Hurricane Katrina laid bare the lack of value attached to black lives in the U.S., a reality that New Orleans residents and the nation are still wrestling with a decade later. Recent events suggest that Americans are at a crossroads in terms of how they think, talk about, and deal with race and racism — but are still a long way from agreeing that black lives do indeed matter.
Ten years after Katrina brought New Orleans to its knees, the outlook for the city's African-American community is as grim as it was before the storm hit. According to the Cowen Institute at Tulane University, an estimated 26,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 in the city are disconnected from education and employment. Meanwhile, in Louisiana, which jails nearly 40,000 people per year (66 percent of whom are African American), as many as one in seven black men in some New Orleans neighborhoods are either in prison, on probation, or on parole. What's more, fully half of all African-American children in New Orleans live in poverty — more than in 2005.
As we mark another anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, a fateful turning point in the city's and nation’s history, a critical question remains: How has so much racial and economic inequity been allowed to not only persist but worsen?
A considerable amount of attention and resources were given to New Orleans in the aftermath of the storm, with local and national philanthropic leadership playing an important role in the city's recovery efforts. Philanthropy alone, however, cannot solve problems created by centuries of deeply-entrenched racism and oppression. Instead, its role should be to seed and test innovative ideas and help implement community led solutions that can reduce poverty, increase equity, and quantify hope.
Yet even that kind of philanthropic input is not enough. Innovative ideas and solutions require reliable, sustained, and adequate support from both the public and private sectors. Without significant cross-sector investments in quality social, educational and economic programs, grassroots organizations that are committed to positive social change are forced to rely on — and compete for — limited philanthropic dollars. It is a model that is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to systemic change.
Since Katrina, community-based organizations such as the Youth Empowerment Project (YEP) have led the push for solutions to the social and economic ills that have long plagued New Orleans. Established in 2004 following passage of Act 1225, the Louisiana Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2003, YEP now provides educational, mentoring, and employment readiness services to more than a thousand vulnerable youth in the city each year, 98 percent of whom are African American. YEP's founders witnessed firsthand many young lives lost to violence and the prison system, and they recognized that the lack of services available to, and investment in, the state's most underserved population was in part to blame for this tragedy.
Despite having only been established a little more than a year before Katrina, YEP was able to provide emergency support and services to young people and their families who were displaced and scattered across the country by the storm. It was one of the few youth organizations in New Orleans that managed to function in the chaos that followed, monitoring and assisting its clients – some of whom had been separated from family and friends and were living alone in shelters or on the streets. Maintaining YEP's core staff and infrastructure in the storm's aftermath, as well as its connections with other key organizations and agencies, set the stage for the organization's rapid growth over the next decade. YEP's story is, in part, a successful case study of how, given adequate resources and support, community-based groups can work collaboratively with leadership across the board to create meaningful impact.
That said, there's a much deeper and complex challenge confronting local leadership in struggling cities like New Orleans: America's unwillingness to invest in solutions that address poverty. The lack of public-sector investment speaks volumes about the nation's current value system in terms of what and, most importantly, who it truly values. It is clear that the urgent issues and challenges we face will not be resolved without targeted, meaningful action by government, business, and philanthropic leaders.
In post-Katrina and post-Ferguson America, national leadership must collectively commit to working with, and investing in, strategies designed to help black communities realize their full potential. Doing so will require a strong, long-term commitment from communities, public agencies, and the private sector to allocate resources to the kind of social infrastructure that supports sustainable change. It's the only path forward if we truly hope to create a prosperous, caring, and equitable society.
(Photo credit: The Guardian)
Melissa Sawyer is a co-founder and executive director of the Youth Empowerment Project in New Orleans.
When Kevin Washington talks about how the YMCA shapes children's lives, he speaks from experience. Growing up in a tough section of South Philadelphia, the Christian Street Y was Washington's refuge from the gangs that roamed the streets of his neighborhood. At the same time, the Y helped foster in him a love for learning and basketball, which in turn enabled him earn a scholarship to Temple University.
In February, Washington became president and CEO of YMCA of the USA. A thirty-six-year veteran of the organization, Washington served as president and CEO of the YMCA of Greater Boston from 2010 to 2014 and was credited with doubling that organization's membership to more than forty thousand households and forging a common identity for the region’s thirteen different branches. He also has served as a member of the Y-USA board of directors (2004-09) and chaired an advisory committee that guided the development of the national organization's new strategic plan.
Earlier this summer, Washington, the first African-American president and CEO of the national organization, sat down with PND to discuss the organization's Hop the Gap campaign and the ways in which the organization has changed its approach to donor cultivation and partnerships.
Philanthropy News Digest: We're both reading Robert Putnam's Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, in which Putnam examines the class-based opportunity gap that has emerged in America over the past forty or fifty years. What role does an organization like the Y play in helping to address opportunity gaps of the kind Putnam describes?
Kevin Washington: Well, our Hop the Gap campaign is expressly designed to fill gaps for kids during out-of-school time related to hunger, health, learning, water safety, and access to safe spaces. It's part of our larger commitment to ensuring that all children, regardless of income or background, have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
For example, many of the more than one million kids in the U.S. who attend the Y's resident and summer day camps are from low-income communities. During the school year, kids learn things at a certain age and at a certain rate. But the summer months, and summer learning loss, are a problem. We know, however, and statistics show, that kids who engage in the Y's summer learning loss prevention programs gain on average two to three months of reading and math skills over a six-week period.
Looking at nutrition, kids who receive breakfast and lunch at school lose the benefit of that program during the summer months. The Y, with support from the Walmart Foundation, is focused on making sure that the food-insecurity gap is addressed by providing four and a half million healthy meals and snacks to nearly two hundred thousand kids this summer.
Last but not least, all kids need to know how to swim. The CDC has found, however, that African-American kids are three times more likely to drown than white kids. So our water-safety initiative is vitally important.
PND: Wow, I had no idea the disparity was so great. What's behind it?
KW: In many low-income communities, there are no pools where kids can learn how to swim. It's also a family thing -- if your mother or father never learned how to swim, chances are you won't, either. We know that if kids haven't learned to swim by third or fourth grade, they likely never will.
PND: What are the key barriers to health and academic achievement for kids from low-income households?
KW: In terms of health, the biggest is education — making sure parents are knowledgeable about what they and their children need to be healthy — and the other is access. Growing kids need to eat fruits and vegetables. Everyone knows that. But if you live in a community or neighborhood where fruits and vegetables are hard or impossible to find, well, that's a problem.
In terms of academics, we all know that the public education system in parts of this country fails to provide kids — particularly kids in low-income communities — with opportunities to achieve. The Y, in partnership with other organizations, is working to break down some of the barriers that keep kids from taking advantage of opportunities to achieve and ensure that all kids, regardless of race or family income, have the foundation they need to be successful. When I worked in Boston [as president and CEO of the YMCA of Greater Boston], we had staff in the schools, which made it easier for us to know whether a child was having difficulty in a specific area and what we needed to do to address the problem in our afterschool programs. We consider ourselves to be partners with the school system, and enlightened school administrators understand that the work doesn't begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 3:00 p.m. They understand it's a collaborative effort and that in order for in-school time to be a success, they need the help of folks who are with their kids during out-of-school time. I see that happening more and more, and Putnam emphasizes it in his book.
PND: In recent years, the Y seems to have looked for opportunities to collaborate with foundations. Is that an accurate characterization, and has the organization changed as a result?
KW: As you know, we're a federated organization, which means that I, as the head of Y-USA, don't control the operations of your local Y. But we recognize that if we work thoughtfully and collaboratively, we can play a role in solving some of the nation's most urgent and difficult problems. It's that collective sense of responsibility that has motivated us to approach foundations in a more proactive way. We have great partnerships, for instance, with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Walmart Foundation, who see us as a valuable partner on some of issues they are working on.
Earlier this year I was in San Francisco talking with a local philanthropist about our Power Scholars program. He looked at our network of more than twenty-seven hundred YMCAs in ten thousand communities and wanted to talk about how we could use it to scale the program. After he saw our scaling plan for the first couple of years, which has us going from ten thousand to fifteen thousand kids, he said, "I'm more interested in how you can get to a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand kids. That's what I want to invest in."
In the past, any one of our affiliates might have said, "I like this program, but I'm going to do it like this." That's changed. Today, as it relates to Power Scholars or our diabetes prevention or our water-safety programs, we're more likely to say, "If you're going to be a part of this, here's how you have to do it, here's how you have to report it, here are the methods associated with it so we can ensure that, as we report out to our investors, those reports are consistent, evidence-based, and demonstrate results."
As a federated system, it can be a challenge. But there's an incentive for all of us to be engaged in the process, and it's not just money; it's the outcomes we are trying to deliver for our kids and families. That's the cause people want to support. And we can help them do that with our resources.
By the way, that philanthropist ended up investing $3 million in the program.
PND: Is it fair to say that creating that kind of change in a large federated system with a long history is a significant challenge and will take time?
KW: It is, and it will. But the organization is in a great space. We continue to get people who enjoy being a part of the Y, and we are 100 percent committed to what we do. It's about healthy living and youth development in the broadest sense of those terms, and it's about social responsibility. I want folks to understand the Y is an institution that is doing great work in these three big areas — healthy living, youth development, and social responsibility — and that those areas roughly align with our traditional approach, which was focused on body, mind, and spirit. The Y has been creating positive change in our country for more than a hundred and sixty years, and every day, all across the country, YMCAs are adding to this great legacy. I truly believe we're more unified as an organization today than we have been. We are focused on maximizing our considerable capacity to reach more people, do more good, and move the needle on some of the critical social issues facing our country — and we won't be deterred.
— Matt Sinclair
You can't time markets but you can time grant requests. So when newspapers scream: "Massive sell-off on Wall Street as investors fear China slowdown" (New York Post), you should think twice before asking a foundation for money.
In good times, foundations can drive grantseeking nonprofits crazy with their demands for effectiveness and metrics to support those claims. At regional and national gatherings, foundation professionals speak passionately about effectiveness in sessions with titles like "Unlocking Impact...", "What Works...", and "The Cost of Achieving Outcomes..." What's more, every year it seems more and more foundations turn to online application and reporting forms that require nonprofits to produce copious amounts of detailed information about their logic models, theories of change, inputs, outputs, and outcomes.
But when stock markets head south, especially in the dramatic way they have over the past few days, there are only three indicators that matter: the S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and the NASDAQ Composite. If you are ever fortunate enough to make it into a foundation president's office, apart from the usual large desk you will be greeted by a television or monitor tuned to CNBC with its endless chatter about share prices and market moves. Remember, the vast majority of the 87,000 foundations in the U.S. are endowed, meaning the income that underwrites their grant budgets comes exclusively from the performance of their investments. Foundation presidents and the trustees to whom they report know that the ability to advance a foundation's mission depends on that performance, and they also know that they are being watched by state and federal regulators tasked with ensuring they are responsible fiduciaries and "prudent investors" of foundation assets.
So in the days, weeks, and maybe even months to come, don't be surprised if the foundation that once required an agonizing amount of time to review your letter of interest or grant proposal suddenly refuses to consider it all. In such a volatile market environment, foundation trustees and presidents are likely to be nervous — and that nervousness can quickly filter down to program staff, turning them from expansive and risk-taking to terse and cautious with one deep dip of the DOW.
For grantseekers looking to be strategic in such an environment, it is essential you do three things:
Curb the urge to ask for money. We all worry about our budgets at times like these and want to make doubly sure that an existing request is approved or that a new funder has received our proposal and is considering it. If you let your anxiety get the best of you, however, you might just provoke an ominous message from the funder about the impact of the market "correction" on your chances, or even an outright declination. Better to wait a few weeks to see let the markets settle and the focus of the media to turn elsewhere.
Take a hard look at your own budget projections. Nonprofits are able to take on the world's most challenging problems in part by insisting on optimism as an essential ingredient of success. But when the markets — and economic conditions that impact nonprofit funding — start to suggest that things are about to get bumpy, it is best to revisit you own budget and fundraising projections and adjust them downward. Erring on the side of caution will ensure that you are able to pay the bills and preserve your organization's reputation for responsibility should a less-optimistic scenario come to pass. Better to be surprised on the upside.
Ride the waves.Though an individual foundation may have reason to panic should the markets continue to go south (especially if its investment strategy has relied too heavily on overly risky strategies or illiquid assets), foundations as a sector are affected by economic downturns far less than you might imagine. That's because most foundations determine their 5 percent payout rate based on the rolling three-year average value of their assets, which tends to even out their spending over time and insulate them from the whipsaw effect of violent market fluctuations. Remember, too, that over the past three years markets in the U.S. (and globally) have been extremely good to foundation endowments, and it is the three-year average that matters more than an endowment's daily, quarterly, or annual performance. Foundation Center research about the impact of past recessions — and no one (yet) is linking recent market declines to a recession — shows that overall foundation giving levels have always recovered from bouts of market volatility and continued their long-term growth trend. Indeed, foundation giving rebounded much more quickly than anyone expected after the recession of 2008-09, one of the deepest in American history. All this suggests that, as a grantseeker, you should get out your surfboard and be content to ride the waves a bit until things calm down.
As I write this blog, CNBC is reporting that market losses have been pared in heavy trading. Whether the market ends the day up, down, or sideways is something no one can predict with any confidence. But, as grantseekers, we can hold back our requests for a grant for a while, use that time to review our own organization's budget projections, and, taking a long-term view, remain optimistic about the future.
Brad Smith is president of Foundation Center. You can read more of his thoughts and advice here.
Our weekly roundup of noteworthy items from and about the social sector. For more links to great content from and about the social sector, follow us on Twitter at @pndblog....
The student-led movement aimed at getting universities to divest their endowments of investments in the fossil fuel industry is going global, writes Rosie Spinks, and financial types on Wall Street and in London's City district are starting to pay attention.
The folks at Daily Detroit have posted a good Q&A with Rip Rapson, president and CEO of the Kresge Foundation, which has played an important role in many of the major and minor developments in Detroit over the last five years or so.
Richard Marker explains how the well-known "rule of three" in the world of strategy, along with timely advice from colleagues and friends, made him realize how much he had "siloed" his own consulting practice.
Corporate Social Responsibility
With the "economic system that won the great ideological battle of the 20th century...facing a renewed challenge in the 21st," Fortune editor Alan Murray introduces the magazine's first-ever Change the World list, ten companies that are "doing well by doing good."
"For decades many companies ignored the social and environmental consequences of their activities. They saw their main responsibility as delivering returns to shareholders and viewed their obligations to society narrowly, as 'giving back' through philanthropy," write ;Michael E. Porter, a professor at Harvard Business School, and Mark R. Kramer, a co-founder (with Porter) of FSG, a nonprofit social-impact consulting firm, in conjunction with the publication of Fortune's Change the World list. But what's emerging today, they add,
is something more fundamental — something we call creating shared value. Large companies are addressing big social problems as a core part of their strategy. They are disproving the flawed and simplistic notion that business and society are implacable opponents locked in a zero-sum game. Instead, they are demonstrating the radical idea that companies that tackle social problems through a profitable business model offer new hope for innovative and scalable solutions....
On Forbes, Ryan Scott says the Social Innovation and Global Ethics Forum (SIGEF), to be held in Geneva in October, is further proof that companies increasingly recognize "the essential role they must play in the march toward social change. Checkbook philanthropy isn't enough to impact communities or benefit a company's culture," Scott adds; "rather, businesses are seeing the positive results that happen when they engage all aspects of their mission and functions around corporate social responsibility.
In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Andrea Gabor, a professor of business journalism at the City University of New York, suggests that the so-called New Orleans miracle, the dominant ed reform narrative post-Katrina, is more myth than reality.
To log or not to log, that is the question. The answer, however, isn't always a simple "yes" or "no," writes Heather Tallis, acting chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy.
Hey, funders, here a dozen things you do (or can do) that make (or will make) your grantees very happy, courtesy of Vu Lee (the ED known as Nonprofit With Balls).
Last year, Yale University paid the private equity fund managers hired to invest its money $480 million and earmarked only $170 million for tuition assistance, fellowships, and prizes. Not only is that crazy, it highlights "the symbiotic relationship between university endowments and the world of hedge funds and private equity funds," writes Victor Fleischer, a professor of law at the University of San Diego, in the New York Times.
On Nell Edgington's Social Velocity blog, Nonprofit Finance Fund CEO Antony Bugg-Levine suggests that "one of the best measures of organizational sustainability is not stability but adaptive capacity, the ability to act as circumstances require and opportunities allow. A truly sustainable enterprise, Bugg-Levine writes, "must have the capacity to nimbly respond to external conditions. A strong balance sheet must allow for flexibility...."
Are you, as a certain billionaire running for president might say, "really, really rich" but feeling guilty about it? Do you buy into the idea that your personal philanthropy and generosity excuses you from having to worry about inequality and justice? Get over it, writes Bloomberg View columnist Clive Crook. "The mistake [people make]," he adds,
is to see capitalism as morally tainted, as opposed to just morally incomplete. Social justice requires far more than a system of production and exchange. Moral questions about opportunity, inequality and what we owe each other as citizens and inhabitants of the same planet arise. That's what politics is for. Capitalism as such has no good answers -- but, far from being part of the problem, it's the indispensable condition for finding them....
Developing "an effective nonprofit content strategy is a process of continuous improvement," writes Beth Kanter on her blog. "It starts with ideas and brainstorming...[t]hen you have [to] get organized, really organized. Not only do you need to pre-plan your content using an editorial calendar but [you need to] coordinate and assign tasks and organize your content assets and curation. And then there is the task of putting fingers to keyboard and creating the content as well as curating. And on a regular basis, measure, learn, and improve what you are doing...."
That's it for this week. What have you been reading/watching/listening to? Drop us a line at email@example.com or via the comments section below...
Group interviews are a common feature of the job search process, especially in the nonprofit sector, where candidates may need to interview with work teams, search committees, and/or board members. If you've participated in one, you know they can be a little overwhelming. Typically, you're seated on one side of a table, with four or more people on the other who take turns grilling you. With a little preparation and the application of the tips outlined below, however, you can turn even the most intimidating group interview into an opportunity to showcase your strengths.
Know who's in the room. Request the names and titles of each person who will be participating in the interview and spend a little time looking them up on the organization's website and/or on LinkedIn so, in advance, you have a sense of who they are, what they do, and what they look like.
Take notes. Jot down interview participant's names as they introduce themselves and then address them by their name as the interview proceeds. Don't be afraid to take notes as people are asking questions, especially if they are multi-part questions. If nothing else, it will enable you to make sure you've addressed all the points you were asked to cover – and will help you get back on track if you start to ramble.
Use the interview as an opportunity to demonstrate your ability to be inclusive. Try to include everyone in the discussion in both verbal and non-verbal ways. That could mean making eye contact with different people in the room as you answer questions, addressing people by name, and generally doing your best to engage as many people as possible during the course of the interview.
Ask questions tailored to the individuals in the room. You did your research and know all about the people who will be on the other side of the table. Now you need to take the extra step and make sure you come to the interview prepared with four to six questions that reflect the fact you've done your homework and have been thinking about the key challenges of the role for which you're interviewing. If you're able to tailor those questions to specific individuals in the room, so much the better. For example, if you're applying for a development position and the head of marketing is in the room, you might say something like, "Andre, I'm interested to hear your take on how you think marketing and fundraising should and could work together." It might seem bold, but boldness is a quality that most employers value. And, besides, you'll be giving your future colleagues a chance to talk about themselves and the work they do, which is never a bad thing.
Send individual thank-yous. Always follow up with personalized thank-you notes to everyone who participated in the interview. An email is fine, too, but make sure you take the extra step to demonstrate your understanding of each person's role.
Armed with these tips and the right attitude, you can turn a potentially stressful situation into a great opportunity to impress a lot of people with a say in whether you get the job or not. Good luck and happy interviewing!
Molly Brennan is managing partner of Koya Leadership Partners, a national executive search firm dedicated to the nonprofit sector.
– Yaqui Indian proverb
In Compassionate Careers: Making a Living by Making a Difference, Jeffrey W. Pryor and Alexandra Mitchell encourage young people to take "the path with a heart" when considering how they want to spend their lives. Filled with the stories of people who did just that, the book describes the joy and fulfillment — as well as some of the challenges — of a cause-focused career.
There is plenty of inspiration, and even humor, in the stories Pryor and Mitchell share. Who knew, for example, that the initial motivation for Jane Goodall to visit Africa was her love for Tarzan? Or that, as a young girl, Goodall was convinced she would make a better partner for the jungle swinger than his "wimpy" wife.
More typical is the story of Ana Dodson, a young woman who was adopted from Peru as an infant and raised in Colorado by her adoptive family. At the age of 11, Ana and her mother made plans to visit Hogar de Ninas, an orphanage outside of Cuzco, Peru. Thinking the children in the orphanage probably had no one to hug, Ana decided to collect books and stuffed animals for them and approached the local Rotary Club for help. Invited to speak at a club luncheon, she raised $700 on the spot — and received a standing ovation. That was the beginning of Peruvian Hearts, the organization Ana started to provide orphaned girls and young women in Peru with medical care, skills development, and computer training. "The girls at the orphanage were wearing clothes that were all torn. They were malnourished and had no education," Ana, now seventeen, says. "It hit me that I could have been living in that orphanage. That...could have been me. And I wanted to do something to help them."
Ivan Suvanjieff had a different journey. The creator of PeaceJam, he and his girlfriend (now wife), Dawn Engle, envisioned bringing Nobel Peace Prize-winners together with young people to create a movement for global peace and justice. They had one contact — the Dalai Lama, whom Dawn had met while working in Washington, D.C. Intrigued by their idea, the Dalai Lama agreed to participate — but only if the couple could get other Nobel laureates involved. With no connections to speak of, Suvanjieff and Engle did the one thing they could: they picked up the phone and began making calls. Almost twenty years later, PeaceJam offers programs to young people from kindergarten through college and has engaged more than a million youth participants, as well as thirteen Nobel laureates, in its cause.
Pryor and Mitchell's book is filled with stories like Ana's and Ivan's, stories marked by inspiration, passion, and serendipity. But it also makes a case for why a career in the nonprofit sector makes practical sense, starting with the fact that the number of nonprofits in the U.S. increased by almost 25 percent between 2000 and 2010, while the estimated 1.6 million tax-exempt nonprofits registered with the Internal Revenue Service employ some 13.7 million people, or nearly 10 percent of the nation's workforce. What's more, every day, for the next twenty years, roughly ten thousand baby boomers will hit retirement age, which means millennials, the biggest generation in American history, have a golden opportunity to introduce new ideas, work styles, and approaches to the way the nonprofit sector does its work.
And yet, as Mitchell and Pryor note, the sector isn't widely viewed by millennials as a long-term career option. Indeed, in a survey they conducted of twenty-five hundred nonprofit and foundation leaders, more than nine out of ten of respondents (96 percent) said that none of their teachers or counselors had ever suggested a career in the nonprofit sector, while fewer than 2 percent had found their nonprofit-sector job through a university career service. Yes, many young people are actively engaged in volunteer work, but Pryor and Mitchell worry that the connection for millennials between time spent volunteering and opting for a so-called compassionate career is tenuous.
Their concern may be a reflection, in part, of generational differences. For millennials, social change is no longer the exclusive purview of the nonprofit sector, while the authors themselves acknowledge that for-profit businesses increasingly are interested in triple-bottom-line strategies that take into account the well-being of people and the planet in addition to profits. Millennials eager to blur the boundaries between nonprofit and for-profit work are an increasingly important driver of that shift. However, the role of social enterprises, which can be structured as either a nonprofit or for-profit, is rather quickly glossed over by Pryor and Mitchell, and the book could benefit from more examples of passionate individuals who have successfully created organizations that seek — and achieve — both a profit and social impact.
That quibble aside, the larger question remains: How can we encourage millennials to choose compassionate careers and leverage their youth, energy, and idealism to drive social change? Pryor and Mitchell have some ideas, starting with improvements in how the sector recruits and nurtures young talent. For starters, they write, nonprofits should work harder to increase the diversity of their staffs. The sector also could benefit from an overarching recruitment message that underscores the many rewarding career paths available in the sector. Organizations such as the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network and Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy are doing good work in that regard and have raised the profile of the sector among young people, Pryor and Mitchell write, but their efforts alone are not enough.
To help readers navigate these challenges, Pryor and Mitchell support the kind of strategies that are necessary for career planning in any field — self-reflection, research, education, mentors, and networking — and provide a step-by-step guide to navigating a compassionate career, from exploring issue areas of interest and current skill sets to setting goals with the help of mentors and coaches and creating a plan of action.
But what resonates most for me in the book are the stories of those who have found a way to make a living by making a difference, including the adversity many have had to overcome, the difficult early moments in their careers, and the often serendipitous encounters that forever changed their lives. The authors may be correct in arguing that the nonprofit sector doesn't do enough to recruit young people to social change work, but in Compassionate Careers they have created a call to action likely to appeal to any young person with a heart as well as a brain.
Grace Sato is a research associate at Foundation Center.
Fifteen years ago, as Charles Bronfman and his late wife Andy were ushering Birthright Israel into its toddler years, they inherently understood that next generations would have new ideas about Jewish life and new energy to contribute to it. One strategy they supported began in 2002, when Jeff Solomon, president of the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies (ACBP), hired me to encourage next-generation donors to bring their own ideas and resources to bear on the Jewish world.
After spending a few months surveying the landscape and exploring best practices across the country, we set up a collaborative giving process for next-generation donors who wanted to give beyond tables at benefits by more directly funding critical issues in the Jewish world. With initial financial support from ACBP, the Samberg Family Foundation, the Righteous Persons Foundation, and the Nathan Cummings Foundation, I helped launch a next-generation giving circle, Natan, for Generation Xers, largely financial-types in New York, who wanted to support start-ups catalyzing new Jewish life in North America and Israel.
We then founded Grand Street, a network for Generation Yers inheriting opportunities to participate in their families' philanthropy. These men and women wanted to honor their parents' and grandparents' legacies and commitment to the Jewish community while also introducing their generation's ideas with respect to contemporary Jewish life.
Both of these experiences taught us about the power of the peer group as a place for next-generation donors to learn about themselves and as a training ground to learn about the nonprofit, Jewish, and philanthropic worlds. We saw how Grand Street members were willing to take risks and explore new ideas together, traveling the globe to learn from other Jewish communities and social entrepreneurship activities. Subsequently, we helped Grand Street members launch Slingshot: A Resource Guide to Jewish Innovation, and later the Slingshot Fund, and watched members challenge each other to become more strategic as they aimed to fund from both the head and the heart.
Ultimately, these initial ACBP investments had double-bottom-line returns. Our programs engaged next-generation donors, and those donors in turn leveraged ACBP's contributions by allocating more than $12 million to engage other next-generation Jews. Eventually, both programs became self-sustaining nonprofit entities and continue to thrive today.
As we learned how to work with Generations X and Y, earners as well as inheritors, philanthropic families and foundations approached us for help in engaging their own adult children. With Jeff Solomon's encouragement, we set up an in-house philanthropic service called 21/64 to share what we had learned with next-generation donors, their families, and advisors.
In 2008, after ACBP announced that it planned to spend down, the trustees generously provided 21/64 with a runway that enabled it to eventually reach sustainability and continue as an independent nonprofit entity, 21/64 Inc, specializing in next-generation and multi-generational philanthropic engagement and family enterprise.
To help it achieve sustainability, ACBP provided 21/64 with the financial support to hire a new senior professional so we could transition the program from a wholly underwritten initiative to a 501(c)(3) with diversified revenue streams. ACBP also gave the new entity the intellectual property we had created while it was a program at ACBP, including interactive tools designed to be catalysts for next-gen donors, their families, and advisors. During this phase, ACBP also lent 21/64 beautiful office space and support services.
As 2014 came to a close, 21/64 celebrated its independence with sustainable earned revenue streams. It transitioned completely out of ACBP, and I became the executive director of the new entity, joined by other program staff, including Danielle Oristian York, Barbara Taylor, and Sara Finkelstein, all of whom moved from ACBP to 21/64.
With this modest success under our belts, we began 2015 focused on three particular areas. The first is to raise funds to support our next-generation programs, including Grand Street and our new #NextGenDonors program for 21- to 40-year-olds from diverse backgrounds. The Joyce and Irving Goldman Family Foundation provided an interim grant to sustain these programs, which remain at the heart of 21/64's founding mission and will continue through foundation support, which fills the gap between our costs and participant fees.
Secondly, we aim to be a thought leader in the space and are building new tools, writing a book, and creating a new training – the Art of Facilitation – all the while supporting families who are engaging the next generation. Lastly, we are considering how to add staff capacity and expand our board of directors as we grow.
As I type this, I sit steps away from the ACBP team, whose belief in the next generation and passion for innovation set the stage for what 21/64 could become. It is powerful to watch ACBP's legacy become part of the philanthropic landscape, and I feel grateful to have traveled all this way in the company of such generous and forward-looking people. We remain humbled by how far we have come and mindful upon whose shoulders we stand.
Sharna Goldseker is executive director of 21/64, a nonprofit consulting practice specializing in next generation and multi-generational philanthropic engagement and family enterprise. This post, the twenty-fourth in the "Making Change by Spending Down" series produced by GrantCraft in partnership with the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, originally appeared on the GrantCraft blog.
Our weekly roundup of noteworthy items from and about the social sector. For more links to great content from and about the social sector, follow us on Twitter at @pndblog....
In the first Q&A for their new Community Insights series, the folks at Markets for Good speak with Andrew Means, co-founder of the Impact Lab and founder of Data Analysts for Social Good.
Good post by Beth Kanter on six fundraising platforms that have disrupted charitable giving forever.
In a review of Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference, Nonprofit Chronicles blogger Marc Gunther says that if "Effective Altruism catches on more widely – and that's a big if – it will disrupt traditional philanthropy, change the way individuals donate to charity and force nonprofits to get much better at measuring impact...."
Think the world is getting worse? Max Roser and the folks at OurWorldinData.org have a dozen or so charts and tables that suggest otherwise.
The continent of Africa recently celebrated a year without a single recorded case of polio. On Slate, the Gates Foundation's Jay Wenger explains why that is cause for optimism but not complacency.
On the Social Velocity blog, the Packard Foundation's Kathy Reich, who usually doesn't agree with those who urge nonprofits to act more like for-profits, says there is one area where nonprofits lag their for-profit peers: talent assessment, development, and management.
In a letter sent to the White House earlier this month, the presidents and CEOs of twenty-seven foundations called on President Obama to issue an executive order requiring federal agencies and contractors to treat job applicants with arrests or convictions fairly in the hiring process.
The letter was signed by members of the Executives' Alliance to Expand Opportunities for Boys and Men of Color, which works to reform the criminal justice system, and was issued as proponents of "fair chance" hiring reform have, in recent weeks, stepped up their campaign, including a rally at the White House in late July that drew hundreds from around the country.
The White House, for its part, appears to have arrived at a similar conclusion and, as Alan Schwarz reports in today's New York Times, is taking steps to address some of the damage caused by over-incarceration and harsh sentences for minor drug offenses that became the norm after a war on drugs was declared in the 1980s.
With the alliance's permission, we've reprinted the letter in its entirety below....
It’s no secret that external change is often the enemy of an organization’s long-term impact. Think changes in public policy. Trends in fundraising. Challenges to mission. Shifts in consumer sentiment. And, frankly, philanthropic fads.
But internal change can be just as much or perhaps even more of a management challenge, and the implications of how we deal with that change — particularly at the leadership level — are critical.
Consider such internal challenges as:
No one has written about "change" and "transition" more eloquently than the author, speaker, and organizational consultant William Bridges, who asserts that "it isn’t the changes that do you in, it’s the transitions."
Ten years after Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast, leaving 80 percent of New Orleans underwater, killing more than eighteen hundred people, and displacing hundreds of thousands of others, important questions remain unanswered. Are we better prepared to help communities of all kinds respond to and rebuild from extreme weather events and natural disasters? Has greater media scrutiny of relief organizations improved the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts? If not, why not? And what can or should philanthropy do to improve its performance and responsiveness in the wake of a major disaster?
With the tenth anniversary of Katrina just weeks away, PND asked Robert G. Ottenhoff, president and CEO of the Center for Disaster Philanthropy — an organization founded in the aftermath of the storm — how the philanthropic response to major disasters has evolved over the last decade and what his organization is doing to ensure that the philanthropic community is an integral and effective part of the response to major disasters in the future.
Philanthropy News Digest: You’ve written that Hurricane Katrina "forever changed the way our nation thinks, reacts, and plans for massive natural disasters." How so? And what were the key lessons learned by philanthropy in the aftermath of that disaster?
Robert G. Ottenhoff: Katrina was a traumatic experience for our nation and brought the realization that our conventional ways of responding to disasters were insufficient and unsustainable. We learned three big lessons: the need for comprehensive advance planning and preparation for disasters; the critical importance of building communities that are resilient to disaster and better able to respond and bounce back; and the need for funders to support disaster recovery needs before and after disaster strikes, as well as during the immediate humanitarian crisis.
Nonprofit organizations need a plan themselves, too. How will they respond when a disaster strikes? How will they handle an influx of donations or volunteers? If they are a service provider in a stricken city, how will they make sure any interruption of service is as limited as possible? How will their staffs continue to provide vital services?
CDP has been working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Rockefeller Foundation on the National Disaster Resilience Competition. Forty communities that have experienced natural disasters are competing for $1 billion in funds to help them rebuild and increase their resilience to future disasters. Our staff contributed to Rockefeller's Resilience Academies in Chicago and Denver with jurisdiction finalists and are working with them to develop initiatives and outreach plans that will better prepare them for future disasters — and, we hope, lead to better partnerships with foundations and corporations.
CDP also is working to ensure that the philanthropic community understands the importance of supporting long- and mid-term recovery needs in disaster areas. This fall, we will begin the process of awarding grants from our Nepal Earthquake Recovery Fund to community organizations in Nepal. Now that much of the immediate crisis has passed, these funds, raised from more than two hundred and sixty institutional and individual donors, will focus on long-term recovery and rebuilding of devastated areas.
PND: The American Red Cross was widely criticized for its response to Katrina, as well as for its efforts in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake in that country and for its response to Superstorm Sandy. Do you think the Red Cross has been unfairly singled out by the media for its response to those and other recent natural disasters? And what should the organization do to improve its response to disasters in the future?
RGO: The reports of Red Cross activities in Haiti and other disaster areas have been disappointing and disturbing. For those of us working in disaster philanthropy, the news coverage underscores several critical issues — including gaps and flaws in our current system — that deserve consideration and national attention. If properly addressed, we could see more effective disaster response in the future.
First, our country needs a structure for responding to the humanitarian needs caused by natural disasters that is both well funded and well organized. The current system of relying on voluntary contributions in support of multiple voluntary organizations does not adequately address the needs of either the survivors or the organizations providing support.
Second, the public needs to better understand the arc of disasters and why the rush to respond immediately tends to create future problems. On one hand, the immediate outpouring of donations in the days after disaster often puts the Red Cross and other service organizations in the awkward position of receiving too much money for some activities and not enough for others. In addition, the outsized nature of the immediate response makes it harder to raise needed funds later on for recovery and rebuilding efforts that can take years. We suggest consideration be given to finding national solutions that result in better coordination and balance in disaster giving and that reflect the full cycle of disasters.
Third, we urge the American Red Cross to use these reports as an opportunity to reassess its strategies and priorities. Its world-class brand has long been known for its work in immediate relief following disasters, and during this time of reflection it can use that asset as a touchstone for an examination of its future.
Many businesses understand the importance of giving back to their communities; research has shown that in order to earn trust in the communities where we work, corporations should start by doing “good business” that has a positive societal impact. But there’s more we can and should do to ensure that our efforts have a lasting effect.
The role of corporate citizenship is of utmost importance in emerging economies where resources are scarce and extreme poverty has created an urgent need for initiatives and partnerships that can improve the well-being of local people. This need is even more pronounced in countries like Haiti that have suffered extreme devastation. The massive earthquake that struck Port-au-Prince in 2010 — a disaster that killed more than 200,000 people, left 1.5 million homeless, and damaged or destroyed 4,000 schools — created both an urgent need for immediate foreign assistance and a recognition that the effort to rebuild devastated communities and the Haitian economy would take years. While much work remains to be done, I can report that significant progress has been made.
Paradis des Indiens, a Digicel Foundation Haiti grantee, is a small local organization whose efforts to improve education in Haiti’s Grande Anse region offer lessons for all corporate sustainability funders. Using a community-service model, the organization engages children in school improvement projects and volunteer work. Children are encouraged to play an integral role in these projects and, through their participation, develop both a deeper sense of pride in and a sense of responsibility for their communities, which, in turn, inspires a greater commitment among them to rebuilding Haiti itself. While this kind of involvement in community service isn’t typical in developing countries, the impressive ability of Paradis des Indiens to instill a sense of pride and ownership in children is a perfect illustration of how a focus on empowering community members can lead to successful and sustainable projects over the longer term.
Today the word liberal is encumbered by partisan connotation. Viewed through a broader lens, however, its meaning is more expansive. Derived from the Latin root liber, the word's etymology has been associated with freedom and liberty, whether political, economic, or social. In many ways it is a very American word, both in substance and style. In his classic Democracy in America, the French historian and political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville posited, "Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom." To which Fareed Zakaria might add, learning to exercise one's freedom in a responsible way is the raison d'être of "liberal" education.
In his latest book, In Defense of a Liberal Education, Indian-born Zakaria explores what this very American concept has meant in the past — and what it means in the increasingly globalized world of the twenty-first century. The book's main arguments were born out of Zakaria's 2014 commencement address at Sarah Lawrence College. In that address, Zakaria acknowledged that his deeply held views on the subject were grounded in his own journey — one that took him from a childhood in Mumbai to Yale University, to national acclaim as a columnist for Newsweek, a host for CNN, and a respected author. The result is both a summary of the ongoing and often contentious debate about the value of a liberal arts education in a world obsessed with technology and anxious about its consequences as well as a very personal meditation on the ways in which liberal education has shaped his life.
Zakaria begins the book with a brief history of liberal education, from the Greeks and Romans, through the Islamic Middle Ages and the Renaissance, to the development of the modern American university, itself a hybrid of the British collegiate and German research models. From the development of the "quadrivium" (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy) and the "trivium" (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) in late antiquity and early Middle Ages, to the Yale Report of 1828 (a document written by Yale College faculty in defense of the classical curriculum), Cardinal John Henry Newman's publication of the Idea of a University in1852, and Charles Eliot's transformation of Harvard into America's premier research university in the early twentieth century, Zakaria provides a solid context for understanding the evolution of the liberal arts in America.
Still, why is it so hard to talk about failure in philanthropy?
There's no incentive. Under what circumstances is one encouraged to fail? Working out, playing sports, rehearsing for a performance – these are all activities where you're meant to try something new, see how it goes, fix what didn't work, and try again. You get immediate signals that tell you what's not working, and often someone is there to tell you what to do instead, or how to do better. What's crucial in those cases is that you're not alone – there is someone in the role of spotter, observing your performance with a frame of reference of how to do it better and giving you timely feedback on how to improve. And you can see the results. Signals about performance in philanthropy travel much more slowly, if at all, and the roles are not nearly as clear. As discussed in a prior post, most foundations are minimally staffed, so there's not a lot of space for an HR function. And most program staff are recruited for their content expertise, not because they're good managers. So you can't count on there being a spotter for you within your foundation. Don't get me wrong, people within the foundation do pay attention to what you're doing, and you are called to account if you don't follow the rules. But those rules aren't necessarily set up to support performance or performance improvement. Which brings up another point....
For decades, the formula has remained unchanged: donors give to charities, nonprofits, and other social purpose organizations — here in Canada, where LIFT Philanthropy Partners is based, more than $12 billion was donated last year — and organizations, in turn, use those donations to run their programs and offer services in their communities. Benefits are considered to be directly correlated to the size of the donation: more money = more programs and services; less money = fewer programs and services. The cycle simply repeats ad infinitum, without a real understanding of results, impact, or long-term value.
The chief executives of many of these nonprofits are so busy feeding the cycle so as to serve their vulnerable clients that they have little or no time left for the business planning or evaluation that would be the next steps in building organizational capacity. The result is real and systemic challenges that, year after year, aren’t addressed in any meaningful way. For example, despite $12 billion in donations, 42 percent of Canadians have low literacy skills, more than 20 percent of those over the age of 20 have not completed high school, and only 4.4 percent of youth get the recommended amount of physical activity.
How can we help nonprofits do more to tackle these problems? How can we ensure that every dollar of that $12 billion is being used to address the very real, very systemic challenges that are a reality for too many people? How can we get more results from hard-working organizations that are already stretched thin?
Our weekly roundup of noteworthy items from and about the social sector. For more links to great content from and about the social sector, follow us on Twitter at @pndblog....
While the decision of the Hewlett Foundation to amend its social investment policy to say it will "refrain from future investments in private partnerships primarily involved in oil and gas drilling" falls far short of divestment, it is significant nonetheless. Marc Gunther explains.
In the New Yorker, Katy Lederer explains how a new report from international consulting firm Mercer not only quantifies the investment impacts of various climate-change scenarios, it makes clear that as climate change "trashes" the economy, superfiduciaries— sovereign wealth and pension funds, foundations, and endowments — are not going to be able to meet their long-term obligations.
Endowed institutions aren't the only ones waking up to the existential threat of unchecked climate change. Bloomberg Politics reports that executives of thirteen major U.S. corporations have announced at least $140 billion in new investments "to [reduce] their carbon footprints as part of a White House initiative to recruit private commitments ahead of a United Nations climate-change summit later this year in Paris."
The latest edition of the Nonprofit Blog Carnival, which is being hosted by Kivi Leroux Miller on her Nonprofit Marketing Guide blog, is open for submissions. The topic of this month's roundup is how you share progress or communicate your accomplishments -- "not just with donors, but to program participants, and other supporters and influencers as well." The deadline for submissions (new or recent posts) is Friday, August 28, and the roundup of all posts will be published on Monday, August 31. To submit a post, just email the URL and two- or three-sentence summary to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Large multinationals spent some $20 billion on corporate social responsibility programs in 2013. Good news, right? In The Atlantic, Gillian White explains why we shouldn't get too excited.
It was a typically hot and muggy July in most places, but here at PhilanTopic it was an especially cool month, with new posts from Sarah Gunther and Diana Samarasan related to the release of an updated Foundation Center report on funding for global human rights, three posts full of great fundraising and governance advice for nonprofit leaders, a new Q&A with Jean Case, and the latest installment in Matt Schwartz' Cause-Driven Design series topping the list of the most popular posts on the blog. What, you were on vacation? Don't sweat it. Here's your chance to catch up....
Read, watched, or listened to anything lately that surprised or made you think? Share your find with others in the comments section below, or drop us a line at email@example.com.
In 2009, when the board and staff of the Paul Rapoport Foundation decided to spend out in five years, we focused initially on conveying our decision to our grantees with total transparency. We then worked to develop effective guidelines, assist applicants in creating strong grant proposals, and help grantees develop viable exit strategies once our final multiyear grants had concluded. We were so focused on these activities that we were all taken by surprise when we realized it was 2014 and our grantmaking was at an end. After twenty-seven years of supporting all the major organizations in New York's lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual (LGTB) communities — providing start-up funding to many, ongoing general operating support to many more, and essential infrastructure development in our final spend-out period — the actual closing date was upon us.
Throughout the preceding decades the foundation's board and staff had engaged a number of excellent organizational consultants to help us with strategic planning, including during our final spend-out phase. When they realized our closing was imminent, all of them — either formally or informally — reached out and urged us to plan for some sort of closure, not just for board and staff but for our grantees as well. So while we had had the idea in the back of our minds during the spend-out process, holding a final event for the community suddenly became vitally important to us as a way to deal with the sad realities of closing.
There are more than 1.5 million nonprofits in the United States, and in 2013 over 62 million Americans volunteered nearly 7.7 billion hours to charitable causes. Given these statistics, you might think we were well on our way to a world in which caring people are significantly improving the lives of people in need. According to the World Bank, however, more than a billion people globally live in extreme poverty, and each year over 2.6 million children die of hunger-related causes. It's enough to make one wonder whether charity does any good.
In How to Be Great at Doing Good: Why Results Are What Count and How Smart Charity Can Change the World, animal rights activist Nick Cooney offers an antidote to such cynicism in the form of a "complacency-shattering guidebook for anyone who wants to actually change the world, whether as a donor, a volunteer, or a nonprofit staffer."
In the book, Cooney addresses the misconceptions that persistently prevent donors and volunteers from "succeeding" in their charitable endeavors. He tells us, for example, that most people see charity as
a warm, fuzzy thing and that as long as our intentions are good we should be applauded. We are not taught to think rigorously about our approach. We are not taught how to succeed at doing good, or even that success is what matters. So we aren't in the habit of making calculated decisions when it comes to doing good....
But what do we mean by "success"? "The measure of success for charities," Cooney writes, is not an "up or down vote on whether they are making the world a better place." The question is, or should be, how much good can a charity accomplish. It's not a revolutionary — or even new — idea, but if pursued to its logical conclusion, it requires donors, volunteers, and nonprofit practitioners to make some tough decisions. If we really want to change the world and include as many individuals as possible in that change, we need to completely rethink the way we do our work.
For nonprofits to become more efficient, Cooney argues, they first need to establish a "bottom line" that reflects their "cost per good done." It could be something like the "cost per HIV infection prevented," or "the cost per ton of greenhouse gas emissions prevented." Not that establishing such metrics is easy. A study by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that "even among the largest foundations...only 8 percent had any data whatsoever that showed how successful they'd been at achieving a defined goal."
Coordinating investments is a challenge for all funders. How do we avoid duplicating investments in some areas while other areas are overlooked and underfunded? How do we identify potential synergies and opportunities to collaborate with others who have similar interests and align our investments to be more impactful? These questions arise frequently for my colleagues and me at the Bernard van Leer Foundation. As the range of actors investing in early childhood development (ECD) in East Africa grows, so does the challenge of understanding who is investing in what, and where.
Luckily, we now have a way to get at the answers we need. With our support, Foundation Center – a leading source of information about philanthropy worldwide – took up the challenge of creating Foundation Maps for Early Childhood Development in East Africa, a funding map that serves as a planning and learning tool to identify gaps and opportunities. Foundation Center designed it with foundations, NGOs, policy makers, and other ECD stakeholders in mind.
My colleagues first started thinking about a way to coordinate funding during a meeting a few years ago in Tanzania with a coalition of funders that invests in young children's development in the region. The group agreed that an integrated information hub which includes contextual information and information on bilateral and multilateral aid flows would be a critical tool to guide and inform strategy. We wanted to support something that not only would serve our foundation but that could increase transparency and serve others working in our field.
The people who credit mass incarceration for reducing crime in the United States have it all wrong, writes Allison Schrager in Quartz.
In advance of National Voter Registration Day on September 22, Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofits, Nonprofit VOTE, and United Way Worldwide have launched Nonprofit Votes Count, a national campaign aimed at encouraging every eligible nonprofit staff member and volunteer to register and vote.
Sunday is the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the ADA National Network and its ten regional centers have out together a nice tool kit to mark the occasion.
The folks at Vox have posted a new explainer on the Common Core.
On the NowStand4 site, Grant Trahant interviews Andrea Tamburini, CEO of Action Against Hunger, about his organization's efforts to treat malnutrition and end hunger around the globe.
With the goal of helping PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) in its ongoing efforts to increase data transparency and general participation in the COP process, amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research, has launched a PEPFAR Country/Regional Operational Plans (COPs/ROPs) database featuring planned funding reported in publicly released 2007-2014 country and regional operational plans.
You're at a gathering and someone asks you what you do. As soon as you say you work for a nonprofit, the next question is, "What does your nonprofit do?"
This is the point where most nonprofit professionals recite their organization's mission statement. Tailored to the person you're talking to, your response probably sounds something like:
"We educate and empower people who lack resources and opportunities…."
"We provide basic services to those in need…."
While that kind of generic description might be totally appropriate when you're making small talk, it probably doesn't convey the passion you actually feel for your organization and cause. And it should never find its way into your solicitations.
I know, it's only July. But the end-of-year fundraising season is just around the corner, and I'm already looking forward to the many direct mail pieces I expect to receive listing the reasons why I should give to this cause or that. But while almost all those letters will tell me what the organization does, only a handful will tell me what the organization stands for.
When business reporters, industry leaders, and analysts claim "market forces" on Wall Street are behind coal's decline, they're getting it only half right. The most powerful forces driving this transition are the national network of grassroots activists and growing coalition of more than one hundred allied organizations working for a clean-energy future. All across the nation, empowered communities are defending their right to clean air, clean water, and a strong economy.
Over the past decade, health advocates, environmentalists, and community leaders have broken coal's hold on electricity production in the United States by organizing local grassroots campaigns backed by strategic litigation. After watching generations of families suffer the health impacts of coal burning, people all over the nation are taking to the streets to stand up to Big Coal. In fact, this movement recently celebrated a huge milestone when we announced the retirement of the two hundredth U.S. coal plant since 2010.
Two of the people fighting back are Wally and Clint McRae, a father and son who have fought for thirty years to protect their Montana cattle ranch from a proposed coal train that would cut right through their land. The McRaes have been active for decades in their local community, but with the support of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, they were able to bring their message to a national stage.
Do you expect your street to be plowed after a big storm? Yep. Do you expect that bridge to remain standing as you drive over it? Of course. Do you expect the folks at the 911 hotline number to pick up every time you call? Without question. Do you take the existence of all this publicly-supported infrastructure for granted? Most likely.
The same is true for the infrastructure serving the social sector. Philanthropists and nonprofits depend every day on hundreds of organizations around the globe that serve the needs of the field. Organizations such as Independent Sector, Grantmakers in Health, the Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the European Foundation Centre are there to make connections, answer questions, and, in myriad other ways, facilitate the work of the sector.
So, how do they keep their doors open? Up to now there was no comprehensive picture of what support for "infrastructure organizations" looked like and how that funding was faring relative to other grantmaker priorities. But thanks to a new Foundation Center analysis (22 pages, PDF) prepared at the request of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, we now know more.
When several LGBTQI funders set out in 2013 to better understand the landscape of funding for trans* human rights, our first stop was the International Human Rights Funders Group (IHRFG) and Foundation Center's groundbreaking data set on global human rights funding. To our surprise, we found very little information about funding for trans* people specifically. When I went looking last month for data on funding dedicated to lesbian, bisexual, and queer women, I found the same gap. This, I realized, is because most foundations report their funding for "LGBT" people as just that: "LGBT."
We know, however, that the LGBT acronym masks a huge diversity of communities, needs, and human rights priorities. Lesbian and queer women may be more concerned with addressing family violence or changing cultural narratives about sexuality than overturning a colonial sodomy law. Trans* activists may be focused on ending the discriminatory policing of trans* women of color or passing laws that allow people to self-determine their legal gender. Intersex activists are seeking specific protections against non-consensual genital surgeries and other rights-violating medical interventions on intersex bodies. From Astraea’s nearly forty years of supporting queer and trans activism with a racial, economic, and gender justice lens, we also know that foundation funding for LGBTQI rights does not match this diversity of agendas. Without dedicated attention to lesbian and queer women, trans*, and intersex folks, "LGBT" too often means the leadership and priorities of cisgender gay men.
Without attention to other identities we hold, "LGBT" also often means the more privileged aspects of our movements in terms of race, class, and age. It would be easy to look at the LGBT funding dedicated to marriage equality in the U.S., for example, and say that our work is getting done. But we know that LGBTQI justice will only come when all people experience legal and lived equality, and when we are all free from hatred, discrimination, and violence. That is why we need an LGBTQI agenda that dismantles racial, gender, and economic inequality, and why we need to look not only at the gender breakdown of "LGBT" but also the proportion of funding that supports organizing by and for communities of color, as well as poor and working-class folks. Our data must reflect the intersectional reality of our lives and our movements.
This year's Advancing Human Rights report tells us that LGBT funding represented 5 percent of all foundation human rights dollars in 2012 and has held relatively steady over the past three years. If we are going to meet the demand from growing LGBTQI movements pursuing human rights around the world, we absolutely need to grow the overall pie. But we should also look at where the funding available to us is going. Which constituencies are receiving support? Whose agendas are they funding and amplifying?
On the Bloomberg Business site, Alex Nussbaum reports that a new study released by the Analysis Group, a Boston-based consulting company, found that a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide generated $1.3 billion in benefits for nine U.S. states, created more than 14,000 new jobs in the Northeast, and saved consumers $460 million on their electric bills over the past three years.
No Child Left Behind, the education policy overhaul introduced by George W. Bush in 2000, has more critics than supporters. But no one in Congress knows how to fix it. Mother Jones' Allie Gross reports.
The economy is recovering (slowly), but your fundraising results remain stuck in second gear. Future Fundraising Now's Jeff Brooks shares some thoughts on what organizations do — and don't do — to create their own fundraising recessions.
Should public university-affiliated private foundations be subject to state public-records laws? Of course they should, write Jonathan Peters and Jackie Spinner in the Columbia Journalism Review.In fact, courts "should cut through any artifice and conclude that a university-affiliated foundation that exists for the purpose of serving the university and performing public functions is an arm of the state and accountable to its citizens....[And] foundations should view those laws as a floor rather than a ceiling, making it a policy to release more than simply the minimum required by law.... "
The United Nations will commit to new Sustainable Development Goals in September. In advance of the launch of the SDGs, the folks at the Global Partnership for Education have put together a nice post explaining how education is essential to the success of every one of the seventeen goals.
What do Bill and Melinda Gates talk about in the privacy of their home? New York Times columnist Nick Kristof asked them. And on LinkedIn, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan explains what Bill and Melinda — and other modern philanthropists — do better than their distinguished predecessors in the field.
How the digitally native, media-savvy millennial generation is shaping the way people view and bring about social change has been a topic of debate for some time. Are millennials "the giving generation," or are they just "slacktivists"? Founded in 1997 by AOL co-founder Steve Case and his wife, Jean, the Case Foundation has been working to engage millennials in social work for the better part of a decade. As part of that effort, the foundation, in partnership with Achieve, an Indianapolis-based research and creative agency, recently released the 2015 Millennial Impact Report: Cause, Influence & the Next Generation Workforce (41 pages, PDF), the eighth in a series of reports that examines the question: How does the millennial generation engage with and support causes?
Recently, PND asked Case Foundation co-founder and CEO Jean Case about some of the report’s findings and implications.
Philanthropy News Digest: Since 2010, the Millennial Impact Report series has examined trends in giving and volunteering by millennials. This year's report is focused on company cause work, the factors that influence engagement in the workplace, and the relationship between millennial employees and their managers. Why is it important for millennials to be engaged in giving and volunteering at the workplace?
Jean Case: Millennials play a powerful role in democratizing philanthropy. Now eighty million strong, the millennial generation is one of the most educated, tech-savvy, and idealistic generations ever. At the Case Foundation, we have long recognized the power of millennials to change the world — and that is why our support of the Millennial Impact Project has been critical to the exploration of how they connect, give, and inspire. Throughout our six years of research (and eight reports) with Achieve, we've found that with few exceptions, this generation is consistently willing and eager to "do good." And they choose not to leave their personal passion for doing good at the door but rather seek to integrate it fully into their work and social network of friends and colleagues. If we are going to solve the complex social problems of our era — eradicating deadly diseases, conquering global hunger, scaling sustainable energy solutions — we need this generation to lead the charge.
One aspect of our research which was telling was that 70 percent of millennials volunteered for a cause last year. That number is triple the average volunteer rate of America as a whole, which was just over 25 percent in 2014. Millennial employees value putting their skills and expertise to work in support of a cause, which means employers have a greater opportunity to positively engage with this growing portion of the workforce.
PND: According to the most recent survey, 46 percent of millennial respondents said they were more likely to donate to a company-sponsored giving campaign if asked by a co-worker, while only 27 percent said they were more likely to give if asked by their supervisor. Similarly, 65 percent said they were more likely to volunteer for a company initiative if their co-workers were participating, while only 44 percent said they would if their supervisor participated. What are the implications of these findings for companies looking to engage their millennial employees in "company cause work"?
JC: Millennials now make up a majority of employees — 53.5 million workers to be exact, or more than one in three American workers. We know that they place value on the relationships and bonds they build with co-workers. This is a generation that demands our attention and wants to take its idealism and put it into action in meaningful ways. CEOs and those in leadership need to understand that millennials are influencers who shape the behaviors and purchasing decisions of their larger social circles, so it's no surprise that they tend to be the most inspired by their colleagues and peers, and less so by management. Organizations can take this opportunity to shift away from hierarchical structures and top-down CSR programs and move toward more collaborative cause environments.
"It's a sad truth that in many developing countries people with disabilities simply don't count. No data is collected on their disabilities nor their abilities, so it’s as if they just don’t exist…."
— Former UK parliamentary undersecretary for the Department for International Development (DFID) (quoted in the Guardian)
Recognizing that, to date, development goals have not been reached because people at the margins have not been included, the concept of "leave no one behind" has been a key part of the post-2015 development process. Among those left behind have been people with disabilities who, until the publication of the first World Bank/World Health Organization World Report on Disability in 2011, were not specifically enumerated among the world's population.
As it turns out, people with disabilities make up an estimated one billion people around the world. That is 15 percent of the world's population, or one in every seven people. Further, children with disabilities are the single largest group excluded from school, making up 30 percent to 40 percent of the out-of-school population according to UNESCO. Women with disabilities are 40 percent more likely to be victims of domestic violence than other women, and 20 percent of the poorest people in the world are people with disabilities.
Despite these dire statistics, most countries in the developing world either do not count their populations with disabilities or do not use standardized methods to do so, meaning that official data on persons with disabilities and the conditions they live in is poor or absent.
Until recently, this was also the case among human rights funders and human rights organizations. Disability — considered a charity or medical issue — was not delineated as a human rights concern. Indeed, it was only in 2010, following the implementation in 2008 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, that even as formidable an advocate as Human Rights Watch started systematically reporting on rights abuses against persons with disabilities.
Thus, when the International Human Rights Funders Group (IHRFG) and Foundation Center initiated a project in 2010 to map global human rights grantmaking, I was excited that the project would include people with disabilities among the recipient populations to be tracked. For the first time, people with disabilities would be listed as a population of concern for funders making human rights grants.
But here's the thing: Rubik's Cubes are most definitely not impossible to solve. In fact, some people are freakishly good at them. So why can’t I solve them?
Simple: I don't know the tricks. I keep trying to solve them the same way I solve more traditional puzzles instead of recognizing that they're a different beast altogether.
The same holds true for solving the puzzle of millennial engagement. Organizations continue to try to engage millennials by sticking to the same old strategies they've used for fifty years — and then putting it on a Facebook page. But here's the thing: millennial engagement is a different beast altogether — and it's not limited to how technologically savvy you or your organization are or are willing to be.
Whether solving a Rubik's Cube or developing a millennial engagement strategy, each requires the recognition that you're dealing with a new kind of puzzle with its own quirks and tricks. So, what are the tricks for how to solve the millennial engagement puzzle?
At Third Plateau, we spend a lot of our time uncovering these tricks. I'll share three of the most important, which can apply to millennial employees, volunteers, and donors.
"The past is never dead. It's not even past...."
— William Faulkner
Copyright © 2013 Foundation Center, All Rights Reserved