-
The proposed 2011 budget for the Social Innovation Fund is $60 million, up from 2010's $50 million. Many people have pointed to the SIF's $50 million budget as too small, but if it is truly $50 million a year (with potential for annual increases), it is comparable to a $1 billion-plus endowment.
-
Stephanie Strom highlights how the Red Cross out-fundraised Partners in Health even thought PIH seems better positioned to help in Haiti. The article highlights efforts to allow donors to donate to a cause rather than an organization. Seems to me to be an opportunity for funders with a brand name to raise money for a cause and then distribute (which is essentially what presidents Bush and Clinton are doing). Tactical Philanthropy reader Tony Pipa is quoted for his work launching a similar program post Katrina.
-
The winning entry (randomly selected) of the Words that Describe Philanthropy contest was "Connected Philanthropy". Reader Autumn Walden googled the term and came up with a post Allison Fine wrote in 2007 for Social Edge.
Philanthropy Daily Digest
Email This Post
0Comments
Words That Describe Philanthropy
Wow! Thanks so the more than 25 of you who submitted an entry to our mini-contest in search of words that describe philanthropy. You can click on the link above to see a Wordle made from the entries.
The entries covered a lot of ground. Here’s a couple that jumped out at me:
By Jeanine Buford
Gracious
When it’s at its best, philanthropy is gracious, graceful, and administered with a light touch.
When we think of grace, apart from the religious connotations, we think of support given with seriousness of purpose, but with a light touch. Graciousness supports without judgment, without pity, and without self-satisfaction. Gracious graceful philanthropy is humble, enlightening, and gives equally to the giver and receiver.
By Christine Egger
Empathetic
Great philanthropy is an expression of empathy — of recognizing oneself in another, and responding compassionately to our shared experiences.
Empathy requires understanding, or knowing, another’s story. Seeing ourselves in it. When philanthropy follows from empathy — from that emotional point of recognition — we have a better chance of effecting positive change when start to move resources in the name of helping.
By Helen Brunner
Weaving
Philanthropic weaving is a practice that forms a connected whole, one that creates webs and networks across issues and types of work, similarities and differences, forming a resilient movement.
Philanthropists enjoy a bird’s eye view and have relationships with a wide variety of leaders, organizations and other philanthropists. Connecting the dots and working toward creating networks among those with common values and (sometimes) shared purpose supports sustainable change.
By Dien Yuen
Practical
Philanthropy is aspirational and dreams of doing big things. As we try to connect these higher, lofty goals to the day-to-day work, whether it is with our grantees or donors, we need to do it in a way that is meaningful and practical for them. We can’t ask a two-person shop to deliver a 10 page logic model. At the same time, we shouldn’t encourage philanthropists to tackle issues in ways we understand them to be. Philanthropy is a contact sport. It needs to be lived and practiced – everyday in practical, simple ways.
By Amy Kincaid
Humble
Humble means understanding deeply one’s role and how to fit into and onto the production.
Humble philanthropy knows “no small actors, just small parts.” It knows it’s place in the ensemble–key and critical, but not the only or most important. It plays appropriately to the size of the stage and the house. It understands the house acoustics and knows how (and when to project). It draws from technique, experience, hard work, and improvisation. It amplifies the energy from the text, the other actors, crew, director, producer, and audience.
By Charles Maclean
Juicy
Juicy philanthropy fires neurons and heartbeats for the giver and receiver.
Brain scans and neuro-chemical analysis indicate that “the givers high” has a scientific basis. Juicy philanthropy produces an upward spiral where the giver and receiver engage in “pay it forward” infectious acts of kindness. The distinction between the giver and receiver is erased. There just might be a caring gene or at least a pre-disposition to care and give. It is through giving and receiving that we discover who we are . . . and what matters to us.
You can see all of the entries here.
As promised, we’re awarding a $50 gift certificate to Vittana (microfinance loans for students in developing countries) to one randomly chosen entry (we used Random.org).
And the winner is…
By Emily Rushing
Connected
Being connected with others for maximum impact makes good philanthropy great.
Personal giving is satisfying in a special way, but truly great things happen when the knowledge, enthusiasm, ideas and energy of many individuals come together in service of the greater good. The impact is greater on the chosen cause and on the donors, as they feel connected to their purpose and to each other.
Thanks to everyone for entering!
Email This Post
6Comments
Words That Describe Great Philanthropy
On Wednesday, I asked readers to submit words that they thought best described great philanthropy. You will find all the details here. On Monday, we’ll be randomly selecting a reader who submitted a word and give them a $50 gift certificate to Vittana.org (microfinance for student loans in developing countries).
Here’s a couple of entries so far:
By Rich Polt
Passion
Passion is the lifeblood of good philanthropy because it sustains ones giving over the course of a lifetime.
Effective philanthropy, like anything in life, requires experimentation and long term commitment. Some things work. Some don’t. But without passion as an underlying motivator, no one will have the gumption, stamina, and drive to weather failure and truly make a difference.
By Emily Rushing
Connected
Being connected with others for maximum impact makes good philanthropy great.
Personal giving is satisfying in a special way, but truly great things happen when the knowledge, enthusiasm, ideas and energy of many individuals come together in service of the greater good. The impact is greater on the chosen cause and on the donors, as they feel connected to their purpose and to each other.
By Charles Maclean
Juicy
Juicy philanthropy fires neurons and heartbeats for the giver and receiver.
Brain scans and neuro-chemical analysis indicate that “the givers high” has a scientific basis. Juicy philanthropy produces an upward spiral where the giver and receiver engage in “pay it forward” infectious acts of kindness. The distinction between the giver and receiver is erased. There just might be a caring gene or at least a pre-disposition to care and give. It is through giving and receiving that we discover who we are . . . and what matters to us.
The deadline for entries is midnight (pacific time) this Sunday. I hope you’ll share your idea for the word that best describes great philanthropy. Full details on submitting an entry can be found here.
Email This Post
2Comments
Philanthropy Daily Digest
-
Here's the recording of the conference call I did today with Bob Ottenhoff, Guidestar, Ken Berger, Charity Navigator, Lucy Bernholtz, Blueprint R & D, Peter Campbell, TechCafeteria, Christine Egger, Social Actions, David Geilhufe, NetSuite, and Holly Ross, NTEN.
-
The Stanford Social Innovation Review offers fantastic, thought provoking articles. Here's their five most read articles of last year.
-
The Tides Foundation has launched a blog.
-
Dan Pallotta looks at why donors have given so much money to Haiti and makes his case that Haiti giving shows why social good needs better marketing.
Email This Post
0Comments
Philanthropy Daily Digest
-
Pepsi, working with GOOD, has launched an online giving contest. This contest is what Pepsi is doing instead of Super Bowl advertising. They've clearly paid attention to the Chase giving contest problems. This contest features a leader board as the main element of the home page (the lack of a leader board was the source of much of the Chase criticism).
-
Paul Schervish and his team have built a model for forecasting national charitable giving by individuals.
-
I'm sure it is just a coincident, but interesting to see The Atlantic Philanthropies post their Code of Ethics days after Glass Pockets launches (the public availability of a code of ethics is part of the Glass Pockets score card). Note that Glass Pockets has been adding more foundations since my post last week.
-
Alliance Magazine interviews Martin Brookes, the CEO of New Philanthropy Capital.
-
A synopsis of the Rethinking Philanthropy session at the World Economic Forum conference in Davos. (Disclosure: I'm a member of the World Economic Forum's council on Philanthropy & Social Investing.)
-
USA Today joins the parade of media outlets encouraging readers to give smart, not just give.
-
Clara Miller of the Nonprofit Finance Fund responds to my debate with Michael Edwards on the relevancy of social capital markets.
-
Carla Javits, the head of REDF, says that investing in social enterprises is one of the best ways to spur job creation. Her logic is compelling.
-
Nell Edgington goes against the crowd and suggests that Idealist's impassioned appeal for emergency funding won't save them. Ami Dar responds in the comments.
-
As I read Seth Godin's take on how some people are "hunters" and some are "farmers," I'm struck by the way his descriptions remind me of different people and organizations in philanthropy. Both hunters and farmers are needed of course, but each group will work towards their shared goals in very different ways.
-
I think Jeff Brooks nails why nonprofits (and in my opinion, the whole industry of donor advising) should remember that it is not their job to tell donors how to give, but instead offer them educated choices.
Email This Post
0Comments
The Overhead Question: The Future of Nonprofit Assessment and Reporting
Tomorrow at 11am pacific time, I’ll be moderating a conference call sponsored by NTEN, the Nonprofit Technology Network. The details are below, the call is free and over 200 people are already registered. I hope you’ll join us!
NTEN Press Release:
In response to feedback from the sector and from the public, GuideStar, Charity Navigator, and other nonprofit assessment and reporting organizations have announced that it’s all about to change. They are looking to use new metrics that will assess indicators such as (but not limited to):
This is good news for the sector, but what data will be tracked and how we will be asked to provide it is still up in the air. How will effectiveness be measured? What will be required of nonprofits in order to support this effort? What impact will these changes have on the standard operations of a charitable organization?
Join NTEN, Sean Stannard-Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy, along with representatives of the assessing organizations and the nonprofit community for a panel discussion on what these plans mean to nonprofits and the public.
How’s It Work?
This will be a an online chat/teleconference event where you will listen on the phone and simultaneously sign into a live chat.Panel Particpants:
Email This Post
0Comments
Making Philanthropy “Made to Stick”
The book Made to Stick should be required reading for all nonprofits and foundations. The book examines how ideas spread and why some ideas are “sticky” (ie. spread easily) and some are not.
Today I have a little project for my readers (with a prize!). In Made to Stick, the authors talk about why some ideas are memorable. One of the memory “tricks” they point to is the use of acronyms that spell words. The one they use to describe what makes an idea sticky is SUCCESs: Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotional, Stories.
So I’m wondering what words best describe great philanthropy (we’ll worry about turning them into a catchy, or corny (?) acronym later). To add a little fun to the project. I’ll be giving away a $50 gift certificate to Vitanna (thanks @jessamynlau!)– microfinance for student loans in developing countries – to a randomly chosen participant in the project.
The Rules:
In the comments section of this post, write three things
-
A single word that describes great philanthropy
-
A sentence explaining the word
-
A paragraph elaborating on the word
For instance, an entry might read like this.
Knowledge
Knowledge is a more valuable asset than money in the practice of good philanthropy.
While most donors focus on the money they give away, the knowledge of what works and what does not in the social sphere is a more valuable asset in the practice of good philanthropy. This means that while donors should of course make donations (ie. share their money) they should also focus on sharing their knowledge with other donors. Doing so gives donors the opportunity add impact to donations made by others.
I look forward to your entries! The contest will run through this Sunday at midnight (pacific time) and I’ll use Random.org to select which of the comments gets the Vittana gift certificate. Feel free to submit as many words as you like. Only comments which follow the entry guidelines will be eligible for the prize.
Email This Post
31Comments
Philanthropy Daily Digest
-
The Foundation Center posted today on the launch of Glass Pockets and what they hope to achieve.
-
The Chronicle of Philanthropy has launched a spiffy new website.
-
Nell Edgington jumps into my debate with Michael Edwards and says it is just silly to deny that nonprofits operate within a market framework.
-
Tris Lumley of New Philanthropy Capital weighs in on my debate with Michael Edwards and argues that measuring nonprofit performance is dangerous, but necessary.
Email This Post
0Comments
Glass Pockets: A Revolution in Foundation Transparency
“We think the foundation should have glass pockets.” – Russell Leffingwell, Chair, Carnegie Corporation, 1952
Hot on the heels of rolling out real time tracking of foundation grants in support of Haiti, the Foundation Center has quietly launched a new project with the whimsical name Glass Pockets.
With a mission to “bring transparency to the world of philanthropy” Glass Pockets offers reports on how transparent large, well known foundations are. These reports rate the foundations across 28 elements of transparency and accountability such as whether they explain their grantmaking process, provide a public assessment of the foundation’s performance and whether they offer a knowledge center that shares program evaluations and lessons learned.
You can currently find reports for:
Most importantly, the reports offer direct click-thru access to each element. So users can quickly find the Gates Foundation’s investment policies, the Ford Foundation’s grantmaking policy, or the Hewlett Foundation’s knowledge center.
Glass Pockets also offers a fascinating Foundation Transparency 2.0 database that shows the social media tools being used by over 400 foundations. From the database you can directly access the Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, blogs, e-newsletters and other tools being used by some of the countries largest funders.
Finally, the site offers a Google-based search tool that lets users search the websites of thousands of private foundations. For instance, a search for the term Haiti brings back The Boston Foundation’s Haiti Relief & Reconstruction Fund, The Gates Foundation’s statement on their response to the earthquake and the Case Foundations blog post on ways that individual donors can support Haiti.
This is fascinating stuff! Not only is Glass Pockets suddenly the most important way to access important information about foundations, but the reports begin to set a level of expectation for large, staffed foundations to share more about their activities and what they know with the public. For instance, the reports note that the Ford Foundation does not make its 990-PF available, the Kellogg Foundation does not have a mechanism in place to allow grantee feedback and none of the foundations being reported on share an assessment of their own performance with the public.
Talk about information overload. Glass Pockets offers users direct links to a deep library of information about foundations. I could get lost for days exploring this place!
Email This Post
4Comments
Michael Edwards Responds
Michael Edwards, whose anti-social capital market blog post I criticized yesterday, offers a rebuttal via comment:
Thanks for your response Sean, but it doesn’t change my views. “It’s not a competition” says Si Kahn, one of America’s leading community organizers. “There are twenty other organizations as good or better than us. I’m a movement person, and at a very deep level it doesn’t matter whether we get a grant or someone else does, so long as the movement has enough money to do its work.” “We are steadily losing the absolute basic instinct that collaboration and mutual support come first” is another quote from “Small Change” that readily springs to mind.
When you say that “last I checked, nonprofits were competing fiercely to convince donors to support them” you need to check again, since these quotes are not isolated examples – they describe the reality of a large amount of voluntary citizen action, so why don’t you recognize and respect it? And if nonprofits ARE competing with each-other, have you ever paused to reflect on your own role in making that a self-fulfilling prophecy?
As I said in my first blog post on Philanthropy Central on Monday, civil society and the social economy are very different things, animated by different mechanisms, fulfilling different roles, and requiring different forms of support from philanthropy. One cannot simply ignore the trade-offs that exist between competition and cooperation as you do. nor sweep under the carpet the difficulties imposed by the fact that social ‘goods’ are not commensurable or substitutable (now there’s a mouthful!). That’s the subject of today’s blog post, so I encourage you to check it out.
A “farmers market” is still a market, and markets are places where people buy and sell. Civil society is not, and that’s why we need more “meeting grounds”, not markets.
Michael might think I don’t get civil society and I might think he’s got a shallow view of capital markets, but he ends his most recent post on the Philanthropy Central blog with:
"I would much rather have full-throated debates about these issues than the soft-shoe shuffle of the Council on Foundations and its ilk. That way, when consensus arrives it might actually mean something beyond the disguised disagreements that haunt the corridors of foundations.
On that, at least, we both agree!
Email This Post
1Comments
