onPhilanthropy.com

Six Models for CSR/Brand Integration

Lucille B. Pilling and Carol Holding — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:39:34 GMT

To address this need, the authors conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with key managers in brand and CSR departments in the five industries — financial services, pharmaceuticals, extraction, consumer products and technology — identified by McKinsey as being most prominently engaged in CSR activities. From our analysis, we identified six organizational models for integrating brand and CSR; they fall into two categories: Nonadaptable Models and Adaptable Models. This summary will briefly review the first category and focus on the second category as it provides replicable examples.

Three Non-adaptable Models

Model #1: Mission-Driven

This model is the purest example of Brand/CSR integration and occurs almost exclusively in companies that were founded with social responsibility as a core value. In fact, these companies are so aligned with CSR in both brand and operations as to warrant the label “social enterprises.”

Even in this social enterprise environment, however, brand and CSR must be formally linked for reporting and other purposes. For example, 20 years after the company was founded, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters identified the need to coordinate efforts and hired its first CSR officer; its first CSR report was published in 2005.

Model #2: Product-Driven Consumer Companies

These are companies whose brand/CSR integration efforts are traditionally grounded in their product brands. PepsiCo is an example of a company whose CSR/brand integration is product-focused. A case in point is its Quaker Oats division’s partnership with the World Heart Foundation. In these companies, despite corporate-level support and measurement, brand/CSR integration always will be centered on individual brands.

Model #3: Super-Regulated Industries

Companies in this category are often blocked from efforts to integrate brand and CSR because their products are so highly scrutinized by both regulators and the public. We spoke with several pharmaceutical companies, all of whom were cautious because their culture does not support brand/CSR integration.

Three Adaptable Models

Our next three models provide replicable roadmaps for integrating a company’s brand with its CSR efforts.

Model #4: Individual Champion

This model, exemplified by Symantec, the maker of Norton Anti-Virus software, is based on a single person who initiates and manages CSR in all its facets, including brand/CSR integration. Though the initial idea for a CSR program came from branding, the effort was actually launched in the External Affairs department. Cecily Joseph, Director of CSR, used the UN Global Compact as Symantec’s CSR framework, then added the Global Reporting Initiative. Once the structure was in place and the management involvement was established, the project took on a life of its own. One example Joseph cites is the “environmental stewardship council, which started with 10 or 15 people. By the end of the year we had 50 people. And this includes senior people, VPs: all volunteers.”

Model #5: Communications Team

In this model, CSR resides in the communications department and is used specifically as a brand-building tool. According to Steve Kess, VP Professional Relations at Henry Schein, the drug distribution company, CSR is managed by three departments, Corporate Communications, Community Relations, and Professional Relations, all of whom report to the EVP of Communications to insure that the branded CSR program “Henry Schein Cares” reaches both employees and Schein’s suppliers and worldwide operating companies.

At other companies, different models were found. Adobe, the design software company, has a CSR department within marketing that works closely with the Brand Director. At Bankrate, the personal finance website, all marketing managers participate in CSR projects.

Model #6: Organic Partnerships

This is the most mature brand/CSR integration model and is based on systematically interrelated parts rather than an existing structure. At HSBC, CSR is a separate department but brand/CSR integration is applied throughout the company. For example, Nicole Rousseau, HSBC’s VP, Retail Marketing, coordinated the launch of

HSBC’s first US environmental campaign “Commit to Change.”

Key to building the campaign was forming the employee launch team. “[We found people] who were really engaged and energized about the environment in every department,” Rousseau told us. Another initial task was identifying the sustainability projects that already existed in the US Bank. “Everyone learned in the process about what we had been doing for years.” Working closely with HSBC’s Sustainable Development Group in the UK and HSBC’s US CSR department, Rousseau’s team built a campaign that put CSR at the center of HSBC’s retail marketing efforts and exceeded its business metrics.

At Chevron, the oil giant, the CSR report is the responsibility of the Global Issues and Policy Group, while the company’s new brand “Human Energy” reinforces CSR's company-wide integration across all geographies.

At Cherokee, the private equity firm, Jonathan Philips, Senior Director of Marketing, describes brand/CSR integration as the center of the brand: “To this day, [we] do not have a corporate brochure, [we use] our Sustainability Report for both investors and recruiting employees.”

Conclusion

In identifying organizational prototypes on which managers can build brand/CSR integration, we found not only replicable organizational models but also an evolutionary path:

The Individual Champion is the model common to early stage brand/CSR integration efforts and the model of choice for high-tech companies and other flat, nimble organizations.

Within 10 years of the start of the effort, three of the four companies we identified for the Individual Champion Model evolved into the Communications Team Model. We would argue that this is a natural and predictable evolution.

The Organic Partnerships Model works well in the old-line companies we interviewed. Their age and industry maturity guarantee that some form of community involvement is well entrenched in the organization and culture, and the full integration of Brand and CSR evolves organically over time.

About the Author

Lucille B. Pilling is Director Health Initiative, Corporate Council on Africa and CSR Strategist. Carol Holding is President, Holding Associates/Brand Strategies. The authors can be contacted at lucille@lucillepilling.com and carol@holding.com

Madoff, Clawbacks and Charities

Jonathan Gudema, Esq. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:39:32 GMT

Reprinted from Planned Gift Blogspot

The Forward and Bloomberg have already started to mention this issue in recent articles (see below for links).

Unfortunately for Hadassah, over the summer they apparently admitted to withdrawing $130 million from an initial investment of $40 million, over the course of more than 20 years. Or, what about non-profits that divested their Madoff or Madoff feeder fund investments well before the discovery of the massive fraud? Or, what about charitable beneficiaries of Jeffry Picower's Foundation during the last few years? (Note: Jeffry Picower passed away Oct. 25, another sad chapter in the Madoff tragedy.)

Thanks to the law firm of Drinker Biddle, I now have some idea how claw back suits work (see below link to their article on the topic). Here is a summary of the rules based on the Drinker Biddle memo:

1. Charities have to be treated like any investor - there is no point in discussing the ethics of clawbacks against charities. The trustee has an obligation to recover funds for those defrauded, starting with the biggest and closest who benefited. Where is the logic or ethics in agreeing to allow a charity to benefit at the cost of other defrauded investors?

2. All withdrawals made within 90 days of a bankruptcy petition are subject to full recovery by the trustee, whether or not the money taken was from "principal" or "earnings." Insiders under some circumstances may be required to return any withdrawals within a year.

3. Next come withdrawals of "fictitious" profits made within 6 years of the filing (for Madoff, the date is 12/16/2008). Federal bankruptcy law actually proscribes 2 years but New York fraudulent conveyance law extends the clawback period to 6 years. Not being an expert in this area, I am guessing that attorneys may fight to get out of applying New York's law on jurisdictional grounds - possibly a way to save clients some money but for sure a serious legal battle.

4. How do we define "fictitious" profits? Very simple. Any penny withdrawn in excess of your original investment is fictitious profit. From reading the Drinker Biddle memo, it seems clear that if it can be established that you had already withdrawn your full investment in Madoff prior to December 16, 2002, then you would be obligated to return every penny withdrawn during the period of December 16, 2002 to December 16, 2008. That is pretty frightening for a place like Hadassah which all but admitted that they had long recovered their initial investments.

5. If you never reached the fictitious profit level, and you didn't withdraw any funds within 90 days (assuming you are not an insider), you should not have any clawback concerns. If you received a letter from Picard demanding return of funds, it would be time to seek legal counsel as soon as possible.

6. One last point for those who knew or should have known of the fraud taking place - the trustee in theory can seek to recover for even non-fictitious principal withdrawals in these cases. That will be a totally different kind of legal case and probably very weak if the trustee can't place you as a co-conspirator. If the SEC and the rest of the world didn't notice, how can the government claim that a non-conspirator should have known? My guess is that the trustee will not pursue these except for clear insiders who most likely knew something was wrong (ie..family).

With the sad passing of Jeffry Picower, a huge philanthropist, I am wondering about indirect charitable beneficiaries of the Madoff scheme. Bloomberg.com reported that Picower made a $50 million donation in 2002 to fund a brain-research center at MIT. Was it early in 2002 or after December 16? Can these funds somehow be traced to Madoff profits?

What about charities that had invested with Madoff indirectly (through one of the "feeder" funds)? And, what if they had wisely chosen to send their investments to other managers and taken along fictitious profits, too?

In the end, Picard the trustee will have to pick his battles carefully based on size and likelihood of success. Big targets, charities or not, watch out.

About the Author

Jonathan Gudema is a planned giving consultant with Changing Our World, Inc. a philanthropic services consulting firm. He has worked with some 200 nonprofit organizations in fundraising, planned giving, and/or law throughout his career. He blogs on these topics at Planned Gift Blogspot. He can be reached at jgudema@changingourworld.com.

Jump-Starting the Stalled Fundraising Campaign

Book Store Fundraising — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:53:27 GMT

Jump-Starting the Stalled Fundraising Campaign
Julia Ingraham Walker
ISBN: 978-0-470-49655-8
Paperback
217 pages

Part of the AFP / Wiley Fund Development Series, Jump-Starting the Stalled Fundraising Campaign will help your nonprofit develop a strategic approach to fundraising in the weak economy, with advice on knowing if your campaign is in trouble, what short-term steps you can take to stem your losses, and how to avoid the Top 10 campaign mistakes.

» Buy now from Amazon
» Buy direct from Wiley

A Conversation on the Art of Giving

Susan Carey Dempsey — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:29:20 GMT

A new book by philanthropist Charles Bronfman and Jeffrey Solomon, who directs the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Foundation, offers their experienced insights to those contemplating philanthropic ventures. onPhilanthropy sat down with the authors of The Art of Giving: Where the Soul Meets a Business Plan.

OP: When you are talking to people about philanthropy, how are these challenging economic times affecting the conversation?

Charles Bronfman:

It’s even more important to talk now than before. If you want to set aside funds, you need to think about where philanthropy ranks in your budget. Is it a necessity or an also-ran? It’s a time to look into your soul. What can be fulfilling to you?

OP: Do you feel that philanthropists, in addition to what their monetary gifts can accomplish, also have a responsibility to set an example for others?

It doesn’t require seven-figure gifts to be an example. Nancy Lublin created Dress for Success, and then Do Something to encourage teenagers to get involved in nonprofit activities. So she has motivated others, to “pay it forward.”

OP: You have seen philanthropy grow not just in the United States, but around the world. What changes are you seeing?

Jeff Solomon:

We’re seeing the export of Guidestar to the UK and other countries, bringing greater transparency. We’re seeing other trends like this emerge in Europe. Israel, in fact, now has four academic centers for the study of philanthropy. There’s a sense of seriousness I see in the journals coming out of them.

Charles Bronfman:

We’re pleased to see more young people taking on an ever expanding role in philanthropy, expanding their interest in careers in this field, too.

Jeff Solomon:

Slingshot, young philanthropists in their 20s, gave each organization they support a Flip, a $100 video camera. Instead of writing a midyear report, they said show us what you do. Don’t spend a lot of overhead on reporting; use digital technology. It’s very interesting.

OP: Do you have a sense of how younger philanthropists are using Facebook, Twitter, etc. to support causes?

Charles Bronfman:

My feeling is we don’t need to know everything about those tools, we just say, go your way, and keep us posted. We all should have the time and enthusiasm of Generation Y.

OP: OK , so what are some trends we may not have seen that are out on the horizon?

Jeff Solomon:

It may be early to call it a trend, but I think it’s the transition from 1.0 to 2.0, now to 3.0 1.0 was when the impetus to give came from the heart to the checkbook; 2.0 was the “new Philanthropy,” when the brain took over, emphasizing impact and strategy. I think 3.0 is when the heart and the brain meet. When that happens, it feeds the soul; it’s not just an intellectual decision.

Charles Bronfman:

The current trend of following the money, that wasn’t the idea when I was young. You simply trusted the elders. Now, donors want to know what happens; they stay involved after they contribute.

OP: Donors today are very concerned about making an impact. What do you recommend?

Charles Bronfman:

You don’t need a lot of money to make impact – especially if you do it locally. You make life better for people very close to you.

OP:How to do you recommend donors stay knowledgeable about projects they support?

Jeff Solomon:

We recommend they perform due diligence, learn who they are and how they operate. But, as we caution in the book, NIFO: noses in fingers out, don’t confuse giving donations with management.

About the Author

Susan Carey Dempsey, Editor-in-Chief of onPhilanthropy, is Managing Partner of CauseWired Communications, a firm consulting on effective messaging for nonprofits and causes. She can be reached at susan@causewired.com.

Turning Awareness into Action Against Breast Cancer

Susan Carey Dempsey — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:28:38 GMT

It reaches the point sometimes of overload, where we fear that the omnipresent pink bow may lose its effectiveness, or at least dilute the message.

To bring breast cancer awareness into focus, we thought we’d look at some of the people who came together on a particular project. United by a family’s experience with breast cancer, each has found a way to play a role in advancing the progress of breast cancer research.

Dr. Larry Norton is a world-famous oncologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. In addition to treating patients, he conducts research into the basic biology of cancer, the mathematics of tumor causation and growth, and the development of approaches to better diagnosis, prevention, and drug treatment of the disease. He’s especially identified with the development of an approach to therapy called "dose density," or "sequential dose density." This is a new and more effective way of using anticancer drugs, based on a mathematical model he developed with colleagues, which maximizes the killing of cancer cells while minimizing toxicity.

onPhilanthropy asked Dr. Norton, who also speaks widely on breast cancer research, whether a clear message was getting through, or if “breast cancer awareness” had become too vague and generalized to have impact.

“Awareness is a very poor term” he said, in talking about breast cancer. “I’d rather talk about commitment. For a long time, we simply needed to bring the topic out into the open. You could not mention the word “breast” in mixed company, couldn’t say it without inducing giggles, and cancer was certainly not openly talked about. Women would say, ‘she had that operation,’ and what they were talking about was a mutilating mastectomy. Today we have had tremendous advances in reconstruction, in breast conserving surgery.”

“So there have certainly been advances in treatment and we’ve improved the cure rate, but we won’t be happy until we have control of the problem. I’d like to encourage more commitment to definitive, scientific research, high quality laboratory research with clinical applications. Screening, early diagnosis, therapy, and preventive strategies have had a huge impact, but it’s still critical that we understand the basic biology of these cancers.”

At the other end of this equation was a 12 year-old girl whose mother, Lisa Abramson, was being treated for breast cancer by Dr. Norton. Shortly after Lisa was diagnosed three years ago, her daughter Carly made a beaded key ring for her as a gift. It became so popular at Memorial Sloan-Kettering where Lisa went for treatment that, with the help of family and friends, Carly made and sold 700 similar key rings in the name of breast cancer research. By the end of 2007, Carly had raised $10,000 for the hospital. Wanting to build on her efforts, her father, Andrew Abramson, created the Cure Breast Cancer Foundation. The Abramson family was all too aware of the devastating impact of breast cancer; Andrew’s mother had died of the disease shortly before Lisa was diagnosed.

From grassroots fundraising with key ring sales, the foundation grew to include special events and corporate cause-related marketing. Wanting to be an active part of the effort to find a cure, Mr. Abramson enlisted several “partners” to sponsor events with the foundation, and his firm, Value Companies, a leading New Jersey real estate company, has been donating $100 to the foundation for every rental lease signed at their rental communities during the month of October.

Since its inception in 2007, CBCF has raised in excess of $1.3 million through events such as an annual golf tournament, now preparing for its third year, walk-a-thons and other fundraising activities. Fully 100% of net fundraising proceeds received by the foundation are donated to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan to support the ground-breaking research being conducted there by Dr. Norton.

In terms of the type of research in which Dr. Norton’s involved, we asked what sort of impact a foundation such as CBCF could have:

“Of course, it’s always important to the patient to have a supportive family, but these people are really engaged.” Dr. Norton said. They have a genuine interest in advances in breast cancer research beyond their own personal interest, as a way of helping the world. They’re remarkably dedicated.”

“These philanthropic funds can allow you to develop the preliminary data to apply for a larger federal grant,” he explained. “The real beauty of philanthropic funds is they give you scientific freedom, the ability to follow a creative impulse. Grants from the federal government are very tied to specific aims, which is OK if you’re pursuing them, but it’s very hard if your imagination takes you in another direction.”

Fortunately, Carly Abramson’s creative impulse to lift her mother’s spirits by fashioning a key ring has generated philanthropic support that translates into just this type of research. Awareness spurred action, and converting action into commitment can make a real difference in this fight.

About the Author

Nonprofit Governance: Law, Practices, and Trends

Book Store Boards and Board Development — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:29:12 GMT

Nonprofit Governance: Law, Practices, and Trends
Bruce R. Hopkins, Virginia R. Gross
ISBN: 978-0-470-35804-7
Hardcover
259 pages

» Buy now from Amazon
» Buy direct from Wiley

Recent scandals in the charitable sector as well as the adoption of a myriad of nonprofit best practices and guidelines have created a need and demand for better governance of nonprofits. In Nonprofit Governance, renowned author Bruce R. Hopkins and his law partner, Virginia Gross, share their combined decades of legal expertise to provide a comprehensive, authoritative examination of the law, practices, and trends of nonprofit governance.

The Bill Gates Syndrome

Lilya Wagner — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:22:53 GMT

One Sunday morning Alex sat sipping his coffee and instead of focusing on the paper, or picking up his text message, or even mindlessly watching the TV news, he stared absentmindedly beyond all three means of communication. His mind was churning. He had been troubled all weekend. On Friday, as a parting shot accompanied by a lukewarm “Have a good weekend,” his boss had said, “Alex, you know we badly need to recover in this economic crisis and it’s up to you to get us over the hump. Can’t you get some of that stimulus package money, or better yet, just go to the Worthwhile Foundation? They have plenty of money, I hear. Anyhow, DO SOMETHING!” And then the boss uttered the weak wish for a salubrious weekend.

Have a good weekend! Whom was he kidding?! It wasn’t so much the “go to the Worthwhile Foundation” that bothered Alex but what lay behind it. Alex was no slouch. He had done his homework and knew that the arts organization for which he worked, Vibes for Violinists, was not on their priority list. What really irked and worried Alex were phrases that kept ringing and singing through his head, like a bad commercial tune that hummed inside him incessantly.

“It’s up to you . . .”

“We’re in a crisis — get us over the hump.”

“Stimulus package money.”

“The Worthwhile Foundation — they have plenty of money.”

“DO SOMETHING!”

After thinking rather evil thoughts about his boss, especially on a Sunday morning, Alex began to move beyond worry and on to fuming. Did his boss think that he, Alex, wasn’t doing a good job? How could he say something as dumb as “it’s up to you?!” What had gotten them into this mess in the first place? For beginners, a lack of interest and therefore involvement by his boss, who should have been part of the fundraising effort and team. Second, the lack of financial acumen to see that a contingency fund of some sort should have been in place. Alex was no financial whiz but even he knew that living in the “hand to mouth” state was risky. Third, shouldn’t this be an organizational effort, with both the president and CFO and others involved? It wasn’t just up to him! Finally, what bothered him most was that after two years and eight months and three weeks of employment, he still hadn’t succeeded in educating his so-called team. What was it going to take to show his boss, at least, that it took time to build up a solid fundraising base, that just because people had money didn’t mean they had arts interests, and that sustainability was the key word, not emergency funding, which didn’t appeal to most donors.

Now quite thoroughly angry and depressed, he took a sip of his cold coffee and dashed to the sink to spit it out. What to do?! Both by Monday and for the long term? Should he consider a job change before things got worse? Fortunately for him, he remembered that the local AFP chapter had built up quite a good mentoring system and even though he didn’t have one, he could think of several senior professionals whom he could call, even on a weekend. Better yet, he remembered his last day of the five day Principles and Techniques of Fundraising course which he took from The Fund Raising School. He had filled in a form on what he would do that next week, the next three months and then the next six months and had exchanged it with his favorite fellow participant. Alex dashed to get his big red binder, the curriculum for that course, and where he had jotted down Merilin’s phone number. He would call her, and risk calling her on a Sunday!

Merilin was home, to his good fortune, especially since it was an unearthly hour for her (being in a different time zone) and Alex blurted out his dilemma, tripping over his words because of frustration. “Whoa,” responded Merilin, “slow down! Don’t tell me you’ve been blindsided by the ‘just ask Bill Gates’ syndrome?! My sincere sympathies to you! I lived in Indianapolis where the same thing happened. ‘Just go to the Lilly Endowment, they have lots of money,’ was what I heard repeatedly.” She sighed and paused.

Alex repeated, “The Bill Gates syndrome, huh?! How true! I’m relieved you understand. But what can I do? I have to present some sort of plan on Monday.”

“Well, I hate to ruin your Sunday, but try these action steps,” Merilin replied. Together they brainstormed for the next hour. Alex breathed his fervent thanks and they made plans to meet at the next AFP convention, since Merilin lived two time zones away. Alex turned to his computer and began to draft a mini-plan on how to extricate himself from this dilemma.

First, he wrote, ask for a meeting with the president and CFO, explaining that in order to make a good request and to avoid embarrassing the organization (never mind himself, but he wasn’t going to mention that) he needed to know more facts. Could they please discuss the financial situation with him so that he could ask wisely?

Second, he would print out the website pages of the Worthwhile Foundation as well as the stimulus package information and show them that funding wasn’t available, but then quickly move on to his real plan, which was a three-step approach to raising some contingency money. He had a loyal donor who had said, after his last pledge payment, “I like what you’re doing, so let me know when you need help.” Alex would have felt better if the donor had said, “I like what Vibes for Violinists is doing,” but he wouldn’t worry about that now. Then he would ask Mr. Salvador to introduce him to some other corporate prospects. Then he would approach those donors for a matching grant.

Third, he planned to say in a very tactful manner, “My professional mentors,” and he would name some recognizable persons, “have indicated that now is a time to begin building sustainability, if an organization is still alive in this bad economic time. I’d like to show you a one-page outline of how WE can do this.” And he would have ready some of the steps he had already been trying to take, but perhaps would now have at least a half-listening ear.

Alex went to refresh his cup of coffee. He sipped the hot beverage and mulled over his plan. It just could work. Then, after his meeting, he would weigh his options. First, he would once again plan on how to get the organization and especially the president to work with him, and failing that, he would resign. And he would do so while he could show a good track record and be a desirable candidate. If he waited too long, he would be part of the downhill slide of Vibes for Violinists.

And what if the president said he couldn’t meet, that it really was up to him, Alex, to DO SOMETHING?! Well, he could always say, “As you requested, I’m doing something and so that you can put my plan into your overall administrative duties and know what’s going on, I’d like to show you what I am carrying out, which is, mainly, your request.” And if that didn’t work, there might be an ethical way to share his plan with his development committee chair, without divulging those irritating words, “It’s up to you to DO SOMETHING and get us over the hump.” After all, it had been a Friday afternoon and a gloomy one at that. Perhaps on Monday reason would prevail. He sighed; a mixed sigh, both of mild relief because he now had a plan at least, and a contented sigh because after all, it was a Sunday, the sun was shining, he had done so much hard thinking and planning, so he deserved a round of golf!

About the Author

Dr. Lilya Wagner, CFRE, is an experienced fundraiser, consultant, editor and author, teacher and trainer. She can be reached at coplilya@cs.co

Carnegie Medals Recognize Catalysts for Giving

Susan Carey Dempsey — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:22:51 GMT

Drawing parallels to the Nobel Prize in honoring individual contributions to society, the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy recognizes individuals who live in the same spirit as Andrew Carnegie: “private wealth for the public good.”

The awardees gathered on October 15 at the New York Public Library’s Stephen A. Schwarzman Building at 42^nd Street and Fifth Avenue, an appropriate site given its namesake’s $100 million gift. The venerable library was named for the financier last year in recognition of his philanthropic support, which jump-started a $1 billion capital campaign.

Hosted by Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Medals are awarded every two years to recognize individuals and families with exceptional and sustained records of philanthropic giving. The Carnegie Medals are intended to celebrate “catalytic philanthropy” of this kind, as well as social investment. onPhilanthropy spoke with some of the honorees, who reflected on the ripple effect which their philanthropy engenders, in addition to the immediate financial benefit.

Joan and Sanford (Sandy) Weill were honored for their work over the past half century with philanthropic support totaling more than $800 million. Most evident in the New York City area, their name is attached to important institutions such as Carnegie Hall, Cornell Medical College and Graduate School of Medical Sciences, and health care programs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, New York Presbyterian Hospital and others.

Sanford Weill chairs Carnegie Hall and Weill Cornell Medical College, as well as the National Academy Foundation, which oversees more than 500 career-themed

Academies for high-school students in 40 states as well as the District of Columbia. Joan Weill chairs the Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation and Paul Smith’s College of the Adirondacks. The Weills co-chair the White Nights Foundation of America, dedicated to strengthening relationships between Russia and the United States.

In the past year, as the economic crisis devastated many philanthropists and the organizations who depend on their support, Sanford Weill announced that he was accelerating his $170 million pledge to Weill Cornell College. Speaking with onPhilanthropy at the Carnegie Medal presentation, Weill discussed that action, saying it was consistent with his belief that philanthropists should set an example for others: “My wife and I believe we should promote philanthropy with our actions. At this time, when the organizations need it more, I wanted to encourage others to step up. When philanthropists contribute in times like these, it’s worth even more than if they had given two years ago.”

Both Joan and Sandy Weill talked about the joy they find in philanthropy, with Joan Weill citing the satisfaction of “helping to show young people what they can do,” as well as getting involved with the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, “cultural ambassadors to the world.”

The Academy of Finance which the Weills created grew out of a public-private partnership with the New York City Board of Education. “Public-private partnerships are very important,” Sandy Weill told onPhilanthropy. “You can’t just look to the government to do everything. We’ve seen the impact private wealth can have on public institutions.”

The Carnegie Medals also honored the work of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as well as Gordon and Betty Moore. Bloomberg was cited by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as the leading individual living donor in the United States in 2008. A major contributor to Johns Hopkins University, his name is affixed to its renowned School of Public Health. His philanthropy often supports causes that have been his focus in government life, such as disease prevention, reducing tobacco use, and removing illegal guns from city streets. His innovative encouragement of the public-private partnership model has supported many initiatives, especially the philanthropic support of New York City schools.

Medalists Betty and Gordon Moore were cited for their philanthropy, primarily to Caltech, consistent with their foundation’s evidence-based focus on institutions they believe can produce “significant and measurable” results. The Intel founder and his wife intended the Caltech gift to keep the institution “at the forefront of research and technology.” Other gifts to Caltech and the University of California will help their efforts to build the world’s largest optical telescope.

In addition to science and environmental conservation, the Moores invest in their passion for quality health care and the San Francisco Bay Area, recently expanding a 10-year Betty Irene Moore Nursing Initiative intended to improve patient safety and outcomes through nurse-led initiatives in acute care hospitals within the area.

An interesting note in this year’s presentations was the inclusion of only the seventh international awardee in the medal’s history. This year, a Carnegie Medal was awarded to the Koç Family, whose philanthropy in Turkey is dedicated to the country’s healthcare and educational systems and the promotion of its cultural heritage. In speaking with onPhilanthropy, Semahat Arsel spoke of the focus of her family’s foundation, for which the medal was being accepted by her brother Rahmi Koç. “My late father founded it to encourage other Turks to engage in philanthropy,” she said. “When he created it 40 years ago, we didn’t have laws to provide the basis for philanthropy, so he had to fight to institute such laws.” The Vehbi Koç Foundation, which had been the first private foundation in Turkey, is now one of the largest in Europe. Arsel said the award, which she called a “gift,” would encourage greater interaction and connection between European foundations like her family’s and philanthropies in America.

About the Author

Susan Carey Dempsey, Editor-in-Chief of onPhilanthropy, is Managing Partner of CauseWired Communications, a consulting firm advising nonprofits and causes on effective articulation of their messages. She can be reached at susan@causewired.com

The Truth About What Nonprofit Boards Want: The Nine Little Things That Matter Most

Book Store Boards & Board Development — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:19:18 GMT

The Truth About What Nonprofit Boards Want: The Nine Little Things That Matter Most
June J. Bradham
ISBN: 978-0-470-45800-6
Hardcover
141 pages

» Buy now from Amazon
» Buy direct from Wiley

The Truth About What Nonprofit Boards Want is a must read for every executive and fundraiser who wonders how to attract and retain passionate and generous board members. Just listen to the Truth: stories from the mouths of high value volunteer leaders uncovered during extensive interviews with board members from around the world. The insight offered by these visionary leaders combined with June's decades of fundraising experience draw back the curtain on what really makes board members tick--and give.

The Secrets of Her Success: Anne Marie Agnelli of CA, Inc. Talks Strategic Corporate Philanthropy

Elisabeth Anderson — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:43:06 GMT

onPhilanthropy (OP): Leaders in the corporate community involvement world have such diverse backgrounds and paths to their current positions. Tell me your story, and how your previous experience has shaped the professional you are today.

Anne Marie Agnelli (AMA): Currently in my role at CA, Inc. as vice president, communications and community relations I am responsible for North America and Latin America public relations and global community relations. I have been with CA for almost six years and have held various positions within CA‘s communications department. Prior to CA I held several marketing and communications positions within the cable industry. It was early in my career at Manhattan Cable (now Time Warner Cable) that I realized the far-reaching positive effect a company could have on the community by giving resources financially and through people power. New York City was facing some very critical community needs and as a team member within the company who managed branding and communications, it just felt natural to me to support the company in addressing these needs. From that point on, practically all of my positions involved both a communications and community relations function. Overall, I believe all the experience gained as a marketing and communications professional led me to the community relations path. It really is imperative for anyone considering the corporate community involvement profession to have some level of communications experience as there will always be a need for getting your message out, persuading internal and external audiences to support your initiatives while also delivering strong results.

OP: Your company’s is a true success story of taking what was once sporadic, unfocused giving and transforming it into a super-strategic platform. How did you do it?

AMA: When I took on the responsibility of community relations at CA in 2004 there were really no true focus areas, policies or philanthropic mission in place. The first step initiated was a community relations audit where we retained an outside firm to work with us. As a company we reviewed all of the corporate contributions, matching gifts program, employee volunteerism and in-kind (software) donations. The audit was extremely beneficial as it gave the company a full picture of what we were doing or not doing and provided validity for making decisions on what areas we could change and improve upon , as well as areas that were successful. From the audit came CA’s philanthropic mission of “Improving educational opportunities for children and young people worldwide where CA has a presence.” With the mission in place, we were equipped to create partnerships with organizations that delivered results and provided direct value back to the business. CA now works strategically with our partners, customers and employees to support community relations activities.

OP: One of the toughest things to do, even after you’ve devised the best program strategy, is to sell it in to the C-suite. Tell me how you got all of your stakeholders – especially your executives – on board.

AMA: One of the most positive attributes about CA is that all aspects of corporate social responsibility and community relations are part of the company’s culture. There was no doubt in my mind that when we began the community relations audit it was critical to involve the executive leadership team from the very start. Throughout the audit process we held regular meetings to share findings, make recommendations and discuss CA’s philanthropic roadmap. Where we are today with CA’s program is a testament to the early involvement and investment of the company’s leadership. I believe the support we have today comes from involving our leaders in the decision-making early on.

OP: What one program or initiative are you most proud of, and why?

AMA: Aside from the task of taking the company from an unstructured community affairs program to a strategic focused one, I think one of the projects I am most proud of is creating CA’s first corporate sustainability report. Similar to the community affairs audit, this effort involved tremendous collaboration among various departments to collect all of the pertinent information that encompasses a CSR Report. The CA Sustainability Report reflects the company’s understanding of the connection between CA’s business, the community and the environment. The 76-page report consists of three core sections highlighting CA’s goals and achievements that connect these areas together. The company’s progress is measured against the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators and United Nations Global Compact principals. This project was a remarkable experience for me and just recently CA was notified that we received a Silver ARC Award in the 2009 23rd Annual International ARC Awards Competition -- honoring outstanding achievement in annual reports, presented by MerComm, Inc. -- in the category "Social and Public Responsibility Reports" and in the industry class "Information Technology." CA’s 2008 Sustainability Report is available in PDF format at http://ca.com/citizenship.

OP: I see there’s lots of good community involvement work going on right now. Tell me more about CA Together in Action activities in October, and about your Technology Service Corps workshop in New York.

AMA: CA Together in Action (CTA) is another program we are proud of at CA. This year is our fourth annual global event which provides employees a chance to give back to the communities where they live and work. Last year, employees set a CA record by participating in 90 projects involving 25 offices that spanned six countries. A total of 1,279 CA volunteers were involved in community projects throughout the month of October, representing more than 7,000 volunteer hours given to help local organizations. This year, CA anticipates even higher levels of involvement across the globe.

One exciting CTA project we just wrapped up was an NPower Technology Service Corps workshop. CA joined forces with JPMorgan Chase and Accenture to host a workshop at CA’s New York City office for young people interested in careers in IT. Bill McCracken, CA’s Chairman of the Board, kicked off the event for students from NPower’s Technology Service Corp program, answering questions about his career in the field. The event continued with an executive panel including Ajei Gopal, EVP, Products & Technology Group, CA, Inc.; Adrian Kunzle, MD, Head of Firmwide Engineering & Architecture for JPMC; and John Izzett, Senior Executive, Accenture. We also had a presentation on the do’s and don’ts of job interviewing from Karen Mangione of CA’s Human Resources department. All of these executives volunteered their time to support our 2009 CTA program!

OP: Technical expertise is a big part of what drives CA, Inc.’s success. From the view in the Community Affairs office – how is CA using technology to change the world?

AMA: Although non-profit organizations share many of the same IT challenges as large corporations, they often lack the financial resources needed to address them. Through our CA Together IT program, CA is helping non-profits meet these needs. The company partners with non-profit organizations around the globe and provides them with world-class software solutions and IT expertise. CA is equipping non-profits with the technological capacity necessary to be successful in the 21st century. Since 2005, through several strategic partnerships, CA has donated the same outstanding software solutions that businesses use to a number of non-profit organizations to help them strengthen their IT infrastructures and build organizational capacity to ultimately better serve their clients.
For example, the first major partner of CA Together IT was Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA), which is headquartered in Atlanta and has more than 4,300 locations nationwide. As a part of this initiative, in 2005, CA became BGCA’s national information security partner and made a commitment of $4.6 million in financial and in-kind contributions over a three-year period. Since the partnership began, BGCA has experienced significant success as a result of CA becoming its national information security partner. Not only does the partnership bring considerable cost savings to BGCA, but the organization has also taken its IT structure and capabilities to higher levels, helping to create a new data center while creating consistency among Boys & Girls Clubs.

About the Author

Elisabeth Anderson is a Senior Director in the Corporate Social Engagement group of Changing Our World, an international consulting firm providing individualized solutions to corporations, nonprofits and philanthropists in all areas of fundraising and philanthropy. She can be reached at eanderson@changingourworld.com.

Are Demographics Destiny? Contending with America's Looming Demographic Upheavals

Susan Raymond, Ph.D. and Mary Beth Martin, Esq. — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:43:04 GMT

First, the larger economic consequences are significant. By 2025, nearly 80% of dependents will be elderly rather than children. Elder dependency has three times the societal support costs of youth dependency.

Second, personal costs will also rise. In 1960, the average 65 year old could look forward to 13 more years of life. Now, that has grown to an average of 20 years. The conventional wisdom has been that this leaves the nation with a large group of elderly women. This is no longer true. Advances in health care, especially for cardiovascular disease and cancer, have resulted in a narrowing of the gap between male and female life expectancy at age 65. The aged will be men as well as women. In either event, these extra years are almost purely consumption years. For example, per capita expenditures on health care in 2000 were just over $4,000. By 2014 that is projected to rise markedly to $11,000.

Third, the children of those over age 80, referred to as the “oldest old,” will also still be alive, and they will be in or approaching their 60s. They too will face not only the extended lives of their aged parents, but expectations for extended lives for themselves. Resource concerns will escalate.

Finally, and perhaps most critical, is the change in the profile of adults in America. The combined process of changed fertility patterns, immigration rates higher than any seen since the 1920s, and health care advances means that, by 2015, the absolute number of minority adults will be growing and the number of white adults will be falling. Those who are entering their years of expanded philanthropy – ages 40 to 65 – will increasingly be minorities. And they will be wealthy. By 2015, the base of the top quintile of African American and Hispanic incomes will be nearly $150,000, 40% higher than today in inflation adjusted terms.

The implications for philanthropic planning are significant. Conventional wisdom about widows being the primary source of planned giving must change, and strategies adjust accordingly. Lengthy lives will affect perspectives about how much philanthropy is possible or advisable. Retaining enough in principal assets to provide for a longer life expectancy may make adults hesitant to make long term or large commitments.

The simultaneous long lives of the “oldest old” and their elderly children will mean that major philanthropic decisions may not be those of individuals but those of families. The philanthropic “unit of analysis” traditionally described by such resources as Giving USA as “individuals” may not be so individual at all. Communications will need to be with families.

Most strikingly, completely new strategies need to take account of ethnicity. This involves culture, language and perspectives with regard to giving. But it involves more than just money. Nonprofits must begin to reflect the realities of the change in adult characteristics in America and the rise of ethnic wealth. The profession of philanthropy itself needs to reflect these changes, and build a deeper understanding of culture. This is an area of change in tremendous need of leadership.

Jack Welch opened his 2000 letter to GE shareholders saying, “It has long been our observation that, for any institutions whose external environment is changing faster than it is changing internally, the end is in sight.” Philanthropic planning must take heed.

This is not a matter of hanging crepe. It is a matter of developing aggressive and creative strategy, built on sophisticated understanding of the implications of demographic change. Certainly, these economic times only underscore the need for such planning.

This is the Introduction to a Paper Being Presented at the National Conference on Philanthropic Planning in National Harbor, Maryland, on October 17, 2009. To download the full paper, click here.

About the Authors

Susan Raymond, PhD is Executive Vice President of Changing Our World, Inc., a leading national philanthropy and nonprofit consulting firm. Her newest book, Nonprofit Finance for Hard Times: Leadership Strategies When Economies Falter, will be published by Wiley and Sons in November 2009. Mary Beth Martin, Esq. is a Senior Managing Director at Changing Our World, where she has provided planned giving advice to numerous clients in addition to providing fundraising strategy and capital campaign oversight. She is co-editor and a major contributor to Mapping the New World of American Philanthropy, published by Wiley and Sons in March 2007. The authors can be contacted at sraymond@changingourworld.com and mmartin@changingourworld.com.