Tweet This Post

Wow! Thanks so the more than 25 of you who submitted an entry to our mini-contest in search of words that describe philanthropy. You can click on the link above to see a Wordle made from the entries.

The entries covered a lot of ground. Here’s a couple that jumped out at me:

By Jeanine Buford

Gracious

When it’s at its best, philanthropy is gracious, graceful, and administered with a light touch.

When we think of grace, apart from the religious connotations, we think of support given with seriousness of purpose, but with a light touch. Graciousness supports without judgment, without pity, and without self-satisfaction. Gracious graceful philanthropy is humble, enlightening, and gives equally to the giver and receiver.

By Christine Egger

Empathetic

Great philanthropy is an expression of empathy — of recognizing oneself in another, and responding compassionately to our shared experiences.

Empathy requires understanding, or knowing, another’s story. Seeing ourselves in it. When philanthropy follows from empathy — from that emotional point of recognition — we have a better chance of effecting positive change when start to move resources in the name of helping.

By Helen Brunner

Weaving

Philanthropic weaving is a practice that forms a connected whole, one that creates webs and networks across issues and types of work, similarities and differences, forming a resilient movement.

Philanthropists enjoy a bird’s eye view and have relationships with a wide variety of leaders, organizations and other philanthropists. Connecting the dots and working toward creating networks among those with common values and (sometimes) shared purpose supports sustainable change.

By Dien Yuen

Practical

Philanthropy is aspirational and dreams of doing big things. As we try to connect these higher, lofty goals to the day-to-day work, whether it is with our grantees or donors, we need to do it in a way that is meaningful and practical for them. We can’t ask a two-person shop to deliver a 10 page logic model. At the same time, we shouldn’t encourage philanthropists to tackle issues in ways we understand them to be. Philanthropy is a contact sport. It needs to be lived and practiced – everyday in practical, simple ways.

By Amy Kincaid

Humble

Humble means understanding deeply one’s role and how to fit into and onto the production.

Humble philanthropy knows “no small actors, just small parts.” It knows it’s place in the ensemble–key and critical, but not the only or most important. It plays appropriately to the size of the stage and the house. It understands the house acoustics and knows how (and when to project). It draws from technique, experience, hard work, and improvisation. It amplifies the energy from the text, the other actors, crew, director, producer, and audience.

By Charles Maclean

Juicy

Juicy philanthropy fires neurons and heartbeats for the giver and receiver.

Brain scans and neuro-chemical analysis indicate that “the givers high” has a scientific basis. Juicy philanthropy produces an upward spiral where the giver and receiver engage in “pay it forward” infectious acts of kindness. The distinction between the giver and receiver is erased. There just might be a caring gene or at least a pre-disposition to care and give. It is through giving and receiving that we discover who we are . . . and what matters to us.

You can see all of the entries here.

As promised, we’re awarding a $50 gift certificate to Vittana (microfinance loans for students in developing countries) to one randomly chosen entry (we used Random.org).

And the winner is…

By Emily Rushing

Connected

Being connected with others for maximum impact makes good philanthropy great.

Personal giving is satisfying in a special way, but truly great things happen when the knowledge, enthusiasm, ideas and energy of many individuals come together in service of the greater good. The impact is greater on the chosen cause and on the donors, as they feel connected to their purpose and to each other.

Thanks to everyone for entering!

Tweet This Post

Here’s a couple of entries so far:

By Rich Polt

Passion

Passion is the lifeblood of good philanthropy because it sustains ones giving over the course of a lifetime.

Effective philanthropy, like anything in life, requires experimentation and long term commitment. Some things work. Some don’t. But without passion as an underlying motivator, no one will have the gumption, stamina, and drive to weather failure and truly make a difference.

By Emily Rushing

Connected

Being connected with others for maximum impact makes good philanthropy great.

Personal giving is satisfying in a special way, but truly great things happen when the knowledge, enthusiasm, ideas and energy of many individuals come together in service of the greater good. The impact is greater on the chosen cause and on the donors, as they feel connected to their purpose and to each other.

By Charles Maclean

Juicy

Juicy philanthropy fires neurons and heartbeats for the giver and receiver.

Brain scans and neuro-chemical analysis indicate that “the givers high” has a scientific basis. Juicy philanthropy produces an upward spiral where the giver and receiver engage in “pay it forward” infectious acts of kindness. The distinction between the giver and receiver is erased. There just might be a caring gene or at least a pre-disposition to care and give. It is through giving and receiving that we discover who we are . . . and what matters to us.

The deadline for entries is midnight (pacific time) this Sunday. I hope you’ll share your idea for the word that best describes great philanthropy. Full details on submitting an entry can be found here.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

NTEN Press Release:

In response to feedback from the sector and from the public, GuideStar, Charity Navigator, and other nonprofit assessment and reporting organizations have announced that it’s all about to change. They are looking to use new metrics that will assess indicators such as (but not limited to):

• Financial health and sustainability;
• Accountability, governance and transparency; and
• Outcomes.

This is good news for the sector, but what data will be tracked and how we will be asked to provide it is still up in the air. How will effectiveness be measured? What will be required of nonprofits in order to support this effort? What impact will these changes have on the standard operations of a charitable organization?

Join NTEN, Sean Stannard-Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy, along with representatives of the assessing organizations and the nonprofit community for a panel discussion on what these plans mean to nonprofits and the public.

> FREE – Register Now!

How’s It Work?
This will be a an online chat/teleconference event where you will listen on the phone and simultaneously sign into a live chat.

Panel Particpants:

• Bob Ottenhoff, Guidestar
• Ken Berger, Charity Navigator
• Lucy Bernholtz, Blueprint R & D
• Peter Campbell, TechCafeteria
• Christine Egger, Social Actions
• David Geilhufe, NetSuite
• Sean Stannard-Stockton, Tactical Philanthropy
• Holly Ross, NTEN

Tweet This Post

Today I have a little project for my readers (with a prize!). In Made to Stick, the authors talk about why some ideas are memorable. One of the memory “tricks” they point to is the use of acronyms that spell words. The one they use to describe what makes an idea sticky is SUCCESs: Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotional, Stories.

So I’m wondering what words best describe great philanthropy (we’ll worry about turning them into a catchy, or corny (?) acronym later). To add a little fun to the project. I’ll be giving away a $50 gift certificate to Vitanna (thanks @jessamynlau!)– microfinance for student loans in developing countries – to a randomly chosen participant in the project.

The Rules:

In the comments section of this post, write three things

• A single word that describes great philanthropy
• A sentence explaining the word
• A paragraph elaborating on the word

For instance, an entry might read like this.

I look forward to your entries! The contest will run through this Sunday at midnight (pacific time) and I’ll use Random.org to select which of the comments gets the Vittana gift certificate. Feel free to submit as many words as you like. Only comments which follow the entry guidelines will be eligible for the prize.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Hot on the heels of rolling out real time tracking of foundation grants in support of Haiti, the Foundation Center has quietly launched a new project with the whimsical name Glass Pockets.

With a mission to “bring transparency to the world of philanthropy” Glass Pockets offers reports on how transparent large, well known foundations are. These reports rate the foundations across 28 elements of transparency and accountability such as whether they explain their grantmaking process, provide a public assessment of the foundation’s performance and whether they offer a knowledge center that shares program evaluations and lessons learned.

You can currently find reports for:

• The Ford Foundation
• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
• W. K. Kellogg Foundation
• The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Most importantly, the reports offer direct click-thru access to each element. So users can quickly find the Gates Foundation’s investment policies, the Ford Foundation’s grantmaking policy, or the Hewlett Foundation’s knowledge center.

Glass Pockets also offers a fascinating Foundation Transparency 2.0 database that shows the social media tools being used by over 400 foundations. From the database you can directly access the Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, blogs, e-newsletters and other tools being used by some of the countries largest funders.

Finally, the site offers a Google-based search tool that lets users search the websites of thousands of private foundations. For instance, a search for the term Haiti brings back The Boston Foundation’s Haiti Relief & Reconstruction Fund, The Gates Foundation’s statement on their response to the earthquake and the Case Foundations blog post on ways that individual donors can support Haiti.

This is fascinating stuff! Not only is Glass Pockets suddenly the most important way to access important information about foundations, but the reports begin to set a level of expectation for large, staffed foundations to share more about their activities and what they know with the public. For instance, the reports note that the Ford Foundation does not make its 990-PF available, the Kellogg Foundation does not have a mechanism in place to allow grantee feedback and none of the foundations being reported on share an assessment of their own performance with the public.

Talk about information overload. Glass Pockets offers users direct links to a deep library of information about foundations. I could get lost for days exploring this place!

Tweet This Post

Michael might think I don’t get civil society and I might think he’s got a shallow view of capital markets, but he ends his most recent post on the Philanthropy Central blog with:

On that, at least, we both agree!

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Today I want to turn my attention to the most recent post from Michael Edwards. Edwards is a former long time employee of the Ford Foundation and author of the philanthrocapitalism critique Just Another Emperor and the new book Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World.

In his post titled Why "Social Capital Markets" Could Be a Really Bad Idea, Edwards presents what I believe is an extremely limited view of social capital markets. I’ve very sympathetic to the concept that the social sector is different from the business sector and so social capital markets should not simply mimic financial markets. For instance, I particularly liked Jacob Harold’s piece in Alliance Magazine arguing that a robust social capital market might be more like a farmers’ market than Wall Street. But Edwards’ post today argues against a straw man.

The social capital market Edwards describes is a shallow, mechanical market that has little resemblance to how real markets work. For instance when Edwards suggests that social capital markets will dictate which causes are most important and writes "Who is to say that saving the rainforest deserves more support than ending gun crime or racism?" The answer is "No one". There is nothing about the concept of the social capital market that implies that certain types of social good are superior to other types.

When Edwards writes that social capital markets will force "nonprofits to compete with each other for scarce resources," what does he think that nonprofits are already doing? We certainly don’t have unlimited resources and last I checked, nonprofits were competing fiercely to convince donors to support them.

When Edwards writes "variations in… metrics may not reflect meaningful variations in performance, since two organizations may be dealing with similar issues but in totally different contexts," I would respond "Of course!" Sophisticated investors in traditional financial markets do not base investment decisions on simple mechanical rankings. In fact, financial professionals that purport to have a simple formula for producing investment returns are seen as charlatans.

Smart investors use metrics as inputs into the messy process of trying to select their investments. Markets are not driven by metrics and simplistic rankings. They attempt to absorb vast quantities of quantitative and qualitative information in order to allocate scarce resources. I’ll admit that some supporters of the social capital markets concept hope for a day where we can easily allocate resources based on standardized rankings, but that ideal has more in common with how centralized planning works (or doesn’t) than to financial markets.

It is critical that as we build robust social capital markets, that we create vibrant, human markets, not some sort of mechanical sorting machine. Readers who are interested in a more holistic view of financial markets, than the quantitative, machine-like caricature presented by Edwards might be interested in the book Investing: The Last Liberal Art by Robert Hagstrom. The book lays out the ways in which investing in financial markets requires the building of a "latticework" of information that is gathered and processed with mental tools borrowed from the fields of psychology, philosophy, biology, sociology and literature. I think the book offers a holistic, human based vision of capital markets that might shift your thinking about the potential for the social capital markets.

I’ve previously mentioned Hagstrom’s book (which is largely based on the investment philosophy of Warren Buffett’s right-hand man, Charlie Munger) when I rejected an overreliance on tools borrowed from the hard sciences in philanthropy evaluation and when I responded to Albert Ruesga’s worry that evaluation was the “math-anxiety” of philanthropy. Hagstrom is also the author of The Warren Buffett Way, which I drew on extensively last summer when I offered a “robust definition of high performance” for the nonprofit sector.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

• The Haitian Earthquake marks a turning point in American philanthropy where donors are now expected to “give smart,” not just give.

Something fascinating is happening in philanthropy in the wake of the Haitian Earthquake. After most disasters, the public responds to a steady drumbeat from the mainstream media and prominent leaders to support those in need. But this time, the message is different in an important way. The new message to the American public is to give smart.

The first indication of the new trend came from former president George W. Bush, when during the press conference announcing the his partnership with former president Bill Clinton to raise money for Haiti, one of the first things he did was to urge people to not make in-kind donations.

From the New York Times:

This small remark might have been an interesting footnote if it were not for the sustained message from the mainstream media that donors need to do more than just “support Haiti.” They need to be smart donors.

Examples:

• The New York Times article Teaching Americans What Haiti Needs: Money, begins: “Don’t send shoes, send money. Don’t send baby formula, send money. Don’t send old coats, send money. Nonprofit groups rarely look a gift horse in the mouth, and the relief effort in Haiti is desperate for resources. But the experience of wasteful giving in the past, coupled with the ease of speaking out via blogs,Facebook and Twitter, have led to an unprecedented effort to teach Americans what not to give.” The article goes on to quote international aid bloggers Saundra Schimmelpfennig and Alanna Shaikh on the problems with in-kind gifts.
• The New York Times article Three Steps to Making Smart Haiti Donations, took a more positive approach and offered donors tips on smart giving. The article pointed to top-rated organizations operating in Haiti (including Partners in Health, which we had recommend in our Haiti post), and pointed readers to GiveWell, GreatNonprofit, Tactical Philanthropy Advisors, the Center for High Impact Philanthropy, GuideStar and other sources of information on smart giving. The article also pointed to Charity Navigator, but warned readers that relying on a charity’s overhead expense ratio was a “rookie mistake.”
• The Miami Herald ran a feature on vetting charities, which quoted me and the director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy. The article accompanied a database of charities to consider, which included overhead expense ratio data, but warned donors that the information needed to be considered in context. The database also indicates whether each organization has previous experience in Haiti.
• The Financial Times article Efforts to channel Haiti donations pay off, examined the changes in corporate philanthropy since the Indian Ocean Tsunami. The article highlighted the better coordination of resources going to Haiti and efforts to educate corporate and individual donors about the problems with in-kind donations.
• The New York Daily News featured the advice of their financial columnist in an article titled How to make donations to Haiti wisely, which reminded donors that disaster relief was not the only need. Haiti will need extensive assistance to rebuild.
• Investment News looked at the role of advisors to donors in structuring effective support for Haiti and reminded donors that ongoing long term support was needed. The article examined the role of donor advised funds and highlighted the advice of Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors.

The importance to all these stories is captured in Stephanie Strom’s article in the New York Times where she pointed out the rarity of nonprofits “looking a gift horse in the mouth.” Historically, American culture has been loath to do anything other than pat people on the back for trying to do good. But in the wake of the Haitian Earthquake, we’re seeing an unprecedented move towards asking that donors do more than just give. Donors are now expected to give smart.

Tweet This Post