IT’S YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND THEN SOME.
For the 2011 Fueling Good Program, we’re focusing our support on four charitable categories: Education and Social Investment, Energy Assistance and Conservation, Environmental Protection and Restoration, and Health and Well-Being. Your organization must serve one of these interests and have 501(c)3 status to be eligible to participate. Please choose a category during registration. Thank you, and best of luck!
Get an overview of Fueling Good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvZDcdn9q5U
How it works:
· Starting June 1, nonprofits will be able to register at http://www.fuelinggood.com/ to participate in the summer program. From July 14 – August 11, local communities will begin voting at that site for charities of their choice. (The full rules/details will also be available on the site starting June 1).
· CITGO will be awarding gas to 12 nonprofits at the end of August, with more to follow in the fall.
Who is eligible?
· 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations in the 27 states where CITGO operates.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Nonprofits brace for employment hit
Crain's NY Business related that Gov. Andrew Cuomo was hailed for shaving 2.3% off the state budget. But what was good for Albany may be bad for the city—especially social service organizations, which say the ripple effect could mean the loss of more than 11,000 nonprofit jobs here.
That estimate comes from the Human Services Council of New York City, an umbrella organization of nonprofits, which calculates that a job is lost for every $35,000 in cuts. The group says Mayor Mike Bloomberg proposes $400 million in social services cuts largely because Albany requires the city to provide certain services but does not always fund them.
“The city had to make up the differences in mandated services,” said Chris Winward, senior policy analyst at the Human Services Council.
Funding for social services has actually increased $218 million statewide since last year, but that doesn't cover the growing cost of providing mandated services, a mayoral spokesman said.
The Human Services Council said most of the lost jobs would be among social workers and case managers. Because the funding is expected to be cut at the start of the city's fiscal year on July 1, many organizations have already sent out 30-day layoff notices to workers, Winward said.
Predicting job losses is more art than science. Social services advocates are dusting off their worst-case scenarios from last year as the city's budget battle kicks into the homestretch. A mayoral spokesman could not comment on the layoff prediction, saying that the city funds services but does not tell organizations how to manage their work forces. Read more here.
That estimate comes from the Human Services Council of New York City, an umbrella organization of nonprofits, which calculates that a job is lost for every $35,000 in cuts. The group says Mayor Mike Bloomberg proposes $400 million in social services cuts largely because Albany requires the city to provide certain services but does not always fund them.
“The city had to make up the differences in mandated services,” said Chris Winward, senior policy analyst at the Human Services Council.
Funding for social services has actually increased $218 million statewide since last year, but that doesn't cover the growing cost of providing mandated services, a mayoral spokesman said.
The Human Services Council said most of the lost jobs would be among social workers and case managers. Because the funding is expected to be cut at the start of the city's fiscal year on July 1, many organizations have already sent out 30-day layoff notices to workers, Winward said.
Predicting job losses is more art than science. Social services advocates are dusting off their worst-case scenarios from last year as the city's budget battle kicks into the homestretch. A mayoral spokesman could not comment on the layoff prediction, saying that the city funds services but does not tell organizations how to manage their work forces. Read more here.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Dutchess County Coalition of Nonprofits Presents: "Strengthening Government & Nonprofit Relationships in New York State: Lessons Learned from Deb
As State and County governments are forced to make cuts in staffing and services, our citizens and our public officials are turning increasingly to non-profit organizations to fill the gap. To do so efficiently and effectively, government and the non-profit sector must communicate and collaborate as much as possible. However, in NY State and Dutchess County, there is little or no mechanism for this two-way dialog and cooperation. This presentation will present one possible model to bring government and the non-profits together to benefit our common constituency.
Together, we are going to tackle some important issues facing our sector and hopefully gain some important insight as to how we can encourage our State and Local leaders to make a strong statement about the nonprofit sector as they have in Connecticut.
Event Details:
Date: May 13, 2011
Time: 10am-12pm
Location: Locust Grove Estate
2683 South Road
Poughkeepsie, NY
Cost: FREE
Register HERE
Who Should Attend?
All Board Members, Executive Directors, Nonprofit, Staff Members, Nonprofit Funders and Public Officials are invited to hear how this ground breaking appointment will coordinate efforts to advise Connecticut's Governor regarding policies and other measures that will benefit the state/ nonprofit partnership.There will be discussion on ways in which Dutchess County and NYS could possibly establish similar liaisons.
Thanks to a generous donation of space from Locust Grove we will be hosted at the Locust Grove Estate. See below for details.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Boston is Pushing PILOTs for Nonprofits: What Will be the Impact
Tim Delaney, President & CEO, National Council of Nonprofits, posted to Huffington Post about the recent issue of PILOTS in Boston.
As he relates: Leaders of nonprofit organizations across America were stunned by reports this week in the Boston Globe and NPR's Marketplace that the City of Boston would turn its back on the nonprofit cultural, educational, and health care institutions that have played such vital roles in making that city great.
What stunned nonprofit leaders nationwide is that Boston sent letters essentially mandating that various nonprofits make "Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes" (PILOTs) to the city based on the value of their property, even though Massachusetts law -- like the law in all 50 states -- prohibits local governments from taxing nonprofit property. What in turn shocked nonprofit leaders is how Boston intends to enforce its supposedly "voluntary" PILOT program: with a Scarlet-letter campaign designed to coerce compliance with the city's demand for "voluntary" payments.
Boston has concocted an Orwellian program that uses euphemisms -- such as "PILOTs" instead of "property taxes" and "voluntary" instead of "coerced" -- apparently attempting to hide what is really happening to evade what the law prohibits. The city, knowing the courts would strike down as an illegal act any attempt to directly impose property taxes on charitable nonprofits, invented a program to coerce "voluntary" Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes. But slapping on a misleading label to cover a bad act does not render it any more acceptable; a payment based on property value is still a tax.
To enforce its legally unenforceable program, Boston has threatened to paint a Scarlet letter of shame on every nonprofit that does not comply with the city's demands for payments. Such coercion to obtain what the Commonwealth's law prohibits is outrageous and threatens everyone; who's next, when Boston -- or any government -- wants something the law prohibits?
The city's program also disregards unique aspects of nonprofit law, thus putting coerced nonprofits at risk of running afoul of the Massachusetts Attorney General, who has jurisdiction to oversee that funds donated to nonprofits are used as donors intend. By demanding that nonprofits pay the city 25 percent of their property's tax value, the city is whipsawing nonprofits, putting them in a lose-lose dilemma: either undergo the city's shameful public branding, or cave in to the city's demands to pay, only to have the Massachusetts Attorney General come after the nonprofit if donors complain that they gave their money for purposes other than transfers to the city treasury.
In trying to balance its budget on the backs of people served by charities and those who donate to them, Boston has disregarded not only the law, but also fiscal reality. The recession already has stretched nonprofits too far financially as demands for their services have skyrocketed while their revenues have nosedived, with corporate contributions declining, foundation grants down, and governments delaying payments and not paying full costs on legally-binding contracts. According to the IRS, even individual giving has sagged by 20 percent. Read more here.
As he relates: Leaders of nonprofit organizations across America were stunned by reports this week in the Boston Globe and NPR's Marketplace that the City of Boston would turn its back on the nonprofit cultural, educational, and health care institutions that have played such vital roles in making that city great.
What stunned nonprofit leaders nationwide is that Boston sent letters essentially mandating that various nonprofits make "Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes" (PILOTs) to the city based on the value of their property, even though Massachusetts law -- like the law in all 50 states -- prohibits local governments from taxing nonprofit property. What in turn shocked nonprofit leaders is how Boston intends to enforce its supposedly "voluntary" PILOT program: with a Scarlet-letter campaign designed to coerce compliance with the city's demand for "voluntary" payments.
Boston has concocted an Orwellian program that uses euphemisms -- such as "PILOTs" instead of "property taxes" and "voluntary" instead of "coerced" -- apparently attempting to hide what is really happening to evade what the law prohibits. The city, knowing the courts would strike down as an illegal act any attempt to directly impose property taxes on charitable nonprofits, invented a program to coerce "voluntary" Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes. But slapping on a misleading label to cover a bad act does not render it any more acceptable; a payment based on property value is still a tax.
To enforce its legally unenforceable program, Boston has threatened to paint a Scarlet letter of shame on every nonprofit that does not comply with the city's demands for payments. Such coercion to obtain what the Commonwealth's law prohibits is outrageous and threatens everyone; who's next, when Boston -- or any government -- wants something the law prohibits?
The city's program also disregards unique aspects of nonprofit law, thus putting coerced nonprofits at risk of running afoul of the Massachusetts Attorney General, who has jurisdiction to oversee that funds donated to nonprofits are used as donors intend. By demanding that nonprofits pay the city 25 percent of their property's tax value, the city is whipsawing nonprofits, putting them in a lose-lose dilemma: either undergo the city's shameful public branding, or cave in to the city's demands to pay, only to have the Massachusetts Attorney General come after the nonprofit if donors complain that they gave their money for purposes other than transfers to the city treasury.
In trying to balance its budget on the backs of people served by charities and those who donate to them, Boston has disregarded not only the law, but also fiscal reality. The recession already has stretched nonprofits too far financially as demands for their services have skyrocketed while their revenues have nosedived, with corporate contributions declining, foundation grants down, and governments delaying payments and not paying full costs on legally-binding contracts. According to the IRS, even individual giving has sagged by 20 percent. Read more here.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Dutchess County Coalition of Nonprofits Event: "Strengthening Government & Nonprofit Relationships in New York State"
As State and County governments are forced to make cuts in staffing and services, our citizens and our public officials are turning increasingly to non-profit organizations to fill the gap. To do so efficiently and effectively, government and the non-profit sector must communicate and collaborate as much as possible. However, in NY State and Dutchess County, there is little or no mechanism for this two-way dialog and cooperation. This presentation will present one possible model to bring government and the non-profits together to benefit our common constituency.
Together, we are going to tackle some important issues facing our sector and hopefully gain some important insight as to how we can encourage our State and Local leaders to make a strong statement about the nonprofit sector as they have in Connecticut.
Event Details:
May 13, 2011
10:00 am - 12:00 pm
Register Now
RSVP by May 6, 2011
The Dutchess County Coalition of Nonprofits and the Locust Grove Estate are pleased to sponsor this event. Ms. Heinrich will be asked various questions about her role and the nonprofit community including:
- What led the Governor to create such a position in his cabinet?
- Why is it in the best interests of states, counties, communities, to be concerned about the nonprofit sector?
- How have the current economic conditions impacted the nonprofit sector?
- What role do nonprofits play in the delivery of services and in the economy of Connecticut?
- In what ways can the interests of nonprofits be promoted?
Thanks to a generous donation of space from Locust Grove we will be hosted at the Locust Grove Estate. See below for details.
Light refreshments provided by Appraisal One, Inc
Deb Heinrich is a scientist by training with a PhD in Microbiology and Molecular Genetics. She served as the State Representative for Madison and North Guilford prior to being appointed to this position.
As a state representative, Deb worked very closely with the nonprofit providers, advocating on their behalf in the legislature. For her work in this area, Deb has been recognized for distinction by the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits and the Connecticut Community Providers Association.
Ms. Heinrich was appointed by Governor Daniel Malloy to interact and communicate with nonprofit providers and to advise the Governor on policy reforms and other measures to benefit the partnership of state agencies and private providers.
Governor Malloy established this important position in recognition that this partnership is integral for the delivery of services to the citizens of Connecticut who require assistance in their lives. Governor Malloy stated that in closing a 20% budget deficit in his State, he is committed to finding ways to spare the most vulnerable among the State's citizens.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Nonprofit Compensation: What is too much? …and who decides?
Are you tired of hearing, "That nonprofit pays its employees too much!" If every nonprofit board followed IRS guidance on setting the compensation of its key staff leaders, perhaps we wouldn’t hear that refrain as often. So board members, please do your part by embracing your role as defenders of the nonprofit sector’s right to pay its employees reasonably and fairly. Help us change the conversation from, "What compensation is excessive?" to "What compensation levels will help our organization build its capacity by hiring and retaining terrific staff?"
First, know the process for reviewing the annual compensation of the executive director. Second, be aware of the downside of NOT engaging in an annual compensation review. (Bad press, lack of donor confidence, and potentially IRS penalties….need we say more?)
Background: Under federal law, a charity may not pay more than "reasonable" compensation for services rendered. Although the Internal Revenue Code does not require charities to follow a particular process for determining the appropriate level of salary and benefits, it is clear that compensation for board members, officers, key employees (and others in a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of the nonprofit) should be determined by persons who are informed about what comparable nonprofits pay their employees, and who have no financial interest themselves in approving the compensation. (Source: IRS, Governance and Related Topics - 501(c)(3) Organizations 3-4 (2008)). These are the general guidelines offered by the IRS – but the IRS Form 990 offers specifics.
First, know the process for reviewing the annual compensation of the executive director. Second, be aware of the downside of NOT engaging in an annual compensation review. (Bad press, lack of donor confidence, and potentially IRS penalties….need we say more?)
Background: Under federal law, a charity may not pay more than "reasonable" compensation for services rendered. Although the Internal Revenue Code does not require charities to follow a particular process for determining the appropriate level of salary and benefits, it is clear that compensation for board members, officers, key employees (and others in a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of the nonprofit) should be determined by persons who are informed about what comparable nonprofits pay their employees, and who have no financial interest themselves in approving the compensation. (Source: IRS, Governance and Related Topics - 501(c)(3) Organizations 3-4 (2008)). These are the general guidelines offered by the IRS – but the IRS Form 990 offers specifics.
The IRS Form 990 asks nonprofits about the three-step process used to approve the compensation of the executive director/CEO (and certain other key employees): Did the process for determining compensation of the following persons include a (1) review and approval by independent persons, (2) comparability data, and (3) contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and decision?(See Section VI, Part B, line 15, of the Form 990.) Nonprofits that follow this three-step process are generally able to take advantage of what the IRS refers to as a "rebuttable presumption" that the compensation is reasonable, thereby protecting the nonprofit and the board members from sanctions that can be imposed by the IRS if it finds that the compensation was not reasonable.
Visit the National Council’s website for more information on how to measure comparability of compensation, and visit the IRS website for background on what can happen if a board fails to demonstrate it followed this 3-step rebuttable presumption process [hint: intermediate sanctions].
Demonstrating that your nonprofit has approved the compensation of the executive director/CEO in a thoughtful, deliberative process is a basic fiduciary responsibility of every nonprofit board. Here are some pointers:
Demonstrating that your nonprofit has approved the compensation of the executive director/CEO in a thoughtful, deliberative process is a basic fiduciary responsibility of every nonprofit board. Here are some pointers:
- The process of reviewing executive compensation should recur whenever there is an adjustment to the executive director/CEO’s compensation.
- Having a written policy can help keep the process on track. ( See sample policy).
- The "executive compensation review" should be conducted by persons who are "independent" (not paid by the nonprofit). Many nonprofits use a sub-committee, such as a "compensation committee" made up of board members and volunteers, or the executive committee, to conduct the initial review and then make a recommendation to the full board.
- Having the full board approve the compensation of the executive director/CEO is consistent with being a transparent and accountable organization.
- Documentation of what the board’s decision was based on (such as comparability data) and of the fact that the board carefully deliberated and approved the CEO’s compensation is critical. Minutes of the meeting should include enough details so that if the board’s decision is questioned, the process the board used to determine that compensation is "reasonable" will be clear.
- "Compensation" means both salary and benefits, so if an executive director receives a salary but also other fringe benefits such as insurance, or a car or housing allowance, all those elements must be totaled together to determine the annual compensation.
Read about additional governance policies that your nonprofit’s board should be aware of.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Nonprofits Discuss Collaboration
More than 140 people representing over 70 nonprofit organizations converged on Bethel Woods Center for the Arts for a watershed summit that organizers hope will translate into more efficient and less costly organizations.
The day-long schedule of panel discussions and group brainstorming sessions drew executive directors, board members and representatives from organizations providing services ranging from arts education to support for people with developmental disabilities.
If nothing else, they heard one clear message: that collaboration could help nonprofits not only survive but thrive amid a retreat in giving by private donors and governments that is likely to endure.
"If we're all going to survive, we have to find new ways to collaborate and work together," said Sullivan County Legislature Chairman Jonathan Rouis, who has been pushing for a summit since 2009.
Summit organizers hope the face time and brainstorming will eventually spur collaborations or resource-sharing that could prevent the duplication of services and save money.
"The goal really was to take nonprofits off their islands," said Amanda Speer, Cornell Cooperative Extension's family and youth development team coordinator and chair of the summit's organizing committee.
"Before any of the ships start sinking, how do we work together to keep each other afloat," she said.
Jonathan Drapkin, Pattern for Progress president and chief executive officer and former Gerry Foundation executive director, laid out the challenges facing nonprofits as private and public funding shrinks.
He cited Greene and Columbia counties, which share a community college, and the merger of three school districts into the Sullivan West School District as examples of successful collaborations.
"Either you try to be the masters of your own fate or you wake up and find that fate has taken its own course," said Drapkin.
Darrin Raynor, assistant executive director for New Hope Community Inc., said he attended in hopes of sharing ideas and finding out about different organizations. "The opportunity to see the other organizations and hear what they have to say is priceless," he said.
Elena Goyanes, a board member for Catskill Arts Society, said, as she ate lunch, that she was already thinking of ways she could work with some of the groups represented at the summit.
"It's stirring thoughts of how we can further reach out into the community," she said.
From the Times Herald-Record online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
