Category Archives: Individual Giving

Crowdsourcing the SoCap Conference

Within minutes of announcing that there would be a Tactical Philanthropy track at this year’s SoCap Conference we started getting emails from people who had suggestions for panels and speakers. So I’m glad to say that our plans for designing the track include soliciting your ideas and comments.

Below you’ll find a number of session concepts for the Tactical Philanthropy track. We would love to hear your feedback on these concepts, ideas you have for other sessions and your opinion of whether these sorts of concepts will draw the savvy donors, foundations and nonprofits who have in past years not been strongly represented at SoCap.

Nonprofit Analysis: Beyond Metrics

Nonprofit analysis, the evaluation of nonprofits to gauge their social investment potential, is a holistic process that does not lend itself well to simplistic financial measures. This panel will explore how donors should go about deciding which nonprofits to support and how much bang a donor can expect for their philanthropic buck.

Philanthropy Fail

The best laid plans don’t always work out so well. Since philanthropist can generate social impact through sharing what they’ve learned with others, sharing failure is a critical impact strategy. Join this brave group of donors and nonprofits as they share ways in which they’ve failed and what they’ve learned.

Information Sharing in Social Capital Markets

Profit is often derived from a firm’s access to proprietary information. However, social impact is often maximized by sharing important information with other market participants. This panel will explore how socially relevant information is valued differently in social capital markets and will offer strategies social capital market participants can use to maximize the social value of intellectual capital.

Replication vs. Diffusion: Does scaling social impact require scaling organizations or not?

A successful for-profit organization must maintain ownership of its concept while it scales in order to capture profit. But social impact accrues to the public, not the firm that owns the process that generates the impact. How should social enterprise weigh the tradeoffs between scaling their organization or scaling impact through sharing their process with others?

The Role of Philanthropy in the Social Enterprise Capital Structure

Most social enterprises receive either philanthropic capital or profit seeking capital. But there can be a role for each in both for-profit and nonprofit capital structure. What role can philanthropic capital play in helping social enterprises gain access to traditional market rate capital? What role does philanthropic capital have in kick starting new market driven industries?

Mission Related Investing: Why Foundations have NOT taken up MRI.

Mission related investing is seen as a way for philanthropic entities to align the 95% of their assets that they do not give away each year with their social impact goals. Yet for the most part MRI has not gained traction with the vast majority of funders. This panel will explore what is holding funders back and whether mission related investing will ever become mainstream.

The Changing Media Landscape for Philanthropy and Social Enterprises

Philanthropy has historical be covered by the mainstream media as a human interest story that either focused on “do gooders” or charitable fraud. But recent years has seen a growing interest within the mainstream media to examine philanthropy and the emergent social capital markets with a more analytical eye. Join our panelists as they explore the role of the media in the social capital markets.

Donations as a Sustainable Revenue Stream: Ending the Fixation on Earned Income

Charitable donations are less volatile then the overall economy, so why are they rarely seen as a sustainable revenue stream? Join our panelists as they discuss how nonprofits should view the role of charitable donations within a sustainable business model. Are donations a more sustainable source of revenue than the sought after “earned income”? Are donations not “earned”?

Individual Donors: Navigating the Social Capital Markets

Many of the most sophisticated, active participants in the social capital markets are institutions. But individual donors have fewer institutional constraints and can bear more social risk. Join three individual donors who are doing cutting edge work in the social capital markets without the help of a large staff.

When to Invest & When to Give

For all the talk of producing a blend of social and financial value through giving and investing, little is known about when a social investor can maximize their blend returns through a donation and when an investment is a better option. Given the choice to lend money to a nonprofit or make a donation, how should a social investor choose?

Please leave your thoughts as a comment to this post. Thanks for your input!

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

BusinessWeek on Effective Philanthropy

The Current edition of BusinessWeek includes a story on effective philanthropy that highlights Tactical Philanthropy Advisors and many of the charity evaluation groups that I write about regularly.

Rethinking Ways to Give Wisely
By Amy Feldman

…At least a half-dozen groups have come up with different answers to the question of how to help donors make good decisions. In addition to Charity Navigator, these online efforts include GiveWell, Philanthropedia, and GreatNonprofits.In addition, GuideStar, which serves as a clearinghouse of data and information on nonprofits, has begun adding some of these rating efforts to its site.Offline, two new efforts—from Root Cause and Partners for Change Initiative—are working to get information into the hands of financial advisers as they struggle with how to help their clients make giving decisions.

Not all of these efforts are new, but philanthropy experts say that they have begun to reach critical mass, and that the proliferation of different approaches to the same question will ultimately be good for both donors and nonprofits. "There is a mindset shift going on in philanthropy," says Sean Stannard-Stockton, chief executive of Tactical Philanthropy Advisors, an advisory firm to high-net-worth donors based in Burlingame, Calif. "People want to know that their money is actually making a difference."

Click here to read the full story.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Best Charities for Last Minute Giving

80% of charitable giving is done between Thanksgiving and New Year’s. From stats I’ve seen from online giving portals, it seems that a big rush of online giving occurs in the last few days of the year. Readers of this blog know that I recommend donors spend time planning their giving, creating a written philanthropy plan and donating to organizations in which they have a high level of conviction.

But what if it is the last day of the year, you want to make a gift to charity and you aren’t sure where to give? Here’s a strategy that takes 5-10 minutes and will result in your donations accomplishing more good than the vast majority of charitable gifts.

In 5-10 minutes you can’t possibly learn enough about a charity to determine if it is any good (imagine buying a stock with 5-10 minutes of research!). But you can piggyback on the research being done by professionals. For free.

Your first resource is GiveWell’s top rated charities. GiveWell is a research team that works to identify charities whose programs actually work. Read the short profile of these thoroughly researched charities and pick one that interests you. The organizations range from ones providing immunizations in Africa to ones working on improving teacher quality in the US.

Don’t even have time for that? Just donate to one of GiveWell’s top rated charities by clicking on the links below.

Another great resource is Philanthropedia. This group surveys nonprofit, foundation and academic experts to identify top charities. Check out there list of organizations in the areas of Climate Change, Education, Microfinance or San Francisco Bay Area Homelessness and donate to the expert recommended organization that most interests you.

Don’t even have time for that? Philanthropedia has created charitable “mutual funds” where you can make a single gift to a cause area and they’ll split it up among the groups they recommend. Just click on the links below and scroll down to the “expert mutual fund” donation form:

A third option is New Profit, Inc. New Profit is a national venture philanthropy fund that supports rapidly growing social entrepreneurial organizations. While their site is not designed to process donations, they do offer profiles of their current portfolio of charities they support. Once you find one you like, head over to Network for Good to make an online donation to the group.

Don’t even have time for that? Just make a donation to New Profit, Inc and they’ll use 100% of your gift to support their full portfolio of charities.

If you use this process, you can feel confidence that the organizations you are supporting are the same ones that experts would pick if they were in your shoes. But if you use this process to complete your charitable giving in just 5-10 minutes, do me a favor and make a New Year’s resolution to start earlier next year so you can make a simple written plan and find organizations you personally believe are doing great work instead of depending on someone else’s recommendation.

Happy New Year!

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Using Your Head & Your Heart in Philanthropy

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

Making Charitable Appeals to Donors’ Hearts and Heads
December 10, 2009 | Link to Chronicle of Philanthropy

A growing number of nonprofit experts are urging donors to channel more of their money to high-performing organizations, with the goal of making philanthropy more effective.

But embedded in this movement is a worrisome concept  — the idea that donors should give with their heads instead of their hearts. In fact, this is a false dichotomy and one that threatens to undermine a movement that otherwise is sorely needed.

When donors are urged to give with their heads rather than their hearts, they are being told to give in a rational rather than an emotional way. The assumption is that rational giving is effective giving and emotional giving is ineffective.

A better way to understand the head-heart analogy is by understanding it as left-brain and right-brain functions. Left-brain functions include analytical thought, logic, and math. Right-brain functions include holistic thought, intuition, creativity, and emotions. In many ways, the 20th century was focused on propagating left-brain functions. Rationality and logic ruled the day.

But in recent years it has become clear that right-brain functions are actually high-performance decision-making tools, not aspects of our humanity that we must learn to suppress lest they interfere with our logical thought processes.

Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, pointed to this shift in thinking when he was quoted in The New York Times in July. “Not long ago people thought of emotions as old stuff, as just feelings — feelings that had little to do with rational decision making, or that got in the way of it. Now that position has reversed. We understand emotions as practical action programs that work to solve a problem, often before we’re conscious of it. These processes are at work continually, in pilots, leaders of expeditions, parents, all of us.”

Ignoring the role of emotions in decision making is a mistake in all fields, but doing so in philanthropy is especially dangerous.

In a 2007 paper, three scholars — Deborah Small, George Loewenstein, and Paul Slovic — described the way logical thought can reduce charitable giving.

The study found that potential donors gave more money if they were asked to give to support a 7-year-old girl named Rokia facing starvation in Mali, Africa, than if they were asked to support the three million children facing starvation in the country. Worse, the study found that if the fund-raising appeal showcased Rokia but included statistical information about overall need in the country, donors gave less than they did when the statistical data were left out.

But the real threat of pushing too hard for donors to give with the head instead of the heart is most clearly illustrated in the final experiment of the study, which found that simply activating logical thought processes reduced charitable giving. When donors were asked to complete five simple logic problems before they were told about Rokia, they gave significantly less money than if they had not been “primed” with a left-brain exercise.

The Rokia study points to a real danger in the movement to encourage donors to give more rationally. While most everyone would like to see donors allocate their money based on a logical understanding of the problems they hope their gifts will solve, it turns out that encouraging donors to act this way may thwart their natural urge to give.

What then are we to do? Must we choose between increasing giving by avoiding logic or decreasing giving while making it more effective? I don’t think we can yet answer this question. But if there is a way through this paradox, a way to encourage high levels of rationally informed giving, the path will be one that embraces both left-brain and right-brain functions.

Today, charitable donations do not flow automatically to the organizations that produce the best results. Instead, fund raising is often a function of effectively pulling the heartstrings of donors. For those of us who wish to see a more robust social-capital market in which smart donors support high-performing nonprofit groups, the key will be to recognize the value of donors’ using both their heads and their hearts. While giving based only on emotions is not effective, giving based only on logic and other left-brain functions is giving with only half your head.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Future of Charity Evaluation

The “newsworthy” element of the anti-overhead ratio press release yesterday was the involvement of Charity Navigator. The group has 3 million users, is regularly pointed to by the mainstream media and studies show that their ratings affect donor behavior. The fact that they are transforming their system, a system that they’ve successfully built their organization around, is big news.

But of course the flipside here is that Charity Navigator is playing catch up.

Not to be lost in the “standing ovation” for Charity Navigator is the fact that GreatNonprofits, GiveWell and Philanthropedia are all offering alternative evaluation tools that are available right now. While Charity Navigator is trying to fix a broken system, the three small startups are trying to build something new and positive from the ground up.

Importantly, all three groups recognize that their evaluation tool does not by itself provide all the answers. The problem with the overhead ratio is not that it is somehow a bad measure, it is that it should never be used by itself to evaluate an organization. Even when it is used, a donor needs to understand why the ratio is as high or low as it is.

GiveWell, GreatNonprofits and Philanthropedia all understand that true evaluation is an exercise that that does not lend itself to simple tests, but instead requires building a mosaic of information about an organization until a meaningful picture emerges. Regardless of whether you like or dislike the tools and approaches of these three groups, they are WAY ahead of everyone else in building evaluation tools that hold the promise of helping individual donors make better decisions about their giving. They are way ahead of Charity Navigator, but Charity Navigator has the media platform and user base that gives them a huge advantage.

However, the mosaic nature of evaluation means that we should not be rooting for a “winner” to emerge in this space. We don’t want a single evaluation tool to displace the others. We need multiple tools. So at the end of the day, one of the most encouraging elements of the press release was the fact that it was a joint release issued by the leading evaluation platform, the three most promising startups and GuideStar, the central hub for nonprofit information.

We’ve got a long way to go, but we’ve just witnessed an event that I think marks an important historical moment in philanthropy. Remember, before Charity Navigator, the average donor on the street was very unlikely to punishingly ask nonprofits about their expense ratio. If we truly see these evaluation groups gain momentum around their approaches, we may very well see the day when average donors ask nonprofits about their outcomes, their stakeholder rating, the availability of independent analysis of their programs or the opinions of experts on the organization. Importantly, while nonprofits often have to conform to overhead expense ratios, these other evaluation approaches align with the goals of nonprofits rather than asking them to jump through arbitrary evaluation hoops.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Philanthropedia Sources Expert Knowledge

This is a guest post by Erinn Andrews, COO of Philanthropedia, which I blogged about in October. You can find my write up on their efforts here.

Providing donors with better information—actionable and scalable—all in one place

By Erinn Andrews

Clearly, people care. If we look at charitable contributions in 2008, we see that individuals donated more than $250 billion to nonprofits. I assume donors weren’t forced to give away that money—they wanted to. But what goes through their minds as they decide where to write that check? And especially for newer, younger donors, with more than a million registered nonprofits out there, where does one even begin?

This week, I posted a blog entry introducing Philanthropedia’s idea about a Foundation for Everyone. Philanthropedia is an online resource and tool for individual donors. We ask nonprofit experts (with an average of 10 years of experience) to identify strong nonprofits and allocate money across the organizations. On the basis of these recommendations, we create an Expert Mutual Fund that helps donors support an entire sector rather than just one nonprofit.

Now, thanks to Sean, we have the opportunity to share more about our perspective and explain how we hope to help donors as they make donation decisions.

At Philanthropedia, we see 3 factors shaping the problem donors face: Individuals lack good information that is actionable and available at scale, across multiple social causes.

What does it mean to have “good information at scale?” In general, we think the nonprofit marketplace has very little good information about nonprofit success. And, in contrast to capital markets, measuring nonprofit impact is extremely challenging because it’s difficult to quantify. Some independent organizations have attempted to solve this problem by rating, ranking, and scoring nonprofits according to various metrics.

As Lowell, Trelstad, and Meehan explain in The Ratings Game, at one end of this spectrum, organizations examine only a few metrics, a model which is highly scalable and inexpensive. Charity Navigator, for example, evaluates nonprofits primarily according to financial metrics such as fundraising efficiency ratios—which many have criticized as being too narrow a measure to assess nonprofit effectiveness. To their credit, Charity Navigator recently announced their plans to add additional dimensions of evaluation to their rating system. We think this is a great move in the right direction.

At the other end of the spectrum, organizations weigh a variety of measures, a model which is more comprehensive and likely more accurate. Employees at the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, for example, evaluate a nonprofit’s “financial efficiency and stability, governance and oversight, performance measurement, and the quality and accuracy of the organization’s fundraising and informational materials.” (source)

Unfortunately, there are limitations to both forms of nonprofit evaluation. On the one hand, relying on financial data from only one year “tells you about the [nonprofit’s] use of resources, not about the program effectiveness.” (source) And on the other hand, conducting in-depth research is much more time-intensive, costly, and therefore limited to a smaller number of organizations.

What does it mean for information to be “actionable?” The next challenge is how to share the information in a way so individuals can make a decision about where to give. Examples of actionable information are: presenting the donor with a donation strategy, with suggestions about the meaning behind different evaluations, or with ratings to help donors compare organizations. Charity Navigator, for example, uses an easy to understand 4-star rating system, while other organizations choose to provide anywhere from basic facts about nonprofits to comprehensive reports. To someone outside the nonprofit world, presenting information as facts or reports without further recommendations can be difficult to act on.

Philanthropedia’s solution. Therefore, given the unavailability of good information (at scale), we, at Philanthropedia, believe that nonprofit professionals—experts—in the sector are the next best option to evaluate nonprofits. Foundation professionals, academics, and nonprofit executives have access to non-public data, and, because they’ve been working in the sector for a long time (on average our experts have ~10 years of experience) they have advanced mental models for how to weigh the many factors one ought to consider. For us, “good information” about nonprofits will combine both objective facts and subjective assessments to allow for a more holistic review of nonprofit performance. And, this method is inexpensive and scalable (even though we’re not at scale quite yet) because we enlist the help of experts and can concurrently run our research in 2-month cycles. Many thanks to the 261 experts who have already contributed to this work.

While relying on experts to measure nonprofit effectiveness is still imperfect, we believe we can meaningfully capture the aggregated beliefs of a group of well-informed people and understand which organizations they currently think are impactful. And, experts are only a starting point. We then supplement the top-nonprofit profiles with information from Charity Navigator (for financial metrics), GreatNonprofits (for beneficiary voice), and eventually GuideStar (for tax 990 forms). We believe it’s important to bring together and make public multiple measures of nonprofit performance.

Finally, to make this information actionable, we present our research to donors in the form of an Expert Mutual Fund. We ask our experts to allocate 100 monetary points across the top organizations. The result is an easy-to-understand donation strategy that allows donors to support an entire social cause rather than just one organization. Because no one organization will have the solution to the problems within that sector, we believe a diversified giving strategy is a great way to support a social cause.

While there is still a lot of room for improvement, we hope we can move one step closer to providing donors with good information about a number of social causes and make it easier for them to take action to support some of the strongest nonprofits out there—all in one place!

We invite your feedback, suggestions, and comments and look forward to hearing from you.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Art of Giving: What is Your Legacy?

I think the vibrant response from the Tactical Philanthropy community to Wednesday’s guest post from Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon caught them a little off guard. In a comment following up on 30+ reader comments, Jeff wrote “Wow! Got off a plane after midnight to discover this fascinating conversation.”

The plan today was to run a set of questions that Jeff and Charles pose in their book. But given the strong response, we’re calling an audible and the authors have written a new guest post especially for Tactical Philanthropy in which they ask a single important follow up question.

I hope you’ll consider offering your thoughts via a comment. New comments still qualify for the Picture Your Legacy toolkit from 21/64 (see this post for details) and as I understand it, Jeff and Charles are so impressed with the dynamic community here at Tactical Philanthropy they are considering how else they might say thank you to everyone who has participated in this conversation.

By Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon

What will be the legacy of your giving?

First off, we want to extend our heartfelt thanks to everyone who participated in Wednesday’s dialogue, and to Sean for moderating this forum with such a deft touch. We asked the question why do you give and found the spread of commenters’ responses fascinating as well as their conviction in tone.  We both believe that giving is a deeply personal expression of the donor’s self and so the validation of the Tactical Philanthropy community was extremely rewarding.  (We particularly loved Madmunk’s comparison of philanthropy to music!)

Two of the major themes from Wednesday’s thread were especially thought provoking. One was that people give because they want to “make a difference.” The second theme, loosely stated, is that giving for self-fulfillment only, will not translate into societal impact – particularly as we add more zeros to the check. Jeff Mason went so far as to say that giving “driven solely by a desire to feel good may in fact lead to funding an organization that is ineffective or even harmful.” Thank you Jeff! We couldn’t have said that any better. Changing the world doesn’t come just from knowing what makes you tick. You must also understand how to play the game. What financial vehicles and organizations are going to help translate your desire to “make a difference” into a reality and into greater good for the social sector.

The subtitle of our book is Where the Soul Meets a Business Plan precisely because you can’t have one side without the other for measurable philanthropic impact. This idea is captured quite clearly here in Tactical Philanthropy’s overview language where it says: “Tactical Philanthropy is about designing a great philanthropic plan and then building a portfolio of grantees that is aligned with your values.”

Determining one’s motivations for giving, although essential, is largely an exercise in self-reflection layered with an element of trial and error. On the other hand, figuring out how to connect those motivations with strategic outcomes is a more complex task, requiring copious amounts of data, outside expertise, resources, and in most cases, partners, both in funding and thought. We’ve dedicated a lot of time debating how to best guide others down this winding pathway, and have developed a number of strategic questions which can catalyze the thinking of aspiring funders as they prepare to attack their chosen issues in manageable, bite-size nuggets.

In our post on Wednesday, we talked about the first steps before funding.  Now, let’s fast forward to the end-game – making a difference. If Wednesday’s post was about understanding your own motivations for giving, today we’re interested in knowing about the other side of the journey – your philanthropic aspirations and intended outcomes. Another way of asking this is:

What will be the legacy of your giving?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Art of Giving: Getting Started

Today I’d like to present a condensed excerpt from the first chapter of The Art of Giving: Where the Soul Meets the Business Plan, the new book by Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon. Yesterday, Mr. Bronfman and Mr. Solomon offered a guest post that stimulated 25+ comments. On Friday, they will offer a set of questions every donor should ask.

Like yesterday, comments on this post will be eligible to receive a set of the Picture Your Legacy tool from the Bronfman Philanthropies 21/64 group (see yesterday’s post for details).

By Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon

SAY YOU’RE SIXTY-SEVEN, AND YOU’VE SPENT your career turning your father’s hardware store into a successful chain of stores throughout the Midwest. Your children have no interest in taking over the business, so you decide to cash out. When the $50 million arrives by wire into your account, you are floating. Then it hits: What to do with so much money? You have vague thoughts of travel and a fondness for musical theater, but few interests beyond that. Your life has been your work. You’re a widower, and you want to set some of the money aside for your children and to be comfortable yourself. But that still leaves well over $30 million. You’re seized by the idea that you should be good to the society that has been so good to you. A major gift to your alma mater, perhaps, or possibly endowing a struggling theater in town? But, you wonder, aren’t there more important causes?

But what?

Or maybe you’re forty-three, with a fistful of stock options in a company that was nothing more than a bunch of interesting algorithms when you first signed on. The options have skyrocketed in value nearly a thousand-fold, making your net worth jump from about $17,000, or whatever your car and clothes were worth at the age of twenty-four when you joined the company, to somewhere north of $10 million today. You’re unmarried, with just a cat for regular company—and you aren’t the type to give everything to her. You have your own financial security to consider. But that still leaves at least $5 million ‘‘extra,’’ as you think of it. And with everything that is going on in the world, you feel a little weird about having so much money just sitting in your investment account. You’ve contributed to political campaigns, donated a few thousand dollars to breast cancer research and other causes, but now you’re thinking that maybe you should do more to make a positive difference in the world.

But what?

Or let’s say you’re twenty-five. You’ve been at your first job for a few years now and recently got a raise with your first promotion. You rent, have a roommate, and tend to be economical. So even after your student loans and car payments, you have a bit left over. You see what is going on in the world, and you’d like to do something to help. Your company will match your donations dollar for dollar. But there are so many choices! You’re besieged by requests from friends to sponsor them on charitable walks, runs, rides, events. You don’t have that much money, but you would like to do something smart and useful with it.

But what?

Can you just sprinkle your money over a few congenial nonprofits with nice brochures and celebrity endorsements, and then watch these institutions crank out good works? Perhaps. But for all of its many assets, the nonprofit sector, like all others, is pockmarked with tragically underperforming elements. Just as there are killer stocks and there are duds, the investor in nonprofits faces a welter of good, not-so-good, and third-rate organizations clamoring for his money.

We think of philanthropy in investment terms—investments for a better world. Although, as we will point out, the challenge in nonprofits is often choosing between good and good, there are enough underperforming ones that donors should be wary. Too many nonprofits lack clear purpose, effective leadership, and competent management, and their highest priority appears to be preserving their own existence. We assail these underperformers because such entities turn the spiritual act of giving into a frustrating game.

It is important to remember that a nonprofit is a business, and it should be run as one, with no less an emphasis on efficiency, transparency, and accountability than you would find in its for-profit counterparts—indeed, more so. Although we celebrate the differences between mission-oriented nonprofits and profit-oriented businesses, we acknowledge the gap in measurements, benchmarks, and markets.

Nevertheless, the principles and experience of transparent competition can serve societal needs beyond the simple marketplace. There is a plethora of nonprofits in the United States, over 1.7 million in all, and they are often staffed by untrained volunteers who can be difficult to manage without financial inducements. The talent pool for paid management staff is shallow. Who do you know who made it his life’s ambition to run a nonprofit? Compared to for-profit equivalents, the salaries are paltry, the status not much better, and precious few university programs offer these professionals any serious instruction.

Now into this jumble comes you, the neophyte donor, eager to make a difference with your money. Most likely, you have no direct experience with nonprofits beyond having been a consumer of some nonprofit service in a hospital or school, or done some volunteer work, or perhaps served on a board. And yet you expect to engage in serious philanthropy before the week is out.

You have every right to insist on best practices in any organization you are going to favor with a donation, but you also need to focus on yourself. This may seem antithetical in an area of life that seems to rely on the most abject sort of selflessness: giving your hard-earned money to benefit people you don’t know. But every transaction is an exchange; nothing is ever one way. When you give, you get, and we believe you need to focus on what it is that you are getting for what you give. We argue that what you get in philanthropy is nourishment for that portion of the body that is so sacred it cannot be found in any book of anatomy: the soul, where all that is best in us resides. It is simultaneously the innermost self and the one so external it seems somehow eternal—which makes it the natural connection point for our philanthropy, for we give to improve the world in a lasting way and to leave it with our stamp.

Excerpted with permission of the publisher Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint, from The Art of Giving: Where the Soul Meets the Business Plan.  Copyright (c) 2010 by The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Purpose Prize: Liz & Steve Alderman

The Purpose Prize, provides five $100,000 and five $50,000 awards to social innovators over 60 in encore careers. Encore careers combine personal fulfillment, social impact and continued income, enabling people to put their passion to work for the greater good. It is the nation’s only large-scale investment in social innovators in the second half of life.  Rather than a lifetime achievement award, the Purpose Prize is a down payment on what these social innovators will do next.

This year, Liz & Steve Alderman were among the top five prize winners. I wrote about the Aldermans in one of my Financial Times columns last year. I’m republishing the column today in honor of their award.

‘Blood money’ that became a force for good

By Sean Stannard-Stockton
August 12, 2008 – Link to original Financial Times column

Like everyone who lost a loved one on 9/11 Steve and Liz Alderman were devastated when their 25-year-old son, Peter, was killed in the World Trade Center attack. Like many, they chose to honor their son’s memory by creating a foundation in his name.

Of the 303 non-profit organizations launched in response to 9/11, only 27 were still operating five years later, according to a study by the NonProfit Times. What has kept the Peter C. Alderman Foundation going is his parents’ focus on maximizing the impact of their foundation through rigorous analysis. In the words of Peter’s father, Steve: “We will abandon anything that doesn’t work.”

When the Aldermans received $1.4m from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, Liz thought of it as “blood money” and almost turned it down. She told me recently that she used to lie awake at night thinking about the people she wanted to kill to avenge Peter’s death. But, with Steve’s encouragement, they accepted the money and launched a private foundation to help victims of terrorism and mass violence round the world.

“Using the money for a good cause was the best revenge,” Steve told me. “The only way for us to counteract great evil was with great good.”

Today the Peter C. Alderman Foundation, in partnership with Harvard University, builds mental health clinics and provides local doctors with the tools they need to treat the emotional wounds of victims of terrorism and mass violence in places such as Cambodia, Uganda and Rwanda. Its work has attracted partners such as the US Department of Health and Human Services and the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lily.

When I spoke to the Aldermans about their foundation, I was struck by the fact they, unlike most philanthropists who talk about the grants they have made, talk about the effect they have had. With an annual operating budget of $500,000 they have set out to help people across the globe. Liz and Steve found that, to have the impact they were seeking, they had to identify outstanding partners and find ways to leverage their giving.

“Starting a foundation was like starting a small business,” Steve said. “Our daughter, Jane, even got her MBA when she realized that we didn’t know enough about business.” She is now the foundation’s executive director.

The Aldermans represent the vanguard of philanthropy – individuals who have recognized that philanthropy is not defined by the act of giving but by the achievement of impact. It is both an emotional act of love by the giver as well as a strategic investment in our social fabric. The Aldermans have discovered that the most emotionally satisfying philanthropy is a gift that has impact.

Unlike many relatively small foundations, the Peter C. Alderman Foundation has an in-depth strategic plan. Through its mental health clinics, the foundation has reached 65,000 people with traumatic depression. Many grantmakers simply measure themselves by the scope of their activities, but the Alderman foundation goes further and documents that it has seen 80 per cent of the people it has treated return to productive lives.

In Cambodia, where the legacy of the genocidal Pol Pot and the brutal Khmer Rouge still grips the populace, the Aldermans have proved they can treat traumatic depression. Demand has been so large that the foundation created a second clinic to eliminate the 14-month waiting list. Importantly, the Aldermans have shown they can achieve their mission cost effectively; the Cambodia clinic system provides services at a cost of $50 per patient.

The Peter C. Alderman Foundation is not the first to have a strategic plan, strong partners and demonstrated impact. But it is part of an emerging group of relatively small family foundations that are demonstrating how to use effectively these tools.

The Aldermans have shown that the most effective way both to help people and soothe their own emotional wounds is through a focused strategy and measurement of impact.

I was struck by how the Aldermans talked like seasoned social action experts with impact data and leverage statistics dominating our conversation. But, in the end, the Aldermans are grieving parents trying their best to make sense of a devastating loss. “I’ve realized that you can’t cry when you’re working on the computer,” Liz said. “You get the keys all wet.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Philanthropy 2.0

Lots of people have used the terms “Philanthropy 2.0”, “New Donors” or other phrases that suggest that something has fundamentally changed about the field of philanthropy. The subtitle of this blog is “chronicling the second great wave of philanthropy,” which also implies that something new is replacing an older approach (I described the second great wave in one of my first posts on this blog three years ago).

Today, I want to discuss the graphic below, which lays out one take on the difference between Philanthropy 1.0 and Philanthropy 2.0. This graphic comes from a new report from BBMG a branding and marketing firm. The report is titled From Legacy to Leadership: Is Philanthropy Ready for the New Consumer?

clip_image001

Here’s my quick take:

Altruism vs. Enlightened self-interest: I might replace “altruism” with “sacrifice” or “obligation”. But either way it gets to the idea that donors have begun to shift to thinking about philanthropy as a non-zero sum game. Giving to a nonprofit does not benefit the nonprofit and hurt the donor, if done right it can enhance the well being of everyone involved.

Problems vs Solutions: I think philanthropists have always looked for great solutions, but there is a way in which solutions have gotten more attention recently. For instance, microfinance has captured so much attention due to the solution itself. It is not the plight of poor women in India that so many donors are focusing on, it is the solution of microfinance.

Services vs. Impact: Focusing on delivering impact is probably Philanthropy 3.0. But donors today are focused more on results or “outcomes”. They are getting more interested in the difference a nonprofit’s programs are achieving rather than the activity the nonprofit is engaging in.

Single donors vs. Community of believers: Donors have always gathered in various communities, but today there are more and more people thinking about co-funding, funder collaboratives and other ways that they can leverage their giving through interacting with other donors. In addition, as nonprofits move from fundraising to “friend raising”, they are recognizing the power of building a community of supporters and donors are beginning to see the value of this community as well.

Donations vs “Sustainable Revenue Streams”: I’m guessing the authors of the report meant earned income when they wrote sustainable revenue. There is more of a focus on earned income, but sometimes I worry that elevating earned income as somehow superior to donations forces nonprofits to shift their attention away from their mission. Donations are sustainable. In fact, the volatility of donations is lower than GDP and so on a national level donations are more sustainable and predictable than income. But there is a push for a more sophisticated approach of understanding how a nonprofit can create a sustainable business instead of hoping to close the budget each year.

Top-down vs. Bottom-up: This is the big one. This is the core of my original definition of the second great wave of philanthropy: “While the traditional top-down hierarchical system describes the way Rockefeller’s foundation distributed grants to charities, which then provided services for the public, a flat structure is the model of the Second Great Wave. This shift acknowledges that no one person or entity has all the answers and instead leads to a virtuous cycle of information feedback. The philanthropists of the 21st century will be smaller in size, but much larger in numbers than the philanthropists of the last century.”

Few vs Many: I agree here too, except I think the point is captured in top-down vs bottom-up. The “democratization of philanthropy” is in full swing. In 1980 about 6% of Americans were invested in the stock market. By 2000, it was more than 50%. The baby boomers that fueled that move during their retirement planning years are now retiring and hitting peak giving years. I would suggest that today something like 6% of Americans are engaged in proactive, intentional philanthropy, but that within 20 years we might push that number north of 50%. While the exact numbers are up for debate, I think that directionally the trend is clear.

What do you think of the Philanthropy 1.0 vs 2.0 framework? Plenty of people told venture philanthropists in the 90’s that they weren’t doing anything that the Ford Foundation wasn’t doing in the 1950’s. Philanthropy does have a tendency (like most fields) to always believe that “this time is different” and that everything has changed. Does the New Donor even exist?

Let me know what you think.

Note: You can learn more about the BBMG report by reading Lucy Bernholz’s take here (she focuses on an entirely different segment of the report) and you can read the report yourself by clicking here.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post