Category Archives: Impact

Don’t Kill the Golden Goose: Rethinking Accountability Standards in the Nonprofit Sector

Disclaimer​: ​​This ​​is ​​not ​​a ​​goose. ​​This ​​is ​​a ​​golden​​ Mandarin ​​Duck;​​ this​​ photo ​​is​​ meant ​​to ​​be ​​visual​​aid ​​only and ​​not​​ a ​​true ​​representation ​​of ​​a​​ Golden​​ Goose.

Golden​​·Goose

Noun

  1. The ​​golden​​ goose​​ of​​ TSOs, ​​in​​ many ​​situations, ​​comes ​​to ​​be ​​seen​​ as​​ the​​ state’s​​ only ​​or​​best​​ hope in ​​tackling ​​‘wicked ​​problems’ ​​such ​​as ​​reducing ​​health ​​inequalities ​​(​Tenbensel,​​,​​ Dwyer,​​J., ​​& Lavoie,​​J.,​​2014).

Large-scale ​​migration ​​into ​​the ​​Britain ​​in ​​the​​ 1960s ​​and ​​70s ​​prompted ​​the ​​development ​​of ​​third-sector organizations ​​to ​​tackle ​​unmet ​​needs​​ of ​​the ​​new ​​populations ​​and ​​communities. ​​Government ​​funders turned ​​to ​​third-sector ​​organizations ​​(TSOs)​​ to ​​provide ​​cheap ​​and​​ effective ​​services ​​to ​​fill​​ gaps.

With ​​government ​​funders ​​providing ​​the​​ capital ​​​for ​​TSO ​​work, ​​ another ​​issue​​ came ​​to ​​the ​​forefront. “Accountability ​​measures ​​imposed ​​by ​​governments​​ can ​​be ​​debilitating​​ or ​​ ‘killing ​​of​​the​​ golden ​​goose” (Tenbensel​​et​​al. ​​,​​2014). ​​While ​​trying ​​to​​ expand​​ services​​ TSOs ​​are ​​burdened​​ by​​stringent​​ accountability measures. ​​A​​ conflict ​​arises ​​between ​​government ​​funder’s​​ needs ​​for​​transparency​​ and ​​accountability ​​and being ​​mindful ​​that​​ accountability ​​measures​​ can ​​stifle ​​a ​​TSOs ​​impact.

Tenbensel​​et​​al. ​​ (2014) ​​ describes ​​the ​​different “pulls” ​​that​​ TSOs ​​encounter.

Downward ​​Pull-​​community ​​ (members, ​​clients, ​​community​​leaders, ​​and​​ other ​​organizations).

Lateral ​​Pull-​​ one ​​another​​ and ​​themselves​​ (staff, ​​volunteers, ​​community​​ board​​ members, ​​and​​community agencies). ​with​​ whom​​ they​​ work’​

Upward-​funders. ​

Tenbensel​​ et ​​al. ​​(2014)​​ developed ​​a​​ comprehensive ​​framework ​​to ​​address ​​overburdened ​​TSOs.

  1. Do​​no​​harm​​-​​ do​​not​​in advertently ​​increase ​​overall​​ accountability ​​measures ​​for ​​TSOs.
  2. ‘Best ​​fit’​ generation​​-​​public ​​managers ​​should​​ play ​​an ​​active ​​role ​​in ​​facilitating ​​environments ​​in which​​ TSO ​​accountability ​​requirements ​​between ​​the ​​points​​ of ​​the ​​triskele ​​are​​ better ​​aligned.
  3. Consideration ​​of ​​collateral ​​impact​​ of ​​accountability ​​measures.
  4. Use ​​triskele​​ as ​​a ​​foundation​​ for ​​conversation ​​between ​​TSOs ​​and ​​all​​ stakeholders​​about accountability.
  5. Triskele ​​framework ​​can ​​be ​​used ​​to​​ assess ​​new ​​or ​​prospective ​​developments ​​that ​​are​​ likely ​​to impact ​​the​​ organization’s ​​accountability ​​environment.

The​​ Triskele ​​framework ​​and  ​​knowledge ​​of ​​how ​​accountability ​​measures ​​can ​​impact ​​TSOs ​​is ​​beneficial ​​for nonprofit ​​scholars ​​to ​​have ​​awareness ​​and ​​become ​​advocates ​​for ​​organizations ​​we ​​work ​​with ​​now​​ and ​​in the​​ future.

Social Movements: Seeing Change Through to Fruition with Strategy and Partnerships

By Claire Lewis

Earlier this year, I participated in my first protest ever – The Women’s March. I cannot remember who organized it or who invited me to the Facebook event group; I just knew I wanted to make a difference. If raising awareness was the key objective, then we definitely accomplished that goal. According to USA Today, 2.6 individuals across 32 countries participated in this historical march. Celebrities from America Ferrerra to Madonna gave powerful speeches about the importance of women’s rights. News stations across the globe covered this momentous day.

How was such a feat accomplished? The answer is social media. Facebook protest events across various cities and states filled my newsfeed leading up to the day. I witnessed many friends mark they were “interested” or “going” to these events.

However, despite this outpouring of support, there is little to no reform. One of the issues with “social media” marches is the lack of strategy behind the effort. I, like many others, was unclear as to the main purpose or end-goal of the Women’s March. Was it a particular policy change? If so, was it related to sexual harassment, gender inequality in pay, freedom of choice, and/or all of the above?

In order to sustain long-term change in policy and legislation, strategy, goals, and hard work need to be put forth and adhered to. This Ted Talk goes into more detail on the lack of strategy behind online uprisings. As, Zeynep points out, the Civil Rights movement was incredibly successful because there was a well thought out strategy, what she refers to as “slow and sustained” and “painstaking long-term work.” The Civil Rights movement also had specific, tangible goals such as ending segregation and reversing “separate but equal.” Both individuals (ex. MLK) as well as the work of SMO’s led to major change. For example, the NAACP was instrumental in policy change. NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall, challenged segregation in the landmark case, Plessy V. Ferguson that later led to Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown Case resulted in large-scale protests such as the March on Washington.

These powerful protests are the reason for both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Clearly, both SMOs and individuals are important in a social movement. So the question is, in our current social media climate, how can we harness the power of these social media inspired protests and actually produce tangible results? To me, this is more important than whether an SMO or an individual creates a protest event on Facebook. I do not care who starts it, I just want to contribute and see change actually happen.

The first step is creation of a strategy. Many SMOs already have strategy and goals built into their programming. For example, the NAACP has various toolkits for social change initiatives. The trick is to connect SMOs to these grassroots movements so that everyone is on the same page.

Below are some ideas I brainstormed that could create movements that are more effective. I assume (and hope) that at least some of these ideas are already in place.

  • SMOs identifying and working with various grassroots protest planners to create strategies and goals together that can be communicated to the masses
  • SMOs training leaders to be part of these small grassroots movements and educate groups
  • SMOs attending various protests as guest speakers and/or handing out information
  • SMOs collaborating with influential social change leaders such as Michael Moore to ensure a goal is put in place and communicated. He does a great job, but a partnership with an SMO could be even more impactful
  • SMOs and/or individuals harnessing various media sources to make it clear what the public needs to do in order to achieve the goal (make it easy to do, easy to understand)
  • SMOs educating the public at various venues on what legislation is related to the current issue, what propositions to watch out for, etc.
  • SMOs partnering with small grassroots groups to create follow-up sessions after protests
  • SMOs and/or individuals partnering with schools and universities to provide education on various social issues and legislation to build a pipeline

Our current social media climate has so much potential for enacting real, tangible change. By harnessing the strategies that SMOs already construct and articulating clear goals, we have a chance at influencing policy change. SMOs and individuals can be much more powerful as a team, and I hope there will be more partnerships in the future. I am so proud of the Women’s March and awareness it spread, but I want to see women receive equal pay, a right to choose, and fair trials in the cases of rape and sexual assault. I want to see not just a short-term uprising, but long-term change. The partnership of SMOs and individuals can act as a catalyst to bring reform to fruition.

Using Neutrality to Protect Humanity

By Hayley Walker and Valdeir Faria Filho

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are functioning in our global society, some better than others. Some are well-known (CARE, Amnesty International, Red Cross) and use effective marketing techniques, lobbying efforts, and provide programs internationally. Others are small, local organizations that work to make life better for specific groups of people. Regardless, these diverse and varying NGOs have multiple commonalities, though they may not be fully visible on the surface. All, however, embark on missions to protect humanity.

The World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (WANGO) is an international organization that aims to unite NGOs and promote peace and wellbeing across the globe. WANGO offers resources and support to create connections among organizations striving to create a more just, sustainable world for all. As a proponent of networks and collaborations, WANGO sheds light on the synergy that results from global organizations working towards a common goal. With widespread government support, exceptional visionaries, and dedicated donors, WANGO has worked for the past 17 years to encourage NGOs to connect across borders and without boundaries, and to hold steadfast to the following guiding principles (WANGO Code of Ethics):

  • Responsibility, service, and public mindedness
  • Cooperation beyond boundaries
  • Human rights and dignity
  • Religious freedom
  • Transparency and accountability
  • Truthfulness and legality

NGOs, in the broadest sense, cannot be for profit organizations, must be independent of government, must not interfere in domestic state affairs, and must not advocate violence (Kaloudis, 2017). However, there comes a time when disaster relief and humanitarian organizations must interfere—or rather, intervene—in domestic affairs in an effort to protect humanity. Non-governmental organizations are frequently caught in the cross-fire of waring territories, failed states, and desperate civilians, with one goal in mind: to provide relief for those in need.

During times of crisis, NGOs rely deeply on their neutrality to aid them in reaching the most people possible. In accordance with WANGO’s principle of working towards cooperation beyond boundaries, neutrality refers to refraining from taking sides on issues regarding political, cultural, religious affiliation, or other sensitive issues that may result in conflict. That does not mean that NGOs disappear or go into hiding during such conflicts, but rather work harder to serve all affected—regardless of their stance on the issues. Impactful NGOs uphold the policy of not “taking sides,” and this is crucial to the safety of workers, volunteers, donors, and civilians. However, in recent years NGOs have faced difficulty in mitigating suffering as impartial entities, in part due to assumed association with national governments or international organizations (Brechenmacher, 2015).  Aid and relief of organizations urge conflicting parties to respect their neutral stance as they provide desperately needed services to civilians, but reality does not always allow provide for this ideal situation. State militaries may claim alliances with NGOs, and rebel forces may see this alliance as a threat to their progress. NGOs, however, frequently default to the emphasizing the value of impartiality in conflict zones and assert their neutral stance to relieve human suffering—a practice that is often debated. In order to reach civilians who may be trapped or displaced deep within war zones and conflict arenas, NGOs must carefully negotiate with opposing parties. They must ensure they remain under enough security to serve, but enough neutrality to relieve the suffering civilians from all sides.

Salesforce.org Receives the USF California Prize 2016

Awarding the 1-1-1 Model

The University of San Francisco is proud to award the 2016 California Prize for Service and the Common Good to Salesforce.org for its commitment to giving back to the community and setting a new standard for integrated corporate philanthropy. When Salesforce was founded in 1999, it transformed corporate philanthropy with the 1-1-1 model, an integrated philanthropy model that donates 1 percent equity, 1 percent product and 1 percent employee time to communities around the world. Today, Salesforce.org carries out Salesforce’s philanthropic mission.

The USF California Prize

Since 2008, the University of San Francisco has awarded the California Prize for Service and the Common Good to an individual or organization, recognizing significant service to the poor and marginalized as well as groundbreaking achievements in pursuit of the common good. The California Prize is USF’s way of rewarding, honoring, and celebrating the work of those who share our commitment to create a more humane, just, and sustainable world.

Salesforce.org… Beyond a Foundation

Salesforce’s philanthropic entities have donated more than $100 million in grants globally since 1999, including $14 million in grants to the San Francisco Unified School District; and Salesforce employees have volunteered more than 1.1 million hours in their local communities. Salesforce.org also powers more than 27,000 nonprofits by offering technology to nonprofits and higher education institutions for free or at a discount.

Transforming Corporate Philanthropy

Extending the power of the 1-1-1 model, Salesforce.org has created a movement of corporate philanthropy with Pledge 1%, resulting in more than 600 companies dedicating employee time, equity, product, or profit back to the community.

“Like the University of San Francisco, Salesforce.org is committed to making the city and the world a better place,” said USF President Paul J. Fitzgerald, S.J. “As the university of and for San Francisco, USF shares a commitment with Salesforce.org to educate and to give back for the good of all of society.”

Source: California Prize 2016 | University of San Francisco