Search This Blog

Saturday, September 5, 2020

Cannabis in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
"MARIHUANA TAX ACT OF 1937" 1$ Marijuana revenue stamp, 1937 issue
 
US cannabis arrests by year
 
The use, sale, and possession of cannabis over 0.3% THC in the United States, despite state laws, is illegal under federal law. As a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, cannabis over 0.3% THC (legal term marijuana) is considered to have "no accepted medical use" and have a high potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence. Cannabis use is illegal for any reason, with the exception of FDA-approved research programs. However, individual states have enacted legislation permitting exemptions for various uses, mainly for medical and industrial use but also including recreational use.

Cannabis for industrial uses (hemp) was made illegal to grow without a permit under the Controlled Substances Act because of its relation to cannabis as a drug, and any imported products must adhere to a zero tolerance policy. The Agricultural Act of 2014 allows for universities and state-level departments of agriculture to cultivate cannabis for research into its industrial potential. In December 2018, hemp was permitted to be grown in the United States under federal law after the Hemp Farming Act was included in the passed 2018 Farm Bill.

As a psychoactive drug, cannabis continues to find extensive favor among recreational and medical users in the United States. As of 2019, eleven states, two U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational use of cannabis. Thirty-three states, four U.S. territories, and D.C. have legalized medical use of the drug. Multiple efforts to reschedule cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act have failed, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005) that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, whether medical or recreational. As a result, cannabis dispensaries are licensed by each state; these businesses sell cannabis products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, nor are they legally registered with the federal government to sell controlled substances. Although cannabis has not been approved, the FDA recognizes the potential benefits and has approved two drugs that contain components of marijuana.

The ability of states to implement cannabis legalization policies was weakened after US Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memorandum on January 4, 2018 and issued a new memo instructing US Attorneys to enforce federal law related to marijuana. The Cole memo, issued by former Deputy Attorney General James Cole in 2013, urged federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations. Regarding the medical use of cannabis, the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment still remains in effect to protect state-legal medical cannabis activities from enforcement of federal law.

Usage

Roger Roffman, a professor of social work at the University of Washington, asserted in July 2013 that "approximately 3.6 million Americans are daily or near daily users." Peter Reuter, a professor at the School of Public Policy and the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland, College Park, said that "experimenting with marijuana has long been a normal part of growing up in the U.S.; about half of the population born since 1960 has tried the drug by age 21." A World Health Organization survey found that the United States is the world’s leading per capita marijuana consumer. The 2007 National Survey on Drug Use & Health prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicated that 14.4 million U.S. citizens over the age of 12 had used marijuana within a month. The 2008 survey found that 35 million Americans were willing to tell government representatives that they had used marijuana in the past year.




According to the 2001 National Survey on Drug Use and Health by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 41.9% (more than 2 in 5) of all Americans 12 or older have used cannabis at some point in their lives, while 11.5% (about 1 in 9) reported using it "this year."


Medical use is a common reason why people use marijuana. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, "The term medical marijuana refers to using the whole unprocessed marijuana plant or its basic extracts to treat a disease or symptom." However, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not officially approved marijuana as a medicine.

Legality

Federal

Alaskan cannabis extract

Until the passage of the 2018 United States farm bill, under federal law, it was illegal to possess, use, buy, sell, or cultivate cannabis in all United States jurisdictions, since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, claiming it has a high potential for abuse and has no acceptable medical use. Despite this federal prohibition, some state and local governments established laws attempting to decriminalize cannabis, which has reduced the number of "simple possession" offenders sent to jail, since federal law enforcement rarely targets individuals directly for such relatively minor offenses. Other state and local governments ask law enforcement agencies to limit enforcement of drug laws with respect to cannabis. However, under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law preempts conflicting state and local laws. In most cases, the absence of a state law does not present a preemption conflict with a federal law. 

The federal government criminalized marijuana under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the application of these laws to intrastate commerce were addressed squarely by the United States Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, 352 F. 3d 1222 in 2005. 

In January 2009, President Barack Obama's transition team organized a poll to clarify some of the top issues the American public wants to have his administration look into, and two of the top ten ideas were to legalize the use of cannabis. In July 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, clarified the federal government's position when he stated that "marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit" and that "legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine." However, a January 2010 settlement between the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) provided an example confirming the administration policy as communicated by Attorney General Eric Holder, as WAMM reached an agreement that allowed them to re-open after being shut down by the federal government in 2002.

Following the 2012 presidential election, the Office of National Drug Control Policy under the Obama administration stated that it "steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks". In February 2014, the administration issued guidelines to banks for conducting transactions with legal marijuana sellers so these new businesses can stash away savings, make payroll, and pay taxes like any other enterprise. However, marijuana businesses still lack access to banks and credit unions due to Federal Reserve regulations.

On August 29, 2013, the Justice Department adopted a new policy (known as the Cole memo) regarding the enforcement of federal law in states that have legalized non-medical cannabis. The policy specified that commercial distribution of cannabis would be generally tolerated, except in certain circumstances, such as if violence or firearms are involved, the proceeds go to gangs and cartels, or if the cannabis is distributed to states where it is illegal.

On December 11, 2014, the Department of Justice told U.S. attorneys to allow Native American tribes on reservations to grow and sell marijuana, even in states where it is illegal. The policy will be implemented on a case-by-case basis and tribes must still follow federal guidelines.

On May 30, 2014, the United States House of Representatives passed the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, prohibiting the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical marijuana laws. The amendment became law in December 2014, and must be renewed each year in order to remain in effect.

On March 10, 2015, U.S. Senators Rand Paul, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker introduced the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States Act or CARERS Act. The bipartisan bill would move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. This would allow states with medical cannabis laws to legally prescribe it, and allow for much easier research into its medical efficacy. The bill would also allow grow sites besides the University of Mississippi, which has long been the sole supplier of cannabis for academic research, to supply cannabis for study.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two synthetic cannabis drugs for treating cancer and other medical issues. The federal government of the United States continues to argue that smoked cannabis has no recognized medical purpose (pointing to a definition of "medical purpose" published by the DEA, not the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, or the office of the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Public Health Service). Many officials point to the difficulty of regulating dosage of cannabis (a problem for treatment as well as research), despite the availability (in Canada and the United Kingdom) of dosage-controlled Sativex. The United States has also pressured other governments (especially Canada and Mexico, with which it shares borders) to retain restrictions on marijuana.

On January 4, 2018, the Cole memo was rescinded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, restoring the ability of US Attorneys to enforce federal law in states that have legalized non-medical cannabis.

On December 20, 2018, President Donald Trump signed the farm bill which descheduled hemp, making cannabis under 0.3% THC legal once again.

In February 2019, three researchers used MedMen as a case study to illustrate their concerns with marijuana companies' marketing practices. The authors criticized MedMen's use of health claims without health warnings and their appeals to youth. They called for federal regulators to investigate the marketing practices of MedMen and other US-based marijuana companies.

State

Retail store, Homer, Alaska

In 1973 Oregon became the first state to decriminalize cannabis, and in 2012 Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational use. As of June 2019, eleven states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam have legalized recreational use of cannabis, with all but Vermont and D.C. permitting its commercial sale. Another 16 states (plus the U.S. Virgin Islands) are considered to have decriminalized cannabis.

In 1996, California became the first state to legalize the medical use of cannabis when voters approved Proposition 215. As of January 2019, thirty-three states, four out of five permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis. Fourteen other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis.

State and territory laws

Map of cannabis laws in the US
Legality of cannabis in the United States
  Legal
  Legal for medical use
  Legal for medical use, limited THC content
  Prohibited for any use
  D  Decriminalized
Notes:
· Includes laws which have not yet gone into effect.
· Cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under federal law.
· Some Indian reservations have legalization policies separate from the states they are located in.
· Cannabis is illegal in all federal enclaves (other than hemp).

Research

The National Center for Natural Products Research in Oxford, Mississippi is the only facility in the United States that is federally licensed by the Drug Enforcement Administration to cultivate cannabis for scientific research. The facility is part of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Mississippi, and cultivates cannabis through a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, to which it provides the cannabis. 

The federal government has so far refused to grant any other licenses for the cultivation of cannabis, which has had a hindering effect on the amount of research conducted. The cannabis supplied by NIDA has been criticized by researchers for a variety of reasons, including high amounts of stems and seeds, high mold and yeast levels, low THC content, and low diversity of strains available. NIDA has also been criticized for the length of time in which it responds to proposals, and for favoring research on the harms caused by cannabis over research on the health benefits of cannabis. In August 2016, the DEA announced intention to grant additional cultivation licenses, but as of July 2017, 25 applications had been submitted to the DEA and none had been approved, with no timeline given by the DEA for the approval of any licenses.

Research conducted on cannabis also requires licensing from the DEA (specific to Schedule I drugs), and approval from the FDA as well. Prior to 2015, research also required approval from the U.S. Public Health Service, but this requirement was eliminated to make it less difficult for cannabis research to be approved. Numerous medical organizations in the U.S. have called for restrictions on cannabis research to be further eased, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychological Association, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Nurses Association.

Crime

The great majority of cannabis arrests are for possession. However, in 1997, the vast majority of inmates in state prisons for marijuana-related convictions were convicted of offenses other than simple possession.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, there have been over twelve million cannabis arrests in the United States since 1996, including 749,825 persons for marijuana violations in 2012. Of those charged with marijuana violations in 2012, 658,231 (88%) were charged with possession only. The remaining 91,593 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture", a category that does not differentiate for cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. Marijuana arrests comprise almost one-half (48.3 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, there were 8.2 million marijuana arrests from 2001 to 2010, and 88% of those arrests were just for having marijuana with them.

Political support

The Libertarian Party and the Green Party are known for advocating for the legalization of marijuana. There are also active cannabis political parties in at least five states. These include the Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party, the Legal Marijuana Now Party, the Legalize Marijuana Party, and the United States Marijuana Party.

History of cannabis political parties in the U.S.

  • The Youth International Party, formed in 1967 to advance the counterculture of the 1960s, often ran candidates for public office. The Yippie flag is a five-pointed star superimposed with a cannabis leaf.
  • The Grassroots Party was founded in Minnesota in 1986 and ran numerous candidates for state and federal offices. The party was active in Iowa, Minnesota, and Vermont. Grassroots Party ran candidates in every presidential election from 1988 to 2000.
  • The Legal Marijuana Now Party was established in Minnesota in 1998.
  • In 1998, an independent candidate, Edward Forchion, ran for Congress from New Jersey as the Legalize Marijuana Party candidate. Since then, Forchion has run several times for a number of offices, under that banner.
  • The Marijuana Reform Party was established in New York, in 1998, and ran Gubernatorial candidates there in both 1998 and 2002.
  • The United States Marijuana Party is an organization that promotes electoral involvement by marijuana legalization supporters. In 2012, the group endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson for President.
  • The Anti-prohibition Party ran candidates for office in New York State for one election cycle in 2010.
  • In 2010 and 2012, independent candidate Cris Ericson was on the ballot for multiple offices in Vermont under the label of U.S. Marijuana.
  • The Grassroots political party changed its name in 2014 to Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party.
  • In 2016, the Legal Marijuana Now Party placed their presidential candidates onto the ballot in two states.
In July 2016, delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention voted to approve a party platform calling for cannabis to be removed from the list of Schedule I substances, as well as calling for a "reasoned pathway for future legalization".

Polling

Gallup began polling the public as to the issue of legalizing cannabis in 1969; in that year 12% were in favor. The 2017 Gallup poll showed a record high of 64% in favor of legalizing cannabis, including a majority of Republicans for the first time.

According to a 2013 survey by Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans favored complete or partial legalization of cannabis. The survey showed 52% of respondents support cannabis legalization and 45% do not. College graduates' support increased from 39% to 52% in just three years, the support of self-identified conservative Republicans (a group not traditionally supportive of cannabis legalization) had increased to nearly 30%, and bipartisan support had increased across the board. The 2018 version of the poll showed public support had increased to 61%.

Attitudes regarding marijuana regulation changed as some states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Maine, and Alaska) passed their own laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use. According to a Gallup Poll published in December 2012, 64% of Americans believe the federal government should not intervene in these states.

A 2018 study in Social Science Research found that the main determinants of these changes in attitudes toward marijuana regulation since the 1990s were a decline in perception of the riskiness of marijuana, changes in media framing of marijuana, a decline in overall punitiveness, and a decrease in religious affiliation.

Marijuana legalization polled as very popular in 2019 according to three major national polls. In fact, research indicates that communities with legal, recreational marijuana use have seen home values rise more quickly than communities where recreational use remains illegal.

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, NORML
NORML Logo
Founded1970
FounderKeith Stroup, Esq.
FocusLegalization or decriminalization of marijuana in the United States
Location
  • Washington, D.C.
Area served
United States
Key people
Erik Altieri, Executive Director, Keith Stroup, Norm Kent, Paul Armentano, Justin Strekal, Political Director
WebsiteNorml.org

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML /ˈnɔːrməl/ (About this soundlisten)) is an American non-profit organization based in Washington, DC whose aim is to move public opinion sufficiently to achieve the legalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States so that the responsible use of cannabis by adults is no longer subject to penalty. According to their website, NORML "supports the removal of all criminal penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including the cultivation for personal use, and the casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts", and "supports the development of a legally controlled market for cannabis". NORML and the NORML Foundation support both those fighting prosecution under marijuana laws and those working to legalize marijuana. Similar affiliated organizations operate under the NORML banner in other countries, among them NORML New Zealand, NORML Ireland, NORML Canada, NORML UK, NORML South Africa and NORML France.
In the 2006 United States midterm elections, NORML promoted several successful local initiatives that declared marijuana enforcement to be the lowest priority for local law enforcement, freeing up police resources to combat violent and serious crime.

History

NORML was founded in 1970 by Keith Stroup funded by $5,000 from the Playboy Foundation. Since then, the organization has played a central role in the cannabis decriminalization movement. At the start of the 1970s, the premier decriminalization organizations were Legalize Marijuana, better known as LeMar, and Amorphia, the two of which merged in 1971. The next year, Amorphia led the unsuccessful campaign for California's marijuana legalization initiative, Proposition 19. In 1974, Amorphia merged with NORML.

By the middle of the 1970s, Playboy owner Hugh Hefner's financial support through the Playboy Foundation set NORML apart from its predecessors, making it the premier decriminalization advocacy group. At one point, Hefner was donating $100,000 a year to NORML.

The organization has a large grassroots network with 135 chapters and over 550 lawyers. NORML holds annual conferences and Continuing Legal Education (CLE)-accredited seminars. Its board of directors has, at times, included such prominent political figures as Senators Philip Hart, Jacob K. Javits, and Ross Mirkarimi.

In 1989, Donald Fiedler succeeded Jon Gettman as the executive director of NORML. In August 1992, Richard Cowan became executive director of NORML. Keith Stroup became executive director once again in 1995 after Cowan stepped down. In 2016, Erik Altieri was selected by the NORML Board of Directors to become the organization's 7th Executive Director.

NORML Foundation

The NORML Foundation, the organization's tax-exempt unit, conducts educational and research activities. Examples of the NORML Foundation's advocacy work is a detailed 2006 report, Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis. A comprehensive report with county-by-county marijuana arrest data, Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrest in America, was published in 2005.

In October 1998, NORML Foundation published the NORML Report on U.S. Domestic Marijuana Production that was widely cited in the mainstream media. The report methodically estimated the value and number of cannabis plants grown in 1997, finding that Drug Enforcement Administration, state and local law enforcement agencies seized 32% of domestic cannabis plants planted that year. According to the report, "Marijuana remains the fourth largest cash crop in America despite law enforcement spending an estimated $10 billion annually to pursue efforts to outlaw the plant." Recent studies show that marijuana is larger than all other cash crops combined. In 2002, the organization used ads containing New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg quotes on his past use of pot, saying "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it." The mayor said "I’m not thrilled they’re using my name. I suppose there’s that First Amendment that gets in the way of me stopping it," but maintained that the NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce the laws.

Media and activism

Signs advertising NORML at the Twin Cities Pride Parade in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2013

As an advocacy group, NORML has been active in spreading its message to the public.

In early 2009, a petition to President Barack Obama was written asking that he appoint a "Drug Czar" who will treat drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal issue and will move away from a "War on Drugs" paradigm. NORML's goal for this petition was 100,000 signatures.




Also in early 2009, when the Kellogg Company dropped its contract with Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps after pictures of him using a bong surfaced in the media, head members of NORML began boycotting Kellogg products and urging all members and supporters of NORML to boycott Kellogg, until the company reversed the decision. NORML also suggested that supporters of the cause send emails or letters to Kellogg explaining the boycott and the reasons behind it, even providing a template for emails and letters. Although Kellogg's profits did not suffer in the first quarter of 2009, consumer ratings polls at Vanno have been cited as indicating that Kellogg's reputation has suffered. Specifically, a small poll of Kellogg's brand reputation at Vanno showed a drop from its previous rank of 9 to 83 after Kellogg decided not to renew its contract with Michael Phelps.


On February 15, 2010, a 15-second Flash animation from NORML discussing the potential economic and financial benefit of legalized marijuana was deemed by CBS to be "too political" to display on billboards in New York City's Times Square. This drew criticism in the blogosphere and accusations of hypocrisy on Twitter, since CBS had recently aired an anti-abortion television spot during the 2010 Super Bowl. CBS reversed its decision and the ad was debuted on the CBS Times Square Superscreen on April 20, 2010.

State and local chapters

International branches

Friday, September 4, 2020

Non-profit technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Nonprofit technology is the deliberative use of technology by nonprofit organizations to maximize potential in numerous areas, primarily in supporting the organization mission and meeting reporting requirements to funders and regulators.

Types of technology do not differ between nonprofit and for profit organizations. Nonprofit technology is differentiated by specific strategies and purposes. Numerous nonprofit organizations approach technology with an emphasis on cost effectiveness due to limited budgets. Information technology in particular offers low-cost solutions for non profits to address administrative, service and marketing needs. Technology deployment grants nonprofits the opportunity to better allocate staff resources away from administrative tasks to focus on direct services provided by the organization.

Definitional Issues

Due to the topic's inherent breadth of reach and the constantly changing nature of technology in general, the sphere of nonprofit technology is somewhat difficult to define. Despite this, in order to provide a stable foundation upon which the remainder of this discussion can stand, it is necessary to engage in laying a groundwork of both baseline and integrated definitional constructs.




Nonprofit technology can be generally defined as any technological tool that assists a nonprofit organization by helping it to work with greater social impact in forwarding the overall organizational mission. Technology is essential to effectively advancing and managing a nonprofit, playing an important role in the advertisement of goods and services offered, the communication of mission, and the recruitment of volunteers among other things. From thoughtful utilization to enhance both internal and external organizational communication efforts, to increased ability to measure, evaluate, and more successfully track and engage specific initiatives, the use of technology within the nonprofit sector is wide-ranging.


Technology use associated with nonprofits is not dedicated in nature, that is, technologies and specific uses of such technology by nonprofits cannot be linked solely to the nonprofit sector. Because of this, constructing a definition of nonprofit technology is based in large part on use.

Uses

Nonprofit organizations use computers, Internet and other networking technology for a number of tasks, including volunteer management and support, donor management, client tracking and support, project management, human resources (paid staff) management, financial accounting, program evaluation, research, marketing, activism and collaboration. Nonprofit organizations that engage in income-generation activities, such as ticket sales, may also use technology for these functions. 

Some technology programs are created specifically for use by nonprofit organizations. For instance, there are more than 30 software packages designed for nonprofits to use to analyse donations, manage volunteers. There is software designed to help in the management of animal shelters, software to help nonprofit manage pets, animal rescue, county code management software to help nonprofit performing arts groups sell tickets and manage donors, software to manage sports clubs, and on and on.




Nonprofit organizations also use both proprietary and open-source software, as well as various online tools (the World Wide Web, email, online social networking, wikis,volunteer web blogs micro-blogging, etc.), that are also used by for-profit businesses. Nonprofit groups may leverage web-based services in their media outreach, using online newswires such as Nonprofit Newswire.com to disseminate their press releases.


Because of their limited budgets, nonprofit organizations may not be able to upgrade their hardware or software, buy computers or Internet tools, or provide technology training for staff to the degree of for-profit businesses. This means that, often, nonprofit organizations can be on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Benefits of technology

Implemented correctly, technology stands to benefit nonprofits in a variety of ways. One obvious benefit is the dissemination of information. Technological tools (e.g., computers and cellular telephones) and platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) allow for the aggregation and wide-scale distribution of knowledge and information. To the extent that tools and platforms can be integrated, nonprofits may better serve themselves and their clients.

Krause and Quick discussed a melding of this sort in the area of "maternal health interventions". By combining Facebook's social networking platform with SMS text messaging, the Women's Refugee Commission (WRC) was able to launch a new initiative, which it dubbed "Mama." Mama's mission is to bring clinical practitioners together in a virtual forum (i.e., their Facebook page) for purposes of information sharing and support. Given the remote locales of many maternal health workers, regular access to the Internet can prove difficult, if not impossible. But with the help of SMS messaging, this problem becomes entirely manageable.




The Mama platform readily accepts text messages sent from anywhere in the world. These messages then appear, automatically, on the Mama Facebook page, allowing practitioners with more reliable access to the Internet a chance to appraise the situation and respond. Once the Mama community arrives at a consensus, a text message is dispatched back to the original practitioner. Although this process is a bit deliberative, it is nonetheless instrumental in achieving beneficial outcomes for both the organization and the population it aims to serve. Without an SMS-Facebook linkage, maternal health workers embedded deep within the field would effectively be cut off from both colleagues and information. Technology, it would seem, is aptly suited for bridging this spatial divide. 


Cost reductions and efficiency improvements may also encourage nonprofits to adopt new digital and information technologies. According to Luksetich et al., administrative expenses are particularly bothersome for nonprofits and their stakeholders. To the extent, then, that technology can be viewed as a long-term administrative cost-saver, it becomes increasingly likely that nonprofits will become adopters of information technology. Hamann and Bezboruah advanced this premise in a recent study, noting that nonprofits may have greater incentive to deploy technology for the accomplishment of administrative tasks as opposed to provision-of-care tasks.

A final and largely unquantifiable benefit of nonprofit technology is the degree to which these tools can and do save lives. Mama, in particular, has developed a "Lives Saved Counter" to allow members to document each time they save a "woman's, girl's, or newborn's life". The Counter is significant because it acknowledges both individual achievement and evidence-based best practices. Moreover, it stands as a constant reminder and celebration of life, contrasting markedly with the conventional practices in this field, which tend to document only the deaths of mothers.

Social media

The use of social media by nonprofits should follow a stewardship model that includes acts of reciprocity, responsibility, and accountability in an effort to nurture nonprofit relationships and place supporters at the forefront. Referencing organizational partners and supporters is one way in which these ideals can be expressed through social media use. Furthermore, listing the nonprofits specific use of donations and volunteers as well as posting the names of board members and mission statement can cover the responsibility and accountability components.

And although most social media sites provide free services, for social media to be most effective, organizations must provide on-going interactional experiences for users, which requires additional man-hours. It is estimated that for a mid-size nonprofit with revenue between $1 and $5 million annually, having a social media presence will cost, on average, $11 thousand annually to attain an adequate level of interaction. Examples of such interactional components for a nonprofit website might include: downloadable video, RSS feeds, chat rooms, polls or surveys, linked publications and always, contact information.

In a poll conducted with mid-sized nonprofit organizations, 51 percent reported that between one and five hours were spent weekly attending to social media. Additionally, as the nonprofits social media presence grew, more hours were required to sustain the same level of interaction. Yet, these same nonprofit respondents, that had been using social media for at least 12 months, reported less than stellar results for attracting new donors or volunteers, which had been one of the main motivations for establishing a social media presence. Therefore, if a nonprofit organization is insistent on an established social media presence, it is advised to continue direct channels of communication such as direct mailings which still outperforms email and social media marketing.

Practitioners/sources of training and support

Whereas a for-profit business may have the budget to hire a full-time staff member or part-time consultant to help with computer and Internet technology use, nonprofit organizations usually have fewer financial resources and, therefore, may not be able to hire a full-time staff person to manage and support technology use. While there are nonprofits that can afford to pay staff devoted to managing and supporting the nonprofits technology needs, many of those who support nonprofits in their technology use are staff members who have different primary roles (called accidental techies) and volunteers

Those providing support to nonprofit organizations regarding their use of computers, the Internet and networking technologies are sometimes known as eRiders or circuit riders, or more broadly as NTAPs (nonprofit technology assistance providers).




A membership association for people volunteering or working for pay to support nonprofit technology is NTEN: The Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network.

Sources of hardware and software

A variety of organizations support NPOs' acquisition of technology, either hardware or software. 

Certain NPOs (for example Free Geek or Nonprofit Technology Resources) support local NPOs with discounted refurbished personal computers.




In the United States and Canada, a web-based membership association that provides non-profit organizations with discounts on products and services, including technology providers, is the Non-Profit Purchasing Group. 




For developing areas or nations, technology may be available from organizations mentioned in Computer technology for developing areas.

Best practices/guiding principles for effective adoption

A number of contributing factors have effected non-profits' ability to adopt information technology in recent history. Cutbacks in public sector services, decreases in government spending, increased scrutiny on the public sector, increased competition and increased financial transparency are all issues facing non-profit organizations today. Due to these issues, it has become increasingly important for non-profits to be aware of best practices and potential pitfalls when adopting effective IT practices in the public sector. 

Planning has become one of the most important practices for the successful strategic utilization of information technology. A 2003 study found that 79 percent of organizations in 2003 (up from 55 percent in 2000) had some sort of "strategic plan" specifically for the use of the Internet, tending to be "medium-sized charities with medium income and larger Web budgets, as well as those that set their sites up earlier and update them more frequently." Among the most important practices in IT planning are budgeting, training and staffing. A 2007 study from the Public Administration Review shows that the majority of nonprofits budget for purchasing and upgrading hardware (57 percent) and software (58 percent), as well as computer maintenance (63 percent), but only 36 percent budget for computer-related training. However, these planning methods receive only 9 percent of the budget after personnel costs are removed, which is of particular importance because 56 percent of nonprofits report that less than 2 percent is available for these essential IT activities. The amount set aside for training varies considerably depending on overall budgets, making training a luxury for lower-budget organizations.

Nonprofit organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A nonprofit organization (NPO), also known as a non-business entity, not-for-profit organization, or nonprofit institution, is an organization traditionally dedicated to furthering a particular social cause or advocating a shared point of view. In economic terms, it is an organization using the surplus of its revenues to further its objective, rather than distributing its income to the organization's shareholders, leaders, or members. Being public extensions of a nation's revenue department, nonprofits are tax-exempt or charitable, meaning they do not pay income tax on the money that they receive for their organization. They can operate in religious, scientific, research, or educational settings.

The key aspects of nonprofits are accountability, trustworthiness, honesty, and openness to every person who has invested time, money, and faith into the organization. Nonprofit organizations are accountable to the donors, founders, volunteers, program recipients, and the public community. Public confidence is a factor in the amount of money that a nonprofit organization is able to raise. The more nonprofits focus on their mission, the more public confidence they will have, and as a result, more money for the organization. The activities a nonprofit is partaking in can help build the public's confidence in nonprofits, as well as how ethical the standards and practices are.

Statistics in the United States

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), there are more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations registered in the United States, including public charities, private foundations, and other nonprofit organizations. Private charitable contributions increased for the fourth consecutive year in 2017 (since 2014), at an estimated $410.02 billion. Out of these contributions, religious organizations received 30.9%, education organizations received 14.3%, and human services organizations received 12.1%. Between September 2010 and September 2014, approximately 25.3% of Americans over the age of 16 volunteered for a nonprofit.

Mechanism of money-raising

Nonprofits are not driven by generating profit, but they must bring in enough income to pursue their social goals. Nonprofits are able to raise money in different ways. This includes income from donations from individual donors or foundations; sponsorship from corporations; government funding; programs, services or merchandise sales; and investments. Each NPO is unique in which source of income works best for them. With an increase in NPO's within the last decade, organizations have adopted competitive advantages to create revenue for themselves to remain financially stable. Donations from private individuals or organizations can change each year and government grants have diminished. With changes in funding from year to year, many nonprofit organizations have been moving toward increasing the diversity of their funding sources. For example, many nonprofits that have relied on government grants have started fundraising efforts to appeal to individual donors.

Challenges

NPO's challenges primarily stem from lack of funding. Funding can either come from within the organization, fundraising, donations, or from the federal government. When cutbacks are made from the federal government, the organization suffers from devolution. This term describes when there is a shift of responsibility from a central government to a local, sub-national authority. The shift is due to the loss of funds; therefore, resulting in changes of responsibilities in running programs. Because of this frequent challenge, management must be innovative and effective in the pursuit of success.

Nonprofit vs. not-for-profit

Nonprofit and not-for-profit are terms that are used similarly, but do not mean the same thing. Both are organizations that do not make a profit, but may receive an income to sustain their missions. The income that nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations generate is used differently. Nonprofit organizations return any extra income to the organization. Not-for-profits use their excess money to pay their members who do work for them. Another difference between nonprofit organizations and not-for-profit organizations is their membership. Nonprofits have volunteers or employees who do not receive any money from the organization's fundraising efforts. They may earn a salary for their work that is independent from the money the organization has fundraised. Not-for-profit members have the opportunity to benefit from the organization's fundraising efforts.

In the United States, both nonprofits and not-for-profits are tax-exempt under IRS publication 557. Although they are both tax-exempt, each organization faces different tax code requirements. A nonprofit is tax-exempt under 501(c)(3) requirements if it is either a religious, charitable, or educational based organization that does not influence state and federal legislation. Not-for-profits are tax-exempt under 501(c)(7) requirements if they are an organization for pleasure, recreation or another nonprofit purpose.

Nonprofits are either member-serving or community-serving. Member-serving nonprofit organizations create a benefit for the members of their organization and can include but are not limited to credit unions, sports clubs, and advocacy groups. Community-serving nonprofit organizations focus on providing services to the community either globally or locally. Community-serving nonprofits include organizations that deliver aid and development programs, medical research, education, and health services. It is possible for a nonprofit to be both member-serving and community-serving.

Management

A common misconception about nonprofits is that they are run completely by volunteers. Most nonprofits have staff that work for the company, possibly using volunteers to perform the nonprofit's services under the direction of the paid staff. Nonprofits must be careful to balance the salaries paid to staff against the money paid to provide services to the nonprofit's beneficiaries. Organizations whose salary expenses are too high relative to their program expenses may face regulatory scrutiny.

A second misconception is that nonprofit organizations may not make a profit. Although the goal of nonprofits isn't specifically to maximize profits, they still have to operate as a fiscally responsible business. They must manage their income (both grants and donations and income from services) and expenses so as to remain a fiscally viable entity. Nonprofits have the responsibility of focusing on being professional, financially responsible, replacing self-interest and profit motive with mission motive.

Though nonprofits are managed differently from for-profit businesses, they have felt pressure to be more businesslike. To combat private and public business growth in the public service industry, nonprofits have modeled their business management and mission, shifting their raison d’être to establish sustainability and growth.

Setting effective missions is a key for the successful management of nonprofit organizations. There are three important conditions for effective mission: opportunity, competence, and commitment.

One way of managing the sustainability of nonprofit organizations is to establish strong relations with donor groups. This requires a donor marketing strategy, something many nonprofits lack.

Functions

NPOs have a wide diversity of structures and purposes. For legal classification, there are, nevertheless, some elements of importance:
  • Management provisions
  • Accountability and auditing provisions
  • Provisory for the amendment of the statutes or articles of incorporation
  • Provisions for the dissolution of the entity
  • Tax statuses of corporate and private donors
  • Tax status of the founders.
Some of the above must be (in most jurisdictions in the USA at least) expressed in the organization's charter of establishment or constitution. Others may be provided by the supervising authority at each particular jurisdiction. 

While affiliations will not affect a legal status, they may be taken into consideration by legal proceedings as an indication of purpose. Most countries have laws that regulate the establishment and management of NPOs and that require compliance with corporate governance regimes. Most larger organizations are required to publish their financial reports detailing their income and expenditure publicly. 

In many aspects, they are similar to corporate business entities though there are often significant differences. Both not-for-profit and for-profit corporate entities must have board members, steering-committee members, or trustees who owe the organization a fiduciary duty of loyalty and trust. A notable exception to this involves churches, which are often not required to disclose finances to anyone, including church members.

Formation and structure

In the United States, nonprofit organizations are formed by filing bylaws or articles of incorporation or both in the state in which they expect to operate. The act of incorporation creates a legal entity enabling the organization to be treated as a distinct body (corporation) by law and to enter into business dealings, form contracts, and own property as individuals or for-profit corporations can.

Nonprofits can have members, but many do not. The nonprofit may also be a trust or association of members. The organization may be controlled by its members who elect the board of directors, board of governors or board of trustees. A nonprofit may have a delegate structure to allow for the representation of groups or corporations as members. Alternatively, it may be a non-membership organization and the board of directors may elect its own successors. 

The two major types of nonprofit organization are membership and board-only. A membership organization elects the board and has regular meetings and the power to amend the bylaws. A board-only organization typically has a self-selected board and a membership whose powers are limited to those delegated to it by the board. A board-only organization's bylaws may even state that the organization does not have any membership, although the organization's literature may refer to its donors or service recipients as 'members'; examples of such organizations are FairVote and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The Model Nonprofit Corporation Act imposes many complexities and requirements on membership decision-making. Accordingly, many organizations, such as the Wikimedia Foundation, have formed board-only structures. The National Association of Parliamentarians has generated concerns about the implications of this trend for the future of openness, accountability, and understanding of public concerns in nonprofit organizations. Specifically, they note that nonprofit organizations, unlike business corporations, are not subject to market discipline for products and shareholder discipline of their capital; therefore, without membership control of major decisions such as the election of the board, there are few inherent safeguards against abuse. A rebuttal to this might be that as nonprofit organizations grow and seek larger donations, the degree of scrutiny increases, including expectations of audited financial statements. A further rebuttal might be that NPOs are constrained, by their choice of legal structure, from financial benefit as far as distribution of profit to members and directors is concerned.

Tax exemption

In many countries, nonprofits may apply for tax-exempt status, so that the organization itself may be exempt from income tax and other taxes. In the United States, to be exempt from federal income taxes, the organization must meet the requirements set forth in the Internal Revenue Code. Granting nonprofit status is done by the state, while granting tax-exempt designation (such as 501(c)(3)) is granted by the federal government via the IRS. This means that not all nonprofits are eligible to be tax-exempt. NPOs use the model of a double bottom line in that furthering their cause is more important than making a profit, though both are needed to ensure the organization's sustainability.

By jurisdiction

Australia

In Australia, nonprofit organizations include trade unions, charitable entities, co-operatives, universities and hospitals, mutual societies, grass-root and support groups, political parties, religious groups, incorporated associations, not-for-profit companies, trusts and more. Furthermore, they operate across a multitude of domains and industries, from health, employment, disability and other human services to local sporting clubs, credit unions, and research institutes. A nonprofit organization in Australia can choose from a number of legal forms depending on the needs and activities of the organization: co-operative, company limited by guarantee, unincorporated association, incorporated association (by the Associations Incorporation Act 1985) or incorporated association or council (by the Commonwealth Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976). From an academic perspective, social enterprise is, for the most part, considered a sub-set of the nonprofit sector as typically they too are concerned with a purpose relating to a public good. However, these are not bound to adhere to a nonprofit legal structure, and many incorporate and operate as for-profit entities. 

In Australia, nonprofit organizations are primarily established in one of three ways: companies limited by guarantee, trusts, and incorporated associations. However, the incorporated association form is typically used by organizations intending to operate only within one Australian state jurisdiction. Nonprofit organizations seeking to establish a presence across Australia typically consider incorporating as a company or as a trust.

Belgium

By Belgian law, there are several kinds of nonprofit organization:
These three kinds of nonprofit organizations contrast to a fourth:
  • Feitelijke vereniging (Dutch) or Association de fait (French), an informal organization, often started for a short-term project, or managed alongside another NPO that does not have any status in law so cannot purchase property etc. (association sans personnalité morale).

Canada

Canada allows nonprofit organizations to be incorporated or unincorporated. They may incorporate either federally, under Part II of the Canada Business Corporations Act, or under provincial legislation. Many of the governing Acts for Canadian nonprofits date to the early 1900s, meaning that nonprofit legislation has not kept pace with legislation that governs for-profit corporations, particularly with regards to corporate governance. Federal, and in some provinces (including Ontario), incorporation is by way of Letters Patent, and any change to the Letters Patent (even a simple name change) requires formal approval by the appropriate government, as do bylaw changes. Other provinces (including Alberta) permit incorporation as of right, by the filing of Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Association.

During 2009, the federal government enacted new legislation repealing the Canada Corporations Act, Part II – the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. This Act was last amended on 10 October 2011, and the act was current until 4 March 2013. It allows for incorporation as of right, by Articles of Incorporation; does away with the ultra vires doctrine for nonprofits; establishes them as legal persons; and substantially updates the governance provisions for nonprofits. Ontario also overhauled its legislation, adopting the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act during 2010; the new Act is expected to be in effect as of 1 July 2013. 

Canada also permits a variety of charities (including public and private foundations). Charitable status is granted by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) upon application by a nonprofit; charities are allowed to issue income tax receipts to donors, must spend a certain percentage of their assets (including cash, investments, and fixed assets) and file annual reports in order to maintain their charitable status. In determining whether an organization can become a charity, CRA applies a common law test to its stated objects and activities. These must be:
  • The relief of poverty
  • The advancement of education
  • The advancement of religion, or
  • Certain other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said is charitable
Charities are not permitted to engage in partisan political activity; doing so may result in the revocation of charitable status. However, a charity can carry out a small number of political activities that are non-partisan, help further the charities' purposes, and subordinate to the charity's charitable purposes.

France

In France, nonprofits are called associations. They are based on a law enacted 1 July 1901. As a consequence, the nonprofits are also called association loi 1901.




A nonprofit can be created by two people to accomplish a common goal. The association can have industrial or commercial activities or both, but the members cannot make any profit from the activities. Thereby, worker's unions and political parties can be organized from this law. 




In 2008, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) counted more than a million of these associations in the country, and about 16 million people older than 16 are members of a nonprofit in France (a third of the population over 16 years old). The nonprofits employ 1.6 million people, and 8 million are volunteers for them.

This law is also relevant in many former French colonies, particularly in Africa.

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Company Registry provides a memorandum of procedure for applying to Registrar of Companies for a Licence under Section 21 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap.32) for a limited company for the purpose of promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity, or any other useful object.

India

In India, non-governmental organizations are the most common type of societal institutions that do not have commercial interests. However, they are not the only category of non-commercial organizations that can gain official recognition. For example, memorial trusts, which honor renowned individuals through social work, may not be considered as NGOs.

They can be registered in four ways:
  • Trust
  • Society
  • Section-25 company (Section 8 as per the new Companies Act, 2013)
  • Special licensing
Registration can be with either the Registrar of Companies (RoC) or the Registrar of Societies (RoS).
The following laws or Constitutional Articles of the Republic of India are relevant to the NGOs:
  • Articles 19(1)(c) and 30 of the Constitution of India
  • Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Public Trusts Acts of various states
  • Societies Registration Act, 1860
  • Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Section 8 as per the new Companies Act, 2013)
  • Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.

Republic of Ireland

The Irish Nonprofits Database was created by Irish Nonprofits Knowledge Exchange (INKEx) to act as a repository for regulatory and voluntarily disclosed information about Irish public-benefit nonprofits. The database lists more than 10,000 nonprofit organizations in Ireland. In 2012 INKEx ceased to operate due to lack of funding.

Israel

In Israel nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are usually established as registered nonprofit associations (Hebrew amutah, plural amutot) or public benefit companies (Hebrew Chevrah LeTo’elet Hatzibur, not to be confused with public benefit corporations). The structure of financial statements of nonprofit organizations is regulated Israel's Accounting Standard No. 5, and must include a balance sheet, a report on activities, the income and expenditure for the particular period, a report on changes in assets, a statement of cash flows, and notes to the financial statements. A report showing the level of restriction imposed on the assets and liabilities can be given, though this is not required. 

‘'Amutot'’ are regulated by the Associations Law, 1980. An amutah is a body corporate, though not a company. The amutah is successor to the Ottoman Society which predated the State of Israel, and was established by the now-superseded Ottoman Societies Law of 1909, based on the French law of 1901. Public benefit companies are governed solely by company law; if their regulations and objectives meet the two conditions specified in Section 345A of the Companies Act, they will in effect be amutot in all but name. 

An amutah must register with the Rasham Ha’amutot ('Registrar of Amutot'); a public benefit company must register with the Rasham HaChavarot [Registrar of Companies]. Both are under the purview of the Rashot Hata’agidim ('Corporations Authority') of the Ministry of Justice.

Japan

In Japan, an NPO is any citizen's group that serves the public interest and does not produce a profit for its members. NPOs are given corporate status to assist them in conducting business transactions. As at February 2011, there were 41,600 NPOs in Japan. Two hundred NPOs were given tax-deductible status by the government, which meant that only contributions to those organizations were tax deductible for the contributors.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, nonprofit organizations usually are established as incorporated societies or charitable trusts. An incorporated society requires a membership of at least 15 people.

Russia

Russian law contains many legal forms of non-commercial organization (NCO), resulting in a complex, often contradictory, and limiting regulatory framework. The primary requirements are that NCOs, whatever their type, do not have the generation of profit as their main objective and do not distribute any such profit among their participants (Article 50(1), Civil Code). Most commonly there are five forms of NCO:
  • Public associations – A public association is the form most comparable to an 'association' as used in international parlance. A public association is a membership-based organization of individuals who associate on the basis of common interests and goals stipulated in the organization's charter.
  • Foundations – Foundations are property-based, non-membership organizations created by individuals or legal persons (or both) to pursue social, charitable, cultural, educational, or other public benefit goals.
  • Institutions – The institution (uchrezhdeniye) is a form that exists in Russia and several other countries of the former Soviet Union. Like foundations, institutions do not have members. Unlike foundations, however, institutions do not acquire property rights in the property conveyed to them (Article 120, Civil Code, and Article 20, NCO Law). Moreover, the founders are liable for any obligations of the institution that it cannot meet on its own.
  • Non-commercial partnerships – A non-commercial partnership (NP) (Article 8, NCO Law) is a membership organization pursuing activities for the mutual benefit of members. Therefore, assets that have been transferred to an NP as donations can be used for purposes other than those having public benefit.
  • Autonomous non-commercial organizations – An autonomous non-commercial organization (ANO) (Article 10, NCO Law) is a non-membership organization undertaking services in the field of education, social policy, culture, etc., which in practice often generates income by providing its services for a fee.

South Africa

In South Africa, certain types of charity may issue a tax certificate when requested, which donors can use to apply for a tax deduction. Charities/NGOs may be established as voluntary associations, trusts or nonprofit companies (NPCs). Voluntary associations are established by agreement under the common law, and trusts are registered by the Master of the High Court.

Nonprofit companies (NPCs) are registered by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission. All of these may voluntarily register with The Directorate for Nonprofit Organisations and may apply for tax-exempt status to the South African Revenue Service (SARS).

Ukraine

In Ukraine, nonprofit organizations include non-governmental organizations, cooperatives (inc. housing cooperatives), charitable organizations, religious organizations, political parties, commodities exchanges (in Ukraine, commodities exchanges can't be organized for profit) and more. Nonprofit organizations obtain their non-profit status from tax authorities. The state fiscal service is the main registration authority for nonprofit status.

United Kingdom

In the UK a nonprofit organization may take the form of an unincorporated association, a charitable trust, a charitable incorporated organisation (CIO), a company limited by guarantee (which may or may not be charitable), a charter organization (which may or may not be charitable), a charitable company, a community interest company (CIC) (which may or may not be charitable), a community benefit society (which may or may not be charitable), or a cooperative society (which may or may not be charitable). Thus a nonprofit may be charitable (see under Charitable Organisation) or not, and may be required to be registered or not.

United States

After a nonprofit organization has been formed at the state level, the organization may seek recognition of tax-exempt status with respect to U.S. federal income tax. That is done typically by applying to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), although statutory exemptions exist for limited types of nonprofit organization. The IRS, after reviewing the application to ensure the organization meets the conditions to be recognized as a tax-exempt organization (such as the purpose, limitations on spending, and internal safeguards for a charity), may issue an authorization letter to the nonprofit granting it tax-exempt status for income-tax payment, filing, and deductibility purposes. The exemption does not apply to other federal taxes such as employment taxes. Additionally, a tax-exempt organization must pay federal tax on income that is unrelated to their exempt purpose. Failure to maintain operations in conformity to the laws may result in the loss of tax-exempt status.

Individual states and localities offer nonprofits exemptions from other taxes such as sales tax or property tax. Federal tax-exempt status does not guarantee exemption from state and local taxes and vice versa. These exemptions generally have separate applications, and their requirements may differ from the IRS requirements. Furthermore, even a tax-exempt organization may be required to file annual financial reports (IRS Form 990) at the state and federal levels. A tax-exempt organization's 990 forms are required to be available for public scrutiny.

Governance

The board of directors has ultimate control over the organization, but typically an executive director is hired. In some cases, the board is elected by a membership, but commonly, the board of directors is self-perpetuating. In these 'board-only' organizations, board members nominate new members and vote on their fellow directors' nominations. Part VI Governance, Management, and Disclosure, section A, question 7a of the Form 990 asks 'Did the organization have members, stockholders, or other persons who had the power to elect or appoint one or more members of the governing body?'; the IRS instructions added '(other than the organization's governing body itself, acting in such capacity)'.

Problems

Founder's syndrome

Founder's syndrome is an issue organizations experience as they expand. Dynamic founders, who have a strong vision of how to operate the project, try to retain control of the organization, even as new employees or volunteers want to expand the project's scope or change policy.

Resource mismanagement

Resource mismanagement is a particular problem with NPOs because the employees are not accountable to anyone who has a direct stake in the organization. For example, an employee may start a new program without disclosing its complete liabilities. The employee may be rewarded for improving the NPO's reputation, making other employees happy, and attracting new donors. Liabilities promised on the full faith and credit of the organization but not recorded anywhere constitute accounting fraud. But even indirect liabilities negatively affect the financial sustainability of the NPO, and the NPO will have financial problems unless strict controls are instated. Some commenters have argued that the receipt of significant funding from large for-profit corporations can ultimately alter the NPO's functions. A frequent measure of an NPO's efficiency is its expense ratio (i.e. expenditures on things other than its programs, divided by its total expenditures).

Competition for talent

Competition for employees with the public and private sector is another problem that nonprofit organizations inevitably face, particularly for management positions. There are reports of major talent shortages in the nonprofit sector today regarding newly graduated workers, and NPOs have for too long relegated hiring to a secondary priority, which could be why they find themselves in the position many do. While many established NPOs are well-funded and comparative to their public sector competitors, many more are independent and must be creative with which incentives they use to attract and maintain vibrant personalities. The initial interest for many is the remuneration package, though many who have been questioned after leaving an NPO have reported that it was stressful work environments and implacable work that drove them away.

Public- and private-sector employment have, for the most part, been able to offer more to their employees than most nonprofit agencies throughout history. Either in the form of higher wages, more comprehensive benefit packages, or less tedious work, the public and private sectors have enjoyed an advantage over NPOs in attracting employees. Traditionally, the NPO has attracted mission-driven individuals who want to assist their chosen cause. Compounding the issue is that some NPOs do not operate in a manner similar to most businesses, or only seasonally. This leads many young and driven employees to forego NPOs in favor of more stable employment. Today, however, nonprofit organizations are adopting methods used by their competitors and finding new means to retain their employees and attract the best of the newly minted workforce.

It has been mentioned that most nonprofits will never be able to match the pay of the private sector and therefore should focus their attention on benefits packages, incentives and implementing pleasurable work environments. A good environment is ranked higher than salary and pressure of work. NPOs are encouraged to pay as much as they are able and offer a low-stress work environment that the employee can associate him or herself positively with. Other incentives that should be implemented are generous vacation allowances or flexible work hours.

Online presence

Many NPOs often use the .org or .us (or the country code top-level domain of their respective country) or .edu top-level domain (TLD) when selecting a domain name to differentiate themselves from more commercial entities, which typically use the .com space. 

In the traditional domain noted in RFC 1591, .org is for 'organizations that didn't fit anywhere else' in the naming system, which implies that it is the proper category for non-commercial organizations if they are not governmental, educational, or one of the other types with a specific TLD. It is not designated specifically for charitable organizations or any specific organizational or tax-law status; however, it encompasses anything that is not classifiable as another category. Currently, no restrictions are enforced on registration of .com or .org, so one can find organizations of all sorts in either of these domains, as well as other top-level domains including newer, more specific ones which may apply to particular sorts of organization including .museum for museums and .coop for cooperatives. Organizations might also register by the appropriate country code top-level domain for their country.

Alternative names

Instead of being defined by 'non' words, some organizations are suggesting new, positive-sounding terminology to describe the sector. The term 'civil society organization' (CSO) has been used by a growing number of organizations, including the Center for the Study of Global Governance. The term 'citizen sector organization' (CSO) has also been advocated to describe the sector – as one of citizens, for citizens – by organizations including Ashoka: Innovators for the Public. Advocates argue that these terms describe the sector in its own terms, without relying on terminology used for the government or business sectors. However, use of terminology by a nonprofit of self-descriptive language that is not legally compliant risks confusing the public about nonprofit abilities, capabilities, and limitations.

In some Spanish-language jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations are called "civil associations".

Equality (mathematics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_...