In MY opinion, if there were 25% fewer nonprofits, we’d be a MUCH more vital, productive and focused sector.

Because we have what is akin to a saturated market, most of the sector spends most of their time chasing dough. Regular Joes and Janes have come to see us as a sector with its hand out, not as providers/sustainers of health, art, safety and the common good…let alone stimulators of the economy.

On top of that…too few of the sector are comfortable talking about what they do, in person or through the media (we’re suppose to be humble and quiet, so we don’t look like we’re tooting our own horns). Put that together and you’ve got just what we’ve got–confusion over how to measure impact, and a GROWING public frustration over the constant barrage of “asks,” which, by the way, makes us ALL vulnerable to divisive attacks from posturing politicians who do know how to use the media (which LOVES a good nonprofit scandal story) and are projecting us (rather successfully) as a sector out of control and using tax dollars or the publics hard earned money to spin our wheels while living “champagne lifestyles.”

(Personal note here–I HATE it when Sen. Grassley uses that term…like HIS healthcare and salary isn’t a champagne lifestyle compared to most Americans!!!)

This steady drumbeat is already leading to a critical loss of public faith. At the VERY time our communities will need a robust, high performing sector, as we deal with the aging boomers and a shifting global economy, we will be vulnerable to legislation designed to tax nonprofit property or to channel money away from donor advise funds, family foundations, etc.. to cover predicatble state/federal deficits.

(I know…I paint a pretty messed up picture sometimes…but that’s what I see and hear as I travel this country)

But….as in all things (and in all of my thinking), there are some interesting options, if we lift our heads up and understand that WE will either rise or fall together.

First of all…a thinning is coming whether we like it or not. For all the reasons I’ve discussed throughout this exchange…there will be fewer nonprofits down the road. So…we need to work to get regular, in-depth coverage of our shared sector in EVERY American paper. An educated public will be our best friend. We must insure that survival isn’t predicated on cause du-jour markering or colored ribbons….and to do that, we need more folks to understand the vital socio-economic role we play in every community.

We have a great case to make to any publisher or manager (we represent readers AND revenue) and we need to make it….NOW.

Intelligent, daily coverage needs to be our “#1 GET!!”

And we also need to start pushing the envelope on new theories about how we can measure and maximize the impact of the dough we get.

One I’ve had fun exploring, with groups I speak with, goes as follows:

If Sean had invested $1,000 in Microsoft in 1975, he’d be getting annual dividend checks. In fact, he’d be RICH.

If any of you gave $1,000 to…say, Habitat for Humanity, you would have gotten a one time tax deduction.

Given all that Habitat has produced, and using basic probability formulas, why haven’t we figured out how to get you a annual (and potentially growing) tax deduction, based on the same principles of the dividend check? Makes sense to me.

Similarly…down in Brazil, they are trying to introduce a new version of a stock market analysis, based on social impact. It will run side-by-side with the traditional stock market news, and allow Brazilians to guage the economic impact of their social sector.

THAT might open the doors to a whole new era of philanthropy/reporting…which would give donors the tools they need to identify and then reward high performing, risk taking or just plain, old fashioned hard working organizations, rather than ones who promise big…and deliver small.

And that might free some of us up from the routine of running after pennies long enough to find common ground, build on it and then, with our donors and the people we often serve, begin to push, in a measured and mature fashion, for political solutions to the problems we face as a country and as a society.

Anyway…It’s almost 9:00 a.m., and I’ve got to get to the Kitchen to hook up with some volunteers. I hope this early morning ramble made some sense…if not–call me on it and I’ll try again.

Thanks again for reading or writing in.

While for-profit businesses want something (namely, your money), people think of for-profits primarily as organizations that offer something.

This framing shows up in how we evaluate nonprofits; we look at how they spend their resources, not at the good they produce.

Your message is an important one. Nonprofits produce a massive amount of value in many different ways. It is time that nonprofits as a group and the American people re-framed nonprofits as producers rather than as consumers.

First of all…as somebody who is pretty new to the Tactical Philanthropy, I gotta throw a shout-out to Sean for making this site happen. I am totally into this discussion.

No worries about the DCCK discourse–I’m hip to how frustrating it can be to wander into the job-training universe. Just this week, our local business journal reported on a “training program” that was getting lots of work from our business improvement districts (BIDS). When you read past all the “miracle worker” fluff, you saw that this group was only paying folks 6.00 an hour to clean streets, which allowed them to outflank other companies that paid folks a living wage. The real rub, is what are they training folks to do? Where are the jobs? This is another example of the kind of shit that should be called out…and regular, in-depth coverage of the sector might give the public the ability to see through clap-trap dressed up as good deeds, and start to reward high performing groups that really set folks on a path to independence.

Which leads me to your point about PACs. Simply put…if you ask folks to choose between feeding a kid everyday…day after day, or advocating for a way to liberate that kids parent–guess which they will choose? And while I know you are right….we have passed the point where this is an academic discussion. I know some won’t dig my motivation, but I read almost exclusively about independence movements…and if you read about King, Chavez or Gandhi… they all had safe options and legal recourses..and they were told to take them, over and over and over (by folks both inside and outside their movements). They chose instead to look for symbolic ways to strategically bend the rules.

To me…the footsteps of the 80 million baby boomers who are coming, and the knowledge that nonprofit systems are already straining (as are our prisons) makes me think that we might have to consider pushing a tad harder, and maybe even making up some new rules.

I’m out there, Bruther…and many in the field have to distance themselves from my vitriol…and here’s a classic example—what are they gonna do if we ALL don’t play by the rules…close us down? Who is gonna feed the poor, care for the sick, teach kids to dance, organize the volunteers, care for returning vets….hold America up? WHO???

We hold more cards than you/we think…and if we got our act together we might not have to show em all…just enough to make our point.

Cool?

And Holden…I love you, Dude. So few take the time to say what they think, or get into a solid back and forth. I’m digging it.

I agree with you about how dumb administrative overhead is. I could see myself rallying behind a movement to make the govt do something about that misperception (depends what).

RE “wanting in”: you can get in by creating a PAC or other entity (corporation?) that is allowed to lobby, and asking your donors to contribute to that. They’ll forgo the tax deduction if they do this. This seems pretty fair to me - making sure your donors are part of deciding whether to focus their money on direct service or advocacy, and that they understand that the latter doesn’t have the same public subsidy.

1. We aim for 100% of each…and our partnerships and programs get us close. Still…we loose 10-15% of those who enroll. BUT…we always refer folks to programs that can keep them on the right road, and that often leads them back to us, where they usually end up graduating. If you want to know more about our efforts (which we have shared for free with 60 other similar efforts that out kitchen has motivated), then go to http://www.dccentralkitchen.org.

And don’t forget…while folks learn a skill, the city gets fed for free

2. What do nonprofits have in common? Three things. 1) We are all vulnerable to state/federal regulation, and we really don’t have a voice in the process. DO NOT FORGET–we have the biggest pot of untaxed revenue in America, and donor advise funds/the upcoming transfer of wealth is a juicy target for cashed strapped governments (25% of most state budgets is medicare now–and there are 80 million folks about to get old!!! They are coming for our resources–count on it), 2) we are 1/10th of the economy, 1/10th of the workforce and 60-70 million folks volunteer annually, but we get ZIPPO media coverage. Folks need in-depth analysis of our work, so they can descern talk from action. Because of this lack of info, 3) the common thought is that low administrative overhead is THE barometer to determine who is effective/efficiant. Can you spell d-u-m-b?!!?!

And…if those weren’t enough shared traits–I think most of us all want to make our communities better places to live, work and raise a family.

3) We agree of regulation of business–but do you think that will happen by magic, or becuase it’s right, or becuase we want it? I don’t. ANY changes to the status quo need to be made form the inside. We are on the outside. Unlike the Greeks, who sat outside Troy for 10 years being right, I want IN.

Sorry to run…as I dig the dialogue…but I have a speech in 20 minutes. Ask more…I’ll answer as time allows.

1. Robert, when you say 100% of graduates are placed, two questions spring to my mind, based on what I’ve observed in NYC. First, do you track job retention and see how often graduates remain at the same job 3/6/12/24 months later? Second and more importantly, what proportion of those who initially enroll in the program graduate?

2. There are lots of ways to slice a population, but fewer that are highly relevant politically. “Soccer moms” had certain specific concerns in common and were also largely considered “up for grabs.” By contrast, the main thing nonprofit people seem to have in common politically (though not universally) is a generally liberal/progressive leaning.

There are a lot of legitimate differences within the sector, just as in the for-profit sector. In order to be convinced that there’s much to be gained from putting these important and worth-struggling-over differences aside, I’d need a more concrete sense of what nonprofit people have in common and what they could gain by unifying.

3. I think there should be more regulation of political activities by businesses receiving govt money. I’d rather see that than a loosening of the regulations on nonprofits’ getting subsidized to lobby.

Simply put…candidates, and most American’s don’t know of the sectors depth or reach…they see us as one of three things: 1) amazing example of our country’s generous spirit, 2) thousands of random charities out there doing good somewhere, somehow, or 3)or a bunch of big talking takers (thanks to the media’s boorish focus on scandals).

BUT…if we get together and make a solid effort to build on common ground (during this election and beyond) then I believe we are the 5th ace in the deck that nobody knows is there.

One of THE major goals of the Primary Project is to spur an “ah-ha” moment–when the candidates discover this extensive, professional, bold, hard working, innovative and dedicated ARMY of employees and volunteers…and they begin to spar for our support, with bolder (and smarter) ways in which their administration would partner with us, and strengthen us to be better partners for achieving their vision for America.

Think about what we bring to the table!!! Where else in America can you find close to 80 million folks who are, if you boils us down, ALL committed (in a million different ways) to making our communities and this country stronger, safer, fairer and…to be a good capitalist, more productive.

Perhaps more important…what other group is up to the task of not only caring for the aging boomers, but giving them a way to remain active participants up until the day they depart this mortal coil.

Look at northern Europe…cities like Amsterdam and Geneva, historically tolerant communities, that are now experiencing some pretty wrenching social unrest (coupled with some disturbing xenophobia), and a lot of it is wrapped up in the economics of consumers outnumbering producers. THAT could be our future…which is one of numerous reasons I advocate for a MUCH more pronounced understanding, and application of the power of Americas nonprofits….at the city, county, state and national levels.

This will not happen as long as we continue to divide ourselves into sub-sector groups and fight for our own share of a shrinking pie. I say this all the time…but if you think you or your group can go it alone, you are already dead. Divided we stay marginalized, and we will only end up fighting each other for scraps. I love this country, our city and my daughter TOO much to fight with you or any other nonprofit when we could be partnering for a better shot and a better world. THAT is the “ah-ha” moment WE in the sector need to have!!!!

And, to loop it back to Big Bill Schambra…THAT is why I also dig the whole concept of reciprocity…which is why, when asked if DCCK is a faith based organization, I say “yes…we have faith in people, ALL people,and we work to illustate that everyone has a role in making our city a better place to live, work and raise a family.”

You know who really turned me on to that…Edgar Kahn, who founded Time Banking. Check him out at http://www.timebanks.org if you want to see an interesting American experiment.

Like Muhammad Yunus’work with micro-credit (at the Grameen Bank), this is the kind of “let’s take off the boring, 19th century, charity yoke” kind of thinking I so dig learning about when I travel throughout the country and then experiment with when I get back home to DC.

Seriously…I really do think that we have all the resources and tools we need, we just don’t see the aces we’re holding. And some of those aces are the folks we often make line up for serives, when they should be viewed as part of the solution.

Bill: “One of the problems in the nonprofit sector today is precisely our tendency to treat low-income individuals as passive, helpless clients of professional service-deliverers, rather than as active, capable citizens, able to come up with solutions to their own problems… As I suggested in the podcast, the current tendency in the sector to emphasize business-like efficiency to the exclusion of all else undermines one of its central purposes – to be a school for human agency and citizenship, especially for those at the margins of society with precious little clout in the marketplace or politics.”

When you talk about the strive for “efficiency” missing the point that nonprofits are designed to fix a problem that should not even exist (and therefore implies that they should have a limited life span), when you talk about the people in line for food coming around the counter to serve it, and when you talk about the nonprofit sector as citizens that deserve a place at the political table, I hear your and Bill’s ideas coming together.

You’ve very intentionally designed the Nonprofit Congress to be non-partisan. Given that you’re offering candidates a chance to speak to a large population, why do you think candidates are not rushing to sign up? Given the intertwining of partisan ideas and the nonprofit sectors bipartisan members, why is the sector not seen as the Soccer Mom’s of 2008?

OK…what do we want? Vision would be cool, and a serious understanding of the assets we (the sector) hold and how we can use them better. Maybe even an office in DC, similar to the SBA, but for nonprofits. BUT…for this phase–we are not asking for anything more than an indicator that the candidates see us as more than a grab bag of good deed doers. This is not just about us…and what they may or might not do for the nonprofit sector, but rather, it’s an attempt to see which candidate might understand that we are, and could be better, stimulator’s of the economy, particularly as we compete in a new global economy. Simply put…there are no big factory jobs coming back to America–so maybe we need a President who has a sense of what the future economy might look like, and how might play a new role in making it run. Cool?

Second (and this also addresses some of my prior comments)—too many programs train folks for jobs that don’t exist, or that were designed by folks with no connection to the industry. Many times they are built to provide what people “think” the industry needs, versus asking employers to actually help design curriculum, so that grads get, and then keep jobs. To your specific question–DC Central Kitchen usually has 100% placement on graduation day…and the last class, nobody was earning less that 12 an hour. NOW…that’s not a living wage in DC…but it’s a solid step forward. BUT (and this is a big but)…I talk about it, post blogs about it, get on TV about it–not to draw attention to DCCK, but to show folks in our city, and this country that training folks for jobs is SMART BUSINESS…not charity. I’m working to get a new President who wants to help bad ass programs like DCCK thrive, while we also talk, candidly, as a country about “WHY” we need them in the first place.

Finally…should we be happy where we are, and go with the rules as they exist? Well…business is subsidized to the tune of 200 billion a year in government money–and they are up to their neck in politics. Fair is fair. Democracy isn’t clean and easy…and what I propose (down the road) could force the sector, and our country to re-examine the way we define, use, support and view “charity.” I’m all for it…as I think the “redemption of the giver” model we currently embrace makes us feel good (if you are on the giving end) but does little to really liberate us as a society (economically or socially). Change only comes when you are in the middle of it all–sweating, kicking, dealing, compromising, etc… Standing around hoping things shift, or thinking that we’re pure or independent by sitting on the sidelines is a fool’s errand. Sorry to be blunt—but the status quo sucks…and the clanking of pots and pans outside my office, as we prepare 4,000 meals to be distributed today, offers ample evidence of that. I want change–real change, and you don’t get that on the sidelines, playing “by the rules” as they exist.

OK…I’ve yapped too much already. If you need more deets, ask away…or even call at (202) 234-0707 x 101. I’m always up for getting down.

1. What are you specifically proposing re: politics? What you say above sounds like “Politicians should recognize the importance of nonprofits and work with them.” OK, but what specifically are you after?

2. From my observations of similar charities in NYC, it seems that the sort of job training program you’re describing - very general in the people it serves and the skills it teaches - is likely to end up placing only a small minority of clients in long-term employment. This isn’t a criticism (as long as you’re serving them in one way, you may as well help those who can be helped); I’m just curious as to whether you have had the same observation.

As a comment, I think it makes sense to restrict nonprofits’ lobbying abilities. The issue, it seems to me, is that nonprofits are essentially government-subsidized by their nature. There’s nothing wrong with fighting for your values through any and all available channels, including political advocacy, but it does seem that there’s something wrong with the govt’s subsidizing political advocacy. There’s nothing stopping you from doing this advocacy - it’s just that your donors can’t get a tax deduction for it. Seems fair.