Diversity in Governance and Employment @joejamg - Tumblr Blog

Posts

At the annual conference of the leading international academic trade association for the study of nonprofits, a group of panelists, including NPQ’s Ruth McCambridge, took a hard look at why nonprofit governance in the US remains white-dominated and what to do about that.

Week 14 Group A Original Content Posted: 11/25/2018 (Late)

I found this article particularly interesting because it connects many of the experiences I am having in my professional life. The one issue with this article is it completely omitted the discussion of disability as part of diversity. The BoardSource report noted disability diversity as the area where nonprofit governance is lacking most. (Note: The BoardSource report discussed in this article is part of my Literature Review for this class.)

I am in the process of being installed onto a state council that oversees funding for nonprofit disability centers throughout the state, and there is a history of systemic racism in the way the funding has been distributed. A known weakness of the board is its lack of diversity and efforts to diversify it have had limited success so far. The current leadership understands the importance of diversity, equity, and culture change. However, they are still struggling to undo the effects of institutionalized racism.

Of particular interest is the discussion of how the selection of board members based on “financial capacity” often leads to the exclusion of minorities. Since minorities experience poverty at higher rates, this creates a disparate impact for minorities in relation to participation in nonprofit governance. The community capitals framework seems to be an especially valuable tool for nonprofits looking to increase their board diversity.

What do you find to be the most important ideas presented in this article? Do you agree or disagree that board members should be considered independent of their ability to contribute financially to an organization? How would you address issues of equity within your own nonprofit organization?

#featured content

Recently, the Council on Foundations and the Foundation Center released a five-year study, which showed that grant-making by U.S. foundations to charitable organizations outside the United States reached an all-time high representing 27% of all grants made from 2011 to 2015.

Group A Week 10 Original Content Posted: 10/31/2018 (Note: Posted late. No credit for this post.)

This article was particularly applicable to this past week’s foundations article. It links back with some of our earlier discussions in the semester related to extremely wealthy individuals and scientific philanthropy. Unsurprisingly, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest giver. It’s also interesting that individual grants from these foundations have tripled in value in that time period. I am interested in the cause(s) of these foundations directing more of their funding abroad in an era of increased isolationism and nationalism. Is it primarily controlled by the fact that Gates is the most influential philanthropist in the world, and has convinced other philanthropists to support his causes? (And that they assume he will support their causes later?) Is this increase in giving primarily driven by the scientific philanthropy philosophy of redistributing wealth within society? If so, it would signal a view on the part of the ultra-wealthy of a world-based society as more important than societies defined by their nation-states.

I went back and found an interview with Bill Gates from January in which he seems to argue for enabling market-based economies through his philanthropy work and reducing foreign reliance on the United States. http://time.com/5086907/bill-gates-nancy-gibbs-interview/ It seems likely the latter is in response to the increasing levels of isolationism and nationalism in order to shelter his work from criticism. With the former reasoning, a selfish motivation is a possibility. More countries embracing market-based economies is likely to increase his own wealth via his investments in Microsoft and other companies that will do well as the world industrializes. Interestingly, he notes that none of the work he is doing is possible without partnerships from the United States government. This ties back into the ideas we previously discussed that the voluntary sector, including foundations, are an integral part of pluralistic, democratic societies. He noted that other countries are not as progressive in this area.

What do you think? Are the ultra-wealthy primarily funding this increase in international giving in order to increase their own wealth over time? Is Gates’ positive outlook about the world’s future realistic? Is the rising nationalism and isolationism throughout the world having an effect on the decisions of wealthy philanthropists?

remarkablyrandom333-deactivated

When Hurricane Maria slammed into Puerto Rico on Sept. 20, 2017, Judith Rodriguez was asleep in her home. Or rather, she was trying to sleep, but the sounds of the deadly storm blowing over the island woke her up.

In light of the recent news that climate change is having dramatic effects on the world and the increasing rise in major storms, such as Hurricane Michael, it’s important to look at mutual aid and charity regarding the concept of disaster capitalism, a concept presented by Naomi Klein in the book Shock Doctrine referring to the practice of making markets out of restoring areas devastated by natural disasters. This article looks at another notion: disaster collectivism.

“But when we look closer, we see that the “disaster capitalist" isn’t the only character to emerge out of crisis situations. In these tumultuous times it is crucial that we remember disaster capitalism is only part of the story. There is another story taking place; one based on altruism, solidarity, and social responsibility — and when we look closely, we can see it happening all around us.”

This idea beautifully demonstrates the type of grassroots organizing and coalition building described in the New York University case study, “How a Coalition of Immigration Groups Is Advocating for Broad Social and Political Change: Power in Diversity.” During times of disaster, people pull together to do what needs to be done to collectively save the survivors and provide for their needs. Moreover, it helped to provide for the wide range of needs simultaneously. Similarly, the case study organizers of NYIC found the same to be true.

“Being part of a coalition allows you to do many things at one time, there are a number of cards you can play.

During these disasters, organizations like Undocufund and Occupy Sandy, described in this article, learned about the capacity for human connection and outpouring of aid. Occupy Sandy pulled in tens of thousands of volunteers while Undocufund received millions in donations. These results demonstrate how advocating for the people in need reaches audiences and results in not only significant immediate impact of the affected communities, but also the development of leaders and empowerment of the people.

“Filling in a vacuum left by the official response, Occupy Sandy volunteers worked in partnership with local community organizations and activist networks. Their grassroots efforts focused on empowering poor and working class communities and were based on mutual aid rather than charity.”

joejamg

Group A Week 8 Response 2 Posted: 10/17/2018 This really was a fantastic read! It also really nicely ties into the concept of government and market failure (as problematic as those theories are.) In all of the cases, the government failed to respond to an entire community or in serving specific sub-groups within the community. Markets failed to step in and help in a meaningful way. Altruism and the “Greed is good!” approach of the market don’t mesh well. The article does talk quite a bit about corporate selfishness being problematic after disasters, but does not give any examples or data of how the market failed after these disasters. While my gut instinct that this is probably true, it would have been nice to see some concrete examples from each disaster to help argue the point.

A common thread among all three of the disasters is that the folks in need were primarily minorities. These were people who were either directly marginalized by the government or are traditionally viewed as having limited political power within American society. This connects with the idea that governments in a pluralistic society struggle to meet the needs of all groups, and civil society fills in those gaps. In the examples cited, there were informal associations, nonprofits, churches, and individual community members all stepping up to fill those gaps. It would be interesting to learn if any of these groups will choose to formally organize into nonprofit organizations and if they will feel empowered to advocate/lobby for more government support for their communities’ ongoing recovery and future needs. As the minority percentage of the United States population grows, politicians will have a harder time ignoring their voice and their votes.

givingindy

Strategies that let super PACs delay revealing their donors until after the election are gaining popularity among both Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans alike are looking for ways to delay donor disclosure for their Super-PAC donors. This relates back to the case we read a few weeks ago about donor disclosure laws relating to campaign activity. Many Super-PACs are looking for ways to skirt around disclosure laws by delaying their fund release till after the latest disclosure date. In my opinion, this behavior is unethical. If the laws are in place to establish transparency, skirting around those policies is another way to avoid keep the curtains closed on campaign funds.

joejamg

Group A Week 8 Response 1 Posted: 10/17/2018

Thank you for sharing this. It is pretty disheartening but not surprising to hear this is happening on both sides of the aisle. To relate it back to last week’s topic, I wondered how electioneering activities of Super-PACs discussed in this article and lobbying activities relate.

I do know that super-PACs are not allowed to donate or coordinate directly to election campaigns. (For reference, see this somewhat related Colbert Report Super PAC on coordination from 2012.) For example, if an incumbent is running for re-election and a super-PAC donates to their campaign, then follows up by meeting with the candidates during the election cycle to discuss their goals and strategies, it would be illegal.

However, I found this article from the Kaiser Family Foundation about donations to candidates made by companies via their PACs and individual employees. It also discusses how companies can use their own PACs to put out electioneering communications in support of these candidates. https://khn.org/news/drugmakers-funnel-millions-to-lawmakers-a-few-dozen-get-100000-plus/

Which leaves me with more questions. Are these companies really not meeting at all with their elected representatives before the election to discuss their thoughts/views on pending legislation that affects them? How are lobbying and coordination related if at all in these situations? Can nonprofits operate in the same way or are there more legal constraints in election contributions?

For census takers in many neighborhoods, says an advocate, it's going to be hard to say ‘Yes, we are asking about your citizenship, don’t worry.'

Group A Week 7 Original Content Posted: 10/05/2018

I chose this article because it reminded me of our discussion of Berger and Neuhaus’s theory of mediating structures.

It discusses how the government relies on all types of mediating structures to accomplish the census. These mediating structures include churches, nonprofits, neighborhood groups/leaders, etc. to reach communities that are distrustful of the government or have barriers to participation in the census.

There is an issue among the Hispanic/Latino community with the upcoming census. The policy decisions and rhetoric used by the Trump Administration has left many non-citizen minority individuals feeling threatened by the government. One question in particular is going to create problems, “Are you a citizen?” Though the information on the census only stays within the Department of Commerce, sixty-eight percent of Latinos think the Trump Administration will share this information with law enforcement agencies if they answer no.

Several Hispanic/Latino nonprofit groups are working with the federal government to ensure proper participation in the U.S. Census by the Hispanic/Latino community. These groups are challenging the government to think about how to handle the census to encourage participation. They are also helping their communities understand the harm underrepresentation in the census would cause. For example, job opportunities for Hispanic/Latino workers would be diminished in agencies that practice affirmative action. These groups are serving as the intermediary to ensure that their communities are not harmed and have accurate representation in government planning.

aledunha3-blog

Two providers of nonprofit technology education and training will become one in a merger announced today that will become effective Oct. 1. Tech Impact and…

This article from The NonProfit Times discusses two nonprofit organizations, Tech Impact and Idealware, that are large providers of nonprofit technology, are planning to merge their organizations in the next year. These two nonprofits provide resources like webinars, training videos, and technology support to other organizations in the sector. And while both have been organizations for over a decade, they both have recently experienced large declines in their revenues over the past few years.

This made me think of both our discussions in class this past week and our readings regarding failure theories. In the article, even the executive of Idealware said that she knew their company would need to partner with another organization in order to provide a greater impact. Does this mean that both these companies have experienced voluntary failure? Or is this just an example of high competition in this area of the sector? In my opinion, technology and nonprofit support have been an ever-growing area of the nonprofit sector with comparable companies like Blackbaud, who even has a location here in Indianapolis. However, there are also a large variety of for-profit companies that provide support to nonprofits as well.

It’s important that this type of organization exists, because nonprofits do need to be mindful and aware of technological advances in today’s society, but nonprofits will more often have difficulties with spending the amount of money needed to hire a for-profit company to provide these kinds of services.

What do you think – is the technology/nonprofit support organization structure not built to be a nonprofit organization itself? Are there not enough nonprofit organizations utilizing these types of organizations and/or technology in general? Do you think there may be obstacles to nonprofit organizations using these types of services? Or do you think nonprofits are using for-profit companies for these services?

joejamg

Group A Week 6 Response 2 Posted: 10/01/2018

Thanks for sharing this! I was already familiar with nonprofits that help other nonprofits obtain discounted software, but wasn’t familiar (or maybe I forgot) about these organizations that help nonprofits be strategic in their selection and use of software.

To answer you first question, I think this could be a situation where the market did not initially know how to serve the complex technology needs of non-profits. Since nonprofits are mission driven instead of profit driven, many for-profit companies might have struggled to understand how to market to and serve nonprofit orgs while maintaining a profit. As private, market-based organizations have seen that there is profit to be found in supporting non-profit tech needs, they’ve increased their marketing to nonprofit organizations.

I also noticed that the revenue for both non-profits are miniscule in comparison to larger tech companies. This creates a huge gap in their ability to market themselves. They do not come any where close to having the same brand recognition as large technology support companies. One of Tech Impact’s challenges will be to increase their visibility to nonprofits across the country.

It might be interesting to see this newly merged tech nonprofit could partner with these larger for-profit tech companies to try to come up with a program or project that can use the for-profit’s greater brand recognition and the unique expertise of the nonprofit tech companies in serving other nonprofits.

This article from Forbes discusses why nonprofit and for-profit orgs should partner to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2018/06/05/can-private-and-public-sectors-get-along/#135e3d0d3809

givingindy

To solve some of the world’s most urgent problems, organizations like the Caterpillar Foundation are shifting their efforts away from mere check-writing to form strategic partnerships that make every dollar count.

The Caterpillar Foundation is turning to a new philanthropical strategy: impact investing. They support advocacy groups and grant them money with strings attached in the hopes that they will reduce poverty in areas around the world. This foundation could be setting a trend for other groups like it in supporting advocacy based non-profits on their missions to fuel initiatives that will support their own mission an further the vision of the foundation that grants the money. I found this article really interesting and the concept very compelling. The foundation “mainly invests in programs with clearly defined performance outcomes.” The programs they invest in not only line up with the foundation’s own initiatives, but make it easier to evaluate the success of the program down the road. This kind of investing could change the way programs are structured across the board. If impact investing spreads to foundations that invest in arts and culture or education, programming in these categories might be structured differently to attract grantors with impact investing on their radar.

joejamg

Group A Week 6 Response 1 Posted: 10/01/2018

Thanks for sharing this article. It is interesting to see how one major foundation is shifting their thinking in how to maximize return on investment. As I read through the article, I kept waiting to hear about challenges they may have faced when implementing this new strategy, or maybe even a recognition that applying a market-based approach cannot solve all social issues.

Once I scrolled down to the bottom, I realized that this was actually a marketing piece sponsored by Caterpillar to highlight how they give back to the community. That’s not to say it doesn’t have any value, just that it is likely to have a bias.

One thing I like was their focus on empowering women to be able to go to school. That’s fantastic, but there was no mention of whether they examined what other barriers might exist to getting an education other than carrying water.

I found this journal article that discusses many of the barriers that women in Rwanda face in relation to their education.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2012/396019/

For example there is still a cost to families to send their children to school though the government made the education itself free. For families from high poverty areas, these additional fees can still be a barrier to education for these young women.

It would be interesting to hear more about whether their partnerships through their “three-legged stool” approach help young women overcome these additional barriers.

About four out of five nonprofit CEOS say that racial diversity is relevant to their organizations and slightly fewer report that their organizations are least…

Group A Week 5 Original Content Posted: 09/21/2018

I found this report originally via a Forbes article. When I drilled down to the original article at The Nonprofit Times, I found that one of the key gaps found in the study was partially buried by the both Forbes and The Nonprofit Times. This gap is the lack of representation by people with disabilities.

Applying Ott’s Atom Model of Nonprofit Governance to a social sector nonprofit serving people with disabilities, it could be argued that non-representative/non-disabled governance isn’t a huge deal. The orbits of people with disabilities receiving services would usually be closer to the core of the nonprofits activities. Therefore this lack of diversity would have less of an impact than in a for profit hierarchy. However, this assumes a lack of interaction of constituencies. Imbalance in one constituency can cause the atom to drift in the direction of that imbalance.

In my personal experience interacting with disability-serving organizations, organizations without disabled board members and leadership tend to take a deficit view of disability. These organizations start from the position of what a person can’t do, and attempts to fix those issues via external supports. Organizations with disabled board members tend to focus on an individual’s strengths first. The focus is on how the individual can overcome societal barriers by first using their strengths, then developing weaker skills, and finally by applying external supports where the first two approaches do not work.

Just like any nonprofit that excludes a minority from their governance, nonprofits that don’t include disabled board members are less likely to recognize the innate strengths or unique challenges a minority experiences. They cannot have the expertise gained from that lived experience. Because of this, diversity in all orbits needs to be pursued.

(Note: I specifically chose disabled board members instead of the person-first “board members with disabilities”. This was both for writing clarity purposes, and the increasing acceptance/pride in identifying as a “disabled person” within the disability community.)

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Diversity in Governance and Employment