Don't be guilt-tripped into changing your mission.

In an article posted to their website today, Philanthropy News Digest passes on the information that a report has found that family foundations lag behind in social justice funding.

Reports like this abound in every sector. In general they tend to reflect the bias or mission of the agency or organization that commissioned and compiled the report.

Most people and organizations know that and just will shrug this off and move on, but inevitably some will react by deciding that they are somehow in the wrong.

A few years ago, a client was profiled in a newsletter as being "unsympathetic" to minorities because they chose to focus on developing job skills and teaching low-income folks the value of having marketable workplace skills. The gist of the original article was that their programs didn't reflect  the national ratios regarding racial distribution.

Their programs were not defined by race or gender. The only qualifier to participate in the training was to be un- or under-employed and have an annual income below the poverty level.

Unfortunately for the NPO, the majority of the people that responded were white females. Not too surprising, since females are normally the caregivers in single parent homes and the minority population in their area was low, but it gave the group that published the newsletter ammunition for the presses.

After several weeks of heated social media back-and-forth, the board of the targeted NPO  met and decided to develop a minority-only program within the main program. They reasoned that would not only get the critics off their back, but open up new and perhaps better sources of funding.

It didn't work out very well.

First, they had trouble attracting minority participants. Since that had been a problem from the start, a disproportionate amount of time was spent to reach out to that segment of the population, and the main program outreach suffered accordingly.

Second, when they had to provide racial breakdown information for their program participants and graduates, i.e. their outcome results, they remained weighted toward white females. Hardly surprising, since the total minority population, i.e. all other races, of their service area was under 27%.

After struggling with the problem for three years and watching their funding fall by 35%, the board voted to resume operations as they had been prior to the bad press

The moral to this tale?  Do what you do and do it well. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Political winds change constantly. If your programs are sound, needed and most of all effective, the money will be there.

Are donors and nonprofits contributing to income inequality?

A  lot has been said recently about the shrinking middle class, the stagnation or even decline in middle class wages, and the job nonparticipation rate.

Meanwhile, businesses are complaining that the skills they really need are being ignored or even denigrated by both politicians and educators.

Case in point. During one area development group's public meeting they asked existing and prospective business owners what they needed to consider relocating or expanding their businesses to the area.

They responded with answers that largely followed this vein.

                                               

They need people that are willing, able  and trained to do hands-on "blue-collar" tasks. They need mechanics, welders, manufacturing assembly line workers, and even freight handlers. As one business owner commented "It doesn't do any good to design a better mousetrap if there is no one to build, box and deliver it."

Salary.com reports that an entry-level welder with 0-2 years experience can expect a starting salary of over $ 27,000/yr. or $13.24/hr and a top salary of just under $48K, which is not exactly minimum wage. 

One area college responded by sending out a press release touting their current and future  increases in STEM classes. One of the clips played was that of someone saying that they were in business to train "the labor force of the future, and the future is not in a field or a factory."

This single incident illustrates the disconnect between the realities of day-to-day business needs and a certain intellectual naiveté about the future.

   

Nonprofits offer a funding avenue for some low-income students. Since they don't produce a revenue stream of their own, they are totally dependent on the largesse of both the government and private donors. These gifts and grants (or contracts) are the source of some truly big funding pools, such as the $20 million dollar scholarship fund established at Notre Dame.

That money tends to follow what's trending at the moment and that trend isn't money for trade or vocational schools.

While no one would argue that the future does indeed indicate a need for a well-educated workforce with different skills than those of the 20^th century,  the yardstick that we use to define "well-educated" needs to reflect an awareness of functional reality.

When education-based nonprofits set their program goals, and donors at every level write their checks or set up their trusts, it would behoove us all if they could keep that perspective in mind.

Philanthropy without relevancy is as counterproductive as no philanthropy at all.