There's an interesting debate going on over at the
Tactical Philanthropy blog. (Be sure to read the comments, not just the post.) It's about the
Chronicle of Philanthropy op-ed published recently by Phil Buchanan and Ellie Buteau of the
Center for Effective Philanthropy, which questions the value of the ever growing field of "purveyors of new philanthropic formulas for making a difference."
Offering anecdotes and snazzy adjectives modifying the word “philanthropy,” they extrapolate from a success story or two, promising that their approach—fill-in-the-blank philanthropy—will allow foundations and philanthropists to finally show progress..." says the column.
Sean Stannard-Stockton replies with the argument that no "Tactical Philanthropy," "Catalytic Philanthropy," or other "Fill-in-the-blank philanthropy" approach has claimed to be right for every foundation or philanthropist. And the conversation goes on, including a response from
Mark Kramer, who coined the term "Catalytic Philanthropy" and who will be speaking at the
SECF Annual Meeting in November.
The main lesson in all this for me, at least, is that there are a lot more people playing in the philanthropy sandbox than there were even a short decade ago. More people means we'll get some great new ideas and a lot more just plain noise. While the discussion referenced above is focused more on effective grantmaking, we've already seen new voices pipe in on discussions of foundation rules, foundation regulations and general philanthropy policy. We're beginning to see new and different speakers and approaches to philanthropy conferences. Come to think of it, our sandbox is beginning to feel a might crowded.
But that's okay, maybe we all need to engage in a little more "Sandbox Philanthropy" to keep our minds open. (Sorry, I couldn't resist filling in that blank.)
I had to read this article in the Palm Beach Post more than once to believe it was true: "
Give us bigger slice, local leaders urge MacArthur charity." It seems the commissioners in Palm Beach County, Florida don't like the way the Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation's board is distributing its grants. It's founder, John D. MacArthur, who died in 1978, spent a great deal of time in his well-loved Palm Beach, and local politicians say that his foundation's giving should match that legacy.
The fact that a community is disgruntled about how or what a foundation funds is nothing new — but the fact that local political leaders are challenging that foundation in the press is indicative of a new era. What used to be quiet, private criticisms are now publicly splashed across news media. We all realize by now that society by and large does not realize what foundations do and how they add value, but now the issue has become critical as policy makers, from Congress to local county commissions, are questioning foundation practices and looking at foundation regulations - and assets - with a new eye.
The
Philanthropy Awareness Initiative (PAI) will soon release a report that will show just how much (or how little) local policymakers know about foundations, and PAI's leader, Mark Sedway, will share findings and discuss the implications at the
SECF 2010 Annual Meeting in Mobile, AL this November. I'm not optimistic about the results of that report, but I am eager to hear Mark's take on it all.
Maybe it is just a "witch hunt" in a time of economic strife, but those of us in the foundation world have no one to blame but ourselves. Philanthropy information has been notably absent in conversations about public policy for decades. We should have been sharing our stories long, long ago.
In a recent column in
Business Lexington, Anne Nash, a philanthropic advisor in Lexington, Kentucky, offered a fairly c
omprehensive 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!
I must confess I've derived some chuckles and a lot of incredulous head-shaking as I read news lately about the sole trustee of the New York-based
Judith Rothschild Foundation who disappeared for several months and left 17 grantees without their promised grant checks, which totaled about $100,000.
You can get the details — which read almost like fiction — from articles in the
New York Times or the
Wall Street Journal. But long story short, the foundation was created by the late Judith Rosthchild, a New York artist, to help share the story of her own work and foster new artists. She named her friend, Harvey S. Shipley Miller, as the sole trustee.
That would be mistake number one, wouldn't you agree? Aside from the ethical considerations of having a single trustee, we often talk hypothetically about what would happen if a key leader were "hit by a bus." According to Mr. Miller, who recently resurfaced, this wasn't far from the truth. He claims he was badly injured in a fall at his home months ago and has been unable to communicate all this time. If we take him at his word, then that's all the more reason to have a plan in place for communication for any grantmaking foundation, no matter what the size or scope.
Sounds like Mr. Miller would benefit from SECF's upcoming Essential Skills and Strategies for Grantmakers workshop. If he were to attend, he'd learn some of the basic ins and outs of foundation rules and regulations from seasoned veterans in the field — including key points on ethics and communications. He'd also get his hands on some valuable philanthropy resources that would definitely inform his grantmaking.
He can't attend, but you certainly can! The two-day workshop takes place in Atlanta March 3-4. Click
here to learn more, view the full syllabus and register.
An article in the January 10 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Transition from Sparks Hospital to Charitable Entity a Long Process," is noteworthy in two respects: it is a great example of a local reporter, Laurie Whalen, reaching out for a larger perspective on philanthropy, setting up a foundation and foundation regulations; and it underscores the importance of having foundation officials who are accessible to the media, willing and capable of explaining philanthropy policy in terms that the average reader can digest and comprehend.
In this instance, Heather Larkin, president and CEO of the Arkansas Community Foundation in Little Rock, offered a very helpful explanation of health conversion foundations, while articulating that transparency and accountability must be hallmarks of all foundations. Kudos to Whalen and Larkin for helping Arkansas citizens to understand the challenges and nuances involved in the creation of the Fort Smith Regional Healthcare Foundation out of the sale of the non-profit Sparks Regional Medical Center to a for-profit health care provider and simultaneously increasing public awareness of the extraordinary benefits that foundations offer their communities.
Dr. Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University won the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics for her research into the role of voluntary associations in solving a wide range of public challenges. Typically, society manages its “public assets” (i.e. fish in the ocean, lumber in public forests, etc.) in one of two ways in order to avoid uncontrolled consumption. First, society treats the public asset like a private asset and submits its consumption to market forces. A good example is offshore oil leases in which potential users competitively bid to lease the “land” and extract oil. Second, society can manage public assets through regulation. An example of regulation is the issuance of fishing licenses that limit the species and number of fish that can be pulled from public waters. In theory, the public’s interests are protected through these two approaches.
Dr. Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for her work exploring a third way to govern the use of public assets known as “voluntary agreement”. Over many years, she documented dozens of examples in many countries where consumers of public assets voluntarily reached agreement to limit and control consumption and users were often more satisfied with the results than under marketplace or regulatory schemes. Voluntary agreement is based on the principle of “reciprocity”- -the belief that the beneficial acts of one party obligates others to reciprocate with equally beneficial acts. Reciprocity also develops trust and improves cooperation.
Deeply imbedded in the concept of voluntary agreement is evidence that it works best from the bottom up. Grassroots groups and users of assets who are closest to the scene reach more effective and durable rules than top-down efforts. Apparently, empowering the people who have the most at stake to regulate the use of a public asset is the key ingredient. How these rights are defined through “rules of the road” such as policies, practices, court decisions, and other official acts seems to be a big help in governing these scarce public resources. Dr. Ostrom has provided us with an empirically rigorous demonstration of these propositions around the world.
This is where foundations should pay close attention to advocacy that starts with grassroots support. The formula that has worked for years in philanthropy is a three-pronged approach to (1) build a large group of local supporters in favor of an effective social intervention (such as a nurse-family partnership based on a well-researched model), (2) independently evaluate a demonstration project to show that it works, and (3) advocate for the elimination of public policies that resist wide-scale adoption and expand public policies that support adoption. All too often, foundations take a “build-it-and-they-will-come” approach before considering best-practices, evaluation, or advocacy. This is known as the “Lone-Ranger” approach which most often leaves them mired in perpetually funding programs that rightfully should qualify for public financial support.
Admittedly, it will take a long time to build grassroots coalitions of the right people, start community interventions that use best practices, and develop advocacy maps so that grantmakers know in advance the public policies they want to change. However, the Lone-Ranger alternative rarely succeeds.
We just heard Dan Pallotta, author of
Uncharitable, speak about how nonprofits (and foundations) need to banish the word "overhead" from their lexicon and change the focus of donors and foundation regulations from the percentage of the gifts given that go to operating expenses to a focus on what really works.
In other words, said Pallotta, we need to take control of the conversation.
In my opinion, the new communities and discussions fostered by online communications tools and social media will play a huge role in that. We saw it with the presidential election in 2008, and we can see it going on now.
Only mere weeks ago, the nonprofit
KIVA garnered attention when it was pointed out that the way in which it uses donations wasn't necessarily what donors thought. KIVA and some of its intelligent advocates took control of that conversation, and I believe that KIVA has emerged stronger than ever as a solid, effective investment - and I have no idea what their "overhead" is. Nor do I care.
There is a wealth of information and opinions that we can tap into and spaces where we can discuss and create a new conversation about philanthropy and the nonprofit sector within the realm of cyberspace.
Foundations of all sizes, stripes and opinions can and should be a part of this discussion. Who's ready to take control of the conversation?
Powered by Compendium