July 9th, 2008
After reading my post yesterday about ProPublica’s collaboration with 60 Minutes on a story that the Washington Post also delved into, the journalism nonprofit’s general manager, Dick Tofel, wrote to me with “two factual assertions I hope you’ll reconsider”:
- 60 Minutes “likely would have done [this story] anyway.” What’s your basis for that?
- Our Alhurra story is “nearly identical” to that in the Post. Do you really think that’s a fair reading of the two stories?
My response to Tofel’s note:
In my haste to post this morning, I used sloppier language than I should have. It would have been more accurate to say that the Al-Hurra story is the kind of story 60 Minutes does with some regularity. Regarding the content issue, I used Wasserman’s assertion that the Post’s story, like yours, “was a distressing chronicle of ineptitude and incoherence, and it too was all about Al-Hurra.” “Nearly identical” may be too strong a characterization.
I then asked Tofel if I could post our exchange, and he assented, adding, “I’d also urge you to re-read the Post story and ours and reach your own conclusion about their similarity.”
Duly noted. And good advice always. | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 8th, 2008
It’s not the fault of either the Red Cross or the Salvation Army that epic flooding has turned vast swaths of the Midwest into lakes and swampland. But those organizations could have done a better job anticipating funding needs and preparing for having to help those displaced. While the Red Cross has already pleaded poverty, now the Salvation Army is asking its local donors, at least in Kansas, to replenish the bare coffers that its regional and national offices, which manage disaster-relief efforts, have been unable to maintain.
It shouldn’t be this way.
Weather-related disasters are increasing in frequency and impact, as any Google search could tell you. It is incumbent on nonprofits to communicate this effectively and often during fair weather, so that they’re not playing catch-up while victims twiddle their thumbs and sleep on cots in high school gyms. I know it’s tough to get people to open their wallets for disaster relief when there’s no disaster screaming at them from the front page of their morning paper. But somehow, someway, fundraisers must get better at this. Changing weather patterns mean that disasters that once struck once a century now happen once a generation. Fundraising needs to change accordingly. | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 8th, 2008
The inaugural effort of Pro Publica, a new, nonprofit investigative journalism initiative funded by a California philanthropy, gets a thumbs-down from a journalism ethics professor. Writing in the Miami Herald, Edward Wasserman of Washington and Lee University points out that Pro Publica’s collaboration with 60 Minutes on a piece detailing the many flaws of a U.S.-funded Arab-language news network in the Mideast is hardly the kind of independent-minded investigation originally envisioned.
First, Wasserman notes, having to link with CBS’ flagship newsmagazine dilutes Pro Publica’s brand, and second, at almost the same time that the 60 Minutes piece was airing, the Washington Post was running a nearly identical story, a troubling fact given that Pro Publica is supposed to be digging up the stuff that the corporate media types are too hamstrung to publish. Then there’s the fact that up to now, Pro Publica has been little more than an aggregator of investigative stories running elsewhere.
It’s important for Pro Publica to get its brand out there, but jumping into bed with 60 Minutes to do a story it likely would have done anyway — and a story that the Post did do anyway — makes you wonder exactly why the organization is needed in the first place. Big-corporation journalism is producing fewer of these necessary pieces around the country, and Pro Publica’s mindset and resources are desperately needed. But if it’s merely going to “subsidize” corporate pieces, as Wasserman put it, and run stories that are already being covered, what’s the point? | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 7th, 2008
For all of the fundraising promise that online initiatives show, the good ol’ USPS still remains a proven medium for scaring up resources. GuideStar, excerpting from Larry Stelter’s How to Raise Money by Mail, recently offered some tips on using snail mail to solicit planned giving.
Such solicitations must be targeted, Stelter writes, ideally to those who have given at least twice to your organization, regardless of the amount, and are at least age 55, “the point … where people seem most open to learning about and acting on philanthropic opportunities.” Delivering mail to such a group can take a lot of scratch, of course, so for budget-conscious organizations, Stelter has additional advice:
- Seek “donors who, in terms of their giving history, strike a balance between longevity and consistency,” such as those who have donated to the annual fund three years out of the last five.
- “Narrow the list further to those people aged 55 or older who have made at least four gifts at any time in the past seven years.”
- “If you’re still over budget, focus on those who have made gifts in five of the past eight years or mail to those who are age 60 or older instead of 55.” | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 6th, 2008
- In addition to brewing a hell of a beer, Sam Adams’s Jim Koch is linking with a nonprofit to help entrepreneurs get off the ground. | Boston Globe
- The nonprofit appeal of Barack Obama. | Blue Avocado
- The difficulty in laying down mission-based metrics. | The NonProfit Times
- The Federal Housing Administration casts a sharp eye at nonprofits loaning money for mortgage down payments. | National Public Radio
- It’s wicked easy to subscribe to 501(c) Files feeds: Just click here and follow the simple instructions. As always, thanks for reading! | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 4th, 2008
It’s the Fourth of July, and that means, in addition to overcooked burgers (turn ‘em just once, and whatever you do, don’t pierce them with a fork or press down hard to squeeze out the juices — that’s where the flavor comes from!), overblown speeches, and the official start of the pennant races, fireworks galore. In some parts of the country, nonprofits rely on their sale as a significant fundraiser, but because of the parches conditions in California, officials, fearing sparking even more of the wildfires that have ravaged the Golden State, have banned such transactions in places. But they are trying to help out in other ways:
The [Watsonville] City Council’s 6-0 vote, however, not only banned fireworks until Fire Chief Mark Bisbee determines that the ultra-dry conditions that have contributed to three major Santa Cruz County fires in the last month have returned to normal, but also directed the formation of an ad hoc committee to explore alternative fundraising sources for affected nonprofit groups.
The committee has not been formed yet, said Assistant City Manager Marcela Tavantzis, but she did give an idea of how the committee might be composed. Tavantzis said the committee would be made up of city officials, community members and nonprofit representatives, but noted that it would not be possible for each nonprofit to have a representative, because that would make the committee too large.
Meanwhile, Tavantzis, joined by Pajaro Valley Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture CEO Jerry Beyersdorff met Thursday afternoon with representatives of the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, which has offered to help the city in dealing with the nonprofit-funding problem. According to city figures, the average financial impact to each nonprofit group of not having the fireworks sales is $6,500, although many nonprofits have claimed they usually make upwards of $10,000.
A one-day, low-overhead haul of 10 large ain’t bad for small nonprofits, though one can certainly understand why fireworks and California are a pretty poor match right now. Here’s hoping that Watsonville ad-hock committee has found a way to help those organizations replace their lost funding. | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 3rd, 2008
It’s one thing to cultivate wealthy young arts supporters to ensure a future stream of funding.
It’s quite something else to give them leadership responsibilities at family arts foundations.
In a fascinating piece in last Sunday’s Arts section, the New York Times profiled a couple of twentysomethings who have been handed the reins and “are being groomed … to take over the family business, so to speak — that business being arts patronage.”
Their position is a rare one. Not many people have a foundation in the family. But the journey ahead of them poses some interesting questions. It is one thing to pass on a casual appreciation of the arts, but can one also pass on a lifetime commitment? How does one learn the ropes? And how do foundations integrate the sometimes different priorities of younger and older members?
As someone who writes not only about nonprofits but also about family businesses, I find this … well, trend is too strong a word, so let’s call it a situation … awfully intriguing. For the foundations in question, these moves are smart ones, provided the young leaders have the chops. For family businesses, succession is often a huge issue — who takes over when Mom’s ready to step aside? Similarly, nonprofits are facing the conundrum of how to entice fresher blood into the sector, not only as foot soldiers but also as leaders. Additionally, by bumping younger, committed patrons into senior leadership roles, the foundations position themselves to begin cultivating donors who may lack the resources now to give substantially but will be able to pony up, in time and money, much more in future years. After all, it will be their peers who have been soliciting them for all those previous years. | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 3rd, 2008
Samford University’s move from the Ohio Valley Conference to the Southern Conference involves much more than merely repainting the floor of the basketball arena. The switch, effective Tuesday, has compelled the university to raise and spend large amounts of money to brings its athletics program into line with the new collection of schools it now competes with. From the Birmingham News:
To be successful in the traditionally powerful Southern Conference, Samford has ramped up its fundraising efforts, moved into a $32 million basketball arena and started preliminary construction for a $7 million football building.
Many decry the odious effects of Division I athletics on higher education, and there is good reason to. Yet there’s also an upside to big-time sports that cannot be denied: It brings visibility. And with that comes an increased ability to reach the publics a school wishes to reach — high school students, alumni, donors, foundations, legislators — with its message. What the university does with that opportunity is up to it, of course, but the chance basketball and football afford an institution to advance its mission can be huge. | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Nonprofiteers, why do you do what you do? Jeremy Gregg, who blogs at the Raiser’s Razor, posed that question recently in what he called his Philanthropassion Contest, and the responses he got were terrific, energizing reminders of the powerful lure of mission-driven work. Gregg culled the most eye-opening comments and posted them, along with his winner, here. I won’t steal his thunder by telling you who won and why; go there yourself and check out all of the thoughts sent in by his readers. Many will inspire you, which is great; some may even help you do your jobs better, by giving you motivation as well as insights into why your donors and volunteers support your organization. | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
July 2nd, 2008
One of the first instances to arouse public ire about nonprofit executives’ compensation came to an end yesterday when a New York appeals court dismissed the state’s case against Richard Grasso, the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
Grasso had resigned his post after the news about his bloated 2003 compensation package became public:
According to court documents, Grasso’s base salary from 1995 through 2002 was roughly $1.4 million, with bonuses that escalated from $900,000 in 1995 to $10.6 million in 2002. His 2003 agreement provided a lump sum of $139.5 million, with an additional $48 million payable over four years.
State attorneys argued that the NYSE compensation committee was hand-picked by Grasso and ignored a benchmark system in calculating his pay. They also noted several NYSE board members expressed disapproval of the 2003 package, which was left off a meeting agenda, then brought up and approved at the last minute when opponents were missing and others had no chance to review the details in advance.
Interestingly, the reason cited by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in throwing out the claims against Grasso was NYSE’s shift in 2005 from nonprofit to for-profit status, since the original case was brought under New York’s Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.
The case may be over, and, indeed, Grasso may have “won,” but there are still lessons to be gleaned from it by nonprofits. First and foremost is the aching need for transparency. Board members should not be kept in the dark about such critical matters as executive compensation. It’s also worth nothing that the Appellate Division, in tossing out the state’s claims, did not do so on the merits (or lack thereof) of the case but on a technicality. And so while Grasso’s actions haven’t been deemed illegal, they certainly retain a strong stench of being unethical. | 501(c)
Share This
By Tom Durso -- 0 comments
Recent Comments