LA Philanthropy Watch

All right, this post has nothing to do with the nonprofit sector in Los Angeles.  Perhaps it’s because I’m an avid runner, but during Thursday’s morning commute I was cheered by a story I heard on NPR’s Morning Edition.

Sacha Pfeiffer of WBUR reported on a women’s fitness center, run by the nonprofit Healthworks Foundation, in a working class neighborhood (Boston’s Codman Square).  Membership fees (up to $30 a month) are on a sliding scale, based on income; one woman featured in the report pays only $10.

The story (”Nonprofit Gym Helps Low-Income Community Get Fit,” June 17, 2010), which began by noting an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in many low-income neighborhoods, featured a quote by Bill Walczak, who helped raise the money to build the gym.

“In middle-income communities, there’s somehow an expectation that you’re going to have access to gyms,” he said. “When you’re in a low-income community, that stuff doesn’t exist.”

Perhaps this inequity isn’t what immediately comes to mind when we think about issues of social justice – but good health bestows such a wealth of benefits that providing access to an affordable gym for 700 women, and after-school programs for children, is an eminently worthwhile endeavor for a nonprofit organization.

The folks at the California Participation Project (featured in an enthusiastic November 11, 2009 post, “Project to Expand Role of Nonprofits in Promoting Civic Participation,” and in “Quote of the Day…On Nonprofit Organizations“) have a number of links to help California voters prepare for the upcoming election, including:

2010 Voter Information Guide, which features information about registering to vote, finding your polling place, sample ballots, election dates and much more,

and, for those of you who feel a greater responsibility than I do to vote for every down-ballot item (such as all the judicial elections):

Meet and Learn about Judicial Candidates, offers information about a May 20 forum (sponsored by Southwestern School of Law and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County – and featuring the Honorable Judith McConnell and KCET’s Val Zavala) to meet the 21 candidates running for 6 Superior Court seats in Los Angeles County.  The event is  free, but registration – by May 17 – is required.

On March 2, 2010, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy released a report titled, “Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County.”  The report, written by Lisa Ranghelli and Julia Craig, begins with a question, “When foundations and other institutional grantmakers invest in policy advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement by nonprofit organizations, does it make a difference for local residents?”

NCRP researchers studied the activities and accomplishments of 15 community nonprofits in Los Angeles County.  These activities – advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement -  were supported by $75.5 million in funding; foundations provided more than three-quarters ($58 million) of this support.  The NCRP report documented the successes: policy changes resulting from efforts undertaken during the five years from 2004 through 2008.  Whenever possible, the NCRP report put a dollar value on those successes.  When affordable housing units are built or the minimum wage increases, for instance, benefits can be quantified.  How effective were these efforts?

Among the findings of the report:

• the aggregate dollar value (where it could be measured) of benefits conferred on the community was $6.88 billion;
• for every dollar of philanthropic funding received, $91 of benefits resulted; and
• non-monetary benefits included cleaner air, improved working conditions, and increased access to college prep classes, among others.

Increasing civic engagement and political participation gave people a voice.  Through that voice, they succeeded in influencing public policy outcomes.

NCRP, which bills itself as “an independent watchdog of foundations,” seeks greater openness, accountability and responsiveness by foundations.  For NCRP, public policy and advocacy are central to helping people in marginalized communities – with little visibility and less influence.  Organizing in their communities, becoming participants in the political process, advocating for policy changes that will make a difference over the long term are effective avenues to change.  Aaron Dorfman, executive director of NCRP, expressed the hope that foundations would consider devoting at least 25% of their grant dollars to efforts to bring about change through political and civic engagement (“Getting back more from giving,” by Alexandra Zavis, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2010).

“Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities,” which essentially puts politics – active engagement in the political process – front and center, is the fourth report in a series from the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.  The previous reports looked at community organizing, advocacy, and civic participation in New Mexico (December 2008), North Carolina (May 2009), and Minnesota (September 2009).

I’ll have more on the report in future posts.

Post #5 – This is my final post in this series following an interview with Amy Schur, who leads the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

Near the end of our interview I asked Amy Schur what her biggest challenges were – and what was in store for ACCE going forward.  Here is what I learned:

The organization is taking great pains to focus on organizational development, putting into place strong financial management and governance structures, human resources staff systems, and staff and board training programs.

Early in our interview she offered a summary of ACORN’s mistakes, which began with the failure, as the organization grew and acquired a measure of power, to invest in the quality infrastructure both to support its work and to adequately defend itself against attacks.

The steps ACCE is taking are designed to remedy this failure.  (Note that her critique matches the assessment of the Harshbarger report, while her focus for ACCE in the coming months overlaps with the roadmap the Harshbarger report lays out for ACORN.)

“Beyond that, we’re focused on what we do,” she told me, explaining that the organization’s leadership believed that it had freed itself in some measure from the ACORN controversies.  So, at this stage, it could draw on what had been California ACORN’s strengths, while leaving behind the encumbrances.

“People are hopeful,” she told me.  “It’s thrilling to be on the ground floor” creating a new organization.  She expressed confidence that they would succeed.

I asked her about whether there had been disputes with national ACORN.  (I believe that Illinois ACORN’s break from the national organization had not been amicable.)  She said that the national organization had been supportive.

“They wish us luck.”  ACORN has passed a resolution that they will not compete with ACCE in California.

I noted that the ACCE office in Los Angeles had been the ACORN office before the split, and asked about conflicts over assets.

ACORN terminated the lease – which is now held by ACCE – after the state board decided to break away.  ACCE will purchase computers, office furniture and other assets from ACORN at fair market prices – being negotiated by attorneys.  (As our interview began a few minutes late, Amy Schur remarked that she had been spending quite a bit of time on the phone with attorneys.)

Did she expect other states to follow California’s lead and break away?  Had she had calls from ACORN leaders of other chapters?

She acknowledged that other states might be exploring their options.  (New York ACORN, of course, has subsequently split off from the national group to form Communities for Change.)

When we spoke there was an interim board of directors in place – ‘interim’ because of plans to establish a deliberately bottom-up structure for ACCE.  The board of directors will be composed of elected officers of ACCE’s chapters throughout the state.  ACCE members were meeting the first weekend in February to draft by-laws.  A range of decisions had to be made.  (For instance, should city boards consisting of grassroots leaders – dues paying officers – have one delegate each on the state board, or should there be proportional representation?)

ACCE has also established an advisory council – consisting of nonprofit and civic leaders with experience in management, oversight, and training issues – to guide ACCE in developing a viable organization with the strengths that ACORN lacked.

Amy Schur was heartened by the help the organization has received.  She meets with a transition oversight committee every week – setting up operations.  The group has been highly engaged and helpful.

“I’ve been amazed,” she said, noting that in a time of crisis, you have to reach out to your friends and supporters.  Many people shared “a desire to help ACCE succeed.”

In a previous post I offered a long list of doubts about whether ACORN was likely to succeed.  Subsequent events – related to New York ACORN’s split – have reinforced those doubts.

I have few doubts about ACCE’s prospects for success.  I have been impressed by what I’ve learned about this grassroots group.  The bottom-up structure, commitment to democratic principles, and focus on local neighborhoods are great strengths.  The leadership is committed to developing more robust tools for financial management, governance, and training for staff and boards.

I believe ACCE will prove its effectiveness as an independent organization giving voice to low- and middle-income Californians.

ACCE is a 501(c)(4) organization: a nonprofit public benefit corporation incorporated in California on December 8, 2009.  A separate affiliated organization, a 501(c)(3), the Community Empowerment Education Fund, was incorporated on the same day.

(The image is a photograph of the building that houses ACCE’s Los Angeles headquarters.)

Previous posts in this series:

• Fourth post: California ACORN Was Unified in Deciding to Break Away
• Third post: California ACORN’s Choice: Stay with ACORN or Go It Alone
• Second post: Simmering Dissent Within ACORN Preceded Break Up
• First post: The Birth of ACCE: First Post in a New Series

Over ten years ago Victor Dorff, clutching a thick stack of mail, observed that there were more solicitations for charitable organizations than anything else.  Reflecting on the wastefulness of direct mail (see my previous post), and all the trees felled to keep the mail coming, he thought, “There has be a better way to do this.”

Lisa Sonne, Victor’s wife and co-founder of Charity Checks, recalls their question, “Why don’t we have a universal charitable giving certificate?”  An idea was born: Charity Checks.

Essentially a Charity Check is a gift certificate – which can be redeemed at any of the roughly 1 million nonprofit organizations in the U.S.

Back in the day – the late ’90s – it was not unheard of to receive, in lieu of a gift (on a birthday, at Christmas, or on another special occasion), a card that said something to the effect: A gift has been given in your name to the Surfrider Foundation.  (You can still do this, of course.)  And that was (and is) a wonderful way to support the environment and to involve a friend or family member in giving. But, what if the recipient of the gift doesn’t share the giver’s passion for Surfrider Foundation?  What if s/he happens to have a commitment to another philanthropic cause?

When Charity Checks giving certificates are given as gifts, recipients can give to any nonprofit – 501(c)(3) – of their choice.  Not just the giver’s favorite group, not just organizations from a select list, but any nonprofit organization in the country.  Just complete the ‘Pay to the Order Of’ line on the Charity Checks giving certificate and send it to the charity of your choice.  The charity can deposit the giving certificate (as they would any other donation check) and put the funds to use right away.  It’s that simple.

Since Charity Checks is a nonprofit organization, purchases of their charitable giving certificates are tax-deductible.  Some people purchase the giving certificates for themselves because they don’t wish to receive solicitations by mail during the year.  They send the giving certificates anonymously to the charities of their choice, get their tax deduction through Charity Checks, and shrink the stack of mail solicitations they receive.

Some people like to give now, but decide later.  “Some people like to make donations this year by December 31 and get the tax receipt, but then choose their charities next year when they have more time.  Or use their drawer full of Charity Checks for gifts in the New Year – birthdays, graduations, and special occasions as they occur,” said Ms. Sonne.  “We call it ‘pre-paid philanthropy.’  One tax receipt, multiple options.”

Here’s the most astonishing feature of Charity Checks: there are no administrative fees.  They simply ask donors to cover mailing costs.  (PayPal charges a credit card fee for transactions completed online, but Charity Checks doesn’t take a cut for reimbursement like some groups or add additional processing fees.)  When you purchase a Charity Checks giving certificate for $25 or $100 or whatever you wish, every cent of the check goes to the nonprofit of your choice.

How do Mr. Dorff and Ms. Sonne manage this?  It’s a labor of love inspired by a spirit of charity. The expenses they incur are recovered whenever a supporter makes a contribution to Charity Checks.

The  Dorff/Sonne family has also developed charitable literacy programs at schools in the region.  A sponsor purchases giving certificates for students, who learn about the world of nonprofits, do research on charities, and chose an organization to support.

Finally, a quick story – a ‘6 degrees of separation’ tale (or perhaps 2 degrees in this instance) – about how the idea for universal giving certificates transformed into an actual nonprofit organization.  A family friend, a landscape architect who worked for Scott Cook (co-founder of Intuit), offered to deliver a package of materials to him.  After reviewing the materials, Mr. Cook decided that he’d like to try out the idea.  In what was essentially a pilot program, he purchased 42 giving certificates for senior executives at Intuit.  He made the gifts and his executives selected their charities.  Everything worked without a hitch and Charity Checks was on its way.

I learned about Charity Checks when Lisa Sonne posted a comment on “A Look at Charitable Giving As a Tough Year Comes to an End.”   A follow-up phone call led to an engaging conversation and her story about the inspiration for and history of Charity Checks.

As we race toward the New Year, there is still time in the current tax year to make charitable contributions via Charity Checks.

“They don’t claim to know who’s naughty or nice, but some Houston charities are asking whether children are in the country legally before giving them toys.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that some charities are asking for children’s birth certificates or Social Security numbers before registering them to receive presents collected in toy drives by firefighters, police officers, churches, schools and other groups.   Houston charities were split on this issue.

“When you distribute toys to 10,000 to 12,000 kids, it’s impossible to background (check) every child,” the article quotes the Houston police officer who oversees the Blue Santa program – which does not consider immigration status; instead, it collects names from police officers, schools, and churches.

Making a list, checking it twice …

Most of the groups required registration for children to receive gifts – from a Houston ministry (with 686 kids registered) to the Salvation Army (with 30,000 children signed up).  Registration, even for groups that didn’t require proof that at least one parent was a U.S. citizen, required a child’s identification (such as a birth certificate or photo id.); some groups required proof of income as well.

Some charities relied on recommendations from other groups or lists from other sources – such as children of families that receive food stamps or Medicaid.

In some instances, all children in a family were deemed eligible to receive gifts if they had at least one sibling who was a citizen.

H/t: Yglesias.

(Photo of toys at a FEMA field office, headed for Houston in 2008 after Hurricane Ike struck the South Texas Gulf Coast, from Wikimedia.)

Update 1 – December 2: In a follow up story in today’s Houston Chronicle, two charities deny an earlier report that they use immigration status to determine whether or not children receive Christmas gifts, saying “their intentions have been misunderstood.”  They now explain that they require identification (birth certificates, Social Security numbers,  or documents indicating immigration status) only to deter fraud.  As noted below, some groups require registrants to provide proof of income as well.

“We have to be good stewards,” a spokesman for the Salvation Army explained.

Editor’s Note: I posted this story yesterday without commentary because I thought the irony spoke for itself.  Today I’ll offer a comment: the logistical challenges of making a list of 30,000 needy youngsters and distributing Christmas presents to each of them are formidable.  I find it easy to accept this appeal to good stewardship, which is consistent with the best of intentions and a genuine spirit of giving.

Thanks to Philanthropy Today for alerting me to the follow up story.

Update 2 – December 4: See this post, which reports that following protests in Los Angeles, the Salvation Army will no longer ask for Social Security numbers when registering children for toy drives.

A spoof preview of the traditional White House pardoning of a Thanksgiving turkey.

“We think of nonprofits as the sleeping giant of our democracy.”

I heard this at the presentation by the California Participation Project (and a number of its partners), which I mentioned earlier this week.

This initiative of the California Participation Project is elegant in its simplicity: to harness the reach and influence of nonprofits to advance a significant social good (increasing civic participation – chiefly voting, but also taking part in the U.S. Census) – with only a slight downside for the nonprofit taking on this expanded role (because activating civic participation could be seamlessly integrated into the nonprofit’s operations).

Think of handing out a booklet and voter registration form, or advising employees of the registration deadline, or sponsoring a candidate forum.  The upside – empowering people (whom the nonprofit serves) and their communities – would be considerable.

What an great idea – and the quotation is spot-on.

(The photo is by hytone on Flickr.)

One page one of last Friday’s Los Angeles Times, Bob Pool reported on a 97-year-old woman, living with her two sons in an SUV on the street.  On page A3 of today’s Times, Pool has a follow-up story, which begins, “A 97-year-old homeless woman living with her two sons in a battered 1973 Chevrolet Suburban in Venice has received a temporary home, compliments of a nonprofit Los Angeles housing group.”

The group, Integrated Recovery Network, launched a year ago under the auspices of Community Partners, finds housing for people who would otherwise be homeless – while providing comprehensive services, as needed.  Essentially, if I understand correctly, the group has created a network of providers (of housing, medical care, mental health treatment, and addiction management) to assure that people in need receive seamless, comprehensive support.