The UN Moves to the Passing Lane: Future Public Expectations for American Philanthropy
By: Susan Raymond, Ph.D., 02/04/05

This is the sixth in a six-part series examining how changes in the economic and social environment of America in the coming two decades will impact philanthropy and the non-profit sector.

For those of us who have been career-long UN-watchers, the January 24, 2005 op ed by John Ruggie in the London Financial Times was nearly astounding.  Ruggie contrasts “traditionalists” and “modernists” at the UN.  Traditionalists see the organization as accountable only to the member states, not to some larger public.  Hence, UN programs and decisions are, and ought to be, opaque to the outside world.  Indeed, organizationally, opaqueness “is a strategic asset.”  The result?  The oil-for-food imbroglio.

“Modernists,” on the other hand, believe that the expenditure of UN resources, freely given by nations whose citizens are ultimately paying the bill, ought to be openly accountable to those citizens.  Transparency ought to be the universal.  And, modernists are walking the talk.  To quote Ruggie:

“….the team co-ordinating the international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe is establishing a web-based financial tracking system that will enable anyone, including the public, to trace where relief dollars are coming from and how they are being spent.  It is also setting up a squad to investigate credible allegations of fraud and waste.  PricewaterhouseCoopers is helping to build the system, which will be overseen by an external advisory board.”

At the U.N.?  Astounding.

What does this have to do with the future of the American nonprofit and philanthropic sector?

First, let’s look at what Americans think about the U.N.  Then let’s look at what Americans think about nonprofits.  Then, let’s look at how they view nonprofit/philanthropic transparency.  Then let’s check that passing lane.

A caveat is in order.  Combining public opinion polls for purposes of organizational comparison is analytically dicey.  Polls reflect what questions are asked, how they are asked, who is being asked, and, importantly, who is doing the asking.  So, what follows should be taken as a rough metric only.

The most recent and comprehensive assessment of American public opinion and global issues is a 2004 study by The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.  The study measures public views not diametrically (Yes, I like the UN --  No, I don’t) but in terms of degree of support.  The result is an organizational “thermometer” on which 50 degrees is a neutral stance, with a higher reading indicating relative warmth of feelings.  The U.N. overall comes in at 57 degrees.  This is better than being neutral, but certainly not a rave review.  The study concludes that, based on other questions and data, this reflects the public’s mixed view of performance rather than doubts about the theoretical utility of the organization.  That conclusion would be consistent with other, older surveys which show that support for the U.N., and assessments of U.N. performance have fairly significant peaks and valleys that match current events, but a central tendency that has the U.N. gaining a 60%-70% approval rating from the American public, and 30% to 40% believing it is performing poorly.

As for nonprofits, the most recent polling from Center for Public Service indicates that 18% of the public has “a lot” of confidence in charitable organizations, down from 25% in July 2001 (before 9/11), and 17% had no confidence (up from 8%).  In short, the charitable sector’s negatives have doubled, and its positives have dropped 7 percentage points.  As all communications counselors will agree, it is much harder to change your negatives (to get people to trust you who do not now trust you) than it is to raise your positives (to get people who are neutral to trust you).  The doubling of the sector’s negatives are therefore particularly troubling.

So, on a good day, 30% of Americans question the U.N.’s performance, with most people being just warmer than neutral about the organization overall, and 18% of Americans have a lot of trust in charities, 17% have no trust, and (presumably) 60% or so occupy the more neutral ground.  The U.N.’s problems sound similar to those of the charitable sector.

Now, to the traffic pattern.  Either because the U.N. actually believes that transparency is right or because it believes it is necessary (the two are not the same), a new era of public accountability may be rising along the East River.  Should that gain speed and become widely recognized, the public will begin to see the U.N. as open and transparent, with consequent impact on the view of its performance, and a rise in its positive ratings.  It is hard to get more open than a web-based financial flows recording system, open to anyone with a mouse.

As the public comes to expect such transparency in this future scenario, the U.S. charitable sector can either follow suit or not.  “Not” would not appear to be a productive strategy.  If the distance between the charitable sector and like-viewed institutions increases, the charitable sector’s negatives will plunge even more rapidly.  Being passed is of some concern; being lapped is a crisis.

The problem for U.S. philanthropies and nonprofits is that the “modernists” are present but institutionally concentrated.  Certainly an era of corporate scandal has focused the attention of many nonprofit and philanthropic leaders on the importance of Board and management reform.  As with the U.N., the attention to accountability is probably partially fueled by a perception of what is right, but also partially fueled by a perception of what is necessary.  Opening a letter of inquiry from a state attorney general can have that effect.

Despite the awareness of the need for change among many of the sector’s highest and most senior leaders, however, change cannot be said to be sector-wide.  The number of charities has doubled in the last decade.  Those with revenues of less than $25,000 a year account for most of that growth.  Small organizations do not have the staff (or perhaps managerial discipline) to produce transparent accountability documents, let alone make them widely available.  Even major nonprofits and philanthropies, with sophisticated websites and millions of dollars in revenue, do not have annual reports and/or do not make those reports electronically available.  Even required regulatory documents are amiss.  The IRS estimates that 45% of the 990s filed with it are incorrect, and fewer than half of registered charities file informational IRS returns.

These are not trends and behaviors that will resonate with the public.  They will certainly not resonate with the public when equivalent (and historically much more maligned) institutions such as the U.N. move their accountability systems into the 21st century.  When Harry and Maude in Dubuque take out their wallet in 2020, transparency will be expected.

The U.N. is in the passing lane.  The U.S. charitable sector would do well to do more than wave.

Sources

J Ruggie “Modernists must take over the United Nations,” Financial Times of London, January 24, 2005, 13.

“Global Views 2004: American Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,” The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 2004.

B Gose, “America’s Charity Explosion,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 6, 2005, 6-9.

P Light, “To Give or Not to Give: The Crisis of Confidence in Charities,” The Brookings Institution, December 2003.

Mid-1990s and late-1990s public opinion data from various surveys of the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland, the United Nations Association of the United States of America, and the Gallup Organization.

About The Author:

Dr. Susan Raymond, Chief Analyst for onPhilanthropy, is Sr. Managing Director, Research, Evaluation, and Strategic Planning for Changing Our World Inc., a leading consulting firm helping nonprofits and corporate philanthropists achieve their goals.

You may contact the author at: sraymond@changingourworld.com