NPQ will soon be celebrating its 20th anniversary with a special retrospective edition collecting some of our best articles from two decades. We would like to invite you to help us select which articles should be included.
We are looking for classics—well-known and oft-used articles—and hidden gems. Most of all, though, we want pieces that have helped to advance your thinking or a practice. Maybe you’ve used it in training, or with your board. Perhaps it’s something you recall from time to time when certain issues present themselves. It might even be something you read that changed the way you approach your work.
When you write, please send in the title and authors of the piece (or a reasonable approximation) and a statement about why you chose it. If it is chosen for the collection, your comments may be used to highlight the “why” of its inclusion. If that happens, we’ll send you a complimentary copy of the collection when it comes out.
You may also be happy to hear that we’ll be asking some authors to update their classic pieces from year’s past, so please feel free to let us know where you hope this will be done with a piece you particularly love.
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
I, of course, have probably a hundred or more favorites but here is an example of one I might write up: “The Looking-Glass World of Nonprofit Money: Managing in For-Profits’ Shadow Universe” by Clara Miller.
This article was the first I know of that laid out in layman’s terms the differences between the way money works in a nonprofit and in a for-profit. In doing so, Miller began to restructure our thinking as a sector about the specific and sometimes almost absurd dynamics of our financial models. Over the ensuing decade-and-a-half, many others have built on that foundation, in writing and action (bye-bye, overhead), but this article strikes me as the one that did the job of reframing the threshold space.
Please help us with this historic task by sending your nominations to [email protected]. The editorial committee needs your feedback!