February 21, 2007 – 8:16 am
The third edition of The Giving Carnival is underway and the topic is Philanthropy Book Recommendations:
Phil Cubeta, of Gift Hub, brings us a list of the books he most often recommends to friends and family, as well as his “top secret all time favorite”.
Jeff Brooks, of Donor Power Blog, reviews last year’s controversial book Who Really Cares, which was written by Jeff’s brother… Seriously.
Paul Botts, of dot-org, also reviews Who Really Cares with a Part I and Part II.
The Washington Area Women’s Foundation polled their staff and came up with a number of recommendations.
Jeremy Gregg, of The Raiser’s Razor, recommends Jim Collin’s (of Good to Great fame) book on the social sector.
Kevin Jones, of Xigi.net, recommends P.J. O’Rourke’s reinterpretation of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
Gayle Roberts, of Fundraising for Nonprofits, suggests a list of books for fundraisers.
I weigh in with my favorite books, including the kid’s book that every adult should read.
Thanks to everyone who participated. I hope all my readers have a lot of time set aside to get through these great books.
February 21, 2007 – 8:07 am
I read a lot. It’s just something I’m hardwired to do. Between reading stock market analysis in my Investment Advisor Role, philanthropy news in my Philanthropy Advisor Role and blog posts in my Philanthropy Blogger Role, I pretty much read all day long.
Here’s a couple of books about philanthropy that I recommend, each of which speaks to very different readers:
Creating Philanthropic Capital Markets, by fellow blogger Lucy Bernholz, is a must read for anyone interested in the “industry” of philanthropy.
The Seven Faces of Philanthropy, by Russ Alan Prince, should be read by all fundraisers or anyone who wants to understand what motivates major donors (hint: there are seven different types of donors, each of whom have very different motivations).
Wealthy and Wise, by Claude Rosenberg, is a very interesting look at how much you can (and should) give to charity. Rosenberg is a money manager and his book looks at the financial implications of charitable giving and finds that most Americans can give much more to charity than they currently do. Both Peter Lynch of Fidelity and President Jimmy Carter plug the book on the back cover.
A Kid’s Guide to Giving, by Freddi Zeiler. My wife saw this on the counter of our local bookstore and brought me home a copy. This amazing book was written by a 14-year-old who decided to donate the money from her piggy bank to charity, but couldn’t figure out where to begin. She ended up gathering so much information that, with the prompting of her mother, she wrote a book for other kids. This hugely accessible book is easily one of the best introductions to charitable giving for the everyday donor. I recommend it for adults as well as teenagers.
February 20, 2007 – 11:40 am
Katya Andresen, head of marketing at Network for Good, sent me the following email regarding the GiveWell blog posts (found here and here). Kudos to Katya for her swift and excellent response:
Good marketing is about listening to the audience, acknowledging their perspective and having a conversation based on that perspective. A good marketing relationship is like any other relationship – it’s based in listening and conversation, and not simply monologue. This is more true than ever before with the advent of social networks, blogs, etc. The web 2.0 world gives us everyone – including donors – tools to talk to the world, and that means nonprofits have a new opportunity to listen, and sometimes, to start a conversation. I consider the Internet one big focus group – a place to see what donors, nonprofits and others are saying and doing, and a means to engage those audiences in conversations about what they care about. Donors blogs are incredibly useful – they are audience research, a feedback loop, a sounding board and a place to start a relationship – all rolled into one.
That’s all really easy to say, but hard – even painful - to experience. Blogs allow people the freedom to talk about your issue or organization in their own words, and that means a loss of message control, which can be difficult to embrace. Sometimes what people say online is not especially nice or constructive, or it may not be based in a thorough understanding of any issue. It can be unpleasant – and sometimes, I think it’s best not to respond if what you read is a cheap-shot from someone not very invested in the issue at hand. I’ve stayed out of some conversations for that reason. But often, what a comment or post online may lack in warmth, it more than makes up for in authenticity and passion, and, however much it hurts to read it (and it hurts, especially if you believe in what you do), it’s very useful to know what people are honestly thinking. Those honest thinkers are worth listening to and learning from, and speaking with.
In the case of GiveWell, it was very important to know people don’t have a good understanding of our fees, and why. Obviously, we should do a better job explaining them, and we will. I stand by our fees and believe they are incredibly fair considering all that we offer nonprofits, but if folks think they are not worth it, then I need to listen to that opinion - and learn from it, then do a better job as a communicator going forward.
If I were working in marketing at United, I’d spend more time reading www.untied.com and thinking about how to improve my company than I would on creating new ad campaigns.
February 20, 2007 – 8:14 am
My post on the GiveWell Project and Blog sparked a flurry of comments, posts and emails. I found the most interesting response to be “When Blogging Sucks” on the NTEN Blog, which referred to my post and the GiveWell post before saying:
I’m a big believer in blogs. They are a great outlet for sharing, tips, tricks, ideas, experiences, knowledge, and INFORMED opinions. Lately though, I feel like there’s a lot of UNINFORMED opinion sharing going on. There are more and more bloggers embracing the role of "watchdog" who are misprepresenting organizations (like my own!) who are just trying to do good. It’s not right…
Here’s the deal: most nonprofits are doing their very best to serve their communities every single day in an open and transparent way. Their web sites can not possible reflect everything about them. We have a responsiblity to be open and transparent, but you - watchdog bloggers - have a responsibility to get off your lazy you know whats and do your homework.
Ask us questions. Then make your judgements.
Got it?
Here’s the thing, the GiveWell team is made up of donors. They are not “self appointed watch dogs”. When I said, “It doesn’t matter” if the GiveWell team is experienced or if they use the correct “tone” when they write, I meant that they are the donors that nonprofits have to deal with. Note that after the GiveWell blog blasted Network for Good, Katya Andresen (Network for Good’s head of marketing, who blogs at Nonprofit Marketing Blog) stopped by to give her side of the argument. She thanked the GiveWell team and said she wanted to encourage further discussion. Katya has written the very well received book Robin Hood Marketing. I’d bet she doesn’t recommend telling your donors (or customers) that they “suck” if you don’t agree with them.
I’ll let the GiveWell team respond to the NTEN post on their own. But I’ll note that on the front page of their wiki it says in bold “generosity and good intentions are helpful but not sufficient” and I would point out to the NTEN post author that GiveWell is an example of donors who are trying very hard to “do homework” and “ask questions” before making their judgments.
I find the GiveWell Project so intriguing because it is created by and for donors. Or as Maryann Devine at SmArts & Culture commented:
GiveWell is the first piece of cooperative, donor-created social media on philanthropy research that I’ve heard of. It really can’t be denied: the donors are in charge now.
Does anyone know of any other “donor-created social media on philanthropy research”? If so, let me know.
February 16, 2007 – 11:26 am
I think the benefits of donors sharing their collective knowledge about how to achieve various philanthropic goals are huge. GiveWell is using a wiki to achieve this. Another concept would be using microformats. I’m not even close to well versed enough in this technology to explain the details to you, but the essence is that microformats lets information on one webpage be easily accessible and usable by other websites. This facilitates mashups and other ways that information can be pulled together from all over the web into one place.
Mike Everett-Lane, the executive director of DonorsChoose (New York), posted on this concept yesterday:
Picture the following mashup possibilities:
- Phil has just moved to Brooklyn, and wants to get involved with his new community. He enters his address into a Philanthropic Mashup site (made with Yahoo Pipes?) which aggregates local funding needs. He can filter those needs by cost, by type of program, and by demographics of the recipients. He decides to fund a classroom project at DonorsChoose and make a Back-to-Work Grant to a local family through Modest Needs.
- John is a programmer in Topeka who wants to help out literacy organizations, a special passion of his. He posts an offer of services his blog, with details of the hours he wants to commit and the types of services he offers. A literacy program in Saskatchewan has need of his skills, and is able to find John through Google because he has marked up his offer with the proper microformats.
- The Bailey Foundation wants to improve its outreach and reach more nonprofits with its Animal population control grants program. It posts data on its grant program (available amount, application deadline, etc.) on its site. An animal shelter that has never heard of the Bailey Foundation is able to find them and get funding for its Spay Day program.
You can read the whole post here.
February 16, 2007 – 8:28 am
I really like The GiveWell Blog and Project. They actual dare to rip on Network for Good, criticize their fee structure and then when Katya Andresen (Network for Good’s head of marketing, who also blogs at Nonprofit Marketing Blog) stops by to comment on their post, they have the audacity to tell her she better update her website… And she agrees.
The GiveWell Project is the pissed off donor model. They don’t like what they see and so they’ve taken it upon themselves to start research charities and then use a wiki format to report to the world what they find. I don’t agree with everything they write. But it is refreshing to see donors blogging instead of consultants and advisors (like me) telling everyone what donors want.
One of the major issues in philanthropy today is that donors and foundations often have to duplicate the due diligence process of figuring out what actually works. Large foundations put a tremendous amount of effort into understanding what works and what doesn’t when it comes to grantmaking. Unlike in the competitive for-profit world, there is no downside to foundations sharing the knowledge they have gained with all other donors. The GiveWell project is doing what few large foundations have figured out how to accomplish. They are sharing their research, in real time, with anyone who cares. As far as I can tell the members of the GiveWell project are relatively inexperienced in philanthropy, they have other full time jobs, and they have a level of scorn in their writing that will turn some people off.
But guess what? It doesn’t matter. Lots of donors feel the way the GiveWell team does. And both nonprofits and other donors can benefit from following the work they publish for everyone to use.
Why don’t all major foundations have a public wikis where they can share their research? Or better yet, why don’t association of foundations have wikis that can be freely edited by various members? According to The Foundation Directory, there are 80 foundations in the United States that list autism or autism research as a field of research. Might they not all be doing similar work? Might not a set of best practices or a shared knowledge set emerge if they freely shared their research with each other?
According to a recent article in Inside Higher Ed, there is a “secret” report circulating on capital hill that examines the failures of The Ford Foundation’s efforts to reform higher education in Russia. A secret report on what works or doesn’t work? Why in the world should information like that be secret? Why doesn’t The Ford Foundation have this report posted on their website with an aggressive marketing campaign to make sure other foundations can learn from their mistakes?
Why are the young members of the GiveWell project doing more to improve our shared knowledge base than The Ford Foundation?
February 15, 2007 – 7:32 am
Xigi.net is pretty cool. Not only are they mapping the emerging philanthropic capital markets, but they are on their way to becoming the first stop for anyone who wants to understand who is involved in the new philanthropic landscape.
I got this email from the founders this week and encourage you to check them out listen to their conference call this Friday:
What is xigi? It’s a global landscaping tool for an emerging market that invests in social enterprise, microfinance, community development, fair trade — the myriad of social purpose activities. You can add yourself and your organizations into the growing map!
Camp onto a conference call to learn more. The next one is:
THIS FRIDAY at 9 PST/12 EST, FEB 16TH, 641-297-5900 - Code 94110#
We’re inviting a few hundred people from 36 countries to come post comments, enter data about themselves and see the map of the social capital market begin to emerge from our collective intelligence. What you should do first:
ACTION ITEM #1 - REGISTER AT XIGI
Go to: http://www.xigi.net/index.php?register=register
Simply enter your name and email, and a password will be sent to you. This will allow you to post both to the "blog" and edit to the database.
ACTION ITEM #2 - PUT YOURSELF ON THE MAP Search under people, see if you’re in there. If you are, feel free to edit yourself. If not, click "New Person." As you’re putting some info about yourself, add "Related Entities" to your profile at the bottom. See if your organization is there already. If not, simply put in your entity’s name and pick your relationship to it (then after, you can pull up this new entity and fill in its information and its organizational relationships). Then hit "Network Map" to see how you show up.
So, you’re invited to put yourself on the map, make connections to others, talk about what you’re doing! Questions, comments, ideas? Email mailto:info@xigi.net
Best Regards from the xigi Steering Committee,
Mark Beam http://www.collectiveintelligence.net
Kevin Jones http://www.goodcap.net
Sara Olsen http://www.svtgroup.net
Tim Freundlich http://www.calvertfoundation.org
P.S. As always, we extend our thanks to the growing list of visionary funders and partners that are supporting xigi in the early stages: The Lemelson Foundation, RSF, Tangle Capital (a Calvert Giving Fund), Doug and Audrey Miller, Omidyar Network, Good Capital, SVT Group, Collective Intelligence and Calvert Social Investment Foundation (our 501c3 fiscal agent).
February 14, 2007 – 8:24 am
I had lunch yesterday with David Chamberlain, founder of Exquisite Safaris and Dorian Adams, founder of Benefit Magazine. As we sat there, three people who didn’t know each other 6 months ago, I was struck that each of us were operating traditional business models that we had restructured to serve philanthropic families.
Exquisite Safaris is a travel company, which caters specifically to philanthropists. Other travel companies have a “philanthropic travel product” or offer “voluntourism” (a different offering from “philanthropic travel”, but only Exquisite Safaris focuses specifically on serving philanthropists.
Benefit Magazine is a media company, which caters specifically to philanthropists. Other media companies write articles or have programming that talks about philanthropy, but Benefit was the first media company to focus specifically on philanthropists.
My firm, Ensemble Capital, is an investment management firm, which caters specifically to philanthropists. Other investment management firms have some sort of “charitable planning” offering, but Ensemble is the only investment management firm to focus specifically on philanthropists.
In a free market system, businesses are encouraged to serve unmet needs. Given the success and growth of each of our three businesses, it is clear to me that there are a significant number of people who care about philanthropy, who are not having their needs met. Maybe this is a tiny niche market, maybe it has something to do with all three of us being headquartered in the San Francisco bay area. But I don’t think so. I think that The Second Great Wave of Philanthropy is real. I think that it is a massive cultural shift that is changing the way people behave, changing the way they view their wealth and changing the products and services that they consume.
February 8, 2007 – 7:20 am
Thanks to all the bloggers and readers that made the Second Edition of the Giving Carnival a success. The one glitch we had was that the Carnival attracted a lot of spam submissions and irrelevant posts. Two great submissions got lost and I added them late. They’re listed below in case you missed them.
Holden at The GiveWell Blog explains why his GiveWell project is proudly not part of the Web 2.0 crowd.
Adrian Melrose weighs in from the UK with the aptly titled “Resources for Donors”.
Because of the spam submissions to the BlogCarnival site I’ve been using to organize The Giving Carnival, I’m going to change the submission process. From now on I will accept emails from other bloggers with links to the posts they want to submit.
Does anyone have any suggestions for future topics, new features or other ways I can improve The Giving Carnival? If so, let me know.
February 7, 2007 – 7:59 am
The second edition of The Giving Carnival is underway and the topic is Resources for Donors.
Tom Williams gives us an in depth explanation of GiveMeaning.com, his donor/fundraiser social networking site.
Holden at The GiveWell Blog explains why his GiveWell project is proudly not part of the Web 2.0 crowd.
Paul Botts discusses the “long tail of philanthropy” and other online giving sites.
Adrian Melrose weighs in from the UK with the aptly titled "Resources for Donors"
Gayle Roberts suggests using the practice of meditation to connect with why you give.
Matthew Monberg tells us about his ideal donor resource.
Lucy Bernholz lists a number of social network philanthropy websites here and here, and points us to the fascinating philanthropy “mapping” site xigi.net.
Allison Fine shows us “sites to help us become more educated and connected donors”.
The Future Leaders in Philanthropy blog directs us to the Don’t Almost Give project of the Ad Council.
My sister Jessica Stannard-Friel, a co-founder of Future Leaders in Philanthropy, submits a guide to charity rating systems that she wrote for OnPhilanthropy.com.
And to wrap things up I discuss the growing market for Nonprofit Analysts and point readers to the best online resource for learning how to start and run a Giving Circle.
February 5, 2007 – 7:37 am
There’s an interesting new site called GiveWell. They are using a wiki format to analyze nonprofits and talk about the best way to tackle such problems as how to “Improve opportunities for U.S. inner-city children”. I think that sites like GuideStar and Charity Navigator are great. But, I’m more interested in the increasing production of charity recommendation services, especially ones that do a deep analysis that is not simply quantitative (going beyond such simple metrics as operating expenses).
If you look at stock market investing, you find that anyone can use Yahoo Finance to get basic details of a company. This service is similar to the GuideStar or Charity Navigator products. However, investors also have access to a universe of professionals who recommend stocks not just based on publicly accessible financials, but also based on their deep knowledge of the company and the industry in which it operates. Having access to people who truly understand the issues and can recommend effective nonprofits that can help fix the situation would do a lot to improve philanthropy. The fact is most people decide which nonprofits to fund based on who they know at the nonprofit or their personal interactions. This is a lot like buying stocks based on a “tip” from a neighbor or because you like one of the company’s products. In other words, philanthropy has a long way to go to improve the way that donors select nonprofits to fund.
Great Nonprofits is another service that promises to deliver donors with lists of effective nonprofits. I also find Calvert’s Giving Folios to be very interesting. The product lets Calvert’s donor advised fund clients give to a “portfolio” of nonprofits all working on one issue. A “manager” with expertise in the issue area selects the nonprofits in the portfolio.
January 31, 2007 – 11:03 am
The 2nd Edition of The Giving Carnival will be posted on Feb 7. The topic will be “Resources for Donors”. Please submit posts that discuss resources for donors. Examples would be links and discussions about websites such at Charity Navigator, Donors Choose, or Kiva, sources of advice such as specific nonprofit or for profit run programs for philanthropists, recommended books and magazines, or any other type of resource that can assist donors in formulating their giving plan, effective giving, understanding the nonprofit landscape or philanthropy in general.
This is meant to be a wide-open topic. The only requirement is that your post(s) include links to the resources you discuss as well as your commentary on those resources. This blog will host the 2nd edition. Please submit your post(s) here.
January 30, 2007 – 9:05 am
I’m going to be interviewing Tracy Gary on Friday for the new Tactical Philanthropy Podcast. I’ll be releasing the interview in a couple weeks as the podcast will be a bi-weekly program.
My plan is to end each interview with a question generated from my readers. So, here’s your chance to ask Tracy anything you want. Email me your question or leave it as a comment to this post. Thanks for participating.
January 11, 2007 – 7:58 am
The Washington Post ran a first person article by a member of a giving circle on Sunday (hat tip to Larry Checco of Checco Communications). Claudia Thorne of the African American Women’s Giving Circle writes about the joy of participating in a giving circle. You can read the full article here. I’ve highlighted a couple of important quotes below:
“We didn’t start by just handing out money. Over many months, the two dozen of us met to plan our giving for 2006. We gathered in homes, in offices or sometimes at a restaurant one of us owned, not unlike a book group or an investment club. It was important for us to come together as a group and to hear the ideas of each woman. We worked by consensus and were concerned about the relationships we built with one another.”
“We decided to focus on nonprofit organizations working to effect change in one community and stay in the work for the long haul.”
“We donated a large portion of the money, $25,000, to (Facilitating Leadership in Youth). That dwarfs the $50 or $100 checks any one of us might have written in the past.”
I highlight these quotes because they show some of important ways in which giving circles are going to change philanthropy.
- They encourage proactive, systematic development of vision and strategy for the members.
- As “institutions”, they are able to commit to long-term funding of projects. Even as members come and go, the circle continues to maintain continuity.
- They create leverage by pooling resources.
The combination of these attributes results in larger, more intelligently considered, long-term grants; exactly what nonprofits need.
Claudia mentions that her giving circle is sponsored by the Washington Area Women’s Foundation. Lisa Kays of WAWF dropped a comment on my original post regarding giving circles. It seems to me that WAWF is a group to watch as the giving circle trend matures. You can learn more about their services for giving circles here. They also have a great blog.
January 9, 2007 – 8:35 am
I’d like to thank both Lisa Kays of the Washington Area Women’s Foundation Blog and Angela Eikenberry (who’s research on giving circles I discussed last month) for sending me a link to The Giving Circles Knowledge Center:
"Throughout history, passionate individuals have joined together to make life better in their communities. Today, thousands of donors have pooled their money, energy, and ideas to create Giving Circles.
The Giving Circle Knowledge Center is full of useful information, resources, sample documents, and inspiration for:
- Anyone who is curious about giving circles – what they are, how they work, and their impact on donors and communities
- Anyone who is considering starting or joining a giving circle
- Members of established giving circles who want to continue to learn, grow, and share their successes and challenges
- Community Foundations, nonprofits, or other organizations considering or currently hosting giving circles."
If anyone is aware of other resources on starting and running a giving circle, please let me know.
