Philanthropy Sketchbook

Insights, Ideas and Inspiration for Better Philanthropy

[philanthropysketchbook]

Foundations aren’t helping anyone if they’re not serious about social justice

Although this essay by Dr. Andre Perry is largely aimed at education funders, it is true of philanthropy generally, and one of the best things I’ve read about philanthropy in awhile.

I was especially struck by this point, about metrics:

“To keep their philanthropic funding, nonprofits have to live up to metrics that often come from the business world. These are measures funders understand, because that’s how they gained their wealth. But that money often was acquired through privilege and sometimes exploitation of impoverished groups. Expecting black and brown organizations to perform like their white counterparts often means working against their interest.”

[philanthropysketchbook]

Good Idea: Library of Things

The Library of Things in London is a place where members can borrow items (tools, sewing machines, camping gear, cooking utensils, etc.) for a week, just like checking books out of a library. There’s a similar sharing service in the US called Neighborgoods which I wrote about a long time ago. Whereas Neighborgoods is more like an impersonal marketplace, the Library of Things fosters in-person connections in the community through pot luck dinners as well as workshops and training sessions. I love this model and would love to launch a Library of Things in New Jersey.

A similarly great idea: the Repair Cafe, which was originally launched in Amsterdam, brings people together to help each other fix the stuff they have, rather than buying new stuff. It turns out there are quite a few repair cafes in the US, though none near me in NJ.  

Here’s how to start a Library of Things via Shareable

Here’s how to launch your own Repair Cafe

Is the Library of Things an answer to our peak stuff problem? (Guardian)

San Francisco artist mends clothes and builds community - just by giving a darn (Grist)

Photographs: Sebastian Wood, Guardian

[philanthropysketchbook]

I had a few thoughts

on philanthropy - on the Dos and Don’ts of proposals, on honesty, metrics, and what I think is a big missed opportunity for nonprofits. Take a listen to this short podcast with Joan Garry interviewing me: Unlocking the Mystery of Foundation Funding

Image

[philanthropysketchbook]

What problem would you try to solve with $100 million?

The MacArthur Foundation is going to give one organization $100 million to solve one of the world’s problems. 

There are three things I really like about this:

It’s bold. Philanthropy should be bold. 

It sounds like they’re being thoughtful about giving the winning organization a lot of technical assistance, and 

They are smartly inviting other foundations into the process with the hope that some of the ideas will be funded by others (this is where I wish I could just write checks on behalf of wealthy individuals).

MacArthur President Julia Stasch is an inspiration.

More details on the announcement here. I can’t wait to see what comes out of this.

[philanthropysketchbook]

Why Foundations Say No

This is the start of a list:

- Your idea / proposal does not meet our guidelines. Guidelines are more nuanced than what can be captured on a foundation’s website - research is important to try to understand what those guidelines actually mean.

- There is no money in the budget to fund your idea this year. Maybe next year.

- We are already funding similar work. 

- We’re not convinced that you can deliver on your promises. 

- It’s not the right timing - you might be proposing something that the foundation cares about but just isn’t ready to fund yet.

- Your proposal doesn’t connect to any other work that the foundation is already funding; it’s always best when you can demonstrate intersections with other ideas / programs / grantees a foundation is funding.

- We didn’t feel energized by your proposal because you didn’t communicate your idea clearly enough.

Image

[philanthropysketchbook]

The Chorus Foundation’s Radical Philanthropy

“Farhad Ebrahimi would like to see philanthropy as we know it, and the inequality that created it, cease to exist.”

One of the ways that philanthropy fails routinely - if you ask me - is that it is far too risk averse, when in fact the luxury and privilege of philanthropy is to be bold. Which is why this profile of Farhad Ebrahimi and the Chorus Foundation  is one of the best things I’ve read about philanthropy in a long time. Bravo, Farhad.  via Inside Philanthropy

[philanthropysketchbook]

Foundations Are Not ATMs

A piece of advice:

When you go back to a foundation and ask for more money - separate from the regular renewal process - be judicious with your request and give compelling reasons. Make that extra request count.

Foundations are not ATMs, so don’t treat them that way.

Image

[philanthropysketchbook]

Philanthropy and Transparency

These are two thought-provoking pieces especially when read side-by-side: “Philanthropy Is on a Collision Course With Presidential Campaign Politics” and “Jane Mayer’s ‘Dark Money,’ About the Koch Brothers’ Fortune and Influence.”

I suspect that philanthropy is generally still equated with “charity” - feeding the hungry, providing shelter and services to the homeless, donations to universities for cancer research - which is why it tends to get a pass for its lack of transparency. The assumption is that the intentions are almost always good, even if the impact or outcome isn’t always as intended. 

Yet, as Mayer points out in her book, over three decades the Koch brothers “contributed well over $100 million, much of it undisclosed, to dozens of seemingly independent organizations aimed at advancing their radical ideas.” This is also philanthropy, also tax-deductible.

I won’t be surprised if the continued deluge of dark money in politics and high profile Silicon Valley donations force nonprofits and the philanthropic sector to grapple with transparency sooner than they would prefer and not on their own terms.

Image

[philanthropysketchbook]

“In Defense of Philanthrocapitalism” is not much of a defense

In his recent New Yorker piece, James Surowiecki is essentially arguing that because big philanthropy helps target large, sticky problems that government and the private sector are unwilling to pay for, then we ought to be grateful for the Zuckerbergs and the Gates of the world. 

He seems to make the assumptions that “philanthropy” always has good intentions and usually, on balance, has a broad public benefit. 

 Surowiecki notes :

“Philanthropies, by contrast, have far-reaching time horizons and almost no one they have to please.” 

[i.e. no accountability whatsoever. Shudder.] 

And

“This can lead them to pour money into controversial causes, as Zuckerberg has with education reform.” 

[This was a a disastrous $100 million investment. Read Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize”.]

Philanthropy often inflicts harm - whether it’s misguided/ignorant (Zuckerberg’s funding of Newark school reform) or outright intended to undermine democractic processes (donations to super PACs).

If you want to read some really thought provoking work on how philanthropy undermines democracy and civic participation, check out Rob Reich at Stanford.

[philanthropysketchbook]

Will Omidyarism Conquer Philanthropy?

I am not always a fan of David Callahan at Inside Philanthropy, but found myself nodding vigorously to these paragraphs in his recent look at Pierre and Pam Omidyar’s more expansive vision for philanthropy and the tools we have at our disposal that we’re not making use of:

Let’s face it: The traditional model of philanthropy is ridiculously limited. Decades from now, we may look back in disbelief at how the biggest foundations in America kept the vast majority of their assets sitting on the sidelines as they tried to pursue hugely ambitious goals using one limited tool for social change, while ignoring the potential of for-profit social enterprises, and abiding by conservative payout rates.

I understand the reasons why moving away from the old model is hard, slow, and scary. Even more so, I sympathize with the ideological discomfort with allowing market-based thinking to penetrate to the heart of the social sector. In a world where too much is already for sale, it’s not an appealing thought that business types may colonize yet another part of society.

But the thing to remember is that Omidyarism is not about throwing out one tool chest and summarily replacing it with one more to the liking of Milton Friedman. It’s about drawing on a much wider array of tools to have impact.

[philanthropysketchbook]

Philanthropy Doesn’t Have to Be Stodgy

Three years ago, I got a bee in my bonnet about year-end giving guides and decided that the Dodge Foundation, where I work, ought to launch its own version - one that emphasizes giving locally, helps raise awareness of the nonprofit sector, and makes giving fun. Our job as program officers is to know which nonprofits are the most effective. We do extensive research and interviews with nonprofits and their leaders, so why not share that information with the public? Why not encourage them to donate to the organizations we know are making an impact -- and also make it really easy to donate? 

So we did launch our own guide - the Jersey Give Back Guide - and it proves that philanthropy doesn’t have to be stodgy. It can be creative and fun and inspiring and welcoming and easy.

Philanthropy can be and should be so much more than grant checks. We can be cheerleaders for the sector, rallying our communities to get to know and to support the organizations that make our lives and our towns better places to live. We can be catalysts and connectors for our grantees. We can be coaches, offering all kinds of advice and help with fundraising, storytelling, and building stronger organizations. And we can use our own platforms to shine a spotlight on their work as much as possible. 

If we care about the well-being of our grantees, we need to get more creative, and we need to commit more deeply to helping them succeed on every level. 

[philanthropysketchbook]

Crossing the Digital Divide on Chicago’s Toughest Streets

This is a story written by someone I admire about an organization and its leader whose work I admire: 

“'Everything we do, we try to do with real people in real neighborhoods,’ O’Neil says.”

“...without the persistent, substantial support of The Chicago Community Trust and the MacArthur Foundation, there would be no Smart Chicago. Community foundations around the country need to support intermediaries that can reach deep into neighborhoods and work with, not for, communities.”

This work is extraordinary in its compassion, creativity and urgency. A real gem.

Smart Chicago Collaborative

Image by Daniel X O’Neil

[philanthropysketchbook]

These Two $1 Million Grants Are a Waste of Money

Pablo Eisenberg lays out why two $1 million grants to well-funded organizations (both deeply connected in the foundation world) are a waste of money. 

+1 for the spectacular headline and accompanying photo, and honestly, I think he’s right. Philanthropy lacks a sense of urgency about the problems in this world. We are too conservative, move too slowly, and meanwhile, people’s lives hang in the balance.

[philanthropysketchbook]

Collaborating by Example

Philadelphia area foundations have taken a bold, smart step to create the new Nonprofit Repositioning Fund, which is “a regional effort to encourage and support formal, long-term collaborations between and among nonprofit organizations. These repositioning collaborations can range from voluntary back-office consolidations, to programmatic joint ventures, to mergers and acquisitions.”

There are too many nonprofits -- and we all know it. Too many organizations that duplicate work happening elsewhere. I never witnessed that so starkly than immediately following Hurricane Sandy, when everyone wanted to help in their own way, rather than explore how to combine efforts with others (or even consider researching whether someone else was already doing the work). 

The Repositioning Fund is an opportunity to zero in on the strengths in individual nonprofits as well as across the sector and creatively maximize those, while also tackling the weaknesses head on. This is hard work. People will have a natural tendency to clamp down on anything that invades their territory, so this work will require extraordinary honesty and humility. But it is work well worth undertaking. 

Kudos to all the Philadelphia foundations supporting this effort.

[philanthropysketchbook]

Good Idea: Short Story Dispensers

Not that you need a reason to visit the French Alps, but here’s a great one: Grenoble has installed 8 of these clever machines around its city which dispense free short stories to read during those in between moments when you are passing time - waiting for the bus, for example, or waiting for a friend to show up. 

But I say why stop there? Short stories are a great start, but imagine what else the machines could dispense: poetry, art by a local artist, a crossword puzzle, scavenger hunt clues, walking tours and maps. 

Part of the intrigue of this idea is simply that you never know what you’re going to get - and that is a wonderful thing. 

I am all in favor of philanthropy that brings joy and that fosters creativity and curiosity in communities.

[philanthropysketchbook]

A Dose of Innovation in Grantmaking

From my “Writing Worth Revisiting” folder (which I occasionally turn to for inspiration), I dug out this gem from Gabe Kleinman who ponders why philanthropy isn’t more responsive to real needs of people and communities through a human centered design approach. Human-centered design puts people at the heart of the work - it discards the hidden assumptions we constantly make and embraces discovery and inquiry to better understand, and therefore better respond to, issues and needs identified by real people. 

His post is well worth reading, and I take to heart his five key principles for more innovative philanthropy. And actually, I would say something even a little more explicitly than he does which is this: grantmakers often understand the world and people’s needs only through middlemen (our nonprofit grantees). We rely on them to translate for us what the community says it needs. Truly human-centered design - and I think Gabe would agree - necessarily requires grantmakers to do more direct and deeper inquiry with the people we are ultimately trying to serve.  

Image

[philanthropysketchbook]

Good Idea: Food Justice for Pittsburgh - Math Class Becomes a Makerspace

A great idea I just backed on Kickstarter: math + making + problem solving + developing empathy and building community in Pittsburgh. 

Bravo, Environmental Charter School!