Stanford Social Innovation Review

UNCHARITABLE: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potentialby Dan Pallotta

Over the past few years, Washington, D.C., has witnessed two explosive nonprofit scandals. Both scandals invited embarrassing publicity and congressional scrutiny. Both exposed the governance flaws of experienced and well-intentioned board members. And both could have been avoided. —By Pete Smith

By 1998, thousands of people had contracted HIV and hepatitis C from Canada’s tainted blood supply. To restore the supply and the public’s trust, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments of Canada created a new organization, Canadian Blood Services. Despite the public health tragedy that it inherited, Canadian Blood Services rebuilt Canadians’ faith in the nation’s blood supply by infusing transparency into its structure, culture, and operations. —By Moe Abecassis, David Benjamin, & Lorna Tessier

Studies show that individuals are more susceptible to corrupt behavior when trying to avoid a loss.

A vicious cycle is leaving nonprofits so hungry for decent infrastructure that they can barely function as organizations—let alone serve their beneficiaries. The cycle starts with funders’ unrealistic expectations about how much running a nonprofit costs, and results in nonprofits’ misrepresenting their costs while skimping on vital systems—acts that feed funders’ skewed beliefs. To break the nonprofit starvation cycle, funders must take the lead. —By Ann Goggins Gregory & Don Howard

How a Jewish charity is responding to one of the biggest scams in history.

Grantmaking initiatives often fail when the foundation remains isolated from its grantees and the communities they both serve. To remedy this problem, grantmakers must work more closely with their grantees, community leaders, and other important stakeholders. This engagement helps everyone involved gain a deeper understanding of the problems they are tackling, create new and better solutions, and build more effective organizations

New research shows that binding contracts
may actually reduce trust.

Lessons on grantmaking.

Are foundations paying trustees too much money?

For nonprofits, communication is often a one-way street.

Charitable donors should think of themselves as “investors” – and should expect returns, just like a stock market investor would. But too often, givers don’t see themselves this way, contributing to an inefficient “social capital market.” 

Waste, failure, and Bosnia’s lessons for Iraq.

Study shows religious organizations lack financial controls.

Top foundation leaders reveal how they set
payout rates, executive salaries, and trustee compensation.

Almost half of revenue-seeking organizations are in the black.

Accreditation prompts higher charitable giving.

Nonprofits use metrics to show that
they are efficient. But what if donors don’t care?

Journalist, Seattle Times.