Category Archives: learning

Foundation Executive as Community Builder

Posted on
1

“…outside resources will be much more effectively used if the local community is itself fully mobilized and invested, and if it can define the agendas for which additional resources must be obtained.” - Building Communities from the Inside Out, John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight, 1993.

I’ve been reflecting on how much my early training in community economic development continues to influence my current work in philanthropy.  I fell into both professions by accident, and the book quoted above and subsequent training on the Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) approach continue to be integral to my worldview.

I was lucky that mentors ranging from neighborhood leaders to national foundation staff continued to introduce me to leaders and tools that worked in the same spirit:  Jim Diers, Bill Traynor, Everyday Democracy, Grassroots Grantmakers, Project for Public Spaces, and Cambridge Leadership Associates, just to name a few.

Because of these influences, I tend to take as a given that:

  • All people and communities are full of assets and capabilities
  • Smart community leaders help people identify those assets, make use of them, and grow additional skills and talents
  • Enduring community improvement starts with everyday people connecting with each other, cultivating their civic leadership and civic entrepreneurship skills, and planning and acting on the future of their community
  • Community building and trust building work has value by itself and not just as a means to another end

In looking back on my first year as executive director of a family foundation, I realize that I’ve continued to adapt these influences to the family and its philanthropy.  I see my work as an internal community builder.  My job is to help each family member identify her or his philanthropic skills and interests, and create an environment in which those skills and interests are recognized and flourish.  And, my job is to help them stay connected to each other and become more invested in and mobilized around their foundation’s future.

The tougher task is to continue the ABCD spirit in the foundation’s grantmaking – to see the nonprofits and communities we serve as full of capabilities, and to ensure our grants help them build on their assets effectively. Years of work in grantmaking unfortunately often translate into a lazy “been there, funded that, didn’t like the grant report” cynicism and distrust in community improvement powered by everyday people.  I hope my role can be to guard against that cynicism and distrust, including in myself.

As I write this, I’m attending the 2012 Family Philanthropy Conference.  NCFP’s CEO Retreat has started the conference with a discussion of the family foundation CEO’s role using GrantCraft’s Roles@Work materials.  “Community builder” didn’t appear as a role, though many of the roles described feel familiar, including bridge builder, connector, organizer, talent scout, and validator.

If the asset-based community building approach makes sense to you in family philanthropy work, drop me a line. I’d love to find more foundation staffers who are working from the framework!

(Also posted at http://www.cofinteract.org/rephilanthropy/?p=3919)

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.

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.

What I Learned About Networks at Summer Camp

Posted on
2

What do funders really want from networks?

I heard one set of honest answers to this question this summer as I wrapped up consulting for the Lumina Foundation for Education.  ”Camp” was actually the session “Funder Perspectives on Investing in Networks” that I had the honor to facilitate for Lumina’s partners and grantees in its KnowHow2 GO initiative.

Our insightful panelists were:  Warren Cook, Co-Founder, Maine Network Partners; Tessa Carmen De Roy, Manager, Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation’s College Access and Success Initiative; Thomas Kelly, Associate Director for Evaluation, Annie E. Casey Foundation; Donnell Mersereau, Executive Director at Midwest Community Foundations’ Ventures and Vice President at the Council of Michigan Foundations; and Sheri H. Ranis, Program Director for College Preparation, Lumina Foundation for Education.

My key take-away was this:

The field of networks and supporting networks is evolving, and many donors and foundations aren’t versed in the work or see it as too complicated.  Even foundations that fund networks are still learning the difference between supporting a network setting versus a single-organization, direct service setting.  Ultimately, networks will have to “teach up” to funders and donors – proactively helping them connect network work to their own goals.

Their advice for networks and collaboratives

According to the panelists, networks that are most likely to attract funding have:

  • Genuine and productive relationships amongst members
  • Members that can clearly articulate the benefit of the network to their own work and the collective impact they’re trying to achieve
  • A bias toward action (the clear, interim steps toward longer-term goals)
  • Processes for learning and effectively sharing that learning with funders and other community leaders

Donnell noted that community foundations are particularly interested in a network’s role in increasing civic engagement and making community problem-solving processes more inclusive.

The panel advised that when approaching donors and funders, networks focus first on the ends – the outcomes for people or communities that excite people, even touch their hearts.  Tessa made the analogy that the outcomes are the movie we want to see and the network’s work is the “making of the movie” bonus feature that makes the story great.  That said, Warren and Tom warned that networks be careful to talk about evaluation and results in terms of “contribution” to solving a problem not “attribution” to a solution.  Even the best networks (or funders) can’t control everything in complex systems.

I’ll continue my “network funder camp” experience this fall at the Growing Social Impact in a Networked World conference.  I’ll share more of what I learn then.

What do you think foundations want to see in networks?

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…

Creating a Trusted Community Giving Center pt. 3

Posted on
1

A recent conversation with Bill Traynor and other readings on networks have inspired my thinking about a hypothetical Community Giving Center – a physical and virtual network of and for generous people.  Hopefully the ideas will inspire other community philanthropy groups.

So, what’s a Community Giving Center about?  In my first two posts (here and here), it was about  the right physical environment, the culture of reciprocity, low-level affiliation, and open architecture.  In addition…

It’s about “weaving not managing” – And, it’s about leadership focused on network building over managing or institution building.  Traynor talked about the importance of his staff and other neighborhood leaders being “network weavers.”  Their purpose is to grow their community’s capacity for collective decision-making, problem-solving, and information sharing.  The Networked Weaving blog says that weavers connect people strategically where there’s potential for mutual benefit, help people identify their passions, and serve as a catalyst for self-organizing groups.

I love the idea of people dedicated to growing and connecting others’ philanthropic problem-solving skills.  Many community foundations, giving circles, and donor groups strive for this.  However, I see them often caught up in focusing on the grant transaction process.  After the grants, the donors may understand little more about their individual hopes or how to achieve them not just as donors, but as connected citizens, community leaders, volunteers, and people of faith.

What if your local community foundation hired “network weavers” instead of “program officers” and “donor service officers”?  Or, what if philanthropy network weavers were co-hired by the community foundation, United Way, and local wealth and estate planning advisors? What if their charge was to be a trusted resource to increase community giving, regardless of the outcome for their employer(s) and regardless of their personal or organizational agendas?

It’s about mobilizing resources around resonance – the article “Working Wikily” describes how networks (online and in-person) make it easier to mobilize people and to coordinate resources and action.  In The Networked Nonprofit, Beth Kanter and Allison Fine discuss how nonprofits can work with networks and even “free agents,” passionate givers working outside of organizations.

Bill Traynor talked about how his network-based organization is striving to be more demand-driven, deriving new programs and community agendas from trends in choices the network members make or desires they voice.  Bill uses what he calls “resonance testing,” a process through which his staff members help community residents formulate ideas, test if there’s interest in the idea in the larger network, and then test if there’s willingness to act on the idea.  The process builds authentic buy-in but also creates a low threshold for letting an idea go if there’s no resonance or ongoing purpose.

It’s easy for a nonprofit or grantmaker to set an agenda and then go after other people’s money to accomplish the agenda.  (Score points in philanthropy buzzword bingo by calling it “seeking aligned co-investors to move the needle in a community change agenda”).  However, these agendas only make a lasting different when a broad set of well-connected community stakeholders own them.  Using great stakeholder engagement, as advocated by Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, is a start but isn’t enough.  Truly effective and lasting community improvement will draw from the power of resonance testing and resource mobilization by a network of generous people.

What if community philanthropy groups mobilized community resources based on resonance testing rather than boring needs assessments?  What if they put their own philanthropic resources behind the action of free agents and helped weave those agents together?

I think a great Community Giving Center would be a hub for weaving generous people and helping them test their own ideas for engaging others in community change.  Is this too uncontrollable “power to the people” for you yet?  Maybe, but ultimately it’s about trust and true generosity – more next week!

Creating a Trusted Community Giving Center Pt. 2

Posted on
3

Bill Traynor and other experts who are applying network theory to nonprofits have inspired my thinking about a hypothetical Community Giving Center.  Hopefully the ideas will inspire other community philanthropy groups.

In my last post, I talked about the center’s physical environment and culture of reciprocity.  Here’s what else a trusted, cool Community Giving Center would be about:

It’s about “low-level affiliation” and “choice” – we all value choice and options based on our changing interests and needs.  The concepts of options, opportunities, and real consumer-driven choice are some of the most effective communications messages (see The Language of Trust, Words That Work, or other books on communications framing for a deeper dive on this).

The Community Giving Center would be set up to be easy to join and leave, to move in and out of options to participate, and to take advantage of options for reciprocal value exchange.  Bill Traynor said to think of a networked organization as a health club without a binding contract; people want to be connected to a place with exciting options, but not obliged to it.

It’s about “nimbleness” and “open architecture” – It’s about function (getting things done) over form.  Traynor noted that people of all demographics are fleeing highly-structured organizations with high expectations of “members.”  People want environments that are flexible, time-limited, and able to re-organize as they go.  Nonprofits, unfortunately, tend to have a tough time moving away from hierarchical, rule-bound committees and organizational forms.  A network-oriented Community Giving Center would revolve around rapid iteration.  It would support self-defined, self-organized groups of donors in testing new ideas and projects, evaluating next steps, and expanding or shutting down the project as they saw fit.

What if a generous person was able to jump in at any point and watch or even participate in a grantmaking committee at your United Way or community foundation?  What if your local giving circle invited you and your friends to test some ideas with them, allowed you to give along side of them as it made sense for you without having to officially join?

Intrigued?  Me too.  More ideas in the coming days.