posted on: Tuesday, May 22, 2012

by Yna C. Moore

by jscreationzs/freedigitalphotos.net

There are times – numerous times – when foundations and nonprofits don’t agree on the best strategy to approaching a complex social issue. Although this is hardly news, instances of conflicting perspectives can be opportunities for learning if given the chance for constructive yet critical dialogue and self-reflection.

Recently, David Wertheimer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who serves as chair of Funders Together to End Homelessness, and Neil Donovan of the National Coalition for the Homeless, agreed to share their perspectives on the effectiveness of current approaches to ending homelessness.

In his article “Under the Big Top,” Donovan contends that the prevailing approach by funders who care about homelessness is too narrow and leaves homeless people out of the strategy- and decision-making process.

In “Maximizing the Impact and Amplifying the Voice of Philanthropy,” Wertheimer notes that Funders Together is bringing more rigor to the cause while attracting new funders.

Thanks to Neil and David for agreeing to contribute these articles for Responsive Philanthropy.

The lesson I take from both articles is that one cannot underestimate the value of soliciting feedback from various stakeholders. We can ask important self-reflecting questions such as: Are we doing things right? What should we be doing differently?

What is your take-away from reading both articles?

Yna C. Moore is communications director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Monday, May 21, 2012

This is a guest post by Bill Somerville, executive director of the Philanthropic Ventures Foundation and frequent contributor to this blog.

By Bill Somerville

There are certain givens when working in professional philanthropy (foundations). The bullet points below is my effort to shed light on them, based on several decades working with and for grantmakers.

• Trust people – trust yourself.
• Be willing to venture, to take risks, but don’t gamble.
• If something fails, it is a learning experience.
• Give funds when they are needed, move quickly.
• Consider a letter of transmittal written by you vs. an application by an applicant.
• Do away with deadlines.
• Get out of the office, do on-site visits.
• Hunt for and find outstanding people and fund them.
• Don’t give money away, invest in worthy people.
• Don’t fund unless there is a talented person/leader involved.
• Don’t do rescue funding – there is no momentum to it.
• Don’t do contribution funding, such as “We need a million, would you give us $5,000?”
• Create priorities – vital, important, desirable.
• Take the initiative, don’t wait; make things happen.
• Convene people around an issue.
• Give discretionary money for use as they see fit.
• Don’t do quid pro quo funding, i.e. “I’ll buy a dinner table if you’ll fund at my event.”
• Be careful of loans. They are deferred grants in disguise.
• Be wary of challenge/matching grants. Donors don’t want to give the full amount needed.
• Consider college youth interns at your foundation, full time in summer.
• Consider public sector funding – teachers, social workers, librarians, juvenile judges.
• Exercise modesty in your work.
• Treat applicants as colleagues.
• Be careful of scholarships. They are the most time consuming of grants.
• Consider designated funds over fiscal sponsorships.
• Build trust by being transparent about what you do and how you do it.

What are other lessons from your own experience working in philanthropy?

posted on: Sunday, May 20, 2012

Here are some of the past week's notable news and postings on philanthropy and nonprofits:

• Cuomo Unveils N.Y. Nonprofit Reform Plan
  by Mike Keefe-Feldman  |  The Nonprofit Quarterly
  
• Spreading Gospels of Wealth: America's Billionaire Giving Pledgers Are Forming A Movement
  by The Economist
  
• House Subcommittee Targets Nonprofits
  by Joann Weiner  |  The Nonprofit Times
  
• Foundation Cash Boosts Education Advocacy Groups
  by Stephen Sawchuck  |  Education Week
  
• Recovery from Recession Has Been Uneven for Community Funds
  by Maria DiMento | The Chronicle of Philanthropy

posted on: Friday, May 18, 2012

By Niki Jagpal

Last Friday, Amendment 1 passed in North Carolina with a majority (60 percent) of votes in support of it. The ballot read: “Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

The numerous activists and organizers who had worked against this ballot initiative probably felt a sense of deep loss; it was certainly a blow to progressives in the state and across the country who believe in fundamental civil rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation.

That said, I was struck by a piece I read by Kenyon Farrow on Colorlines with a very different perspective. Titled “The Real Lesson of North Carolina’s Amendment 1,” the post contends that in fact what appears on the face to be a loss demonstrates that “activists in state are building a better social justice infrastructure for the future.” Farrow goes on to note that organizations in North Carolina built broad coalitions comprising numerous constituents who would be affected by the law.

Endorsed by more than 135 organizations, the All of Us NC coalition included groups focused on LGBTQ rights, faith-based institutions and child and welfare advocates. His piece includes a quote from Pastor William J. Barber, an African American who is head of the North Carolina NAACP, from a sermon he gave at the Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro. Barber is talking about why African Americans, regardless of their stance on gay marriage, should not support the ballot initiative:

“When they polled people they asked, ‘How do you feel about same-sex marriage?’ but that’s not the question on the ballot, and it shouldn’t have been asked,” said Rev. Barber. “The question should have been ‘Do you believe in a states rights strategy that seeks to trump the federal protections of the 14th Amendment?’ We know what a Trojan Horse looks like. Troy may have been fooled, but we are not.”

Farrow closes by saying that local organizers should not consider the passage of this amendment a loss; rather they should see this as win for long-term solutions to fight off right-wing attacks.

I’m curious as to whether or not foundations played any role in funding the groups that were part of this coalition. According to the most recent data available from the Foundation Center, 14.2 percent of grant dollars and 11 percent of grants went to social justice in 2009. Additionally, 47.9 percent of social justice grantmaking is international. Moreover, based on the Center’s analysis of foundations’ public policy related activities, only 315 of 1,300 surveyed foundations said that they engaged in public policy-related activities in 2010, meaning that fully 76 percent of foundations did not.

As the All of Us NC coalition demonstrates, multi-issue advocacy and organizing is among the most strategic ways that foundations could support communities in accomplishing what they see as their most pressing needs. And, as Farrow notes, even though this battle was lost, the strengthened social justice infrastructure is a lasting achievement that these organizers and North Carolina’s communities should be proud of.

The fight against Amendment 1 in North Carolina shows that the people are mobilized and engaged – they want a voice in public decisions that affect them. And the grassroots organizations, the infrastructure to give them agency, need more resources.

Foundations can contribute to a more fair and just society by investing heavily in social justice grantmaking and policy-related activity and yet they do not appear to do so. The question then is simply, why?

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Wednesday, May 16, 2012

by Lisa Ranghelli

I want to give a shout out to the Alliance for Justice for their new website, Bolder Advocacy. I love the name and also the tag line, “Change the world with confidence.” 
 

How many grantmakers think about advocacy and its potential role in achieving their mission, from a fully informed perspective, so that they can operate with bold confidence rather than trepidation and fear?
 

When I first joined NCRP, I asked my peers to what extent funders had shifted on the question of advocacy over the last few decades. One person said that the “A” in advocacy used to be akin to the Scarlet Letter. Like the adultery committed in Hawthorne’s novel, it was a symbol of failure to adhere to the mores of the community, a sign of risky behavior, even law-breaking.
 

So we have come a long way from that being the prevalent view. And yet, I suspect that for many board members and CEOs, fear of the Scarlet Letter still pervades their thinking, and the thinking of the lawyers who advise them.
 

In this day of information at our fingertips, including free legal advice, there is no excuse for that mentality.
 

With AFJ's new and improved website, there is no longer an excuse for avoiding the “A” word—in fact, this site will make you want to embrace it and wear it stitched on your shirt with pride! (Imagine if every funder who supported advocacy had worn an A on their shirt at the recent Council on Foundations conference. Would more grantmakers be curious and seek information?)
 

Some features I love about the website:
•    Two search functions, one for novices and one for experienced users.
•    Examples of foundation and nonprofit advocacy success stories right on the home page.
•    ‘Focus on Foundations’ tab: a searchable trove of documents on Rules and Regulations for funding and engaging in advocacy.
 

From the website, users can also access AFJ’s revamped online Advocacy Capacity Tool (ACT) to assess their organization’s advocacy capacity and, eventually, be able to see how they compare to their peers.
 

It’s time to embrace the Scarlet Letter.
 

Lisa Ranghelli is the director of NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.