AB624: GONE BABY GONE June 26, 2008

On Tuesday the report came: an agreement had been reached between some of the largest foundations in California and the sponsor of a bill that would have mandated collection of diversity data from private foundations with more than $250 million in assets. But what are the implications of this foundation-initiated alternative to a legislative to the long-term advancement of diversity and inclusiveness in the sector? Is this the end of the conversation as people assume that diversity in philanthropy in the state has been taken care of by those ten members of the coalition?

Three interrelated issues are now weighing on my mind.

“Didn’t we take care of that?” syndrome

My hope – our hope – is that that the issue writ large of diversity does not quietly go away and become subsumed in a grantmaking initiative that helps nonprofits access foundation funding. Do not mistake my position, I believe that that what the foundation coalition is proposing to do is a worthy endeavor; however, much more needs to be done from a broader spectrum of philanthropic leaders to move diversity and inclusiveness from “worthy project” to “core value” status. Diversity and inclusiveness is a multifaceted issue that clearly touches upon foundation practice policies but so much more. What has been missing from the discussion to date about diversity in philanthropy is the need to invest in and grow philanthropy within diverse communities. As demographics shift, the future viability of the sector lies, in part, in harnessing the energies and resources of emerging donor of color for community change. What other essential issues are absent from the current discourse? Let us continue to pose more questions, engage in thoughtful inquiry and take the discourse to the next level.

Is it really a question of organizational capacity?

One I volunteered at a small nonprofit focused on people f color and was rejected by a funder on the grounds that they only fund “large, elite organization.” In any event, did not matter that we were well-run, relatively sophisticated and had sufficient capacity to meet our goals, we were able to be an effective organization. This in many ways a question of leadership and who is/is not deemed to be a leader. If that were true, for this capacity building effort to be truly successful would that require growing grassroots organizations into large, elite institutions? I hope not, For the nonprofit sector to be a dynamic and effective force for change, it needs all types of organizations, including small and nimble grassroots ones that bring an unique perspective, set of strengths and ability to work in the world

A lost opportunity to discuss the root issue?

The issue of diversity and inclusiveness also has an undeniable corollary that lies beneath the surface: race and racial justice. Let’s not only hope that the dialogue continues but take steps to near that is does. If we all go back to business as usual and do not take the time to step back, reflect and engage in deep thinking about an issue worthy of such attention, then this will be a lost rare window of opportunity to talk about the difficult issue that often undermines our efforts to create positive social change: race.

I had lunch with a friend the other day and she made a spot on remark: when people talk about race they either talk from a very intellectual, theoretical place or from an individual, deeply personal one. It is rare indeed to engage in an honest and balanced conversation that looks at the complexities, including the interrelationship between the personal and the political. What if foundations took this spotlight on diversity as a signal for raising in a thoughtful and meaningful way the issue on race? What if foundations took the lead in trying to fashion dialogue that would look at all aspects of the issue in order to enrich our understanding of race? What if they viewed Obama;s bid for the presidency as a further sign that the time is ripe for a community dialogue on race?

What if? And what do you think about any or all of these three weighty issues?

Dignified Philanthropy June 23, 2008

Effective Philanthropy, Strategic Philanthropy and other terms have taken center stage in the current discourse about foundation practice. I find myself wondering if those terms really capture what people – policymakers, nonprofits and the general public – might want to get from philanthropy, i.e., is what would they view as the sector’s true and proper contribution to civil society? Inspired by lyrics of a song by Irish folks singer Luka Bloom in which he chimes about the power of simple dignity. In that song referring to the quintessential case of dignity I action that we all know: Miss Rosa Parks.

What is it about simple dignity that has the power to transform?
Dignity is a concept intricately lined to another one: respect. As a former student of philosophy, I also find myself revisiting Kant who identified three types of respect, the third “reverentia” is the one we might most associate with dignity - especially in a social change context. This has been described as “the special feeling of profound awe and respect we have in the presence of something extraordinary or sublime, a feeling that both humbles and uplifts. On Kant’s account the moral law and people who exemplify it in morally worthy actions elicit reverentia from us, for we experience the law or its exemplification as something that always triumphs our inclinations in determining our wills.” (Excerpted from the “Respect” entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philanthropy, first published September, 2004; substantive revision, June, 2007)

What is Dignified Philanthropy?
Let’s suppose – just suppose –that philanthropy organized itself in a fashion that placed the highest value on dignity, thus, working diligently to maximize reverentia. This would mean that egos would have to take a backseat as simple dignity moves center change. How might this change the way in which foundation, for instance, work? When I gaze into my magical crystal ball, I see foundations developing authentic relationships with grant seekers, reaching out intentionally to engage diverse communities and working collaboratively with each other and the other players in civil society – government and the for-profit business sector. Foundations would build relationships with policymakers, media and the general public to help demystify the field. I see foundations engaging in more risk-taking and sharing their failures as part and parcel of being thriving learning organizations. Foundations would of course move with strong purpose and intentionality – the context for Rosa parks actions were certainly purposeful but above all, foundations would remind themselves constantly of the heart equation in the work - that passion and compassion must lead and inform how they think of their roles and achieve their desired impact in the word. Through this approach that connects “soul to role” foundations will get the reverentia they deserve.

Just a few initial thoughts – I will continue mulling over this concept. What do you think?

The Other Diversity in Philanthropy June 18, 2008

The headlines and the conference brochures tell the story: diversity in philanthropy has hit the big time. AB624 might have been the catalyst for a discussion that is now expanding and growing richer in substance. To date the discourse about diversity in philanthropy has centered on a call for foundations to recruit more diverse staff and boards and fund more diverse organizations.  This is clearly of vital importance and Changemakers plays its part in this primarily by educating family foundations about diversity and inclusiveness. What the conversation often fails to explore is how foundations can invest in and grow philanthropy within diverse communities.  Immigrant and established communities of color have always done their own way of giving but are now trying to come into their own in the world of mainstream philanthropy in the U.S. What is the role of traditional philanthropy in helping them find a seat at the table of organized giving? In the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ recent report “Philanthropy in a Changing society “ Achieving Effectiveness through Diversity” is a recommendation that philanthropy “build new partnerships and collaborations with philanthropic associations, affinity groups and other nonprofits working to increase visibility and participation of disenfranchised groups into mainstream philanthropy.”

Recent research conducted by Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University in conjunction with the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is also illuminating on the why the issue of diversity in philanthropy is important not only to philanthropy but the larger nonprofit sector. A recent article in the Nonprofit Times notes:  “Based on new evidence of charitable contributions, these research findings suggest that immigrants are being incorporated into U.S. philanthropic traditions, adapt rapidly to U.S. charitable institutions, and also have the potential to contribute to and transform nonprofits.”

Could it be that diversity in philanthropy has a multi-faceted issue that goes beyond how foundations structure themselves and their grantmaking? Might capacity building in disenfranchised communities serve as another critical strategy for diversity that also (and not insignificantly) helps move the entire nonprofit sector forward? Certainly to avoid the implications of shifting demographics can only have long-term negative affects on the nonfat sector. We must capitalize on this moment of heightened visibility of the issue of diversity in philanthropy to connect the dots between diverse giving and strengthening nonprofits for the long haul.

Now the promo: please check out Changemakers’ EDG (Essentials for Diversity in Philanthropy) curriculum, which is designed to help people who have been on the outside of the field (people of color and other disenfranchised groups) find a place on the inside. By working with those who work directly with donors, EDG is designed to help donors give fully and meaningfully to nonprofit efforts to transform communities from the inside out.

 

At the Movies: Philanthropy and Pop Culture May 22, 2008

This week I went to the movies to see Iron Man. Robert Downey, Jr., as a famed comic book character? What brilliant casting. As the executive director of an organization that cares deeply about philanthropy, I live and dream about philanthropy (I know - kinda’ sad). While enjoying the film I could not help but notice its two main messages about giving, which also reminded me of why the work that we do matters.

Spoiled Little Rich Kid (SLRK)

Tony Stark, wealthy playboy and arms dealer is a philanthropist. He hosts the annual Stark charity event, which was fabulously portrayed by the Walt Disney Hall in Los Angeles.  But what is the philanthropy about? Who is the beneficiary? Well, Stark himself – he’s the star, and the real beneficiary of his charity event is his own social status. Here the message is of philanthropy as a self-serving pursuit. Not the most flattering picture of philanthropy but certainly one that springs to mind to many people outside the sector who view it as a pastime of the elite : “Oh, you’re talking about charity ladies.”

The Hero’s Journey

Fast forward to message number two, which like most Hollywood stories is about redemption: Tony Stark, the true philanthropist or lover of mankind emerges after a traumatic event in which is heart is “rewired.” He now cares about saving people from the very weapons he manufactures. In service to his new cause, he donates time, talent and treasure and embarks on a perilous hero’s journey. His actions speak to passionate and humanitarian giving of the highest sort but would most people consider his actions philanthropy? Probably not. His extraordinary actions do not fit commonly held beliefs about the nature of philanthropy but his is the perfect “trifecta” of giving time, talent and treasure.

So let’s try to imagine that people understand philanthropy as a complicated and multifaceted part of an even more complicated and multifaceted notion: civic participation. As an organization focused on bringing out the best in philanthropy our strategies are increasingly informed and enriched by a deeper understanding of how philanthropy fits within a larger web of civic action. True givers are engaged civil players. All who give have the choice to model one of the many philanthropic stereotypes (as captured by the SLRK example above) or to embark on a hero’s journey that maximizes community benefit.

Though Stark clearly represents the elite, the essential nature of the hero’s journey he embarks on is anything but that. Unlike the SLRK version of philanthropy, the hero’s journey is more accessible because it is in the simplest terms about finding the best use of your time, talent and treasure to serve mankind.

Are you ready for your hero’s journey?

Scarcity vs. Abundance May 18, 2008

When I was a child I received a lesson in abundance that has lasted a lifetime. We were poor and so from my limited view everything was scarce. Then I recall a night when a woman came by with her three kids asking for help. My mother took half of the milk we had in the fridge and gave it to her. This struck me – I guess there is enough after all! This was my first lesson in the power of viewing the world through a lens of abundance. This was a lesson that I learned over and over again from my mom the philanthropist.  To this day I still feel that what we need is already here and I so I neither fret or fear that  there not being enough to go around nor do I hoard.

This spring we are all being schooled in the power of abundance as U.S. donors give to relief efforts in Myanmar and China while still supporting the domestic groups that rely on their generosity. And they may not yet realize it but they can do more – if only they would put on that lens of abundance. Almost every study on charitable giving or generosity notes the counterintuitive finding that low-income people give away a higher percentage of what they have compared to their wealthier counterparts. Perhaps some of these good people who give at relatively low levels compared to their wealth are suffering from the effects of early lessons focused on scarcity and thus, their fear is understandable – it is also something they can be overcome. We can connect to inspiring stories of people who have decided to think bigger about their giving potential through the work of Bolder Giving and the 50% League www.boldergiving.org

 

The unknown commentators in previous post May 18, 2008

Please note that the comments on social justice philanthropy gathered at the Philanthropy 2.0 reception were from different people - not me - they simply did not identify themselves. 

PLEASE BLOG-Live from the COF Summit May 5, 2008

REIMAGINING PHILANTHROPY VIDEO PROJECT

2008 is looking to be an exciting year for philanthropy and Changemakers. This coming year, Changemakers is celebrating its 10-year anniversary of grantmaking and advocacy to promote social change philanthropy.  In connection with our 10-year anniversary, we have launched a video project to engage leaders and stakeholders in grantmaking and community building in a dialogue to explore (1) ways to make the message of social change philanthropy relevant to our times – moving it beyond its firm “Baby Boomer” definitions and roots and (2) strategies for building a “bigger tent” for change that reaches “beyond the choir” and increases our potential impact on the sector.

Your opinion counts!  We need your insights to enhance our understanding of the movement to make philanthropy more transparent, accountable and effective at addressing the root causes of social, economic and environmental problems that our communities face. We have all learned so much over the last 10 years.  Our lessons need to be captured and used as the basis for conversation and action over the next 10 years to bring the best in us — foundations, donors, support organizations and other philanthropic entities that make up the field.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Please ponder the following questions and share your thoughts with us by participating in a videotaped or digitally recorded conversation or simply commenting on our blog:

1.     What kind of place do you dream of for those you love and for our communities?  

2.     What role do you think philanthropy can play in making that dream a reality? What do you think are the challenges for philanthropy in playing that role?  How can we address those challenges?

3.     When you hear the words “social justice” what ideas or thoughts come to mind?

4.     Is the phrase “social justice philanthropy” meaningful to you in your work? If so, how? If not, why?

5.     Do you know of examples or models of engagement in philanthropy that work?

THANK YOU!

 

Listening at the Summit April 24, 2008

Relationships, Relationships, Relationships. That is the driver of philanthropy. For those relationships to be transformational, not merely transactional requires a degree of listening that most people are unfamiliar or simply uncomfortable with. When I was a director of programs at a regional association of grantmakers, I was responsible for grantmaker education and in that role never met a practitioner who disagreed with this statement: “a critical component of a program officer’s job and a key to their success is good listening skills.” Of course, finding people who actually had such skills was shockingly difficult. The good news is that once people took their professional development seriously they were willing to work on their listening skills.

Listening is going to be my modus operandi at the COF Summit next month. Rather than filling up space with words (with the notable exception of this blog), I will be there to listen to the sounds of $2,500 people gathering in the name of philanthropy. I will do my best to listen well and then to share with you what I am hearing.

The Experience Philanthropy Project April 21, 2008

Last week I had the pleasure of attending for the first time the Experience Music Project’s Pop Music conference in Seattle – mostly to be a good supporter of my ethnomusicologist partner and to take a needed break from work. What a refreshing dip into an entirely different “pool.” As I face the prospect of attending the Council on Foundation’s Summit in May, I find myself longing for a time when COF (and the field in general) would take a few cues from the EMP. Specifically, I wish that philanthropy conference organizers would focus on diversifying attendees in order to create dynamic space that allows for unusual alliances and novel ideas to emerge. At the EMP conference there were academics, journalists, artists, and “betweeners” (someone who does not fit neatly in those categories such as me, a nonprofit leaders who cares about the role of art and culture in social change). This set the right tone for vibrant discourse, setting a stage that forced people to get out of their comfort zone. The end result was an exciting exploration and exchange of ideas about emerging issues in popular music. So let’s take a minute to try to “reimagine” the COF summit as a place where all who participate in and/or benefit from philanthropy (and the “in betweeners” who might help shape its future direction) come together, recognizing their interdependence in service to a common cause to learn, share and grow. I don’t think I am alone when I say, “I’m ready for that.” This spring what might have sprung if COF had focused on creating a common meeting ground for a vigorous mix of people and ideas?

More to come on the reality of the Summit when I join the other 2,5000 attendees next month.

The Charity vs. Philanthropy Debate: Flipping the Script April 3, 2008

Too often we are told that we need to fund change, not charity. Tiring of the “either/or” nature of this discussion, I would like to propose an “and/both” approach. Charity is not a bad thing – it is about short-term relief that helps reduce suffering. Who can argue with that? I can’t. However, I also have to stand up TALL for long-term strategies that represent to me the true promise of philanthropy. We need giving that gets to the root causes of social, environment and economic ills and thereby reduces the number of people in need of charitable relief. Both charity and social change philanthropy as typically practiced are done with an eye toward relieving suffering but the latter simply takes a longer term, systemic view in crafting its approaches. This means that yes, charity and social change philanthropy are at one level on the same team. Often the charitable impulse is the necessary starting point for people who then move into more strategic giving. Who can argue with that?  I can’t. To flip the script, my new mantra is change AND charity because sometimes you need to reach out to the person suffering on the block while also making sure that no one else will have to suffer like that ever again.

“Philanthropy is commendable. But it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the economic injustice that makes philanthropy  necessary.” — Dr. Martin Luther king, Jr.