Smart Giving Matters

Are we in a Public-Trust Recession too?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:59:00 +0000

At our June 18 Annual Forum, national expert Paul Light of New York University got people's attention. He believes there's a looming crisis of confidence in nonprofits that the sector isn't taking seriously enough.

Donors give less than they would otherwise, he says, because they feel nonprofits don't spend money wisely. Given the economy's double whammy on charities -- increased need for services while funding is threatened -- this prevailing suspicion comes at the worst possible time.

Professor Light makes his case in a compelling way (complete with comic relief, mind you). But his picture is bleaker than mine, though I do applaud his message. Human nature what it is, we tend to not act until we're convinced things are near-hopeless. I also applaud his Rx for charities to increase trust: show donors that their contributions lead to measurable, positive, substantive change.

My view: there's no doubt that we live in a skeptical era, particularly when it comes to established institutions. After all, we're treated to a steady barrage of fraud and greed news stories. So if you ask people whether an organization wastes money, they're likely to say, "Sure." But at the Council, we have daily interaction with people who trust the charities they support - they just want reassurance that their contributions will be well used. And we also have daily interaction with charities that take their donors' trust seriously and work to be transparent in all their activities.

What's your view? Do you trust charities less than you used to? If so, does it cause you to give less? In either case, do you give less because of the economy? And what can charities do to encourage you to give more?

More on The Big Give

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:36:00 +0000

Guest Blogger: Amy Sinykin

A recent criticism by Joshua Horwitz, the executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, in Washington, articulates many of the comments made about the show throughout the philanthropy and nonprofit sectors. I don't agree with Mr. Horwitz criticism entirely. (I'm Minnesotan, of course, anger sometimes turns me off...). He very articulately captures several points about the Big Give that reflect many of our thoughts at the Council:

"Oprah's last words on the show Sunday night were to encourage the television audience to "give big," which is a worthy goal, but the television program failed to show average Americans how they can become effective and strategic philanthropists.
If anybody has earned the right to experiment with philanthropy, it is Oprah Winfrey. She has given tens of millions of her own money away and another $51-million through her Angel Network foundation. She has clearly inspired others to give as well.
So while her show sometimes gave me heartburn, I admire her for starting a serious discussion about the meaning and effectiveness of philanthropy among average Americans."
To read the full article.

Can Reality Television and Philanthropy Play Nice?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:08:00 +0000

Guest Blogger: Amy Sinykin

I don’t feel the need to join the debate about whether or not reality TV is the downfall of our society. Because, admittedly, I like TV and have been known to happily zone out to an episode of Survivor or the Amazing Race. (Okay, okay, I may have watched an episode of the Bachelor once or twice...) So, you’d think when Oprah’s new show, The Big Give premiered I would’ve found some time to check it out. Clearly, its an interesting intersection of a personal hobby (Can TV watching be considered a hobby?) and my professional experience in the volunteerism and philanthropy sectors. Yet, something about it didn’t push it to the top of my television watching priorities. I was ambivalent.

Philanthropy itself is an art and a science… Could a television show appropriately convey effective philanthropy or volunteerism? Maybe. I attempted to find out, sat down at my desk and downloaded the most recent episode of The Big Give on my computer. (It’s really work, I told myself.) And, after 42:36 minutes, I’m still ambivalent. And it didn’t really feel like work.

In reality TV, The Big Give isn’t anything special. The show, and clearly its editors, put a microscope on a group of people being challenged to accomplish a task within a certain time frame. That description could speak to the bulk of all reality television programs. As I continued to watch and heard complaint after stress-induced complaint from the show participants, I realized that I had stopped thinking about the outcome of this “give”. Wasn’t that the most important part?

Yet, despite The Big Give’s common and bland format, the truth is, if a show about philanthropy and giving back can encourage others to give back who may not ever have given back, then more power to it. I’m just not sure it really does that. Only time will tell. But in terms of reality television, at least I’m not watching a group of over-indulged B-list celebrities figuring out how to baby sit a group of 3-year olds for an hour. Will I watch it again? Maybe, if I need to zone out sometime. But tonight, I think I’ll just take my 2-year-old outside for a little while. We need to start practicing now to pick up litter for the park clean-up.

Rx for Public Trust: A Parrot in Every Charity

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:34:00 +0000

It gets under my skin to hear the leader of a nonprofit say its finances are private. That was the response of some of the six religious nonprofits that have stonewalled the U.S. Senate Finance Committee that has been working under both Republican and Democratic leadership to weed out and prevent charity abuse.

One of my favorite quotes is from humorist Will Rogers, who advised people to “live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip.” That’s good advice for charities too. In fact, Will could go one further by advising them to “make your parrot available to everyone.”

Why? For starters, most charities depend on contributions by people who don’t directly benefit from their programs. That calls for a huge amount of trust that the charities people give to are doing something noble, positive and helpful with their donations. By letting their “parrots” go public, charities are demonstrating that they have nothing to hide, and in fact have a lot to show for people’s contributions.

Public trust takes a hit every time we hear of nonprofits operating in secrecy. One has to wonder what their parrots have to say.

Don’t let the fine print get your goat

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:47:00 +0000

A bright and educated friend told me he bought a goat online. Or rather he directed Heifer International to buy a goat for an impoverished family. I told him that was a generous act. “But of course,” I said, “you didn’t actually buy a goat.”

It took some convincing to get him to read the fine print on the Heifer Website, which says that the organization pools gifts in order to make the most economical gifts to entire communities.

This is the norm for charities offering donors the ability to purchase items on others’ behalf or sponsor a child. Is this misleading? In the case of Heifer, there’s loads of info on their Website explaining how they work. And the fine print alludes to the fact that it would be expensive to tie individual donations to specific purchases. Illustrating how a goat can help a family become self-reliant and the typical costs of doing so helps donors understand how their donation can help. The goat is a mere symbol.

I don’t think my friend was disappointed to learn that he hadn’t directly purchased a goat for a family. But it leaves me with one small quibble: why not make the “fine print” just plain “print?”

Things to do in January

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:02:00 +0000

Start a physical fitness program … Review and adjust savings and investments … Develop a giving budget …

What? A giving budget? Isn’t giving an impulsive thing one does out of generosity?

Smart givers plan their giving in order to maximize the effectiveness of their generosity. No one (not even Bill Gates) has sufficient resources to support every cause. By aligning your giving with the issues that resonate with your values and by targeting effective charitable organizations, you can focus your giving to make the most difference. It will also help you monitor how well you’re following your plan.

To learn how to develop a giving plan, click here.

Once you’ve identified the charities you want to support, it’s an easy task to determine the amount of gifts to each that will fit your charitable giving budget. And, like anything else in life, plans sometimes need to be adjusted as the year progresses. But in just a few easy steps, you’ve set up a structure for your giving that will make it effective and satisfying. And, of course, throughout this process the Charities Review Council staff is available to help you by e-mail or phone.

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:30:00 +0000

As you empty your closets and basement to donate household items to charity during the holidays, keep in mind that charities need goods, not junk. That may sound harsh. Certainly the impulse to give is admirable, whether it’s money or “stuff” that’s being given. But I often hear people who work for nonprofits that accept non-cash donations say that donors frequently blur the lines between goods and junk. Maybe it’s because things seem more valuable to us simply because they’ve been part of our lives. Or maybe we think we’ll just let the charity decide — if someone can use it, great; if not, they can pitch it. The trouble is that charities often spend precious resources in trash removal of unusable donated items — money that would otherwise be spent on programs and services. Another important reason to objectively assess the utility of used possessions: new tax law requires donated goods to be in good, usable condition in order to claim a tax deduction. So, be generous, judicious, and law-abiding! Thank you for using our information at www.smartgivers.org to make smartgiving choices. The hard working staff at the Charities Review Council wishes you a generous, safe and happy holiday.

Do your homework before you give

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:05:00 +0000

Charitable giving is as American as apple pie and foreign imports. The huge majority of American households annually gives something of value to charities, and at an ever-increasing rate. Never mind the surveys showing continued reduced trust in charities since 9/ 11.

An inquiring mind might question whether it matters that people trust the charitable sector—they continue to give. But our recent survey of Minnesotans confirms that there is a strong correlation between trust and giving: 83 percent said their giving is indeed influenced by their general trust in the sector. Just think how philanthropic this country would be if trust levels were high.

They can be. Most nonprofits work hard to be accountable to the public but suffer from the high profile abuses that everyone reads about. That’s why it’s so important to do your homework before you give. You may have some suspicions about the sector as a whole, but if you take advantage of smart giving resources, you can assure yourself that specific nonprofits are trustworthy.

One of the best ways is to see whether they voluntarily participate in outside reviews, and whether they meet accepted standards.

Nonprofit Work Worth Less?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich Cowles) — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:53:00 +0000

When I presented the findings of our groundbreaking public trust and charitable giving study at the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits annual conference in early October, the audience of nonprofit workers was naturally very interested in Minnesotans’ perceptions of charities. One question, in particular, hit them where they live—literally.

We asked Minnesotans which of these statements they most agreed with about how charity employees should be paid:

Their pay should be comparable to for-profit employees’ pay.
Their pay should be less than that of their for-profit counterparts, but enough to make a living.
Charity employees should be drawn to their work out of commitment and paid no more than a stipend.
While 42 percent of Minnesotans agreed with the first option, 48 percent think charity employees should get paid less than their for-profit counterparts.
And fourteen percent of Minnesotans agreed with the last option. In other words, one in seven think charity employees should make a living by working more than one job and piecing together stipends.

Let’s think that through. Arguments I’ve heard for lower pay for charity employees include that “charity work” is less sophisticated or doesn’t contribute to the nation’s economic engine in the same way that for-profit commerce does. But I would counter that nonprofit organizations—just like for-profit companies—have worked hard to be competitive, incorporating modern management theory and professionalizing their work. And the recent Minnesota Nonprofit Economy Report shows that the nonprofit sector employs 10 percent of the state’s workforce.

These are not simply do-gooders with extra time on their hands, but well-educated, talented professionals who devote their lives to tackling our communities’ most pressing issues. Do we really expect them to pour their best efforts into their vital work while not paying them comparably to their for-profit counterparts? Do we expect them to give us prime rib while we pay them for hamburger?

The Economy report stated that nonprofit employees earn, on average, six percent less than their for-profit counterparts, and three percent less than government workers. What does it say about what is important to our society when the people who work to improve the lives of others are paid the least?

Or isn’t it that simple? I’d be interested in your thoughts about this issue.