What is social impact?
When the Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers Alliance chose our next blogging topic, “What is social impact and how can we measure it?” I felt a little sheepish. I had no idea what the prompt even meant. It sounded like such an activist question, and I’m no activist–or at least I don’t feel like one. I warned the group that my answer might be a little skewed. “But that’s the point,” a fellow Nonprofit Millennial Blogger said. “Our answers should be different.”
And I felt like saying, “No really, I don’t get it.”
Luckily, my communications brain kicked into gear and revealed “social impact” for what it is: jargon. And I know where I stand on jargon. I loathe it. Every grant application I peppered with “collaboration” and “optimized results” made me feel like a drone. Those words mean nothing. They’re polite currency of the philanthropic and nonprofit worlds that we use to mask an inability to describe our value…or sometimes an absence of value.
Google “social impact.” You’ll get 77,000 wildly different results. Yet we throw it around as if it means the same thing to all of us.
So, with apologies to my fellow Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers who actually have definitions for the phrase as is, allow me to present my non-activist, communications-wonk analysis of “social impact.”
“Social impact” is so overused that it means nothing. There must be a more precise term for what it should mean.
From its uses within the nonprofit sector, I gather it’s meant to mean something along these lines: improvement in the lives of people, both as individuals and groups, particularly the underserved. We can rule out environmental causes and animal welfare, since “social” suggests a focus on the common lives of human beings. Yes, animals are “social,” but my best guess is that “social impact” means “societal impact,” ruling out animals that do not share the society of our species. (Animal activists, spare me; I’m an animal welfare advocate myself and I’m just trying to be precise, not speciesist.)
So what improves the lives of people in society? Here are some examples:
- Physical security
- Housing security
- Food security
- Civil rights
- Freedom of religion
- Artistic expression
Not coincidentally, these are all needs nonprofits function to meet.
And we’re not talking about feeding one person or encouraging the expression of one artist. Butterfly effect aside, that’s not social impact; that’s personal impact. So in order to reach a group of people, “social impact” must be elevated from a one-off, case-by-case approach: it must be systematic. That way it can be applied efficiently and effectively to many people. Certainly the results are personal, as testimonials from clients often show. But they are also social; that is, system-wide.
So what we have is the overused jargon “social impact” that really means three things: systematic social improvement.
And that may well be a more meaningful way to say what we’re trying to say.
That said, if we work in reverse, how can we tell if “social impact”–that is, systematic social improvement–has been achieved?
One takeaway from my graduate degree in conflict resolution is that conflict, like so many other aspects of human life, is never actually about the visible or superficial. In the same way a biologist is trained to focus a microscope on a cell or a physicist is trained to magnify a particle, I was trained to dig below the surface of a conflict and dissect its roots and inner layers. Many of these layers are insecurities, both physical and emotional. So my perspective on measuring systematic social improvement is heavily influenced by this fixation with underlying problems.
For example, can a food bank perform systematic social improvement? No. Food banks provide food to hungry people, sometimes temporarily, sometimes for prolonged periods of time, and in doing so they reduce or eliminate the physical hunger of their clients. But physical hunger is not the underlying problem. It’s merely a symptom of that problem, which is food insecurity. Yet most food banks exist not to eliminate food insecurity. That’s not a jab at them; it just points to differences in mission.
For strong examples of systematic social improvement, look no further than FareStart and DC Central Kitchen. Both nonprofits share the mission not just of feeding people, but of training them for employment in culinary arts. It’s systematic: both organizations use a consistent approach to training and services. It’s social: it serves a group of people, usually low- or no-income individuals suffering from food insecurity, housing insecurity, and other underlying problems. And it’s improvement: graduates of the training curricula go on to support themselves with culinary employment.
Nonprofits working in public policy are another example: they go to the root of the problem instead of treating symptoms.
Does this establish a hierarchy of nonprofits, with systematic social improvement organizations above all others? Again, no. If, say, food banks didn’t exist, there would be no lifeline to keep hungry people alive while they seek services that will address their food insecurity. If systematic social improvement is like a hospital, then immediate-needs-fulfilling organizations are like ambulances. They reinforce each other. Without systematic social improvement, there would be an endless string of crises–fires to be doused without removing the flammable material. And without stopgap services, many people would not be sustained long enough to find systematic social improvement centers, which are still relatively rare.
So if I actually use the phrase “social impact” (which, granted, does roll off the tongue more easily) this is what I mean: the pursuit or achievement of consistent improvements in the lives of groups of people.
How do you use “social impact?” Can you suggest a better turn of phrase to phase out this jargon?
A Recession-Era Nonprofit Job Search Success Story
The following is my final guest blog post for Idealist’s 2009 Nonprofit Career Month, wrapping up this week. For dozens of posts from a range of fabulous nonprofiteers, visit the Nonprofit Career Month Blog.
Once upon a time, there was a securely employed nonprofit staff member, drawing a good salary and benefits doing things she loved to do for an organization she adored with colleagues she would have given a kidney to, gladly, had any of them needed one. But something was missing: her family. She knew that she would never be truly happy as long as she was separated from them by thousands of miles. So she journeyed back to her homeland…unemployed.
It’s a true story—namely mine. And as Nonprofit Career Month wraps up, it occurred to me that my job search might serve as an encouraging fable—or a cautionary tale—to other nonprofit job seekers, whether first-timers, sector-switchers, or just hardy fools like me who say “recession be damned, I quit.”
I can’t promise that my experience is at all typical or replicable. But caveats aside, here’s the advice that worked for me…and what didn’t.
Some background: During college and grad school, I completed 5 internships in various nonprofits, worked abroad full-time for a few months, put in a few summers at a candy shop, and had logged only 15 months of continuous, full-time employment before beginning my job search. That put me solidly in the “entry-level” category. My experience: communications and fundraising. My passions: animal welfare and fundraising. My timeline: it’s been two months since I landed in Seattle. My goal: to get a job that I could live on, without backsliding too much in terms of salary or title.
What didn’t work
1. Long-distance job searching.
I started applying for jobs in Seattle before I got here. I submitted at least 10 applications…and got zero interviews. There are some tricks to it, but ultimately I decided I was better off relocating first and then looking.
2. “It’s a numbers game.”
We’ve all heard stories of job-seekers who applied for hundreds of jobs without scoring a single interview. And we’ve all heard that “it doesn’t matter how many other people apply if you’re the one who gets hired.” I confess: once in Seattle, I applied for 8 jobs. Of those 8, I landed interviews with 4. That’s a 50% interview rate. Yet if I had applied to 100 jobs, I would not have gotten 50 interviews. In the nonprofit sector, jobs are wildly diverse, and passion matters. So if you find 100 jobs you’re passionate about, either you don’t understand the job…or you’re starting to confuse passion with desperation.
3. “If you build up your personal brand right, employers will be calling you.”
Applications themselves took up only a few hours of my job search each week. I spent easily twice as much time on Twitter, my new blog, Brazen Careerist, LinkedIn, and other sites, building up my “personal brand” and trying to become a recognizable face in the sea of job candidates. One prospective employer said in an interview that he’d found my Twitter feed…and liked it. But no one fanned a contract in my face just because I tweeted something witty. (In fact, I believed before this, and still do, that personal branding is a lie.)
What worked
1. “If you find the perfect job, make yourself the perfect candidate.”
I found a new résumé format that made my application more readable and attractive. I was selective about the jobs I applied to, even if it meant going a week with no new applications. And even if I didn’t prepare every application as meticulously as I should have, I carefully customized the cover letter and résumé for each. And once I began doing all that, I actually started landing interviews. If I had to bet on anything that made the difference in my job search, it was that trifecta of readability, selectivity, and customization.
2. Dumb luck.
My first interview came about because I stayed up all night to finish and submit the application. There wasn’t even a deadline mentioned in the Craigslist ad. I was just crazy about the job. But it turned out that the organization had a 24-hour-on-call mentality, and the hiring manager was impressed with the 6 AM time stamp on my email. I would say this is another score for passion, which I mentioned above. But had the hiring manager not cared about my all-nighter, I would have been passed over for someone with more experience. I was told as much in the interview.
Another interview came about because I included a cover letter with my web form application, which apparently no one else did. I did this because I was taught always to include a cover letter. Again, I would say this means “always go above and beyond what’s asked for,” or even “always include a cover letter,” but if the hiring manager had been the type to be annoyed by extra materials in the application, mine would probably have been tossed. Instead, my surprise cover letter conveyed passion, which led to an interview…and a second…and a third.
The wild card
1. “It’s all about who you know.”
I’m not a networking fan. I passed up networking events when I arrived in Seattle; I neglected to set up informational interviews; I forgot to call my aunt’s friend who used to work at Microsoft. But after my third interview mentioned above, my dad suggested I send him my résumé to email to his colleague’s wife, who used to work at the organization.
I balked. “Dad,” I said, “this isn’t the era of patronage anymore. I got the interviews because of my own merit. I don’t want it to look like I need insider help to be a strong candidate. Plus, she doesn’t even know me! What would she possibly say that could help?”
My dad shrugged. “Well, think about it,” he said.”
So I gnashed my teeth over it a little more and finally sent him my (customized) résumé. I figured that was it.
But when I got the call a few days later with the job offer, one of the first things the HR person said to me was, “We received a very impressive letter from [Dad’s colleague’s wife] about you.” I can’t say for sure whether it made a difference in my being hired. But if I had to do it again, I’d use that connection in a heartbeat.
My story has an idyllic ending (or is it a beginning?). I’m back with my family in the region I love. And after seven weeks of job-hunting, I was offered a position that draws on my fundraising experience, with a more-than-livable salary and impressive title, for a compelling cause, in a highly-regarded organization whose employees sing the praises of their workplace.
In the recession-era job search, I know I’m luckier than most. But since two friends have both landed their dream jobs in the past two months, I also know I’m not alone in my luck. So if I can share it with you in the form of advice, thoughts, or a glance at your résumé (I’ll even send you the format I scored with), please let me know: Elizabeth dot clawson at gmail dot com. After all, a cautionary tale does no good if it goes unheeded, and a success story isn’t really one until it creates success for someone else.
How to hijack a sector
I was thrilled to see a recent op-ed in Nonprofit Quarterly, penned by (full disclosure) my former boss and exhorting nonprofits to involve themselves in the health care debate. Advocacy itself is intimidating to many nonprofit leaders, both for legal reasons (yes, it’s legal) and personal ones (yes, you must be assertive). Faced with this double hurdle, nonprofit leaders must not only engage in advocacy on behalf of their clients, communities, and sectors, but must also prod their peers to do the same.
Yet advocacy still has a long way to go to fix a glitch of terminology that has snared the sector. The health care reform debate, raging in the houses of Congress and houses of citizens alike, not only dominates and polarizes news coverage, but—more relevant to our sector—it loads a new set of baggage on the name “nonprofit.” It has hijacked “nonprofit,” sweeping it to new recognition among news consumers, which in theory is good. But it has done so in a context saturated with uncertainty, partisanship, even hostility, and in this way the name of our sector is being slowly poisoned, if not intentionally.
When news stories throw around “nonprofit” in the context of health care reform, it often adds to the confusion rather than alleviating it. Take a recent Washington Post article, “Health-Care Cooperatives Can Work.” The article uses “nonprofit” 11 times to describe the merits of a health-care cooperative such as Germany’s. If a reader of this article was relatively unfamiliar with nonprofits, she would learn the following about them:
- Some nonprofits provide health care.
- Nonprofits such as Kaiser and Blue Cross/Blue Shield are wealthy organizations that pay large executive salaries.
- Nonprofit involvement in health care reform can help keep costs low.
While all three observations may be true, they do little to explain to readers what nonprofits do, aside from health care, hypergenerous salaries, and getting dragged into politics.
Consider another WaPo article, “North Dakota Scandal Raises Concerns About Health Co-op Route.” “Nonprofit” appears five times, none of which are particularly clear. From this article, a reader would learn that:
- Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a nonprofit. (Whatever that is.)
- The cooperative model would create nonprofit health plans. (Whatever those are.)
- Health-care nonprofit executives make too much money. (Greedy bastards.)
A more straightforward Reuters article, “U.S. public health option gathers steam,” again throws around the term in unhelpful ways, such as:
- “Van Hollen predicted a government-run health insurance plan, which would offer consumers a nonprofit alternative to private health insurance companies, would be included in the final health reform bill from Congress.”
- “All three bills in the U.S. House of Representatives and one of two Senate bills call for some sort of nonprofit health insurance program overseen by the federal government.”
- “The Senate Finance Committee’s bill, viewed as a leading proposal…allows for nonprofit private cooperatives, which proponents say would meet Obama’s goal of providing competition to private firms.”
If I were a news consumer with no describable understanding of the nonprofit sector, I would have no greater knowledge of it after reading these (and many other) stories. Granted, that’s not the purpose of writing them. However, as nonprofit supporters and leaders, we must be aware of this new context for our sector’s name. And we must vigilant about explaining our real work in accessible terms whenever possible. The problem, at its core, is the same one that spurs discussions about changing the name of the sector. “Nonprofit” is a poor fit for the work we do–indeed, almost the polar opposite of it. It’s sterile, and largely meaningless to those outside the sector.
However, where the debate actually clarifies the term “nonprofit,” especially what it means in the context of health-care reform, it does our sector a service. Take the Reno News & Review piece “A single-payer system would be best,” which offers about as clear an explanation as they come:
- “A nonprofit model would still allow insurance companies to stay in business and even to make a profit. But because nonprofits don’t have shareholders and must demonstrate that they provide a public good, they do not have the incentive to drive up short-term profits on behalf of shareholders by adopting practices such as denying coverage to “risky” patients at the expense of their clients. Any bill that does not provide one or both of these provisions is a statement that the goal of health care in America will continue to be profit for insurance companies.”
And this, from the WaPo opinion piece “D.C. health reform in one simple step:”
- “Many people do not realize that CareFirst is a nonprofit insurance provider. In the District, the company operates under a federal charter requiring it to serve as ‘a charitable and benevolent institution’ whose assets are owned by the public. With its 2008 legislation, the D.C. Council determined that it was time to hold the company accountable to that public.”
These examples stand out not because they cast nonprofits in a favorable light—bias, whether positive or negative, tarnishes the impartiality of news coverage—but because they explain exactly why a nonprofit plan is a good or bad idea. In doing so, they educate readers about nonprofits, though it may not be the primary goal of the stories.
More importantly, however, this two-pronged result demonstrates that the journalists understand nonprofits. And the better journalists understand nonprofits, the better they can convey their understanding to news consumers, allowing news consumers—who are also consumers of nonprofit services—to make informed decisions about their support for nonprofits.
The surge in news coverage of “nonprofit health care” options, therefore, is not just a health care issue, or a health-care nonprofit issue, but an issue of importance to the entire nonprofit sector, and well worth our vigilant monitoring.
Introducing the Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers Alliance
For much of my nonprofit career, I’ve been following some of the sector’s rising stars–the young nonprofit professionals who not only bring their best to their work, but also blog about it so others can learn and converse along the way. Now this cohort has formalized and today is inaugurated as the Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers Alliance, the brainchild of Allison Jones.
Here’s the Alliance roster so far:
- Allison Jones, Entry Level Living (New York, NY; on Twitter as @ajlovesya)
- Colleen Dilenschneider, Know Your Bone (Los Angeles, CA; @cdilly)
- Elisa M. Ortiz, Onward and Upward (Arlington, VA; @emortiz)
- James Elbaor, From the Desk of James C. Elbaor (New York, NY; @jameselbaor)
- Kathrin Ivanovic, The Diversity Projekt (Philadelphia, PA; @KathrinOutLoud)
- Kevin Gilnack, (Nonprofits + Politics)2.0 (Boston, MA; @kgilnack)
- Rosetta Thurman, Perspectives from the Pipeline (Washington, DC; @rosettathurman)
- Tera Wozniak Qualls, Social Citizen (@terawozqualls)
- Trina Isakson, Trina’s Nonprofit Blog (Vancouver, BC; @telleni)
- …and myself, Elizabeth Clawson, Nonprofit Periscope (you’re reading it) (Issaquah, WA; @eclawson)
I’m tickled to be part of this alliance, because we millennial nonprofit bloggers (it’s a niche, you know) look out for each other anyway, and it’s about time we made it official. Kind of like a polygamous engagement party for the blogosphere. But less scandalous.
My hope is that this alliance will become a conduit for meaty discussion on the nonprofit sector, drawing from each of our areas of expertise and sharing flavors across them. For example, I’ve already contributed two guest posts to the Nonprofit Career Month blog, but I’m sure my own topic–the intersection of nonprofits and news media–has a lot to learn from Allison’s blog on nonprofit careers. If other young nonprofit professionals are inspired to add their own blogging voices to the conversation, it’ll only get richer from there.
So to tackle one of Allison’s prompts for my inaugural post: why am in the sector? I’m a nonprofit sector devotee because it’s a unique and irreplaceable safety net. I’ve worked for public policy shops, refugee services, a think tank, a dispute resolution center, and a canvassing group–all nonprofits, all vital. Nonprofits take on challenges and responsibilities that no one else will. For this kind of work–the hungry-feeding, back-clothing, soul-ministering, scientific researching, arts-fostering, cause-advocating kind–the public sector is too snarled in red tape and the private sector is too entranced by profit. Nonprofits have the government’s sense of responsibility and business’ innovation, and it’s a perfect pairing. We do thankless work, and more with less, and have been for hundreds of years before “nonprofit sector” was even a name. Who wouldn’t want to be part of this?
And the best part yet? We get to write about it.
The case for adjectives
“Simplify,” one of my undergrad professors used to say. “Stop sprinkling your writing with modifiers that mean nothing. If your nouns need adjectives and your verbs need adverbs, they’re not strong enough. Don’t modify. just use stronger ones.”
So I did. Years later, I’m still leery of adverbs, though I’ve learned some adjectives pull their own weight. When writing about nonprofits, however, modifiers are more than welcome.
Our sector is a vast and diverse one. “Nonprofit” embraces everything from massive institutions with thousands of employees to tiny agencies run by one part-time volunteer. And in between, there are countless variations. So when news stories use “nonprofits” to refer to a specific subset of nonprofits, it’s often both inaccurate and–depending on the topic–damaging to the sector’s reputation.
Take, for example, one of the major stories in nonprofit news this week. The Chronicle of Philanthropy released its survey on nonprofit executive compensation (covering 2008) and found, among other things, that CEOs at the largest nonprofits received salary increases during the recession.
And several news outlets that picked up this story said just that:
- CNN: These nonprofit CEOs are getting raises
- USA Today: Big non-profit organizations have highly paid leaders
Some, on the other hand, had accurate stories but used headlines that did not make the crucial distinction between nonprofits whose executives received raises and nonprofits that make up the majority of the sector and that remainappropriately cost-conscious:
- ArtInfo: Salaries Rose for Nonprofit Executives in 2008
- Economic Times: CEOs salary dips slightly in ‘08 despite downturn: Survey
- KPHO Channel 5 (Phoeniz, AZ): Nonprofit CEOs Saw Pay Raises In ‘08
- NPR: Study: CEO Salaries At Nonprofits Up In 2008
- Philanthropy Journal: Nonprofit CEO salaries climb…
(The Chronicle’s own headline on its Managing blog doesn’t mention salary increases, instead focusing on the finding’s flip side: Nearly 30% of Nonprofit Leaders Took a Pay Cut This Year; Pay in 2008 Grew Quickly.)
Whatever journalistic merits of the headlines in the second set, the fact remains that they leave out a crucial adjective: large. As in, “CEO salaries at large nonprofits up in 2008,” etc.
When donors, volunteers, and other supporters read the second set of headlines, how does it looks for their investments in nonprofit work? As the Chronicle attests in its blog post about the study, “given the severity of the downturn, it is surprising that two-thirds of the organizations are not reducing pay for their top executive.” I hope readers don’t just skim news headlines. Fortunately, donors and other nonprofit supporters are more likely to read at least the first paragraph in these articles, and to discover there that the headline (and the study’s main finding) doesn’t apply to all nonprofits. But it’s those readers unconnected to nonprofits, and least likely to read beyond the headline, that we need to be mindful of. They get their perceptions of nonprofits from headlines like these. And that’s unnerving.
Granted, it’s more unnerving when large nonprofits give their executives raises during a recession. But that’s for another post.
What do you think? Are headlines’ sweeping generalizations about nonprofits denting the sector’s reputation? Or are they effective teasers that draw in readers?
Gettin’ around
It’s no secret–I’m a fundraiser at heart, and I’m not shy about insisting that it’s the best nonprofit career out there. Read more about it in my guest post for Idealist’s Nonprofit Career Month blog.
No money? No problem—three free media relations tools for nonprofits (and others)
Note: The following reviews are my own opinions. I have not been asked to endorse any of these resources.
It’s a stereotype that nonprofits have no money. But any nonprofit professional can attest to being given a project with no budget at some point in their career. If you’re in communications, you’re luckier than most, because there are many high-quality, no-cost tools to help you do your job, thanks to that behemoth fairy godmother, the Internet. So if your boss just tasked you with drumming up media coverage and you happen not to have a PR budget—or a list of media contacts—try one or all of these to get your feet wet.
1. Help A Reporter Out HARO is the brainchild of Peter Shankman, possibly the busiest man in social media, and well worth following on Twitter (@helpareporter). He clearly knows and cares about journalists and the people who make it run, and that shows in HARO, which he calls a “family”—with good reason.
How it works: Journalists email Peter the stories they need sources for (called “queries”). Peter sends queries (about 30 at a time) to a mailing list of Joe Schmoes like you and me, three times a day. If you see a story you or a colleague would be a perfect source for, you contact the journalist directly.
Pros: Gives you a basic feel for how journalists assemble stories. Lets you see who’s writing about stories related to your mission or community. Is often funny, thanks to Peter’s daily commentary. Includes many national outlets as well as local ones, blogs, and niche websites. Email-based; good for people who aren’t that comfortable with social media.
Cons: If you’re in a narrow niche, like Clumber Spaniel rescue, you may not see many stories relevant to your mission. Even if you respond to a query, the journalist may not reply to you (HARO often generates more responses than journalists can use). Not usually good for urgent publicity needs, since you can only respond to what journalists ask for. If you respond to a query and the journalist feels that you’re way off-topic, you can get banned from HARO. (This is targeted toward spammers and scammers, and if your intentions are good and you’re at least half-smart, you’re not in danger of this.)
How to get it: Go to www.helpareporter.com and enter your contact info. If you’re on Twitter, follow @helpareporter for urgent queries.
2. PitchEngine PitchEngine is perfect for any communications staffer who has gotten an email ad from PRNewsWire, looked at the price of annual subscription, and gone all woozy in the head. It’s a great service that some of us can’t afford right now. PitchEngine is a decent alternative, especially if you’re social-media-savvy and a lot of your website traffic comes from online search engines.
How it works: You sign up for an account, then copy and paste press releases (PitchEngine calls them “social media releases”) into the text boxes it gives you. Once you send them, they’re live and findable with online search engines. So if you releases one about Clumber Spaniel rescue, and a journalist happens to Google “Clumber Spaniel rescue,” it’ll come up as a recent result.
Pros: Great for urgent publicity needs, since you can issue press releases as needed. Allows embedding of images, videos, PowerPoints, etc. Can be integrated with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks to share releases with your supporters.
Cons: Signing up requires more information than you’d expect, including your organization’s mission and web URL. The interface for setting up releases can be confusing, such as the “button” for sending your release (you slide the button to one side instead of clicking it).
How to get it: Go to www.pitchengine.com and click “Sign Up Free!” in the upper right corner. Try browsing the site and checking out existing releases on the site to get a feel for it.
3. Google Alerts Many nonprofits still use clipping services to get copies of the media coverage they generate, and I admit, these services are far more comprehensive than you can do yourself. But there’s nothing shabby about Google Alerts, which you can set up to tell you when something is posted online about you, your boss, your organization, your cause—anything you want to know.
How it works: You choose a name, phrase, or other term to get notified about—for example, “clumber spaniel rescue” or “Joe Schmoe.” When that term comes up in web content, you get an email from Google with a link to that content. Most of it is new, but occasionally you’ll get something the search engine just re-found from a long time ago.
Pros: Gives you a feel for who’s talking about your organization, whether in blogs, news, or social networks so you can respond to concerns or acknowledge kudos. Email-based; good for those who aren’t that comfortable with social media. Fast, easy signup. Can use any email account to sign up. Alerts can be modified at any time. Can be scheduled for different types of content (web, blogs, news, etc.) and different, frequencies, depending on how often you want to get them.
Cons: Alerts don’t capture everything; not as comprehensive as LexisNexis or other fee-based services. May return irrelevant results if the terms you use are too common.
How to get it: Go to www.google.com/alerts and fill out the short form.
Did I miss other free PR resources you think are the best thing since mini muffins? Enlighten me in the comments section.
A nonprofit by any other name?
Nonprofits themselves, in various forms, are centuries old, but the term “nonprofit” is relatively young. As a nonprofit professional, I’ve been drawn into countless conversations about the controversial name of the sector. What other sector—or industry, business, or brand—defines itself in a negative, especially a misleading negative? (For those of you playing along at home, nonprofits are legally permitted to have surplus revenue—profit—just not to distribute it to shareholders, as for-profits do.)
Many of my nonprofit colleagues shun the popular alternative, “charity,” as conjuring up images of kind-hearted handouts and bake sales. Today’s professionals know better—nonprofits are vital social safety nets, systems unto themselves in their communities. However, it’s not a given that journalists and news audiences share this vocabulary preference.
An excellent December 2008 post from the Nonprofit Tech Blog discusses online search trends for the two terms, with some surprising results. But aside from disasters, what topics are most commonly associated with each one?
As a news consumer, I had a hypothesis:
1. News stories that used the term “charity” in the headline or body, instead of “nonprofit,” will cover mostly fundraising events and features on the work of specific organizations, and more local stories in general. It might also return more stories from the UK, where “charity” is more common.
2. Stories using “nonprofit,” meanwhile, will have a greater range of topics, including the impact of the economy on specific organizations or sub-sectors, include national coverage, and be exclusively within the US.
Had I more time, a research stipend, and an assistant or two, I’d launch a full-blown content analysis of news coverage of the nonprofit sector to suss out the real differences between “charity” and “nonprofit” stories. But having none, I opted for my old standby: Google.
My method was straightforward: I did a Google News search for “nonprofit” and another for “charity” around 9 AM Pacific this morning. I recorded the first 10 hits from each search, assigning them topic tags (such as “fundraising” and “profile”) to describe their angles. As it turned out, the results weren’t too different from each other.
“Charity” news stories (in order returned by Google, as part of about 45,000 results)
Bupa Launches its 2009 International Charity Challenge to Help a Rural Community (press release; fundraising;)
UCLA surgeon sued for benefiting from his own charity (local; wrongdoing)
Donations Needed for Children’s Charity Brainwave (press release; fundraising)
Eva Longoria: Charity Chick (national; celebrity, event)
Twitter users network to raise funds for charities (national; fundraising, event)
$500K artwork given to charity returning to owner (local; fundraising)
Sweet Charity: Sharon Stone, a Sizzling Do-gooder (local; celebrity, event)
Thefts jeopardize ride for charity (local; crime with a nonprofit angle)
Susan G. Komen for the Cure Receives Charity Navigator’s Coveted Four-Star Rating for Third Year in a Row (press release; accountability)
Dallas Entrepreneur and Philanthropist Chad Willis to Host Invitation-Only Celebrity Charity Event at His Downtown Dallas Restaurant AMPM (press release; celebrity, event)
Topic tag totals:
- Press release- 4
- Fundraising- 4
- Event- 4
- Celebrity- 3
“Nonprofit” news stories (in order returned by Google, as part of about 40,000 results)
Tarzana nonprofit paid too much rent, audit finds (local; wrongdoing)
Nonprofits will join Nutter to mark 9/11 (local; event, volunteering)
Communities In Schools Is Among the Most Accountable Nonprofits in the Country (press release; accountability)
WDBO Local News Orlando nonprofit runs out of hope (local; economy)
CareFirst Replies to City’s Bid For Funds (local; wrongdoing)
Miami-Dade nonprofit provides support for children of HIV/AIDS victims (local; profile)
Nonprofit roundup for Sept. 11, 2009 (national; roundup)
Microsoft helps found, fund open-source nonprofit (local; profile)
Destiny Foundation suspends operations (local; economy)
Slow economy sparks nonprofit collaborations (local; economy)
Topic tag totals:
- Economy- 3
- Profile- 2
- Wrongdoing- 2
- Press release- 1
In general, the charity search returned more press releases, fundraising, and celebrity stories. The nonprofit search returned more economic impact stories, profiles, and wrongdoing stories. This was in line with my hypothesis, if only in a quick ‘n’ dirty initial search.
However, only US stories appeared in either search (possibly a function of Google knowing my geographical preferences). And local stories far outnumbered national ones in both categories. (I excluded press releases when screening for geography.)
I also did a word search on each story to see whether vocabulary is dictated by the thesaurus–whether “charity and “nonprofit” are used interchangeably. On the other hand, journalistic writing style may influence this word choice. But whatever the reason, very few stories from one search t included the term from the other.
So stories are consistent about which terms they use to describe our sector. But is this enough? Neither term describes our work accurately and meaningfully. What name, if any can accomplish this? Or is the name of the sector small peanuts next to our contributions to society?
And who will volunteer to crunch the numbers in a major content analysis? Come on, nonprofit management PhD candidates, you know you want to…
Is the road to good paved with cash?
One of the most fascinating love-hate relationships in the nonprofit sector involves the taboo subject of money—or whatever euphemism you want to use. As a nonprofit fundraiser I did the dance myself. Nonprofits don’t need big checks in the bank; they need “funding.” They don’t need overhead funding; they need “mission support.” They don’t even need fundraisers anymore; they need “supporter developers.” Money is the longest four-letter word in the nonprofit vocabulary.
Let’s call a spade a spade here. Nonprofits need money. They may not distribute profits to shareholders á la private sector, but in a way, they distribute the benefits of their social investment to those who may not own shares, but still have a stake in the nonprofit’s work. So nonprofits don’t need money just qua money. They need it to help others. And that’s a staggering responsibility they willingly accept. The struggle is constant, the learning curve is steep, and the stakes are high. This is clear.
Enter the private sector. For-profit businesses have money, and many lack a philanthropic outlet, so there’s a promising fit between the two sectors when one is willing to fund the other for the greater good.
It’s a haughty courtship when businesses intervene and insist nonprofits are financially naïve and should be less “soft.” But is this warranted? Do nonprofits have an obligation to be more like businesses to ensure their work continues?
An article from Monday’s Telegraph (UK) puts this tension in a specific context: venture philanthropy. The featured executive describes how Impetus puts nonprofits through a rigorous assessment and planning process before funding them. The results so far are impressive: the income of the nonprofits Impetus works with has increased by 29 percent a year, and the number of people they help has increased by an average of 53 percent “every year over a five-year period.”
An undercurrent of condescension belies the tension here. The sub-headline for the article reads: “The slash and burn culture of private equity seems ill-suited to the warm and well-meaning charity sector. But perhaps that is just what the latter needs.” That is, nonprofits—soft, gentle, and brimming with good intentions—need a firm hand to steer them toward the best results. With Impetus’ steering, nonprofits have helped more people. At least in this case, the private-sector model improved upon the nonprofit-sector purpose. Maybe money is the answer.
An older article from Third Sector (again, UK) goes even further. The headline pulls no punches: “You have a duty to make money.” This time the featured executive is the winner of the BBC’s version of The Apprentice. And he isn’t shy about telling nonprofits what to do: according to the interview, nonprofits “that fail to maximize their money-making potential are failing in their duty to their beneficiaries.”
So not only do nonprofits need money (as long as we’re going to talk dirty here), they have a responsibility to their clients and communities to aggressively seek money. And both interviews depict the most accountable, efficient, effective model for money-seeking as found in private enterprise.
Granted:
1) Both featured executives come from the private sector and stake their careers on venture philanthropy.
2) Money doesn’t solve everything (see: crippling nonprofit regulations, bad PR, etc.).
3) The executives work in Britain, which regulates its nonprofit sector far more than the US government does, making the operation of nonprofits a more public affair.
But that said, is it going too far to drive nonprofits to make more money? Is it underhanded to hold up needy clients as justification? And does the private-sector model overlook the creativity and resourcefulness that nonprofits have used for centuries to do their work with less money?
Leave your thoughts in the comments section. Don’t worry, it’s free.
State edition: Oregon
The beautiful state of Oregon is on my mind. I just spent two days tooling around Portland with a good friend, helping her find an apartment before her graduate school term starts next month. So as a nod to Portland and its cheerful, bookish downtown, here’s the Oregon edition of Nonprofit Periscope.
An article from yesterday’s East Oregonian highlights many qualities of nonprofit work that make the sector meaningful to readers. Here are a few.
Personal: The article opens with a glimpse into the life of a person whose life is enriched by a nonprofit. This is a real person, with a name, a life story, and even a picture. In addition, staff and board members of the nonprofit are named, showing that the organization (what a detached word) is made up of human beings.
Solvent: The nonprofit involved, a subsidized senior housing facility in Pendleton, is described as financially stable, having paid off the facility’s mortgage.
Vital: The nonprofit is depicted as meeting concrete, identifiable needs of specific individuals. As one resident of the facility puts it, “If I didn’t have a facility like this I couldn’t afford it. I’d be a street person.”
Connected: According to the article, five churches collaborated to create the nonprofit. It didn’t just spring forth from a vacant lot. It’s a product of the community’s history.
Granted, there are probably other stories to be told about this nonprofit. There may be residents in the facility who aren’t happy with it. Maybe some Pendleton neighbors object to its zoning, or think it should create more jobs. The story can be constructive without being flattering. But this particular article does an excellent job of making the nonprofit relatable to readers, helping them understand one way nonprofits fit into their lives. This kind of article can go a long way toward enriching readers’ understanding of what nonprofits are, what they do, and what they mean in their communities.
What else would help accomplish this? Add your thoughts in the comments section.
