​It is projected that 22,000 nonprofits will close their doors for good in the next 3 years as a result of the economic crisis. That's the median of several scenarios projected by Candid; it assumes the economic downturn will last 24 months. The 22,000 figure represents a failure rate of 7% among the 315,698 U.S.-based nonprofits whose financial data Candid examined in a new study. Dan Parks reports the new paper presents a less dire forecast than many experts have predicted. "The majority of nonprofit organizations are positioned to weather this storm," the report states.
Some charities are hailing the Paycheck Protection Program as a financial saviour, but others say it provided only a brief respite from layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. According to new estimates from the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Michigan’s Grand Valley State University, the program saved 4.1 million nonprofit jobs, about a third of all nonprofit jobs in the nation. The study estimated that about 40 percent of eligible nonprofits received a loan and that nearly two-thirds of eligible nonprofit jobs were protected by PPP funds. The study noted that many smaller nonprofits in particular may have missed out by either not applying for loans or not successfully filling out applications. 
Which kinds of groups have gotten the money so far? 
Religious organizations, followed by elementary and secondary schools, and civic, social, or social-advocacy organizations, were the most common recipients of PPP loans, 
According to the data, 42,462 nonprofit organizations received loans of between $150,000 and $10 million. The goal of the Paycheck Protection Program is to encourage employers to keep their workers on the payroll during the coronavirus pandemic. If employers maintain their work force, the loans are mostly forgivable.
Of those 42,462 nonprofits, 9,238, or 21.8 percent, were religious organizations; 5,647, or 13.3 percent, were elementary and secondary schools; and 6.3 percent were civic, social, or social-advocacy organizations.

​In a survey conducted by the Association of Fundraising Professionals members conducted in May, 2% of respondents said they had been laid off. 20% said their organizations had laid off staff, 23% percent said they had instituted furloughs, and 18% had cut staff pay.
Groups that have long relied on in-person fundraising events or revenue from ticket sales are making tough decisions about which fundraising roles are indispensable.
Organizations have not eliminated fundraising positions at the same pace that they have laid off people in other departments, says Mike Geiger, President of the Association of Fundraising Professionals.
"So far, our numbers are really low in terms of fundraisers being laid off," he says. "I think that is because organizations understand the importance of keeping revenue-generating positions. Fundraisers are the bridge between the donor and the cause. If you break that bridge, if you destroy that bridge, you lose that connection. I think that a lot of CEOs get that, and they might get it now more than they ever did."
But even for CEOs and other leaders who understand and value their fundraisers, making staffing decisions when revenue is drying up is a tough balancing act. What is clear is that some organizations and fundraising teams have been harder hit than others.

​The American Cancer Society has long relied on large in-person fundraising events. And Covid-19 has hit that model especially hard. As events had to be postponed and ultimately canceled or shifted online, the Cancer Society quickly realized it would have to cut costs.
The organization did not go to personnel right away, says Mike Neal, the senior executive vice president for field operations. First, it looked to reduce expenses for things like meetings and travel, and postponing events like the Relay for Life walks resulted in some cost savings.
But in June, the charity laid off around 1,000 staff members. About 200 were fundraisers, Neal says. The group expects to bring in around $200 million less in 2020 than it had forecast before the coronavirus struck.

​Smaller groups are also making these tough choices. Cherian Koshy is director of development at Des Moines Performing Arts, an organization that presents visiting plays and other performances — all of which have been canceled or postponed indefinitely. Despite "exceptional" fundraising in recent months, there is no getting around the fact that the organization's business model is partially driven by the money it earns from ticket sales.
"Even with a lot of fundraising that has happened over the course of these last few months and the generosity of our donors, it's not enough to keep our entire staff at that total 100 percent, especially when we don't have a date to reopen," he says.
So far, Koshy has not had to lay anyone off, but he has had to cut hours. As of July 1, his development team of five people is working the equivalent of 3.5 full-time jobs.
"When we talk about lifeboat ethics, there's no good decision about who needs to be tossed off the boat and who gets to stay on," he says. "Everybody's roles are essential in some nature; otherwise, they wouldn't be on the boat in the first place."

At some organizations, veteran development directors and senior leaders are getting virtual pink slips, too — delivered via Zoom or over the phone. Barbara Perlov was laid off from her position as director of foundation and government relations at the Boys' Club of New York at the end of March.
The organization has historically relied on wealthy individuals and events, but Perlov was leading the charge to increase support from institutional donors. And even through the pandemic, she saw great potential. She had been working to build relationships with grant makers. Getting the news of her layoff "was shocking," she says. "No doubt about it."
"Just getting my head wrapped around the fact that my job was ending was pretty emotional," she says, "not to mention, the personal things going on in my life that I needed to address: what I was going to do about health care, about applying for unemployment."
Fundraisers — those who are recently unemployed and those who are plugging away from their home offices — are facing compounding stressors right now. Several fundraisers have lined up part-time consulting work to pay the bills and support organizations in their efforts to raise money through the crisis.

​Food stamps — formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — support young and old, healthy and disabled, the working and the unemployed, making it the closest thing the United States has to a guaranteed income. Though administered by states, the benefits are paid by the federal government, with no spending cap, and the program has largely avoided the delays that have plagued unemployment insurance.
After long pushing to reduce SNAP usage, claiming it promotes dependency and waste, the Trump administration eased administrative rules during the pandemic to speed enrollment. Two Republican-led states, Florida and Georgia, have expanded caseloads the most, and state officials from both parties have called the program an essential antipoverty tool. About 43 million people — roughly one of every eight Americans — now receive SNAP.
More than six million people enrolled in food stamps in the first three months of the coronavirus pandemic, an unprecedented expansion that is likely to continue as more jobless people deplete their savings and billions in unemployment aid expires this month.

​Thirty states have experienced double-digit growth, and usage has risen in all 133 counties in the three West Coast states. About 50,000 people have joined the rolls in the county that includes Atlanta, more than 100,000 in the county that includes Detroit and more than 200,000 in those that include Miami and Los Angeles. No state has seen more growth than Florida, which has added nearly a million residents to the rolls. Among the new centers of SNAP usage is Orlando, where a region known for flights of fantasy became a center of nutritional need. With amusement parks closed and tourism vanishing, caseloads in Orange and Osceola Counties rose more than 50 percent, adding nearly 125,000 people.
From February to May, the program grew by 17 percent, about three times faster than in any previous three months, according to state data collected by The New York Times. Its rapid expansion is a testament to both the hardship imposed by the pandemic and the importance of a program that until recently drew conservative attack.
The rolls have surged across Appalachian hamlets, urban cores like Miami and Detroit, and white-picket-fence suburbs outside Atlanta and Houston, rising faster in rich counties than in poor ones, as the downturn caused by the virus claimed the restaurant, cleaning and gig economy jobs that support the affluent.
Despite SNAP’s expansion, surveys continue to show high rates of “food insecurity” — reduced quality of food or uncertain access — as well as outright hunger. A new survey by the Urban Institute found 17.7 percent of adults report food insecurity, much higher than pre-crisis levels. The rate for Black people and Latinos was about twice as high as for whites.

​As Congress returns this week, Democrats want to increase the maximum benefit by 15 percent, noting that food prices have risen to the highest level in nearly a half-century.
Aside from SNAP, there is a growing need for nonprofit services during and after the pandemic that will outpace the capacity and resources of organizations and according to a recent report, the possibility that 10% to 40% of nonprofit groups will be forced to close or merge with other ones, and there will be much less government money to help pay for the services organizations deliver. The Trump administration says that the next coronavirus aid package, which is expected to top $1 trillion, should focus on 'kids and jobs and vaccines.' Negotiations between congressional Republicans and the White House hit snags over the weekend and talks between the GOP and Democrats have been nearly non-existent.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said that Republicans are committed to passing legislation by the end of the month to protect unemployed Americans who have been receiving enhanced benefits, though he suggested it won't be as much as the current level of $600 extra in unemployment insurance per week.
"We're going to make sure that we don't pay people more money to stay home than go to work. We want to make sure that people who can go to work safely can do," he said. "We'll have tax credits that incentivize businesses to bring people back to work. We'll have tax credits for PPE for safe work environments, and we're gonna have big incentives, money to the states for education for schools that can open safely and and do education."
Republicans also want to offer liability protections for schools, colleges, charities, businesses and frontline health care workers and employers who follow public health guidelines. "We don’t need an epidemic of lawsuits on the heels of a pandemic," said McConnell. Some Senate Republicans are pushing back against a White House attempt to block billions of dollars for coronavirus testing and tracing contacts of individuals infected with the coronavirus, two Republican sources told NBC News on Sunday.
News of the White House push to block the funding was first reported by The Washington Post. Congress doesn’t have much time to negotiate and pass the legislation — lawmakers have only a few weeks left in Washington before their annual summer recess in August which will be focused on their own interests of campaigning, collecting campaign contributions and the two parties’ conventions in advance of the November election with no mention by either party of any extended session to address the resurgence of the pandemic.

For more, click here.

In 2014, the mobile camera company GoPro went public, and Nicholas Woodman, the company’s founder and chief executive, was suddenly worth about $3 billion. Later that year, Woodman and his wife, Jill, announced they were establishing a foundation with about $500 million worth of GoPro stock.

The foundation, however, was a donor-advised fund. A 2018 New York Times story noted that, four years later, Woodman’s foundation had no website and hadn’t appeared to have funded any significant charitable operations.

Google co-founder Larry Page’s use of DAFs has also raised concerns. Last December, an analysis by Recode found Page had stocked more than $400 million in DAFs from 2015 to 2017.

​In December 2017, Google co-founder Larry Page made what appeared to be generous donations to two charities. To one charity, according to tax records filed by Page’s foundation, he gave $100 million in cash and stock. To the other, records show, Page gave $80 million in cash.
Two and a half years later, it’s unclear if any of that money funded any charitable works, or if it’s all still sitting in accounts mostly controlled by Page, collecting interest and earning investment income.
That’s because the organizations on the receiving end of Page’s donations were not working charities — such as the American Red Cross or the United Way — but donor-advised funds, a controversial and booming form of philanthropy attracting increasing scrutiny and criticism amid the coronavirus pandemic, as charities face a historic crisis. Page did not reply to a request for comment for this story. Spokesmen at the organizations that received his donations in 2017 — Schwab Charitable and the National Philanthropic Trust — declined to comment, citing privacy rules.

​Known in the industry as DAFs (rhymes with calves) — and criticized by some insiders as “zombie philanthropy” — the money and assets in donor-advised funds are intended to go to charity some day, but there are no payout requirements, and money can sit in a donor-advised fund for decades.
DAFs are the fastest growing form of charitable spending in America, with more than $120 billion in DAF accounts across the country in 2018, according to the most recent industry estimates, up from $45 billion just six years earlier. And while some executives who oversee these funds say critics exaggerate potential abuses, the coronavirus pandemic has prompted a few wealthy DAF users to express rising concern about the way these funds are managed.
“Charities are slammed for work, needing to do more than ever before … and yet this $120 billion is still sitting there … It’s kind of crazy,” said David Risher, a former Microsoft and Amazon executive who — with his wife, Jennifer — launched the #HalfMyDaf campaign in May to try to inspire donors to pay out at least half the money in these accounts to charities this year.
“The money is sitting there because people often have a plan for their philanthropy,” said Jennifer Risher, a former manager at Microsoft and author. “Well, the world is not on plan right now. Now is the moment.”
The Rishers’ echoed concerns raised by Kat Taylor — philanthropist, banking executive and wife to hedge fund manager and former presidential candidate Tom Steyer — who is a vocal critic of the DAF system and has supported draft legislation in California this year that would require more oversight and impose transparency obligations on these funds.
“They were created without, I think, as much oversight and foresight as we should have given them,” Taylor said. “These are the piggy banks of charity. We should be breaking our piggy banks right now.”

​The rise of what some critics denounce as “a perversion of the tax code” traces its roots to 1969, when Congress rewrote the tax code to favor public charities over private foundations, imposing more taxes on private foundations and requiring more public information on their finances.
To Norman Sugarman, a former IRS attorney in Cleveland, this created both concern and opportunity. Sugarman represented community foundations fearful the new law would scare off donors.
“For him, it was important that, no questions asked, these [community foundations] were public charities,” said Lila Corwin Berman, a history professor at Temple University who has written about Sugarman’s role in the popularization of DAFs. “He believed most social problems could be better solved by charity than government, and that individuals should have more control over what their wealth could do for society.”

​Sometimes, however, the money is just moving from one donor-advised fund to another donor-advised fund. A 2017 analysis by the Economist magazine of data from three of the largest donor-advised funds found two of the three largest recipients of their charitable spending were other donor-advised funds. (Account holders can move money and assets from one fund to another in search of better fees.)
“You start to kind of wonder … where is all the money?” David Risher said. “And then you realize that you have these funds that have more than $120 billion parked in them … and when you look at a system like this, you start to realize that there are financial incentives at some organizations, where the status quo is working pretty well for them.”

Original story by Will Hobson, Washington Post. Click here for more.

With just a few days remaining until the June 15 constitutional deadline for enacting a 2020-21 budget, Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats in the Legislature are engaged in a debate over closing a deficit that Newsom pegs at $54 billion.
It is essentially a conflict over how much direct relief, if any, California can expect from President Donald Trump and Congress to cover about $15 billion of the deficit that would remain after other actions have been taken.
Newsom had proposed a $222 billion budget in January and then discarded it after the pandemic struck. He ordered a widespread shutdown affecting economic and personal behavior to deal with it, thus triggering a recession that erased millions of jobs in just a few weeks.
In May, Newsom proposed a revision to his budget proposal that would cut spending to $202 billion and cover the remainder of the gap with some new revenues, some borrowing and some accounting maneuvers. He said $15 billion in cuts, mostly to K-12 education and colleges, would be automatically restored if the state received the federal aid that a $1 trillion House-passed relief bill promised.
Clearly, he intended that cutting the most popular segments of the budget would help spur federal action. It was, however, too much for legislators to digest as they were hit with pleas from hundreds of advocates for services targeted in Newsom’s budget.
Of course, there is the other option — raising taxes. In fact, tax increases of some kind have been used in every major budget crisis of the past half-century.

The Senate’s Democratic leaders proposed, and the Assembly’s leadership later supported, a 180-degree shift from Newsom’s proposal. It would essentially retain the spending he cut on the assumption that the Federal Government will cough up the additional relief, and make reductions in the fall if the money does not materialize.
So despite lots of common ground on the upcoming budget, some key disagreements have surfaced as legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom hammer out a final deal in advance of a June 15 deadline.
What is different this time: The two sides are negotiating amid a bleak economic scenario, with surging unemployment, greater demand for government services and a deficit that could be as large as $54 billion. And that, undoubtedly, amps up the stress in their private debates.
The fault lines this year show the Legislature and governor at odds over how to manage spending on the coronavirus pandemic, how far the state should go to help undocumented immigrants, and how much to cut schools and safety net programs if the federal government does not come through with additional aid.
While Newsom proposed slashing $14 billion from schools, health care and safety net programs unless the federal government sends funds by July 1, the Legislature’s proposal assumes federal funding will arrive — and if it doesn’t come by Oct. 1, limits cuts to $7 billion by drawing on reserves.
Another schism arose over how much the state should spend to help undocumented immigrants, with lawmakers wanting to go further than Newsom does in extending health care and tax breaks.
Newsom will likely be in the role of saying “no” to a bunch of legislators who are unaccustomed to governing during a recession.
“The definition of good legislation is a compromise that is mutually repugnant to all sides,” said political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe. “And that’s what has to happen.”

​The only certainties are that a budget deal of some kind will be made by June 15, to protect legislators from losing their salaries, and that whatever they enact will be changed repeatedly over the next year as circumstances evolve.

​The only certainties are that a budget deal of some kind will be made by June 15, to protect legislators from losing their salaries, and that whatever they enact will be changed repeatedly over the next year as circumstances evolve.

​As for the schools reopening in the fall of 2020, expect students in face masks at all times; temperature checks at the school entrance and a mix of in-class and online learning. These are just some of the new protective guidelines released on June 8, to more than 10,000 public schools across California as they plan for a much different reopening in the fall.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond described the 62-page document as a checklist for schools to consider, however, the recommendations illustrate a number of drastic changes that will need to be made in order for students to return to their classrooms while practicing social distancing. “We know this is just the beginning,” he said.
School districts are planning for the new school year under the financial stress of steep proposed cuts in state funding, which Thurmond and a group of education advocates have said would hamper schools’ ability to reopen if federal assistance doesn’t arrive to cushion the blow.
Using state examples, here’s what a school day might look like from start to end:
 - A student riding the bus to school would wait at their bus stop already equipped with a face covering. Once the bus arrives, there would be seating meant to reduce capacity – one option the guidance suggests is a “zigzag pattern” in which seating by row would be limited to one student on alternating sides.
 - Either on the bus or as they enter campus, the student would have their temperature screened with no-touch thermometers while answering questions from staff about whether they experienced any COVID-19 symptoms, and if anyone in their home has tested positive or has shown symptoms.
 - The student would be in class with a smaller group of classmates. Desks would be spaced six feet apart or more. Teachers too would wear face coverings. 
​ - Everyone handwashes frequently.
 - During recess, schools might consider increasing supervision to make sure students are practicing social distancing. To avoid crowded cafeterias, the student would either eat their lunch in class or with their group of classmates under staggered lunch times.
 - Throughout the day, employees would clean and disinfect areas across campus.

Perhaps the most extreme measure, the state’s guidance anticipates schools would adopt hybrid schedules. That means students either attend school on select days of the week, or most weekdays under staggered start times and shorter hours.
Hybrid scheduling, Thurmond said, would help schools reduce their classroom sizes while accommodate parents who want to keep their children home under distance learning.
“Many of our districts have surveyed their parents and have said that they would like to have the option for distance learning,” Thurmond said.
The state’s guidance also urges schools to consider plans for if and when campuses would have to temporarily close in the fall due to local outbreaks.

California's Assembly speaker and other key lawmakers have backed making it illegal statewide for police to use a type of neck hold that blocks the flow of blood to the brain, a proposal that appears to go beyond any other state.
Major law enforcement groups did not immediately say if they would oppose the move, which comes after a different restraint used by Minneapolis police was blamed for the death of George Floyd, triggering ongoing nationwide protests.
However, the Los Angeles Police Department announced an immediate moratorium on the training and use of the hold until the civilian Board of Police Commissioners can review the issue. Police departments in suburban Pasadena and El Monte and in Santa Ana in Orange County also have suspended use of the technique.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon endorsed legislation that fellow Democratic Assemblyman Mike Gipson said he will amend to make it illegal to use chokeholds and a carotid artery restraint tactic to forcibly detain a suspect.
Officers would still have a variety of tools to control suspects if the hold is banned, ranging from voice commands to night sticks, Tasers, pepper spray and firearms. Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a bill co-author, said 23 California law enforcement agencies have already limited its use, several in the last week.
On Friday, San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia said his department still allows the carotid hold as a last option before lethal force. On Monday he said in a statement that his department already bans chokeholds — which he said are distinct from carotid holds. Chokeholds apply pressure from the front and stop the individual from breathing, while carotid holds are from the side.

Regardless of the outcome of the budget negotiations, and the end of the George Floyd demonstrations, we now enter the fire season amidst a pandemic. While opportunities abound for a few, the many will indeed continue to suffer.
As someone said recently - "2020? I want to tell 2020 that I've had enough, I want to get off and I'll walk from here."

​California will be refunded $247 million it paid to a Chinese company under a major deal for protective masks after the company failed to meet a deadline for federal certification of the masks, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration said.

Newsom announced the contract last month to fanfare, saying California had inked a nearly $1 billion deal for 200 million protective masks per month amid the coronavirus pandemic. Most were set to be tight-fitting N-95 respirator masks, while the rest would be looser-fitting surgical masks. Millions of the surgical masks already arrived, but the company missed an April 30 deadline outlined in the contract for certification of the N95 masks by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

The respirator masks were set to start arriving this month, with tens of millions planned for shipment in May. The governor's office provided no details on what caused the certification delay.

The $247 million is half of an up-front payment the state made for the contract in April in an unusual move of making a payment before goods were delivered. The state could have clawed back all of its up-front payment under the original agreement, but an amendment signed Wednesday gives the company another month to meet the certification. If the masks are not certified by May 31, California can get the rest of the payment back in early June.

The state paid $3.30 per N95 and 55 cents per surgical mask under the contract. The state made a separate $104.7 million payment last week for the delivery of the surgical masks.

While the state initially sought 100 million surgical masks through the deal, it now plans to buy even more, according to the amendment, though it did not include a specific number. The state and BYD must set an updated delivery schedule for the surgical masks by Friday.

A new payment and delivery schedule for the N95 masks must be set by May 22. Under the federal certification process, the final validation step would take place in Utah, Newsom said previously. It wasn't clear where the delay in the federal certification process occurred or whether the masks had yet arrived in the United States. While the masks will be made in China, the contract requires the company to comply with various U.S. and California environmental and labor laws.

​This isn't the first time California wired money that was then returned for masks. In March, California wired nearly half a billion dollars to Blue Flame Medical LLC for 100 million masks, but canceled the deal and got its money back later that day, CalMatters reported on Wednesday.

Separately, the state was refunded $8.7 million less than two weeks after wiring the amount to a company with a Florida address, Hichens Harrison Capital Partners, according to documents from the treasurer's office. The company, which has a subsidiary in Brazil and business with China, currently advertises an "exclusive line of ventilators" on its website.

In an April 13 email to California officials, Peter Leite, the president of Hichens Harrison Capital Partners, wrote the order was canceled and the money would be returned. Leite referred questions about the canceled transaction to the state on Wednesday. Spokesman for the governor's office and the Office of Emergency Services didn't immediately answer questions about the transaction.

Based on factors like political stability, corporate governance, risk environment and supply chain logistics and transparency, FM global paired these rankings with their country’s initial response to the virus, and identified the nations across the globe that have a high likelihood of maintaining stability and resilience through the crisis. To capture the United States’ broad geographic footprint, the index split up the country into West, Central and East regions, but as a whole, the US ranked well (9th, 11th and 22nd, respectively) for its low-risk business environment and strong supply chain.
Top 10 most resilient countries, according to the 2019 Global Resilience Index
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Switzerland
4. Germany
5. Finland
6. Sweden
7. Luxembourg
8. Austria
9. US Central
10. United Kingdom

Danish culture, which tends to be trusting of authority and willing to stand together for a common cause, has also had an impact on the effectiveness of the measures. “The word ‘samfundssind’ (which roughly translates to “civic sense” or “civic duty”) is the new buzzword in Denmark on both social and traditional media, and most people feel a moral duty to make sacrifices for the sake of public health,” said Aarup Christiansen. “No-one wants to be called out for being responsible for endangering the lives of senior citizens just because they won’t give up their usual luxuries.”

Ranked 12th-most resilient in the index, New Zealand scores especially high in corporate governance and its supply chain. The country has also been able to move quickly to contain the spread of the virus by shutting borders to international travellers on 19 March and enacting a non-essential-business lockdown on 25 March.
See the full list here

​The $2 trillion stimulus bill expands the charitable deduction to all taxpayers for a year, makes nonprofits eligible for federal loans that could be largely forgiven, and boosts tax incentives for corporate giving, according to nonprofit analysts.
Currently, only people who itemize their taxes can claim charitable deductions. The stimulus bill will allow nonitemizers to deduct up to $300 in cash giving for the 2020 tax year, according to an analysis of the legislation by the National Council of Nonprofits.
Donations to donor-advised-fund accounts would not qualify for the nonitemizer deduction, according to Dean Zerbe, national managing director at AlliantGroup and a former top tax aide for the Senate Finance Committee.
Nonprofits have long sought a "universal deduction," especially since the tax law of 2017 roughly doubled the standard deduction and sharply reduced the number of people who itemize their taxes.
The Senate voted unanimously Wednesday to pass the bill. The House is expected to approve it today, and President Trump has said he will sign it.
For those who itemize, the bill lifts the cap on annual giving from 60 percent of adjusted gross income to 100 percent. For corporate charitable giving, the bill raises the annual limit from 10 percent to 25 percent of taxable income. The cap on deductibility of food donations from corporations would increase to 25 percent of taxable income, up from the current 15 percent cap.

​More Help for Nonprofits
Other provisions of the bill affecting charities, according to the National Council of Nonprofits and other sources:

• Nonprofits with 500 or fewer employees (counting all full-time and part-time employees equally) will be eligible for Small Business Administration loans of up to $10 million. Nonprofits are also eligible for expedited loans of up to $1 million. The money would have to be used for payroll, including paid leave, as well as health-insurance premiums, facilities costs, and debt service.
• Nonprofits that keep their employees on the payroll from February 15 to June 30 could have their loans forgiven, turning the loan into a grant.
• Under a previous version of the legislation, nonprofits couldn’t access these loans if they were eligible for Medicaid payments. That limitation was removed from the final version of the bill.
• The bill creates a refundable payroll tax credit of up to $5,000 for each employee on the payroll. To be eligible, a nonprofit must have experienced a drop in revenue of at least 50 percent in the first quarter of 2020 compared with the first quarter of 2019. The credit is available each quarter until the nonprofit’s revenue exceeds 80 percent of the same quarter in 2019. Nonprofits receiving emergency SBA loans are not eligible for these credits.
• The bill appropriates an additional $10 billion to another SBA program, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, and waives a creditworthiness requirements for all applicants, including nonprofits. Those eligible will be able to get checks for $10,000 within three days.
• Nonprofits that self-fund unemployment benefits could get reimbursed for up to half the costs of benefits provided to their laid-off employees.
• The bill will provide $25 million for the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. and $75 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, according to the Washington Post.
• The bill includes $75 million for public-media stations, according to America’s Public Television Stations, a nonprofit membership organization. Patrick Butler, CEO of the organization, noted that public-television stations have "dramatically expanded remote learning services for millions of students whose schools have been closed in the national emergency."

Seeking More
Although nonprofit advocates are seeking more federal help for charities than the bill provides, including a $60 billion aid package specifically for nonprofits, there was widespread approval of the legislation with hopes for more to come later, including expanding the universal deduction.
"There is much to celebrate in this deal, but still a lot of advocacy needed," said Tim Delaney, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, in an emailed statement.
"Additional funding resources will be absolutely critical in the months to come," wrote Charlotte Haberaecker, CEO of Lutheran Services in America.
Independent Sector, a Washington-based nonprofit membership organization.
 
By Dan Parks, Chronicle of Philanthropy.

​Opinion by John MacIntosh (CNN). John MacIntosh is the managing partner of SeaChange Capital Partners, a nonprofit merchant bank in New York that helps nonprofits work through complex challenges.

​Covid-19 is poised to become an extinction-level event for America's nonprofits. Cultural institutions have been forced to close their doors. Organizations working in and around public schools or in senior centers cannot provide services because their clients are not showing up.
Fundraising events have been canceled. Many essential front-line social services -- e.g., operating homeless shelters -- cannot be delivered remotely and pose particular risks of infection, increasing the costs of keeping staff safe.
Unless government, funders and nonprofit leaders take immediate and decisive action, many nonprofits around the nation may just disappear over the next few months leaving those they serve and employ in disastrous circumstances.

​Although the federal government and the press are focused on the plight of the big industries -- airlines, hotels, cruise ships -- nonprofits employ more people than many of these industries. Furthermore, nonprofits typically don't have the cash, credit lines assets (e.g. ships, planes, landing rights, brand names) or lobbyists that guarantee the survival of these industries in one shape or another.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has noted that small businesses must have sufficient funds to stay afloat.

Most nonprofits are purpose-driven, small businesses "owned" by the public. Their survival is arguably even more important than that of similar for-profit businesses because they work with, and often employ, the most vulnerable people. It's important that any relief for small business includes nonprofit small business as well.

The truth is that our capitalist system will likely quickly rebuild the for-profit ecosystem after the Covid-19 crisis has passed. Planes will fly. Cruise ships will sail. New restaurants will emerge to take the place of those that failed, buying the fixed assets at a discount, occupying the same storefronts at lower rents and serving the same clientele.
Unfortunately, nonprofits that fail cannot be so easily replaced or restarted. Few have the type of hard, tangible assets that can survive a gap in service. There is no all-powerful profit-motive to fuel a reconstruction. Philanthropy is not good at providing front-loaded, restart capital at scale.

While the nonprofit sector is often taken for granted, it provides much of what is most valuable in social service, arts and culture, recreation and education. For example, the countless nonprofits delivering human services represent a $200 billion industry that touches the lives of more than 1 in 5 Americans, including: housing more than 200,000 elderly Americans, providing homes to 670,00 foster children and serving food to 46 million people through food banks.

Just how bad could it be? Our earlier analysis of nonprofits suggests that less than half of nonprofits have one month of operating reserves and less than six months of cash to keep them running. Without outside help, the trajectory of demise for many nonprofits is clear: the executive directors and boards delay taking tough restructuring actions; the organizations have to stiff their vendors, then furlough or lay off staff; the founders stop paying themselves; and finally, they shut down when the bank account is dry and payroll can't be made.

The failure of Federation Employment & Guidance Service (FEGS) in 2015, then New York City's largest social service agency, should remind us how damaging it can be when a big nonprofit fails, leaving vulnerable people—the home-bound, the developmentally disabled, the homeless, foster-children—without services.

​Fortunately, FEGS failed for idiosyncratic, self-inflicted reasons and was surrounded by healthy groups -- like the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services -- who were able to pick up the pieces.
Nonprofit leaders and boards: Be tough-minded. Nonprofits must go into cash-conservation mode. It is hard to stiff vendors, lay people off, furlough or reduce pay or take advantage of eviction-stays to simply not pay the rent. But a tough restructuring allowing for survival and the continuation of the mission (which is a nonprofit's sole reason for being) is far better than hitting the wall and closing up shop altogether. Nonprofits should also explore mergers, consolidations and the divestment of "non-core" programs, though the number of "takers" is probably small in the midst of a crisis. They must learn to play "hard ball" and remember that a nonprofit cannot be involuntarily put into bankruptcy by its creditors. If hitting the wall is inevitable, leaders must resist magical thinking and plan for a sensible dissolution that aims to preserve and transition services for those in need. Making the best of a terrible situation may be the only thing leaders can do.
Foundations: Step up and be creative. Foundations should boost their support now to keep nonprofits in business and then, if necessary, cut their spending in future years once these organizations are back on their feet. The only thing that prevents foundations from giving more now is their desire not to privilege the present over the future. But at this moment the present needs privileging.

It is heartening that in Seattle, Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, New York and other cities, philanthropic leaders are actively exploring (or have already created) collaborative rapid response funds. These funds need to be able to make fast decisions and should offer loans, grants and guarantees. They should support nonprofits, underlying individuals (both clients and staff), restructurings and even managed dissolutions.

Rich people: If not now, when? Despite the paper losses in their portfolios due to the crisis, the 1% have never been more (relatively) privileged than they are right now. They can work from their second homes, can meet monthly expenses, and some—like distressed investors—may even profit from the carnage.

They should front-load their giving by paying for next year's theatre season this year, giving as if they had attended a canceled gala, accelerating multi-year pledges, and more. Those who had been planning to be more philanthropic in the future —for example, the Giving Pledgers who have yet to give much—must ask themselves "If not now, when?"

Government: Be a good partner. Nonprofits that cannot do the work through no fault of their own should still be paid (teachers are paid if school is closed). Government agencies should waive normal procurement procedures to get contracts registered and bills paid on an accelerated basis. They should defer the recoupment of advances. They should ease performance-based payment requirements. They should recognize that protecting the Systemically Important Nonprofit Institutions will be less costly—in financial and human terms—than letting them fail and scrambling to pick-up the pieces. Initiatives to provide zero-interest loans and employee-retention grants to support small businesses should be extended to include nonprofits.

Even if we do all this, many nonprofits will still disappear. Some will likely close their doors in the next six months, more over the next two years. Work that has been going on for decades or longer may vanish. But hopefully the passion and people once invested in these organizations will, after we get through this mess, find its way back into the sector. We can't afford to lose these precious resources. The work of nonprofits and the passion of their people will be more important than ever as we rebuild the post-Covid-19 world. Part of that rebuilding must include putting in place the systems to ensure that we are better prepared next time.

As the COVID-19 virus continues to spread and its impact is being felt across the world, we understand the welfare of your people is a primary concern. MyFloridaSpecialtyPlate will continue to process online applications and continue to help the numerous charities and state agencies, some of which entirely depend on the revenue from specialty license plates. We hope you continue to support these worthwhile causes as less and less people venture out to Tax Collector and DMV offices and revenue from specialty plates reduces. Please consider supporting the causes specified for each plate, as Covid-19 is poised to become an extinction-level event for many of America's nonprofits.
Processing times are being impacted, but processing is continuing as best we can.

​After the stock market had its worst day since the crash that touched off the 2008 financial crisis, experts urged nonprofits to prepare their finances for the possibility that the economy would face a long-term setback from the coronavirus pandemic. Nobody knows whether the economy will face as deep a struggle as it did in 2008, a year when charitable giving plunged 5.7 percent, according to "Giving USA," the steepest decline since it began its survey in 1956.
Fundraising consultants and nonprofit experts urged charities to start planning for a prolonged recession — but some also cautioned that it’s too soon to make any drastic moves, like cutting staff, because it’s not clear yet whether a recession is imminent.
Dan Thain, chief fundraising strategist and creative director at Blue State, said nonprofits should stick with their current fundraising strategies despite the turmoil upending financial markets.
"There are so many unknown unknowns at the moment," Thain said. "My advice would be to push on, but pull back if you’re not seeing the response rates that you would typically see."

​Meanwhile, nonprofits should be frugal and try to pad their reserves where possible, he said.
"There is a huge threat to the economy right now, which could have a decisive impact on what fundraising looks like in the coming months, if not years," Thain said.
Using Reserve Funds
Jerry Hauser, CEO, of the Management Center, said nonprofits should look at the current market turmoil "as a one-time or short-lived event" and said nonprofits should avoid laying off staff or making other major structural changes under the assumption that a recession is imminent.
"It’s too soon to say we’re in for a long, rough road, and it’s too risky to erode your ability to deliver on needed programs," Hauser said.
And while Thain said nonprofits should look to pad their reserves, Hauser said now may be the right time to dip into them, for those nonprofits fortunate enough to have available funds in the bank. He suggested that while nonprofits may take a short-term fundraising hit, the current market turmoil could pass relatively quickly.
"This is a good time for organizations to consider using their reserves, something I’m usually very cautious about," Hauser said.
Sandi Clement McKinley, vice president for advisory services for the Nonprofit Finance Fund, agreed that the coming weeks and months may be a good time for nonprofits to consider dipping into reserves, if available, while making a commitment to restore those reserves later. That’s a conversation that should include the board of your nonprofit, she said.
She also urged nonprofits to focus on their core missions at a time like this and to shelve plans to expand into areas where they don’t currently have expertise or experience.
"Remember why you are here and who you are serving," McKinley said.
McKinley warned that the economy could suffer for an extended period even after the coronavirus threat wanes.
"Nonprofits and their funders should be considering the big picture of weathering an economic recession and taking action to make sure nonprofits survive and can ably serve their communities for an extended time," she said.
Kathryn Kennedy a partner at Cerity Partners, a financial advisory firm in Chicago, agreed that many donors are taking a wait-and-see approach to the impact of the coronavirus.
"People are trying to understand it and understand the government and big foundation responses," Kennedy said.
Kennedy said that despite the ongoing turmoil in the stock market, she expects charitable giving from wealthy donors to hold up: "These are people who have a dedicated commitment to being charitable and they will continue to give."

​The Senate has voted 34-0 in favor of Sen. Patti Anne Lodge’s bill to stop approving new specialty license plates after this year unless they’re for state entities, and to phase out existing specialty plates if they don’t meet specified sales targets. “Usually you have to pay to advertise your cause,” Lodge said, saying Idaho has too many specialty plates.
Current Idaho specialty plates range from the Appaloosa and bluebird plates to snow skier plates and whitewater rafting plates. Specialty plates are optional and come with extra fees to cover both the cost of producing them, and donations to the cause in question, from the Idaho Department of Fish & Game to 4-H.

​Sen. Jim Rice, R-Caldwell, spoke out in favor of Lodge’s bill, SB 1349a. “This stops doing new specialty plates,” he said. “That’s something that’s a bit of an annoying thing that we keep adding more of.”
This year, one new specialty license plate already has passed both houses, the “Choose Life” plate, and a “Too Great for Hate” specialty plate, to benefit the Wassmuth Center for Human Rights, has passed the Senate and is awaiting a hearing in the House. Lodge's bill now moves to the House.