Even before the dust settles in the States, Israel and her charities will already start to feel the effects from last week’s scandal.
Last week (July 23) in New Jersey, an undercover police operation revealed a rainbow of criminal dealings. The implications of the scandal vis-à-vis charities are too vast and far-reaching to be dealt with in one post. Over the next day or two I will address the pertinent issues. Questions and comments are welcome.
For those individuals or corporations familiar with nonprofit organizations in the United States, any analysis of the status of an Israeli charity should begin with a comparison. This contrast will shed light on the many differences that exist in the two countries’ legislation and definition of a nonprofit organization.
In a previous post, I mentioned that a loan and a line of credit serve the same purpose. While that may be true in a broad sense, they actually can be quite different. Hence, the different names. The bank will look at both types of credit the same way, evaluating the amount of credit requested against the amount and type of collateral offered. The customer, however, only cares about one thing, which option is cheaper.
America has a long history of positive social change affected through the initiatives of private individuals and foundations. These nongovernmental institutions have been succesful because of their greatest weapon, independence. An article that was recently forwarded to me in The Commentary Magazine entitled, “The War on Philanthropy”, by David Billet, argues that this autonomy is under fire.
It is logical to assume that if a bank wants to appeal to the nonprofit community then it has to understand the nonprofit organization’s way of thinking (that’s where I come in). The opposite should also be true. If a charitable institution wants to appeal to a bank then it must understand the bank’s way of thinking. This is especially the case when using or applying for credit from a bank.