use – while the cause is certainly much needed and is a good thing to do – is a lopsided “lose/lose” paradigm that has very little possibility of helping to make housing more affordable in this country for those who need it most.

The following facts (1-4) are pulled from the chapter reading. 5-7 are my personal opinion based upon information gleaned over the years from a variety of sources:
1. There have never been enough resources to help all of the people who are really in need of affordable housing. The supply of unsubsidized housing low cost dwellings is diminishing and the quantity of low cost housing that nonprofits can supply is much less than the quantity that is needed.

2. No single existing public sector housing subsidy program provides deep enough assistance to make housing affordable for those families

3. Federal housing subsidies reach only 20% of the families eligible for them.

4. Most low-income households live in market-rate housing where they pay relatively high rent AND live in substandard, poor quality.

5. One of the Greatest American Dreams continues to be to own your own home; property ownership…and yet fewer and fewer people will ever realize this dream because of rising housing costs. Personal Finance 101 teaches us that one’s monthly housing costs should never exceed more than 1/3 (or 30-33%) of one’s take-home monthly income. I suspect that there is a significant number of Americans who would be relegated to substandard housing if they could only use 1/3 of their monthly income on housing.

6. The fundamental economic principles upon which our real estate industry is established make it fiscally illogical to place homes of unequal value in the same neighborhood or vicinity.

7. Real estate is considered the number one investment opportunity in America. It is low-risk investment with almost guaranteed returns that far exceed the initial financial investment. It is based upon the premise that a home continues to appreciate in value. That appreciation is largely dependent upon the LOCATION of the home.

I’m not convinced that there is an honest, legitimate place for non-profit entities in the housing industry; the highly profitable industry of real estate for which nonprofits are responsible for less than 2% of the nation’s housing stock! I think I would rather see the following:

· Place nonprofit emphasis on community development (i.e., quality of life factors, training and development, economic development, etc.) so that families who must dwell in subsidized housing can live with the same pride, dignity and safety of those who live in market-rate housing.

· Enforce financial disincentives and reasonable penalties for housing authorities that do not manage public housing in a manner that is safe, crime-free and civilized.

· Overhaul the CDCs (their purpose and successes as they relate to housing are highly questionable). Housing doesn’t seem to be a core competency for them. Instead, place resources and emphasis on the nonprofit financial intermediaries as a means for bringing together creative financing and viable long-term partnerships for developing affordable housing.