Newspapers / Philanthropy Journal of North … / June 1, 1994, edition 1 / Page 10
Part of Philanthropy Journal of North Carolina (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
10 • Philanthropy Journal of North Carolina Opinion June wa Getting together Tar Heel philanthropy is a comrmnity in progress T^or all the good it does, Tar Heel philan- jP thropy has a dark side. Well-intentioned individuals and organiza tions who work hard to make a difference - often for long hours and low pay - can find themselves tilting with one another over turf, or treading the same tracks as other organiza tions in a wasteful duplication of resources. North Carolina has the tools, locally and throu^out the state, to make the job of phil anthropy more efficient and effective. What’s lacking are leaders willing to assist philan thropy in the way that philanthropy assists our communities and our state. We need leaders willing to knit together and coordinate the network of people and organizations who can reinforce and support the work of philanthropy itself. The beginnings of such a network are tak ing shape. The North Carolina Center for Nonprofits offers information and technical assistance to nonprofits. Duke University’s continuing educa tion program is expanding the nonprofit management courses it now offers in Durham and the Triad throughout the state. The School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is establishing a center for nonprofit studies, research, execu tive training and technical assistance. In addition, numerous communities already have organizations that connect pro fessionals and volunteers. United Way affili ates and Junior League chapters match volun teers with organizations that need their help and offer training to nonprofit managers and volunteers. Members of the National Society of Fund Raising Executives have formed chap ters in half-a-dozen Tar Heel communities that regularly share ideas. Foundations and corpo rate grantmakers have set up forums in a handful of communities that act as informa EDITORIAL tion clearin^ouses. But despite the collab oration and mutual sup port that’s taking place in these communities, we lack the larger web of philanthropy that could link existing efforts and the thousands of people and organizations still out of the loop. Even in the refined world of philanthropy, childish territorial battles abound. People in philanthropy and the nonprofit world may not like to talk about it openly, but a preoccupa tion with power and control can engulf even those who practice teamwork and collabora tion. We need someone to cut through the petty politics. Gov. Jim Hunt opened his four-year term by convening a nonprofit summit and promis ing that state government would be a partner with nonprofits. Hunt followed up on his promise by naming nonprofit leaders to high positions in his administration, and by desig nating officials in each department as contacts for nonprofits. He also has made partnerships central to some of his major initiatives, such as the Smart Start program for early child hood development. Yet the Hunt administration itself concedes it is at a loss about how to forge true and last ing partnerships with nonprofits or to meet nonprofits’ daily and long-term needs. Leaders representing nonprofits, founda tions, businesses and government should step forward and talk to one another about how to strengthen philanthropy in our state by con necting the wealth of philanthropic resources that are the envy of many other states. Philanthropy means building community. The philanthropic community exists as a rich mosaic of separate parts. Now those parts need to be fashioned together into a cohesive and mutually-reinforcing community. A modest proposal Setting market-driven fun&aising rates David Winsknv is presideat of Winslow & Associates, Inc., a man agement and fundraising consult ing firm based in Winston-Salem. A y^ver wonder how consultants set ' their fees? It’s a fair question. And if a J more nonprofit leaders would ask that question, they might get more value for their dollar. Perhaps some of my words on the subject are peculiar to the field of fundraising consult ing. Firms that are licensed as professional fundraising counsel generally charge clients on a flat-fee or pro ject basis; they never charge a per centage of funds raised, as profes sional solicitors do. That’s as it should be, because the real success of our work is highly dependent upon the work of volunteers - and a consultant fee’s should not be dependent upon a volunteer asking his or her friends, colleagues and business associates for money. Nor should any founda tion or corporation ever feel that a set percentage of its gift or pledge is being “taken off the top” to pay a fundraising consultant. Simply put, the incentive should be on the staff, board and other vol- pproaching the process of setting fees and hourly rates in a market-driven, businesslike manner can only be a good first step in the direc tion of providing value to nonprofit corporations every where. unteers of every nonprofit organi zation to “make the ask.” Ultimately, that will define the suc cess of the campaign. And, as we read the statutes that govern the fundraising consulting practice in North Carolina, it gen erally isn’t even legal for a fundraising consultant, at least working on his or her own, to ask for funds on a client’s behalf. So, how does - or should - a consultant set his or her fee? Prior to working on any project, we would like to go through a competitive bidding process, dur ing which the project is thorou^- ly appraised and analyzed. Based upon the request for proposals submitted by the prospective client and our subsequent discus sions vinth the client representa- tive(s), we then define an approach to the project. In the approach, we build on several assumptions - primarily based upon time and staff involved - to Look for WINSLOW, page 11 Privatization and philanthropy Nonprofits key to quality services TT^ hen some people hear the word |/|/ “privatization” in the context of r r government services, they conjure up images of greedy, slipshod contractors who pilfer taxpayer money and put pubUc employees out of work. Here in North Carolina, this carica ture of privatization has been put forward by opponents of change in cities like Ralei^ and Charlotte. There are many reasons why this portrait of privatization bears little resemblance to its subject, but a sig nificant one is the sizable role the nonprofit sector has played in priva tization efforts to date. A recent national survey by the Council of State Governments found that mental health and social ser vices programs have seen the most privatization activity in the last five years. And most of these privatiza tion agreements were made with nonprofits. According to another survey, 80 percent of all state and 78 percent of all county social services contracts John Hood is vice president of the John Locke Foundation, a Raleigh- based public policy think tank. educing costs through increased use of nonprofits to provide services con, in fact, make more money available to the nonprofit sector to help finance the necessary expansion. are with nonprof its. “One reason tor the heavy reliance on nonprofits,” says Bill Eggers of the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, “may be that nearly all of the social services pro vided by local governments are also delivered by nonprofit organi zations that may have large inde pendent sources of funds.” Nonprofits also have expertise and, in many cases, a deep sense of commitment (motivated either by religious conviction or social con cern) that makes success more likely than in the public sector. There are four forms of privati zation that are particularly suited to participation by the nonprofit sector. They are: • Contracting out - This is the most popular form of privatization. States, cities and counties contract out such services as programs for the elderfy, drug and alcohol treat ment, job training, child welfare, and adoption. Look for HOOD, page 11 — — PManthropj Journal of North Caroliim Tito Phikirdkropy Journal ", of North Carolina is a monthly publicatirm of The News and Observer Foundation, a 501(c) (3) private foundation funded by The News and Observer Publishing Co., Ralei^M.C. maoRANDPimimim TODD COHEN—(919) 829-8989 DJKECmR OF MARKETING .4WDNmOP.HENT MARGUERITE LEBLANC — (9I9)829-W1 STAFFWBITER BARBARA SOLOW - (919) 829«1 Z. SMITH RMYN0LDS-J08EPHUS DANIELS miHMWROPYNEWS FELLOW KATHERINE NOBLE - (919) 829^917 DESIGNER MAMARET BAXTER - (919) 829-8988 DiTERNET: tcoljen@iiaiido.iwt Smart Start A big lesson for anyone, young or old, is learning to take risks. Gov. Jim Hunt’s Smart Start early childhood initiative is offering North Carolinians a chance to learn that lesson. The immediate beneficiaries of Smart Start are young children and their families. Local nonprofits are being set up in communities throughout the state to coordinate and improve the delivery of services to children and families. Over the longer term, however, these non profits offer a chance to achieve something big ger. They offer a way for the diverse members of communities to work together to make their economies healthier, their schools better and their streets safer. To succeed, this experiment in strengthen ing communities depends on individuals and organizations taking chances. Working togeth er sounds great in theory. In practice, it means abandoning the comfort of doing business as A long-term vision a laboratory for democracy ABOUT CHANGE usual and instead, sharing power to accom plish common goals. Bob Allen, a Duke Power Co. executive on loan for two years to a statewide nonprofit that supports the local Smart Start efforts, believes collaboration is at the heart of the initiative. And collaboration, he says, requires healthy doses of trust and time. Often, those brave enou^ to take risks typi cally won’t do so unless they can be guaranteed quick results they can measure. Smart Start, by comparison, involves a long-term promise that life can be better for children and their families if individuals and organizations make the effort to work together. Jim Goodmon, a Ralei^ broadcasting exec utive, is chairman of the North Carolina Partnership for Children, the statewide non profit that has the job of supporting the local Smart Start nonprofits. Goodmon is a hard-nosed businessman but he’s also a dreamer who envisions a new kind of community. He sees Smart Start as a way to connect people and organizations in the nonprofit, for- profit and public sectors. And he sees the “process” involved in making Smart Start work as central to its success. The role of the North Carolina Partnership for Children, Goodmon says, is “protecting and assisting and supporting the process. We’re supposed to be the keepers of the vision.” That work can be dull. People have to be persuaded to attend meetings to talk about unexciting matters such as training and plan ning. “This is not flashy stuff,” Goodmon says. Look for CHANGE, page 15
Philanthropy Journal of North Carolina (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 1, 1994, edition 1
10
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75