Where's the Nonprofit Agenda?

Are you getting as overwhelmed as I am with all the scrambling to get the Obama administration's attention with a list of demands, suggestions and/or ideas? There's not a day that goes by that I don't see yet another public "call" for the administration to [fill-in-the-blank].

That's all good. After all, it's nice to see that after eight years of closed doors, we finally have a president who seems to subscribe to transparency and citizen involvement in government. And it's great that several organizations have stepped up to help craft an agenda that benefits nonprofits. Among these are ServiceNation, Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofit Associations, and others that have been instrumental in pulling together organizations to rally around around and advocate for a coherent set of priorities that are indisputably important to strengthening the nonprofit sector.

What's disconcerting to some is that in the rush to position organizations and issues, there has yet to emerge a comprehensive, coherent agenda for the next administration that transcends larger subsectors. Where's the parallel desire to pull together the some of the best thinkers and "doers" in each of these subsectors--service, social entrepreneurship, human services, advocacy groups, and many others--to devise an agenda that covers all nonprofits, especially small- to mid-sized groups that comprise nearly three-quarters of the entire sector? If these groups -- and all organizations in the sector -- could use anything, it's a plan for supporting their capacity to provide the kinds of services and products that no else is stepping up to offer, especially for under-served constituencies.

As Jed Emerson recently wrote:

...Good advice amidst a lot of positioning and posturing that risks overlooking other crises and priorities that transcend institutional/field interests. If this isn't a call for sector leadership--one that brings together all kinds of groups for a larger agenda that goes beyond specific "fields" or "issues"--I don't know what is!...Before we go advocate for non-profits and the things we care about, perhaps those of us who identify as being in the citizen sector should take this moment to pause and re-connect with what it is we are ultimately attempting to do.....The opportunity of Obama’s presidency and his call to rise above partisanship is more than simply a chance to bolster our individual causes and organizations in light of what may be a more receptive administration. We should first stop to reflect upon the array of issues we care about and consider how beyond our own organizational agendas we might better partner with the business community, make use of our own assets most effectively...and whether, in fact, we have the courage to rise above the strategies/tactics we have executed during a period of partisanship to create new, yet more powerful approaches to advancing sustained impact and change in our world.

Todd Cohen, in a post on the Philanthropy Journal blog, states it more bluntly:

Nonprofits should indeed be pushing the incoming administration for a greater voice in helping to shape the policies that affect nonprofits and the communities they serve. But...the voices dominating the conversation are big nonprofits, big foundations and the big trade groups that represent them....Lost in the scramble for power by the giving sector’s power brokers seems to be the voice of smaller nonprofits...What seems to be cracking wide open is a longstanding fault-line in the giving sector, with big nonprofits, big foundations and social entrepreneurs positioning themselves to push the new administration to adopt a giving-sector agenda that mainly rewards big nonprofits, big foundations and social enterprise...And while President-elect Barack Obama’s pledged emphasis on volunteerism and public service will be essential to help address...problems and challenges, it runs the risk of perpetuating a giving-sector mindset that for far too long has treated nonprofits as an underclass that should swallow low wages and hand-me-down resources.

While these views may rankle some, they're important to moving toward a place that I believe most of those working in our sector want to see: A strong infrastructure for nonprofits, support for building their capacity to be effective, resources for people with new ideas, incentives and policies that encourage more support for nonprofits, AND a strong volunteer army behind them ready to serve. And while we have the pieces of that agenda floating around in various places, we've yet to pull it all together -- together.

One of the few attempts to do this is being led by Lester Salamon from Johns Hopkins University. In a recent op-ed in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Salamon outlines a larger agenda for helping the entire nonprofit sector, not just parts of it. And he does so by positioning the nonprofits that provide health care, housing, and educational services to millions of people--particularly disadvantaged groups that would otherwise go without--as a vital part of the overall economy, not just nice groups doing nice things. He also offers some hard numbers with a rationale to back them up--a rationale steeped in economic reality, rather than in lofty rhetoric. That op-ed outlines what is currently becoming a full-blown proposal crafted in coalition with a number of nonprofit sector infrastructure groups. Let's hope that someone is listening.

Is Perpetuity Still Relevant?

As the economic crisis crashes all around us, the question about whether then notion of foundations existing in perpetuity is still relevant, and if so, under what circumstances?

A story comes to mind. About ten years ago, I attended a meeting of some rather large foundations that had gathered to discuss the possibility of impending regulations, one of which was a proposal to increase foundations' payout rate. The convenor of the group advised everyone to "stand firm against raising the payout" but provided little rationale as to that stance.

After the meeting, I spent some time digging around to see if I could unearth some of the arguments for and against the notion, and there were plenty of those, none of which came to any consensus. The primary argument against it, however, seemed to be that any attempt to increase the payout rate would mitigate the likelihood of foundations remaining in perpetuity. The assumption behind that argument, of course, was/is that perpetuity is inherently a good thing. But is it?

A few recent articles tackled that question. In a recent article for the Nonprofit Quarterly, Buzz Schmidt, founder of Guidestar, argues that we need to "escape the perpetuity mindtrap" because it imposes fundamental limitations on foundations’ strategic potential. Specifically, it "diminishes foundations' internal accountability, ability to place consistent performance demands upon its grantees, and ability to optimize deployment of its assets," among other things. It's a compelling argument that has been made many times, but the piece puts it forth in a comprehensive and thoughtful way.

Ray Madoff, a professor at Boston College Law School, bolsters the argument against perpetuity with a withering piece in the New York Times, wherein the author asserts that the perpetuity argument assumes that "people can make intelligent decisions about the use of resources far into the future. But a look back shows how flawed this thinking is. Would it really make sense for current policy to be dictated by the vision of someone living in 1930? 1630? 1230?"

As nonprofits face considerable funding deficits in the near future, it may be time to have a richer and more robust discussion about whether the current payout rates and regulations are still relevant and why.

Best Places to Work: What Criteria?

There's been a lot of concern lately about whether the nonprofit sector will be able to recruit and, more importantly, retain talent to address what some have referred to as a potential "leadership crisis" down the road. Two constituencies that have been targeted for recruitment are "sector switchers" (people who've worked in the public or private sectors but are interested in nonprofit work) and young people. Idealist.org, in fact, has just published (Viking) two excellent books for each of these groups on getting a job in the nonprofit sector.

Another strategy has been the creation of a "best places to work" roster that would help people (including those who already work in the nonprofit sector) discern which organizations are most appealing to them. The rankings/list (or whatever form the product takes) would be similar to those published by Working Woman (Best Places for Working Women to Work) and several others.

These kinds of lists/rankings serve several purposes, not the least of which is helping people figure out where they'd like to work. They also help to highlight "best practices" and provide an incentive for companies/organizations to incorporate those practices into their shops. But they do something much more. They devise the criteria by which organizations will be judged and this criteria, in turn, has the potential to serve as important drivers for cultural and systemic change within organizations.

That's why the criteria selected for judging the best places to work in the nonprofit sector is critical. That criteria, some say, has to go beyond the usual variables such as pay, benefits, family leave, and promotion policies to include factors that capture workplace cultures. Why? Because the latter is where the rubber hits the road when it comes to retaining workers and, especially, young workers, as Kari Dunn notes in her Social Citizens post and a response by Sean Stannard-Stockton on the Tactical Philanthropy blog.

Numerous studies and news reports have documented how young people--especially Millennials--are eschewing the old-school style of management, hierarchy, and "face time" that traditionally has been valued in organizations (including many nonprofits) and, instead, embrace a new workplace style. The latter includes an emphasis on collaborative decision-making, results, and "the leadership of the many." This is not the "yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir," generation. This is the "excuse me sir, but I think there may be a different way of doing this"generation.

While some older folks in the sector may shudder or roll their eyes at this, they do so at their own--and their organizations'--peril. Young people who come into organizations with high hopes that there will be more collaboration, diversity, shared responsibility, and “doing”—and less talking, politicking and schmoozing to move up the ladder—will become disillusioned and run away to create their vision elsewhere. It’s no coincidence that this generation has become one of the most entrepreneurial in history, starting their own initiatives that embody a new notion of leadership—initiatives that focus on action, not position and on outcomes, not personal advancement.

Including criteria, therefore, that young people feel is important to their not only being interested in working in nonprofits -- but staying there to become leaders of them -- will be critical to whether or not nonprofits change in ways that will ensure this happens.

But there's another reason nonprofits need to pay attention to Millennials' leadership/workplace style: It reflects the changes going on in the larger world. Driven largely by technology, those changes are requiring that workers have the ability to work across cultural, economic, and geographic boundaries; are comfortable with technology and the transparency, fluidity, and speed that comes with it; focus on action and results; and recognize and use the assets of everyone with a stake in an issue.

These kinds of criteria are more difficult to measure, of course, but if we want to go beyond simply recruiting people to nonprofits to making sure that they stay, we'll have to start pushing nonprofits to change the ways in which they do business -- and in ways that will help ensure that they flourish, rather than wither, in this brave new world.

An Argument for Funding Advocacy...and Infrastructure

In the shameless self-promotion department, I have an article in the latest issue of the Nonprofit Quarterly that attempts to lay out a case for why funders should invest in advocacy. I know, I know, how many times do we have to make this argument? Happily, it appears that some funders are (finally) getting it that advocacy isn't only an investment that promises to reap longer-term benefits but that it's part and parcel of high-performing and effective organizations.

But you should pick up the latest issue of the Quarterly for another -- more important -- reason. It contains a series of thoughtful pieces about where the nonprofit sector infrastructure is right now, what it looks like, why it's important, and where it's headed. It also includes a comprehensive (and nifty!) map of the nonprofit sector infrastructure and an analysis of infrastructure funding over the years.

The issue is an update of one that was originally published in 2004 to call attention to and make a case for the nonprofit infrastructure organizations that serve as the backbone of the entire sector nationwide. It was also the product of an unprecedented collaboration among leading infrastructure organizations and the foundations that supported them. The issue was distributed to more than 25,000 funders and endorsed by 12 leading foundations.

The lead essay was written by Ruth McCambridge, editor, and myself, "Why Every Foundation Should Fund Infrastructure" (PDF version here). Interestingly, much of what was in that piece is still relevant today, which doesn't bode well for those committed to ramping up more investments in this area. That raises the question of how many panel discussions and seminars are we going to have to continue to do until funders finally understand the importance of capacity building and infrastructure development? What will it take? I sure don't know but hope that, eventually, we'll get there.

In any case, for those of you who are interested in the intersection between nonprofits and democracy and/or in the nonprofit sector infrastructure, you should pick up the issue.

Do We Need a Public Service Academy?

There's been a bit of a kerfuffle over the proposed Public Service Academy. The brainchild of Chris Meyers Asch, who was recently profiled in the New York Times, the academy aspires to become the nation's preeminent institution focused on training, educating, and encouraging young people passionate about public service careers. Specifically, it would offer a free four-year education in exchange for five years of government service.

Supporters -- and there are many, including some of the most powerful members of Congress -- argue that the academy would have both substantive and symbolic benefits, among them, a cohort of graduates every year who would work in a range of federal, state and local agencies, as well as a flagship institution that would help revamp the rather tattered image that government work has (although that may be changing, given the resurgence of interest in the Obama campaign and, soon, his presidency).

There are those, however, who argue against the idea (one is Pablo Eisenberg who recently wrote an op-ed on the issue for the Chronicle of Philanthropy). Some conservatives believe that despite Chris's good intentions and remarkable entrepreneurism in getting this off the ground -- it smacks of yet another DC-based, bureaucratic institution (one conservative friend/critic called it "another boondoggle that will cost the taxpayers millions"). Some liberals argue that it would focus too much on the elite kids or kids who already have the incentive and encouragement to pursue these kinds of jobs. Moreover, it still doesn't address the image (and some would say, the real) problem with government jobs. That is, they're low-paying, mired in bureaucracy, and tend to value seniority and politics, rather than results, when it comes to promotions. (It's not a coincidence that some of the most ardent supporters of government service are those who've had the privilege of serving in higher-level, higher-paying, and more exciting positions, rather than as mid-level bureaucrats.)

Given all the research demonstrating that young people -- Millennials in particular (see post on this above) -- embrace a workstyle that's almost completely antithetical to the culture that currently reigns supreme in these kinds of institutions, it's hard to determine whether the academy, despite its best intentions to promote government service, will be able to keep young people from -- as one good friend and colleague who attempted a similar national effort a few years ago said -- "tearing their hair out, suffering needlessly, and then leaving to find a job with real impact" once they're done with their service.

Others argue that the academy dilutes the efforts already going on across the country to encourage young people to consider public service careers. Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, president emeritus of George Washington University, notes that the country already has about 150 schools of public administration who are trying to accomplish that goal. Others, however, say that those schools aren't doing enough to help young people pursue government careers and that initiatives like the Public Service Academy are helping to shake them out of their complacency.


These discussions have ignited quite a bit of back-and-forth in the blogosphere and elsewhere, so I thought I'd add to it by asking: Where's the similar effort to change government so that it is more appealing to people -- not just young people -- as a long-term career choice? To date, the efforts to attract people to government service have largely skewed toward expensive ad campaigns targeted toward recruitment, with relatively little attention to addressing the underlying reasons why people aren't interested in these jobs in the first place. Yes, it's good to try to burnish the image of government service, but if those efforts aren't coupled by equal attention to changing the culture once people are in those jobs, they will most likely become even more disillusioned, and ultimately, leave.


So, here's hoping that the same folks who are behind these kinds of initiatives have (or will have) an equal interest in government reform so that those who come into government service won't go out just as quickly.

Finally! An SROI Calculation for Funding Advocacy

Finally! Some hard numbers showing how support for nonprofit advocacy can and does lead to results that leverage funders' investments in ways they may have never imagined.

Those of us who have been bleating about how this for years -- and who see it as a fairly obvious way to get more bang for the buck -- have continually been frustrated by the lack of concrete data showing a clear return on investment, which funders need, and understandably want, if they're going to fund it.

And now we have some, thanks to a study just released by the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy: Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities.

NCRP studied 14 organizations that work with underrepresented constituencies in New Mexico to advocate on a range of issues over a five-year period and found that the total dollar amount of benefits accruing to the groups’ constituencies and the broader public was more than $2.6 billion. For every dollar invested in the 14 groups for advocacy ($16.6 million total), the groups received more than $157 in benefits for New Mexico communities.

Funding for a collaborative advocacy effort to raise the minimum wage in New Mexico also led to an additional $250 million for low-income workers in the state. A partnership among advocacy groups helped pass the 2003 Home Loan Protection Act, an anti-predatory lending package that has helped New Mexico keep foreclosure rates lower than many other states. And nonprofits and state agencies worked together to created a trust fund to provide permanent funding for affordable housing in New Mexico.

The good news is that the study will be replicated in another state, North Carolina. Working with local partners, which are likely to include the N.C. Center for Nonprofits and the North Carolina Network of Grantmakers, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy aims to identify 15 nonprofits in the state to participate in the study, says Ranghelli, senior research associate for the national group. The report, which likely would be released next spring, would quantify advocacy funding by foundations for those nonprofits over five years, identify those nonprofits' advocacy activities and quantify their impact.

<

Must Read: Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations

Tony Knerr, founder and principal of Anthony Knerr & Associates--a nonprofit strategic planning consulting firm--recently asked me to write a review of Clay Shirky's newest book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. I jumped at the chance because I think the title pretty much sums up the extraordinary cultural shifts we're experiencing, not the least of which is the diminishing importance of formal organizations and institutions, due largely to technologically-driven factors that are forcing us to rethink -- and ultimately redo -- how we create, sustain, and enhance positive changes in community and the world at large.

Knowing that many in the nonprofit world will balk at the title and not pick up the book, I tried to summarize as best as I could the rich content contained within its covers so that, perhaps, it will be an incentive to actually dig deeper into Shirky's extensive work on these issues and others I didn't have the space to include (unfortunately). In any case, it's a "must read," I believe, for any and all nonprofits that seek to not only survive in these new frontiers but, most importantly, thrive.

SO: All you nonprofits out there, READ THE BOOK. OR: Link to the review here and read a summary.