Helena Monteiro

Would you share a bit of your personal background?

Helena Monteiro (HM): I’m Brazilian-Canadian. I lived in Brazil until I was 24 and then moved to Canada. I’m an educator by training and did my graduate studies in social work. I’ve worked locally, nationally and internationally, but more on the grantee side of international development. I worked for nonprofits in Canada for 16 years and with the United Nations in Washington, D.C. for two years. I moved back to Brazil in 2005 and, since then, have been working in philanthropy — family, corporate and individual philanthropy.

What is WINGS’ role in the field of philanthropy?

HM: WINGS is a network of networks in philanthropy. Our mandate is global.

We are the only truly worldwide network representing and serving the broad community of grant makers, foundations and philanthropy-support organizations. With members and affiliates in every region of the world, WINGS convenes a diverse community of leaders with a wide range of grounded knowledge and experience in the field of global philanthropy.

The mission of WINGS is to strengthen philanthropy and a culture of giving through mutual learning and support, knowledge sharing and professional development among its participants. In so doing, WINGS gives voice and visibility to philanthropy at a global level. The vision of WINGS is to grow a strong, global philanthropic community that works to build more equitable and just societies around the world.

Why did WINGS’ leadership decide it was time for the organization to have a permanent home?

HM: WINGS was only incorporated in 2010. Before that, WINGS did not invest in a highly formalized institutional structure, but rather worked with and through its members, serviced by a small network secretariat that was hosted, in turns, by member organizations in North America, Europe and Asia. With the growth of WINGS and its program, the decision was taken in 2010 to incorporate WINGS as a fully fledged, nonprofit membership association with offices in Sao Paulo, Brazil. In 2011-2012, WINGS is bolstering its own sustainability through the introduction of membership fees. Currently, we have 147 network participants in 54 countries on every continent except Antarctica.

What has been the reaction to WINGS’ move to Brazil as its permanent home country?

HM: It may be the first time this nation is hosting an international organization that is not actually working in Brazil, but is working globally. The Brazil philanthropic community is thrilled about having WINGS based in their country because there is a lot of philanthropy development in Brazil now. For WINGS, it was very important that it be based in the Global South because there are already enough support organizations in the Global North. With its roots in the Global South now, it will surely be representing philanthropy groups there and developing contacts in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

HM: China is certainly a new frontier in philanthropy. It is growing fast with more than 2,000 foundations so far, but it’s too early to tell how it will take form and shape; same for the other BRICS countries [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa]. WINGS will be working with the China Foundation Center in Beijing, which was greatly inspired by the Foundation Center in the States. They are doing amazing work there. We are also seeing a lot of development in Africa. As for the Arab region, there are a lot of changes happening that are in the news lately. Actually, there’s been quite a lot of movement in the field of philanthropy around the world in the past year.

Briefly discuss WINGS’ connection with the Foundation Center.

HM: Philanthropy is growing and gaining visibility around the world. There are new actors and new approaches to giving. The rapidly changing situation of global philanthropy makes the task of developing a simple and effective global-data platform for philanthropy an urgent one.

Recognizing this need for improved data on philanthropy worldwide, WINGS and the Foundation Center are working together to build a global-data platform and to promote common global-data standards for philanthropy. We will collect data on philanthropy in various regions of the world and make it available to the public and build a culture of data management, while promoting data standards by WINGS’ members.

Why is information sharing so highly regarded by WINGS’ members?

HM: In an era in which philanthropy is increasingly recognized as a powerful means to build more sustainable communities, WINGS facilitates dialogue within the global-philanthropy community to strengthen capacity and partnerships for social development. To extend and enrich the global conversation, it builds the capacity of its members to facilitate dialogue in their own countries and regions. In addition, members learn from their peers around the globe; instead of relying only on technical experts, WINGS mobilizes the philanthropy professionals in its network to share their real-life experiences and best practices with each other, bringing the collective wisdom of the networks together to find innovative solutions.

Would you give examples of the peer-learning topics WINGS members are discussing?

HM: The content of the WINGS’ peer-learning agenda is as diverse as its membership, ranging from governance to association and network building, good grantmaking practice, accountability, innovations in measurement of impact and results, investment and fundraising strategies, partnership building, strengthening community philanthropy, advocacy and policy influence, and much more. This is valuable for WINGS’ members, especially because in many countries [philanthropy network] leaders are the only ones in their field, so there are no others to share concerns with or to share ideas and experiences.

What big issues will be facing philanthropy in the next decade and beyond?

HM: When we look at the big issues — hunger, environment, migrations, sustainable development, food security, peace and security, health and education, and democracy building — we see that these issues are growing in the level of concern expressed by NGOs [non-governmental organizations]. These had been seen as regional concerns, but now are seen as interconnected. We’re seeing an advanced understanding of social welfare and well-being.

What do you see for the field of philanthropy when you look to the future?

HM: For WINGS, in particular, we will be seeing new demands from our members. We also will be looking at resources in broader terms, such as in-kind, pro bono, networking, etc. For the field overall, an issue that’s raising concern for our members is the sustainability of support organizations serving philanthropy. At the same time, we’re seeing new forms of philanthropy and new players. These are exciting times for WINGS and for philanthropy overall.

Nick Deychakiwsky, Program Officer for the Mott Foundation's Civil Society team

Mott: Mott’s grant to the National Council of Nonprofits is funded through the Foundation’s Civil Society program. Discuss how the nonprofit sector differs in the U.S. from the sector globally.

ND: The nonprofit sector is not the same as civil society, but certainly it is a really big component of it. [See related Q&A with Mott’s definition of civil society.] Globally, and in the U.S., the nonprofit sectors are pretty much the same in a structural way. Sometimes it might be called something different. In the U.S., we tend to say “nonprofits” all the time, which is really a legal way of looking at it. In other countries, you will hear “NGOs” or “non-governmental organizations,” or often you will hear the term “CSOs,” which is civil society organizations, and in some countries they will just call them “charities” or “voluntary organizations.” In the U.K. [United Kingdom], they say “the voluntary sector.” The nomenclature might be different, but it is basically the same thing.

In the U.S., the nonprofit sector tends to be bigger than in most other countries because we have more institutions that are included as non-governmental institutions. In the U.S., the biggest ones are universities and hospitals, which in most other countries tend to be governmental or government-run institutions.

Mott: The Foundation’s new Civil Society program plan for the U.S. states, it “focuses on ensuring the nonprofit sector’s vibrancy and responsiveness to social needs through maintaining a robust infrastructure.” What does the Foundation mean when it says “infrastructure” and why does Mott fund infrastructure organizations?

ND: “Infrastructure” is a tricky word. You might think instead in terms of “intermediary organizations.” That is, organizations that support individual nonprofits in enhancing their effectiveness, providing information that all nonprofits need, and helping maintain a favorable policy environment – a legal and regulatory framework that allows nonprofits to do their good work.

These organizations tend not to be the ones that are directly serving communities or advocating for particular causes or dealing with very specific populations, such as environmental groups or youth. The National Council of Nonprofits and Michigan Nonprofit Association are two examples of these. [See related article.] If they were business organizations, they would be called trade associations. Infrastructure organizations can deliver technical assistance or offer education and training for nonprofits, or they might be research organizations that provide information about the entire sector. We believe a strong infrastructure helps individual nonprofits work more responsibly.

Mott: Leaders of nonprofit organizations in the U.S. are increasingly discussing the need for partnerships, especially in the country’s current economic condition. What benefits can come from partnerships with governments and/or businesses – and what are some of the challenges associated with them?

ND: There are limitations to the three-sector model – that is, the business sector, the government sector, and the nonprofit sector. Partnerships are typically a good thing, but sometimes we get caught up in our own sectors and forget it is about people. Look at the local community level; we don’t have people walking around saying, “I am government” or “I am business” or “I am a nonprofit.” Hopefully, we have people just saying, “I live in Flint.” While they play certain roles because of where they are employed, we all care about our communities and, more broadly, about its causes.

Nevertheless, there is some use to the three-sector framework in order to understand partnerships.  There are different power dynamics: government still is the most powerful and has the most money. Government can also bring the force of the law. Business also has huge financial resources compared to the nonprofit sector. They can outgun the nonprofit sector financially, so when we have partnerships, that power dynamic could be there.  Government often has a bureaucratic approach that is rooted in its accountability to voters, which it has to have. Sometimes that can influence the flexibility/versatility of the nonprofit organizations with whom they are partnering. 
 
There’s another thing. We don’t have too much of it here in the U.S., but I have seen it in countries like Russia where I worked before. It is when partnership with government means the government is going to control it and call the shots. Something that might be benign for the benefit of everybody can quickly turn into something political when government uses it for that purpose. With business, the partnerships can be challenging because a business’ main purpose is making profits; that’s the bottom line. Nonprofits might unwittingly become a tool of some company’s good marketing.

Mott: What are a few of your current concerns regarding the nonprofit sector and your hopes for its future?

ND:  Related to the previous topic is this blurring of the lines between the sectors. We are getting more for-profit companies going into areas that were traditionally nonprofit and we’re also seeing nonprofits creating for-profit arms because they have to earn revenues. They also are behaving in a more businesslike way. There is nothing wrong with being businesslike, but sometimes it can lead to a very technocratic approach, a very managerial style of doing things, which sometimes means losing the soul of the mission.

 I sometimes wonder, Are nonprofits becoming too transactional, just delivering services for a particular fee?
  
We need to nurture the kinds of processes where things are win/win and mutually beneficial for all concerned. These can be strong and productive partnerships. While the nonprofit sector is the least resourced sector financially, it is as resourced as the other two, if not better, in its commitment and its people power. In many ways, the caring and compassion of people working in the nonprofit sector bring hope to our society. They are best situated for exhibiting compassion and care that reaches out and helps build communities. Nonprofits give us a way to work together so each person is not doing it alone. They promote the common good. My hope for the future lies in people trying to do good together with others in common cause.

• The National Council of Nonprofits (council) advances the role, capacity and voice of charitable nonprofit organizations through a network of state associations with more than 25,000 members.
• Council members share information about proposed policy issues of concern, such as Payments in Lieu of Taxes, whereby local governments seek payments from tax-exempt organizations to help balance government budgets.
• The council helped nonprofits and funders save millions of dollars in late filing fees last year by making sure they had filed their federal income tax returns on time, avoiding the possible loss of their tax-exempt status.

By MAGGIE JARUZEL POTTER

The National Council of Nonprofits’ succinct tagline – “National voice. State focus. Local impact.” – describes how the council serves nonprofits through its network of state associations across the country, says Tim Delaney, the council’s president and CEO.

Tim Delaney, President and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits“We have an extended network of nonprofit organizations that sees and hears what’s happening on the ground. By exchanging and sharing information, our network is learning together from coast to coast and border to border,” he said.

“The national council also gets that information out to other nonprofits, the public and elected officials. That way, when legislators vote on issues affecting nonprofits they can make informed decisions.”

The council is an example of the nonprofit infrastructure organizations the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation funds through its Civil Society program.” [See related Q&A with Mott Program Officer Nick Deychakiwsky.]

The council, based in Washington, D.C., has been a Mott grantee since 1990. To date, the Foundation has supported the council’s work with 22 grants. The majority were general-purposes grants, but six were earmarked for specific projects. All together, the grants totaled $2.5 million.

Delaney, who has led the national organization since July 2008, says being bold and nimble has kept the council relevant.

In May 2010 – just before the Internal Revenue Service planned to release a list of more than 350,000 nonprofit organizations nationwide that would lose their tax-exempt status because they had failed to file their required annual federal tax returns – council staff issued a massive alert through its members and the media, Delaney says.

The council’s quick action helped nonprofits and funders save – and keep in their local communities – more than $10 million they otherwise would have sent to the federal government in late filing fees, he says.

The council is the country’s largest network of nonprofit organizations with more than 25,000 members. While other national nonprofit membership organizations focus almost exclusively on federal government issues, Delaney says, the council’s niche is to identify issues that affect nonprofit organizations at the state and local levels.

As a former partner in a law firm and as Arizona’s former chief deputy attorney general, Delaney has gone from fighting crime and corruption to serving as an educator, cheerleader and myth-buster for the nonprofit sector.

A few of the myths he is determined to dispel:

• Employees of nonprofit organizations don’t pay taxes. (“I’m always surprised by the number of people who believe this as fact.”)
• Nonprofit organizations are not allowed to advocate for specific policy changes or comment on pending legislation. (“Attorneys, academics and accountants too often muzzle nonprofits with bad advice: In 1976 Congress made the law very clear that nonprofits can engage in advocacy.”) 
• Public and private foundations can fill the funding void created when the federal, state and local governments reduce the amount of money they spend on public programs and services. (“Even if all donated money was combined, there is still not enough to meet the needs.”)

Kyle Caldwell, President and CEO of the Michigan Nonprofit Association

In addition to educating the public about the roles and realities of the nonprofit sector, the council also helps equip and empower state associations to think and speak collectively, says Kyle Caldwell, president and CEO of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), a council member.

“When we look to make changes in Michigan’s economy, we see that it hinges on having a vibrant nonprofit sector to help make those transitions possible, especially for a state going from a strong manufacturing base to one being led by health-care institutions and colleges and universities,” he said.

A current hot-button state issue on the council’s radar screen is Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), whereby local governments seek payments from tax-exempt nonprofits to help balance government budgets, Delaney says.

Truly voluntary PILOTS have been around for decades, he says, but after the city of Boston sent its first round of PILOT “requests” in the form of simulated tax bills to the city’s largest 40 nonprofit organizations in April 2011, the practice “started spreading like wildfire” to other municipalities in several states.

In response, the council’s staff and network members shared information through conference calls, advocacy newsletters and speeches – whatever ways they could to counteract what Delaney sees as a “troubling trend.”

"An important factor frequently doesn't get figured into this PILOT conversation,” he said. “Many state constitutions and statutes exempt nonprofit property from taxation.”

But the council isn't a naysayer to new ideas. When proposed projects and programs are proven successful for the nonprofit sector in one state, Delaney says, his organization often promotes its replication elsewhere.

He cites the state of Connecticut as an example. In February 2011, the governor appointed a former state representative to serve in a cabinet-level post as the state’s – and the nation’s – first “nonprofit liaison.” The official’s public-funded job is to develop and strengthen partnerships between the state government and Connecticut-based nonprofits, making the relationships easier and more effective for both.

“Nonprofits and governments serve the same constituents and the same communities,” Delaney said. “We are all looking at common problems to gather common solutions. Anything that can help us do that better is something we want to replicate.”

¹In 2003, the State of Michigan created the nation’s first Office of Foundation Liaison through a joint agreement between Michigan foundations and the governor’s office. Like the Connecticut post, Michigan’s is a cabinet-level position. Karen Aldridge-Eason, a loaned executive from the Mott Foundation, has led the initiative from the start through both Democratic and Republican administrations.