Getting to “Readiness”

What are the precursors to readiness?  What factors precondition the new donor to think and act strategically?

• A thoughtful and inquiring personality is a prerequisite for any donor with the potential to be strategic.  The most strategic donors are lifelong learners.
• Comfort with wealth is important, including taking time to explore the meaning of wealth in one’s life and sorting out the wealth allocation decision (how much to self, kids and society.)    While the search for meaning in life transcends affluence, we find that wealth can actually get in the way.  However, those who develop a comfort with wealth and choose to use it to support a higher purpose/philanthropy are poised to become strategic givers.
• A value system that supports philanthropy and giving back, which may come from family/legacy, religion, experience and social norms, is a contributing factor.  Exposure to critical issues facing society through personal experience, the media, etc. is one way that donors find the passion and energy to proactively address social issues.
• Work and life experience that required a strategic perspective will incline a donor to use a similar approach in their giving.

Moving From “Readiness” to “Getting It”

Once in a readiness mode, a number of experiences, events and influences can help the donor recognize the potential of strategic philanthropy and become inspired to do something different. When working with clients, TPI finds that the presence of these factors offers opportunities for donors to move from “Readiness” to “Getting It.”

• Feeling out of control of one’s giving.  For some this arises out of a frustration with the process of going through the pile of solicitations on December 31st.  For others it may come out of a bad experience with the “same old” traditional giving relationships or a feeling of being “handled” by solicitors.  These experiences often trigger a donor to reflect on his/her giving and decide to take charge of it and do something different.
• Feeling frustrated or dissatisfied about the outcome of one’s gifts.  The donor may have a dawning realization that s/he has no grasp of where all the money is going and whether it is making any difference.
• Finding a passion, becoming inspired and receiving “permission” (or a nudge) to pursue this passion through philanthropy (through role models, counselors, etc.)
• A realization – whether slowly creeping or sudden – and perhaps even guilt, that the donor could be doing so much more.   This realization may arise from all the factors cited earlier or possibly one very positive experience with giving.
• Developing an investor mentality in giving. It is very empowering when donors realize that their money can matter and that they are making investments in society that can yield social return.

Moving from “Getting It” to “In Action”

Understanding the opportunity of strategic philanthropy is the precursor to making the time and commitment to actually following through with strategic philanthropy.  Some of the factors that enable donors to “walk the talk” are the following.

• Sorting out and organizing one’s varied giving – e.g. sequestering the obligatory giving and focusing on the giving that is driven by passion and purpose.
• Transforming the abstract into the concrete - e.g. when the proposal on paper comes alive during a site visit, or when the dynamic social entrepreneur is in the room with the donor.
• Overcoming “overwhelm” – e.g. when donors have access to tools, models and resources that make the process manageable and clear.  For example, the donor does research to identify the critical needs and gaps in an issue area, or learns about the usefulness of an RFP process.
• Ownership of and commitment to the giving process – momentum builds once a donor dives into the creation of a strategic giving program.

Moving from “In Action” to “Even More”

Finally, the donor who becomes engaged in strategic philanthropy is more likely to become deeply strategic – and explore approaches based on a theory of change – when influenced by the following.

• Developing a sense of stewardship over the philanthropic funds, or as one client called it “being a guardian of wealth.”  This is a continuation of the realization that the donor could be doing more; but focus in this case is on the responsibility to do more.  It may grow out of experiences with peers, grantees, role models, etc.
• Growing understanding and sophistication about the process of measurement.  At this stage, donors have moved beyond simplistic demands for quantitative results to in-depth exploration with grantees and a desire to better understand the larger context of their philanthropy in society.  This is a process that can fundamentally change the relationship between the donor and his/her philanthropy.
• Involvement in an in-depth learning experience, such as a funding collaborative, a formal donor education program, or a mentor relationship, etc. These experiences may also be helpful at the “Getting It” and “In Action” stages, but at this point they offer the opportunity to really enrich the giving experience and provide tools and resources to do more.
• Finally figuring out what “donor engagement” means and how to do this in a way that works for the donor.  This may mean addressing the time issue and what it takes to develop a productive and balanced donor/grantee relationship.
• Receiving credible information about what works, through such avenues as issue focused networks and research reports
• Exposure to non-traditional approaches
  beyond grantmaking, such as playing the convening role, providing technical assistance, or making loans.  The creative potential of philanthropy becomes limitless.

Every donor is different and his/her progression towards strategic giving is impossible to predict.  However, we believe the journey to each stage is just as important as the arrival.

Of course everyone knows that the one constant is that there is always change.  Certainly none of us could have imagined even 5 years ago how technology would transform giving and networking.  Or what would happen to foundation endowments.  Or that we would literally have revolutions in global civil society, fueled by youth and mobile technology.  How does one succeed in a rapidly changing environment?  Innovate, differentiate, adapt.  Go out on the edge – there’s a different view out there.

A ship is safe in harbor, but that’s not what ships are for. – William Shedd

TPI decided in 2011 to explore the idea of merging with another organization because we wanted to increase our impact.  Twenty-two years after launching the field of philanthropy advising, we decided it was time to adventure across some new seas and we set out to find a partner that could complement and expand our platform, and where the math produced 1+1=3.

We went looking for organizations led by remarkable people, on growth trajectories, who shared our values and core purpose, and saw extraordinary opportunity in bringing together their organization with our brand, intellectual content, clients and staff.   Along this journey, we had fascinating and serious exploratory conversations with leaders of a handful of great organizations and got truly jazzed by the possibilities of coming together with several of them.  When I reached out to Paul Grogan at TBF, it was in this spirit of looking at a wide range of innovative combinations.  But the more we talked, and met with corresponding senior staff, the vision for this particular partnership became increasingly compelling.  We also became intrigued by the notion of proofing a new model for philanthropy support and growth.

So what is that new model?  What is possible with the TPI/TBF combination?

As my financial advisor tells me too often when I ask about the future of the markets, I don’t really know.  But I do have some aspirations and they include:

• TBF’s current clients will become motivated to take a fresh look at their giving and take advantage of TPI services to sharpen and elevate their giving goals; perhaps develop an initiative around a specific issue; or engage other family members

• Other greater Boston donors– including corporations, families, foundations and individuals – will take advantage of the unparalleled combined skills and knowledge of TPI and TBF around effective giving

• TPI’s current clients from around the world will find enormous value from the added strengths, skills and experience of TBF staff in such areas as public education, advocacy and technical assistance

• With our combined capacities and platform, we will successfully build new models of peer learning and collaboration

• TPI will bring even greater value-add to our community foundation clients who look to strengthen their donor relationships and partnerships

• Community foundations around the world  will learn from our successes and failures in offering a robust philanthropic advisory service

• We will help to invent the next breakthrough approach to increasing the impact of philanthropy.

Will all this happen? Maybe. Maybe not.  Will other opportunities emerge that we can’t even imagine?  Definitely.  That’s the whole idea.

• Readiness – This refers to the stage where a donor is still reactive, but is becoming open to the idea of doing more.  At this stage, the donor has begun to reflect upon his/her giving and has an inquiring, open mind.  Most clients with whom TPI works directly are already at this stage of readiness and beyond.  They may come to us with a question about how to get their new foundation started, or how to involve their children – not how to be strategic.  But the fact that they come to a consultant at all means they are in a readiness mode.

• Getting It – This refers to the stage where the donor recognizes the opportunity and possibility of having an impact through a more strategic approach to philanthropy.  This stage of understanding may be one of gradual realization and/or it may be triggered by an “aha” or “oh no” experience of inspiration, frustration and/or disappointment.  At this stage, there is enormous opportunity to transform the passive giver’s energy into a strategic approach.

• In Action – This refers to the phase when a donor applies strategic thinking to his philanthropy, putting the abstract into concrete action.  It takes a larger time commitment and is an intensive time of experiential learning, rampant with opportunities for positive reinforcement or delusion and frustration. Considerable strategic development can happen during this phase.

• Even More – The strategic donor at this stage fully buys into the notion of strategic philanthropy and is inquiring deeply into issues related to becoming even more effective – e.g. taking on different funder roles, applying non-financial assets, etc.  This may be the most likely stage where a donor considers the idea of pursuing a specific “theory of change” approach to their giving.

These stages are by no means definitive, but they represent the growth phases that we have seen throughout our work with clients.  In the next post, we’ll look at the qualities, guidance, events and experiences that promote a donor’s evolution through these four different stages of development.

When TPI decided to proactively look for a merger partner 8 months ago, we looked very intentionally at the challenges to and success factors for a good merger.  Among the most important conditions, we heard from others, is an agreement on shared values and overall purpose.  We were pleased to find that common ground in spades with TBF, whose donor services mantra is “meet the donor where they are and take them where they want to
go.”   Another condition for success is that both organizations come into the merger from a position of strength and that the field in which they work is vibrant and growing.

It’s unfortunate that a particular article about the merger has spun it as an acquisition driven by financial imperative – which it is not.   Like most nonprofits, TPI faced financial stresses through the recession, but nothing like what was suggested in the article, and finances were not the driving reason for a merger.   The incorrectly reported revenue losses cited in the article were due to both a misreading of the 990 and a lack of understanding about our work.  More important, our consulting and program development work has been robust this year and looks terrific for 2012.  Go figure that philanthropic advising could be so strong in this economy, but it appears that donors have pent up demand to make their giving count in times of need!

We chose to move forward with TBF because we believe they share our innovative and ambitious values, and because it allows us to continue to be TPI and to expand our work through their client base and outreach.   We’re very excited about the possibilities that exist for this partnership, and we look forward to continuing to share our experiences and learnings on Deep Social Impact, and beyond, in 2012.   With that, I of course encourage you to share your questions and your thoughts on what you’d like to see out of this new model.

For more than two decades TPI has worked with hundreds (and indirectly thousands) of donors to stimulate and support their efforts to become more strategic.  Our mission to increase the impact of philanthropy in society has allowed us to help donors make their giving more effective and fulfilling, craft creative approaches to addressing important social issues, and inspire and support potential donors to become more deeply engaged.  Our work requires us to understand how donors move from being reactive/checkbook givers to strategic philanthropists; how they move up what TPI Founder Peter Karoff described as the “philanthropic curve”.  Taking some time to reflect on this, we decided to share what we have learned from our experience.

First, a clarification of terms.  What do we mean by reactive/checkbook giving and how do we define strategic giving?  In our lexicon, reactive/checkbook giving refers to donations made primarily in response to unsolicited requests for funds and/or to perceived obligations based on position and relationships.  Strategic giving refers to goal-oriented philanthropy based on a knowledgeable examination of social needs, funding gaps and best practices, and executed through carefully planned strategies (and probably good instincts sprinkled with an entrepreneurial spirit).  To become a strategic giver means developing and applying the perspective that philanthropy is an important social investment that merits the type of analysis, due diligence, creativity and attention that is given to profit-making financial investments. Beyond that, strategic philanthropy often involves adding value through non-financial resources such as the donor’s time, talents, expertise and connections.  Certainly, most donors do not fall neatly into one or the other giving category, but find themselves somewhere along a continuum.  Many donors do checkbook giving in some aspects of philanthropy and strategic giving in others.

In a series of posts over the next couple months we’ll bring together our experiences and thoughts on the following questions:

• What are some of the natural stages in the development of donors as strategic givers?

• What factors contribute to the strategic growth of donors?

• What are the barriers?

• How can we support the strategic growth of donors?

We look forward to sharing what we’ve learned and welcome your comments and questions.

Created in 1998, the Izumi Foundation gives assistance to the world’s poorest people by supporting programs that improve health in developing countries.  It provides resources to organizations that share its commitment to delivering lasting, cost-effective improvements that build local health care capacity and supports projects in five areas: infectious diseases with high morbidity and mortality, neglected tropical diseases, malnutrition, maternal and neonatal health, and health care infrastructure.  In order to maximize the impact of its giving, the Foundation restricts its geographic focus to Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

This fall, the Foundation released the results of Eliza’s learning tour in a report, “Trends Among US Grantmakers – Achieving the Most Impact Abroad,”  which discusses finding the right grantees, assessing and selecting grantees, length and type of funding, achieving and measuring impact, and overall grantmaking philosophy. Below are some key takeaways from the report, which I believe funders and grantees will find useful and be sure to check out the full report if you’re looking for more details in a specific area.

• Develop Strong Networks for Finding the Right Grantees

Identifying grantees through networks is a good way to find an appropriate funding match and can often minimize the cost and time of vetting new grantees. Allowing some space for letters of inquiry (LOIs) ensures that good grantees who do not have access to donor networks are still considered for funding.

• Focus on Leadership and Organizational Structure to Gauge Success

Many donors look for strong leaders that they believe in and extend this trust to their organizations. Considering the structure of an organization is an important counterbalance to ensure that the work of the organization is not entirely dependent on one person.

• Consider Both the Advantages of Focus and the Benefits of Risk Taking when Selecting Grantees

While focusing grantmaking to a specific region or theme can increase impact due to improved networks and partnerships, inclined donors might want to be open to a degree of experimentation and risk taking in their grantmaking, as serious problems seldom have clear-cut solutions. Funding the occasional organization or project outside of one’s normal country or idea focus can yield impressive, unanticipated results for those willing to take some risks. At the same time it is important not to get off track of an organization’s mission.

• View the Grantee-Donor Relationship as a True Partnership

Remember that grantees are the ones with expertise in the field and carry out the work on a day-to-day basis. Donors should view themselves as partners, asking grantees what help they need most rather than directing the work from above. This recipe will have the best chance of achieving real impact.

• Minimize Grantee Workload to Make Time for “Real Work”

Donors should be aware of the numerous reporting demands made on grantees by multiple funders. Accordingly, they should do their best to make things easy for grantees, rather than burden them with requirements and restrictions that consume time they could be spending in the field.

• Work with Grantees to Mutually Define M&E Indicators

Allow grantees to take the lead in determining which indicators will be measured to assess a program’s effectiveness. This will minimize the time grantees spend reporting on different indicators for different donors, and will also yield results that are most useful to the grantee in modifying their own work, ultimately increasing their impact.

• Recognize the Value of Overhead and General Support Grants

Once you have established trust in an organization and believe in their work, be generous with overhead, recognizing that organizations need overhead to operate on a day-to-day basis. If every organization refuses to pay their fair share of overhead, then who will cover the costs of things such as time spent in writing the reports required by donors? Consider the benefits of General Support Grants.

• Appreciate the Value of Longer Term Funding

Educate yourself on the relationship between time and results in development work, understanding that social change does not happen over a one year grant. Critically examine your own motivations for funding and consider whether you might offer longer grants even if it is less exciting to work on the same projects over time.

• Consider Non-Financial Ways You Can Increase Impact

Think about all the assets you have as a donor and the ways in which these can be useful to grantees. Might you provide them with some technical skills that they are lacking? Could you host an event featuring their work or introduce them to another donor who might want to support them? Could you help them get to conferences where they can gain experience giving presentations, network, and learn from leaders in their field? Keep in mind that while all organizations need funds, they can also benefit extensively from other assets that you can bring to the table.

Dr. King had called for a Poor People’s Campaign in 1968, when there were 25.4 million poor Americans, including 11 million poor children, and our GDP was $4.13 trillion.  Today, Marion Wright Edelman said, there are 16.4 million poor children in the United States and the number of extremely poor children — 7.4 million — in our nation is equivalent to the population of Israel.  The number of poor children under five in the U.S. — 5.5 million — exceeds the population of Sierra Leone.

Today one in three Black and one in six Hispanic boys born in 2001 are at risk of prison in their lifetimes. Incarceration is becoming the new American apartheid and poor children of color are its fodder, said Wright in her speech at the dedication of the memorial to Dr. King.  And, she said, the fact that more than a majority of children in all income and racial groups and nearly 80 percent of Black and Hispanic children cannot read or compute at grade level in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades is a national catastrophe which will bring our nation down.

My question is “Where is the outrage?”  Why have we all accepted these realities and what happened to our vision and aspirations?  I am old enough to have actually been part of the War on Poverty that President Johnson proclaimed.  “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America,” he announced. The Office of Economic Opportunity was established to provide training for the poor and community-action programs gave the poor themselves a voice in housing, health and education programs. In the decade between 1960 and 1969, the percentage of Americans classified as poor fell from 20 percent of the population to 12 percent. Infant mortality among the poor fell by one-third in the decade after 1965 as a result of expanded federal medical and nutritional programs.

And I remember President Nixon’s call for a guaranteed annual income and his creation of Section 8 housing vouchers which allowed low income families to pay 30 percent of their income to live in private housing while the government paid the remainder.

When I go to meetings today, I wonder how we became so complacent.  While the statistics and realities are so outrageous, we continue to talk about isolated programs and initiatives. As Marion Wright Edelman said so profoundly, we have normalized poverty, hunger, and homelessness.  And we have gotten used to – and even comfortable – having the same discussions among the same players – polite discussions in often luxurious settings – totally forgetting the vision of the Great Society, where poor people themselves would have a voice in the discussion and decisions.

What can philanthropy do to empower poor people?  A first step would be to go outside of our normal comfort zones and ask people themselves about their lives, their needs, their dreams.  That’s the approach taken by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, as recounted by Emmett D. Carson, chief executive, in a recent New York Times story, “Donors Weight the Ideals of Meaningful Giving.”  He was asked why his foundation is working on foreclosure and explains it’s because in public meetings they conducted, they heard over and over that people were struggling with mortgage payments.  Similarly, in the same article, Doris Buffett talks about the letters she receives directly from individuals asking for money to put tires on their cars so they can go to work, for new glasses, for dental work, etc.  Ms. Buffett says that by fulfilling these requests she feels that her Sunshine Lady Foundation is empowering people. “The best return is when we change lives for the better in some way, that’s the commanding thought behind all I do.”

Listening to people’s own ideas about how to improve their lives is also the basic concept behind a design show currently showing at the United Nations.  Text to Change is about global strategies to improve living conditions for the world’s poorest people, strategies in which the poor themselves – the intended beneficiaries of each project – were involved from the start as creators and implementers. “Good design involves bringing not just a fresh eye to problems but, most of all, listening to the people who live in those communities…You can see them as a billion problems, or a billion solutions,” said Cynthia E. Smith, the show’s curator, in the New York Times.

Philanthropy could also use its resources to shine a bright light on issues of poverty, to translate the data into accessible stories and images that make people pay attention.  That’s the idea behind the Hine Fellows Program, funded by an anonymous TPI donor.  It is named after Lewis Hine who, in the early 20^th century, used his camera to call attention to the conditions in which children were working and helped bring about child labor laws.  Today Hine Fellows are placed in community-based organizations in Greater Boston to use storytelling, pictures, and other media to call attention to the child and family poverty that exists a century after Lewis Hine’s initial work.

The game changing potential of effective storytelling and the ability of philanthropy to mobilize this power was eloquently described in a recent blog by Dr. John Brothers in Stanford Social Innovation Review, “How the Nonprofit Sector is Misusing its Greatest Asset.” Brothers begins by remembering how moved he was by such books as Manchild in the Promised Land, by Claude Brown; The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, and 20 Years at Hull House by Jane Addams. These books not only explored issues of poverty in American society, he says, but they changed the face of the social service sector in America and the government’s response to the poor.  Today, Brown says, grant makers possess an infinite number of narratives on hand that tell the story of our nation’s economy. “Imagine the possibilities if organizations could share grantee information to better understand community need. Let’s just take the largest 600 grantmakers (in New York City)…imagine if all of these groups logged the statistics and data gleaned from their current or prospective grantees’ statements of need from their grant applications or progress reports.”  But, as Brown recounts, grantmakers do not see this as their role.  He recounts the responses he got when he asked foundations what they were learning from reports submitted to them.  Overall, he heard two things.  Some funders said the purpose of the reports was merely to see if grantees were fulfilling the grant requirements.  The other response was that they did not want to share the information. According to Brown, one of the leading groups stated, ‘We own this data, why would we release it.”

What can philanthropy do about the normalization of poverty?  It can act “abnormal” – against standard operating procedure.  Philanthropy can take advantage of the resources at its disposal, including available data, and use its bully pulpit to provide moral leadership. In the words of Gara LaMarche, who recently stepped down as President of Atlantic Philanthropies, speaking at a forum at M.I.T. in 2010: “We have become more about the fix, the intervention – to use a horribly dominant word in the field that calls to mind invading armies – than about the reasons for doing or caring about it.  In marching under the flag of what works, and in particular what can be proven or demonstrated through the rigours of evidence, we risk straying too far from what is right.  I think it is time to strike a better balance.”

LaMarche went on in his M.I.T. speech to quote Peter Karoff, founder of TPI, speaking about philanthropy: “When we get caught up in too much process, it is easy to lose sight of the moral questions – Who to serve and who not to serve?  How to stand up and be counted when it is important to do so? When relevance becomes a servant to rigour, we lose our way.”  And LaMarche concluded his speech by saying, in reference to philanthropy, “We are losing a moral contest – well, not really, we hardly are contesting on that ground at all.  We have policies and programs and bills, and many accomplishments that make life better for many people.  But we are in danger of losing what gains we have made because the story of which all those are a part has no moral.”

So, when the buzz around impact investing (also called mission investing, sustainable investing, patient capital, etc.) began really growing around eight years ago in the philanthropy sector, we decided it was time to listen and time for TPI to bring these ideas to the attention of our clients and network.  Plus, clients were already beginning to ask about whether and how they could engage.

By definition, impact investing is intentional investing for social (including environmental) and financial return.  It’s a broad term that can cover just about any program area – including health, agriculture, energy, economic development, and education – and financial instrument – including debt, equity, real estate, etc., from below market to market rate.

Of course, impact investing is by no means new.  The construct of socially responsible investment has been around for nearly half a century and groups like Investors Circle, which makes equity investments in double bottom line companies, have been around for over 20 years.  In 1968 the Ford Foundation pioneered Program Related Investing.  However, the scale of impact investment from foundations has continued to be very small relative to its assets.  (Cumulatively estimated to total less than 1% of U.S. philanthropy’s assets over the last 45 years).  More for Mission is trying to change that equation through a campaign calling for 2% of foundation endowments to go to these types of investments.  There has been some decent traction and I, for one, think the time is finally ripe for more broad based acceptance and practice.

Why?

• People see it as a way to increase the amount of resources dedicated to driving change – sometimes this is recycling charitable money, sometimes it is adding resources for social good from their traditional portfolios and often it is using their own investments to leverage more from larger, traditional sources.
• The next generation – and, frankly, the retired business person too – is showing strong interest in using capital markets for social good.  They question the distinction we have traditionally made between social good and capitalism.
• Impact investing has a growing track record – showing that the risks can be quite low and the “relative return” good.  A number of foundations that make impact investments turn in overall financial performance in the top third or even top 10 percent of foundations of similar type
• The economic downturn has caused many to intensify their focus on investing close to home.  Particularly with lower expectations from the stock market, some are asking how they can invest a portion of their assets to strengthen local economies, businesses and nonprofit organizations.
• Finally, impact investing has proven to be a very effective philanthropic tool, often incentivizing organizations to become more sustainable and results-focused, and to scale their impact.  The financial crisis suggested to many that our era needs a new paradigm for investing and that the “experiments” need to move from the periphery of activist investors to the center.

However, a number of obstacles remain.

• The infrastructure is weak. It’s hard to find good opportunities and it can be costly to do the search and vetting.  Although there are some good, strong intermediaries there is not yet an “industry.”
• The traditional bifurcation between philanthropy and investment is pretty embedded.  We still don’t have good metrics for social return, so it’s hard to quantify what you are “buying” or trading off in the case of below market rate investments.
• There are not enough high qualified organizations looking for this type of capital – mostly because they are not aware that such tools may exist, or what they would need to do to qualify.

It’s clear that progress is being made on all fronts and awareness of and interest in impact investment is growing, but this is still an industry in the making.

Turning to the Sunday New York Times, two stories seemed to question the idea that college is the best way out of poverty. “Will Dropouts Save America?” by Michael Ellsberg begins by naming such famous college dropouts as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg.  Ellsberg goes on to argue that there are in fact two job markets in America – the formal job market where you apply for an advertised job, and the informal job market where it is all about who you know.  And, according to Ellsberg, it is the informal market that accounts for some 80 percent of all jobs.  “Yet our children grow up amid an echo chamber of voices telling them to get good grades, do well on the SATs, and spend an average of $45,000 on tuition – after accounting for scholarships – while taking on $23,000 in debt to get a private four-year college education.”

Another Times story, “The Paradox of the New Elite” by Alexander Stille, argues that, even as historically disposed groups in the United States have gained rights, we have become a more economically stratified society.  Stille points out that increasingly our elite institutions are comprised of students from upper- and upper-middle income families and he makes the case that by granting equality of opportunity we have decided that it is o.k. to ignore equality of condition.  He contrasts this with European countries, notably Germany, where children are placed on different tracks at age 10, some leading to university and others to vocational school.  This is a closing of opportunity that Americans would find intolerable, but it is uncontroversial in Germany because those attending vocational schools often earn as much as those who attend university.

The need to begin questioning the “college for everyone” mantra and instead create a system that affords equality of condition was eloquently presented in “Pathways to Prosperity,” a project at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education.  That study found that while the “one size fits all” model that characterizes American education typically encourages students to earn bachelor’s degrees, only 30 percent of Americans actually earn bachelor’s degrees by age 27 and 42 percent of the nation’s 27-year-olds have no more than a high school degree.  And there is a growing mismatch between our traditional approach to post-secondary education and the economic realities.  While it is true that the number of jobs that require no post-secondary education have declined, the researchers note that only one-third of the jobs created in the coming years are expected to need a bachelor’s degree or higher. Given these realities, Pathways to Prosperity argues that we need to broaden the range of high-quality pathways that we offer young adults, including putting more emphasis on career counseling and high-quality career education, as well as apprenticeship programs and community colleges as viable routes to well-paying jobs.

I recently got off the phone with another student in our College Success Program, a sophomore at Syracuse.  She was calling because she just found out that she must come up with an additional $900 in order to register for spring classes.  For this young woman, who grew up in Harlem and is the first in her family to attend college, $900 is a huge amount of money. She already has $5500 annually in loans and is, wisely, reluctant to take on additional loans.  Unfortunately, I did not have a solution to her problem.

My question is, what is the appropriate role for philanthropy in this issue?  Can funders provide leadership in ensuring that the data on student debt, educational outcomes, and policy options is widely available and accessible?  This might include a range of strategies, from local and national public education campaigns to enhanced efforts to ensure that young people have adequate access to financial aid advising.  Should funders support pilots for the new kinds of approaches called for by Pathways to Prosperity, perhaps working collaboratively with local educational systems and employers to create new pathways to careers such as apprenticeship programs?

And of course there is the personal approach – helping young people who do not have the kinds of connections and networks that help 80 percent of us find our jobs.  This past summer, as part of the College Success Program, we helped our students secure summer internships.  We essentially used our connections – based on grants we’re involved in – to give students the opportunity to work in professional jobs for the summer.  The donor provided grants to non-profits that they, in turn, used to pay the students.  The results were literally life changing – these young people got exposed to professionals and careers that they did not know existed.  They had the opportunity to make connections and, in fact, one of our first College Success graduates is now working full time at the organization where she interned the previous summer – just the kind of route that is traditionally reserved for those who rely on their family and friends to enter the job market.

Will it inspire donors to make more and/or larger gifts? I’m interested to see.  Ideally, seeing the numbers and philanthropic choices of peers will inspire donors to dig deeper. At a minimum, the Million Dollar List, like the Giving Pledge, sparks conversations and gets people talking – which is a great first step.  I’m not expecting anyone to login, see a grant and open their checkbook, but I do hope the act of reviewing what is being funded – and what is not being funded – with these big gifts gets potential donors thinking more deeply about how they want to be using their giving to address the challenges they care most about.

It would also be interesting to see a version of this resource that tracks smaller gifts but for now, for anyone looking for a breakdown of $1 million plus gifts, this is a data-rich resource with an attractive interface and a user-friendly layout.  The site makes it easy to search by donor, recipient, location and subsector.   Here’s an example:

Let’s say you’re curious about what sectors have received the most donations in the last ten years.  Start by taking a look at the Subsector graph, which breaks down giving from 2000 – 2010.

It’s a great overview, and the $65 billion spike in 2006 catches your eye.  Wondering why foundation giving jumped so much? Click on Foundations and you get a specific breakdown of foundation giving for the last ten years.

The “Individual Male” category spikes in 2006, a result of Warren Buffett’s $36 billion donation to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Care to know more about Buffet’s giving?

Poke around Warren Buffett’s profile some more and see the distribution of his giving by sector, which organizations received his donations, and all of his $1 million plus gifts.

Wondering who else is giving big gifts, and where? You can search for whatever you want whether it’s gifts to environmental causes in California or a breakdown of donations to Australia.  The Million Dollar List makes it easier, and a bit more fun, to see who is giving the big gifts and where.