Newspapers / Philanthropy Journal of North … / Dec. 1, 1995, edition 1 / Page 1
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
DECEMBER 1995 VOLUME 3, ISSUE 4 / $5.00 Philanthn^yJornml New mission Corporate restructuring alters giving Nonprofits seeking help from corporations face greater scruti ny. Corporations want to help - and to be helped. By Sean Bailey In the corporate sector, doing good for the sake of doing good is no longer good enough. Now, corporate charity must serve many masters: It should boost the corporate image and customer ties. It should buoy employee morale. And it should help expand market share and improve profitability A recent Conference Board study suggests that these are the guiding principles of the new era of corporate CORPORATE giving. Companies are becoming less generous with their dollars and more demanding. Like the sector they rep resent, the leaders of corporate giv ing in North Carolina and throughout the U.S. are reflecting a leaner, stern er attitude about who gets their money, how it is used and what results it produces. Gone are the days of wide-open checkbooks and support for every needy and deserving cause in the community Now, contributions must be strategic, helping a nonprofit organization while also helping the corporation. Strategic or not, however, contri butions from the private sector have been anemic for nearly a decade. When adjusted for inflation, corpo rate donations dropped by more than $1.3 bilhon annually from 1987 to 1994, according to Giving USA. It’s not a picture that is tradition ally associated with the word “phil anthropy.” Indeed, one senior researcher at the Conference Board, Myra Alperson, suggests that eorpo- rate giving may better be described as “financially sound goodwill” or “corporate social investment.” Whatever the term, it describes an increasingly tense and complicat ed relationship. On one side is the corporate world, just beginning to show the positive effects from having been downsized, restructured and repositioned. On the other side is the nonprofit sector, increasingly bedra^led as it tackles society’s most intractable problems and is asked to do so with better results, less money and greater efficiency The two sectors would hardly seem a perfect match. Their organiz ing principles are completely differ ent: one to deliver profits to its own ers, the other to promote the weU- being of society and its members. Yet, the two sectors find them selves bound together, along with pri vate foundations, by a confluence of Look for CORPORATE, page 9 Making hard choices Kids program holds nonprofit lessons A recent decision by leaders of the Caring Program for Children to allow BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina to appoint more members to the charity’s board of directors has raised questions and concerns. By Barbara Solow Leaders of the Caring Program for Children are working hard to bounce back from what some board members describe as a “publie rela tions nightmare.” CORPORATE A decision by the nonprofit - which buys health insurance for poor children - to allow a major donor to nearly double its contribution in exchange for more control of the charity’s board has sparked unex pected controversy. The board’s decision in September to grant BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina an expanded role in the Caring Program has been met with critical press cov erage, concerned calls from donors and other fallout. Karen Mortimer, the program’s executive director, was fired in October after she spoke out pubhcly against the board’s decision, claim ing it had been made under a cloud of secrecy and under pressure from Blue Cross. And Democratic state Sen. “Wib” Gnlley of Durham says he will ask the legislature to review the Caring Program’s state funding in light of the fact that the charity’s board now is dominated by a single insurer. The situation has raised ques tions abont the role that major donors play in shaping nonprofit pohcies and has highhghted tensions that can arise between nonprofit board members and staff. Caring Program board members insist that while the decision to accept the Blue Cross offer was diffi cult, it was the right one for the 8- year-old nonprofit. “The goal here was to make the program the strongest it could be so that we could continue our job of pro viding insurance for these kids,” says board chairman Trip Adams, a Greensboro lawyer. “The board ended up feeling that what we need ed to do was to go with the Bine Cross proposal in order to have the opportunity to use their resources to help us achieve that goal.” Others are worried about what the changes will mean tor the Caring Program’s mission. “It remains to be seen how mnch better the program will be now that it’s under the complete control of BlueCross BlueShield,” says Republican State Rep. Walter Dickson of Gastonia - a longtime sup porter and board member of the Caring Program. “I hope it works out. If it doesn’t, I think the state’s children will be the losers.” A SINGULAR fflSTORY The model for the Caring Program was created in the mid- 1980s by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Western Pennsylvania in response to the economic crisis that followed the collapse of that region’s steel industry Karen Mortimer was fired in October as head of the Caring Program for Children after speaking out against a board vote. Photo by Jim The national BlueCross BlueShield Association, which repre sents independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, now operates 25 Caring Programs in 23 states that have enrolled more than 160,000 needy children. The programs offer primary health-care coverage to children whose families cannot afford health insurance. Contributions from bnsi- nesses, foundations, civic groups and individuals pay for the insurance pohcies. Blue Cross donates admin istrative costs and, in some commu nities, matches doUars raised from private sources. Unlike programs initiated by Blue Cross in other states. North Carolina’s Caring Program was launched as an independent nonprof it administered by the North Carohna CouncO of Churches and Bounds funded by a grant from the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust in Winston-Salem. In addition to Blue Cross repre sentatives, its board historicaUy has included leaders of community groups and other insurers - most notably, HealthSource of North Carolina, which began making cash contributions to the Caring Program in 1993. After years of struggling finan cially, North Carolina’s Caring Program got a major boost when state lawmakers began supporting the program. Last spring, the legisla ture agreed to donate $2.1 milhon to the charity. Around the same time. Blue Cross - which had been providing discounted insurance packages to Look for CARING, page 22 Pulling together Nonprofits brace for changes This article is the first in a series that will examine the response hy nonprofits to the governmen ts revolution being led by poli cymakers in Washington and Raleigh. The topic is also the focus of Philanthropy ’96, the annual conference for the state’s nonprofit sector that is spon sored by the Philanthropy Journal. By Barbara Solow Greg Kirkpatrick, executive direc tor of the Food Bank of North Carolina in Raleigh, got a fax recently from a national food bank network. The message was an alert about a proposed bill known as the Istook amendment that would limit advocacy and lobbying activities of U.S. non profits. The Second Harvest network was urging its members to contact their legislative representatives and voice opposition to the amendment, which. THE NEXT REVOLUTION when the Philanthropy Journal went to press, was contained in a con tinuing resolution before Congress. “My response was classic,” Kirkpatrick says. “I got the fax in among the 700 other things I had to do. And I chose to get another truck- load of food in and not make the phone call - even though that phone call is probably more important right now” Other Tar Heel nonprofit leaders tell similar tales of feeling over whelmed by the scope of legislative change under discussion in Washington and Raleigh. In addition to major cut backs in funds for social service programs. Republican legislators have pro- posed Greg Kirkpatrick reforms in welfare. Medicare and tax laws that nonprofit leaders say could fundamentally alter the way the sec- Look for BRACING, page 21 S Connections 3 Foundations 6 Fundraising 14 Grants and Gifts 16 In December 16 Job Opportunities 20 Nonprofits 4 Opinion 10 People 17 Professional Services...! 8 Volunteers 8
Philanthropy Journal of North Carolina (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Dec. 1, 1995, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75