It takes a funny to awaken PB from the Summer slumber:

For the first time, one of the nation’s largest foundations is venturing into virtual worlds to play host to activities and discussions and explore the role that philanthropy might play there.

As if foundations currently exist in the real world.

I think it would be good if someday we had a President that actually needed the money.

Perla Ni at SSIR:

“I’ve randomly inserted pictures of my grandkids in my progress reports,” one executive director of a prominent mid-Atlantic nonprofit told me. “I’ve inserted lines like, ‘If you really read this, call me.’” He was bemoaning the fact that he’s forced to spend time writing reports that his foundation officer doesn’t seem to read. “Next time,” he said, “I’m going to put in an ad for my used car.”

I really think this is the exception rather than the rule, although I think Perla's post is largely accurate in that foundations tend to come up with a bureaucratic solution to every compliance challenge.

I do think she's a bit wrong here, though:

The nonprofit sector is developing in all of these directions, but it isn’t quite there yet. We don’t have an accepted understanding of effectiveness. There is no code of ethics, except for fundraisers. And if we did have a code of ethics, there would be no enforcement body to suspend or admonish anyone who broke it.

Sure, there's no collective code of ethics that nonprofits and foundations adhere to, and if someone manages to make that happen they deserve a Nobel Prize. Many nonprofits, and quite a few foundations, have codes of ethics which they make public. Do they adhere to them? Good luck finding out.

Joe links to advice for those nonprofit brand managers to whom pithiness comes as a challenge.

PND:

Following the recommendation of the inspector general, the IRS is developing a long-term strategy to automate the process of identifying potential terrorists and is testing software to check names on forms filed by charitable groups.

Glad they jumped right on that.

Joe highlights this article in the Wall Street Journal about reality teevee philanthropy. My take: no nudity, profanity, or violence and it's a tough ratings getter.

The Council on Foundations 2007 Annual Conference will take place in a few weeks in Seattle. The theme is a typically bland "Philanthropy and the Challenges of Our Time: Making a Difference at Home and Abroad." The challenges of our time are defined by COF as poverty, public health, the environment and disaster preparedness.

All well and good. But one would think that "making a difference at home and abroad" might involve some discussion about the most pressing issue of our time: the war in Iraq.

Nope. A search of PDFs on COF's site of the various days' agendas turns up just one reference to Iraq. A "meet the filmmaker" event on Sunday, April 29 with documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras. Other than that, nothing. COF President and CEO Steve Gunderson couldn't even be bothered to pull together a one-sided panel discussion involving his fellow Republicans Bill Kristol and Ann Coulter, moderated by Brit Hume.

Today's foundations have been woefully silent on the policies of the Bush Administration. Those that purport to support civil society abroad have stood by and watched the disintegration of civil society at home -- from a botched war to domestic spying to a President who feels no compulsion to adhere to the law.

Foundation leaders have been cowed by a political environment that demonizes dissent; their fortitude [if they had any in the first place] sapped by a need to not be seen as partisan or unpatriotic. They've turned their backs on one of the tenants of private foundations: providing an independent voice unfettered by government or profit-making influences.

That COF can't hold even a single open discussion about the war in Iraq simply confirms how foundations have lost their way entirely when it comes to looking honestly at how government policies impact the lives of those individuals foundations claim to help.

In a word: disgraceful.

UPDATE: I'm not suggesting foundation leaders embark on Bush-bashing speaking tours, and I understand the war is a toxic subject for any public figure to talk about. What I see is a lack of discussion/analysis in foundationland about the ongoing impact of the war on our society. This thing's been going on for more than four years; you'd think by now at least some foundations would've found their voice on the subject.

Andrew Sullivan has been bashing the Human Rights Campaign Fund for its lack of accomplishments. He cites Charity Navigator's rating. My favorite bit [quoting an e-mail from a reader who had contributed to HRC]:

We may not have a lot of pro-gay legislation on the books, but we do have a nice collection of pretty bumper stickers.

Ouch.

Trent Stamp says:

I'm tired of getting indignant about politicians' not disclosing their roles in their private foundations. Despite most people seeing it as no big deal, I still say it's a blatant display of arrogance and contempt for playing by the rules, and another case where we demonstrate our belief that non-profit transparency and accountability is less important than we would expect in the for-profit world. The latest culprit is none other than Hillary Clinton.

Nothing wrong with setting high bars, Trent. I'm all for it. I think what we've got in this case, however, is an oversight on the part of Mrs. Clinton. Not much evidence that this was a "blatant display of arrogance and contempt for playing by the rules." Nothing's been unearthed that would indicate Mrs. Clinton had anything to hide.

I understand Trent's a single-issue advocate, and getting charities to play by the rules is a worthy endeavor. Charity Navigator provides an important service to donors. Every now and then, though, a little context is helpful.

The DC Examiner examines the surge of foundation leaders on Capitol Hill last week. The answer to the nonprofit sector's problems? A caucus:

A caucus generally serves as a focal point for members interested in pursuing a common legislative goal. For example, the philanthropy caucus is a potential platform for members to hold briefings on sector needs for other elected officials and coordinate legislation.

I'd file this under "be careful what you wish for." A platform to discuss "sector needs" can quickly become a platform to discuss "sector abuses."

White Courtesy Telephone riffs on the Ford Foundation's search for a new CEO by giving us four fundamental questions of philanthropy. In WCT's spirit of thoughtful consideration of the state of the sector, I offer up these ten potential candidates for any current or future foundation CEO opening. Pros and Cons are provided for each.

Donald Rumsfeld: Pros: Wants a lot of bang for the buck. Speaks incomprehensible language. Cons: Stubborn [a nightmare for the board of directors].

Newt Gingrich: Pros: Resilient. Ruthless [could easily inform grantees that commitments wouldn't be met due to the foundation going in a "different direction"]. Cons: No moral authority.

Lynn Cheney: Pros: Past grantmaking experience. Quite magical with the keyboard. Cons: Bedmate [will require time off to be by husband's side during impeachment proceedings].

Jesse Ventura: Pros: Independent thinker. Board management skills. Cons: Nightmare for PR department. See here, here and here.

Scooter Libby: Pros: Understands the fundraising challenges of grantees. Cons: Could be unavailable until 2017.

Laura Bush: Pros: Can charm the socks off you [great for a community foundation post!]. Cons: Budget management. Would require a driver.

Simon Cowell: Pros: Keen evaluator of talent. Sharp wit. Cons: Perhaps better suited for hooliganism.

Donald Trump: Pros: Fires people, and god knows nobody ever gets fired at foundations [except me, when they find out who I am]. The Donald blogs! Cons: Comb-over. Nightmare for the PR department.

Katherine Harris: Pros: Understands donor intent. Cons: Undergraduate education funders beware. May have staff morale issues.

Terrence Scanlon: Pros: Runs non-partisan, unbiased think tank on philanthropy. Role as Chairman of Consumer Products Safety Commission under Reagan could improve in-kind giving program. Cons: If founding donor is deceased, could spend large sums on mediums to determine donor intent.

The Capital Research Center ought to have fun with this.

I'm all for getting out the whipping stick when it comes to excesses in compensation within the nonprofit sector, particularly for nonprofits that have a truly charitable mission. And I understand why Stephanie Strom, as the nonprofits beat writer for the Times, covered this story:

The I.R.S. has also asked 40 individuals to pay a total of $20 million in excise taxes, which is the penalty it imposes when it determines a nonprofit executive has been paid excessively.

“We found some problems,” said Steven T. Miller, the commissioner in charge of the I.R.S. division overseeing tax-exempt and government entities. “Whether they were due to confusion, poor design of the tax forms used by these organizations or something more nefarious, I can’t tell you.”

He said the results of the inquiry, which found flaws in the tax forms of a third of the 1,800 charities and foundations examined, convinced the agency that it needed to do more in the area of compensation at nonprofits.

But I must say I'm a bit weary of this type of coverage when, comparatively, there's very little coverage of this issue in the for-profit sector. Perhaps it's because business reporters tend to fall in love with their subjects or they don't know enough about the issues they're trying to cover. There's enough corporate cheerleading on a daily basis on CNBC to make free-market purists blush.

And don't give me the line about nonprofits being tax-exempt and thus should be "more accountable" for their actions than for-profit corporations. The current administration has done it's best to make the corporate sector tax-exempt; finding creative ways to avoid paying corporate taxes has become brilliant beltway fun. Those organizations obviously deserving of tax-exempt status ought to have a special and inscrutable place in the heart of the current version of the IRS.

Frumkin [from SocialEdge]:

Large private foundations do not seem to embrace this notion of scale as readily as individuals, though there are some notable exceptions to this. Picking any single nonprofit organization as the one that will be taken to scale may appear unfair and capricious. It implies that a single donor should be able to disturb the competitive landscape and decide who wins and loses in the nonprofit arena.  While this may be precisely what an individual would like to achieve, few foundations want to be perceived as inequitable and heavy-handed. As a consequence, they shy away from tipping the scales completely in favor of one organization over another. Moreover, foundations may be less likely to bring an organization to scale because their interests are not in the organizations they fund per se, but in the specific programs and outcomes which these organizations deliver.  The foundations have priorities that overlap somewhat with the agendas of nonprofit organizations. When these priorities change, funders can and do find new organizations.

Interesting points. When foundations really get the ownership bug, they do a Pew. In one way foundations are like venture capitalists [a tired metaphor, I'm aware]; they want to share the investment risk. I think foundations are becoming less reticent to "disturb the competitive landscape," and to let the nonprofit marketplace play itself out. I see fewer missions to rescue nonprofits [excluding those close to home and soul] that aren't performing. Frumkin's right, though, that foundations' priorities, as currently defined, don't involve helping their grantees grow strategically. That's unfortunate.

WaPo:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

As had been widely blogged, Washington Post reporter John Solomon has perfected the art of taking a relatively minor story [or nonstory] and hyping it to earth-shattering levels. Note to the idiots who run the Post and front-paged this "story": It's a fucking foundation that gives hundreds of thousands of dollars away to charities. I'm sure all that cash would've brought so much ill will the Clintons' way that they purposely didn't disclose it. And, as Josh Marshall points out, the Clinton Family Foundation's tax returns have, as required by the IRS, been publicly available since its inception.

Next up for tomorrow's edition of the Post: Hillary's eighth-grade report card not signed by parents and returned to teacher

Tactical Philanthropy on pain-in-the-ass givers:

Somehow I keep picturing a waiter in a restaurant telling a customer who is complaining about the meal, “Sir, if you can’t complain nicely, I’m not going to serve you any more”. And then the diner leaving the restaurant and never coming back.

Can we come up with some sort of metric that measure the ROI on the interactions with such donors?

Three phone calls from a donor in one week complaining about how their name wasn't in large enough type on the donor recognition plaque: -$2,000.

Two outbursts during a donor gathering about feeling "marginalized": -$2,350.

Four threats to "pull my generous, heart-felt support for this damn organization" if junior doesn't get that marketing internship: -$3,700?

Shoving donor into their Jaguar and telling them never to come back: priceless.

Foundations do the government's job:

Seven philanthropies are announcing today that they will contribute more than $4.3 million to help treat uninsured workers and residents who developed serious illnesses after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

This, of course, is the "traditional philanthropy" conservatives love. When you've got charities available to paint over capitalism's flaws, your belief in the stock market as the arbiter of right and wrong can remain firmly intact.

There's no entry for "philanthropy" in the exciting new Conservapedia, a conservative counterpunch to that left-wing online conpiracy known as Wikipedia. Here's all you need to know:

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Let me offer up an entry for "philanthropy" that complies with Conservapedia's philosophy:

Philanthropy is an activity conducted primarily by Christians who believe "God helps those who help themselves." Examples of good philanthropy would be a cash gift to the Hudson Institute's scholars program. Specifying that your gift go directly toward the Institute's research on the War on Terror, under the watchful direction of Lewis Libby, would be a keen example of what is called "targeted philanthropy." Another great example would be even a small gift, say given by someone who just started working at McDonald's, to the American Enterprise Institute's research on why the minimum wage is bad. Talk about helping yourself!

Most philanthropy in America is conducted by individuals giving to their local houses of worship, but be skeptical of any giving by those of non-Christian faiths. A small percentage of philanthropy in America comes from what are called "foundations"; this is something of an oxymoron given most foundations are left-leaning, and thus seek to tear down, rather than build up, America's foundation, which we all know is based on conservative evangelical Christianity.

Click to submit.

UPDATE: Conservapedia has apparently been swallowed by submissions mocking it. Shame.

WaPo:

The Pennsylvania Senate was not Fumo's only source of OPM, according to the indictment. In 1991 he founded a nonprofit organization called Citizens' Alliance for Better Neighborhoods, and over the next decade he allegedly steered over $30 million in state funds and corporate grants to the group. Then, according to the indictment, he used it as his personal piggy bank.

The Citizens' Alliance allegedly paid $250,000 for Fumo's political polls. It allegedly bought a $36,000 Chrysler minivan for Fumo. It also allegedly bought a Jeep Wrangler, a Dodge Caravan, a Lincoln Navigator and a Cadillac Escalade for the use of Fumo and his cronies. Plus a bulldozer for Fumo's farm and $75,000 for various items for Fumo's various homes, including $3,929 worth of "mosquito magnets," $171 worth of tiki torches and, for $6,500, 19 Oreck vacuum cleaners.

OPM=other people's money=corporate grants. Nice.

Jeff Brooks makes some interesting observations about how nonprofits should -- and should not -- advertise to potential donors. I disagree on one point: We need much, much more nudity in nonprofit advertising.