May 19

Combating inequality through applied sociology

By Sponsor Insight

By Dr. Amanda Miller, assistant professor of Sociology, University of Indianapolis |

We read about it in the papers, see it on the news, and maybe are even cognizant of how it affects our own lives, and although America is thought of as the land of opportunity, inequality has been steadily rising.

Inequality is the unequal experiences and opportunities, which frequently lead to unequal outcomes. For example, those who are wealthy live nearly a decade longer on average, than the poorest Americans.

Some individuals might experience disadvantages due to their sex, race, social class or sexual orientation. For others, it is disability status, age or health that requires them to undertake near Herculean efforts, just to achieve the same outcomes as others take for granted. Still others face multiple roadblocks as they strive to achieve the American dream.

Inequality comes in many forms, meaning that its effects can be additive over time.

  • Inequality begins very early in life; children who grow up in neighborhoods with fewer resources are at higher risk of infant mortality, experience poorer health outcomes, and are less likely to complete school.
  • Once enrolled in high school, 64 percent of LGBT teens report feeling unsafe at school as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • For those lucky enough to attend college, low-income students who outperform their more affluent peers on exams remain less likely to graduate.
  • Finding a job remains challenging even under the best of circumstances, but studies find that white men with a criminal record are more likely to be hired than African-American men with no record.

Applied sociologists work to research and solve complex problems in our society, including social inequality. The University of Indianapolis Master of Arts in Applied Sociology trains students to be problem-solving professionals who have the critical thinking and research skills needed to thrive in today’s rapidly changing world. At UIndy, students can pursue one of two tracks: Community Leadership or Applied Research and Evaluation.

Students who complete the Community Leadership concentration tend to work in administrative positions for nonprofits, in macro-level community or social service agencies, in city planning, or in other government agencies, while those who complete the Applied Research and Evaluation track go on to work in data collection or analysis for governmental and private research firms or pursue doctoral-level study.

Students, like Amy Yonan, said that the small class sizes are a critical difference.

“I chose UIndy because of the smaller student-teacher ratio, making it a more intimate learning experience. UIndy also offers unique learning opportunities such as short-term trips to Belize and Greece. Since I work and live in Indianapolis, I can still work full time while attending school part time.”

Applied Sociology courses are small, averaging seven students per class. This gives students the opportunity to work closely with professors, both inside and outside the classroom. Students have the chance to work in the community by completing research and service practicums with prospective employers, partner in academic research with experts in various fields, and explore their own areas of interest while receiving a strong core education.

This was the case for Jason Ward: “I was transitioning in my social services career from staff member to manager, and I needed to learn how to more effectively apply social sciences theories. After meeting with the UIndy faculty, I knew they had the proper focus on community leadership, and that they would be attentive and challenging.

New cohorts begin each Fall and Spring with the majority of courses offered in the evening.

If you are interested in learning more about the Master of Arts in Applied Sociology at UIndy, please click here.

amanda-millerDr. Amanda Miller is an associate professor of sociology and director of the Master of Arts in Applied Sociology at the University of Indianapolis. Her research focuses on family, gender and social class. She received her Bas from Indiana University, and her MA and PhD from Ohio State University.

May 19

Government reimbursement rules

By Feature, Fundraising, Sustainability

By Council of Nonprofits |

Governments at all levels – local, state, and federal – that hire nonprofits to deliver services are now required to reimburse nonprofits for the reasonable indirect costs (sometimes called “overhead” or “administrative” costs) they incur on behalf of governments when federal dollars are part of the funding stream.

The new mandate is embedded in grantmaking rules that the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) put into effect at the end of 2014. In addition, the new OMB Uniform Guidance streamlines and clarifies cost allocation and other rules related to government grants and contracts, removing some areas of confusion and inconsistency while treating more of a nonprofit’s expenses as direct (reimbursable) costs.

Button Text
May 19

Youth leaders concerned about background checks

By Feature, Programming

By Tom Ragan, staff writer, StandardSpeaker.com |

A Pennsylvania law designed to expand background checks for anyone who works with children or volunteers was passed in 2014.Now, nearly any role that requires supervision of children will be affected. The law applies to areas beyond schools, such as youth sports and some service organizations.

Act 153 of 2014 has raised concerns among potential youth league coaches and administrators. The biggest is cost — how much will coaches and volunteers working with youngsters have to pay to give their time. The law requires background checks at the state and federal levels but has expanded to the FBI if someone isn’t a resident of the state for a minimum of 10 years.

The expanded law comes about in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal at Penn State and through his charity, The Second Mile. It affects not only Little Leagues but also schools and nonprofit organizations that require adults working closely with youngsters to make full disclosures regarding arrests and convictions involving children.

Button Text
May 12

Key to employee engagement

By Sponsor Insight

By Deb Hunter, advisor, FirstPerson |

Employee engagement is top-of-mind for many business executives. Studies are showing that organizations that invest in their people to create an engaging workplace outperform other organizations, leading to greater profitability.

What exactly does employee engagement mean?

We can define it by the behaviors of actively engaged employees. For example, an engaged employee works with passion and energy and typically feels connected to the outcome of their work. They try to solve problems and initiate improvements. They work with their head, their hands, and their hearts. Sounds like the type of people I want to work with.

Button Text
May 12

Putting overhead under scrutiny

By Feature, Fundraising, Indianapolis, Sustainability

By Lynn Sygiel, editor, Charitable Advisors |

So you donate money to your favorite charity, and you find out later that the money went to buy a new roof. Or new computers. Or to replace the muffler on the company van that shuttles needy clients around the city. Was this a good use of your money?

For many people, any conversation about money is difficult.

But when the conversation is about overhead or unrestricted dollars, and it’s between a nonprofit and a donor, it can be even more difficult.

Six years ago, in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard wrote about what they called the nonprofit starvation cycle and challenged foundations to start an open conversation about overhead and analyze the true cost of running a nonprofit. They cited statistics from a five-year study by IU’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics, which reviewed more than 220,000 IRS Form 990s and surveyed more than 1,500 organizations with revenues over $100,000.

At the time, the nonprofit sector equated low overhead with high performance and best allocation of dollars. Donors depend on online rating sites such as Charity Navigator or GuideStar to help them give wisely. If there’s a perception that a nonprofit spends too much on overhead, it can have a negative effect on donations.

Indiana grantmakers have started a conversation to address the issue.

Last year, the Indiana Philanthropy Alliance included the topic at its annual statewide conference for grantmakers. There were two sessions that took on the topic, said Marie Beason, director of professional development and special initiatives for IPA.

“It included both sides — not only the direct costs of overhead but true costs of programming. It was a very rich conversation,” said Beason.

Besides a keynote address by Bob Lupton, author of Toxic Charity, five Indiana foundations shared experiences about what it truly costs a foundation to run all the programs it funds and operates.

Based on the responses to these sessions, IPA felt there was an opportunity for additional conversations on the topic. So in early June, they are hosting five IPA/GIFT regional forums facilitated by Lupton. Besides outlining the elements of toxic charity, the sessions will provide foundations and nonprofit partners an opportunity for frank communication about achieving results, using these practices.

While Beason has seen some change, she said conversations have been more casual. She also cautions that no two nonprofits are created equal when it comes to overhead.

“It comes up, I’m sure in every internal grant application review committee. We have not found a format or template that has been strong enough to lead us to a formal initiative, but what we have learned is that folks want to learn more.”

At McCoy, President John Brandon said it is a regular internal staff conversation, and annually with his finance and budget committees.

In the last five years, he has broached the topic with donors, too.

“We have had conversation fairly regularly with donors and givers because I think we have to help them understand the true cost of doing business,” he said.

Sometimes, though, the toughest conversations he has about overhead are in his own head.

“I’m justifying allocating money in my budget to buy that or pay for that and even though it’s not direct programming expense and it improves the quality and effectiveness of our organization. We’re trained to say, ‘Let’s do more with less.’ If we spend hours and hours trying to figure out how to do more with less, we’re wasting time and effort, that we could really be putting into more effective things,” he said.

Without accurate data, and open communication with funders, both argue it is difficult for donors to know what actual costs are.

“So instead of making excuses for overhead,” said Beason, “I do see a movement afoot to really articulate the importance of the work, the importance of the investment and the outcomes, rather than, “Oh, we’re sorry but we could really do this for much cheaper.’

“It all leads back to communicating the value of the work. Oftentimes the nonprofits come begging, which is not the appropriate mindset to raise funds. Now I’m seeing a shift both in donors as well as foundations to recognize it more as an investment,” she said.

The Nonprofit Finance Fund (http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/), according to Beason, has done a great job articulating overhead costs associated with a cup of Starbucks coffee and how that might equate to the nonprofit sector.

Beason suggested that nonprofits start by asking:

  • What is the true cost of programming?
  • What are the real outcomes and not just outputs of what the organization does?
  • What are the things that work and how does the organization build support for that?
  • What are the donor’s expectations?
  • Why is this an appropriate funding source?
  • What will the nonprofit gain from this funding source that will that allow it to effectively reach the outcome that it is hoping to achieve?

Both Brandon and Beason agree this has to be a two-way conversation, and it is critical to have open conversations about how each partner – donor and nonprofit — can benefit from the work.

“It’s not just the foundations understanding that personnel and insurance, and utilities and fully funding a program is important, it’s also getting the nonprofits to understand how best to plan for, manage and raise funds for those line items effectively,” she said.

May 12

The human factor

By Feature, Fundraising, Sustainability

What’s the best way to solicit donations for a charity? New research suggests that telling donors that none of their money will go toward overhead may be very effective at raising money. But it also comes with a few potential pitfalls.

In a study published in Science on Thursday (10/30/2014), a team of researchers showed that giving people the opportunity to donate directly to a charity program — with a promise that the money wouldn’t go to overhead — was far more effective than either matching donations or letting donors know about existing seed money.

Button Text
May 07

Nonprofits lose an average of $15,000 a year due to spam filters, study says

By Feature, Finance

Nonprofits annually lose an average of nearly $15,000 because of fundraising solicitations intercepted by spam filters, according to a new study.

Donations made in response to emails accounted for about a third of online fundraising revenue in 2013, but one in eight emails never reaches an inbox — a percentage almost as high as the share of emails that are opened, the report says. Nonprofits could boost email fundraising revenue by around 14 percent by reducing their spam rate.

An organization’s emails may be sent directly to the junk mailbox — or not delivered at all — when an Internet Service Provider notices that many of its users are marking emails from a certain IP address as spam. Other triggers are emails from a sender that frequently are deleted without being read or are never opened.

href="#" data-color-override="false" data-hover-color-override="false" data-hover-text-color-override="#fff">Button Text
May 05

Cooper Union inquiry puts nonprofits on notice

By Feature, Fundraising, Governance

By James B. Stewart, New York Times |

In what should be a ringing alarm for nonprofit boards across the country long accustomed to minimal scrutiny or accountability, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York has signaled that the laissez-faire approach to nonprofit governance is over.

Mr. Schneiderman’s office has sent letters to the board members of Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, the prestigious college founded in Manhattan in 1859 by the philanthropist Peter Cooper on the premise that it be “open and free to all.” Last year, after the school said it faced financial ruin otherwise, it began charging tuition.

The investigation, reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal, is focusing on the board’s management of its endowment; its handling of its major asset, the Chrysler Building; its dealings with Tishman Speyer Properties, which manages the skyscraper; and how it obtained a $175 million loan from MetLife using the building as collateral, according to people involved.

Button Text
May 05

From projects to people

By Feature, Fundraising, Governance

By Ken Banks, Ashoka fellow, Stanford Social Innovation Review |

Bill Siemering was about to jump in his cab to make an airport pickup when his home phone rang. It was the vice president of the MacArthur Foundation. “I was shocked,” said Bill, “when he told me I was being awarded a MacArthur Fellowship.” That phone call proved to be the turning point of his life.

He never did make that airport pickup.

Years before, Bill had been the director of programming of National Public Radio (NPR), where he had created the first signature program in public radio, All Things Considered. He had also crafted NPR’s first mission statement, and while vice president at WHYY-FM in Philadelphia, he was instrumental in bringing Terry Gross and Fresh Air from a local to a national audience. Not bad, you might think.

Despite blazing a trail, though, Bill had eventually found himself out of work; at that time, there just weren’t many opportunities in his sector. As he put it: “I’d spent over 30 years practicing the art and craft of my profession and had no way to use it. I felt like a pianist who lost the use of his hands.” Out of frustration and the need for a job—any job—he started training to be a driver for a car service at Philadelphia airport. He was about to go on his first driving assignment when he got the MacArthur call.

Button Text
May 05

Eight common innovation traps

By Feature, Fundraising, Governance

By Gabriel Kasper & Justin Marcoux, Stanford Social Innovation Review |

Innovation, it seems, is easier said than done.

Despite growing interest in applying innovation methodologies to social sector challenges over the past decade, more often than not, philanthropic efforts to support innovation fall short.

That’s because the processes, strategies, and structures that funders need to deliberately seek out and support innovation are often quite different from the ones they use for traditional grantmaking—a lesson many funders learn the hard way.

In our SSIR article “The Re-Emerging Art of Funding Innovation” last year, we highlighted many specific approaches that innovation funders are now using. But we find that many grantmakers still end up falling into one or more “innovation traps”—common mistakes that can prevent them from succeeding as they try to find and fund breakthrough social change.

Some of these traps are challenges related to execution and implementation; others are more conceptual, rooted in the way organizations think about what innovation is and what it can achieve. As you read through the eight common innovation traps below, ask yourself whether your organization has faced one or more of these problems, and consider sharing your experience in the comments.

Button Text