Duseful? (Stat of the Day)

It's time for a new word to describe that which is both dull and useful. Where's Colbert when he's needed?

Today's case in point from from Guidestar:

Quick! What are the largest sources of revenue for nonprofit organizations? The public usually thinks the right answer is charitable giving, and this is certainly where most of the attention goes. But according to the Urban Institute’s Nonprofit Almanac 2008, 50 percent comes from fees for services and goods from private sources, and another 29.4 percent comes from government grants and fees for services. That’s nearly 80 percent of all of our revenue! Private contributions account for only a little more than 12 percent.

If private contributions average only 12 percent of funding, maybe it's time to reprioritize fundraising.

Annals of the Obvious

News flash! The recession is still kicking nonprofits' asses. 

The percentage of nonprofits that have resorted to layoffs, broad-based programmatic reductions, and reserve draw-downs has increased measurably.

Really, this is what counts as news? Where ya been, buddy? For months, analysts have been saying that the crappy economy would have a slow ripple effect on nonprofits. Even though for-profits were suffering a year ago, grants to nonprofits had already been funded. (Nothing's worse for corporate image than retracting a grant...) It was the next funding cycle -- right now -- where 501c3s would take a hit. 

And it's happened. The Bridgespan study says that, as a result,  6 out of 10 nonprofits now have contingency plans. In other words, the glass is 60% full with what-ifs for the next great recession. If only we could add some vitamins to that water... 

Feel Good

From the Washington Post:

President Obama does his part to promote the summer service
initiative his administration announced Monday, United We Serve, joining
first lady Michelle Obama, congressional family members and nonprofit groups
at 10 a.m. at Fort McNair to stuff 15,000 backpacks with books, snacks and
other goodies to give to the children of service members.

Nothing says summer like reminders of how short it is.

Rate My Nonprofit

Would it be fantastic or a disaster if there were a rating system for nonprofits informed by the people who actually work for them?

Admittedly, I’m too old to have ever used ratemyprofessor.com or ratemyteacher.com. There’s some controversy (mostly by teachers, duh) about how well ratings like those work – whether they delve into the substance or stay on the surface, whether they’re the online equivilant of people power or popularity pagent. For starters, here’s a good discussion by a professor about those sites and their accuracy.

Popularity contests aside, ever since Al Gore invented the internet and George Bush made the internets I’ve amused myself in bored moments by thinking about what I’d write on a similar, so-far-non-existent nonprofit rating site. 

Sure Charity Navigator’s helpful figuring out where, imprecisely, the money goes, and Guidestar offers up completed tax forms. But that’s just flat, one-dimensional quantative data. I want a site that gives us the qualitative and gory goods on nonprofits: what the people who work there actually say about them. The site could have ratings for specific aspects – like management, benefits, and job satisfaction.  

I can just imagine the freak-out by nonprofits when not-so-positive or not-so-fair reviews come in, and fear that potentially enough bad reviews could hurt a nonprofit. That’s not my aim. But here’s the upside: nonprofits that do well by their employees would have nothing to fear. And – gasp – could maybe learn something. 

Equation

I’m not the kind of girl that thinks of math as elegant. It’s just not in me. Truth is, I sweat the small stuff, like the Pythagorean theorum.

So I was surprised to realize that my yoga mat and I made an equation! Just like that! (You may need to squint such a bit... the equation's not entirely cooperative.)

For non-mathletes, here how this equation translates: if 2 out of 3 employees of a nonprofit are looking for another job, that makes a 2/3 chance the nonprofit stinks the big one. Capice? 

Pointed Questions

I heard this story about giving circles on NPR a few weeks ago and then forgot totally about it. (Insert your own snide comment about public radio here.) 

But the story's worth a listen because it's all about donors who want a way to learn for themselves what an organization is doing well, or the ways its slowly leeching the spirits of everyone around. 

I'm converted after hearing the story. When folks put their donations together in one pot, it's a good incentive for executive directors to take their questions seriously. When giving circles volunteer at nonprofits, they see first-hand whether Little Jimmy really will be able to ride away on a bicycle ... or whether the place's a mess. 

"It's like a zoo in the kitchen. There's people running all over the place," she says. "There's this guy, who was clearly the person running the kitchen, screaming 'Out of the way. Hot plate!' It was just chaotic."

But that raises an interesting question for circle member Patty Wynn.

"Is that the type of organization that we could make better, if we had money to give? Or do you think even if you gave more money to that organization, they would run it in the same way?" she asks.

Malepati responds that one problem she noticed at the feeding program was the lack of interaction between the homeless women and the staff, and among the women themselves. Clients appeared to just come, get mediocre food and leave.

"You can't fix that sort of thing with money, I don't think," she says.

Congrats, Patty Wynn! You asked the gazillion-dollar question! And Malepati -- you nailed it.  

Liberty for all... except the Dems

I have to hand it to Liberty University, the school founded by Jerry Falwell that’s dedicated to teaching the 3Hs: heterosexuality, homogeny, and holier-than-your-ass. If you haven’t see the course description for holier-than-your-ass, you’ll still recognize it - it’s visible at not just evangelical schools, but synagogues, mosques, and those vegan potlucks where someone always tarnishes the smoothies by adding honey. Oops!

Liberty University’s under fire right now because it got caught explicitly doing something nonprofits do subtly all the time: discriminating. It won’t officially recognize a Democratic Party student club because, as Falwell spins it: “Liberty University will not lend its name or financial support to undermine marriage or to promote abortion.” Of course, baby-killing’s the main reason I’m a Democrat.

Now the usual leftist suspects are calling for the IRS to investigate Liberty’s tax-exempt status. And despite my political views, I’m tempted to side with Liberty on this one.

Here’s why: If I had a dime for every asshole comment about Republicans I’ve heard within nonprofit walls, I’d have enough for one of those $5 dollar footlong subs. And nonprofits have their own more subtle ways of discriminating, eh, screening potential employees.

A few years ago when I was interviewing for a post at a youth-focused nonprofit, one of the questions was about why some kids are inherently bad. It was a trick question, designed to figure out my worldview. And I got the job in part because my answer pegged me as a gushing-heart leftie: kids do bad things, but no kid is actually just bad. I never would have gotten the job if I’d gone with the more conservative view that some people are just screw-ups.

Liberty went wrong when it made a policy that spelled out what it believed. Nonprofits: let this be a lesson to you! Don’t put anything in writing that could bite you in the tuchas.