Is Transparency 2.0 Finally Coming to Washington?

Several of the nation's leading deliberative democracy organizations have been crafting detailed recommendations for President Obama to consider as part of his commitment to create an "Open Government Directive," the goal of which is to make the federal government more participatory, transparent and collaborative. Two efforts, in particular, are worth noting. First, AmericaSpeaks, Everyday Democracy, Demos, and the Ash Institute at Harvard have completed a report based on its "Champions of Participation" conference that convened 34 federal managers from 23 different federal agencies (including the EPA, Dept. of Energy, NIH, Dept. of the Interior, and others). Recognzing that the focus of most of this discussion has been on technology and transparency issues, AmericaSpeaks focuses its report more on what can be done to increase and improve face-to-face participation and collaboration by federal agencies. Read the report here.

The National Coalition on Dialogue and Deliberation, along with the International Association of Public Participation and the Co-Intelligence Institute, is also pulling together a set of recommendations for the administration using a truly open source process in which thousands of people were invited to weigh in. Read more about the project here (and, if you're reading this and work at an organization that's interested in this issue, consider endorsing the document).

Beth Noveck, director of President Obama's Open Government Directive, discusses both of the above in a nationally broadcast webinar.

Are Nonprofits Becoming Too Transactional?

A few months ago, I sat in on a meeting, listening to the leadership of a well-known nonprofit talk about the Obama election and what it would mean for this particular organization. A considerable amount of time was devoted to talking about “who’s in, and who’s out,” “how we can use so-and-so, now that s/he is part of the administration,” how we “can forget about so-and-so because s/he’s not ‘in’ with the new group,” etc.

Notwithstanding my general discomfort at feeling like I was back in high school, I was disturbed by this discussion, which, I suspect, has been taking place in the boardrooms of many other nonprofits these past few months as people rush to try to get a toehold into the new power elite circles. After two hours of this, I asked folks whether, um, hey, aren’t we supposed to be the sector whose bottom line is “relationships” and “the greater good”? What happened to all that? A participant turned to me and said, “We're just being transactional, which is the way the world works."

Wow. As anyone who knows me will tell you, I’m pretty aware of “how the world works” and about as far from the “let’s all hug and be happy” worldview as one can get, but frankly, I found this riposte to be one of the most cynical things I’ve ever heard. (Which proves the adage that if you scratch a die-hard cynic, you find a frustrated idealist underneath.)

Have we really become as transactional as the corporate folks a lot of these same nonprofit leaders sometimes castigate because all those “business types care about is power and money, not people”? If so, then what makes us any different than that sector? And does it matter whether we’re different from other sectors?

Some say that if the private sector has no qualms about using people for transactional purposes, why should we? I don’t have any definitive answers to these kinds of questions, but let me suggest one: That pesky issue of integrity. The private sector makes no bones about the fact that their “bottom line” is profit. Period. The nonprofit sector’s “bottom line”—or at least what most nonprofit sector leaders say it is—is the three C’s: community, collaboration, and compassion. When nonprofits forget that—or eschew it altogether—they risk losing their integrity, and ultimately, hoisting themselves on their own petard because they’re preaching one thing and doing another. As history shows, the latter has been at the crux of many a downfall or scandal.

But there’s another risk. As nonprofits adopt more businesslike approaches and practices into their operations—which, to be sure, many of them needed and benefitted from—they may be losing sight of their own missions and the mission of the sector overall. That is, working for the greater good – and putting that over one’s self-interest, whether it be individually or organizationally.

There’s a bit of concern out there, though, that while we may say publicly that we put that greater good first, it may not rise to the top of our priorities when it comes to day-to-day functioning. That’s understandable… but is it an excuse to lose sight of why nonprofits exist? In recent months, for example, I’ve heard more than one nonprofit leader say that “they don’t have time to meet with anyone who doesn’t have something to give me”—or words to that effect. And, there’s a sense among some nonprofit leaders that the economic downturn that’s ignited even more competition among groups for scarce resources hasn’t been bringing out the best in us. “We’re scrabbling all over each other, pushing each other out of the way,” said a good friend who’s been a sector leader for 30 years, “which is dividing us, rather than recognizing the multiple purposes we serve as a sector.” The issue, in short, has become, “how do I preserve my organization” (whether it deserves to be preserved or not—that’s another post for another time), rather than “how do I collaborate with others to meet a mission that transcends my individual or organization’s interests for what the greater good I say I want to achieve?”

Of course, let’s not be totally naïve. There will always be the power-hungry among us—no matter which sector they’re in. The danger, however, comes when this kind of behavior is rewarded, based on an assumption among some that “being more businesslike” means taking a more transactional approach to human relationships and the common good, which is frequently held up as the nonprofit sector’s currency.

But it’s important to note that there are many nonprofits out there that understand and embrace a spirit of the “greater good” and true collaboration, which a recent study by the Colorado Health Foundation has shown to be a factor in achieving goals shared by many nonprofits. The study, for example, found that rural organizations haven’t increased their collaborative efforts because “they’re already collaborating with each other” and that, unlike urban groups, haven't been using more volunteers more than ever before because they've always relied heavily on volunteers. As a result, “more rural groups met their fundraising goals that similar groups in urban areas.”

There's also some evidence indicating that nonprofits and nonprofit leaders who don’t view networking in a transactional light tend to have deeper and more interactive networks. And given that networks—rather than single organizations—seem to be the wave of the future, they may have a leg up on those who continue to hold tight to the “what’s in it for me or my organization” mindset. Even lawyers--who aren't necessarily the most touchy feely cohort in the world--are posting pieces about the need for their profession to recognize that "networking is relational, not transactional."

It’s admittedly hard to talk about these kinds of things without sounding moralistic, preachy or “Kum bah yah”—let alone downright naïve (one thing I’ve never been accused of)—but let’s face it: The nonprofit sector was built on values and it will probably rise and fall on them. So, why can’t we have an honest conversation about that—and one that involves all nonprofits—not just those on the progressive or conservative extremes that tend to be more values-driven? As the world holds its collective breath in fear of economic collapse, war, and other problems that nonprofits work everyday to address, what better time could there be to remind ourselves that what makes us different is not only what we do—but how we do it?

Things We've Pretty Much Established...

...so could we perhaps stop producing expensive reports that say the same thing?

There’s rarely a day that goes by that we don’t see yet another report about something that’s already been studied to death and that many see as “stating the obvious.” So why do these studies keep getting funded, disseminated and reported on?

To save on funds—after all, everyone’s cutting back these days, right?—perhaps we could start a viral list of all the things that most of us in the nonprofit sector think are pretty much established. Then maybe we could move forward in trying to develop research studies that dig down a bit deeper on these issues—or explore others that we don’t know much about—and unearth some truly new information that helps nonprofits and funders that could benefit from it.

Here’s my start. I’m sure there are many others, so I’m hoping that others will chime in either on this blog or via some kind of viral dissemination of the list so that an information “baseline” can be established for those wanting to do or support a new study. (And, of course, if any of the following aren’t necessarily common knowledge, it’d be good to know that, too.)

Things That Have Pretty Much Been Established -- Add to the List!

• Nonprofits want and need general support.


• Ditto for multi-year funding.


• Most funders are reluctant to provide either general support or multi-year funding to nonprofits.


• Good governance by nonprofit boards can help to increase nonprofits’ effectiveness and minimize risks.


• There is inherent tension in the grantseeker/grantmaker relationship because of power imbalances and/or disrespectful behavior (usually ascribed to grantmakers but not always).


• Good evaluation is important but it costs money and takes time.


• Business practices can be good to incorporate in nonprofit operations but they’re not the magic bullet.


• Volunteers are important to nonprofits but their experiences should be meaningful and valued.


• Thanking and recognizing donors, supporters, board members, and volunteers is important to do.


• Many board members don’t like to fundraise, even though it’s an essential part of being a board member.


• There is not a lot of agreement on the definition of “social entrepreneurship.”


• Voting is only one form of civic engagement.


• Technology is not just for administrative uses but also for program implementation but many nonprofits still aren’t able to use it effectively.


• Communications and marketing are extremely important.


• Measuring results is important but difficult because nonprofits have diverse stakeholders and a more amorphous “bottom line” that the private sector.


• Advocacy can be an effective strategy for achieving mission but most funders are unwilling to support it.


• Nonprofits are allowed to engage in advocacy, and funders are allowed to support it.


• Mergers are easier to talk about than to actually do.

Others?

Do Nonprofits Need to "Get Real"?

Blog posting fuels debate about the charitable deduction and whether all nonprofits—or just some—need to “get real.”

Once again, Todd Cohen of Philanthropy Journal has posted a provocative missive that’s generated some back and forth. In his latest post, Cohen suggests that nonprofits and foundations “stop whining” about not getting enough (or any) stimulus funds and/or fighting the Obama administration’s proposal to limit the charitable deduction for the wealthiest Americans, “Instead of looking to foundations and government to bail them out, nonprofits need to get their own houses in order,” he writes. “And instead of squealing like stuck pigs over the loss in the value of their endowments, foundations need to dig deeper and invest what is needed to help nonprofit equip themselves to take on the social and global problems they exist to address.”

I sent Cohen’s piece around to about 40 nonprofit sector thought leaders and nonprofit executives because—whether one agrees or disagrees—it raised some interesting issues. The response was overwhelming—and mixed. On the one hand, some folks thought that Obama's position on reducing wealthy taxpayer deductions was justified. As one thought leader emailed: “It embraces the principle of tax equity, by which the top 1.2% of our population who are wealthy would pay more in taxes than their less wealthy citizens—money that could be used to pay for urgently needed health reforms. And those funds in securing health savings for nonprofit employees would be a major financial contribution to the budgets of nonprofits, possibly more than offsetting the loss in charitable giving.”

Still others said they’d like to see nonprofits pushing more on foundations to pony up during these times of economic stress. “With assets of over $550 billion,” one person wrote, “even after the loss in value of their portfolios, they still have plenty to spend so “they should be pressured to give more,” said another respondent. (For a very useful chart of how the Top 100 Foundations are planning their giving for 2009, the Foundation Center has compiled one.) A well-known scholar emailed, saying that we “need to focus our fire on boosting private giving among the fat-cats rather than tearing down the support that has come to charities from government. I'm all in favor of the former but not at the expense of the latter.”

Others, however, were piqued by Cohen’s broad brushing of a sector that includes a number of nonprofits hardly suffering from a sense of “entitlement.” To them, it seemed less focused on the majority of nonprofits—small or mid-sized groups—than on the “bigger national groups fighting in Washington for a piece of the pie.”

One of those responses clearly deserves some air time. It’s from Barry Dym, the executive director of the Institute for Nonprofit Management and Leadership at Boston University's School of Management--a nonprofit intermediary that offers a range of services for mostly small and mid-sized nonprofits.

Yesterday, I spoke with 24 executive directors, all from small nonrprofits, like boys and girls clubs, like urban lacrosse, soccer, and basketball. I went through a check list of things they needed to do: cut all that does not directly contribute to mission; know your cash position ("I go over it in my sleep" said one, followed by knowing smiles by all), think about more leveraged and strategic ways to use your personnel (they described several), develop contingency plans, use more volunteers, and so forth. They felt assured because they had anticipated much of what I suggested. By the end of three hours, I was filled with admiration for these "unsophisticated" nonprofits, who were deeply saddened by the losses their clients were suffering and who uttered hardly a whine.

Who is Cohen talking about? Probably the big, established nonprofits, who, as Paul Light suggests, will try to dominate the sector in coming years by ginning up their marketing engines….

There’s no question that nonprofits have a lot to learn. [The place that I run] works mostly with leaders of small to medium size organizations. Most have built and honed their skills on the fly, which doesn't make the skills lesser but different. And they are eager to learn--no arrogance there. So maybe I'm a little defensive for them.

We all know that the nonprofit sector surges to fill spaces once occupied by governments, unions and the like, and that the space is too large for the meager resources. So they are constantly feeling--being--inadequate to the task. I, though, admire the fierce Sisyphean fervor with which they try. And I'd love to see the philanthropy community come through in a big way--now when they need it most.

Well said.