The "non-profit leadership deficit": are we still this silly? Really?

If you're on staff at a U.S. non-profit organization or foundation you have likely heard something about “The Nonprofit Sector’s Leadership Deficit”. That's the title of an early-2006 study published by a think-tank called the Bridgespan Group, which has been written about endlessly in all manner of media. I've personally attended a couple of gatherings where the report was discussed, and the group's president has made appearances at a number of conferences to talk about it.

As far as I can tell the report's conclusion -- that this sector will in coming years be drastically short of qualified leadership-level staffers -- has been accepted as fact. Put another way: if anyone has yet doubted the report's overall logic and conclusion I haven't read or heard of it.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that, because the report is nonsense; I've seen stronger logic in the pages of the John Birch Society newsletter. What comes to mind from reading it is a broad-based critical-thinking deficit.

It's easy to spot specific logic problems in the thing, for example their assumption that the growth in the number of staffed non-profits will indefinitely continue to be as high as it was in the late-1990s boom economy. They also keep repeating the canard about how the public sector in the U.S. is increasingly offloading services to non-profits, and appear unaware of the fact that top-level professionals in the non-profit sector enjoy their work and tend to keep working by choice well beyond age 62 or 65. And they clearly are still working from the assumption that non-profit salaries are lower compared to the same jobs in the for-profit sector.

On the supply side they seem to think that business schools are a key source pool for all this, I have no idea why. (I've helped hire several development directors and executive directors and program directors, and the idea of an MBA degree being a major qualification would just get a chuckle from the search committees I've been on.) So they basically conclude that since the number of MBA's isn't growing as fast as the non-profit sector as a whole, one more looming crisis for the perpetually-struggling non-profits! needs to be added to the list.

Sigh. This whole thing rests on the idea that supply and demand are somehow disconnected in real life: it does not seem to have occurred to anyone that a visibly-booming economic sector tends to attract more top-level talent. Is it not obvious in seventeen different ways that smart educated young Americans nowadays are flocking to make careers in this sector? (Yes it is, to anyone who's paying attention.) Is that not evidence that salary levels are not actually penurious around here and/or that a lot of the kind of folks we want are motivated by things other than owning a Lexus?

I notice no comparative context either: does not every growing economic sector have to reach farther to find the talent it needs? Isn't that basically normal? Is this sector having a harder time with that than have law or medicine or investment banking or whatever? I have no idea, and neither does anybody at Bridgespan Group.

I hope to be around long enough to see this marvelous sector learn to expect more logic and common sense than is being displayed on this subject.

The IRS is making non-profit news

Late this past week came two significant news items regarding the Internal Revenue Service: that the agency is finally going to revamp the core annual reporting requirements for non-profits, and that the agency's chief is departing to take over the troubled American Red Cross.

[Both of these changes were reported in news articles which are not online, yet at least: the first item in Friday's Wall Street Journal and the second item in this week's Chronicle of Philanthropy. Both newspapers based their articles on extensive quotes from various parties both on and off the record, and neither item is being denied by anyone.]

The redesign of the federal Form 990 is long overdue; as the Journal puts it the form "has over 100 line items of information in haphazard order, the result of decades of additions by the tax agency without a complete revamp. A reader finds a charity's revenue listed pages before learning what the group does. Questions about officers, directors and other key employees are often scattered many pages apart." The revamp appears to be mainly aimed at reorganizing the thing so it flows in a logical order.

Unfortunately that won't get at the bigger issue which is the lack of any requirement to report actual results other than financial. The head of the IRS's tax-exempt organization unit says, "I'm pretty sure the public doesn't want the government deciding who's effective and who isn't." She's missing it; no one argues for the federal government ranking non-profits' effectiveness. (I mean seriously, can you imagine? Might as well let a federal bureaucracy decide who's best on "Dancing With The Stars".) No, what would be a real step forward would be simply a requirement that non-profits report each year some measure(s) of effectiveness. Let organizations themselves decide what that is and then let the marketplace of informed donors and watchdogs decide who is being smartest about that. The governmental role here would be simply to enable a free market of comparisons, just like it does with regard to investing in for-profit corporations.

Meanwhile New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom broke the story that IRS chief Mark Everson is leaving to take over the Red Cross, which has recently been in some crisis. Whether he is a good fit for that organization is open to debate (I lean slightly towards yes); it does seem like a good sign for them that they can land someone with a resume of his caliber.

The Chronicle rightly notes, though, that Everson has in his four years running the IRS sharply increased the agency's focus on tax-exempt organizations. While some of the specifics of that have seemed weak (see above) or dubious (the NAACP and All Saints Episcopal Church audits had the scent of partisan politics), in the big picture we clearly need more focus on this booming civic sector not less. Hopefully the next agency director will understand that.

Baby steps towards a stronger sector

I'm most of the way through Joel Fleischman's book on foundations, and it's clear that he and Trent Stamp are preachers in the same crusade. Their emphasis is different in some ways and they certainly don't agree on tactics, but in broad strokes they have the same message: that the nongovernmental "civic sector" is a marvelous invention of which America has every right to be proud, and that if the sector doesn't do some serious growing up it will deservedly end up in history's dustbin. (As you can probably tell, I'm with them on all points.)

Independent Sector, which Fleischman cites as an example of promising new seriousness in the non-profit sector about things like transparency and mature governance practices, has been mostly snorted at by Stamp. He's seen the group's work on a set of new "Principles for Effective Practice" as being mostly window-dressing: too weak, and unlikely to ever change the behavior of the really bad non-profits.

I haven't agreed with him on that -- I think the voluntary principles being developed are an important step and would, if widely publicized and adopted by some sector heavyweights, have meaningful influence. Certainly they would be ignored by really weak and flatly-fraudulent non-profits, but that minority is not my primary concern. Well-meaning but poorly-run groups will be increasingly punished by the marketplace of better-informed contributors; meanwhile state attorneys general and the feds are waking up to the need for more serious pursuit of actual fraud and shady fundraising practices.

I'm more concerned with the great mass of well-intended non-profits that are organized and led no better than was true on average 20 or 40 years ago, which is simply not good enough. If "they mean well" is the only standard that this sector can ever meet then the (false, in my view) idea that "a just society would not need charity" might as well be true. In that case, why have this sector at all?

Stamp has just grudgingly come around to endorsing Independent Sector's proposal, for the fairly silly reason that he doesn't like being on the same list with others who have opposed it. Well, whatever -- what matters at this stage is not so much the specifics of this specific proposal, but the overall awakening which it hopefully represents and can help shape.

The McCormick Tribune Foundation just moved into the bull's-eye

The Tribune Company is one of America's largest media conglomerates: owner of the Chicago Tribune, the L.A. Times, the New York Daily News, other newspapers around the country, the Chicago Cubs, WGN TV and radio, Metromix, and sundry related businesses. The company's ongoing corporate soap opera has a significant non-profit-governance element which has been overlooked or overshadowed...until now: Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan "has taken an interest" in the issue of whether the heavyweight Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation is being run properly as a charitable institution.

The source of this news is a front-page article in this week's issue of Crain's Chicago Business, the city's leading business newspaper. Madigan, who has previously put non-profit hospitals in her sights, seems pretty clear on the fact that being a tax-exempt organization in the U.S. is a legal and social contract not a blank check or inalienable right. Given the facts here, that does not look good for the foundation. Madigan's scrutiny may also may have an impact on the the ultimate fate of the media company, via a scenario explained in the Crain's article linked above.

That also does a decent job of explaining how the foundation and the company are so tightly linked and why, but the degree to which that is contrary to modern standards of non-profit governance and law doesn't really come across. The foundation remains basically a captive creation of the company, and that is one of the once-common practices that inspired the wholesale rewrite of federal charitable-foundation law in 1969. It also certainly violates the spirit, at least, of Illinois' not-for-profit incorporation statute.

The quote from Robert Sitkoff at Harvard could be correctly applied to the whole setup, not simply the specific transaction he's commenting on there. The foundation spokesman's rejoinder at the end of the article is feeble as a defense of the specific issue about responsible investing of the foundation's endowment, and that isn't the biggest odor about this anyway.

Non-profit dirty laundry airing in courtrooms

Updates today on two previously-mentioned pieces of non-profit sector ugliness, plus a new one. (Much of this comes courtesy of The Charity Governance Blog which despite its annoying logrolling for the proprietor and his book, is worthwhile for the relevant news provided with legally-experienced comments.)

In Wisconsin the sad case of the prosecution of the former chief financial officer of a major museum is slogging its way through the courts with still no sign of anybody else being held accountable for what was clearly a mess with multiple authors. Charity Governance sees the defendant as clearly a fall guy: "We hope he decides to force the DA's hand and fight to preserve his reputation. Although the press and others have noted that there is plenty of shared blame in the financial collapse of the Milwaukee Public Museum, to this point, others who had oversight authority over the museum simply haven’t been held accountable in any meaningful way."

Over in the Ivy League, Princeton University appears to have become at least dimly aware that whether or not they win the Robertson donor-intent lawsuit in court they have been getting their butts kicked in the media. I dunno that letters to the editor are really going to change that fact any, even if having read a couple of the pieces that the letters respond to I'd agree that the university isn't being treated entirely fairly by editorial writers. The case itself is inching along with no end in sight. Still looks from here like the university is guilty of being at least cavalier with the donor's funds over the years, and ought to settle the thing before its good name gets tarnished further.

Now this month comes the Salvation Army trying to use what is obviously a technicality to ace Greenpeace out of $33 million left in a will. The sordid details with some comments can be found here, and here, and here. Yecchh -- I'm guessing that Salvation Army staffers, volunteers and donors are not feeling all warm and fuzzy about the organization at the moment.

We still have "women's boards"?

The other week I opened up a copy of Chicago's leading business newspaper and suddenly found myself warped back to 1975. At least that was the sensation caused by reading about major non-profit institutions which still maintain "women's boards" or a "women's association."

That's just, at this point in time, odd. Of course the Joffreys and Adler Planetariums and Art Institutes are in some ways kind of a league of their own -- but every institution listed in that article has long since had plenty of wealthy and/or influential women on their actual boards, including officers, including chairs. (In my Chicago non-profit career I've met several of them.) For example the Joffrey Ballet when it started a women's board only five years ago was being chaired by Pamela Strobel, then one of the top executives at Exelon. (She's since retired.) I know firsthand of similar examples in New York and Los Angeles and other cities.

A quick search does not turn up any recent empirical research about the gender composition of non-profit boards. This study from 15 years ago found that the boards of "cultural institutions" in six U.S. cities were around one-third female as of 1991, and rising. That sounds about right for that time at the big old symphonies and museums they were surveying. From my working experience in the other 98% of the sector I bet a fully-representative survey as of 2006 would put the female percentage on all non-profit boards well above 50%, and still rising.

As I think on it and read that article again there may be a generational thing at work here. The quotes from female business execs in their 40s who declined invitations to join a "women's board" ring true. (And notice that most of the women's-board members quoted or pictured are older than that.) Thinking of all the successful women I know who have served on various non-profit boards, few of whom are eligible for Social Security, I'm pretty sure that their private reactions to the idea of a women's board would not be so carefully phrased!