Posted on December 30, 2010
NTEN Receives $1.1 Million From Google to Boost Nonprofit Technology Adoption
The Nonprofit Technology Network in Portland, Oregon, has announced a two-year, $1.1 million grant from the Google Inc. Charitable Giving Fund of Tides Foundation to promote the benefits of technology to nonprofit leaders.
The grant will support NTEN's efforts to educate technology leaders about the evolving role of technology in nonprofit work and to produce research and training on cloud technologies — Web-based applications that manage constituent conversations and information — visualization, and collaboration. The funds will also be used to develop and distribute NTEN:Change, a free quarterly journal for nonprofit leaders.
"This is not just an investment in NTEN, it's an investment in our entire sector," said NTEN executive director Holly Ross. "With this support, we can provide new ways to help our community connect with each other and learn about the most important technology strategies, tools, and trends. What's more exciting is that we can now reach beyond our core audiences and help a broader part of the sector transform technology into social change."
“NTEN Receives $1.1Million Grant From Google to Aid Nonprofit Technology Adoption.” NTEN Press Release 12/20/10.
http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=319800002
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
The ‘L3C’: The new double-hybrid entity
The ‘L3C’: The new double-hybrid entity
Deborah B. Andrews |
On August 3, 2010, North Carolina created a new type of entity when it adopted legislation recognizing the low-profit limited liability company, also known as the "L3C".
The L3C is a hybrid form of a limited liability company that blends the attributes of a for-profit entity with those of a nonprofit entity.
As a for-profit entity, an L3C can have owners who receive profit distributions from the entity. However, like a nonprofit, the L3C's primary purpose must be to promote a charitable purpose.
The intent is to harness the use of profit-seeking capital for socially-beneficial goals - a hopefully win-win scenario.
Overview of limited liability companies
The LLC itself is a hybrid entity that combines the limited-liability aspects of a corporation with the flow-through tax aspects of a partnership.
Like a corporation, an LLC offers limited liability to its owners. Only its members' investment in the LLC is at risk; their personal assets are protected from the reach of the LLC's creditors.
However, an LLC is not subject to tax like a corporation. Like a partnership, income or loss of an LLC flows to its members and is reflected on the members' tax returns.
Unlike the traditional LLC, the L3C must be formed to accomplish a charitable purpose in addition to a business purpose. Although the L3C must have a charitable purpose, donations to an L3C are not deductible as a charitable contribution because the L3C is a for-profit entity.
Why use an L3C? The importance of private foundations
One of the primary reasons for creating an L3C is to attract investments from private foundations.
Under IRS rules, a private foundation must distribute a certain percentage of its assets each year for a charitable purpose or be subject to a penalty.
In addition, a private foundation may be penalized if its assets are invested in a way that jeopardizes the foundation's charitable purpose.
If an investment qualifies as a program-related investment (PRI), the investment will count toward a foundation's mandatory distribution requirement and will not be characterized as a "jeopardizing investment."
The North Carolina L3C and the PRI
To qualify as a PRI, the IRS mandates the investment meet the following three requirements:
The primary purpose of the investment must be to accomplish a charitable or educational purpose;
The production of income or capital appreciation of property cannot be a significant purpose of the investment; and,
The investment cannot be used for political or legislative purposes.
A PRI allows private foundations to make investments in the form of loans, grants and equity purchases in socially-motivated for-profit entities.
Because of the uncertainty of whether an investment will qualify as a PRI, private foundations generally seek a ruling from the IRS that the proposed investment will qualify as a PRI and not constitute a "jeopardizing investment."
However, seeking an IRS ruling is expensive and time consuming. Therefore, private foundations often refrain from investing in for-profit entities because of the potential risk.
If the investment does not qualify as a PRI, the private foundation and its directors or trustees may face significant penalties. In addition, the private foundation could lose its tax-exempt status.
It is unclear how the IRS will treat a North Carolina L3C. Although the IRS has issued favorable rulings on the ability of private foundations to invest in for-profit LLCs with a charitable purpose, the IRS has not ruled that a private foundation's investment in an L3C automatically qualifies as a PRI.
However, North Carolina's L3C legislation was written specifically to mirror the IRS requirements for a PRI in an effort to provide assurance to private foundations that their investment in a North Carolina L3C will qualify as a PRI.
In fact, to qualify as a North Carolina L3C, the three IRS requirements listed above must be included in the L3C's Articles of Organization.
Attracting investors
The perfect scenario for an L3C is for it to attract investments both from private foundations seeking out charitable endeavors while obtaining some return on capital, and from private investors who will be more motivated to seek profits.
A private foundation's investment in an L3C may be critical in attracting private investors.
A major benefit of the L3C is that it can offer layered ownership in which the investment risk and return are distributed unevenly among its members.
Normally, investors with the riskiest investment seek the highest rate of return on their investment.
However, to provide an incentive for private investors to participate, the L3C should be structured so that the private foundation would accept the highest risk while receiving a lower rate of return on its investment.
Conclusion
The L3C may become an important tool in achieving socially-beneficial objectives such as developing affordable housing for the poor and providing low-interest loans to businesses relocating to economically distressed areas.
While the benefits could be substantial, until the IRS rules that a private foundation's investment in a North Carolina L3C automatically qualifies as a PRI, some private foundations may be hesitant to invest in these new entities regardless of the fact that they will have the ability to earn a profit while furthering their charitable goals.
Ward and Smith, P.A. provides a multi-specialty approach to the representation of for-profit and nonprofit organizations and their officers, directors, employees, and investors.
http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/managementleadership/%E2%80%98l3c%E2%80%99-new-double-hybrid-entity
Deborah B. Andrews |
On August 3, 2010, North Carolina created a new type of entity when it adopted legislation recognizing the low-profit limited liability company, also known as the "L3C".
The L3C is a hybrid form of a limited liability company that blends the attributes of a for-profit entity with those of a nonprofit entity.
As a for-profit entity, an L3C can have owners who receive profit distributions from the entity. However, like a nonprofit, the L3C's primary purpose must be to promote a charitable purpose.
The intent is to harness the use of profit-seeking capital for socially-beneficial goals - a hopefully win-win scenario.
Overview of limited liability companies
The LLC itself is a hybrid entity that combines the limited-liability aspects of a corporation with the flow-through tax aspects of a partnership.
Like a corporation, an LLC offers limited liability to its owners. Only its members' investment in the LLC is at risk; their personal assets are protected from the reach of the LLC's creditors.
However, an LLC is not subject to tax like a corporation. Like a partnership, income or loss of an LLC flows to its members and is reflected on the members' tax returns.
Unlike the traditional LLC, the L3C must be formed to accomplish a charitable purpose in addition to a business purpose. Although the L3C must have a charitable purpose, donations to an L3C are not deductible as a charitable contribution because the L3C is a for-profit entity.
Why use an L3C? The importance of private foundations
One of the primary reasons for creating an L3C is to attract investments from private foundations.
Under IRS rules, a private foundation must distribute a certain percentage of its assets each year for a charitable purpose or be subject to a penalty.
In addition, a private foundation may be penalized if its assets are invested in a way that jeopardizes the foundation's charitable purpose.
If an investment qualifies as a program-related investment (PRI), the investment will count toward a foundation's mandatory distribution requirement and will not be characterized as a "jeopardizing investment."
The North Carolina L3C and the PRI
To qualify as a PRI, the IRS mandates the investment meet the following three requirements:
The primary purpose of the investment must be to accomplish a charitable or educational purpose;
The production of income or capital appreciation of property cannot be a significant purpose of the investment; and,
The investment cannot be used for political or legislative purposes.
A PRI allows private foundations to make investments in the form of loans, grants and equity purchases in socially-motivated for-profit entities.
Because of the uncertainty of whether an investment will qualify as a PRI, private foundations generally seek a ruling from the IRS that the proposed investment will qualify as a PRI and not constitute a "jeopardizing investment."
However, seeking an IRS ruling is expensive and time consuming. Therefore, private foundations often refrain from investing in for-profit entities because of the potential risk.
If the investment does not qualify as a PRI, the private foundation and its directors or trustees may face significant penalties. In addition, the private foundation could lose its tax-exempt status.
It is unclear how the IRS will treat a North Carolina L3C. Although the IRS has issued favorable rulings on the ability of private foundations to invest in for-profit LLCs with a charitable purpose, the IRS has not ruled that a private foundation's investment in an L3C automatically qualifies as a PRI.
However, North Carolina's L3C legislation was written specifically to mirror the IRS requirements for a PRI in an effort to provide assurance to private foundations that their investment in a North Carolina L3C will qualify as a PRI.
In fact, to qualify as a North Carolina L3C, the three IRS requirements listed above must be included in the L3C's Articles of Organization.
Attracting investors
The perfect scenario for an L3C is for it to attract investments both from private foundations seeking out charitable endeavors while obtaining some return on capital, and from private investors who will be more motivated to seek profits.
A private foundation's investment in an L3C may be critical in attracting private investors.
A major benefit of the L3C is that it can offer layered ownership in which the investment risk and return are distributed unevenly among its members.
Normally, investors with the riskiest investment seek the highest rate of return on their investment.
However, to provide an incentive for private investors to participate, the L3C should be structured so that the private foundation would accept the highest risk while receiving a lower rate of return on its investment.
Conclusion
The L3C may become an important tool in achieving socially-beneficial objectives such as developing affordable housing for the poor and providing low-interest loans to businesses relocating to economically distressed areas.
While the benefits could be substantial, until the IRS rules that a private foundation's investment in a North Carolina L3C automatically qualifies as a PRI, some private foundations may be hesitant to invest in these new entities regardless of the fact that they will have the ability to earn a profit while furthering their charitable goals.
Ward and Smith, P.A. provides a multi-specialty approach to the representation of for-profit and nonprofit organizations and their officers, directors, employees, and investors.
http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/managementleadership/%E2%80%98l3c%E2%80%99-new-double-hybrid-entity
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Charities Seeing Slight, But Not Enough, Recovery in Giving
Charities Seeing Slight, But Not Enough, Recovery in Giving
November 30th, 2010 |
Nonprofit organizations have seen a slight turnaround in giving so far this year that mirrors the slow economic recovery, a new survey from the Nonprofit Research Collaborative (NRC) finds. But the small rebound hasn’t been enough to help many nonprofits that are grappling with staff and service cuts even as demand for their services has increased.
The national survey showed that 36 percent of charities reported an increase in donations in the first nine months of 2010, compared with only 23 percent in the same period of 2009.
Thirty-seven percent of charities reported a decrease in giving, a dramatic change from 2009′s 51 percent. Among those experiencing a decline in giving, the main reason cited was fewer individual donations and smaller amounts. Lower amounts received from foundations and corporations also contributed to the overall lower giving amounts at these charities. Giving remained unchanged at 26 percent of nonprofits in 2010 vs. 25 percent in 2009.
“We are beginning to see some positive signs, but despite that giving still has a long way to go to return to the levels it was at three or four years ago,” said Patrick M. Rooney, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, which spearheaded the collaboration. “One-fifth of charities in the survey said their budgets for 2011 will be lower than for 2010, forcing many of them to look at cuts in services, salaries and staff.”
Among the 20 percent of nonprofits anticipating reduced budgets next year, 66 percent say they will have to reduce programs, services or operating hours, 59 percent expect to cut or freeze staff salaries or benefits, and 49 percent are planning layoffs or hiring freezes.
“The Nonprofit Fundraising Survey: November 2010” is the first product of a collaboration involving six organizations that serve the nonprofit sector: the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Blackbaud, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the Foundation Center, GuideStar USA Inc., and the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics.
“For the first time in two years, there is cause for cautious optimism about the nonprofit sector in this economy,” said Bob Ottenhoff, president and CEO of GuideStar. “Nonetheless, in this latest study, as in all prior years, nonprofits also are reporting increased demand for their services. Even as giving increases, philanthropic dollars fall short of the amounts needed to help people in our country and abroad.”
Demand for services increased at 78 percent of human service nonprofits and 68 percent of charities overall in 2010. Charities will be hard-pressed in 2011 to secure funding for growing needs, especially as individual and foundation donors are cautious about boosting support and other sources of funding — including government contracts for services — are cut.
“Younger, less well-established nonprofits have been especially hard hit by the recession,” noted Lawrence T. McGill, vice president for research at the Foundation Center. “Many foundations, seeking to maximize more limited resources, have steered their grantmaking toward organizations they believe have the best chance to weather the economic storm.”
Other Key NRC Survey Findings:
■In four of eight subsectors, the share of organizations reporting an increase in contributions was about the same as the share reporting a decrease. The four with nearly equal percentages of organizations with giving up and giving down are: arts, education, environment/animals, and human services.
■International organizations were the most likely to report an increase in contributions, reflecting donations made for disaster relief.
■In three subsectors — health, public-society benefit, and religion — a larger share of the organizations reported declines than reported increases.
■The larger an organization’s annual expenditures, the more likely it reported an increase in charitable receipts in the first nine months of 2010 compared with the same period in 2009.
■Most organizations were guardedly optimistic about 2011. Forty-seven percent plan budget increases, 33 percent expect to maintain their current level of expenditures, and 20 percent anticipate a lower budget for 2011.
The Collaborative and Survey Methodology
By working together, the Nonprofit Research Collaborative can reduce the number of surveys nonprofits are asked to complete, collect information more efficiently, and analyze it in more useful ways to create the benchmarks and trends that nonprofits and grant makers use to guide their work. Each partner has at least a decade of direct experience collecting information from nonprofits on charitable receipts, fundraising practices, and/or grantmaking activities. Survey participants will form a panel over time, allowing for trend comparisons among the same organizations. This approach provides more useful benchmarking information than repeated cross-sectional studies.
The first NRC survey, based on questions that GuideStar used for its annual economic surveys, was fielded between October 19 and November 3, 2010. It received 2,513 responses. More than 2,350 charities completed the questions, as did 163 foundations. The analysis for grant makers includes responses from charities that make grants but that are not foundations. These include United Ways, Jewish federations, congregations, and a number of other types of organizations. There were responses from 386 grant makers.
The respondents form a convenience sample. There is no margin of error or measure of statistical significance using this sampling technique, as it is not a random sample of the population studied. However, given the long-running nature of GuideStar’s economic surveys and the strong relationship between findings in those studies in prior years and actual results once tax data about charitable giving are available, the method employed here is a useful barometer of what charities experience and what total giving will look like. In the future, the NRC surveys are expected to occur in early winter, spring, and fall every year.
“The Nonprofit Fundraising Survey: November 2010” (PDF), which includes responses broken down by types of nonprofits and budget size, can be downloaded at no charge from the Gain Knowledge area of the Foundation Center’s web site.
http://www.pnnonline.org/charities-seeing-slight-but-not-enough-recovery-in-giving
November 30th, 2010 |
Nonprofit organizations have seen a slight turnaround in giving so far this year that mirrors the slow economic recovery, a new survey from the Nonprofit Research Collaborative (NRC) finds. But the small rebound hasn’t been enough to help many nonprofits that are grappling with staff and service cuts even as demand for their services has increased.
The national survey showed that 36 percent of charities reported an increase in donations in the first nine months of 2010, compared with only 23 percent in the same period of 2009.
Thirty-seven percent of charities reported a decrease in giving, a dramatic change from 2009′s 51 percent. Among those experiencing a decline in giving, the main reason cited was fewer individual donations and smaller amounts. Lower amounts received from foundations and corporations also contributed to the overall lower giving amounts at these charities. Giving remained unchanged at 26 percent of nonprofits in 2010 vs. 25 percent in 2009.
“We are beginning to see some positive signs, but despite that giving still has a long way to go to return to the levels it was at three or four years ago,” said Patrick M. Rooney, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, which spearheaded the collaboration. “One-fifth of charities in the survey said their budgets for 2011 will be lower than for 2010, forcing many of them to look at cuts in services, salaries and staff.”
Among the 20 percent of nonprofits anticipating reduced budgets next year, 66 percent say they will have to reduce programs, services or operating hours, 59 percent expect to cut or freeze staff salaries or benefits, and 49 percent are planning layoffs or hiring freezes.
“The Nonprofit Fundraising Survey: November 2010” is the first product of a collaboration involving six organizations that serve the nonprofit sector: the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Blackbaud, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the Foundation Center, GuideStar USA Inc., and the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics.
“For the first time in two years, there is cause for cautious optimism about the nonprofit sector in this economy,” said Bob Ottenhoff, president and CEO of GuideStar. “Nonetheless, in this latest study, as in all prior years, nonprofits also are reporting increased demand for their services. Even as giving increases, philanthropic dollars fall short of the amounts needed to help people in our country and abroad.”
Demand for services increased at 78 percent of human service nonprofits and 68 percent of charities overall in 2010. Charities will be hard-pressed in 2011 to secure funding for growing needs, especially as individual and foundation donors are cautious about boosting support and other sources of funding — including government contracts for services — are cut.
“Younger, less well-established nonprofits have been especially hard hit by the recession,” noted Lawrence T. McGill, vice president for research at the Foundation Center. “Many foundations, seeking to maximize more limited resources, have steered their grantmaking toward organizations they believe have the best chance to weather the economic storm.”
Other Key NRC Survey Findings:
■In four of eight subsectors, the share of organizations reporting an increase in contributions was about the same as the share reporting a decrease. The four with nearly equal percentages of organizations with giving up and giving down are: arts, education, environment/animals, and human services.
■International organizations were the most likely to report an increase in contributions, reflecting donations made for disaster relief.
■In three subsectors — health, public-society benefit, and religion — a larger share of the organizations reported declines than reported increases.
■The larger an organization’s annual expenditures, the more likely it reported an increase in charitable receipts in the first nine months of 2010 compared with the same period in 2009.
■Most organizations were guardedly optimistic about 2011. Forty-seven percent plan budget increases, 33 percent expect to maintain their current level of expenditures, and 20 percent anticipate a lower budget for 2011.
The Collaborative and Survey Methodology
By working together, the Nonprofit Research Collaborative can reduce the number of surveys nonprofits are asked to complete, collect information more efficiently, and analyze it in more useful ways to create the benchmarks and trends that nonprofits and grant makers use to guide their work. Each partner has at least a decade of direct experience collecting information from nonprofits on charitable receipts, fundraising practices, and/or grantmaking activities. Survey participants will form a panel over time, allowing for trend comparisons among the same organizations. This approach provides more useful benchmarking information than repeated cross-sectional studies.
The first NRC survey, based on questions that GuideStar used for its annual economic surveys, was fielded between October 19 and November 3, 2010. It received 2,513 responses. More than 2,350 charities completed the questions, as did 163 foundations. The analysis for grant makers includes responses from charities that make grants but that are not foundations. These include United Ways, Jewish federations, congregations, and a number of other types of organizations. There were responses from 386 grant makers.
The respondents form a convenience sample. There is no margin of error or measure of statistical significance using this sampling technique, as it is not a random sample of the population studied. However, given the long-running nature of GuideStar’s economic surveys and the strong relationship between findings in those studies in prior years and actual results once tax data about charitable giving are available, the method employed here is a useful barometer of what charities experience and what total giving will look like. In the future, the NRC surveys are expected to occur in early winter, spring, and fall every year.
“The Nonprofit Fundraising Survey: November 2010” (PDF), which includes responses broken down by types of nonprofits and budget size, can be downloaded at no charge from the Gain Knowledge area of the Foundation Center’s web site.
http://www.pnnonline.org/charities-seeing-slight-but-not-enough-recovery-in-giving
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Starting Off on the Right Foot: How to Establish a Good ED-Board Relationship
Starting Off on the Right Foot: How to Establish a Good ED-Board Relationship
The relationship between a new nonprofit executive director (ED) or chief executive officer (CEO) and his or her board can often be challenging. Every interaction and decision seems to carry extra weight, as the directors scrutinize the new leader’s decisions and actions, and the new leader tries to find the right wavelength on which to communicate most effectively with the board. Even a small misstep—a poorly phrased or timed communication, for example—can have great implications because it is setting the tone for what’s to come.
Both parties know that it is critically important to get the ED/CEO-board relationship started off on the right foot, so it can grow into a strong, successful partnership that helps fulfill an organization’s goals and weathers any challenges ahead. But there is no blueprint for success. What can be useful, however, is considering the experience of senior leaders who have successfully managed this critical transition.
To that end, we spoke with three CEOs and two board chairs about the preliminary steps they took to ensure that their organization’s CEO-board relationships worked from the day the new CEO stepped into his or her role. Their varied approaches cannot serve as precise guides for others to follow. Rather, their insights are meant to help others craft their own plans to lay the groundwork for a strong ED/CEO-board relationship.
Start before the job begins
Scholarship America, a Minneapolis, MN-based national education service organization that mobilizes support for students getting into and graduating from college, is a complex organization, comprising both the all-volunteer Dollars for Scholars program and a business unit, Scholarship Management Services, which administers student loans. Because of the complexity of the organization, Scholarship America Board Chair Mim Schreck made it her priority to really get to know the two CEO finalists during the hiring process and to make sure they understood the organization’s strengths, weaknesses, and hopes for the future. “A nonprofit is mission-driven and if the CEO is going off in a direction that the board is not in agreement with, they’re never going to be in sync, and it’s going to be a contentious relationship,” Schreck said. “They have to see eye-to-eye and support each other in the goal of supporting the mission.”
Schreck, who was then Scholarship America’s acting CEO, met individually with the two finalists to talk about her aspirations for the organization, as did Scholarship America’s acting board chair, Richard J. Schwab. The two CEO finalists also talked with a number of other board members at a dinner before the final interview. All board members were invited to attend—and participate in—the candidates’ final interviews. “We tried to expose them to as many of us as possible,” Schreck said.
That approach was valuable. Lauren Segal, who was hired as Scholarship America’s CEO and president in March 2010, said that listening to and learning from the board before she was even offered the job allowed her to be far more effective right when she walked in the door as CEO.
During the hiring process Segal learned that the board was united in its desire to take the organization in a new direction. She also learned the priority needs of the organization. As a result, in her first few months on the job she was able to work with the board to, among other things: launch a technology initiative; refocus the fundraising and marketing direction for the organization; move from an activity orientation of “getting in” to college to one that will focus on impact, i.e., “getting through” one’s education beyond high school; and kicking off a new strategic planning process with full understanding and buy-in as to what the desired end state will be.
“I always asked people’s opinions and perspectives on things, but I didn’t come in like a neophyte,” Segal said. “I had a good understanding. We could start our work together from ‘How do we move forward faster?’ rather than, ‘What’s the lay of the land?’”
Good communication is the cornerstone of a good ED/CEO-board relationship. And in fact, each of the senior leaders we interviewed said building communication channels ideally should begin before the new ED/CEO is hired. Domingo Barrios, for example, also was given the opportunity to meet with each of the Heifer Foundation’s board members when he became a finalist in the organization’s search for a president and CEO. Barrios made an effort to meet face-to-face with each board member, and despite the fact that the Little Rock, AR-based nonprofit’s board members are spread across the country, he succeeded in having in-person meetings with all but one board member. His approach to these meetings was simple: He asked board members about their goals and aspirations for the organization, and then carefully listened to their answers.
Make a personal connection
Hired as the Heifer Foundation’s CEO in July 2010, Barrios continues to favor personal meetings and phone calls with his board chair over email. He has approached the board about increasing the number of board meetings each year, currently two, by either adding more in-person meetings or by using teleconferencing.
“I really want to hear the voices of our trustees—literally hear their voices,” he told us. “Listening is a great building block of communication. I started building a relationship with my board from my interviews, and I took those interviews as an opportunity to begin the process of gaining trust and understanding some of the nuances of the board collectively.”
At Scholarship America, Schreck and Segal also noted that getting to know each other outside of work can make a good ED/CEO-board chair relationship even better. Although they are based in different cities, they have made it a point to learn about each other’s lives by having dinners together before meetings and meeting each other’s spouses. “I think [a more personal relationship] helps to build a stronger partnership and an understanding of where each other is coming from," said Segal. "Then, you understand each other’s styles better, including strengths and weaknesses.”
Don’t dwell on the past
It can be valuable for a new ED/CEO to learn about their predecessor’s tenure and why the person left the job, so s/he can address any concerns the board may have. “Clearly, coming in you want to have an understanding of what happened to the prior CEO if they left under duress,” Barrios said. But he and the other senior leaders stressed that it is important that neither the new ED/CEO nor the board members dwell on the past, whether the prior leader left under a cloud or as a superstar.
For Ed Munster, becoming CEO of the YMCA of Metropolitan Atlanta in January 2009 meant stepping into a role that he had trained for his entire life. He had grown up in the Y organization as a child in New Orleans and had spent his professional career working his way up through the organization. But complicating his new job was the fact that he had spent 23 years as the Atlanta Y’s chief operating officer (COO) in the shadow of a longtime, beloved CEO. So, while Munster had a relationship with the Y’s board, it was as the organization’s operations expert and second-in-command. Munster’s challenge in the months before and after his selection as CEO was to change the way he related to board members and the rest of the Y’s stakeholders in the Atlanta community and to recast himself as the CEO.
During the search process, the board’s search committee clearly saw Munster as a top-notch candidate, but some search committee members felt they had a duty to expand the search beyond the Y movement and perhaps even outside the nonprofit sector. They changed their minds in part because of data from the national Y showing that a strong fit with the Y’s culture is critically important for new CEOs in the organization. As they went through the search process, the committee recognized that Munster’s lifelong familiarity with the Y’s culture and his financial savvy would be critical assets as the organization faced the economic downturn.
Board Chair Charlie Yates, who served on the search committee (when he was the incoming board chair), said, “In some ways, being an insider can work to your disadvantage because people know you too well. We all knew Ed was a strong operator but didn’t know that he could be the strong face of the organization, particularly given our critical fundraising requirements. I don’t think anybody knew what he was capable of independent from former CEO Fred Bradley. In the end, we realized that he was the only responsible hire.”
After Munster was named CEO and Yates became board chair, the two men worked together on a transition, as well as getting to know each other better and learning about each other’s priorities for the organization. The Atlanta Y had just started a 10-year strategic planning process, identifying both fundraising and program goals. Yates made a point to introduce Munster to both donors who could help with fundraising goals and partners who could work with the organization on programs to advance its mission in areas such as childhood obesity and early childhood education. To give Munster as many opportunities as possible to explain his vision for the organization to board members, the board began scheduling time for Munster to talk at every board meeting—a policy that continues today.
Munster said Yates’ support during his transition from internal operations expert to the new face of the Atlanta Y was invaluable. “Charlie really helped build access to the community,” Munster said. “It is so important to have a great relationship with your board chair right from the start. Without that, you really can’t succeed.”
Be frank about challenges
Scholarship America’s Schreck said her approach throughout the hiring process was to stay out of “sell mode.” While she was forthright about the many opportunities, she was equally honest about the challenges. “Be as true to the organization as you possibly can; let the candidate know as clearly as possible what it is you’re looking for and where you see the organization going,” Schreck said. “Show the good with the bad. In every adversity there is always great opportunity.”
The result of Schreck’s candor was that when Segal took over as president and CEO of Scholarship America, she understood the details of the organization’s budget and the strategy behind every number. In fact, she was so well-versed on the budget that she encountered no unpleasant surprises in her first few months on the job. This was particularly important given her mandate to bring change to the organization.
“Even if you were in a maintenance-stage organization, no surprises would be good,” Segal said. “But when you’re trying to make substantive change in an organization and take it to a different place, the no surprises rule is very important. You have to make quick assessments about what is and what isn’t possible, and if you’re constantly finding out things that you didn’t know, then not only does that stop the momentum, but it can set you back in terms of strategy and opportunity.”
Base the relationship on trust and respect
Barrios said new EDs/CEOs who approach a relationship with their board with a sense of fear are missing a great opportunity. “When you work from the fear side, you’re much more cautious on how to proceed,” Barrios said. “If the relationship is built on trust, you’re able to bring the experience that individual board members have to bear on all sorts of decisions.”
By establishing a collegial relationship with his board, Barrios said he is able to accomplish more toward the organization’s mission. In fact, he thinks of his board members as futurists, the people who decide where the organization should be in the future, and his role is to actualize that vision in real time. For example, Barrios learned during his early discussions with the board that two of the members’ top priorities were reducing spending and aligning the organization more closely with its sister organization, Heifer International. Because he had a good understanding of the board members’ expectations coming into the job, he was able to write a report to the board after just 30 days as CEO, giving his impression of the organization and outlining the mechanics of how he planned to address the board’s concerns.
“I want to create strategies that allow trustees to bring their voices to the table—that’s why they’re here,” Barrios said. “We spend a lot of time at nonprofits bringing the best people from our communities to our boards. You want to make sure you hear them.”
http://www.bridgestar.org/Library/EDBoardRelationship.aspx
The relationship between a new nonprofit executive director (ED) or chief executive officer (CEO) and his or her board can often be challenging. Every interaction and decision seems to carry extra weight, as the directors scrutinize the new leader’s decisions and actions, and the new leader tries to find the right wavelength on which to communicate most effectively with the board. Even a small misstep—a poorly phrased or timed communication, for example—can have great implications because it is setting the tone for what’s to come.
Both parties know that it is critically important to get the ED/CEO-board relationship started off on the right foot, so it can grow into a strong, successful partnership that helps fulfill an organization’s goals and weathers any challenges ahead. But there is no blueprint for success. What can be useful, however, is considering the experience of senior leaders who have successfully managed this critical transition.
To that end, we spoke with three CEOs and two board chairs about the preliminary steps they took to ensure that their organization’s CEO-board relationships worked from the day the new CEO stepped into his or her role. Their varied approaches cannot serve as precise guides for others to follow. Rather, their insights are meant to help others craft their own plans to lay the groundwork for a strong ED/CEO-board relationship.
Start before the job begins
Scholarship America, a Minneapolis, MN-based national education service organization that mobilizes support for students getting into and graduating from college, is a complex organization, comprising both the all-volunteer Dollars for Scholars program and a business unit, Scholarship Management Services, which administers student loans. Because of the complexity of the organization, Scholarship America Board Chair Mim Schreck made it her priority to really get to know the two CEO finalists during the hiring process and to make sure they understood the organization’s strengths, weaknesses, and hopes for the future. “A nonprofit is mission-driven and if the CEO is going off in a direction that the board is not in agreement with, they’re never going to be in sync, and it’s going to be a contentious relationship,” Schreck said. “They have to see eye-to-eye and support each other in the goal of supporting the mission.”
Schreck, who was then Scholarship America’s acting CEO, met individually with the two finalists to talk about her aspirations for the organization, as did Scholarship America’s acting board chair, Richard J. Schwab. The two CEO finalists also talked with a number of other board members at a dinner before the final interview. All board members were invited to attend—and participate in—the candidates’ final interviews. “We tried to expose them to as many of us as possible,” Schreck said.
That approach was valuable. Lauren Segal, who was hired as Scholarship America’s CEO and president in March 2010, said that listening to and learning from the board before she was even offered the job allowed her to be far more effective right when she walked in the door as CEO.
During the hiring process Segal learned that the board was united in its desire to take the organization in a new direction. She also learned the priority needs of the organization. As a result, in her first few months on the job she was able to work with the board to, among other things: launch a technology initiative; refocus the fundraising and marketing direction for the organization; move from an activity orientation of “getting in” to college to one that will focus on impact, i.e., “getting through” one’s education beyond high school; and kicking off a new strategic planning process with full understanding and buy-in as to what the desired end state will be.
“I always asked people’s opinions and perspectives on things, but I didn’t come in like a neophyte,” Segal said. “I had a good understanding. We could start our work together from ‘How do we move forward faster?’ rather than, ‘What’s the lay of the land?’”
Good communication is the cornerstone of a good ED/CEO-board relationship. And in fact, each of the senior leaders we interviewed said building communication channels ideally should begin before the new ED/CEO is hired. Domingo Barrios, for example, also was given the opportunity to meet with each of the Heifer Foundation’s board members when he became a finalist in the organization’s search for a president and CEO. Barrios made an effort to meet face-to-face with each board member, and despite the fact that the Little Rock, AR-based nonprofit’s board members are spread across the country, he succeeded in having in-person meetings with all but one board member. His approach to these meetings was simple: He asked board members about their goals and aspirations for the organization, and then carefully listened to their answers.
Make a personal connection
Hired as the Heifer Foundation’s CEO in July 2010, Barrios continues to favor personal meetings and phone calls with his board chair over email. He has approached the board about increasing the number of board meetings each year, currently two, by either adding more in-person meetings or by using teleconferencing.
“I really want to hear the voices of our trustees—literally hear their voices,” he told us. “Listening is a great building block of communication. I started building a relationship with my board from my interviews, and I took those interviews as an opportunity to begin the process of gaining trust and understanding some of the nuances of the board collectively.”
At Scholarship America, Schreck and Segal also noted that getting to know each other outside of work can make a good ED/CEO-board chair relationship even better. Although they are based in different cities, they have made it a point to learn about each other’s lives by having dinners together before meetings and meeting each other’s spouses. “I think [a more personal relationship] helps to build a stronger partnership and an understanding of where each other is coming from," said Segal. "Then, you understand each other’s styles better, including strengths and weaknesses.”
Don’t dwell on the past
It can be valuable for a new ED/CEO to learn about their predecessor’s tenure and why the person left the job, so s/he can address any concerns the board may have. “Clearly, coming in you want to have an understanding of what happened to the prior CEO if they left under duress,” Barrios said. But he and the other senior leaders stressed that it is important that neither the new ED/CEO nor the board members dwell on the past, whether the prior leader left under a cloud or as a superstar.
For Ed Munster, becoming CEO of the YMCA of Metropolitan Atlanta in January 2009 meant stepping into a role that he had trained for his entire life. He had grown up in the Y organization as a child in New Orleans and had spent his professional career working his way up through the organization. But complicating his new job was the fact that he had spent 23 years as the Atlanta Y’s chief operating officer (COO) in the shadow of a longtime, beloved CEO. So, while Munster had a relationship with the Y’s board, it was as the organization’s operations expert and second-in-command. Munster’s challenge in the months before and after his selection as CEO was to change the way he related to board members and the rest of the Y’s stakeholders in the Atlanta community and to recast himself as the CEO.
During the search process, the board’s search committee clearly saw Munster as a top-notch candidate, but some search committee members felt they had a duty to expand the search beyond the Y movement and perhaps even outside the nonprofit sector. They changed their minds in part because of data from the national Y showing that a strong fit with the Y’s culture is critically important for new CEOs in the organization. As they went through the search process, the committee recognized that Munster’s lifelong familiarity with the Y’s culture and his financial savvy would be critical assets as the organization faced the economic downturn.
Board Chair Charlie Yates, who served on the search committee (when he was the incoming board chair), said, “In some ways, being an insider can work to your disadvantage because people know you too well. We all knew Ed was a strong operator but didn’t know that he could be the strong face of the organization, particularly given our critical fundraising requirements. I don’t think anybody knew what he was capable of independent from former CEO Fred Bradley. In the end, we realized that he was the only responsible hire.”
After Munster was named CEO and Yates became board chair, the two men worked together on a transition, as well as getting to know each other better and learning about each other’s priorities for the organization. The Atlanta Y had just started a 10-year strategic planning process, identifying both fundraising and program goals. Yates made a point to introduce Munster to both donors who could help with fundraising goals and partners who could work with the organization on programs to advance its mission in areas such as childhood obesity and early childhood education. To give Munster as many opportunities as possible to explain his vision for the organization to board members, the board began scheduling time for Munster to talk at every board meeting—a policy that continues today.
Munster said Yates’ support during his transition from internal operations expert to the new face of the Atlanta Y was invaluable. “Charlie really helped build access to the community,” Munster said. “It is so important to have a great relationship with your board chair right from the start. Without that, you really can’t succeed.”
Be frank about challenges
Scholarship America’s Schreck said her approach throughout the hiring process was to stay out of “sell mode.” While she was forthright about the many opportunities, she was equally honest about the challenges. “Be as true to the organization as you possibly can; let the candidate know as clearly as possible what it is you’re looking for and where you see the organization going,” Schreck said. “Show the good with the bad. In every adversity there is always great opportunity.”
The result of Schreck’s candor was that when Segal took over as president and CEO of Scholarship America, she understood the details of the organization’s budget and the strategy behind every number. In fact, she was so well-versed on the budget that she encountered no unpleasant surprises in her first few months on the job. This was particularly important given her mandate to bring change to the organization.
“Even if you were in a maintenance-stage organization, no surprises would be good,” Segal said. “But when you’re trying to make substantive change in an organization and take it to a different place, the no surprises rule is very important. You have to make quick assessments about what is and what isn’t possible, and if you’re constantly finding out things that you didn’t know, then not only does that stop the momentum, but it can set you back in terms of strategy and opportunity.”
Base the relationship on trust and respect
Barrios said new EDs/CEOs who approach a relationship with their board with a sense of fear are missing a great opportunity. “When you work from the fear side, you’re much more cautious on how to proceed,” Barrios said. “If the relationship is built on trust, you’re able to bring the experience that individual board members have to bear on all sorts of decisions.”
By establishing a collegial relationship with his board, Barrios said he is able to accomplish more toward the organization’s mission. In fact, he thinks of his board members as futurists, the people who decide where the organization should be in the future, and his role is to actualize that vision in real time. For example, Barrios learned during his early discussions with the board that two of the members’ top priorities were reducing spending and aligning the organization more closely with its sister organization, Heifer International. Because he had a good understanding of the board members’ expectations coming into the job, he was able to write a report to the board after just 30 days as CEO, giving his impression of the organization and outlining the mechanics of how he planned to address the board’s concerns.
“I want to create strategies that allow trustees to bring their voices to the table—that’s why they’re here,” Barrios said. “We spend a lot of time at nonprofits bringing the best people from our communities to our boards. You want to make sure you hear them.”
http://www.bridgestar.org/Library/EDBoardRelationship.aspx
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Residents' Emotional Attachment to Community May Boost Local Economy, Study Finds
Residents' Emotional Attachment to Community May Boost Local Economy, Study Finds
A three-year Gallup study of twenty-six U.S. cities has found that residents' love and passion for their community may be a leading indicator for local economic growth.
Funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the study, Knight Soul of the Community 2010 (36 pages, PDF), assessed the connection between local economic growth and residents' emotional bond to a place in cities where the Knight brothers owned newspapers. Among other things, the study found that cities with the highest levels of resident attachment also had the highest GDP growth rate over time. Indeed, quality-of-life elements — social offerings, openness, and aesthetics — consistently rated higher than perceptions of the economy, job availability, or basic services in creating a lasting emotional bond between people and their community. Moreover, despite a decline in economic indicators since the study began, researchers found that the link between local GDP and residents' emotional bonds to a community remained steady.
With support from the Knight Foundation, three of the cities included in the survey — Miami, Charlotte, and Detroit — will work to transform themselves by implementing projects that build on the findings of the study.
"This survey offers new approaches for communities to organize themselves to attract businesses, keep residents, and holistically improve their local economic vitality," said Gallup World Poll deputy director Jon Clifton. "Our theory is that when a community's residents are highly attached, they will spend more time there, spend more money, they're more productive, and tend to be more entrepreneurial. The study bears out that theory and now provides all community leaders the knowledge they need to make a sustainable impact on their community."
“Got Love For Your Community? It May Create Economic Growth, Gallup Study Says.” John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Press Release 11/15/10.
A three-year Gallup study of twenty-six U.S. cities has found that residents' love and passion for their community may be a leading indicator for local economic growth.
Funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the study, Knight Soul of the Community 2010 (36 pages, PDF), assessed the connection between local economic growth and residents' emotional bond to a place in cities where the Knight brothers owned newspapers. Among other things, the study found that cities with the highest levels of resident attachment also had the highest GDP growth rate over time. Indeed, quality-of-life elements — social offerings, openness, and aesthetics — consistently rated higher than perceptions of the economy, job availability, or basic services in creating a lasting emotional bond between people and their community. Moreover, despite a decline in economic indicators since the study began, researchers found that the link between local GDP and residents' emotional bonds to a community remained steady.
With support from the Knight Foundation, three of the cities included in the survey — Miami, Charlotte, and Detroit — will work to transform themselves by implementing projects that build on the findings of the study.
"This survey offers new approaches for communities to organize themselves to attract businesses, keep residents, and holistically improve their local economic vitality," said Gallup World Poll deputy director Jon Clifton. "Our theory is that when a community's residents are highly attached, they will spend more time there, spend more money, they're more productive, and tend to be more entrepreneurial. The study bears out that theory and now provides all community leaders the knowledge they need to make a sustainable impact on their community."
“Got Love For Your Community? It May Create Economic Growth, Gallup Study Says.” John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Press Release 11/15/10.
Monday, November 1, 2010
2010 Global State of the Nonprofit Industry Survey
Blackbaud Releases 2010 Global State of the Nonprofit Industry Survey
October 26th, 2010 |
Blackbaud, Inc. has announced the release of the results from The State of the Nonprofit Industry (SONI) Survey, a global report covering general operations, fundraising, technology and Internet usage, and accountability and stewardship. Responses were received from 2,383 individuals in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The survey was conducted in partnership with L’Association Française des Fundraisers, the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand (FINZ), the German Fundraising Association, Philanthropy Centro Studi, and the Resource Alliance.
“There is an increasing interest in the nonprofit sector in improving governance, planning, and fundraising, and investing in training and equipment to enhance organizational performance,” said Amy Comer, Blackbaud’s director of market research. “Blackbaud has conducted the State of the Nonprofit Industry Survey for six years to provide an overview of trends that can help nonprofits assess their operations and compare their performance with other organizations.”
Four global trends that emerged from the data include:
1. New fundraising and communication channels, although growing, are not replacing traditional channels.
Most organizations continue to leverage traditional channels, even while they are increasingly using new interactive channels. This use of new channels is placing a tremendous strain on organizations because revenue has not risen significantly in aggregate and yet costs for each communication channel have risen. This situation creates a demand for more integrated communication tools and database platforms.
2. ROI and organizational effectiveness are under scrutiny and more important than ever.
Baby boomers, which have entered their prime giving years in the United States, are not as trusting of government and institutions to solve problems and want to see greater evidence. However, this trend is clearly not just a United States phenomenon. Donors worldwide want to see evidence that their money is being spent well and that nonprofits are being run as efficiently as possible.
3. There is a new focus on the total supporter journey vs. traditional “donor management.”
In light of an increased focus on donor retention coupled with increasing costs for acquisition, constituent relationship management (CRM) is transitioning from transactional fundraising to a relationship-focused supporter journey. To have a constituent-centric focus, nonprofits need to consolidate data on supporters and eliminate silos so everyone in the organization has the same view of the many ways supporters interact with their organization. Technology is essential for helping them track the supporter journey, from service recipient to volunteer to event participant to donor.
4. Fundraising is emerging as a widely-recognized profession around the globe.
The vast majority of nonprofits around the world are expecting to increase their investment in fundraising staff, according to the SONI survey. It is clear that fundraising is no longer someone’s “part-time” responsibility. Techniques and data are becoming more complex, and the rate of change is increasing. What was once mostly art is rapidly becoming science, requiring new tools and techniques, partnerships, and better skilled staff.
You can download the complete report, which includes an in-depth look at general operations, fundraising, technology and Internet usage, and accountability and stewardship around the globe.
http://www.pnnonline.org/blackbaud-releases-2010-global-state-of-the-nonprofit-industry-survey
October 26th, 2010 |
Blackbaud, Inc. has announced the release of the results from The State of the Nonprofit Industry (SONI) Survey, a global report covering general operations, fundraising, technology and Internet usage, and accountability and stewardship. Responses were received from 2,383 individuals in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The survey was conducted in partnership with L’Association Française des Fundraisers, the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand (FINZ), the German Fundraising Association, Philanthropy Centro Studi, and the Resource Alliance.
“There is an increasing interest in the nonprofit sector in improving governance, planning, and fundraising, and investing in training and equipment to enhance organizational performance,” said Amy Comer, Blackbaud’s director of market research. “Blackbaud has conducted the State of the Nonprofit Industry Survey for six years to provide an overview of trends that can help nonprofits assess their operations and compare their performance with other organizations.”
Four global trends that emerged from the data include:
1. New fundraising and communication channels, although growing, are not replacing traditional channels.
Most organizations continue to leverage traditional channels, even while they are increasingly using new interactive channels. This use of new channels is placing a tremendous strain on organizations because revenue has not risen significantly in aggregate and yet costs for each communication channel have risen. This situation creates a demand for more integrated communication tools and database platforms.
2. ROI and organizational effectiveness are under scrutiny and more important than ever.
Baby boomers, which have entered their prime giving years in the United States, are not as trusting of government and institutions to solve problems and want to see greater evidence. However, this trend is clearly not just a United States phenomenon. Donors worldwide want to see evidence that their money is being spent well and that nonprofits are being run as efficiently as possible.
3. There is a new focus on the total supporter journey vs. traditional “donor management.”
In light of an increased focus on donor retention coupled with increasing costs for acquisition, constituent relationship management (CRM) is transitioning from transactional fundraising to a relationship-focused supporter journey. To have a constituent-centric focus, nonprofits need to consolidate data on supporters and eliminate silos so everyone in the organization has the same view of the many ways supporters interact with their organization. Technology is essential for helping them track the supporter journey, from service recipient to volunteer to event participant to donor.
4. Fundraising is emerging as a widely-recognized profession around the globe.
The vast majority of nonprofits around the world are expecting to increase their investment in fundraising staff, according to the SONI survey. It is clear that fundraising is no longer someone’s “part-time” responsibility. Techniques and data are becoming more complex, and the rate of change is increasing. What was once mostly art is rapidly becoming science, requiring new tools and techniques, partnerships, and better skilled staff.
You can download the complete report, which includes an in-depth look at general operations, fundraising, technology and Internet usage, and accountability and stewardship around the globe.
http://www.pnnonline.org/blackbaud-releases-2010-global-state-of-the-nonprofit-industry-survey
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Verticalization and Mainstreaming of Social Entrepreneurship
The financial crisis has not, thus far, cast a clear death blow to Milton Friedman's idea that the only responsibility businesses have to society is to maximize profits. That said, the last couple years have seen a steady mainstreaming of "social entrepreneurship," particularly within vertical industry categories such as Fair Trade. I believe both the verticalization and mainstreaming of the field will continue, creating a higher need than ever before to understand just what the broader designation of "social entrepreneurship" has to offer.
Social entrepreneurship tends to refer to the space in which companies and nonprofits use market and business objectives to achieve social aims. While there is some debate about whether the term refers exclusively to one legal business model over another, the core point for most of the people I tend to agree with is that "social ventures" as opposed to regular for-profit entities have an explicit focus on solving some social or environmental problem and maximizing social or environmental good alongside (or sometimes even at the expense of) pure, short-term profit maximization.
In this way, it is different from corporate social responsibility, which at its best is about giving back, improving employee culture and conditions, and reducing environmental impact. The difference is the fact that social entrepreneurship suggests that there is a core social or environmental value created every day by the products or services at the center of the very business. This does not mean that social ventures are "better" than non-social ventures -- there are lots of great companies that simply happen not to focus on solving social problems and which are still wonderful employees, community members, and philanthropists -- but it does mean they are different.
Social entrepreneurship is, however, a slightly weird field, in the sense that it is not an industry, but a term which applies to a number of (sometimes unrelated) industries, and a similar approach to business that places a social or environmental value at the center of the mission. Most people come into contact with the broader field of social entrepreneurship through one of the industries that it touches.
I think there are a few clear examples of these "vertical" fields that connect with the larger banner of social entrepreneurship that have gotten increasingly mainstream over the last few years. Cleantech is perhaps the most obvious, becoming one of the most invested in areas of venture capital ($1.9 billion was invested in Cleantech companies in the first quarter of 2010 alone). Microfinance is another clear example. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Grameen Bank founder Muhammed Yunus and the explosive popularity of Kiva are two of the more important historical moments for the prominence of social entrepreneurship, and the recent IPO of SKS could be another. Fair Trade, Organic and Local Food movements are all racing to the mainstream, as well.
Being based in Silicon Valley, I'm particularly interested in industry verticals that can attract tech talent to start new companies. I think we're going to see big booms in education startups (see: Udemy, Enzi, Grockit, DonorsChoose, Supercool School) and I hope that many will learn to work within instead of solely outside the current education system. Healthcare seems like an obvious area that mixes social good with the potential for immense profit, but there are still too few web tech companies working on the issue, a problem that programs like Hacking 4 Health are trying to redress. And although they are a little bit different in terms of their potential for financial gain, there also seems to be a mini wave of "government 2.0" startups (see: Code for America, CitySourced, Gov2.0 Summit) that are trying to change the way municipal services are deployed and how governments interact with citizens.
It makes sense that social entrepreneurship would mature into verticals like this: startups need accumulated bodies of knowledge and connections to be successful, and ultimately, what works in Fair Trade may not work in Education. At the same time, I think the common element of trying to maximize a social or environmental good takes as much managerial discipline as deploying a successful revenue model, and for that, the broader field of social entrepreneurship has much to offer.
http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/the_verticalization_and_mainstreaming_of_social_entrepreneurship?me=nl
Social entrepreneurship tends to refer to the space in which companies and nonprofits use market and business objectives to achieve social aims. While there is some debate about whether the term refers exclusively to one legal business model over another, the core point for most of the people I tend to agree with is that "social ventures" as opposed to regular for-profit entities have an explicit focus on solving some social or environmental problem and maximizing social or environmental good alongside (or sometimes even at the expense of) pure, short-term profit maximization.
In this way, it is different from corporate social responsibility, which at its best is about giving back, improving employee culture and conditions, and reducing environmental impact. The difference is the fact that social entrepreneurship suggests that there is a core social or environmental value created every day by the products or services at the center of the very business. This does not mean that social ventures are "better" than non-social ventures -- there are lots of great companies that simply happen not to focus on solving social problems and which are still wonderful employees, community members, and philanthropists -- but it does mean they are different.
Social entrepreneurship is, however, a slightly weird field, in the sense that it is not an industry, but a term which applies to a number of (sometimes unrelated) industries, and a similar approach to business that places a social or environmental value at the center of the mission. Most people come into contact with the broader field of social entrepreneurship through one of the industries that it touches.
I think there are a few clear examples of these "vertical" fields that connect with the larger banner of social entrepreneurship that have gotten increasingly mainstream over the last few years. Cleantech is perhaps the most obvious, becoming one of the most invested in areas of venture capital ($1.9 billion was invested in Cleantech companies in the first quarter of 2010 alone). Microfinance is another clear example. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Grameen Bank founder Muhammed Yunus and the explosive popularity of Kiva are two of the more important historical moments for the prominence of social entrepreneurship, and the recent IPO of SKS could be another. Fair Trade, Organic and Local Food movements are all racing to the mainstream, as well.
Being based in Silicon Valley, I'm particularly interested in industry verticals that can attract tech talent to start new companies. I think we're going to see big booms in education startups (see: Udemy, Enzi, Grockit, DonorsChoose, Supercool School) and I hope that many will learn to work within instead of solely outside the current education system. Healthcare seems like an obvious area that mixes social good with the potential for immense profit, but there are still too few web tech companies working on the issue, a problem that programs like Hacking 4 Health are trying to redress. And although they are a little bit different in terms of their potential for financial gain, there also seems to be a mini wave of "government 2.0" startups (see: Code for America, CitySourced, Gov2.0 Summit) that are trying to change the way municipal services are deployed and how governments interact with citizens.
It makes sense that social entrepreneurship would mature into verticals like this: startups need accumulated bodies of knowledge and connections to be successful, and ultimately, what works in Fair Trade may not work in Education. At the same time, I think the common element of trying to maximize a social or environmental good takes as much managerial discipline as deploying a successful revenue model, and for that, the broader field of social entrepreneurship has much to offer.
http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/the_verticalization_and_mainstreaming_of_social_entrepreneurship?me=nl
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
A key to capital campaign success.
A key to capital campaign success.
By Daggett, Melinda
Publication: Fund Raising Management
August 1 1994
With the information gained from a feasibility study, an organization can either begin a campaign confidently or postpone it for a time so it can strengthen weak areas.
One of the keys to a successful capital campaign is thorough planning and preparation. Taking time to research your constituents and their interest in your campaign will pay dividends when deciding the campaign structure and beginning solicitations. A feasibility study or pre-campaign planning study is the first step to campaign success.
The feasibility study is particularly important for an organization that has never had a capital campaign or has not had a campaign for several years. It is also valuable for those who do not have a good feel for who their constituents are or what they think about the organization. Before beginning a study, an organization should be very serious about a campaign. Continuing talk of future plans and conducting studies without resulting action can leave a negative impression.
The study should consist of personal interviews with a representative sample of individuals, corporations and foundations that would be the most likely supporters of the campaign. For many organizations, this sample will average between 40 to 60. However, sample size may vary based on the size of the organization and scope of the proposed campaign. These individuals should have an interest or potential interest in the organization and its services, have given in the past or have the potential to give in the future. The group should be the "cream of the crop," those who are most likely to assume leadership roles in giving and volunteering. All constituent groups among which an organized campaign will be conducted should be represented. The types of constituent groups to be included in the survey will vary depending on the type of non-profit. For example, a study for an educational institution could include alumni, faculty and staff, and parents and grandparents of students. A hospital study might include interviews with doctors, former patients and medical suppliers. Every study, however, should involve the governing board and staff of the organization, and foundations and local corporations whose giving guidelines match the organization's mission and goals.
Often, a feasibility study can be performed by the organization's staff. However, time would have to be invested in training them. Staff would also have to divert time from their other responsibilities to focus on the feasibility study. Many organizations find it is helpful to use a trained outsider who is a specialist. This individual will tend to be more objective than someone on staff, is already knowledgeable in survey techniques, and will be able to devote complete attention to the project. In addition, interview subjects are often more comfortable expressing concerns or complaints to a third party. Cost considerations, staffing needs and available expertise are determining factors in deciding the best approach.
A key to capital campaign success. | Society, Social Assistance & Lifestyle Philanthropy from AllBusiness.com
By Daggett, Melinda
Publication: Fund Raising Management
August 1 1994
With the information gained from a feasibility study, an organization can either begin a campaign confidently or postpone it for a time so it can strengthen weak areas.
One of the keys to a successful capital campaign is thorough planning and preparation. Taking time to research your constituents and their interest in your campaign will pay dividends when deciding the campaign structure and beginning solicitations. A feasibility study or pre-campaign planning study is the first step to campaign success.
The feasibility study is particularly important for an organization that has never had a capital campaign or has not had a campaign for several years. It is also valuable for those who do not have a good feel for who their constituents are or what they think about the organization. Before beginning a study, an organization should be very serious about a campaign. Continuing talk of future plans and conducting studies without resulting action can leave a negative impression.
The study should consist of personal interviews with a representative sample of individuals, corporations and foundations that would be the most likely supporters of the campaign. For many organizations, this sample will average between 40 to 60. However, sample size may vary based on the size of the organization and scope of the proposed campaign. These individuals should have an interest or potential interest in the organization and its services, have given in the past or have the potential to give in the future. The group should be the "cream of the crop," those who are most likely to assume leadership roles in giving and volunteering. All constituent groups among which an organized campaign will be conducted should be represented. The types of constituent groups to be included in the survey will vary depending on the type of non-profit. For example, a study for an educational institution could include alumni, faculty and staff, and parents and grandparents of students. A hospital study might include interviews with doctors, former patients and medical suppliers. Every study, however, should involve the governing board and staff of the organization, and foundations and local corporations whose giving guidelines match the organization's mission and goals.
Often, a feasibility study can be performed by the organization's staff. However, time would have to be invested in training them. Staff would also have to divert time from their other responsibilities to focus on the feasibility study. Many organizations find it is helpful to use a trained outsider who is a specialist. This individual will tend to be more objective than someone on staff, is already knowledgeable in survey techniques, and will be able to devote complete attention to the project. In addition, interview subjects are often more comfortable expressing concerns or complaints to a third party. Cost considerations, staffing needs and available expertise are determining factors in deciding the best approach.
A key to capital campaign success. | Society, Social Assistance & Lifestyle Philanthropy from AllBusiness.com
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Social Entrepreneurship: What Social Value Do Nonprofits Really Create?
Social Entrepreneurship: What Social Value Do Nonprofits Really Create?
by Nell Edgington August 25
There is a concept that good entrepreneurs know only too well, but nonprofits could stand to explore. A "value proposition" is the unique value a product or service provides a consumer. Without a value proposition a business has no place in the market. For a nonprofit, a social value proposition is just as critical to success, but often ignored. In an increasingly competitive marketplace, due in part to the growth of for-profit social entrepreneurs, nonprofits must analyze, articulate, and deliver on a social value proposition.
In the past, nonprofits could exist without a value proposition. Donors wouldn't argue that a library, homeless shelter, food pantry or school provided a necessary service. But as we move further down the road of social innovation, the assumption that money will automatically follow good works is no longer valid.
The issue is complicated by the fact that nonprofits have two sets of consumers: those who benefit from the product or service (clients) and those who buy the service (funders, investors, philanthropists). There is increasing competition for both sets of consumers.
In order to attract the consumers who buy services (and who, by the way, increasingly want a social return on their purchase) nonprofits must articulate the value that the consumer (donor, investor, philanthropist, sponsor, whatever you want to call them) receives by writing a check.
In the nonprofit sector the closest thing to a value proposition has been a case for support. But when this is created (which isn't often) it tends to focus on the organization and its needs rather than on the potential social return on investment for the funder. A good value proposition articulates how an organization is uniquely positioned to create significant social impact that is much greater than the costs associated. It involves an organization analyzing, understanding and delivering on three very important things:
1.Capability: What is the organization uniquely positioned to provide to the community (the marketplace). Why is this organization better positioned than other organizations (nonprofits, for-profits, government) to deliver it?
2.Social Impact: What change is the organization creating in the community, region, world? Why is this significant? Why should/will consumers (funders) care?
3.Cost: How do the costs of the service being delivered compare to that social impact? Is there a social profit being achieved, i.e. are the costs involved in delivering the service significantly less than the benefits? Will a funder (who is paying these costs) receive a significant social return on their investment in the organization?
A value proposition is less about a well-articulated statement and more about an organization's ability to think through these questions and really understand the marketplace in which they operate. More and more the nonprofit that can effectively execute on a social value proposition will find the financial stability that ultimately leads them to create lasting social change.
Nell Edgington is the founder of Social Velocity. She has 15+ years of experience in the nonprofit sector and holds an MBA from the Kellogg School at Northwestern University.
http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/what_social_value_do_nonprofits_really_create?me=nl
by Nell Edgington August 25
There is a concept that good entrepreneurs know only too well, but nonprofits could stand to explore. A "value proposition" is the unique value a product or service provides a consumer. Without a value proposition a business has no place in the market. For a nonprofit, a social value proposition is just as critical to success, but often ignored. In an increasingly competitive marketplace, due in part to the growth of for-profit social entrepreneurs, nonprofits must analyze, articulate, and deliver on a social value proposition.
In the past, nonprofits could exist without a value proposition. Donors wouldn't argue that a library, homeless shelter, food pantry or school provided a necessary service. But as we move further down the road of social innovation, the assumption that money will automatically follow good works is no longer valid.
The issue is complicated by the fact that nonprofits have two sets of consumers: those who benefit from the product or service (clients) and those who buy the service (funders, investors, philanthropists). There is increasing competition for both sets of consumers.
In order to attract the consumers who buy services (and who, by the way, increasingly want a social return on their purchase) nonprofits must articulate the value that the consumer (donor, investor, philanthropist, sponsor, whatever you want to call them) receives by writing a check.
In the nonprofit sector the closest thing to a value proposition has been a case for support. But when this is created (which isn't often) it tends to focus on the organization and its needs rather than on the potential social return on investment for the funder. A good value proposition articulates how an organization is uniquely positioned to create significant social impact that is much greater than the costs associated. It involves an organization analyzing, understanding and delivering on three very important things:
1.Capability: What is the organization uniquely positioned to provide to the community (the marketplace). Why is this organization better positioned than other organizations (nonprofits, for-profits, government) to deliver it?
2.Social Impact: What change is the organization creating in the community, region, world? Why is this significant? Why should/will consumers (funders) care?
3.Cost: How do the costs of the service being delivered compare to that social impact? Is there a social profit being achieved, i.e. are the costs involved in delivering the service significantly less than the benefits? Will a funder (who is paying these costs) receive a significant social return on their investment in the organization?
A value proposition is less about a well-articulated statement and more about an organization's ability to think through these questions and really understand the marketplace in which they operate. More and more the nonprofit that can effectively execute on a social value proposition will find the financial stability that ultimately leads them to create lasting social change.
Nell Edgington is the founder of Social Velocity. She has 15+ years of experience in the nonprofit sector and holds an MBA from the Kellogg School at Northwestern University.
http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/what_social_value_do_nonprofits_really_create?me=nl
Sunday, August 29, 2010
PND - News - Report Finds Mental Health Issues Among Children Displaced by Katrina
PND - News - Report Finds Mental Health Issues Among Children Displaced by Katrina
Report Finds Mental Health Issues Among Children Displaced by Katrina
The prolonged displacement of hundreds of thousands of families as a result of Hurricane Katrina has created widespread mental health problems among children living in the region, a new report from the Children's Health Fund and the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health finds.
An expansion of a recent NCDF study that followed more than a thousand families affected by the disaster, the report, Legacy of Katrina: The Impact of a Flawed Recovery on Vulnerable Children of the Gulf Coast (17 pages, PDF), found that housing and community instability and the uncertainty of recovery have undermined family resilience and the emotional health of children in the region. More than a third of the children in displaced families have been clinically diagnosed with at least one mental health problem post-Katrina, with behavioral and conduct disorders being the most common. At the same time, less than half the parents seeking mental health counseling for their children have been able to access professional services.
The report also found that some 45 percent of parents reported that their children are experiencing emotional or psychological problems which they had not experienced prior to Katrina; that children post-Katrina are 4.5 times more likely to suffer emotional issues, hyperactivity, poor conduct, and/or problems relating to their peers than they were pre-Katrina; and that nearly half of those who were displaced continue to live in unstable conditions, with some 60 percent reporting that their situation is unstable or worse than it was pre-Katrina.
"This study points to a major crisis facing the children of the post-Katrina Gulf Region," said Irwin Redlener, director of NCDP and president of the Children's Health Fund. "From the perspective of the Gulf's most vulnerable children and families, the recovery from Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans has been a dismal failure."
“'Legacy of Katrina' Report Details Impact of Stalled Recovery on Mental Health Status of Children.” Children's Health Fund Press Release 8/23/10.
Report Finds Mental Health Issues Among Children Displaced by Katrina
The prolonged displacement of hundreds of thousands of families as a result of Hurricane Katrina has created widespread mental health problems among children living in the region, a new report from the Children's Health Fund and the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health finds.
An expansion of a recent NCDF study that followed more than a thousand families affected by the disaster, the report, Legacy of Katrina: The Impact of a Flawed Recovery on Vulnerable Children of the Gulf Coast (17 pages, PDF), found that housing and community instability and the uncertainty of recovery have undermined family resilience and the emotional health of children in the region. More than a third of the children in displaced families have been clinically diagnosed with at least one mental health problem post-Katrina, with behavioral and conduct disorders being the most common. At the same time, less than half the parents seeking mental health counseling for their children have been able to access professional services.
The report also found that some 45 percent of parents reported that their children are experiencing emotional or psychological problems which they had not experienced prior to Katrina; that children post-Katrina are 4.5 times more likely to suffer emotional issues, hyperactivity, poor conduct, and/or problems relating to their peers than they were pre-Katrina; and that nearly half of those who were displaced continue to live in unstable conditions, with some 60 percent reporting that their situation is unstable or worse than it was pre-Katrina.
"This study points to a major crisis facing the children of the post-Katrina Gulf Region," said Irwin Redlener, director of NCDP and president of the Children's Health Fund. "From the perspective of the Gulf's most vulnerable children and families, the recovery from Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans has been a dismal failure."
“'Legacy of Katrina' Report Details Impact of Stalled Recovery on Mental Health Status of Children.” Children's Health Fund Press Release 8/23/10.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility
The idea that companies have a duty to address social ills is not just flawed, argues Aneel Karnani. It also makes it more likely that we'll ignore the real solutions to these problems.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
The idea that companies have a duty to address social ills is not just flawed, argues Aneel Karnani. It also makes it more likely that we'll ignore the real solutions to these problems.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703338004575230112664504890.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Business principles for marketing, practically applied
Business principles for marketing, practically applied
John Klein | August 19, 2010
Peter Drucker was a successful management consultant who translated his talents and observations into a comprehensive theory of business.
As an old-guard, pre-technology practitioner, he built bridges to both the nonprofit sector and the modern view of work in the 21st Century.
Even his detractors gave him his grudging due for his insights, which constitute the basis for many business strategies employed today.
One of those insights was the role and value of marketing in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. He believed it should be elevated to one of the most important functions of any business, along with innovation.
Over 50 years ago, Drucker recognized the concepts of brands, consumer focus, market segmentation and positioning - all elements of modern marketing and communications planning.
However, Drucker was not an empiricist, nor did he write how-to manuals. The challenge is to take his philosophical, common-sense approach and translate it into useful applications.
In addition, his seminal works were written a long time ago. But if you take a crack at "The Practice of Management," written in 1954, you'll find relevant thoughts that apply to nonprofit marketing.
The following are some topics, quotes and applications for today's challenges:
Drucker on customers
"There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer...It is the customer alone who determines what a business is."
Applications:
Your customers - donors, patrons, constituents, opinion leaders - are in essence buying your mission. Their currency is money, time and goodwill.
Communicating with your customers in the most effective way, based on their similarities and differences, will keep them close, and keep them buying your mission.
Drucker on consumer segmentation
"The first step toward finding out what our business is, is to raise the question: ‘Who is the customer?' - the actual customer and the potential customer?"
Applications:
Your success is based on the strength of current customer relationships and the cultivation of new customers who will sustain and grow your mission.
Reaching out to potential customers - for example, using social media to reach like-minded and engaged individuals - will help balance the value of existing and new customers, and the communication efforts against each.
Drucker on market segmentation
"The question can therefore be answered only by looking at the business from the outside, from the point of view of the customer and the market."
Applications:
While board members and employees have good intentions, sometimes they don't reflect an objective view of the organization, the mission, the market it serves, and competitive threats.
Even a simple SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis, conducted by a local university intern, can provide the foundation of an outside view, which can help refine target markets and communication tactics.
Drucker on brand
"What does the customer consider value?"
Applications:
The value of your mission is a combination of the market it serves, and how the market sees you, through personal interests and point of view - one of the basic components of branding.
Consumer insight - in the form of demographic analysis, or online surveys on websites likes Zoomerang - can provide information about current and potential customer attitudes, and in turn help refine the mission and how the mission is communicated.
Above all, Drucker was pragmatic. He believed that all aspects of business related to the people involved in it - both employees and customers.
These ultimate human qualities often transcend time and are as rich in insight today as when he first wrote about them.
John Klein is president of Trilithon Partners, a marketing consulting agency based in Cary, N.C.
John Klein | August 19, 2010
Peter Drucker was a successful management consultant who translated his talents and observations into a comprehensive theory of business.
As an old-guard, pre-technology practitioner, he built bridges to both the nonprofit sector and the modern view of work in the 21st Century.
Even his detractors gave him his grudging due for his insights, which constitute the basis for many business strategies employed today.
One of those insights was the role and value of marketing in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. He believed it should be elevated to one of the most important functions of any business, along with innovation.
Over 50 years ago, Drucker recognized the concepts of brands, consumer focus, market segmentation and positioning - all elements of modern marketing and communications planning.
However, Drucker was not an empiricist, nor did he write how-to manuals. The challenge is to take his philosophical, common-sense approach and translate it into useful applications.
In addition, his seminal works were written a long time ago. But if you take a crack at "The Practice of Management," written in 1954, you'll find relevant thoughts that apply to nonprofit marketing.
The following are some topics, quotes and applications for today's challenges:
Drucker on customers
"There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer...It is the customer alone who determines what a business is."
Applications:
Your customers - donors, patrons, constituents, opinion leaders - are in essence buying your mission. Their currency is money, time and goodwill.
Communicating with your customers in the most effective way, based on their similarities and differences, will keep them close, and keep them buying your mission.
Drucker on consumer segmentation
"The first step toward finding out what our business is, is to raise the question: ‘Who is the customer?' - the actual customer and the potential customer?"
Applications:
Your success is based on the strength of current customer relationships and the cultivation of new customers who will sustain and grow your mission.
Reaching out to potential customers - for example, using social media to reach like-minded and engaged individuals - will help balance the value of existing and new customers, and the communication efforts against each.
Drucker on market segmentation
"The question can therefore be answered only by looking at the business from the outside, from the point of view of the customer and the market."
Applications:
While board members and employees have good intentions, sometimes they don't reflect an objective view of the organization, the mission, the market it serves, and competitive threats.
Even a simple SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis, conducted by a local university intern, can provide the foundation of an outside view, which can help refine target markets and communication tactics.
Drucker on brand
"What does the customer consider value?"
Applications:
The value of your mission is a combination of the market it serves, and how the market sees you, through personal interests and point of view - one of the basic components of branding.
Consumer insight - in the form of demographic analysis, or online surveys on websites likes Zoomerang - can provide information about current and potential customer attitudes, and in turn help refine the mission and how the mission is communicated.
Above all, Drucker was pragmatic. He believed that all aspects of business related to the people involved in it - both employees and customers.
These ultimate human qualities often transcend time and are as rich in insight today as when he first wrote about them.
John Klein is president of Trilithon Partners, a marketing consulting agency based in Cary, N.C.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Tavis Smiley Show-Listen and Read Report
The Tavis Smiley Show
Fewer Than Half of African-American Males Graduate on Time, Report Finds
The overall graduation rate for African-American males attending U.S. public schools during the 2007-08 school year was 47 percent, a new report from the Schott Foundation for Public Education finds.
According to Yes We Can: The 2010 Schott 50 State Report on Black Males in Public Education (44 pages, PDF), the fourth installment in the biennial report series, half the states in the country have graduation rates for African-American males below the national average. The report provides state-by-state data intended to illustrate which school districts are failing to provide the resources all students need for the opportunity to learn.
In New York, the graduation rate for the state's regents diploma — which is required for a student to qualify for a high school diploma — is only 25 percent for African-American males, while in New York City, the district with the highest enrollment of African-American students, only 28 percent of African-American males graduated with a regent's diploma on time. According to the report, New Jersey is the only state with a significant African-American population (100,000 or more) that has a greater than 65 percent high school graduation rate for African-American males.
"Taken together, the numbers in the Schott Foundation for Public Education's report form a nightmarish picture — one that is all the more frightening for being both true and long-standing," said Geoffrey Canada, president and CEO of the Harlem Children's Zone, who wrote the foreword for the report. "These boys are failing, but I believe that it is the responsibility of the adults around them to turn these trajectories around. All of us must ensure that we level the playing field for the hundreds of thousands of children who are at risk of continuing the cycle of generational poverty. The key to success is education."
“New Report 'Yes We Can' Shows America's Public Schools Fail Over Half the Nation's Black Male Students.” Schott Foundation for Public Education Press Release 8/17/10.
Fewer Than Half of African-American Males Graduate on Time, Report Finds
The overall graduation rate for African-American males attending U.S. public schools during the 2007-08 school year was 47 percent, a new report from the Schott Foundation for Public Education finds.
According to Yes We Can: The 2010 Schott 50 State Report on Black Males in Public Education (44 pages, PDF), the fourth installment in the biennial report series, half the states in the country have graduation rates for African-American males below the national average. The report provides state-by-state data intended to illustrate which school districts are failing to provide the resources all students need for the opportunity to learn.
In New York, the graduation rate for the state's regents diploma — which is required for a student to qualify for a high school diploma — is only 25 percent for African-American males, while in New York City, the district with the highest enrollment of African-American students, only 28 percent of African-American males graduated with a regent's diploma on time. According to the report, New Jersey is the only state with a significant African-American population (100,000 or more) that has a greater than 65 percent high school graduation rate for African-American males.
"Taken together, the numbers in the Schott Foundation for Public Education's report form a nightmarish picture — one that is all the more frightening for being both true and long-standing," said Geoffrey Canada, president and CEO of the Harlem Children's Zone, who wrote the foreword for the report. "These boys are failing, but I believe that it is the responsibility of the adults around them to turn these trajectories around. All of us must ensure that we level the playing field for the hundreds of thousands of children who are at risk of continuing the cycle of generational poverty. The key to success is education."
“New Report 'Yes We Can' Shows America's Public Schools Fail Over Half the Nation's Black Male Students.” Schott Foundation for Public Education Press Release 8/17/10.
The Effect of the Economy on the Nonprofit Sector: A June 2010 Survey
The Effect of the Economy on the Nonprofit Sector: A June 2010 Survey
August 17th, 2010 |
Public charities and private foundations continued to take a beating during the first five months of 2010. Some 40 percent of participants in GuideStar’s first nonprofit economic survey for 2010 reported that contributions to their organizations dropped between January 1 and May 31, 2010, compared to the same period a year earlier.
Another 28 percent said that contributions had stayed about the same, and 30 percent stated contributions had increased.
“The Effect of the Economy on the Nonprofit Sector: A June 2010 Survey” presents these results and more. Among the other findings:
■Eight percent of respondents indicated that their organizations was were in imminent danger of closing.
■In order to balance budgets, 17 percent of respondents reduced program services, and 11 percent laid off employees.
■More than 60 percent of participants reporting decreased contributions attributed the drop to a decline in both the number of individual donors and the size of their donations.
■Among organizations that use volunteers, 17 percent used one or more in what had formerly been paid positions.
■About a third (32 percent) of organizations increased their reliance on volunteers, whereas 9 percent experienced a decline.
Chuck McLean, GuideStar’s vice president for research, and research assistant Carol Brouwer conducted the survey, analyzed the results, and prepared the survey report.
August 17th, 2010 |
Public charities and private foundations continued to take a beating during the first five months of 2010. Some 40 percent of participants in GuideStar’s first nonprofit economic survey for 2010 reported that contributions to their organizations dropped between January 1 and May 31, 2010, compared to the same period a year earlier.
Another 28 percent said that contributions had stayed about the same, and 30 percent stated contributions had increased.
“The Effect of the Economy on the Nonprofit Sector: A June 2010 Survey” presents these results and more. Among the other findings:
■Eight percent of respondents indicated that their organizations was were in imminent danger of closing.
■In order to balance budgets, 17 percent of respondents reduced program services, and 11 percent laid off employees.
■More than 60 percent of participants reporting decreased contributions attributed the drop to a decline in both the number of individual donors and the size of their donations.
■Among organizations that use volunteers, 17 percent used one or more in what had formerly been paid positions.
■About a third (32 percent) of organizations increased their reliance on volunteers, whereas 9 percent experienced a decline.
Chuck McLean, GuideStar’s vice president for research, and research assistant Carol Brouwer conducted the survey, analyzed the results, and prepared the survey report.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
How-to-get-local-tv-to-cover-your-event
Holding a press event is a tricky thing. It can generate great media coverage and public exposure, but you also run the risk of throwing a party where no one shows up.
If the key to your event is getting press to come, then you need to be able to get their interest and participation. That’s why I’ve jotted down the following tips to help you get the word out to the press in a way that will give you a high percentage shot at having them attend.
Media Alerts
Getting a television crew to your event requires some finesse, and the format of the pitch is different than that of a press release. A media alert is the appropriate tool which gives a TV producer or assignment desk editor all the information they need to decide on whether the event you’re holding is of interest to them. Write the media alert in five sections: Who, What, When, Where and Visuals.
■Who: Name your company and any key executives or dignitaries who might be in
attendance. Include only those who will be available to speak on camera.
■What: What is the announcement or the reason for the event? Include all material you consider news.
■When: Make certain to include the date and time of the event, and how long it will run. Also include the schedules of any on-camera spokespeople, and if they will be available before the event.
■Where: This is key. You need to include an address, directions, and a link for Google Maps or MapQuest if you can. Getting a reporter or a crew to an event can be won or lost in how well you direct them there. If security personnel will be at the event or venue, make sure they know the media might be coming.
■Visuals: TV is a visual medium, so make sure you have something for the cameras to shoot. Talking heads does not a press event make. Have demos, graphs, lots of people around, so they’ll have something other than an executive in a suit to shoot.
Communication
To get a television crew at your event, you should follow these instructions precisely, to ensure the highest level of communication possible without annoying the producers and assignment editors.
■First, send the media alert out two weeks prior to the event. Then, one week prior. Then send it to them each of the three days just before the event. The reason for this is that there are different desk editors on different days and different shifts, and they delete all their emails frequently to make room for new alerts.
■Two days before the event, call the assignment desks at all the TV stations you want to cover your event. Ask them if they received your alert – they’ll say no. That’s okay. If it doesn’t grab them right away, they’ll toss it. Send it again, and then call him back immediately afterward, and pitch your event. They’ll give you instructions on how to proceed, which will usually include them asking you to call the morning of the event. That’s okay – you’re going to do that anyway.
■Call on the morning of your event. By now, they know your event, and they know who you are. If your event is interesting enough for them, they’ll tell you. If your event is on a Saturday or Sunday, please be advised that most TV stations only have one crew on duty on the weekends. They’ll be stretched thin, so you reduce your chances for success with weekend events.
Use the right tools, making sure the producers and assignment desk editors are fully informed, but do it in a professional way so as not to drive them crazy, and you’ll have a much better shot at getting coverage for your event.
Marsha Friedman is a 20-year veteran of the public relations industry. She is the CEO of EMSI Public Relations, a national firm that provides PR strategy and publicity services to corporations, entertainers, authors and professional firms. She also hosts a national weekly radio talk show, The Family Round Table, and is author of the book, Celebritize Yourself.)
http://www.pnnonline.org/marsha-freidman-how-to-get-local-tv-to-cover-your-event
If the key to your event is getting press to come, then you need to be able to get their interest and participation. That’s why I’ve jotted down the following tips to help you get the word out to the press in a way that will give you a high percentage shot at having them attend.
Media Alerts
Getting a television crew to your event requires some finesse, and the format of the pitch is different than that of a press release. A media alert is the appropriate tool which gives a TV producer or assignment desk editor all the information they need to decide on whether the event you’re holding is of interest to them. Write the media alert in five sections: Who, What, When, Where and Visuals.
■Who: Name your company and any key executives or dignitaries who might be in
attendance. Include only those who will be available to speak on camera.
■What: What is the announcement or the reason for the event? Include all material you consider news.
■When: Make certain to include the date and time of the event, and how long it will run. Also include the schedules of any on-camera spokespeople, and if they will be available before the event.
■Where: This is key. You need to include an address, directions, and a link for Google Maps or MapQuest if you can. Getting a reporter or a crew to an event can be won or lost in how well you direct them there. If security personnel will be at the event or venue, make sure they know the media might be coming.
■Visuals: TV is a visual medium, so make sure you have something for the cameras to shoot. Talking heads does not a press event make. Have demos, graphs, lots of people around, so they’ll have something other than an executive in a suit to shoot.
Communication
To get a television crew at your event, you should follow these instructions precisely, to ensure the highest level of communication possible without annoying the producers and assignment editors.
■First, send the media alert out two weeks prior to the event. Then, one week prior. Then send it to them each of the three days just before the event. The reason for this is that there are different desk editors on different days and different shifts, and they delete all their emails frequently to make room for new alerts.
■Two days before the event, call the assignment desks at all the TV stations you want to cover your event. Ask them if they received your alert – they’ll say no. That’s okay. If it doesn’t grab them right away, they’ll toss it. Send it again, and then call him back immediately afterward, and pitch your event. They’ll give you instructions on how to proceed, which will usually include them asking you to call the morning of the event. That’s okay – you’re going to do that anyway.
■Call on the morning of your event. By now, they know your event, and they know who you are. If your event is interesting enough for them, they’ll tell you. If your event is on a Saturday or Sunday, please be advised that most TV stations only have one crew on duty on the weekends. They’ll be stretched thin, so you reduce your chances for success with weekend events.
Use the right tools, making sure the producers and assignment desk editors are fully informed, but do it in a professional way so as not to drive them crazy, and you’ll have a much better shot at getting coverage for your event.
Marsha Friedman is a 20-year veteran of the public relations industry. She is the CEO of EMSI Public Relations, a national firm that provides PR strategy and publicity services to corporations, entertainers, authors and professional firms. She also hosts a national weekly radio talk show, The Family Round Table, and is author of the book, Celebritize Yourself.)
http://www.pnnonline.org/marsha-freidman-how-to-get-local-tv-to-cover-your-event
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Businesses urged to rethink social role
Businesses urged to rethink social role
June 28, 2010
In an increasingly complex world, corporations need to change the way they do business by changing the way they address social problems, a new report says.
To compete in the global marketplace, it says, companies must develop integrated strategies to cope with big changes, including the growing shift in economic activity to Asia, rising stress on natural resources, social problems that are becoming more complex and widespread, and rising expectations that companies play a big role in addressing social issues.
Companies can prepare themselves to make greatest impact on social problems and their own bottom line through a strategy known as "sustainable value creation," says the report, prepared by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, based on research by McKinsey & Company.
That strategy consists of a "self-reinforcing state of trustworthy, pro-social corporate behavior that simultaneously delivers bottom-line results and community benefits," says the report, Shaping the Future: Solving Social Problems through Business Strategy.
"To bring about sustainable value creation in their firms," it says, "companies must challenge the tacit assumptions that underpin the functioning of their value chains, seeking to understand where social issues impede progress, and then work to engage others in ameliorating those issues for the good of business and society alike," the report says.
"Corporate involvement is required whenever the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action," it says.
Companies should take a hard look at social issues on which they "lead and engage," the report says, and make sure those issues are "integral to the achievement of larger business goals."
A key question, it says, is whether working to address a particular social issue also will "help my firm creative a tangible competitive advantage."
Companies should pick social issues "that drive growth or reduce costs, all while demonstrably helping local communities and broader societies address their own development priorities," the report says.
The report suggests that people who mistrust business likely will criticize the proposed strategy of sustainable value creation as "corporate greed in sheep's clothing."
While the level of trust in business "is not wholly within the control of companies, the report says, the "integrity with which companies execute their strategies for sustainable value creation is of the utmost importance in earning public confidence."
Corporate and CEOs and thought leaders interviewed for the research that led to the report believe that "shaping the future through sustainable value creation is a mandate," the report says.
And developing those strategies demands new ways of business thinking, it says.
Leadership toward sustainable value creation "requires stepping outside typical business planning cycles and acknowledging the need for (and growth possibilities inherent in) new ways of thinking," it says. "It also entails embarking on new forms of collaboration."
Margaret Coady, director of the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, says in a statement that, by moving beyond their traditional levels and models of corporate community involvement, "the zero-sum tension faced by corporate executives of increasing shareholder returns and doing the right thing for society can be dissolved."
http://philanthropyjournal.org/news/businesses-urged-rethink-social-role
June 28, 2010
In an increasingly complex world, corporations need to change the way they do business by changing the way they address social problems, a new report says.
To compete in the global marketplace, it says, companies must develop integrated strategies to cope with big changes, including the growing shift in economic activity to Asia, rising stress on natural resources, social problems that are becoming more complex and widespread, and rising expectations that companies play a big role in addressing social issues.
Companies can prepare themselves to make greatest impact on social problems and their own bottom line through a strategy known as "sustainable value creation," says the report, prepared by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, based on research by McKinsey & Company.
That strategy consists of a "self-reinforcing state of trustworthy, pro-social corporate behavior that simultaneously delivers bottom-line results and community benefits," says the report, Shaping the Future: Solving Social Problems through Business Strategy.
"To bring about sustainable value creation in their firms," it says, "companies must challenge the tacit assumptions that underpin the functioning of their value chains, seeking to understand where social issues impede progress, and then work to engage others in ameliorating those issues for the good of business and society alike," the report says.
"Corporate involvement is required whenever the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action," it says.
Companies should take a hard look at social issues on which they "lead and engage," the report says, and make sure those issues are "integral to the achievement of larger business goals."
A key question, it says, is whether working to address a particular social issue also will "help my firm creative a tangible competitive advantage."
Companies should pick social issues "that drive growth or reduce costs, all while demonstrably helping local communities and broader societies address their own development priorities," the report says.
The report suggests that people who mistrust business likely will criticize the proposed strategy of sustainable value creation as "corporate greed in sheep's clothing."
While the level of trust in business "is not wholly within the control of companies, the report says, the "integrity with which companies execute their strategies for sustainable value creation is of the utmost importance in earning public confidence."
Corporate and CEOs and thought leaders interviewed for the research that led to the report believe that "shaping the future through sustainable value creation is a mandate," the report says.
And developing those strategies demands new ways of business thinking, it says.
Leadership toward sustainable value creation "requires stepping outside typical business planning cycles and acknowledging the need for (and growth possibilities inherent in) new ways of thinking," it says. "It also entails embarking on new forms of collaboration."
Margaret Coady, director of the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, says in a statement that, by moving beyond their traditional levels and models of corporate community involvement, "the zero-sum tension faced by corporate executives of increasing shareholder returns and doing the right thing for society can be dissolved."
http://philanthropyjournal.org/news/businesses-urged-rethink-social-role
Monday, July 5, 2010
Building a fundraising board
Building a fundraising board
Keith Curtis | June 25, 2010
Will the board members of your nonprofit do anything but ask for money? When asked to make a donation themselves, do they point to their time as their gift?
For most nonprofits, the board of directors has two roles: governance, which involves making policy and stewarding finances; and support.
The support role is where boards sometimes fall short because, frankly, it's harder. Providing support, especially in this time of reduced government funding, requires that a board member be a participant, donor and fundraiser.
Your board is your link to the community, so it must lead your fundraising.
Here's a compelling reason why. A 2009 survey by Cygnus Applied Research found that 42 percent of respondents would give to a nonprofit they had not supported in the past if someone they knew asked them for a gift.
More than 80 percent of all U.S. charitable giving comes from individuals.
That's why the most successful boards are involved in planning, executing, and evaluating their nonprofit's development efforts.
They understand their organization's case for support and know how to make "the ask."
They identify, cultivate, and recruit potential donors and new board members.
They would never assume fundraising is a staff function.
And they give not only time but money. How can board members justify asking others to give if they haven't yet made a gift?
But effective boards don't just happen. Building them begins with the recruitment process, which must be strategic.
It's not just filling open positions. Being asked to serve on a nonprofit board should be considered an honor by the prospective member.
Once that's established, present the prospective member with a job description that spells out expectations. Be clear that every board member must support your events and make a gift.
If a prospective member isn't willing to give, don't ask her to serve.
Before a new member attends her first board meeting, orient her by reviewing your mission, programs, role of the board, role of the staff, financial picture, development program and fundraising plans. Offer a tour; introduce her to volunteers and staff leadership.
If a board member has little experience in fundraising, involve her slowly.
Arrange for board training and role-playing. Send a new member with an experienced one to make a gift call.
Untrained members making gift calls are likely to fail, and that's a disservice to the board member, the prospective donor, and the people served by your organization.
A board member sharing his or her story with a potential donor is one of the most effective ways to raise money.
Another 2009 survey, this one by our colleagues at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy and Campbell & Company, found that donors asked to give in person by someone they knew gave 19 percent more than if asked another way.
Board members also can identify people who might be interested in your cause, engage attendees at your organization's events, make thank-you calls to donors and bring potential donors to cultivation events.
If your board members aren't willing to do all of the above, it might be time for this question: Why are they on your board?
Keith Curtis is a board member of Giving USA, board member of the Giving Institute, and president of the Hampton Roads Gift Planning Council. He is also president and CEO of The Curtis Group, a fundraising consulting firm based in Virginia.
Keith Curtis | June 25, 2010
Will the board members of your nonprofit do anything but ask for money? When asked to make a donation themselves, do they point to their time as their gift?
For most nonprofits, the board of directors has two roles: governance, which involves making policy and stewarding finances; and support.
The support role is where boards sometimes fall short because, frankly, it's harder. Providing support, especially in this time of reduced government funding, requires that a board member be a participant, donor and fundraiser.
Your board is your link to the community, so it must lead your fundraising.
Here's a compelling reason why. A 2009 survey by Cygnus Applied Research found that 42 percent of respondents would give to a nonprofit they had not supported in the past if someone they knew asked them for a gift.
More than 80 percent of all U.S. charitable giving comes from individuals.
That's why the most successful boards are involved in planning, executing, and evaluating their nonprofit's development efforts.
They understand their organization's case for support and know how to make "the ask."
They identify, cultivate, and recruit potential donors and new board members.
They would never assume fundraising is a staff function.
And they give not only time but money. How can board members justify asking others to give if they haven't yet made a gift?
But effective boards don't just happen. Building them begins with the recruitment process, which must be strategic.
It's not just filling open positions. Being asked to serve on a nonprofit board should be considered an honor by the prospective member.
Once that's established, present the prospective member with a job description that spells out expectations. Be clear that every board member must support your events and make a gift.
If a prospective member isn't willing to give, don't ask her to serve.
Before a new member attends her first board meeting, orient her by reviewing your mission, programs, role of the board, role of the staff, financial picture, development program and fundraising plans. Offer a tour; introduce her to volunteers and staff leadership.
If a board member has little experience in fundraising, involve her slowly.
Arrange for board training and role-playing. Send a new member with an experienced one to make a gift call.
Untrained members making gift calls are likely to fail, and that's a disservice to the board member, the prospective donor, and the people served by your organization.
A board member sharing his or her story with a potential donor is one of the most effective ways to raise money.
Another 2009 survey, this one by our colleagues at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy and Campbell & Company, found that donors asked to give in person by someone they knew gave 19 percent more than if asked another way.
Board members also can identify people who might be interested in your cause, engage attendees at your organization's events, make thank-you calls to donors and bring potential donors to cultivation events.
If your board members aren't willing to do all of the above, it might be time for this question: Why are they on your board?
Keith Curtis is a board member of Giving USA, board member of the Giving Institute, and president of the Hampton Roads Gift Planning Council. He is also president and CEO of The Curtis Group, a fundraising consulting firm based in Virginia.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Is fostering fatherhood an effective means to promote rehabiltation?
Is fostering fatherhood an effective means to promote rehabilitation?
The question in the title of this post is inspited by this recent USA Today article, which is headlined "Prison dads learn meaning of 'father'" and which seems like a fitting post in honor of today's Hallmark holiday. Here is an excerpt:
More than 1.7 million children across the USA have a parent in U.S. prisons, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. T he number of children with a father in prison grew by 77% from 1991 through mid-2007. And those children are two to three more times likely to wind up behind bars themselves, says Christopher Wildeman, a University of Michigan sociologist who has studied the effects of imprisoned parents.
To try to snap that trend, Angola and other prisons across the country sponsor two programs aimed at reconnecting prison dads with their children: Returning Hearts, a day-long carnival-like celebration where inmates spend eight hours with their kids, and Malachi Dads, a year-long training session that uses Bible passages to help improve inmates' parenting skills.
Inmates must show good behavior to participate in the programs, Warden Burl Cain says. Once they feel reconnected to their family, their attitudes improve, he says. Around 2,500 inmates have participated in Returning Hearts since it began in 2005. Malachi, which started in 2007, currently has 119 men. "The ones who were problematic before are not problematic anymore," Cain says. "Prison didn't straighten them out; their kids straightened them out."...
Rehabilitating prisoners through better fathering is a growing movement, says Roland Warren, president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. InsideOut Dad, a program run by the initiative designed to connect inmates with their families, started in 2004 at a handful of facilities and has spread to more than 400 prisons and jails nationwide, he says. "This is a paradigm shift," Warren says. "People are saying we have to figure out a way to reduce recidivism. Connecting them to family and community is a key way to do that."
The question in the title of this post is inspited by this recent USA Today article, which is headlined "Prison dads learn meaning of 'father'" and which seems like a fitting post in honor of today's Hallmark holiday. Here is an excerpt:
More than 1.7 million children across the USA have a parent in U.S. prisons, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. T he number of children with a father in prison grew by 77% from 1991 through mid-2007. And those children are two to three more times likely to wind up behind bars themselves, says Christopher Wildeman, a University of Michigan sociologist who has studied the effects of imprisoned parents.
To try to snap that trend, Angola and other prisons across the country sponsor two programs aimed at reconnecting prison dads with their children: Returning Hearts, a day-long carnival-like celebration where inmates spend eight hours with their kids, and Malachi Dads, a year-long training session that uses Bible passages to help improve inmates' parenting skills.
Inmates must show good behavior to participate in the programs, Warden Burl Cain says. Once they feel reconnected to their family, their attitudes improve, he says. Around 2,500 inmates have participated in Returning Hearts since it began in 2005. Malachi, which started in 2007, currently has 119 men. "The ones who were problematic before are not problematic anymore," Cain says. "Prison didn't straighten them out; their kids straightened them out."...
Rehabilitating prisoners through better fathering is a growing movement, says Roland Warren, president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. InsideOut Dad, a program run by the initiative designed to connect inmates with their families, started in 2004 at a handful of facilities and has spread to more than 400 prisons and jails nationwide, he says. "This is a paradigm shift," Warren says. "People are saying we have to figure out a way to reduce recidivism. Connecting them to family and community is a key way to do that."
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
New NAACP report on "prison-based gerrymandering"
New NAACP report on "prison-based gerrymandering"
As detailed in this press release, this morning "the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) released Captive Constituents, a report on prison-based gerrymandering." Here is more from the press release:
As the report details, most states and local governments count incarcerated persons as residents of the prison communities where they are housed when drawing election district lines, even though they are not residents of those communities and have no opportunity to build meaningful ties there.
“This practice is known as ‘prison-based gerrymandering,’ and it distorts our democratic process by artificially inflating the population count—and thus, the political influence—of the districts where prisons and jails are located,” said John Payton, LDF Director-Counsel. “Everyone should care about this anti-democratic phenomenon because it distorts our political system.”
The United States Constitution requires that election districts must be roughly equal in size, so that everyone is represented equally in the political process. This requirement, known as the “one person, one vote” principle, is undermined by prison-based gerrymandering.
Prison-based gerrymandering results in stark racial disparities as well. African Americans are nearly 13% of the general population, but are 41.3% of the federal and state prison population. But incarcerated persons are often held in areas that are far removed, both geographically and demographically, from their home communities. Thus, prison-based gerrymandering not only weakens the political strength of communities of color, it is also eerily reminiscent of the infamous “three-fifths compromise,” which enabled Southern states to amplify their political power by counting enslaved and disfranchised African Americans as amongst their constituents.
“Because incarcerated persons in the United States are disproportionately African Americans and other people of color, the current counting of prisoners at their place of incarceration severely weakens the voting strength of entire communities of color,” said Payton.
The full (and brief and colorful) NAACP report is available at this link.
http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/felon/captive_constituents.pdf
As detailed in this press release, this morning "the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) released Captive Constituents, a report on prison-based gerrymandering." Here is more from the press release:
As the report details, most states and local governments count incarcerated persons as residents of the prison communities where they are housed when drawing election district lines, even though they are not residents of those communities and have no opportunity to build meaningful ties there.
“This practice is known as ‘prison-based gerrymandering,’ and it distorts our democratic process by artificially inflating the population count—and thus, the political influence—of the districts where prisons and jails are located,” said John Payton, LDF Director-Counsel. “Everyone should care about this anti-democratic phenomenon because it distorts our political system.”
The United States Constitution requires that election districts must be roughly equal in size, so that everyone is represented equally in the political process. This requirement, known as the “one person, one vote” principle, is undermined by prison-based gerrymandering.
Prison-based gerrymandering results in stark racial disparities as well. African Americans are nearly 13% of the general population, but are 41.3% of the federal and state prison population. But incarcerated persons are often held in areas that are far removed, both geographically and demographically, from their home communities. Thus, prison-based gerrymandering not only weakens the political strength of communities of color, it is also eerily reminiscent of the infamous “three-fifths compromise,” which enabled Southern states to amplify their political power by counting enslaved and disfranchised African Americans as amongst their constituents.
“Because incarcerated persons in the United States are disproportionately African Americans and other people of color, the current counting of prisoners at their place of incarceration severely weakens the voting strength of entire communities of color,” said Payton.
The full (and brief and colorful) NAACP report is available at this link.
http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/felon/captive_constituents.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)