Subscribe

About Bob

Bob serves as President and CEO of GuideStar and serves on the boards of Vision TV, Grameen Foundation USA, and the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. More...

About GuideStar

GuideStar gathers and publicizes information about nonprofits. We advocate that nonprofits share information openly and completely. Any nonprofit we track can update its report for free. More...

Archives

Documenting a High-Performing Organization’s Work-Only Once

How much effort should an organization expend on documenting its good work for prospective donors? That was the question on the minds of participants at an interesting conference held in May by America’s Charities on the campus of Georgetown University. Under the new leadership of energetic Steve Delfin, the conference was an all day analysis of what it will take to increase workplace charitable giving. The story for affiliates of America’s Charities is that giving has continued to increase, but with a trend towards larger gifts from fewer contributors. Changing demographics and the impending retirement of baby boomers were key concerns as well.

I was there to participate in a panel with Art Taylor of BBB Wise Giving Alliance and Ken Berger from Charity Navigator. The session was billed as an opportunity to learn more about how to deal with charity evaluators and in part a challenge to their methods and conclusions. Art gave a deliberate summary of the exhaustive BBB approach to judging a charity. Ken acknowledged that the current Charity Navigator process is of limited value by focusing solely on finances, but outlined a plan to overhaul its rating system that will take several years to accomplish.

Aside from being judged, another concern on the minds of the organizations in attendance at the conference was one that applies directly to GuideStar: the time and effort that organizations spend on filling out the same information for multiple review organizations. Here GuideStar can be of particular help to over-worked charity officials. The GuideStar Exchange program is designed to be a comprehensive summary of an organization’s work: mission, programs, finances, board and management. Plus videos and other promotional materials can be added to help tell the organization’s story. And here’s where it really gets good: after posting that information on GuideStar, where it is seen by millions of people, we share your information with over 50 other sites – from community foundations, to commercial donor-advised funds, to giving portals like Network for Good, and many more all using GuideStar data. Last year, those partner sites using our data was seen by more than 5 million users and processed more than $2 billion in donations. This is an example leveraging at its best.

In today’s world, being a high-performing organization requires a commitment to transparency and accountability. Donors need regular communication on what you are doing and how you are doing in achieving your goals. It’s part of doing business. Not only do an organization’s stakeholders need to know, so do its leaders and staff in order to keep improving the organization. Will this require investments in time and people? Absolutely. Count on it. Can you do it smarter? Absolutely. Start by checking out the GuideStar Exchange: http://www2.guidestar.org/rxg/update-nonprofit-report/about-the-guidestar-exchange.aspx.

Bookmark and Share

Transparency and Accountability Requirements for Religious Organizations

POLITICO reported in its December 3 edition that the Obama administration has poured millions into faith-based groups. 

According to the report: 

The story of the Obama administration’s large-scale spending on faith-based groups has been largely untold, perhaps because it cuts so sharply across the moment’s intensely partisan narrative. And in fact, when the stimulus was being debated in February 2009, conservatives attacked the bill as “anti-religious” in its spending guidelines.

But an analysis by POLITICO found that at least $140 million in stimulus money has gone to faith-based groups, the result of an unpublicized White House decision to spend government money, where legal, supporting religiously inspired nonprofit groups. And that decision was just the beginning.

In an aggressive attempt at outreach, federal agencies, in conference calls and online seminars, instructed faith-based groups on how to apply for the grants, and federal officials sometimes stepped in when the state officials who distribute the money were reluctant to spend it on groups associated with churches and other religious establishments.

POLITICO searched the federal database at Recovery.gov for grants to faith-based groups and found a wide range of grants going to an array of denominations. Catholic groups, receiving about $90 million, were the largest; Protestant groups received at least $45 million; and Jewish groups received at least $6 million.

Groups associated with other faiths got substantially less. One Muslim charity in Chicago, the Inner City Muslim Action Network, received $277,000 for a green jobs program through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Much of the money went to fund the secular activities of religious institutions like schools and charitable organizations. Department of Education and Department of Agriculture grants went mostly to schools — Head Start programs, school lunch programs and other education-related programs.

Charities and social services organizations received funding through the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Justice. And the Department of Energy administered a number of energy-efficiency programs that some religious institutions qualified for.

POLITICO’s count excluded hospitals and universities with religious links, which received substantially more.

I’ll leave the analysis to others about whether this makes good public policy – or even good politics.  What I would be interested in knowing is what kind of due diligence was undertaken before these contracts were awarded?  And what requirements for transparency and accountability were required?  The GuideStar database is notably thin when it comes to religious organizations.  Since most religious organizations are not required to file Form 990, we rely primarily on voluntary disclosures from religious organizations.  Several thousand organizations have stepped forward and provided GuideStar with information, particularly those engaged in social services and well-known brand names that solicit individual donations.  But several hundred thousand religious organizations have not made voluntary disclosures.

With nearly a third of all charitable giving going to religious organizations, according to Giving USA, that’s a problem.  Increasing the requirements for transparency and accountability from religious organizations that receive federal grant money seems like an easy – and important – step to take.

Bookmark and Share

Life on the Front Lines of the Nonprofit Sector

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of renewing a high school friendship with Jonathan Bradford. I thought his work with a nonprofit organization in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was so fascinating that I wanted to share it with you.  Not only is he making great progress against formidable odds, his story reflects the challenges many nonprofits face today.

Bob: What does ICCF do?  

Jonathan: The Inner City Christian Federation (ICCF) is a not-for-profit housing development and housing service corporation.  Our chief products fall into two primary categories:  The finance and production of affordable rental or owner-occupied units and the provision of housing counseling and education services that enable people to realize housing success thereby go on to pursue broader life goals.  A bit more detail:                                       

  • Real Estate Development – ICCF has developed about 515 units of housing, nearly all of it single family detached.  We arrange the financing using various combinations of financing from local banks and investors or loan/grant programs available from all levels of government.  We then construct the building(s) most often ourselves because we are a state-licensed residential building contractor.  For larger multi-unit projects we may go out to larger commercial contractors.  We are also a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) certified property manager, so we also provide property management of our rental units. 
  • Housing Counseling and Education – Whether for our own residents who are in or going in one of our properties, or for clients referred by one of several other non-profits or local banks, we provide a broad array of learning opportunities around topics related to home maintenance and home management. For example these include classes on plumbing repair, furnace maintenance, or landscaping on the one side and family budgeting, and insurance/tax matters and parenting on the other.  We also operate a five unit emergency shelter for homeless families.  This is a building that we designed and constructed about 21 years ago to provide 30 day crisis intervention shelter for families.  Because it is not a dormitory model and has instead five fully furnished and equipped efficiency apartments, it was the first shelter in Michigan that was designed to enable adolescent and adult males to stay with their families. Until five years ago, a common demand profile would run at 50 to 75 cases per year and many of them would be in some way related to the borrower having too much debt (i.e., over-leveraged).  In the most recently completed fiscal year we saw about 780 families and roughly 80 percent of them were at risk of losing their houses because of economic interruption: loss of employment, overtime pay, bonuses, or more rarely divorce or death of bread winner.

 

Bob: I understand you have a for profit subsidiary.  How does that work?

Jonathan: Yes, in 2003 we launched a mortgage brokerage called Providence Home Mortgage (PHM).  Using our own capital or that which was lent to us at very advantageous rates, we started PHM as an antidote to proliferation of predatory lenders in our community.  PHM is just a broker.  That means we are doing the leg work for larger lender/servicer companies who in turn represent larger investors.  We are to larger lenders what a local Chevy dealer is to GM.  In our nearly seven years of operations, we have had three strong years, two marginal years and two bad years; overall we have not broken even yet.  Clearly a large part of the reason for that is the housing finance crisis of the last 3+ years.  We are rather proud of the fact that we have been able to weather this storm thus far.

Bob: How important is government revenue to you and what has happened to it the last few years?

Jonathan: At any given time we have at least 10 different “purchase of service” contracts going with the City of Grand Rapids, Kent County, the State of Michigan, or the Federal Government (mostly HUD).  Most years these contracts will comprise about 45 percent of our revenue.  So you see it is very important. 

Over the last five years it is safe to say our government contract revenue has increased a good 30 percent.  Nearly all of this is related to the foreclosure crisis.  We receive funding from two different sources for foreclosure counseling and three sources for the acquisition, rehab, and resale of formerly foreclosed houses.

Bob: What do you see as your biggest challenge in the next few years?

Jonathan: There are at least two.  The first and biggest challenge is to stabilize philanthropic revenue thereby enabling us to continue to attract and retain top talent.  The world of housing is so volatile and constantly challenging right now such that this will continue to be a daunting task.  The second challenge is much more nebulous: As is the case in many cities, there is a significant “back to the city” movement in Grand Rapids.  In broad urban planning conceptual terms, this is most welcome because economic diversity is key to long term urban health. Indeed, ICCF wishes to be a part of this effort, but we are committed to doing so in a manner that ensures the interests of current residents are protected while also creating genuine value and attractiveness that will benefit all.

Bob: How do you measure success?

Jonathan: In the fact that ICCF places as much emphasis on high quality real estate development as on services that empower our residents toward new levels of independence and accomplishment success measurement comes in two forms.  In real estate we must accomplish the construction or reconstruction of the building(s) in a manner that the market accepts, i.e., it is sold or rented with minimal delay at a price that covers our costs net of grants and/or tax credit equity, etc.  True success also demands that we design and construct the building(s) in a manner that is truly respectful of both the resident and the neighbor or passer-by.  This in turn requires care in aesthetic design, energy efficiency, and construction quality. Success in services to our residents and clients is fundamentally about their realization of goals that we have helped them set.  It could be to retain the house they already have, or acquire a better house at a lesser cost than their current arrangement.  It could also be the gaining of skills that will help them better maintain and retain their house or quite simply live for a short time in a place more safe than a the basement of an abandoned house or under a bridge.

Jonathan Bradford in front of ICCF's headquarters

Bob: In this picture you are standing in front of a pretty fancy building.  Is there a story here

Jonathan: There are actually several stories here.  The building is the former D.A. Blodgett Home for Children which as of September 2007 became ICCF’s home.  It was built in 1908 as an orphanage. In 1948, when foster care had replaced institutions for the care of children, the building was given to a private physical rehabilitation facility called Mary Free Bed Hospital.  Because of the polio epidemic in the 40’s and 50’s they needed more space.  They actually removed the entire facade of the building and grafted four different ugly utilitarian additions on the front of the original building nearly obscuring its extraordinary neo-classical Italianate beauty.

When Mary Free Bed left the building for a new facility in 1976 it was home to a few small businesses for 12 years or so.  In 1988 it was abandoned and in the early 1990’s was briefly considered as a site for a charter school.  After being left to rot for 16 years the City of GR issued demolition orders in mid-2004.  We acquired it late that year and persuaded the city to give us a year to raise the funds and put a historic rehab project together.  We started demolition of the 1950’s additions in January 2005.  After a total recreation of the original facade and a historically considerate adaptation of the interior into offices and classrooms we moved in just in time for the big housing implosion of the fall of 2007.

Bookmark and Share

Effective Nonprofits Attract (Strategic) Deep-Pocket Donors

Wednesday I had the pleasure of participating in a webinar with Sean Stannard-Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy Advisors (produced by my colleagues Karen Rayzor and Sharon Kirk). It was the third in our annual webinar series designed specifically for nonprofits. The webinar’s focus was to try to learn what motivates high-net worth donors: their interests, requirements, and motivations. Additionally, the audience of more than 800 contributed via Twitter, the chat and question function on the WebEx interface, and through the embedded polls in the webinar presentation. It was truly a multi-tiered discussion.

Below are a few of the questions that I (and the audience) asked Sean, along with his responses:

Bob: What is Tactical Philanthropy, what kind of clients do you have, and what makes your firm distinctive in the marketplace?

Sean Stannard-Stockton: At Tactical Philanthropy Advisors we help donors organize and structure their philanthropy using private foundations and donor-advised funds. Then we work alongside them as their private philanthropic concierge, helping connect them with the best people, organizations, tools, and research to make a difference. Our goal is to help donors engage in innovative, effective, and joyful philanthropy.

Bob: In your blog, you reference the "Schwabification" and "Googlization" of nonprofits—tell us what each of these terms means to nonprofits. Why does it matter? What should nonprofits be doing about this?

Sean Stannard-Stockton: Schwabification focused on automating and reducing the costs of transactions; Googlization focuses on enabling collaboration and participation by unbundling the process of creating information from its distribution. Philanthropy is improved exponentially as more information is shared about which social-benefit efforts work—and which ones fail. This is a big moment for philanthropy.

Bob: Are there recommendations that a nonprofit can follow to appeal to high-impact donors?

Sean Stannard-Stockton: An effective and transparent nonprofit:

  • bases programs on research about what works,
  • actively collects information about the results of programs
  • systematically analyzes this information
  • adjust activities in response to new information; and
  • operates with an absolute focus on producing results.

In summary, Sean helped us understand that his high net worth clients give with BOTH their heads and their hearts. High-impact donors are passionate about making a difference—that’s what makes them so powerful. It’s because of their passion, however, that they are looking for highly impactful, highly effective organizations that know how to get things done.

You can access the entire audio portion and the PowerPoint slides by clicking here. If you would like to attend future nonprofit webinars, you may sign up to receive webinar announcements and invitations.

Our next free nonprofit webinar will feature Heather Mansfield, who will be discussing “How Nonprofits Can Utilize Mobile Technology on a Small Budget.” Join us on June 2 at 1:00 p.m. ET for this very timely webinar. You may want to review the notes from her first webinar with us, “How Nonprofit Organizations Can Successfully Utilize YouTube and Animoto,” which was held last November.

Bookmark and Share

On the Defensive Once Again

Most nonprofits are hard at work, laboring under challenging conditions with funding getting tougher by the month and demand for services continuing to increase. Others are working on important issues to elevate the sector to new heights, such as promoting transparency and accountability and measuring effectiveness and impact.

And yet public skepticism about the nonprofit sector (and I would add most public institutions) continues to grow. Why, when our work is so important and so badly needed?

All it takes is an occasional bad story to reinforce the public perception that nonprofits are not always what we think, or would like them to be. Exhibit A is a front-page series last week in the Washington Post: “One in three of D.C.’s AIDS dollars earmarked for small groups went to organizations marked by financial problems and questionable expenditures.” The articles detail a litany of lack of services, dubious résumés, ghost employees, staff turnover, double billing, and missing records. And to quote one of the headlines: “Yet, the Funds Still Flowed.” The Post series reviews 90 groups that were awarded a total of more than $80 million. The newspaper “built a database using thousands of pages of tax returns, audits and lawsuits; real estate, D.C. Council and court records; and corporate and police reports.”

All of these allegations are amplified by the fact that in today’s tough economy donors are more sensitized to the issues of efficiency and effectiveness. They want to know, is my hard-earned money being used wisely and making a difference?

Although the above-quoted allegations still need to be proven, they put the nonprofit sector on the defensive once again. What can we do to fight back? Here are my three suggestions:

  • Embrace transparency and accountability and make them a baseline for appropriate nonprofit behavior. Be sure your organization is on GuideStar and takes advantage of the GuideStar Exchange program to share even more important information. Be wary of organizations that aren’t willing to be transparent. If we don’t establish our own good governance principles, we risk more regulation.
  • Demonstrate to your stakeholders that you’re committed to making progress and measuring success. How are you doing? What are your goals? How do you measure short-term and long-term success? Your stakeholders deserve to hear regular reports from your organization.
  • As the largest single source of revenue to the nonprofit sector, government at all levels needs to improve its due diligence before it awards tax dollars to charitable organizations. It needs to do more to investigate the charitable status of nonprofit organizations and demand transparency, accountability, and capability.

It hurts the entire nonprofit sector when the public thinks nonprofits are being used for political or personal reasons and aren’t providing badly needed services effectively and efficiently. It is in everyone’s interest in the nonprofit sector to elevate our practice and embrace transparency in all our work.

Bookmark and Share