Boston Community Capital buys homes after foreclosure and sells or rents them to their previous owners, providing new mortgages and counseling to the owners, who typically have ruined credit. During the process the families remain in their homes. Since late fall it has completed or nearly completed deals on 50 homes, with an additional 20 in progress, Ms. Hanratty said. The organization is now trying to raise $50 million to expand the program.

Steve Meacham, an organizer at City Life/Vida Urbana, is one reason banks may be willing to sell their foreclosed properties to Boston Community Capital. When families receive eviction notices, his group holds demonstrations or blockades outside the properties, calling on lenders to sell at market value. It also connects the residents with the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, whose students work to pressure lenders to sell rather than evict by prolonging eviction and “driving up litigation costs,” said Dave Grossman, the clinic’s director.

“So they’re being defended legally, and we’re ramping up the pressure publicity-wise,” Mr. Meacham said. “And B.C.C. came in; they had a part that buys properties and a part that writes mortgages. It wouldn’t work without all three.”

A focus of the program has been the working-class neighborhood of Dorchester, where home prices dropped 40 percent between 2005 and 2007, compared with a 20 percent drop statewide, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Foreclosures and delinquencies there are more than twice the state average, the bank found.

In such neighborhoods, lenders and residents are hurt by evictions, which often leave vacant properties that invite crime and drive down values of neighboring houses, Ms. Hanratty said. “So it’s in the lenders’ interest to get fair market value as quickly as possible, and in the interest of the community to have as little displacement as possible.”

The program is not a solution for all lenders or distressed homeowners. After months of post-foreclosure negotiations with her bank, Ursula Humes, a transit police detective, is waiting for her final 48-hour eviction notice. Her belongings are in boxes.

Mrs. Humes owed $440,000 on her home; her lender offered to sell it to Boston Community Capital for $260,000. But after assessing Mrs. Hume’s finances, the nonprofit asked for a lower selling price, and the lender refused.

On a recent evening, Mr. Grossman of the Harvard law clinic counseled Mrs. Humes on her options. “This is a case that doesn’t have a happy ending,” Mr. Grossman said.

Mrs. Humes said, “I depleted my retirement account and everything I owned, but I’m still going to lose it.”

Many commercial lenders, similarly, would shy away from such a program because it involves writing mortgages for borrowers who have already defaulted once — a high risk for a small reward.

For other homeowners, though, the program is a rescue at the last possible second. Roberto Velasquez, a building contractor, lost his home to foreclosure last November, owing the lender $550,000. After extensive wrangling, during which his family stayed in the house, he bought it again in March for $280,000, a price he can afford.

On the night after he closed, he joined other members of City Life/Vida Urbana at a foreclosed four-unit building in Dorchester from which most of the tenants had been evicted. A group of artists projected videos on sheets in the windows, showing silhouettes of families re-enacting their last 72 hours before eviction. Garbage filled one of the units. Mr. Velasquez said it hurt to stand amid such loss, but he was jubilant at his own perseverance.

“We’ve been fighting for so long,” he said, “and we win, because we’re still in the house.”

Source: NY Times

By Carol Gee

While many job candidates spend a lot of time updating their resumes, pressing their good suit, and practicing for the interview, few if any, ever give any consideration to their body language, and what it may be saying about them. That can be a huge mistake.

Once humans learn words they tend to rely on them to get points or complex details across. However, researchers in the fields of linguistics, sociology and others have found that roughly 93 percent of our interpersonal communication is nonverbal. So, it’s quite easy to see that it’s what you don’t say that actually says a lot about you.

Negative body language can impact individuals’ personal relationships as well as their careers. Because our gestures, facial expressions and other nonverbal communication actions can be misinterpreted, they can create a negative impact even before an individual can open his or her mouth. For instance, a misinterpreted gesture or signal during a date can and have brought many an evening out on the town to an abrupt end.

Legendary actress Mae West once said, “I speak two languages, body and English.” When it comes to career matters negative body language can carry serious ramifications. In today’s competitive job market, even one wrong move during an interview can cost an individual the job. It starts with the handshake. What can others tell from a hand shake? A strong, firm handshake immediately demonstrates an aura of confidence, generating a great first impression right from the start. Looking the person in the eye upon shaking hands also demonstrates confidence. While looking a person in the eye when talking portrays openness, even honesty, it may not feel comfortable or seem natural. Practicing before a mirror has proven to be helpful for many.

The suggestions below may be useful when interviewing or participating in other important settings.

Sit up straight. However, try to avoid sitting too rigid as it could be seen as a lack of confidence.

Nonverbal speech patterns such as tone, pitch or inflection are important communication characteristics. Thus, our nonverbal speech patterns provide powerful clues into our true feelings, and what we actually mean.

Speaking a bit slower than normal may be the key to the correct pronunciation of certain words and names.

Avoid distracters such as fiddling with one’s hair or clothing. Wear clothing that fit properly, thereby eliminating the need to tug on clothing, refasten buttons or close gaps in clothing.

Constantly clearing your throat may be seen as extreme nervousness.

Watch speech distracters such as constantly saying “um, uh”.

Beware of closed body postures like arms folded across your chest. Folded arms may be seen as disinterested, even bored.

Scratching your head could demonstrate puzzlement in what you are hearing.

Swinging your legs suggests nervousness.

It’s okay to periodically use hand gestures for emphasis. However, unless you’re interviewing for a traffic cop position, watch those extreme hand or arm gestures that looks as though you’re directing traffic.
Lastly, remember to nod your head from time to time when someone is talking to you. Alas, this tip often creates angst for both my spouse and me. Okay, I admit it. I get excited about sharing something with my husband that I probably ramble on without seemingly stopping to take a breath. Still, it that any excuse for him not to nod his head, or show in some other way that he’s interested in my fabulous story? That he fails to do so causes me to stop mid-sentence to inquire if he is listening. Individuals probably won’t be asked if they are listening during an interview, but I guarantee it will be noted. Nodding shows the speaker that you are interested in what they are saying (even if you aren’t).

An individual’s body language can create first impressions that are difficult to overcome no matter how impressive their experience and/or qualifications. So sit up straight, speak up, nod your head in all the right places, and show others that you are the winner you know yourself to be during an interview or other settings.

Carol Gee

About the Author
Carol Gee, M.A. has worked in education for 26 years in positions ranging from teaching to administration. Currently she is an editor and business writer at Goizueta Business School at Emory University. She is also the author of books, The Venus Chronicles and Diary of a ‘Flygirl’ Wannabe (Life Lessons of a Cool Girl in Training,) and a contributor to the baby boomer book, Age Smart-Discovering the Fountain of Youth at Midlife and Beyond. Carol is a recipient of the Center for Women’s 2009 Unsung Heroine Award for recognition of her dedication to issues that affect women at Emory or in the larger community.
www.venuschronicles.net
venuschronicles@aol.com

As surprising as it sounds in the current employment market, a renowned labor economist projects that there will be more jobs than people to fill them in the United States by 2018.

Assuming a return to healthy economic growth and no change in immigration or labor force participation rates, Barry Bluestone, Dean of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, predicts that within the next eight years there could be at least 5 million potential job vacancies in the United States, nearly half of them (2.4 million) in social sector jobs in education, health care, government and nonprofit organizations. The loss in total output could limit the growth of needed services and cost the economy as much as $3 trillion over the five-year period beginning in 2018.

“If the baby boom generation retires from the labor force at the same rate and age as current older workers, the baby bust generation that follows will likely be too small to fill many of the projected new jobs,” states Bluestone’s report, After the Recovery: Help Needed – The Coming Labor Shortage and How People in Encore Careers Can Help Solve It.

Bluestone’s research is one of four papers written by independent experts and released today by MetLife Foundation and Civic Ventures, a think tank on boomers, work and social purpose.

The research identifies 15 jobs that will provide the largest number of potential new encore career opportunities in the coming decade. The list is dominated by seven job categories in health care (registered nurses; home health aides; personal and home care aides; nursing aides, orderlies and attendants; medical assistants; licensed practical and vocational nurses; and medical and health service managers); three in education (teachers, teacher assistants and child care workers); others in nonprofits and government (business operations specialists; general and operations managers; and receptionists and information clerks); plus clergy and social and human service assistants.

Click here to read the report.

Source: Washington Post

The Senate is currently working to complete a jobs bill that may come before the full Senate later this month. Among the provisions is a tax credit for job creation that, if enacted, could provide $1 billion in assistance to the nonprofit sector and generate 8,000-18,000 new nonprofit jobs.

This is a revised estimate (updated February 26) based on new budgetary numbers released February 23.

Summary of the Senate Proposal

The proposed Senate jobs creation tax credit would exempt private employers from paying the employer-paid half of Social Security taxes for new employees who are hired after February 3 through the end of 2010 and were unemployed for the previous 60 days or more. It would apply to wages paid to these employees beginning the day after the bill becomes law. Because it affects payroll taxes, nonprofit organizations would benefit.

The employer share of Social Security payroll taxes is 6.2 percent up to a maximum wage of $106,800. The proposal could provide tax assistance worth over $6,000 for highly-paid workers who are eligible for the credit and hired immediately. In most cases, however, the credit would would be significantly less, more typically in the $1,000-$2,000 range for lower-paid workers hired later in the year. The proposal provides employers an additional $1,000 tax credit for covered employees who are kept on payroll for a full 52 weeks, but this bonus applies to business taxes and will not benefit nonprofit employers.

The Social Security trust fund would be reimbursed from general tax revenue to make up for tax losses. Unlike a similar Obama administration proposal, the Senate proposal does not appear to be limited to organizations with an overall net increase in hiring. A more detailed explanation of the proposal can be found here. The bill text can be found here.

Impact on Nonprofit Hiring

According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis that reviewed job creation tax credits more generally, reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase their payrolls would add the equivalent of 8 to 18 full-time jobs from 2010-2011 for every million dollars of total budgetary cost (see also p. 21 of this CBO report). While this estimate does not exactly parallel the Senate proposal, it is close enough for the employment effects to be similar. According to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation released February 23, the core Social Security tax credit has been scored as costing $10 billion from 2010-2011 (this excludes the cost of the $1,000 retainment bonus, which has been scored as costing $3 billion through 2016 but does not affect nonprofits). Combined with the CBO analysis, this suggests that the Social Security portion of the tax credit would generate 80,000-180,000 new jobs in the economy overall.

Because nonprofits currently employ about 10 percent of the workforce, this further suggests that if the Social Security credit affects nonprofit employment proportionately it would create about 8,000-18,000 nonprofit jobs during this period. This number represents about 0.1-0.2 percent of all nonprofit employment in the United States, a small but positive increase. More generally, the proposal could provide slightly more than $1 billion in benefits to the nonprofit sector.

Some factors that suggest that employment generated may be higher than this estimate include:

Nonprofit Employment Has Countercyclical Tendencies: Whereas demand in other sectors of the economy is typically pro-cyclical, meaning that it drops when the economy is doing worse, demand for services in much of the nonprofit sector is counter-cyclical, meaning that it increases when the economy is doing worse. As a result, given the same tax credit in a slow economy, nonprofit employers may be more likely to hire than for-profit employers. Note, however, that this countercyclical tendency may not be acted upon if resources to hire are not available (see below).

Nonprofit Employment Is Labor Intensive: Nonprofits tend to be more labor-intensive than the rest of the economy. Labor costs tend to be a higher percentage of overall costs and thus have a greater impact on hiring and layoff decisions.

Nonprofit Employers Can Not Siphon Off Tax Credits as ’Profits’: Perhaps most important of all, tax benefits received by nonprofits for hiring people they would have hired anyway would not be siphoned off in the form of profits or dividends. While they can be used to build endowments (for those nonprofits that have them), in a slow economy such “profits” are more likely to be used to expand or retain employment in other parts of the organization. As a result, a tax credit for nonprofit employers is more efficient, creating (and saving) more jobs at lower cost.

These positive factors may be offset by the following factors:

Nonprofit Employment Is Highly Dependent Upon Private Giving and Public Funding: Despite increased need, nonprofits often suffer reduced charitable giving and reduced public funding (federal, state and local) during a slow economy, which limits their hiring capability and forces many to cut back on services when demand is highest. However, unlike a similar Obama administration proposal, the Senate proposal does not appear to be limited to organizations that expand their overall payrolls. Assuming this remains unchanged, the Senate proposal could potentially benefit any nonprofit, including those experiencing no net hiring or even net job losses overall.

Source: The Washington Insider

World of Children announces call for nominations for the 2010 World of Children Awards. The maximum grant for awards are up to $50,000 and recognizes persons for their dedication and unwavering commitment to the betterment of the lives of children around the globe.

Award Categories:

2010 Humanitarian Award - maximum grant of up to $50,000.00
Recognizes an individual who has made a significant lifetime contribution to children in the areas of social services, education or humanitarian services. This person will have created, managed or otherwise supported a sustainable program(s) which has significantly contributed to children’s opportunities to be safe, to learn and to grow. The individual’s work on behalf of children must be over and above their normal employment and they must have been doing this (or related) work for a minimum of 10 years.

2010 Health Award - maximum grant of up to $50,000.00
Recognizes an individual who has made a significant lifetime contribution to children in the fields of health, medicine or the sciences. This person will have created, managed or otherwise supported a sustainable program(s) which has significantly contributed to the health and well-being of children. The individual’s work on behalf of children must be over and above their normal employment and they must have been doing this (or related) work for a minimum of 10 years.

2010 Founder’s Youth Award - maximum grant of up to $25,000.00
Recognizes a young person under the age of 21, who is making extraordinary contributions to the lives of other children. They must have been doing this work for three years and have created a sustainable program.

Nominations are now being accepted through May 1,2010.

For more information and to submit an online Nomination, visit www.worldofchildren.org.

North Carolina nonprofits pay $60,000 in median salary to their chief executives and $40,673 in median cash compensation to all their employees, and lose staff at half the rate of U.S. industries, a new study says.

Nonprofits in the Triangle pay $70,500 in median compensation to their chief executives and $45,619 in median cash compensation to all their employees, both the highest in the state, says the study, which reflects results from 466 employers and was prepared for the N.C. Center for Nonprofits by Bluewater Nonprofit Solutions in Roswell, Ga.

It also says nearly 74 percent of nonprofits in the state provide medical coverage for their employees and on average pay 92.5 percent of the employee’s premium, while nearly 67 percent offer their employees some type of retirement plan.

“This means a third of nonprofits offer no retirement options,” says Jane Kendall, president of the N.C. Center. “While this gap also is common for business employers, this is not how we should treat the talented staff at our nonprofits whose work is essential to North Carolinians every day.”

Salaries typically reflect the size of a nonprofit’s annual budget, the study says, with chief executives at the smallest organizations receiving the lowest pay.

At nonprofits with budgets below $300,000, the median compensation for chief executives totals $40,453, for example, compared to $151,197 for nonprofits with budgets of $10 million or more.

Median compensation for nonprofit chief executives totals $65,000 in the Triad, $61,100 in the southern Piedmont, $56,500 in the Charlotte area, $51,950 in southeastern North Carolina, $50,900 in central-eastern North Carolina, $50,000 in southwestern North Carolina and $49,800 in northwestern North Carolina.

Median cash compensation for all nonprofit employees totals $42,509 in central-eastern North Carolina, $41,516 in the Triad, $40,232 in the Charlotte area, $38,606 in the southern Piedmont, $37,054 in southwestern North Carolina, $37,000 in southeastern North Carolina, $34,823 in northeastern North Carolina, and $31,449 in northwestern North Carolina.

Average cash compensation is lowest for human-services nonprofits, which pay $36,767, followed by $36,834 for arts, culture and humanities; $37,500 for international and foreign affairs; and $43,881 for health.

The annual turnover rate at North Carolina nonprofits totals 9.6 percent, compared to 18.7 percent in 2008 for all industries in the U.S., the N.C. Center says, citing Compdata.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports the cost of replacing a worker is one-third the annual salary for the position, the Center says, so the lower turnover rate for North Carolina nonprofits helps avoid that cost.


Source: Philanthropy Journal

Despite their relatively small numbers, fast-growing young firms generate approximately 10 percent of new jobs in any given year

Researchers suggest three policy strategies to support high-growth startups to bolster job growth

(KANSAS CITY, Mo.), March 9, 2010 – As the American economy continues to send out mixed signals about recovery, job creation has emerged as the country’s most pressing economic issue. Not only important for employment itself, job growth also drives recovery in other sectors, including housing. But, while hope for spurring the U.S. economy toward recovery focuses squarely on job creation, policy discussions center primarily on measures that would expand job growth in existing companies.

According to a new study released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the current national conversation would be more productively focused on creating a favorable environment for entrepreneurship—and particularly high-growth entrepreneurship—because top-performing companies are the most fertile source of new jobs.

High-Growth Firms and the Future of the American Economy, the third in the Kauffman Foundation Research Series on Firm Formation and Economic Growth, draws on a special tabulation conducted by the Census Bureau at the Kauffman Foundation’s request, calculated from the Business Dynamics Statistics (BDS) database. Author Dane Stangler, a senior analyst with the Kauffman Foundation, found that in any given year, the top-performing 1 percent of firms generate roughly 40 percent of all new jobs.

Further, the study showed, so-called “gazelle” firms (ages three to five) comprise less than 1 percent of all companies, yet generate roughly 10 percent of new jobs in any given year. The “average” firm in the top 1 percent contributes 88 jobs per year, and most end up with between 20 and 249 employees. The average firm in the economy as a whole, on the other hand, adds two or three net new jobs each year.

“Because fast-growing young firms account for a disproportionate share of net job creation, policymakers who are worriedly poring over unemployment projections might instead seek to foster the creation of more high-growth firms,” said Robert E. Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation. “While some new companies will undoubtedly fail, high-growth firms must be started somehow, and the more quickly they are launched and in larger numbers, the faster both output and employment will grow.”

The study suggests that policymakers follow three strategies in seeking to create more gazelles:

Focus on creating more new firms, with the expectation that this also will increase, by basic arithmetic, the number of high-growth firms. Startup firms contribute a net increase in employment that is essential if the economy is to achieve positive net job creation in any given year. Since the level and rate of firm formation in the United States have basically been flat for 20 years, however, it’s not clear how successful the United States can be in actually creating more new companies. In addition, while it is possible that the recent recession will spur more individuals to start companies, there is no guarantee that this will automatically increase the number of high-growth firms.

Remove barriers that potentially block the emergence of high-growth companies among existing firms. These barriers could include access to capital, taxation and regulatory burdens.

Target immigrants and universities, which have been known to produce high-growth firms but which often suffer from bottlenecks. Recent research has shown that U.S.-based technology and engineering companies founded by immigrants have created thousands of jobs for Americans. While many Americans might perceive immigrants as competition for a limited supply of jobs, many immigrants end up making, rather than taking, jobs. To draw into the United States those immigrants who intend to start firms, either establish a new visa program—such as an expansion of the “Startup Visa Act” recently introduced in the U.S. Senate that would create a new visa for immigrants who can raise $250,000 for their startup company—or expand the existing EB-5 visa program for immigrant investors. On the university front, enhance innovation and job creation by breaking down barriers in the commercialization process that could impede university researchers from moving their innovations into new companies.

“Without startups, our research shows that net job creation in most years would be negative, so policies that expand firm formation could increase both job creation and the number of high-growth firms,” Stangler said.