Category Archives: Giving Circles

Giving Circles

This is my latest column for the Financial Times. You can find an archive of past columns here.

Social circles with a square deal for charity

By Sean Stannard-Stockton
September 30, 2008 | Original FT.com Link

Giving circles are a hot trend in philanthropy. Similar to the investment clubs of the 1990s that brought people together to talk about stock picking, giving circles are social groups where people pool resources and decide which non-profits to fund. If giving circles prove to be a hit, a few years from now cocktail party chatter might include: “I just got a hot tip on a non-profit you should consider!”

One of these giving circles is the NYC Venture Philanthropy Fund. With about 30 members, the circle consists of residents who work in both the non-profit and corporate worlds. Each year they vote on what areas to focus on, such as poverty or education, and then go through a process of identifying and selecting high-impact non-profits.

Drawing on a venture philanthropy model, the group provides cash grants, technical expertise and access to their members’ networks for each of their grantees. Members in turn gain a model where their giving replicates the practices of many institutional foundations, yet they are required only to give $365 a year.
Learning about philanthropy isn’t the only reason people join giving circles. “Giving circles are like a book club meets an investment club,” says Nicole Cozier, philanthropy education officer at the Washington Area Women’s Foundation, a public foundation that sponsors a number of circles. “They allow people to come together with others who have similar interests.”

The way that many giving circles mimic investment clubs suggests that philanthropy may be embarking on the same cultural leap that investing went through in the 1980s and 1990s. During those years, individual investors became a massive force as baby boomers saved for retirement.

Investment clubs were one popular way that investors learnt about the financial markets. These clubs consist of individuals who contribute to a common investment fund and meet regularly to decide how to invest the fund’s assets. In addition to members doing research on stock picks, expert advisers often make presentations at club meetings. Clubs combine socializing with investment education and, hopefully, profitable investments.

This year, the first baby boomers retire and enter their “peak giving years” when people’s charitable giving tends to increase. Retirees often look for social groups to join and many baby boomers are seeking groups that can help them “give back” in some way. Giving circles are a natural option and a familiar concept to anyone who has been part of an investment club.

But it is not only baby boomers who are becoming interested in philanthropy and giving circles; there is also increased interest from Generation Y. This generation of young people has spent its high school years volunteering and seems eager to engage with the social sector. While cell phone giving and online social networks might steal the headlines when it comes to next generation philanthropy, there is also a growing interest in giving circles.

The Young Philanthropist Committee of Birthright Israel NEXT NY is a group funded by Michael Steinhardt, the hedge fund legend turned philanthropist. The program has created a 20-person giving circle comprised of individuals in their 20s and 30s who have come together to support Jewish causes in the US. Rebecca Sugar, director of Birthright Israel NEXT NY, was inspired by Mr Steinhardt’s son David, a childhood friend of hers who had started his own giving circle. Each cycle, the 20 participants put up $500 each, which Birthright Israel NEXT NY matches. The young members of the group pitch each other on non-profits they think should receive the money. The finalist organizations present to the group and a winner is selected. After a strong showing by the 2007 group, the Young Philanthropist Committee has launched a second circle and assisted two of its members in starting their own separate circles.

By blending the best practices of institutional philanthropy with the social atmosphere of an informal club, giving circles have the potential to spread quickly. It is my hope that they will encourage more people to be actively engaged in giving and to do so more effectively.

If you are interested in learning how to start your own circle, visit the Giving Circles Knowledge Center hosted by the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers at givingforum.org.

The writer is a principal and director of tactical philanthropy at Ensemble Capital Management and author of the blog TacticalPhilanthropy.com.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

New York Times Giving Section

I never got around to commenting on the NY Times Giving Section. As always it was full of a ton of interesting articles, notable Stephanie Strom on the trend towards foundations “spending down” rather than existing forever, an overview of blogs effect on fundraising citing GiveWell, The Agitator and Trent Stamp (and a list of influential philanthropy blogs with the usual crew all listed, although they left out PhilanTopic), and an article on Prize Philanthropy and innovation.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

New Philanthropic Practices and the Changing Environment for Philanthropy

I’m at the Investors’ Circle conference all day yesterday and today so I just have a quick post.

The Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector Research Fund has a new grantmaking initiative called An Evolving Field: Research on New Philanthropic Practices and the Changing Environment for Philanthropy. They are trying to “develop new knowledge that encourages strategic philanthropy in response to social and technological changes.”

One of the four grantees is Angela Eikenberry, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech for her research into giving circles that I highlighted last December.

Alan Abramson, director of the Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy Program said:

A number of forces are likely to change philanthropy in the future: an increase in the number of high net-worth individuals, greater involvement of donors in their philanthropy, accessible and powerful communications technologies that accelerate information-sharing and collaboration across great distances and organizational boundaries, and continued calls for philanthropy to be accountable and demonstrate impact.

I couldn’t agree more.

…I’ll be posting a podcast with Daniel Ben-Horin of CompuMentor/TechSoup about their NetSquared project tomorrow. Next week, I’ll be back to regular posting and I’ll have a thing or two to say about Holden Karnofsky (see post here) and Lucy Bernholz’s (here) recent posts about foundation payout rates. I find Lucy’s post to be particularly troubling as her argument calls into question whether foundations’ are engaging in any public benefit beyond their role as a pass through entity to other nonprofits or social enterprises.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Giving Circles II

Today brings another article about giving circles quoting our friend Daria Teutonica:

“Our database has doubled in the last two years from 220 giving circles to 400," says Daria Teutonica, director, New Ventures in Philanthropy, Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit dedicated to growing philanthropy in the United States "The number of people involved in giving circles has also doubled. This is not a flash in the pan."

The article also mentions Angela Eikenberry, whose research we discussed last time I wrote about giving circles:

Part of the appeal of giving circles is how accessible they are. Angela Eikenberry is an assistant professor at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va., and author of the report "Giving Circles and Fundraising in the New Philanthropy Environment." She has identified three basic types of giving circles: small group (think book clubs); loose networks or groups that gather around events like a potluck dinner to raise money for specific causes; and formal organizations such as Social Venture Partners Calgary, which are more like voluntary associations with a board and committees.

Personally, I think that the book club type and the formal type are the two that will come to dominate. The book club type in important because it will bring some formality to the giving process for people who generally give reactively to solicitations. This will be good for excellent nonprofits (Their supporters will alert their giving circles to their good work) and be bad for the less than excellent nonprofits (“I’ll have my giving club review your solicitation and get back to you if we decide to fund your proposal”).

The more formal giving club will be important because of the way it will aggregate large, but not huge givers into a group that can rival philanthropic entities like private foundations. The article mentions Social Venture Partners (I’m recording a podcast with SVP executive director Paul Shoemaker today). Full Circle Fund of San Francisco is another interesting group. These “Giving Circles on Steroids” represent a kind of philanthropic capital that can influence large foundations, collaborate with them, or co-invest in foundation led grantmaking. Nancy Roob, CEO of Edna McConnell Clark Foundation told us on Friday that,

We see the emerging generation of new philanthropists as an important – if not critical – partner in our work to help organizations with proven services reach greater numbers of youth.

Social Venture Partners already lists EMCF on their website as a kind of kindred spirit. I would not be surprised if the two groups have already jointly funded some grantees. Whether they have or not, I think there exists a whole host of opportunities if the field of philanthropy can embrace the concept of co-opetition.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Lisa Kays

From Lisa Kays of Washington Area Women’s Foundation in follow up to my Giving Circle post:

From attending our workshops here, and listening to giving circle members talk, I think this is one of the greatest benefits they feel from giving through a circle–the personal emotional and intellectual interplay that ensues from negotiating, discussing, persuading and eventually deciding through a group about the best giving decisions.

My sense is that it enriches our giving circle members personally, and also leads to the emergence of the actual "best" recipient for the grant rising to the top…sort of the power of the collective unconscience to unearth the right thing.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Giving Circles

If giving circles represented a for-profit market opportunity, I’d be saying that the  Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers and the Washington Area Women’s Foundation (WAWF) were cornering the market. Every time the mainstream media covers giving circles you find quotes or mentions of these two organizations. Today’s Wall Street Journal article “When Small Donors Get Together”, quotes the Forum’s Daria Teutonico and features WAWF (WAWF has a great blog by the way).

So what’s so important about the giving circle trend? I’ve already written at length on this topic here, here and here. I think the key is that 1) giving circles represent the point of intersection between social, “heart” based giving and technical, “mind” based giving, and 2) giving circles mirror exactly the investment clubs that sprang up during the early 1990’s and signaled the emergence of the individual investor as a driving force behind the mainstreaming of investing.

The Forum’s New Ventures in Philanthropy project has launched a new version of their website that features a great selection of “how to’s” on giving circles. The list includes:

  • Ten Basic Steps to Starting a Giving Circle
  • Giving Circle Lifecycle
  • Options for Giving Circles
  • Choosing Nonprofits for Funding

Another resource is the Giving Circles Network:

Our mission is to assist Giving Circles and other individual donors in making their contributions more meaningful by helping them to better network among themselves, leverage their resources, and enhance the impact of their giving.

No matter how often you hear me or other people talk about new donor strategies, “investing” in nonprofits or other philanthropy 2.0 buzzwords, at the end of the day giving is always going to be an emotional, social action. The Second Great Wave of Philanthropy is not going to be characterized by a movement to emotionless, logical giving. It is going to be a bringing together of heart and mind, social and individual to forge a new force that will have the power to transform our society.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Giving Carnival: Edition Two

The second edition of The Giving Carnival is underway and the topic is Resources for Donors.

Tom Williams gives us an in depth explanation of GiveMeaning.com, his donor/fundraiser social networking site.

Holden at The GiveWell Blog explains why his GiveWell project is proudly not part of the Web 2.0 crowd.

Paul Botts discusses the “long tail of philanthropy” and other online giving sites.

Adrian Melrose weighs in from the UK with the aptly titled "Resources for Donors"

Gayle Roberts suggests using the practice of meditation to connect with why you give.

Matthew Monberg tells us about his ideal donor resource.

Lucy Bernholz lists a number of social network philanthropy websites here and here, and points us to the fascinating philanthropy “mapping” site xigi.net.

Allison Fine shows us “sites to help us become more educated and connected donors”.

The Future Leaders in Philanthropy blog directs us to the Don’t Almost Give project of the Ad Council.

My sister Jessica Stannard-Friel, a co-founder of Future Leaders in Philanthropy, submits a guide to charity rating systems that she wrote for OnPhilanthropy.com.

And to wrap things up I discuss the growing market for Nonprofit Analysts and point readers to the best online resource for learning how to start and run a Giving Circle.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Giving Circles Part III

The Washington Post ran a first person article by a member of a giving circle on Sunday (hat tip to Larry Checco of Checco Communications). Claudia Thorne of the African American Women’s Giving Circle writes about the joy of participating in a giving circle. You can read the full article here. I’ve highlighted a couple of important quotes below:

“We didn’t start by just handing out money. Over many months, the two dozen of us met to plan our giving for 2006. We gathered in homes, in offices or sometimes at a restaurant one of us owned, not unlike a book group or an investment club. It was important for us to come together as a group and to hear the ideas of each woman. We worked by consensus and were concerned about the relationships we built with one another.”

“We decided to focus on nonprofit organizations working to effect change in one community and stay in the work for the long haul.”

“We donated a large portion of the money, $25,000, to (Facilitating Leadership in Youth). That dwarfs the $50 or $100 checks any one of us might have written in the past.”

I highlight these quotes because they show some of important ways in which giving circles are going to change philanthropy.

  • They encourage proactive, systematic development of vision and strategy for the members.
  • As “institutions”, they are able to commit to long-term funding of projects. Even as members come and go, the circle continues to maintain continuity.
  • They create leverage by pooling resources.

The combination of these attributes results in larger, more intelligently considered, long-term grants; exactly what nonprofits need.

Claudia mentions that her giving circle is sponsored by the Washington Area Women’s Foundation. Lisa Kays of WAWF dropped a comment on my original post regarding giving circles. It seems to me that WAWF is a group to watch as the giving circle trend matures. You can learn more about their services for giving circles here. They also have a great blog.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Giving Circles Part II

I’d like to thank both Lisa Kays of the Washington Area Women’s Foundation Blog and Angela Eikenberry (who’s research on giving circles I discussed last month) for sending me a link to The Giving Circles Knowledge Center:

"Throughout history, passionate individuals have joined together to make life better in their communities. Today, thousands of donors have pooled their money, energy, and ideas to create Giving Circles.

The Giving Circle Knowledge Center is full of useful information, resources, sample documents, and inspiration for:

  • Anyone who is curious about giving circles – what they are, how they work, and their impact on donors and communities
  • Anyone who is considering starting or joining a giving circle
  • Members of established giving circles who want to continue to learn, grow, and share their successes and challenges
  • Community Foundations, nonprofits, or other organizations considering or currently hosting giving circles."

If anyone is aware of other resources on starting and running a giving circle, please let me know.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tactical Analysis: Donor Advised Funds

So far we’ve gone through the first four steps of the Tactical Philanthropy process. You can click on the links to read about Goal Establishment, Legacy Planning, Asset Analysis, and Tactical Analysis. After giving an overview of the Tactical Analysis step, I gave a case study. Today I am going to talk about the second of the five major giving vehicles

  • Private Foundations
  • Donor Advised Funds
  • Charitable Remainder Trusts
  • Charitable Lead Trusts
  • Supporting Organizations

While private foundations have gotten much cheaper and easier to operate than they have been in the past, donor advised funds (DAF) are still the cheapest and easiest giving vehicle. If the majority of your charitable giving is made up of writing checks to nonprofits, then a DAF is likely a great choice.

A DAF is an account, held at a charitable organization, on which a donor is named as advisor. In practice, a DAF acts like a charitable checking account. The donor gets an income tax deduction when assets are placed in the account and can then send checks out of the account to the nonprofits he or she wishes to support. Legally, the donor only has the right to “advise” the charity that controls the account regarding which charities to support. This lack of control is in contrast to a private foundation, which the donor controls absolutely. But in practice, charities deny donors’ “advice” in only the most extreme cases.

While donor advised funds cannot make loans, pay for donors’ charitable expenses, invest in nonprofits or engage in other sophisticated philanthropic strategies in the way that private foundations can, they are incredible easy to use and can be opened with as little as $5,000. Private foundations, while not requiring the $3-$5 million in starting capital that many people assume, still generally require at least $250,000.

Donor advised funds also offer the benefit of offering tax deductibility for assets other than cash or common stock (private foundations can accept any type of asset, but only offer a tax deduction for the cost basis of assets other than cash and common stock).

Some examples:

  • Real Estate: The great real estate boom seems to have come to a halt. Donors with holdings in investment properties should think about using these assets to fund their giving. Both complete and partial gifts of real estate to nonprofits should be considered. If multiple nonprofits are contemplated as recipients, or if endowing future years’ giving is desired, real estate can be used to fund a donor advised fund.
  • Privately held business interests: If you are a partner in a privately held business or the owner of a family firm, you can use this asset in your giving. One obvious time to consider this option is when a family seeks to sell a family business that they have built up over the years. The sale of the business will trigger a large tax bill. By gifting a partial interest to a nonprofit or donor advised fund, the family can offset part of the tax from the sale. Recently the rules regarding gifts of assets held inside of an S-Corporation were changed. These assets had been an ineffective choice for giving in the past, but at least until December 31, 2007 these assets can be a tax efficient choice.
  • Odds & Ends: Artwork, life insurance, coin collections, intellectual property, The Minnesota Vikings… Almost any asset can be gifted to a nonprofit. The structure of the gift and the nonprofit receiving the gift both play into the tax ramifications. The last time the Minnesota Vikings were sold, my friend Bryan Clontz was involved in handling a gift of a partial share of the team into a donor advised fund.

Setting up a donor advised fund also allows donors to separate the tax side of their giving from their charitable intent. Since the tax deduction occurs when assets are placed in the account, this decision can be made with the donors CPA or financial advisors. Making gifts out of the fund to a nonprofit has no tax implications, and so the donor can make these decisions without concerning themselves with the tax impact of the timing or size of the gift.

Donor advised funds are also ideal vehicles for use by giving circles. Assuming the giving circles is started with at least $5,000, the group can start a donor advised fund to hold their assets. The treasurer or other member of the group can be named as the advisor to the fund and each member would receive a tax deduction for their gift to the fund in the same way they would for a gift to any public nonprofit.

One thing to keep in mind is that the choice between a private foundation and donor advised fund is not an either/or situation. While the media has made much of donor advised funds being the “next” privation foundation, in actuality they are distinct strategies that can be employed separately or in combination. Many large private foundations also set up a donor advised fund “side car” to receive gifts or assets other than common stock and cash, as well as to receive a portion of the private foundations 5% minimum distribution in years when the foundation does not find enough nonprofits it wants to fund.

Benefits:

  • Simple, effective way to organize your giving and maximize tax deductions with limited paperwork.
  • Fund your giving with any assets (such as real estate or privately held business interests), not just cash or common stock.
  • No excise tax, such as the 1-2% tax levied on private foundations
  • No liability or compliance risk since the account is legally controlled by the sponsoring nonprofit.

Drawbacks:

  • Can only use fund to write checks to nonprofits. Making loans to nonprofits or paying for charitable expenses not allowed.
  • No formal structure for involving your family members.
  • Can only make gifts to IRS recognized, US based nonprofits. No emergency grants to individuals, scholarships or international grants allowed.
  • No legal control over the account. The assets in your fund are legally controlled by the sponsoring nonprofit.

Donor advised funds are offered by individual nonprofits, community foundations and national donor advised funds (such as Schwab Charitable and the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund). Opening an account with an individual nonprofit might make sense if you give a large portion or your charitable dollars to that organization. Starting one at a community foundation is best if you want to use the foundation’s “strategic advice” (advice on where to give). Community foundations generally charge a fair bit more than national donor advised funds, but provide very good advice on identifying nonprofits you might want to support. If you are generally self-directed and do not need advice on where to give, a national donor advised fund is probably best. These nonprofit entities offer a simple donor advised fund structure and charge low fees.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post