Comments on: Can the Nonprofit Sector Stand Up for Itself?

By: Dan Owens

Dan Owens — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:00:30 +0000

I can’t say enough how important I think Robert’s points are. Everyone presumes that a Washington, DC voice is absolutely critical to the nonprofit sector, and while it is necessary, the real nonprofit regulatory action occurs at the state and local level. It is far more important to have vital state and local nonprofit associations than national ones. I would hope to have both, but if I had to choose, I want 50 on-the-ground strong and proud organizations. That’s how you get effective federal advocacy, anyway. Robert’s point is a valid one- we need a bolder way to think about and re-envision our economy away from a mindless profit-taking and rent-seeking excercise to a truly cooperative endeavor that places the appropriate value on all our contributions. And I certainly include social enterprise in that endeavor. But it all starts at the local and state level.

By: Can the Nonprofit Sector Stand Up for Itself? | Social Velocity | We're in Business | Scoop.it

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:29:28 +0000

[...] 3 new organizations have formed trying to advocate for a stronger nonprofit sector. But will policy makers listen? [...]

By: Gary Snyder

Gary Snyder — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:55:03 +0000

The recommendation of the Independent Sector’s new $1 million report, quite simply, is an unashamed admission that IS has failed in its meeting the recommendations of its own $4 million Panel on the Nonprofit Sector Report and subsequent Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice.

Those “stifling IRS regulations” that you allude to were, in part, advocated by the Independent Sector Panel on the Nonprofit Sector in its March, 2005 Report to the Senate Finance Committee (page 47)

It is curious that Independent Sector wants to establish a new multi-million agency to address the very issues that it has championed yet failed to effectively address even after spending tens of millions of charitable dollars.

By: Nell Edgington

Nell Edgington — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:08:11 +0000

Kate, thanks for your comment, I agree this is a really important debate.

I do think that the nonprofit sector is broken in several ways, many of which are mentioned in (or inferred from) the goals of CForward, Independent Sector and Charity Defense Council. These include: stifling IRS regulations, misperceptions about overhead, burdensome reporting requirements. But I would also add things like: worn out financing techniques (fundraising that doesn’t work anymore), checked out boards of directors, and the list goes on. I say that the nonprofit sector is broken not to depress or disillusion people, but rather as a challenge that we can do better. As I say all the time, we must re-make, re-work, and re-envision this great sector that has been working on social change since long before it became cool.

By: Kate Barr

Kate Barr — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:57:52 +0000

Nell,
I’m glad that you put this question out in the blog. There have been numerous tweets about the articles, reports & books but 140 characters isn’t enough. I am not satisfied to assume that there are two choices, Dan Pallotta or Independent Sector. I agreed with both Phil Buchanan and Pablo Eisenberg’s critiques of the two “proposals”, especially the observation that both are top-down, “here is the solution”, style and ultimately self-serving. Robert Egger’s approach with CForward is much more aligned with the community led roots of the nonprofit sector. I have to question your statement, Nell, that we need to advocate for “fixing a broken sector”. Broken?

By: Nell Edgington

Nell Edgington — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:42:51 +0000

Thanks for further fleshing out CForward’s goals, Robert. I would love to understand how those fit in with Independent Sector’s and Dan Pallotta’s goals and whether the three efforts can/should connect in some way. Perhaps they will add their thoughts to this.

By: robert egger

robert egger — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:32:23 +0000

This is a big discussion, and I’m glad you are shining a light on it Nell, as YOUR generation of nonprofit leaders needs to bust free of some of the older ideas, limited focus and negligible impact that historic nonprofit advocacy has generated.

One thing I’d point out…CForward isn’t trying to get big grants, make big donations to candidates or fight anybody’s battles. Like the work I pioneered at DCCK, I open doors and give people the tools they need to fight their own battles.

Case in point–CForward has identified candidates who come from the field. These are people who sweated payroll, fought for ideas and built organizations…and now they have stepped up to run for office. CForward is like KIVA. We identify the candidates, and then give 10 million nonprofit employees a way that can legally support people directly. These are candidates who, if elected, just might interject some FACT into policy debates. People who will point out how much investment dollars nonprofits bring into a community, and who will work to increase that amount by helping to coordinate grant requests or facilitate partnerships. Candidates who get the economic power of social enterprise or micro-credit, and who will forward policies to incentivize its growth, so that as much money as possible stays local. More importantly, candidates who understand that there is NO profit without nonprofits!!

Our goals are simple…start electing people at the local level. Then follow their work. Then help elect more people who will replicate their successes.

But we are just one (needed) rung of the ladder. We do need an office in DC…and every capitol city. Not to become another special interest group fighting to preserve a slice of the pie, but rather, one that promotes a bolder view of how communities thrive and the economy can grow.

People (or leaders) who think you have to play the game as it exists limit themselves to the rules that govern the game. CForward wants to change the rules of the game.