Asian American Giving

Fellowship opportunities 11/12/09

2009-11-12T06:00:00-08:00

We have three fellowship opportunities to share this month. The Deshpande Foundation is looking for fellows to work with non-profits in India. The Aspen Institute has positions for fellows in D.C. The 2010 Asia JusticeMakers competition will be starting soon. If you know of any other opportunities, please let us know!

* The Deshpande Foundation is accepting applications for the 2010 Fellows Global Exchange Program. The Fellows work to address challenges at NGOs working in the fields of agricultire, livelihood, education and health. The application deadline is January 4, 2010.

* The Aspen Institute Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation in Washington DC, offers the William Randolph Hearst Endowed Fellowship for Minority Students three times annually. The Fellow serves as an intern and undertakes research, writing, logistical, and administrative support for PSI's leadership initiatives, public programs, and convenings. The application deadline for the next round is 12/15/09 for the spring 2010 internship.

* The 2010 Asia JusticeMakers Competition is supported by the Lien Institute for Social Innovations and the purpose is to search for and fund grassroots initiatives in Asian communities to promote criminal justice and ensure the legal rights of all men, women, and children. Eight competitors will be awarded $5,000 fellowships, seven by the judges, and one through a public rating process that will allow people to cast votes on final projects.

Photo courtesy of Kumasawa

Asian philanthropy new digest 11/09/09

2009-11-09T06:00:00-08:00

This month's digest is focused on donors in the news. An interesting pattern can be seen with three of these donors - they are immigrants and support both domestic and international causes. The other two donors live abroad but are supporting programs in the U.S. Predicting donor behavior is becoming more and more complex. The lines between domestic and international giving are blurring. There are patterns emerging though and we hope to document some of them in the future.

* Kai-Fu Lee introduced his new venture, Innovation Works, at the annual conference of the Asian American MultiTechnology Association (AAMA) in Silicon Valley. Lee spoke about the Chinese internet market and explained why he left Google China to create Innovation Works. Kai Fu Lee gives to the community by fostering the professional growth of Chinese technology students in China. He supports an online resource and virtual community for young people to support their career and personal development. The site, called Wo Xue Wang (I learn) includes contributions and advice from Mr. Lee.

* Indian American brothers recognized for their philanthropy and commitment to the community by local community foundation and member of Congress. The Northern Virgina Community Foundation presented its Community Leadership Award for outstanding service and commitment to the Northern Virginia community to Sudhakar Shenoy (Founder, Chairman and CEO of IMC) and his brother Suresh Shenoy (EVP of IMC) last month. In addition, they were recognized on the floor of the House by Democratic member Gerald E. Connolly. The brothers were born in India and are both graduates of IIT Bombay (Indian Institute of Technology).

* Indian and Chinese donors abroad give a total of $3 million to Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester. The $1.5 million gift from the Wadhawan family will support the Rajesh Wadhawan Professorship Fund. The Fund will be used to support a full-time faculty member who plays a leading role in advancing the standing of the Simon School and management education through service and teaching contributions with a preference for a professor making an impact in India. Another $1.5 million gift came from Evans Lam, a native of Hong Kong. It will be used to attract global business scholars from around the world to the University.

Photo courtesy of autan

Asian Americans encouraged to apply! 11/6/09

2009-11-06T17:50:06-08:00

* Deputy Director, Asian Pacific Community Fund, Los Angeles. APCF provides funds through charitable campaigns in public, private and nonprofit organizations throughout Los Angeles County. Deputy Director is responsible for strengthening the organization's internal processes and infrastructure.

* Executive Director, Asian/Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project (DVRP), Washington, DC. Executive Director will work collaboratively with the organization’s staff, board, community advocates and leaders, and other women’s rights, civil rights, and community-based organizations to ensure the achievement of DVRP’s mission through successful implementation of our programs, fundraising initiatives, and strategic plan.

* Development Assistant, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), NY. Responsible for updating and maintaining donor and events database programs, acknowledging and processing donor contributions, preparing and organizing mailings, researching donor prospects, and developing and creating reports.

* India Portfolio Manager, Hyderabad, India, Acumen Fund. Responsible for managing the healthcare portfolio in India, including current investments and the development of future investments in the sector and manage compliance and operations of the Acumen Fund India office.

* Asia Regional Director, New Delhi, India, Room to Read. Provides leadership and support to seven country teams engaged in all aspects of Room to Read's operations in India.

Philanthropy & diversity: Q & A with Meghna Shah

2009-11-02T06:00:00-08:00

Rockefeller Professional Advisors (RPA) produced three studies on diversity in philanthropy last year. Meghna Shah, a former Associate at RPA, co-authored the reports, Philanthropy in a Changing Society and Diversity and Inclusion: Lessons Learned from the Field. Meghna also served as Editor of Diversity in Action: Strategies with Impact. We were honored to have the opportunity to ask Meghna several questions about the findings.

Meghna Shah is currently a William J. Clinton Fellow of the American India Foundation. She will be spending the next ten months working on capacity-building projects for Saath, an NGO that creates market linkages for India's urban and rural poor.

1. What were some of your responsibilities as an Associate at RPA?

At RPA, I worked on a diversity portfolio that included a series of publications on diversity in philanthropy, made possible by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, as well as the Cultures of Giving Fund, a Special Project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors made possible by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The Fund empowers emerging donor communities to lead, develop and grow philanthropic resources for community social change causes. We made grants to culturally-specific and multi-cultural social change funds to increase the impact and effectiveness of individual and collective giving in these communities. The fund invests in the capacity of community organizations to address community needs.

2. You recently worked on a three-part publication project at RPA on diversity. In Philanthropy in a Changing Society: Achieving Effectiveness through Diversity, the first publication, you looked at how diverse the top foundations were in the U.S. What are some of the results?

For Philanthropy in a Changing Society, our goal was evaluate progress and determine future needs. We compared diversity in the field to the general population in 2006, and then looked retrospectively at progress over twenty-five years. Using data from the Council on Foundation and the Foundation Center, we analyzed diversity in staffing, governance and grantmaking to communities of color.

In 2006, overall diversity in foundation staffing lagged behind population diversity. Notably, there was significantly less diversity on the leadership level than among program staff. For example, program officer diversity was 35% in 2006, while just 5.8% of CEOs were from minority groups. Interviews with grant-makers revealed that efforts at increasing diversity in the field have been aimed at recruiting diverse program staff. This makes sense, as program officers are responsible for linking foundation assets to communities. Still, diversity needs the support of leaders in the field.

Though there's been progress since the early 1980s, it has been inconsistent. Most of the gains in staff and board diversity took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, while in recent years, diversity progress has leveled off and even declined. For example, CEO diversity increased by 156.3% between 1982 and 1994, but increased only 41.5% between 1994 and 2006. Recall, in 2006, diversity of CEOs stood at only 5.8%, so there is still a way to go. RPA asked senior professionals in the field why diversity progress had slowed. Some pointed to the fact that certain foundation CEOs of color had retired in the 1990s, leaving a vacuum in leadership on the issue. They also cited a shift in the political climate in the 1990s, when diversity and race-conscious programming came to be viewed as contradictory in a "color-blind" society.

Finally, Philanthropy in a Changing Society explores grantmaking to diverse communities. Ultimately, the case for diversifying foundation staff rests on the idea that diverse staffing increases the effectiveness of dollars spent in diverse communities.

An examination of the Foundation Center's grants of over $10,000 revealed that just 7.4% of grant dollars, or 10.2% of grants, explicitly targeted minority communities in 2006. But the nation is about 33.8% people of color, and there are distinct pockets of need in these communities. Over 25 years, RPA found a correlation between the growth in grants and dollars to minority communities and the growth in minority representation on staff. There is even a correlation between the leveling off in staff diversity progress and a leveling off in the growth of grantmaking to diverse communities. The field needs more research to determine a causal relationship.

3. Are there many Asian Americans in philanthropy? How do they compare with other groups and do you see any trends?

In 2006, 8.1% of program officers identified as Asian-American. This is almost double the representation of Asian Americans in the population, 4.5%.

Interestingly, we found that representation varied between minority groups. For example, African Americas and Asian Americans are over-represented in foundations, compared to the population. Latinos, who comprise 14.8% of the population were significantly under-represented, making up only 7.3% of foundation staff. Anecdotally, under-representation among Latinos may be due to lack of awareness of philanthropy as a viable career, or a more recent history of intentional recruitment efforts compared to African Americans.

4. Do you see any correlation between having Asian Americans on staff at a foundation and how much the foundation invests in their communities?

As I mentioned above, the RPA research team found a correlation in general between the growth of staff diversity and the growth in grants to minority communities. In our second report, Diversity & Inclusion: Lessons from the Field, we looked at the link between diversity and effectiveness in detail.

Utilizing studies from the corporate sector, RPA found that diversity has a measurable impact on outcomes. Diverse work groups are valuable for their cognitive diversity, their differences in experiences and training. Bringing different people together creates conflict. This conflict is the source of innovation. Thus, diversity contributes to effectiveness. When corporations [and foundations] are able to manage conflict, they can utilize diversity to benefit their markets. Diversity is a reality for Americans, so managing this creative conflict will become increasingly important as time goes on.

5. Since publishing the reports, what would you say were some outcomes or impact? Has anything changed?

We’ve heard from many people that the information presented was surprising or new to them. It's great that we are reaching different segments of the field. We’ve seen an increase in momentum after the release of the reports. Individual foundations, like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, are taking a look at their diversity practices and how to bring the benefits of diverse staff to their grantmaking. Leaders of some of the affinity groups have found the work we’ve done mapping the giving among communities of color and representation in foundation staff and leadership incredibly useful. Some have asked that this research be updated annually as a tool for the field. After the release of Philanthropy in a Changing Society, the Council on Foundations is including a few new charts and graphs in their annual reports on staffing and governance.

The intention behind this research was to inspire action. We’ve gotten the conversation started but we can’t end there. The numbers reveal the progress we’ve made, but they also reveal how much we still have to do. We are at a critical juncture in America, thirty years before we become a majority-minority country. We can take this opportunity to look at improving the effectiveness of our programs through diversity so we will be well-equipped to address the needs of a changing society.

Asian Pacific Fund announces $285,000 in grants

2009-10-31T06:00:00-07:00

The Asian Pacific Fund made ten grants totaling $150,000 to community groups for the 2008 -2009 year. The purpose of the grants is to cushion the impact of the economic downturn and "offset the loss of substantial government and corporate funding." Grant recipients include:

* Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center -- $17,000

* Asian Women's Shelter -- $17,000

* Charity Cultural Services Center -- $15,000

* Community Youth Center -- $20,000

* Family Bridges -- $17,000

* Friends of Children with Special Needs -- $10,000

* Kimochi -- $10,000

* Oakland Asian Students Educational Services -- $14,000

* Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation -- $10,000

* Wu Yee Children's Services -- $20,000

The Asian Pacific Fund also announced five grants totaling $135,000 to support Japanese Americans and emerging communities. Grant recipients include:

* Cambodian Community Development, Inc. -- $25,000 for general support of naturalization services and youth cultural programs, and for organizational capacity building.

* Lao Family Community Development -- $24,000 for the Multilingual Homeownership Center to provide services for Asian clients facing eviction or home foreclosure.

* Richmond Area Multi-Services -- $35,000 for school-based intervention and outreach for children and youth with mental health problems, and for the retention of a Tagalog-speaking counselor.

* Vietnamese American Community Center of the East Bay -- $15,000 for general support of senior service programs.

* Yu Ai Kai -- $35,000 for respite care for seniors and support for family caregivers of the frail elderly.

Photo courtesy of shapeshift

Live blogging: Stimulating innovation in journalism that strengthens communities

2009-10-29T09:26:07-07:00

The Renaissance Journalism Center hosted: Seizing the Moment II: Turning Challenge into Opportunity: a panel and roundtable discussion about how news and community media organizations are re-imagining traditional models- in journalism, business and technology - to gather and distribute content to communities.

Jon Funabiki is the Director of the Renaissance Journalism Center. Below is the panel discussion of "How media organizations are adopting, adapting and innovating"

Moderator: Paul Lamb, Man on a Mission Consulting

Geoffrey Samek: Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Sacramento Press

Kenji Taguma, President, Nichi Bei Foundation

Jennifer Gilomen, Director of Public Media Strategies, Bay Area Video Coalition (BAVC)

<a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&task=viewaltcast&altcast_code=d0ce0f415c" >Media: Adpating, Adopting</a>

Turning crisis into environmental advantage

2009-10-28T06:00:00-07:00

The One Percent Foundation is a non-profit organization committed to engaging young adults in philanthropy. It is a giving circle and partners pledge at least one percent of their income to philanthropy each year. Our friend, Peter Kim, recently wrote a piece titled, Turning Crisis into Environmental Advantage, on the One Percent Foundation blog.

For the first time in our generation, government possesses enormous clout and financial power, creating a chance to exercise unprecedented leadership in environmental policy and initiatives. Meanwhile, foundations hit with reductions in their endowments are seeking ways to leverage their funds through strategic partnerships and new programmatic strategies. Environmental nonprofits can help lead the way to proactively seek and form these partnerships to transform the environmental movement and combat some of the most challenging environmental issues of our time.

Now more than ever, with significant decreases in funding opportunities and the demand for more results, environmental nonprofits must demonstrate innovation and impact. They must leverage their programmatic strengths and expertise and formulate effective strategies that partner with non-traditional allies to attract potential foundation, government and individual funding. A tremendous opportunity exists for environmental nonprofits to reframe their strategies, form new partnerships, and innovate to tackle complex environmental issues such as climate change.

Read more...

About Peter Kim: Peter Kim has over 13 years of experience working internationally and in the US on environmental law and policy, education, private-public partnerships, and human rights issues. For the past five years, Peter has become a leader in the venture philanthropy field; designing, leading, and executing multi-year social venture funds. He currently consults on strategy design and multi-sector partnerships. Peter has a Bachelor of Arts from Bates College and a law degree with a certificate in Environmental & Natural Resources Law from Lewis & Clark Law School.

Photo courtesy of The One Percent Foundation

Philanthropy in China, part 2

2009-10-26T04:08:30-07:00

Cross-posted on Tactical Philanthropy

Part 1 can be found here.

Philanthropy during the Sichuan (Wenchuan) Earthquake

Even before the Sichuan Earthquake, charitable giving was becoming a trend in China. Social needs, shifts in government policies and the existence of new private wealth contributed to the growing trend. During disasters, the outpouring of assistance from individuals and corporations were beginning to increase and the number of donors making large donations was rising. Newspapers report that more than 11 billion yuan (US$1.3 billion) was collected for philanthropic purposes during the Yangtze River’s catastrophic flood in 1998. In addition to domestic giving, Chinese donors were also interested in supporting disaster relief overseas. US$18.11 million was raised from individuals and corporations in China to support the Asian tsunami relief efforts.

In a report prepared by the China Charity & Donation Center for Give2Asia’s Beijing Philanthropy Forum, the amount of China’s charitable donations had sustained an annual growth rate above 65%. In 2007, the top 50 donations from individuals totaled RMB2.58 billion (US$377 million), representing 62% of total donations by individuals. Contributions that year supported education (37%); poverty alleviation (14%); disaster relief (12%); medical treatment and public health (9%); culture, sports and the arts (6%); and environmental protection, women and children (22%).

On May 12, 2008, the Sichuan Earthquake dramatically changed the philanthropic and CSR landscape in China. The earthquake claimed 70,000 lives and left five million homeless. That year, China experienced unprecedented giving due to the earthquake and Olympic Games. The total charitable donations in China reached RMB107 billion (US$15.7 billion), three times what it was in 2007. 72% of donations from the top 100 corporations and top 50 individual donors went to support disaster relief, including the snow storm disaster relief in January 2008 and the Sichuan Earthquake relief later in the year.

While the amount of donations is staggering, several trends also emerged. First, the Chinese are beginning to use innovative ways to raise the funds. China Mobile organized a donation hotline linking five charities to subscribers who can donate one or two yuan by simply sending a text message. Ten days after the earthquake, mobile users donated nearly 100 million yuan (US$14 million) using this method. Since there are 641 million Chinese cell phone users, text messaging has proven to be a very effective fundraising tool.

Second, philanthropy is now fashionable. Movie-star Jet Li was able to leverage his stardom and is bringing media attention to charitable giving and volunteerism in China. Dubbed “China’s Philanthropy Champion,” Jet Li is encouraging more people to give – even if it is just a small amount. Jet Li’s One Foundation has raised $13.7 million since July of this year.

Third, the Chinese government learned that it was easier to raise funds than to spend them efficiently. Working with private funds and being transparent about how the organization spends it, is still a new concept for many NGOs in China. During the earthquake, China’s NGOs jointly made a statement of self-discipline in disaster relief efforts. However, the NGO sector is still growing and faces many challenges, including restrictive laws, weak internal management and governance structure, lack of full-time professional staff and unstable funding sources. While the Chinese people responded generously to the appeal for aid, they are also worried about misappropriation of their donations. 95% of Chinese participated in donations of various forms during the disaster and over 50% of them were worried about the misuse of funds.

Fourth, corporate citizenship and accountability are taken very seriously in China. Many foreign corporations announced gifts in line with their CSR policy to support disaster relief efforts. Unfortunately, the popular perception was that the international firms’ contributions were small in terms of scale or they did not respond in a timely manner compared to the responses of the local Chinese companies. Chinese consumers quickly organized or threatened to boycott their products and a list of “iron roosters” appeared. The U.S. – China Business Council began recording donations of its member companies and published them on its website to encourage transparency. One year later, there was a threat to publish a “black list” of all the corporations that had not fulfilled their pledges.

Philanthropy Post-Sichuan (Wenchuan) Earthquake

The earthquake fast forwarded China’s charitable sector development and activated ideas of how and what Chinese philanthropy could become. The 2009 First Half –Year Report on Charitable Donations in China was released recently. It is not surprising to see that giving is down by 78.4% compared to the same time frame last year as disaster giving is usually a one-off event.

At Give2Asia’s Beijing event last year, Dr. Wang Zhengyao, Director General of Social Affairs & Charity Promotion at China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs said that while some believe that disaster giving is an unsustainable spike, he believes that the disaster has helped leapfrog philanthropic development forward in the country to a new level of permanent growth. Prior to the quake, volunteerism was a foreign concept for many Chinese. However, there are now 100 million volunteers in China.

Those of us in the field are fascinated. We watch, wait and anticipate to see how Chinese philanthropy will evolve in the next wave.

Philanthropy in China, Part I

2009-10-22T19:53:39-07:00

Cross-posted on Tactical Philanthropy

China’s influence and power is undisputable and with its tremendous economic growth, millionaires are made daily. According to the 2009 Cap Gemini World Wealth Report, China’s high-net worth individual population became the fourth largest in world in 2008, surpassing the U.K. By 2018, this population is expected to more than triple in size. In addition to making money, many are also giving it away – and in significant amounts.

Those in the philanthropy field are fascinated by what is taking place in China. In a country where the government takes care of the social needs of its people, how did such an explosive number of social organizations come into being? Will a new group of Chinese philanthropy leaders soon shape the global philanthropy and social development field? Will the next wave of philanthropy flow from China to the U.S. – or has it already started? It is an exciting time for many of us in the field as we watch Chinese leaders search for philanthropic models around the world and adapt it to suit its own cultural and social context.

This is part one of a two part post on a brief overview of philanthropy in China. It is structured in three phases: pre-Sichuan earthquake, the response during the disaster, and post-Sichuan earthquake. The purpose is to provide an overview of the rapidly changing philanthropic landscape in China.

Brief overview of the non-profit sector in China

Philanthropy, non-profit, non-government organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations (NPOs) and many of the terms that we are familiar in western society have different meanings in China. However, the concept of charity and giving is not new. Mutual assistance and personal relationships are emphasized and these concepts take shape in many forms in the Chinese culture. Charitable activities exist within communities, family associations, clans and villages. Evidence of individuals and families supporting schools, temples, and other social services programs is prevalent and documented.

China’s history of centralized planning created a situation where both for-profit and not-for-profit institutions were basically run by the government. Since the reforms, many new social organizations have started. Some are registered legal entities but many are not and thus, they do not receive tax and other benefits. It is very difficult to register with the government and the process may take several years. The social organization must be affiliated with a government line agency in order to apply for registration. The Ministry of Civil Affairs is the national body that governs NGO registration and management. If the NGO is not registered or it cannot register, then they can register as a commercial entity. However, in essence, most of these groups would be considered a non-profit in U.S. standards and there are ways that donors can still support these groups.

Pre-Sichuan Earthquake

As China transforms itself, organizations are addressing many social welfare needs of the society and their services fill the void left by the reform process. It is also important to note that many people in rural areas, especially minorities, live in poverty. While China is economically prospering, the gap between the poor and the rich is widening. There are many social issues that need to be addressed, including the rights of minorities and the 40 million left-behind children.

By June 2008, there were over 386,000 registered social organizations (211,000 social groups, 174,000 grassroots non-business organization and 1,400 foundations). It is estimated that over 300,000 of these social organizations are not registered or they exist as commercial entities; although I have seen figures of 800,000 to 1 million. In comparison, the U.S. has 973,354 public charities in which 483,709 charities file with the IRS.

In the U.S., we know that most donors are not motivated by tax considerations alone when making a charitable gift. Donors are more interested in giving back to society and supporting causes they care about. This pattern is similar in China. Donors supporting a non-registered NGO will not receive a tax benefit and yet, many still do. Donors are also concerned about the lack of accountability and transparency in government organized groups. Thus, many Chinese prefer to give to people and local groups they are familiar with that are doing the charitable work in their village or province. A majority of these gifts take the form of remittances. In the past decade though, the landscape is changing and donors are looking for more strategic ways of giving.

Social benefit organizations exist in many forms – government-organized, quasi-government, independent and many other forms in between. Some groups receive funds from the government for their operations and programs. Other groups receive funds from local and overseas individuals and corporations. Through exchanges, encouragement by the government, business and personal ties, charitable support from overseas Chinese is increasing. Education has been the primary recipient of charitable giving, followed by poverty alleviation. With the growing presence of local corporations and multi-national corporations in China, we are also seeing the emergence of a corporate giving culture. According to a 2006 report from McKinsey, about 80% of the total charitable contributions in China were from foreign sources. But this trend is changing – especially, after the Sichuan earthquake.

In Part II, I’ll look at the effect of the earthquake on philanthropy in China.

About the photo: I was in Chengdu in April 2009. The children are attending a temporary school. The new school is being built several hundred feet away. My camera battery died so I used my iphone to take the photo.

Creativity and innovation in the philanthropic sector

2009-10-21T06:00:00-07:00

- by Dien S Yuen

I do not consider myself a very creative person but sometimes, I have to be creative and innovative on how I approach my work in attracting new clients that use our international philanthropic services. During these tight budget times, we all have to innovate with the resources that we have. We also have to create our own opportunities so we can continue delivering high impact services that exceed our client and donor expectations. As a leader, how do you lead and manage creative people? How do you create an environment that encourages them to excel?

Harvard Business Review has a series of articles on Leading Creative Peopl e. In their research, they found that a "handful of creative people whose inventiveness leads to innovation are the ones that bankroll the organization for years to come." The authors found these creative people:

1. Do not want to be led. I have realized that the most creative people I have worked with in the nonprofit field march to their own drummers. They do not like being micro-managed and certainly do not want someone constantly "checking" in with them on their work.

2. Do not care about titles and promotions. Titles and financial gain are not the reasons creative people want as rewards. In fact, many of those that go into the nonprofit field see these as secondary rewards.

3. Are easily bored. The day-to-day, same old way of working is not attractive to creative people at all. In fact, you will hear these phrases from them: why, why not, what's more, so what and let's try this.

4. The process by which they pioneer new insights and ideas is complex and chaotic. I get my best ideas when gardening, pruning my plants, weeding and turning my compost each weekend.

So how do you turn creative ideas into business opportunities?

1. Know when to impose controls on the creative process. Requiring constant "creative moments" can be draining. I have also found that creative people hate details. They are idea generators and not implementors.

2. Convince people that they won't be punished or humiliated if they speak up or make mistakes. Remember the comment - there's no such thing as a dumb question?

3. Ensure that all managers do hands-on work. It seems so much easier to talk about an issue or an idea if the person you report to also understands the work well. It also feels good when there appears to be a "democratized" process in the workplace.

From my own experiences, I can say that I am most creative when I am confronted with a problem or issue. Like an architect that must work within certain spaces and within certain guidelines, I find that boundaries help me generate ideas. But I don't want to feel restrained - I need the freedom to be able to find the solutions in my own way. Another characteristic I have noticed is that I am emotionally attached to what I come up with. It takes alot of convincing before I can back down from the ideas I generate.

How do you generate ideas? How do you help your staff be creative and innovative? The nonprofit field is full of creative people - now is the time to nurture those key individuals in your organization in order to create the social change necessary.

Photo courtesy of James Jordan