Comments on: Old vs. New Philanthropy

By: M

Tue, 08 May 2007 15:23:11 +0000

In the CoF / EPIP Emerging Leaders salon I attended featuring Sterling K. Speirn, Pres. & CEO of Kellogg, I got the impression that he doesn’t really see a big difference between “Old Philanthropy” vs. “New Philanthropy” - he likened it more to a historical cycle and that people are “reinvigorating and renewing things that have already existed, not reinventing them.” It very much echoed what Berresford said in her op-ed and in the Emerging Leaders salon she led. I think I tend to agree with the old guard for the most part (having had to read 47 different books relating to the history of philanthropy, charity & foundations in one 3 month period of time a few years ago has me biased toward that I think).

I think the difference now is that we have new technologies that affect how people are philanthropic (Huffington got it right talking about bringing together wisdom and innovation) and that Schervish & Haven’s $41 trillion wealth transfer is just going to mean there is more money out there to give.

Forgive me if I sound like I am blabbering it is a looooong week at work and I am just about brain dead.

By: Bruce Trachtenberg

Bruce Trachtenberg — Sat, 05 May 2007 13:06:52 +0000

Holden,
If you want to see for yourself what the keynote speakers said, COF has posted the videos of their speeches on its website.

By: Holden

Holden — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:05:41 +0000

I just took a quick look through Sean’s coverage of the COF conference. I’m headed on vacation soon, but here are my overarching thoughts:

1. Sean really earned his “media” spot by writing up a ton, giving peons like me a better view into what happened and what was said, and inviting discussion.

2. Something is missing for me when it comes to the content of the sessions as Sean describes them - I can’t say whether this is a function of his coverage or the sessions’ content. In almost all cases I read what was said and think “Yeah, sure, sounds reasonable.” I am inherently suspicious of anything I have that reaction to - a statement that is valuable (worth reading) must be new, and that means it must be challenging. (Yes, I just said that I am suspicious of any statement that sounds fine.)

I guess my question is this: how did people respond to the speakers at the conference? Did everyone nod their head and say “Sounds good” (in which case I suppose I should expect to see 100 new foundation blogs, total transparency, and the end of restricted grants sometime in the next month)? Did they say “No” and walk away? Was there debate? Or was it exactly like the quote in the above post - a collection of speeches, followed by people saying “Great conference!” and walking out?

By: Tom W.

Tom W. — Thu, 03 May 2007 18:46:13 +0000

That and 10% instead of 5!

By: Bruce Trachtenberg

Bruce Trachtenberg — Thu, 03 May 2007 18:16:03 +0000

In making the “… an “everything should be new gauntlet…” comment Tom was responding to something I’d said about his post–notably calling philanthropy an experiment. Because philanthropy is an ongoing experiment, funders have to be open to innovation in how they approach their work. This doesn’t mean constantly doing things differently. Instead it means asking what works, what doesn’t, and how to do it better next time. It’s too easy to maintain the status quo, which more than not is the case, and maybe that’s because as Tom notes in his comment to you, there are no market forces that could lead to change, disruptive or otherwise, in philanthropy. In the absence of market forces, foundations need to create internal mechanisms, tracking and measurement systems, as well as standards of performance — and publicly acknowledge what these are as well as committing to meet them and similarly reporting progress. Foundations should be willing to go out on a limb and say “This is what we aim to do, by when. This is how much it will cost. This is how we’ll know if we’ve succeeded or failed (and we’ll tell you each step along the way).” That combination of transparency and accountability can only result lead ton on ongoing effort to fine tune the decision-making and overall foundation management process.

By: Tom W.

Tom W. — Thu, 03 May 2007 17:46:35 +0000

I agree with ‘disruptive change’ especially in free markets - and I think we’re in a period of such change in philanthropy. I’d just argue that philanthropy is not a free market - the tax laws create a special class of entity. That, and the retreat from many services traditionally shouldered by government, leaving nonprofits to provide, make this a sticky mix for real innovators - how to keep the engine going while changing it at the same time? It’s a great discussion, and one that I suspect will grow - especially when people realize how high the stakes are.