« December 2017 | Main

6 posts from January 2018

Weekend Link Roundup (January 13-14, 2018)

January 15, 2018

MLKOur weekly roundup of noteworthy items from and about the social sector. For more links to great content, follow us on Twitter at @pndblog....

Climate Change

On the Barr Foundation blog, the foundation's Climate Program co-directors, Mariella Puerto and Mary Skelton Roberts, outline "the rationale, priorities, and early steps of the foundation's newly-expanded focus on [climate] resilience."

New York Magazine's Reeves Wiedeman checks in with a fresh take on the climate advocacy of the Rockefeller family and its campaign against Exxon, one of the legacy companies of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil.

Education

A consensus has developed over the last decade around the importance of pre-K education. So why do so many preschool teachers live on the edge of financial ruin? Jeneen Interlandi reports for the New York Times.

To kick off the new year, the editors of Education Week share ten ideas that they believe have the potential to change K-12 education in 2018.

Fundraising

Why are we so bad at predicting the future, and what can we learn from our collective obtuseness? When it comes to fundraising, writes digital marketer and self-styled charity nerd Brady Josephson, "the question shouldn't be 'What will be different in the future?' but rather 'What will be the same?'"

International Affairs/Development

It may not have seemed like it, but 2017 was the best year in human history. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof explains. And Kristof's Times colleague Tina Rosenberg reminds us that it was a pretty good year for social innovation as well.

Philanthropy

In his latest, syndicated philanthropy columnist Bruce DeBoskey suggests that 2018 will be a "transformational" year for philanthropy and highlights six trends to watch for, including "trickle-down" philanthropy, the continued growth of giving circles, the "mainstreaming" of impact investing, and additional Trump-inspired giving.

"[W]e can build the giving infrastructure anyway we want to," writes Michele Fugiel Gartner, a PhD candidate at the Centre for the Study of Philanthropy and Public Good at the University of St, Andrews in Scotland, in The Conversation. "The challenge is that against a backdrop of financial and political inequality, it is difficult to imagine how philanthropy does not simply follow suit."

As previously announced, the Eugene and Agnes Meyer Foundation in Washington, D.C., will "begin to tackle the WHY — the root causes of the challenges so many in our region continue to face" in 2018. And as Karen Fitzgerald, the foundation's senior program director for program and community, and Julian Haynes, its Maryland program director, explain, that means "identifying and tackling racial inequity and the systems — institutions, policies, practices, and norms — that perpetuate those inequities. "

On the Glasspockets blog, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation's Kristy Tsadick and Heath Wickline explain the genesis of Hewlett's Open Licensing Toolkit, which is "structured to help the foundation's program staff decide to which grants the new rule applies, introduce open licensing to grantees, and help clarify what an open license on written works will mean for them."

Poverty

On his Nonprofit Chronicles blog, Marc Gunther profiles poverty-fighting organization Evidence Action, one of only sixteen organizations currently endorsed by GiveWell, the effective altruism-focused charity evaluator.

In Fast Company, Ciara Byrne looks at how Blue Ridge Labs @ Robin Hood, a tech incubator within the Robin Hood Foundation, New York City's largest poverty-fighting organization, "is turning some of the tech world's received wisdom [about poverty] upside down."

Social Media

On her blog, Beth Kanter shares some features and tips designed to help your nonprofit up its Twitter game in 2018.

And Nell Edgington is back from her break from social media, and in a post on her Social Velocity blog she shares what she leaned.

Got something you'd like to share? Drop us a line at mfn@foundationcenter.org.

5 Questions for...Laura Kalick, Tax Consulting Director, BDO

January 12, 2018

The GOP tax reform bill agreed to by the U.S. Senate and House in December and signed into law by the president on December 22 is over a thousand pages long. The bill is so long, in fact, that many members of Congress haven’t read — and are unlikely to ever read — it in its entirety. Its impact on nonprofits and the charitable sector could be significant, however, which is why earlier this month we spoke with Laura Kalick, national non-profit tax consulting director for the nonprofit and nonprofit healthcare industry at BDO in Washington, D.C., about provisions in the new law most likely to affect nonprofits in 2018, and beyond.

Headshot_laura_kalickPhilanthropy News Digest: There are lots of provisions in the tax reform bill that are going to affect nonprofits and charities. In your view, what is the one provision likely to have the greatest impact on the sector?

Laura Kalick: Well, the one that’s going to have the most impact is the doubling of the standard deduction and the limitation on deducting state and local taxes. These two provisions will likely result in a huge number of American taxpayers not itemizing their deductions and therefore not being able to deduct charitable gifts, which, as you know, is an important incentive for charitable giving. It's hard to know, of course, what people will do, but estimates from the likes of Independent Sector and the Council on Foundations suggest that charitable giving in the U.S. may take a hit of as much as a $20 billion, which is pretty substantial.

PND: The bill includes two provisions likely to be popular among individuals who do itemize their returns. One is an increase in the charitable contribution deduction limit, and the other is repeal of the so-called Pease limitation. How are those changes likely to affect charitable giving?

LK: The Pease limitation was more of a concern for high-income taxpayers, in that it reduced the value of a taxpayer's itemized deductions by 3 percent for every dollar of taxable income above a certain threshold — something like $250,00 for an individual and $300,000 for a married couple. With its repeal, people whose total income exceeds those levels will now get the full benefit of their contributions, so in that sense it could be an incentive for higher income taxpayers to give more.

The other provision is of little help to anyone, in my opinion. Previously, you could deduct charitable gifts totaling up to 50 percent of your contribution base — essentially, your adjusted gross income (AGI). That's a pretty large number, and although I don't have the stats for you, it's a lot more than most people actually allocate to charity. A provision in the new tax bill raises the maximum to 60 percent of one's contribution base, which is an even bigger number and not something that is likely to apply to too many people in any given year. I would also note that in addition to being able to deduct contributions up to 50 percent of one's contribution base, if there are contributions in excess of that amount, they could have, under the old code, and still can be carried forward under special rules. So I believe that increasing the limit to 60 percent is likely to have little impact.

PND: The bill also doubled the estate tax exemption from $5 million to $10 million, indexed for inflation — a provision that, if nothing changes, is scheduled to expire in 2026. I’m thinking the impact of that provision on charitable giving is de minimus. Do you agree?

LK: I do. A $5 million estate is a good amount of money, and a $10 million estate is even nicer, but a lot of people who are in that category still would rather give their money to their children than to charity, and a doubling of the exemption isn't going to change people's behavior very much. Now, had Congress gone ahead and eliminated the tax entirely, as the House version of the bill proposed, I think we would have seen a profound effect on giving, in that it would have eliminated an important driver of charitable bequests.

PND: Are there other provisions in the bill that nonprofits and charities should know about?

LK: There are some big changes in the way unrelated business income is treated. In effect, what the legislation does is disallow the use of unrelated business income losses to offset gains from a different unrelated business activity. Organizations in the past would minimize their unrelated business income by netting the income and losses from one activity against those of another. For example, say you were a big nonprofit institution with a million dollars of advertising income, income that would have been taxed as unrelated business income, and you had an alternative investment in a partnership that generated big losses, say, a million dollars of losses. Under the old tax code, you could have offset the million dollars of losses against the million dollars of gain. But under the legislation signed into law recently, you will no longer be able to use your unrelated business losses to offset unrelated business gains from a different activity. Which means the million dollars of unrelated business income in the example I just gave will now be taxed, although at the new corporate rate of 21 percent.

What's interesting, though, is that the code retains the offset provision for regular C corporations, so exempt organizations might decide, if the amounts involved are large enough to justify it, to put their unrelated business activity income into a taxable subsidiary where gains from one activity can be used to offset losses from a different activity.

PND: What should individual nonprofit organizations be doing to prepare for these changes?

LK: Well, obviously, they need to review their budgets and see how much income they are raising in the form of charitable contributions, then try to project what kind of hit they can expect from the reduction in contributions from those who itemize and begin to take steps to make up the shortfall, whether that involves cutting expenses, or focusing more of their fundraising efforts on high-net-worth donors, or some other way. That's the first thing.

Second, if you have unrelated business activities that are losing money, you need to take a close business look at why those activities are generating losses and try to figure out how you can make the business profitable since you will not be able to use the losses to offset the gains from other unrelated activities.

And third — and this has to do with a provision in the bill I didn't mention but that could impact a lot of nonprofits — organizations need to see if they are providing free parking, other transportation benefits, and/or onsite athletic facilities to employees, because the new law provides that the costs associated with such fringe benefits will now be treated as unrelated business income.

There are other provisions that may affect them, as well. Maybe the best advice I can give is, talk to your accountant. And if you don't have one, get one.

— Mitch Nauffts

[Review] What Matters: Investing in Results to Build Strong, Vibrant Communities

January 09, 2018

For public- and private-sector leaders working to develop and implement solutions to the challenges — inequality, racism, gaps in educational outcomes and health status — that have vexed American society since the country's founding, the last few decades have been especially frustrating. As Antony Bugg-Levine, CEO of the Nonprofit Finance Fund and one of the editors of this volume, notes in his Introduction, despite collective investments in the trillions, "over 45 million Americans still live in poverty, more than half a million remain homeless...unemployment among young African American men stubbornly persists around 30 percent in many cities, an opioid abuse epidemic [rages] across [the] country," and the United States, with 5 percent of the world's population, "hold[s] 25 percent of the world's prisoners in a system that tends to warehouse rather than rehabilitate."

Book_what_mattersIn the latest addition to the What Matters series, Bugg-Levine and more than seventy-five contributors — including Peter Long, president and CEO of the Blue Shield of California Foundation; David J. Erickson, director of community development at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco; Zia Khan, vice president for initiatives and strategy at the Rockefeller Foundation; Jacob Harold, president and CEO of GuideStar; and Andrea Levere, president of Prosperity Now — make the case that progress on these and other fronts will only be achieved by shifting the collective mindset of community leaders from a short-term focus on outputs (e.g., the number of beds in a shelter occupied every night) to longer-term investments in outcomes (e.g., the number of people successfully transitioned to permanent housing).

In the area of health care, for example, Long argues that nothing short of a fundamental rethink of the nation's approach to health outcome management is needed. But despite ongoing efforts by stakeholders in both the public and private sectors to adopt electronic health records, develop health exchanges, and focus on interoperability, Long worries that "we are building a measurement system that resembles the Winchester Mystery House…[one] that contains hundreds of rooms, designed individually without relation to one another, and many staircases that lead to dead ends." What is needed instead is a clear vision for the U.S. healthcare system and a national infrastructure that supports a better, more coherent outcome measurement system. Unfortunately, Long writes, "in the current political environment, it [is] incredibly challenging to have a candid conversation about our national health values and priorities."

While that assessment might be overly bleak for those who see outcomes-oriented social impact investments as the key to "affordably address our most vexing social challenges," it is impossible to read this volume without recognizing how difficult bringing about such a fundamental shift is likely to be.

Of course, none of the book's contributors argues that such a change will come easily. Indeed, in essay after essay, the chief rationale for adopting an outcomes-oriented approach is the positive effect it can have on people living on the margins. "Across the country, extraordinary leaders are overcoming the status quo, making change happen in their communities, and pushing through the challenges," writes Bugg-Levine. Isn't that enough? Or as Bugg-Levine puts it in one of two essays he's written for the book: "Don't we already provide funding to hospitals to keep people healthy, to homeless shelters to end homelessness, to childcare centers to prepare children for a fruitful life, and to job training programs to find people permanent employment?"

Well, yes...and no. We fund hospitals and nonprofits to do those things, but we don't hold them accountable for results. A better approach, argues Bugg-Levine, is to "[o]rient programs and funding around outcomes." In such a system, "the flow of money falls in line with the deepest motivations and moral commitments of the people providing and using it. An outcomes-oriented system has the potential to spur productive innovation by enabling service providers and government agencies to mobilize flexible funding and focus on delivering services that produce lasting change. Orienting programs around outcomes compensates the hard-working service providers for the impact they have achieved instead of the paperwork they file, allowing them to prioritize the work and delivery of services overt short-term widget counting."

In his second contribution to the book, Bugg-Levine describes a "generation-long journey" that will require not just leadership but political will. And it may take longer than a generation to affect real change. In his essay, David Erickson traces the concept of investing in results to the creation of community development corporations in the 1960s. "The idea was to fund local corporations that were rooted in and rooting for local communities," Erickson writes. "CDCs were nonprofit but subject to market discipline in pursuit of better local social outcomes and a stronger local economy."

Fast forward fifty years: innovative communities are looking to finance efforts to advance community improvements and well-being — and earn a return on those investments. Such an approach inevitably leads to asking how success is defined. And if there is a common thread that connects nearly every essay in the book, it is the importance of planning and consensus to the success of any community development effort. But like the years of simulation and step-by-step experimentation that ultimately made it possible to put a man on the moon, the preparation involved in transitioning organizations and communities to an outcomes-oriented measurement system seems likely to take longer than it will to apply the lessons learned during the process.

In a sense, What Matters is a toolbox for the next generation of nonprofit and community leaders ready to pursue their own moonshots, detailing as it does more than a dozen prototypes that can be applied to the task ahead: impact investments, outcomes-based funding, prize philanthropy, social impact bonds, the impact security, outcomes rate cards, and so on. But outcomes-based impact investing is not a quick fix for what ails America’s neediest communities and populations. And it isn’t suitable for every social challenge we face. As Andrea Levere, quoting Roxane White, former CEO of Nurse-Family Partnership, and Tamar Bauer, chief policy and government affairs officer, says, "Pay for Success may be the most grueling growth strategy we will one day celebrate."

Indeed, there is very little evidence that tools such as social impact bonds are even scalable in their present form. The impact investing field is young, and experimentation is the order of the day. Still, while this edition of What Matters certainly feels comprehensive, it could easily be out of date and a testament to how quickly the world is changing within a couple of years. In the meantime, perhaps the best any of us can hope for is what GuideStar president and CEO Jacob Harold calls for in his essay: "[J]udge our success not by completed actions, but by completed change."

Matt Sinclair is the editor of Philanthropy News Digest. For more great reviews, visit the Off the Shelf section in PND.

Catalytic Philanthropic Capital Can Supercharge Affordable Housing Nonprofits

January 05, 2018

Hoousein-affordabilityThe housing crisis in the United States is getting worse. What was already a challenging situation has been compounded by the increasing frequency of severe weather events like hurricanes Harvey and Irma, as well as by proposed federal budget cuts for fiscal 2018 that would slash HUD programs by $6.2 billion. These and other factors are putting great strain on the insufficient resources set aside to help low-income people maintain an adequate standard of living.

This crisis cannot be solved by the public, private, or government sectors alone. A problem of this scale requires innovative, multisector solutions designed to preserve affordable housing, drive system change, and create economic opportunity for those who need it most.

Rising real estate prices and job growth are not signs of housing stability

Rising real estate prices aren't a solution to the problem; if anything, they're exacerbating it. According to a 2017 report by the Urban Institute, the market provides only twenty-one adequate, affordable, and available (AAA) units for every hundred renter households with income at or below 30 percent of the area median income.

Even in places where job opportunities are improving, the housing crisis is worsening. One-third of all U.S. households are paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing, yet between 2005 and 2015 the number of rental units costing less than $800 per month declined by 2 percent, while the number of units costing more than $2,000 increased 97 percent. Cities like Boston have witnessed a booming job market, leading to a population spike, followed by a development boom. Investors are buying land and sitting on it, waiting for values to rise even higher and leaving little to no property for affordable housing. Naturally occurring affordable housing — housing that is affordable without public subsidy — is at risk for acquisition and flipping, resulting in higher risk of eviction for people already living on the edge.

This scenario is playing out all across the country. Naturally occurring affordable housing is being lost at an alarming rate to developers with deep pockets who acquire the properties with plans to raise rents.

I see firsthand the many innovative organizations across the country that are working to narrow the gap between housing needs and access. But financial constraints often affect an organization's ability to operate at full capacity. The restrictions placed on nonprofits' use of funds can be overwhelming, and nonprofits spend too much time navigating the complex maze of funding restrictions that could be better spent delivering and improving on services. If organizations were not confined by these strict rules and mandated to spend funds on specific tasks, they could respond more quickly and effectively.

Nonprofit housing solutions

Entrepreneurial nonprofit housing organizations are nimble, deploy large amounts of capital, and have an enormous impact on the lives of the individuals and families they serve. When equipped with the necessary resources — specifically, access to enterprise-level capital — magic happens and organizations with tried-and-true solutions achieve even deeper impact and change lives. The Housing Partnership Network (HPN) creates vehicles to aggregate capital for its members; with flexible, longer-term, lower-cost capital, our members are able to deploy that capital at scale and in an accelerated fashion.

One standout example is the Housing Partnership Equity Trust (HPET). This first-of-its-kind social benefit real estate investment trust (REIT) was founded by and invested in by HPN members to compete against for-profit, market-rate buyers with easy access to cash who are buying up multi-family properties that provide homes for residents typically earning 50 percent to 80 percent of area median income — that is, working poor and middle-income people.

Because our nonprofit members are prohibited from raising equity on their balance sheets, in the past they needed months, sometimes years, to raise the funds needed to purchase properties. HPET provides entrepreneurial nonprofit housing organizations with the capital needed to compete in the market, purchase properties, and preserve housing affordability. HPET's members include well-known community development organizations and change makers like Aeon in Minnesota and Eden Housing in California, organizations whose established relationships make them the preferred "go-to" partners in their communities.

What is the solution? Capital.

While we've found ways to create positive impact during the ongoing housing crisis, the challenge we now face is replicating those solutions at scale. And the solution to this challenge is capital, enterprise capital, in the form of investments in high-performing organizations.

Vehicles like HPET work. But they are limited by a lack of capital. Impact can be unlocked through structures that bring together investors seeking stable returns, surety of deployment, and long-term housing solutions for hard-working families seeking access to good schools, affordable transportation options, and financial peace of mind. The good news, as HPET demonstrates, is that capital can be deployed on a significant scale and in ways that meet institutional investors' needs. And that is where real impact happens.

The beneficiaries of those investments are the home health aides and teachers who live in our housing, contribute to our communities, and make up the fabric of our neighborhoods. The track record of our members and of HPET — nearly five years after its launch — is evidence of our commitment to the long-term preservation of affordable housing in America. Stable housing is a springboard to economic opportunity and success for residents and their communities. By providing high-performing entrepreneurial nonprofits with unrestricted capital, we reduce their dependence on federal programs and better position them for sustainability regardless of future changes in federal policy.

While private philanthropy is pivotal to the future of affordable housing, it can only do so much. Yes, it can provide enterprise-level funding, but its real value lies in its ability to seed initiatives that bring private capital to bear in the form of debt and equity (rather than grants). Philanthropic dollars can have catalytic impact as well. The Ford Foundation is evidence of this; by allocating $1 billion of its endowment to mission-related investments over the next ten years, Ford is betting it can both broaden and deepen its impact. If other foundations follow Ford's lead, they, too, can position themselves to harness the full power of their endowments and expertise — and help shape the real estate market in ways that will benefit millions of low- and middle-income Americans.

We are at a crossroads. We have seen innovative nonprofits across the country develop truly impressive solutions to the nation's housing crisis. But without access to enterprise-level capital, it will be difficult for them to bring their solutions to scale. The time to act is now.

Headshot_rebecca_reganRebecca Regan is executive vice president at the Housing Partnership Network, a Boston-based business collaborative of one hundred of the nation’s leading affordable housing and community development nonprofits.

5 Questions for...Lateefah Simon, President, Akonadi Foundation

January 04, 2018

At 40, Lateefah Simon has spent more than half her life as a civil rights advocate and racial justice leader. She was a 17-year-old mother when she went to work for the Center for Young Women's Development and was just 19 when she became the organization's executive director. In the years that followed, she helped position the center as a national leader in the movement to empower young women of color — an achievement for which she was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 2003. She later led the creation of San Francisco's first reentry services division, headed the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and served as a program director at the Rosenberg Foundation, where she helped launch the Leading Edge Fund in support of the next generation of progressive movement leaders in California.

In 2016, Simon became the second president of Akonadi Foundation, whose mission is "to eliminate structural racism that leads to inequity in the United States." PND spoke with her about the work required to build a movement focused on racial equity — and philanthropy's role in that effort.

Philanthropy News Digest: The Akonadi Foundation, which is headquartered in Oakland, is focused on "building a localized racial justice movement." Why is it important for the racial justice movement to act locally?

Headshot_lateefash_simon_2017Lateefah Simon: What those of us in philanthropy and those working on the ground doing movement-building work know is that many of the racialized policies that have divided communities, from juvenile justice to local policing to school policies, have taken place on the municipal level. We also know that our efforts have to be extremely strategic to undo these policies — for example, the disproportionate overuse of school suspensions and expulsions against black and brown students that has been standard policy for many, many years.

To create racial justice in our communities, we have to go deep — to the source, where the policies come from, and also to the culture. Our work is not just about going after and disrupting racist policy but also about ensuring that all communities of color are working together, understanding that one group's organizing, movement-building, and advocacy work will benefit other groups. If we're fighting for anti-gentrification policies in Chinatown, African-American and Latino communities are going to be able to use those efforts to inform their own organizing, and so on.

PND: The foundation takes an "ecosystem" approach to its grantmaking. What do you mean by ecosystem grantmaking, and why do you believe it's the right approach for your movement at this time?

LS: Five years ago, the Akonadi Foundation set out to envision what Oakland could look like in ten years. Oakland has been a cradle of social movements — and is best known, of course, as the birthplace of the Black Panther Party. There's a historical narrative here around race and the interconnectedness of people of color coming together to defeat horrific racist policies; it's our legacy. In our ambition to create a ten-year period of change, our thought was, even as a small foundation, we need to make grants that address the ecosystem in which "justice" is created and delivered. We know that here in Oakland, for example, we have a responsibility to fund base-building groups that are enlisting people willing to fight back, to fund groups that are going to craft policy prescriptions, and groups that will — when those campaigns have succeeded — ensure implementation of those prescriptions as well as follow-up advocacy and legal oversight of the policies.

And just as importantly, we know that if we are pushing communities to organize and fight campaigns, culture has to be at the center of this work; much of our cultural work as people of color is about staking claim to a city we helped build. So thinking about how change happens, about how the people of Oakland move toward justice — it's broad, and must be led by an "ecosystem" of grant partners who are in movement together.

In 2018, we're going to be engaging our grantees and having them give us a better idea of where we are. The world has completely changed in the last year. And because the world has changed, and the conditions of our city have changed, it's important for us to go back and look at our theory of change and redefine and reexamine how ecosystem grantmaking needs to work.

Continue reading »

Most Popular PhilanTopic Posts 2017

January 02, 2018

It's no surprise, perhaps, that the most popular item on the blog in 2017 was a post, by Michael Edwards, from 2012. Back then, the country was clawing its way back from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the future, if not exactly bright, was looking better. Two thousand-seventeen, in contrast, was...well, let's just say it was a year many would like to forget. Edwards, a former program officer at the Ford Foundation and the editor of the Transformation blog on the openDemocracy site, had agreed to write a four-part series (check out parts one, two, and four) on the Bellagio Initiative, an effort funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to produce a new framework for philanthropic and international development, and his third post had much to say about how and when, in development work, we measure, how we use and interpret the results, and who decides these things — concerns as relevant today as they were in the final year of Barack Obama's first term in office.

Of course, smart thinking and useful advice never go out of fashion — as the posts gathered below amply demonstrate. Indeed, with an administration and majorities in both chambers of Congress seemingly determined to roll back many of the progressive gains achieved over the last half-century, nonprofits and social entrepreneurs working to protect the rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations, undo the vast harm caused by a systemically biased criminal justice system, combat the corrosive effects of money on our politics, and address the existential threat posed by climate change will need all the smart thinking and useful advice they can lay their hands on. So, sit back, buckle your seat belt, and get ready for 2018. It's going to be an...interesting year.

What have you read/watched/heard lately that got your attention, made you think, or charged you up? Feel free to share in the comments section below.

Interested in writing for PND or PhilanTopic? We'd love to hear from you. Send a few lines about your idea/article/post to mfn@foundationcenter.org.

Contributors

Quote of the Week

  • "You cannot lynch me and keep me in ghettos without becoming something monstrous yourselves. And, furthermore, you give me a terrifying advantage. You never had to look at me. I had to look at you. I know more about you than you know about me. Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced...."

    — James Baldwin (1924-1987)

Subscribe to Philantopic

Contributors

Guest Contributors

  • Laura Cronin
  • Derrick Feldmann
  • Thaler Pekar
  • Kathryn Pyle
  • Nick Scott
  • Allison Shirk

Tweets from @PNDBLOG

Follow us »

Archives

Other Blogs

Tags