Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Last weekend the Wall Street Journal ran an interesting, though troubling, article on nonprofit sustainability. With the deep economic recession and increasing loss of jobs nationwide, demand for services often provided by nonprofit organizations is on the rise. However, both private donations and government funding have witnessed steady declines over the last several years.
According to Giving USA, though private donations doubled between 1987 and 2007, they dropped over 6% in 2008, the largest in Giving USA's 50-year history of following such trends. Equally disheartening, government allocations for some groups fell 5%. As government funding can make up as much as two-thirds of a nonprofit's budget, the cuts have forced many organizations to shut their doors.
At the same time, all over the United States the demand for much-need goods and services are continually rising. Even local nonprofits have been affected. The Wilder Foundation here in Minnesota, known for its long history of providing health and human services, announced plans to eliminate 263 jobs and cut some programs dedicated to the elderly population and troubled children.
One option to combat lower donations and government funding is to consolidate similar nonprofits. Though this hasn't been successful everywhere, it does hold promise for those that can muddle through reorganization and find ways to alleviate some discrepancies. The article cites a Girl Scouts of America Indiana branch that increased their efficiency and decreased operational expenses by merging five local branches. The organization even had enough resources left over to create a fund-raising department, increasing donations by 25%.
Many similar mergers haven't had such positive outcomes. The nonprofit world has an organizational culture that sometimes places limits on what can and cannot be done. The author of the article writes, "Because many nonprofits were founded by people who believe passionately in their causes, they often find it difficult to make the compromises necessitated by a merger."
Though difficult, consolidation of local, similar nonprofits offers a potential solution to limited funding.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The mass media in both the U.S. and the U.K. (as well as Internet discussion groups) are full of assessments of President Obama's leadership as Barack Obama nears the end of his first year in the top elective U.S. office and prepares for year two. Yet in many ways, President Obama is a fiction. By that I mean the notion that any one person is in charge of, and able to do, everything we expect of a head of a democratic state is a fiction. For those who think the President is performing well, the fiction is comforting; for those with the opposite view, the fiction is disturbing.
Journalists - and citizens alike - seem to have a hard time distinguishing between President Obama as an individual and the Obama Administration, which is an immense collective of reasonably diverse individuals. Only occasionally do reporters and pundits make this plurality visible by emphasizing Obama's leadership as a collective endeavor - a time when this did happen was coverage of the presidential review of the Afghan war strategy, when news columns and newscasts gave attention to multiple voices in the administration.
Perhaps keeping track of the many players (inside and outside the administration) who help shape particular policies simply is too hard. Moreover, we never get a chance to elect most of them. Ultimately, because the president is the one person U.S. citizens get to elect (other than the vice president) to the executive branch of the national government, we do hold him responsible for adept orchestration of the collective endeavor that constitutes the administration that bears his name.
Still, I wonder if public understanding of a U.S. president and his or her administration might be enhanced if the collective, or "invisible plural," could be made more visible. A modest but possibly revolutionary grammatical shift, borrowed from the British, might be a sensible shift. For example, if Prime Minister Gordon Brown is consulting his cabinet about a plan to impose a higher tax on bankers' bonuses, the news reports might say, "The Cabinet today are considering a controversial proposal to claw back bankers' profits." The British practice of using plural verbs for groups sounds bizarre to my American ears, but I begin to see its usefulness. If U.S. speakers and writers were to adopt it to refer to a presidential administration or cabinet, would that be retro-revolutionary?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
I was recently at the annual meeting of the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council, a membership association of nearly fifty centers in colleges and universities devoted to research, teaching, and outreach to the nonprofit sector. While predominantly North American, its membership is increasingly global.
At the meeting, I facilitated a lengthy discussion of themes for an important conference in 2011 on education about the nonprofit and philanthropic sector. What was fascinating about the conversation was how heated it became over the question of whether there really was value in the conference's focusing solely or even primarily on "the nonprofit sector."
The question of what defines the nonprofit sector, beyond the IRS tax code, has been debated for decades. More recently, issues of sectoral boundaries have gained more prominence as we witness increased blurring from cross-sectoral partnerships, hybrid organizations, the rise of L-c-3s, social entrepreneurship activities, and so forth.
But, in the last ten to fifteen years, there has been a huge upsurge in the number of centers at colleges and universities that have tried to stake out a clear place for the nonprofit sector in general and education in nonprofit studies more particularly. Today, nearly 200 such centers exist in the US alone as parts of schools of public affairs, social work or business. Getting that place at the table in higher education has not been easy despite rising student and community demand for nonprofit courses, certificates, consulting, and training. The very identity of these centers rests squarely with a strong belief in the boundedness of the nonprofit sector. Interestingly, the PNLC has never focused solely on the nonprofit sector, as its mission states: The Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center strives to enhance the leadership of nonprofits, philanthropy, and public sector organizations to work together--with the private sector--to advance the common good and serve the public interest. And, many of us at the PNLC have spoken about the need for students and practitioners to become "multi-lingual," meaning proficient in the use of concepts and frameworks from public policy, business, public and nonprofit management. Nevertheless, many inside and outside of HHH think of us as the "nonprofit" center.
There are many important aspects of the question concerning the rightful place of nonprofit sector studies in higher education. It remains difficult for junior faculty to achieve tenure based solely on work in nonprofit studies -- disciplinary focus and recognition are rewarded and the field of nonprofit studies is a multi-disciplinary field. Yet, to advance the field, new research and new researchers are needed. Many rightly fear that attention to nonprofit organizations wanes in business schools and even schools of public affairs if the sector is not given some degree of prominence through specialized courses. And, students and community leaders still demand curriculum, professional development and training targeted at nonprofit organizations.
The issues raised at the NACC meeting deserve more discussion. In many countries, nongovernmental or civil society organizations perform more public services and take on more public responsibilities than do governments. Are these organizations more public than private and with what consequences? Has social entrepreneurship, which can occur in any sector of the economy, eclipsed nonprofit management as a set of skills and behaviors demanded by students and practitioners? How should formal courses, professional development training, community engagement activities reflect our best thinking about these questions now and in the future? I welcome your thoughts.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
To PowerPoint or not to PowerPoint...that is the question. In this final thrust of semester's end where the majority of Humphrey students are immersed in course presentations, this question weighs on my mind. These days it seems as if PowerPoint has become inseparable from presentations, as slide-presentation technology is utilized in nearly every Humphrey Class, conference, and professional development training; it has even taken center stage on the big screen (think, An Inconvenient Truth). Moreover, it is expected and oftentimes required that students utilize PowerPoint when giving class presentations, with many students also expecting the same from professors.
Yet a sort of neo-luddite sentiment against PowerPoint is quietly growing. I was at a meeting for a class project last week when one group member raised the question of if we needed to use PowerPoint for our class presentation. At first, I bristled at this suggestion. What? No PowerPoint? As a type-A student who learns best visually, I have to admit that I kind of like PowerPoint (for the most part) when it is used in classes - all the central points laid out for you on colorful slides. Plus, when putting together a presentation, who doesn't get slightly amused when playing around with different background colors, slide formats, and all of those text animation effects with enticing names such as "Swivel" and "Boomerang."
Nevertheless, the conscious decision against the use of slide presentations is not limited to neo-luddite Humphrey students. The Nonprofit Assistance Fund, a Community Development Financial Institution that aims to build financially healthy nonprofits that foster community vitality, had at one time moved away from the use of PowerPoint in their trainings and workshops. This was mostly a response to the reality that many facilities in which they worked did not have PowerPoint capabilities.
Yet as Janet Ogden Bracket, Loan Fund Manager at NAF, added, "PowerPoint has the ability to give some presenters a leg up by providing uniform style and clarity in a presentation, but it also produces some distractions. We are slowly setting up more and more presentations with PowerPoint - but we always keep in mind - audience and length of presentation."
Indeed, most research supports Janet's point regarding the potentially beneficial use of this technology when used correctly (Bartsch & Cobern, 2003). Yet in terms of PowerPoint usage in the classroom, the overuse of this technology could prove detrimental in preparing students for the real world. By failing to engage pupils through other mediums, are we as students losing the art of active listening? Is the overuse of PowerPoint doing a disservice to students by inhibiting them from obtaining other skills needed to function in the workplace? There are many meetings, informal exchanges and other situations that are unaccompanied by PowerPoint slides; in the real world, we do not have the luxury of always seeing a person's main points on a screen behind them, making active listening and our ability to synthesize information all the more crucial. These are especially important issues given the wide-spread use of PowerPoint in high school, middle school and even elementary levels.
When it comes down to it, life does not come with a PowerPoint. And while it is important to follow proper etiquette when designing a presentation, I would argue that the frequency in which this technology is used is just as important as the manner in which it is used. (As the title Doumont's article on PowerPoint states, Slides Are Not All Evil).
So rather than dismiss PowerPoint as entirely evil, my group mate and the NAF bring up important questions that we all should be asking before designing our presentations: who is our audience and does a PowerPoint presentation provide the appropriate medium for achieving the learning objectives?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
A dramatic headline - Charities Rise, Costing U.S. Billions in Tax Breaks - in today's New York Times led an article about the increase in the number of nonprofit organizations.
According to the article, "The $300 billion donated to charities last year cost the federal government more than $50 billion in lost tax revenue."
Friday, November 20, 2009
This week marked the launch of Minnesota's largest online giving surge, bar none: this created all the buzz. Googling "Give MN max" provided 631,000 results, and raised $14 million for 3,434 Minnesota nonprofits in one - ONE- day. If you were under a rock this week, here's additional information.
Facebook updates continually zinged throughout my network - "I gave to the max, did you?" or "Get your donation matched by supporting our cause." The flurry in my email box was no different. Messages from 38 of my favorite nonprofits (read: 38 nonprofits to whom I subscribe by email). And of course with anything so public, mass media did its job with coverage from both supporters and critics. Clearly any campaign this public will have its fair share of critics, and a few reporters were working the beat.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/11/charitable_fallout.shtml#comments
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/11/charitable_fallout.shtml#comments
http://www.startribune.com/local/70323477.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
Critiques included the lack of clarity around the foundation matches, usability and transparency of the web-based platform, and the support of religiously-based organizations. Of course one can't expect consensus or perfection from such a public course of action, and I'd argue that these skeptics raise the public debate and help us do our work better. But my humble opinion is that Give MN is a gift to the nonprofit sector, at both the individual and community levels.
First, let's consider the individual benefit. It's a one-stop shot for nonprofit and philanthropic giving. The convenience for donors is irreplaceable. I would guess the majority of the population doesn't want an intimate engagement with every nonprofit it donates $50 to. Take for example "The Marketing Mama" who shared on Give to the Max day that she and her husband gave all their yearly giving and encouraged her network and blog followers to do the same. One click. No credit card fees, no administrative overhead, no phone call from the nonprofits. No hassle. Done. With convenience like this it can only encourage diversity of donors - particularly new ones - to give across Minnesota. 38,778 donors. One day.
Now consider the benefits to our nonprofit and philanthropic communities. Give MN equalized nonprofit messaging. Often small and mid-sized organizations have challenges competing with the extensive resources and multi-staffed communication and development departments at larger organizations. Here, everyone is equal. Everyone has a space and an opportunity to tell their story. Call it virtual equality?
Tuesday also made me feel like I was part of a movement--a tangible collective commitment to making the world a better place. Unlike in the political environment, I (and many others) often feel isolated in nonprofit work. It's my organization against the ills of the world. David vs. Goliath. But Tuesday provided me a sense of out joint accomplishment like "Yes, we can!" Rarely do I feel that in the nonprofit sector. But on Tuesday, yes. Yes, we did. And that's impact. It gives us power and voice. It's an artifact of our collective power.
Give MN is also a tool to democratize philanthropy - equalizing the power and decision making of the causes to be supported. Key foundations pledged an initial gift to generate buzz based on top number of donors and matched gifts. Foundation representatives trusted the will of the people (while providing incentive to decide where dollars should be spent). Sure, you might have issues with a specific nonprofit, but the critical mass decided. Philanthropic democracy in action.
All in all, Give MN is a relevant example of changing times within our sectors. I for one am proud of Give MN and for being ahead of the tide. We could all stand to learn more than a little from this visionary and impactful tool.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Earlier this week I attended an information session given by Pham Thi Hoa, Executive Director of CAPI. Founded in 1982, CAPI has historically been a social service organization working with 3,000 immigrants and refugees from the Asia-Pacific region and East Africa every year. Some of the services provided include housing and food assistance, youth violence prevention, workforce development and training, and health education to communities in transition.
Within the last year, CAPI has adopted a new strategic plan and is using the framework of "gender and health equality" to advance both the organization and social change. To ensure success, CAPI tackled program realignment, a reformed decision-making process, and a redesigned organizational structure. According to Pham Thi Hoa, this would be accomplished in three steps: 1) inspiring CAPI's organizational culture beyond social service delivery, 2) applying sustainable social justice programs through the building of staff capacity and 3) engineering new practices and processes to execute programs.
The restructuring has affected every part of the organization from the type of leadership to changing the way CAPI has worked with funders. One of the most interesting and innovative approaches has been the creation of Refugee and Immigrant Women for Change (RIWC). This is a coalition of Asian, African, and Latina women-focused and women-led organizations working together to achieve social change. The formation of this network allows members to pool their strengths and resources to achieve a shared goal. Its mission is to "build the capacity and leadership of RIWC organizations to plan, design, and implement programs to achieve gender equality for refugee and immigrant women." RIWC will conduct an analysis to uncover the ways gender inequality is perpetuated in these communities while dually attempting to raise public awareness of the rights of immigrant and refugee women.
Pham Thi Hoa has a passion for CAPI and its mission that is not seen often. I can only hope that the restructuring will be successful and CAPI will continue to positively affect so many lives.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Some might think this PubTalk posting belongs on the Humphrey's Smart Politics Blog. This entry has to do with honoring the public leadership side of our Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center here at Humphrey.
Mike Freeman and I were elected to the Minnesota Senate in 1982. When I met Mike, I recalled conversations I heard at our farm house kitchen table. In our house, Orville Freeman was considered a public hero - someone who understood farmers and ordinary people. When he lost his re-election bid for governor, our house was sad. When JFK picked him a few months later to be Agriculture Secretary, my dad jumped for joy.
My dad got to meet Mike Freeman when he and I shared an office at the Capitol. Public service sometimes offers those special moments. Like his father, Mike, "Orville's boy," has lived a life committed to public leadership, and we get to benefit.
Watch for two Public Affairs course offerings now posted for the coming Spring Semester. Through the lens of a law maker and now Hennepin County Attorney, Mike's "Law and the Making of Public Policy" (PA 5122) course will give students a practitioner's view of the history, logic, and analysis of the law necessary to help use law as a tool to impact public policy. I have served as a guest presenter in this class and watched how a cross-section of students traveled with Mike through the failures and victories of law-making that truly changed how we live in this world.
Humphrey Prof. Larry Jacobs helped us launch this next attraction. : How about that 2008 Senate Recount? Norm Coleman and Al Franken sat on the sidelines with us as Mike Freeman, his deputy Pat Diamond, and election officials from Hennepin County and across the state, step by step implement the laws governing the recount process. This one-credit offering (Saturday February 6 and 20, PA 5920), "Measuring the Fairness of the 2008 Minnesota Senate Recount," will bring us back to the 2008 Minnesota Senate election, one of the closest and most examined elections in Minnesota history. The election involved an administrative recount and an election contest that together took eight months to complete. Al Franken prevailed by 312 votes out of nearly 2.9 million cast. Mike and Pat ask: "But was it fair?"
The course will examine that question using international election standards as a starting point. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." Mike tells me that he has invited some special guest presenters - some of the "stars" of the recount.
For those of us who see public leadership as a calling, these two courses go beyond the politics of public service and give us an inside look at the role citizens play in our governance.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The dominant story about international nonprofit organizations is of large, transnational NGOs, and of organizations working from richer countries to improve poorer countries. Less widely known is the story of how so-called domestic nonprofit organizations, including relatively small organizations focused on serving their local communities, are becoming global actors. I am particularly interested in the opportunities for comparative learning that can come from peer connections between these local organizations across borders.
This summer I had the opportunity to travel to Japan (under the auspices of the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership and the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs), where I met with the leader of the Yokohama Community Bank for Women and Citizens, Eiko Mukaida. Her organization's work lending to women-run social enterprises, cooperatives, and nonprofits, is the Japanese equivalent of what some community development finance institutions (CDFIs) do in the U.S. I worked for four years at one such opportunity finance organization, the Chicago Community Loan Fund, and volunteered at another, the North Side Community Federal Credit Union, in Chicago before beginning grad school, so it was fascinating to hear about this work in the Japanese context.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I recently read an article in Newsweek by Johnnie L. Roberts titled "PeytonPlace.com." The article examined the recent surge of blogs covering small town news. Blogs like Patch.com and TheLocal, funded by the likes of AOL and the New York Times respectively, are focusing on what's news in towns the size of Maplewood, New Jersey, population 24,000. These "hyperlocal" blogs are largely run by unpaid student and citizen journalists.
The potential relationship to community organizing goes without saying, but what came to mind as I read the article is how hyperlocal blogs could be used to benefit nonprofits. I've been in many an event planning meeting where someone shouts, "We need some publicity!" Two hundred press releases and phone calls later, the event has a quarter-page write-up in the local college student newspaper, but nothing else.
I once worked at an organization where the executive director's favorite saying was, "The job's not done until the story is told." I'm sure lots of nonprofit workers have heard something along those lines; after all, "telling the story" is how people learn about an organization and ultimately decide whether or not to support it. But perhaps with the current state of the press - rapidly decreasing print media for starters - we need to start telling our story in different ways. Perhaps the most efficient way is through citizen journalism. Realistically, wouldn't you be more likely to support an organization if your mom or neighbor told you about it, rather than if you read about it in the Star Tribune?
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs or the University of Minnesota. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota or the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
