NACC News: June-July, 2017
NACC News publishes information about the Nonprofit Academic Centers Council
and its members. We invite you to contribute your news and encourage you to
share this newsletter with colleagues, the nonprofit community, and all others you
think might find it of interest.
NACC 2017 Biennial Conference
“Nonprofit and Philanthropy Parables and Cases: What We Learn from the Stories We Tell”
Please join us on July 31 through August 2, 2017 at our biennial conference hosted by Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy in Indianapolis, Indiana.
To become a sponsor and to register please go to http://www.nonprofit-academic-centerscouncil.org/events/.
NACC is pleased to offer our readers a glimpse of the 2017 Biennial Conference with profiles of sessions and titles of presentations:
Building Knowledge: Positioning Nonprofit Programs in Institutions of Higher Learning."
Participants: Carol Brunt, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Robert (Bob) Long, Murray State University (formerly, W. K. Kellogg Foundation), Patrick Rooney, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy), Peter C. Weber, Murray State University
Discussant: Ruth Hansen, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater; Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
This is colloquium is designed to foster reflection on the internal and external factors that affect thedevelopment of nonprofit education programs. Understanding the diversity of these programs is of particular relevance as NACC proceeds in developing an accreditation system for nonprofit-first programs. Factors such as size, location, sources of funding, student demographics, and institutional support vary significantly across programs. The colloquium directs our attention to the role of these factors in both influencing the development of nonprofit education programs along various trajectories and guiding the funding strategies of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, one of the leading funders supporting the growth of the field of nonprofit and philanthropic studies.
Participants will discuss the role of these factors in their respective programs in an open format.
A Case Study
The Perils and Promise of Cross-Cultural Fundraising
Lilya Wagner, Ed.D., CFRE
Philanthropic Service for
The Lilly Family School of
Abstract: Cultural characteristics of philanthropy are inherent in population groups, and preferences for generosity, for philanthropic action, are shaped by traditions, religion, family values, political pressures, and other factors. In North America, immigration caused a merger of philanthropic expectations yet population groups continue to be influenced by the characteristics of their various cultural groups. While there has been increased understanding of these differences over the last few decades, putting the cultural indicators into practice lags behind the knowledge base about preferences in giving. This paper acknowledges significant differences and considers possible reasons why fundraising professionals and nonprofit leaders have not embraced in actual practice what they instinctively know or have learned through experience and accumulation of knowledge about cross cultural philanthropy.
Lilya Wagner brings together knowledge of culture, diversity and generosity and places it into practical
perspectives. Through real-life examples and insights about specific population groups and their cultures, traditions, and practices she considers how to move from “business as usual” to culturally appropriate interaction among communities, donors, and stakeholders. Her new book Diversity and Philanthropy: Expanding the Circle of Giving is available at www.diversityandphilanthropy.com.
- Amir Pasic, Dean of LFSOP | Speaking on Philanthropy
- Leslie Lenkowsky, Prof Emeritus and Senior Advisor, LFSOP and SPEA-IUB | Speaking on Philanthropy & Public Policy: Challenges and Opportunities
- Clay Robbins, President, CEO, and Chairman, The Lilly Endowment
- Marissa Manlove, President and CEO, Indiana Philanthropy Alliance
- Jim Morris, President, The Pacers Organization
- Moderator: Patrick Rooney, Executive Associate Dean, Academic Programs, IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy (LFSOP)
Conference Content at a Glance:
- Colloquium on Factors Influencing Nonprofit Education Program Development
- Special Tracks on Academic Administration of Nonprofit and Philanthropy Centers, Administering Multiple Degree Programs, and Administering Online v. On-Campus Programs
- Models for Case Study and Case Study Application
- Nonprofit Curriculum and Education, Nonprofit Roles Internationally, and Nonprofit in the Workplace
Register today at: http://www.nonprofit-academic-centers-council.org/events/
The above sketch of conference activity provides an overview of the opportunities for participants to
explore the nuances of nonprofit education, philanthropy, and administration. Please join us. Our intent
is to recognize and implement the development of a healthy and growing nonprofit academic community.
Host Sponsor & Tuesday Evening Reception Sponsor –
Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
Sponsor Cost: $5,000
Monday Evening Reception Sponsor –
University of Notre Dame, Mendoza College of Business
Sponsor Cost: $5,000
NACC Member Meeting Sponsor --
Cleveland State University, Levin College of Urban Affairs
Sponsor Cost: $2,500
Technology Sponsor –
University of San Francisco, School of Management
Sponsor Cost: $2,500
General Support –
Auburn University, Department of Political Science
Sponsor Cost: $2,500
General Support --
Texas A&M University, Bush School of Government & Public Service
Sponsor Cost: $1,000
General Support –
Helen Bader Institute for Nonprofit Management, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Sponsor Cost: $750
General Support –
Seton Hall University, Center for Public Service
Sponsor Cost: $750
General Support –
University of Oregon, Department of Planning, Public Policy, & Management
Sponsor Cost: $500
General Support –
Arizona State University, Lodestar Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Innovation
Sponsor Cost: $500
General Support –
North Park University, Axelson Center for Nonprofit Management
Sponsor Cost: $500
General Support –
North Carolina State University, Institute for Nonprofit Research, Education, and Engagement
Sponsor Cost: $500
NACC would also like to recognize our Sustaining Members:
Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
University of Oregon
And NACC Host Members Institution:
Cleveland State University, Levin College of Urban Affairs
Message from the President
Associate Professor and MPA
Department of Political Science
and Public Affairs
Seton Hall University
Dear NACC Members
When it comes to formality, NACC gets a low score. I tend to think that is a good thing. Unlike many organizations, we do not have a rigid hierarchy in the leadership or way we conduct business.
In many academic organizations like ours there is a specific succession plan; the secretary or treasurer
becomes the 1st VP for “Whatever” then automatically becomes the “Grand Poobah-Elect” which blends
into the Grand Poobah. OK, we have a president and president-elect, but the rest has historically been
more a question of “next?” or even “who can?” Or “what works?” In many ways, that has served us
quite well in the past.
In a similar way, our meetings and conferences always have ample time built in for “catching up” and
“bumping into” each other. These take place outside the formal conference sessions. For many people,
these informal mashups are big highlight of NACC events.
However, as we continue to grow and develop new programs, we are going to have to think about “our”
informality and perhaps start acting in a more (yikes) formal manner. Don’t get me wrong, we will always be a collegial organization designed to help our members succeed. However, there are some important reasons for perhaps tightening up the ship’s rigging.
One reason is practical: if NACC grows to 100 or 200 members (as we hope it will) we will need some detailed and written process for organizing them. Under the wise counsel and steady hand of our bylaws
committee (THANK YOU Dave Renz, Mary Ann Feldheim, Daniela Schroeter and John Casey) we are in the process of updating our by-laws to better reflect both our current practices but also our aspirations for the future.
Another reason is about values. As long as I have been involved in NACC, we have tried to make sure that NACC reflects the larger community we hope to serve. Doing that well has not always been easy and NACC has not always done it well. Perhaps, one of the reasons we haven’t always succeeded in this is theinformality of the organization. NACC is based in large part on talking and working with your friends. Sometimes that means we can be more insular than we would like. That is something we have been trying to change but also something we need to continue to work on. A variety of more formal processes may help.
Lastly, as NACC moves forward in our accreditation process we are going to be interacting with schools,
programs and people who are NOT part of NACC. Heather Carpenter reminds us of this in her excellent
article in this edition. As this happens, we need to develop a structure and yes perhaps even a “formality” that we haven’t had before.
None of this is to say that NACC is going to turn into a rule bound hierarchical ogre of an organization. We value the conversations, coffee, and contacts with each other too much to just let it go. But all organizations need to go through changes in how they do things. The trick is to bring on the new processes while not totally forgetting the old ones. NACC can do that.
Thanks and see you in Indianapolis.
Matt Hale, Seton Hall University.
Assistant Professor of Business
and Nonprofit Management
Program Coordinator of the MA in
School of Arts, Sciences and Business
Notre Dame Maryland University A
NACC Accreditation, Back to the Definitions
NACC Accreditation 1.0; Things to Consider for Accreditation 2.0
I am honored that Matt Hale asked me to participate in the Accreditation Process Committee, which is proposing how NACC accreditation will be operationalized. Our committee has had many phone calls with healthy debates and I have learned a lot about the various perspectives of accreditation.
When I first heard that NACC is proposing to accredit stand-alone nonprofit programs I was excited and immediately informed my Dean (of the School of Arts, Science and Business). My Dean, who serves as a site visitor for Middle States Accreditation, has long been a supporter of accreditation. She said she would be delighted if our MA in Nonprofit Management was an early adopter of NACC accreditation. However, I soon learned my traditional view of accreditation is different than what NACC is proposing for accreditation and I would have difficulty convincing my Dean to approve and support the current form of NACC accreditation (Accreditation 1.0) for the following two reasons, which I will explain below.
Before I explain my opinion, I want to emphasize that I am still excited about the fact that nonprofitaccreditation is moving forward (in its current format) and I deeply appreciate the difficult decisions that have been made thus far. I include my ideas below for NACC to consider for the next phase of accreditation (Accreditation 2.0).
1. Accreditation 1.0 seems more like Certification
The US Department of Education defines accreditation as “ensuring that education provided by programs of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.”1
Quality is defined as “the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the
degree of excellence of something.”2
Those of us who are familiar with accreditation, assume NACC will be “assessing” the quality of nonprofit programs. However, in my opinion and experience, Accreditation 1.0 is not full on assessment.
The process that NACC is working on for Accreditation 1.0 allows a nonprofit program to demonstrate they are legitimate and document many things, including demonstrating how they are utilizing the NACC curricular guidelines. Then based the documentation, NACC will tell stand-alone nonprofit programs they are “accredited.”
Accreditation 1.0 does not assess the quality of those programs (at least to the depth of accreditation that many of us are familiar with) and seems to be doing more of certification.
Certification is defined as “the action or process of providing someone or something with an official document attesting to a status or level of achievement.”34
4 I cannot take credit for this word - during our various committee calls Stuart Mendel said,
NACC should use the word certification rather than accreditation.
In Accreditation 2.0, NACC can consider a curriculum quality assessment, which includes assessing the
level at which these programs are providing their nonprofit education. For example, in the February 2017 newsletter Craig Furneaux proposed three levels of accreditation (gold, silver and bronze) based on the level of curriculum assessment and student learning outcomes achievement.
1. Accreditation 1.0 will not include affiliation with the Council of Higher Education
“CHEA assures the quality and rigor of accrediting organizations, scrutinizing these operations for their
effectiveness in advancing academic quality and serving higher education, students and the public.” 5
Although Accreditation 1.0 will help the nonprofit studies field become more well-known and provide some legitimacy to the field, affiliating with CHEA for Accreditation 2.0 will increase NACC’s respect in the accreditation industry.
In my review of CHEA documentation, specifically, the CHEA fact sheet titled “Accrediting Organizations
in the United States: How Do They Operate to Assure Quality?”6 I believe it is feasible for NACC to associate with CHEA for Accreditation 2.0.
In last month’s newsletter, Robert Donmoyer brought up the notion that a best practice for accreditation is for NACC to set up a separate accrediting organization. The CHEA fact sheet indicates that accrediting bodies can be a subsidiary of a nonprofit organization. To follow CHEA guidelines, during Accreditation 2.0 NACC could consider creating a fiscally sponsored accreditation program with a specific contract and policies to avoid conflict of interest using guidance from Colvin’s book “Fiscal Sponsorship: 6 Ways to Do It Right.7”
Documenting the process of Accreditation 1.0 will set the stage for affiliation with CHEA. For example, the CHEA fact sheet states, “Each accrediting organization lays out a framework of expectations and practices that govern the conduct of accreditation review. These policies may include areas such as conflict of interest and release of information.”8 Affiliating with CHEA during Accreditation 2.0 will show the field that NACC is doing quality accreditation practices.
As I said previously, I am excited about the progress that NACC has made thus far in the accreditation process and the initial programs that it will accredit. In the case of my University, I could certainly convince my Dean to be an adopter of NACC Accreditation 2.0 as NACC engages in a more rigorous quality curricular assessment and affiliation with CHEA.
Heather Carpenter is Assistant Professor of Business and Nonprofit Management and Program Coordinator of the MA in Nonprofit Management program at Notre Dame of Maryland University, where her Business and Economics department recently earned accreditation under ACBSP. Heather previously served as Assistant Professor in the School of Public, Nonprofit and Health Administration at Grand Valley State University and taught in an MPA program that was Accredited under NASPAA.
On My Mind
Representatives of NACC Member Institutions Speak
NACC News offers brief articles contributed by representatives of member institutions. This column offers an opportunity to the faculty of member institutions to present their thinking and begin an exchange of ideas about issues that affect the nonprofit sector.
School of Public,
Grand Valley State
Should Academics Help Navigate Funder-Nonprofit Relationships?
Like many of us, I worked in the nonprofit sector for years before joining the academic world. During my time in the sector, I always enjoyed swapping war stories about my struggles with donors and the funding community, complaining about what this donor wanted or how that funder made me “dress up” a general operating request as a program. But I also remember how, at the end of the day, I would generally kowtow to any funder request that wasn’t illegal or unethical. Whatever insane idea they had, whoever they wanted me to partner with, it didn’t matter, I would say “of course!”
Recently, I went to a party with some of my former colleagues and they were, of course, talking shop. Specifically, they were complaining about a new funding initiative by a well-known corporation. It seems that this company’s CEO recently implemented a new giving program, asking organizations to utilize a crowd-funding platform that was recommended by none other than the CEO’s wife. It seems that the CEO’s wife enjoys making donations online, so the publicly-traded company decided to scrap its grant making program and ask all applicants to set up web portals to ask for gifts from the public, which would be matched by the company.
Now, none of my former colleagues were surprised by this turn of events (we’ve all been through things like this before) and we all had a good chuckle about the fact that their teams were all desperately setting up their web portals – even as we were speaking. But what really caught my attention was the story that two of them told as almost an afterthought. It seems that, just a few weeks after the CEO’s announcement, my two friends ran into him at an event and the CEO asked them their thoughts about the new program.
Can you guess what happened? Do you suppose that either of my friends spoke up and expressed their concerns? Of course not! We probably all know that these two nonprofit professionals turned on the charm and started gushing about the new program. And I think that we all know that it happens nearly every day in nearly every nonprofit.
The relationship between the nonprofit sector and the philanthropic sector has always been one of unequal partners, with donors seeking to influence programs and nonprofits trying to balance the need for philanthropic support with their desire for independence to pursue their mission. I realize that this insight is hardly revolutionary, but when I was confronted with it last week among my friends, it was the first time that I wasn’t employed at a nonprofit. Now, I was a neutral party, with no real stake in the game other than to listen – and maybe help.
So what can we in the academic sector do about it? Do we have a responsibility to speak up? Is there a role for the members of NACC to serve as honest brokers between the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors, and, if so, how best do we do it?
I recognize that this is not the core mission of our organization and I realize that there are other groups out there working in this arena (Independent Sector comes to mind). But given that we are all well positioned
on the frontlines, in the cities and states where nonprofits and funders interact daily, it seems to me that we need to actively speak up when we can. Perhaps more importantly, we can help train the next generation of leaders in both sectors to work together, to understand the power relationships that inherently exist and to work to combat some of the “us versus them” that sometimes clouds these relationships.
I’d like to think that, as academics who generally are not beholden to funders for our livelihood, we may
be uniquely suited to this task. Who better to come to the table with information about best practices for funder-recipient relations? Who better to ensure that nonprofits always have a seat at the table when big policy decisions are being made? Who better to navigate the tricky power relationships between donors and the organizations they support?
As individuals, of course, we can do this in small ways every day, as we work in our communities. But as
a group, maybe we can play a stronger, more forceful role in changing the narrative surrounding how funders and nonprofits interact. If we’re successful, maybe one day, our current students and future nonprofit leaders will feel secure enough to speak their minds without fear of reprisal or loss of funds. To me, that would be a tremendous achievement for our organization.
The Board’s Perspective
This feature of NACC News is intended to present the motivations of Board members as they serve the
organization. They are asked to think about how they perceive their contribution to the organization and to describe their views of NACC as it is now and where it’s going in the future.
John P. Casey
Austin W Marxe School
of Public and
City University of New
I am on the NACC Board because I believe in the importance of continuing inquiry about teaching and
learning. At the Marxe School of Public and International Affairs, we used the NACC Curricular Guidelines as the blueprint when we revised our MPA Nonprofit Administration specialization, so when I was asked to represent us on the NACC Board I jumped at the opportunity. For the last few years I have chaired the Marxe Curriculum Committee and I felt that working with NACC was a natural extension of that role.
I am particularly interested in the evolving interfaces between nonprofit and philanthropy studies and allied disciplines. For example, at Baruch College social entrepreneurship instruction is currently located in the entrepreneurship program in the business school. Yet all the three students highlighted in the online promotional video for the business school program, have created nonprofit organizations. How does that impact our program in the Marxe school and our understanding of the role of NACC? Similarly, I continue to explore how best to bridge the supposed divides between theory and practice and between academic and competencies-based approaches. I will admit that I am not a great fan of the term “pracademic”, because it is based on a false assumption of a duality. I believe that everyone in this field, whether working in universities or in front-line organizations, has an obligation to draw on a wide range of sources and experiences in order to understand the dynamics of our sector and the operations of its organizations.
Nu Lambda Mu
The 2016-17 academic year set records for the number of NLM inductees, 78 fall and 130 spring semesters, for a total of 208. We thank our member institutions for their enthusiastic support of the NLM honor society that recognizes the leadership and talents of nonprofit graduates. We thought our readers would appreciate learning the institutions associated with NLM graduates. The first graph indicates Spring 2017, the second represents the entire academic year.
The dedication to excellence and innovation that members of the NLM society represent are in clear evidence in the brief profiles of NLM members NACC News will continue to offer in each issue. This month we feature the University of Central Florida Nonprofit Management Program.
The spring 2017 graduates of the University of Central Florida’s nonprofit management program came from far and wide to attend their pre-graduation and commencement ceremonies. The UCF School of Public Administration hosted a pre-graduation celebration for the graduates and their
families and friends. The master’s students who attended were hooded and all students received certificates from the school.
At the school’s Public Service Recognition Week event, which took place just a few days after commencement, graduate Mya Harden was inducted into the Nu Lambda Mu honor society. Harden graduated with a dual degree in public administration and nonprofit management.
"Being a part of a prestigious organization like Nu Lambda Mu is very exciting and gives me a great sense of pride,” Harden said. “Taking the oath to carry out my job as a nonprofit professional in an ethical manner has become one of my career goals. I have a great sense of pride to be among the top honored professionals in my field."
The University of Oregon is pleased to announce that the Department of Arts & Administration is merging with the Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management (PPPM), which will become the School of Planning, Public Policy & Management. Three leading scholars in arts management, Professors Doug Blandy,
Patricia Lambert, and Eleanora Redaelli, will join the PPPM faculty, and Arts Management students will transition into the Master of Nonprofit Management degree program with a graduate specialization in Arts & Cultural Leadership.
We are growing in additional directions, too. Please watch for our assistant professor
position announcements in urbanism/transportation and public engagement/diversity, which will be posted later this summer.
Jeannie Fox, director of nonprofit management programs at Hamline University, has been tapped to be a weekly newswire writer for Nonprofit Quarterly, based in Boston, MA.
Jeannie will contribute one to two online articles a week and an occasional feature article for the print version of the publication. Jeannie is an experienced advocate of the nonprofit sector and remains active in various local and national organizations.
A little bit about Nonprofit Quarterly: The Nonprofit Quarterly provides thoughtful, well-researched articles on topicspertinent to nonprofits and the civic sector in which they work. We believe that a well-informed and active civil society is critical to a functional democracy, and we aim to provide knowledge and analysis of nonprofit work to further that goal. The news we publish each day is contributed by a group of volunteer writers. Our writers are leaders and thinkers in the civil sector; they work in different areas ofservice and advocacy, and hail from various regions of the country. The strength of our publication relies on their experience, their diverse and deep perspectives, and their commitment to shaping the public conversation about their work.
Amy Sample Ward, CEO of the Oregon-based Nonprofit
Technology Network (NTEN), told over 150 attendees at Bay Path University’s “Hot Topics: Meeting Your Mission Through Integrated Communications Strategies”
conference that donors and stakeholders expect to hear from nonprofits they are connected to through email, social media and enewsletters. Ward spoke at the communitybreakfast and also conducted a free community workshop on how to build and plan your community communication strategy. Materials related to her presentation can be found on the NTEN website @ www.nten.org.
L-R: Sylvia de Haas-Phillips, Director and Assistant Professor of Bay Path’s MS in NonprofitManagement and Philanthropy and MS in Strategic Fundraising programs; Keynote speaker Amy Sample Ward, CEO of Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN); and Melissa Morriss-Olson, Ph.D., Bay Path University Provost at the Bay Path “Hot Topics” conference.
The Cleveland Council on World Affairs will host a group of visitors from Russia on a State Department-sponsored project entitled “Increasing Fundraising Self-Sufficiency for NGOs Working with Stigmatized Groups.” Stuart Mendel, wearing the hat of a NACC Fellow will present materials on best practices in fund raising and institutional advancement. The presentation will draw on the writings and knowledge produced by NACC member organizations and use case studies of management dilemmas involving fund development scenarios.
The primary objectives of the project are to (1) explore best practices in fundraising techniques for groups that support and provide services for disadvantaged/stigmatized populations; (2) examine success stories in overcoming fundraising barriers by organizations working with stigmatized groups; and (3) show how U.S. activists have forged alliances, partnerships, and networks with religious groups, educationa institutions, and government to
break down stigmas and encourage charitable support and volunteerism.
Assistant Dean for Administration
Director, Center for Nonprofit Policy & Practice
Director, The Urban Center
Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs
Cleveland State University
Proposed changes in tax policy could reduce charitable giving by up to $13.1 billion
New research suggests that the tax policy changes proposed by Congress and the Administration, which include raising the standard deduction and lowering the top marginal tax rate to 35 percent, would reduce charitable giving by up to $13.1 billion. The study, conducted by researchers at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and commissioned by Independent Sector, also examined the effect of adding a charitable deduction for non-itemizing taxpayers. Alone, the extension of the charitable deduction would generate up to $12.2 billion in additional giving. Adding the charitable deduction for non-itemizers to the current proposals would more than offset the loss in charitable giving caused by reducing the top marginal tax rate and increasing the standard deduction and would generate an estimated $4.8 billion in additional giving
beyond this offset.
"When talking about changes in tax policy, it is important that the debate is informed by research. This study provides important information about the expected effects of the proposed tax policy changes and the extension of the charitable deduction to nonitemizers,” said Patrick M. Rooney, associate dean for academic affairs and research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. This study acts as a resource for non-profits and policymakers to aid in the conversations surrounding changes in tax policy.
For more information, view the full report.
Journal for Comparative Policy Analysis
International Comparative Policy Analysis Forum
Call for Papers: 15th ANNUAL JCPA and ICPA-Forum WORKSHOP
Comparing Third Sector Expansions
November 20-21, 2017,
Marxe School of Public and International Affairs
Baruch College, City University of New York (CUNY)
Convener: Prof. John Casey, firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract Submissions Deadline to Convener: August 1, 2017
Notification of Accepted Proposals: August 15, 2017
Full Paper Submission and Registration: September 30, 2017
The expansion of a third sector, between the state and market, has been a key dynamic in almost all societies since the final decades of the 20th Century. Worldwide, different nomenclature is used to describe the sector and the organizations, including nonprofit, nongovernmental, civil society, philanthropic, voluntary, community, and social economy. Each of these terms nominally emphasize different attributes, but generally encompass a similar set of organizations that have a social mission and do not distribute profits to owners. The choice of preferred terms in any one polity appears to be more result of linguistic traditions than any strict attempts at normative and heuristic understanding of the boundaries of the sector.
National third sectors operating within countries are accompanied by a growing international and transnational third sector that gives organizational form and agency to collective interests that cross borders. The most prominent subset of international organizations are the global human rights, humanitarian aid, and development NGOs, but there is also an extensive network of organizations that focus on international dialogues on sports, culture, professions and on the creation of international standards in a wide range of fields.
The third sector has become more prominent in policy making, the promotion of civic action, and the delivery of new quasi-public services. Modern third sector organizations (perhaps better portrayed as late-modern or even post-modern) are markedly more secular and nonpartisan in their affiliations, more universalist in their service delivery and policy-making aspirations, and more professionalized and commercialized in their operations than earlier iterations rooted in religious charity, social movements, or grassroots collective and voluntary action.
This 15th JCPA and ICPA-Forum Workshop will focus on analyzing the dynamics that drive third sector policy and practice in a country, a region or worldwide. The authors are free to use any terms to describe the sector, according to the common usage in the countries that are the focus of the paper. Of particular interest are papers that focus on regions that have been less prominent in third sector scholarship, including Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, South East Asia, and countries with smaller populations. Also of interest are papers that examine how national differences impact on the operations of international third sector organizations (also known as international nongovernment organizations – INGOs).
Papers need not necessarily be comparisons among countries, but they must be informed by comparative studies by highlighting how the policies and practices of a country or countries relate to the broader global expansion of the third sector, and apply or develop comparative theories or methodologies.
Papers accepted are eligible for publication in a Special Issue of the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis
Submit Abstracts to Convener by August 1, 2017, Prof. John Casey
Note that up to 10 travel scholarships will be available to participants who can demonstrate
financial hardship. The scholarships will cover up to $500 in travel and accommodation.
Applications for the scholarships should be submitted after the acceptance of proposals.
For more details, see: http://shoutout.wix.com/so/4LoTO2fx#/main
Consulting Capstones Present Final Reports
The Bush School Consulting Capstone assists client organizations in
addressing existing and emerging challenges. Projects entailed a range of topics such as: feasibility studies, needs assessment, program evaluation, organizational assessment, human resource planning, and strategic planning. The goal of the capstone is to enhance student's management and policy education by developing collaborative consulting engagements with organizations to address substantive management and policy issues. Each team is supervised by one of the following advisers: Dr. Will Brown, Dr. Deborah Kerr, Dr. Catherine Cole and Dr. Mary Hilderbrand.
Dr. Will Brown advised the team working with theAspen Institute. The team gathered information about the field of youth organizing across theUnited States to identify opportunities for The Youth and Engagement Division of The Aspen Institute to support the field. Through semistructured interviews with 73 individuals from youth organizing groups and 15 scholars and stakeholders, the team found gaps and challenges their client can help alleviate. Their recommendations focus on increasing leadershipdevelopment opportunities for youth as they transition into adulthood, curating curriculum and best practices in a central location to increase efficiency, and establishing a national convening for practitioners.
Alzheimer's Association of Houston and Southeast Texas
Dr. Deborah Kerr advised the team working with the Alzheimer's Association of Houston and Southeast Texas to study the prevalence of financialexploitation of individuals with Alzheimer's and dementia-related diseases in Texas, and the fiscal impact to the state. Existing Texas statutes covering elder financialexploitation leave many elders with cognitive impairment at a greater financialdisadvantage. The team's project presents a comprehensive analysis of the problem and a structure for collecting the data needed to calculate the costs and frame effective public policyresponses needed to protect elderly Texans. Theirresearch examined the issue of financial exploitation, reviewed Texas’ elder abuse laws, and provides an overview of financial exploitation legislation in other states. Their report will assist the Alzheimer’s Association advocate for stronger financial xploitation policies and recommendations during the 2019 Texas Legislative Session.
Dr. Mary Hilderbrand advised the team working for Project ECHO to research and evaluate Medicaidas a potential sustainable source of funding for the nonprofit organization. The findings include state health needs and alignment with Project ECHO services; state Medicaid policies, delivery systems, and financing mechanisms; and state politicalclimates and fiscal conditions. Qualitative and quantitative variables were selected to fully reflect each area of interest. Data were collected for 21 states with current ECHO clinics. This data gave our team a greater understanding of the current health, administrative, and political conditions that impact state Medicaid financing and potentially Project ECHO. As a result of this collection, the Bush School team captured the current Medicaid landscape on both a national and state level while providingrecommendations for Project ECHO as it advocates for Medicaid funding.
Dr. Catherine Cole advised the TXSmartSchools.org (TSS) team in conducting a mixed methodology study to identify best practices in high performing and cost-efficient school districts. TSS wasparticularly interested in finding best practices transferable from high performing school districts to low performing districts using the TSS concept of “fiscal peers.” The team examined the effect of various school district expenditures on academic performance and cost efficiency through quantitative methods. Their findings suggest the amount of money invested in practices is not indicative of the quality of the programs. Additional findingsdemonstrate the administrative cost ratio caps do not improve cost efficiency, and investments in bilingual education are associated with improved academic performance. To better describe the practices employed in school districts, semi- structured interviews were conducted with school district officials. The findings from interviews with chief business officers and superintendents capture the importance of culture in districtpractices and operations. Based on the quantitative and qualitative findings, the team makes recommendations that can be implemented at the district and state level.
Call for Papers Summer 2017
Nonprofit Policy Forum is a double-blind refereed international journal that publishes original research and analysis on public policy issues and the public policy process critical to the work of nonprofit organizations and social enterprises. It serves as a forum and an authoritative and accessible source of information, for scholars, leaders, and policy-makers worldwide. A primary goal of NPF is to provide nonprofit and social enterprise leaders and policy-makers with readily accessible and relevant scholarly research. NPF seeks to contribute to the development of the field of nonprofit related policy research, to more clearly define the role of the sector in the policy and advocacy process, and to build a stronger research base on public policy and nonprofit and socialenterprise organizations. NPF is published by De Gruyter, Inc. and is in its 8th year of publication. The journal is published in open access format and is fully available atwww.degruyter.com/loi/npf . Open access is made possible through a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundations and the institutional sponsors of NPF: The Humphrey School of the University of Minnesota, The Urban Institute and the Levin College of Cleveland State University. NPF’s editorial board consists of leading scholars from twenty different countries in Europe, Asia, North America, and Australia.
NPF welcomes unsolicited manuscripts year-round. The journal strives for quality, relevance, and originality, and encourages contributions from all scholarly disciplines and all parts of the world. Articles should be written in English for a general audience, not a particular discipline. Content should address policy issues affecting nonprofit organizations and social enterprises in general or in particular subfields, the involvement of nonprofits in the policy process, the historical development of nonprofit-related policy issues, or analysis
of policy proposals and alternatives affecting nonprofit organizations and social enterprises and the fields in which they are active.
Subject areas include but are not limited to analysis and evaluation of tax policies, regulatory policies, national security policy and civil liberties, policy advocacy and lobbying, government funding of nonprofit organizations, the role of faith-based institutions in service delivery, church and state relations, disaster relief, the role of nonprofits in economic and community development, alternative organizational arrangements for nonprofit and social enterprise activity, and public policy issues in specific sub-fields such as health care, social justice, the environment, education and the arts, especially where they have general implications for the nonprofit sector and social enterprise as a whole.
Overall, NPF seeks analyses of current public policy issues, the historical development of public policies affecting nonprofits in various countries, and the practical implications of existing policies for the operations, performance, and social impacts of nonprofit organizations and social enterprises.
Articles are reviewed on the basis of substance, methodology, originality, acknowledgment of the literature, and relevance to NPF’s readership. Submissions are peer-reviewed in a double-blind process by multiple reviewers with expertise in the topic and relevant disciplines. The review process is structured to provide authors with a rapid response. Criteria for acceptance include conciseness, clarity of presentation, and general readability prior to publication.
In addition to regular research-based articles, NPF welcomes special features including interviews, book reviews, case studies, and policy briefings.
Articles of approximately 5,000 words reporting original research and analysis on policy relevant topics of interest to nonprofit policymakers, nonprofit practitioners and social entrepreneurs and scholars
Special Features—articles of 2,500 words or less as follows:
Interviews with policy leaders
Book Reviews of the current nonprofit public policy related literature
Case Studies of policy developments
Policy Briefings of recent legislation, administrative reports, judicial hearings, research reports, task forces, and other relevant documents and proceedings
How to Submit a Manuscript
Papers may be submitted on the journal’s website at www.degruyter.com/loi/npf.
A fundamental purpose of NPF is to promote effective communication among researchers, policy-makers, and nonprofit leaders, appealing to a broad audience. Jargon is avoided and technical terms should be explained in non-technical language. Further information on manuscript preparation is available on the website.
Dennis Young, Georgia State University (emeritus)
Linda Serra, Independent Consultant
Senior Editorial Board
Alan J. Abramson, George Mason University
Helmut Anheier, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin
Andrea Bassi, University of Bologna
Elizabeth T. Boris, The Urban Institute
Gemma Donnelly-Cox, Trinity College, Dublin
Philippe Eynaud, Sorbonne Graduate Business School, France
James Ferris, University of Southern California
Benjamin Gidron, College of Management Academic Studies, Israel
Virginia A. Hodgkinson, Georgetown University (retired)
Kevin Kearns, University of Pittsburgh
Eliza Lee, Hong Kong University
Michael Meyer, Vienna University of Economics and Business
Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Queensland University of Technology
Marta Reuter, Stockholm University
Mark Rosenman, Union Institute and University (emeritus)
James Allen Smith, The Rockefeller Archive Center
Melissa Stone, University of Minnesota
Isabel Vidal, University of Barcelona
Filip Wijkstrom, Stockholm School of Economics
Naoto Yamauchi, Osaka University
Looking for a job in a nonprofit academic institution? Go to the Job Opportunities tab on the NACC website for the latest job postings from NACC institutional members.
Please, members, take note: job postings can be added to NACC News and posted on the NACC website. This is a free service and exclusive to members. Email a link to the job posting along with a brief description of the position to Linda Serra.
Do you have news or event notices to share? Please send to Linda Serra.
If you no longer wish to receive NACC News, please send an email to Linda Serra with your email address and the words “unsubscribe NACC News” in the subject line.
Linda Serra, Editor, email@example.com. Nonprofit Academic Centers Council, 2121 Euclid Avenue, UR120, Cleveland, OH 44155