Social Entrepreneur blog for the world changers
Social Entrepreneurship
Study: D.C. Nonprofits Could See Better Days This Year
May 14th
Washington, D.C.-area nonprofits, which received fewer dollars in 2011, are bracing for better times this year, according to a new study by the Center for Nonprofit Advancement (CNA).
The study, as reported on by The Washington Post, showed that nearly half of the organizations surveyed report that their donors plan to maintain or increase contributions in 2012. This is in contrast to only 27 percent last year, and 15 percent in 2009. The CNA study canvassed nonprofits in D.C., Northern Virginia, and Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland.
Another huge problem for D.C.-area organizations in 2011 was the amount of "rainy-day" reserves they had to use up as a result of the declined contributions. This practice appears to be fading in 2012, ad the CNA study found that the number of nonprofits dipping into reserves fell from 46 percent to 31 percent. In addition, organizations reporting a decline in revenue dropped from 48 percent to 40 percent.
Glen O'Glvie, CNA's chief executive, told The Washington Post that the reason for this comeback in giving appears to come from individual donors. He noted that it's much easier for one person to donate than for foundations and corporations. This notion appears to be validated because, as was reported in The NonProfit Times, corporate philanthropy is experiencing a sharp decline, according to a new study from the Council on Foundations.
Although the decline in donations seems to be slowing, CNA warns that it's not enough to quell the increasing demand for nonprofit services. 53 percent of respondents reported a higher demand for their services last year as a direct result of the economic downturn.
You can read the full story in The Washington Post.
The study, as reported on by The Washington Post, showed that nearly half of the organizations surveyed report that their donors plan to maintain or increase contributions in 2012. This is in contrast to only 27 percent last year, and 15 percent in 2009. The CNA study canvassed nonprofits in D.C., Northern Virginia, and Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland.
Another huge problem for D.C.-area organizations in 2011 was the amount of "rainy-day" reserves they had to use up as a result of the declined contributions. This practice appears to be fading in 2012, ad the CNA study found that the number of nonprofits dipping into reserves fell from 46 percent to 31 percent. In addition, organizations reporting a decline in revenue dropped from 48 percent to 40 percent.
Glen O'Glvie, CNA's chief executive, told The Washington Post that the reason for this comeback in giving appears to come from individual donors. He noted that it's much easier for one person to donate than for foundations and corporations. This notion appears to be validated because, as was reported in The NonProfit Times, corporate philanthropy is experiencing a sharp decline, according to a new study from the Council on Foundations.
Although the decline in donations seems to be slowing, CNA warns that it's not enough to quell the increasing demand for nonprofit services. 53 percent of respondents reported a higher demand for their services last year as a direct result of the economic downturn.
You can read the full story in The Washington Post.
How to Get Low-Cost Legal Services (Video)
May 14th
The secret? Persuade lawyers that your scrappy startup will one day be a paying client, says serial entrepreneur Mark Hirsch.
A Young Entrepreneur’s Best Friend is His… Mom?
May 11th
A helping hand from mom -- or dad -- can be vital for newbie entrepreneurs. Here are six ways to make your career in entrepreneurship more palatable to them.
Finding the Right Mentor to Help Grow Your Business
May 11th
A look at how advisors can help you more than any business book ever could.
Nonprofit Director Pleads Guilty
May 11th
The head of a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit pleaded guilty to lying about her 2009 tax returns and is cooperating with prosecutors in their investigation of former D.C. councilman Harry Thomas Jr.
Danita Doleman, who is the executive director of Youth Tech, received $110,000 from the D.C. Children & Youth Investment Trust in 2009, according to a report in The Washington Post. Doleman admitted to funneling $100,000 of that money, which was supposed to be used for drug prevention programs, to the D.C. Young Democrats.
Ayawana Chase Webster, a staffer for Thomas Jr. and head of the D.C. Young Democrats in 2009, used the money from Youth Tech to fund a ball at the John A. Wilson Building. Thomas Jr., who was sentenced to 38 months in prison last week for theft of public funds from the trust, admitted to steering the $100,000 to the ball.
The executive director of the D.C. Youth Investment Trust at the time, Millicent D. West, told prosecutors that she worked with Thomas Jr. and his staff to find a way to pay for the ball. She told them that a non-political group would have to pay for it. That's where Youth Tech came into play.
Doleman's role in the scandal had not been mentioned in the original court documents. A two-page charge filed Wednesday accused her of failing to report $20,000 in income she received from Youth Tech in 2009. Her lawyer, Michelle Peterson, said her client filed an amendment to reflect the $4,000 she owed in taxes and, as part of her plea agreement, would provide information for the government's investigation of Thomas Jr.
You can read the full story in The Washington Post.
Danita Doleman, who is the executive director of Youth Tech, received $110,000 from the D.C. Children & Youth Investment Trust in 2009, according to a report in The Washington Post. Doleman admitted to funneling $100,000 of that money, which was supposed to be used for drug prevention programs, to the D.C. Young Democrats.
Ayawana Chase Webster, a staffer for Thomas Jr. and head of the D.C. Young Democrats in 2009, used the money from Youth Tech to fund a ball at the John A. Wilson Building. Thomas Jr., who was sentenced to 38 months in prison last week for theft of public funds from the trust, admitted to steering the $100,000 to the ball.
The executive director of the D.C. Youth Investment Trust at the time, Millicent D. West, told prosecutors that she worked with Thomas Jr. and his staff to find a way to pay for the ball. She told them that a non-political group would have to pay for it. That's where Youth Tech came into play.
Doleman's role in the scandal had not been mentioned in the original court documents. A two-page charge filed Wednesday accused her of failing to report $20,000 in income she received from Youth Tech in 2009. Her lawyer, Michelle Peterson, said her client filed an amendment to reflect the $4,000 she owed in taxes and, as part of her plea agreement, would provide information for the government's investigation of Thomas Jr.
You can read the full story in The Washington Post.
Why Do Donors Give?
May 11th
For years, fundraisers have been searching for the answer to a question that is the nonprofit equivalent of the Holy Grail: Why do donors give?
This is one of those questions that truly doesn't have a single right answer. Every donor who you talk to will likely give you a different reason for they decided to give money or other gifts to an organization. That doesn't mean people have given up trying to come up with a concrete answer to the question. Larry C. Johnson, author of "The Eight Principles of Sustainable Fundraising," thinks he has the answer: People give because they want to.
It may not be the profound answer that some in fundraising are looking for, but it does have some weight behind it. There is no denying that you can't force someone to give if they don't want to.
In a study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University,
“Understanding Donors' Motivations,” the five most frequently occurring
motivations for philanthropy were listed. They are:
- To meet critical, basic needs;
- To give back to society by making the community a better place;
- A belief that those with more should help those with less;
- To bring about a desired impact or result; and,
- A request for money was made.
These reasons are sure to spark debate among fundraisers. Let us know what your thoughts are, and whether you have found a different answer to this intriguing question.
Senate Campaign Finance Bill Would Target Nonprofits
May 9th
The New Hampshire State Senate is preparing to vote today on a bill that would require nonprofits and other groups to report the money they spend on state and national political races.
Nonprofits have long been under the microscope of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for contributions or statements made during campaign season but, as was reported by The Union Leader, Senate bill HB 1704 would expand the definition of a political committee to include tax-exempt organizations, specifically 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(5)s, and 501(c)(6)s. These include social advocacy groups, labor unions, and business associations.
In the wake of the Supreme Court decision Citizen v. United, there has been a lot of concern about anonymous donors using 501(c)(4)s as a means to funnel huge contributions to what are known as Super Political Action Committees (PACs). Still, both liberal and conservative groups have expressed displeasure with the current bill.
New Hampshire ACLU Executive Director Claire Ebel told The Union Leader that she was particularly concerned about a section of the bill that requires disclosure when a group pays for “distribution of information critical of a member of the general court who has not filed for office.” Ebel believes this is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a conservative organization based in Concord, N.H., also has issues with this section of the bill.
HB 1704 is being promoted by Concord-based Coalition for Open Democracy, whose program director, Olivia Zink, denied the bill would squash free speech. She said the bill was based on similar legislation that was passed in Maine that was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
You can read the full story in The Union Leader.
Nonprofits have long been under the microscope of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for contributions or statements made during campaign season but, as was reported by The Union Leader, Senate bill HB 1704 would expand the definition of a political committee to include tax-exempt organizations, specifically 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(5)s, and 501(c)(6)s. These include social advocacy groups, labor unions, and business associations.
In the wake of the Supreme Court decision Citizen v. United, there has been a lot of concern about anonymous donors using 501(c)(4)s as a means to funnel huge contributions to what are known as Super Political Action Committees (PACs). Still, both liberal and conservative groups have expressed displeasure with the current bill.
New Hampshire ACLU Executive Director Claire Ebel told The Union Leader that she was particularly concerned about a section of the bill that requires disclosure when a group pays for “distribution of information critical of a member of the general court who has not filed for office.” Ebel believes this is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a conservative organization based in Concord, N.H., also has issues with this section of the bill.
HB 1704 is being promoted by Concord-based Coalition for Open Democracy, whose program director, Olivia Zink, denied the bill would squash free speech. She said the bill was based on similar legislation that was passed in Maine that was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
You can read the full story in The Union Leader.
How Much Surplus Do You Need?
May 9th
What could possibly be bad about a nonprofit having a large surplus of cash? According to Lesley Rosenthal, author of "Good Counsel," there's a perfectly good reason why it's not necessarily a good thing to have too much money in reserve.
Rosenthal wrote that, while it's always a good thing to have some money saved up, nonprofits need to make sure there isn't too much. This is because a large surplus could indicate that the organization is not doing as much good as it could or should.
This raises another question: How much surplus is appropriate? Rosenthal explained that this question can be answered by weighing financial and legal matters. She suggested four things to consider with your counsel:
- Insurance deductibles: Some organizations may carry insurance policies with sizable deductibles, where the policy does not cover attorneys’ fees or losses until they reach a certain size. Counsel should help the finance team understand whether coverages include or exclude defense costs, and whether these costs are necessary.
- Self-insurance: Some large nonprofits may self-insure for medical, casualty, and workers’ compensation claims. Organizations with self-insured exposure must establish liability funds to cover known claims as well as incurred but not reported claims and the costs of the defense.
- Pending threatened litigation: Counsel should be sure to update the finance staff on the status of these potential litigation matters, especially those for which insurance coverage or defense may not be available, and help calculate the material potential financial impact on the organization against which reserves should be held.
- Compliance with matching fund requirements: Counsel should coordinate with finance and fundraising staff about the terms of governmental or foundation grants that require matching funding. Together they should establish appropriate levels of reserves to make sure that matching obligations are met.
5 Tips for Boomer-Friendly Retail Design
May 9th
Bring on the boomers. Consider this advice when designing a store where boomers are the customers.
Maurice Sendak’s Legacy Of Philanthropy
May 8th
Well known author and illustrator Maurice Sendak passed away today at the age of 83 after suffering a stroke. While Sendak was best known for books such as "Where the Wild Things Are," he also leaves behind a legacy of philanthropy.
The Huffington Post reported today that Sendak was quietly involved in a number of philanthropic causes. In 2010, he gave $1 million to the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, a New York City based agency that provides services to needy families in the state. Sendak decided to make the gift in honor of his partner, Eugene D. Glynn, who died in 2007 after working for the organization as a psychiatrist for 30 years. Sendak told The Wall Street Journal at the time that he was contributing to a cause that Eugene would have wanted to do.
Sendak's donations didn't always come in the form of money. Since the 1960s, he had been donating his books and illustrations to Philadelphia's Rosenbach Museum of Library. Sendak served on the museum's board of directors.
You can read the full story in The Huffington Post.
The Huffington Post reported today that Sendak was quietly involved in a number of philanthropic causes. In 2010, he gave $1 million to the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, a New York City based agency that provides services to needy families in the state. Sendak decided to make the gift in honor of his partner, Eugene D. Glynn, who died in 2007 after working for the organization as a psychiatrist for 30 years. Sendak told The Wall Street Journal at the time that he was contributing to a cause that Eugene would have wanted to do.
Sendak's donations didn't always come in the form of money. Since the 1960s, he had been donating his books and illustrations to Philadelphia's Rosenbach Museum of Library. Sendak served on the museum's board of directors.
You can read the full story in The Huffington Post.
Recent Comments