Speaking of Bucket Lists

Keywords:  Newt Gingrich
900 words, About 3 pages

 

One of the privileges of being a CEO is getting to have dinner with interesting people.  My wife imagines from time to time having a fantasy dinner party and inviting her favorite celebrities.  She wants the list to include Charlie Gibson, Dolly Parton, Julie Andrews, and of course Colin Firth—an interesting mix no doubt. 

                For reasons beyond explanation my list includes David Brooks, Chris Evert, Rowan Atkins, and Newt Gingrich.   Well, tick one of the characters off the bucket list, for as CEO of an industry association, I did get to have dinner with Newt the other night.  Here’s my report.
                First of all, he’s on time, polite, well dressed and ate nothing but a Caesar salad and drank sparkling water.   OK, so we were eating Mexican, and he did eat more than his fair share of the chips.  He left all the salsa for me thankfully, for my margarita needed something to wash down. 

                “So Dr. Gingrich,” (he does have a real doctorate from a real school after all) “what in your view made the polarized politics of today seem so much worse?”  I asked.

                “It’s somewhat cyclical. Before the Civil War, it was much worse than today.  I’d say today’s cycle is caused mostly by technology,” he said.  Now we can blame a lot on technology, but I’d not heard this take before.
                “You see, up until 20 years or so ago, when Congress was in Washington,  they were in Washington.  That is, their constituents were back home, and they were away from them.  They were fairly isolated in DC, and what social life they had revolved around others in Congress.  If they heard from folks back home, it was through letters or the occasional long distance phone call—remember when someone would hurry you to the phone because it was ‘long distance’?   Congressmen would take the train or a flight back home for a spell and then come back to the environment of dealing with each other almost exclusively.  A lot of golf was played, a lot of deals were cut, and a lot of things got done.  Whereas today, they are in constant touch with their constituents and feel constant pressure to respond and behave as if they’re always in the fight. 
                “Still, the Senate is more the way it used to be than is the House.  The reason, of course, is because one senator can hold up legislation.  Therefore, if you’re a senator and are really obnoxious to another senator, then it will come back to haunt you.  The House doesn’t have such forced gentility.”
                I hadn’t thought about the constant feedback from constituents as leading to operating under pressure to perform and behave a certain way.  And, oddly enough, as he told me this his smartphone chimed with an incoming text.  He excused himself for a few moments to handle a question from his wife. 
                We talked next about European politics.  His doctorate, by the way, is in European history, and his dissertation was on the Belgian colonial experience in Africa.  I’ve been known to dive unabashedly into conversations about the most obscure historical topics--just to show I could work my way out of it, if for no other reason; however, I left this one alone (I’ve learned that as a CEO, it’s generally a good practice to speak less--thus probably saying more).  Talk of Europe led to talk of Spain and Greece and his take on the currency crisis there. 
                “The Germans think the Greeks are going to buckle down and work like Germans, and that’s not going to happen.  The Greeks still think the Nazis ran off with a bunch of their gold, and could not care less about working like Germans.  It’s a case where the economics are going to be shaped by the culture—not by pure economics,” he said. “It may take a while for the powers that be to realize this.
                “Spain is incredibly interesting.   What you have right now is a cultural catastrophe in the making.  You’re about to see a young generation in Spain , many or most of whom have never had a job reach the age of 30.   That means that a crop of young people, mostly educated, will  reach the age of 30 having never had a boss, never had a customer, never gotten an earned pay check, never having paid their own bills or having had responsibility for their own finances.  They don’t live on farms or work the land or do much of anything.  This may be something we’ve never seen in our lifetimes.  Thus the real economic catastrophe in Spain may be cultural.  We’ll see,”  he said. 

                Here is a man—like him or not—who seeks to understand why and how things work the way they do, and what might happen with different experimental approaches to change them.  He talked of his current work researching government regulation.  In his view, there are three major areas of the regulatory continuum:  regulation, restriction, and destruction.  

                “The proper role for government rules is to regulate,” he said.  He expounded, “regulation involves correct processes which encourage good things to happen and prevent bad things from happening.   Restriction occurs when rules—for whatever reason, say the government doesn’t like the practitioner—are formed to punish someone for being in a certain activity.  And lastly, destruction results when the rules drive out the very existence of something.  I’m still working on the framework of this, but I would hope it would be of interest to industry groups,” he said, and I nodded.
                We’d been at dinner almost two hours, when he said it was late, and excused himself.  He had to turn in.  He was speaking to our convention the following day.  At first, I resisted the idea of inviting him in to speak.  He might be too polarizing and might not have much to say that would be useful  to an industry association.   I was wrong about that; I learned a lot from him in one dinner.   It was a worthwhile tick off my bucket list. 

A Change Writ Large in History

Key words:  cursive, education

About 800 words or 3 pages

We seldom recognize history making events right away.  Usually turning points in history are something for historians to look back on and recognize a couple of hundred years after the fact.  For instance, we now know in retrospect that building just one more campfire at Valley Forge helped the ragged soldiers survive the winter and play a pivotal role launching our country. 

But the other day, I was an eyewitness to a clear and decisive turning point in history--an event so monumental that it is a change in direction of society from henceforth.  It will go down in the history books as a shift in the culture, the beginning of a new era.

Of what do I speak?  My daughter’s report card, of course, and the subject line that is not mentioned on it.  There is no grade for cursive penmanship.  It doesn’t exist. No more longhand.   As soon as I saw this, I began the interrogation:

“Where’s your penmanship grade?  You’re moving up in elementary school now, that’s when you learn to write cursive, right?”  I asked my daughter, who was otherwise proud of her good grades.

“We don’t have to learn cursive anymore.  They don’t teach it.  I did sign up along with Melissa Sullivan and got the work book to learn it on our own.  Does that make you happy?” she asked.

“Well, I’m very glad to hear it,” I said, still trying to comprehend that students no longer have to learn to write things in their own hand.

“So let me get this straight,” I continued, “you no longer have to learn to write cursive in school?” 

I got back a nod.  That was it.  Case closed, chapter over.  Writing in script on a piece of paper is no longer a required subject.  It’s gone.  It’s going to be like Latin—the purview of cloistered scholars and other arcane history detectives. 

Wow, this is big, I thought.  Really big.  Written interpersonal communication is now all electronic.  Why scribble when you can type?   I suppose one can still print in block letters and have that suffice, but who’s going to take the time to do that?  This means handwritten letters are basically gone.  The Post Office that couldn’t be defeated by rain, sleet, snow or dark of night is vanquished by lack of letters. 

I send as many emails and texts as the next guy, but I still write my fair share of handwritten thank you notes and cards.  But come to think of it, I’ve only written about one long nice cursive letter in the past year or so.  And that was pretty traumatic; my fountain pen was so crusty, I had to clean it out and bathed the bathroom sink in blue ink.  Come to think of it, not as many Christmas cards last year--glad to know it might not be something I said or did.

Suddenly, for the next generation, our founding documents-- the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution--written in the flowing script of yesteryear will be even more distant, remnants like the Magna Carta.  We know they’re important, but can’t really read what they say without some old professor telling us about it.  Granted, the old “s” that looks like an “f” is a bit confusing even for us accomplished cursive readers, but we can still read the original document.  We can appreciate and understand it as if its writers are still reaching out to us in heart to heart communication.

I suppose this was bound to happen.  There are only so many hours in the day for instruction, and they have to sacrifice some “old” things in order to keep up with newer things. There is so much information now for these children that they will have to learn to filter it down to what really matters.  Learning cursive is just not essential anymore. 

My, how the tides have turned.  I remember learning to type outside of school when I was about nine.  My uncle showed me the secrets of touch typing, and a whole new world was opened up for me.   I still did my school work in the mandated handwriting on lined pages.  But when left to my own devices I typed stories and letters on my manual typewriter, anxious to free myself from the ancient bonds of writing by hand.  But that old style of writing always came in handy; we didn’t exactly carry around typewriters in those days.  Now we do.  And that’s just it.  The typewriter has become portable in the texting cell phone and other devices. 

With all these devices and machines wordsmithing everything for us from now on, English—or a mechanized form thereof-- is sure to complete its conquest of the other languages.  Those foreign languages were fun enough in their day, but who has time for conjugating verbs when the text master can conjugate for you.  Skip German and Latin, just say no to declining nouns.   

 But what’s to happen to writing a quick note on a sticky and putting it on someone’s computer screen?  Will I still be in the work force long enough to see the scenario:  they’re under a certain age, so I better write it in block letters since the new kids can no longer read cursive.   But hey, now senior (and I do mean senior) management can pass notes in cursive to each other and the younger folks will be clueless.  It will be our secret form of texting, our secret code.  My kids will be LOLing with their BFFs (that is if I ever consent to buy any of those devices for them), but I’ll be passing notes in cursive that will be a mystery to all but my oldest friends. 

              It’s quite a turning point in history, this movement away from composing a manu on a piece of paper.   Few have noticed, but then not all of us can read the handwriting on the wall.         

             ©Copyright 2008 by JP Harrison.  All rights reserved.

Something Gained in Translation

 Something Gained in Translation

Key words:  translation, Jerusalem

About 900 words or 3 pages.

My first official memo to the staff at the Jerusalem International YMCA was remarkable.  I have no recollection of what I actually said in the memo—it was 30 years ago, and I was a  20-something manager on my first day on the job.  It was simply the effort behind making the memo happen which left a lasting impression on me of the value of proper communication.

                        Even though the Jerusalem YMCA is the Y’s monumental flagship property, atop Jerusalem’s highest hill, it still had only one computer at the time, in the CEO’s office. The rest of us shared infinitely superior information processing machines known as secretaries.  I was the only American on staff except for the CEO, so I guess they thought I would need the best secretary to help me learn the ropes:  an elderly British lady who politely asked me on my first morning in the office if I wanted to send out any notices to my department before the upcoming staff meeting.  She then whipped out a steno pad and was ready to take dictation.   

             Now I had seen dictation in the movies, so I played along.  After “yes Mrs. Albright, please do take a memo,”  I manufactured something to say.   And after my drivel I remembered—again thanks to old movies—to say, “would you mind reading that back?”  She did of course, with improvements, and then off went my memo to someone else on staff for translation. 

                        You see, there were two languages for the staff¸ Hebrew and Arabic, so the next step was to take my English­—well, more Mrs. Albright’s even nicer version thereof—and translate this into Hebrew.  Fair enough, and after about a half hour, a fellow staff member about my age came in to have me look at his translation of my note into Hebrew.  Now if my Hebrew was all that great, wouldn’t I have skipped English altogether?  Never mind, there was a system, so I approved his Hebrew rendering of my English; now it was ready to go on to someone else on the staff to be translated into Arabic if I would like for that to happen.  Of course, it should be in Arabic too, I told them.

                        About an hour later, another fellow came in, the Arabic translator, with my original memo plus the first translator’s Hebrew translation, and his own notes.  He was stuck on translating part of the letter from Hebrew to Arabic because he felt the Hebrew was not a good translation of my original English.  He wanted to make sure I had approved all of the Hebrew text.

                        Right.  I took the Hebrew text and my English original and put them side by side as if to compare them.  I asked Mrs. Albright to ask the Hebrew translator to come back.  That was a mistake.  I then had the two who were nice enough to do the translations arguing over some nuance of my very perfunctory memo; it turned into cats and dogs.  I took all copies and renditions of my memo back from the two translators and shooed them out of my office.   At lunch in the staff lounge, I noticed the two who had done my translation for me sitting at the same table, engaged in jovial conversation.  I decided not to interrupt the collegiality.

             Back at my desk, I was determined to conquer the communication situation with the memo.   I decided to ask an expert.
            “Mrs. Albright, do the two translators ever agree on a memo?” 
            “Rarely,” she said.
            “How does the chief executive send out memos then?” I asked.
            “He doesn’t,” she said plainly. “He has a grand meeting, and what he explains in English is then interpreted into Hebrew and Arabic by someone on staff without any problems.”
             I tried to figure out the pattern:  what was causing these translators to turn against each other?

                         “Mrs. Albright, do either of the translators speak French?” I asked her.  I had an experiment in mind.

             “I don’t believe so,” she said, “but the lifeguards are from Lebanon, so they speak French.  And the folks at our hotel’s front desk speak French.”
            “And you, Brutus?” I asked her, with a little Shakespeare to make her smile.
            “Yes, my French is a little rusty, but passable,” she admitted. And she gave me a look of inquiry to find out if I spoke French.
            “Well, it’s a long story—something to do with my mother teaching tennis to a neighbor French teacher in exchange for French lessons for me—but luckily I can stay out of too much trouble in French,” I answered her questioning look.
             “Alright then,” I announced, “Preparez vous,” and I proceeded to dictate a memo in French.  She, of course, then read it back, having corrected all my mistakes and missteps.  Boy howdy did that save some time.  Off went the memo to the staff.

                        I should have known to buy stock in the Lebanese lifeguards before issuing a memo in their language, for their value suddenly shot up among their peers.  Yes, even our two translators—the on and off again enemies—were now reduced to begging the lowly lifeguards for translated sentences like handouts.  The whole department looked to be forming a team to tackle the problem. 

                        Thankfully, that was the last memo I had to send in French.  I learned to have more face-to-face meetings for one thing, and the two who had done the earlier translation quit fighting somehow and did their work. 

                        Daily we saw a thousand people pass through the doors of our facility to attend programs of all sorts, from sports to music to bilingual kindergarten (Hebrew and Arabic) to peace conferences and worship services.  We had 120 on staff, a third Christian, a third Muslim, and a third Jewish.  We got along, but it was hard work waging peace.

                        After my two-year assignment in Jerusalem ended and I returned to the States, an envelope came from the Jerusalem Y one day.  In it was a copy of the Jerusalem Y’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Austrian parliament.  My team’s programs were mentioned in the nomination.  There was also a letter from my former staff thanking me for all my patience, hard work, and our achievements.  It was—most remarkably—in the nicest  French I’ve ever read.

©Copyright 2012 JP Harrison, All rights reserved.

An Exhibition of Global Warming?

Keywords:  climate change, exhibit management

About 900 words (3 pages)

            Several years ago--before it made the news or showed up seriously on the scientist’s radar screen--I had a personal encounter with global warming while doing some work in Brazil.  I had gone down to an exhibit in Sao Paulo to man a booth for a forest products industry association.  It seemed like it would be a good time of year to go:  autumn here, so spring there.  The weather would be nice, or so I thought.

            You have to understand that I believe in the cheap and easy model of booth display when it comes to exhibiting at trade shows far outside the USA.  Sure, we can ship a few boxes of magazines and throw-away literature, and if it makes it there or not, fine.  But the essential stuff, I carry with me in a big black trunk:  books, posters, tablecloth, samples, anything of value.  In those days, if you shipped a couple of boxcars and a steam engine, it would arrive no problem, but a few boxes of assorted display items might have a 40% chance of arriving at the show.  So, I took my chances at the Latin American red-light-green-light game at customs (push the random inspection button, and if it lights up green you can bring in an atom bomb; if it lights up red, then they check under the fillings in your molars).  Thankfully, I passed customs with green colors, and I arrived in Sao Paulo all set to go.

            The exhibit center at the time was about an hour outside of town in a dusty complex of scattered buildings.  The cab driver helped me unload my black trunk onto my rickety little set of portable wheels, and into the mob of exhibitors setting up shop I headed.  My booth was in a good location, between some very nice walled in booths of major companies.  In fact, when I looked around, most of the booths were small plastic houses under various stages of construction.  Oh well, I thought, I’ll be out in the open and folks will be more likely to stop by since they won’t have to enter a “house”.

            I was wrong.  The show opened later that night, and it being rather warm I wondered why they hadn’t cut the air conditioner on.  I went to inquire. 

            “This hall does not have air conditioning.  This is why everyone has an enclosed booth,” I was told.  It was quite warm that evening in the hall, but I survived even in my dark suit and tie.  A few people wandered by.  Tomorrow would be better, I knew.

            It was not.  Now it was tropical daytime outside.  The temperature rose in the hall.  The air conditioners of all the little enclosed booths kicked on.  They exhausted more hot air, and the temperature rose even higher. 

            The booth on one side of me had a belly dancer every hour on the hour, and the booth directly across had an espresso dining area.  All in luxurious climate controlled wonder.  I watched longingly as the exhibitors sipped their exotic coffees and basked in the coolness of the major company booth.  The ice in my mineral water melted in short order.  I loosened my tie, took off my coat, and sweated. 

            A number of people said hello to me while dashing from one air conditioned booth to another.  One fellow quickly renewed his membership with me, and I gave him back change in US Dollars.  The laws at that time required one to account for all money converted into Brazilian currency.  How would I explain this to the authorities, and were the jails by any chance air conditioned?  Clearly, heat exhaustion was on the creep.

On the second day of the show, the booth next door had an extra air conditioner installed.  It seemed the 15 or so gawking guys and one bejeweled undulating female navel caused it to be a bit too warm at least every hour on the hour.  I knew something of being too warm.  At last, I sought refuge in the espresso diner booth across the aisle.  But I was an association staff guy not a potential customer of theirs.  I explained everything our association had to offer, quoted in detail from our latest industry standards, and even gave them a free forest product (a book)—which I went over in great detail until they finally said, “here, sit down and enjoy a drink.”  They were already members.

I sat at the small table soaking in the cool air and staring at my parched booth through the plexiglass.  Someone stopped at my booth to gaze at the literature, and I thought I had a customer.  Nope.  He was just picking up a brochure to use as a fan as he walked.  I could only impose on this major company booth’s hospitality for so long, so I readied to go back in the caldron for the last few hours of the show. 

“It’s going to be hot out there,” my new best friend in the air conditioned booth said.  “You know the cooler we keep it in here, the hotter it gets out there.  It’s ashamed it has to work that way.  By my gauges, it’s about—well in Fahrenheit—over 100 degrees,” he told me.  I believed him, after all he was selling machine controls, valves, and the like. 

“I hope it has been a good show for you,” I said as I was about to leave.

“Yes, I’ve sold several thermostat control systems,”  he said, and I stepped outside or inside—whatever the climate may be.

©JP Harrison 2012. All rights reserved.

How NGOs Got Here: Historical and Social Context of Philanthropic Movements

How NGOs Got Here:  Historical and Social Context of Philanthropic Movements

Keywords:  philanthropy, NGO history, noblesse oblige
2800 words

John P. Harrison, CAE

(first published as part of the American Cancer Society world wide training for NGO management, © 2006.  All rights reserved by the author)

Many historical forces intersect to yield a modern NGO (Non-governmental Organisation):  philanthropy, medicine, social and religious climate, and so on.  Not-for-profit organisations, especially those in the USA, have benefited from centuries of social and technological developments.  We explore some of the more interesting aspects of that development with a hope it may provide some light on an organisation’s possibilities and issues in other cultures. 

We start by defining philanthropy as voluntary action for the public good.  For many societies, the earliest and most prominent mention of philanthropy is in the religious traditions.  Although most all faiths contain teachings on charity and humane benevolence (Hinduism and Buddhism have dana, or charitable welfare, and Confucius taught of benevolent government, and most tribal religions have some form of communal charity), the expressly mandated charitable behaviour of the three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) has no doubt been a huge force in shaping philanthropy in the West. 

The teachings of prescribed tithing, service to others, and alms, have helped shape the concept of noblesse oblige.  It is not only modern religion that puts forth this philosophy of sharing the wealth however, for Julius Caesar also left large legacies for public purpose.  Interestingly, in ancient writings, we also find along side this willingness to share, the distrust of giving things away for fear of being cheated by false beggars.  Indeed, philanthropy (charity to people) itself was described as the Greek god Prometheus’ crime as he gave away fire philanthropically to humans (and was bound to the mountain peak as punishment). 

In order to understand the tendency toward voluntary behaviour for the public good, it is important to know the underpinnings of the philosophy of charity.  In classical China, for instance, charitable behaviour was much more likely to be done in secret rather than in any public way.  It was not until late in the Ming Dynasty (AD 1300- 1600) that the concept of public charity became more accepted. 

In the West, two great events did much to shape organised charity:  the Black Death (or bubonic plague) and several centuries later the Industrial Revolution.   After the plague of the 14^th Century, the Europe that survived entered an Age of Benevolence, characterised by a more “this worldly” approach to solving problems.   Increased ability to organise and more knowledge (spread through the printing press) led to changing expectations of Church and government.  Science as an endeavour for the public good began to take shape, and many charitable hospitals arose.   Scientific fraternities or societies formed, peer review and publication spread, and the aristocracy by and large subscribed to noblesse oblige, especially in Britain.

In Britain, the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 1800’s, created unprecedented wealth, and the mechanisation also caused vast changes in the previously agrarian social structure.  Urban poverty and unhealthy living conditions were brought to light by such authors as Charles Dickens, and the aristocracy and others were instrumental in forming relief agencies, organisations, and movements.  

About the same time, the founding and growth of the USA gave rise to a proliferation of non-profits and organised and individual charitable work.  The “association” phenomenon in the US thrived because of several reasons:  the British organisational heritage—without the aristocracy, the Puritanical mandate for good works, the emphasis on individual action (from frontier individualism), the absence (or distrust) of government, and the plentiful resources of the New World.  The French essayist de Tocqueville, upon studying the US, noted that the “Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations”.   Indeed, today there are well over a million registered tax-exempt associations and other non-profit organisations in the US. 

In other parts of the world, the advent of philanthropic organisations arose much differently.  In Latin America, the influence of the Roman Catholic Church (from the Spanish and Portuguese Empires) shaped charity work as the Church funded lay-led institutions and Catholic fraternities to do much of the work.  The advent of community-led organisations apart from the Church is a much more recent phenomenon. 

During the Cold War, communist countries often officially saw much of the social ills of the West as part of a larger class struggle and refused or were reluctant to have any social programmes apart from the government.  In the Soviet Union, for instance, NGOs were not allowed to operate until 1985, during the Gorbachev era. 

Even though many cultures might have had indigenous ways of handling philanthropy, these were often overshadowed by the presence of a colonial power.  The colonial power’s legal system, organisational culture, and direct relief efforts usually set the stage for the manner in which philanthropic organisations would develop.  Also, if a strong, non-democratic government was present, this often led to the sponsored nurturing of a favourite cause (often at the whim of a dictator or the oligarchy). 

As part of the rise and democratisation of philanthropic organisations, public scrutiny and the demand for transparency have also risen.  At the end of WWI, a conflict having much to do with the forces of industrialisation versus those of agriculture and the aristocracy, there was a period of intense scrutiny of existing charities probably in part as a rebuke of the old aristocratic order.   During the aftermath of WWII though, charitable organisations were needed as never before, and the newly formed United Nations in fact coined the term “Non-Governmental Organisation”.

The term NGO

The term NGO describes many diverse types of bodies, and there is no precise generally-accepted definition.  Perhaps it is best to describe what an NGO is not:  it is not a government bureaucracy, a political party, a for-profit company, or a criminal or violent group.  In essence, an NGO is a private voluntary organisation—an independent, voluntary organisation acting for some common, presumably philanthropic, purpose.   A classic example is the Red Cross (ICRC), founded in the 1860s to help victims of war and an organisation which derives its legitimacy by being neutral as it regards governments.  

This brings up the question of whether an NGO is usually an operational group mobilised for some specific relief or development project or an “interest” group built around advocating a certain cause or point of view.  This distinction is dependent on the concerns of the critic and has little analytical value. Governments agreeing with the actions of a particular NGO may refer to them as neutral groups operating on a worthwhile project, and governments at odds with a particular NGO may label it as one-sided pressure group; it all depends.  An NGO may bring needed resources to a project with a government’s blessing, or an NGO may be viewed as a competitor, doing what the government itself should be doing or at least wants to collect funds for doing:

“The way philanthropy is done, the way it is structured and its preferred objectives often become battlegrounds for other issues.”  (Ilchman et al, 1998).  

Case Example:  Indonesia  (adapted from www.asianphilanthropy.org)

Indonesia : History of Philanthropy

Philanthropy in Indonesia has long existed as a part of tradition and custom of its people for centuries. Religious institutions and values are the two major factors that motivated Indonesian people to involve in philanthropic activities. 

According to Islam (the religion of 85% of people in Indonesia), philanthropy comes with religious belief and in different suggested forms. Similar mechanisms are also practised by the followers of other religions in Indonesia: Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Furthermore, many cultural traditions in Indonesia accommodate philanthropic activities. For example, the Minangkabau people, in West Sumatra, and the Sundanese and Javanese peoples in Java, have traditions of helping each others by giving money, food and other necessary items to the poor.

Old Order Government Era (1945-1965)

Indonesia won its independence (from Dutch rule and Japanese occupation) in 1945. Some religious and social organizations were established during the independence war and existed during the late 1940s and early 1950s.  Many voluntary philanthropic practices were channelled through religious and social organisations. For example, two large Muslim organizations, Nahdatil Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah organized collection of funds from mosques.  The Lembaga Daya Dharma (LDD) in Jakarta, worked for managing funds collected by all Catholic churches in Indonesia, and similarly, Yadna Puniakerti in Surabaya applied the same pattern in collecting funds from Hindu temples. Nichiren Syosu Indonesia (NSI) organised collection of funds from Buddhist temples.

During that time, the post-colonial government was involved in managing and collecting obligatory annual wealth and poll taxes (Zakat), non-obligatory taxes such as ad hoc contribution in cash or service (Sadaqua).  The government also has allowed community and non-profit organizations to self-organise similar tax collecting bodies known as Lembaga Amil Zaka, Infaq, Sedekah (LAZ).

New Order Government (1966-1998)

Philanthropic practices channelled through religious and social organisations expanded between 1966-98. Some social foundations and religious organisations with great concern for philanthropy were established during this period. Through new laws, non-profit foundations were allowed to work in the fields of education, religion, health, and culture and to have tax exemptions. The number of social foundations and religious organizations involved in philanthropic activities has significantly increased ever since. However, later laws regarding taxation of social foundations, reduced the tax exemption benefits granted to non-profit foundations in the previous tax laws.

Corporate philanthropy is another important source for the development of philanthropy in Indonesia. However, during the New Order regime, these potential funds were exclusively managed by the foundations owned by the president Soeharto’s families. Following the fall of Soeharto’s regime in 1998, corporate philanthropy became more accessible for other social foundations and religious organisations.

The Current Government

Corporate and religious donations have been popular philanthropic activities since 1998. Besides, electronic and print media companies are actively collecting funds and giving coverage to their philanthropic activities. In addition to providing larger coverage in collecting donations and funds, the involvement of the media also provides transparency, thus becoming important in the current philanthropic activities in Indonesia.

Case Studies:  Brazil, Ghana, Egypt, India, and Thailand

Adapted from:   Salamon, Lester M. and Helmut K. Anheier.  “The Third World’s Third Sector in Comparative Perspective.” Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no. 24, edited by Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies, 1997).

While the nonprofit sectors of the five countries examined here seem to be quite a bit more extensive than previous analyses suggested, they are nevertheless still generally smaller than in the average developed country.  Compared to 4% or 5% of the labor force in the developed countries, nonprofit organizations in the developing world generally employ fewer than 2% of the workforce. What is more, significant variations seem to exist in the scale of nonprofit activity from country to country.  Thus the nonprofit sector seems more fully developed in India and Brazil than it does in Thailand, Egypt, or Ghana.

In India, for example, various directories list a total of about one million nonprofit organizations including professional associations, social welfare agencies, caste associations, and thousands of others.  The network in Ghana of 1,700 nonprofit organizations alone employs about 600,000 people.

In Brazil, the Catholic Church, in close alliance with the State, built a vast network of schools and hospitals, with Protestant denominations setting up competing institutions. At the end of the 19th century, secular voluntary associations such as mutual societies and trade unions emerged as the country developed economically.  The upshot is a sizable and varied set of nonprofit institutions. Federal government registries list over 210,000 nonprofit organizations, including 45,000 in São Paolo alone and another 16,000 in Rio de Janeiro.  Most of these organizations are small, with budgets of less than US$30,000, but there are also huge educational institutions and hospitals that are frequently linked to the Catholic Church.  Total employment within this sector is at least 1 million, or somewhat less than 2% of total employment.  What is more, this sector has been growing in recent years.  A survey of nonprofit organizations in São Paolo and Rio de Janeiro revealed that over 90 percent of the numerous neighborhood and community organizations that exist in these two cities were formed in the last two decades.

Although nonprofit institutions seem to be somewhat less extensive in Thailand, Egypt, and Ghana than in Brazil and India, they are far from nonexistent.  In Thailand, for example, there are some 15,000 nonprofit organizations, 2,200 of them in Bangkok alone. Cremation associations are the most frequent type of such organizations, accounting for 50% of the total.  These associations have deep roots in Thai society, handling the all-important burial functions that are so sacred to Buddhism; but they have recently begun assuming modern credit functions as well. In addition to the cremation societies, moreover, numerous social welfare associations also exist, comprising 39% of the registered organizations.

In Ghana, the Department of Social Welfare has identified over 800 nonprofit organizations in the larger urban areas alone.  However, only about one fourth of these are officially registered with the government.  In addition, there are 114 nonprofit hospitals scattered throughout the country, as well as 242 primary and 229 secondary schools, all typically linked to religious bodies.  Moreover, the 800 organizations listed by the Department of Social Welfare do not include the numerous village associations, credit and savings associations and similar types of self-help groups, such as the Susu associations, with roots in village traditions.

Finally, Egypt boasts some 17,500 nonprofit organizations with an estimated total membership of almost 6 million people out of a total population of over 53 million. This does not include the numerous informal associations among the poor, nor many of the Islamic groups organized around individual mosques.  The latter constitutes a vast network of unregistered groups created by popular Islam, providing health, social services and education to populations that the State, with its dwindling resources, is increasingly unable to reach.

Not only is the nonprofit sector in these countries quite large, it also extends well beyond the "NGOs" that have been the principal focus of attention in the developing world.  Thus, for example:

                        In Brazil, nearly one quarter of the 210,000 nonprofit organizations registered with the federal government are social service providers, 20% are sport and recreational clubs, and another 14% are organizations active in the fields of education, research and culture. Based on a survey of nonprofit organizations in the state of Rio de Janeiro, we estimate that the fields of education, health, and social services account for over 70% of all nonprofit employment.

                        In India, a survey…shows that education, social services, and culture and recreation account for, respectively, 40%, 19%, and 19% of nonprofit activity, and that only 8% of the organizations are engaged in developmental work per se. 

                         

The nonprofit sector in the developing world extends well beyond NGOs, and also receives its funding from sources which go well beyond the traditional development assistance that is often identified with nonprofit organizations in these areas.  In India, for example, while some 15,000 nonprofit organizations registered with the government received $460 million in foreign assistance as of the early 1990s, the majority of revenue actually comes from domestic sources, much of it in the form of fees and charges.  Similarly, a survey of nonprofit organizations in the state of Rio de Janeiro revealed that fees and charges are more important than funds from abroad in financing nonprofit activity.  In fact, the really distinctive feature of nonprofit finance in the developing world may not be the relatively higher levels of outside aid so much as the relatively smaller levels of government support.  Whether this is a permanent feature or another sign of the stage of development of the sector in these countries is one of the most crucial issues for the future. The significant level of government support to nonprofit organizations in India suggests, however, that the latter may be the case.

References

Bremner, R.  Giving:  charity and philanthropy in history.  Transaction Publishers.  1994.

Critchlow, D. and Parker, C.  With us always:  a history of private charity and public welfare.  Rowman & Littlefield.   1998.

Ilchman, W., S. Katz, and E. Queen.  Philanthropy in the World’s Great Traditions.  Indiana University Press.  1998.

Glossary

Board of directors:  the governing body of an organization, usually elected or chosen from among the group’s concerned parties.

Constituency:  the group of persons who are represented by or who support and/or benefit from the organization.

NGO:   Non-governmental Organization -- an independent, voluntary organisation acting for some common, presumably philanthropic, purpose

Not-for-profit:  the terms non-profit and not-for-profit usually indicate an organization’s exemption from most taxation by the government.  It also indicates that the ownership of the organization does not belong generally to any one individual, but instead to a group of directors.

Philanthropic:  efforts for benevolence instead of monetary gain

Fundraising: Truth or Technique?

Fundraising:  Truth or Technique?

Keywords:  fundraising, association management
About 900 Words

(first printed in Connections as "What about fundraising?"  2012)

            A couple of years ago, I wrote a column in which I made a bold statement and put out a challenge for anyone to fix it.  The statement was, “there are only four ways in this world to make a living:  1) grow/hunt your own food, 2) sell something, 3) beg, or 4) steal.” That was it, and I challenged anyone to come up with another method of making a living. 

            Someone must have been cleaning out old magazines or finally purging their electronic archive, for as a follow up to that challenge it has now been brought to my attention that there may be a fifth way of making a living:  fundraising.  Well, kinda sorta, is my well-thought-out response. 

            Fundraising is not a new category so much as it is a hybrid of selling and begging.  Sometimes it’s more selling than begging (e.g., strategic partnerships) and sometimes it’s more begging than selling (e.g., anonymous scholarships), but it’s definitely a hybrid of the two.

            No matter which side it swings toward, selling or begging, fundraising should consist of two major elements:  a truth, and “techniques” which surround that truth.   Recently, I learned of a major association which suddenly--after the IRS started poking around-- decided it needed to embark on fundraising.  Apparently it earned so much of its revenue (and we’re talking tens of millions) in selling a simple product that it needed to diversify its revenue stream, and hence a sudden interest in fundraising (once the funds are raised, then they’ll find a cause toward which to apply the funds).  This doesn’t smack of a great truth to me. 

             Most not-for-profit organizations, however, do have a truth they can tell about for fundraising purposes.  Once there’s a truth to be had, it’s a matter of technique from then on.  This “technique” is where the art and science of communication and association management come in.  

            First, there is the technique of how to tell the organization’s “truth.”  This includes how to articulate the message, the branding of the organization, the position in the competitive landscape, and all those things from Marketing 101, 204, and 402 (nah skip 402, they threw lots of unnecessary calculus in that one just to make it seem like a science).  The take-away is that the technique of telling the truth is important.

            Secondly, there is great technique in targeting the audience.  You have to have the right people to hear your truth (no matter how well you tell it).  Here is where lists, contacts, networking, and old-fashioned research come in (better bring back a few things from Marketing 402 after all).

            Thirdly, there’s the technique of tracking the responses.  This is pure experimental science.  I’ve seen groups track whether the response is higher from mailings with the window on the right side of the envelope vs. the left side (hint, one looks more like an invoice, and the other like a friendly letter).  We all get solicitations with free customized labels in them, with handwritten notes, with attention-grabbing stickies, etc.  You can bet the response is tracked on every variation of these add-ons.  Even these techniques have techniques.   

             Fourthly, the triumphs must be told.  What’s the old joke, “are there sports cars in the Bible?---Sure, when David slew Goliath his triumph was heard throughout the land.”  There’s a lot of technique in how to tell about triumphs.  Just ask the lottery commission; they hoist up the lottery’s triumphant winner as something attainable for all of us to see—despite the 600 gillion-to-one odds (they have to be big on telling triumph, for if they told the real truth the lottery would be renamed an idiot tax).  

            Lastly, there’s technique in thanking the fundraising participant, the donor.  Usually, simple and timely messages are best here.  Notes from the benefactor and others involved and in some cases public acknowledgement are all part of the thanking technique.  Opinions differ, but I don’t like it when they ask for another donation while they’re still thanking me for the previous time.  Bad technique.   Or maybe not, depending on what the tracking indicates.     

      

To summarize, it’s easy to describe fundraising.  There are a Truth and the ensuing Techniques of:

-         telling the truth

-         targeting the telling of the truth to the right audience

-         tracking the targets’ responses to that telling

-         telling the triumph, and

-         thanking those who took part. 

           

The more the sponsor/donor gets in a tangible return for the fundraising exchange, the more it is like sales.  The less the sponsor/donor gets in the form of a measurable return, the less it is like sales and the more it is like begging.

There you have it. It may seem more a matter of using proper technique than it is a matter of enacting a truth.  Both are interesting, and knowing all about those techniques is what keeps the non-profit executive necessary.  Or is it?   I’m not too sure about the triumph verse with David and Goliath, but I’m certain that in the long run the old adage is correct:  “it’s the truth that will set us free,”  Or is it the technique?