While nonprofits are, generally, tax-exempt, they must pay income tax when operating outside the scope of their exempt purposes. But determining what are an organization’s exempt purposes is not always as clear as one might think, and distinguishing between related and unrelated activities can be tricky. There are clear rules, as well as several exceptions to those rules, that can help guide an organization in the right direction. But, as Kupfer underscores, while this article outlines key concepts of UBIT, “specific advice should always be sought from a competent tax counsel.”

When implemented wisely, social innovation is a positive approach to nonprofit growth; but most current practice falling under that rubric tends to invest primarily in one organization or program. Wouldn’t investment in infrastructure be far more valuable to development of the sector overall?

Practitioners agree that regulatory support is essential to Philanthropic Equity’s survival, but even if common standards and IRS guidance are put into play, PE is not for everyone. As the author explains, “Philanthropic Equity is about making sizable bets on plans and teams whose success is uncertain.” But he continues: “If only 1 percent of the funds currently flowing to U.S. nonprofit organizations were in the form of Philanthropic Equity, it would be sufficient to radically alter the growth trajectories of many of the highest-potential organizations in the social sector.” What do you think?

When a new employee asks for help handling the office gossip, Dr. Conflict advises first against upping the conflict by putting said gossip on the defensive, and second to check out the office culture before leaping into the fray. Perhaps surprising to some, he also reminds the frustrated employee that while one should not pay attention to every detail of what goes on in the workplace, it is never a good idea to stay disconnected, either, as “today’s gossip may be tomorrow’s fact.”

This past year marked the beginning of Occupy Wall Street, which is emblematic of a rising tide of citizen action unconnected to formal institutions. Disturbing to some and exciting to others, the ability of people to self-organize—and their evident preference for it—is the overriding meaning we take from this past year into the next. What does it mean for institutions even in this sector. Do we need to change, too?

In this article, Buzz Schmidt, founder of GuideStar and Chair of the NPQ board argues that all enterprises need to be held to account for their contribution to—or depletion of—those things that are necessary to sustain a healthy society. He calls these, “elements of community capital.” This article contains ideas that are core to NPQ’s views.

Why do so many of us insist upon learning from our own mistakes rather than those of other poor souls? Here we give you one more chance. Take heed of these tales of nonprofit organizations—large and small—that wander down the wrong path and embarrass themselves.

This past year marked the beginning of Occupy Wall Street, which is emblematic of a rising tide of citizen action unconnected to formal institutions. Disturbing to some and exciting to others, the ability of people to self-organize—and their evident preference for it—is the overriding meaning we take from this past year into the next. What does it mean for institutions even in this sector. Do we need to change, too?

According to our trusty Nonprofit Ethicist, “when it comes to ethics, if it looks bad, it is bad.” Does it look okay for the director of a social services organization to raise funds for other organizations through a side business? How about if a board chair puts himself in the running for the executive director position but doesn’t step down as chair? It looks, in the Ethicist’s words—“Bad. Bad. Bad.”

There have been a number of instances recently where various groupings of stakeholders—including donors, members, staff and constituents—have staged a revolt against a decision made by nonprofit leadership. Although social media may have aided the revolts, we think they are emerging from a changing attitude toward institutions.

(Monarch Butterfly Colony in Flight”© Frans Lanting/Corbis)

Habitat for Humanity International is challenged to find the right balance between staying true to its mission and surviving—and even thriving—in the years ahead. But the network’s thrust to sustain and improve upon performance has meant rethinking its brand, cautiously exploring social innovation and entrepreneurialism, and even (more cautiously) trying out government funding. Despite the challenges, Habitat affiliates agree that in order to move forward they must evolve. As one Habitat affiliate director opined, “We cannot allow the grass to grow too long under our feet.

Social Impact Bonds may be the latest and newest instrument for drawing private investment into entrepreneurial social programs. But with only one major example of Social Impact Bond financing, from the United Kingdom, and efforts to gin up Social Impact Bond initiatives in Boston and the Twin Cities having only just begun, there are as yet too few results to trumpet. NPQ contributing editor Jon Pratt sat down with Simon Jawitz, board member of and senior advisor to Growth Philanthropy Network, to discuss the concept’s prospects.

(Image: "Untitled." 2011. Amy Joy Watson)