Corporate Grantmaking

Corporate Grantmaking and the Stock Holder

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 by Dot Neale

Corporate philanthropy a means of stealing from stock holders?! Others' views about Corporate Grantmaking can surprise me and provide a new angle from which to view the world!

http://philanthropy.com/blogPost/Opinion-Corporate/25690/

Do we leave the fate of philanthropy to business?

Friday, March 5, 2010 by Betsey Russell

In a recent column in Business Lexington, Anne Nash, a philanthropic advisor in Lexington, Kentucky, offered a fairly comprehensive summary of the ways in which the field of grantmaking is beginning to shift. In short, the lines between traditional grantmaking and business models seem to be getting more and more blurred. Perhaps one day, it will be difficult to distinguish between a grantmaking foundation and business empire.

Not that I completely disagree; there are plenty of arguments out there for adopting a more rigorous and results-driven approach to investing one's social capital. And no doubt new charitable foundations rules and regulations, along with ongoing foundation legislation, will evolve in response to these new trends.

While it's great that a growing number of corporate and business leaders and thinkers are eager to make their marks in the philanthropic sandbox, it's also true that no one understands the real challenges of foundation grantmaking like those who have been toiling here for decades. That's why it's so critical that foundation executives and trustees make their voices heard among state and national policy and law-making bodies. And one of the best places to do that is at Foundations on the Hill, March 16 and 17th.

It's still not too late to sign up. The more of us who visit the Hill, the louder our voice and the stronger our influence as our field grows and changes. Get the details on the SECF Foundations on the Hill webpage.

To add your name to the list, contact Helen Ishii, Director of Member and Government Affairs, Southeastern Council of Foundations, (404) 524-0911 or helen@secf.org.

See you in DC!

Corporate Grantmaking through global volunteerism

Friday, February 19, 2010 by Dot Neale

I would be interested in others' experiences with corporate grantmaking through international programs which strengthen the home company as a global enterprise and provide valuable professional development for employees to be more effective leaders in the world market.... an innovative approach to corporate grantmaking. Note a recent article in the British HR Magazine:

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/news/features/968670/Motivation-Corporate-Social-Responsibility---Engaged-doing-good/

I have experienced some of the impact of programs like this as I have worked with a number of IBM Corporate Service Corps teams referenced in this article which IBM sends to developing countries. The excitement, company loyalty, and improved global leadership skills are evident.... all while donating a valuable service The program has similarities to a 'corporate' Peace Corps.

Why Effective Philanthropy Isn't Democratic

Monday, January 4, 2010 by Betsey Russell

I've been mentally wrestling lately with the tension that appears to be growing in our country between democracy and philanthropy. (It's a fun mental exercise when one is pretending to nap in order to avoid an excess of familial love over the holidays.)

For those of you who are sticklers for semantics, in my mental arguments, I consider democracy in the purest form: one person, one vote. I also simply "philanthropy" to mean "charitable giving."

The Chase online giving debacle and the concept of "voting" for philanthropic decisions brought this question to a head for me. After announcing with great fanfare that they would provide a transparent way for Facebook users to determine how $4 million in corporate philanthropy would be disbursed, Chase took down their public scoreboard and reined in their process when the top vote-getters turned out to be causes that Chase found to be too controversial. The result has been some significant brand backlash for Chase.

But even if Chase hadn't chickened out, would this approach to giving really have been effective? What knowledge did the thousands or millions of voters bring to the process other than the know-how to click a button when asked?

For me, it underscores something that I've stated before: effective philanthropy is NOT a democratic undertaking. Instead, philanthropy is a very personal method of providing support to a cause or addressing an issue that resonates with the giver or givers. While I do believe that a variety of educated perspectives help strengthen understanding and result in better decision-making, I think opening that process to the masses simply makes it a free-for-all or popularity contest.

One of the best means that I've seen of combining a focused approach AND a variety of perspectives to make effective giving decisions takes place at the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Their grantmaking committees extend beyond the board of directors to include women of all races and from all economic strata. These women gather together several times over the course of the grantmaking process, attend site visits together, and have passionate, intense discussions about which organizations will have the greatest impact on Atlanta's most vulnerable women and children. It's a heart-wrenching process that I've been through more than once.

And there is never, ever, a single vote taken.

It's not a democracy. It's an educated, informed consensus. It leaves open questions and possibilities for the next go round, and engages its participants far beyond a simple "aye" or "nay." It's very hard work — and educating broader audiences about its effectiveness is even harder. But it beats a popularity contest any day.

The Challenge Grant as Foundation Marketing Tool

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 by Betsey Russell

Today I read an article about the importance of challenge grants by Michael Kaiser, CEO of The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Huffington Post. He writes specifically about the arts and arts grantmaking, but his points are well taken - particularly this one:

"Too many organizations that receive this first big grant build the infrastructure to support their new, increased programming without thinking about the day the grant period ends."

Amen, brother. And this goes for foundations as well. Sure, there's the regular work of administering a multi-year grant and the occasional story about it in the annual report or newsletter, but foundations usually miss the boat when it comes to really tapping into their ability to share their messages and mission in a truly meaningful way with others in their community.

Kaiser says,

"I have long lobbied foundations to make their grants to smaller organizations in the form of challenge grants. A challenge grant must be matched by other contributions, often by new gifts or increased gifts from existing donors. By forcing the organization to build a new, larger donor base during the grant period, the transition when the grant is over is eased. The foundation's money might be gone but the new donors attracted by the match help fill the void.

But many foundations simply do not want to do the oversight work required of administering a challenge grant. And if the foundation is not far-sighted enough to give a matching grant, the organization must be disciplined and smart enough to create its own challenge grant. The senior staff and board must use the grant period to build its donor base. A serious, concerted effort to attract new donors must be pursued."

Obviously, a challenge grant creates a solid marketing opportunity for any nonprofit, but think of what if can also do for the foundation. A community foundation, for instance, could offer its own donor advisors the opportunity to contribute to the challenge and subsequently mobilize a corps of brand ambassadors. A private or family foundation could convene community discussions about the arts (or homelessness, or whatever the issue) during the challenge grant period to stimulate more engagement and elevate its reputation as a servant leadership organization. Corporate grantmakers could couple the challenge grant with a cause marketing opportunity, engaging customers with the nonprofit in question while promoting their own corporate social responsibility. Foundation executives of all stripes could serve on discussion panels, provide newspaper editorials, or even serve as a media resource for the issue addressed by the challenge grant.

None of these are "one-off" opportunities. They can continue throughout the life of a challenge grant.

In engaging in marketing activities of this type, the foundation wins by elevating its profile as an engaged, caring member (even leader) of the community. The nonprofit wins through increased opportunities to cultivate more donors (which is also a win for the foundation). And the community wins through greater understanding of the issues it faces and the people and organizations that are tackling those issues.

We Exist, Therefore . . .

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 by Suzanna Stribling

Like my earlier post about the death of conferences, many have predicted the decline of associations in light of the many online, tailored connections that professionals now enjoy. For those of us working in philanthropy, where it seems a new association or “affinity group” pops up every day, this is news indeed.

So I ask myself, why do associations exist? Why does SECF exist? (Full disclosure: I’ve just sat for the Certified Association Executive exam so I've been thinking a lot about this...

Kevin Holland, on his blog Associations Inc., says: “Associations do not exist to "associate." They exist to promote the interests of the constituencies they represent.” He calls associations to task for merely duplicating “best practices” across various types of associations – meetings, newsletters, blogs, etc. – without really learning about the unique needs of their respective members and finding the point of collective leverage for them.

This year, SECF has spent a lot of time crafting a new strategic plan to better serve the private foundations, family foundations, community foundations and corporate grantmakers who gather under the SECF umbrella to promote their common interests. One of its elements is about just that – promoting the interests of philanthropy in the southeast by supporting the development of state-based grantmaker associations.

Why? Because if philanthropy is going to have a strong voice, it must mirror the political structure we live in – the federal, state, local model. Grantmakers must come together along geographic lines, not because they don’t also need to work globally, but because that’s where the point of leverage is. Associations work along a continuum, from technical assistance to one member to policy action on behalf of the whole. All the elements of association work are helpful to a field but it’s that work to congeal the collective voice that is most challenging and holds the most rewards.

We are your association. You pay your dues every year. Why do you think it’s important for us to exist?

Let the Philanthro-Networking Begin!

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 by Betsey Russell

There are already many people arriving in Memphis for the Southeastern Council of Foundations Annual Meeting, and watching people greet their colleagues is truly uplifting.

Foundation executives, trustees, and staff of all stripes are converging here in the Peabody for three days of intense discussion about grantmaking resources, philanthropy policy, foundation legislation, and success stories and best practices from around the region. The content of this meeting will no doubt be phenomenal, but there's another lesson that's quickly learned by watching this group gather: Philanthropy is, and always will be, best facilitated through human interaction.

The family foundations, corporate grantmakers, community foundations and private foundations gathered here all share a common passion to serve their fellow man. We will talk in depth about strategy and practice, internal concerns and external perspectives. We will engage in discussions about education, health, art, community development, economics, leadership, communications, governance, the environment, effectiveness, partnership, advocacy and stewardship. But we will also share the joy that the work of philanthropy brings, and relish the face-to-face dialogs that are harder and harder to come by.

Relationships that are born and/or sustained throughout the year via technology will become stronger with a handshake or a hug. New ideas will be generated. Meaning and feeling and passion for those ideas will be communicated with facial expressions and tone of voice.

In other words, we're all here together to truly appreciate one another and strengthen the work we do.

It doesn't get much better than this.

Where is the diversified portfolio?

Sunday, November 1, 2009 by Betsey Russell

There's been a lot of online chatter lately about the importance of "social investing" and calls for philanthropists to concentrate more fully on the nonprofits that are proven to be effective.

The conversation starter (at least this time around) was a post by David Hunter, a well-known consultant and author, entitled, "The End of Charity: How to Fix the Nonprofit Sector Through Effective Social Investing." In his well-thought-out post, Hunter acknowledges that his will be an unpopular view as he explains that

"it will have to be the nonprofit sectors’ funders (government, foundations, donors) who take the lead in building a strong, effective and efficient nonprofit sector — a sector that delivers what it promises, to those who need it most in order to have a decent shot at a productive, healthy, satisfying life. This will be the end of charity — and the flourishing of effective social investing."

Hunter goes on to list high-profile examples of nonprofit programs that have failed, and provides a general framework for social investing in terms of portfolio.

"...Social investing isn’t monolithic. There is a continuum along which one can sort out various social investment approaches. So, for example, high-risk social investing involves channeling resources toward nonprofits that show evidence that they are on the road toward being able to create such value for their intended beneficiaries reliably and sustainably, but need additional time and resources to build the capacities to do so. At the other end of the continuum, low-risk social investing means channeling resources exclusively to those nonprofits that already have a sustained track record of producing documented impacts. Clearly most social investors will operate somewhere in between."

Hunter is right - there should be a continuum, and it should include approaches that focus on documented evidence of effectiveness. But I would argue that it should be broader than just social investing, just like a well-allocated investment portfolio should always include a mix of cash, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc., dictated by the goals of the investor.

I also disagree with Hunter on one specific point. "Charity" will never end. Ever.

People give and invest charitable dollars for different reasons. Not everyone is motivated by longitudinal studies. And I for one think that's a good thing.

If we all become social investors and shun charity, we're in deep trouble as a caring society. Human needs and human societies are just downright inefficient.

Yes, we should continue to strive to teach men to fish — but at the same time, we can't let them starve by withholding fish while they're learning to angle.

I can think of several community foundations, private foundations and corporate grantmakers in our region who have, in the light of the current economy, redoubled their efforts to simply help "supply fish." They've not abandoned the desire to invest philanthropic dollars more effectively, or to push for more evidence of effectiveness. But they've also not abandoned the portion of their investment portfolio (so to speak) that focuses on immediate need. They will continue to rebalance their philanthropic investment portfolio to include short and long-term goals as the reality of life in their community continues to flow and change.

Just like in the financial markets, there is no universal "best" way to achieve returns across the spectrum of human needs. We need all approaches, tailored to our goals and perceptions of what accomplishes them. And all should be a part of the full spectrum of philanthropy policy and practices.

Do you agree? Where are you putting your money?

So Much to Talk About

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 by Betsey Russell

With as fast as the world of philanthropy is changing, it's sometimes hard to keep up. Private foundation legislation about payouts morphs into new rules for community foundations about funding advocacy groups. Corporate philanthropy's impact on brands runs together in my head with arguments about perpetuity and why people set up a foundation in the first place.

For years, the Southeastern Council of Foundations has been a haven for all manner of philanthropic conversations to take place, and now, I'm proud to see this organization taking the conversation one step farther. In this new blog, you'll find posts about a variety of topics from a number of authors about foundation rules, philanthropic policy, key issues for foundation trustees, worthy stories of grantmaking from around the region, news, useful ideas, and more.

But this blog is only a means to get the conversation started, so read often, share your thoughts frequently, and help us all raise the voice and vision of philanthropy further into our collective consciousness.

There's so much to talk about!

Who Defines How Foundations Should Change?

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 by Mike Howland

There's no shortage of opinion these days about what foundations should do differently to support nonprofits, which groups they should be funding, and how much they ought to pay out in grants. The commentary ranges from deeply insightful and soul-searching to borderline ludicrous.

This is not an environment that grantmakers have seen before. And while the chorus of columnists and policy wonks is full of suggestions (and in some cases, threats), the reality is that foundation trustees of private foundations, independent foundations, community foundation and corporate philanthropy have to make their own decisions about how to adapt to, and continue to add value in, a changed world.

It's not an "ain't nobody's business if I do," situation. Rather we should acknowledge that philanthropy is - and always has been - a personal thing.

I understand this completely, because the Southeastern Council of Foundations, as an association, has had to do the same thing. We recently launched our new strategic plan, and it paints a very new picture of our organization. Our strategic planning committee had to grapple with some tough issues about our relevancy to members and the value we provided. With their guidance, we came out of that discussion on the right path.

Just like our foundation members, we know we can't continue "business as usual," so we've made some changes. We've become more focused on building leadership in the sector, allowing our members to customize their relationship with us and with one another to a more detailed degree. We're also working strategically with other grantmaker organizations as partners.

Simply put, we're giving our members more ways to connect and more to connect to as they make very personal decisions about their grantmaking and their futures.

Luckily for us, the personal and professional relationships that members gain through SECF have retained - and even increased - their value during tough times. Connections, communications and camaraderie are valuable tools when one is struggling with touch choices. SECF is honored to provide those tools.

So, to all of you in the foundation community, I say: Only you can make the decisions about your foundation's operations and future. Don't let anyone tell you any differently. But don't make those decisions in a vacuum. Let your colleagues and friends at SECF know what we can do to help.

And on the same note, I know that growth and change are never really "complete," so I invite you all to take a look at our strategic plan and let us know what you think.

Michael R. Howland, CAE
President and CEO
Southeastern Council of Foundations