Writing on his blog for Harvard University’s Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Tony Pipa lays out some ideas for improving the way the United States responds to natural disasters on its own soil.

His top recommendation is to create an independently operated national fund for disasters, which he says would help channel more money to small charities that often lose out against large groups in the battle for private donations.

The fund would also enable charities to act more quickly after an emergency because they could focus on providing aid, rather than raising money. The national fund would make it easier for donors to give, and for the news media to promote giving, by create a single, recognizable organization.

In addition, charities could save money on fund-raising costs.

To read more of Mr. Pipa’s ideas, click here: http://hausercenter.org/iha/archives/24. ...

What’s wrong with the U.S. disaster-response system? And why have the U.S. government and nonprofit groups failed to reassure the public and Congress that they can effectively respond to a large-scale disaster?

Writing on his blog for Harvard University’s Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Tony Pipa blames episodic fund raising, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s limited ability to coordinate charities, and confusion about government’s role after a disaster.

For example, the government clearly sees itself as responsible for rebuilding infrastructure after a natural disaster. But “people issues,” says Mr. Pipa, “seem to get revisited every time.”

And they can often become politicized, he says. Mississippi sustained half as much damage after Hurricane Katrina as Louisiana, but Congress required that they share almost equally federal funds for long-term recovery. ...

Change.org, a Web site started 18 months ago to connect donors with causes, has reinvented itself as a network of blogs that discuss social issues. Joshua Levy, the site’s managing editor, recruited 13 bloggers who he says combine scholarly knowledge of their field with a more-witty-than-academic writing style.

Michael Bear Kleinman, an aid worker and lawyer, kicks off his blog on humanitarian relief by discussing what the presidential candidates had to say about Darfur during Tuesday night’s debate.

He also recounts how U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon went “temporarily insane” at a U.N. meeting honoring the rapper Jay-Z. The secretary general composed his own rap song for the occasion, beginning with the line: “Global Classrooms are a cinch, with the help of Merrill Lynch. When you put the org in Google, partnerships go truly glooobal.” “Our champ” Ted Turner, “the valiant...

Congressional leaders spent all weekend debating the $700-billion bailout of the financial industry. Ruth McCambridge and Rick Cohen, of The Nonprofit Quarterly, are asking their readers to do the same.

Ms. McCambridge and Mr. Cohen ask readers to weigh in both on the overall merits of the bailout (“Is it the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do or something in between?”) as well as what the nonprofit world should be doing to influence the debate.

“What should the nonprofit sector do, locally, regionally, and nationally, to make sure our voices are heard on what could be not only the largest federal government intervention in the economy in modern history, but the most threatening economic climate since the Great Depression?” they ask.

Some readers said that nonprofit organizations could use a bailout, too. Wrote one commentator: “Perhaps a $700-billion bailout is in...

Much has been written in the past few days about the philanthropy of Paul Newman, the actor who died on Friday at age 83. Michael Seltzer, a consultant to charities and foundations, writing on the PhilanTopic blog, says Mr. Newman should be remembered as the pioneer of a specific kind of giving: “consumer philanthropy.”

Newman’s Own, the company Mr. Newman and his neighbor, A.E. Hotchner ,started 28 years ago, helped “prove that the generosity of Americans does not stop when they go shopping,” says Mr. Seltzer.

The two men created the company just before Christmas of 1980, when they stocked the shelves of a local store with Mr. Newman’s homemade salad dressing. By the end of the 1990s, Mr. Newman’s dressing had annual retail sales of $33.5-million, making it the eighth-biggest seller in the salad-dressing market. By 2008, the Newman’s Own Foundation had given more than...

Changes the Federal Emergency Management Agency made since Hurricane Katrina are hurting charities, writes Mary Theroux, senior vice president of the Independent Institute, on the group’s blog.

Ms. Theroux says that by creating the Aidmatrix Foundation to collect donations, the agency is depriving disaster-response charities of money.

She describes how government officials told the Salvation Army that it would be among the organizations listed on a screen at the Republic National Convention, when Cindy McCain and Laura Bush made an appeal for hurricane victims. But instead, the screen directed viewers only to Aidmatrix’s toll-free number.

Says Ms. Theroux: “The flow of money out of Aidmatrix is completely intransparent, and will, by definition, be determined politically by inside interest groups. In the case of the aforementioned Gustav appeal, for example, Web sites for the...

How can charities win government support for their group or cause?

Courtney Powers, a former Capitol Hill aide who now works for the consulting group Changing Our World, offers some advice on the Future Leaders in Philanthropy blog.

She says that charity leaders should first appeal to the House or Senate member who represents their district. Contact the “scheduler,” whose job it is to coordinate meetings. Be patient, she says, because it can take some time to hear back. Ms. Powers advises charities to follow up only if more than two business weeks have passed without a response.

When you do get a meeting, “keep it brief,” she says. Most meetings take half an hour or less. Whether you’re asking for money, support for a piece of legislation, or a public endorsement of your group, be concise. Ms. Powers recommends following up with a thank-you note.

If you’re seeking a...

A newly-minted lawyer writes in to Stephen J. Dubner’s blog Freakonomics, on The New York Times site, with this query:

“I recently passed the bar and am currently applying for jobs. My main concern is bringing out the most charitable result. Should I work in the nonprofit section where my services are passed directly along to the most needy, or should I get the high-paying firm job and donate the difference in my salary to charity?”

Mr. Dubner says he’s not convinced that working with a nonprofit organization is the best way to effect change, in part because of the high incidence of fraud at charities. (See this post).

One reader of Mr. Dubner’s blog advises the lawyer, Anthony DiClaudio, to “get as rich as possible and then give out your money as you see fit.”

Another tells Mr. DiClaudio: “My wife struggled with the same question. She now works for a large law firm that also ...

The decision by Special Olympics to boycott the new movie ‘Tropic Thunder’ because it uses the word “retard” was a “big tactical communications mistake,” says Kivi Leroux Miller.

Writing on her Nonprofit Communications Blog, Ms. Miller says that the boycott overshadows a Special Olympics’ campaign, announced simultaneously, to convince people to stop using the word “retard.”

The “Stop Using the R-Word” campaign is a great idea, says Ms. Miller. But “by linking the campaign to a movie boycott, Special Olympics comes off as a bunch of humorless finger waggers, which makes them very easy for the public to ignore.”

Tropic Thunder is a satire of the movie industry, writes Ms. Miller. By using the term “retard,” its characters aren’t mocking people with mental disabilities, but distasteful people in Hollywood who throw around the word.

So what could Special Olympics have done...

More donors today consider their charitable gifts to be “investments.” What are the implications of this new mindset for charities?

Sean Stannard-Stockton, a financial adviser to wealthy donors, describes a few of the implications on his blog Tactical Philanthropy. Among his observations on why it matters that donors are seeing giving as investing, rather than spending:

• Donors may start thinking about philanthropy as a percentage of their assets, rather than of their income. This could translate into a big jump in giving among wealthy donors, many of whom have assets that are far larger than their incomes.

• Donors take a longer-term approach. They are “‘investing’ in the continued success” of a charity, rather than “‘buying’ the right to feel” as though they’ve helped someone.

• Corporate donors see “corporate social responsibility” as an investment in a community...