This research report addresses the issue of workforce development in the Not-for-Profit sector. It reviews existing evidence from around the world and reports on multiple new studies from Australia which show that investment in training and development can bring social and economic benefits and long-term viability to the not-for-profit sector. The report is for all those interested in the state of 'Learning for Purpose' and how it affects NFP organisations' success in realising their mission and community objectives. The potential to rise from good to great hinges on the people and capabilities within the NFP sector.

It is concluded that NFP workforce development is not accidental. If it is well aligned and implemented it is a strategic and central element that every NFP organisation must realise to achieve social change.

Key Findings:

1. Training intensity in the Australian NFP sector is highly variable across organisational size, job role and sub-sector.
2. NFP organisations that systematically develop their people do better.
3. Training for NFP key competencies works.
4. Training NFP key competencies leads to multiple positive outcomes.
5. Training can deliver positive economic returns.
6. The lack of money and time prevent needed professional development opportunities.
7. The needs for developing NFP key competencies vary considerably.

This research report addresses the issue of workforce development in the Not-for-Profit sector. It reviews existing evidence from around the world and reports on multiple new studies from Australia which show that investment in training and development can bring social and economic benefits and long-term viability to the not-for-profit sector. The report is for all those interested in the state of 'Learning for Purpose' and how it affects NFP organisations' success in realising their mission and community objectives. The potential to rise from good to great hinges on the people and capabilities within the NFP sector.

It is concluded that NFP workforce development is not accidental. If it is well aligned and implemented it is a strategic and central element that every NFP organisation must realise to achieve social change.

Key Findings:

1. Training intensity in the Australian NFP sector is highly variable across organisational size, job role and sub-sector.
2. NFP organisations that systematically develop their people do better.
3. Training for NFP key competencies works.
4. Training NFP key competencies leads to multiple positive outcomes.
5. Training can deliver positive economic returns.
6. The lack of money and time prevent needed professional development opportunities.
7. The needs for developing NFP key competencies vary considerably.

This research report addresses the issue of workforce development in the Not-for-Profit sector. It reviews existing evidence from around the world and reports on multiple new studies from Australia which show that investment in training and development can bring social and economic benefits and long-term viability to the not-for-profit sector. The report is for all those interested in the state of 'Learning for Purpose' and how it affects NFP organisations' success in realising their mission and community objectives. The potential to rise from good to great hinges on the people and capabilities within the NFP sector.

It is concluded that NFP workforce development is not accidental. If it is well aligned and implemented it is a strategic and central element that every NFP organisation must realise to achieve social change.

Key Findings:

1. Training intensity in the Australian NFP sector is highly variable across organisational size, job role and sub-sector.
2. NFP organisations that systematically develop their people do better.
3. Training for NFP key competencies works.
4. Training NFP key competencies leads to multiple positive outcomes.
5. Training can deliver positive economic returns.
6. The lack of money and time prevent needed professional development opportunities.
7. The needs for developing NFP key competencies vary considerably.

Policymakers across the nation face difficult decisions about higher education funding. Federal leaders, for example, are debating the future of the Pell Grant program. The Obama administration has proposed increasing the maximum Pell Grant award to keep pace with inflation in the coming years, while members of Congress have recommended freezing it at its current level. State policymakers, meanwhile, are deciding whether to restore funding after years of recession-driven cuts. Their actions on these and other critical issues will help determine whether the shift in spending that resulted in parity is temporary or a lasting reconfiguration.

In a constrained fiscal environment, policymakers also will need to consider whether there are better means of achieving shared goals, including student access and support for research. Such approaches could entail more coordination, other funding mechanisms, or policy reforms. In addition, it will be necessary to think about the implications of parity and whether funding strategies will require changes in order to reach desired outcomes. This chartbook is intended to provide a starting point for answering such questions by illustrating the existing federal- state relationship in higher education funding, the way that relationship has evolved, and how it differs across states.

At Great Lakes we do many things to be effective in our work, but perhaps nothing is more important than self-reflection. And as we enter the fourth year of a renewed grantmaking strategy launched in 2011, we feel the time is right to report on how both grant applicants and grantees think we're doing. This data not only summarizes those opinions, it benchmarks our performance against a database of responses from more than 40,000 grantees of nearly 300 funders we respect, compiled by the nonprofit Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP). Simply, we've learned how we stack up against the best. By understanding -- and sharing -- what we do well and where we can improve, we look to shape future strategies and processes in informed and transparent ways that will benefit future applicants and grantees, as well as the educational priorities we share with them.