Rural "Social Innovation" Starts With Us

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 by Guest Blogger

Dr. Sherece West is president and CEO of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas. She will be participating in a panel discussion on philanthropic leadership at the SECF Annual Meeting in November.

 

I recently read a blog post from Pablo Eisenberg entitled, “The Social Innovation Fund: Innovation for What?” In it, Mr. Eisenberg criticized the Obama Administration’s Social Innovation Fund for focusing too small an investment on only a few large, well-known nonprofits and engaging only a small number of very large foundation supporters.

 

In particular, Mr. Eisenberg points to rural communities that will essentially be left out of the game, and notes an opportunity for innovation that the fund will certainly miss:

 

Thousands of small nonprofits in rural areas and in regions currently underfunded by philanthropy are in desperate need of financial support. To meet this need, the Administration could use the Presidential bully pulpit to urge the foundation community to create new, large rural and regional foundations with the capacity to reach out to these overlooked nonprofit organizations and their communities.

 

Working in Arkansas, a predominantly rural state, I completely agree with Mr. Eisenberg’s criticism of the Social Innovation Fund and about missed opportunities in rural philanthropy, and I hope he’ll speak more to that during his live debate at the SECF Annual Meeting. But I also think that those of us who live in rural states bear our share of the responsibility for changing the game. Before we create “new, large rural and regional foundations,” those of us who are already working in rural areas need to ask ourselves some serious questions:

 

• What are we going to do to make rural America a priority for national funders and the federal government?

• What are we going to do to attract public resources to leverage our grantmaking and make scalable best practices?

• What are we going to do to influence public policy decisions?

• What are we going to do with our limited resources to be part of the solution as opposed to continuing to perpetuate the problems through grantmaking practices and approaches?

 

I can think of three things.

 

First, we can become advocates.  We can help policymakers in Washington correct their misconceptions of rural America as an agrarian Utopia and help them see the true challenges of joblessness, poverty and out-migration that rural communities face. We can inform the process of advocating federal dollars so that rural localities could collaborate on initiatives that would benefit broader regions. We can go to the Hill and talk with our congressional leaders about funding formulas. We can support research that informs the policy debate. We can bring in technical experts to help us consider the best short?term and long?term approaches. We can use our convening power to spur conversation and educate policymakers and advocates about what is best for our rural communities.

 

Second, we can be activists. Philanthropy is sometimes called the research and development arm of society. At our best, we can use our unique role to identify and understand the dimensions of deeply rooted social problems, test strategies to address them, and serve as a catalyst for change. The creation of new economies in rural areas with livable wage jobs; building the capacity of our nonprofit infrastructure to play its vital role in rural society; and bringing to scale the outstanding work of many of our nonprofits to provide services and supports to rural citizens — all of these are more likely to happen with activism. I know that “activism” is a scary word to most funders, but we need to get over our fear and begin collecting good data, educating our constituencies to develop community change goals and actively influencing how resources are attracted to and used within our communities.

 

And finally, we can be accelerants, the catalysts for change that light a fire under rural grantmaking. Nationally, more needs to be done to grow the capacity of our vitally important community foundations in rural areas and the affiliate structures in those areas with affiliates. But community philanthropy must include those who live and work in rural communities as part of the solution and not simply as the recipients of benevolent gifts. Foundations and communities must join together in collective or collaborative strategies for community change.

 

Yes, Mr. Eisenberg is right. Rural America deserves philanthropy’s attention. But it’s up to us to make sure we get it.

"Battleground" States

Thursday, July 8, 2010 by Betsey Russell
An interesting article from Reuters caught my eye yesterday. It was about a proposal in New York to cut state tax deductions for charitable giving for the weathiest citizens. As the article reports, "New York lawmakers want to cut the tax break on charitable giving for about 3,500 people earning more than $10 million a year to 25 percent from 50 percent in a bid to raise $100 million in extra money for the state."

All the usual suspects are quoted in response to this article: foundation heads and nonprofit execs decrying the thought; Paul Schervish from the Center of Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College saying it won't really be a big deal. The same arguments that have been raging on the national scene were all there. 

The big difference? This is about a specific state

As we know, ideas that are not completely salable to the national populous often become tested at the state level. But when it starts to happen in our field, which has, let's face it, lived in relative anonymity for decades, it can be a little jarring. And exhausting to contemplate. 

As states begin to focus more on foundation rules and foundation legislation, it means that foundations in those states must become more adept at educating lawmakers about foundations and sharing philanthropy information no just about their states as a whole, but by state representatives' districts. Gone are the days of simply adding a passive "amen" to the Council on Foundations' work in Washington. We've got to get busy here at home. 

I'm happy to know that the Southeastern Council of Foundations is leading the charge, supporting statewide grantmaker networks that are focused on policy, and providing several state-focused policy sessions at the upcoming 2010 Annual Meeting. Hopefully, this will help more foundations in our region understand the challenges ahead and how to tackle them most effectively. 

Which of the states in the Southeastern Council of Foundations' region will be the first to introduce legislation similar to New York's?

My money's on Florida. What about yours?


10 Reasons Not to Miss This Philanthropy Conference

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 by Betsey Russell
Over the past 10 days, the Southeastern Council of Foundations has sent out our "Top 10 Reasons" to attend this year's Annual Meeting in Mobile, Alabama, November 10-12. This is a great opportunity to stock up on loads of philanthropy information and grantmaking resources — but it's also one of the most congenial and "user-friendly" foundation conferences out there. 

So, for those of you who may have missed the emails, I'm replaying our "Top 10" here:

Reason #10 – November’s not really that far away.

Even though summer’s just begun, we’ll all only get busier as the year goes on. Don’t let the Southeast’s premier event for grantmakers get lost in the shuffle. Register now to secure your spot and check it off your list.

 

Reason #9 – The “Clash of the Titans” is for real.

Right now, there are two strong opinions in our sector about what foundations could and should be doing. How that conversation develops will doubtlessly influence how federal and state policies about philanthropy are shaped. No one represents the two sides of the debate better than Pablo Eisenberg and Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky. These two thought leaders will go head to head at the SECF Annual Meeting — and you can have a front row seat. 

Reason #8 – It’s better than having a crystal ball.

The SECF Annual Meeting follows immediately on the heels of what will to be a very critical election. You’ll hear the “morning after” impressions from experts about what the results could mean in terms of legislative policy for philanthropy, investment strategies for foundations and the short and long-term future of grantmaking.

 

Reason #7 – The Great Recession’s not over yet.

Things may be looking up, but we’ve still got a long way to go. At the SECF Annual Meeting, you’ll learn new strategies for tackling the full suite of recession-related realities — from internal investment approaches to ways to develop a community workforce and jobs.

 

Reason #6 — Powerful philanthropy starts with meaningful conversation.

There’s no place like the SECF Annual Meeting to gather with sector-leading peers in a format that encourages open, honest communication. In fact, the exchange of ideas in hallways and elevators alone has sparked ideas that have changed communities. Although we can’t promise everyone a life-changing moment, we can guarantee you’ll leave with plenty to think about.

 

Reason #5 — The Gulf Coast gets our support.

SECF secures meeting sites years in advance, and at the time we set this year’s Annual Meeting in Mobile, Alabama, no one could have foreseen the disastrous oil spill that now challenges the Gulf Coast.  While we wish the spill had never happened, we’re heartened that we have a chance to help by visiting the region, helping to generate revenue for the community, and learn about the role foundations will play in the ongoing recovery efforts.

 
Reason #4 — We ditched the stuffy dinner.

Conversation is key. Instead of plated entrees and podiums, we’ve heard the call for more informal networking — loud and clear. This year we’ve replaced the chairman’s dinner with a grand, Southern-style reception. We’re talking heavy on the hors’deouvers and mingling, and light on the interruptions. In fact, we’ve minimized the talking heads and stuffy panels throughout the entire Annual Meeting, and emphasized the opportunity for more discussion, interaction and collective reflection.

 

Reason #3 — Mobile invented Mardi Gras.

That’s right. Mardi Gras began in Mobile, Alabama, and the spirit of celebration and hospitality still imbues this beautiful city, along with great restaurants, breathtaking architecture and plenty of galleries and shops. What better place to celebrate and share the great work of your foundation? Although we’ll take a look at the serious issues facing our country, our communities, and our philanthropy, we’ve also made sure there’s time for you to enjoy a taste of Mobile and explore one of our region’s historic gems with your friends and colleagues.

 
Reason #2 — You just might sleep easier, because it’s free.

There’s nothing like a good night’s sleep — and yours could be free! Complete your SECF Annual Meeting registration by July 1 and you could win one free night at either The Battle House or Renaissance Riverview Hotel. All you’ll need to do is show up and snooze. (After a full day of action-packed Annual Meeting sessions, that should be a cinch!)

 

Reason #1 — All your friends and colleagues will be there.

We know what your mama told you: “If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?” But in this case, we think she’d approve. All of your friends and colleagues are coming together to share ideas, meet new leaders and thinkers, learn from experts and enjoy the fellowship of philanthropy. Shouldn’t you?

 

Don’t miss out. Learn more and register now. See you in Mobile!

 

 

If You Don't Tell Them, Who Will?

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 by Guest Blogger
Our featured guest for this post is Bruce Trachtenberg, who has been the executive director of the Communications Network, a nonprofit that promotes the effective use of communications in philanthropy, since May 2006. Before that, he worked for the Edna McConnell Clark and Wallace Foundations, and several for-profit companies.This post is a re-post from The Communications Network blog.

I just finished reading a brief, but unfortunately "sobering" (their words) report from the Center on Effective Philanthropy (CEP) that also doesn't mince any words in describing what it calls a failure of foundations to keep their grantees well informed about how they were responding to the economic downturn over the past couple of years.

Based on surveys of over 6,000 grantees from 37 foundations across the country, CEP found that:
  • Nonprofits do not perceive funders to have communicated their responses to the economic downturn clearly, if at all.
  • Nonprofits report that funders have offered them little useful help in responding to the challenges of the downturn. 

The report goes on to say:

When asked how clearly, if at all, foundations had communicated with grantees about their response to the economic climate, 30 percent of grantees indicate that no such communication had occurred. Of those grantees that did report receiving communication, 22 percent indicate that their funder’s response to the current economic climate was unclear. This is almost three times the number of grantees that rate other communications from their funders as unclear.

Grantee comments about funder communication during this difficult time highlight the importance of, as one grantee says, “candid discussions of [foundation] priorities during the economic downturn.” Another grantee comments that “with guidelines changing, I feel a need for more frequent communication and reassurance. I fear that our funding could be swept away as the economy changes.”

If anything, CEP researchers Shahryar Minhas and Ellie Buteau, PhD, understate the point when they write:

Good communication matters. The less clear grantees find their funders to be in communications about what they are doing in response to the downturn the more likely they are to indicate that their funders have not helped them respond to the current economic climate.

More than just helping them feel included in their funders' plans, the report reminds that it's unrealistic to expect grantmakers and grantees to work together in harmony toward common goals when one of the two is ill-informed. As the report states:

Grantees face significant demands while coping with the reality of fewer resources. Grantees who have found their funder’s response to be helpful tend to perceive their funder as having a better understanding of their organization’s goals and strategies. It is important that nonprofits have, as one grantee points out, “the help of the foundation staff in understanding the impact[of the current economy] and interpreting what that will mean for the [foundation’s] grantmaking.”

From its vantage point, CEP says says to improve grantee/funder communications foundations need to:
  • Clearly communicate with grantees about their own responses to the economic climate.
  • Be involved helping grantees consider changes they are making in response to the economic climate.
  • Work to build better relationships with grantees, particularly by taking the time to understand the goals and strategies of grantee organizations.
While calling the overall findings "bleak," the report did find some bright spots.  These included, The Cleveland Foundation, which is cited as among the top ten funders on how grantees measured the value and usefulness of foundation communications with them about the economic impact. 

The full report is available here.

Always Make Time for a Story

Monday, April 19, 2010 by Guest Blogger
Susan Price is Vice President of the National Center for Family Philanthropy, and a featured keynote speaker at the upcoming SECF Family Foundations Forum in Charleston, SC, May 2-4. Click here for more information and online registration.

I recently returned from a week of storytelling camp. This is a great opportunity offered periodically by a family foundation trustee in Connecticut to a small group staffers from various nonprofits. The camp was led by Donald Davis, a nationally recognized storyteller from North Carolina, who believes that telling stories and listening carefully to others’ stories can further greater understanding and bridge divides among people. He urged us take our time in telling our stories because details paint a clearer picture for the listener. It reminded me of the time a few years ago when I participated in the Southeastern Council’s family foundation forum in Mobile, AL. I was surprised to see on the agenda that the first hour was listed as “Introductions.”
 
As a bit of a Type A personality who favors fast-paced programs, I couldn’t fathom how it would take that long for the participants to say their names and identify their foundations.  Turns out, each one told a  little story, combining various pieces of their family’s philanthropic history, their grantmaking and something about a recent success or current challenge. The introductions took up every bit of that hour. And it was the best part of the program!  I was enchanted with the passion of the speakers, and Iearned so much about how they go about their work. I shouldn’t have been surprised. We know from research that family foundation representatives who attend conferences tend to rank “networking” a bit higher than “attending concurrent sessions or plenaries,” not because the formal program isn’t valuable, but because connecting with peers can have the biggest payoff over the long term. We want to hear the stories. Some of the best ideas come from other foundations who have “been there, and done that.”  Connections made at a conference can last a lifetime. I can’t wait to attend this year’s forum to hear everyone’s stories—in the hall, at a meal, or during a session. Take your time telling them. I’m not in a hurry.
 
 
Susan C. Price
Vice President
National Center for Family Philanthropy

The Philanthropy Witch Hunt Grows

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 by Betsey Russell
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.


 

Overlooking Basics Leads to Scandal

Thursday, January 14, 2010 by Betsey Russell
 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.

Foundations Must Help Media, Public Understand Philanthropy Information

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 by Mike Howland

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.

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. 


Taking Control of the Conversation

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by Betsey Russell
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?