It’s hard to read today’s op-ed by Kevin Phelan and Chad Gifford without bursting into laughter. Or tears. These two millionaires are looking for sympathy – and to shut down small non-profits – because they are so “overwhelmed” by everyone asking them for money. It’s “difficult for donors to know which to support,” they say. Gawsh, poor them!
The underlying systemic problem has little to do with the corporate mergers resulting in fewer local CEO’s to cultivate relationships with. It’s the wildly increasing imbalance between haves and have-nots, the corporate control of government favoring business profit over the public’s interests, and the abandonment of social spending by our federal government.
I have little sympathy for these guys. They may be good guys, but they sound like out-of-touch whiners. Gifford pulled down a “bonus” of $20 million, give or take, if I remember, for the backbreaking work of merging BankBoston into Fleet and God only knows what his retirement salary and bennies amount to today.
And when Jim Kilts sold Gillette to P&G, he got a $160 million bonus for that backbreaking job. Get the picture? There’s plenty of money to go around but it’s not being spread around sufficiently to little non-profits who are serving people in need. Whether those non-profits are “A-1” efficient should not be Phelan and Gifford’s primary concern. Winnowing out smaller non-profits, they say, “can be a painful process but there is no avoiding it.” Painful to who? Them?
So, Chad and Kevin, don’t cry in the Globe about your philanthropic workload. You come off looking like elitists. Better you should work on tax reform at the federal level, closing corporate tax loopholes at the state level and reducing other forms of corporate welfare, so we can expand the middle class and stop cheating real people of the supposed American birthright of opportunities for a decent standard of living.
hubspoke, you do a mighty fine job identifying, examining, and exposing multiple aspects of the issue raised in the Phelan & Gifford OpEd piece. For me, your post has the effect of issuing a renewed Call To Action to fight for social justice; thank you.
<
p>
Reading the article gave me a stomach ache so I stopped, as I had to get my kids ready for school, than hustle to work in an unbelievably low-paying job teaching nursing students for UMass Boston, to be followed by a couple hours of tasks at the small health justice advocacy non-profit that I run.
<
p>
This post speaks up for us ordinary hard-working tax-paying caring people who keep getting screwed. Who’s gonna’ lead the way to rectifying this growing mistreatment of the ordinary public?
<
p>
Deval Patrick? Jamie Eldridge? John Edwards?
<
p>
It’s gonna take a lot of ’em and they won’t succeed without our help. Or maybe it’s without our unswerving demands for the changes that are needed.
Brings clarity to why this op-ed made my brain hurt. I couldn’t really believe they were calling for a commission to decide how many nonprofits there can be, and which should live and which should be … exterminated? But there it is, in black and white. In their view the entire nonprofit universe is a subsidiary of the corporations that write the big checks. This unreal arrogance reminds me of the vast social and ethical gulf between the people who staff nonprofits (make it their life’s work) and the people who congratulate each other for their compassion at high-end cocktail fundraisers.
<
p>
There is an element of entrepreneurship to the nonprofit world that gives it much of its vitality. These guys would never have the gall to call for small businesses — as a class — to be eliminated (even if by their actions we know they think this too is “inevitable”).
The op-ed made me queasy but there’s a lot of truth in it. I disagree that the writers were whining and complaining about the difficult plight of the remaining philanthropists in a growing market for philanthropy. And some of the other (sane) comments seem to feel personally attacked by the op-ed. I have a different take.
First, they offer fairly obvious facts that the philanthropic community in Boston (and across the country) is dwindling. Second, they similarly state that the philanthropic needs in Boston (and across the country) are growing. Given this circumstance, something’s got to give. We either grow the number of well-heeled funders or reduce the need. It’s obvious that the government (federal, state and local) is not going to significantly reduce the need and with the mergers and the shift away from Boston for many corporate HQs, the opportunity for growing the philanthropic base is diminishing as well.
So what are we to do?
Their recommendation, from my perspective, was for assessment and analysis of what is working in the non-profit service delivery arena and funding based on outcomes. This seems reasonable. I work in the non-profit world and deal with service providers who get an earmark from the state budget or have a line on private funding or know how to press the federal grant buttons but have little to show for it. Their outcomes are miserable but boy can they show a need. Year in, year out. Should they be getting money to the detriment of non-profit service providers who are actually responding to the needs of their clients and showing it? Should there be the degree of redundancy in certain sectors of the non-profit service community that there currently is?
While we can complain that this is all because the fat cats are getting fatter, it does nothing to address the skepticism that the business community has with regard to non-profit management. Can we point to millions of examples of for-profit mismanagement, waste and bailouts? Absolutely. But that’s not going to get you any new money from the philanthropic community. We in the non-profit world have to do a better job of managing what we do. We have to use our money wisely and be able to show the outcomes we propose when we request this money. Maybe we are being held to a different standard, but in the end it will help our clients far more than losing touch with our funders.
drek, I’m not against good management and accountability. I just want to see the same passion expressed for helping the less fortunate and creating a better society that you express for “doing a better job of managing what we do.” There are many who labor in the non-profit vineyards, providing service to others, and sometimes they and their spirit are hammered mercilessly by efficiency experts in the name of assessment, analysis and outcomes. They don’t get nearly enough credit.
<
p>
While I’m on that, why is that you see the same (wealthy) people honored over and over at annual dinners? It’s as if only the wealthy ever did anything for anyone. Sheesh! I propose a moratorium for year in Boston on honoring wealthy people at big dinners. Just leave them out for a year and honor only folks who do great work but don’t have famous names, powerful positions or large bank accounts. Anyone else want to sign onto that?
in the non-profit vineyards is producing what it should for the consumers? I dread the prospect of bean counters taking over the management of non-profits but that possibility is out there if non-profits don’t do what they say they’re going to do. The bottom line is that non-profits rely on others for a bulk of the resources that allow us to do what we do. We can bitch about who gets feted at the Park Plaza but that ain’t gonna pay the freight. Governor Patrick’s mantra throughout his campaign and now as governor has been based on outcomes. That’s what the whole over line-item argument with the House is about. Take a look at all the supposed “do gooders” reaping the benefits of a good relationship with their local rep – they are in the amendments that sailed through the House last week.
And about my passion; I reserve it for what I do. I surely know and appreciate what the front line workers do and completely agree that they don’t get anywhere the recognition they should. But ask them what matters more, they’re day-to-day work or recognition and rubber chicken dinners with a bunch of phonies.
<
p>
It seems to me that these two phenomena have the exact same cause — mega-sizing of corporations.
<
p>
When a mega-corporation buys your local company, consolidation brings layoffs. That increases the demand for private-sector philanthropy.
<
p>
I realize that it is simplistic, but if, instead of there being just 2-3 razor blade manufacturers in this country, there were 20-30 regional or local razor blade manufacturers, we might all pay a little more for our razor blades, but we would pay less in taxes to support social programs to keep people who might otherwise work at a razor blade factory afloat.
<
p>
We might even have more innovation in the razor blade industry, because 20-30 companies will surely come up with more ideas than 2-3.
<
p>
I would rather pay a little more for my goods but live in an era of upward prosperity than pay rock-bottom prices but live in a downward spiral. Problem is, it is hard for even the most committed person to make such a choice when you’re at a store and the “local, socially responsible” gallon of milk costs $5 and the “mega-farm” gallon of milk costs $2.50, and they’re side by side on the shelf.
<
p>
Government may not be able to stop the formation of huge corporations, but it shouldn’t’ facilitate it either.
If there’s less of them funding more of us in need of funding it doesn’t really matter why a provider gets put out of business. It only matters that they’re out of business and the people they served either won’t get served or have to go elsewhere.
And whether you can pay a little bit more for milk and rqazor blades is a hell of a lot less relevant than whether those in need of services, those are the margins can. Who the hell is shopping at WalMart, the folks who live in Weston and Marblehead By the Sea? The golden parachute crowd? Doubt it.
I happen to think it’s very relevant, because it’s the disease rather than the symptoms.
<
p>
We can’t survive as a society if it is really, really hard to make it on your own, so you have to rely on either philanthropy or government redistribution for survival.
<
p>
America used to be the “land of opportunity”. It is not so much anymore; it’s becoming the “land of the low-wage service automatons”. Many of us had ancestors that left Europe as poor people with no hope of a future, and came here to find a better future. Were our ancestors simply lazy in Europe, and something they ate on the boat made them productive? Or might it be that Europe’s feudal economic system was repressive and stifling?
<
p>
We’re building a feudal economic system in this country, and we’re noticing that more and more people are perpetually poor. Hmm.
<
p>
People get a lot less riled up when their milk and razor blades costs them more money than when their taxes go up to “support some people on welfare”. I think we should try a different tack; change the economy so that it is more fair, gains are realized from top to bottom, and it is easier for smaller players to compete. If I knew how to do that I’d be a zillionaire.
Maybe some day, although I doubt it. But you have failed to pay for or offer support for a single service, whether it shows any outcomes or just swims along on a semi-steady flow of philanthropy and state-subsidy. None of what you’re talking about pays a single bill.
to the same level of scrutiny that you would hold other non-profits to? if not, why not?
I see them as government institutions.
Would you care to expound on religious organizations as government institutions.
<
p>
I think you mean religious organizations are run more like government, i.e. the Catholic Church with its hierarchy, but I’d like to hear your explanation. That’s kind of a loud bomb to drop.
<
p>
I also happen to agree with you on outcomes. This soul searching may lead to the disbandment of the United Way with it’s overpaid hierarchy and more of a pass through funding mechanism.
I laughed, too, when I read this op-ed piece in the Globe.
<
p>
Chad Gifford is such a phony. He took his golden parachute and then promptly sold out all of his employees at BankBoston…pretty much threw them to the wolves. But he took oh such good care of himself.