March 2008 No. 10Table of ContentsFaith-based initiatives report Who will lead nonprofits next? |
|
IN. Governor Daniels replaced resigning Paula Parker-Sawyers with Isaac Randolph, Jr., as director of the IN Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. A 21-yr Indpls firefighter, Randolph previously headed a coalition dealing with juvenile crime, was a previous mayor’s advisor on urban renewal, and served on the Indpls City-County Council. In 2005, Parker-Sawyers was the first state director and moves to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen & Unplanned Pregnancy in Washington DC.
USA. President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI) by executive order within weeks of his 2001 inauguration. Gradually expanding such positions to major health, housing, and human service departments, this became one of his signature efforts. More than 100 mayors and 35 governors started similar initiatives.
A new 175-page report titled Quiet Revolution touts benefits of this 7-yr agenda, most recently led by Jay Hein, former exec of Indpls’ Sagamore Institute. It focuses on programs to aid prisoner reentry, mentors for children of prisoners, addiction recovery, high-need health areas, and reducing homelessness.
Some $14.7 Billion in federal FBCI grants went to 18,000+ programs across America in FY 2006 alone, up 41% over 2003. That included $306 Million thru 439 awards to Hoosier grantees. Most of the IN funding (92%) went to “secular” nonprofits.
Though critics noted that federal funding for FBCI dropped since 2002, Hein responds: “Problems don’t get solved by spending more money.” Critics note difficulties grantees had with federal reporting requirements. The report says that FBCI’s results must be measured, though “costly, complicated and time-consuming.” While most funding went to grantees that were not religious congregations, critics argue that FBCI rules allowed practices that cross the bright line of separation between church and state. The debate will probably continue until resolved by the courts.
Earmarks. Among the billions of dollars directed to special programs in a myriad of federal FY08 appropriations (aka “earmarks”), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) asked the U.S. Attorney General and housing, health, and education department secretaries to review dozens that appear to violate the Constitution or warrant “close scrutiny.” Among them were 4 grants to Hoosier religious organizations totaling $1.5 Million:
Federal responses to AUSCS are pending.
Odds are they’re not likely current employees, especially young ones. While the philanthropic community has been well aware that nonprofits face the challenge of replacing retiring Baby Boomer execs over the next two decades, it perhaps has been too optimistic about the task of finding their successors. The survey’s counter-intuitive results found that though 40% of current minority and 30% of white staff say they want to be Executive Directors, more than a third of each are undecided, and two-thirds (69%) of current managers say they are unlikely to become their group’s next leader. One third of them are already seeking a job elsewhere. Why?
They don’t want fund-raising responsibilities (41%), and 66% say they don’t want the kind of family life or work-life balance that the top job now requires. But the real reason may be that they don’t want to lead the nonprofit the way it is today. “Younger leaders think the crisis is that existing organizations are getting stale,” one author told Chronicle of Philanthropy reporters. “The nonprofit sector has been incredibly neglectful about innovating for leadership.”
At fault is the presumption by current nonprofit leaders that they can just “plug new leaders into old slots, even though the same skills might not apply.” Is something at work here beyond just the presumed differences between Baby Boomers and Gen X or Y? Maybe, and it’s worth finding out now before exec transition is necessary. It may have to do with the maturation of the nonprofit sector itself, or particular nonprofits, or the changing social and economic prospects of the USA, or the world, for that matter. It’s not too early to start planning ahead.
While the number of grants made by some 1,300 of America’s largest-endowed foundations grew 7.3% in 2006 over 2005, the amount of money they handed out—$19.1 Billion—rose twice as much (16.4%), the Foundation Center reported. This growth is partly due to the Bill & Melinda Gates grantmaking expansion as they begin spending Warren Buffett’s largesse.
Medical centers and health groups got the largest slice of the grantmaker $$ pie—23%—followed by universities and other educational institutions (22.5%), human services (13.8%), arts and culture (12.2%), and public affairs/society benefit including United Ways (10.7%). Though they got less of the money, grant $$ to international affairs/peace groups grew 43%, with human services second at 17%.
In the Midwest, education grants (25%) outpaced human services and public benefit (each 17%), arts and culture (13%), and health (12%). Top dog in the West is health (37%). For details, check out http://foundationcenter.org.
How is the landscape for giving and volunteering changing in America? How do these changes affect United Ways? These are questions the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy will answer, supported by a new $6 Million grant from Lilly Endowment to United Way of America. It will also create new training courses designed to develop future UW fund-raising professionals. Much of the training will come through UW’s Resident Fellows program.
Of America’s largest foundations, about 70% have no paid staff, yet they account for 77% of total assets and 78% of gift dollars among USA grantmakers. In fact, 76% of them report no program-related expenses. See why at www.urban.org/publications/411614.html.
Of nonprofits with compensated fundraising staff, a new study finds that those who raise the most get paid the most. The reason? Fundraising’s results are easier to quantify. But don’t let that lure you into paying fundraisers a commission; that’s fraught with ethical no-nos. Unfortunately, there’s still a gender gap in fundraiser pay, and pay scales relate to types of nonprofits. See the latest Philanthropy Matters issue at www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/
PhilanthropyMatters.
How does a social entrepreneur find enough financial backing to bring a great idea to reality? A banker proposes creating a “social business” with the goal to turn a profit rather than just pay the bills. Many big nonprofits raise more money than they need for operations so as to have cash on hand for visionary ventures. Could a for-profit start up with the intention of attracting such financing for growth? Give it a thought and check out “A Capitalist Jolt for Charity” in Feb. 24’s New York Times.
Print
