Tag Archives: corporatization

Picture of Professor Eugene Fram.

Nonprofit Radio, April 26, 2013: A Conversation With Eugene Fram

Big Nonprofit Ideas for the Other 95%

Listen live or archive:

Tony’s Guest:

Picture of Professor Eugene Fram.
Professor Emeritus Eugene Fram
Eugene Fram: A Conversation With Eugene Fram

Professor Emeritus at Rochester Institute of Technology, Dr. Fram is author of “Policy vs. Paper Clips,” introducing nonprofits to a corporate model of board governance to cut out the minutia from agendas so your board can focus where it should, on policy and planning.

 
 
 


Top Trends. Sound Advice. Lively Conversation.

You’re on the air and on target as I delve into the big issues facing your nonprofit—and your career.

If you have big dreams but an average budget, tune in to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio.

I interview the best in the business on every topic from board relations, fundraising, social media and compliance, to technology, accounting, volunteer management, finance, marketing and beyond. Always with you in mind.

When and where: Talking Alternative Radio, Fridays, 1-2PM Eastern

Sign-up for show alerts!

Here is a link to the audio for this episode: 139: A Conversation With Eugene Fram. You can also subscribe on iTunes to get the podcast automatically

View Full Transcript

Charity Corporatization Redux III

'Business' courtesy of maeuse on Flickr.
The corporatization of U.S. charities continues to concern me.

This is the slow yet steady process by which regulators regard charities more as for-profit corporations. I’ve blogged it before.

My interest in this began with former New York Times nonprofit reporter Stephanie Strom’s coverage last August of California eyeing tax exemptions. I’ve got some new data points.

  • The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports Pittsburgh is collecting payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) from charities and Memphis is considering the same. The Memphis coverage states, “Over the last decade PILOTs for tax-exempt entities have been used in at least 117 municipalities in at least 18 states.”
  • When I interviewed (see the last 2 minutes)The Nonprofit Times‘ editor-in-chief Paul Clolery for Nonprofit Radio, he shared his concern that the lines are blurring between corporate and charitable. He sees California’s B Corp (a designation under which for-profit corporations provide a benefit to the public) as the first step toward a request for relief from taxes in proportion to the societal benefit. Do you see the harsh irony as charities lose favorable tax treatments?
  • Many states have something similar to the B corp, the low-profit limited liability corporation, or L3C.
  • Last month, The Chronicle had a very interesting and slightly startling opinion piece about the supreme court’s Affordable Healthcare Act decision making it easy for Congress to curtail charity tax exemptions and charitable deductions.

These signal a blurring of the distinction between charitable and corporate, and a loss of the special perquisites that keep charities thriving and donors giving.

I think about these together and I’m troubled.

Celebrate Charities! Individuals & Governments Can’t Do That Work

Courtesy of rAmmoRRison on Flickr.
A stray cat has climbed a tree and can’t get down. Neighbors try and can’t coax it. Police and fire say, “We haven’t done that since Andy Griffith was the sheriff of Mayberry.” Who you gonna call? A charity.

That’s what happened in my neighborhood.

There’s so much work that needs to be done which individuals and governments aren’t suited for. But when individuals collectivize into charities, taking advantage of state and federal laws, there’s no end to the good works they can do and valuable impacts they can achieve.

Yet, I’m concerned about the future of our charitable community in the U.S. The lines are slowly eroding between charitable and corporate. Paul Clolery, editor of The Nonprofit Times, voiced the same concern in my interview with him for Nonprofit Radio. I’ve got other media data points too.

I’ve blogged this three times before. The most recent, “Corporatization Redux II” has links to the first two.

And I see some bad practices in Planned Giving are morphing into conventional wisdom that could really hurt the sector. Chasing young prospects and highly speculative gift counting worry me.

Incrementalism is the way most devastating change slips past us. Each modest step goes unnoticed, until a decade has passed and everyone wonders what happened.

I’ll be blogging my concerns shortly.

Nevertheless, celebrate the charitable community in our country, and around the world!

The cat’s out of the bag: charities do good works that others cannot.

Failure IS an Option, So Let’s Talk

Dictionary Definition Of Failure On White Page

I love last week’s New York Times piece by Stephanie Strom, “Nonprofits Review Technology Failures.”  The essential message is that nonprofits will suffer failures, and the charity community is wise to learn from them.

I’ve written about the corporatization of nonprofits, which includes donor expectations of outcome measurements (just as shareholders expect of companies).  If your nonprofit wants to comply with donor demands, it is going to have to admit its grand failures alongside handsome successes.

Transparency and evaluation of outcomes means all outcomes, not just the good ones.  Insufficient programming, unforeseen consequences, underfunding, overstaffing, failed assumptions.  Let’s talk about them all, so everyone can learn to avoid repeats.

Your donor investors and those whose lives you improve deserve an honest outcomes dialogue.  They will benefit.  So will the larger nonprofit community.

The $64,000 Question is whether donors will take the news of unsatisfactory results well.

On Friday, August 27th, Stephanie Strom will be my guest on Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio and we’ll talk about her article and its implications.

Corporatization Redux II

Courtesy of Stephen Downes on Flickr.
I’ve posted twice about how state and federal governments and donors are corporatizing nonprofits by treating them like for-profit companies: The Corporatization of U.S. Nonprofits and Corporatization Redux. The Wall Street Journal reports nonprofits are behaving like corporations and treating each other the same, not collegially as in the past.

It’s all about marks: trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property. I’m amused that The Journal’s coverage is by Clifford Marks.

What’s especially interesting to me is that friendly attempts at compromise, which in years past probably would have been accepted as a figurative handshake and let’s-be-friends deal, are rebuffed. Those enforcing their marks believe money is at stake. Does it financially hurt the Lance Armstrong Foundation if other charities use “Strong” in their branding?

I’m interested in other examples of nonprofits tussling with each other, so if you’ve got one, please post it. Thanks.