A somewhat disturbing study today out of the Ethics Resource Center that brings up a whole other topic of accountability in nonprofits.  We talk about making programs effective, using measurement and evaluation to really know what is going on in your organization.  But what happens when accountability is lacking in the people—not just the organization?

Along with government and business, the Ethics Resource Center has researched rates of observed misconduct at nonprofit organizations since 2000, and the most recent numbers are show the highest rates of misconduct in 2007 than in any other year.  Over half of respondents reporting that they have witnessed an act.  We need to say it again.  Over half.  The study also fond that nearly a quarter of respondents observed their co-workers putting their own interests above those of the organization.  Just over 20% reported observing managers or executives lying to employees.  When it comes to ethics, nonprofits are usually held in a better light than corporations and government.  However, these numbers put nonprofits in the same ballpark.

This study isn’t the only popping up lately showing holes in accountability.  As The Chronicle on Philanthropy points out, recent findings that nonprofits lack the ability to deter theft and fraud and that insider deals with boards are becoming more prevalent, are pointing out holes all over the place.

We talk about accountability in many forms.  But regardless of the form, accountability starts from the bottom up.  Its a shift in culture.  A new way of thinking.  And based on this study, a new way of acting.  

We’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.  Do this recent studies have you concerned for the future of organizations?
 

A somewhat disturbing study today out of the Ethics Resource Center that brings up a whole other topic of accountability in nonprofits.  We talk about making programs effective, using measurement and evaluation to really know what is going on in your organization.  But what happens when accountability is lacking in the people—not just the organization?

Along with government and business, the Ethics Resource Center has researched rates of observed misconduct at nonprofit organizations since 2000, and the most recent numbers are show the highest rates of misconduct in 2007 than in any other year.  Over half of respondents reporting that they have witnessed an act.  We need to say it again.  Over half.  The study also fond that nearly a quarter of respondents observed their co-workers putting their own interests above those of the organization.  Just over 20% reported observing managers or executives lying to employees.  When it comes to ethics, nonprofits are usually held in a better light than corporations and government.  However, these numbers put nonprofits in the same ballpark.

This study isn’t the only popping up lately showing holes in accountability.  As The Chronicle on Philanthropy points out, recent findings that nonprofits lack the ability to deter theft and fraud and that insider deals with boards are becoming more prevalent, are pointing out holes all over the place.

We talk about accountability in many forms.  But regardless of the form, accountability starts from the bottom up.  Its a shift in culture.  A new way of thinking.  And based on this study, a new way of acting.  

We’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.  Do this recent studies have you concerned for the future of organizations?
 

The world revolves around the Internet.  We send emails instead of cards, book flights in minutes and order food to be delivered to our front door.  We enjoy the ease of never having to leave our seat in front of the computer.  It’s no wonder online fundraising and donations have become so popular. 

Convio, Sea Change Strategies and Edge Research today released results of a national research study that dug into the online behaviors and attitudes of  donors.  It seems that Americans are more and more willing than ever to seek out organizations and donate to that organization all online. In fact, 51 percent of those surveyed said they prefer giving online and 46 percent said that five years from now they will be making a greater portion of their charitable gifts online.  72 percent of those surveyed said they donated online, rather than in the traditional sense, out of efficiency and in order to help organizations cut down on administrative costs. We applaud the interest in making it easier for both parties and the fact that they are taking into account those administrative costs. But does this mean they’re thoroughly checking out the organization before giving? We hope so.

Viral fundraising is taking the sector by storm and will continue to influence donors and publicize nonprofit needs. With the increased role social networking – profiles and groups on Facebook and MySpace, as well as blogs in the sector are making, are we really surprised more donors are contributing online?  

The question we must ask ourselves is, is easier better? Will leaving out the personal relationships between donors and organizations be detrimental in the long run?  How can we be sure accountability is still being taken into account?  As the world lurches forward, let’s not forget to keep an eye on the small things that can make a big difference. 

accountability, viral fundraising,social networking, Facebook, giving, fundraising, donations,

The world revolves around the Internet.  We send emails instead of cards, book flights in minutes and order food to be delivered to our front door.  We enjoy the ease of never having to leave our seat in front of the computer.  It’s no wonder online fundraising and donations have become so popular. 

Convio, Sea Change Strategies and Edge Research today released results of a national research study that dug into the online behaviors and attitudes of  donors.  It seems that Americans are more and more willing than ever to seek out organizations and donate to that organization all online. In fact, 51 percent of those surveyed said they prefer giving online and 46 percent said that five years from now they will be making a greater portion of their charitable gifts online.  72 percent of those surveyed said they donated online, rather than in the traditional sense, out of efficiency and in order to help organizations cut down on administrative costs. We applaud the interest in making it easier for both parties and the fact that they are taking into account those administrative costs. But does this mean they’re thoroughly checking out the organization before giving? We hope so.

Viral fundraising is taking the sector by storm and will continue to influence donors and publicize nonprofit needs. With the increased role social networking – profiles and groups on Facebook and MySpace, as well as blogs in the sector are making, are we really surprised more donors are contributing online?  

The question we must ask ourselves is, is easier better? Will leaving out the personal relationships between donors and organizations be detrimental in the long run?  How can we be sure accountability is still being taken into account?  As the world lurches forward, let’s not forget to keep an eye on the small things that can make a big difference. 

accountability, viral fundraising,social networking, Facebook, giving, fundraising, donations,

We’re hearing a lot of buzz over the term competitive compassion. Unofficially defined, competitive compassion is contributing to a charity or cause in a greater amount than others or for recognition.  The term was often used following the 2004 tsunami in South Asia, when governments were practically stumbling over each other to out-donate each other with relief support.  Lately, we’ve seen it used in describing what one reporter describes as the “look-at-me” approach to philanthropy.

Maybe it’s because of Oprah’s latest endeavor, “The Big Give,” that we talked about last week.  Or the Donald’s “The Celebrity Apprentice,” where giving is a competition ... among celebrities.  Or recent praise for actress Drew Barrymore’s  donation of a $1 million to the UN's World Food Programme, followed by criticism of her very public announcement of it.  After all, celebrities are often criticized to have fallen victim to such display of competitiveness.  It seems like everywhere you look a celebrity is coming out for a cause, donating just a little more money than their co-star.  

Oprah’s latest endeavor and Trump’s spin-off have both received criticism from the insiders of the nonprofit world as well as the media itself.  One would be hard-pressed to not face competition in the corporate world, but when it comes to philanthropy, it seems to be a bit out of character.

What do you think?  Is competitive compassion turning philanthropy into an exercise of self-congratulation?  Or is any awareness, competitive or not, good for the industry? 

We’re hearing a lot of buzz over the term competitive compassion. Unofficially defined, competitive compassion is contributing to a charity or cause in a greater amount than others or for recognition.  The term was often used following the 2004 tsunami in South Asia, when governments were practically stumbling over each other to out-donate each other with relief support.  Lately, we’ve seen it used in describing what one reporter describes as the “look-at-me” approach to philanthropy.

Maybe it’s because of Oprah’s latest endeavor, “The Big Give,” that we talked about last week.  Or the Donald’s “The Celebrity Apprentice,” where giving is a competition ... among celebrities.  Or recent praise for actress Drew Barrymore’s  donation of a $1 million to the UN's World Food Programme, followed by criticism of her very public announcement of it.  After all, celebrities are often criticized to have fallen victim to such display of competitiveness.  It seems like everywhere you look a celebrity is coming out for a cause, donating just a little more money than their co-star.  

Oprah’s latest endeavor and Trump’s spin-off have both received criticism from the insiders of the nonprofit world as well as the media itself.  One would be hard-pressed to not face competition in the corporate world, but when it comes to philanthropy, it seems to be a bit out of character.

What do you think?  Is competitive compassion turning philanthropy into an exercise of self-congratulation?  Or is any awareness, competitive or not, good for the industry? 

This weekend’s New York Time Magazine article, “For Good, Measure”, very positively advocated the need for measurement and the importance of effectiveness among foundations and nonprofits. It’s about time this topic made its way to national newspapers. After all, it’s been important to participants in the nonprofit sector, and those who really care about it, for years.

Although we are happy that this topic was addressed and brought to the attention of thousands, it’s rather sad that it’s taken this long to make its way to the top of people’s minds – to finally become important enough to discuss openly and among the public. What’s even more upsetting is that even though measurement is vital in understanding organizational impact and ensuring effectiveness, according to the article, barely half of foundations take metrics into consideration, evaluating the effectiveness of those whom they provide grants.   Why wouldn’t they track all 100 percent?  Just like donors, wouldn't they want to make sure their money is well spent? Check out someone who feels similarly, here.

Thankfully, new philanthropists are standing up and asking, Am I making a difference? How do you know?  And the answer provided in the article tells them, “If you really want to change the world, first you need to start measuring how (and how much) you’re changing it — because only a clear understanding of your results will enable you to expand the programs that work and jettison the ones that don’t”. At least they are steering them in the right direction.

Check it out, our own Steve Butz voiced his opinion in the blogosphere here.

New York Times, nonprofit, philanthropist, measure, effectiveness, foundation, metrics, evaluating,

This weekend’s New York Time Magazine article, “For Good, Measure”, very positively advocated the need for measurement and the importance of effectiveness among foundations and nonprofits. It’s about time this topic made its way to national newspapers. After all, it’s been important to participants in the nonprofit sector, and those who really care about it, for years.

Although we are happy that this topic was addressed and brought to the attention of thousands, it’s rather sad that it’s taken this long to make its way to the top of people’s minds – to finally become important enough to discuss openly and among the public. What’s even more upsetting is that even though measurement is vital in understanding organizational impact and ensuring effectiveness, according to the article, barely half of foundations take metrics into consideration, evaluating the effectiveness of those whom they provide grants.   Why wouldn’t they track all 100 percent?  Just like donors, wouldn't they want to make sure their money is well spent? Check out someone who feels similarly, here.

Thankfully, new philanthropists are standing up and asking, Am I making a difference? How do you know?  And the answer provided in the article tells them, “If you really want to change the world, first you need to start measuring how (and how much) you’re changing it — because only a clear understanding of your results will enable you to expand the programs that work and jettison the ones that don’t”. At least they are steering them in the right direction.

Check it out, our own Steve Butz voiced his opinion in the blogosphere here.

New York Times, nonprofit, philanthropist, measure, effectiveness, foundation, metrics, evaluating,

We’re not surprised to hear that the future nonprofit leaders of the world are discouraged by the industry.  In a career full of emotion, compassion, and hope, the reality of money, lack of commitment and empathy, is enough to make anyone discouraged.  A recent study conducted by the Meyer Foundation and CompassPoint Nonprofit Services found that young nonprofit workers are frustrated by the monetary aspects of their work as well as the morale.  Low pay, tiresome work, long hours, the list goes on.  

The study, based on surveys of 6,000 social workers nationwide, found that 64% of respondents have financial concerns about committing to a career in nonprofit work. The issues surrounding pay are not new to the nonprofit world, of course. What was surprising was that just over 1/3 of respondents aspires to be an executive director someday.  And with an exodus of baby boomers leaving current positons to retire, this the time when young persons should be excited about the prospect of moving up.  Its not a matter of having a ceiling, the problem is there isn’t even curiousity to see what’s up there.

We can’t say it enough. Embrace your future leaders. Pay them well.  Take the time to teach and mentor them.  You’ll reap the benefits-as will they.

What are your thoughts on the future leaders of the nonprofit world? What should organizations do in order to encourage and develop younger generations in the field?

We’re not surprised to hear that the future nonprofit leaders of the world are discouraged by the industry.  In a career full of emotion, compassion, and hope, the reality of money, lack of commitment and empathy, is enough to make anyone discouraged.  A recent study conducted by the Meyer Foundation and CompassPoint Nonprofit Services found that young nonprofit workers are frustrated by the monetary aspects of their work as well as the morale.  Low pay, tiresome work, long hours, the list goes on.  

The study, based on surveys of 6,000 social workers nationwide, found that 64% of respondents have financial concerns about committing to a career in nonprofit work. The issues surrounding pay are not new to the nonprofit world, of course. What was surprising was that just over 1/3 of respondents aspires to be an executive director someday.  And with an exodus of baby boomers leaving current positons to retire, this the time when young persons should be excited about the prospect of moving up.  Its not a matter of having a ceiling, the problem is there isn’t even curiousity to see what’s up there.

We can’t say it enough. Embrace your future leaders. Pay them well.  Take the time to teach and mentor them.  You’ll reap the benefits-as will they.

What are your thoughts on the future leaders of the nonprofit world? What should organizations do in order to encourage and develop younger generations in the field?