No stranger to raising the issue of accountability and nonprofits, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is taking on the higher ups.  The higher ed ups, that it is.  The Senate Finance Committee is asking for wealthy colleges and universities, those with significant endowments in their back pocket, to show a bit more transparency and explain rising education costs.  Why’s that?  Well, a recent report that declared a record 76 colleges and universities achieved endowments of $1 billion or more in the last fiscal year probably had something to do with it.  Similar to restrictions imposed on nonprofits, the committee is asking for universities to spend 5% of their endowment, preferably on tuition assistance programs to assist rising tuition costs, or face losing their nonprofit tax status.  Voices in response are showing up all over the place—like here, here, and even here.   One reason, among many, why university officials and critics disagree with the call from the Senate Committee, is that donations to endowments are often earmarked for particular areas or issues.  Sounds familiar.  Maybe because New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom recently wrote about the problems the Red Cross and others face donations are earmarked as a way of assuring donors that their money is going to exactly where they want it to go.  The accountability bug is popping up all over the place.  This week, its endowments who are facing the music.

No stranger to raising the issue of accountability and nonprofits, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is taking on the higher ups.  The higher ed ups, that it is.  The Senate Finance Committee is asking for wealthy colleges and universities, those with significant endowments in their back pocket, to show a bit more transparency and explain rising education costs.  Why’s that?  Well, a recent report that declared a record 76 colleges and universities achieved endowments of $1 billion or more in the last fiscal year probably had something to do with it.  Similar to restrictions imposed on nonprofits, the committee is asking for universities to spend 5% of their endowment, preferably on tuition assistance programs to assist rising tuition costs, or face losing their nonprofit tax status.  Voices in response are showing up all over the place—like here, here, and even here.   One reason, among many, why university officials and critics disagree with the call from the Senate Committee, is that donations to endowments are often earmarked for particular areas or issues.  Sounds familiar.  Maybe because New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom recently wrote about the problems the Red Cross and others face donations are earmarked as a way of assuring donors that their money is going to exactly where they want it to go.  The accountability bug is popping up all over the place.  This week, its endowments who are facing the music.

With the drop in the market last week and the rising cost of expenses putting a strain on most budgets in the last year, it looked like 2008 was off to a rocky start in the nonprofit world.  But a few recent, giant steps in the right direction certainly shine through and keep our spirits lifted; these just might be some of the best advances yet! 

First off, and what we’ve clamored for in an earlier post, nonprofit sector staff salaries are up – in fact they’ve seen an increase of almost 4 percent since 2006, in a study released by Total Compensation Solutions (TCS), a human resources consulting firm. Hallelujah, we’ve finally learned how important it is to reward and retain the talented staff that works so hard to better society.

Secondly, as reported by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, members of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee suggested that all charities should be required by law to tell donors how much of their contribution would be spent on programs related to the group’s mission. Just what we want to hear.  Holding organizations accountable is the right idea, and if we want donors to investigate before they give, we might as well make it easy for them to do so.  The more an organization puts out there, the more success they are likely to see in the long run. We are all for it.

And lastly, the IRS released new tax forms for nonprofits to determine whether they are exhibiting sound management practices. Guiding these new forms were the values of enhancing transparency, promoting compliance and minimizing the burden to nonprofit filers. The forms will be phased in as early as next year. Way to go government, promoting better run organizations!  Surely this is a step in the right direction. Although some might deem it a little “big brother-esq”, this might be what it takes to steer nonprofits in the right direction and eliminate the those who just can’t get their act together.

All in all, January is looking like a good month for the accountability report card.

nonprofit, accountability, Chronicle of Philanthropy, charities, Total Compensation Solutions, IRS,

With the drop in the market last week and the rising cost of expenses putting a strain on most budgets in the last year, it looked like 2008 was off to a rocky start in the nonprofit world.  But a few recent, giant steps in the right direction certainly shine through and keep our spirits lifted; these just might be some of the best advances yet! 

First off, and what we’ve clamored for in an earlier post, nonprofit sector staff salaries are up – in fact they’ve seen an increase of almost 4 percent since 2006, in a study released by Total Compensation Solutions (TCS), a human resources consulting firm. Hallelujah, we’ve finally learned how important it is to reward and retain the talented staff that works so hard to better society.

Secondly, as reported by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, members of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee suggested that all charities should be required by law to tell donors how much of their contribution would be spent on programs related to the group’s mission. Just what we want to hear.  Holding organizations accountable is the right idea, and if we want donors to investigate before they give, we might as well make it easy for them to do so.  The more an organization puts out there, the more success they are likely to see in the long run. We are all for it.

And lastly, the IRS released new tax forms for nonprofits to determine whether they are exhibiting sound management practices. Guiding these new forms were the values of enhancing transparency, promoting compliance and minimizing the burden to nonprofit filers. The forms will be phased in as early as next year. Way to go government, promoting better run organizations!  Surely this is a step in the right direction. Although some might deem it a little “big brother-esq”, this might be what it takes to steer nonprofits in the right direction and eliminate the those who just can’t get their act together.

All in all, January is looking like a good month for the accountability report card.

nonprofit, accountability, Chronicle of Philanthropy, charities, Total Compensation Solutions, IRS,

Evaluator Karen Walker, PhD

Karen Walker, PhD, is a University of Virginia professor of research methods and qualitative/quantitative community-based research design and an independent program evaluator with significant experience in the nonprofit sector. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the largest U.S.-based philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, contracted with Walker through Public/Private Ventures to evaluate Children’s Futures, one of its long-term programs. Children’s Futures is an initiative to improve the health and well being of children in Trenton, N.J..  In response to inadequate data collection by the programs throughout the first five years of the initiative, which hampered both program monitoring and operations and the evaluation, Walker oversaw the implementation of ETO Software. 

ETO Motivations

To successfully improve the health of Trenton’s children and document progress to RWJF, Children’s Futures needed to design and maintain a database that would support its overall initiative, which involved the work of a large number of public and nonprofit agencies throughout the area. Walker and RWJF needed Children’s Futures to better manage the types and collection methods of the data it would use to ultimately measure its positive impact on children’s lives and demonstrate the program’s social value. The foundation and Children’s Futures agreed to implement  ETO Software and leverage its proven processes to support broad, consistent data collection and management so it could measure and report accurate overall outcomes.

Success Hurdles

The biggest challenge for RWJF/Children’s Futures was facilitating the cultural change required so that multiple agencies would collect and manage data using a new or different tool. Also, the lack of an extant, cohesive data collection process called for a highly flexible solution that would provide needed adaptability and enable nearly immediate generation of reports to demonstrate value. Moreover, as the independent evaluator hired by the foundation to produce useful information about the initiative's implementation and outcomes, Walker needed to maintain critical business relationships with the agencies providing services even as she worked alongside those same agencies to implement the ETO performance measurement solution.

Lessons and Achievements

Due to a visible commitment to ETO by the foundation and Children’s Futures, Inc., the agencies involved in the Children’s Futures initiative are now fully interacting as they all move forward with the ETO implementation, which is strategically leveraging the extant data collection activities of the agencies. ETO’s easy accommodation of additional data elements is enabling the building of a system of consistent measurement for the long term. Any cultural resistance to new ways of working is dissipating as the agencies realize the value of increased access to meaningful and reliable data.

Children’s Futures, Inc. has assumed responsibility for the implementation and continuing administration of ETO, and is focused on identifying service agency priorities, generating funder reports, and conducting site visits to derive the greatest value from ETO.

The evaluator is now focused on her primary role with improved access to the data that enable her to objectively and accurately assess program efficacy. Such data include extensive demographic data, which add critical dimensions to measures of program efficacy, as well as case-weighted data that allow for a more detailed understanding of staff effectiveness.  ETO’s reporting capabilities are also contributing richly to the substance of Walker’s program evaluation. Moreover, ETO’s flexibility allows Children’s Futures to easily modify the tool to capture additional types of data, adding more substance and depth to the evaluator’s work.

Evaluator Karen Walker, PhD

Karen Walker, PhD, is a University of Virginia professor of research methods and qualitative/quantitative community-based research design and an independent program evaluator with significant experience in the nonprofit sector. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the largest U.S.-based philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, contracted with Walker through Public/Private Ventures to evaluate Children’s Futures, one of its long-term programs. Children’s Futures is an initiative to improve the health and well being of children in Trenton, N.J..  In response to inadequate data collection by the programs throughout the first five years of the initiative, which hampered both program monitoring and operations and the evaluation, Walker oversaw the implementation of ETO Software. 

ETO Motivations

To successfully improve the health of Trenton’s children and document progress to RWJF, Children’s Futures needed to design and maintain a database that would support its overall initiative, which involved the work of a large number of public and nonprofit agencies throughout the area. Walker and RWJF needed Children’s Futures to better manage the types and collection methods of the data it would use to ultimately measure its positive impact on children’s lives and demonstrate the program’s social value. The foundation and Children’s Futures agreed to implement  ETO Software and leverage its proven processes to support broad, consistent data collection and management so it could measure and report accurate overall outcomes.

Success Hurdles

The biggest challenge for RWJF/Children’s Futures was facilitating the cultural change required so that multiple agencies would collect and manage data using a new or different tool. Also, the lack of an extant, cohesive data collection process called for a highly flexible solution that would provide needed adaptability and enable nearly immediate generation of reports to demonstrate value. Moreover, as the independent evaluator hired by the foundation to produce useful information about the initiative's implementation and outcomes, Walker needed to maintain critical business relationships with the agencies providing services even as she worked alongside those same agencies to implement the ETO performance measurement solution.

Lessons and Achievements

Due to a visible commitment to ETO by the foundation and Children’s Futures, Inc., the agencies involved in the Children’s Futures initiative are now fully interacting as they all move forward with the ETO implementation, which is strategically leveraging the extant data collection activities of the agencies. ETO’s easy accommodation of additional data elements is enabling the building of a system of consistent measurement for the long term. Any cultural resistance to new ways of working is dissipating as the agencies realize the value of increased access to meaningful and reliable data.

Children’s Futures, Inc. has assumed responsibility for the implementation and continuing administration of ETO, and is focused on identifying service agency priorities, generating funder reports, and conducting site visits to derive the greatest value from ETO.

The evaluator is now focused on her primary role with improved access to the data that enable her to objectively and accurately assess program efficacy. Such data include extensive demographic data, which add critical dimensions to measures of program efficacy, as well as case-weighted data that allow for a more detailed understanding of staff effectiveness.  ETO’s reporting capabilities are also contributing richly to the substance of Walker’s program evaluation. Moreover, ETO’s flexibility allows Children’s Futures to easily modify the tool to capture additional types of data, adding more substance and depth to the evaluator’s work.

A lot of talk this week on the future--both immediate and long-term.

On the New Voices of Philanthropy blog, author Trista Harris asks other bloggers for their predictions on what foundations will look like in the future-10, 25, even 50 years down the line.  Some of the predictions?  Foundations will be better equipped to handle turns in the market (given today’s economy, we are wishing for this one to develop early).  Foundations will be more strategic and concentrate on multi-year giving.  Sean at Tactical Philanthropy even predicts a “social stock exchange” that, apart from traditional financial markets with the same model, would actually lead to a better sense of community and camaraderie.

Speaking of a looking ahead, as talk of an unstable econom heats up as evidence points to a looming recession, we can’t help but wonder what this will mean for foundations and the nonprofit sector.  Michael Seltzer, who authored a book for foundations following the economic downturn in the 80’s, talks about how the economic outlook affects the nonprofit sector and sees a handful of immediate ways in which the industry can really feel the burden.  A downturn in the economy can lead to a decline in corporate giving.  Individuals, who are faced with unemployment and rising economic insecurity, tend to cut back on their contributions.  A declining market can mean a decline in returns on endowments.  And local governments also feel the pains, leading to cuts in social services programming.  

It's often that those who are must likely to feel the hit are hit the hardest.  It's times like these when the nonprofit sector needs to show its true colors-- a willingness to fight for others all with a tireless spirit.  Talk about change.  Be effective.  Show your results.  Prove your worth.  Make everyone know that what little dollars they have left in their pocket can work for good.  And let us all hope the bounceback is strong and swift.

A lot of talk this week on the future--both immediate and long-term.

On the New Voices of Philanthropy blog, author Trista Harris asks other bloggers for their predictions on what foundations will look like in the future-10, 25, even 50 years down the line.  Some of the predictions?  Foundations will be better equipped to handle turns in the market (given today’s economy, we are wishing for this one to develop early).  Foundations will be more strategic and concentrate on multi-year giving.  Sean at Tactical Philanthropy even predicts a “social stock exchange” that, apart from traditional financial markets with the same model, would actually lead to a better sense of community and camaraderie.

Speaking of a looking ahead, as talk of an unstable econom heats up as evidence points to a looming recession, we can’t help but wonder what this will mean for foundations and the nonprofit sector.  Michael Seltzer, who authored a book for foundations following the economic downturn in the 80’s, talks about how the economic outlook affects the nonprofit sector and sees a handful of immediate ways in which the industry can really feel the burden.  A downturn in the economy can lead to a decline in corporate giving.  Individuals, who are faced with unemployment and rising economic insecurity, tend to cut back on their contributions.  A declining market can mean a decline in returns on endowments.  And local governments also feel the pains, leading to cuts in social services programming.  

It's often that those who are must likely to feel the hit are hit the hardest.  It's times like these when the nonprofit sector needs to show its true colors-- a willingness to fight for others all with a tireless spirit.  Talk about change.  Be effective.  Show your results.  Prove your worth.  Make everyone know that what little dollars they have left in their pocket can work for good.  And let us all hope the bounceback is strong and swift.

By definition, accountability means the state of being explainable or answerable.  Or even better, a willingness to be.  Talk of accountability is everywhere.  Newspapers, websites, consultants, executives ... heck, scroll through this blog and you’re bound to find the word pop-up all over.  Google “accountability” and hundreds of stories appear--Major League Baseball, the 2008 presidential campaign, the recent GAO report on Iraq, Nebraska’s football team —always pointing to holes where accountability is lacking.  In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a story about someone or something being praised for being accountable.  The nonprofit world included.

So why is it that we tend to associate accountability with negativity?  

Maybe its because we tend to think transparency equals accountability.  If they show it, it will come.  Organizations displays financial records—showing flaws in how they distribute funds to programs, discrepancies in accounting, or that large sums of money was spent on a program that failed.  We are left asking questions.  Why?  Because we want more, we need more.  Instead, we are left disappointed.  We don’t want a show, we want a dialogue.  The willingness is there, but the answers are not.

What makes an organization accountable is their ability to see beyond simply realizing such flaws exist and doing something to counter them.   It’s their willingness to step up and provide the answers, the explanations, the promise for change, and to turn around.  The road long, tough, and often very bleak.  Some argue that while governments have elections and corporations have boards, nonprofits lack the “who” to be accountable to.  Yet, their “who” is bigger than a process, bigger than a board.  Their “who” is the people, the reason, the cause for which they exist.  When it comes to accountability, it’s not the “who” nonprofits need to figure out.

Maybe we associate accountability with negativity because that it is all we see.  Or even worse, all we know.  Maybe we need to go beyond the definition of accountability to demand more and ask the really important question—how?  

By definition, accountability means the state of being explainable or answerable.  Or even better, a willingness to be.  Talk of accountability is everywhere.  Newspapers, websites, consultants, executives ... heck, scroll through this blog and you’re bound to find the word pop-up all over.  Google “accountability” and hundreds of stories appear--Major League Baseball, the 2008 presidential campaign, the recent GAO report on Iraq, Nebraska’s football team —always pointing to holes where accountability is lacking.  In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a story about someone or something being praised for being accountable.  The nonprofit world included.

So why is it that we tend to associate accountability with negativity?  

Maybe its because we tend to think transparency equals accountability.  If they show it, it will come.  Organizations displays financial records—showing flaws in how they distribute funds to programs, discrepancies in accounting, or that large sums of money was spent on a program that failed.  We are left asking questions.  Why?  Because we want more, we need more.  Instead, we are left disappointed.  We don’t want a show, we want a dialogue.  The willingness is there, but the answers are not.

What makes an organization accountable is their ability to see beyond simply realizing such flaws exist and doing something to counter them.   It’s their willingness to step up and provide the answers, the explanations, the promise for change, and to turn around.  The road long, tough, and often very bleak.  Some argue that while governments have elections and corporations have boards, nonprofits lack the “who” to be accountable to.  Yet, their “who” is bigger than a process, bigger than a board.  Their “who” is the people, the reason, the cause for which they exist.  When it comes to accountability, it’s not the “who” nonprofits need to figure out.

Maybe we associate accountability with negativity because that it is all we see.  Or even worse, all we know.  Maybe we need to go beyond the definition of accountability to demand more and ask the really important question—how?