The Foundation Center, the nation's leading authority on philanthropy, has launched an online database of proven approaches to measuring and analyzing the impact of social investments. As philanthropists and the nonprofit community shift towards more strategic approaches to get a "social return," evaluation activities must also operate at a higher level. TRASI ("Tools and Resources for Assessing Social Impact") addresses these growing needs by offering tools and methodologies that place a premium on evidence and metrics in tracking progress.
"Measuring the effectiveness of social programs has always been a challenge because it's not just about the numbers. TRASI helps organizations meet that challenge and go beyond simply determining whether projected outcomes were achieved," said Lawrence T. McGill, the Foundation Center's vice president for research. "The organizations that have generously shared their own strategic methods for measuring impact will greatly help others to find a solution that is a good fit for them."
Developed in partnership with McKinsey & Co., the assessment approaches in TRASI were authored by a range of organizations, including social investors, foundations, NGOs, and microfinance institutions. The Better Business Bureau, USAID, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Center for Effective Philanthropy are among them. The resources in the database range from off-the-shelf tools and concrete methodologies to generalized best practices and are complemented by multimedia features and social networking tools.
Each approach has been carefully indexed against a common set of key elements and presented in a way that makes it easy to compare their relative merits. The key elements include: who the approach applies to, what kind of organization or evaluation the approach is best suited for, and the costs and techniques involved in its implementation. Each approach was thoroughly reviewed by an Expert Review Panel convened by the New York University Stern School of Business.
Online Kick-off Event
The Center is hosting an online event to kick-off the TRASI launch. Beginning at 2:00 pm EDT on Wednesday, September 22, 2010, a live chat with some of the individuals from the Expert Review Panel will be held. Anyone interested in learning more about impact assessment and the TRASI platform is invited to attend by visiting http://trasicommunity.ning.com/.
About the Foundation Center
Established in 1956 and today supported by close to 550 foundations, the Foundation Center is the nation's leading authority on philanthropy, connecting nonprofits and the grantmakers supporting them to tools they can use and information they can trust. The Center maintains the most comprehensive database on U.S. and, increasingly, global grantmakers and their grants — a robust, accessible knowledge bank for the sector. It also operates research, education, and training programs designed to advance knowledge of philanthropy at every level. Thousands of people visit the Center's web site each day and are served in its five regional library/learning centers and its network of 450 funding information centers located in public libraries, community foundations, and educational institutions nationwide and beyond. For more information, please visit http://www.foundationcenter.org/ or call (212) 620-4230.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Board of Regents Ending Injunction Against Museums’ Art Sales
The NY Time reported that in a surprise development in the battle over whether museums should be allowed to sell art to cover operating costs, the New York State Board of Regents on Tuesday approved the expiration of emergency regulations regarding such “deaccessioning” on Oct. 8.
Those rules, which enjoined such sales, have been in effect since 2008. After hearing views from museums statewide, “there was no consensus on the efficacy of those emergency regulations,” David Steiner, the state’s education commissioner, said in a statement. Thus, “those regulations will be allowed to expire, allowing the prior regulations regarding museum collections to once again take effect.”
Last month the board indicated it planned to make the emergency regulations permanent, in part because a bill to prohibit cultural institutions from selling pieces from their collections to pay for expenses had stalled in the Legislature. “This removes a substantial obstacle to the monetization of art held in the public trust and to the transfer of art from public hands to private hands,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who led the drafting of the bill. The education department also said it was developing an advisory group to inform the Regents’ future decisions on collections and other museum matters.
Those rules, which enjoined such sales, have been in effect since 2008. After hearing views from museums statewide, “there was no consensus on the efficacy of those emergency regulations,” David Steiner, the state’s education commissioner, said in a statement. Thus, “those regulations will be allowed to expire, allowing the prior regulations regarding museum collections to once again take effect.”
Last month the board indicated it planned to make the emergency regulations permanent, in part because a bill to prohibit cultural institutions from selling pieces from their collections to pay for expenses had stalled in the Legislature. “This removes a substantial obstacle to the monetization of art held in the public trust and to the transfer of art from public hands to private hands,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who led the drafting of the bill. The education department also said it was developing an advisory group to inform the Regents’ future decisions on collections and other museum matters.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Governor Paterson Names Advisory Committee to Help Health Care Reform Cabinet
Governor David A. Paterson today named 37 organizations to the Health Care Reform Advisory Committee, which will provide input to the Governor's Health Care Reform Cabinet on the implementation of federal health care reform in New York State. The Advisory Committee includes organizations representing health care providers, consumers, businesses, organized labor, local governments, health plans and health insurers, and health policy experts.
"Federal health care reform will have a significantly positive impact for New York's residents, families, small business owners and the 2.5 million New Yorkers who are currently uninsured," Governor Paterson said. "It is essential that we get health reform right, making the most of this opportunity to improve access to health care while reducing cost. Our broad advisory group will help us achieve this goal."
The Advisory Committee will advise the Cabinet on reform provisions and ensure stakeholder and public engagement in all aspects of federal health care reform. It will support the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. In addition, Advisory Committee Workgroups will be created to focus on specific issues and additional organizations with expertise will be asked to join those work groups. A series of public forums across the State will also be held to provide opportunities for further stakeholder input.
Wendy Saunders, Deputy Secretary for Health, Medicaid and Oversight and Chair of the Health Care Reform Cabinet, said: "I commend Governor Paterson for his dedication to health care reform and for his efforts to expand access to quality health care for all New Yorkers. Implementing federal health care reform is a complex task, and many decisions must be made by the end of this year. We need public participation and input to help make reform a success and the Advisory Committee is an essential part of that input."
The Health Care Reform Cabinet is responsible for:
• Identifying deadlines for the completion of interim or final steps necessary or desired to comply with the provisions of federal health care reform;
• Determining those provisions of federal health care reform with which the State must comply and those that are optional, and evaluating whether participation in optional programs is appropriate;
• Assessing the State's capacity to carry out those provisions of federal health care reform that affect or potentially affect the State;
• Identifying any changes needed to State statute, regulation, policy or procedure in order to implement such provisions, and facilitating the achievement of such changes as necessary;
• Communicating with the federal government, local governments, other states, health care providers, and other stakeholders as advisable or necessary; and
• Providing public outreach to educate individuals on the implementation of the reforms as necessary.
Under Governor Paterson's leadership, New York State has become a national leader in expanding access to quality health care for children and adults through its public health insurance programs, including Child Health Plus, Family Health Plus, Healthy New York and Medicaid, while implementing efficiencies to ensure that funds are used in the most cost-effective manner. New York is the only state in the nation with both open enrollment and pure community rating and has been a leader in efforts to guarantee access to private health insurance coverage.
Organizations participating in the Governor's Health Care Reform Advisory Committee include:
• 1199 SEIU
• AFL-CIO
• Business and Labor Coalition of New York
• Business Council of New York State
• Centerstate CEO
• Chamber Alliance of New York State
• Children's Defense Fund
• Coalition of New York State Public Health Plans
• Community Health Care Association of New York State
• Community Service Society
• Consumer Directed Choices
• Empire Justice Center
• Family Planning Advocates
• Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency
• Greater New York Hospital Association
• Health Care for All New York
• Healthcare Association of New York State
• Hispanic Federation
• Medicaid Matters
• Medical Society of the State of New York
• Medicare Rights Center
• National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS
• New York Health Plan Association
• New York Immigration Coalition
• New York State Association of Counties
• New York State Association of Health Underwriters
• New York State Conference of Blue Cross Plans
• New York State Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare
• New York State Health Foundation
• New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage
• Office of the Mayor of New York City
• P2 Collaborative of Western New York
• Partnership for New York City
• Project CHARGE
• United Hospital Fund
• Visiting Nurse Service of New York
• Young Invincibles
For additional information on health care reform implementation in New York State, please visit: www.HealthCareReform.ny.gov.
"Federal health care reform will have a significantly positive impact for New York's residents, families, small business owners and the 2.5 million New Yorkers who are currently uninsured," Governor Paterson said. "It is essential that we get health reform right, making the most of this opportunity to improve access to health care while reducing cost. Our broad advisory group will help us achieve this goal."
The Advisory Committee will advise the Cabinet on reform provisions and ensure stakeholder and public engagement in all aspects of federal health care reform. It will support the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. In addition, Advisory Committee Workgroups will be created to focus on specific issues and additional organizations with expertise will be asked to join those work groups. A series of public forums across the State will also be held to provide opportunities for further stakeholder input.
Wendy Saunders, Deputy Secretary for Health, Medicaid and Oversight and Chair of the Health Care Reform Cabinet, said: "I commend Governor Paterson for his dedication to health care reform and for his efforts to expand access to quality health care for all New Yorkers. Implementing federal health care reform is a complex task, and many decisions must be made by the end of this year. We need public participation and input to help make reform a success and the Advisory Committee is an essential part of that input."
The Health Care Reform Cabinet is responsible for:
• Identifying deadlines for the completion of interim or final steps necessary or desired to comply with the provisions of federal health care reform;
• Determining those provisions of federal health care reform with which the State must comply and those that are optional, and evaluating whether participation in optional programs is appropriate;
• Assessing the State's capacity to carry out those provisions of federal health care reform that affect or potentially affect the State;
• Identifying any changes needed to State statute, regulation, policy or procedure in order to implement such provisions, and facilitating the achievement of such changes as necessary;
• Communicating with the federal government, local governments, other states, health care providers, and other stakeholders as advisable or necessary; and
• Providing public outreach to educate individuals on the implementation of the reforms as necessary.
Under Governor Paterson's leadership, New York State has become a national leader in expanding access to quality health care for children and adults through its public health insurance programs, including Child Health Plus, Family Health Plus, Healthy New York and Medicaid, while implementing efficiencies to ensure that funds are used in the most cost-effective manner. New York is the only state in the nation with both open enrollment and pure community rating and has been a leader in efforts to guarantee access to private health insurance coverage.
Organizations participating in the Governor's Health Care Reform Advisory Committee include:
• 1199 SEIU
• AFL-CIO
• Business and Labor Coalition of New York
• Business Council of New York State
• Centerstate CEO
• Chamber Alliance of New York State
• Children's Defense Fund
• Coalition of New York State Public Health Plans
• Community Health Care Association of New York State
• Community Service Society
• Consumer Directed Choices
• Empire Justice Center
• Family Planning Advocates
• Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency
• Greater New York Hospital Association
• Health Care for All New York
• Healthcare Association of New York State
• Hispanic Federation
• Medicaid Matters
• Medical Society of the State of New York
• Medicare Rights Center
• National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS
• New York Health Plan Association
• New York Immigration Coalition
• New York State Association of Counties
• New York State Association of Health Underwriters
• New York State Conference of Blue Cross Plans
• New York State Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare
• New York State Health Foundation
• New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage
• Office of the Mayor of New York City
• P2 Collaborative of Western New York
• Partnership for New York City
• Project CHARGE
• United Hospital Fund
• Visiting Nurse Service of New York
• Young Invincibles
For additional information on health care reform implementation in New York State, please visit: www.HealthCareReform.ny.gov.
Congressional Charities Pulling In Corporate Cash
The NY Times related that Representative Joe Baca has achieved near celebrity status in his suburban Los Angeles district, as much for his record of giveaways — Thanksgiving turkeys, college scholarships, spare boots for firefighters — as for anything he has done in Congress.
That generosity is made possible by the Joe Baca Foundation, a charity his family set up three years ago to aid local organizations. It provides another benefit, too: helping the Democratic congressman run something akin to a permanent political campaign.
Joe Baca T-shirts and caps are given out at the charity’s events, where banners display his name. Local newspapers mention the charity’s donations, and cable stations show appearances by Mr. Baca and his family at functions his foundation supports.
“It’s great,” said Laura Goodloe, 36, as she watched her 8-year-old son, Jordan, play at the arena in San Bernardino, Calif., where the Baca Foundation offered a free basketball clinic last month. “He is giving back to the community.”
But unlike most private foundations, Mr. Baca’s gets little of its money from its founders’ pockets. Instead, local companies and major corporations that have often turned to Mr. Baca’s Washington office for help, and usually succeed in getting it, are the chief donors.
A review by The New York Times of federal tax records and House and Senate disclosure reports found at least two dozen charities that lawmakers or their families helped create or run that routinely accept donations from businesses seeking to influence them. The sponsors — AT&T, Chevron, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Eli Lilly and dozens of others — contribute millions of dollars annually in gifts ranging from token amounts to a check for $5 million.
Since 2009, businesses have sent lobbyists and executives to the plush Boulders resort in Scottsdale, Ariz., for a fund-raiser for the scholarship fund of Representative Steve Buyer, Republican of Indiana; sponsored a skeet shooting competition in Florida to help the favorite food bank of Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida; and subsidized a spa and speedway outing in Las Vegas to aid the charity of Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada.
Just last month, they touted their largess with flags bearing their names near the tees at a golf tournament benefiting the foundation of Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina.
Despite rules imposed in 2007 to curb the influence of special interests in Congress, corporate donations to lawmakers’ charities have continued, thanks to a provision that allows businesses to make unlimited gifts to them. And while business executives say they want to give to a good cause, their pattern of spending — contributions that often are not disclosed, in apparent violation of ethics rules — suggests another reason. Read more here.
That generosity is made possible by the Joe Baca Foundation, a charity his family set up three years ago to aid local organizations. It provides another benefit, too: helping the Democratic congressman run something akin to a permanent political campaign.
Joe Baca T-shirts and caps are given out at the charity’s events, where banners display his name. Local newspapers mention the charity’s donations, and cable stations show appearances by Mr. Baca and his family at functions his foundation supports.
“It’s great,” said Laura Goodloe, 36, as she watched her 8-year-old son, Jordan, play at the arena in San Bernardino, Calif., where the Baca Foundation offered a free basketball clinic last month. “He is giving back to the community.”
But unlike most private foundations, Mr. Baca’s gets little of its money from its founders’ pockets. Instead, local companies and major corporations that have often turned to Mr. Baca’s Washington office for help, and usually succeed in getting it, are the chief donors.
A review by The New York Times of federal tax records and House and Senate disclosure reports found at least two dozen charities that lawmakers or their families helped create or run that routinely accept donations from businesses seeking to influence them. The sponsors — AT&T, Chevron, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Eli Lilly and dozens of others — contribute millions of dollars annually in gifts ranging from token amounts to a check for $5 million.
Since 2009, businesses have sent lobbyists and executives to the plush Boulders resort in Scottsdale, Ariz., for a fund-raiser for the scholarship fund of Representative Steve Buyer, Republican of Indiana; sponsored a skeet shooting competition in Florida to help the favorite food bank of Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida; and subsidized a spa and speedway outing in Las Vegas to aid the charity of Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada.
Just last month, they touted their largess with flags bearing their names near the tees at a golf tournament benefiting the foundation of Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina.
Despite rules imposed in 2007 to curb the influence of special interests in Congress, corporate donations to lawmakers’ charities have continued, thanks to a provision that allows businesses to make unlimited gifts to them. And while business executives say they want to give to a good cause, their pattern of spending — contributions that often are not disclosed, in apparent violation of ethics rules — suggests another reason. Read more here.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Independent Contractors and Consultants – Doing it Right
NYCON's national association, The National Council of Nonprofits, offers Nonprofit Knowledge Matters and a look at Contractors and Consultants:
You’ve just hired an independent contractor or consultant to work on a special project. Did you first evaluate whether the worker should be treated as an employee instead? Does it matter?
Yes, it matters because the government makes a distinction between the two classifications of workers (independent contractor/consultant versus employee) and requires nonprofits to treat them differently for payroll and withholding purposes. Also, insurance issues will surface when the consultant is injured and tries to file a claim for workers’ compensation. Is she covered? It depends on whether she is a consultant – or not.
Federal and state governments have regulations that define who is an independent contractor/consultant and who is an employee. If a nonprofit misclassifies a worker, the nonprofit is at significant risk. There are serious penalties and back taxes owed when a nonprofit incorrectly treats someone as an independent contractor/ consultant, when in fact the worker should have been classified and treated as an employee.
Additionally there are risks to misclassifying a worker as an exempt employee, when s/he should be classified as non-exempt. For tips and tools for avoiding misclassifying workers, read more about this topic from the resources available on the National Council’s website.
IRS guidance provides that someone is properly classified as an independent contractor/consultant “when the nonprofit has the right to control or direct only the result of the work done by an independent contractor, and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.” We hope you feel comfortable with the distinction between independent contractors/consultants and employees. If you are not sure, here are some resources to help you classify workers correctly and avoid associated risks:
You’ve just hired an independent contractor or consultant to work on a special project. Did you first evaluate whether the worker should be treated as an employee instead? Does it matter?
Yes, it matters because the government makes a distinction between the two classifications of workers (independent contractor/consultant versus employee) and requires nonprofits to treat them differently for payroll and withholding purposes. Also, insurance issues will surface when the consultant is injured and tries to file a claim for workers’ compensation. Is she covered? It depends on whether she is a consultant – or not.
Federal and state governments have regulations that define who is an independent contractor/consultant and who is an employee. If a nonprofit misclassifies a worker, the nonprofit is at significant risk. There are serious penalties and back taxes owed when a nonprofit incorrectly treats someone as an independent contractor/ consultant, when in fact the worker should have been classified and treated as an employee.
Additionally there are risks to misclassifying a worker as an exempt employee, when s/he should be classified as non-exempt. For tips and tools for avoiding misclassifying workers, read more about this topic from the resources available on the National Council’s website.
IRS guidance provides that someone is properly classified as an independent contractor/consultant “when the nonprofit has the right to control or direct only the result of the work done by an independent contractor, and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.” We hope you feel comfortable with the distinction between independent contractors/consultants and employees. If you are not sure, here are some resources to help you classify workers correctly and avoid associated risks:
- Guidance from the IRS on everything you’ve always wanted to know about how to pay independent contractors correctly.
- Distinguishing between employees and independent contractors (written by the IRS for small business owners, but equally applicable to nonprofits.)
- IRS Publication 15-A (2010) provides guidance on classifying workers and includes a special section on tax issues relating to employees in exempt organizations.
- IRS Ministers’ Audit Guide (highlights special rules for religious organizations)
Spread the word: Deadline extended to October 15th for nonprofits to file their 990s.
Please join the State Association network of the National Council of Nonprofits, the IRS, and others to spread the word – to small nonprofits in particular – that they need to file with the IRS annually. Most urgently, many small nonprofits will lose their tax-exempt status if they have not filed in the past 3 years and fail to file by October 15th of this year. The IRS has announced a one-time relief program for nonprofits required to file the 990-N or 990-EZ that missed their deadline earlier this year.
- This short video from the IRS explains the filing deadline.
- The one-time relief program will not help organizations required to file the Form 990 or Form 990-PF. Their tax-exempt status will be automatically revoked if they fail to file for three consecutive years.
- Guidance from Guidestar.org explaining what you need to know about revocation of tax-exempt status.
- Electronic Filing Tool: Organizations with gross revenue under $100,000 may file their IRS Form 990-EZ electronically at no charge through the Urban Institute’s eFile program.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Nonprofit Fund Faces Questions About Conflicts and Selection Procedures
The NY Times reported that in late July, the Social Innovation Fund, a new $50 million federal program aimed at financing the replication of nonprofit programs that work, made its first grants.
But what was supposed to have been an emblem of the administration’s commitment to nonprofit groups has become instead a messy controversy over potential conflicts of interest and the process used to select the grantees.
Several of the 48 independent reviewers who vetted the initial 54 applications for the grants were surprised by some of the winners because they had awarded them mediocre scores.
Critics noted that the executive director of the fund, Paul Carttar, had worked at New Profit Inc., a nonprofit group that helps promising social programs. New Profit Inc. received a $5 million grant from the fund.
Similarly, Patrick Corvington, the official who oversees the Corporation for National and Community Service, where the fund resides, previously worked for a foundation that financed a program operated by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, better known as LISC. The foundation won a $4.2 million grant.
Marta Urquilla, senior adviser to the fund, said Mr. Carttar and Mr. Corvington played no role in selecting the winners. “We knew the things people are saying now would be said,” Ms. Urquilla said, “and so we made sure each application got its fair chance and stood on its own merits.”
But the fund has not disclosed who reviewed the grants — or who applied for them or the ratings the applicants received, information that often is provided by many other government agencies that make grants.
In soliciting applications, the fund published a detailed set of criteria it would use to evaluate them, but the process by which they would be vetted was unclear. Last week, it disclosed more information about the procedures, including that the applications went through four stages, as well as the number of organizations culled after each.
“The bare minimum would be to release the names of the peer reviewers, the names of the applicants and the score they each received,” said Dean Zerbe, a former tax counsel to Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has persistently scrutinized the Corporation for National and Community Service’s grants and programs.
The fund was created with the passage of the SERVE America Act last year and quickly became one of the hottest topics for discussion in the nonprofit sector, which saw it as a means of getting government financing for young but promising programs at a time when the economy has crippled much fund-raising and hobbled many endowments.
The 11 winners effectively serve as conduits to channel the grant money to other nonprofit organizations that operate successful programs that can be expanded to serve more people in more areas. The winners must match the government’s money, which also must be matched by the final recipients, potentially trebling the fund’s financial effect.
The broader goal, Ms. Urquilla said, is to develop a network of intermediaries like the grant winners that can identify promising programs and connect them to donors and other sources of financing to allow them to expand.
The criticism has led the fund to decide to publish redacted versions of the winning applications in the coming weeks, together with the ratings they were given by various panels and how those compare with applications that did not win. “We fully embrace open government and the trend toward greater transparency,” Ms. Urquilla said. “We just want to make sure we do it in a deliberative and responsive way.”
The disclosures may not satisfy the critics, though.
Ruth McCambridge, editor of the Nonprofit Quarterly magazine, said that she may file a request for all the applications under the Freedom of Information Act. “This is supposed to be a learning process,” Ms. McCambridge said. “That’s the way the people at the fund have billed it, and applicants for the next round of funding, if there is one, might find it useful to see what didn’t work the first time around.”
She questioned why the fund would not release the names of the applicants or the peer reviewers and why it asked the reviewers to shred their work when it was finished. Read more here.
But what was supposed to have been an emblem of the administration’s commitment to nonprofit groups has become instead a messy controversy over potential conflicts of interest and the process used to select the grantees.
Several of the 48 independent reviewers who vetted the initial 54 applications for the grants were surprised by some of the winners because they had awarded them mediocre scores.
Critics noted that the executive director of the fund, Paul Carttar, had worked at New Profit Inc., a nonprofit group that helps promising social programs. New Profit Inc. received a $5 million grant from the fund.
Similarly, Patrick Corvington, the official who oversees the Corporation for National and Community Service, where the fund resides, previously worked for a foundation that financed a program operated by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, better known as LISC. The foundation won a $4.2 million grant.
Marta Urquilla, senior adviser to the fund, said Mr. Carttar and Mr. Corvington played no role in selecting the winners. “We knew the things people are saying now would be said,” Ms. Urquilla said, “and so we made sure each application got its fair chance and stood on its own merits.”
But the fund has not disclosed who reviewed the grants — or who applied for them or the ratings the applicants received, information that often is provided by many other government agencies that make grants.
In soliciting applications, the fund published a detailed set of criteria it would use to evaluate them, but the process by which they would be vetted was unclear. Last week, it disclosed more information about the procedures, including that the applications went through four stages, as well as the number of organizations culled after each.
“The bare minimum would be to release the names of the peer reviewers, the names of the applicants and the score they each received,” said Dean Zerbe, a former tax counsel to Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has persistently scrutinized the Corporation for National and Community Service’s grants and programs.
The fund was created with the passage of the SERVE America Act last year and quickly became one of the hottest topics for discussion in the nonprofit sector, which saw it as a means of getting government financing for young but promising programs at a time when the economy has crippled much fund-raising and hobbled many endowments.
The 11 winners effectively serve as conduits to channel the grant money to other nonprofit organizations that operate successful programs that can be expanded to serve more people in more areas. The winners must match the government’s money, which also must be matched by the final recipients, potentially trebling the fund’s financial effect.
The broader goal, Ms. Urquilla said, is to develop a network of intermediaries like the grant winners that can identify promising programs and connect them to donors and other sources of financing to allow them to expand.
The criticism has led the fund to decide to publish redacted versions of the winning applications in the coming weeks, together with the ratings they were given by various panels and how those compare with applications that did not win. “We fully embrace open government and the trend toward greater transparency,” Ms. Urquilla said. “We just want to make sure we do it in a deliberative and responsive way.”
The disclosures may not satisfy the critics, though.
Ruth McCambridge, editor of the Nonprofit Quarterly magazine, said that she may file a request for all the applications under the Freedom of Information Act. “This is supposed to be a learning process,” Ms. McCambridge said. “That’s the way the people at the fund have billed it, and applicants for the next round of funding, if there is one, might find it useful to see what didn’t work the first time around.”
She questioned why the fund would not release the names of the applicants or the peer reviewers and why it asked the reviewers to shred their work when it was finished. Read more here.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Bill to Halt Certain Sales of Artwork May Be Dead
The NY Times reported that a bill to prohibit cultural institutions from selling pieces from their collections to cover operating costs has all but died in the New York State Legislature, in the face of opposition from major cultural institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the withdrawal of support from the bill’s Senate sponsor.
“It looks like it is lost for this session and for the foreseeable future,” said Michael Botwinick, director of the Hudson River Museum in Yonkers, who worked on the bill as a board member of the Museum Association of New York.
Some museums are already precluded from such sales by the state Board of Regents, but the bill would have made the practice illegal and expanded the prohibition to all museums.
“The problem is, we’ll have a two-tiered system,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who led the drafting of the bill and is running for attorney general.
Though museums sell artworks all the time, they generally direct the proceeds toward acquiring other works of art. Many in the museum world have deemed selling — or deaccessioning — artworks to pay expenses a misuse of funds that jeopardizes preserving cultural heritage as a public trust.
But some museums that would have been affected by the bill argued that it was overly broad and confining and that they were fully capable of governing themselves.
A spokesman for the Met called the legislation “impractical, unworkable and unneeded,” and the Met’s director, Thomas P. Campbell, wrote in an e-mail, “While we respect efforts to bring clarity to the deaccessioning process, we believe the Metropolitan Museum has maintained a scrupulously transparent process for more than three decades — tightly governed by its trustees, subject to review by the State Attorney General, and requiring that funds from deaccessioning be used only for the purpose of acquiring other works of art.”
The sense of urgency around deaccessioning has been spurred by several factors, including the National Academy Museum’s sale in 2008 of two Hudson River School paintings to cover operating costs, and by the fear that financially challenged institutions are coming to the view that, as Mr. Botwinick put it, “the Rembrandts in the collection are no different than the IBM stock.” Read more here.
“It looks like it is lost for this session and for the foreseeable future,” said Michael Botwinick, director of the Hudson River Museum in Yonkers, who worked on the bill as a board member of the Museum Association of New York.
Some museums are already precluded from such sales by the state Board of Regents, but the bill would have made the practice illegal and expanded the prohibition to all museums.
“The problem is, we’ll have a two-tiered system,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who led the drafting of the bill and is running for attorney general.
Though museums sell artworks all the time, they generally direct the proceeds toward acquiring other works of art. Many in the museum world have deemed selling — or deaccessioning — artworks to pay expenses a misuse of funds that jeopardizes preserving cultural heritage as a public trust.
But some museums that would have been affected by the bill argued that it was overly broad and confining and that they were fully capable of governing themselves.
A spokesman for the Met called the legislation “impractical, unworkable and unneeded,” and the Met’s director, Thomas P. Campbell, wrote in an e-mail, “While we respect efforts to bring clarity to the deaccessioning process, we believe the Metropolitan Museum has maintained a scrupulously transparent process for more than three decades — tightly governed by its trustees, subject to review by the State Attorney General, and requiring that funds from deaccessioning be used only for the purpose of acquiring other works of art.”
The sense of urgency around deaccessioning has been spurred by several factors, including the National Academy Museum’s sale in 2008 of two Hudson River School paintings to cover operating costs, and by the fear that financially challenged institutions are coming to the view that, as Mr. Botwinick put it, “the Rembrandts in the collection are no different than the IBM stock.” Read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
