I see that the following press release was being prepared, and by now has been sent out by my fundraising colleagues. Here's an excerpt that explains what they're up to.
"The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) oppose the proposal in the President's budget that would impose new limits on charitable tax deductions. Both AFP and AHP applaud the President’s overall efforts in the budget to revive the economy, reform health care, revise energy policy and tackle other important issues affecting the country. However, the budget also contains a proposal that sends the wrong message at the wrong time to those who support charitable causes. It puts forward a scheme that would effectively devalue charitable gifts made by the very people who are in a position to make substantial donations at a time when they are sorely needed...the proposal would limit the federal tax deduction they may take for their generosity to 28 percent. Currently, they may claim up to a 35 percent deduction....The federal government, therefore, should seek ways to bolster charitable giving—as opposed to requiring charities to do more with less."
Frankly, in my view,while the sentiment is noble, and while this effort is historically consistent with the approach of nonprofits any time the President or Congress threatens to tinker with the tax deduction, it's not helpful now, and is in the wrong direction.
In this time, and in this economy, fighting on multiple fronts, the President needs us to to support his efforts, not detract from them for the sake of satisfying our own preferences. Sure, we'd all like the tax on capital gains and the tax on regular income to be even higher, so that the wealthy could escape even more taxation by giving to charity. That would be nice!
In reality, however, budgets need to be balanced, outputs need to equal inputs and if we're going to reduce the whopping federal deficit caused by the greed and failure of practically the entire financial system, then we need to find the money sin a host of places. If it means a few points less in charitable tax deduction, let's just thank our lucky stars we have some deduction left.
But even more to the point, as representatives of the nonprofit sector we've screamed "bloody murder" any time the tax deduction comes under fire. It's a knee-jerk reaction bourne from many years of having to defend the voluntary sector from business and political vultures who don't understand the human impulse to give and help a neighbot. Like all entities in the political process we can tend to become defensive about our turf, especially when there are those out there who don't understand the voluntary sector and its value to society and would easily vote to just wipe it out. We don't like Congress to mess with the tax deduction because we never know how that will turn out. But, while quite understandable, from the the position of having to defend our turf, and quite appropriate,from the viewpoint of being within a nonprofit organization and stretching every hard-earned donation dollar to touch as many lives as possible, nevertheless, right, now I believe this kind of defensiveness is unnecessary and unhelpful. Why?
Two reasons: First, if we're going to create a better, more just, more equitable society, then we must do more dialoguing and less debating. And dialogue involves being more open and honest, more transparent about what we're trying to accomplish, what we need to do that, and what the results will be for the measure we're advocating. Now if we can ever get the conservative Republicans to take on those characteristics that could produce some very interesting concepts, and in the process they would have to see that, basically, they are wrong about what they want to do, because it would not lead to a more just, more equitable society.
Second, when the capital gains tax was lowered a few years ago, we charities screamed, as we always do when Congress tinkers with the tax code, that donations would plummet and charities would be left high and dry. But, in the event, nothing happened. Donations didn't decrease, they kept on increasing, as they have done for the past 40 years or so. And now that the charitable deduction is proposed to be lowered to 28% from 35%, I doubt if this will make a difference in peoples' giving. Donors work around these things; they keep on giving, and they don't let a few points in the tax code prevent them from accomplishing their charitable objectives. Why?
First, because giving is from the heart. Those who want to give to charity, and are able, tend to go ahead and do that on a regular basis. The tax deduction is something of an incentive, but when donors are polled, it's way down the list. Only about 30% of donors acknowledge that the tax deduction is a motive for giving.
Second, because giving is from the head -- when the oxytocin runs, the checks get written. When people identify with those in need, they respond positively. So if we, as charities, are out there with strong, visual media promoting our case for support in compelling and motivating ways, we'll get those donations that are there to get. And as long as our boards and executives aren't afraid to invest in fundraising capacity -- and as long as fundraisers are out there forming and nurturing relationships with donors and prospects, then we're going to get the contributions we need to do our charitable mission.
The real tragedy of the situation is NOT that the President wants to lower the charitable deduction on those with incomes of more than $250,000. It's that the charities themselves are in panic mode, pulling back so hard and fast that they're destroying the ability of the professional fundraisers they employ to keep up those donor relationships that are so vital and that keep the donations coming. Boards and executives of charities in this area at least are running scared and cutting back on fundraising capabilty and infrastructure at just the time when it is most needed.
And there's good reason for many of them to be scared, too, because most of our more than 5000 charitable 501-c-3s in southeastern Michigan have not been doing their donor homework through recent years. They have not been out there forming relationships with donors, cultivating them, asking them repeatedly for their gifts and contributions to our various missions. The boards and executives, particularly in the thousands of small and mid-sized charities, have been stingy with their resources, failing to build good fundraising techniques and enlarge their pools of donors and prospects. We've been leaving a ton of money on the table by not getting out and asking anyone and everyone we see for assistance in charitable mission. It's not the President's fault; we've cut our own throats on this.
Consequently, as charities, we have no one else to blame but ourselves. I say leave the President to make the tax deduction decisions, and let the charities do a better job of applying the basics of fundraising on a day-to-day basis, so they can get the money they need to accomplish their charitable missions.
But there's another value at stake here, and along with it a better solution to the problem of taxing the wealthy. It is that we have, in essence, TWO tax codes. One for the wealthy and one for the rest of us. It's brought about by the disparity in the capital gains tax and the income tax. The wealthy may not have that much regular income. So if you drop the amount of the charitable deduction, you're not goin to net out that much income for the government to use. But the wealthy do have TONS of capital gains, and this can make up the lion's share of their income. And they are only being taxed 15% on those gains. Thus Warren Buffett was reported in the press recently as having said that his secretary is taxed more than he is!
So what to do? Mr. President, please just go ahead and forget about the charitable deduction, and please raise that capital gains tax to about 45%, OK? Now you're going to get some real money into the treasury, AND you're going to provide really wonderful incentives for charitable donations. Now the wealthy really have something to avoid. Charitable organization fundraisers could have a field day here and boost their nonprofit organization income significantly enough to take care of the great needs out there. At the same time, the U.S. Treasury will get a much bigger boost than it ever could with a paltry reduction in the charitable gift deduction.
Make sense? Sure. Unless you're wealthy. But then you have to figure that they elected to pursue money and try to get ahead of the pack in the first place so they could live better than the rest of us, so why shouldn't we, the pack, go after them in a big way!?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Voluntary Sector and Public Policy are a "Natural"
I had a discussion yesterday with a young man who is wanting to get into the fundraising profession from having been a business entrepreneur, also a history major at UM, graduated mid-1980s. We had a very interesting discussion ranging here and there through history and through the breadth and depth of the nonprofit sector. Parts of that discussion got me thinking, and my thoughts turned to "community." So today's diatribe has to do with how we all relate to one another in a multi-cultural, pluralistic society, the global community.
I'm thinking back to the roots of our democracy, and am being aware of the fact that the basic principles held by the Founding Fathers came out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. And, in fact, two aspects of our life in this country had their origins in this philosophy: democracy and capitalism.
It is interesting to note that Enlightenment liberalism was based on the individual, and held the individual as the center of its thought. So we have economic principles based on what an enlightened person would do; we have democratic principles based on what (presumably educated) individuals will do, or what they need to do to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And I have also seen "pursuit of happiness" translated as "property." Life, liberty and property.
Madison, for example, in dealing with "factions" in the Federalist papers understands the effects of individuals who happen to associate voluntarily with each other to do in their neighbor and profit at the neighbor's expense -- whether as persons or states. Hamilton had a few interesting things to say about individual states as factions within the larger colonial whole. The political arena is focused on individual states, or individual persons as the acting agents. The concepts of democracy do not necessarily fit well when it comes to groups or collectivities of people. We still think of them as individuals who happen to get together, but we don't think of them as communities that have some kind of integrity on their own. And we can see how this came out of a time when "collectivity" -- in terms of empire and church -- had become so completely oppressive as to subjugate and destroy the initiative and needs and aspirations of the individual..
Now we can see also how capitalism has evolved from feudal times. The feudal manor - the castle set amidst the farming community -- a symbiotic relationship. Then mercantilism -- the people of the countryside were the markets for the city, and the resources of the country focused on and were sent to the city, along with protectionism against traders from foreign city-states. Then colonialism, where the raw materials and resources of vassal states flowed to the colonial powers, and those vassal states were forced to purchase the manufactured goods of the colonial powers. "We'll take your raw materials, you'll buy our manufactures, and you cannot produce anything manufactured." I believe I recall that in the Chicago Freedom Movement we used to call that "plantation economics." To some extent, and J.W. Smith is very strong on this, the IMF debt structure for underdeveloped countries mirrors that economic tradition.
And then we can see how the Church, first Catholic, then Catholic or Protestant, cared for the basic community needs of mankind. Particularly in Catholicism we have the "religious communities" that were trying to be examples to the rest of the society on how we should live together as human beings, expressing the "community" nature of our psychic makeup In fact, early on in the development of the Holy Roman Empire, we can see government and church each struggling to gain the advantages of state and the advantages of community for itself. The church striving to take over the state, the state trying to preserve its integrity over against the Church and community. Another by-product here is the unfortunate fact that Protestantism neglected to carry with it anything that approximated the religious communities, and so was caught up in the web of thought and activities focused solely on individualism.
We can see that there is a need for governance for the people, someone to organize the resources, focus the resources on getting the people what they need to live. The state focuses on keeping enemies at bay, providing protection, providing administration of common concerns, such as crime, crop failure and famine, maybe disease control And we see the need for community -- getting together, being social animals, voluntarily associating together to do tasks, celebrate life, create moral underpinnings, ethical behavior, socialization of the "natural animal" in all of us. The church used to take care of this -- still does for those that believe. Up through the "Ike" generation there were strong elements of "Victorianism" that held the moral center together. But no longer today in a secular, multi-cultural, pluralistic society.
So here we have these two ideas brought together: democracy and capitalism. Individuals acting on their own behalf both economically and politically. But what we're lacking now is a sense of community -- or, more exactly, a "system" to deal with our life together -- particularly within a highly diverse, pluralistic society. When the church commanded everybody to worship the same way, the community was firmly in its hands. In a pluralistic society this cannot be the case. Yet we do need some "group" or "community" principles to guide everyday interactive behavior, whether in person or on the Internet. Democracy supplies the system for our governance; capitalism provides the means for bread, but what about the means of gathering together. I'm thinking of mores, ethical behavior, politeness (if you will) or the principles that guide every individual in social as well as civic conduct. Reining in greed, avarice, fear, distrust, hatred, flight and fight.
In the last half of the 19th century and into the first several decades of the 20th century, we had three related but distinct movements that tried to fashion systems that would bring together government and community. We had communism, socialism and fascism. Each was tried in many forms and instances. Each has failed. Was it the problem of trying to combine "community" with "governance"? Or was it an error in judgment about how to fashion communities in ways that meet human needs as individuals and human social needs? With communism you have the collective, with fascism the state as the primary "community." In one you toil with everyone else -- community is defined as those who labor together. In the other, we are proud to be people of a nationality, a country, a nation, a state, and in that we find our identity as the state shapes both conduct and destiny.
Whatever the problems and reasons for failure within communism, socialism and fascism, we are left today without an adequate set of principles for how we conduct ourselves as groups, or communities. So, for example, there is much within capitalism that promotes itself to individuals. But nothing that puts a cap on the pursuit of individual greed, the bent for injustice, the desire to make war on other people(s), the propensity to "grab" what the other kids in the sandbox have for one's self.
So how are we going to deal with this? In terms of government structure, the Founding Fathers, Madison included, found a way to deal with factions: we need to preserve liberty while defining boundaries for behavior. So we have, as part of government, a system of civil laws and penalties. But this doesn't really address the issues of "community" that involve arenas other than the ways we would do actual harm to each other. It doesn't, for example, address civility, manners, ethics, morality. It provides no guidelines for these, leaving it up to the individual to sort these things out according to individual beliefs. Again, the roots of Enlightenment liberalism are evident here. So we see the limits of this philosophy.
Yet we very much need something relating to "community" as we find ourselves in an increasingly globalized situation. We have a democratic system of government, we have a capitalistic system of economics. But what governs both the governors and the businessmen? What directs systems of legislation in ways that are more just, more human, more appropriate for society in which diverse peoples live peacefully together? What is it that governs and provides limits to the entrepreneurial spirit when it hitches its wagon to the star of incessant greed?
I am thinking we are in need of something here that government cannot provide, by the very nature of the constraints placed upon it, and that business will not provide, by virtue of its limited understanding of humans as solely economic beings. And where I am looking for "that something" these days is in the experience, the traditions, the sensitivities, the many impacts on society that the voluntary sector provides us. And I'm thinking that formation of national, state, or local public policy needs to be a three-way pursuit of government, business and the voluntary sector, working more ostensibly, and in a more structured way together, not just a two-way pursuit between business interests and government. And one of the chief and compelling reasons why I think this could work is that government and voluntary sector organizations have in common a value that business does not have: namely, the value of acting on behalf of the good of society -- the compulsion to make society continually better, more whole, more just, more peaceable for all citizens. Government has it in terms of what majority rule can bring. Nonprofits have it in terms of caring for all those who must, by virtue of circumstances or choice, stand outside the ruling majority's situation and decision.
So this is why -- in the name of and for the sake of "community" values -- that I would advocate for a distinct and recognized place at the public policy table for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. We tend to have the history and background, the skills, the diversity of experience over centuries, that bring more human values, more community-oriented values to the fore, and thus we are an appropriate complement to both government and capitalism in the fashioning of public policy.
I'm thinking back to the roots of our democracy, and am being aware of the fact that the basic principles held by the Founding Fathers came out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. And, in fact, two aspects of our life in this country had their origins in this philosophy: democracy and capitalism.
It is interesting to note that Enlightenment liberalism was based on the individual, and held the individual as the center of its thought. So we have economic principles based on what an enlightened person would do; we have democratic principles based on what (presumably educated) individuals will do, or what they need to do to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And I have also seen "pursuit of happiness" translated as "property." Life, liberty and property.
Madison, for example, in dealing with "factions" in the Federalist papers understands the effects of individuals who happen to associate voluntarily with each other to do in their neighbor and profit at the neighbor's expense -- whether as persons or states. Hamilton had a few interesting things to say about individual states as factions within the larger colonial whole. The political arena is focused on individual states, or individual persons as the acting agents. The concepts of democracy do not necessarily fit well when it comes to groups or collectivities of people. We still think of them as individuals who happen to get together, but we don't think of them as communities that have some kind of integrity on their own. And we can see how this came out of a time when "collectivity" -- in terms of empire and church -- had become so completely oppressive as to subjugate and destroy the initiative and needs and aspirations of the individual..
Now we can see also how capitalism has evolved from feudal times. The feudal manor - the castle set amidst the farming community -- a symbiotic relationship. Then mercantilism -- the people of the countryside were the markets for the city, and the resources of the country focused on and were sent to the city, along with protectionism against traders from foreign city-states. Then colonialism, where the raw materials and resources of vassal states flowed to the colonial powers, and those vassal states were forced to purchase the manufactured goods of the colonial powers. "We'll take your raw materials, you'll buy our manufactures, and you cannot produce anything manufactured." I believe I recall that in the Chicago Freedom Movement we used to call that "plantation economics." To some extent, and J.W. Smith is very strong on this, the IMF debt structure for underdeveloped countries mirrors that economic tradition.
And then we can see how the Church, first Catholic, then Catholic or Protestant, cared for the basic community needs of mankind. Particularly in Catholicism we have the "religious communities" that were trying to be examples to the rest of the society on how we should live together as human beings, expressing the "community" nature of our psychic makeup In fact, early on in the development of the Holy Roman Empire, we can see government and church each struggling to gain the advantages of state and the advantages of community for itself. The church striving to take over the state, the state trying to preserve its integrity over against the Church and community. Another by-product here is the unfortunate fact that Protestantism neglected to carry with it anything that approximated the religious communities, and so was caught up in the web of thought and activities focused solely on individualism.
We can see that there is a need for governance for the people, someone to organize the resources, focus the resources on getting the people what they need to live. The state focuses on keeping enemies at bay, providing protection, providing administration of common concerns, such as crime, crop failure and famine, maybe disease control And we see the need for community -- getting together, being social animals, voluntarily associating together to do tasks, celebrate life, create moral underpinnings, ethical behavior, socialization of the "natural animal" in all of us. The church used to take care of this -- still does for those that believe. Up through the "Ike" generation there were strong elements of "Victorianism" that held the moral center together. But no longer today in a secular, multi-cultural, pluralistic society.
So here we have these two ideas brought together: democracy and capitalism. Individuals acting on their own behalf both economically and politically. But what we're lacking now is a sense of community -- or, more exactly, a "system" to deal with our life together -- particularly within a highly diverse, pluralistic society. When the church commanded everybody to worship the same way, the community was firmly in its hands. In a pluralistic society this cannot be the case. Yet we do need some "group" or "community" principles to guide everyday interactive behavior, whether in person or on the Internet. Democracy supplies the system for our governance; capitalism provides the means for bread, but what about the means of gathering together. I'm thinking of mores, ethical behavior, politeness (if you will) or the principles that guide every individual in social as well as civic conduct. Reining in greed, avarice, fear, distrust, hatred, flight and fight.
In the last half of the 19th century and into the first several decades of the 20th century, we had three related but distinct movements that tried to fashion systems that would bring together government and community. We had communism, socialism and fascism. Each was tried in many forms and instances. Each has failed. Was it the problem of trying to combine "community" with "governance"? Or was it an error in judgment about how to fashion communities in ways that meet human needs as individuals and human social needs? With communism you have the collective, with fascism the state as the primary "community." In one you toil with everyone else -- community is defined as those who labor together. In the other, we are proud to be people of a nationality, a country, a nation, a state, and in that we find our identity as the state shapes both conduct and destiny.
Whatever the problems and reasons for failure within communism, socialism and fascism, we are left today without an adequate set of principles for how we conduct ourselves as groups, or communities. So, for example, there is much within capitalism that promotes itself to individuals. But nothing that puts a cap on the pursuit of individual greed, the bent for injustice, the desire to make war on other people(s), the propensity to "grab" what the other kids in the sandbox have for one's self.
So how are we going to deal with this? In terms of government structure, the Founding Fathers, Madison included, found a way to deal with factions: we need to preserve liberty while defining boundaries for behavior. So we have, as part of government, a system of civil laws and penalties. But this doesn't really address the issues of "community" that involve arenas other than the ways we would do actual harm to each other. It doesn't, for example, address civility, manners, ethics, morality. It provides no guidelines for these, leaving it up to the individual to sort these things out according to individual beliefs. Again, the roots of Enlightenment liberalism are evident here. So we see the limits of this philosophy.
Yet we very much need something relating to "community" as we find ourselves in an increasingly globalized situation. We have a democratic system of government, we have a capitalistic system of economics. But what governs both the governors and the businessmen? What directs systems of legislation in ways that are more just, more human, more appropriate for society in which diverse peoples live peacefully together? What is it that governs and provides limits to the entrepreneurial spirit when it hitches its wagon to the star of incessant greed?
I am thinking we are in need of something here that government cannot provide, by the very nature of the constraints placed upon it, and that business will not provide, by virtue of its limited understanding of humans as solely economic beings. And where I am looking for "that something" these days is in the experience, the traditions, the sensitivities, the many impacts on society that the voluntary sector provides us. And I'm thinking that formation of national, state, or local public policy needs to be a three-way pursuit of government, business and the voluntary sector, working more ostensibly, and in a more structured way together, not just a two-way pursuit between business interests and government. And one of the chief and compelling reasons why I think this could work is that government and voluntary sector organizations have in common a value that business does not have: namely, the value of acting on behalf of the good of society -- the compulsion to make society continually better, more whole, more just, more peaceable for all citizens. Government has it in terms of what majority rule can bring. Nonprofits have it in terms of caring for all those who must, by virtue of circumstances or choice, stand outside the ruling majority's situation and decision.
So this is why -- in the name of and for the sake of "community" values -- that I would advocate for a distinct and recognized place at the public policy table for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. We tend to have the history and background, the skills, the diversity of experience over centuries, that bring more human values, more community-oriented values to the fore, and thus we are an appropriate complement to both government and capitalism in the fashioning of public policy.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Getting Some Good done for Society
My thought today is that there are two ways to get some good done for society: We can either let the greed and egos of the business sector get us into such a terrible fix that we then need the governments around the world to bail out both the businesses and the rest of us, or we can bring our nonprofit organizations to the public policy table and let that set of values, history and expertise have a prominent role in setting the national political agenda.
Obviously the political parties aren't capable of doing society good unless they face a dire emergency. Here we are, having let the greed and speed of the financial community get the entire world into an economic depression, just so we can get some road and bridge construction, and some attention and serious money put behind the emphasis on a "green" environment and on our contry's education system. What's wrong with these values? Do we have to let ourselves come this close to total economic disaster in order to get some good done in society?
In other words, the banks and brokers, the short-sellers, the insurance companies and the runners of hedge funds are now responsible for getting us highway repairs, returning our focus on education and to such matters as the global warming effect? Well, thank you very much... I think.
All that greed and ego brought on a worldwide depression, and so now governments around the world are massing billions and trillions of dollars to get us back where we belong -- to a stable and preferably democratic economy. Is this the only set of solutions we can create? Is this the only way we can force political attention and focus financial resources on our basic infrastructure, our education and other values the help society and move it forward? Is it impossible for us, as Americans, or as world citizens, to do this voluntarily? What's wrong with this values picture?
Shame on us, as human beings! for letting greed and our warlike nature get us so far from caring for and maintaining the society in which we live, and from putting into place and maintaining the systems and the knowledge that we so urgently need and use daily. Surely there must be a better way?
Well, I'm here to say that there is a better way. In fact, there's a whole sector out here that the politicians and business tycoons are deliberatly and consistently ignoring. They call us the "nonprofit" sector, because they don't know how to think about us; they can't imagine that people would actually benefit by giving away the commodities of time and money just in order to do society some good. It's apparently beyond their imagination!
But, here we are. The Voluntary Sector. The Commons. We represent all that we have and hold together as members of the human community. In the U.S. alone, we have more than two hundred years worth of experience bringing a whole variety of good things to our society. We represent about 12% of the nation's GDP and employ about 12 million people in our charities. Around the world, the voluntary sector is growing as well. People in all countries, under a whole variety of political conditions, find it efficacious and rewarding to give themselves to others in ways that positively impact society.
And you know what we get out of it? We get internal satisfaction, meaning for our lives, the thanks and approbation of our peers, and a sense of real and significant achievement. These are the rewards of the voluntary sector. These are the rewards that build human beings in the best possible ways. It's not how much "stuff" you have or how much of the world's resources you amass for youself as protection against having to be in the "great antheap" of humanity and suffer what we all suffer. IT's doing things for other people. Because when we do that, we, too, are benefitted. All that profit doesn't mean a thing; when it all comes right down to it satisfaction is obtained by giving one's self away to others. That's how human beings are hard-wired. If you don't believe that, thsn look at the discoveries that are being made regularly these days in neuroscience and biochemistry. We're learning academically what the sages of old have told us for thousands of years: it's not how much gold you have, but how much you give away that brings satisfaction and contentment.
So what is this that we of the voluntary sector can't be invited to sit at the public policy table with the politicos and the entrenched money interests and try to help focus away from greed and ego and get on with life that brings benefits rather than recession to our people? It doesn't make any sense that business lobbyists get their way with congress while our representatives systematically exclude the voluntary sector from participation in setting the nation's policy agenda. Neither does it make sense that we should sideline the processes that make society better in favor of making a few individuals wealthy beyond all imagination. What kind of goal for society is that? Our values as a society are really screwed up if that's all the better we can do.
For a start, why don't we think about the fact that there are some things that don't belong to just whoever happens to have the capital to bring them to market. There are some parts of our society that belong to all of us. They should be treated differently than gadgets and widgets because we all have a stake in them, we all need them for survival in the twenty-first century. These constitute The Commons -- that which we all hold together. Business, and the markets, should not be the ones that determine how The Commons is run. There should be no profit in it at all. Elements of The Commons should not be run and governed by the profit motive. That which we all hold in common should be run by our "nonprofits" or the voluntary sector in partnership with government.
What are we talking about? Our air, our water, public transportation (rail, auto and air travel), food, shelter, education, health care. These are needed by every one of us for llfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They should not be treated as commodities, but should be made available to all. Business interests should not be allowed to foul the air and water, or ration our knowledge and education system, or our system of health care, on the basis of who can pay the most. Business, especially the insurance companies, should be driven from the health care system completely. Housing and food should not be run by the markets without significant regularion, strenuous oversight and public ownership.
In their place, the voluntary sector should be employed to provide these elements of The Commons to everyone in the society, under conditions that do not make anybody in the society poor or wealthy. It is the independent sector that has the history, the set of values, the experience to deal with The Commons. We need to find a way to de-couple government and business, and then bring forth a new partnership between government and the voluntary sector.
Look at the similarity in values. The values that are incumbent on government and those of the voluntary sector are so much more aligned than the values of government and those of business, markets or profit. If we created a firm and stable partnership between the independent sector and government, we might actually develop a society that is kind to its citizens, provides a safe, secure, stable environment in which to bring up our families, raise and educate our children and find meaningful life's work. There are ways to do this, and we need to get out of old, outmoded ways of thinking, put business in its proper place so society can prosper.
More in the next post on how we can do this.
Obviously the political parties aren't capable of doing society good unless they face a dire emergency. Here we are, having let the greed and speed of the financial community get the entire world into an economic depression, just so we can get some road and bridge construction, and some attention and serious money put behind the emphasis on a "green" environment and on our contry's education system. What's wrong with these values? Do we have to let ourselves come this close to total economic disaster in order to get some good done in society?
In other words, the banks and brokers, the short-sellers, the insurance companies and the runners of hedge funds are now responsible for getting us highway repairs, returning our focus on education and to such matters as the global warming effect? Well, thank you very much... I think.
All that greed and ego brought on a worldwide depression, and so now governments around the world are massing billions and trillions of dollars to get us back where we belong -- to a stable and preferably democratic economy. Is this the only set of solutions we can create? Is this the only way we can force political attention and focus financial resources on our basic infrastructure, our education and other values the help society and move it forward? Is it impossible for us, as Americans, or as world citizens, to do this voluntarily? What's wrong with this values picture?
Shame on us, as human beings! for letting greed and our warlike nature get us so far from caring for and maintaining the society in which we live, and from putting into place and maintaining the systems and the knowledge that we so urgently need and use daily. Surely there must be a better way?
Well, I'm here to say that there is a better way. In fact, there's a whole sector out here that the politicians and business tycoons are deliberatly and consistently ignoring. They call us the "nonprofit" sector, because they don't know how to think about us; they can't imagine that people would actually benefit by giving away the commodities of time and money just in order to do society some good. It's apparently beyond their imagination!
But, here we are. The Voluntary Sector. The Commons. We represent all that we have and hold together as members of the human community. In the U.S. alone, we have more than two hundred years worth of experience bringing a whole variety of good things to our society. We represent about 12% of the nation's GDP and employ about 12 million people in our charities. Around the world, the voluntary sector is growing as well. People in all countries, under a whole variety of political conditions, find it efficacious and rewarding to give themselves to others in ways that positively impact society.
And you know what we get out of it? We get internal satisfaction, meaning for our lives, the thanks and approbation of our peers, and a sense of real and significant achievement. These are the rewards of the voluntary sector. These are the rewards that build human beings in the best possible ways. It's not how much "stuff" you have or how much of the world's resources you amass for youself as protection against having to be in the "great antheap" of humanity and suffer what we all suffer. IT's doing things for other people. Because when we do that, we, too, are benefitted. All that profit doesn't mean a thing; when it all comes right down to it satisfaction is obtained by giving one's self away to others. That's how human beings are hard-wired. If you don't believe that, thsn look at the discoveries that are being made regularly these days in neuroscience and biochemistry. We're learning academically what the sages of old have told us for thousands of years: it's not how much gold you have, but how much you give away that brings satisfaction and contentment.
So what is this that we of the voluntary sector can't be invited to sit at the public policy table with the politicos and the entrenched money interests and try to help focus away from greed and ego and get on with life that brings benefits rather than recession to our people? It doesn't make any sense that business lobbyists get their way with congress while our representatives systematically exclude the voluntary sector from participation in setting the nation's policy agenda. Neither does it make sense that we should sideline the processes that make society better in favor of making a few individuals wealthy beyond all imagination. What kind of goal for society is that? Our values as a society are really screwed up if that's all the better we can do.
For a start, why don't we think about the fact that there are some things that don't belong to just whoever happens to have the capital to bring them to market. There are some parts of our society that belong to all of us. They should be treated differently than gadgets and widgets because we all have a stake in them, we all need them for survival in the twenty-first century. These constitute The Commons -- that which we all hold together. Business, and the markets, should not be the ones that determine how The Commons is run. There should be no profit in it at all. Elements of The Commons should not be run and governed by the profit motive. That which we all hold in common should be run by our "nonprofits" or the voluntary sector in partnership with government.
What are we talking about? Our air, our water, public transportation (rail, auto and air travel), food, shelter, education, health care. These are needed by every one of us for llfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They should not be treated as commodities, but should be made available to all. Business interests should not be allowed to foul the air and water, or ration our knowledge and education system, or our system of health care, on the basis of who can pay the most. Business, especially the insurance companies, should be driven from the health care system completely. Housing and food should not be run by the markets without significant regularion, strenuous oversight and public ownership.
In their place, the voluntary sector should be employed to provide these elements of The Commons to everyone in the society, under conditions that do not make anybody in the society poor or wealthy. It is the independent sector that has the history, the set of values, the experience to deal with The Commons. We need to find a way to de-couple government and business, and then bring forth a new partnership between government and the voluntary sector.
Look at the similarity in values. The values that are incumbent on government and those of the voluntary sector are so much more aligned than the values of government and those of business, markets or profit. If we created a firm and stable partnership between the independent sector and government, we might actually develop a society that is kind to its citizens, provides a safe, secure, stable environment in which to bring up our families, raise and educate our children and find meaningful life's work. There are ways to do this, and we need to get out of old, outmoded ways of thinking, put business in its proper place so society can prosper.
More in the next post on how we can do this.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Nonprofit Impact on World "Plunder by Trade?"
Well, this has been an interesting week. The best part, however, was reading about Mr. Obama relaxing with family and friends in Chicago over this long weekend. It's so great to understand that we have "one of us" in the White House at last. Here he is with friends in Chicago, playing basketball, watching the tournament on TV, eating in familiar restaurants, etc. It's just so folksy and "real life" in the sense that any of us might be doing the same thing. It's a real symbol of identiification with the people in the country. Getting out of Washington and being with "real" people must be refreshing for the Obamas and is also good for the rest of us just to see that this is happening.
Thr first of four inputs to the week was the comment in the NY Times for yesterday (Sunday): the banking crisis boils down to the fact that the largest banks simply have a mound of debt on top of which has been placed a pile of worthless securities. Maybe the time has come to really let the American people know just how dreadfully serious this whole thing is.
The guys who were supposed to be keeping the money safe were gambling it away trying to make themselves personally rich. But the most disturbing thing to me is that we don't seem to be able to mete out the necessary punishment for these guys. This I don't understand. I have written numerous times to Dingell, Stabenow and Levin, but outside of a couple of days of questioning by Congress, these bankers are getting away with murder. And what they're killing is our banking system.
One of my other inputs this week has been to read a most interesting and fairly technical book setting forth the research of Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz on the premium of a college education throughout the period of 1915 to 2005 in the United States. The title of the book is "The Race between Education and Tecynology" published by Belknap Press of Harvard Univ, 2008.
Basically, what the Goldin/Katz research boils down to for me is this: that up until the 1940s advances in technology consistently and gradually pushed up the level of education necessary to get jobs that paid middle-class wages. By and large, the number of people needed by increasing technologica advances in the workplace were available to be hired, as America benefitted from the land grant colleges and universities and went through the "high school phenomenon" that made it culturally mandatory to get a high school educaiton through those years. The differential between those with and those without a college degree was marked, and the premium of a college education outpaced that of a high school diploma.
Then WW II and strong unions, plus huge numbers of women in the work force, plus the GI Bill that gave higher education to so many, helped the number of people with college degrees (high skilled workers) increase to the point where they were pulling ahead of technological advancements. The premium on a college education went down a bit in this post-war years. But then technology began to pull ahead in the 1960s and 1970s and the premium of a college education increased.
But then in the 1980s to the present, a lack of emphasis on and funding for college and university education once again slowed down the number of highly skilled people available for the jobs that needed their expertise. That slowed the premium of a college education. And this is where we are now -- that we don't yet have an adequate supply of well-educated people to fill the jobs created by advancing technology. I'm not a political scientist, but my thought would be that this is yet another result of the Republican public policy shift to downsize government and place responsibility for doing social good on the backs of those who would choose to donate to it and fund it voluntarily out of the goodness of their heart. And, of course, there's not enough money (only about $300 billion a year) to get all those jobs done that need to be done, through voluntary contributions from the public.
The third input I've had this week has been my research into poverty -- in the world, in our nation, and in Michigan and Detroit. I'm doing this as part of putting together the Case for Support for a new campaign by a new client to increase their capability to handle the tremendous influx of poverty-induced problems faced by the people of the urban areas of southeast Michigan.
The state of our country, with regard to those who have low or no incomes is shocking! Much more than I remember in the 1960s and 1970s, and we thought it was bad then. It's a national disgrace the 15% of our people live below the poverty line. That this gap between rich and poor is widening at an incredible pace. That the gap is not just local, but national and worldwide. I'm sure you probably know the statistics better than I do, so won't include those. But they're completely shocking.
And then the fourth input for the week, also a result of my research on poverty, was the discovery of an economist and his several books over the last decade, all under the banner of "economic democracy." The author is Mr. J.W. Smith, who is described as a independent economicst with a PhD in political economics from Union Institute and University in Cleveland. He heads an outfit called the Institute for Economic Democracy. Have you ever heard of it? He espouses a more cooperative and democratic capitalism and claims the world is in a cycle of "plunder by trade" and is therefore locked into a cycle of violence and war.
The basic premise of his latest book "Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle of the Twenty-First Century" 4th ed. 2005, is that we have now extended the practices of colonialism to all the under-developed countries of the world. We have done this, he says, by using trading superiority to raid and plunder one country after another.
How this works, he says, is that we take out the natural resources of a country and then force them to buy our finished products, rather than giving the people of each country the means to turn their own raw materials and resources into finished products for export. England did the same to India and, for a time, to the American colonies.
Now we do it, in turn, on a global scale. He has harsh words for the U.S. and the IMF and the World Bank. He says that how this works is that we (wealthier companies and nations) see natural resources in the Third World that we need, and we understand that if those countries developed their own resources and had their own industrial capital and processed their own resources into consumer products, that we could not compete successfully with them. They could demand full value for their natural resources while simultaneously underselling the current developed world on manufactured product markets.
So the wealthier companies and nations set the rules, shape international institutions and influence communication in ways that shape trade in ways that are disadvantageous to the developing countries. Whether we support a dictatorship or a fledgling democracy, we make it hard for developing nations to break out from poverty, or to reduce dependency from the US or the IMF or the World Bank.
Smith says, "The Thirdl World remains poor because the powerful strive to dominate every choke-point of commerce. One key choke-point is political control through the 'co-respective' support of local elites." "If a government cannot be bought or otherwise controlled, corrupt groups will be financed and armed to overthrow that government." He calls it "plunder by trade" rather than "plunder by raid" as in the old colonial days. Societies and nations are caught in the trap of unequal trade. "Once unequal trades are in place, restructuring to equal trade would mean the severing of the arteries of commerce which provide the higher standard of living for the dominant society and collapse of those living standards would almost certainly trigger open revolt. So to forestall such restructuring to equal trade, the wealthier nations talk in terms of "national security" and "defense." Thus the world is trapped in that pattern of unequal trades today."
So, putting all these inputs together gives an interesting and somewhat depressing picture.
1. Our domestic public policy has allowed education to fall to near the bottom of national priorities, so that the gap between rich and poor is widening (Detroit high school graduates don't have the skills to get the jobs that might provide wages and salaries that could help them climb out of poverty).
2. Internationally, we are plundering other nations' raw materials, while encouraging them to purchase our finished goods. We encourage privatization and reduced protection of domestic industries in poor nations (and impose similar restraints on people in areas like Detroit at home).
3. We loan the pooorer countries money and then impose conditions that force those countries to export more raw materials in order to raise enough money to pay off their debts (and we have "welfare to work" policies that force people to take low-wage, high energy jobs that don't permit or encourage and supplement people to obtain an education that could help them obtain better jobs).
4. So resources from the poorer countries become even cheaper, which favors consumers in the West (and we promote a culture that demands consumption of commodities, rather than promoting a culture that supports and demands education for all people here in our area).
Smith describes this as the "spiraling race to the bottom." And then I'm reading about the statistics and conditions that describe "the bottom." Whether in Detroit, or in Mauritania or Mozambique or wherever, we have set up the conditions that keep poor people in poverty, and keep them becoming continually poorer. It's the result of economic plunder.
These are basically the same issues -- a little different teminology, but the same basic concepts -- that we were demonstrating and working against in Chicago during the "Freedom Movement" there during the late 1960s. "Daley politics, and Daley economics" were our daily fare. "Plantation economics" was what we experienced on the west and south sides of Chicago.
My question is, what is it that nonprofit organizations serving the needs of the poor can really do that is other than paliative? What ways can we start chopping away at the huge, strong roots of this giant "plunder-ty-trade" weed that has captured 37 million Americans and about 2 billion people -- one third of the world's population? Are there any ways that we can gather together, or structure ourselves, to begin to create any kind of serious damage to this system that fosters and thrives on isolation, separation and the gap between rich and poor? Is human greed and selfishness, as expressed in huge conglomerate companies and in world-leading governments controllable? Do we really have no alternative except to put up with this? I found the website of the Global Call to Action Against Pocerty (GCAP) very interesting in this light:
Thr first of four inputs to the week was the comment in the NY Times for yesterday (Sunday): the banking crisis boils down to the fact that the largest banks simply have a mound of debt on top of which has been placed a pile of worthless securities. Maybe the time has come to really let the American people know just how dreadfully serious this whole thing is.
The guys who were supposed to be keeping the money safe were gambling it away trying to make themselves personally rich. But the most disturbing thing to me is that we don't seem to be able to mete out the necessary punishment for these guys. This I don't understand. I have written numerous times to Dingell, Stabenow and Levin, but outside of a couple of days of questioning by Congress, these bankers are getting away with murder. And what they're killing is our banking system.
One of my other inputs this week has been to read a most interesting and fairly technical book setting forth the research of Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz on the premium of a college education throughout the period of 1915 to 2005 in the United States. The title of the book is "The Race between Education and Tecynology" published by Belknap Press of Harvard Univ, 2008.
Basically, what the Goldin/Katz research boils down to for me is this: that up until the 1940s advances in technology consistently and gradually pushed up the level of education necessary to get jobs that paid middle-class wages. By and large, the number of people needed by increasing technologica advances in the workplace were available to be hired, as America benefitted from the land grant colleges and universities and went through the "high school phenomenon" that made it culturally mandatory to get a high school educaiton through those years. The differential between those with and those without a college degree was marked, and the premium of a college education outpaced that of a high school diploma.
Then WW II and strong unions, plus huge numbers of women in the work force, plus the GI Bill that gave higher education to so many, helped the number of people with college degrees (high skilled workers) increase to the point where they were pulling ahead of technological advancements. The premium on a college education went down a bit in this post-war years. But then technology began to pull ahead in the 1960s and 1970s and the premium of a college education increased.
But then in the 1980s to the present, a lack of emphasis on and funding for college and university education once again slowed down the number of highly skilled people available for the jobs that needed their expertise. That slowed the premium of a college education. And this is where we are now -- that we don't yet have an adequate supply of well-educated people to fill the jobs created by advancing technology. I'm not a political scientist, but my thought would be that this is yet another result of the Republican public policy shift to downsize government and place responsibility for doing social good on the backs of those who would choose to donate to it and fund it voluntarily out of the goodness of their heart. And, of course, there's not enough money (only about $300 billion a year) to get all those jobs done that need to be done, through voluntary contributions from the public.
The third input I've had this week has been my research into poverty -- in the world, in our nation, and in Michigan and Detroit. I'm doing this as part of putting together the Case for Support for a new campaign by a new client to increase their capability to handle the tremendous influx of poverty-induced problems faced by the people of the urban areas of southeast Michigan.
The state of our country, with regard to those who have low or no incomes is shocking! Much more than I remember in the 1960s and 1970s, and we thought it was bad then. It's a national disgrace the 15% of our people live below the poverty line. That this gap between rich and poor is widening at an incredible pace. That the gap is not just local, but national and worldwide. I'm sure you probably know the statistics better than I do, so won't include those. But they're completely shocking.
And then the fourth input for the week, also a result of my research on poverty, was the discovery of an economist and his several books over the last decade, all under the banner of "economic democracy." The author is Mr. J.W. Smith, who is described as a independent economicst with a PhD in political economics from Union Institute and University in Cleveland. He heads an outfit called the Institute for Economic Democracy. Have you ever heard of it? He espouses a more cooperative and democratic capitalism and claims the world is in a cycle of "plunder by trade" and is therefore locked into a cycle of violence and war.
The basic premise of his latest book "Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle of the Twenty-First Century" 4th ed. 2005, is that we have now extended the practices of colonialism to all the under-developed countries of the world. We have done this, he says, by using trading superiority to raid and plunder one country after another.
How this works, he says, is that we take out the natural resources of a country and then force them to buy our finished products, rather than giving the people of each country the means to turn their own raw materials and resources into finished products for export. England did the same to India and, for a time, to the American colonies.
Now we do it, in turn, on a global scale. He has harsh words for the U.S. and the IMF and the World Bank. He says that how this works is that we (wealthier companies and nations) see natural resources in the Third World that we need, and we understand that if those countries developed their own resources and had their own industrial capital and processed their own resources into consumer products, that we could not compete successfully with them. They could demand full value for their natural resources while simultaneously underselling the current developed world on manufactured product markets.
So the wealthier companies and nations set the rules, shape international institutions and influence communication in ways that shape trade in ways that are disadvantageous to the developing countries. Whether we support a dictatorship or a fledgling democracy, we make it hard for developing nations to break out from poverty, or to reduce dependency from the US or the IMF or the World Bank.
Smith says, "The Thirdl World remains poor because the powerful strive to dominate every choke-point of commerce. One key choke-point is political control through the 'co-respective' support of local elites." "If a government cannot be bought or otherwise controlled, corrupt groups will be financed and armed to overthrow that government." He calls it "plunder by trade" rather than "plunder by raid" as in the old colonial days. Societies and nations are caught in the trap of unequal trade. "Once unequal trades are in place, restructuring to equal trade would mean the severing of the arteries of commerce which provide the higher standard of living for the dominant society and collapse of those living standards would almost certainly trigger open revolt. So to forestall such restructuring to equal trade, the wealthier nations talk in terms of "national security" and "defense." Thus the world is trapped in that pattern of unequal trades today."
So, putting all these inputs together gives an interesting and somewhat depressing picture.
1. Our domestic public policy has allowed education to fall to near the bottom of national priorities, so that the gap between rich and poor is widening (Detroit high school graduates don't have the skills to get the jobs that might provide wages and salaries that could help them climb out of poverty).
2. Internationally, we are plundering other nations' raw materials, while encouraging them to purchase our finished goods. We encourage privatization and reduced protection of domestic industries in poor nations (and impose similar restraints on people in areas like Detroit at home).
3. We loan the pooorer countries money and then impose conditions that force those countries to export more raw materials in order to raise enough money to pay off their debts (and we have "welfare to work" policies that force people to take low-wage, high energy jobs that don't permit or encourage and supplement people to obtain an education that could help them obtain better jobs).
4. So resources from the poorer countries become even cheaper, which favors consumers in the West (and we promote a culture that demands consumption of commodities, rather than promoting a culture that supports and demands education for all people here in our area).
Smith describes this as the "spiraling race to the bottom." And then I'm reading about the statistics and conditions that describe "the bottom." Whether in Detroit, or in Mauritania or Mozambique or wherever, we have set up the conditions that keep poor people in poverty, and keep them becoming continually poorer. It's the result of economic plunder.
These are basically the same issues -- a little different teminology, but the same basic concepts -- that we were demonstrating and working against in Chicago during the "Freedom Movement" there during the late 1960s. "Daley politics, and Daley economics" were our daily fare. "Plantation economics" was what we experienced on the west and south sides of Chicago.
My question is, what is it that nonprofit organizations serving the needs of the poor can really do that is other than paliative? What ways can we start chopping away at the huge, strong roots of this giant "plunder-ty-trade" weed that has captured 37 million Americans and about 2 billion people -- one third of the world's population? Are there any ways that we can gather together, or structure ourselves, to begin to create any kind of serious damage to this system that fosters and thrives on isolation, separation and the gap between rich and poor? Is human greed and selfishness, as expressed in huge conglomerate companies and in world-leading governments controllable? Do we really have no alternative except to put up with this? I found the website of the Global Call to Action Against Pocerty (GCAP) very interesting in this light:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Arrogance of Bankers an Example to Charities?
I'm really amazed and profoundly irritated at the arrogance of the banking community in their use of and lack of accountability for the huge amounts of public funds pumped into their institutions to prop them up.
First, because these bankers got us into this mess with their greed.
Second, because if nonprofits followed their example, we'd all have been ridden out of town on a rail a long time ago. The American public -- our donors -- wouldn't stand for such arrogance in nonprofits. But apparently it's OK for bankers and financial wizards to pull this stuff!
Third, when it comes to righting the public policy wrongs promulgated by the Republican conservatives over the past 3 decades, we find that the nonprofit sector isn't even invited to the table. Even though we represent fully 10% of the nation's GDP and employ over 12 million people and have 2 million voluntary organizations, we still are not asked our opinion on how to make society better. Even though we historically have the highest social values; even though we have the skills and expertise far beyond business and government; even though we're involved in community issues of making society better every day in the trenches; still we do not get an invitation to make public policy along with the business interests and government agencies.
Why is that?
So here these arrogant bankers are blasting away, asking for more money, hoarding the peoples' cash in their vaults, refusing to account for it, refusing even to admit that they're the ones who got us into this worldwide economic depression. And they refuse to apologize for what they have done in their haste to grab billions for themselves. It's a disgrace, not only the the banking community, and the banking institutions within our communities; it's a disgrace to the whole financial marketplace.
In fact, if nothing else, this debacle should confirm once and for all that so-called "free markets" or unregulated markets, are, in fact, sick markets. The true measure of a well-run marketplace is the extent to which it is taxed and regulated. An untaxed, unregulated marketplace is a sadly deficient market, one that soon runs amok on human greed.
I believe the nonprofit sector should not pass up this opportunity to interject some better values into the government and market system by insisting on a continual place, a prominent place, at the public policy-setting table. The voluntary associations of this nation, cooperating and collaborating together, could do away with some of this mayhem and get on with creating a society fit to live in for everyday, normal, working individuals and families. We could do away with this rampant greed and speculation and the constant belief that everything must increase, and preferably faster than the next guy. That's no kind of life.
Let's get a better society; let's pay attention to the collective values of the non-profits sector; let's give nonprofits a prominent place in the formation of public policy and not always keep them begging on the edges for every little crumb and tidbit of consideration by the Congress and President.
Comment anyone?
First, because these bankers got us into this mess with their greed.
Second, because if nonprofits followed their example, we'd all have been ridden out of town on a rail a long time ago. The American public -- our donors -- wouldn't stand for such arrogance in nonprofits. But apparently it's OK for bankers and financial wizards to pull this stuff!
Third, when it comes to righting the public policy wrongs promulgated by the Republican conservatives over the past 3 decades, we find that the nonprofit sector isn't even invited to the table. Even though we represent fully 10% of the nation's GDP and employ over 12 million people and have 2 million voluntary organizations, we still are not asked our opinion on how to make society better. Even though we historically have the highest social values; even though we have the skills and expertise far beyond business and government; even though we're involved in community issues of making society better every day in the trenches; still we do not get an invitation to make public policy along with the business interests and government agencies.
Why is that?
So here these arrogant bankers are blasting away, asking for more money, hoarding the peoples' cash in their vaults, refusing to account for it, refusing even to admit that they're the ones who got us into this worldwide economic depression. And they refuse to apologize for what they have done in their haste to grab billions for themselves. It's a disgrace, not only the the banking community, and the banking institutions within our communities; it's a disgrace to the whole financial marketplace.
In fact, if nothing else, this debacle should confirm once and for all that so-called "free markets" or unregulated markets, are, in fact, sick markets. The true measure of a well-run marketplace is the extent to which it is taxed and regulated. An untaxed, unregulated marketplace is a sadly deficient market, one that soon runs amok on human greed.
I believe the nonprofit sector should not pass up this opportunity to interject some better values into the government and market system by insisting on a continual place, a prominent place, at the public policy-setting table. The voluntary associations of this nation, cooperating and collaborating together, could do away with some of this mayhem and get on with creating a society fit to live in for everyday, normal, working individuals and families. We could do away with this rampant greed and speculation and the constant belief that everything must increase, and preferably faster than the next guy. That's no kind of life.
Let's get a better society; let's pay attention to the collective values of the non-profits sector; let's give nonprofits a prominent place in the formation of public policy and not always keep them begging on the edges for every little crumb and tidbit of consideration by the Congress and President.
Comment anyone?
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Having the Cake and Eating it Too
Seems to me that Americans who are concerned about any of our contemporary issues, and who express that caring by volunteering and giving financial support to nonprofit organizations, tend to want their cake and eat it, too. Here's what I mean.
On the one hand we read a lot in the press, see it in the media, and read it in the blogs of so-called "charity watchdogs," that Americans have a proclivity to want every last dollar they give to charity to go directly to whoever the target population is: the homeless, the poor, the needy, the people who we're trying to help. And this appears to be true whether the people we're trying to help are here in the U.S. or halfway around the world.
What do we want? We want our dollars to go where they will "do the most good " And I assume that by the phrase "do the most good" we generally mean that we want these charities to be effective in accomplishing their stated mission with their targeted client populstion. Right? Certainly a laudable motivation, to want your money to be used wisely, prudently, and in ways that get the most effective results for the dollar.
But then look at the other side of that coin. We also don't want our money to go to fundraising, salaries, overhead, etc. We've been trained that this is not good.
We've been cautioned that it's not good to have our contributions used for the salaries of those who help the poor and needy; we don't want our dollars to go for advertising and promotion; we don't want them to go for training for program staff or boards of directors. The charity dogs of the watch tell us, in their wisdom, that these things are wasteful. They caution us to use those "ratios" of money to recipients vs. money for the organization itself. As if any charity's staff and its capability were not synonomous with service.
You see, charities are not like businesses. In charities the people who work there ARE the service. Without the staff, without the boards, without the fundraisers and the fundraising, there would BE NO SERVICE. So you want to cut the charities off at the knees? This is nuts! But it's happening.
Consequently America's charities are operating, as Paul C. Light says in his book "Sustaining Nonprofit Performance," with less capacity than they need in order to be effective. Just look at the miserly way boards of directors pinch pennies on training and professional growth for their staff, or for their better governance, and for fundraising infrastructure and staff to do the fundraising job. Look at the ways these "charity watchdogs" try to get donors to use business ratios in deciding which charities are going to get their money. It's ridiculour!
What's wrong with it? It keeps the charities poorly equipped, it leaves them without the capacity to succeed. That's what's wrong with it.
And, at the same time, the baby boomers and Gen-Xers are very particular about giving to charities that they judge to be "effective" in mission accomplishment. They want to give to those enterprises that are succeeding, that are making significant and measurable dents in the problems they're trying to solve.
So can we have it both ways? Can we insist that charities use every last cent we give them to shower "services" (whatever we think we mean by that word) on the homeless, the poor, the needy, etc. and still expect that they be effective and produce measurable results, when we aren't willing for them to use some of our money to invest in doing those jobs well? That's what's ridiculous about it.
Take, for instance, the op-ed column in today's New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof, entitled "The Sin in Doing Good Deeds." He discusses some of the points made by Dan Pallotta in his book "Uncharitable, as he "seethes with indignation at public expectations that charities be prudent, nonprofit and saintly."
The point Pallotta is making (and Kristof, I assume) is that if you want to raise a lot of money for charity in today's marketplace, you have to spend some money to find, identify and get a powerful, motivating message out to those who have a proclivity for the kind of charitable services for which you're trying to raise money. But in order to do that, it takes professional expertise and experience. It takes people who know design, printing and media production. It takes professional fundraisers who know how to give donors the kind of relationship and attention that keeps them excited about a project and giving to it. And then what do we want? Do we want all these people to work for free?! We don't want any of our money to go to pay for their expertise? This is nuts!
Charities cannot succeed in their mission without training, without sustenance, without the tools with which to do the job. And they can't do it without enough money to allow them to make serious and lasting inroads on the social problems they're trying to attack. And yet we insist "no money for training, salaries, fundraising, advertising, publicity" or anything else that might help get the job done in a businesslike fashion.
What is the American public, as led by the media and the "watchdogs," thinking of? We've got things confused here. We wouldn't operate a business that way. Why should we expect this of the charities we support?
Incidentally, as Pogo would say, "We have met the enemy, and they is us." 100 million of our 300 million people in this country work for, volunteer for or give to charity every year. So who is this "American public" anyhow? And since at least a third of us are presumably reasonably familiar with the ins and outs of charitable work, why would we have such contradictory attitudes about giving?
It's ridiculous!
OK,now, it's your turn.
On the one hand we read a lot in the press, see it in the media, and read it in the blogs of so-called "charity watchdogs," that Americans have a proclivity to want every last dollar they give to charity to go directly to whoever the target population is: the homeless, the poor, the needy, the people who we're trying to help. And this appears to be true whether the people we're trying to help are here in the U.S. or halfway around the world.
What do we want? We want our dollars to go where they will "do the most good " And I assume that by the phrase "do the most good" we generally mean that we want these charities to be effective in accomplishing their stated mission with their targeted client populstion. Right? Certainly a laudable motivation, to want your money to be used wisely, prudently, and in ways that get the most effective results for the dollar.
But then look at the other side of that coin. We also don't want our money to go to fundraising, salaries, overhead, etc. We've been trained that this is not good.
We've been cautioned that it's not good to have our contributions used for the salaries of those who help the poor and needy; we don't want our dollars to go for advertising and promotion; we don't want them to go for training for program staff or boards of directors. The charity dogs of the watch tell us, in their wisdom, that these things are wasteful. They caution us to use those "ratios" of money to recipients vs. money for the organization itself. As if any charity's staff and its capability were not synonomous with service.
You see, charities are not like businesses. In charities the people who work there ARE the service. Without the staff, without the boards, without the fundraisers and the fundraising, there would BE NO SERVICE. So you want to cut the charities off at the knees? This is nuts! But it's happening.
Consequently America's charities are operating, as Paul C. Light says in his book "Sustaining Nonprofit Performance," with less capacity than they need in order to be effective. Just look at the miserly way boards of directors pinch pennies on training and professional growth for their staff, or for their better governance, and for fundraising infrastructure and staff to do the fundraising job. Look at the ways these "charity watchdogs" try to get donors to use business ratios in deciding which charities are going to get their money. It's ridiculour!
What's wrong with it? It keeps the charities poorly equipped, it leaves them without the capacity to succeed. That's what's wrong with it.
And, at the same time, the baby boomers and Gen-Xers are very particular about giving to charities that they judge to be "effective" in mission accomplishment. They want to give to those enterprises that are succeeding, that are making significant and measurable dents in the problems they're trying to solve.
So can we have it both ways? Can we insist that charities use every last cent we give them to shower "services" (whatever we think we mean by that word) on the homeless, the poor, the needy, etc. and still expect that they be effective and produce measurable results, when we aren't willing for them to use some of our money to invest in doing those jobs well? That's what's ridiculous about it.
Take, for instance, the op-ed column in today's New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof, entitled "The Sin in Doing Good Deeds." He discusses some of the points made by Dan Pallotta in his book "Uncharitable, as he "seethes with indignation at public expectations that charities be prudent, nonprofit and saintly."
The point Pallotta is making (and Kristof, I assume) is that if you want to raise a lot of money for charity in today's marketplace, you have to spend some money to find, identify and get a powerful, motivating message out to those who have a proclivity for the kind of charitable services for which you're trying to raise money. But in order to do that, it takes professional expertise and experience. It takes people who know design, printing and media production. It takes professional fundraisers who know how to give donors the kind of relationship and attention that keeps them excited about a project and giving to it. And then what do we want? Do we want all these people to work for free?! We don't want any of our money to go to pay for their expertise? This is nuts!
Charities cannot succeed in their mission without training, without sustenance, without the tools with which to do the job. And they can't do it without enough money to allow them to make serious and lasting inroads on the social problems they're trying to attack. And yet we insist "no money for training, salaries, fundraising, advertising, publicity" or anything else that might help get the job done in a businesslike fashion.
What is the American public, as led by the media and the "watchdogs," thinking of? We've got things confused here. We wouldn't operate a business that way. Why should we expect this of the charities we support?
Incidentally, as Pogo would say, "We have met the enemy, and they is us." 100 million of our 300 million people in this country work for, volunteer for or give to charity every year. So who is this "American public" anyhow? And since at least a third of us are presumably reasonably familiar with the ins and outs of charitable work, why would we have such contradictory attitudes about giving?
It's ridiculous!
OK,now, it's your turn.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
How many personal visits per week to donors/prospects?
I have recently been asked, "How many visits to donors should I be making per week." This question might come from an executive director, or it might come from the director of development, or it might come from the major and planned gifts officer. So here's the answer...
Here's how I do it.
1. Go to the report forms that you're going to fill out -- your monthly activities report form. This is your accountability mechanism for reporting all that you do for the fundraising effort each month. You DO have one of those, don't you? If not, why not?
2. Decide what I want to have as the end report for a given month. Say 20 visits
3. Go ahead in the calendar to the point where appointments begin to thin out.
4. Figure a set period of time, on set days of the month, when I will intentionally prioritize personal visitation over anything and everything else NO MATTER WHAT
I used to look ahead and program 2 weeks in the field, 2 weeks in the office. I worked it around board meetings, staff meetings, and moved what had to be moved. Your situation will be different, but the principle is the same. Set aside time in advance and protect it with all the guns you have.
5. Figure that I've got so many hours. Let's say I set aside a day and a half a week, but I vary the days so as to accommodate peoples' schedules Tuesday and half of Wednesday on the first week of the month, then Wednesday and half of Thursday the next week, then repeat the pattern for the remaining two weeks.
6. Then I start with time needed to do an appointment. I need a half hour for the visit or one hour, whatever. I have time in transport from one appointment to another. I have lunches to schedule, etc. So, let's say I can do two appointments the first Tuesday, then a lunch appointment, then two afternoon appointments, get back to the office about 4 and go through the mail and email, return calls, etc. etc. So that's five people I've seen that day. Then Wednesday take morning and lunch or take lunch and afternoon. Three people. That's eight people that week, right?
7. Start a spreadsheet of open appointment times, so that I can fill in as I go
8. Take my average of 8 appointments per week, go to my database -- my list of prospects that I've picked out to visit -- for a variety of reasons, of course. Find my top 12 people. I know that if I start with 12 I can get 8 appointments on my schedule and will have to do the other 4 on THEIR terms.
9. Pick up the phone, call the first person. Slot their appointment in so that it meets my schedule and theirs.
10. Pick up the phone call the second person, etc. etc. Fill the appointment blanks of the spreadsheet you're using as the people decide what time is best for them
11. Pick up the phone; then pick up the phone again, then pick it up again. Keep this up for an hour. Fill in the spreadsheet as you go.
12 You're done for the first week.
NEXT DAY
1. pick up the phone (PUTP) repeatedly for just 1 hour. Make the appointments for the second week.
NEXT WEEK
1. Pick up the phone repeatedly for just 1 hour. Make the appointments for the third week
THE FOLLOWING WEEK
1. Pick up the phone repeatedly for just 1 hour. Make the appointments for the fourth week.
Keep this cycle going. You're basically working about three weeks' worth of appointments ahead. Once you get that going, NOTHING gets in the way of it. Because you've already sewed up those time slots, right? Simple.
In other words, once you have made the priority decisions necessary, block it out on the calendar. Keep it sacred -- absolutely NOTHING gets through this, OK? Anybody comes along with a different suggestion for your use of your time, they get a growl and bared teeth! OK? Seriously.
Then just pick up the phone (PUTP), fill the spreadsheet of appointment blanks. Keep going in the first round until all are filled. Then you'll know what that 1-hour thing up above is all about.
It usually takes me about an hour to fill somewhere between 8 to 12 appoitment slots. And so I'm actually making maybe 20 calls in that hour. The rest are people who will get back with me -- I've left messages with them, or they're duds, or whatever.
The biggest block, and the biggest indicator of success, is
a. how many times you pick up the phone in that one hour, and then
b. how many of those spreadsheet slots you fill in with peoples' names that means scheduled appointments.
That's the only trick there is to it. PUTP, PUTP, PUTP, PUTP. Pick Up The Phone.
It gets monotonous after a while when you get good at it. But it's the threshold you have to cross to get that absolutely WONDERFUL feeling of success in a task that you set yourself to do.
AND... to top it all off, you get to go out of the office on completely legitimate business, get away from the hassles, the meetings, the politics, and meet some absolutely MARVELOUS people, and spend some time in their presence learning about their needs, wants and values, their life's story, and how they feel about your organization.
It is, I must say, an EXHILARATING EXPERIENCE when you've done it. I would even say "addictive" in the sense that the next time it's so much easier that it was the first time, etc. etc.
Know what I mean?
So the answer to your question comes in the first six steps. Once you've got that psyched out, and have the days marked on the calendar.... that's it: That's how many you should be doing.
When I was doing it two weeks out and two weeks in, I did about 6 appointments, maybe seven sometimes, a day. Six days the first week out, then five the second week. So that was about 36 slots to fill for the one week and about 30 slots to fill for the second week. So that month I could visit about 66 people -- ON AVERAGE.
Not everything worked out so smoothly. Sometimes I'd have a two-hour drive to the next appointment, sometimes the guy was a no-show, sometimes I could only fit in 3 appointments in a day's time -- you know, depending on where it was, etc. So the process needs some flexibility in approach. But you can see how this adds up over time. Makes a REAL GOOD LOOKING activities report for the month! I can tell you that!
That's how it's done.
Here's how I do it.
1. Go to the report forms that you're going to fill out -- your monthly activities report form. This is your accountability mechanism for reporting all that you do for the fundraising effort each month. You DO have one of those, don't you? If not, why not?
2. Decide what I want to have as the end report for a given month. Say 20 visits
3. Go ahead in the calendar to the point where appointments begin to thin out.
4. Figure a set period of time, on set days of the month, when I will intentionally prioritize personal visitation over anything and everything else NO MATTER WHAT
I used to look ahead and program 2 weeks in the field, 2 weeks in the office. I worked it around board meetings, staff meetings, and moved what had to be moved. Your situation will be different, but the principle is the same. Set aside time in advance and protect it with all the guns you have.
5. Figure that I've got so many hours. Let's say I set aside a day and a half a week, but I vary the days so as to accommodate peoples' schedules Tuesday and half of Wednesday on the first week of the month, then Wednesday and half of Thursday the next week, then repeat the pattern for the remaining two weeks.
6. Then I start with time needed to do an appointment. I need a half hour for the visit or one hour, whatever. I have time in transport from one appointment to another. I have lunches to schedule, etc. So, let's say I can do two appointments the first Tuesday, then a lunch appointment, then two afternoon appointments, get back to the office about 4 and go through the mail and email, return calls, etc. etc. So that's five people I've seen that day. Then Wednesday take morning and lunch or take lunch and afternoon. Three people. That's eight people that week, right?
7. Start a spreadsheet of open appointment times, so that I can fill in as I go
8. Take my average of 8 appointments per week, go to my database -- my list of prospects that I've picked out to visit -- for a variety of reasons, of course. Find my top 12 people. I know that if I start with 12 I can get 8 appointments on my schedule and will have to do the other 4 on THEIR terms.
9. Pick up the phone, call the first person. Slot their appointment in so that it meets my schedule and theirs.
10. Pick up the phone call the second person, etc. etc. Fill the appointment blanks of the spreadsheet you're using as the people decide what time is best for them
11. Pick up the phone; then pick up the phone again, then pick it up again. Keep this up for an hour. Fill in the spreadsheet as you go.
12 You're done for the first week.
NEXT DAY
1. pick up the phone (PUTP) repeatedly for just 1 hour. Make the appointments for the second week.
NEXT WEEK
1. Pick up the phone repeatedly for just 1 hour. Make the appointments for the third week
THE FOLLOWING WEEK
1. Pick up the phone repeatedly for just 1 hour. Make the appointments for the fourth week.
Keep this cycle going. You're basically working about three weeks' worth of appointments ahead. Once you get that going, NOTHING gets in the way of it. Because you've already sewed up those time slots, right? Simple.
In other words, once you have made the priority decisions necessary, block it out on the calendar. Keep it sacred -- absolutely NOTHING gets through this, OK? Anybody comes along with a different suggestion for your use of your time, they get a growl and bared teeth! OK? Seriously.
Then just pick up the phone (PUTP), fill the spreadsheet of appointment blanks. Keep going in the first round until all are filled. Then you'll know what that 1-hour thing up above is all about.
It usually takes me about an hour to fill somewhere between 8 to 12 appoitment slots. And so I'm actually making maybe 20 calls in that hour. The rest are people who will get back with me -- I've left messages with them, or they're duds, or whatever.
The biggest block, and the biggest indicator of success, is
a. how many times you pick up the phone in that one hour, and then
b. how many of those spreadsheet slots you fill in with peoples' names that means scheduled appointments.
That's the only trick there is to it. PUTP, PUTP, PUTP, PUTP. Pick Up The Phone.
It gets monotonous after a while when you get good at it. But it's the threshold you have to cross to get that absolutely WONDERFUL feeling of success in a task that you set yourself to do.
AND... to top it all off, you get to go out of the office on completely legitimate business, get away from the hassles, the meetings, the politics, and meet some absolutely MARVELOUS people, and spend some time in their presence learning about their needs, wants and values, their life's story, and how they feel about your organization.
It is, I must say, an EXHILARATING EXPERIENCE when you've done it. I would even say "addictive" in the sense that the next time it's so much easier that it was the first time, etc. etc.
Know what I mean?
So the answer to your question comes in the first six steps. Once you've got that psyched out, and have the days marked on the calendar.... that's it: That's how many you should be doing.
When I was doing it two weeks out and two weeks in, I did about 6 appointments, maybe seven sometimes, a day. Six days the first week out, then five the second week. So that was about 36 slots to fill for the one week and about 30 slots to fill for the second week. So that month I could visit about 66 people -- ON AVERAGE.
Not everything worked out so smoothly. Sometimes I'd have a two-hour drive to the next appointment, sometimes the guy was a no-show, sometimes I could only fit in 3 appointments in a day's time -- you know, depending on where it was, etc. So the process needs some flexibility in approach. But you can see how this adds up over time. Makes a REAL GOOD LOOKING activities report for the month! I can tell you that!
That's how it's done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
