Stanford Social Innovation Review

Habit Creation, Consumers, and Charity

An unexpected version of cooperation between for-profit companies and the public health establishment yields life-saving results in Ghana. What’s exciting about this project, in which the question put to the companies was “How do you change behavior?”, is that it suggests a whole series of possible cooperative efforts.

If Unilever et al. could help health officials determine why people pursued unhealthy habits–and, more important, how to prompt them to pursue healthy ones–why couldn’t we ask those consumer giants to help us figure out how to make a habit out of giving? Instead of tying charity to purchases–which teaches people that the only way to donate is to have twice as much money to spare as you’re willing to give–we could identify the triggers for genuine charity and figure out how to insert those into people’s daily lives.

The Nonprofiteer is often skeptical of the notion that foundations should invest in research about social problems rather than in their solution; in many cases, the solution is already available and research is beside the point. Likewise, she’s often moved to snort when she hears philanthropies describe themselves as “convenors” of all those who might have something useful to say about a problem, as though the act of bringing people together were all that might be required to spur them to useful action.

We don’t know as much as we need to about how people give, which is likely to be nearly as important as why. Bringing together the habit-forming expertise of consumer companies with philanthropies and the sector-specific experience of charities might really produce a valuable new synthesis.

So who will take the lead in strengthening the sector by asking consumer companies to contribute their survey-research and marketing smarts to determine how people can be made more responsive to charitable appeals? Maybe the answer is different for different parts of the nonprofit sector.  For instance, people may give to the arts if they’re reminded of their importance to children, but give to health-care based on potential threats to themselves.  Simply knowing that information instead of speculating, would be a huge boon to everyone–especially those of us whose livelihood depends on separating people from their money.

Kelly Kleiman, who blogs as The Nonprofiteer, is a lawyer and freelance journalist whose reportage and essays about the arts, philanthropy and women’s issues have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and other dailies; in magazines including In These Times and Chicago Philanthropy; and on websites including Aislesay.com and Artscope.net.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Investment Needed in Nonprofit Policy Work

Nonprofits can do a lot more to help shape the public policies that affect their work and constituents. Working to fix flawed policies at the root of social problems is a key role nonprofits should play.

But far too many nonprofits fail to play that role because of concerns that the law limits their advocacy work, and because they lack the resources to be effective advocates, says a new survey by the Nonprofit Listening Post Project at Johns Hopkins University.

Among nonprofits that engaged in any lobbying or advocacy, for example, fewer than 15 percent devoted as much as 2 percent of their overall budget to that work, the report says.

And while roughly half of nonprofits surveyed undertook limited forms of advocacy or lobbying, such as signing correspondence to public officials or distributing materials on policy issues, only a third engaged in more involved forms of participating, such as testifying at public hearings or organizing a public event.

The survey says nonprofits may shy from lobbying, compared to advocacy, because of existing laws limiting their involvement.

Lobbying consists of voicing a position to a legislative official on a specific piece of legislation, while advocacy consists of voicing a concern or information about policy without expressing a position on a particular piece of legislation.

The Johns Hopkins report recommends foundations invest more in nonprofit policy advocacy, that nonprofits be encouraged to get more involved in advocacy, that small and mid-sized nonprofits receive more training and other assistance to encourage advocacy, and that more resources be made available for policy work to “intermediary” groups in specific fields of interest.

“Our nation’s nonprofit organizations are widely expected to play a key role in helping to promote democracy and civic action, and our survey results indicate that they are making strenuous efforts to fulfill this expectation,” Lester M. Salamon, author of the study and director of the Center for Civil Studies at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies, says in a statement. “However, financial and other constraints are limiting their ability to do so.”

Compounding the lack of resources, support and expertise for policy work, as well as the concern about legal constraints, are other hurdles nonprofits face, including rising demand for services, ongoing pressure to sustain their organizations, and fears that policy work could result in a loss of funding from foundations, givers and government.

To clear those obstacles, nonprofits should work to educate their boards and funders about the importance of policy work, and to secure their support to equip their organizations to be more effective policy advocates.

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

0 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Government Can Do Better for Charity

With some nonprofit leaders pushing hard for closer ties with government, the time is ripe for those working in the charitable marketplace to think hard about how to partner with government more productively.

But in seeking a greater partnership, nonprofits also need to recognize the limits of government and the obstacle it can post to social progress.

Despite access to vast resources and regulatory power that can have a big impact on charity, government has failed to use its assets to develop innovative and even-handed partnerships with nonprofits to address critical social problems.

Government has proved a weak cop in policing foundations and nonprofits, a bully in menacing charitable groups that oppose its policies, a failure at creating innovative incentives to giving and volunteerism, and ham-fisted in channeling public funds to religious charities while ignoring discrimination in who they hire and serve.

For their part, nonprofits and foundations often act as if their social mission frees them of the obligation to account for themselves in return for the tax-exempt status they enjoy.

There has got to be a better way to tackle urgent social problems.

Nonprofits and foundations address the symptoms and causes of those problems, often serving as civil society’s research-and-development arm.

But nonprofits lack the resources and power more readily available to government.

As the Washington Post reported recently, some nonprofits leaders are calling for a special White House office or government agency to focus on nonprofits, community initiatives and volunteerism, while others are pushing for greater collaboration among charities, corporations, and government.

Jockeying for influence in a post-Bush administration, nonprofit leaders rightly are looking for ways to play a greater role in shaping public policies and leveraging government resources.

But nonprofits need to be smart, and to be careful what they wish for.

The charitable marketplace in the U.S. plays an indispensable role by taking on difficult and messy jobs no one else wants or cares about.

Because of their independence, nonprofits can be creative and entrepreneurial, can take risks, and can team up with partners that make sense and that recognize true collaboration requires giving as well as taking.

By treating government as a potential partner that requires cultivation and engagement, nonprofits can find ways to put its resources to productive use and develop innovative and productive collaborations.

But in making use of taxpayer-support resources, nonprofits also must recognize their obligation to be more open and accountable about the work they do and the results they generate.

While it is not the answer to society’s toughest problems, which are more effectively addressed through strategies that are market-driven and collaborative, and often spearheaded by nonprofits willing to take risks, government has the resources and power to make it an important partner in developing, supporting and investing in those strategies.

But in seeking closer ties with government, nonprofits must not forget it can be slow to take change or take risks, quick to meddle, and arbitrary in using its power.

Todd Cohen, a veteran news reporter and editor, is editor and publisher of Philanthropy Journal, an online newspaper published by the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. Cohen has taught nonprofit reporting and media relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Duke University, and regularly speaks on the topics of nonprofit media relations and trends in the charitable world.

Posted by Kelsey Walker

3 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

“The Path of Change”

One of the most widely pursued goals in philanthropy is the “improvement of K-12 education.”  In the current issue (Spring 2004) of SSIR, talk show host Michael Krasny brings together two experts from different fields, Tom Vander Ark, executive director for education at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (and a former school superintendent) and Jerry Porras, a professor emeritus of organizational behavior and change at the Stanford GSB, to discuss this complex topic.  A thread running through the conversation is the role of test scores in driving the improvement process.  If not test scores, then what?  What do you think?

Posted by Perla Ni

2 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Co-opted by Wal-Mart?

“As an American citizen, I don’t want the Statue of Liberty co-opted by Wal-Mart,” says Rep. Maurice Hinchey as quoted in the April 4 edition of the New York Times in an article on the role of private funding for national parks and monuments.  The article, focusing on questionable practices by the nonprofit foundation that raises money to support the Statue of Liberty, raises an issue of rising importance in public-private relationships:  Where is the proper line drawn between the influence of private money and decision-making, on the one side, and agenda-setting by public agencies, on the other?  As public agencies of all sorts—parks, schools, historical sites, hospitals, among others—ever more eagerly solicit private donations (“public-private parnterships”), are they becoming increasingly vulnerable to private influence as well?

Posted by Perla Ni

2 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Postcards From the Nonprofit Congress

If all goes well, on October 16 and 17 of this year, 500 soup kitchen staffers, Republican think-tankers, bowling league captains, and other nonprofit representatives will join forces to make a big noise about America’s Third Sector. They’ll gather in Washington, DC at the first-ever Nonprofit Congress, brainchild of Audrey Alvarado, executive director of the National Council of Nonprofit Associations.  I interviewed Dr. Alvarado about the origins and aims of this ambitious effort ,

SSIR FORUM:  How did the Nonprofit Congress come into being?

AUDREY ALVARADO:  In the fall of 2004, I queried my national colleagues about the possibility of having a joint national meeting. There had been some talk and encouragement from both funders and nonprofits to have one large conference for the sector; however, there was little support from my colleagues for the idea.
Shortly after trying to generate interest in a national combined event I met with Robert Egger who runs DC Central Kitchen. He had just published his book, Begging for Change, which challenges some of the current thinking about the purpose and role of nonprofits. We talked about the idea of having a national event where nonprofits and their allies would come to DC for a Congress. We both were concerned with the direction of the nonprofit sector and wondered out loud what the sector would look like if it was united—what kind of power and influence would we have. We were also concerned with the negative press around the sector and the impact that this media attention was having on the thousands of nonprofits that are doing amazing work in their communities. We both felt like it was time for the sector to unite and exercise a collective voice.

You mention voice, and in fact the tagline for the Nonprofit Congress is “many visions, one voice.”  What are the kinds of things, in your view, that organizations as diverse as the ACLU, the Heritage Foundation, the National Refrigeration Association, and the local soup kitchen might say with one voice?

It is not really a matter of the actual message but rather the role that the nonprofit sector has historically played in stewarding our democracy and raising the voices or the concerns of their constituents.  We, along with many others, see a real need for nonprofits to reclaim their role in advancing civil society by organizing, mobilizing, and encouraging those they serve to speak out and advocate on behalf of their causes.  I suspect that Heritage, ACLU and the NRA would all agree that they want to retain their rights as organizations and individuals to “petition their government” or raise a ruckus when they see the need; as well as to work in effective partnership with the government and business sectors to promote efforts in the public’s best interest.

There are some in our sector who believe that keeping a high profile can only hurt us, that showing our strength will invite hostile legislation and regulation.  How do you respond to that?

I have heard that concern. We have some good-hearted folks who just want to serve and prefer not to receive recognition for their service.  This is commendable and is reflective of the unique character of many individuals who work in the sector. But we have also found out the hard way that being silent often comes at the cost of not addressing the systemic issues facing our constituents and communities. Also, the nonprofit sector is a partner with the public and for-profit sectors so let’s act like equal partners.

The 500 delegates to the Nonprofit Congress will gather in Washington, DC in part to create a policy platform for the sector.  What are the kinds of things this policy platform might include?

The substantive content will be informed by the numerous Town Hall meetings that have been and will be held in communities across the country. It is absolutely essential for the legitimacy of this effort that the issues in the platform come from the field and the Town Hall meetings are designed to do just that. The issues/discussion points we have heard so far are not surprising.  Yet they affirm what many of us trying to represent the perspectives and issues of concern to nonprofits have heard.  Issues raised, thus far, include the need for sustainable funding strategies, the interest in partnering with the public sector to meet community needs, the need for greater collaboration among nonprofits to enhance service delivery, and the need to raise public awareness of the vital role nonprofits play in our communities. There is also recognition from nonprofits on the frontlines that we must come together as a collective force to make a difference at both the state and local levels.

OK, so now we have some regulatory and legislative proposals on the table.  And we’re trying, as you say, to act like equal partners with the public and for-profit sectors.  Even supposing that we could get 2,000 nonprofits to participate in this effort, we’d still be representing less than one percent of all the charities in the United States.  Why would policymakers and businesspeople to listen to us?

You are right 2,000 nonprofits is a drop in the bucket, when you are looking at a sector that is over 1 million plus.  That is why we plan to use the magic of technology for additional outreach.  We want to hear from as many nonprofits as possible and are encouraging their postings on the Nonprofit Congress website. After the event in October, information will be widely distributed for further refinement so the number of nonprofits and allies involved in this movement can increase exponentially.  The NCNA network has 22,000 members right now and we are actively seeking partnerships with other networks so that we can get more nonprofits informed and involved. This is a beginning and with all beginnings you must start somewhere.  Our hope is that this movement will grow as the Nonprofit Congress platform takes shape and shows results.

Audrey, thank you so much for helping us better understand the Nonprofit Congress.  Any closing words for your colleagues in the Blogosphere?

We encourage people to learn more about the Nonprofit Congress and sign up for regular updates via our website.  We want as many nonprofit leaders as possible to get informed and involved. Thanks for the opportunity.

_____

This entry was cross-posted at White Courtesy Telephone, your source for news and nonsense about foundations and the nonprofit sector.

Posted by Albert Ruesga

2 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments

Field Notes: Independent Sector Conference

I just returned from my hometown, the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, where I attended a conference for nonprofit leaders put on by the group Independent Sector. One of the highlights of the event was the opening speech by Andy Stern, president of one of the nation’s largest trade unions, the Service Employees International Union. Stern is a bold guy who recently led the SEIU, along with the Teamsters and several other big unions, out of the AFL-CIO. In his talk, he addressed many of the same issues and concerns confronting nonprofits—the effects of globalization, a broken health care system, failing schools, and growing income inequality.

Listening to him made me wonder, Why do nonprofits talk a lot about partnering with business and government, yet rarely talk about building partnerships with trade unions? Unions and nonprofits are natural allies, sharing many of the same concerns about health care, education, housing, social justice, and the environment.

More importantly, if it weren’t for unions, there would be tens of millions more Americans on the poverty rolls without health care insurance and many of the other benefits we’ve come to associate with middle-class life. The nonprofit sector would have a lot more work to do if it weren’t for unions. (I know this not only from having studied the labor movement, but from having spent several years as a member of SEIU Local 250, working as a nurse’s aid in nursing homes and hospitals.)

As Robert Senkler, CEO of Securian Financial Group (a large provider of insurance, asset management, and trust services), said later during his speech on creating partnerships between business and nonprofits, one of the most important things his company can do to be socially-responsible is create good jobs. That’s true. The only thing I’d add is that sometimes companies need nudges from unions to create good jobs—jobs that pay well, offer health care benefits and paid vacations, and the like.

The Twin Cities is the birthplace of some of the most innovative trade unions in America and some of our most socially-responsible corporations and capitalists. The Teamsters union, which like the SEIU focuses on organizing low-skilled workers, became as strong as it did because a group of Teamsters in the Twin Cities launched an innovative organizing drive in the mid-1930s that targeted truckers.

And American corporations have learned much about corporate philanthropy from the leadership of Twin City companies like Dayton Hudson (forerunner of Target). Dayton and other Minnesota-based companies created the Five Percent Club, companies that contributed five percent of pre-tax profits to philanthropy. As a result of this largess, the Twin Cities has one of the most vibrant nonprofit sectors and strongest arts communities in the country. Minneapolis is home to not only enlightened capital and labor, but also to some of the most progressive political parties and politicians in the country, exemplified by folks like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Eugene McCarthy.
Cross sector partnerships are now becoming the rage. And for good reason. One of the principal reasons that the Twin Cities always rank near the top of the lists of the best places to do business or live is because businesses, nonprofits, and the public sector (and trade unions, I might add), have learned how to work together.

________

Eric Nee is the managing editor of the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Posted by Eric Nee

12 Comment(s) - View/Post Comments