Leveraging the Status Quo

While I agree with Eikenberry that there are definite drawbacks to an increasingly consumer/customer-oriented society, I still believe that coupling with for-profit firms can greatly extend a nonprofit organization's impact.

Notably, I think that the American Red Cross and its partnership with cell-phone carrier is an invaluable example of how effective a nonprofit and for-profit partnership can be. Indeed, the Red Cross raised a staggering $32 million by partnering with various cell-phone plans. And although, I am still skeptical of large corporations and their self-interested motives, I believe it is necessary, as Crutchfield & MacLeod Grant advocate, to "leverage" the status quo in an effort to change societal culture toward pursuing a collective or public interest rather than self-interest.

I find Eikenberry's argument to be a very informative and accurate representation of American culture presently, but I do not believe that acknowledging this representation of our culture should discourage nonprofits or individuals from partnering with market-oriented firms in an effort to change cultural attitudes about a collective good. Personally, I think that dwindling resources and soaring populations will necessitate a greater collective consciousness in America and the world, and I hope that nonprofits can instigate this change. Otherwise, as we have seen in various parts of the world recently, there might be an uprising of the have-nots (masses) against those that have gained a vast amounts of resources through our current "market" and "self-interested" culture.

The Manchester-Bidwell Hybrid

In this week's reading, the idea of parntering with business to advance the mission and impact of a nonprofit was not a new idea. Similar to many of you, I have noticed the changing trend of businesses partnering with or otherwise supporting nonprofits. In reading the appendix section of the article, I was excited to see the piece on the Manchester-Bidwell Corporation. I heard Bill Strickland speak at a conference a few years ago and was really inspired by his vision.

What the article doesn't share is that the two schools Strickland opened in Pittsburgh were opened in one of the lowest income, highest crime neighborhoods, where Strickland himself had grown up in poverty. After an art teacher had invested in him as a high schooler and helped him discover his own love for pottery, Strickland wanted to see opportunities for other students who had lived similarly difficult lives as himself. He worked with several corporations to build what is now an incredible community center, as the article describes. When computers were first becoming household items, Strickland worked with IBM to train individuals who would then become employed by IBM upon completion of their training. Both sides won - unemployed individuals, many of whom had hardly received a GED, recieved training and marketable skills, while IBM was able to acquire a huge workforce to meet its growing needs. Now, the organization, as mentioned in the article, continues its committment to the arts and to vocational training. Single mothers are taught cooking lessons in a state of the art kitchen by world class chefs, and most of this is funded by Heinz.

I am glad to have seen Strickland speak and to have read his book on how it all got started "Make the Impossible Possible" (which I am happy to lend if anyone is interested) to see the real ways in which the parnterships with business and nonprofits can work. While it is disappointing that nonprofits have to use an angle that convinces businesses of their own profitability through the partnership, this approach offers significant oppotunities for advancing a nonprofit's mission.

Are Their Intentions Good?

An example of a nonprofit/for-profit hybrid business models in the Joseph C. Cordes and C. Eugene Steuerle article stood out. A disbarred lawyer is a founder of a social enterprise nonprofit? Before jumping into conclusion, I researched the nonprofit, Pioneer Human Services (PHS). According to several sources, founder Jack Dalton, was convicted of embezzling his client’s funds. Immediately after serving his prison time, he developed PHS, to provide former convicts employment. PHS has evolved into a dynamic social enterprise. According to Seattle Business, PHS serves about 12,000 people (mostly ex-cons) every year and has three main enterprises around several plants and facilities. They also run large warehouses that handle packaging and distribution for large companies like Nintendo. Such statistics are commendable, considering the reluctance many companies have to employ former convicts. However, is it possible that Dalton simply saw a market based on for-profit using the nonprofit name? I thought of this due to the current American prison system.
Many of corporations are profiting off of prisoners’ labor for below minimum wages. These same prisoners once they get release often are not able to get jobs due to their past. This is the market that Pioneer Human Services has found. Instead of former convicts being in the prison where they had work, they are able to work for PHS. I am sure that PHS pays the ex-cons a legal wage unlike some private corporations, but the for-profit aspect concerns me. Was Jack Dalton intentions with PHS really good? Or did he simply see a market to profit off of former prisoners using the nonprofit name? These questions can be asked about any nonprofit/for-profit hybrid. Are their intentions good or do they simply see a for-profit market for the nonprofit sector?

Digging through my closet

Between PAFF 551 and 552, I have now read a few articles that state that products sold as a result of partnerships between nonprofits and for-profits decrease charitable giving. Perhaps, I am just being selfish, but I find myself becoming slightly irritated by their logic. I am curious if many of the individuals who are deterred from giving by making these purchases were likely to give in the first place. Could it be the opposite, are people that more likely to give also more likely to purchase these products? I have a few examples from my personal life. First, a significant percentage of my running clothes are Livestrong. Perhaps, a traditional pair of nike running shorts would cost $28, and the Livestrong pair may be $30. I am going to make this purchase regardless, I don’t want to be running around in uncomfortable shorts, so what are they advocating for? Should I buy the $28 shorts, and mail the American Cancer Society a check for $2. Christmas cards is another good example, do I buy cheaper cards, rather than the ones that support the UN, and send them a check for $.75? What about the (product)red Ipod, that wasn’t any more expensive, do I send a few dollars to an organization fighting AIDS in Africa because, well, because they say I should?

What I am trying to imply is that these are purchases that people (or at least I) would make anyway. I am not going to forego these purchases and donate this money. I make donations in addition to these purchases –more than my bank account thinks I should- and believe it is a good idea to provide consumers with these options.

What do you guys think? Do you think that people who buy these products will donate additional money? Were people who chose not to ever going to donate in the first place?

Refusing market? I doubt it

I found this week’s supplementary reading “refusing the market” contradicts so much with what we have been talking about in our nonprofit classes. In this week’s reading, Eikenberry was all talking about the damage marketization can cause to a nonprofit on its way to do social good, and that nonprofit would get lost in marketization. However, in our last semester’s PAFF 551 class, we were talking about one of the most important ways for nonprofits to survive and accomplish their goals is to develop diverse programs to make revenues on their own so that they don’t have to be so dependent on their funders and would have more freedom to go for their mission. In our PAFF 552 class this semester, we were also talking about making some compromise when our mission goes against certain tasks that our funders require us to do, such as marketization, because to make social impact, we have to first of all survive.
Then Eikenberry recommended that nonprofit should cultivate more meaningful and diverse relationships with individuals rather than focusing mainly on raising funds through market approaches (Eikenberry, p.591). In my opinion, this proposal is unrealistic. First, it’s not that all the current nonprofits have lost their social identity and dumped their mission. Many nonprofits managed to make a balance between marketization and accomplishing its mission. Second, it’s not likely that nonprofits will be getting enough fund if they give up they fund they are getting now from the big donors and turn to individuals as the main source of their fund. People are well aware that they can make donations to nonprofits. Many of them just choose not to. So it’s unlike that their attitudes will change dramatically in a short period of time and make more donations.
What do you guys think? Do you think we should turn to individuals as the source of our fund? I would love to hear opinions from you!

Target and Best Buy, and Their Nonprofit Partners

In chapter 3 of Forces for Good, Crutchfield and Grant write about the opportunities of partnering with corporations. Organizations can greatly increase their impact, as long as the accompanying challenges of corporate partnerships are also addressed. One of these challenges, the possibility of a conflict of interest between the political advocacy of the organization and that of the corporation, made me think of the conflict between Target and Best Buy and some of their customers that began last summer.

Last July, the public became aware of Target's donation of $150,000 to MN Forward, a political expendature group that ran advertising to promote the Republican gubernatorial candidate who had a track-record of opposing gay rights. Best Buy also donated $100,000 to MN Forward. Both corporations noted that they supported MN Forward's policies directed toward creating jobs, and not necessarily all other policies. Nonetheless, various gay rights groups and customers called for a boycott of Target, leading the organizations to re-evaluate their political giving policies. Here are some articles that detail the situation.

Although I could not find articles dealing with Target and Best Buy's nonprofit partners and their reactions to the corporation's actions, I know that both companies do work with organizations quite a bit. Both Target's partners and Best Buy's partners include organizations (such as United Way) that are careful to remain bipartisan so as to not to alienate their stakeholders, who are oftentimes from varied backgrounds. Although the partner organizations did not seem to be affected much by this particular case, it does illustrate the challenges that could be present in partnering with corporations.

Do you think this sort of situation could present difficulties for organizations that have partnered with the corporations?

Mutual Interest as Self-Interest: A Shorter Blog Reflection (back by popular demand)

This week’s readings present divergent views on market-based changes to the nonprofit sector. Eikenberry criticizes marketization as anti-democratic activity driven by self-interest, encouraging a variety of democracy-building countermeasures instead. Crutchfield and McLeod Grant endorse cross-sector and business activity to increase nonprofit impact and to encourage change in capital markets. So who is right? Is one wrong? Are both a little right, both a little wrong? Get your clickers out, it’s time to vote!

Eikenberry cites research suggesting that market activity does not in fact lead to significant, sustained revenue. Such enterprise, argues Eikenberry, is anti-democratic as it diminishes nonprofits’ dependency on networks and multiple revenue sources. In looking forward and recommending a different direction, nonprofits should focus energies not on revenue generation but on cultivating meaningful discourse among the populace. Eikenberry suggests measures such as democratic management strategies in lieu of efficiency and business-like approaches, more democratic funding opportunities such as giving circles (which engage and connect communities), and increased classroom discussion on participatory and deliberative mechanisms to promote student appreciation for democratic values. I find the latter recommendation fitting. Though academic subject matter appeases accreditation standards, true democratic deliberation would cultivate the creativity and potential of forthcoming nonprofit administrators. Will further class discussions actualize the author’s advice?

Crutchfield and McLeod Grant present several examples of nonprofits fruitfully engaging in market activity such as through partnerships with for-profits. The authors explain how nonprofits “recognize what economists have long known: tapping into the power of self-interest is more effective than appealing to altruism” (p. 58). I struggle with this statement. With the inherent wealth-generation of the business sector, nonprofits should clearly recognize revenue opportunities (given the voluntary sector’s inherent capacity/impact issues). Yet, what do the authors mean by “effective”? Effective from whose perspective? From the viewpoint of the victim of this nation’s attempt at capitalistic democracy, the individual who suffers without a job, health care, or hope for the “good life”/”American dream”? Or effective from an organizational standpoint? Do nonprofits not exist for the public good, more so than the organizational good? Yes, Crutchfield and McLeod Grant describe organizations which appear to improve the lives of their beneficiaries through marketization. However, many unassisted demographics still suffer from the “effectiveness” of self-interests. If economists readily accept that self-interest trumps collective interest, are economists all knowing? Or perhaps is such an understanding of self- and collective interest skewed? I click my clicker for the latter.

Through market participating, nonprofits gain a presence in the business sector. Thus, this involvement reduces the dominance of purely self-interested/profit-generating campaigns. This is a step in the right direction. Through collaborating with nonprofits, for-profits give the image or façade of social responsibility, which is good marketing. We have heard the adage, “marketing is everything,” yes? Naturally, some businesses (or portions thereof) will sincerely support social causes. With more nonprofit market involvement, we can image that more businesses will recognize the need to assume more communal interests, just as many nonprofit organizations have recognized the need to participate in the market. Here, nonprofits’ interest in capacity and for-profits’ concern for profit will hopefully yield an advanced mutual interest in, and capacity for enhancing the public good. Optimistically, more individuals and agencies will recognize that mutual interest is self-interest, as we are all part of, and directly affected by the community. City Year co-founder Michael Brown echoes these sentiments in stating, “self-interest and the common good – you can’t separate them” (Crutchfield & McLeod Grant, p. 68).

To me, Eikenberry and The Forces for Good authors share an appreciation for mutual interests, though their recommendations are antithetical. We may face challenges in applying Eikenberry’s democracy-building measures: the market is very dominant; resource distribution is extremely uneven; and individuals have competing perceptions and interests, potentially resulting in deliberative stalemate rather than democratic progress. Additionally, Eikenberry did not appear to consider the use of social media in catalyzing democratic discourse. We should clearly recognize the democratic effect of social media through the Middle East rebellions, connecting individuals by providing a forum for expression, much like this blog (and if you’ve read this far, you will find that I’ve slightly bent the truth-value of my title. Whoopsie. Actually, the readings deal with weighty subjects that deserve significant deliberation. Consider that I have in fact abridged this post from the full discussion warranted by the material. Is it a disservice to quickly wash over these ideas, or do we have a time/attention resource issue?).

Altogether, this literature is encouraging as it reflects a growing (collective) interest in necessary and broad changes to our traditional institutions (and our perceptions of such conventions). Academics and practitioners (among the masses) recognize the need to advance beyond unsustainable and ineffective means. “The times they are a-changin’.” We need to be more tactical, collectively understanding that current social and technological developments encourage significant transformations to long-held traditions. Hopefully, subsequent changes will amount to a more harmonious world, where individual and collective interests are mutually satisfied. Let us all be hopeful and proactive together.