Category Archives: Venture Philanthropy

Some Nonprofits Just Suck

May 30, 2007 – 12:18 pm

Mike Brown, a venture capitalist, moderating an Economic Sustainability track at the NetSquared Conference:

Some nonprofits just suck!

He got some hesitant applause and a few nervous laughs. But why is that such a shocking statement? Doesn’t everyone agree that some for-profit companies “just suck”? Why should nonprofits be any different? In a world with limited resources, we need to get comfortable with the idea that nonprofits that are trying hard and have lots of passion — but aren’t cutting it — don’t need a pat on the back. They need to be ignored and we need to let them go out of business.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Social Entrepreneurship, n2y2 | Comments (14)

Cross-Disciplinary Approaches to Changing the World

May 30, 2007 – 9:53 am

“I have always felt that the action most worth watching is not at the center of things but where edges meet. I like shorelines, weather fronts, international borders. There are interesting frictions and incongruities in those places.”

Anne Fadiman
The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down

Why am I at NetSquared? I provide wealth management services for philanthropic families.

Why is Chris DeCardy here? He is director of communications for The David and Lucile Packard Foundation President.

Why is Anurag Nigam here? He is a member of Sand Hill Angels.

Why is Amy Lesnick here? She is executive director of Full Circle Fund.

Why is Cisco Systems sponsoring this conference?

Because interesting things are happening “where the edges meet”. Something’s happening here. I don’t think that anyone knows for sure what it is. Usually when you go to a conference, everyone is in the same line of work. At NetSquared, everyone I meet comes from a totally different background. There are “interesting frictions and incongruities” between us. But that’s why all of this is so exciting.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Social Entrepreneurship, n2y2 | Comments (0)

NetSquared First Take

May 29, 2007 – 5:21 pm

Put 21 groups of passionate social entrepreneurs and 300 funders, technologists, social impact experts and web 2.0 leaders in a room and shake. What do you get?

Well so far, you find that some of the entrepreneurs on stage are full of passion… and not much else. If you don’t understand a question that asks what percentage of your budget is going to come from fundraising… you aren’t going to raise any funds at NetSquared. You also find some brilliant minds working on brilliant solutions. It’s not often that startups consisting of two people and a plan get to field questions and comments from people representing such caliber organizations as:

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • C.S. Mott Foundation
  • Full Circle Fund
  • Geneva Global Inc
  • The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • Omidyar Network
  • Packard Foundation
  • Schwab Charitable
  • Silicon Valley Community Foundation
  • Sunlight Foundation
  • The Surdna Foundation
  • The Case Foundation
  • The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

…not to mention WackyPuppy Design.

What I’ve found interesting so far is the humbleness with which most of the nonprofits present themselves. If you’ve ever seen for-profit companies pitch for funding, humble isn’t the word that comes to mind. But I’m not so sure that if I’m a funder who is thinking about making large grants to a startup, that I want “humble” to be how I describe the entrepreneurs. If you think that you have a transformational idea that will help with a significant social problem, it’s OK to have some self-confidence or even a little arrogance.

Not everyone agrees with me. Allen Gunn of Aspiration (a loyal friend to the NetSquared community) wrote the following on the NetSquared blog about his concerns with the contest format:

The Net2 tagline is “Remixing the Web for Social Change”, but an agenda model that pits 21 promising projects against one another in public doesn’t seem to me the most likely strategy to engender more innovative mashups, interoperability or content sharing between those 21 projects or the sector as a whole. I’d be much more excited to see efforts that reward collaboration among projects instead of competition between them. The N2Y2 agenda format puts me in a veritable Prisoner’s Dilemma: do I stand in solidarity with like-minded projects in my field as I have tried to do for years, striving to interoperate, collaborate and blur organizational and informational boundaries for collective sector benefit, or do I make calculated decisions to maximize return to my organization at the effective expense of others? I tag that conundrum with “yikes” and “no-win”.

I think Allen is correct to recognize the value of collaboration. On the other hand “doing good” isn’t enough, funders want to know who is doing the “most good”. In a world with scarce philanthropic dollars, creating competitive environments is one way to allocate those dollars effectively. NetSquared is a good step in that direction and nonprofits need to prepare themselves to compete. So my advice to the projects for day two is don’t apologize for what you don’t know yet, tell us what makes you great. If you don’t think you and your project is an outstanding use of philanthropic dollars, better than all the other projects, you might want to consider a different conference to attend.

The panel judges seem to have no hesitancy to ask tough questions. For example, “Hasn’t company X been doing what you want to do for the last decade?” or “It doesn’t seem like you have any expertise in the area you are telling us is most critical to your success”. Make no mistake, today is a day for competition.

Being good at collaboration is a great competitive advantage. I’ve already seen a number of projects reach out to other projects publicly. That raises those projects’ status in my view (because they know how to play well with others, which is critical when they try to enact their mission). Collaboration is a good way to become more competitive. But you need to know when you are trying to make friends and when you are trying to win. Unfortunately, even if we’re all trying to do good, we can’t all win. There is a limited amount of philanthropic dollars and no matter how much you want to do good, if someone else can “do good better”, they should win and you should lose. The naïve belief that all nonprofits are “winners” steals food from the hungry, resources from the impoverished and valuable wisdom from those who need it.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Philanthropy, Social Entrepreneurship, n2y2, nptech | Comments (2)

NetSquared N2Y2

May 29, 2007 – 7:52 am

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:

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, n2y2, nptech | Comments (0)

Tactical Philanthropy Podcast: Daniel-Ben Horin

May 25, 2007 – 8:33 am

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 »

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in New Philanthropy, Open Source Philanthropy, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, n2y2, nptech, podcast | Comments (0)

Giving Circles II

May 21, 2007 – 8:15 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Foundations, Giving Circles, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (0)

Old vs. New Philanthropy

May 3, 2007 – 9:36 am

Tom Watson, writing at OnPhilanthropy, just published a piece called Culture Clash: Foundations Face Changing Definitions. In it, he quotes Ford Foundation Susan Beresford’s op-ed piece in the Seattle Times that ran during the COF conference:

“The emergence of a new generation of entrepreneurs-turned-philanthropists offering their fortunes to tackle pressing problems has prompted reports of a philanthropic divide — a generation gap between established foundations and their young counterparts. Such phrases as "venture philanthropy" and "social entrepreneurship" are in vogue. New foundations are said to be ambitious, strategic, entrepreneurial, innovative and focused on measurable results. Established foundations are said to lack those qualities.

As the president of an "old" foundation and a nearly 40-year veteran in the field, I am here to say this dichotomy does not fit reality. It does not capture the breadth of philanthropy’s scope and history, and it has the potential to damage our field.”

(Tom writes): Beresford suggested that “new” philanthropy does a disservice in holding that one model is more effective than another, or that the wave of change will sweep the foundation world from the philanthropic stage:

(Beresford continues) “When we fall prey to false divisions, we undercut that strength, by suggesting that some kinds of donors may be less valuable or necessary over the long run. That is plain wrong. The tough challenges before us demand that we draw upon many philanthropists’ skills, perspectives and experiences. AIDS and other diseases, the stubbornness of deep poverty, the ongoing struggle against ignorance, intolerance and oppression — there is no single way to conquer those, and no single conqueror.”

Later in the essay, Tom cites my post Demonstrating Impact and Lucy’s post, The Philanthropic Fault Line as part of the “old-new fray”. In a follow up comment to his post, Tom writes “…there’s a danger is kind of throwing down an "everything should be new" gauntlet…”

I don’t believe that “old philanthropy” needs to be replaced by “new philanthropy”, rather I think that Arianna Huffington got it right during the Morphing Media session when she said that we need to bring together wisdom and innovation. When the wise and the innovative are brought together, the positive outcome is not a result of each side politely acknowledging each other’s strengths and then going their separate ways. Rather the two sides are best served by engaging in verbal combat, where the weaknesses in each side’s point of view can be exposed and the strengths revealed. From this process comes “disruptive change”. Disruption does not come easily and does not arrive during restrained conversation. Holden Karnofsky made the case yesterday that only through controversy and competition can philanthropy truly engage people. During the Demonstrating Impact session, no less an authority than James Irvine Foundation CEO Jim Canales agreed saying:

“We have to cultivate a culture of debate. Civility is a big problem. We can’t have five board members present different points of view and then have the chair say “Good debate!” and hand things off to the staff”

Imagine the power of a philanthropic entity that managed to harness the innovative spirit of the new philanthropists to the wisdom of the old philanthropists. We can see the glimmer of promise in Packard’s Nitrogen project. So let’s keep arguing. Let’s keep debating. Let the innovators call the wise ones out of date and the wise ones call the innovators foolish. But let us continue to engage and remember that this debate is nothing new, it is the same war fought in every discipline at every great turning point. The only risk we run is the risk that by not engaging, philanthropy will atrophy.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Giving Blogs, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Social Entrepreneurship | Comments (6)

NetSquared Finalists

April 19, 2007 – 7:34 am

The NetSquared finalists were announced last night. I look forward to seeing how well the conference is able to “accelerate” these projects.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (0)

NetSquared Projects

April 9, 2007 – 9:41 am

When Daniel Ben-Horin, the president of CompuMentor, asked me to help with designing outreach for the NetSquared Conference, he told me he hoped to get 30-40 projects to nominate them selves. The deadline for submissions was last Friday. On Thursday, there were about 40 nominated projects. It looked like everything was right no target. Then Friday hit, and over 100 new projects nominated themselves at the deadline.

The NetSquared community is a vibrant, powerful group. With nothing but online word of mouth outreach, 150+ innovative projects are now in the running for both monetary funding as well as access to the social and intellectual capital of the NetSquared community.

I’ve gone through the projects and below you’ll find my list of the hot projects you should keep an eye on. But don’t take my word for it. Check out the full list, become a NetSquared community member and vote for your favorite projects.

You’ll note that three of the ten projects I list are being launched by philanthropy bloggers. Maybe I’m biased. I think it has more to do with the way our blogging community is drawing innovative thinkers to our midst.

I list the ten projects in reverse alphabetical order:

Xigi.net: As someone who trades the traditional capital markets for a living, I understand the critical need for the social capital markets to develop. Xigi is mapping this growing space.

Throngz: A project of fellow blogger Albert Ruesga, this social network for activists “senses” when members are online and calls them together for live discussion.

NewsTrust: Ever notice how the “most popular” news stories are more News of the Weird than New York Times material? NewsTrust is a user rated journalism site that focuses on bringing the “best” articles to the top rather than the most “popular”.

MicroMentor 2.0: Sites like Kiva are bringing monetary venture capital to micro entrepreneurs. MicoMentor 2.0 brings them social capital by connecting them to a network of business experts who can provide advice.

GreatNonprofits: A community for sharing “consumer reviews” of nonprofits.

Global Lives Project: Creating interpersonal connections around the globe through immersive video installations. You’ve got to see this to believe it.

GiveWell: Another philanthropy blogger project. This site provides transparent, in depth charity ratings. It goes WAY beyond anything you’ll find at Charity Navigator or GuideStar.

Games For Change: Video games are growing up. Just as film started off as “pop” entertainment, then morphed into intellectual cinema, video games are making the same transition. Games For Change supports the development of video games designed to motivate social action.

FreePledge: I wrote up an extensive review of FreePledge last month. In short, this site has the potential to become THE shopping portal for charitably minded consumers.

ChipIn: A web based fundraising tool that lets anyone create a campaign and receive online donations in minutes. I’ve used it and in literally ten minutes had a professional looking website with donation receiving capabilities.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (3)

Venture Philanthropy 2.0

March 26, 2007 – 9:19 am

Susan Herr who writes the PhilanthroMedia blog launched a podcast last month that includes comments from Matt McCall. Matt is the venture capitalist/philanthropist whose blog VC Confidential I profiled recently.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Giving Blogs, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (0)