DOCSLIB.ORG

Tracking Distributions from the 9/11 Relief Funds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tracking Distributions from the 9/11 Relief Funds CONTRIBUTING STAFF Rick Schoff Senior Vice President for Information Resources and Publishing Steven Lawrence Director of Research Mirek Drozdzowski Special Projects Associate Mark Carway Programmer Aamir Cheema Editorial Assistant Janie Wong Project Assistant Bruce Thongsack Editorial Associate Cheryl Loe Director of Communications Christine Innamorato Production Coordinator, Publications ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report owes much to the 111 relief and recovery funds, listed on page 27, that responded to our survey of 9/11- related charities. Their involvement provided important insights into the process and challenges involved in the delivery of immediate disaster relief and long-term assistance. Special thanks are also due to the many 9/11 relief funds that submitted detailed information to the Foundation Center regarding their grants and beneficiaries as well as their plans for distributing unspent funds. PHILANTHROPY’S RESPONSE TO 9/11 PROJECT The Foundation Center is documenting private philanthropy’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Using our experience in collecting and analyzing giving data, we are constructing a comprehensive picture of giving by foundations and corporations in the aftermath of 9/11, as well as tracking contributions by intermediaries and direct-service providers. We are also presenting news and in-depth interviews concerning the philanthropic response to 9/11 in the Foundation Center’s online journal, Philanthropy News Digest. Some of these have been reproduced in September 11: Perspectives from the Field of Philanthropy. To access all of the Foundation Center’s 9/11-related reports and other resources, visit www.fdncenter.org/research/911. We are grateful to the following for their support of this project: the California Endowment, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Annie E. Casey Foundation, ChevronTexaco, Citigroup Foundation, Ford Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Lumina Foundation for Education, Morgan Stanley, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, New York Community Trust, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund. ABOUT THE FOUNDATION CENTER The Foundation Center’s mission is to support and improve philanthropy by promoting public understanding of the field and helping grantseekers succeed. To achieve our mission, we: · Collect, organize, and communicate information on U.S. philanthropy · Conduct and facilitate research on trends in the field · Provide education and training on the grantseeking process · Ensure public access to information and services through our World Wide Web site, print and electronic publications, five library/learning centers, and a national network of Cooperating Collections. Founded in 1956, the Center is the nation’s leading authority on philanthropy and is dedicated to serving grantseekers, grantmakers, researchers, policymakers, the media, and the general public. This report can be accessed at no charge at the Foundation Center’s Web site: www.fdncenter.org. For more information about the report, contact Loren Renz, Vice President for Research, at 212-807-3601, or e-mail [email protected]. Executive Summary Findings from a Survey of Distribution Schedule. Most respondents distributed 9/11 Relief Funds funds raised in a relatively short time frame. By June 2002, one-in-five had expended all of their donations. In spring 2003, the Foundation Center conducted a survey One year later, just over half had spent out. Three-quar- of 9/11-related relief funds. The findings presented below are ters expect to have completed their giving by June 2004. based on the responses of 111 funds. Plans for Distributing Unspent Funds. Nearly all relief Existing vs. Newly Created Agencies. Most funds in- funds with unspent contributions had specific plans for volved in 9/11-related relief and recovery were either distributing the funds. These included providing long- established in response to the crisis by existing agen- term cash assistance, maintaining ongoing programs cies, institutional donors, or nonprofit intermediaries, for victims and their families and other affected popu- or already existed. Only a relatively small number of lations, supporting recovery and rebuilding efforts, new, independent entities were formed, such as the and funding scholarships for children of victims. September 11th Fund and the Twin Towers Fund. Administrative Costs. The vast majority of respon- Scope of Activity. The majority of respondents, espe- dents did not use contributions to pay for administra- cially smaller and company-sponsored funds, acted tive costs or these costs accounted for less than 5 exclusively as regrantors or pass-throughs for gifts. percent of funds raised. Newly formed independent By comparison, larger funds were far more likely to funds and those providing services were more likely regrant funds and provide direct services. to report administrative costs. Beneficiary Groups Served. Most relief funds served Fund Allocation Policies. Reflecting the intense pres- more than one major beneficiary group. Two-thirds sure to respond quickly to emergency needs, three-in- provided direct cash assistance and/or services to in- five funds used informal needs assessments to deter- jured or deceased victims and their families, while mine fund allocations. Fewer than one-in-five con- one-half supported individuals that suffered direct ducted formal needs assessments, and this group economic losses as a result of the attacks. Well over tended to include the largest funds. one-third assisted populations and communities indi- Methods of Outreach. Respondents used a variety of rectly affected by the attacks and their aftermath. strategies to connect with target beneficiary groups, Types of Assistance Provided. Most respondents gave with more than half coordinating their efforts with multiple types of assistance, with the largest shares of other relief organizations. Among other outreach ef- funds providing direct financial aid and support for forts were advertising campaigns and placing repre- various long-term services for victims and affected sentatives at disaster relief centers. At the same time, populations. In general, the funds with greater re- more than half of the funds reported relying on word sources reported more diverse types of assistance. of mouth and their prior reputation. Methods of Fundraising. Newspaper and radio adver- tising and formal requests to grantmakers were most Tracking Distributions from often cited as ways that relief funds raised support. 9/11 Relief Funds Still, given the spontaneous public response to the cri- sis, one-in-nine indicated that either all or part of their Separate from the survey of 9/11 relief funds, the donations were unsolicited. Foundation Center has analyzed the actual donations received by 40 of the largest funds, as well as how Donor Restrictions on Funds Raised. The majority of relief these funds have distributed this support. Overall, ex- funds indicated that their giving was restricted to some ex- cluding donations from one fund to another, the funds tent by donor intent, with single-purpose funds and those have raised almost $2.9 billion for relief and recovery relying on individual donors being the most restricted. and contributed $2.2 billion. Victims injured or killed Duration of Fundraising. The time frame for collecting in the attacks and their families have benefited from 9/11-related donations was generally brief, and most the majority of support, followed by economically af- funds had stopped fundraising by early 2003. fected victims and their families. The vast majority of Yet roughly one-in-four were continuing to solicit do- donations have provided direct cash assistance. The nations, and these funds were most likely to be in- remaining distributions have mainly supported the volved in long-term relief and recovery activities. delivery of emergency relief and long-term services, and aid to affected nonprofits and businesses. 3 Introduction The unprecedented outpouring of charitable support such as: Who ultimately benefited from the philan- that followed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks thropic response? prompted the Foundation Center to launch a multi- This report provides an overview of the activities year effort to track relief and recovery funding and beneficiaries of the funds and agencies involved by foundations, corporations, and other institutional in 9/11-related disaster relief and recovery, drawn donors. Our goal early on was to document the phil- from data compiled by the Foundation Center anthropic response as it was happening so that through September 2003. Reflecting differences in grantmakers and charities could better identify unmet sources of information, the report offers two distinct needs; and to help the field respond to questions from and complementary views of the funds: the media, government officials, and the general pub- lic. Over the longer term, our goal is to provide a defin- · Part I discusses findings from our 2003 survey itive record of the response that will help the philan- of large and small relief funds and agencies. thropic sector identify its successes and lessons The survey provides a broad perspective on the learned, so that it can respond even more effectively to activities and practices of 9/11-related charities future disasters. and considers the impact of size and sponsor In the first phase of the project—spanning the year type on patterns of assistance, sources of following the attacks—we built a comprehensive support, and timetables for distributing aid.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Report from Project Streamline Grants Managers Network
    A report from Project Streamline a collaborative initiative of the Grants Managers Network In partnership with Association of Fundraising Professionals Association of Small Foundations Council on Foundations Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers Foundation Center Grantmakers for Effective Organizations National Council of Nonprofit Associations Report written by Jessica Bearman, Bearman Consulting Project design and research conducted by Intersector Consulting (Kristin Lindsey and Jessica Bearman) Additional data and analysis provided by the Center for Effective Philanthropy THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT FUNDING FROM: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Ford Foundation Frey Foundation Harold K. L. Castle Foundation Kansas Health Foundation The Kresge Foundation The McKnight Foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Saint Luke’s Foundation WE WISH TO THANK REPORT REVIEWERS FOR THEIR ASTUTE FEEDBACK AND DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES: Joel Fleishman, Duke University Dahna Goldstein, PhilanTech, LLC. Jan Jaffe, GrantCraft Trisha Lester, North Carolina Center for Nonprofits Carol Lukas, Fieldstone Alliance Robin Platts, The Dresher Foundation Jennifer Ratay, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Marcia Sharp, Millennium Communications Group, Inc. Paul Shoemaker, Social Venture Partners Seattle NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHOSE LEADERSHIP HAS GUIDED THIS INITIATIVE: Richard Toth, Director, Office of Proposal Management, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Project Chair) Tonia Bain, Director of Special Projects,
    [Show full text]
  • PRISON PIPELINE the Ineffective, Discriminatory, and Costly Process of Criminalizing New York City Students ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    APRIL 2017 THE $746 MILLION A YEAR SCHOOL-TO- PRISON PIPELINE The Ineffective, Discriminatory, and Costly Process of Criminalizing New York City Students ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Urban Youth Collaborative (Make the Road New York, Sistas and Brothas United, and Future of Tomorrow) and the Center for Popular Democracy thank the young people across New York City who have been fighting with creativity, passion, vision, and courage to create a more just education system for all New Yorkers. The report’s main authors are Katherine Terenzi, the Center for Popular Democracy’s Equal Justice Works Fellow sponsored by Proskauer Rose LLP, Kesi Foster, the Urban Youth Collaborative’s Coordinator, and the youth leaders of Urban Youth Collaborative. Additional research support was provided by Michele Kilpatrick, Research Analyst with the Center for Popular Democracy. We would also like to thank youth-led organizations across the country working to end the school-to-prison pipeline and fighting for racial justice and human rights for all young people. This report benefited from prior research and analysis conducted by a range of organizations, especially Advancement Project, Advocates for Children, the Center for Civil Rights Remedies, the Dignity in Schools Campaign, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. This report was made possible by Urban Youth Collaborative’s generous funders, the Advancement Project, Andrus Family Fund, the Brooklyn Community Foundation, the Communities for Just Schools Fund, the Daphne Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the National Youth Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, the New York Foundation, and the North Star Fund. ABOUT THE AUTHORS The Center for Popular Democracy is a nonprofit organization that promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Fellows Pictures for CLFP Program
    MEET OUR CLFP 2020 – 2021 FELLOWS KIM ADDIE senior director of Place-Based Initiatives - United Way of Greater Atlanta - Hometown: Atlanta. GA Kim Addie is the Sr. Director of Place-Based Initiatives at United Way of Greater Atlanta. As an established program officer, Kim has over 15 years’ experience in the nonprofit sector. Her work has included informing equity-based strategy, portfolio management, curating relationships with community and grantee partners, and providing oversight to the grant- making process for achieving results against organizational objectives. In her professional tenure at United Way, Kim has successfully spearheaded community-based efforts in maternal and child health, supervised and managed both early education and place-based focused efforts and has successfully managed private foundation, federal, and state grants. Kim is currently a student at Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School of Public Policy and lives in Atlanta with her husband and 4 children. Hometown: Cleveland, OH - Cleveland Foundation - program director COURTENAY A. BARTON Courtenay A. Barton joined the foundation in September 2017 as a National Urban Fellow and was hired in September 2018 as Program Manager for Arts & Culture. She was promoted to Program Director in June 2020. Courtenay’s previous experience was in nonprofit management in media, arts, and education. Prior to joining the foundation, Courtenay was the Associate Director of Stewardship at the Brooklyn College Foundation. She also had roles at New York City’s public television station Thirteen/WNET and the New York Foundation for the Arts. Courtenay earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, Creative Writing, and African American Studies from Columbia University.
    [Show full text]
  • [email protected] | Ivanableisoldhand.Com
    IFE SALEMA VANABLE 1 PhD Candidate in Architectural History and Theory e: [email protected] i/van/able is Old Hand e: [email protected] | ivanableisoldhand.com EDUCATION Ph.D. Architectural History and Theory; Columbia University Graduate School of Expected Candidate Architecture, Planning & Preservation (GSAPP); New York, NY Completion Tall Tales: State Looks, Black Desire(s), Housing Schemes 2023 • Tall Tales highlights entanglements and various incarnations of hybridity in the development of publicly funded and incentivized, though privately developed and managed, high-rise residential towers erected in New York under the 1955 Limited Profit Housing Companies Law, known as Mitchell-Lama in an effort to expand the scope and range of histories and theories of multi-family urban housing, and complicate narratives of public-private partnership for its development. The dissertation interrogates how modes of architectural production are operative parts of the same project that has historically, and continues to mutate, to produce varying ideas about racial difference. The dissertation works to discern how much of the state, stakeholders, and media’s desire to house hetero-normative familial structures in high-rise residential towers, is an outcome of ideology that regards the black familial order as dysfunctional, pathological improperly ordered, or poorly managed. Towards these ends, this work interrogates dwelling, taking into account the lives lived within these objects, attending to the politics, aesthetics, and materiality of the making of home. M.Phil Completion of General Examinations and Defense of Dissertation Prospectus; 2019-2021 Columbia University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; New York, NY • Major Field: The American City, “Race” and “Urban” Housing from the Civil War to the Reagan Era, c.
    [Show full text]
  • Charitable Infidelity: When Donors Lose Control of Donor-Advised Funds Page 32
    CHARITABLE INFIDELITY: WHEN DONORS LOSE CONTROL OF DONOR-ADVISED FUNDS PAGE 32 ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: 3 Congress learns about the long history of Russian election meddling 7 How the name “hate crime” designation breeds even more hate 15 Do you know how millions in refugee resettlement funds are being spent? www.CapitalResearch.org The communist movement known as Antifa (short for Anti-Fascist Action) has sparked violence across the nation. In the wake of their battling white supremacist in Charlottesville, Antifa has begun to gain mainstream popularity. But unbeknownst to much of the public, the vast majority of Antifa violence isn’t targeted at genuine fascists, but mainstream conservatives and civilians. With help from those who have encountered Antifa, Trevor Loudon guides us through the history and ideas behind the Antifa movement, starting with Leon Trotsky and going all the way through the events in Berkeley, CA and Charlottesville, VA. WATCH AT: DangerousDocumentaries.com/film/America-Under-Siege-Antifa/ ISSUE 8, 2018 CONTENTS 3 ORGANIZATION TRENDS 7 Weaponizing “Hate” COMMENTARY By Renee Nal CRC’s Research into History of Russian Meddling Takes the House Floor SPECIAL REPORT By Christine Ravold Is the U.S. Refugee Resettlement 15 System Broken? By James Simpson Capital Research is a monthly publication of the Capital Research Center (CRC), a nonpartisan education and research organization, classified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity. CRC is an independent, tax-exempt DECEPTION & MISDIRECTION TM institution governed by an independent The Politically Incorrect Guide board of trustees. We rely on private 25 to “21st Century Socialism” financial support from the general public—individuals, foundations, AKA communism and corporations—for our income.
    [Show full text]
  • Donor-Advised Fund
    WELCOME. The New York Community Trust brings together individuals, families, foundations, and businesses to support nonprofits that make a difference. Whether we’re celebrating our commitment to LGBTQ New Yorkers—as this cover does—or working to find promising solutions to complex problems, we are a critical part of our community’s philanthropic response. 2018 ANNUAL REPORT 1 A WORD FROM OUR DONORS Why The Trust? In 2018, we asked our donors, why us? Here’s what they said. SIMPLICITY & FAMILY, FRIENDS FLEXIBILITY & COMMUNITY ______________________ ______________________ I value my ability to I chose The Trust use appreciated equities because I wanted to ‘to‘ fund gifts to many ‘support‘ my community— different charities.” New York City. My ______________________ parents set an example of supporting charity My accountant and teaching me to save, suggested The Trust which led me to having ‘because‘ of its excellent appreciated stock, which tools for administering I used to start my donor- donations. Although advised fund.” my interest was ______________________ driven by practical considerations, The need to fulfill the I eventually realized what charitable goals of a dear an important role it plays ‘friend‘ at the end of his life in the City.” sent me to The Trust. It was a great decision.” ______________________ ______________________ The Trust simplified our charitable giving.” Philanthropy is a ‘‘ family tradition and ______________________ ‘priority.‘ My parents communicated to us the A donor-advised fund imperative, reward, and at The Trust was the pleasure in it.” ‘ideal‘ solution for me and my family.” ______________________ I wanted to give back, so I opened a ‘fund‘ in memory of my grandmother and great-grandmother.” 2 NYCOMMUNITYTRUST.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharp Focus E X P a N S I V E V I S I
    SHARP FOCUS EXPANSIVE VISION 2013 ANNUAL REPORT A Message from Ronna Brown and Leisle Lin This past year was the last covered in our 2011-2013 • We can and will deepen our program offerings Progress Was strategic plan. It was a year in which we assessed with a greater variety of formats, including “deeper our progress while simultaneously building the dives” into timely topics, which may include more the Precursor structure outlined in the plan. As the board engaged conferences and multi-day programming series. in a very detailed look at our progress and the plan • Our policy work should concentrate on developing itself, they determined, unanimously, that our existing for Our New opportunities to convene funders and public top line goals were well-crafted and our progress policy leaders to allow for mutual learning and against them demonstrably strong. The decision was for organic partnerships to blossom. Strategic Plan made, and confirmed by member comments, that PNY should forge ahead by keeping the existing goals • Our meeting space and technology investments for the 2014-2016 period but update the strategies are critical to the services we provide our and tactics. What, in short, have we achieved in the members and our future sustainability depends last three years? We have expanded the number, on growing our capacity as a central hub for complexity and visibility of our programming. We philanthropy. have strengthened the structure of our peer networks at all levels of professional responsibility. We have Our vision, articulated in the new strategic plan, is supported both collaborative activities and policy for Philanthropy New York to serve as a connector of related connections with our members.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Diligence Policy for Grantmaking
    Due Diligence Policy for Grantmaking I. INTRODUCTION. The mission of Benton Community Foundation (BCF) is to enhance our community through Philanthropy. In so doing, we are committed to ensuring that our grantmaking complies with applicable law and best practices of financial stewardship. II. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Due Diligence Policy for Grantmaking is to set forth the policies and procedures that shall guide the BCF Board of Directors (Board) in monitoring BCF’s grantmaking to ensure compliance with applicable law and best practices of financial stewardship. III. SCOPE. The Board has delegated oversight to the Grants Committee (Committee). The Committee assumes the role of oversight and stewardship of BCF’s grantmaking. The President/CEO shall be responsible to ensure compliance with this policy in BCF’s day to day operations. This Due Diligence Policy for Grantmaking will supersede any earlier grantmaking due diligence policies or statements. IV. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A. GRANTS FROM UNRESTRICTED AND FIELD OF INTEREST FUNDS. 1. All grants shall be made in accordance with donor intent. BCF will not make grants requiring expenditure responsibility from Field of Interest Funds. (See D3 below for process to determine supporting organization status). 2. Grants shall be made to public charities or units of government. a. Grants may be made to public charities; that is, organizations described in section 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3), and to private operating foundations. BCF will not normally make grants to private non-operating foundations. b. Grants may also be made to units of government for public purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Philanthropy & Hurricane Sandy.Pdf
    Contributing Staff Foundation Center Andrew Grabois Manager, Corporate Philanthropy Christine Innamorato Production Manager Reina Mukai Research Manager Matthew Ross Manager of Special Data Projects David Wolcheck Research Associate Vanessa Schnaidt Director of Communications Center for Disaster Philanthropy Robert G. Ottenhoff President & CEO Regine A. Webster Vice President Council of New Jersey Grantmakers Nina Stack President Philanthropy New York Ronna Brown President Michael Hamill Remaley Senior Vice President, Public Policy and Communications Acknowledgments This report was developed by Foundation Center in partnership with Philanthropy New York and the Council of New Jersey Grantmakers, with primary financial support from the Center for Disaster Philanthropy. The author acknowledges their many insights throughout the process of conceptualizing and undertaking this project. The Staten Island Foundation, PSEG Foundation, Citi Foundation, New York Life, ASPCA, The New York Community Trust, Long Island Community Foundation, and Ford Foundation also provided support for this project, for which we are grateful. For more information about this report, contact Steven Lawrence, Director of Research, at [email protected] or (212) 620-4230. Copyright © 2014 Foundation Center. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License, creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Printed and bound in the United States of America. ISBN 978-1-59542-480-8 Design by On Design OCTOBER 2014 Steven Lawrence Director of Research Foundation Center With Commentary by: Ronna Brown President Philanthropy New York Michael Hamill Remaley Senior Vice President, Public Policy and Communications Philanthropy New York Nina Stack President Council of New Jersey Grantmakers TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THERE ARE NO SIMPLE ANSWERS Introduction 2 IN THIS REPORT Key Findings 4 What was the philanthropic response to Hurricane Sandy? 1 6 It is a simple question—too simple really.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Payout and Mission NONPROFIT SECTOR RESEARCH
    NONPROFIT SECTOR RESEARCH FUND Linking Payout and Mission A National Dialogue with Foundation Leaders By Thomas J. Billitteri September 2007 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Nonprofit Sector Research Fund The Nonprofit Sector Research Fund (NSRF) was established at the Aspen Institute in 1991 to increase understanding of the nonprofit sector and philanthropy through the support of high-quality research. Since its founding, the Fund has awarded over $11.5 million in research grants to 420 projects examining a broad range of issues facing nonprofit organizations, philanthropy, and the people they serve. The Fund is a program of The Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy Program, which is supported by the Atlantic Philanthropies, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, William Randolph Hearst Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, McCormick Tribune Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Northwest Area Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Skoll Foundation, and Surdna Foundation. Publications The Nonprofit Sector Research Fund produces a variety of publications, including Snapshots, concise research briefings that highlight practical and policy-relevant findings reported by Fund grantees; the Aspen Philanthropy Letter, an e-newsletter on new develop- ments in the field of philanthropy; books, such as Building Wealth and Organizing Foundations for Maximum Impact; and working papers that present findings of Fund- supported research. A complete list of publications is available from the Fund by visiting our website at www.nonprofitresearch.org. Publications may be ordered through the Aspen Institute Fulfillment Office at (410) 820-5338.
    [Show full text]
  • Choose Your Battlefield: Choice of Entity As a Weapon for Preserving Donor Intent John K. Eason*
    Choose Your Battlefield: Choice of Entity as a Weapon for Preserving Donor Intent John K. Eason* I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2 II. The Formative Stages of a Donor’s Charitable Gifting Strategy ............................... 3 A. Intended Discretions ................................................................................. 3 B. A Tale of Two Entities .............................................................................. 4 C. An Armory of Entities ............................................................................... 5 III. Control as the Crux of Intent Preservation ............................................................. 6 A. Personal Control ....................................................................................... 8 1. Public Charity ............................................................................................ 8 2. Private Foundations .................................................................................... 9 3. Donor-Advised Funds ............................................................................... 12 4. Supporting Organizations ......................................................................... 15 B. Control Through Constraint. .................................................................. 17 C. Controlling Who Controls. ..................................................................... 22 D. Control Through Association .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding & Supporting Milwaukee Nonprofits
    Understanding & Supporting Milwaukee Nonprofits 2019 Appendix: Data Understanding & Supporting Milwaukee Nonprofits – Data Table of Contents GENERAL QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 3 PROGRAMS AND SERVICES .................................................................................................................................. 51 HUMAN RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................ 71 BOARD ..................................................................................................................................................................... 71 VOLUNTEER ............................................................................................................................................................. 99 STAFF .................................................................................................................................................................... 115 MARKETING AND TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 141 ADVOCACY AND PUBLIC POLICY ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 156 RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]