Category Archives: Philanthropy

Philanthropy Daily Digest

July 2, 2009 – 6:03 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)

American Forward Responds

July 2, 2009 – 4:05 pm

Kelly Ward, the director of America Forward has just submitted this response to my recent posts about the Innovation Fund (see posts here and here):

Thanks Sean for both of your posts and for grounding this discussion in what’s written in the Serve America Act. As you say, the foundation for how the Fund will work is described in the bill. To add to the detail you give above, the Serve America Act requires the Corporation for National and Community Service to administer the Innovation Fund and determine which grantmaking intermediaries will receive money, and with government matching the investments made by the private-sector. (Note that the bill does allow the Corporation to use up to 10% of the money to fund nonprofit organizations directly without going through intermediaries, but that’s a small percentage of the total $50 million.)

It’s truly astounding to have the President give a speech about the work of social entrepreneurs and how we can identify, invest in, and scale social sector solutions. His speech presented a new vision for the role of government in solving our nation’s social problems, including how government can more effectively partner with nonprofits, philanthropy, the private sector, and citizens. It’s exciting to have leadership for the Innovation Fund at the highest levels of our government, and for President Obama to recognize it not just as another program, but as a model for his vision of how government should partner with the nonprofit, philanthropic and private sectors. We certainly hope you’re right that this Fund ends up being a really big deal!

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that none of this will happen if Congress doesn’t appropriate the funding for the Innovation Fund. We hope that supporters of this idea will call the House and Senate appropriations committees to convey their support.

Kelly Ward, Director of America Forward

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Capital Market Philanthropy | Comments (1)

The Innovation Fund & The Serve America Act

July 2, 2009 – 3:11 pm

Yesterday I highlight the way that President Obama’s description of the Innovation Fund differed in fundamentally important ways from the policy recommendations of America Forward. The simplest way to understand the distinction is that the way Obama described the Fund would mean that it was making grants to nonprofits, while the American Forward policy recommendation has the Fund making grants to grantmaking organizations.

My sense at this time is that the mismatch is based not on an intentional decision by the President to run the fund in a different way, but by a lack of understanding by the President of the role of the fund (which is understandable since the Innovation Fund can’t be very high on the President’s priority list).

One reason for believing this to be true is that as I understand it, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that authorizes the Social Innovation Fund requires grants from the Fund to go to grantmaking organizations. The bill clearly states that only “covered entities” may receive funds and it defines “covered entities” as “grantmaking institutions.” So as far as I can tell, the President’s description of how the Fund will be managed that he gave at Tuesday’s press conference runs counter to the bill that authorizes the fund.

Look, just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that any fishy is going on. I’m not saying that the Obama administration is doing anything wrong. I think that we’re operating in a space that few people understand and which even people who understand have a hard time explaining well. I expect that over time administration will figure out how to describe the fund more clearly and accurately.

I think this fund is going to be a big deal. It might end up being a really big deal.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Capital Market Philanthropy, Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Evaluation, Foundations, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Equity, Venture Philanthropy | Comments (1)

Philanthropy Daily Digest

July 1, 2009 – 6:03 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)

The Innovation Fund

July 1, 2009 – 12:34 pm

Yesterday, President Obama officially launched the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the Innovation Fund (whether it is now call the Social Innovation Fund or just the Innovation Fund is unclear). He also named Melody Barnes to run the Innovation Fund. You can see video of the event here.

Interestingly, President Obama described how the fund would work in a way that I think would be a huge mistake and is not in line with indications we’ve had to date of the structure.

President Obama said:

“We’re going to use this fund to find the most promising non-profits in America.  We’ll examine their data and rigorously evaluate their outcomes.  We’ll invest in those with the best results that are most likely to provide a good return on our taxpayer dollars.  And we’ll require that they get matching investments from the private sector — from businesses and foundations and philanthropists — to make those taxpayer dollars go even further.”

The implication in this statement is that the Innovation Fund, with just $50 million, is going to set out on their own to find promising nonprofits, evaluate them and then make restricted grants to these nonprofits that will only be given if the nonprofits can find matching grants from the private sector. In other words the government run fund would identify the innovative organizations and then demand that private philanthropic dollars are matched against the Innovation Fund decisions.

This would be crazy.

If this is what the Innovation Fund is, then it is just a small foundation that isn’t really doing anything special. But I think President Obama doesn’t really fully understand the Innovation Fund.

Let’s instead look at what America Forward said about the announcement. America Forward is important because they are the group that made the policy recommendations that led to the Serve America Act, The Office of Social Innovation and the Innovation Fund. They have been the intellectual force behind these policy decisions.

Note how America Forward presents the structure of the Innovation Fund differently than President Obama:

“Administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Fund will provide grants to existing grantmaking institutions that will in turn invest in growing innovative, results-driven nonprofits. Both grantmaking institutions and the nonprofit grantees will match the Fund’s investment, generally resulting in a 2:1 match.”

Whew! That’s much better. Under this model, the Innovation Fund is simply identifying smart private sector funders, making grants to the funders, who would then pick which nonprofits were innovative, effective and ready to scale. The government gets to put money to work via smart funders focused on effective solutions. They also get to watch the development of the grantees as they scale and will be in a great position to make significant funding decisions once some of the effective organizations have gone national. The case study for this is the successful scaling of Nurse Family Partnerships (by private sector funders) and the $8.5 billion that the 2010 federal budget calls for to fund these types of activities.

I think this is all really exciting. I think that the Innovation Fund is on the right track. It is great to see Melody Barnes assigned to run it. I believe that structurally the Innovation Fund will represent something new and serve as a conduit that helps start to streamline the capitalization of of effective organizations as they grow. I highlight President Obama’s (hopefully) incorrect description of the Fund to highlight 1) that the structure of the Fund is what makes it important, not the $50 million which frankly is not much money to start something like this and 2) to point out that as much as there are a lot of forces moving in the right direction to create more effective social capital markets, we’re still in the confusing market creation period. We’re going to get some things wrong. I hope we get the Innovation Fund right.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Capital Market Philanthropy, Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Evaluation, Foundations, Philanthropic Equity, Venture Philanthropy | Comments (9)

Philanthropy Daily Digest

June 30, 2009 – 6:02 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)

Philanthropy’s Trifecta: Information, Wisdom & Relationships

June 29, 2009 – 10:49 am

My most recent column for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, appearing in this week’s issue. You can find an archive of past columns here.

Data Don’t Tell the Whole Story of Charities’ Impact
July 2, 2009 | Link to Chronicle of Philanthropy

A week’s worth of The New York Times includes more information than the average American living in the 18th century would have encountered in his or her lifetime, according to the book Information Anxiety 2 by Richard Wurman.

As grant makers demand more data on which to base their philanthropic decisions, let’s remember that information by itself is not useful unless it is filtered using wisdom and relationships.

Philanthropy has entered an age in which information, especially quantitative data, is prized by foundations and other donors.

Many people believe that data can help us identify great nonprofit groups and effective programs.

Just as the global economy is operating in an Information Age, "knowledge workers" who seek to make available new types of information for the public good now populate philanthropy. However, information is a necessary but not sufficient condition for robust philanthropy.

That’s why it’s great that philanthropy leaders are starting to show their thought processes in regular Internet postings available for everyone to see. For example, Paul Brest, of the Hewlett Foundation, uses his blog for a rolling conversation about what makes for good philanthropy. So does Carla Javits of REDF, a group that uses innovative approaches to train needy people for jobs.

Adding to the store of knowledge through online postings are people such as Ken Berger, head of the Charity Navigator watchdog group, and Bob Ottenhoff of GuideStar, the repository of information from nonprofit tax forms.

As the amount of available information explodes, the wisdom to process it and put it in context becomes exponentially more valuable. In this environment, information becomes a resource that is valuable only when we place it in context. Access to information is no longer a competitive advantage. It is the ability to filter and process the flood of information that sets effective people apart. That is why the decision by a prominent foundation leader like Paul Brest to start a blog is so important.

No matter how wise someone like Mr. Brest is, each person has a limited capacity to understand the world around him or her.

That is why relationships are the third core element of a philanthropic trifecta — information, wisdom, relationships. Relationships, especially those with other wise people, allow grant makers to filter the information they receive through a network of expertise and place the information in context.

Wisdom allows an individual to place new information in the appropriate context and use it to make better decisions. But when wise people connect their ideas together, a communal understanding of philanthropy will sprout, and individuals can benefit from experience far beyond their own.

While these relationships are rooted in human connections, online tools like blogs and Twitter are allowing those networks to flourish without regard to geography.

Philanthropic leaders have long gathered to communicate among themselves, but the power of relationship-based networks is now being supercharged by the inclusion of people from all walks of life and geographic locations.

When I wrote recently in The Chronicle about the "Googlization" of philanthropy (Opinion, April 23), I argued that it would enable "collaboration and participation by unbundling the process of creating information from its distribution.

Since philanthropy is improved exponentially as more information is shared about which social-benefit efforts work — and which ones fail — this is a big moment for philanthropy."

But Pat Nichols, a management consultant to nonprofit groups, worried about the implications of my suggestion, and in a comment on my blog, he wrote, "It struck me that the capacity to Googlize philanthropy doesn’t improve philanthropy by itself. There are at least two sets of interwoven criteria at work — the criteria by which information is deemed important and, thus, selected or organized, and the criteria by which the reorganized information is applied in making giving decisions."

Mr. Nichols is exactly right and his comment gets to the core of the issue. Information is the raw material of effective philanthropy, but without the skilled processing of wise individuals and their extended relationship networks, information isn’t worth very much at all.

Gathering, filtering, and processing information is essential to great philanthropy. But this is a human-powered activity.

Computers can slice and dice the raw material of information. The Internet can provide access to the information to more people in new ways. But it is only through the skilled application of the uniquely human aspects of wisdom and relationships that we can use the information to make philanthropy more effective.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Chronicle of Philanthropy Column, Effective Giving, Information Sharing, New Philanthropy | Comments (1)

Philanthropy Daily Digest

June 25, 2009 – 5:03 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)

The Philanthropist

June 25, 2009 – 7:23 am

The new NBC drama, The Philanthropist is… really quite good! Now look, it is easy to criticize the show. It isn’t perfect. But this is prime time entertainment, not a documentary. I’ll probably lose a little street cred in professional philanthropy circles, but gosh darn it I really enjoyed it!

There are two keys to understanding the show 1) At this point, the protagonist is focused on the self expressive element of philanthropy (just like most individual donors are, as I wrote in a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy column) and 2) The show makes clear that the protagonist is a novice, who really doesn’t know what he’s doing.

During the intro voice over, Teddy Rist (the lead character) says, “I know a lot of people who are living well, but aren’t happy. But I’m happy. Sometimes my demons chase me. Sometimes I chase them.” Rist’s focus during the show is on delivering vaccines to a village cut off due to a flood. He is particularly focused on one boy who he helped save from drowning early in the show. But Rist doesn’t risk his life out of a pure Mother Theresa-like focus on others. He is “chasing his demons” as the show makes clear when Rist dreams of his own son as he searches for the boy he is trying to save. On the other hand, Rist is not simply motivated to make himself feel good either. He is honestly trying to help. Is he naive? Of course! So are all donors when they first get serious about giving!

The self-expressive element of giving is defined by Peter Frumkin as “supporting the self actualization of the donor.” In his book Strategic Giving, Frumkin argues that this element of philanthropy is routinely looked down upon or dismissed as selfish by institutional philanthropy, but in fact it is a positive self reinforcing cycle that leads to philanthropy benefiting donors and the public. It is a positive thing that philanthropy is beneficial to the donor, not something we should frown upon as if our own giving is somehow more purely sacrificial.

But Rist does so many things wrong! Shouldn’t we criticize the show for all the flaws in how Rist attempts to do good? Of course he makes mistakes. He has no idea what he’s doing and the show knows this. When Rist requires hot coffee before he can evacuate during the flood, the show is making fun of him. When the vaccine is stuck in customs, Rist assumes throwing money at any problem will fix it and so he bribes the customs agent. But the show knows it isn’t that simple and Rist’s plan fails.

Does the show suggest that philanthropy is fun and easy as Council on Foundation CEO Steve Gunderson said in an official statement yesterday? The poor guy manages to do nothing more than move a small bag of vaccines from the airport to a village! He spends $250,000 on a plane ride alone (which gets him dumped by himself in the jungle). He gets bit by a snake. He wanders barefoot in the jungle. Fun and easy? Rist doesn’t solve any huge problems in the show. The show doesn’t suggest that everything is OK now that Rist’s on the scene. He’s one man, naively trying to help, who through force of will and a lot of money manages to score a small victory.

One thing to remember about the show is that because of its title, we view everything through a different lens. But what if we just think about the show as a prime time summer TV show that is trying to pick up an audience bored with reruns? When Rist let’s the boy take his spot on the raft and then dives in the water to save him from drowning, the show is not suggesting that he is some sort of do gooder superhero. James Bond, Indiana Jones, or any other hero of an action flick would have done the same thing.

Are their problems with the show? Definitely. Jeff Trexler criticizes the show for promoting neocolonialism and he makes very good points. Was the fact that Rist sleeps with the local doctor who he brings the vaccines to bizarre and unsettling? Definitely.

Somehow I keep imaging a group from the American Medical Association sitting around watching the first episode of ER and complaining. It’s not realistic! That’s not how an ER room works! Why are those doctors sleeping with each other?!

Come on! It’s a fun TV show. Let’s enjoy it and be glad that once a week American TV audiences will hear the voice over proclaim “The Philanthropist!” as if that’s actually something fun and exciting instead of the idea of philanthropy as a boring, stuffy, serious thing that no sane person would want to be involved in.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Media | Comments (9)

Philanthropy Daily Digest

June 24, 2009 – 5:05 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)

Council on Foundations Statement on The Philanthropist

June 24, 2009 – 12:11 pm

The PhilanthropistSteve Gunderson, the CEO of the Council on Foundations has just released a statement regarding The Philanthropist, the NBC drama that premiers tonight on NBC. I think Steve is probably right in much of what he says and his point that The Philanthropist is to philanthropy what The Pink Panther is to police work is nicely put.

But personally, I think that philanthropy is fun and exciting. I think the best thing about The Philanthropist (as a concept, I haven’t previewed the show) is that it frames philanthropy as an exciting endeavor that is worthy subject for prime time entertainment. Note that The Pink Panther was about the exciting world of police work, not about some boring profession that no one cared about.

But Steve is exactly right that philanthropy isn’t easy. It is tough, hard work… that is fun and exciting. Easy stuff is boring anyway.

Here’s Steve’s official comments:

Tonight, NBC premieres its new series “The Philanthropist.” In the show, Teddy Rist a billionaire vigilante travels the world in weekly adventures giving new support for those most dramatically affected by life’s travails. It’s great entertainment. His life is exciting. His solutions arrive in sixty minutes. And he always succeeds.

I wish philanthropy was really that fun and that easy.

Last year, foundations in America provided $45.6 billion in grants to aid families, deliver human services, assist low-income populations and support economic development. Despite the economic turndown, this funding represents an increase of $1.2 billion over 2007. Most of these funds were carefully distributed through multi-year grants designed to implement multi-year strategic plans to create real change. In some cases a nonprofit organization received long-term financial support from one or more foundations to deliver its program. In other cases, a foundation identified a specific need and developed its own continuing investment plan to improve housing, achieve education reform, or support the arts.

Ask any nonprofit. Its staff will be the first to tell you that getting philanthropic support is never easy. It requires a thoughtfully constructed course of action, a sound business plan, a record of achievement, and skilled staff. The due diligence demanded of both the grantee and the program officers of the foundation involve long hours in meticulous preparation, months or years to implement solutions and thoughtful, ongoing metrics to track results.

One of Council’s board directors captured the show’s essence perfectly by saying, “The Philanthropist is to charitable giving as The Pink Panther is to police work.”  The show is a romanticized, action/adventure depiction of a powerful businessman’s efforts to find meaning in his life by applying his fortune and acumen to the problems of struggling communities in developing countries. Each weekly episode is expected to highlight the philanthropist’s giving in a different country. While some elements may ring true, very little of the first episode conveys the realities of philanthropy.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Media | Comments (2)

Some Volunteers Are Better Than Other Volunteers

June 24, 2009 – 8:22 am

Well the National Conference on Volunteering and Service seemed to have a lot of buzz. From Michele Obama’s keynote address to Jon Bon Jovi performing for the crowd, I may have found the answer to my question from the Council on Foundations conference asking where are all the rock stars?

The session I spoke at looked at how government, philanthropy and the private sector could collaborate and featured Sonal Shah of the White House Office of Social Innovation, who’s quite the rock star herself.

Sitting on the panel, I wasn’t able to take notes on what all the panelists had to say (who included myself, Shah, Michelle Nunn of Points of Light Institute and MacArthur Antigua of Public Allies). So I’ll focus on just my remarks below. But I do want to note that Shah pointed out that her office is made up of just four people and their job is to “leverage the available information.” Regular readers know that this is a concept close to my heart (see here and here), so it was nice to hear Shah address the issue.

I kicked off my remarks by quoting Tactical Philanthropy reader Greg Baldwin, the CEO of VolunteerMatch, who on Monday had responded to the series of questions I asked readers to address in relation to my panel.

Greg wrote:

I think to get underneath the questions you need a clear vision for how government and the nonprofit sector differ. What are their unique roles in society? With that you can begin a discussion of how can they work together.

I then suggested that all of the talk about the “blurring of the sectors” might be misguided. In fact, I think that when we talk about the sectors blurring, we are actually simply noticing that all of the sectors generate a blend of public and private benefit. But in order for the various sectors to work together, I think it is important that we pay more attention to understanding the distinction between sectors so that we can understand the roles and responsibilities of each group.

But at the same time I highlighted the fact that people are not sectors. People live simultaneously as private individuals and members of the public. Organizations in all sectors need to recognize that employees and stakeholders want to play a fulfilling role that speaks to their private needs and interest in public well being.

We also looked at the capacity needs if nonprofits are to effectively deploy the efforts of volunteers. In a remark that seemed to get traction on Twitter, I suggested that “capacity building” was overused as a phrase and that we need to focus on building robust organizations. During my comments I quoted Tactical Philanthropy reader Robert Egger of DC Central Kitchen, who responded to Monday’s post when he wrote:

There seems to be a big push for numbers (lots of volunteers) without two important discussions: “what do we want them to achieve (more painted shelter walls)?”, and “how will an already strapped nonprofit sector manage all these well intentioned volunteers?” Without capacity support, which seems to also be missing from this dialogue, it will be VERY difficult for any group to really focus all this energy.

This led to an almost heretical conversation for a volunteering conference when Ms. Shah said it was OK if not everyone who wanted to volunteer found a spot and I channeled Jacob Harold’s “Elephants in the Philanthropic Room” and suggested that “some volunteers are better than other volunteers.”

Overall it was great to see so much excitement and buzz at the conference.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Information Sharing, Volunteering | Comments (9)

Philanthropy Daily Digest

June 23, 2009 – 5:05 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)

Philanthropy Daily Digest

June 22, 2009 – 5:02 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)

Philanthropy Daily Digest

June 19, 2009 – 5:03 pm
[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 
By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Comments (0)