Category Archives: donors

The Growing Power of Diverse Philanthropy

Aside

1

A quick plug for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s new report, Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communities of Color. The report dives into the world of identity-based philanthropy—“a growing movement to democratize philanthropy from the grassroots up by activating and organizing its practice in marginalized communities, particularly communities of color.”

The report is a great primer on the core characteristics of identity-based funds, the scope of the field and its grantmaking, and its key organizations and leaders.  Even most seasoned philanthropoids and philanthropists will be surprised by the breadth of the field:  the funds award $400 million in grants annually, and that’s just the giving through these formalized groups.  The report also describes the Foundation’s activities and lessons learned in supporting the funds and their leaders.

Three quick quotes from the report to whet your whistle:

  • “We hope this report will inspire everyday givers—of all backgrounds, genders, races, and ethnicities—to embrace their power as philanthropists.”
  • “Communities of color teem with generosity. Much of that generosity is informal and casual, expressed through acts of benevolence and support so prevalent that they simply seem part of the fabric of a community taking care of itself.”
  • “It is not enough, then, to say that the field—and the face—of philanthropy is changing. Philanthropy has already changed. The only question is how fast and how well our traditional structures will catch up with it.”

If you’ve read my previous blog posts, you’ll know that I’m a big fan and advocate for making philanthropy and community leadership accessible to anyone.  A big thanks to the Kellogg folks for sharing their knowledge and inspiring the rest of us to learn and do more to diversify and democratize philanthropy.

Is Your Philanthropy Ginger or Mary Ann?

Posted on
Reply

Is Your Philanthropy Ginger or Mary Ann?

Sort of an absurd question, isn’t it?*  To me, the question is as absurd as the continuing debates regarding “checkbook philanthropy” vs. “strategic philanthropy” and “big system-changing grants” vs. “small grassroots grants.”

The debates seem to have picked up again in the philanthropy media this fall.  Just a sampling:

  • Philanthropy Daily’s Jeff Cain called the book Do More Than Give “particularly dangerous” and skewered the concept of catalytic philanthropy. He didn’t seem excited about Give Smart either.
  • The TCC Group’s Paul Connolly wrote about a variation on the debates – humanistic vs. technocratic philanthropy (longer piece here). The Foundation Review also featured Connolly and others in a thoughtful webinar (slide deck and recording).
  • The Hudson Institute’s Bill Schambra sided in an article with people who “merely write checks” and commends a foundation that focused on the “mundane, practical undertakings” on grassroots groups.  His post includes a response from The Greater New Orleans Foundation’s Albert Ruesga defending strategic, system-change philanthropy.
  • The New York Times’ Stephanie Strom compared the giving approaches of Warren Buffett and his sister Doris, amongst others, in a recent article.

One theme in the articles is the disdain strategic philanthropists supposedly show for giving that isn’t strategic or systemic, and vice versa.  I haven’t experienced that disdain first-hand.  But I have seen donors turned off by the debates, by being told that their philanthropy isn’t good enough.  I’ve seen philanthropy advisors and community foundation staff try to persuade donors that there’s the one right path. Different advisors hyped more strategy…more faith-based…more liberal…more operating support…more policy grants…more Mary Ann…more Ginger…

I call bullcrap.  And here are three reasons why:

  1. These debates falsely portray the ideas as right versus wrong.  They’re not.  They’re right vs. right.  The Institute for Global Ethics’ Dr. Rushworth Kidder explained them as ethical challenges, not moral ones, on a recent National Center for Family Philanthropy webinar.  As ethical challenges, they deserve discussion and exploration based on a donor’s self-defined values and hopes.  The right answers are deeply personal and will evolve as the donor faces different life experiences. Foundations ultimately have to base their answers on the shared values of their board members and staff, but I think many skip the deep and hard values and ethics discussion.
  2. The conversations need to take into account the generational differences in donors’ views of the world, giving, nonprofits, and their own roles in making a difference.
  3. The either-or mentality posed by advocates on both sides seems the most absurd.  My experience is that there’s plenty of room for both-and.  In the articles and webinar mentioned above, Paul Connelly described blending the choice more eloquently than I can.  The Philanthropic Initiative’s Ellen Remmer also described effective philanthropy based on passion.  And, Grassroots Grantmakers’ Janis Foster Richardson often writes about how to include great grassroots grantmaking within larger strategic initiatives.

Perhaps I’m too much of a relativist or take too much of a libertarian view of philanthropy (if there is one).  Likely, I’m still rooted in my Grand Unified Theory of Donor Desire.  Mostly, I believe that the world’s opportunities and challenges are vast enough to accommodate any approach to giving.  And, they’re vast enough that we’d be better off by turning our energies to encouraging increased philanthropy rather than arguing about which approach is better.

Of course, you’re more than welcome to push back…

*If the headline didn’t make sense to you, then click here, sit right back and hear a tale of a fateful trip.


Whom do you trust to lead community improvement?

Posted on
1

Whom do you trust to lead community improvement?

This question keeps rolling through my head as I’m participating in the Growing Social Impact for a Networked World conference.

It’s not an easy question. It gets to the heart of a person’s values, upbringing, work history, own sense of self-control, and more. And, it’s a tough conversation for a group, whether that group is a philanthropic family or a foundation board.

But I’m convinced it’s an essential question for self-reflection by foundations and philanthropists, especially now as people, communities, and nations struggle to find the best paths out of the recession.

I think when you boil everything down, a foundation or donor ends up with three choices as answers:

  • Citizens – philanthropy that strengthens citizen engagement and leadership and even helps them exercise their voice in and lead community progress. It’s philanthropy that puts its trust in everyday people, consumers, start-up social entrepreneurs, and unincorporated networks.
  • Frontline delivery mechanisms – philanthropy that strengthens nonprofits, schools, and congregations. It’s philanthropy that puts its trust in the professionals who have studied the issues and had experience in delivering effective solutions.
  • Strengthening institutions – philanthropy that strengthens the ability of government agencies or the corporate community to move our communities and nation forward.  I know that most people will hate that I’ve lumped these together.  But I see them both as expressions of supporting the existing aggregations of power (market and elected).  And the philanthropy that puts its trust in them looks similar – support of public policy, public will-building, multi-sector partnerships, etc.

The easy answer is to support all three, and it can be sometimes be smart to do. But “all 3″ is also the weak way out.  It disconnects giving from fundamental core values and beliefs – of the real answer to where you see power* and authority should be placed.

As one example, the community foundation field especially struggles with this question because they try to serve all three audiences simultaneously. Their answers show through how they design their strategic philanthropy and community leadership initiatives. Some answer “We’re about empowering donors and/or neighborhood residents to lead change” (trust the people).  Others answer “We’re about building strong nonprofits and social entrepreneurs through grants and capacity building services” (trust the delivery system).  And others answer “We’re about building community assets for the long run and hiring smart staff to run initiatives” (trust us as the institution to lead change).

As another example, funders in my adopted hometown of Pittsburgh are paying for an assessment of the community development system. Though the essential question above hasn’t been explicitly asked in discussions so far, funders, intermediaries, and government officials are revealing their biases. Some see the community development system at its roots as being about supporting citizen-led change; others as about robust delivery of units, jobs, and saved lives; and others about catalyzing and increasing the investments of government and financial institutions.

So, what’s your answer – where do you place your philanthropic bets?  And, do you have other answers?

 

Caveat:  I’m a white Midwestern guy, child of two generations of entrepreneurs, with an employment history in state government and endowed foundations. Many will say I have no standing or legitimacy to discuss power dynamics. I’m ok with that.

The Giving Pledge: Where Do You Stand?

Posted on
2

The world of philanthropy continues to buzz about the Giving Pledge and the growing number of wealthy families who are publicly committing to giving away the majority of their wealth.

The conversation is truly democracy in action.  Americans are gathering together around an idea that inspires them and freely giving of themselves. They’re choosing to express their generosity in ways that make sense to them.  Conversely, other Americans are expressing their right to freedom of speech, including publicly criticizing others’ actions and intentions.

Here’s where I stand, as if it matters to the wealthy donors or anyone else…

I stand with those taking the Pledge and the people who are cheerleading them, believing that over time:

So, I don’t stand with people who are unhappy because the Giving Pledge:

The Giving Pledge is a proactive invitation from the wealthy to others to consider their moral commitment to give, and I don’t think it needs to be anything else.  Even billionaires have the right to give just like you and I do.  We give from our hearts and spiritual callings and rely on friends and instincts more than research.  We sometimes make mistakes along the way and sometimes create legacies that are terrific.  They do too.

We have to trust that over time we’ll all continually grow through our giving.  We’ll learn more about ourselves and the world and learn to ask better questions of ourselves and of nonprofits.  And, we’ll come to a place where we’ve each created our own inspiring intersections of meaningful giving and community results.  Ultimately those paths to learning and meaning are ours to take, not for others to dictate.

Where do you stand on the Giving Pledge?

Happy National Philanthropy Day

Posted on
Reply

It’s National Philanthropy Day today.  Go out and be generous and thank others for their generosity!

And while you’re at it, thank an entrepreneur.  A recent study from Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund showed that, amongst other statistics, “companies led by entrepreneurs allocate more than twice the percentage of their profits to charity than many of America’s largest companies.”

What Donors Want, Part Umpteen

Posted on
Reply

Hi, my name is Tony Macklin.  I’m a philanthropy geek.  (Hi Tony!)  I just downloaded reports on the motivations and behaviors of donors.  I hadn’t downloaded reports for three weeks, but, I felt weak and couldn’t help myself.

From the Nonprofit Quarterly, What Do Donors Want? – Philanthropic advisors William Dietel and Cynthia Gibson caution against an uninhibited “march to metrics” in the world of philanthropy.  They join The Philanthropic Initiative’s Peter Karoff and other in arguing for keeping a balance of art and science in giving by donors and foundations.  They also cite an upcoming book by Princeton’s Danny Oppenheimer that summarizes research into giving behavior:

“no matter what objective information is available, the large majority of donors will give as a result of emotional or relational factors.”

I’ll probably even pick up Oppenheimer’s book, though I’ll probably need the new book Proofiness to make sure I understand the data…

From the National Center for Family Philanthropy, The Power to Produce Wonders:  The Value of Family in Philanthropy – NCFP interviewed 300 family philanthropy leaders to learn more about how giving adds value to their lives, how their personal participation adds value to the giving process and its results, and the value family philanthropy provides to America’s democracy.  Families cited family giving as helping them, among other things, express their passions, continue their entrepreneurial spirit, and provide a means of sustaining values and legacy.  The hope of the family having a specific measurable, data-driven impact doesn’t appear on the list, though I suspect that could have more to do with the line of questioning rather than a lack of any interest.

And, from Russ Reid, Heart of the Donor – The firm’s telephone sample of 2000+ adults confirmed trends in giving by other studies.  It also re-affirmed that donors use online research to check up on nonprofits, but human factors overwhelmingly keep a donor coming back to give again:  the organization’s fit with the donor’s interests (e.g. dance or dogs or dancing dogs) and the organization’s trustworthiness and integrity.

Maybe it’s time to set up a national referendum on the donor motivation parties, allowing the “philanthropy is art” vs. “philanthropy is science” parties to argue their cases in heated debates, high-paid ads, and shadowy viral videos.  Those of us “it’s both” moderates – as in today’s electoral politics – probably need not apply…