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

The Power of the People

I have believed for a while that the feedback of real people is an important source of data when evaluating the work of a nonprofit organization.

Several years ago, we formed a partnership with GreatNonprofits to encourage the comments of donors, volunteers and program recipients about their interactions with a nonprofit in the form of “personal reviews.” In 2011, nonprofits received 16,903 reviews through our site alone, and you can learn more about writing reviews here: http://www2.guidestar.org/rxg/give-to-charity/review-a-charity.aspx.

Last year, we acquired Philanthropedia which has developed an innovative way to capture the wisdom of program officers and content experts: http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/.

Our pioneering work has been slower than I would have liked in developing a critical mass of user reviews, but sometimes slow and steady wins the race. Change often comes slowly in the nonprofit sector.

However, last week I watched a truly remarkable event unfold online before my very eyes: the people came together and through the power of user reviews, changed the way the public looked at a nonprofit.

Let me take a step back and give you the background first.

Last week, I woke up to the news that the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, also known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, had barred grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. That affected Planned Parenthood, because, as the Washington Post wrote, “… it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.”

Shortly after, our PR Manager brought a Daily Kos article to my attention that pointed out how many nonprofits were using the personal reviews on our site to sound off about their disappointment with that decision. As a result, the previously five-star Komen Foundation fell to a three-star rating.

Shortly thereafter, I saw Kivi Leroux Miller’s blog about the impact that these negative reviews had on the Komen Foundation’s overall brand. Kivi’s blog, in turn, was talked about in plenty of places – including Beth Kanter’s blog. By this point the media storm had turned into a frenzy, and I was impressed by the power of the people to turn a debate into action.

The Consumerist piece about GuideStar’s role dialogue paints a pretty accurate picture: http://consumerist.com/2012/02/angry-reviewers-sink-komen-foundations-guidestar-rating.html.

And as a result of all of the backlash, the Komen Foundation now has a GreatNonprofits user review rating of one-star on our site. They have received 623 personal reviews, and I’m hard pressed to find a positive one in the recent past.

Social media has played a critical role in this issue – just look at a search on Twitter for GuideStar and Komen and you’ll see hundreds of results pop up: https://twitter.com/#!/search/GuideStar%20Komen

Whenever I’m questioned about the inclusion of user reviews from GreatNonprofits and Philanthropedia on GuideStar, I always respond  that it would be inappropriate to use personal reviews as the only way of measuring a nonprofit. 

And by the way, it would also be inappropriate to use only one Form 990 or any other  single data point (most emphatically the dreaded overhead ratio).  We recommend that any evaluation include a variety of data points – a 360 degree view – which is what our new nonprofit report format tries to provide.

But the events of the past week with Komen (and before that with SOPA) are making me think  – as an avid proponent of user reviews – that I may have underestimated the power of  the people to measure the performance of a nonprofit.

Bookmark and Share

Occupy Wall Street: What are we going to do about it?

It took a trip to New York this week and an episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for my opinions on the Occupy Wall Street movement to begin to gel.

Daily Show reporter John Oliver did a hilarious report  from the frontlines of Zuccotti Park but with a very powerful message:
we may feel uncomfortable about what the demonstrators are doing and how they look, but they’re at least taking some action – ineffective as it may be.

What about the rest of us who may feel unhappy about today’s economic situation or some of the policies that got us here? What are we doing about it? In Oliver’s video, his group of so-called normal people, after complaining a little bit, went off to watch television and feed the kids. In other words, business as usual.

My purpose for being in New York was to join with several colleagues to help set up a new foundation. Ironically, we had to walk past Zuccotti Park several times and so we had a good chance to observe the whole scene. Our group is determined to have this new foundation be one that is committed from the beginning to harnessing the power of our entire portfolio for social good – not just the five percent part. No matter how much we give away in grants, we’ll need the help of financial institutions to invest our portfolio wisely and see it grow.

Vince Stehle, a regular columnist for The Chronicle of Philanthropy and vice president for programs at the Democracy Fund, reminds us, “America’s foundations have an enormous stake in the safe and equitable operation of the broader economy. Perhaps they should use their influence as investors to demand that financial institutions operate transparently and with high ethical principles. Foundations—society’s institutional investors in the public interest—have an unusual opportunity. They can make their demands heard on Wall Street. But unlike the protesters, they can do it in the board rooms of the big banks. They don’t have to stand out on the street in New York’s Zuccotti Park.”

Brad Smith, president of the Foundation Center, makes another point of reminding us how important wealthy individuals are to the revenues of nonprofit organizations.: “No matter how you slice it, philanthropy is driven by asset-based wealth; indeed, large organized philanthropy of the foundation variety is fueled by the top 1 percent of the population that holds 23.5 percent of national income.”

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called the demonstrations a “primal scream” in a recent column. That’s not a bad description: chaotic, unfocused, goofy at times, but energized. David Ignatius, associate editor of The Washington Post wrote
that it is part of a “global spring” of discontent against elites across the world and a delayed reaction to the financial crisis. I like those descriptions better than The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger: “the park’s people have settled into a barely moving mass of down market grunge ‘occupying”’ a marijuana oasis.” At its core, people are asking some fundamental questions: what kind of society do we want the United States to be? How do we give people the freedom and incentives to grow wealth, build a strong and resilient economy, create new jobs and do it in a way that benefits the greater good?  

And what are we going to do about it?

Bookmark and Share

Defining Success in Nonprofit Leadership

I’m taking a couple of days in my blog to review an article from the March 1978 Harvard Business Review called Zen and the Art of Management by Richard Tanner Pascale. A few days ago, Stephanie Strom had a great piece in the New York Times about the impact of the Omidyar Network and other funders on nonprofit personnel practices. Omidyar’s Sal Gianbanco has done a tremendous job helping GuideStar create a Human Capital Development Plan that looks at every aspect of our most important asset – our people – including compensation, succession planning, performance evaluation and training. The Omidyar Network truly understands that we can’t reach our mission unless we have a team of skilled, motivated, and committed people.

Last week, we explored concepts for improving communication within an organization. Sometimes listening is the best form of leadership. Today we learn a few lessons about adaptability, handling adversity, and ultimately defining success.

To the Easterner, overt strength is not unequivocally a desired attribute.  This notion of strength may
be likened to the endurance of coral reefs that survive the massive forces of sea and wind during typhoons.  Reefs do not attempt to resist the sea like defiant walls of man-made steel and concrete.  Instead, the reef extends wedges out in a seaward direction.  The waves deflect off these wedges, one against the other. Consequently their power, rather than directed at the reef, is turned against itself. The reef does not insist on standing higher than the sea.  In times of typhoon, the waves wash over the reef.  And it survives.

Let things flow.  “Success is going straight – around the circle,” says the Chinese adage.  How often in organizations does the forcing of events precipitate needless resistance and even crisis?  Yet the Western notion of leadership, fueled by the high value placed on logical, purposive, goal-blinded action, impels
many to leap before they look.

From the Japanese vantage point, the sense of incompleteness in our working lives stems from a divergence between what many people seek and what most Western organizations provide.  Most people bring three kinds of needs to their organizational existence:  a need to be rewarded for what they achieve, a need to be accepted as a unique person, and a need to be appreciated not only for the function performed but also as a human being.  The term “reward,” as used here, refers to the tangible payments one receives from an organization (such as salary and promotions) in exchange for services provided.

Why bother, it might be asked, if the result has no impact on the bottom line?  By Eastern standards the
bottom line misses the point.  It was Socrates (not an Eastern philosopher) who observed that “man is a measure of all things.”   Eastern perspective brings……His meaning into fuller view.  To the Eastern mind, it is “man [people],” not the “bottom line,” that is the ultimate measure of all things.  He is not the source of all things, as some who view man[people] in total command of his destiny might proclaim.  Nor is he the objectified contributor to all things, as some organizations appear to presume in weighing his contributions against their costs.

A Japanese, while concerned with the bottom line, is not single-minded about it as many Westerners are.  Rather, he proceeds with a dual awareness – that there is a second ledger in which “success” is debited or credited in terms of his contribution to the quality of relationships that ensue.  So the professional manager defines his role not only as one who accomplishes certain organizational tasks but also as an essential intermediary in the social fabric.

This suggests a cautionary note for the Western manager:  in addition to approaching things purposively, defining problems crisply, and identifying explicitly (which are desirable but not necessarily sufficient traits to manage all problems skillfully), he may also wish to beat in mind that our Western world view
diminishes our sensitivity and skill in managing certain kinds of problems.  Such insight may enable us to
avoid using sledgehammers when feathers will do.  Eastern ideas provide a metaphor for the acquisition of such skill.  “Truth lurks in metaphors.”

How do you think about success? How do you keep the principles of Zen in your nonprofit?

Bookmark and Share

The Agile Approach to Nonprofit Management

I’ve been thinking a lot about the need for high-performing organizations to have a mindset of adaptability in order to meet ever-changing challenges and opportunities. One of my favorite Peter Drucker quotes is on planning: “People who plan are the unhappiest people in the world. Opportunity is unpredictable. Most of the time, opportunity comes in over the transom. And opportunity doesn’t stay long. If you don’t respond to an opportunity, it moves on.”

At GuideStar, we have made a conscious efforts to be adaptable with our planning. As an example, we now have a large team of developers and product managers committed to the Agile method of software development. One of the key tenets of Agile is a focus on planning rather than creating a plan. Do you know the difference? Planning suggests estimating, being flexible, and responding to conditions and feedback from the marketplace. The word “plan” suggests a product that is completed. Agile suggests using a methodology of plan-adapt-plan-adapt. Nonprofits often get trapped into something more like plan-plan-plan-do and find out too late that the plan is wrong or out of date.

While I’ve been musing on adaption, Rick Cohen, a writer at the Nonprofit Quarterly, offered me the opportunity to take a look at a paper he has just written on the organization Habitat for Humanity. You’ll be able to see his  full report this fall in the Quarterly.  The key to success for Habitat to remain a high-performing organization is – you guessed it – adaptability.  Read more:

High performing organizations look very different. The measure for one might be output, for another impact, for a third synoptic leaps in efficiency.  Most distressingly avoided in the high-performance literature is the turbulent surrounding political and economic environment that compels truly high performing nonprofits to continuously adjust, adapt, and change.  Habitat for Humanity International may be an example of an unusual high performing organization facing the challenge of constant learning and adaptation to the complexities of operating in diverse cities and nations while holding true to an identity at the nexus of creating affordable homeownership and furthering a mission of religious faith.

Earlier this year, some 60 executive directors of local Habitat for Humanity affiliates responded to a half dozen questions on the political and economic challenges they face.  Their answers were hardly uniform, but they reflect how the constituent members of a geographically far-flung system try to sustain and improve upon their high performance. 

Remember that volunteer Habitat effort in your town, mobilizing church members and potential home purchasers to roll up their sleeves and build a modest, affordable home?  Sort of like a modern, frequently urban barnraiser, except that instead of a barn, the product was to build a home for a poor family?  While still volunteer- and faith-based, the Habitat network is international, big, and influential.  And most of the public, and perhaps even much of Habitat’s internal constituency of board members and staff, may not fully grasp it.  As one Habitat affiliate CEO told us, “when I moved to my current affiliate 8 years ago, I had to put on a little show I called ‘We’re not your Daddy’s Habitat’ to get people’s attention that we were willing to embrace change.”  Daddy might not recognize it. 

Habitat today is a much more dynamic organization than the simplistic image implicit in its very valuable brand.  As a result of its now decades of experience building owner-occupied housing for people with little other than their own sweat as a potential home downpayment, Habitat for Humanity confronts a situation where it is one of the few housing and community development networks with a reach into thousands of low-income urban and rural neighborhoods across the nation and as a result is being turned to for much more than volunteer build projects. 

Habitat is a complex network of grassroots organizations, likely to face continuing challenges in the years ahead, particularly as charitable and government funding shrink in the face of a national economic recession that is hardly disappearing.  But the network seems to have recovered enough confidence, following the Fuller debacle, to adapt to the environmental turbulence of the national and international housing development market to suggest that it meets or surpasses much of what is needed to qualify as high-performing. 

 The aspirations to high performance in the Habitat system is based on the adaptation and replication of its small scale, volunteer model fitted to multiple cities and countries with different political and economic contexts and systems. 

Habitat EDs see themselves as continually adjusting to a world that requires change and adaptation.  One respondent summarized the challenge of social entrepreneurialism in a broader framework:  “We are changing with the times, no matter what you label it. We are doing more building or handicap ramps and making existing homes more accessible, we are organizing neighborhood clean-ups, and we are organizing service clubs to go out and change light bulbs/smoke alarm batteries/furnace filters so that elderly home owners don’t fall. This was necessitated by the downturn in the economy and to make sure we honor the ‘safe, decent and affordable’ mantra we repeat every day. IF we don’t adapt, we die. The question for us is then, what is the best new path?”  But adapt how?

How are you adapting your organization to meet today’s challenges? What planning model do you use?

Bookmark and Share

Nonprofit Community’s Contribution to Reducing National Debt

I think it’s time to change which kind of organizations are eligible for a tax exemption.

Two reasons have brought me to this conclusion. One, I don’t think it is good public policy to be providing tax exemptions – and providing donor tax deductions – for organizations that provide absolutely no charitable benefit. Big football bowls come to mind. (Check out the recent Arizona Republic article regarding the Fiesta Bowl and its efforts to save their tax-exempt status.)  College booster clubs are another. Nonprofits formed by corporations simply to advance the corporation’s promotional goals, or those that provide a person with a convenient tax shelter.  It’s not hard to come up with quite a few examples.

Secondly, as an American citizen, I’m concerned about the federal budget deficit and am persuaded that we need to make some painful adjustments before things get worse.  It will require everyone working for the common good, rather than for ideology or party.  That probably means slowly raising the eligibility for Social Security and Medicare based on income and age. A recent Washington Post article reports that the huge Defense Department budget is also being considered by both parties for cuts. 

I am also persuaded that a significant opportunity exists in cutting back on “tax expenditures.” These are tax deductions – or loopholes – that lower tax obligations, thereby reducing the amount of revenue going to the Treasury. In recent weeks, we’ve seen the battle over whether ethanol should continue to receive a $5 billion deduction and whether the oil industry should receive a tax credit for new drilling. General Electric was recently in the news because it paid no taxes last year thanks to credits and deductions. Many corporations now employ a platoon of lawyers and accountants to find – or lobby for – deductions that can lower corporate taxes.  It is estimated that elimination of tax expenditures could bring hundreds of billions in revenue to the Treasury.

In order for this to be as fair as possible, and not just driven by lobbyists and powerful PACs,  every idea to reduce the budget should be on the table for consideration – including some that may affect the nonprofit sector. Rather than change the limits on the amount that one can deduct on personal income taxes, as the Obama administration is proposing, I would impose a “social benefit” requirement before an organization could achieve tax exemption. It would have the added benefit of reducing some of the confusion the public now has about charitable status and the meaning of being a nonprofit.  

I know it won’t be easy but I think it’s worth a try. Perhaps we could consider it the nonprofit sector’s contribution to balance the budget.

What do you think?

Bookmark and Share

Sports Organizations as Charities?

Type in the word “sports” into GuideStar’s search box and you will get more than 85,000 returns. “Athletics” brings in another 2,000 listings. Last week, I met with about twenty reporters and producers at ESPN to help try to make some sense out of all of these sports-related nonprofit organizations.

I’ll admit it wasn’t easy to explain.

Some athletic-related nonprofits make a lot of sense. Youth athletic leagues, for example, seem like an appropriate charitable activity. Little leagues I can understand too – there are nearly 9,000 listed in our database. The word “softball” generates nearly 13,000 results.

But others aren’t as easy to explain. Take the National Football League Management Council for example. It has $54 million in assets and operates as a 501(c)(6) business league. The National Football League has nearly a billion dollars in assets and is also a 501(c)(6). Then there is the National Football Coaches Association and the National Football League Players Association – both 501(c)(5) organizations. The National Football League Non-Players Insurance Trust is a 501(c)(9). The National Football League Museum and National Football League Disaster Fund are 501(c)(3) charities.

Oh and did someone say bowls? When searching the term “bowl” on our home page, there are nearly 600 listed and they include 501(c)(3), 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) organizations.

With all of these organizations making up the pool of sports-related charities, it’s not surprising that even the most educated reporters and producers had questions about how these nonprofits function.

The questions I received were about what you would expect:

1. Can a nonprofit make a profit? (They better. If their expenses exceed their revenues they’ll go out of business. But those surpluses stay with the organization.)

2. Why does a big business operate as a nonprofit? (Good question. Maybe to avoid taxes?)

3. How can a nonprofit have a billion dollars in assets? (A common public misperception. Not all nonprofits are poor and run by volunteers. See health facilities and universities)

4. Why does this organization warrant a tax deductible contribution? (Because of IRS regulations and how the IRS applies them).

Maybe the question shouldn’t be “are there too many nonprofits?” A better might be “are there too many different nonprofit classifications?” I think there are. It confuses the public and makes it harder for charities to development the trust and support they need from stakeholders.

Check back next week as I continue my discussion of the kinds of organizations that are eligible for a tax exemption.

Bookmark and Share

A New Era Dawns

For some time now, I have been writing to caution donors to check on the charitable status of a nonprofit before making a contribution.  I know it sounds simple, but we continue to see nonprofit organizations that are phony and lack the IRS credentials for soliciting donations. 

Making a contribution to an organization that is not tax-deductible means it is not eligible to be treated as a deduction on your income tax.  For some donors that can add up.  For foundations, the consequences are even worse – starting with the potential of having to pay an excise tax.

Besides the tax deductibility issue, we all want to know that our donations are going to reputable organizations, and better yet to high performing, effective nonprofits. Yesterday this simple step of due diligence took on a new sense of urgency when the IRS announced it is taking steps to withdraw the tax exempt status of  approximately 275,000 nonprofits  for failure to file an annual return.

The IRS’ initial IRS Nonfiler Revocation List of nonprofits in each state is available on its website in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Check out our Revocations Resource Center for more information.

This list fundamentally changes the size and scope of the sector. It finally giving us an accurate picture of the sector’s influence, while also drastically reducing the size of the sector by more than a quarter of a million—and that number is expected to grow each month as the IRS posts updates to the list each month.

The Money for Good I research from Hope Consulting showed us that one of the criterion people base their giving decisions on is a nonprofit’s legitimacy, and this action on the part of the IRS underscores that point.

Stay tuned for our in-depth analysis of which nonprofits have had their tax-exempt status automatically revoked—the size of those nonprofits, their missions, their geographic location—as well as a webinar with more information on how GuideStar can be a trusted resource for you.

In the meantime, please tell us in the comments section what this development means to you. What will you do differently?

Bookmark and Share

Redefining Success Through Nonprofit Networking

On Monday I wrote about the values and challenges of partnerships inspired by the new book Do More Than Give by Leslie Crutchfield, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. Although designed to give donors pointers on how they can increase the impact of their donations, the book has many insights for nonprofits organizations aspiring to be high performing. My last comments were about partnerships, where organizations collaborate on joint products or productions for example, recognizing that each comes to the process with strengths and weaknesses and is accountable for making the partnership succeed. 

Upon reflection it seems to me that the bigger and more productive tool for organizations is creating and harnessing networks of individuals and organizations.  “I live in a world,” Knight Foundation president Alberto Ibargüen says, “where all my partners are potential competitors and all of my competitors are potential partners.” 

Here is the world we live in today. As the authors of Do More Than Give state:  “When you want to exert the greatest level of force against  a problem, releasing power and distributing it widely can yield better results rather than trying to consolidate authority and centrally control decisions. It’s a counterintuitive concept. It requires leaders to cross formerly forbidden boundaries and adopt a nuanced understanding of their firm’s relationship with others. It also calls for redefining success and recasting the timeline against which progress is measured.” It’s about letting go and letting the power of the network take over.

How has networking helped your organization? Let me know in the comments section.

Bookmark and Share

Follow-up to Nonprofit 911 Webinar: Uncharitable

Last week I participated in a webinar with Dan Pallotta, author of “Uncharitable” and Ken Berger, CEO of Charity Navigator, sponsored by  Network for Good.  You can access  my presentation  on GuideStar’s SlideShare channel, but I wanted to touch on a few key points for those of you who couldn’t attend or who wanted additional clarification.

Dan has written a controversial book and I don’t agree with much of it.  He uses exaggeration and hyperbole far too much to make his points.  And he mistakes the difference between operating in a business-like fashion with running a charity as a business.  But there’s a lot that I did agree with:  in particular his concern about fair compensation, the strategic use of promotion and advertising and better access to capital for nonprofits.

Pallotta complains that his organization was held up to unfair public scrutiny in its work.  For many years I have talked to people about the fact that the era of assumed virtue in the nonprofit sector is over. There is greater demand for transparency and accountability, a greater demand for data on which to base giving decisions, and a greater personal engagement in philanthropy. In short: people want to know how their contributions are being used.  We have to earn people’s trust every day.  

 Pallotta also attacks evaluating a charity on the basis of its overhead rate.  Here I am in total agreement and it’s important that nonprofits resist any ratings efforts to judge them solely on the misleading overhead rates. We know that people come to their giving decisions with a variety of values and expectations, so donors want to be able to choose what evaluation criteria is important to them. Last year’s Money for Good research project showed us that donors evaluate based on a nonprofit’s legitimacy, impact, efficiency and reputation.

 For 16 years, GuideStar has made a commitment to transparency and accountability. Previously on this blog I have discussed our view on nonprofit evaluation. I continue to encourage people researching a nonprofit’s effectiveness to focus on three questions:

  • What do you do?
  • How do you do it?
  • How are you doing?

 In addition, we have partnered with Independent Sector and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance on an initiative called Charting Impact to do just that – strengthening individual organizations’ ability to document their impact and to share the results of their work with many different stakeholders, thereby expanding our sector’s ability to respond to the most important issues in society. More on that to come.

 At GuideStar, we pride ourselves in having 360 degree data sources on 1.5 million tax-exempt organizations and providing the full nonprofit picture to the users of our database. Our GuideStar Exchange program encourages nonprofits to provide information about their mission, programs, activities, board, management, finances, governance and policies, etc., and to personalize their organization for people through photos, videos, user reviews, etc.

 In the meantime, I’d like to hear from you. What kind of evaluation barometers do you want to see about the nonprofits you care about? How can GuideStar better serve you as an evaluator?

Bookmark and Share

Getting to the Core of Apple

About a month ago I first blogged about the controversy in the nonprofit sector over Apple’s ban on donation apps on the iPhone. Since then, the voice of the sector has gained strength with Zoetica CEO Beth Kanter continuing to sound off and circulate a petition of more than 13,000 signatures to oppose  Apple. The conversation has even entered the political sphere, with PC Pro reporting that the UK’s Minister for Civil Society would write Apple to “encourage the company to be more positive and constructive.”

Sadly, Apple’s silence has signaled to philanthropic donors and practitioners alike that they don’t intend to budge on the issue. I have often spoken publicly about the can-do attitude and spirit of the American people and the nonprofit sector, and this situation has proven to be no exception. The Huffington Post recently reported on Nadanu Technologies’ platform for an “iPhone-optimized giving app with a donate button that can be downloaded outside of the official App Store, exempting it from Apple’s mobile-giving restrictions.” This surely won’t be the last creation of its kind.

I want to stress again the importance that Apple plays in reaching a new generation of financial donors, and urge Steve Jobs and company to reevaluate their stance on the subject. Per the Huffington Post, “Last year’s Haiti earthquake disaster marked a major turning point for mobile giving, as organizations like the Red Cross raked in between $30 million and $40 million over the phone, and app developers across the country seem to be taking notice. Nadanu CEO Getzy Fellig said the company saw a tremendous uptick of Dec. 31 donations through its apps on Facebook and iPhone, including one $10,000 iPhone donation to a New Jersey day school.”

There’s no doubt that Apple is missing a key partnership opportunity with the nonprofit sector – and maybe even defining the future of philanthropy for our country. For years Apple has been at the forefront of technology, and it’s shameful that they aren’t taking this opportunity to work with nonprofits, rather than just writing them off.

As the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Vincent Stehle recently stated, “For its part, Apple has said that it does not permit charitable donations to be made through its iPhone applications because it has no way to verify the legitimacy of nonprofit organizations that might receive donations through its media platform.” If that’s true, then let me make it clear: GuideStar has the capability to meet Apple’s concern.  We do it every day for thousands of donors and corporations.

We just need Apple to take the first bite.

Bookmark and Share