Nonprofit University Blog

Back in the early days of the third coming of the women’s movement in the United States, by which I mean the 1960s movement, there was a push, which for many continues today, for women to seek out and use other women providers.  You needed a plumber?  Find a female plumber or “Plumber and Daughter.”  You wanted to consult an attorney?  Go to the female associate or the woman in solo practice.  And so on.  The thinking was that we would support our community—our sisters–and by doing so, we would all grow stronger together.

Some years later, environmentalists adopted the mentality, and proudly put it on bumper stickers for all to see, “Think globally, act locally.”

These two ideas had a head-on collision in my brain as I learned of a nonprofit facing the possibility of dissolution because the local branch of the bank that held its line of credit was now having its strings pulled by the new owners of the parent company.  Historically, the local branch understood the cash flow vagaries of the nonprofit.   It knew what was happening in the state legislature with funding for this part of the sector, and how the county government was behaving.  It knew, first hand, the track record the nonprofit had of almost maximizing the credit limit and then paying it back down to zero.  It knew that this nonprofit was not only good for the repayment but good for the community.  After all, both the bank and the nonprofit are/were of the community.  Both had a vested interest in ensuring the success—and future—of the other.

The sad part is that we see this every day.  Nonprofits take their business out of their communities, stop acting locally, oftentimes forsaking the independent provider for the larger, “we can do more” provider.  Are pennies saved?  Probably.  Is the “more” being used?  Probably not.  Are sustaining relationships established? the kind that will work with you through the hard times because of that history between you, because of the shared investment in the community?  Most likely not.

This is not a “You’ve Got Mail” story, where all independents are good and large conglomerates bad.  Size has nothing to do with this story.  Rather, this is a who is your community and what do you owe that community story?  It is a who is invested in your community to the same degree that you are story?  Nonprofits are constantly looking for others to invest in them.  In fact, we’ve raised that to an art.  In the process, however, we seem to have forgotten that relationships are reciprocal, and that we, too, must give back.  If we want to serve our community we must invest in that community to ensure its richness and sustainability.

I am happy to report that I have data to support what I had always assumed (or was it hoped?):  most parents want their children to become philanthropic.  According to a recent poll conducted by the Harris Interactive Service Bureau, commissioned by Pearson Foundation and the Penguin Group, 90% of the 500 parents surveyed say “it is important to raise children to become charitable adults.”

Wanting and succeeding, though, are two very different things.  And apparently, most of the 90% of those parents aren’t being very successful for the simple reason that they aren’t doing the right things to get their desired results.  Sometimes, it appears, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths, while other times they simply may think they are doing the right thing when, in fact, this research shows it isn’t the right thing.

Take, for example, this startling finding:  though 90% of the parents wanted their children to become charitable adults, only 34% of the parents said it was “very important to them that their children gave of their time and resources to help others.”  But of the 500 teens (ages 13-18 years) who were surveyed, 42% of the “teen givers” (defined as those who frequently or often volunteered to help others and raised money for a cause, brought others together for a cause or donated money; teen givers comprised 29% of the group) said their parents cared a great deal if they gave of their time and/or resources to help others, compared to 15% of the non-giving teens who said the same.  If that isn’t a confusing message:  become a charitable adult but you don’t need to start now.

Or, this finding:  teen givers were more than twice as likely (29%) as non-givers to have a paying job and more than twice as likely (31%) to help neighbors.  Only 13% of parents required a paying job, though 26% did require helping neighbors.

As an educator and bookworm, I am particularly heartened by the finding that 45% of teen givers were read to as a child on a daily basis (compared to 35% of non-givers).  Fortunately, 68% of parents believe that there is a strong connection between reading and a child’s ultimate giving behavior.

Looking at the group of teens as a whole—the givers and non-givers together—the number one factor influencing teens to give back and become charitable is their parents.  That should come as no surprise.  (In fact, if Senator William Proxmire were still alive, and had this research cost far more than I am assume it did, I’m sure that finding alone would make this a candidate for a Golden Fleece Award.)  So, parents/guardians—and grandparents, aunts, uncles, and key influential adults–listen up:  model the right behavior; include the children in your life in your philanthropic activities and discussions on how to use your charitable dollars; and read the ten parenting tactics for producing charitable teens.  It just might ensure that our children will inherit a kinder, gentler, more caring world.

Now, I am really pissed (it’s my blog – I can say that).  I recently wrote about jurisdictions around the country suffering from insufficient resources that are look to nonprofits to fill some of the gaps.  Perhaps through rescinding tax exemptions of the past or by creating new taxes on their services (i.e., beds in hospitals, tuition payments to colleges and universities, etc.)

Case in point: the headline “Delinquents get a break in tax amnesty.”  It seems that Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are giving those who owe back taxes (dating back as far as 1986!) 54 days to step forward, pay their taxes and have all penalties waived and only have to pay half of the interest owed.  It is anticipated that this amnesty program will raise $25-$30 million for the city and $190 million for the state.

I am not going to bother to do the math, but imagine what each jurisdiction could raise if they weren’t giving law breakers—yes, last I heard it was still a legal requirement that you file a tax return every year and pay whatever money is owed the respective government–relief.   Imagine if they had to pay all they owed and 100% of their penalties and interest.  Wouldn’t that add a little fat to government coffers?

Tax amnesty programs are not new, and they certainly aren’t unique to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.  But at the same time that jurisdictions are offering businesses tax amnesty programs they are crying so poor that they need to rescind property exemptions for nonprofits and create new tax programs for nonprofits (i.e., hospital beds, college and university tuition).  Something here does not compute!  Nonprofits have not broken any laws whatsoever.  In fact, the vast majority of nonprofits of which I am aware have continued to work extremely hard to fulfill the promises of their mission despite huge loss in funds to support that work.  What are governments talking about doing in exchange?  Increasing their operating costs by rescinding tax exemptions and adding new ones.  Where is the logic in this?

Perhaps on some planet, or in some person’s brain, it makes sense to add to the burden of those who are already strapped, but continue to do their good works, while letting off the hook those who have spent years, and in some cases decades, being scofflaws.  It just doesn’t work in mine.  In fact, my mind wanders to questions like, “Whose palm is being greased?” and “What deals have been brokered?” and “In whose employ will these politicians land once they leave elected office?”  Because shy of that, I can find neither rhyme nor reason to understand excusing criminals while punishing the do-gooders.