(This is a guest post from Sharna Goldseker,
Director, 21/64 & Vice President of the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, who is covering the Council on Foundations Conference for Tactical Philanthropy)

By Sharna Goldseker

I’ve been working with next generation funders for a little over a decade now–specifically at the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies for the last six years– and never have I seen such a collective representation of younger funders than at the Council on Foundations’ (COF) Summit these past few days. Our next generation philanthropy division, 21/64, has been working with Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy and Resource Generation to plan the first-ever Generational Leadership Program at a COF conference. From a Next Generation Retreat to Emerging Leader Salons, COF gave us the opportunity to create a track of sessions that would be relevant and meaningful and challenging to next generation funders as well as grantmaking professionals.

At Monday morning’s plenary, where AmericaSpeaks led a town hall meeting, I discovered just how many next gen and emerging leaders were attracted to this year’s Generational Leadership Program and other innovative Summit sessions. A quick demographic poll indicated that 17% of the people in the ballroom were between the ages of 20-34 and another 23% were between the ages of 35-44. Assuming that a few Gen Xers and Yers didn’t wake up for the 7am breakfast plenary, 40% of the nearly 3,000 people in attendance is quite a turn out.

At Monday afternoon’s Philanthropy 2.0 session, a standing room only crowd listened to Joe Green, Founder of Facebook Causes, Tom Gardner, Co-Founder of The Motley Fool/Foolanthropy, Rupa Modi, East Coast Development Manager of Kiva.org, Charles Best, Founder, DonorsChoose.org and Michael Smith, Director, Social Investments, The Case Foundation all took turns highlighting their web-based philanthropy applications and the power of those sites to have social and economic impact.

Facebook Causes has mobilized 12.5 million people to sign on to the Save Darfur Campaign, Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign and others. Kiva.org has galvanized 270,000 lenders and $28 million in investments in 40,000 micro-entrepreneurs around the globe. DonorsChoose has catalyzed 70,000 donors and $26 million invested in 1.2 million students in U.S. public schools.

Whether at the COF Summit or online, I find the mobilization of younger funders and citizen philanthropists to be exhilarating. While older generations are wondering where the next generation of leaders are, I’ve certainly seen them this week.

It seems to me, if you offer them a seat at the table, they will fill it to capacity.

(This is a guest post from Roxie Jerde, of DonorEdge & Greater Kansas City Community Foundation, who is covering the Council on Foundations Conference for Tactical Philanthropy)

By Roxie Jerde

How do we engage voices to be heard? Whether at the Council on Foundation’s Monday opening session of conference attendees from various foundation sectors, to philanthropists – large and small in our communities, to nonprofit organizations to the clients hopefully served well? The in-person discussion guided by “voting” on prescribed questions and an assimilation of ideas for trends proved to be a helpful method to gather 2700+ opinions. The desire to know results immediately was satisfied and I enjoyed the lively discussion with my pot-luck table mates. All the while I wondered when and for what key questions do we engage voices in our communities using this methodology? The Greater Kansas City Community Foundation’s leadership work evolved from the CitiStates process of gathering input and determining five priorities to a focus on the “Time to Get It Right” report issued by a blue ribbon task force of national leaders. Community voices were listened to and they have galvanized a community to realize the potential of Kansas City being a national life science leader. We will need an educated workforce which has lead to initiatives ensuring academic achievement for all in greater Kansas City, a major challenge for our urban public school districts.

I also attended the session on donor advisors, recognizing as a community foundation driven by a donor centric model, the responsibility we have working with donors. It is critical in our donor work to clarify intentions, advise on the best possible use of philanthropic dollars to achieve results and build trust so the donor is assured the community foundation will follow their intent in this lifetime and beyond. Knowing where philanthropic dollars are best invested to achieve results made me appreciate the work we have done to pioneer DonorEdge We do have a quality database of easily accessed information on results driven nonprofits and an exciting partnership with GuideStar to further strengthen our ability to tap into even more quality data nationwide.

Ending the evening at the ‘Y & H”… “young and very hip”…. Next Generation 2.0 session was invigorating! Seeing the potential to tap into the “next generation” with products and new ways of thinking of philanthropy was fun! Last July, the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation launched the Charity Giving Card which uses the online DonorEdge data base for receivers of the giving cards to redeem the cards on DonorEdge nonprofits. The purchaser gets the charitable deduction and the redeemer gets to choose what is important to them ….fun and innovative philanthropy and maybe even “Y & H” in Kansas City. So what will be the next social marketing big idea for community foundations to engage the next generation?

(This is a guest post from Sara Melillo, Program officer, McCormick Tribune Foundation, who is covering the Council on Foundations Conference for Tactical Philanthropy)

By Sara Melillo

USC Annenberg Dean Ernest James Wilson III made the room chuckle today with his take on the state of the media as part of the popular Media and Philanthropy mini-summit held at the Newseum. The headline: Traditional media is dying/changing, and democracy is at great risk.

Nothing new there, but through the hundreds of cocktail receptions and dinners he’s obligated to attend, he’s identified the common syllogisms media people use when pleading their importance to democracy.

According to Wilson,

If you’re a member of TRADITIONAL MEDIA you argue:
1. Newspapers are vital to democracy
2. Newspapers are dying, therefore:
3. Democracy in the U.S. is at great risk.

If you’re part of DIGITAL MEDIA:
1. New media is opening new channels of communication and networking for all
2. Democracy is all about the interchange of ideas, therefore:
3. Democracy is being enhanced by digital media.

If you work for PUBLIC BROADCAST:
1. The non-commercial media space is essential for democracy
2. Public broadcasting is seeing a decline in audience and is slow to adapt digital media, therefore:
3. Democracy is at risk.

If you are with COMMERCIAL MEDIA:
1. Commercial media are desperately trying to leverage their assets and cut costs to save itself
2. Democracy is good in principal, but the government has moved away from regulation, therefore:
3. Commercial media pays little attention to democracy.

Levity aside, Wilson raises a good point that more cross-sector collaboration on the challenges facing media is vital. No one sector will “save media” - and self-importance won’t help their case either. I’ve seen the silo-ing firsthand through my work as a journalism program officer, meeting with a variety of organizations claiming to have “solutions” to the changing media landscape.

Wilson’s call for increased cross-media dialogue is useful for funders considering investing in media (and by the looks of the overcrowded room, many either already are or are interested).

(This is a guest post from Peter Manzo, board member of National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, who is covering the Council on Foundations Conference for Tactical Philanthropy)

By Peter Manzo

The themes about philanthropy’s role in the larger gatherings on Monday and Dr. Robert Ross’s remarks at the Philanthropic Awards Celebration in the evening were a big improvement over Sunday’s events.

Human rights was the subject of Monday’s luncheon, and apparently for the first time at a COF conference, oddly.

Gara Lamarche, President and CEO of Atlantic Philanthropies, moderated the panel, which included:

• Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, now President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative;
• Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU and
• Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of Civicus, a world alliance for citizen participation

Lamarche launched the conversation with a question about why foundations in the U.S. should care about human rights, teed up by a provocative observation that he often suspected many in philanthropy politely tolerated him when he raised human rights issues, but privately wondered what human rights had to do with philanthropy in the U.S. Robinson responded that people often have differing conceptions of what “human rights” means, from freedom from abuse, to protected civil rights, to rights to food, water, basic security. Romero pointed out that, at least until September 11, many in the U.S. viewed human rights as “something we exported to other countries, while civil rights were things we consumed,” and in a later comment, he took this point further by saying that he views the mission of the ACLU as expanding and defending human rights here at home. Naidoo recounted the devastating “demonstration effect” of the U.S. government’s embrace of waterboarding what the Bush Administration euphemistically calls “enhanced interrogation,” abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and special tribunals. He described hearing representatives of repressive security forces in Zimbabwe complain about being pressed on harsh treatment of regime opponents when, in their view, the U.S. openly does as bad or worse. Naidoo said he and his colleagues naturally responded that two wrongs don’t make a right, but the comparison undercuts advocates for human rights around the world.

The panel also touched on the issue of whether there is a tension between economic development and human rights. Robinson noted the example of the high costs of gender discrimination, pointing to a recent study estimating the costs of gender discrimination to Thailand and the surrounding region at $48 Billion.

The question of a trade off in poorer countries between development and human rights is a false dichotomy, which is the point the panelists clearly intended to make. Sadly, some people seem to need to hear that there is a significant financial harm in order to stand firm on human rights. Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist, famously disposed of the false dilemma by proving that the number one indicator associated with economic progress in the developing world is the increased educational attainment of women. In his book Development as Freedom, Sen makes a persuasive case that expanding freedom is both the end and the principal means of development. In Sen’s conception, the expansion of freedom is not defined simply by civil liberty or freedom from abuse, but by advances in “the capabilities of people to do things - and the freedom to lead lives - that they have reason to value.” To my untrained eye, Sen’s approach links real freedom for individuals to the broader social context that supports developing their capabilities, and that is aligned with, not in tension with economic development.

In the Q&A following, an audience member asked why U.S. foundations seem reluctant to fund international human rights. The panelists didn’t affirm or dispute the premise, but they noted that anti-terrorism reporting requirements are inhibiting or intimidating some funders, and that also some funders may be concerned about protecting investments in direct service projects in a country. Naidoo pointed out that foundations should hesitate to make such a trade off, saying that, for example, funders investing in programs in Russia without also addressing the worsening position of citizens’ rights are running a big longer term risk.

Advocacy was the dominant theme of the COF Awards presentations Monday evening. Dr. Robert Ross, CEO of The California Endowment, receiving the Distinguished Grantmaker Award, summed it up well with his remarks, which I’ll try to reflect faithfully (but I didn’t capture direct quotes). Ross said that the Endowment’s philanthropy is defined by two words: diversity and advocacy. Diversity – in culture and ethnic background, life experiences, professional disciplines, and more - drives development of the best, most innovative approaches to the challenges the foundation addresses. But, he said, he thinks the concept of innovation is “oversubscribed” in philanthropy. He pointed out that the people the Endowment and other grant makers fund prove every day that large scale problems can be solved, that they are not intractable. So the key issue isn’t innovation, but rather, how to take innovation to scale, and in the Endowment’s view, advocacy will be essential to developing the public will, and the partnerships across sectors, that will be needed to spread the benefit of innovation as widely as possible. (He also noted that every one of the documentary films that received awards that evening had advocacy at their core.)

The majority of the COF conference is being held off site today. So without wireless access and with everyone on the move, there will likely be limited posting until this evening.

But there’s lots of great coverage from yesterday if you scroll down the page. Thanks for reading!

(This is a guest post from Carla Javits, President of REDF, who is covering the Council on Foundations Conference for Tactical Philanthropy)

By Carla Javits

The Yankee stadium sized conference center here full of 3,500 people makes you long for a bicycle to ride from place to place and binoculars to watch the action on stage (despite the huge video screens). But the giant plate glass windows looking out at the beautiful waterfront make it a little less overwhelming. It’s old home week for a lot of people here with much milling and warm greetings outside the sessions.

A few impressions from today. Morning session led by AmericaSpeaks raised questions for us to discuss at our tables as we drank our coffee slightly bleary eyed. What should philanthropy do to have greater impact? My table, a little jaded. After the big set up about how we might think about what philanthropy can do to transform the world as we know it… one of our main messages was “have more humility”. My table mates from several of the largest national and California-based foundations also had a few other thoughts. First, the urgency of a greater focus on poverty given the economy, income disparities, and food shortages around the world. But a caution that the way we frame it, the words we use, even “poverty”, may not compel interest from those we most need to pay attention. An intriguing thought from Dee Davis of the Central for Rural Strategies in Kentucky who was at my table (and graciously allowed me to quote him) - “We can’t consume ourselves into prosperity”.

Another table mate suggested reading a new book by Michael Edwards published by Demos called “Just Another Emperor: the Myth and Realities of Philanthropcapitalism.” Quickly skimming it, the book appears to challenge the value of social enterprise, social enterpreneurship, and venture philanthropy — all of which are at the heart of the organization I lead.

I’ll have more to say about his argument once I’ve had time away from Yankee stadium to read it. Superficially scanning the book did make me think about the fact that decades of traditional philanthropy have achieved some astonishing and great things, but have not yet led us to the world we want (also the title of a fine book by Peter Karoff. Knowing there is no silver bullet, full exploration of new approaches seems highly warranted, and I hope more of us will continue to pursue them as we aim for even more powerful results.

I attended two sessions on the National Fund for Workforce Solutions. Sponsored by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Weinberg, and Hitachi Foundations, and the Department of Labor, with more foundations joining, the intent is to help start up foundation-based workforce collaboratives in 30-50 communities around the country. The basic idea is to help people who have barriers to employment get good jobs, keep them, and advance.

A central focus is a pretty basic notion which is suprisingly unusual in the wonderful world of workforce development. That is to address the ‘dual customer’ — not only the needs of the individual, but also the needs of business. And the point is also to better coordinate. Marguerite Womack of The United Way of Los Angeles which is leading a collaborative effort there talked about bringing the seven workforce investment boards together, since each one had been working alone on parallel initiatives to get workers into jobs in health care and other industires.

Latoya Patterson, a career coach at the University of Maryland Medical Center, spoke about the kind of support she provides to help workers succeed. Also on the panel was Ms. C, a mother of seven who had been able to leave private duty nursing for a more stable job as a hospital worker with the support of Ms. Patterson’s career coaching. She described how critical it had been in helping her to successfully retain her job despite a significant illness of one of her children and her own mother. Her daughter aspired to a professional career in health care, inspired by her mother’s example.

At a panel later that afternoon, the central importance of employer-based career coaching was reaffirmed. It reminded me of some great work that Springboard Forward is doing back home in the Bay Area. A top administrator of the University of Maryland Medical Center affirmed that the business community viewed the workforce collaborative’s effort as a civic priority and that the Medical Center views it as a way to develop a pipeline of workers and be a good corporate citizen.

Jason Perkins-Cohen of the Job Opportunities Task Force in Baltimore talked about his successful program that trains workers for jobs as plumbers, carpenters and electricians. With 70% of the participants starting with criminal backgrounds, 80% became employed with many earning as much as $20/hour.

The Baltimore programs were incredibly impressive, but in total served several hundred people. A discussion of scale and sustainability suggested that on the one hand individual programs should not be forced to scale too quickly, and that on the other hand the workforce collaboratives could achieve greater scale by sustained efforts to create an array of different programs for people at different points in the employment ‘pipeline’.

An instructive afternoon panel led by Rick McGahey of the Ford Foundation noted that there is huge demographic opportunity and challenge as baby boomers leave the workforce. Georgetown Professor Harry Holzer asserted that there are a host of ‘middle skill’ jobs available to people with a post-secondary credential or training, but not necessarily a four year college degree. These jobs offer opportunities, but many workers will need to access training, and will require support for transportation, childcare and other needs to take advantage of them. This panel also emphasized again the amazing point that a sustained connection to private sector business is the key challenge for workforce development and has happened far too little and never in a sustained way.

There were some challenging questions about whether the National Fund for Workforce Solutions might take on the issue of job discrimination against people with a criminal record, raised by Debbie Alvarez, a trustee of the East Bay Community Foundation and Director of S.F. Goodwill. The response was that if this issue bubbles up from communities, the Fund would consider addressing it - most likely at the regional level, as the Fund is not primarily an advocacy organization at the national level.

Discussion also ensued about the right population to target. While panelists stated that it was important not to ‘cream’ by serving those who would have made it without assistance, on the other hand the collaboratives are not focused on those with the most significant barriers. Although the target population, it was noted, might vary from region to region.

This got me thinking about the whole question of “social return on investment”, or in a simpler form - the costs and benefits of private and public investments. When does it make sense to help those with more significant barriers - where the investments might be greater, but ultimately make a bigger impact; and when is it more beneficial to help others perhaps at lower cost - but not necessarily lower net cost. Responding to this questions has been part of REDF’s effort to measure the social return on investment for the social enterprises we support which have brought thousands of people with major barriers - homelessness, criminal histories, mental illness — into the workforce.

The comments and questions about scale and targeting continue to roll around in my sleepy head.

Pheww….an action packed day. Tomorrow - mini-summits and a gathering on homelessness. Wednesday, back to Yankee stadium