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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)