Feature Articles • By Pablo Eisenberg • June 19, 2010 • Email Print

Pablo Eisenberg is the most vociferous, most consistent, and most cogent critic of philanthropy we know. Yet his decades-long calls for increased foundation payout still haven't had the desired effect. In this article he takes a different tack: offering some reforms that speak to democracy in the United States, and that would be pretty easy for foundations to do.

The greatest weakness of philanthropy is the lack of critical analysis about it. Nobody wants to say anything negative or bad! It is often assumed to be so good that it is beyond criticism, and grantees seldom dare to raise any concerns lest they lose their funding. Happily, the consumer movement in philanthropy is picking up steam…but slowly. But until the day that movement forces a full-throated discussion and debate about philanthropy, neither foundations, nor individual donors, nor nonprofits will meet their enormous potential.

Foundations have had a notable track record in maintaining our civil society and its institutions. But they are not having the impact on our nonprofit sector and on our country that they are capable of exerting. The same can be said of wealthy individual donors.

In fact, philanthropy as a whole appears to have widened the gap between the have and have-not communities, and in parallel, widened the gap between the have and have-not nonprofit organizations. The overwhelming amount of foundation money continues to go to . . .  read more »

Feature Articles • April 11, 2010 • Email Print

Other industries have their "Worst Dressed" awards, the "Golden Fleece" awards for public waste, and the Ig Nobel Prizes for dubious science-related achievements that "first make people laugh, then make them think." Until now, the nonprofit sector has lacked its own such award program. The new Just Awards have announced the "winners" for the first year's awards: one for Abominable Press Coverage of the Nonprofit Sector, and the other for Narcissism in Philanthropy.

Award for Abominable Press Coverage

For Abominable Press Coverage of the Nonprofit Sector, The Just Awards panel of judges chose Stephanie Strom's November, 2009 article in the New York Times: "Charities Rise, Costing U.S. Billions in Tax Breaks."

The article reported that the I.R.S. approved 99% of applications for charity status last year, and picked some easy targets to suggest that there are too many nonprofits, and that many or most of them are frivolous. The article asserts that the U.S. government lost $50 billion in taxes due to the amounts given to nonprofits . . . making the false assumptions that a) donations to the nonprofit sector would remain the same without the tax exemption, and b) the government could ignore the enormous financial impact of demand for services (such as emergency room visits) that would inevitably follow from fewer nonprofit programs. A better headline: "Charities Rise, Saving U.S. Billions." Furthermore, the article neglected to provide, as a basis for comparison, information on the many billions more in tax breaks provided to the private sector.  The article can be found here.

In making the Award, the judges did praise the New York Times for covering the nonprofit sector, and Stephanie Strom as "generally a very good reporter." But judges felt this story was the "worst story of the year" and that its lack of research led to "bad journalism".

Award for Narcissism in Philanthropy

For the much-anticipated Narcissism in Philanthropy Award, the Just Awards panel of judges chose . . .  read more »

Feature Articles • By Robert Egger • January 29, 2010 • Email Print

Robert Egger is mad [and so are we!] about the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations and unions -- but not nonprofits -- to spend unlimited monies on political campaigns. And he has some ideas about what to do about it:

For the last four years, I've been wondering what it would take to unite the nonprofit sector in America.

In 2007, at the start of the first Presidential election in almost 80 years in which there was no incumbent in the race, nonprofits could have used this competitive climate to develop a strategy that compelled all candidates to earn our collective votes. By pushing for a plan for America that included a defined role for our 1.4 million nonprofits, we could have repositioned the sector as a deep well of previously untapped, economic energy. We did not.

In 2008, when 29 states posted over $45 billion in deficits and legislators began to make deep budget cuts, the opportunity was again present. As funding for once sacrosanct programs -- from senior healthcare to education -- was slashed, nonprofits could have joined forces to ensure that vital services and critical needs were met. We remained divided.

And in 2009, when state budget deficits exploded by over 300% and lawmakers began to explore taxing the property of nonprofits or imposing other cash generating fees, I eagerly awaited the moment when enlightened self-interest would spur a sorely-needed, strategic dialogue among organizations in every community. It never came.

And now this: two weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, which granted political free-speech rights to corporations and unions, but excluded groups granted 501 (c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Service. This means . . .  read more »

Nonprofits & Government • Feature Articles • By Rick Cohen • January 6, 2010 • Email Print

Why does Teach for America (TFA) attract so much adulatory praise, so much vitriolic criticism, so much government and foundation money, and so much jealousy/resentment from other nonprofits? And did we mention so much money? Held up as the exemplar of social innovation and civic engagement, the TFA model merits closer attention as to what it really means for public education, to the nonprofit sector, and to society at large. TFA's positive press is so well known that this article focuses on the less-heard concerns and questions about the model:

It's hard to imagine a nonprofit entity that encapsulates the emerging definition of social innovation more than the Teach for America juggernaut. Founded in 1990 by young Princeton graduate Wendy Kopp, TFA now needs no introduction; it has nearly the same brand recognition enjoyed by nonprofits like the United Way and American Red Cross. But as the nation moves toward defining social innovation and handing over the federal Social Innovation Program to private foundations, it cannot hurt to recognize TFA and other vaunted models for what they are:  read more »