2012 Trends in Philanthropy – Political Advocacy

Posted: 24 January 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Advocacy, Australia, culture of giving, grantmaking, NFP, philanthropic sector, Philanthropists, USA | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

As promised this post is going to continue to examine some of the trends for 2012 highlighted in Philanthropy and Social Investment Blueprint 2012 – the annual industry forecast produced by Lucy Bernholz.  In my last post I looked at the first of three major shifts identified in the Blueprint, today I’ll be moving on to trend number two: the implications of the US Supreme Court‘s Citizens United ruling on philanthropy and social investing.

There is no doubt that grantmakers here in Australia have a lot to learn from philanthropy overseas. I am often reminded however that much of how and why we practice philanthropy is unique.  By constantly casting an eye towards North  America and Europe we risk failing to recognise and value the innovation taking place in our own backyard. So what can we here in Australia possibly learn from examining the potential implications of the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision?

Before I address that question in detail, it probably serves to give a quick rundown on what that Supreme Court decision actually amounts to. In short Citizen United removed prior restrictions on spending by corporations on election campaigns; in essence allowing these bodies the similar first amendment rights to free speech as everyday American citizens. These newly available dollars will certainly come into play in 2012, the first presidential election year since the ruling was handed down. Rather than promoting and opposing political candidates or parties directly, much of the funding from corporations is likely to flow via non profit organisations advocating on issues that serve their purpose. It is the implication of that funding process has some interesting cross over with Australia.

Around the same time that Citizens United was taking it’s case to the US Supreme Court, here in Australia an international aid watch dog called Aid/WATCH was taking its fight to hold on to its charitable tax exemptions to the High Court. In Australia, like in the US, the judges ruled in their favour. The decision asserted that Aid/WATCH, as an independent watch-dog examining how aid is distributed, may well be involved in political advocacy.  Because the generation of public debate created by Aid/WATCH through their advocacy focused on the relief of poverty through foreign aid, the Judges ruled that it should not be excluded as a charitable activity. This ruling opened up direct funding of political advocacy by charitable trusts and foundations, ensuring that neither the donor, or the non-profit they were supporting, put their charitable status at risk. The Eggs have posted previously on the new place for advocacy in the Australian non-profit sector, but perhaps we have not explored the potential implications for donors in full.

In an environment more open to political advocacy from our non-profits, what are the potential implications on donors and ultimately donations? In the US, it’s likely that the Citizens United decision will lead to not only more political advocacy from non-profits but also more non-profits being created with a focus on raising money for or against their preferred candidates and issues.  Here in Australia, the likelihood is that we’re gong to see a greater intensity of out and out advocacy.  For some funders, the thought of seeing their long supported charities engaged in the political might be too much to bear.  For other funders it will open up spheres of influence like never before.

I’ve spoken with people on both sides of the advocacy fence, those that find philanthropic support of political advocacy unseemly and those that see it as critical vehicle in mission based philanthropy. Not all philanthropic organisations in Australia believe or want to be mission driven, the warm heart of benevolence for many is still the greatest motivator. There will always be a place for both. I do sense however, that the new wave of youth and online philanthropy in this country will drive a new era of donor funded advocacy.

Should you wish to learn more about the trends in philanthropy and social investment for 2012, I’d encourage you to get your hands on a copy of Blueprint 2012:

  • Hard copies from Lulu
  • PDFs at Scribd
  • Kindle version from Amazon
  • eBook from Smashwords. Also available for Amazon Kindle, B & N Nook and others.

You can follow the musings of Caitriona Fay on Twitter via @cat_fay or the blog via @3eggphil

The administration obsession

Posted: 9 September 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, grantmaker/grantee relationship, grantmaking, philanthropic sector, Transparency, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

You may have seen a couple of articles run in the Sydney Morning Herald a fortnight ago examining the administration and transparency of some of Australia’s better-known celebrity foundations.  In the firing line were the McGrath Foundation, The Shane Warne Foundation, the Cathy Freeman Foundation and others. The journalists rightly point out a number of inconsistencies regarding the required public transparency of the non-profit sector here in Australia. Both articles contend that without adequate transparency the donating public can never know how much of their dollar is actually making it to their cause of concern.

The inconsistencies raised in the articles are nothing new to non-profits.  The sector has long struggled under the burden of a fragmented regulatory system and been crippled under the red tape of multiple compliance obligations. It’s hoped that the establishment of the Australian Charities and Non-profit Commission (ACNC) will help to reduce the burden on the non-profit sector while providing a new level of transparency sector wide.

What the two articles also helped to highlight was that there continues to be a lack of wider public understanding around administration costs in the non-profit sector. Held up for high praise were those organisations with the bare minimum of administration costs, while those with professional staff and overheads were the inferred to be less effective and somehow less impressive.

It might well be that those organisations highlighted in the article are ineffective but examining administration and fundraising costs will only paint a partial and sometimes misleading picture.

I’ve worked for a grantmaking organisation that was incredibly strong on applicant organisations submitting ‘real world’ budgets. A budget submitted without a provision for administration costs and contingencies was considered poor, full stop.  Administration costs were considered realistic if they were in the 8%-25% field (depending on the project type).  Any lower or higher and it deserved some prodding. Equally, it was considered poor project management if an applicant didn’t factor at least 10% of the total project costs for contingency costs.

For that particular grantmaking organisation, low administration costs increased the risk of the project operating at the margins, which in turn increased the risk of the project failing.  As a grantmaker they decided to mitigate against that risk. When I called organistions to ask why they had submitted application budgets with low or no administration costs their responses were generally the same – most thought putting the actual administration costs in the budget would reduce their chances of success with the grantmaker.

I’m reluctant to suggest that there is any ‘right’ range for administration fees. What’s really important is that donors examine the administration figures within the context of the organisation’s activities and mission. There is no one rule.  As a donor you need to be more savvy and a donating public we need to expect that administration costs are a reality for charities.

I’d also encourage donors to recognise that staff within the non-profit sector deserve to be adequately reimbursed for the work they do. One of the great tragedies of non-profit sector is our high staff turn-over, and inadequate remuneration is partly to blame. Working in the most challenging of areas, doing the toughest of work, it’s imperative that the non-profit sector hold on to good staff. That includes senior managers and CEOs whose leadership is so valuable in ensuring the ship is pointing in the right direction.

You can follow the musings of Caitriona Fay on Twitter via @cat_fay

Budget 2011

Posted: 13 May 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Australia, NFP, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment »

So what the heck does the budget really mean for the Not for Profit (NFP) sector? Well, in short it’s all about reform.

The big exciting news is that we’ll finally get a charities commission here in Australia. The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission (ACNC) will be launched on 1 July 2012 and will receive a $53.6 million injection from the Government over the next four years. Finally there will be a one-stop-shop for charities, responsible for determining the eligibility of organisations seeking charitable status as well as the implementation of the much sought after ‘report-once use-often’ reporting framework for NFPs. The arrival of the Commission will hopefully lead to the implementation of some of the recommendations of the 2010 Productivity Commission Report into the NFP sector.  A Government Taskforce will be established in July 2011 to take responsibility for getting the ACNC ready to launch into operations by July 2012.  While the makeup of the Taskforce is currently unclear, there will be a broader public consultation process with the NFP sector and relevant government agencies.

While the launch of the Commission is positive, there have been some mixed feelings around the announced budget crackdown on tax exemptions for businesses run by Not for Profit organisations. The media has focused on the implications of the closing of this loophole for organisations like Hillsong Church which operates the Gloria Jean’s Coffee Shop franchise or the Seventh Day Adventist Church which operates cereal company, Sanitarium. The basic gist of it is that any revenue generated by NFPs from commercial activities that are not directed back to their altruistic purpose will be subject to income tax.  Seem’s fair enough?  Well, maybe but here’s a great international comparison from Bronwen Dalton arguing that the only winners in this closing of the loophole are the lawyers and accountants.

The final big piece of news from the Budget for the Not for Profit sector is the government announcement that it will introduce a statutory definition of ‘charity’ by July 2013. Basically, someone has decided that a 400 year old definition of charity is simply not good enough.  While the broad nature of the current definition has caused problems the review seems to be a reaction to Aid/Watch decision from the High Court late last year. The Government has committed to providing $2.9 million over four years to the ACNC (tough first up job) to assist with the reassessment of the charitable status of entities on the basis of the new statutory definition.

For more information check out the the media release from The Hon Bill Shorten

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers