No result found
Explores the evolution of community philanthropy, and analyzes the combination of factors that have recently altered the entire field. Looks at new options and opportunities, and outlines the changes necessary in order to adapt in a new environment.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation;
Contains board chair's and CEO's messages, financial statements, lists of board members and staff, and highlights of U.S. and international programs with a focus on education and learning; food, health, and well-being; and family economic security.
This Message Builder is a resource for advocates of a bold new U.S. leadership role in creating an open global economy that works for everyone -- including American workers. It is designed to facilitate the preparation of communications aimed at the mainstream American public. Drawing on existing opinion research and on other messaging resources developed by or in partnership with U.S. in the World, this document suggests big themes and ideas to convey and identifies messaging pitfalls to avoid. These broadly applicable recommendations are meant to be tailored to advocates' own voice and needs. At the same time, the common framework provided here should help diverse advocates communicate in mutually reinforcing ways, even if they disagree on policy details.
Examines the roles immigrant-serving nonprofits play in facilitating integration. Surveys programs and services, geographic and ethnic distribution, composition of personnel, sources of funding and support, impact of policy environments, and challenges.
Discusses in detail the legal aspects of mission-related investing, including federal and state fiduciary laws, foundations' fiduciary responsibility, and emerging practices, and makes recommendations. Includes examples of investments and case studies.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation;
Examines Americans' knowledge about and attitudes toward the United States' role in improving the health of people in developing nations, including funding amounts, areas, and criteria. Analyzes data by age, race/ethnicity, and political affiliation.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation;
Outlines survey findings on Americans' support for U.S. aid for global health. Examines views on the amount, types, effectiveness, methods of distribution, and administration and congressional emphasis, as well as interest in global health issues.
According to the authors of Come on in. The water's fine. An exploration of Web 2.0 technology and its emerging impact on foundation communications, foundations that have adopted new and still emerging forms of digital communications -- interactive Web sites, blogs, wikis, and social networking applications -- are finding that they offer "opportunities for focused convenings and conversations, lend themselves to interactions with and among grantees, and are an effective story-telling medium." The report's authors, David Brotherton and Cynthia Scheiderer, of Brotherton Strategies, who spent nearly a year exploring how foundations are using new media, add that "electronic communications create an opportunity to connect people who are interested in an issue with each other and the grantees working on the issue."
The report also acknowledges that the new technologies raise skepticism and concern among foundations. They include the "worry of losing control over the foundation's message, allowing more staff members to represent the foundation in a more public way, opening the flood gates of grant requests or the headache of a forum gone bad with unwanted or inappropriate posts."
Still, the report urges foundations to put aside their worries and make even more forceful use of new media applications and tools. The report argues that whatever is "lost in message control will be more than made up for by the opportunity to engage audiences in new ways, with greater programmatic impact."
Acknowledging that adoption of new media tools will require some cultural and operational shifts in foundations, the report offers suggestions from Ernest James Wilson III, dean and Walter Annenberg chair in communication at the University of Southern California, for how to deal with these challenges. He says that for foundations to make the best use of what the technology offers, they should concentrate on three things:
Build up the individual "human capital" of their staffs and provide them the competencies they need to operate in the new digital world.Make internal institutional reforms to reward creativity and innovation in using these new media internally and among grantees.Build social networks that span sectors and institutions, to engage in ongoing dialogue among private, public, nonprofits and research stakeholders.As Wilson also says, "All of these steps first require leadership, arguably a new type of leadership, not only at the top but also from the 'bottom' up, since many of the people with the requisite skills, attitudes, substantive knowledge and experience are younger, newer employees, and occupy the low-status end of the organizational pyramid, and hence need strong allies at the top."
U.S foundations have considerable freedom to invest their assets in ways that further their missions, even at greater risk or lower financial return. The legal framework that governs the investment of foundation assets is both complex and ambiguous, however, with the result that many foundation leaders and investment advisors are unclear about what is legally permissible. Anne Stetson and Mark Kramer of FSG have prepared two reports, in consultation with nationally-recognized legal experts and senior foundation officers, analyzing the federal tax and state fiduciary laws as they apply to US foundations. In addition to legal analysis, the reports provide practical recommendations as to how foundations can best navigate these laws in making mission-related or program-related investments. A Brief Guide to the Law of Mission Investing for U.S. Foundations is a short 18 page booklet, suitable for foundation staff and boards, as well as their advisors, explaining in non-technical language the factors foundations must consider in making mission investments.
National Council of Nonprofits;
Nonprofit leaders need to understand the distinctions between the three different federal budget bills that have filled news headlines the last month. While the federal stimulus package and the 2009 federal budget have been enacted, the third item (the President's proposed budget for 2010) likely will not be voted on for months. This last one has generated lots of concern and confusion among nonprofits and some donors because it proposes to reduce the amount that high‐income individuals can deduct from their taxes (including for charitable contributions) in order to help pay the largest part of health care reform. To help nonprofit leaders answer questions and lead informed discussions about the last item, this Special Report supplies some basic information about the three budget matters, explains aspects of the proposed change to tax deductions as it relates to charitable contributions, and offers three simple action steps.
The Three Different Federal Budget Matters
One‐time extra funding: On February 17 President Obama signed into law the emergency $787 billion economic stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment of 2009, PL 111‐5, to spend extra money and provide extra tax cuts beyond the normal budget.
Current operating year budget: In February Congress resumed action on the current year (2009) budget that actually began last October 1st. In 2008, Congress and the Bush Administration could not agree on various aspects, so only parts of the budget officially got passed last year; other parts of the federal government were operating through "Continuing Resolutions" that allow government operations to continue at the same basic level as the previous year's budget. The House and the Senate recently finished their work on the rest of the 2009 federal budget, which the President signed last week.
Proposed budget for future years: On February 26 President Obama released his PROPOSED budget for 2010, which – if passed – would go into effect from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. His proposed budget included two interrelated proposals of interest to many nonprofits. The first is the President's proposal to create a $634 billion reserve fund to underwrite the initial major step towards reforming our nation's health care system, an issue that many people perceive as the greatest threat to our country's fiscal sustainability. The second item is the proposed mechanism for paying for the bulk of that reform ($318 billion worth): the President's PROPOSAL to change the amount that "high income" people (the 1.2% of Americans with income greater than $250,000 a year) can deduct from their taxes (including for charitable donations), reducing the deduction from 33% or 35% (depending on the person's tax bracket) to the 28% rate that other itemizers can claim. Importantly, even if Congress agreed with the reduction, it would not apply to anyone until – at the earliest – January 2011.
This recently published report provides the first comprehensive analysis of mission investing by U.S. foundations. The study, funded by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, analyzes the mission investment activity of 92 U.S. foundations, which have made a combined total of $2.3 billion of mission investments. Mission investing is a more specific type of social investing, and represents the use of financial investments as tools to achieve a foundation's mission. Through interviews with foundations and extensive data collection, FSG assembled a rich picture of current and historical mission investment activity stretching back almost 40 years. The study found that the number of foundations engaged in mission investing has doubled in recent years, and the amount of funds committed annually has tripled. Although most mission investments are still low-interest loans, foundations are increasingly using equity and other investments that generate market-rate returns. Surprisingly, most of the growth has been driven by smaller foundations with assets under $200 million.
Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations;
As events in the business sector have highlighted, companies can play by the rules and yet produce misleading financial statements. This study examines the nongovernmental organizations that provide a substantial portion of higher education in the United States. We seek to determine whether private colleges and universities take advantage of the discretion available to them under accounting and auditing standards by presenting an operating measure in their statement of activities. We find that nearly 60 percent of schools report an operating measure but the items included or excluded from operations vary widely.
This publication is Hauser Center Working Paper No. 17. The Hauser Center Working Paper Series was launched during the summer of 2000. The Series enables the Hauser Center to share with a broad audience important works-in-progress written by Hauser Center scholars and researchers.