You are now quite familiar with the “distinctive characteristics of nonprofit organizations”. A primary distinction relates to mission orientation. Consider the issue of mission in relationship to one of the following aspects of change over time in nonprofits---executive transition or turnover. What are some of the key points from this week’s readings related to this?
As we have covered many times in this class, the chief difference between the sectors in what is considered the operational "bottom line". For the business world, this is shareholder dividends, for government it is pleasing the median voter, and for the philanthropic sector, this is the triple ideas of vision, purpose, and mission.
Although, like a planter the mission is created at the formation of the organization to nurture the plant that is the organization in (planter analogy - Dr. William Brown), how that planter changes over time is influenced by the executive director in direct and indirect ways. Through the indirect method of being the chief liason of staff with the board, the leader in terms of "eyes on the future" for the board and providing a "bread crumb trail" of goal accomplishment (Herman & Heimovics 2005), and the lead selector of perhaps the membership of that board, the ED has indirect influence over how the board perceives mission, vision, and purpose. It is within this context that the board then takes lead of these concepts in best keeping with those fiduciary responsibilities. In a more direct way, the ED interprets mission in relation to donor mandates, governmental regulation, current events, and contemporary culture to try and find balance
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Juggling, Balancing, and walking the tightrope
Considering what you have read so far, as well as your own experiences in nonprofits, what organizational and operational challenges would you anticipate and why? Conversely, what organizational and operational opportunities might you anticipate, especially vis-à-vis the public and market sectors?
So much of the effect of the organizational and operational challenges that could be anticipated as affecting me in a nonprofit depend upon my position within the organization. For instance, I already know that as Executive Director, I would be very dependent on the relationship of myself with the Board of Directors and staff in a team oriented relationship. I would be concerned in regard to both internal and external factors related to negotiating common hurdles such as organizational impressions, economics, etc. However, I would also be concerned that we are doing our best job in regard to using best practice methods in all that we do. The problem is that some of the best practice method is so theoretical in nature and some is in fact contradictory.
I reflect upon the readings from Frumkin, and chapter 6 in particular, and think "Yeah right, like how am I going to balance all 4 dimensions of the sector (ie instrumental verses expressive and demand verses supply) within one organization whose mission and purpose may be more in line with 1 or 2 of these dimensions, but not all 4.
In such a position, I would want to be prepped with the best tools possible, including nonprofit research, a co-director to help handle some of the aspects of the organization (for example - the dynamic duo of an Executive Director supplemented by a internal staff/administrative director - sometimes called a Deputy Director), and staff who are professional in nature but go about that professionalism in such a way that each and every client, no matter their diverse backgrounds are high priority.
Depending upon the sector my organization is in, I would be exposed to varying degrees of public and market sector opportunities. For instance, if I am running a LGBT Health Clinic in downtown Metroplex, there will be public opportunities which will be for the taking. And yet, those grant streams will come with costs that may detract from our ability to serve clients. For instance, how can we compassionately serve a transgender man (female bodied person living socially as a man) who needs an insurance negotiated hysterectomy to bring his body in alliance with soul without 1) flying in the face of any sort of arbitrary statistical grant measure that overly narrowly define sex/gender. 2) Protecting his identity 3) Preserving our mission which may be focused on the highest quality, one stop shopping of care - when that job is going to require referral to an outside agency that is going to need to be educated in and of itself.
Similarly, there may be marketing schemes such as logo merchandise sales that our patrons would like to support, but carry administrative overhead that may detract from doing the work of health care and insurance negotiation.
And, how do we negotiate care for the client when insurance code is already stacked against us in regard to providing life sustaining care to transgender people or that believes that gay men are at a higher risk for certain conditions (despite academic research which might say otherwise).
It is a daunting process to manage a nonprofit focusing on a disenfranchised population alone - and in empowering that population through advocacy and smart negotiation with "powers" such as insurance, government, etc. Add on top of that the expectations of "Best Practice Methods" that want us to strike some theoretical balance of operations while being pulled in multiple directions just to secure our funding.
It makes me wonder why I want to be in nonprofits.
Oh yeah, I am really passionate and feel a calling to work with LGBT people to make life better one person at a time. I just hope I am compensated to a degree that I can go home and "detox" from a day filled with juggling and balancing. Moreso, I hope that I would be on a team which would enable me to do that.
So much of the effect of the organizational and operational challenges that could be anticipated as affecting me in a nonprofit depend upon my position within the organization. For instance, I already know that as Executive Director, I would be very dependent on the relationship of myself with the Board of Directors and staff in a team oriented relationship. I would be concerned in regard to both internal and external factors related to negotiating common hurdles such as organizational impressions, economics, etc. However, I would also be concerned that we are doing our best job in regard to using best practice methods in all that we do. The problem is that some of the best practice method is so theoretical in nature and some is in fact contradictory.
I reflect upon the readings from Frumkin, and chapter 6 in particular, and think "Yeah right, like how am I going to balance all 4 dimensions of the sector (ie instrumental verses expressive and demand verses supply) within one organization whose mission and purpose may be more in line with 1 or 2 of these dimensions, but not all 4.
In such a position, I would want to be prepped with the best tools possible, including nonprofit research, a co-director to help handle some of the aspects of the organization (for example - the dynamic duo of an Executive Director supplemented by a internal staff/administrative director - sometimes called a Deputy Director), and staff who are professional in nature but go about that professionalism in such a way that each and every client, no matter their diverse backgrounds are high priority.
Depending upon the sector my organization is in, I would be exposed to varying degrees of public and market sector opportunities. For instance, if I am running a LGBT Health Clinic in downtown Metroplex, there will be public opportunities which will be for the taking. And yet, those grant streams will come with costs that may detract from our ability to serve clients. For instance, how can we compassionately serve a transgender man (female bodied person living socially as a man) who needs an insurance negotiated hysterectomy to bring his body in alliance with soul without 1) flying in the face of any sort of arbitrary statistical grant measure that overly narrowly define sex/gender. 2) Protecting his identity 3) Preserving our mission which may be focused on the highest quality, one stop shopping of care - when that job is going to require referral to an outside agency that is going to need to be educated in and of itself.
Similarly, there may be marketing schemes such as logo merchandise sales that our patrons would like to support, but carry administrative overhead that may detract from doing the work of health care and insurance negotiation.
And, how do we negotiate care for the client when insurance code is already stacked against us in regard to providing life sustaining care to transgender people or that believes that gay men are at a higher risk for certain conditions (despite academic research which might say otherwise).
It is a daunting process to manage a nonprofit focusing on a disenfranchised population alone - and in empowering that population through advocacy and smart negotiation with "powers" such as insurance, government, etc. Add on top of that the expectations of "Best Practice Methods" that want us to strike some theoretical balance of operations while being pulled in multiple directions just to secure our funding.
It makes me wonder why I want to be in nonprofits.
Oh yeah, I am really passionate and feel a calling to work with LGBT people to make life better one person at a time. I just hope I am compensated to a degree that I can go home and "detox" from a day filled with juggling and balancing. Moreso, I hope that I would be on a team which would enable me to do that.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Why self-regulate? Standards needed, but should address plurality
This is a two part question:
Part 1. It is argued that nonprofit organizations must self-regulate. Why?
Part 2. In order to examine “how” nonprofit organizations might self-regulate, please compare, contrast, and critique the following standards for nonprofits created by three prominent self-regulation schemes. If appropriate, you might want to consider the appropriateness (e.g., adequacy, inadequacy, practicality, etc.) of such standards for nonprofit subfields in your discussion.
a. Charities Review Council of Minnesota, “Accountability Standards”: http://www.smartgivers.org/Accountability_Standards.html
b. Better Business Bureau, “Charity Standards”: http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=1bce9b1f-74e9-4c94-96e8-1ee2b519b0c4
c. Maryland Association of Nonprofits, “Standards for Excellence”: http://www.marylandnonprofits.org/html/standards/04_02.asp
Part 1. It is argued that nonprofit organizations must self-regulate. Why?
As stated by the Maryland Association of NonProfit Associations:
“Nonprofits are private corporations that operate for public purposes with public support. As such, they should provide the public with information about their mission, program activities, and finances. A nonprofit should also be accessible and responsive to members of the public who express interest in the affairs of the organization.”
In essence, nonprofits are by ideal private entities which exist to the benefit of the public. In the case of those charities identified as 501c3 orgs, the benefit accrued to the organization vis a vis donor income tax deduction indicates a certain possession of this subgroup of nonprofits by the public. As such accountability to the public and to stakeholders involved in all nonprofits is paramount to the organization.
During a recent history of corporate scandal leading to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://www.soxlaw.com/) and a general distrust by the public of government in general and its ability to take care of individual needs in particular, it is paramount that ethics be held as the cornerstone of nonprofits and that transparency be central to that ethos.
So, in a simple way, non-profits must self-regulate because of accountability to the public.
Why cannot some other sector regulate them? For each sector to properly succeed in its own right and not begin to reflect elements of another sector, regulation by another sector must be minimized. For there to be the best appropriate mix of caring for individual and public interests, each sector must do what it does best. For profit must pursue the dollar, government must serve the media voter, and the nonprofit sector must be grounded in serving public goods that address the plurality of communities. If government were to overly regulate nonprofits, then the philanthropic sector would become a mere puppet of government. Everything must be balanced wherein each sector has influence and calls attention to weaknesses and accountabilities in the other sectors, but does not dictate to another sector how it must act at all times. So, for reasons of sector independence and proper sectoral mission fulfillment, non-profits must self-regulate.
Finally though I think that all kinds of organizations must be allowed to change and grow, and perhaps the sectors that make up groups of these organizations must change and grow as well. To be instrumental with the best possible accuracy any sort of organization must have the power to transform itself. Perhaps this is true of the nonprofit sector as a whole. Sarbanes-Oxley recently has begun to teach nonprofits by extension that government, in holding the will of the media voter, will demand transparency – that scandal will be prosecuted. Nonprofits are not subject to Sarbanes-Oxley directly, and yet nonprofit management classes discuss the ramifications extensively. Associations look to its implications to make sure that member organizations are in-line with its provisions. The mistake by a few in one sector has caused each sector to self-evaluate. Why then must nonprofits self-regulate? So that change and transformation itself not only lends to a better serving sector, but gives a space in which that magical change can occur.
Part 2. In order to examine “how” nonprofit organizations might self-regulate, please compare, contrast, and critique the following standards for nonprofits created by three prominent self-regulation schemes. If appropriate, you might want to consider the appropriateness (e.g., adequacy, inadequacy, practicality, etc.) of such standards for nonprofit subfields in your discussion.
All three resources provided for “how” nonprofits self-regulate are good starting places. Best practice methods are put forward in theoretical and practical terms that give benchmarks by which philanthropic organizations may be motivated to adhere. However, they also are inadequate in some specific dimensions.
All three call for no board compensation other than reimbursement of expenses. I am still wrapping my head around this one. As a member of a board, it is a standard I have agreed to. However, I question its practicality in changing times and across a very diverse set of organizations. As I took this position, it was difficult for me to explain to relatives, etc that no – this is a volunteer position, and I , in fact, am honor bound to either contribute and/or seek donations for the organization. In a practical sense, they took the equation of time=money which we were all raised with and looked at me as though I was crazy.
Perhaps they are correct.! ;-)
But, those involved in our sector understand that there is other currency that is not green – that is more ephemeral and based in a passion for others, a desire to give to something bigger than ourselves.
OK, fine. But, I don’t believe this equation is as simplistic either. I look to city councils where council members are unpaid and I look to city councils where they are compensated. I see better performance wherein they are paid, because serving the city full-time in that capacity and getting compensated meets needs that they would have to have another job for. I wonder if, depending on the organization, there are instances that for that organization alone – compensation of directors is a more motivating approach.
There is also the rule that board and staff must be separate. Again, my argument falls to one of allowing organizational diversity within the sector. There will be situations wherein this will not work.
Most pointedly for me are standards in regard to reserve limits. Any standard which is arbitrary and does not allow the organization to match what is best for them in terms of strategic forecasting of the terrain in the next 3, 5 or 10 years inclusive of economic conditions, growth, or building/land acquisition is not realistic. For me, an approximate liquidity target that takes into account how convertible holdings are in addition to how many of those holdings you have and what you are going to do with them is more honest, transparent, and the best standard (Zeitlow 2007). Basic to this approach is the idea of how fast and efficiently can a manager move the funds from one form to another to cover basic organizational expenses.
I am impressed with the Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations fundraising ratio of 3:1 (3 times as much revenue as fundraising costs) and the approach that allows explanation for why an organization doesn’t meet this standard - that it is a goal to be eventually reached. However, I again do not think that it works in all cases and that for an organization to be considered “good” it has to meet this standard.
All three sets of standards also contain ethics on solicitation and truth in marketing. This is admirable in my opinion, but laughable in my deep dark heart. I have seen too much fighting on both sides of an issue to believe that all propaganda is “truthful marketing” Will funds be used as they say they are, yes…they should be. Is it really in an effort to defeat our enemies because they are the demons we make them out to be – NO. Marketing and propaganda is how organizations move masses of people – these methods are not brutally honest by nature.
All this being said, I do believe in standards. Almost everything in life needs protocols in order to allow for proper management, communication and easy exchange of elements. And, those protocols must be adhered to even as people call for exceptions (as a general rule) because everyone is going to try and “buck the system”. But, by having most people follow a general set of rules, one can then look specifically to the exceptions and spend the time where needed to address the real root causes and approaches to those idiosyncrasies.
What I appreciate most in these standards (and found notably in the BBB standards) are where the standards call for a policy to be internally created in the organization (ex: Conflict of interests policies) wherein definition is left up to the will of that organization alone. Also useful are templates to base these policies upon for practical management application wherein a board flushes out what problems and strategic vulnerabilities it may see in a certain templated approach.
Part 1. It is argued that nonprofit organizations must self-regulate. Why?
Part 2. In order to examine “how” nonprofit organizations might self-regulate, please compare, contrast, and critique the following standards for nonprofits created by three prominent self-regulation schemes. If appropriate, you might want to consider the appropriateness (e.g., adequacy, inadequacy, practicality, etc.) of such standards for nonprofit subfields in your discussion.
a. Charities Review Council of Minnesota, “Accountability Standards”: http://www.smartgivers.org/Accountability_Standards.html
b. Better Business Bureau, “Charity Standards”: http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=1bce9b1f-74e9-4c94-96e8-1ee2b519b0c4
c. Maryland Association of Nonprofits, “Standards for Excellence”: http://www.marylandnonprofits.org/html/standards/04_02.asp
Part 1. It is argued that nonprofit organizations must self-regulate. Why?
As stated by the Maryland Association of NonProfit Associations:
“Nonprofits are private corporations that operate for public purposes with public support. As such, they should provide the public with information about their mission, program activities, and finances. A nonprofit should also be accessible and responsive to members of the public who express interest in the affairs of the organization.”
In essence, nonprofits are by ideal private entities which exist to the benefit of the public. In the case of those charities identified as 501c3 orgs, the benefit accrued to the organization vis a vis donor income tax deduction indicates a certain possession of this subgroup of nonprofits by the public. As such accountability to the public and to stakeholders involved in all nonprofits is paramount to the organization.
During a recent history of corporate scandal leading to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://www.soxlaw.com/) and a general distrust by the public of government in general and its ability to take care of individual needs in particular, it is paramount that ethics be held as the cornerstone of nonprofits and that transparency be central to that ethos.
So, in a simple way, non-profits must self-regulate because of accountability to the public.
Why cannot some other sector regulate them? For each sector to properly succeed in its own right and not begin to reflect elements of another sector, regulation by another sector must be minimized. For there to be the best appropriate mix of caring for individual and public interests, each sector must do what it does best. For profit must pursue the dollar, government must serve the media voter, and the nonprofit sector must be grounded in serving public goods that address the plurality of communities. If government were to overly regulate nonprofits, then the philanthropic sector would become a mere puppet of government. Everything must be balanced wherein each sector has influence and calls attention to weaknesses and accountabilities in the other sectors, but does not dictate to another sector how it must act at all times. So, for reasons of sector independence and proper sectoral mission fulfillment, non-profits must self-regulate.
Finally though I think that all kinds of organizations must be allowed to change and grow, and perhaps the sectors that make up groups of these organizations must change and grow as well. To be instrumental with the best possible accuracy any sort of organization must have the power to transform itself. Perhaps this is true of the nonprofit sector as a whole. Sarbanes-Oxley recently has begun to teach nonprofits by extension that government, in holding the will of the media voter, will demand transparency – that scandal will be prosecuted. Nonprofits are not subject to Sarbanes-Oxley directly, and yet nonprofit management classes discuss the ramifications extensively. Associations look to its implications to make sure that member organizations are in-line with its provisions. The mistake by a few in one sector has caused each sector to self-evaluate. Why then must nonprofits self-regulate? So that change and transformation itself not only lends to a better serving sector, but gives a space in which that magical change can occur.
Part 2. In order to examine “how” nonprofit organizations might self-regulate, please compare, contrast, and critique the following standards for nonprofits created by three prominent self-regulation schemes. If appropriate, you might want to consider the appropriateness (e.g., adequacy, inadequacy, practicality, etc.) of such standards for nonprofit subfields in your discussion.
All three resources provided for “how” nonprofits self-regulate are good starting places. Best practice methods are put forward in theoretical and practical terms that give benchmarks by which philanthropic organizations may be motivated to adhere. However, they also are inadequate in some specific dimensions.
All three call for no board compensation other than reimbursement of expenses. I am still wrapping my head around this one. As a member of a board, it is a standard I have agreed to. However, I question its practicality in changing times and across a very diverse set of organizations. As I took this position, it was difficult for me to explain to relatives, etc that no – this is a volunteer position, and I , in fact, am honor bound to either contribute and/or seek donations for the organization. In a practical sense, they took the equation of time=money which we were all raised with and looked at me as though I was crazy.
Perhaps they are correct.! ;-)
But, those involved in our sector understand that there is other currency that is not green – that is more ephemeral and based in a passion for others, a desire to give to something bigger than ourselves.
OK, fine. But, I don’t believe this equation is as simplistic either. I look to city councils where council members are unpaid and I look to city councils where they are compensated. I see better performance wherein they are paid, because serving the city full-time in that capacity and getting compensated meets needs that they would have to have another job for. I wonder if, depending on the organization, there are instances that for that organization alone – compensation of directors is a more motivating approach.
There is also the rule that board and staff must be separate. Again, my argument falls to one of allowing organizational diversity within the sector. There will be situations wherein this will not work.
Most pointedly for me are standards in regard to reserve limits. Any standard which is arbitrary and does not allow the organization to match what is best for them in terms of strategic forecasting of the terrain in the next 3, 5 or 10 years inclusive of economic conditions, growth, or building/land acquisition is not realistic. For me, an approximate liquidity target that takes into account how convertible holdings are in addition to how many of those holdings you have and what you are going to do with them is more honest, transparent, and the best standard (Zeitlow 2007). Basic to this approach is the idea of how fast and efficiently can a manager move the funds from one form to another to cover basic organizational expenses.
I am impressed with the Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations fundraising ratio of 3:1 (3 times as much revenue as fundraising costs) and the approach that allows explanation for why an organization doesn’t meet this standard - that it is a goal to be eventually reached. However, I again do not think that it works in all cases and that for an organization to be considered “good” it has to meet this standard.
All three sets of standards also contain ethics on solicitation and truth in marketing. This is admirable in my opinion, but laughable in my deep dark heart. I have seen too much fighting on both sides of an issue to believe that all propaganda is “truthful marketing” Will funds be used as they say they are, yes…they should be. Is it really in an effort to defeat our enemies because they are the demons we make them out to be – NO. Marketing and propaganda is how organizations move masses of people – these methods are not brutally honest by nature.
All this being said, I do believe in standards. Almost everything in life needs protocols in order to allow for proper management, communication and easy exchange of elements. And, those protocols must be adhered to even as people call for exceptions (as a general rule) because everyone is going to try and “buck the system”. But, by having most people follow a general set of rules, one can then look specifically to the exceptions and spend the time where needed to address the real root causes and approaches to those idiosyncrasies.
What I appreciate most in these standards (and found notably in the BBB standards) are where the standards call for a policy to be internally created in the organization (ex: Conflict of interests policies) wherein definition is left up to the will of that organization alone. Also useful are templates to base these policies upon for practical management application wherein a board flushes out what problems and strategic vulnerabilities it may see in a certain templated approach.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Nonprofits are beholden to mission and purpose in the context of stakeholders
To whom are nonprofits responsible? What are the primary implications of these responsibilities for the governance role and activities of nonprofit boards of directors?
"But as I walked down the steps I saw that the evening was not quite over. Fifty feet from the door a dozen headlights illuminated a bizarre and tumultous scene. In the ditch beside the road, right side up, but violently shorn of one wheel, rested a new coupe which had left Gatsby's drive not two minutes before....
"But how did it happen? Did you run into the wall?" "Don't ask me," said Owl Eyes, washing his hands of the whole matter. "I know very little about driving - next to nothing. It happened, and that's all I know" - F Scott Fitzgerald The Great Gatsby
I include this passage from the Great Gatsby because I think it pertains directly to the question at hand. Whether we are discussing organizations or people, mission and purpose, a sense of focus, is what keeps the life of either tethered, it allows us to drive the car of life down the road. For-profit organizations have the will of shareholders and the dollar, government has the median voter (Minkoff/Powell 2006 p 591), and the philanthropic sector as a whole has this idea of stakeholder accountability, mission and purpose.
Dependent upon IRS tax code identification under section 501c, a nonprofit might be beholden to a stakeholder group that is inclusive of the public at large (c3), donors (c4), or members (associations such as c8). To answer the question of internal constituencies to which the organization is beholden the organization must look to the context of these stakeholders in relation to their power or influence internal to the organization and their interest in the organization (Eden and Ackerman 1998). However, these identities are in flux with the culture within a community wherein the organization exists, governmental mandates related to current grant contracts and through regulation of the sector in whatever form (ethics of transparency in financial matters for instance).
Minkoff and Powell refer to mission as the clarion call of nonprofits, and I find this sentiment valid. In trying to reconcile the loyalties an organization has to mission verses stakeholders, perhaps it is easiest to think of the organization as a body. A body with a heart that is its mission, life goals or purpose (ie a means of accomplishing what is in its heart), but existing in a culture wherein demands from outside the body impact one's course in life.
Under this analogy it is the role of the board to act on fiduciary responsibilities as the "head" of the the body, to lead with the heart while balancing all of these internal/external factors, and doing so in a way that is ethical, demonstrates clarity to stakeholders, and enables the body to move forward with the least resistance towards goals.
As a practical example, recently a gay couple in Dallas that was married in California have opted for divorce. In order for both men in the relationship to go forward cleanly in regard to separation proceedings that disentangle years of relationship such as car insurance, joint property, survivorship, etc a legal divorce is now needed. The Texas Attorney General has denied hearing the case or allowing it to be tried because to do so would seem to acknowledge a gay relationship in texas as married - which flies in the face of now Texas Constitutional edict. At my first board meeting of this year, this event came up for discussion. I will not divulge what was discussed, but I will use this to illustrate some things that had to be considered. As a gay. lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organization, we had to consider our community that are GLBT Texans and how they would look to us for voice and authority in this crises. At the same time, this had to be looked at strategically in regard to balancing the concern for a statement to our level of knowledge on the legalities in the case (for which other organizations are more endowed), the political climate we currently find ourselves in as we look to accomplish our strategic goals over the next five years, and governmental identities that we work with in the course of our organizational work. Our duty as a board was to argue all sides of the issue, to keep a mind on our mission and purpose but to do so in this strategic way. How could we best drive the organization forward while jumping this hurdle along the way.
Long story short, the nonprofit board of directors must act as the head of the body of the organization, balancing external and internal forces while trying to lead with a priority to the heart that is our mission and purpose. Unlike Owl Eyes, we must be the mechanics of the car and the driver in the fancy suit.
The implications for this are profound. They speak to wherein ethics are rooted in an organization and how those ethics flow from the collage of forces at work within and upon the organization. At the same time, the implications provide for an accountability system within the nonprofit sector that holds the nonprofit board binding for proper ficudiary fullfillment in line with what has been expressed through mission and purpose for which IRS tax code has written benefits thereto.
"But as I walked down the steps I saw that the evening was not quite over. Fifty feet from the door a dozen headlights illuminated a bizarre and tumultous scene. In the ditch beside the road, right side up, but violently shorn of one wheel, rested a new coupe which had left Gatsby's drive not two minutes before....
"But how did it happen? Did you run into the wall?" "Don't ask me," said Owl Eyes, washing his hands of the whole matter. "I know very little about driving - next to nothing. It happened, and that's all I know" - F Scott Fitzgerald The Great Gatsby
I include this passage from the Great Gatsby because I think it pertains directly to the question at hand. Whether we are discussing organizations or people, mission and purpose, a sense of focus, is what keeps the life of either tethered, it allows us to drive the car of life down the road. For-profit organizations have the will of shareholders and the dollar, government has the median voter (Minkoff/Powell 2006 p 591), and the philanthropic sector as a whole has this idea of stakeholder accountability, mission and purpose.
Dependent upon IRS tax code identification under section 501c, a nonprofit might be beholden to a stakeholder group that is inclusive of the public at large (c3), donors (c4), or members (associations such as c8). To answer the question of internal constituencies to which the organization is beholden the organization must look to the context of these stakeholders in relation to their power or influence internal to the organization and their interest in the organization (Eden and Ackerman 1998). However, these identities are in flux with the culture within a community wherein the organization exists, governmental mandates related to current grant contracts and through regulation of the sector in whatever form (ethics of transparency in financial matters for instance).
Minkoff and Powell refer to mission as the clarion call of nonprofits, and I find this sentiment valid. In trying to reconcile the loyalties an organization has to mission verses stakeholders, perhaps it is easiest to think of the organization as a body. A body with a heart that is its mission, life goals or purpose (ie a means of accomplishing what is in its heart), but existing in a culture wherein demands from outside the body impact one's course in life.
Under this analogy it is the role of the board to act on fiduciary responsibilities as the "head" of the the body, to lead with the heart while balancing all of these internal/external factors, and doing so in a way that is ethical, demonstrates clarity to stakeholders, and enables the body to move forward with the least resistance towards goals.
As a practical example, recently a gay couple in Dallas that was married in California have opted for divorce. In order for both men in the relationship to go forward cleanly in regard to separation proceedings that disentangle years of relationship such as car insurance, joint property, survivorship, etc a legal divorce is now needed. The Texas Attorney General has denied hearing the case or allowing it to be tried because to do so would seem to acknowledge a gay relationship in texas as married - which flies in the face of now Texas Constitutional edict. At my first board meeting of this year, this event came up for discussion. I will not divulge what was discussed, but I will use this to illustrate some things that had to be considered. As a gay. lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organization, we had to consider our community that are GLBT Texans and how they would look to us for voice and authority in this crises. At the same time, this had to be looked at strategically in regard to balancing the concern for a statement to our level of knowledge on the legalities in the case (for which other organizations are more endowed), the political climate we currently find ourselves in as we look to accomplish our strategic goals over the next five years, and governmental identities that we work with in the course of our organizational work. Our duty as a board was to argue all sides of the issue, to keep a mind on our mission and purpose but to do so in this strategic way. How could we best drive the organization forward while jumping this hurdle along the way.
Long story short, the nonprofit board of directors must act as the head of the body of the organization, balancing external and internal forces while trying to lead with a priority to the heart that is our mission and purpose. Unlike Owl Eyes, we must be the mechanics of the car and the driver in the fancy suit.
The implications for this are profound. They speak to wherein ethics are rooted in an organization and how those ethics flow from the collage of forces at work within and upon the organization. At the same time, the implications provide for an accountability system within the nonprofit sector that holds the nonprofit board binding for proper ficudiary fullfillment in line with what has been expressed through mission and purpose for which IRS tax code has written benefits thereto.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Advice: Forum for Equality
This past week I received notice through a weekly email publication I receive called, the Gay and Lesbian SmartBrief for news and topics of interest to leaders in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement. The publication is a service outgrowth of the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institutue and funding is provided by the Victory Fund (a PAC - I think). Anyway, my favorite section is keeping up to date on current job openings, pay rates bases on open positions, etc. This week the Forum for Equality in New Orleans posted a job for a Field Director position that I decided to apply for (for practice sake and to get an idea of what pay they are truly willing to offer for the statewide position that will be involved in building a grassroots and advocacy/information network across the state of Louisiana).
Long story short, why not use this opportunity to do a little Guidestar research on the organization and think through the kind of volunteer/ donative advice I might give to the organization?
That being said, a few things come to mind.
Mission/Purpose/Vision and tagline:
The website, www.forumforequality.org does not provide an easy and intuitive way of ascertaining the core critical components of the organization - it's "heart" if you will of mission and how it will get to fullfilling it's heart through purpose, vision and a marketable tagline. There is no "About us" tab on the website that displays these elements of the organization or anything about its history - all elements that potential donors want to understand so that they know the impact their donation in sweat or dollar equity will have upon the community.
Furthermore, what I can find, needs to be improved.
http://www.forumforequality.com/membership.php
The mission statement needs to be laid out in a manner that includes a definitive goal (ends) and way to get there (means). Forum for Equality needs to plainly set forth that it hopes to accomplish its mission through (bulleted points in link above - ie purpose). The tagline of "working for good government and LGBT civil rights across Louisiana" needs to be more hopeful and more visioned to provide the "rallying cry" for the organization in each and every thing it does.
There are no online donation options, today that needs to be changed. As pointed out "A survey study found that people who perceive fewer obstacles to give are more likely to give (Smith & McSweeney 2007). " quoted from (Bekkers & Wiepking 2007) The public these days needs to be asked, and donations should be expected through one on one coversations wherein the individual physically hands an officer of the organization a donation (per Van Slyke 2005, Bekkers & Wiepking 2007). However, the donor still needs the option to make a donation conveniently from their home, work, or wherever they have an internet connection with minimal transaction time as the desire to give arises due to other circumstantial motivators.
Long story short, why not use this opportunity to do a little Guidestar research on the organization and think through the kind of volunteer/ donative advice I might give to the organization?
That being said, a few things come to mind.
Mission/Purpose/Vision and tagline:
The website, www.forumforequality.org does not provide an easy and intuitive way of ascertaining the core critical components of the organization - it's "heart" if you will of mission and how it will get to fullfilling it's heart through purpose, vision and a marketable tagline. There is no "About us" tab on the website that displays these elements of the organization or anything about its history - all elements that potential donors want to understand so that they know the impact their donation in sweat or dollar equity will have upon the community.
Furthermore, what I can find, needs to be improved.
http://www.forumforequality.com/membership.php
The mission statement needs to be laid out in a manner that includes a definitive goal (ends) and way to get there (means). Forum for Equality needs to plainly set forth that it hopes to accomplish its mission through (bulleted points in link above - ie purpose). The tagline of "working for good government and LGBT civil rights across Louisiana" needs to be more hopeful and more visioned to provide the "rallying cry" for the organization in each and every thing it does.
There are no online donation options, today that needs to be changed. As pointed out "A survey study found that people who perceive fewer obstacles to give are more likely to give (Smith & McSweeney 2007). " quoted from (Bekkers & Wiepking 2007) The public these days needs to be asked, and donations should be expected through one on one coversations wherein the individual physically hands an officer of the organization a donation (per Van Slyke 2005, Bekkers & Wiepking 2007). However, the donor still needs the option to make a donation conveniently from their home, work, or wherever they have an internet connection with minimal transaction time as the desire to give arises due to other circumstantial motivators.
A brief look at the 2007 Form 990 shows that Forum for Equality met several vulnerabilities in terms of financial health, organizational logistics, financial soundness, and therefore donative capacity.
They pulled in contributions in the amount of $50K and entailed expenses in the amount of $62K - a deficit of about $11K for the year, of which staff and salary amounted to $38 to pay an E.D. What about the rest of staff? Even if staff is mostly volunteer, for the ED to concentrate on organizational management, another staffperson needs to assist with the volunteer capital development.
Form 990 data for 2007 does not list major amounts from grants or top contributors to the organization other than the total amount in line 1 part 1. This indicates to me that the Forum for Equality did not get a major grant from an outside entity such as the Gill Foundation, or some other foundation (although this may be true, I cannot tell) so that most of line 1 was contributed either through a tied organization such as a 501c4 advocacy organization or PAC that partners with the 501c3 Forum for Equality and serves as part of the corporation of organizations that may make up Forum for Equality. Also top donors are not listed, indicating that top donors did not meet a certain reporting threshold through IRS regulation. So, donations need to be improved in quantity from donors and "average donations" while relationships need to be nurtured to encourage top donors to invest more highly in the organization.
In conclusion, my recommendations to Forum for Equality to improve donative and voluntary capacity are:
Hire a development director or seek volunteer services from someone trained and a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals
Spend a daytime retreat (or more) with the board and arrive at concise, explanatory, and vision inspiring vision, mission, purpose statements that can then be used not only in a management sense, but as discussion points with prospective donors. Further, providing a top down ethic of focus will invest volunteers in what the organization is about.
Nurture a set of large donors, spend time and walk through what the organization does and how it does it. Invite prospective donors of large amounts to a program presentation so they can see the organization in action
Improve website layout and functionality specific to seeking donations - allow people to donate online.
Spend time visiting with volunteers to nurture the reason the organization exists and to encourage bringing others in to volunteer and give in other ways to the organization.- If one does not already exist, instill a give/get standard for the board of directors - encourage them to use their networks of contacts to build infrastructure for the Forum for Equality.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Use of residuals and adjective identifiers for organizational identity.
In Weeks 1 and 2, we’ve focused on the two MAJOR theories in explaining the existence of the nonprofit sector, those of market failure and government failure. Some of the readings propose more nuanced and specific perspectives on the role of the nonprofit sector in relationship to the market and the state. You will notice that when you get into the readings for Week 3 that Lohmann proposes a “positive economics perspective” in his clever use of the evocative phrase “and lettuce in non-animal”. In other words, we don’t typically describe things by what they are not (particularly as we become more familiar with a concept or phenomenon) as we do in the more residual explanations of the nonprofit sector. (For example, we don’t call a dog a “non-cat” or an Aggie a non-Longhorn--or vice versa--or silence as non-sound!)
Before jumping into the Week 3 readings, take a moment and consider the idea of “nonprofitness” as something essential or original or independent (vs. primarily residual), and list 3-5 bullet-point statements, that support the idea of “nonprofitness” or alternatives to the residual perspectives.
(Notes: 1) Some of you may be interested in considering the idea of “nonprofit failure”. You are free to pursue this as an alternative, if you prefer. 2) If you completely reject the notion of “nonprofitness”, then consider and list your reasons for rejecting the idea of “nonprofitness”.)
Ok, I have to admit...my approach to this topic, as almost all the topics I have been addressing comes from my perspectives in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender identity politics. Bear with me please as I walk through my dance with residuals thus far.
Julia Serano wrote a book entitled "Whipping Girl: A transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Feminity" and asked either in the book or her website that individuals stop writing transwoman or transman when referring to trans gender persons who were born one sex, but present socially as another (reference to a discussion on this at bottom). Long story short, why should a modifier be used when identifying someone as a woman first and foremost - if they have been socially living as a woman for XY number of years. Do we really need an adjective in all cases....if a person presents and is treated as a man in all respects, shouldn't we call him a man regardless of what someone may know behind closed doors (trans man verses man).
This article and discussion question bring up the some topic. At some point it boils down to "when are we as a sector going to own ourselves enough to refer to ourselves with a descriptor that speaks to our individual identity rather than that derivative of some other identity." This line of thought is much in line with feminist discourse which looks at why women are called women (a derivation of men) and not something else (perhaps womyn?).
But, I had not honestly thought about identity in regard to non profit.So, in constructing a identity for this sector, what are some traits that uniquely identify it:
Values, the motivation of people to engage in this work primarily and normatively from heart first as per Frumkin chapter 4- Bottom line is mission/purpose, not profit or surplus. Not to say surplus/profit are not healthy for the organization - as I very very much believe they are, or that efficiencies of operations and professionalization is not sacrosanct to this work, but ...at the end of the day, mission accomplishment is what is expected of these organizations.
Nondistributive imperative. The readings show that although there is a dark side to this sector wherein there may not be distributions, but there may be other job "perks" that serve the same purpose....the organization is still to invest net from the year back into the organization and for future forestallment of disaster.
Ownership in the hands of the people. I am actually surprised that our sector does not celebrate this factor more, as it is the alternative to the criticisms of Marx and others wherein ownership of the means of production is the possessed by a few.
Interestingly, 3 and 4 as reasons juxtapose themselves against the framework of the other two sectors instead of standing as something "new" or "different" from the others. These traits are like the "anti-traits" to the other sectors. 1 and 2 though give us clues in how we might reframe the identity of this Mission Driven, ForPurpose, or ValueMotivated sector different from "nonprofitness". Do these terms really work though in adequately rebranding the sector? I don't know.
I would think that "Voluntary sector" comes close, but also becomes less true as efficiencies demand greater professionalization (and people who do this work full time need to be able to pay bills and put food on the table).
Are nonprofits then residual, or "something new". If we change our history up and consider that early society was more communal. voluntary, and everyone helped everyone (ie, it takes a village to hunt/gather/ and care for children or warfare), then perhaps forprofit/nonvoluntary, or even governmental industries are actually residual of the origin state to how things were done? What I am trying to say is "Are forprofits and government instead residual of nonprofits"?
The other point I would make is that I believe the philanthropic sector is an amalgam of residual identities derivative or precursor to something else while also something different from the other two.
Government verses the nonprofit sector- the wrestling match of our times
Compare and contrast the following three readings, in terms of key findings and explanations for how the nonprofit sector relates to government. After doing so, identify a nonprofit organization and briefly consider and discuss its relationship to government:
Young, D.R. (2000). Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations: Theoretical and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1), 149-172.
Gazley, B., and J. L. Brudney. 2007. “The Purpose (and Perils) of Government-Nonprofit Partnership.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36(3): 389-415.
Van Slyke, D.M. (2007). Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to Understand the Government-Nonprofit Social Service Contracting Relationship. Journal of Public Administration, Research, & Theory, 17 (2), 157 - 187.
In reviewing the articles of Young, Gazley, and Van Slyke, interesting perspectives in regard to institutional attitudes and culture between the governmental and nonprofit sectors as well as observed frameworks to describe these tensions are put forth.
Young teaches us to historically and cross culturally view the relationships through the instrument of three different lenses - complementary, supplementary, or adversarial lenses. It can be seen that throughout modern history that nations have addressed the intersection of government and nonprofit sectors in ways that say much about the national culture, while also illustrating a complex mix of tensions in complementary, supplementary, and adversarial ways that still precipitate a normative way of "doing business". What we are left with is a taxonomy that is flexible and dynamic.
Gazley's study shows surprising results in the attitudinal preconceptions and enduring viewpoints that collaboration between these sectors come "prepackaged" with and leave for future public administrators and executive directors to consider when entering into collaboration. "Are the attitudes I have based on reality, hearsay, or past experience with certain governmental or nonprofit entities." Unfortunately, it is precisely these attitudinal shifts and biases that not only cloud the communicative abilities between the sectors, but lead to frameworks for approaching each other that preclude "getting to know each other and work as equals".
Van Slyke's observations in regard to principal-agent and principal-steward theories of management of collaborations by public officials left me shaking my head in some mixture of dissapointment, incredulity, and a tiny bit of disgust. Principal-agent theory as described may match well with preconceived ideas and misunderstandings of public officials about the nonprofit sector, or understandings based on bad history, and it may represent this tension between adversarial and complementary/supplementary forces that Young observed. However, the theory is based in an unequal power dynamic that is paternalistic in nature, tends to create overhead contraints upon the agent that may distract from mission alignment, and is horribly inefficient in terms of working towards mutual goal accomplishment. That being said, I understand that it is a tool based in reality and on experience with a diverse, divisive, and complex sector (ie, nonprofits).
Let me break it down in a totally different way. As we have been reading about the nonprofit sector, volunteerism, and motivations for engagement in this sector I have been to my first board meeting for Equality Texas. In 2009 I have a give/get goal of XX dollars to raise for the organization. This requirement I accepted and understood. Nevertheless, it is a constant stressor at the back of my mind as an obligation I must meet. Despite the training that other members of the board have encouraged they will help me with, I find the process daunting. To mitigate the fears surrounding success or failure in this venture, I have mulled over approaches in my corporate life that are employed by the advertising team I work with. I have thought about the approach my partner uses in working with clients in the retail world.
Moreso, I have begun to try and gird myself with training I learned through experience in the early 1990's in public radio in regard to interviewing talent and organizations for an Arts radio show we produced. What i have arrived at is the memory of how I approached clients then. Talent was brought in, made to feel comfortable, and engaged in coversation that allowed them to move from surface information to more in-depth topics in a way that was "natural" and mutually beneficial. The interview, as a vehicle, became something created neither by me or by the talent, but by us in joint communion while discussing the topic at hand. It was a best method in communication.
And so, coming back to these readings, I have to admit that I am a fan of the principal-steward approach, because the immediate assumption in regard to a client (in the case of public official collaborating with nonprofit org) should be that we are going to build something together. To accomplish that, communication should be encouraged from the outset and mechanisms for stress mitigation (accomplishment of goals, meeting benchmarks, etc) should by mutually arrived at in a creative atmosphere.
I know, easier said that done.
To me though, the principal-steward framework is a tool that needs to be sharpened more readily in the training of public officials. In a time in which a new president is interested in public works that engage more citizens, it is going to be ever important that government and nonprofits work in a creatively collaborative environment that has a balanced power dynamic.
To turn back to Equality Texas in this discussion of a nonprofit example and its approach to government ( www.equalitytexas.org) it must be understood that the organization is an advocacy organization and so is seemingly on the surface adversarial in relationship to government. In point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Equality Texas takes perhaps a supplementary approach to government in regard to
educating the public on the civil rights needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people, and our allies. However, it takes a collaborative approach in matters of actually getting legislation proposed, passed, and worked through.
This is not unlike what other advocacy organizations in our state may do, on both sides of an issue.
Equality Texas seeks out fair-minded, and equality-open individuals from both political parties and both conservative and liberal ideologies to frame and discuss legislation. In some cases, a more cautious and protective approach - such as with guaranteeing safe schools for all students should be taken. This approach may look at working with conservative minded persons to enable best options to pursue this avenue. In other initiatives such as guaranteeing equal work rights for everyone, a more "liberal" approach may need to be tempered with incentive amendments that make legislation more tasteful to all parties impacted. Still, at other times, we may deal with persons that we are diametrically opposed to in some legislation, but have supported other initiatives that they themselves were passionate about and we must work with them to make sure that initiative is still running at proper capacity. In these ways, stewardship WITH government in regard to the needs of our stakeholders is accomplished.
Young, D.R. (2000). Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations: Theoretical and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1), 149-172.
Gazley, B., and J. L. Brudney. 2007. “The Purpose (and Perils) of Government-Nonprofit Partnership.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36(3): 389-415.
Van Slyke, D.M. (2007). Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to Understand the Government-Nonprofit Social Service Contracting Relationship. Journal of Public Administration, Research, & Theory, 17 (2), 157 - 187.
In reviewing the articles of Young, Gazley, and Van Slyke, interesting perspectives in regard to institutional attitudes and culture between the governmental and nonprofit sectors as well as observed frameworks to describe these tensions are put forth.
Young teaches us to historically and cross culturally view the relationships through the instrument of three different lenses - complementary, supplementary, or adversarial lenses. It can be seen that throughout modern history that nations have addressed the intersection of government and nonprofit sectors in ways that say much about the national culture, while also illustrating a complex mix of tensions in complementary, supplementary, and adversarial ways that still precipitate a normative way of "doing business". What we are left with is a taxonomy that is flexible and dynamic.
Gazley's study shows surprising results in the attitudinal preconceptions and enduring viewpoints that collaboration between these sectors come "prepackaged" with and leave for future public administrators and executive directors to consider when entering into collaboration. "Are the attitudes I have based on reality, hearsay, or past experience with certain governmental or nonprofit entities." Unfortunately, it is precisely these attitudinal shifts and biases that not only cloud the communicative abilities between the sectors, but lead to frameworks for approaching each other that preclude "getting to know each other and work as equals".
Van Slyke's observations in regard to principal-agent and principal-steward theories of management of collaborations by public officials left me shaking my head in some mixture of dissapointment, incredulity, and a tiny bit of disgust. Principal-agent theory as described may match well with preconceived ideas and misunderstandings of public officials about the nonprofit sector, or understandings based on bad history, and it may represent this tension between adversarial and complementary/supplementary forces that Young observed. However, the theory is based in an unequal power dynamic that is paternalistic in nature, tends to create overhead contraints upon the agent that may distract from mission alignment, and is horribly inefficient in terms of working towards mutual goal accomplishment. That being said, I understand that it is a tool based in reality and on experience with a diverse, divisive, and complex sector (ie, nonprofits).
Let me break it down in a totally different way. As we have been reading about the nonprofit sector, volunteerism, and motivations for engagement in this sector I have been to my first board meeting for Equality Texas. In 2009 I have a give/get goal of XX dollars to raise for the organization. This requirement I accepted and understood. Nevertheless, it is a constant stressor at the back of my mind as an obligation I must meet. Despite the training that other members of the board have encouraged they will help me with, I find the process daunting. To mitigate the fears surrounding success or failure in this venture, I have mulled over approaches in my corporate life that are employed by the advertising team I work with. I have thought about the approach my partner uses in working with clients in the retail world.
Moreso, I have begun to try and gird myself with training I learned through experience in the early 1990's in public radio in regard to interviewing talent and organizations for an Arts radio show we produced. What i have arrived at is the memory of how I approached clients then. Talent was brought in, made to feel comfortable, and engaged in coversation that allowed them to move from surface information to more in-depth topics in a way that was "natural" and mutually beneficial. The interview, as a vehicle, became something created neither by me or by the talent, but by us in joint communion while discussing the topic at hand. It was a best method in communication.
And so, coming back to these readings, I have to admit that I am a fan of the principal-steward approach, because the immediate assumption in regard to a client (in the case of public official collaborating with nonprofit org) should be that we are going to build something together. To accomplish that, communication should be encouraged from the outset and mechanisms for stress mitigation (accomplishment of goals, meeting benchmarks, etc) should by mutually arrived at in a creative atmosphere.
I know, easier said that done.
To me though, the principal-steward framework is a tool that needs to be sharpened more readily in the training of public officials. In a time in which a new president is interested in public works that engage more citizens, it is going to be ever important that government and nonprofits work in a creatively collaborative environment that has a balanced power dynamic.
To turn back to Equality Texas in this discussion of a nonprofit example and its approach to government ( www.equalitytexas.org) it must be understood that the organization is an advocacy organization and so is seemingly on the surface adversarial in relationship to government. In point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Equality Texas takes perhaps a supplementary approach to government in regard to
educating the public on the civil rights needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people, and our allies. However, it takes a collaborative approach in matters of actually getting legislation proposed, passed, and worked through.
This is not unlike what other advocacy organizations in our state may do, on both sides of an issue.
Equality Texas seeks out fair-minded, and equality-open individuals from both political parties and both conservative and liberal ideologies to frame and discuss legislation. In some cases, a more cautious and protective approach - such as with guaranteeing safe schools for all students should be taken. This approach may look at working with conservative minded persons to enable best options to pursue this avenue. In other initiatives such as guaranteeing equal work rights for everyone, a more "liberal" approach may need to be tempered with incentive amendments that make legislation more tasteful to all parties impacted. Still, at other times, we may deal with persons that we are diametrically opposed to in some legislation, but have supported other initiatives that they themselves were passionate about and we must work with them to make sure that initiative is still running at proper capacity. In these ways, stewardship WITH government in regard to the needs of our stakeholders is accomplished.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Advocacy is natural, best practice sense of organizations. The American Diabetes Association Advocacy quick minute
First, review the CLPI/Kellogg Foundation publication, “Effective Lobbying at All Levels” http://www.wkkf.org/advocacyhandbook/index.html AND Listening to the Robert Egger and Pablo Eisenberg debate on “Should charitable, exempt nonprofits advocate?” (Scroll, Click, and View all 5 clips)
http://www.zimbio.com/Egger+vs+Eisenberg#zVideo_1_anchor
THEN answer the following questions: -Where do you stand generally on this issue? Please describe your stance, and support your stance with evidence from course readings and the above two materials. -Identify an 501 ( c ) 3 organization of interest (briefly describing the organization and, if possible, providing a link to the organization’s website). Review the organization’s website and consider skimming the organization’s most recent IRS Form 990 and comment on their current level of advocacy behavior (or the lack thereof, or the lack of transparency regarding such activities). Finally, make recommendations for whether the organization should or shouldn’t engage in “charitable advocacy and lobbying in the public interest”, and strategies for doing so or scaling back, as appropriate.
Should nonprofits participate in advocacy? Yes, in accordance to their limits prescribed by law - and those laws should be expanded.
Western Philanthropical History is rife with the natural outgrowth of advocacy from the work of charity as demonstrated in Kevin C Robbins article "The Nonprofit Sector in Historical Perspective: Traditions of Philanthropy in the West". Whether it is one of the prime elements in Jewish values, or an outgrowth of Roman political manuevering that inured conquered to Caesar's rule, it is inextricably tied with the work that nonprofits are said to engage in.
From a practical perspective advocacy is both an outgrowth of the work done specifically in the social welfare sectors of the nonprofit complex and a communication instrument vital to the efficient management of the industry and the individual organization. If we truly care about our clients, if our ethics are truly rooted in a mission that serves to improve the world by addressing certain societal "gaps" - whatever those may be, then it is incumbent upon us to advocate on behalf of what we see "on the ground". One way to think about the function of advocacy is to simply think of it as best practice communication techniques with stakeholders and external influences. With stakeholders, and the public at large - any organization that is truly transparent not only wants to show why the work they are doing is important, but they want to simultaneously lift people up while educating others to the important work they are doing.
Another perspective, I like is the perspective of Washington Protection and Advocacy System (http://www.wpas-rights.org/What%20is%20Advocacy/what_advocacy.htm) which posits Advocacy as "problem solving used:
To protect rights or change unfair discriminatory or abusive treatment to fair, equal, and humane treatment- To improve services, gain eligibility for services or change the amount or quality of services to better meet the needs of an individual
- To remove barriers which prevent full access to full participation in community life"
In this viewpoint, Advocacy is problem solving...it is a method by which we help those served by our mission and purpose.
If we understand that advocacy is each of these individually (an innate characteristic of charatos, a method of communication, and a method of problem solving) and / or all of these three elements at the same time, then why should we constrain or limit nonprofits from doing so. After all, it is well attested that the for-profit sector is allowed to directly lobby, endorse candidates, etc in order to get what best benefits them. I saw this best in my professional life during the 2007 state legislative session in which the cable industry was trying to defeat a measure to open internet to phone company competition, a bit of legislation wherein corporate actively tried to recruit every employee in our company via grassroots mechanisms to call their elected officials and defeat this measure.
Is this bad? Does this get out of hand?
Yes, that particular summer a special session was called for education reform in Texas that ended up being a drawn out battle on this telecommunications "topic". But, does that necessitate that we deny the ability of those who own machines of industry to talk with and work with government towards solutions - even if those solutions are in the best interest of party "A". I would disagree with that.
I would agree that there need to be limits, as we see in the nonprofit world - but that those limits need to be changed. 501c3 organizations are allowed basically issue based, grassroots advocacy. I accept that, but think that more should be allowed. I do not agree that funds should be used to directly fund a candidates campaign - as those funds are in a real sense owned by the public at large through the tax deduction incentive for those who donate to such organizations.
And so, it would extend that perhaps such organizations should not say "We like candidate X and think you should vote for her." However, I do not agree with the crackdown on grassroots, issue based spending that the IRS has engaged in and enforced. I think that amounts spent on issue based activism for 501c3 organizations should be transparent for public viewing. The 501c3 is then beholden to the public in their community - and not the IRS for those expenditures. And, since the tax deduction virtual dollar is the community dollar, and not the IRS....that seems more fair (unless we consider that the IRS is the watchdog of the "community virtual dollar" created through tax deduction).
I also do not agree that 501c4 organizations should be prohibited from candidate endorsement, as funds donated to a 501c4 to not incur a tax deductive benefit. If such organizations can get people to donate to them, then they are beholden to those people and not the IRS for their use of those funds. For me the nondistribution constrain and transparency demands of the IRS serve well enough as guard in the case of 501c4.
For me this is most apparent for an organization like the American Diabetes Association, which needs to do several things to fulfill its vision of "cure, care, and commitment" through a mission to, "prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people affected by diabetes".
To do this, ADA ( http://www.diabetes.org/home.jsp) must engage in research, while also communicating that research to the public and directly to the government through advocacy to address those government failures wherein policy can be improved and citizen needs can better be addressed in a normative government funding sense of other initiatives.
Personally, having a partner with diabetes, and hearing via my "ear to the ground", I think that the ADA needs to do more. Insurance companies need to be addressed directly in terms of
- Deductibles and co-insurance provisions of diabetic supplies.
- Life-insurance denial when patients may be in treatment for diabetes that minimizes or mitigates their acturarial risk. Government needs to be encouraged to engage in programming that really addresses nutrition emergencies in our nation, to educate the public, and to encourage through incentive programs those sort of initiatives that move industry towards more nutritionally sound and diabetic risk mitigated foods and drugs. Not being an advocate for ADA, and viewing only what is on their website - I am encouraged that some of this is being pursued. However, more always needs to be done.
Thank you for your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)