Kool Aid Talk

I’ve been slowly sipping the off-brand all-natural Kool Aid offered by the book “The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Nonprofit Industrial Complex.” It’s made up of leftist scholarly essays that remind me of two things: that I hate the pretention of academia and that to some people I look like a friggin’ neo-con. Point in case? I don’t think the Ford Foundation is evil.  

But I found myself compelled by professor Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s description of the funding straight-jackets that confine nonprofits:

And generally the issues they [nonprofits] are paid to address have been narrowed to program-specific categories and remedies which make staff – who often have a great understanding of the scale and scope of both individual clients’ and the needs of society at large – become in their everyday practice technocrats through imposed specialization.

I’ve never thought of technocrat as a dirty word until now. Time for a good scrub...

Batting For A New Team

If things look bad for nonprofits right now, they're looking a helluva lot funkier for newspapers. 501c3s will bounce back when the economy recovers, as will construction and real estate and dinners out.

But what kind of bounce-back will the New York Times get when unemployment falls back to 6 percent?

The answer is none. Newspapers have been losing money for years as ad dollars have shifted over to the internet. It's gotten so bad that the New York Times has considered selling its share of the Red Sox. Now that's desperate.

So it's no surprise that journalists are looking at switching teams as a way to make their demise a little less imminent.

A group of former Seattle Post-Intelligencer journalists today launched InvestigateWest, a nonprofit organization they hope will deliver in-depth stories to the region and find a way to save what is becoming an endangered craft.

These west-coast writers will be teaming up with a still-forming national nonprofit called the Investigative News Network. Together, they're betting that their work breaking stories is as fundable as campaigns to save whales.

Journalists aren't nearly as cute, but they're also risking extinction. Here's hoping their betting pays off.

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... 

No Soup for You?

$50 million for nonprofits! That's what I like to hear. Well, until we get to the details.  The Washington Post had this to say, from the First Lady we Love to Love, Michelle Obama: 

"The idea is simple: Find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country," she said.

Mrs. Obama added, "By focusing on high-impact, results-oriented nonprofits, we will ensure that government dollars are spent in a way that is effective, accountable and worthy of the public trust."

The rah-rah in my throat died halfway through reading that. Who will decide what programs are effective? What does success mean? It's not the devil that's in these details; it's the possibility that some good nonprofits won't get federal cash because their parachute's a different color than the government's Air Force 1.  

Case in point: A soup kitchen close to home feeds more than 500 homeless men and women each week, using primarily donations. The mostly-volunteer staff call the homeless clients by name, and the space is free of violence, drugs, and prostitution. People who come in hungry leave full, and regulars feel enough ownership they enforce policies on their own, occasionally breaking up fights between new clients. "Man, they shouldn't have disrespected the kitchen," they'll say afterward to anyone who will listen. 

Success at the soup kitchen is feeding and respecting people who are often hungry and disrespected. But clients leave the soup kitchen as mentally ill, addicted, and jobless as when they came in.

We could take bets on whether the soup kitchen will get some of the Obama money. But its work is only results-oriented if having a full stomach counts as results. Somehow I don't think that's the worthy effectiveness the government's looking for.