Category Archives: Philanthropic Technology

Video Games and Philanthropy

The idea of video games being used in the philanthropy sector isn’t a speculative concept. Right now Changemakers is working with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to find, “creative solutions that merge computer and video games with health and health care.” They are hosting a competition to find the best ideas. Go check out the nine game concepts that have already been submitted and offer your own.

Karma Tycoon: Philanthropy Video Game

Some people think of video games as junk food. I think that they are just early in their maturation process. When movies first came out, they were all trash. The idea of “film” as art took a long time to evolve. Same with novels.

Karma Tycoon is a new video game that tries to teach you how to be a philanthropist. From the Wall Street Journal:

The moody graphics and pulsing soundtrack of Karma Tycoon convey the look of your typical video game. Absent, however, are the M-16s, camouflage humvees and vampires that fill the screens of most of its competition. Karma Tycoon is all about another type of thrill-seeking: youth philanthropy.

Confused? Karma Tycoon is a joint venture between the Web-based youth volunteerism organization Do Something and corporate partner JPMorgan Chase. Their goal: to teach middle- and high-school kids about "fiscal responsibility and social entrepreneurship." Players are encouraged to support charitable causes, such as community centers and senior citizen homes. The greater the effect these initiatives have, the more a player’s "karma" increases. Along the way, players learn the mechanics of philanthropy, from soliciting grant applications to dolling out loans and reviewing the success of their projects. "We want to convert the time kids spend playing video games into time they spend learning how to help their communities through philanthropy," Nancy Lublin, CEO of Do Something, told me. "Karma Tycoon is like a vitamin in a Twinkee."

The game intrigues me. I think that video games hold a lot of promise as training modules for many aspects of life. But there is something about Karma Tycoon that doesn’t seem quite right to me. So I emailed my friend Dave Cerra, a video game producer at Lucas Arts, and asked his opinion. I share his email in its entirety below. As philanthropy begins to use social media tools and technology of all kinds let’s remember Dave’s comments.

I think (Karma Tycoon) a great idea and I want to play it. What I find interesting here is the way that Nancy Lublin, the CEO, talks about what they’re working on.

There’s been a lot of press about different uses of the tech behind gaming lately. To me, the use of the language is always so telling in the sense that we don’t fully understand what gaming is, so we don’t know how to talk about it. The CEO here says that she wants to “convert the time kids spend playing video games into time they spend learning how to help their communities.” My emphasis there, of course.

It’s my position that, so long as designers and developers who want to evolve the medium move forward from this position, they are doomed to fail. They are undermining the very thing that is attractive to interactive and storytelling experiences! It’s partly a framing issue, but it’s also a development issue because now all of the goals have to do with “learning” and “teaching” as opposed to, for example, “experiencing” and “affecting.” The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions and all that.

“Karma Tycoon is like a vitamin in a Twinkie,” says the CEO. It’s clear from her metaphor that she actually views gaming in a hostile light, something that is intrinsically bad that’s being used here as a Trojan horse.

This CEO would probably stick to her guns and tell me I was harping on semantics. I would then argue that cognitive linguistics continues to show how deeply our use of language affects our perception of reality, and that so long as we design from an intention of “tell” versus “show”, it will continue to color the user’s experience and they will continue to reject the content in favor of what we currently call “games.” This will happen for the same reasons that people reject attending psychology lectures on the effects of the Vietnam War in favor of watching “Apocalypse Now.” It’s not that the former doesn’t have enormous value, and there’s certainly a place for it. This is also not to say that Coppola’s film has the same functional intent as a lecture on the psychological effects of the Vietnam War. The power of film as a medium is to affect us emotionally. The same is true of games. Now drop the words “film” and “games” and replace them with “story” and we start to get to the heart of the matter.

This is Marshall McLuhan 101: the medium is the message. If media are extensions of ourselves, and if each different medium produces a different “massage” or effect on the psyche, then trying to force one medium to conform to another misses the point entirely.

Again, I haven’t played the game so I don’t know how it feels. Besides, I’m just riffing on my own professional agenda. I think it’s great that people are doing things like Karma Tycoon. I wonder about the depth of the game: a truly entertaining and “true” experience would allow you to subvert your community as well, rather than just telling one side of the story in order to enforce an agenda. There’s another group that has a strategy/decision game on the Israel/Palestine conflict that sounds incredible – you get to choose which side you’ll lead, and the goal is to achieve peace. You then try to get both sides to “100 points” (I guess that equates to peace) but doing one thing to raise points on one side will reduce them on the other. Tricky tricky … that’s interesting design, and that’s using the interactive medium.

Then there’s the other side of the equation from the designed experience: the production reality. Making ‘games’ isn’t cheap. Consumers are very savvy and they want slick, polished experiences. It’s really cool to see people like Lublin begin to figure out new models to get these endeavors funded. It’s a shame that she seems to view the medium she’s using as something that’s basically a waste of time, but perhaps her group’s projects will help us all learn how to apply it in new and different ways.

Innovatorz

You may have noticed the big step up of quality in the last Podcast. We have Innovatorz to thank for that.

Innovatorz is a micro television and radio network that follows the ongoing stories of social innovators. These are among the most exciting and inspiring stories in the world. We strive to make online storytelling dead simple for time constrained leaders. We work on three areas: content production, technology platform, content distribution.

Dead simple is right. The whole process of creating the James Canales Podcast from my end was simply calling a conference call number, talking with Jim and hanging up. Later Innovatorz emailed me the transcript and pointed me to the edited Podcast file they had posted.

I’m not a technology expert in the least. But I see clearly that social media tools and philanthropy is a perfect match. Pretty soon, foundations that want to share the knowledge they have with the public at large are going to figure out that these tools make the process incredibly cheap and easy. Some of these foundations are going to develop their own technology expertise, but many will find that by using the “assisted storytelling” process offered by a group like Innovatorz, they can focus on the content and essentially ignore the technology. That’s what I’ve found.

Top Five Ways to Know Everything About Philanthropy

Philanthropy is changing fast. We’re use to technology changing fast, and business, and politics. But philanthropy? The philanthropic sector began seeing an increase in the rate of change during the 1990’s, fueled by for-profit entities entering the field and the emerging influence of the internet. Things came to a head in the early part of this decade and now the community-focused nature of Web 2.0 has turned up the heat in the community-focused field of philanthropy. We are now seeing the growing power of The Second Great Wave of Philanthropy.

So how do you keep up with all the change? If you don’t want to be the last foundation to hold a conference in Second Life (or don’t even know what that means). If you aren’t ready to explain why an organization like Green Dimes can improve the world more and faster as a for-profit than as a nonprofit (or don’t even know that Google.org is a for-profit foundation). If you’re not LinkedIn, ego searching and getting Xigi with it (or think that sounds like your teenager talking). Than this post will show you the Top Five Ways to Know Everything About Philanthropy.

  1. Start reading the blogs: Most people think of bloggers as people who have an opinion about something. That’s true, but bloggers in niche areas like philanthropy (which does not have much mainstream media coverage) also act as your personal crack research team. Reading blogs will lead you to great articles and research from such mainstream sources as the New York Times and such obscure, but important sources as Angela Eikenberry of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Give & Take blog offers a daily round up of important blog posts as well as links to just about every blog in the sector. If you read the blogs, you’ll stay up to date. If you enter the blog conversation (via posting comments, emailing the authors or even… gasp… starting your own blog), you’ll find yourself making a ton of new contacts and building your network.
  2. Get LinkedIn: If you work in the nonprofit or philanthropy field then I’d guess you’ve been to one or two conferences. You hear great presentations, meet neat people, then get back to the office and file your notes away. The info you learn at conferences might stick with you, but what about all those people? If you’ve got an email address you can use LinkedIn, a social networking site for “grownups”. Rather than being used to share your silly photos from last weekend, the way most social networking sites are used, LinkedIn let’s professionals connect with each other and each other’s contacts. Think Six Degrees of Separation and you’ll understand why my relatively small network includes 180,600+ people. What can you do with this network? Ask questions to the group and get answers from experts, find a new job, hire someone, and stay in touch with that super smart consultant you met at that conference you can’t remember the name of anymore.
  3. Use Google Alerts: Want to stay on top of trends, your organization’s reputation, or a specific topic? Until we have 24-hour, philanthropy focused news (which we’ll see in the next decade, seriously), you can use Google Alerts. This super simple, email powered service scours news sources, websites and blogs for any mention of the words you specify. You’ll have links and summaries delivered to your inbox the instant your topics show up, once a day or once a week. In a world where information is worthless and relevant information is priceless, Google Alerts helps you focus in on what is most important to you.
  4. Get Xigi With It: Are you on the map? In their own words, “xigi (pronounced "ziggy") is a social network providing market intelligence and mapping tools to make sense of the capital market for good.” Xigi let’s everyone and anyone find the connections between various players
    in the fields of philanthropy, social enterprise, and the other
    constantly evolving fields of “doing good”. Find the people and
    entities participating in the philanthropic capital markets and
    identify the deals they’re working on together. Try browsing the
    various member of the network and you’ll quickly find people and
    organizations you’ve never heard of who are working on amazing projects.
  5. Uh… Read Books: OK, I hate when people say things like, “This changes EVERYTHING!” The impact of the internet and web 2.0 technologies on the social sector is huge, but it is just beginning to be felt. If you really want to be well informed, you need to be well read… of books. The ability of anyone and everyone to put their thoughts online is great. But if you want thoroughly researched, deeply explored ideas by established experts, nothing beats books. You can find a great list to start with here. The list was put together by philanthropy bloggers, that crack research team I was telling you about.

Blogs as a Social Publishing Tool

Hat tip to Lucy Bernholz for pointing us to the article, “Is Blogging Dead”. The article is a great primer for any foundation thinking about starting a blog.

… I think comments are vitally important to a blog. In fact, I’ll let you in on a little secret - right now increasing the comments and discussions on R/WW is my number 1 priority. The reason why is because blogs are at heart a social medium. Blogs are a publishing platform, sure, but they are a social publishing platform.

…the best blogs… have become platforms where discussions bloom. These are blogs where the writers actually write for their readers, and not just to get page views.

… Admittedly it’s hard to get discussions going on a blog, but the blogs that at least attempt it and actually write for their readers — these blogs are the most compelling in my view.

Read the whole article here.

Google.org Blog Feedback II

In response to my post lamenting Google.org’s decision to not allow comments on its blog, Tom Williams, CEO of Give Meaning writes:

I think different practices ought to exist for grant-making foundations and charitable orgs and for orgs of different sizes.

Given the number of people looking for grants from Google.org, I could envision comments quickly becoming filled with "hey, look at my great organization, how can I get in touch with you."

For the mandate and size and time that it has been in existence, I’m pretty impressed with their progress to date.

I think they’ve _started_ the exact right way. Get people learning more about the impact of their grants and ongoing work, get a feel for their team’s attitudes and aspirations.
I think the only way that a Google.org blog would be able to truly invite two-sided conversation in their blogspace would be to have "blog officers" that work as grant officers moderating and reacting to comments based on a set of officially defined blog guidelines but I’d rather they allocate those resources to actually continuing to make innovative grants.

Meanwhile, Bruce Trachtenberg, executive director of The Communications Network, whose mission “is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of foundations by promoting and strengthening the strategic practice of communications in philanthropy.” Says:

I couldn’t agree more that it is a shame that the blog isn’t taking comments. Seems to defeat the purpose, and runs the risk of contributing to the perception that foundations are impenetrable fortresses surrounded by alligator-filled moats. The more that foundations find ways to open themselves up and not be afraid to invite comment, the greater the opportunity for real civic discourse about issues that we all need to think about and care about and not just leave to others to do.

Here’s the thing, Google.org doesn’t have to let any feedback in. I just think it would be great if they did. Some of the very best content on this blog has been generated by readers. Tactical Philanthropy readers make this blog better. I understand that the Google.org blog is going to attract a lot of readers and the comments section may quickly get unwieldy. But isn’t this the exact sort of problem that Google.com should be able to solve? Without giving it more than two minutes of thought it seems to me that Tom’s worry that grantseekers would deluge the blog with requests could be solved by simply making it policy that anyone who requested funds via the blog would be blacklisted from ever receiving a grant. Before we start worrying about too many people talking, let’s at least let the conversation get started.

My main reason for caring about this issue is because of the power that Google.org has to set precedent in how foundations use social media tools. Right now, we’re just beginning to see these tools being put to use by foundations. My concern is that if Google decides to use their blog as a one-way communication tool, other less technologically savvy foundations are going to see blogs as a way to keep people updated on what they’re doing, rather than their potential as a robust knowledge sharing platform.

Google.org Blog Feedback

If you caught my post about the new Google.org blog yesterday, you know I’m excited about it and think it is a pretty big deal. But right off the bat they’ve made a decision that I think is a real shame. They don’t want to know what you think about the blog, the work Google.org is doing or anything else. No comments are allowed and no email address is provided. A quick perusal of the other Google blogs shows that most don’t allow comments. At least the Official Google Blog (the company blog) says “We Love Feedback” and offers a general email address.

When I spoke with the foundation communications employee who was interested in starting a blog yesterday, I talked about how there are two ways to use a blog. The simple, but boring, way is to use it as a cheap tool to pump out information about your organization. That makes the blog nothing more than a frequently released newsletter. The more interesting way to use a blog is to leverage the two-way communication potential of the technology and enter into a conversation with the public, grantees and other stakeholders.

I hope Google.org decides to join the conversation. If they decide to opt out, they’ll be setting a precedent for a lot of other foundations. Since Google’s philanthropic efforts enjoy such a high profile right now, and since Google owns one of the dominate blog technology platforms, the way that they choose to use their blog will have far reaching ramifications for how philanthropic entities chose to use social media tools. I think we’re at an inflection point right now in the adoption of social media tools by the philanthropy sector. The choices that are made now will be with us a long time.

Social Media Tools for Philanthropy

I’m on vacation this week. This post originally appeared on February 22, 2007. The interplay between social media tools (web 2.0) and philanthropy has been a continued theme here. This post ended up being one of my most widely read posts and was one of the first posts featured by the Chronicle on Philanthropy’s Give and Take blog when they first launched.

Social Media Tools for Philanthropy

Earlier this week I asked for examples of “donor-created social media on philanthropy research” after Maryann Devine at SmArts & Culture suggested that GiveWell was the first social media of its kind.

So far, I’m inclined to point to GiveWell as the first real attempt by donors to utilize social media tools. But I doubt they will be the only ones for long. In response to my request for examples, Philanthropy Australia dropped me this comment:

The Australian philanthropy sector is in a unique position because unlike the UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand there is no mandatory reporting and no overarching body with responsibility for the endorsement and regulation philanthropic bodies (foundations & trusts, namely). What this means is that more often than not, foundations are very private and reluctant to become transparent, share information in a more public field (though they do enjoy collaborating with each other on projects). The history of the sector, to date, has not been recorded in a central location, and this means that rather than sharing what they’ve learned from their mistakes, each individual foundation has a tendency to re-invent the wheel.

And this is something that they’ve identified as a problem that needs solving. We’re currently working on adopting social media tools to develop solutions to these issues – namely, a project we’re developing at the moment is a knowledge bank of Australian philanthropy – which encompasses a database of previous grants, a database of projects seeking philanthropic funding, as well as our key piece, a collation of resources using wiki software that documents the philanthropy sector – the ‘nuts and bolts’ of grantmaking, primarily, but also mapping the sector and recording its stories and history.

It’s a huge project but one we feel will be invaluable. Of course, building its content will require a shift of attitude/culture in these foundations (see above comment about privacy!), and a lot of the resources will be password protected to our members (one of the reasons they find membership valuable is that they can network with other grantmakers in a secure/private environment through us). The wiki software will also allow them to collaborate on resources themselves, again in a secure environment.

You can read the entire comment here.

There is a whole network of people who are bringing social media tools to nonprofits, such at CompuMentor, the NetSquared Community, NTEN, and blogger/consultant Beth Kanter. Can a similar movement be started to bring these tools to donors (individuals, foundations, etc)?

It may be a scary concept to some people to think about donors being able to say anything they want online and asking tougher and tougher questions of nonprofits. But I encourage everyone to look to Katya Andresen’s take on this issue. She experienced first hand the impact of GiveWell posting negative comments about Network for Good, where she is head of marketing. Her response, in my opinion, was an amazing example of how to deal with “Donor 2.0” issues.

Web 2.0 & Philanthropy

I’m on vacation this week. This post originally appeared on October 23, 2006. I’m not an expert on technology at all (I still tend to call my younger sibling back whenever she text messages me!), but I think there are some very interesting parallels between the evolution of the internet and the Second Great Wave of Philanthropy.

Web 2.0 & Philanthropy

Reader Dan Bassill, who blogs at the Tutor Mentor Connection, recently brought up the importance of the internet in changing the way that philanthropy is practiced. I think he is exactly right.

While the democratization of philanthropy is occurring about 10 years after the democratization of the stock market, philanthropy has the benefit of coming of age during the rise of Web 2.0. Like most new technologies, when the internet first went mainstream it was used mostly to facilitate old forms of business and communication. Most of the great companies of Web 1.0 did things like sell books (Amazon), or “send letters” (Yahoo’s email). Some companies actually used the new technology to create entirely new businesses like person-to-person auction based marketplaces (eBay), but for the most part the internet made old business/social/information systems work more efficiently.

Today we are seeing the rise of Web 2.0 (Web 2.0 is somewhat of a controversial phrase and it means different things to different people. I will use the term to refer to internet applications that leverage the two-way communication aspects of the web rather than facilitating one-way communications). These technologies are extremely important to the rise of the Second Great Wave (or Philanthropy 2.0 if you’re feeling overly cute). Web 2.0 technologies are most useful when a situation needs the input of the community at large. Since philanthropy is by definition about individuals focusing their attention on the community around them, Web 2.0 is a perfect platform for The Second Great Way.

Web 1.0 dropped the operating costs of traditional philanthropy, distributed information about strategies, tactics and needy causes, and facilitated transactions. Essentially, it made the philanthropic “marketplace” more efficient. These are the same types of changes we saw in the financial markets during the 80’s & 90’s. With Web 2.0, we are seeing not just a more optimized version of Philanthropy 1.0, but instead the emergence of a radically new philanthropic marketplace.

Unlike the Rockefellers, Carnegies and other early foundation founders who created entities that mirrored existing institutions, the structured philanthropic vehicles of the 21st century will create a tradition similar to the emerging Web 2.0 companies. Rather than concentrated pools of money which imitate existing institutional structures, the new philanthropists will be smaller, widely distributed agents of change who co-create the social sector that they support.

NetSquared N2Y2

I’ll be at the NetSquared conference all day today and tomorrow. Check out the four ways to participate online.

During the conference, I will serve as a judge on the “economic sustainability” panel for the following projects. If you have any feedback to share, send me a note before 1:50 pacific time:

Tactical Philanthropy Podcast: Daniel-Ben Horin

My guest today is Daniel Ben-Horin. Daniel is founder and president of CompuMentor and TechSoup, who are behind the NetSquared Conference. Daniel discusses the history of CompuMentor, how technology is transforming nonprofits, explains the vision behind NetSquared, and reflects on the use of “wisdom of crowd” techniques in philanthropy.

Expand this post using the link below to read the transcript.

Read More »

Nancy Roob & Clara Miller

During the Council on Foundations conference I wrote about a session called “Linking Money to Mission: Structuring Your Grants to Promote Grantee Performance” featuring Clara Miller of Nonprofit Finance Fund and Nancy Roob president of The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF). I just received copies of the presentation from both speakers and want to share some additional thoughts.

At the end of her presentation, Clara gave a list of “Enterprise Friendly Funding Principals”. Here they are:

  • Make the program decision first…[full stop]…then structure the money
  • Ignore overhead rate and fundraising cost in favor of good metrics
  • Builder or buyer? Not every organization can and should grow
  • Have a scalable grantee? Become a good builder: keep it simple, look at the whole enterprise, and join others

You can find a complete  discussion of the “builder or buyer” language here.

Nancy Roob’s presentation focused on EMCF’s efforts to help scalable organizations grow with quality. The example she used was Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP). In explaining the effectiveness of NFP, Roob certainly did not cite overhead rate or fund raising cost. Instead, she shared these statistics:

  • Child abuse and neglect: Down 48%
  • Arrests of previously home visited children: Down 59%
  • Children with behavioral troubles: Down 90%
  • Arrests of mothers after visits: Down 61%
  • Months mothers stay on welfare: Down 30%

EMCF isn’t the only group to notice the measurable impact of NFP. If you’re interested you can The Colorado Trust’s publication "Invest in Results. The Story of The Colorado Trust’s Nurse-Family Partnership & Invest in Kids Initiative" and the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy randomized controlled trial showing a major impact on life outcomes of the mothers and their children.

In her presentation, Nancy said that one of the major questions that EMCF is trying to answer right now is how they can work more effectively with other funders. From what I know of EMCF, it seems that they have an excellent program in place and are practicing a very effective form of philanthropy. I’m sure that the evidence they are building will do a lot to convince other big foundations to join them in supporting effective, scalable organizations. But imagine the leverage they could employ if they managed to tell the story of their grantees to the public at large (which gives at an annual rate of over 7 times the level of foundations). That is the promise of things like Project-Agape. With leaders like EMCF providing data and the qualitative story of high impact nonprofits, a well-developed social networking site could channel massive philanthropic dollars to good causes.

Free Philanthropy & Project-Agape

One of the interesting characteristics of social media tools (things like blogs, podcasts and other information sharing technologies) is that they tend to be free or almost free to the users. What that means is that networks like Project-Agape (see yesterday’s post) may present an almost costless platform for foundations to communicate their philanthropic knowledge to the world at large and by doing so attract more dollars to the projects that they care about.

I don’t know much about Project-Agape yet. Their model may or may not prove to be useful for philanthropic knowledge sharing. But in response to my post yesterday where I wondered if foundations could have a presence on the network, they emailed me the following:

This is indeed part of our model.  Since we support all registered 501c3’s, any individual user will be able to search for a foundation & start a cause for it, recruiting members and raising money for the organization.  Foundations in turn can leverage the platform by setting up profile pages, which inform our community about who they are and what they do, and then encourage their own donors to start causes on their behalf.  As mentioned we’re now in testing, with a diverse but relatively limited number of nonprofit organizations participating.  We certainly hope foundations will participate, and they can contact me for more information at randall@project-agape.com.

Given Project-Agape founder Sean Parker’s involvement in the creation of Napster, Plaxo and Facebook, it seems he knows what it takes to form successful social networks. But even if the project fails or doesn’t meet the needs of foundations, social media tools present a wonderful (and ultra low cost) opportunity for foundations to communicate philanthropic knowledge, become true thought leaders and leverage the massive giving power of everyday people.

Leveraged Philanthropy & Social Networks

Nick Geisinger at Washington Grantmakers Daily draws our attention to an interesting new venture with the working name Project-Agape:

Project-Agape is Sean Parker’s attempt to bring viral principles to nonprofit fundraising and volunteer recruiting. (Parker is the guy who co-founded Napster and Plaxo, and was the founding president of Facebook.)

What’s Parker trying to do with this new project? From Techcrunch:

New sites like Change.org and dotherightthing and Six Degrees help people talk about issues online, but they don’t go far enough in using virality to get new users and get them actually doing things. Parker wants the kind of activity around these organizations that Facebook sees - tens of thousands of new daily users and hours and hours of social interactions. The result, he says, will be a much more efficient engine for organizations to get volunteers and raise money.

Drawing from another thread, super reader Bruce Trachtenberg (why doesn’t he have his own blog?) sends me this note:

We tried an experiment at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF) when I was there. We offered to share our research, make connections, and even create co-investment opportunities for wealthy individuals who shared interests in the same areas as the foundation. Unfortunately, we lacked the right connections and platform to make inroads into the philo-investor communities. I know for sure that EMCF is still as eager as ever to make these kinds of connections and forge working co-investment relationships with high net worth donors. I do think there is an opportunity for foundations and individual donors to pool knowledge and resources and get the job done.

I’ve been pounding the table on the benefits to foundations of being transparent. I can imagine Project-Agape as a swirling mess of people hitting up their friends to sponsor their walk-a-thon… and I can imagine Project-Agape as a catalyst for foundations to openly share their research and leverage the massive giving power of the Project-Agape user base. When you include bequests, individual donors are responsible for 83.6% of all giving. Foundation giving is just 11.6% of the total. That means that if foundations can find ways to expose donors to the best giving opportunities, they can leverage their current giving by more than 7 to 1.

Nick Geisinger continues:

I asked Randall (from Project-Agape) how nonprofits can get involved while it’s still in development, and he said:

Organizations can just send me an email if they want to sign up, and you can post my address on the blog: randall@project-agape.com …. just send an email with the heading “NONPROFIT SIGN UP” with following information: organization name, administrative contact name, and email address.

Why couldn’t the major foundations have a presence on Project-Agape? I would definitely join the network and become a member of groups sponsored by the likes of the Hewlett, McConnell Clark, Irvine and Robert Wood Johnson foundations.

Council on Foundations Conference Video

I’m swamped today. Just enough time for two quick thoughts:

  1. Video from the Council on Foundations conference is now available. None of the actual sessions are included, but the video does include well received speeches by Melinda Gates and Mark Warner.
  2. I had coffee with Jeff Brooks of Donor Power Blog while I was in Seattle. So I can answer the question on everyone’s minds. Yes, the caricature of Jeff from the masthead of his blog does look exactly like him. I’d never met him before but spotted him from the top of an escalator and knew without a doubt that it was him.