New Regulations Spotlight Nonprofit Overhead

By Henry Berman, Exponent Philanthropy

It’s January in Washington, DC, and there is no shortage of pundits, politicians, and pollsters with wisdom as to what the 114th Congress and President Obama will do, or try to do, in the coming year. As philanthropists faced with funding opportunities today, we are likely better served by looking back and taking notice of a real change in regulations that took effect last month. The change could – and should – have a significant impact on all of us who make grants.

The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued new regulations that rewrite the book on federal grantmaking in ways that will transform the relationship between nonprofits and governments at all levels – federal, state, and local.

The new rules mandate that nonprofits hired by government to provide services must be paid for the indirect costs they incur in doing so. In simple terms, OMB is declaring that nonprofits have overhead and administrative costs that should be paid. Kudos to OMB for recognizing the need to cover these costs that many of us as funders are called upon to help cover, effectively subsidizing what governments have, until now, refused to pay.

Continue reading →

The Pulse: Philanthro-Shaming, Benefit Corporations

By Andy Carroll, Exponent Philanthropy

I regularly explore trends influencing philanthropy by spotlighting articles, reports, and essays in the media. I cast a wide net, venturing beyond philanthropy and traditional topics to consider a variety of ideas, innovations, debates, and critiques. Read previous posts in the series   

Philanthro-Shaming

Economists and historians compare our current age to the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, an era of enormous fortunes when the gap between poor and wealthy was magnified. In a recent essay, Benjamin Soskis from George Mason University notices another similarity: during both eras, the public placed pressure on the wealthy to donate generously. Soskis goes on to assert that public pressure should not be about how much the wealthy give, but on how effective and relevant their philanthropy is. And, he says, “Philanthro-shaming” will not damage voluntary impulses of philanthropy. “If anything, appreciating that the public really does take their philanthropic commitments seriously should inspire more giving, and giving that is more closely attuned to the nation’s needs. But philanthro-shaming should be the beginning—and not the end—of a civil and engaged conversation about philanthropic means and ends.”

Giving Circles Popular With Minorities, Women, Younger Donors

New national surveys of American households offer insight into who participates in giving circles, groups of people who pool donations and give together. Based on these surveys, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that “Americans of African, Asian, and Hispanic descent participate in giving circles at much higher rates than whites: 21 percent for blacks versus 10 percent for white non-Jewish donors, for example.” Also, “among non-Jewish whites, women make up two-thirds of all giving-circle donors.” A leader of the Connected to Give research calls on nonprofit organizations to use the findings to uncover donor trends and engage giving circle participants as potential partners and board members.

Benefit Corporations Codify and Establish Themselves as a Field

NPR takes a look at “benefit corporations”—companies that seek a profit and also offer tangible benefit to society—and the growing infrastructure that supports them. A firm called B-Lab certifies companies devoted to communities and the environment by analyzing a company’s operations, policies, and relationships with labor and suppliers. Also, 27 states have created a legal status for benefit corporations; the legal protection ensures that “a shareholder can’t sue a benefit corporation for valuing the environment as much as profit.” Though some states don’t keep track of numbers yet, at least 750 benefit corporations are known to exist, and as many as nine states are considering establishing the legal framework. As an executive at B-Lab puts it, a benefit corporation is a way “to bake your morals and your missions into the DNA of your company.”

Continue reading →

Why Overhead Is a Bad Word – Part Two

By Sara Beggs, ASF

In my previous post on overhead, I discussed why funders might overvalue the concept of a low overhead ratio among nonprofits, including lack of trust in nonprofits, our fear of wasting the dollars we have, and our desire to quickly know we have impact. So, how can we ensure our giving builds on the best of those desires and leaves the rest the behind? Engage our minds.

Understand how overhead truly relates to impact. Recently, leaders at GuideStar, Charity Navigator, and BBB Wise Giving Alliance, the leading sources of information on nonprofits, sought to correct the misconception that overhead can stand on its own as an effective measure of performance.

In an open letter to the public, these leaders show data that reveal:

  • Organizations considered the most effective often have higher overhead ratios. Givewell.org does an in-depth analysis of specific nonprofits, with significant focus on impact.
  • Lack of investment in core operating support has several negative consequences, which ultimately reduce a nonprofit’s quality and sustainability. Watch If We Want Our Funding to Change the World to start conversations about the real costs of change.

Continue reading →

Why Overhead Is a Bad Word – Part One

By Sara Beggs, ASF

When we focus solely or predominantly on overhead, we can create what the Stanford Social Innovation Review has called “The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle.” We starve charities of the freedom they need to best serve the people and communities they are trying to serve. —OverheadMyth.com

Recently, I had a discussion about nonprofit effectiveness with my dad, a former Fortune 500 business executive and venture capital enthusiast. I was surprised to find someone so deliberate in his assessment of effectiveness in other realms to be so quick to judge a nonprofit’s effectiveness on a single factor: its amount of overhead. And yet he was. For him, the lower the overhead, the more effective the nonprofit.

Unfortunately, he’s not alone in his thinking. The nonprofit sector is plagued by this standard, but why? Why might we all be tempted to buy into the faulty logic that low overhead = effective nonprofit? Continue reading →