LA Philanthropy Watch

Last summer, LA Philanthropy Watch featured a post about an announcement – in a July 28 memo to LACMA staff – that the museum would discontinue the classic film program (“Weekend at the Movies to End Run at LACMA,” July 29, 2009).  I followed up with a number of posts highlighting the efforts of Save Film at LACMA, a grassroots organization that sprung up to campaign on behalf of the film program and which – when interim funding came through from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Ovation TV – succeeded in winning a one-year reprieve for the endangered program.

Now, after a 6-month hiatus at the Save Film at LACMA blog, co-founders Debra Levine and Doug Cummings weigh in again (“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”).  While their assessment reveals some encouraging developments, the status quo still looks “dismally the same.”

The past year has seen increasing attendance (and a number of sold-out performances) for the classic film program, the successful launch of a Film Club (which has generated modest revenues), and a welcome spill-over effect, with a revival of repertory film programs across Los Angeles.

Museum Director Michael Govan has expressed support for film, pledged to raise funds to endow the program, and – according to a LACMA spokesperson – has a “lot of ‘asks’ out.”

Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have publicly embraced the campaign, while the museum has added a number of Trustees affiliated with the entertainment industry.

Yet no one has stepped up to pledge a major gift to ensure a stable, permanent source of funding.  In fact, continuation of the program beyond June 30, 2010 appears to be in doubt.  Ms. Levine and Mr. Cummings suggest that the film program is “still a begging orphan … on a shoestring budget.”  Their complaint that the program has not been “integrated into the Museum panoply,” carries the suggestion that at LACMA film is still simply not regarded as fine art.

Readers interested in following the ongoing drama can do so at Save Film at LACMA or at the group’s Facebook page, which currently lists 4,953 fans.

Facebook has been an essential element of the group’s grassroots campaign, as described by Debra Levine’s feature at LA Philanthropy Watch, “(Not) The Last Picture Show or Good Writing Wins the Day for Save Film at LACMA,” which provided an insider’s account.

A vintage video appeal can be found here: Save Film @ LACMA.

Pablo Eisenberg places the hidden camera video issue squarely within a right wing campaign, which gained momentum exponentially when the mainstream media jumped aboard:

“The media war they waged against ACORN was brutal and effective, despite, or perhaps because, of its distortions, lies and hysteria. The mainstream media virtually ignored the issue until the ferocity of the campaign reached its height after the release of the videos. When the major newspapers did cover the story, they did little investigative reporting of their own, preferring not to challenge many of the wild assertions of their right wing colleagues….” (From Mr. Eisenberg’s contribution to the March 31 Huffington Post, featured in “Epitaph for ACORN: Done In by Its Friends?”

In my initial post, “Conservative Activists’ Sting: the Undercover Videos,”  I had tried to stay somewhat above the fray, more focused on summarizing the public controversy as it had played out in the media, than on defending or condemning ACORN.  While critical of the videographers’ choreographed crusade (which I likened to performance art), I also noted Bertha Lewis’ characterization of what was captured on tape as “horrendous,” “outrageous,” and “indefensible.” But – although I was reluctant to defend the indefensible – I added a second post, “The Filmmakers’ Invisible Art: Editing to Tell a Story,”  noting that the selectively edited videotapes (“doctored,” as Mr. Eisenberg put it) were designed to tell a story.  I concluded that because we lack “any reason to put our trust in Mr. O’Keefe” and his allies, “we have no reason to accept the story as presented.”

Recently, the Attorney General of the State of California, which initiated an investigation into ACORN and the hidden camera videos at the request of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, obtained copies of all the unedited videos (and has made the videotapes from California available online).

The report from Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office confirms the critical judgments about James O’Keefe and the videos as released, as this press release summarizes:

Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O’Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a “pimp” (O’Keefe) and his “prostitute,” actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.

Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General’s report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O’Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

“The evidence illustrates,” Brown said, “that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”

The January 13, 2010 press release / statement by Amy Schur announcing the launch of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment asserted that “vicious politically motivated attacks have led to right-wing activists digging through our trash and editing undercover videos to tell a lie so malicious that, if it were true, would upset any citizen.”  There is no question, in view of what we know now, that the undercover videos – as edited and released –represented a malicious lie.  (The press release is featured in my February 5 post, “California Chapter Splits from ACORN to Form New Group.”)

Rachel Maddow, comparing the unedited videotapes with the edited versions – and outraged commentary – broadcast on Fox News, unravels the deceptions.  Her 12-minute feature – Context, Lies, and Videotape – is a case study of how media-savvy conservatives bamboozled the mainstream press and United States Congress:

“If you watched the footage these guys released, if you followed the wall to wall coverage on Fox, if you read all the fawning mainstream media coverage of what these guys did, if you were a Member of Congress and you voted to defund ACORN because of the outrage portrayed in these tapes – you were had.”

But, of course, this retrospective look is of little consequence at this stage, since the conservatives’ campaign worked.

John Atlas (whose book about ACORN, Seeds of Change, will be published this fall) points to release of the undercover videos as devastating to the organization.  “Acorn would have recovered had it not been for the incident involving the fake prostitute and pimp,” he told Ben Gose (Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Local Affiliates Seek to Rise from the Ruins of a Besieged Organizing Group,” April 4, 2010 – Subscription required).  Pablo Eisenberg concurs, suggesting that the videos’ release “provided the nails that sealed the organization’s coffin.”

Wade Rathke – ACORN’s founder, who led the organization for nearly 4 decades – endorses this view (in conversation).  Mr. Rathke’s views will be featured more prominently in my next ACORN post.

Click here to view a video of Andrew Breitbart (whose Big Government website released the videos that hoodwinked the mainstream media) musing about racism and the burden of proof – and concluding with a comment about the videos.

“Its embezzlement scandal, poor management and the failure of top leadership triggered the unraveling of the substantial organization that at its peak claimed more than 400,000 grassroots members. The decades-long criticism and attacks by right wing opponents, concerned about ACORN’s progressive agenda and successful voter registration campaigns, helped to undermine the organization’s public status and reputation.

And the widely circulated, doctored videos taken by two conservative investigators in several ACORN offices, allegedly showing employees giving inappropriate advice about taxes and housing, provided the nails that sealed the organization’s coffin.

But what proved to be most damaging to ACORN’s cause was the reluctance, and indeed failure, of progressive nonprofit groups, large liberal foundations and Democrat politicians to come to ACORN’s support and assistance. With friends like these, ACORN never had a chance.”

With this remarkable introduction, in a recent contribution to the Huffington Post (”ACORN: Done in by its Friends,” March 31, 2010), Pablo Eisenberg – a knowledgeable, eloquent advocate for increasing philanthropic funding to alleviate poverty, assist people of color, and advance social justice – begins a critique of the events leading to the collapse of ACORN.

The first two paragraphs present a damning summary of ACORN’s failures – including theft, mismanagement, and flawed leadership – and a reference to relentless right wing attacks, while the third paragraph offers a conclusion that the demise of ACORN should be laid at the feet of others: progressive nonprofits, liberal foundations, and Democratic office holders.  Come what may, in Mr. Eisenberg’s view, ACORN’s natural allies should have come to the rescue – because its loss is so significant.

Mr. Eisenberg’s essay will provide a jumping off point for a reconsideration (which I pledged to do on March 15, “ACORN Revisited: Readers Question This Blog’s Account“) of the series on ACORN presented at LA Philanthropy Watch (beginning with a February 8 post, “Three Strikes – A Mighty Grassroots Group Goes Down Swinging”).

I did not set out, initially, to review or critique ACORN’s recent history.  I intended only to put a local story, the launch of ACCE – the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, into context for my readers by summarizing a drama that had played out in the media beginning in summer 2008.  But media narratives have a point of view: sometimes they inform; at other times, they mislead.  In presenting background on ACORN, I had to decide what to accept and what to challenge.  I emphasized some points at the expense of others.  I offered a summary of a long, complex tale.  A number of readers have raised questions about my presentation.  I am revisiting the issue out of a sense of fairness and a commitment to try to get things right – or, at least, to give voice to my critics.

In my next post – “Was Mickey Mouse’s Voter Registration an Urban Legend?,” I will begin my reconsideration with a look at the voter registration controversy.

(Photo of Pablo Eisenberg from Wikimedia.)

Update – Comment moved into post – by Tweets that mention Epitaph for ACORN: Done In by Its Friends? | LA Philanthropy Watch — Topsy.com – on 16. Apr, 2010

Post #5 – Discarding a forecast and searching for better information

As I noted earlier, the assertion that 100,000 nonprofits (more or less) will fail has been widely quoted in the popular press, business media, and many nonprofit sources over the past year.  One hundred thousand (whether “as many as 100,000,” “100,000,” or “100,000 or more,” and regardless of the time frame – one year, six months, the duration of the recession …) is a fat, frightening number.  And the estimate came from a respected scholar.  By the time the authors of “Convergence” reported it, it was quite familiar to the nonprofit community.  It was also out of date.  Things change; we learn more; we have reason to reassess what we thought was a sure thing.  That’s the way scholarship works (and science, and business, and philanthropy, and so on).

I suggest that this forecast, no matter how well justified or how emblematic it was for a number of critical months, has lost its mojo; it should be retired from service.

As discussed in my previous posts, Paul Light, professor at NYU’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, has revisited this issue; in doing so, he has revised his prediction, given a brief description of his methodology, and commented more broadly about how nonprofits are faring right now.

Information please

In recent months (and before seeing his own reassessment) I was surprised not to encounter any challenges to Paul Light’s forecast, questions about his methodology, or objections that his assessment lacked corroborating evidence.  Moreover, I came across no discussions that put the 100,000 figure into perspective.  What’s the baseline?  How many nonprofits go out of business in a year when the economy is flat?  Is 100,000 ten times more, or twice as many, or …? (Perhaps such conversations have taken place in the halls of academia, public policy institutes, or foundations – but I saw no critical discussion in the popular press, in brand name nonprofit media, among various trade associations in the sector, or on well-known nonprofit blogs.)

At this point, I find the lack of public discussion more understandable: First of all, there is a consensus that the nonprofit sector has been hit hard by the economy.  Efforts are focused on surviving and thriving in this environment, not on quantifying how badly things may turn out.  When I spoke recently with Maria Stokes of the United Way of the Bay Area, she said that the media were no longer much interested in surveys assessing the challenges to nonprofits; they were concerned with nonprofits’ strategies going forward.

This pragmatic outlook – how do we navigate the fix we’re in – is of overriding importance right now.

Second, there is a dearth of data – especially data that is not literally years old – to help us get a quantitative handle on the threat the nonprofits’ survival. (This is a far cry from the ‘real-time’ information we’re accustomed to in other realms.)

Contrast this to the national economy, about which there is a multitude of data, including numbers on unemployment, foreclosures, productivity, state budget deficits, stimulus dollars spent, TARP funds recovered, and so on.  Accessible information about nonprofit failures is much harder to come by.

This information-vacuum has repercussions in the policy area.  Paul Light has observed, “Largely ignored during last year’s bailout party in Washington, nonprofits have been left to save themselves. The lack of any government response to the sector’s fiscal calamity appears to reflect a quiet agreement that there are just too many nonprofits out there. If the crisis pushes some nonprofits to the brink of failure, so be it.”

I’d like to strike a different note: one factor (among many) that allows this indifference is the lack of facts and figures.  Your Member of Congress (at least if s/he is in the majority party in a district with high unemployment) has a compelling interest in lowering the unemployment rate.  That’s a number that is regularly reported; furthermore, trend lines in unemployment can be plotted on graphs.  But the number of nonprofits going under?  If there are no data available, the problem is for all practical purposes nearly invisible.  Invisible problems, especially at a time with so many high-profile crises, are unlikely to become the focus of public policy priorities.

Question without an answer?

Will we get confirmation two (or three) years from now that 25,000 nonprofits (Paul Light’s most recent prediction) have been driven out of business by the recession and its aftermath?  Is it not at all clear – in the absence of an elaborate research project in our future – that we will ever learn how many nonprofits have crashed.  The National Center for Charitable Statistics may be researchers’ most reliable source of data on nonprofits, but it has no registry for nonprofit failures.  Charting nonprofits that go under would be a dauntingly difficult task.

The sector is huge and diverse – with many obvious consequences.  Outcomes for housing agencies may be starkly different than the outcomes for arts and cultural groups.  Huge nonprofit hospitals and HMOs may fare better than free clinics.  Funding sources vary widely across the sector.  Regional differences abound.  Furthermore, a nonprofit might disappear for many reasons: a catastrophic financial collapse, a merger with another institution, a conversion to for-profit status, and so on.

Amassing meaningful data to reliably measure nonprofit failures – across the sector nationally – may just not be in the cards.  As this realization dawned on me, my initial surprise faded.  Now I know better.

I appreciate the comments – in an email response to a question – of Marcus Lam, of UCLA’s Center for Civil Society, for providing a helpful perspective on the issues discussed in the final section of this post.

Previous posts in this series:

• Fourth post – Appeal to Surveys: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits
• Third post – Emblematic Forecast: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits
• Second post – Appeal to Authority: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits
• First post – Myth or Fact: Economic Crisis Sounds a Death Knell for Nonprofits

Post #4 – Consideration of two surveys as justification for the forecast

In addition to referencing Paul Light’s November 2008 appraisal, the Irvine Foundation report references two surveys to document its embrace of the loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits forecast.  Let us consider each in turn:

Footnote 3 cites the report of a survey conducted by the United Way of the Bay Area.  The report, in the form of a May 28, 2009 press release [PDF], began, “One third of Bay Area nonprofits are concerned they may cease operations in the next year according to United Way of Bay Area’s 2009 Nonprofits Pulse Survey.  Correspondingly, 34% report they have two or fewer months of operating expenses in reserves.”

This survey of nonprofit organizations in 13 San Francisco Bay Area counties was conducted from April 14-27, 2009; I have no doubt that the report accurately reflected the 391 responses received.  But 7 months later, what are the implications of these survey results?

I recently spoke with Maria Stokes, Communications Director of the United Way of the Bay Area, to ask whether the extensive concerns of nonprofit failures had been realized over the past seven months.  She advised me that the United Way has not conducted another survey and is not aware of widespread failures.  This is not to say that things are rosy: nonprofits continue to struggle with declining revenues and increasing demands.

The United Way of the Bay Area has encouraged collaborations among the agencies it funds to help stretch resources and provide help.  SparkPoint, an initiative to assist families and individuals create financial plans to reach their goals – rather than simply to provide a ‘hand-out’ – focuses on integrating a bundle of services to help clients manage credit, increase income, and build assets.

There has been a 70% increase in calls to 2-1-1 for people seeking referrals for help with food, housing, employment, health care, and counseling.  (2-1-1 is a program, offered jointly by United Way and AIRS, in many regions of the country that provides local referrals for basic services.  Across California there are tens of thousands of community agencies providing human services – but how does one connect with them?  Calling 2-1-1 can resolve the issue.  Here is a link to the LA 2-1-1 website.)

But whatever anxieties were expressed – and as Paul Light suggested on September 28, 2009, “There is still plenty of anxiety…” – widespread failures since the April survey have not (as we enter December) been realized.  These survey results offer no justification for the claim that “100,000 or more nonprofits” will be lost.

Finally, note 3 cites an Urban Institute publication (dated July 2009) reporting that “57% of Washington-area nonprofits had less than three months of operating reserves (the industry standard) in the bank in 2006, indicating the vulnerability of many organizations even prior to the recent downturn.”

This survey (note: circa 2006) may suggest reason for concern, though we could ask how many of these nonprofits have survived during the intervening three years; the answer might help us evaluate just how dire this situation – operating with reserves below the “industry standard” – actually is in practice.  These survey results, however, can hardly be cited as justification for the assertion that 100,000 or more nonprofits are going under in the current recession (or over any specified number of months or years).

The Irvine Foundation report embraced a forecast – that gained prominence since its introduction in November 2008 – but that, based on what we know, was clearly out of date by November 2009.

Next post: Retire this Forecast: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits

Previous posts in this series:

• Third post – Emblematic Forecast: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits
• Second post – Appeal to Authority: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits
• First post – Myth or Fact: Economic Crisis Sounds a Death Knell for Nonprofits

Post #3 – A look at a scholar’s prediction and his reconsideration of it

An article (cited in the report commissioned by the Irvine Foundation) in the Chronicle of Philanthropy [subscription required] begins with this sentence, “More than 100,000 nonprofit groups nationwide will fail within the next two years, including a few ‘big brand-name nonprofits,’ a scholar of philanthropy and government told charity leaders assembled here to discuss the fallout from the nation’s financial meltdown.”  This article appeared in the issue dated November 27, 2008.

On the next morning, November 28, 2008, the scholar, Paul Light, published an op-ed in the Washington Post, in which he made a similar (though not identical) prediction, “Of the nearly 1 million nonprofits up and running, as many as 100,000 will fail over the coming six months.”

And as late as March 3, 2009, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported, in an article describing Mr. Light’s keynote speaking engagement at Nonprofit Day 2009, “A national expert on nonprofits who will speak in Colorado Springs on Friday estimates that, because of the bad economy, 100,000 of the nation’s 1.3 million nonprofit organizations will collapse this year from frozen lines of credit, late payments by government entities and lack of efficient management.”

Whether or not this take on things represented Mr. Light’s thinking as late as March 2009 – even that was 9 months ago!  The Chronicle article and the op-ed Mr. Light penned for the Washington Post both appeared nearly 12 months before the Irvine Foundation report cited Mr. Light’s prediction to justify its own.  Much has changed since the initial prediction – with passage of a stimulus bill; the apparent technical end of the recession, even as high unemployment continues; and a lack of evidence that widespread failures have actually come to pass – and, unsurprisingly, Mr. Light’s views have changed as well.

In a series of posts in a blog at the Sandford School of Public Policy at Duke University, Professor Light has taken a fresh look at the state of the nonprofit sector in the “deepest economic recession of the century.”  These brief posts are worth reading in their entirety, and they certainly do not dismiss the severity of “the sector’s fiscal calamity.”  The third post (”Second Future: A Steady Withering”) suggests, for instance, that there has been “a steady withering of the sector’s general capacity to meet its mission.”

But the first paragraph of the first post (”Anecdotes ≠ Data. And Yet …”) concludes, “There is still plenty of anxiety about balance sheets, a double-dip recession, and inflation, but the anecdotes suggest that most nonprofits are still holding on despite the odds.”

The fourth post (Third Future: Winnowing of the Sector”) focuses on the predicted loss of 100,000 nonprofits.  Mr. Light writes, “ … At one point last fall, I predicted that as many as 100,000 mostly smaller nonprofits would disappear during the recession. This number was based on a simple extrapolation of small-business failure rates during the past two recessions. During the relatively mild 2001-2003 economic downturn, for example, roughly 10 percent of small businesses failed. Although the failures were almost entirely offset by the creation of new small businesses that were created by unemployed workers, there is little reason to believe that the nonprofit sector will not follow the pattern given the continued credit crisis.

There is ample reason to believe that some winnowing is underway, especially among smaller, government-dependent nonprofits. But it is difficult to estimate just how much winnowing will actually occur. There is no evidence yet of a wave of mergers and acquisitions, for example, and relatively few reports of nonprofit meltdowns. Whether the winnowing will reach 100,000 is clearly in doubt. But the probability of at least mild winnowing is still very high. The probability of 100,000 may now be close to zero, but the number will almost surely cross the 25,000 mark.”

While I intend to return to this less dire forecast in a subsequent post, at this point I believe we have grounds to suggest that the predicted “loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits” cannot be substantiated by appeal to Paul Light’s most recent words on the subject.  His reconsideration – and withdrawal – of the November 2008 forecast blocks this line of reasoning.

(Photo of NYU’s Wagner at the Puck Building from Wikimedia Commons.)

Next post: Appeal to Surveys: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits

Previous posts in this series:

• Second post – Appeal to Authority: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits
• First post – Myth or Fact: Economic Crisis Sounds a Death Knell for Nonprofits

Post #2 – On what basis does the Irvine Foundation report assert that 100,000 or more nonprofits will be lost to the recession?

The November 2009 report, “Convergence: How Five Trends Will Reshape the Social Sector,” [PDF] commissioned by the James Irvine Foundation, forecasts that the economic crisis will bring about the loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits.  The prediction appears in the second paragraph of the report’s introductory section (immediately following the Forward) titled, “What’s Next?  Moving at the Speed of Change.” To put things into perspective, let’s begin with a look at the first paragraph of this introduction.  It reads in full:

“The nonprofit sector, like the rest of the nation, has been riveted by the first great economic crisis of the new century.  This response is only natural, as the crisis threatens large numbers of organizations with, at the least, hard times, and at the worst, extinction.  But this story is not about that crisis.  The nonprofit sector is at an inflection point that will fundamentally reshape it long after the recession, when surviving nonprofits find themselves in a new reality – not just economically, but demographically, technologically and socially.  We call this shift NonprofitNext.”

The next paragraph – which features the forecast – begins:

“Already, national and global trends are changing the environment for nonprofits.  Thoughtful observers recognize that five years from now the sector will not simply have returned to its previous, pre-crisis state.  They know that a fundamental change in Americans’ attitudes toward credit, debt, risk, work and philanthropy, coupled with the loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits, will permanently change the landscape.”

In this passage the Irvine Foundation report embraces (though cast as the recognition of thoughtful observers) the predicted “loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits.”  The quoted phrase, in this amply documented report, is footnoted; the footnote reads in full:

“3 In 2008, NYU Wagner Professor Paul Light forecasted the closure of as many as 100,000 nonprofits in the coming year. (See: Paula Wasley. “100,000 Nonprofit Groups Could Collapse in Next Two Years, Expert Predicts.” Chronicle of Philanthropy 21 (4); 19.) In May 2009, United Way of the Bay Area reported on survey findings suggesting that one-third of Bay Area nonprofits fear they may cease operations within the next year. (See: “One-third of Bay Area Nonprofits Struggling to Survive, According to United Way Survey.” Press Release: 5/28/09. United Way of the Bay Area. Available at: www.uwba.org) And in July of this year, the Urban Institute reported that 57% of Washington-area nonprofits had less than three months of operating reserves (the industry standard) in the bank in 2006, indicating the vulnerability of many organizations even prior to the recent downturn. (See: Amy Blackwood and Thomas H. Pollack. Washington-Area Nonprofit Operating Reserves. The Urban Institute. July 2009.)”

This footnote cites three bases of support for the “loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits” assertion: a forecast by Professor Paul Light, a survey by the United Way of the Bay Area, and a report by the Urban Institute.  I will examine the latter two bases in a future post; right now, let’s turn to Mr. Light’s prediction (clearly the primary basis for the report’s embrace of the “loss of 100,000 …” assertion).

Paula Wasley begins her Chronicle article [subscription required] with this sentence, “More than 100,000 nonprofit groups nationwide will fail within the next two years, including a few ‘big brand-name nonprofits,’ a scholar of philanthropy and government told charity leaders assembled here to discuss the fallout from the nation’s financial meltdown.”

The scholar, of course, is Paul C. Light, Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service at NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service.  Several related claims – all featuring the 100,000 figure – have been attributed to him.  The assertion that 100,000 nonprofits will fail has been widely quoted in the popular press, business media, and many nonprofit sources over the past year.  (Virtually everyone in the philanthropic community likely to read the Irvine Foundation’s “Convergence” has probably seen Mr. Light’s forecast – in one guise or another – during the past year.)  It is easy to see why Mr. Light’s forecast, which acquired an emblematic status, has become so well-known: Mr. Light is a well-recognized authority, frequently cited in the media with crisp, clear quotations illustrating policy and providing perspective; the simple clarity and economy of expression of the ‘loss of 100,000 …’ quote (in its various forms) became an illuminating short-hand for the challenges the economy has posed for nonprofits; and 100,000 is a nice – and scary – round number.

When push comes to shove, the report’s authors’ strongest justification for embracing the “loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits” assertion comes down to an appeal to authority: a respected scholar of philanthropy and government (aka a thoughtful observer) said it.

That would be fine (as far as it goes), except the scholar, Professor Light, has had occasion to reconsider the 100,000 figure.  In other words, whatever justification Mr. Light had for offering his prediction in November 2008 may not be available to the Irvine Foundation in November 2009.  In my next post in this series, I will look more closely at Mr. Light’s forecast and at his reassessment of the risks to nonprofits resulting from the ongoing recession.

Editor’s note: The monograph “Convergence” was commissioned by the James Irvine Foundation and written by Heather Gowdy, Alex Hildebrand, David La Piana, and Melissa Mendez Campos of La Piana Consulting; the report invites readers to comment at NonprofitNext.  (The image is from the report.)

Next post: Emblematic Forecast: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits

Initial post in this series:

• First post – Myth or Fact: Economic Crisis Sounds a Death Knell for Nonprofits

Post #1 (in a brief series) – Just how hard a blow has the economy landed on the nonprofit sector?

Is the economy driving record numbers of nonprofits out of business?  Is a huge swath of the nonprofit sector at risk of such a fate?  A recent report commissioned by the Irvine Foundation (in a passage heralding fundamental, permanent changes coming to the nonprofit sector) forecast the elimination of 100,000 or more nonprofit groups.

Clearly the nonprofit sector has been hard hit by the financial crisis and the continuing economic downturn.  But is there evidence at this point that the dismal economy is causing (or about to cause) a multitude of nonprofits to disappear?  I will consider this question in a series of posts.

Let’s step back a moment to take stock: News reports, surveys of nonprofits, and anecdotal evidence suggest that fund raising revenues have declined in the past year and, among nonprofits that provide social services, demand for services has increased.  While this is unsurprising in the midst of the worst recession in decades, the juxtaposition of declining revenues and rising demand for assistance has posed huge challenges for nonprofits.

This difficult environment is a continuing concern.  In a recent essay – which offers spirited, eloquent advocacy for changes in philanthropic giving in a time of crisis – Pablo Eisenberg (”What’s Wrong With Charitable Giving – and How to Fix It” in the Wall St. Journal) describes the crisis in these words, “A severe reduction in available public and private funds has put many important nonprofit groups, especially at the local level, in grave danger. Cutbacks in their budgets and programs are depriving their clients of essential health and social services.”  UCLA’s Center for Civil Society just released a report – the 10^th in an annual series – which focuses on the resourcefulness of nonprofits to “do more with less” in confronting the ordeal of reduced resources and increased demands.  “Resilience & Vulnerability: the State of the Nonprofit Sector in Los Angeles” [PDF] does not foresee widespread failures, but does reference nonprofits’ challenge “to keep their doors open” and “survive in the longer-term.”

Nonprofit organizations have responded to this crisis in a number of ways, including: freezing hiring and salaries, laying off staff, spending down reserves, suspending new initiatives, cutting back programs, and turning away clients in need.  Nonprofits have intensified fund raising activities; many have entered into collaborations with other institutions.  These all represent rational strategies in the midst of challenging times: if this is not exactly business as usual (since the times are unusually challenging), at least it is suggestive neither of panic, nor of extensive failures forcing nonprofits to shut their doors.

The Irvine Foundation report [PDF] describes the challenges posed by the economic crisis in more dire terms – with the prediction of widespread failures:

“Thoughtful observers recognize that five years from now the sector will not simply have returned to its previous, pre-crisis state.   They know that a fundamental change in Americans’ attitudes toward credit, debt, risk, work and philanthropy, coupled with the loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits, will permanently change the landscape.”

This forecast (phrased as the realization of “thoughtful observers”) projects “the loss of 100,000 or more nonprofits” due to the financial crisis.

I will argue that this forecast is unjustified.  The economy has dealt a tough hand to nonprofits – but not many death blows.

Next post: Appeal to Authority: Loss of 100,000 or More Nonprofits

(Mourning angel in the churchyard of San Miniato al Monte in Firenze, Italy from Wikimedia Commons.)

Yesterday the Regents of the University of California voted unanimously to approve a partnership with Los Angeles County to create a nonprofit organization to reopen Martin Luther King Jr. Hospital.  Or, more precisely, the agreement will establish a new nonprofit organization to run a new 120-bed institution (reviving the name, ‘Martin Luther King Jr. Hospital’) on the grounds of the old MLK Medical Center, which was shut down in August 2007 after many years of dysfunction and failures, which led to patient injuries and deaths.  Molly Hennessy-Fiske, on page one of today’s LA Times, mentions the paper’s role in drawing attention to these failures, “Dire problems at the hospital were the subject of Times investigations in 1989 and in 2004, a series that won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.”

The new hospital, in a South Los Angeles community where accessible health care options are scarce, is scheduled to open in phases beginning in 2010.  When up and running it will boast an emergency room, three operating rooms, and specialty care for hypertension, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.  Under the agreement, LA County will be responsible for funding the renovation of a seismically-sound facility, including $50 million in startup costs, a $353.8 million capital project, and a $63 annual operating budget.  The new nonprofit will have an appointed board of directors selected by LA County and the UC president.  The University of California, which will provide no funding, will contract with the new nonprofit to provide physician services; physician groups from White Memorial and Harbor-UCLA will also provide medical personnel.  The new nonprofit, not LA County or UC, will be responsible for hiring all other staff.  UC will have responsibility for taking steps so the facility functions as a teaching hospital.  (More details are available via UC Newsroom.)

This creative collaboration is by no means assured of success and the Times‘ article reported on doubts expressed; nonetheless, this promising venture comes with high hopes.  “This agreement to reopen MLK Hospital creates an innovative partnership that will serve a vital need for the people of South Los Angeles,” said Dr. John D. Stobo, UC senior vice president for health sciences and services. “We look forward to working with Los Angeles County in extending UC’s role as a key component in California’s medical safety net.”

(Photo of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas – at HomeWalk 2009 – in whose district Martin Luther King Jr. Hospital is located.)

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that the Independent Sector conference has opened with “a mix of urgency, excitement – and at times, frustration” amid calls for nonprofit leaders to find innovative ways to work together.

“Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, a religious and human-rights network, put the issue even more bluntly, likening nonprofit organizations to competing gangs protecting their turfs. ‘We’ve got to drop our gang colors,’ he urged.”

I agree with the comments (at the link above) by Lulu, who suggests that while calls for collaboration are fine, it is not obvious “how we do that well.”  She quotes Shakespeare in requesting, “More matter, with less art.”

At a time when nonprofits are struggling – especially small to mid-sized organizations – turf battles are hardly the primary obstacle to effective collaboration.  First, we need a vision of an innovative collaborative initiative.  Then someone at each institution must oversee the effort – identifying partners, enlisting their cooperation, managing the process, maintaining smooth relations, and assuring success: few nonprofit organizations are well-positioned to undertake such initiatives.  In addition to know-how, this effort would require substantial time and resources, all of which are likely to be hard to come by.

(Photo from Wikimedia Commons.)