Category Archives: philanthropy

Finding Common Ground, Valuing Different Views Article

Aside

Reply

Happy to have contributed to the National Center for Philanthropy Philanthropy webinar and resulting article on family foundations and family giving: FEATURE: Finding Common Ground, Valuing Different Views (April 2012 FGN). NCFP and GMA Foundations also led a session on managing diverse family opinions at the 2012 Family Philanthropy Conference. They sent this PDF of articles on enhancing diverse opinions and managing difficult conversations in family giving: Same-Cloth-Different-Garments-Resource-List.

Aside

2

The Nonprofit Quarterly’s Rick Cohen has an insightful article today on donor-advised funds managed by financial services firms and other national providers. The article provides counterpoint to worries about those national DAFs raised by nonprofits and others. In his concluding paragraph, he writes:

In contrast, DAFs are, dare we say it, an instrument toward democratizing philanthropy, putting more philanthropic decisions into the hands of ordinary Americans who may not be charter members of the one percent club.

I agree wholeheartedly and am glad that the national providers made the DAF tool far more accessible than community foundations could have done on their own.

And, my advice to nonprofits remains the same regardless of these funds are managed: Don’t treat DAFs as foundations, but as big checkbooks for the donors you should be getting to know anyways.

The Foundation World Needs Community Philanthropy to Succeed

Posted on by
4

“Participation is the new endowment.”

This observation from the Aspen Institute’s Janet Topolsky has been stuck in my head since I read it a month ago in the Nonprofit Quarterly. She was part of a panel discussing the recent report The Value of Community Philanthropy by the C.S Mott Foundation and Aga Khan Foundation.

The article came around the same time that philanthropic provocateur Emmett Carson spoke in Pittsburgh. He cited the Philanthropy Awareness Initiative’s research showing the majority of civic leaders across America don’t feel informed about the work of foundations and can’t cite an example of a foundation’s impact. He thought the lack of awareness also led to poor public policies, including those that propose to restrict philanthropy or decrease charitable deductions.

In addition, polls show that Americans’ trust in institutions is continuing to decline while their participation in anti-establishment groups is rising. For example, in Edelman’s 2012 Trust Barometer, only half of Americans trust a nonprofit to do what’s right or see a nonprofit leader as credible.

The Philanthropy Awareness Initiative tells us to counter the lack of awareness (and I suppose trust) with increased strategic communications. I’m not convinced that increased communications works when people don’t feel personally and emotionally connected – when tan issue doesn’t touch their daily lives.

I’d argue that true community philanthropy is the most effective and sustainable countermeasure to the lack of awareness and trust in foundations.

Community Philanthropy’s Benefits
There are many different takes on the definition of community philanthropy, but the benefits described would definitely be healthy for the foundation world and for the communities it serves. A few examples:

  • Asian Americans/ Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP) describes community philanthropy as when “Communities expand their pool of economic assets, build their social capital, and demonstrate enhanced and increased capacity to develop tools that meet their own needs.”
  • The Mott and Aga Khan report lists six common characteristics: organized and structured, self-directed, open architecture, civil society, using own money and assets, and building an inclusive and equitable society. It notes that when people give together, they build self-identity, trust, and community leadership. Their giving to solve local problems confers legitimacy on the solutions that is missing from government aid or big foundation projects.
  • Bill Schambra recently reminded a group of grantmakers that the acts of everyday citizens forming associations and nonprofits are fundamental to sustaining and strengthening democracy. He also saw the foundation world as at best ineffective in supporting these acts, and at worst accidently working against them. His comments could easily apply to community philanthropy and foundations’ support for that approach. The TCC Group’s Chris Cardona also writes regularly about philanthropy’s role in society and about democratizing philanthropy.
  • A relatively new project, Adventures in New Giving, looks at community philanthropy through the lenses of the sharing economy and the new technology tools that accelerate collaborative giving and building communities of givers. Lucy Bernholz and many others also are watching and writing about these trends.

Supporting everyday people in getting together, giving together, solving problems, and innovating together. Shouldn’t the benefits of community philanthropy be an easy sell? Shouldn’t participatory philanthropy be the new endowment?

Connecting Foundations and Community Philanthropy
And yet, most traditional foundations don’t seem sold on the idea. Even community foundations often miss the point and end up practicing philanthropy in communities but not practicing community philanthropy.

I do think that community philanthropy efforts can and will succeed without (or in spite of) support from traditional foundations (or “Big Giving” as Tim Hwang calls them). Giving circles, Awesome Foundation chapters, and other micro-philanthropy efforts will keep kicking butt on their own.

However, there’s too much at stake for traditional foundations to ignore community philanthropy. It is too easy to lump even the most community-minded foundations into “the establishment,” not to be trusted and not to be left to manage itself. Big Giving needs community philanthropy to reconnect civic leaders and everyday people with the power and joy of organized philanthropy. To make their work more of the community and less like an inaccessible, disconnected option only for the wealthy and powerful.

Regional associations of grantmakers could actively invite community philanthropy into the fold. More foundations could adopt community philanthropy approaches (see the  Philanthropic Ventures Foundation and Grassroots Grantmakers’ members as examples). As the Mott and Aga Khan report notes, foundations could improve government programs through community philanthropy. Heck, foundations could even pick up on my idea of developing Trusted Community Giving Centers.

So what do you think? Is community philanthropy a great answer to rebuilding civic trust and broader connections to the foundation world?

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.

Spittin’ in the philanthropic wind?

Aside

Reply

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that a group of progressive nonprofits are asking the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to pick a new CEO that will dial back on strategic philanthropy and fund more of what they and their constituents want.  Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion and the nonprofits have valid needs. That said, I wonder how the nonprofits would respond if the Foundation publicly told their boards to find CEOs who will dial back on advocacy and liberal thinking and instead perform more measurable direct services…

Philanthropy Buzzword Bingo (updated)

Posted on by
1

Lucy Bernholz, one of my favorite philanthropy consultants (and self-described Philanthropy Wonk) just published her Top 10 Philanthropy Buzzwords list.  She annually tracks the words and phrases that are picking up steam in the philanthropy, nonprofit, and social enterprise arenas.  If you look at her past lists, most have stuck around and/or evolved.

To pay tribute, I’ve once again put her list into Bingo format for your use at meetings, conferences, or while going through your reading stack.  Remember this is just for fun and to always play responsibly.  If you have a buzzword usage problem, please seek help. Philanthropy Buzzword Bingo 2011

Is Your Philanthropy Ginger or Mary Ann?

Posted on by
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.