Betsey Russell is a communications consultant with 20 years of experience in the world of foundations and philanthropy. Betsey Russell is a communications consultant with 20 years of experience in the world of foundations and philanthropy. 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?
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?
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:
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.
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.
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!
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."
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.)
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 read an interesting and thoughtful post today about embracing some of philanthropy's current "micro" trends. Author David Henderson of Full Contact Philanthropy makes the important point that focusing small gifts of time, talent or treasure on social issues actually "distracts us from pursuing real solutions that help people."
From a foundation perspective, I'm inclined to agree; giving people the impression that a $5.00 text to Haiti or 10 minutes of "micro-volunteering" from an iPhone is "doing their part" to solve a social ill seems extremely unbalanced. It delivers a great feel-good opportunity for an interaction that's tangential at best, and ultimately forgettable as the next micro-cause moves onto the screen, and not very effective for the bulk of those who need help.
Think of it this way: If you lived at the foot of the Hoover Dam and it began to sprout thousands of little leaks, would you rather have thousands of volunteers sticking their fingers in the holes, or an experienced engineering firm to rectify the underlying structural flaws?
Maybe you need both. Big picture social problems are complex, and they require long-term, sustained effort. You also need some way to reach out to attract new supporters, like that $5.00 text, but you also need to sustain that relationship for the long term.
Unfortunately for foundations, the long-term work is much harder to explain and rally supporters around. And I agree with Henderson that the new trend toward micro-engagement won't be enough to sustain macro solutions.
From a foundation perspective, I'm inclined to agree; giving people the impression that a $5.00 text to Haiti or 10 minutes of "micro-volunteering" from an iPhone is "doing their part" to solve a social ill seems extremely unbalanced. It delivers a great feel-good opportunity for an interaction that's tangential at best, and ultimately forgettable as the next micro-cause moves onto the screen, and not very effective for the bulk of those who need help.
Think of it this way: If you lived at the foot of the Hoover Dam and it began to sprout thousands of little leaks, would you rather have thousands of volunteers sticking their fingers in the holes, or an experienced engineering firm to rectify the underlying structural flaws?
Maybe you need both. Big picture social problems are complex, and they require long-term, sustained effort. You also need some way to reach out to attract new supporters, like that $5.00 text, but you also need to sustain that relationship for the long term.
Unfortunately for foundations, the long-term work is much harder to explain and rally supporters around. And I agree with Henderson that the new trend toward micro-engagement won't be enough to sustain macro solutions.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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,
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.
"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.
You have to love it when you come across someone else's blog post that says exactly what you were thinking — only more articulately.
It's easy for me, as a consultant, to tell foundations that they should be using social media. But it's even better when the argument comes from a foundation executive. In this case, I recommend a recent post on What We Give, the blog of Larry Blumenthal, director of social media strategy, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Read his post "Why Foundations Need to Embrace Social Media" (I co-opted his title for this post) that appeared in the Philanthropy News Digest, or his thoughts about the challenges for foundations in adopting social media, or about how online interactions are key to "doing transparency the right way."
I congratulate Larry - and I've subscribed to his blog. Like a growing number of his colleagues, he recognizes all the objections and hurdles to using social media — but he also realizes that it's a venue that is critical to the future of effective philanthropy.
It's easy for me, as a consultant, to tell foundations that they should be using social media. But it's even better when the argument comes from a foundation executive. In this case, I recommend a recent post on What We Give, the blog of Larry Blumenthal, director of social media strategy, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Read his post "Why Foundations Need to Embrace Social Media" (I co-opted his title for this post) that appeared in the Philanthropy News Digest, or his thoughts about the challenges for foundations in adopting social media, or about how online interactions are key to "doing transparency the right way."
I congratulate Larry - and I've subscribed to his blog. Like a growing number of his colleagues, he recognizes all the objections and hurdles to using social media — but he also realizes that it's a venue that is critical to the future of effective philanthropy.
As a communications professional, I was in awe of Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency. He reached through the Internet and tapped the passion of thousands of people who had felt disenfranchised by the political system. He mobilized them and created a dramatic shift in the way politicians now view the public.
To my way of thinking, that was a resurgence of true democracy: one person, one vote, re-engaged via social media. Not everyone liked it, of course, because it did tip the balance of power and shake up the status quo.
That said, it calls into question the value of evaluating and mobilizing popular will versus taking a more studied and strategic approach to creating change.
Now, I see this same question coming from inside the philanthropic sector. It started with Facebook's "causes" pages and other social media outlets, where like-minded individuals could rally around shared concerns, pool donations, get engaged as volunteers. But earlier this week, FastCompany posted an article about the new Chase Community Giving Program, a collaboration between Chase and Facebook that will allow users to vote on how Chase will spend $4 million from its corporate philanthropy fund. There are 500,000 charities in the running.
According to the article, "The charity receiving the most votes will receive $1 million, the top 5 runners up will get $100,000 each, and 100 finalists will get $25,000 each. It's all money that Chase would give to charities anyway, but this is the first time that the bank is crowdsourcing its decisions."
"Crowdsourcing," or abdicating?
To say I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement.
On one hand, I'm excited that hundreds of thousands of Facebook users might engage in thoughts of philanthropy, learn about what different nonprofits are doing, and hopefully ignite a personal spark of giving and engagement that will pervade their behavior going forward and result in an even more generous society going forward. I recently heard Aaron Dorfman of the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy cite studies showing that the wisdom of a semi-educated crowd often resulted in better decisions than a homogeneous panel of "experts." That could be true, depending on your definition of "better decisions."
On the other hand, there's the danger that the "winners" in this type of contest are the nonprofits with the best social media engines, not the best or most effective programs. As nonprofits and foundations increasingly come under attack for not doing enough, popular support could be a tempting way to fend off proposed charity or foundation legislation or negative press. I worry that strategic philanthropy could go the way of politics — where popular support at all costs becomes the prize, rather than actually creating a positive impact. Support will come at the expense of doing the more difficult work of demonstrating true effectiveness.
That leads to a point about corporate social responsibility. Are the leaders of Chase's corporate giving just going to become keyboard jockeys? Have they all been laid off? Is crowdsourcing Chase's new attempt at free outsourcing? Or is it just a way to avoid making some tough decisions?
The blog Modern Giving examined a few of the pros and cons of crowd sourcing in July, including a description of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation's Knight News Challenge as an example. (To me, the News Challenge was a great example of crowdsourcing ideas in a more defined and effective way.)
Don't get me wrong: I believe that crowdsourcing is here to stay. I also believe that it may prove to be an effective tool for raising awareness and potentially creating positive change.
But I also think it won't make the difficult task of explaining the work and the value of private foundations, family foundations, community foundations or corporate philanthropy any easier.
What to YOU think?
To my way of thinking, that was a resurgence of true democracy: one person, one vote, re-engaged via social media. Not everyone liked it, of course, because it did tip the balance of power and shake up the status quo.
That said, it calls into question the value of evaluating and mobilizing popular will versus taking a more studied and strategic approach to creating change.
Now, I see this same question coming from inside the philanthropic sector. It started with Facebook's "causes" pages and other social media outlets, where like-minded individuals could rally around shared concerns, pool donations, get engaged as volunteers. But earlier this week, FastCompany posted an article about the new Chase Community Giving Program, a collaboration between Chase and Facebook that will allow users to vote on how Chase will spend $4 million from its corporate philanthropy fund. There are 500,000 charities in the running.
According to the article, "The charity receiving the most votes will receive $1 million, the top 5 runners up will get $100,000 each, and 100 finalists will get $25,000 each. It's all money that Chase would give to charities anyway, but this is the first time that the bank is crowdsourcing its decisions."
"Crowdsourcing," or abdicating?
To say I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement.
On one hand, I'm excited that hundreds of thousands of Facebook users might engage in thoughts of philanthropy, learn about what different nonprofits are doing, and hopefully ignite a personal spark of giving and engagement that will pervade their behavior going forward and result in an even more generous society going forward. I recently heard Aaron Dorfman of the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy cite studies showing that the wisdom of a semi-educated crowd often resulted in better decisions than a homogeneous panel of "experts." That could be true, depending on your definition of "better decisions."
On the other hand, there's the danger that the "winners" in this type of contest are the nonprofits with the best social media engines, not the best or most effective programs. As nonprofits and foundations increasingly come under attack for not doing enough, popular support could be a tempting way to fend off proposed charity or foundation legislation or negative press. I worry that strategic philanthropy could go the way of politics — where popular support at all costs becomes the prize, rather than actually creating a positive impact. Support will come at the expense of doing the more difficult work of demonstrating true effectiveness.
That leads to a point about corporate social responsibility. Are the leaders of Chase's corporate giving just going to become keyboard jockeys? Have they all been laid off? Is crowdsourcing Chase's new attempt at free outsourcing? Or is it just a way to avoid making some tough decisions?
The blog Modern Giving examined a few of the pros and cons of crowd sourcing in July, including a description of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation's Knight News Challenge as an example. (To me, the News Challenge was a great example of crowdsourcing ideas in a more defined and effective way.)
Don't get me wrong: I believe that crowdsourcing is here to stay. I also believe that it may prove to be an effective tool for raising awareness and potentially creating positive change.
But I also think it won't make the difficult task of explaining the work and the value of private foundations, family foundations, community foundations or corporate philanthropy any easier.
What to YOU think?
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?
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?
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.
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.
I saw a post this morning from the Faith Based Philanthropy blog of Paul T. Penley, senior research analysts at the philanthropic advisory firm Excellence in Giving. In his post, Penley essentially says that if donors give just to prove themselves generous or selfless, then their philanthropy (love of human kind) becomes philegy (love of self).
(My first reaction was: "Okay. I can see that. But in this economy, as nonprofits are struggling to deliver vital services, who really cares what a donor's motivation is? Let's take what we can get.")
Continuing his train of thought, Penley says that,
"In true philanthropy we are not satisfied with good intentions or generous amounts. Rather the measure of our generosity has become meaningful and lasting impact. Our hearts yearn to change the lived experience of people in need, and nothing less will do. We educate ourselves, seek advice, analyze past giving, and strategize for the next move to ensure that our hearts’ desire to transform lives is realized."
Am I reading this wrong, or does it sound like "social investors" are now the only true philanthropists?
Sorry, I don't buy it. You can be extremely strategic and still be self-serving. And you can be completely selfless and anonymous and create great change in one human's life without making even the slightest dent in the trials of man writ large.
I don't think faith and selflessness are determined by wisdom or sophistication in giving. And I believe it takes all manner of givers, motivations, strategies and styles of giving to make the fabric of philanthropy.
I'd also love to hear someone other that the cadre of "philanthropic advisors" weigh in on this debate.
Foundation folk? Private philanthropists? What's your take?
(My first reaction was: "Okay. I can see that. But in this economy, as nonprofits are struggling to deliver vital services, who really cares what a donor's motivation is? Let's take what we can get.")
Continuing his train of thought, Penley says that,
"In true philanthropy we are not satisfied with good intentions or generous amounts. Rather the measure of our generosity has become meaningful and lasting impact. Our hearts yearn to change the lived experience of people in need, and nothing less will do. We educate ourselves, seek advice, analyze past giving, and strategize for the next move to ensure that our hearts’ desire to transform lives is realized."
Am I reading this wrong, or does it sound like "social investors" are now the only true philanthropists?
Sorry, I don't buy it. You can be extremely strategic and still be self-serving. And you can be completely selfless and anonymous and create great change in one human's life without making even the slightest dent in the trials of man writ large.
I don't think faith and selflessness are determined by wisdom or sophistication in giving. And I believe it takes all manner of givers, motivations, strategies and styles of giving to make the fabric of philanthropy.
I'd also love to hear someone other that the cadre of "philanthropic advisors" weigh in on this debate.
Foundation folk? Private philanthropists? What's your take?
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
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?
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?
In an article last week in the online rural newspaper, The Daily Yonder, Karl Stauber, president of the Danville Regional Foundation, writes an open letter to President Obama, calling on him not to leave rural communities out of the mix as he looks for ways to provide new hope and a future for America.
A former USDA under-secretary, Stauber suggests five ways in which rural communities should be part of the policy mix, including a call for the creation of a Rural Civil Rights Act. He writes:
"People living in rural communities and regions should not be denied opportunities because of their location status. There about 50 million people living in rural America. If rural were a catgory like "race or ethnicity,” it would include more people than "Hispanic" or "African-American." Separate and un-equal should not be tolerated for any group. Access to opportunity should be a right, not an accident of locale. "
In this case, the "separate and un-equal" comes from blanket federal policies that are designed more for urban areas with the occasional rural afterthought. What Stauber calls for is a federal policy that allows rural areas to use federal investments in ways that are more suited to their unique environments and situations. That makes sense to me. I can't imagine that a policy that creates jobs and opportunity in Atlanta would derive the same benefit in Pineola, NC — or that what works in a southeastern mountain community would also work as well in the southwestern desert. The cultures, traditions, challenges and resources make for different worlds.
Stauber is writing specifically about federal government policy, but we all know that philanthropy has a huge role to play as well. I would suggest that philanthropic resources are the most important assets to engage in rural communities. There's no better vehicle for taking some risks, asking some difficult questions, and spurring community engagement. Just imagine what might happen if there were a community foundation or a private foundation serving even half of our country's rural communities. These foundation's wouldn't need to be housed in a rural area, but just have a foundation trustee or two who could interpret the needs and impact of grantmaking on the rural area and the urban centers it feeds.
True, foundations can't do it all or do it alone — and although there have been many laudable efforts to increase philanthropy in rural areas over the past two decades, we've still got a long way to go. But let's not throw in the towel. Even though their economies are shrinking, rural areas still have a role to play in our overall economy and the well being of our country — especially here in the South.
A former USDA under-secretary, Stauber suggests five ways in which rural communities should be part of the policy mix, including a call for the creation of a Rural Civil Rights Act. He writes:
"People living in rural communities and regions should not be denied opportunities because of their location status. There about 50 million people living in rural America. If rural were a catgory like "race or ethnicity,” it would include more people than "Hispanic" or "African-American." Separate and un-equal should not be tolerated for any group. Access to opportunity should be a right, not an accident of locale. "
In this case, the "separate and un-equal" comes from blanket federal policies that are designed more for urban areas with the occasional rural afterthought. What Stauber calls for is a federal policy that allows rural areas to use federal investments in ways that are more suited to their unique environments and situations. That makes sense to me. I can't imagine that a policy that creates jobs and opportunity in Atlanta would derive the same benefit in Pineola, NC — or that what works in a southeastern mountain community would also work as well in the southwestern desert. The cultures, traditions, challenges and resources make for different worlds.
Stauber is writing specifically about federal government policy, but we all know that philanthropy has a huge role to play as well. I would suggest that philanthropic resources are the most important assets to engage in rural communities. There's no better vehicle for taking some risks, asking some difficult questions, and spurring community engagement. Just imagine what might happen if there were a community foundation or a private foundation serving even half of our country's rural communities. These foundation's wouldn't need to be housed in a rural area, but just have a foundation trustee or two who could interpret the needs and impact of grantmaking on the rural area and the urban centers it feeds.
True, foundations can't do it all or do it alone — and although there have been many laudable efforts to increase philanthropy in rural areas over the past two decades, we've still got a long way to go. But let's not throw in the towel. Even though their economies are shrinking, rural areas still have a role to play in our overall economy and the well being of our country — especially here in the South.
Advocacy funding has long been a taboo subject for many foundations. It's not that they're not interested, per se, but that the rules about how foundations can and can't fund advocacy have been somewhat complex. Maybe it's a real fear of overstepping the line, maybe just an unwillingness to wrestle through the process - at any rate, advocacy funding hasn't been common.
Don't get me wrong: there are some great examples of foundations that DO engage in advocacy funding, like Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina, Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, Healthcare Georgia Foundation and others. But it's not a pervasive practice in the field.
However, there are some indications of late that the tide may be turning. The IRS recently sent a private letter ruling to the Alliance for Justice that says community foundations can now fund advocacy under the same rules that private foundations follow. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new era of advocacy funding. Community foundations are typically more willing and able to break into the forefront when it comes to engaging in "messy" community issues like advocacy. Perhaps they'll now be able to take the lead in working together with private foundations and other funders and nonprofits to advocate about community issues.
A second indication that the seas may be changing is a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Whether you love 'em or hate 'em, NCRP does a great deal to push for shifts in foundation behavior. The newest report from NCRP's "Grantmaking for Community Impact" project examines the relative benefit derived from investments in 15 local advocacy organizations in Minnesota.
According to NCRP, " For every dollar invested in their advocacy and organizing work ($16.5 million total), the groups garnered $138 in benefits for Minnesota communities."
The aggregate total monetary benefit, according to NCRP, was more than $2.28 billion.
Is that argument alone enough to encourage more funders into the realm of advocacy? Not by itself. Many funders will choose - and rightly so - to focus their work in the microcosms of local communities and build change from the grassroots up. But perhaps more will also feel at home addressing social problems at the macro level of state and federal public policy.
Is the tide beginning to turn? Or is it just me? What has YOUR experience been with advocacy? What do you think may be different in the future?
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!
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!
Powered by Compendium Blogware