The NYT business section had a story this morning about Open Book, a Minneapolis nonprofit that is the combination of four literary- and book-related organziations (plus a coffee shop, of course), all housed in a beautiful old mill. It's kind of a Mass MoCA for the literary crowd.
The article is slanted towards a real estate/development story, so it leaves out the business details I would have found most interesting--like how does the four-way partnership work? What's the relationship between the member organizations and the umbrella organization?
Also this morning, the Stanford Social Innovation review website introduced me to a related term: the Management Service Organization. Basically, this refers to organizations formed by combinations of small businesses, often nonprofits, to share "back room" administrative resources such as HR and accounting. You are going to be hearing more about them.
btw, the Times article mentions that the Loft Literary Center, one of the members of Open Book and an NPO crush of mine for a long time, earned $570,000 in tuitions last year and has 3,000 members. Swoon!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Creativity vs. Measurement
Several times in the last few months I have name-checked (and linked to) the new research published by WolfBrown about measuring impact among performing arts audiences. The study has generated a great deal of discussion in the arts blogosphere, partly because it seems to provide a part of an answer to a bigger question about measuring the impact of all kinds of arts, even of all kinds of nonprofit organizations. "Measuring impact" is a holy grail for those who would like to improve the performance of nonprofit organizations across the board, who would like a way to identify great nonprofits as opposed to the merely good, and especially for those who are interested in developing new forms of capital markets for nonprofits. To oversimplify: capital markets work for for-profits because there are universally recognized measures for results, such as share price. If there were such measures for nonprofits, or even for parts of the nonprofit sector, a capital market could emerge around it. [I leave a space here for those whose cocked eyes are watching the turmoil in financial markets and wondering just why the nonprofit sector would want to copy that system right now. ]
Anyway, it's an important study and very much at the forefront of the discussion of the future of the arts sector. And, like any important discussion, there are dissenters. Jason Grote's piece in a blog about the upcoming National Performing Arts Conference gives one such voice, though he would have a stronger argument if he had actually read the WolfBrown study or could speak towards its methodology. Grote namechecks Mike Daisey (who returns the favor), but who also now is performing his "How Theater Failed America" at Joe's Pub in New York. "How Theater Failed America" is very much on this same subject--here's the NYT review, here's a review of the review in Gawker of all places. And here is a piece Daisey wrote for Seattle's The Stranger that gives you the gist.
Does one have to choose between commerce and creativity? Is measurement of audience response inimical to true creativity? Does our current system (patchwork as it is) allow for theatres (or other artists) to be truly, fully creative, even if that means offending audiences and potential funders? What are the alternatives?
Anyway, it's an important study and very much at the forefront of the discussion of the future of the arts sector. And, like any important discussion, there are dissenters. Jason Grote's piece in a blog about the upcoming National Performing Arts Conference gives one such voice, though he would have a stronger argument if he had actually read the WolfBrown study or could speak towards its methodology. Grote namechecks Mike Daisey (who returns the favor), but who also now is performing his "How Theater Failed America" at Joe's Pub in New York. "How Theater Failed America" is very much on this same subject--here's the NYT review, here's a review of the review in Gawker of all places. And here is a piece Daisey wrote for Seattle's The Stranger that gives you the gist.
Does one have to choose between commerce and creativity? Is measurement of audience response inimical to true creativity? Does our current system (patchwork as it is) allow for theatres (or other artists) to be truly, fully creative, even if that means offending audiences and potential funders? What are the alternatives?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Philly NetSquared -- Meetup on May 6
A recent post about TechSoup generated an email from a member of a new TechSoup sponsored initiative, NetSquared . NetSquared is all about helping nonprofits use the "social web," or Web 2.0, as the kids call it.
We have a local chapter of NetSquared in Philadelphia, and they are having a meetup on Tuesday, May 6. If you're interested in using the social web for your organization, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
We have a local chapter of NetSquared in Philadelphia, and they are having a meetup on Tuesday, May 6. If you're interested in using the social web for your organization, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
Software Training
A friend tipped me off the other day to Lynda.com, a web site that offers (for a fee) on-line training video courses for most software packages. Given the pricing and the convenience of being able to take the courses from home or from your desk, it struck me as something that might be attractive to non-profits. Does anyone out there know of competing services?
Not Just Us
This article from the LA Times is about another perspective on the "Leadership Crisis" --the real (or exaggerated?) coming shortage of skilled workers, caused by baby boomer retirements. It focuses, naturally, on southern California--and on the need to train new immigrants to take over skilled jobs.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Tech Soup!
An interesting profile of Tech Soup in the NYT the other day. If you help manage a nonprofit and you don't know abou them, you should. Awesome discounts on software & other tech help. The first time you buy a complete package of Adobe web editing software from them for a fraction of retail, you feel like a genius.
Friday, April 11, 2008
990 time
...a possibly useful tool for doing your 990, from an email I got by virtue of being on the NonProfit Quarterly's list:
Dear Michael,
I thought we might celebrate this festive season of tax returns by
urging you to file your organizational returns electronically this year. We
don't like to think of you sweating unnecessarily over this stuff so, at the
same time, we thought we'd make absolutely sure that you knew about the suite of
Turbo Tax-like services for nonprofit IRS returns produced by National Center
for Charitable Statistics (NCCS).
Here is what Tom Pollak, NCCS program director tells us about these
online tools.
"The National Center for Charitable Statistics at the Urban Institute
provides 990 Online, an easy-to-use
Web-based system for preparing your IRS Form 990, 990-EZ, or request for
extension. Returns can be e-filed directly with the IRS and participating states
or you can print and mail your return and save an electronic version for
distribution to your board, donors or others. The system automatically
calculates totals and creates the schedules and attachments that you need to
complete. Users range from the smallest organizations to those with revenues or
assets in the billions. The service is completely free for organizations with
less than $100,000 in gross receipts and we have a sliding scale for larger
organizations ranging from $25 to $75."------------------------
Stay tuned for further information about next year's 990, the long-awaited new 990, which will have some very dramatic differences from the current form.
prediction markets
Frequent readers know that I have a lively, if uninformed, interest in the subject of nonprofit capital markets. Yesterday's NYT story on prediction markets in large corporations is another clipping for the file. Lately, my favorite site for following the rise & fall of political candidates is Intrade, one of the more established on-line prediction markets.
At the time it happened, I didn't post about the Rockefeller Foundation's $500K grant to a UK group for setting up a prototype "social stock exchange." These things are related, though perhaps not in a good way.
At the time it happened, I didn't post about the Rockefeller Foundation's $500K grant to a UK group for setting up a prototype "social stock exchange." These things are related, though perhaps not in a good way.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Raising the Raisers
For the last year or so, the nonprofit world has been abuzz with the subject of an upcoming crisis in leadership. Even the Inky wrote a piece recently about leadership transitions, featuring our own Martin Cohen.
The crisis that is not being discussed so much, though it seems at least as apparent, is the lack of Development Directors. It's taking organizations many months, sometimes years, to find development directors that suit them--usually at a higher salary than they expect to pay. [Of course, for fundraisers a high salary can just increase the stress--after all, you have to raise that money the board just gave you.]
When you talk to smart people in the field, people who might, with a little training, be excellent candidates for development jobs, noone wants them, even for higher salaries, even for the experience that would lead to Executive Director positions, even for the greater influence over the direction of organizations that comes with fundraising.
Why not? There are some good reasons, primary among them being the stress of having to raise money, the distaste for asking for money... there's also the fact that the fundraiser is percieved as carrying the burden for meeting an organization's budget, but unlike the director, has little control over the spending side. The Development Director is charged with using the board as his or her primary tool for raising money, but often he or she does not have direct contact with the board, or has relationships with the board that have to be mediated through the Director. A lot of responsibility with not a lot of control. Doesn't sound like fun.
It's a position that often, especially in stressed organizations, become a scapegoat. If you don't raise enough money, the board does not want to blame itself, or blame the director--better to blame the development director, whose responsibility for raising funds is built into his or her title.
But even with all this taken into account, there seems to be a stigma attached to fundraising positions that is greater than the sum of the negatives against it.
The crisis that is not being discussed so much, though it seems at least as apparent, is the lack of Development Directors. It's taking organizations many months, sometimes years, to find development directors that suit them--usually at a higher salary than they expect to pay. [Of course, for fundraisers a high salary can just increase the stress--after all, you have to raise that money the board just gave you.]
When you talk to smart people in the field, people who might, with a little training, be excellent candidates for development jobs, noone wants them, even for higher salaries, even for the experience that would lead to Executive Director positions, even for the greater influence over the direction of organizations that comes with fundraising.
Why not? There are some good reasons, primary among them being the stress of having to raise money, the distaste for asking for money... there's also the fact that the fundraiser is percieved as carrying the burden for meeting an organization's budget, but unlike the director, has little control over the spending side. The Development Director is charged with using the board as his or her primary tool for raising money, but often he or she does not have direct contact with the board, or has relationships with the board that have to be mediated through the Director. A lot of responsibility with not a lot of control. Doesn't sound like fun.
It's a position that often, especially in stressed organizations, become a scapegoat. If you don't raise enough money, the board does not want to blame itself, or blame the director--better to blame the development director, whose responsibility for raising funds is built into his or her title.
But even with all this taken into account, there seems to be a stigma attached to fundraising positions that is greater than the sum of the negatives against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)