More on Running Nonprofits as Businesses, Connections to Social Entrepreneurship

In my “nonprofit” Google Alert today, I came across this article about running nonprofits as businesses. The article/biz blog from Milwaukee’s “Small Business Times” shows (through words, of course) the connections between social impact and the bottom line.

A Few Relevant Links about Nonprofit Work

I try to check my Google Alerts every day, so they do not pile up in my e-mail in box. Today’s “nonprofit” alert threw a few things at me that I think would be relevant for you as students of the nonprofit sector to read.

First, Washington Post writer Philip Rucker discusses an impending job crunch in the nonprofit sector. More specifically, his focus is on the leadership within the nonprofit sector. I think this is quite relevant seeing our recent discussions about nonprofit salaries.

Second, Lindsey McDougle writes a blog called Leadership as a Field of Study: Advancing Philanthropy, Leadership and Social Change. She is a Ph.D. student in leadership studies with a philanthropy focus, and provides quite a bit of information about the field in general. Might be worth a read.

More on Social Entrepreneurship

Google Alerts strikes again. I tripped over this blog entry about a new book, Forces for Good, which also discusses “The Power of Unreasonable People.” Majority of discussion about these books relates to nonprofit organizations modeling them after “their for-profit counterparts.” Interesting read. Check it out.

— Prof. Harvey

Nonprofit Exeutive Salaries

Though we haven’t spent much of any time in class discussing the salaries of nonprofit executives, and how they impact giving/contributions/fundraising-in-general, I came across this online article from one of my Google Alerts. A Portland, Oregon, TV news station looked at the salaries of nonprofit executives as part of an investigative journalism piece. An interesting read of how an audit can change executive’s perspectives. The article, as expected, is a little critical, but a rather interesting look at just how much salaries may impact administrative expenses. As many of my students know, I’ve discussed administrative costs, efficiency, and accountability ad nauseum in our discussions about the economics and and ethics in philanthropy.

Something to think about. — Prof. Harvey

The (confusing?) economics of philanthropy

I’m getting ready to lead these fine fundraising/philanthropy scholars down the road of the economics of philanthropy. As I’ve been gathering various materials and bits of information, I came across “Four Nonprofit/Philanthropy Trends to Watch in 2007” (better late then never, eh?). I was rather struck by the rather brief discussion of fragmented funding, the creation of larger pools of capital (by donors), and what some funders may now be referring to as “vanity projects.”

I spent quite a few years in the nonprofit sector, and will return into it after I have completed my current teaching contract. I can see both sides of this discussion. On more than enough occasions I have extolled the issue of how it was always easier to get “project or program” funding, and took a crow bar (among other things) to get operating funding. There is something to be said for the collective wisdom of nonprofit capacity building (the virtue of accountability not to be forgotten) over a nickel-and-dime funding approach through smaller project and program grants. I can’t say I like this approach referred to as “vanity projects” however. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I do happen to agree with the trend of treating each nonprofit subjectively. For too long there has been what the authors refer to as an “old school” perspective on operating vs. other funding for organizations. Very black and white. Operating funding has traditionally been a hard nut to crack. Each nonprofit should be looked at from more than just a standard “efficiency” perspective, and taken subjectively. No two nonprofit organizations are created equal. Nonprofit organizations cannot pick up the slack left by both the government’s and the private sector’s inefficient production of “public goods” when their funding is left in a status-quo mode, in-perpetuity. Capacity is subjective, and it takes solid capacity (the definition thereof different with every organization) for an organization to pick up that slack, move toward meeting its mission, and encourage change.

Choice causes?

Many of us have been exposed to at least one, if not many, causes focused on health. Breast cancer. Diabetes. Heart Disease. The book, “Pink Ribbons, Inc.” details the marketing of generosity, volunteerism, social capital and it’s focus on breast cancer. Quite a compelling read. Even on our own campus, we’ve had the “Tough Enough to Wear Pink” t-shirt campaign.

In your opinion, dear students, why do some causes get such vibrant marketing coverage and therefore, funds? Why do others seem to miss the mark? For instance, common causes of infertility (such as polycystic ovarian syndrome) seem to struggle to find the connections that diseases such as breast cancer or stroke seem to enjoy. Why is it?