A somewhat disturbing study today out of the Ethics Resource Center that brings up a whole other topic of accountability in nonprofits.  We talk about making programs effective, using measurement and evaluation to really know what is going on in your organization.  But what happens when accountability is lacking in the people—not just the organization?

Along with government and business, the Ethics Resource Center has researched rates of observed misconduct at nonprofit organizations since 2000, and the most recent numbers are show the highest rates of misconduct in 2007 than in any other year.  Over half of respondents reporting that they have witnessed an act.  We need to say it again.  Over half.  The study also fond that nearly a quarter of respondents observed their co-workers putting their own interests above those of the organization.  Just over 20% reported observing managers or executives lying to employees.  When it comes to ethics, nonprofits are usually held in a better light than corporations and government.  However, these numbers put nonprofits in the same ballpark.

This study isn’t the only popping up lately showing holes in accountability.  As The Chronicle on Philanthropy points out, recent findings that nonprofits lack the ability to deter theft and fraud and that insider deals with boards are becoming more prevalent, are pointing out holes all over the place.

We talk about accountability in many forms.  But regardless of the form, accountability starts from the bottom up.  Its a shift in culture.  A new way of thinking.  And based on this study, a new way of acting.  

We’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.  Do this recent studies have you concerned for the future of organizations?
 

The world revolves around the Internet.  We send emails instead of cards, book flights in minutes and order food to be delivered to our front door.  We enjoy the ease of never having to leave our seat in front of the computer.  It’s no wonder online fundraising and donations have become so popular. 

Convio, Sea Change Strategies and Edge Research today released results of a national research study that dug into the online behaviors and attitudes of  donors.  It seems that Americans are more and more willing than ever to seek out organizations and donate to that organization all online. In fact, 51 percent of those surveyed said they prefer giving online and 46 percent said that five years from now they will be making a greater portion of their charitable gifts online.  72 percent of those surveyed said they donated online, rather than in the traditional sense, out of efficiency and in order to help organizations cut down on administrative costs. We applaud the interest in making it easier for both parties and the fact that they are taking into account those administrative costs. But does this mean they’re thoroughly checking out the organization before giving? We hope so.

Viral fundraising is taking the sector by storm and will continue to influence donors and publicize nonprofit needs. With the increased role social networking – profiles and groups on Facebook and MySpace, as well as blogs in the sector are making, are we really surprised more donors are contributing online?  

The question we must ask ourselves is, is easier better? Will leaving out the personal relationships between donors and organizations be detrimental in the long run?  How can we be sure accountability is still being taken into account?  As the world lurches forward, let’s not forget to keep an eye on the small things that can make a big difference. 

accountability, viral fundraising,social networking, Facebook, giving, fundraising, donations,

This weekend’s New York Time Magazine article, “For Good, Measure”, very positively advocated the need for measurement and the importance of effectiveness among foundations and nonprofits. It’s about time this topic made its way to national newspapers. After all, it’s been important to participants in the nonprofit sector, and those who really care about it, for years.

Although we are happy that this topic was addressed and brought to the attention of thousands, it’s rather sad that it’s taken this long to make its way to the top of people’s minds – to finally become important enough to discuss openly and among the public. What’s even more upsetting is that even though measurement is vital in understanding organizational impact and ensuring effectiveness, according to the article, barely half of foundations take metrics into consideration, evaluating the effectiveness of those whom they provide grants.   Why wouldn’t they track all 100 percent?  Just like donors, wouldn't they want to make sure their money is well spent? Check out someone who feels similarly, here.

Thankfully, new philanthropists are standing up and asking, Am I making a difference? How do you know?  And the answer provided in the article tells them, “If you really want to change the world, first you need to start measuring how (and how much) you’re changing it — because only a clear understanding of your results will enable you to expand the programs that work and jettison the ones that don’t”. At least they are steering them in the right direction.

Check it out, our own Steve Butz voiced his opinion in the blogosphere here.

New York Times, nonprofit, philanthropist, measure, effectiveness, foundation, metrics, evaluating,

We’re not surprised to hear that the future nonprofit leaders of the world are discouraged by the industry.  In a career full of emotion, compassion, and hope, the reality of money, lack of commitment and empathy, is enough to make anyone discouraged.  A recent study conducted by the Meyer Foundation and CompassPoint Nonprofit Services found that young nonprofit workers are frustrated by the monetary aspects of their work as well as the morale.  Low pay, tiresome work, long hours, the list goes on.  

The study, based on surveys of 6,000 social workers nationwide, found that 64% of respondents have financial concerns about committing to a career in nonprofit work. The issues surrounding pay are not new to the nonprofit world, of course. What was surprising was that just over 1/3 of respondents aspires to be an executive director someday.  And with an exodus of baby boomers leaving current positons to retire, this the time when young persons should be excited about the prospect of moving up.  Its not a matter of having a ceiling, the problem is there isn’t even curiousity to see what’s up there.

We can’t say it enough. Embrace your future leaders. Pay them well.  Take the time to teach and mentor them.  You’ll reap the benefits-as will they.

What are your thoughts on the future leaders of the nonprofit world? What should organizations do in order to encourage and develop younger generations in the field?

Oprah’s The Big Give, a reality show challenging contestants to help a stranger in need, debuted on TV last night. Although it got a lot of hype beforehand, most significant media are today shaking a finger at it, disciplining Oprah for taking an important topic such as philanthropy and turning it into a slightly inappropriate game.  Check it out here, here and even here.

It’s not that the contestants, or Oprah and her network, aren’t helping people in need, but it’s the fact that they’re taking charity and the notion of altruism and exploiting it.  Contestants are sent on a mission – in five days and with $2,500 they must make as significant a difference as possible in the life of a complete stranger – be that a med student in debt or a family in danger of losing their home.  Contestants must work with the community and area businesses to provide the most for the person in need – after which they will be evaluated on what they’ve been able to put together and give away and if it was the best they could do. Unknown to the contestants, at least that’s what Oprah tells us, is that the “biggest giver” at the end of the show will win $1 million. 

What sort of message is this sending to America? What does this mean for the future of philanthropy?

Is Oprah, who is herself known for her philanthropic efforts, telling us that it’s okay to judge people on whether or not their efforts are good enough? Or, that people should be rewarded with cash for helping those less fortunate then them (be it a series of times considering the contestants aren’t lifelong do-gooders)? Isn’t that just a little superficial?

In the end, it will be interesting to see if the show and the involvement of Oprah will raise the awareness of charity and philanthropy among the public or if it has the potential to diminish or have a negative effect on the image of the work social workers and the work they do every single day.  As the season progresses...we will see.

Oprah, The Big Give, philanthropy, altruism, charity

In order to expand their reach and effectively make change, some nonprofits are turning for-profit.  With the help of investors, capital, larger staffs (which they can afford to grow), and budgets for marketing and development, nonprofits turned businesses are finding themselves better able to fulfill their vision.  Is this a means of selling yourself to the devil or merely a way to support your vision and rather than struggle, see it fulfilled?

The New York Times reported today on one such business. Former AOL executive, Miles Guilburne, and his wife, lawyer Nina Zolt, had supported In2Books, a program that used books and the Internet as learning tools for inner city kids. The program was only ever grew slowly. And although the organization was not sustainable, the idea and the mission were.  Together with angel investors, Guilburne purchased a for-profit company, ePals Inc., in 2006 and the mission has boomed. The growth of the company spurred the interest of now partners, National Geographic and Intel.  Now the learning tools are reaching 13 million kids worldwide.  They surely didn’t sell out.

Taking from this example, we need to add that we think some of the greatest ideas for a business come out of a nonprofit venture. Our own Steve Butz is a former case manager who felt the need to really know how much change he was making, so he took a chance and founded Social Solutions.  He didn't cross over to the dark side, he just thought he could make a more significant difference through a business endeavor. Not exactly a mirror image to ePals, but our business allows us the ability - the assets, the funding, the smart people who work for us - to continue to carry out a philanthropic vision and our mission at that. Steve might have been working to better the life of one child at a time as a social worker, but through Social Solutions, he is able to better the lives of hundreds at a time by changing the way the larger organization is run.  Maybe he can take the credit for the trend?

New York Times, nonprofit, National Geographic, Intel, Social Solutions, Steve Butz, ePals, In2Books, Miles Guilburne, Nina Zolt,

D.C. area funders, representatives of nonprofits and those generally interested in accountability and evaluation of organizations met this morning at the National Press Club for an inspiring discussion by Washington’s Latin American Youth Center (LAYC) titled, “Lessons Learned from the Latin American Youth Center’s New Strategic Direction and Tracking Progress with Efforts-to-Outcomes Software”. 

The Latin American Youth Center, a long-time client of Social Solutions, showcased their strategic planning initiatives and the role ETO software has played in their planning and goal setting for the success of the organization.  We heard from Lori Kaplan, Executive Director of LAYC; Isaac Castillo, Director of Learning and Evaluation at LAYC; John Kalafatas, portfolio manager at Edna McConnell Clark Foundation; Kate Robinson, Director of Strategic Initiatives at Social Solutions; and a memorable group of young people willing to share LAYC testimonials.

How inspiring it was to sit in a room full of people charged for the same cause, helping to make our nonprofit organizations more effective in an effort to help our young people.  It was a comfort to know that the LAYC, a leading multi-service nonprofit, was willing to take a leap of faith, use a tool like ETO to learn how to better serve the community and marry their organizational vision with the evaluation of their work. Our own Steve Butz commented, “Working with LAYC has been a remarkable experience. They are a truly commendable service organization whose work to tie their efforts to outcomes can serve as an example to all nonprofits who seek to make a larger impact.”  LAYC is doing everything right. Their commitment to bettering their organization, over time and through evaluation, shows their intent at a lasting relationship with the community and a desire to positively make a difference in the lives of those who most need it.

Latin American Youth Center, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, ETO, Steve Butz, efforts to outcomes, evaluation, nonprofit

An organization that earned an A grade on the American Institute of Philanthropy has been in the news as of late. The William J. Clinton Foundation is getting some flack, donations to the foundation have skyrocketed since Hillary announced her campaign. For a foundation who has earned such a high grade for putting 75% or more towards program cost while generally spending $25 or less to raise $100, it seems to be storing away the full accountability it was praised for in light of the current election.  Check out another report card here. 

Former President Clinton’s foundation aims to strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence. Quite lofty. But he is earning credit for it.  His work to raise money to end poverty and create economic opportunity in poor countries has been highly regarded. But like any high profile organization, we should keep an eye on it. 

News as of late suggests that donations have skyrocketed since Hillary’s announcement to run because there are a lot of people trying to win the potential woman president over. For example, why are the Clinton’s offering to disclose the list of donors to the foundation if and only if Hillary wins?  Read the news for yourself: here and here. 

Just as a teacher keeps pushing his or her students to reach their potential, we must push this organization to continue to perform at its best.  If we push – it we ask for details and we hold them accountable – they will run as an effective organization.  No one wants to see an A student fail.  Despite the news and despite possible “bumps” in the road, we are responsible for seeing that this organization, continues down the right path. 

accountability, Hillary, Willliam J. Clinton Foundation, charity, American Institute of Philanthropy, donations, president,

Some of the biggest donors in America aren’t names the average person is familiar with.  Andrew S. Grove, Adrienne Arsht, Lorry I. Lokey.  But the ones who make waves, are often those who make music, TV, or movies.  Think Bono.  Oprah.  Brangelina.  

Endorsements are nothing new to the word of nonprofits, much like how they are nothing new to the political world.  John Edwards had Tim Robbins, Barack Obama has Oprah, Mike Huckabee has Chuck Norris and Rudy Giuliani had John Voight.  All of whom are or were visible in the candidates' campaigns, speaking out on their behalf, raising money and attending rallies.  

According to most Americans, celebrity endorsements in the 2008 race doesn't affect them.  A recent study by the Pew Center for People and the Press found that around 70% of those surveyed said that endorsements from Oprah, Bill Gates, Angelina Jolie, Jay Leno or other celebrities make no difference in who they would vote for.

Regardless of whether voters take endorsements with them to the voting booth, celebrities continue to be an active part of presidential campaigns.  And just like politics, the nonprofit world receives much attention over celebrity endorsements by the media and public.  So, when it comes to nonprofits, do donors take endorsements to heart?

From charity golf matches to star-studded galas Hollywood is abuzz with raising money.  Hollywood Reporter even has a list of organizations and the celebrities who are involved with them.  But does a Madonna-endorsed event, an auction of a celebrity-worn item of clothing, or a Bono-designed shirt for sale, really benefit nonprofits?

Writer Greg Beato talks about celebrity endorsements and the nonprofit world, saying that critics should treat celebrities’ involvement in nonprofits for what it is—a sales role.   His point is valid.  Is it the escalating situations in affecting the people of Africa that is raising awareness of Americans?  Or is it the public outcry from the Madonnas and George Clooneys of the world.  Or look at Bono’s (Product) Red organization, that, yes, faces some scrutiny and , uses celebrity appeal to tug at the consumer’s heartstrings, much like a retail giant attempts to appeal to a consumer’s wants.

We’d like to think that Americans, similar in the way they think about politics, go beyond the media and pop culture attention celebrities can bring to charities and giving and really think about where their dollars should go.  Research an organization you are thinking about giving to as you would Senator Clinton’s healthcare plan or Senator McCain’s Iraq plan.  Ask for accountability when it comes to where your dollars will be spent, as you would of a candidate who accepts money from public interest groups.  If not, whether you walk into the voting booth uninformed or give away your hard-earned dollars uninformed, there isn’t anyone to blame, except, well, yourself.

As previously posted, younger generations are getting more involved in the world of nonprofits, both working for them and giving to them. As nonprofit organizations seek to make giving more simplified for this group, they must not forget that transparency and accountability remain equally as important, if not more so. It seems this “new” idea of online giving or micolending takes it a little too far. Yes, those seeking to make a charitable contribution can do so, but this quick, “cool”, un-researched giving appears to totally and completely leave accountability behind. Check out this example of an online game where nonprofits compete for donations on Facebook. Doesn’t look very transparent.

Take for example, Kiva. Kiva is all over the place lately. And although you can do your own research before you donate, most people probably don’t. Kiva gives you the opportunity to donate a very minimal sum, in the form of a loan to a needy entrepreneur in a developing country, who will write you updates and eventually pay the loan back. Although this way of giving is very appealing to those who want to make a difference and have the means to do so, it sort of glosses over the whole idea of holding the organization accountable for the donation you provide.  And because it is deemed “cool”, it sometimes forces the donor to choose between cool and responsible. Why are we making it harder?

RealityCharity even takes it further. Not only can you give online, but you can give to those people with whom you may find a personal connection.  Real people post photos and messages about what they want/need in the form of charity. Donors can then select to help them out. RealityCharity uses this platform while criticizing nonprofits who aren’t transparent enough or who aren’t able to get the money to the people who really need it.  But their way of connecting the donor to the cause seems a little out of whack. There isn’t any structure. They don’t have the vision of a real, true nonprofit. Check out this evaluation of RealityCharity, it rings all too true.

So even though the opportunities to donate have grown as has the simplicity to do so, we must remember what’s most important.  Don’t get caught in the new, appealing fad. Remain true to your roots. Continuing to hold those organizations which we seek to support accountable will help that organization outlast the internet donation phase and continue to benefit those in need long into the future.