Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received mixed reviews for a speech she gave yesterday on how to revamp the U.S. Agency for International Development, which many say is long overdue for an overhaul.

During the speech, Ms. Clinton said the aid agency would work more closely with corporations and nonprofit groups.

“Nonprofits like the Gates Foundation, CARE, Oxfam International, and the Clinton Foundation bring their own resources, deep knowledge, extensive networks, and commitment to humanitarian missions that complement our work in critical ways,” she said.

Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times, applauded her speech, praising her focus on measuring the results of government antipoverty efforts and doing more to help women and girls in impoverished nations.

But Bill Easterly, a professor at New York University, panned it, saying the speech “was not all bad...

Is the Salvation Army abusing donors’ wishes by paying for housing for its top leaders or is it simply following a common practice for rewarding top charity leaders?

The news that the religious group has spent about $4-million in the past decade on homes for its leading officers in Massachusetts set off a heated debate. The article was reported by New England Cable News and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting.

Online comments by Chronicle readers ranged in their reactions, with some pillorying the Salvation Army, a church that provides social services.

“There will be no more contributions from me to the Salvation Army and will discourage others from contributing,” says one.

Many others supported the Christian group, saying that buying the houses is a good investment and not an unusual practice for large organizations. They also say that the high housing costs...

What’s more important: Measuring the success of individual charities or measuring whether whole neighborhoods or broader regions that charities assist are improving?

Nonprofit officials are debating this idea on the blog of Ken Berger, chief executive of Charity Navigator, a nonprofit watchdog in Mahwah, N.J.

As part of an ongoing discussion about how Charity Navigator should change its rating system to examine the effectiveness of charities, Hildy Gottlieb, a nonprofit consultant, argues that the measurement efforts have been slightly off course. Focusing on individual charities ignores the big picture, she says.

“Will we continue to measure the individual parts of the whole, with virtually no regard to the ultimate outcome — community improvement?” she writes on Mr. Berger’s blog. “Or will we devote the considerable brain-power of this sector towards developing indicators and...

As protests in Iran continue, should American philanthropists support opposition groups fighting the country’s repressive government?

On the Huffington Post, Trevor Neilson, president of the Global Philanthropy Group, a company that advises donors, gives five reasons why wealthy donors should find ways to back students and others taking to the streets.

Helping the opposition movement would bolster Israeli and American security interests and it’s the responsibility of the United States to support efforts to build democracy, he says.

“The opposition desperately needs support, and wealthy individuals in the United States are well positioned to provide it,” he writes.

But several obstacles make it tricky for philanthropy to play such a role.

Aside from the Iranian government’s scrutiny, U.S. economic sanctions prevent donations to Iranian charities. According to the U.S....

As we approach 2010, nonprofit blog writers are taking a look back at the previous decade and asking: What were the biggest moment for the nonprofit world?

Gene Takagi and Emily Chan, a nonprofit lawyer and a law student respectively, created a list on their blog of the top 10 nonprofit events of the last 10 years. They include the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Warren Buffett’s decision to pledge his fortune to several foundations, Hurricane Katrina, and the Senate Finance Committee’s investigations of charity work.

On Change.org, Nathaniel Whittemore, the founder of Assetmap, lists the key developments in social entrepreneurship, including the creation of the White House Office of Social Innovation, the creation of the iPhone, and the successful public offering of eBay, which generated billions for businessmen-turned-donors Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll.

Other major...

As Christmas approaches, it seems there’s one gift the philanthropy world would like: to replace the word “nonprofit.”

“Anyone who has thought about it for more than a nanosecond agrees that ‘nonprofit’ is about the worst possible summary we could give of ourselves and our work,” writes Dan Pallotta, a former fund raiser and author of Uncharitable, who is the latest person to suggest a substitute for the word.

On his Harvard Business Review blog, Mr. Pallotta floats the phrase “humanity sector.”

“What brings us to this work is our humanity,” he writes. “And what makes the work happen is the generosity of countless people from all socioeconomic levels, who make donations out of their humanity.”

In recent years other ideas have been tossed around. They include:

• Social-profit groups — suggested by Claire Gaudiani, a philanthropy professor at New York University.

• While Google’s decision to donate $20-million for the holidays is generous, it’s also “lazy,” says Brian Reich, a social-media expert, on his Fast Company blog. He would have preferred if the company had offered to help charities work better with information technology.

• A.J. Jacobs, author of The Year of Living Biblically, writes about the challenge of tithing, especially in lean times, in Oprah Magazine. “The key is to make it concrete,” he writes. “Try thinking in terms of time. Every 10 minutes of work, you are essentially doing one minute of volunteering for the needy.”

• When business people are considering switching careers and joining the nonprofit world, they should closely examine their motivations, says Wayne Luke, a partner with the Bridgespan Group, on a Harvard Business Review blog.

• To reflect on the spirit of giving during the holiday season,...

With social and environmental problems emerging worldwide and with more Americans facing foreclosure and lacking adequate food, a difficult issue is being raised: Is it better to give at home or abroad this year?

While it is a question philanthropy has grappled with for decades, the bad economy has put it in sharp relief. And giving experts are debating it.

In her Slate column on giving, Sandy Stonesifer, a charity worker in Washington and the daughter of Patty Stonesifer, the former head of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, says there are good reasons to support charities at home this year.

But “if you subscribe to the belief that all lives are created equally—and your giving is aimed at saving human lives or reducing suffering—your donations will almost always yield greater returns when given (to reputable organizations) internationally.”

Others may disagree.

In a

Beware the “dark side” of online contests for charitable dollars, says Kjerstin Erickson, a charity leader.

In recent years, the number of corporations offering contests, in which people vote online for their favorite charity to win money, has grown. Chase Manhattan Bank’s $5-million competition is perhaps the most recent example.

While these events offer financial reward for cash-strapped charities, Ms. Erickson, who runs Forge, an antipoverty that works in Africa, cautions that organizations should consider how much effort they put into these contests.

For example, she writes on the Social Edge blog that “each request for a vote (whether fulfilled or not) represents an opportunity cost to the organization doing the asking.”

She suggests that corporations can improve the contests by showing how many votes the nonprofit groups have garnered during the competition and...

The Barron’s magazine list of the 25 “best” philanthropists continues to roil the nonprofit world.

In the article, the publication acknowledges that deciding who are the most effective donors is a difficult and highly subjective task. Despite this disclaimer, philanthropy experts have questioned the effort.

Sean Stannard-Stockton, a donor adviser and regular contributor to The Chronicle, says on his blog that he likes that Barron’s emphasized philanthropists who are achieving results, but doesn’t like that it ranked them.

Similarly, the authors of Philanthrocapitalism, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, argue on their blog that Barron’s excluded several important donors, like Mo Ibrahim and Jet Li.

On the Nonprofit Quarterly Web site, Cindy Gibson, a foundation consultant, wonders if there’s an “appearance of bias” in the relationships between the donors and Global...