The Growing Power of Diverse Philanthropy

Aside

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

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.


Whom do you trust to lead community improvement?

Posted on by
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 by
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?

Off Hiatus

Posted on by
Reply

I took a hiatus from blogging as I settled into my job as executive director of the Roy A. Hunt Foundation earlier this year.  I continued commenting on the world of philanthropy through on Twitter and LinkedIn.  I’ll continue to use those outlets more frequently but will pick back up on occasional blogs.  My viewpoints on all three accounts continue to be my own and not the official viewpoint of the Hunt family or their foundation.  Thanks for “tuning in,” and as always, I welcome your feedback.