A lot of people like to pretend that philanthropy is easy. That every grant meets its objectives and that not only do foundations innovate and take risk, but they still manage to knock the ball out of the park with every decision.

Except innovating and never failing are mutually exclusive. In fact doing anything of note while at the same time consistently avoiding failure is impossible. If you never fall and skin your knee, then while you might not admit it to yourself, you’re hanging out in the kiddie section of the playground.

Jim Canales, the CEO of The James Irvine Foundation, isn’t one of these people. He embraces the idea that “failure” is not a mark of someone to look down your nose at, but a mark of someone who is taking risks and doing difficult things. Last year at the 2007 Council on Foundations conference, Jim was a panelist at the Demonstrating Impact session along with Joel Fleishman, author of The Foundation: A Great American Secret and James Knickman of the New York State Health Foundation. While the session was nominally about showing the world how much impact philanthropy is having, at its core the argument was that by being transparent and honest about what works and does not work in philanthropy, we will truly demonstrate impact.

Yesterday, Jim was back at it, this time with the brilliant Phil Buchanan of the Center for Effective Philanthropy. The session was called “The Advantage of Sharing Failures”. Phil pointed out as the session began that while the COF Conference has long booked sessions about innovations, a couple of years ago you would not have seen a session about failure.

Jim went through a list of the pros and cons of sharing failure:

Pros

• You share knowledge. As foundations, knowledge and capital is all we have, so we must effectively share both.
• You help others avoid the repetition of common mistakes.
• Improve your own work by placing a value on self reflection and on learning.
• Reinforces your commitment to impact and effectiveness.

Cons

• Potentially harm your grantees.
• You might damage your reputation.
• By highlighting the difficulties you run into, you might discourage others from taking on high risk ventures.
• Provide fodder for people who are against foundations.

While I think that all of the Pros are correct, I think only the potential to harm your grantees is a legitimate Con (and even this I think should be overcome by a foundation’s obligation to protect people that the grantee are serving over protecting the grantees). The other items are legitimate fears, but are not true risks (although Jim stuck with his point of view that they were when I asked him how real these risks were during the Q&A).

While there is a certain risk to reputational damage if all of your colleagues refuse to ever talk about mistakes and we slide back into a time where foundations pretend that they are infallible forces for good, I will simply point to Jim Canales and Paul Brest (from Hewlett) who both published reports on their mistakes last year. As far as reputational risk, what they got for their trouble was coverage in the New York Times, an op-ed in the Chronicle of Philanthropy and an enhancement of their already stellar reputations. And they got all of this even though for the most part, their colleauges haven’t followed their lead. Effectively hanging them out to dry, the lack of other foundations taking similar steps has made Jim (in his own words), “The poster child for failure in philanthropy”. And yet still he hasn’t suffered any reputational damage. Instead he’s asked to lead sessions at the COF conference.

I think highlighting difficulties and then having nothing bad happen to you (as is the case with Brest and Canales and will likely be the case in 99% of future cases), encourages people to take risks. With Canales leading the way, it is the people who are not joining him in sharing failures that are discouraging other people (ie “Everyone applauded Jim, but they aren’t following suit and sharing. Maybe I shouldn’t either.”)

Does talking about failure provide fodder for people who are anti-foundations? Last year at the Demonstrating Impact session, a member of the audience who identified herself as a professor of marketing stood up to say that people who admit their mistakes publicly are viewed with more trust afterwards. ‘Nuff said.

At the Demonstrating Impact session, panelist James Knickman summed it all up for me:

“We need to frame our release of “failures” as an attempt to learn. No one tells scientists they are a failure when one of their experiments don’t work!”

And my comment at the time, which I stand by now was:

That’s it right there. What philanthropy is engaged in is an experiment. An experiment in how we can all make the world a better place. We don’t know what the right answer is. In fact, the “answer” is probably evolving as quickly as we can design experiments. But by being transparent, by sharing successful ideas and failed ideas. By judging ourselves not on the outcomes of each grant, but on the body of knowledge that we contribute to the field, we will truly transform philanthropy.

Look, I know that this stuff is hard. But moderator Toni Freeman of the Duke Endowment told a wonderful story that highlighted the fact that this is hard, but that you can do it. She described how she had decided to take a “firefighter training class” as part of a leadership training. She was told “you are going to climb up to the 7th floor and jump out the window”. She thought “that sounds good!”, but standing on the ledge, every fiber of her body was telling her not to jump. But she did. And then she climbed back up and jumped out of the window two more times.

And each time it was easier.

Tweet This Post

Just want to send my thanks out to the 50-60 people that cycled through the Tactical Philanthropy Un-Reception last night. It was a last minute idea, so I was thrilled that so many people showed up (including Tactical Philanthropy reader Bill who drove in to say hi even though he wasn’t attending the conference). I’m already looking forward to COF 2009! Maybe we’ll look into an official Tactical Philanthropy reception? (Or maybe an “un-reception” is better for all those readers who think, “the best part of the conference happens in the hallways!”).

Tweet This Post

(This is a guest post from Dahna Goldstein, of PhilanTech and I Do Foundation, who is covering the Council on Foundations Conference for Tactical Philanthropy)

By Dahna Goldstein

One of the things that struck me yesterday is the importance of language in the various contexts of conversations about philanthropy at CoF. There is the obvious – this is an international conference, and all of the sessions are predictably in English, but there are numerous other languages being spoken in the hallways (and by virtually everyone at my lunch table).

But there is also the language of financial investments that is increasingly used to describe not only the endowment side of foundations, but their philanthropic activities as well. Foundation leaders talk about short term versus long term investments in nonprofits, initiatives, ideas. They talk about a portfolio of philanthropic investments, and what percentage of that portfolio should be in “risky” investments. The application of investment language to philanthropy isn’t new, but seems to be more common.

Then there is the question of what we mean by some of the most commonly used words – and some of the most important concepts – in our field:

* Human Rights: Mary Robinson suggested that part of the reason that some of the critical issues of human rights aren’t fully embraced in philanthropy is that “human rights” means different things to different people. Anthony Romero of the ACLU observed that we in the U.S. tend to define human rights as something external (that we export to China or Cuba) versus civil rights which we define as internal;

* Change: Akwasi Aidoo of Trust Africa drew a distinction between two types of change – the change we want to see and that we can influence, and changes that are happening around us to which we need to react (economic, social, technological, etc.);

* Philanthropy: Susan Raymond of Changing Our World posited that the definition of philanthropy itself is changing. Philanthropy has historically been a continuum, a linear process from donations to foundations to grants to nonprofits. Innovations such as emerging bond markets for vaccines that used to be a matter of charity are changing the very definition of philanthropy. Dr. Raymond proposed that the definition of philanthropy may be evolving to include not only charitable organizations, but about a broader social marketplace;

* Philanthropists: The definition of a philanthropist is also changing, fuelled by the increase in micro-philanthropy and the technological tools that are both spurring and supporting its growth. An individual with $25 can arguably now be a philanthropist, which is, in some ways, a radical notion.

It seems the ways we talk about our field help shape it, just as changes in the field help shape the language we use to describe it.

What do you think? How important is the language that we use to describe the work that we’re doing, how we’re doing it, and who is doing it? What are the other key words and concepts that are shaping the field and being shaped by it? How important is it to gain consensus on definitions to support the types of collaborations and impact that this conference seeks to promote?

Tweet This Post

(This is a guest post from Carla Javits, President of REDF, who is covering the Council on Foundations Conference for Tactical Philanthropy)

By Carla Javits

The Yankee stadium sized conference center here full of 3,500 people makes you long for a bicycle to ride from place to place and binoculars to watch the action on stage (despite the huge video screens). But the giant plate glass windows looking out at the beautiful waterfront make it a little less overwhelming. It’s old home week for a lot of people here with much milling and warm greetings outside the sessions.

A few impressions from today. Morning session led by AmericaSpeaks raised questions for us to discuss at our tables as we drank our coffee slightly bleary eyed. What should philanthropy do to have greater impact? My table, a little jaded. After the big set up about how we might think about what philanthropy can do to transform the world as we know it… one of our main messages was “have more humility”. My table mates from several of the largest national and California-based foundations also had a few other thoughts. First, the urgency of a greater focus on poverty given the economy, income disparities, and food shortages around the world. But a caution that the way we frame it, the words we use, even “poverty”, may not compel interest from those we most need to pay attention. An intriguing thought from Dee Davis of the Central for Rural Strategies in Kentucky who was at my table (and graciously allowed me to quote him) – “We can’t consume ourselves into prosperity”.

Another table mate suggested reading a new book by Michael Edwards published by Demos called “Just Another Emperor: the Myth and Realities of Philanthropcapitalism.” Quickly skimming it, the book appears to challenge the value of social enterprise, social enterpreneurship, and venture philanthropy — all of which are at the heart of the organization I lead.

I’ll have more to say about his argument once I’ve had time away from Yankee stadium to read it. Superficially scanning the book did make me think about the fact that decades of traditional philanthropy have achieved some astonishing and great things, but have not yet led us to the world we want (also the title of a fine book by Peter Karoff. Knowing there is no silver bullet, full exploration of new approaches seems highly warranted, and I hope more of us will continue to pursue them as we aim for even more powerful results.

I attended two sessions on the National Fund for Workforce Solutions. Sponsored by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Weinberg, and Hitachi Foundations, and the Department of Labor, with more foundations joining, the intent is to help start up foundation-based workforce collaboratives in 30-50 communities around the country. The basic idea is to help people who have barriers to employment get good jobs, keep them, and advance.

A central focus is a pretty basic notion which is suprisingly unusual in the wonderful world of workforce development. That is to address the ‘dual customer’ — not only the needs of the individual, but also the needs of business. And the point is also to better coordinate. Marguerite Womack of The United Way of Los Angeles which is leading a collaborative effort there talked about bringing the seven workforce investment boards together, since each one had been working alone on parallel initiatives to get workers into jobs in health care and other industires.

Latoya Patterson, a career coach at the University of Maryland Medical Center, spoke about the kind of support she provides to help workers succeed. Also on the panel was Ms. C, a mother of seven who had been able to leave private duty nursing for a more stable job as a hospital worker with the support of Ms. Patterson’s career coaching. She described how critical it had been in helping her to successfully retain her job despite a significant illness of one of her children and her own mother. Her daughter aspired to a professional career in health care, inspired by her mother’s example.

At a panel later that afternoon, the central importance of employer-based career coaching was reaffirmed. It reminded me of some great work that Springboard Forward is doing back home in the Bay Area. A top administrator of the University of Maryland Medical Center affirmed that the business community viewed the workforce collaborative’s effort as a civic priority and that the Medical Center views it as a way to develop a pipeline of workers and be a good corporate citizen.

Jason Perkins-Cohen of the Job Opportunities Task Force in Baltimore talked about his successful program that trains workers for jobs as plumbers, carpenters and electricians. With 70% of the participants starting with criminal backgrounds, 80% became employed with many earning as much as $20/hour.

The Baltimore programs were incredibly impressive, but in total served several hundred people. A discussion of scale and sustainability suggested that on the one hand individual programs should not be forced to scale too quickly, and that on the other hand the workforce collaboratives could achieve greater scale by sustained efforts to create an array of different programs for people at different points in the employment ‘pipeline’.

An instructive afternoon panel led by Rick McGahey of the Ford Foundation noted that there is huge demographic opportunity and challenge as baby boomers leave the workforce. Georgetown Professor Harry Holzer asserted that there are a host of ‘middle skill’ jobs available to people with a post-secondary credential or training, but not necessarily a four year college degree. These jobs offer opportunities, but many workers will need to access training, and will require support for transportation, childcare and other needs to take advantage of them. This panel also emphasized again the amazing point that a sustained connection to private sector business is the key challenge for workforce development and has happened far too little and never in a sustained way.

There were some challenging questions about whether the National Fund for Workforce Solutions might take on the issue of job discrimination against people with a criminal record, raised by Debbie Alvarez, a trustee of the East Bay Community Foundation and Director of S.F. Goodwill. The response was that if this issue bubbles up from communities, the Fund would consider addressing it – most likely at the regional level, as the Fund is not primarily an advocacy organization at the national level.

Discussion also ensued about the right population to target. While panelists stated that it was important not to ‘cream’ by serving those who would have made it without assistance, on the other hand the collaboratives are not focused on those with the most significant barriers. Although the target population, it was noted, might vary from region to region.

This got me thinking about the whole question of “social return on investment”, or in a simpler form – the costs and benefits of private and public investments. When does it make sense to help those with more significant barriers – where the investments might be greater, but ultimately make a bigger impact; and when is it more beneficial to help others perhaps at lower cost – but not necessarily lower net cost. Responding to this questions has been part of REDF’s effort to measure the social return on investment for the social enterprises we support which have brought thousands of people with major barriers – homelessness, criminal histories, mental illness — into the workforce.

The comments and questions about scale and targeting continue to roll around in my sleepy head.

Pheww….an action packed day. Tomorrow – mini-summits and a gathering on homelessness. Wednesday, back to Yankee stadium

Tweet This Post