What's so "nonprofit" about the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center? Hard to say why it needs a nonprofit status when according to the Wall Street Journal the Medical Center "manages a transplant center in Palermo, Italy, runs two Irish cancer centers, provides consulting services and docs to a medical system in Qatar", and is now on its way to being the biggest health care provider in Ireland "paying $22 million for a 25% stake in Beacon Hospital. The company that owns that facility has plans to build three more hospitals in Ireland, which would be operated by UPMC under similar arrangements. The med center is also discussing new contracts with medical centers in Dubai and Cyprus". And, they are not alone, "The Cleveland Clinic, for example, is working on a project in Abu Dhabi and pursuing contracts in China, Guatemala, Brazil, Egypt and India".

Senator Grassley, where are you? We all know that health care systems are anything but nonprofit, including the nonprofit ones, so lets either make sure they need to be nonprofit to fulfill their missions or tax them -- we know it's not going to matter to the insurance companies.

Isn't all fundraising about "who you know"?

The New York Times reported today that one county in Tennessee is pretty fed up with their government grant making based on "who you know".

According to the times: "Earlier this month, the community services director resigned after the Knoxville News Sentinel reported her office had dispensed thousands of dollars to nonprofit organizations to which she had personal ties."

OK, so it's tainted money but it's getting the job done, isn't it? That's a question I believe the county residents should also be asking as they question the distribution of funds in this way. And what ever happened to relationship fundraising? Isn't the theory that you give to those you trust can get the job done? Maybe the county residents are over-reacting, at least on this count? I would like to see the results from these grants. And that's what the county residents should want to see before they move their employees out the door. Relationship grantmaking is most frustrating to those who don't have the relationship, and rightly so, 'cause it's not always fair. Good projects can lose out. But relationship grantmaking can also make for successful grants. Isn't this why we structure nonprofit boards with "who's connected". Or is the whole system just not right?

The failure rate for entrepreneurs — whether social or purely capitalist — is high. Still, ePals’ backers are betting that it is worth the risk. “These kinds of opportunities to do well and do good at the same time don’t grow on trees,” said Mr. Kapor, the ePals investor and a philanthropist. “But I do think that ePals could be one of them.”

That's the final thought in a New York Times Sunday February 24, 2008 article which discusses the for-profit ePals and reviews the brave new world of social enterprise and the lines being crossed to pursue social responsible outcomes.

It all seems too good to be true as noted at the beginning of my blog -- but is the risk worth it -- will socially responsible outcomes really result and at what cost and to whom? And where and when does philanthropy fit in? And does it? Also relevant is a Chicago Tribune article about the roles of the government and nonprofit sectors in caring for the poor -- really a story about competing missions. Isn't competing missions the story about social enterprise and nonprofits too?

The Washington Post reported Sunday on a unique fundraising program that is raising steady bucks for a number of nonprofits through a form of gambling that was actually approved by the supreme court as "not" gambling (the element of chance is absent). It's called bingo but it's done through machines that are slot-like in that the action happens on a screen and cash is the ultimate prize. More interesting to me is how little money is made for the nonprofit -- about 10-20% if I am calculating correctly.

You know, the only thing wrong with tainted money is there tain't enough of it. And really, as many of these groups recognize, 10-20% of $1.00 is more than $0.

As I have followed here, Senator Grassley has been poking around in the college world suggesting that the mega-endowed schools ought to be doing more with their endowments. He even has floated the idea that large college endowments spend 5% of their earnings annually mirroring the requirements of private foundations (in order to maintain their nonprofit tax status).

In the race to avoid legislation (not necessarily the race to be better), Thursday's 2-21-08 Wall Street Journal reported that Stanford will "no longer require parents earning less that $100,000 to pay tuition. It said it also will not ask families earning below $60,000 to contribute at all to the cost of their child’s education, including expenses for room and board."

The same article noted that Harvard offers a similar package to Stanford for those earning below $60,000 plus students from families earning up to $180,000 pay 10% or less of income. Dartmouth has free tuition for students earning less that $75,000 a year. The University of Pennsylvania is offering loan-free aid packages to students with families under $100,000 annual income and Yale is giving everything to those families earning less than $60,000 and for those with incomes of between $60,000 and $120,000 the cost is 1-10% of family income. Families earning more than $120,000 pay about 10% of income (kinda like tithing).

So, have these schools avoided Grassley dreaded intentions?

As for me, I am not convinced by the college's offerings. For one thing, just how many students do any of these colleges admit that meet these criteria. These offerings look good on paper but what will this really cost the schools -- even 1/2% annually from the endowments? I think we must applaud the appearance but let's look closer at the real impact. Have the colleges just found a clever way to stave off regulation and continue to amass wealth -- just like their graduates?

An AP article circulating in a number of papers has focused on the phenom of celebrities having babies. More meaningful to me is Angelina Jolie's establishing an exclusive photo op of her kid in exchange for a big donation to a charity. Jennifer Lopez did the same.

A wrap of the article noted that people tend to be influenced by what the press cites about celebs (e.g. what a wedding was like, how a baby is dressed or their room is decorated).

Let's hope, and maybe recognize this as a possible strategy, that celebs' giving to charity is also a habit or preference picked up by the rest of the world.

I think it was a quote I remember from a many years ago issue of the Grantsmanship Center News that said: the only thing wrong with tainted money is there tain't enough of it.

I guess that's the takeaway one can assume from a Feb. 20, 2008 Nonprofit Times article entitled Nonprofits Cash In On Questionable Contributions:

Well, here’s one way for charities to cash in on the presidential race. Nonprofits have been the recipients of cash contributions originally intended for campaigns...until the donors found themselves in hot water and committees looked to distance themselves by giving up the donations.

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said it would donate more than $40,000 to nonprofits, contributions received from a former friend and fundraiser who pleaded not guilty to fraud charges.

A spokesman for the Obama campaign told the Chicago Tribune that more than $44,000 in donations related to Chicago businessman Tony Resko, referred to as a slumlord by Obama’s rival for the nomination Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has been divested.

It seems to me that a nonprofit board should have the same conversation Obama's campaign had: when is tainted money "keepable"?

Well it didn't quite sound right when I started reading the Chicago Tribune article but my take-away is that Hackers for Charity is worth checking out.

Nonprofits have enough worries and challenges these days and technology proficiency and security should be right up at the top for nonprofit boards and their execs. It's not a safe world as it is and the last thing a nonprofit should have go wrong is their technology. Hackers for Charity sounds like a good place to turn.

I am a huge Abe Lincoln fan and history buff. I love visiting historical sites in whatever town I visit. Here comes the but...But $15 million to restore Lincoln's cottage......geesh! Abe spent some summertime time there. Ok and that should be celebrated indeed and the place should be preserved. But here we are in the worst housing crisis Americans have faced and we spend (ok, private philanthropy spends) $15 million to rehab a cottage! All those mortgage payments folks can't make and we spend $15 million to rehab one old house. Where are our priorities?

According to the New York Times, media companies find college newspapers attractive properties for several reasons: operating costs are low because student labor is inexpensive, sometimes even free; advertising is on the rise; and, perhaps most important, the newspapers are read — frequently — by a young audience with relatively deep pockets. In addition, there's independence from the bottom line is what keeps student journalism fresh and irreverent, or so holds the common wisdom in college newsrooms, and journalism professors tend to agree: “If there is free press, it’s probably on the college campuses”.

Hm, makes me wonder if there's a lesson here for the rest of the nonprofit community. Nonprofits often use volunteers, reach a hard-to reach population effectively, and are often independent if not a little irreverent. Could acquisitions of nonprofits by for-profits be the next full meaning of social enterprise?

I certainly hope not.