PhilanTopic

Syria: A (PubHub+) Reading List

The Syrian government's crackdown on the civil unrest that began in 2011 has claimed thousands of lives and displaced 1.5 million people. With the violence intensifying -- 4,000 people have been killed in the fighting in August alone -- and the United Nations Security Council announcing that it will not renew its observer mission to the war-torn country, the prospect of a negotiated settlement to the conflict is looking ever more remote. Below are several reports from PubHub and other sources that provide some context for understanding the religious, political, and geopolitical divides behind the unrest.

What do we know about the composition of Syria's population? According to Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Muslim Population, a report from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, approximately 20.2 million Syrians, or 92.2 percent of the population, are Muslim, with Sunnis comprising the majority (74 percent) and Shia and Alawites (the sect President Bashar al-Assad's family belongs to) comprising between 15 percent and 20 percent of the population.

Opposition to the Assad regime is concentrated among the Sunni, and many Sunni Islamists abroad are vocally encouraging their co-religionists inside Syria to "rise up and fight." In their article "UK Islamists and the Arab Uprisings" in Current Trends in Islamist Ideology (Vol. 13, August 2012), a publication of the Hudson Institute's Center on Islam, Democracy, and the Future of the Muslim World, James Brandon and Raffaello Pantucci examine how Islamists living in the West helped shape the Arab Spring movements that set the stage for the uprising in Syria. Brandon and Pantucci note that a wave of Islamist exiles arrived in the United Kingdom from Syria after the Muslim Brotherhood tried to overthrow the regime of Hafez al-Assad (Bashar's father) -- a revolt brutally suppressed by Assad -- in 1982. Two UK-based Islamists, Anjem Choudhary and Omar Bakri Mohammed, have clearly expressed a desire to see the current Assad regime toppled. "For them, the ongoing strife in Syria is a clear-cut example of how the West is conspiring against Muslim warriors who are fighting for the oppressed masses," Brandon and Pantucci write. "They believe this despite the fact that strongest support for intervention comes from the West."

Just how strong is the support for military intervention to end the violence? In the Fall 2011 issue of the Carnegie Reporter, a publication of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Michael Barnett discusses the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) resolution adopted by the United Nations in 2005. R2P asserts that when states "are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens from genocide, ethnic cleansing and other situations of large-scale violence," the international community has a responsibility to do so. "When the protesters hit the streets in Syria, and the Assad regime began to hit back, the UN's advisers on R2P and Prevention of Genocide jumped into action," Barnett writes, in part to prevent a repeat of the 1982 massacres perpetrated by the Assad regime. "Does this imply that R2P is a means of defending human rights reformers and pro-democracy movements?" Maybe, Barnett says. But

the very real possibility is that R2P becomes seen not as an impartial protector of civilians but rather as a covert promoter of democratic change. The irony is that while some proponents wanted to expand R2P into prevention in order to rid it of the imperialist tone of humanitarian intervention, the toolkit for prevention plays into the hands of those who see R2P as a vehicle for the powerful to overturn the sovereignty of the weak and impose their liberal values in the process.

Such views are moot absent widespread support among Syria's neighbors and within the United States for stiffer economic sanctions and/or military intervention in Syria. According to Widespread Condemnation for Assad in Neighboring Countries, a Pew Global Attitudes Project survey conducted in the summer of 2012 by the Pew Research Center, the vast majority of Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians, and Turks would like to see Bashar al-Assad step down, while the Lebanese population is divided along sectarian lines, with Shia Muslims in that country overwhelmingly expressing support for the Assad regime. The survey also found no consensus about what action should be taken, with Tunisia the only Arab country in which a majority of people supports both stiffer sanctions (63 percent) or an Arab-led military intervention (61 percent). Americans, according to a March 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, are much less sanguine about intervention, with 64 percent of survey respondents saying the U.S. does not have a responsibility to intervene in the conflict; 62 percent opposing a U.S. and/or NATO-led bombing campaign (as was seen in Libya) in support of anti-government groups; and 63 percent against sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups looking to depose the Assad regime.

One thing is certain: the escalation of the conflict is affecting Syria's relations with its neighbors and has broader security implications for the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region. What kind of security threat to the region might Syria pose? In addition to Syrian security forces being implicated in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 and the Assad regime's longstanding support for Hezbollah, the militant Shia group based in Lebanon that is widely viewed as a proxy for an expansionist Iranian regime, Syria was caught violating its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments in 2007 when Israeli intelligence discovered a covert nuclear reactor under construction there. (Israel subsequently bombed the facility.) More recently, according to the 2012 Nuclear Threat Initiative report NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index: Building a Framework for Assurance, Accountability, and Action (128 pages, PDF), Syria ranked near the bottom of a list of countries (132 out of 144) in terms of how well it secures its non-weaponizable nuclear materials.

It is Syria's alliance with regional power Iran, which seems bent on acquiring nuclear weapons of its own, that is of most concern to the U.S., Israel, and other countries in the region, however. Prior to the current uprising, the Syrian government had evinced a more conciliatory attitude toward the U.S. and its regional proxies than the previous regime and had even positioned itself as a mediator between Sunni Arab countries on the one hand and largely Shia Iran on the other. But according to Divided They Dally? The Arab World and a Nuclear Iran (7 pages, PDF), a 2010 report from the Council on Foreign Relations funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the acquisition of a nuclear-weapons capability by Iran would enable Syria to reassert its power in neighboring Lebanon. Indeed, the report's authors write, "a nuclear Iran means a more effective Syria in the Levant, capable of assisting, profiting from, or impeding the actions of Iran's allies such as Hezbollah or Hamas [the Sunni Islamist political party/militia that governs the Gaza Strip]."

In a similar vein, Saudi-Iranian Relations Since the Fall of Saddam: Rivalry, Cooperation, and Implications for U.S. Policy (158 pages, PDF), a 2009 report from the RAND Corporation funded by the Smith Richardson Foundation, describes how Syria's ties to Iran have complicated efforts by Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni Arab power in the Gulf region, to spearhead a multilateral solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

So, how might the escalating violence in Syria affect the country's relations with Iran and other regional powers? In their March 2012 paper Iran in Perspective: Holding Iran to Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology (42 pages, PDF), the Stimson Center's Barry Blechman and R. Taj Moore note that Iranian support for the Assad regime's brutal repression of the opposition movement has damaged Iran's relations with Turkey as well as democratizing Arab nations in the region. If the situation in Syria worsens, they write, ties between Iran and Turkey are likely to be further strained, while if the Assad government falls and is replaced with one less friendly to Iran, it would seriously complicate the close relationship between Iran and Hezbollah, effectively freezing Iran out of the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, "the greatest setback" to the Iranian regime's revolutionary and theological agenda has been the uprising against Assad, writes Jamsheed K. Choksy in "The Ayatollahs Against the Rest," also in Current Trends in Islamist Ideology (Vol. 13, August 2012). According to Choksy, Iran's religious leaders initially supported Assad's forces, but as the revolt spread, the executive branch in Iran began to urge Assad to accommodate his "people's legitimate demands" while warning against the kind of "interference by foreigners" that occurred in Libya. Nevertheless, the uprising in Syria has divided Iran's powerbrokers, Chosky suggests, and created internal schisms within the Iranian political class with respect to domestic demands for socio-political liberalization there.

Clearly, the situation in Syria is both complex and in flux, with rival religious sects, regional players, and Western countries all having a stake in the outcome. The question of whether to intervene militarily and/or by imposing stricter sanctions is similarly complicated by the widespread view, in the developing world at least, that intervention is a tool used by powerful nations to impose their values and economic systems on weaker ones. What do you think? Should the U.S. or a coalition of forces led by the U.S. intervene militarily in Syria before the fighting there devolves into a full-fledged civil war? And what, if anything, can nongovernmental and civil society organizations do to help resolve the situation? Share your thoughts in the comments box below.

-- Kyoko Uchida

Weekend Link Roundup (August 25-26, 2012)

Our (slightly delayed) weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Environment

On NCRP's Keeping a Close Eye blog, Niki Jagpal commends the Kresge Foundation for a recent grant of $500,000 to Princeton-based Climate Central in support of efforts to provide decision makers and the public with information about future coastal flood exposure and sea level rise. "Kresge," writes Jagpal, "is leading the way by example: focusing specifically on socially vulnerable populations is precisely what environment and climate philanthropy expert Sarah Hansen recommends for environment and climate funders in Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders."

Leadership

Philanthropy 411's Kris Putnam-Walkerly shares a post from Trista Harris, executive director of the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, in which Harris explains what an informational interview is for those "too embarrassed to ask."

Social Entrepreneurship

In a post on his Harvard Business Review blog, Uncharitable author Dan Pallotta discusses how he went from building Pallotta TeamWorks, one of the most successful charity event businesses in the country, to losing everything -- including four hundred full-time employees and sixteen U.S. offices -- after his biggest client jumped ship.

Social Media

On the NTEN site, social media vet Beth Kanter offers a few good Pinterest tools, tips, and resources, and gives a shout out in the process to Chris Sietsema's "advice about taking a birds' eye view of your organization's content to determine whether every bit of that content is integrated into an overall communications strategy. If a certain kind of content isn't, writes Sietsema, maybe it's time to abandon it.

Meanwhile, in a guest post on Kanter's own blog, Darren Barefoot of the Mountain Equipment Co-op discusses a recent digital collaboration with pop musician Sarah Harmer to raise awareness around threatened Canadian landscapes. Among other things, Barefoot suggests that nonprofits interested in adopting an "unorthodox" approach to a planned advocacy campaign can improve their chances of success by looking to the Web for examples of campaigns that have succeeded.

Technology

On the Knight Blog, Elizabeth Miller and Chris Sopher take a second look at a handful of Knight-funded digital technology projects designed to help Americans become more informed and engaged in the democratic process and introduce a new one: the SuperPAC App, which, through the use of audio fingerprinting technology, enables iPhone owners to find out which people and groups are behind presidential election TV ads. The post also mentions Politifact, which is developing tools to make its fact-checking information available on demand; TurboVote, which makes registering to vote "as easy as renting a Netflix DVD"; the Wesleyan Media Project, which "is monitoring the large amount of money expected to be spent on political advertising in the 2012 elections"; and the the Internet Archive's TV Research Database, a platform to make TV news content available and searchable in real time.

Transparency

And in a two-parter -- here and here -- on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog, veteran nonprofit sector leader and muckraker extraordinaire Rick Cohen addresses the role of transparency in philanthropy and how foundations can do a better job of being transparent.

That's it for this week. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a great week!

-- The Editors

NPO Job Openings (July 2012)

It’s been three weeks since the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the July job numbers, and the muted optimism that greeted news of a modest uptick in nonfarm payrolls seems to have dissipated as the presidential campaign has turned relentlessly negative.

According to the BLS, total nonfarm employment rose by 163,000 in July -- an increase of 99,000 from the 64,000 jobs added in June and significantly better than the 96,000 jobs added in July 2011. While the unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.3 percent (12.8 million people) -- a fact Republicans are likely to beat like a drum at their convention -- the average number of jobs added on a monthly basis rose above 151,000 for the first time in 2012.

(Chart courtesy CNNMoney)

When we look at the number of jobs submitted to the PND job board -- something we do periodically here at PND -- tells a slightly different story, with job postings down on a month-over-month (12.4 percent) and year-over-year (15 percent) basis. Indeed, the 310 jobs posted to the board in July represent the lowest monthly total to date in 2012, while postings to the board overall have declined 3.7 percent compared to the same seven-month period in 2011 -- anecdotal evidence of a sluggish, if not slowing, economy.

One bright spot in the employment picture is Florida, which, as the Conference Board recently noted, led the nation in online job postings in July with an almost 13 percent month-over-month increase. Indeed, here at PND, Florida -- more so than any other Southern state -- has emerged as a bright spot in a rather drab employment picture, with plentiful nonprofit job openings in areas such as the arts, education, medical research, and human services.

Still, despite the good news from the Sunshine State and the better-than-expected jobs report, the economic outlook over the next six months is anything but clear. Will the technocrats in Brussels manage to hold the Eurozone together and keep the continent from sliding further into recession? Will the administration and the do-nothing 112th Congress address the so-called "fiscal cliff" before the election in November, or leave the tough decisions on spending and taxes to a new Congress and administration? Will the Federal Reserve introduce a third round of quantitative easing or sit tight as the economy chugs along at a 2 percent growth rate? Only time will tell.

For what it's worth, we're optimistic that, as it has been every year since 2009, August will again be a good month for postings to the PND job board, with  "bread and butter" areas like development/fundraising, technology, and human services leading the way. And, of course, we’ll be back in a few months with a followup report.

-- Lauren Brathwaite

The Case for Using a Social Justice Lens in Grantmaking

(Over the course of his career, Michael Seltzer, a frequent contributor to PhilanTopic, has served as a program officer at the Ford Foundation, as president of the New York Regional Association of Grantmakers, and as founding executive director of Funders Concerned About AIDS. A version of this post appears in the summer issue of GMNsight, a new journal written for and by members of the Grants Managers Network.)

Social Justice -- A New Phenomenon?

No. As early as 1972, in an internal memo to John H. Knowles, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of his officers suggested that the foundation use the phrase "Towards Social Justice in an Interdependent World" as a 'unifying theme' to describe its work.

Also, in the 1970s, select small- to medium-sized public, family, independent, and public foundations embraced the practice, language, and ethos of social justice, as evidenced by their early support of the U.S. civil rights movement. Their ranks included such private foundations as Norman, Field, Stern, New World, Taconic, and the John Hay Whitney. Subsequently, the public foundations that comprised the Funding Exchange Network -- the Tides Foundation; women's and LGBT funders such as the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice; and the Black United Fund movement -- joined their ranks. David Hunter, Stern's long-term executive director, served as a mentor and guide for many of these funds. The word justice also appeared in the literature of religiously affiliated grantmakers such as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development of the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Jewish Fund for Justice. This was not surprising, since the precepts of justice are evident in the world's major religions and sacred texts.

Subsequently, this diverse set of donors, in terms of their structure and sources of revenues, began to meet annually under the aegis of the National Network of Change-Oriented Foundations. In 1981, the network's successor organization, the National Network of Foundations (NNG), asserted the following two purposes in its mandate:

To be a voice for issues of social and economic justice within the philanthropic community and externally in sectors of the broad community including government, business, labor and education, and to expand the resource base (human and financial) for social and economic justice activities.

As one indicator of the size of this community of funders, also in 1981 the National Network of Grantmakers and the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO) in their publication, The Grantseekers Guide, A Directory for Social and Economic Justice Projects, listed more than one hundred foundations and corporate-giving programs.

In the following decades, other foundations used many terms akin to social change or social justice in their annual reports. A sample lexicon of phrases would include: advocacy, equity, the poor speaking and acting for themselves, human rights, civil rights, empowerment, movement building, progressive change, social action, promotion of democracy, accountability and transparency, systemic change, and public policy.

Starting in the 1990s, large foundations began to use the term social justice. When the Ford Foundation reorganized its program divisions in 1996, it renamed one of them Peace and Social Justice, for example. (That Ford Foundation program division is now called Democracy, Rights, and Justice.)

In 2007, the Atlantic Philanthropies adopted a social justice framework for its grantmaking in all of its program areas and countries where it operated. The Open Society Foundations (previously known as the Open Society Institute) also asserted a mission to "advance human rights and justice around the world."

What Then Is Social Justice Philanthropy?

Social justice is not just a slogan on a banner or bumper sticker or button. Its definition needs to be backed with substance to be useful as a grantmaker tool. In the late 1990s, the Foundation Center and Independent Sector sought to define social justice philanthropy. What these two key philanthropic sector organizations adopted, is worth quoting. Social justice philanthropy is

the granting of philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations based in the United States and other countries that work for structural change in order to increase the opportunity of those who are the least well off politically, economically and socially.

The report went on to describe the characteristics of a social justice framework, which makes lasting change more likely:

• a focus on root causes of inequity rather than symptoms
• a striving for lasting systemic and institutional change
• the use of a combination of tactics such as policy advocacy, grassroots organizing, litigation, and communications that together are more likely to yield enduring results
• the strengthening and empowering of disadvantaged and vulnerable populations to advocate on their own behalf

Subsequently, the Working Group on Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace convened by the Ford Foundation put forward the following definition of social justice:

Effective social justice philanthropy aims to end the injustices suffered by one group of people at the hands of another. These injustices often result in social, economic, and/or political inequalities. But rather than focus on the effects of unjust treatment, good social justice grantmaking attempts to undo the mechanisms of oppression.

How Can a Foundation Effectively Practice Social Justice Philanthropy

According to the Working Group on Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace, the following elements are necessary for good social justice philanthropy:

1. Sound Analysis…

Of the forces that contribute to injustice. Effective social justice grantmakers base their work on a sound analysis of the historical forces that contributed to shaping the current reality they wish to change, the forces that help maintain the status quo, and the likely future evolution of these forces.

Of the effects of membership in oppressed classes of people. Foundation staff examine the current context and their own work through the lenses of gender, race, ethnicity, class, age, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, country of origin, and membership in other social categories that experience unjust treatment.

Of institutional structures. Because the mechanism of oppression sometimes appears faceless, foundation staff analyze the myriad ways in which institutional structures -- the policies that govern institutions, their practices, their cultures, their relationships with one another and with the communities they’re meant to serve -- contribute to injustice. The category of institutions studied is broad and might include, for example, the local school system, the church, the military, local and national governments, NGOs, the business sector or individual businesses, etc.

Of the distribution of power. One of the goals of an effective social justice grantmaker is to shift power from those who perpetrate injustice to those who suffer it. To this end, foundation staff examine how power in its various forms (wealth, political influence, etc.) is acquired, held, and brokered in the current context.

2. Effective Choice of Strategies and Tactics

A good social justice grantmaker is able to translate a sound analysis into (a) an effective formulation of goals and objectives, and (b) a smart choice of strategies and tactics. Does the analysis lead to a clear sense of what should be changed and how? What are the best strategies for making the desired change happen? Do the strategies lead to a choice of tactics rich enough to initiate and sustain social change?

For example, if funding an advocacy initiative were deemed a good strategy, would the grantmaker support the organizational capacities of activist groups; the building of a broad base of support; the strengthening of alliances among participating organizations; improved data collection and analysis; more strategic communications; and the ability to mobilize additional resources over the long term? If the grantmaker seeks a particular policy outcome, does foundation staff also fund the organizations that would monitor implementation and enforcement? If a social change effort requires litigation, does the grantmaker fund only the legal effort, or, understanding the nature of social change, does the grantmaker also support movement building and other activities that, taken together, are more likely to succeed in removing the injustice?

Because people's lives often hang in the balance, good intentions are not good enough. The grantmaker’s work should have a significant chance of succeeding. It will thus be important to attend carefully to such matters as the scale of the intervention and its time horizon. Social justice is not easily achieved, nor does it come quickly.

A social justice grantmaker will be most effective when they recognize and use all the tools and privileges at their disposal as a grantmaker: the power to convene, the ability to speak with the voice of an institution, access to decision-makers, the ability to marshal significant resources, etc.

3. Solidarity and Respect

Solidarity. An effective social justice grantmaker works in meaningful partnership with the communities they aim to serve. The staffer recognizes that she or he is ultimately accountable to these communities. In practice, this means that the grantmaker will learn from communities and, whenever possible, take direction from them. The grantmaker will aim to make the communities' voices heard, not that of the foundation. There should, in other words, always be a strong presumption against contravening the desires of these communities, to the extent that going against their wishes requires special justification. By working in solidarity with affected communities, the grantmaker gains a deeper understanding of the issues involved. By looking to these communities for leadership, the foundation staffer increases their ownership of the work. Both of these lead to better outcomes. Social justice grantmakers must also be willing to take the medicines they prescribe. We undermine our social justice efforts by exempting ourselves from the rules we would apply to others.

Respect. Effective social justice grantmakers respect the dignity of the communities they serve. They do not cast them as victims, unable to change their basic condition without assistance. Nor do grantmakers romanticize these communities. Because all people possess free will, all parties must acknowledge that they have the ability to participate in their own oppression or liberation. Respect drives out both under-valuation and unrealistic expectations. It motivates social justice grantmakers to seek wisdom and strength from the communities they serve.

4. The General Qualities of a Good Grantmaker

Effective grantmakers take calculated risks; they're often creative in the use of the limited resources available to them; they partner well with others, across sectoral lines and other divisions; they’re patient because they understand that meaningful social change takes time; and they learn from failure -- their own and that of others.

The most difficult and most important practice may be to examine one's logic model and ask, "Even if I do all of these things, what is the change I must see in order to know I am engaged in social justice philanthropy?"

Key Questions

Is social justice a valuable lens for grantmakers? Using a social justice framework has attendant issues: the concept of social justice has become so broadly defined that it may be perceived as being devoid of true meaning. In some cases, foundation trustees and executives may perceive social justice as having a negative connotation. At the Grants Managers Network's 2011 conference, one participant shared that, although most people, regardless of their relationship to the philanthropy sector, would regard her employer's grants as social justice funding -- the foundation has awarded grants to address the issue of high incarceration rates, including awards to the Innocence Project and local re-entry programs for ex-offenders -- the foundation itself framed them as public safety grants. "We couldn't have funded them under the name of social justice," the participant said.

If a foundation has clearly defined what it means by social justice, however, the terminology can provide a useful framework.

Is the term applicable to how a foundation conducts itself separate from its grantmaking? Yes, that is a defining hallmark of social justice philanthropy. Listening, for example, is one of the most important tools when using a social justice lens. The Seattle-based Marguerite Casey Foundation, which helps working families advocate for change on their own behalf, uses listening as its first line of approach. Several years ago, the foundation convened a series of Listening Circles across the country, inviting local experts, parents, and youth to provide feedback on how the foundation should spend $30 million dollars per year to benefit low-income families.

Underlying this approach is a fundamental axiom: the outsider (e.g., funder) first should listen carefully to the members of the communities where it works or seeks to work before making any assumptions on where their support can effect the greatest and most long-lasting social change.

What are some of the common characteristics of social justice foundations? Based on my informal survey of a number of foundations that would be identified by their peers as social justice-focused, I identified the following common traits:

• Their field of interests is akin to a forest that comprises a common canopy rather than a collection of individual trees. In other words, they understand how one grantee's activities are part of a larger ecosystem that includes many other players.
• Social change is a journey rather than a destination. That truism requires donors to perceive themselves as long-distance runners rather than as sprinters.
• A foundation is able to draw on an extensive philanthropic toolkit in addition to grants. That kit includes the power of convening, making recommendations with respect to consultants, enabling peer exchanges, providing meeting space, and technical/management assistance.
• Grants officers go beyond checking off the "we've received your report" box. In practice, they act more as partners and resource brokers. They move beyond checklist grantmaking at the front and tail ends of a grant. Their relationships with grantees do not have a beginning or an end date.
• The menu of the types of financial support that these grantmakers provide is varied and includes general support, multi-year grants, capacity-building support, and individual fellowships, in addition to project-specific grants and endowment support.

How can grantmakers -- and grants managers in particular -- use a social justice lens in their work? My checklist includes the following:

• What are the organization's mission, vision, core values, and track record with respect to diversity?
• Do those things jibe with the foundation's mission, interests, and strategy or theory of change?
• Who is the organization's constituency/base, and how does the organization engage them?
• Does it have a clear plan of action?
• Is it able to show evidence of collaboration and networking with like-minded organizations?
• Is it supported by other social justice funders?

Finally, if a grants manager's job description doesn't encompass at least some of the responsibilities described in this post, let me suggest that as a topic for discussion when next developing/revising position descriptions, reviewing annual work plans, and in the performance review process.

Resources

For more information, check out the following Web sites:

• Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation – Reports & Publications
• New World Foundation – Technical Assistance to Grantees
• Greater New Orleans Foundation – Initiative Grantmaking
• Atlantic Philanthropies – Thought Leadership
• California Endowment – Meeting Ground
• Marguerite Casey Foundation – Listening

-- Michael Seltzer

Weekend Link Roundup (August 18-19, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications/Marketing

On the Communications Network blog, Courtney Williamson talks to Allyson Burns, vice president for communications at the Case Foundation, about the foundation's Be Fearless Campaign. The initiative, which aims to "[encourage] all organizations trying to improve people’s lives 'to take risks' in how they approach their work," was inspired by a request from Case Foundation CEO and co-founder Jean Case for "a new messaging strategy that reflected how the foundation’s work has evolved since its inception." With the help of branding firm BBMG, Burns says, the foundation identified two themes, experimentation and partnership, that became the linchpin of the new strategy. "It doesn't mean we're always fearless," says Burns, "but I'm trying to do better every day."

On her Non-Profit Marketing Blog, Katya Andresen introduces a mini-guide created by her organization, Network for Good, that walks readers through the basics of e-mail engagement.

Evaluation

On the GiveWell Blog, Holden Karnofsky explains how GiveWell differentiates between strong and weak evidence when it evaluates charities. "By 'evidence,'" writes Karnofsky, "we generally mean observations that are more easily reconciled with the charity's claims about the world and its impact than with our skeptical default/'prior' assumption." General properties that make for strong evidence, Karnofsky adds, include relevant reported effects, attribution, representativeness, and consonance with other observations.

Journalism/Media

In a typically thought-provoking post, Public Parts author and Buzz Machine blogger Jeff Jarvis takes issue with the idea that mobile is the "next big thing" in media. Writes Jarvis:

Saying that mobile is what comes next means, I fear, that we're going to take what we do in media -- making content, selling audiences -- and figure out how to keep doing it on video, in social, and in mobile.

But that's not what we really do....

With newspaper companies, I've been arguing that they should abandon page views as a metric because it has been a corrupting influence that carried on the old-media myth that the more "audience" you have the more you can charge advertisers and the more money you'll make. The pursuit of page views has led news organizations to draw traffic -- people -- they cannot monetize (because they come from outside the market or come just once from search or Drudge). And the insistence that they remain in the content business has led news organizations to believe they must still sell that content; thus, pay walls.

Google views content -- our content -- as a tool that generates signals about their users, building relationships, data, and value. Google views mobile as a tool that also generates signals and provides opportunities to target content and services to the individual, where she is, and what she's doing now (thus Android's Google Now).

We in news and media should...knit a mobile strategy around learning about people and serving them better as a result -- not just serving content on smaller screens. Mobile= local=me now. We should build a strategy on people over content, on relationships....

Philanthropy

On her Philanthropy 2173 blog, Lucy Bernholz shares a list of impact investing terms curated by Beth Busenhart and Charlie Kuhn of App-X, a Colorado-based tech that works with alternative asset fund managers and institutional investors.

And in a different post, Bernholz introduces the concept of the "data dividend." "It may cost $X to get a few demo programs running or to build a few prototypes or to conduct an evaluation," writes Bernholz. But if

the process of gathering the information and the plan for distributing it after the funding is built in from the start and the information is designed to 1) help someone get something done and 2) take advantage of in-person and online sharing systems then the return on the $Y data dividend could be even higher. Suppose you spend $3 million on a school program and $250,000 documenting, learning from, and building a community of two dozen other school professionals who have said they want to learn from that original program. Where $3m gets one school program, the $250K might spark change in two dozen others. And the nature of (well structured) information is that it can keep being used, reused, shared, re-applied -- that's the data dividend.

Social Media

On the Philanthropy Potluck blog, MCF Web communications associate Chris Oien recaps a recent Center for Effective Philanthropy webinar about the CEP report Grantees’ Limited Engagement With Social Media (12 pages, PDF), which found, among other things, that while 80 percent of surveyed grantees said they use social media, only 16 percent said that they "personally follow the efforts of the foundations funding them." During the webinar, Elizabeth Miller, a communications associate at the Knight Foundation, presented some social media tips for foundations (which Oien shares in his post), including the importance of creating a culture that encourages all staff -- not just a social media manager -- to use social media to engage with grantees and other audiences.

That's our abbreviated roundup for this week. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a great week!

-- The Editors

Romney, Ryan, and Charity

(Mark Rosenman, a Washington-based scholar-activist and director of Caring to Change, a D.C.-based effort to promote foundation grantmaking for the common good, is a frequent contributor to PhilanTopic. In his last post, he argued that nonprofits are missing from critical policy debates.)

With the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as his running mate, Mitt Romney has changed the stakes of the 2012 presidential race. Well beyond Republican versus Democrat, the question now before Americans is who we are as a nation and a people. Over the next four years, we must make decisions about public responsibility for the common good, about what we expect of government, and of what we expect of one another. The nonprofit and philanthropic sectors cannot afford to ignore this debate.

Developed by the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee and already passed by the House of Representatives, the so-called "Ryan Plan" would have an immediate impact on many nonprofits, especially those serving low- and moderate-income people. Ultimately, however, it would affect each and every area of government support for charitable causes.

Indeed, after announcing Ryan as his running mate, candidate Romney issued a statement trying to distance himself from the plan, even though previously he had described it as "marvelous" and said he was "on the same page" as Ryan in terms of budget priorities. Charities are prohibited involvement in electoral politics, but helping to shape a public discussion about policy and our values as a nation is essential; nonprofit and foundation leaders must declare which page they are on.

Before we take a closer look at the unfolding debate, let me point out that Mitt Romney has himself already proposed similar policies. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concludes, for example, that Romney's detail-deprived proposal for tax reform would give the wealthiest Americans a significant tax cut while imposing tax increases on the remaining 95 percent of Americans.

This parallels Ryan's proposed budget, which would reduce tax revenues by $4 trillion over ten years -- and even more than that in the future. Those breaks, in turn, would save million-dollar-a-year earners an additional $265,000 annually on top of the $129,000 they'll get to keep if the Bush tax cuts are extended for everyone.

What's more, despite its draconian spending cuts and self-justifying rhetoric, the Ryan Plan will actually increase the deficit by $3.1 trillion between now and 2022, according to the House Budget Committee's own projections. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) goes further and says the plan, if adopted, wouldn't balance the federal budget until 2040.

What kind of cuts am I talking about? Let's start with Medicare. The Ryan Plan calls for the program to eventually be turned into a voucher-style subsidy that would result in individuals having to buy more expensive medical insurance in the private market. The CBO analysis suggests that the typical Medicare beneficiary would face an additional $6,400 in annual costs by 2022, although Rep. Ryan has tried to tweak his plan since CBO's analysis was made public.

Furthermore, according to the same analysis, the Ryan Plan raises the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67, creating a two-year gap when Americans wouldn't have access to either Medicare or the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges. What would these changes portend for already over-stretched charities and foundations working to support and assist this growing population?

Although the cuts in the Ryan Plan go even further, the plan's most pernicious aspect involves its assault on programs serving low-income people at a time when poverty rate in America is estimated to have climbed to 15.7 percent -- or about 47 million Americans -- the highest level since 1965. Indeed, more than 60 percent of the budget cuts in the Ryan Plan -- at least $3.3 trillion -- comes from government and nonprofit programs serving the poor and those at risk of falling from the ranks of the middle class. Not counting the Medicare cuts, over $2.4 trillion of the total would be sliced from funding for health initiatives for low- and moderate-income people, while the food stamp program would be cut to the tune of $134 billion, denying assistance to between eight and ten million food-insecure people.

Moreover, cuts in low-income programs for education, training, employment, and social services are estimated to total more than $463 billion, while discretionary programs in the same areas are targeted for an additional $291 billion in cuts. Consider what it would mean, for instance, to gut the Pell Grant program and deny low- and moderate-income students desperately needed tuition at a time when higher education is increasingly promoted as the route to economic self-sufficiency.

Beyond Medicare and safety-net programs, the Ryan Plan wreaks havoc in most other areas of concern to charities and the larger public. Agriculture and food safety, the environment, highways and transportation, medical and scientific research -- all are on the chopping block, as are veterans' programs, water infrastructure, national parks, border patrol, law enforcement, and initiatives in every area of government except national security. In fact, according to the CBO, if the Ryan Plan is implemented, spending by the federal government would essentially be reduced to Social Security, health care, and defense by 2050.

In the aggregate, nonprofit organizations depend on government for about a third of their annual revenue. Foundations cannot and will not make up for these missing dollars. And individual giving, especially from individuals whose own economic circumstances increasingly are precarious, isn’t going to fill in for a government that withdraws from most of its long-recognized responsibilities.

That is exactly the possibility, however, that confronts charities and foundations today. Radical policy promoted by "Republican Social Darwinists," as Robert Reich has characterized Ryan and his supporters, cannot remain unchallenged by nonprofit organizations and those who support them.

But what can charities and foundations do? First, their leaders must speak forcefully about the essential role of government in their areas of programmatic concern. While they may be concerned about a backlash, especially from their wealthier supporters, there is a great deal of polling data to suggest that nonprofit leaders can expect to find a supportive audience on many of these tax and funding issues. A factual presentation on the Ryan Plan joined to an invocation of shared American values is likely to bring even more support for the policy positions supported by charities.

Second, charities and foundations, regardless of their mission, must invest in voter registration, voter education, and get-out-the-vote campaigns focused on their constituencies, volunteers, staff, and members of their larger communities. Such activities are permissible under law (see www.nonprofitvote.org), and they are critical to helping people understand the fundamental issues and what is at stake in this election.

In 2012, Americans will do more than elect a president, a vice president, a House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate. They will determine whether or not we believe in shared responsibility for ourselves and each other. Charities and foundations that choose to sit on the sidelines have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

-- Mark Rosenman

Libraries and Latinos: Return to Adams County

(Kathryn Pyle recently marked her fourth anniversary as a PhilanTopic contributor. In her last post, she wrote about the Justice Matters series at Filmfest DC.)

Four years ago, in my first post for PhilanTopic, I described how the Adams County Library system in a rural part of south central Pennsylvania used a modest donation to try out some new ideas and improve its services for the growing Latino population in the area, mainly families and seasonal workers from Mexico.

Since then, thanks to PhilanTopic's broad and inclusive vision of civic life, I've written about a presidential inauguration, a "City of Trees," the first moon landing, transitional justice, a memorial park in Argentina, and -- most frequently -- social issue documentaries and the organizations that support them. Over that time, I've really enjoyed the opportunity the PND team has given me to refine my vision of the nexus of philanthropy and social justice. But today, because this is my thirtieth (!) post for PhilanTopic, I thought it would be interesting to revisit Adams County to see what, if anything, has changed.

I caught up with library director Rob Lesher on his way to the annual library book sale, which was organized by the Friends of the Library at the main branch in Gettysburg; Lesher told me they hoped to raise at least $25,000. That's a lot of used books and a big shot in the arm for any library in an era of government cuts.

"It's been a challenge financially," says Lesher. "But the big news is that this summer we've seen the highest circulation months in our history. Seventy-five thousand items circulated in July, part of a fifteen-year pattern of growth. And 2011 was a record year, with seven hundred and fifty thousand items circulated; we'll equal that this year. Despite the cutbacks, we've managed to expand our services to Latinos. The key has been experimenting with new programs and partnering with community organizations."

As described in my first post about the library, the strategy to reach Latino families included operating a bookmobile with materials in Spanish through the northern end of the county, offering a story-time in Spanish for Latino children, and the acquisition of more Spanish-language magazines. Over time, staff at the library also became aware that the skills and needs of the Latino community were changing.

"In the past, the family member with the strongest English skills, often a child, would be designated to interface with services and programs," says Lesher. "That’s changed, as there's now a whole generation of children who are native English speakers and the parents themselves are more comfortable in English situations. We're seeing more families, not just children, coming to the library to use the computers and take out books. We've discontinued the Spanish-language story-time as the Latino children began attending the English-language story-time program. We still have a small percentage of our materials budget dedicated to Spanish texts, and the bookmobile certainly is still important in reaching the Latino community. But with so many publications now online, there's not as much available and not as much demand for magazines. The library is transitioning as the community matures."

Part of the transition has been the hiring of a Latina, Marisol Rivera, as a library assistant to staff the main desk of the Harbaugh-Thomas library in the town of Biglerville, the largest branch in the northern end of the county and the center of the fruit-growing region where many of the migrant workers in the area and its fruit-processing labor force lives.

"Marisol has been a wonderful addition,” says Lesher. "Her presence has created a welcoming environment and has certainly contributed to the increase in Latino families coming into the library."

Partnerships with community-based organizations also continues to be a key to reaching the region's Latino population. This summer's "Roads to Freedom" program, a treasure hunt created around local history (the Civil War, Native Americans, local industry, quilting and other crafts) that also encourages kids to be physically active as they track clues around the county, is sponsored by Well-Span Health, a local health services corporation. So far, nearly eight hundred booklets with clues and information have been distributed through the library system.

"When we were planning Roads to Freedom," says Lesher, "we consulted with Latino community organizations about also printing the booklets in Spanish. Their recommendation was to include a bilingual welcome but keep the rest of the text in English. This is part of an evolving approach: our target now is an outcome, and to reach the goal we include the community in planning how to best achieve it, but we're finding that as the community matures the needs are different."

An example is the Harbaugh-Thomas library computer center, which I mentioned in my first post as a resource for Latinos seeking to access news from Mexico, e-mail, and other information. In a new program, the library provides the computers and Latino organizations provide the trainers and people, bringing them to the library to learn how to use a computer.

And in a change that might say as much about the community as anything, there is increased interest in bilingual publications, suggesting not only a "maturing" Latino population but also a growing willingness on the part of English speakers to engage with Spanish. "We’re moving more toward that now," says Lesher." It's what people want."

-- Kathryn Pyle

Weekend Link Roundup (August 11-12, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications/Marketing

Welcome to the Fifth Estate author Geoff Livingston has a list of tips for artists and writers seeking to brand and market themselves. The list includes:

• Focus on actions.
• Go beyond Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
• Monitor social media conversations.
• Let your fans embrace your experience.

Disaster Relief

GiveWell's Holden Karnofsky shares findings from a recent evaluation of charities working to help people in Japan recover from the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the northeastern part of the country in 2011. After reviewing reports about their activities over the past twelve months, Karnofsky concludes that he and his partners "stand by the conclusions we reached last year: that the relief and recovery effort did not have room for more funding, that those interested in emergency relief should have donated to Doctors Without Borders, and that those determined to help Japan specifically should have donated to the Japanese Red Cross."

Diversity

On the Philanthropy Potluck blog, Wendy Wehr, vice president of communications and information services at the Minnesota Council on Foundations, reminds us that while gathering data to monitor diversity among foundation staff and boards is a critical step, organizations also must focus their attention on "turning data into knowledge, and then acting on that knowledge."

Leadership

Rosetta Thurman shares some helpful tips on plotting a guilt-free vacation.

Social Media

On the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog, our colleagues chat with Jane Lowe, senior program officer and team director of the Vulnerable Populations Portfolio at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, about how social media, and more broadly, the transparency and participation they offer, are adding critical new dimensions to [the foundation's] work.

Technology

Buzz Machine blogger Jeff Jarvis shares a few principles for news and technology companies trying to develop online platforms:

• Users come first. A platform without users is nothing. Screw your users, screw yourself.
• A platform is defined by its users. In other words: Hand over control to your users. Give them power. Design in flexibility.
• Platforms collaborate.
• Platforms need principles.

Transparency

"With all that they have at their disposal (money, expertise, networks, flexible time horizons, and reputation), foundations have a great opportunity to try lots of different ways to share information," writes Lucy Bernholz on her Philanthropy 2173 blog. "It's not as simple as having a publications arm or a communications officer or a learning office or a knowledge management strategy, but it's about using whichever of the above means/mechanisms fits the 'who' and the 'why'...."

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org.

-- The Editors

[Infographic] Nonprofit Strategic Restructuring

How are funders supporting strategic collaboration, and how are nonprofits engaging in these kinds of partnerships with each other?

To answer those questions, our colleagues in the Foundation Center's field offices turned to the center's Nonprofit Collaboration Database to find nonprofit organization from across the country who could tell them about their experiences. They eventually contacted ten and asked them questions like:

• Why were you collaborating?
• What are the challenges to effective collaboration?
• How are foundations supporting your collaboration?
• How do you wish they would have supported you?

Then, in partnership with La Piana Consulting and the Tides Center, the center convened ten funders in a daylong session in San Francisco to talk about the way nonprofits and foundations are thinking about collaboration generally and strategic restructuring more specifically.

Based on those two sources of knowledge, our colleagues then created the infographic below for the Alliance for Nonprofit Management 2012 conference (hashtag: #anm12). Enjoy!

(Click for larger image)

For more information about collaboration and strategic restructuring, b sure to check out these resources:

• Nonprofit Collaboration Database
• Collaboration page on GrantSpace
• GrantSpace podcast archive (including the collaboration interviews)
• La Piana: How Grantmakers Can Support Strategic Collaboration
• Collaborating For Good (video)

Advocacy Capacity and Effectiveness: What Funders and Grantees Need to Know

(Susan Hoechstetter is a senior advisor to the Foundation Advocacy Initiative and Advocacy Planning & Evaluation team at the Alliance for Justice. This is her first post for PhilanTopic.)

"How can you expect us to support more advocacy when we don't know how to evaluate the effectiveness of this kind of work?"

That was the question I received repeatedly eight years ago when I canvassed twenty-five funders about the support they needed to increase their nonprofit advocacy grantmaking. The Alliance for Justice was developing a new publication on foundations and advocacy, and as a result of frequent concerns about the effectiveness of foundation grantmaking we we were looking to develop a pragmatic model for advocacy evaluation.

We knew evaluation had to fit the long-term nature of advocacy work. We noted that groups should be credited for accomplishments -- such as gaining credibility with lawmakers or building an active membership -- that would make it more likely they reached their objectives the following year, or thereafter. In addition, our partner in the advocacy evaluation work, the George Gund Foundation, wanted a tool that would help them identify a baseline for grantee advocacy strengths and gaps at the beginning of a grant or advocacy campaign. Thus was born the Advocacy Capacity Tool (ACT), which recently has been revised and updated.

Basically a survey that asks about skills, knowledge, and resources in different areas, ACT is designed to help organizations determine their readiness to pursue advocacy goals and where they need to strengthen their capacity. Foundations can use it to assess potential grantees -- in the RFP process, for example -- and to recruit complementary partners. Most importantly, the insights gained by organizations into their capacity for advocacy invariably improve the effectiveness of their work.

Competing Views in the Field

There are at least two schools of thought on the relationship between organizational capacity and effectiveness. As discussed in the new publication Re-Imagining Philanthropy: The Role Of Leadership In Nonprofit Capacity Building in a Post-Recession Economy, one view is that they are separate, that "capacity-building leads to effectiveness." Another view, as articulated by Peter York and Paul Connolly of the TCC Group, "[theorizes] that effectiveness and the nature and extent of organizational capacity" as measured by CCAT, TCC's capacity assessment tool, "are one and the same concept." One of the factors in their assessment is "whether or not the organizations' knowledge, abilities and resources meet the demands present within their internal and external environment."

AFJ's approach to assessing advocacy capacity makes use of both concepts -- and recognizes that it would be unrealistic to attempt a comprehensive assessment of both an organization's skills and knowledge and the quality of how it uses all these resources at the same time. Our model is based on the following beliefs:

• Having in place skills, knowledge, and other resources for a strong advocacy campaign make it more likely that an organization will succeed in their advocacy efforts.
• Combining as many strong advocacy capacities as possible also leads to greater effectiveness. For example, strong legislative staff, excellent messaging capability, and a strong field operation can work together for better results.
• Having a track record of meeting the needs for strong advocacy indicates effectiveness and capacity. However a group may have the skills and resources in place but be untested for effectiveness. In both cases, there can be strong capacity.

How Our New Tool Works

In the most recent iteration of the ACT tool, we responded to user requests by adding numeric results and comparison data as well as new capacities, including messaging and fiscal sustainability. We make a point of telling users that numeric results should be viewed as markers, not as grades or measures of effectiveness. In many cases, the survey also can be used as a conversation starter and planning tool for staff and boards that want to take a closer look at where their capacities can improve or where they might want to rely on partners in the field, as well as for foundations seeking to help build strong advocacy organizations.

One recent user commented, "This survey showed what we are lacking! We never have done a long-term advocacy plan, talked about media coverage or messaging." In the seven years since AFJ has been using the tool in the field, we've found that it helps groups to be intentional rather than reactive in their advocacy. The results give them an understanding of what it takes to develop strong advocacy programs and the capacity, in terms of advocacy, their organization has and/or needs.

AFJ's path to helping groups build strong advocacy programs has led us to develop a number of advocacy capacity tools. In the process, we have learned how capacity and effectiveness both differ and overlap. By recognizing and accepting these nuances and making greater regular use of advocacy capacity assessment tools, more funders and grantees can contribute effectively to bringing much-needed voices to the policymaking table.

-- Susan Hoechstetter

Taking Private Philanthropy Public: Eye on the Giving Pledge

(Janet Camarena is the director of the Foundation Center's San Francisco office and leads the center's Glasspockets effort.)

Two years have passed since Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates launched the Giving Pledge, an effort to convince the world's wealthiest families and individuals to commit more than half their assets to philanthropy. Initially, four families signed the Pledge, and after two months thirty-six more had joined them. Since then, the size of the list has more than doubled, with eighty-one families or individuals having now signed on.

Given the high profile and net worth of those involved, the launch of the Giving Pledge was accompanied by much fanfare and enthusiasm. Indeed, because philanthropy is often viewed as a private, family affair by those who engage in it, one could view participation in the Giving Pledge as a sort of Public Philanthropic Offering. So now that the bell has been rung, what's next?

Because the Foundation Center's Glasspockets site focuses on philanthropic transparency, we decided earlier this year to create a new feature, Eye on the Giving Pledge, to help track the charitable activities of Giving Pledgers and highlight some of the demographic trends and giving interests of pledge participants. Things like: Who has signed the Pledge? In which industries did they make their fortunes? Where are they based? What causes do they support? "Eye on the Giving Pledge" provides a way to follow how those who have made commitments are fulfilling their pledges.

The decision by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates to use their influence and networks to drive more dollars to philanthropy should be celebrated. In addition to the leadership they've demonstrated with the Giving Pledge itself, the Gateses also are providing an excellent example for other Pledge participants by making their family foundation the principle vehicle for their philanthropy. At the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Web site, the public can readily access a complete record of the foundation's grantmaking via its 990-PFs, determine whether its grantmaking is limited to pre-selected organizations, read press releases about noteworthy new grants, check out Bill Gates' annual letter detailing many of the foundation's successes (and some of its failures), and listen to a regular podcast featuring staff members sharing insights about the foundation's evolving grantmaking strategies.

Of course, many Pledgers will opt or continue to use other vehicles for their giving, vehicles that do not have the same reporting requirements as foundations. In those cases, we've done our best to capture examples of that giving from public information sources. Since we expect there will be gaps in our coverage due to the challenges inherent in tracking individual giving, we invite you to help us surface additional knowledge through an online form provided for that purpose.

With a combined net worth of roughly $400 billion, the eighty-one signatories to the Giving Pledge could end up contributing an additional $200 billion or more to charity over time. In addition to the tangible benefits of all that giving, we think it's refreshing to see some of the world's wealthiest people celebrated not just for the next deal but for their next gift -- and for publicly committing to use their wealth for the public good. Or, to put it another way, shouldn't actual giving be as celebrated as the intention to give?

-- Janet Camarena

Funder Tools for a More Efficient Marketplace

(Lisa Philp is vice president for strategic philanthropy and director of GrantCraft at the Foundation Center.)

Two years ago, the Foundation Registry i3 was a lifesaver for me.

I was working as a philanthropic advisor and was looking for an opportunity to lead a group of emerging philanthropists interested in education reform from talking about collaboration to taking action. The U.S. Department of Education's Investing in Innovation (i3) competitive grants program seemed tailor-made for my crowd: a marketplace of ideas, evidence-based approaches, and five-to-one leverage. I informed several dozen high-net-worth donors about the i3 program and vetted the highest-rated applicants based on the quality of their project designs, evidence and evaluation, capacity, financial review, and need for a match. My clients pooled over $5 million in flexible new funds to provide matches for i3 projects working in sixteen states and D.C. and, along with other private funders, leveraged $145 million in public funds.

The vetting and matching all happened within a few short weeks. How did I have access to i3 applicants for review? How did I know which ones needed matching funds? How did I benefit from the knowledge of other foundations? Simple. The Foundation Registry i3.

The registry was started by a group of presidents from the largest U.S. foundations focused on education who recognized that the i3 program created new opportunities to use technology to enhance collaboration and improve efficiency. After conversations with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, their staff members, and other funders, the Foundation Registry i3 was born. Starting with a founding group of a dozen funders, the registry now includes sixty foundations and corporations.

The registry combines an easy-to-use online platform with responsive people behind the scenes -- an example of technology augmenting relationships and networks. It simplifies the discovery phase of connecting groups of like-minded applicants and funders during time-sensitive, matching grant competitions and helps to create a more efficient marketplace. Applicants are encouraged to upload their materials to the registry to increase the awareness and reach of their proposals to participating foundations. Registered funders can sort applicants by tag and category, view other foundations' interest levels and match considerations for proposals, and collaborate by sharing notes and comments on proposals in a password-protected area. During the 2010 and 2011 i3 grant cycles, forty of the sixty-six highest-rated applicants were matched by one or more registry funders, to the tune of over $68 million.

The Foundation Registry i3 template has been adapted for use by the 100Kin10 initiative, a multi-sector mobilization focused on training one hundred thousand science, technology, engineering, and math teachers over the next ten years. It also inspired the SIF Registry, which is designed to simplify the process for eligible Social Innovation Fund intermediaries and sub-grantees to obtain matching funds from foundations.

Fast forward to the 2012 i3 grant cycle, now under way. I'm pleased to report that the Foundation Center is administering the Foundation Registry i3 for this year's grant cycle. We're encouraging i3 scale-up, validation, and development applicants to upload their U.S. Department of Education proposals and are reaching out to education funders to register for the site. Right now -- well before the matching period begins in the fall -- is a great time to become part of the registry. There's no cost to applicants to showcase their applications to a group of motivated funders, and no funding commitment required of foundations to sign up -- just potential interest in providing support for i3 applicants.

If you are a 2012 applicant to the i3 program or a funder interested in U.S. student achievement, please contact us so we can add you to this online community.

-- Lisa Philp

Weekend Link Roundup (August 4-5, 2012)

Our weekly roundup of new and noteworthy posts from and about the nonprofit sector....

Communications/Marketing

In a guest post on the Communications Network blog, Dan Cohen and Edit Ruano offer five ideas for livening up your summer communications efforts.

1. Brainstorm with staff on how to engage your audience/community, and then delegate the implementation of those ideas to tap into staff creativity.
2. Program e-blasts; content could include previews of the work planned for the fall or reflections on your organization's previous accomplishments.
3. Write (or coordinate with grantees to write) op-eds about your organization's work before heading out on vacation.
4. Develop a schedule of pre-programmed social media content: at least one Facebook post and two or three tweets per week recommended.
5. Host a get-together with potential partner organizations and individuals to strengthen your networks and bring a fresh perspective to the work you do.

Kivi Leroux Miller highlights the evolution of one nonprofit's annual reports -- from more than twenty pages of financial details to four pages of accomplishments. In 2009 "[i]t was a lot more 'here's all the stuff we've done' vs 'here's what we accomplished,'" Katie Bryan, of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, told Miller. In contrast, in 2011 "[w]e started out with the top accomplishments we had to share, then filled in images...and then worked the theme and letter around those."

Giving Pledge

Responding to the launch of the Foundation Center's Eye on the Giving Pledge site, NCRP's Kevin Laskowski commends our colleagues for "shining a light on an initiative that could bring important change to the sector." But he urges the center to take its commitment to transparency one step further by helping the public to see how the signatories are doing in terms of meeting their "stated obligation." Writes Laskowski:

Certainly, there are difficulties in doing this. For instance, how do we verify a signatory's gifts to public charities when these charities are not required to disclose their donors? Additionally, a person's net worth can fluctuate wildly over one's lifetime. For the purposes of the pledge, which net worth is to be used as the denominator, one's worth at the time of signing or upon one's death or what?...

It's important to ask how these men and women are doing. The answers might provide guidance and inspiration to new donors and potential signatories. How much are the signatories giving by amount and as a share of their wealth? Are most giving at or around 50 percent? How many are giving 80 or 90 percent? How many of them are planning to wait until death to make their largest distributions? Is the Giving Pledge spurring new giving, or are people pledging based on grants and plans they've already made? Might we be able to spur more and better giving faster if the signatories were essentially encouraged to compete with one another? I imagine the ensuing debate over what counted and how would be quite animated and illuminating....

 Leadership

The NonProfit Times has released its fiftienth annual Power and Influence Top 50 list. And, despite the generally positive reviews, more than a few people think the exercise is getting a little stale. The list "left out some amazing powerful and influential people in the sector mainly because these amazing and powerful people are NOT CEOs of national organizations," writes Heather Carpenter, an assistant professor in the School of Public, Nonprofit, and Health Administration at Grand Valley State University, on her blog. The solution? Maybe "there needs to be several versions of the...list that go beyond CEOs of national organizations" -- for example an "NPT Power and Influence: The Next Generation" list or an "NPT Power and Influence: Community and Grassroots" list.

On the Philanthropy Front and Center - Atlanta blog, Chanell Turner, a special initiatives intern in the Foundation Center's Atlanta office, shares some advice from Eli Broad's new memoir, The Art of Being Unreasonable, that will benefit most nonprofit leaders looking to up their game:

• Don't apologize for humble beginnings.
• Question the conventional wisdom.
• Embrace innovation.
• Enjoy your success but don't stop there.
• Don't just network within your circle.
• Do your homework.
• Set priorities, be disciplined but not rigid, and focus on what really matters.
• Don't be afraid to take risks.

Philanthropy

BlackGiveBack's Tracey Webb shares a video trailer for the Giving Back Project, a campaign organized by the New Generation of African American Philanthropists giving circle to re-frame philanthropy as something more than an activity "defined by great wealth and large monetary gifts."

In the Nonprofit Quarterly, Simone Joyaux pushes back against the notion that philantrocapitalism -- the application of business thinking and methods to social problems -- "will save the world" -- and gives a big shoutout to sometime PhilanTopic contributor Michael Edwards in the process. "Sure, philanthrocapitalism can make a difference. It can find cures for various diseases and produce jobs," writes Joyaux.

But that doesn't fix the systemic issues that confront our society -- things like greed and inequality, fear and prejudice, privilege and disadvantage. Edwards notes [in Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World, "Few areas of business expertise translate well into the very complex social and political problems where solutions have to be fought for and negotiated -- not produced, packaged, and sold. And, so far at least, there aren't many philanthrocapitalists who are prepared to invest in the challenges of long-term institution building, the deepening of democracy, or the development of a different form of economy in which inequality is systematically attacked...."

Transparency

"I think autonomy (and therefore diversity) of foundations with regards to mission and method is a good thing. It makes our society richer and more resilient, just as an ecology with more variation in plants and animals is more robust under stress than one with less biodiversity," writes Chris Langston, program director at the John A. Hartford Foundation, on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog. "Still, I wonder -- what does a foundation owe to the broader society that grants it both tax advantages and this autonomy? In addition to our own commitment to be serious about our work, I think we should also commit to transparency. If we are open about our governance, finances, policies, and processes, we show that we are open to feedback. We are also more likely to adhere to our own standards simply by virtue of knowing that others know our goals."

That's it for this week. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org

-- The Editors

[Infographic] 'America's Nonprofit Sector'

Nice infographic from the folks at the Center for Civil Studies at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies based on the new, fully revised third edition of America's Nonprofit Sector: A Primer (Foundation Center), by Lester R. Salamon.

To order America's Nonprofit Sector, click here.

Why 'Risk' Is An Unloved Word in Philanthropy

(Derrick Feldmann is the CEO of Achieve, an Indianapolis-based consulting firm that works with nonprofits. In his previous post, he cautioned organizations to think twice about flying the "innovation" flag.)

"There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."

 -- John F. Kennedy

Whenever I visit my financial advisor, he almost always gets around to talking about risk. The subject usually comes up when I ask him how I can increase the value of my portfolio. His response is almost always the same. "What's your tolerance for losing money?" He always has ideas for new investments, but he's quick to point out that many aren't "sure bets." Anyone seeking bigger investment returns in this environment -- and lucky enough to have discretionary resources to invest in the first place -- has played this game at one point or another.

So why are risky investments something most of us are willing to tolerate in our personal financial lives, but something we avoid like the plague in our philanthropic work?

The answer is simple: We're afraid to make risky philanthropic investments because we don't want to "lose" money.

As funders and donors, we've grown accustomed to making investments in organizations we know will succeed. They have a history, proven track records, and staff and leadership that can execute. Pressure from boards and other stakeholders who view philanthropic investments only through the lens of success contributes to this predictability. Typically, these stakeholders are most concerned about protecting the corpus and in signing off on decisions that won't get them into trouble. This isn't all bad. It ensures, among other things, that people in need will be helped, especially during times when they need it most. But as an investment approach, it does little to encourage innovation.

Think about your own work for a minute and ask yourself the following questions:

• What is the riskiest grant we ever made?
• What was our motivation for making that grant?
• How many times have we given a grant to an organization that didn't have a track record of success?
• How much money are we willing to set aside to fund riskier initiatives?

If you're like a lot of program officers, it may not be easy to think of a grant you made that could be classified as "risky." But you need look no further than your own personal giving for examples of risky philanthropic investments. Indeed, we make these kinds of investments every time we support a friend, colleague, or family member in a run/walk/race for a medical cause or cure. As a country, we invest more than $20 billion a year to find cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, and stroke. And those investments are "risky" because there's very little measurable return on our donations short of a cure or significant new discovery. But we choose to fund this type of research anyway, knowing that most failures in the lab bring us closer to the ultimate goal.

Unfortunately, many problems today -- whether social, environmental, or economic -- are every bit as large and complicated as finding the cure for cancer. And the only way we're going to solve them is to take our approach to medical research and apply it to other areas. In other words, we need funders and individual donors who are truly willing to embrace risk and invest significant dollars in potential solutions that may not yield immediate results but get us closer to our ultimate objective, even if it's only by demonstrating what doesn't work.

Here are four things I believe philanthropy can and should do in order to embrace more risk.

Emulate the founders. On the road to building great fortunes, the founders of some of the biggest foundations in the country took risk almost every day of their professional and business lives. Whether they played a leading role in forging the modern steel or oil industry, made it easy for people to use a computer or reap the benefits of globalized supply chains, or created online social networks that connected the world, our greatest entrepreneurs and philanthropists were great risk-takers who never lost sight of their objective: To deliver the most value to the greatest number of consumers. That's precisely the kind of entrepreneurial spirit we need today as we look to provide and fund solutions to the most intractable problems affecting our communities.

Set aside funds for riskier ventures. If foundations were for-profit companies and had to compete in the marketplace, they almost certainly would rush to set up research and development arms with a mandate to innovate, develop new programs and initiatives, and evaluate how existing programs and initiatives were performing. But as endowed tax-exempt entities, foundations rarely have to compete and so have little incentive to set aside funds to invest in anything other than proven organizations and concepts. Now, I get that foundations and donors can't fund every risky investment and innovation that comes along. But I'm convinced that they can and should begin to pool and earmark funds for investments in organizations and concepts that don't have a track record of success but do have potential to bring about dramatic change in our communities.

Ask new questions. Donors and foundations need to start asking new questions when a risky investment presents itself. Instead of the historical "proven impact" questions typically posed during the proposal and due-diligence stages, funders should focus on questions designed to help them understand the level of risk involved in the proposed idea or solution. Questions like:

• Why is this a risky concept/approach?
• Why is your approach to the problem better than existing approaches?
• What's the worst that could happen if you fail?
• Even if you fail, what do you hope to learn from the approach you're proposing?
• Who are the experts/mentors you look to for guidance in your work and what do they have to say about the approach/concept?
• If the approach/concept demonstrates success, how do you plan to sustain it?

Foster new learning environments. As a funder, you have a tremendous opportunity to be transparent about grants and programs that worked -- as well as those that didn't. Here's your chance to create a learning opportunity -- indeed, a learning community -- for social entrepreneurs and innovators. Share your knowledge about the grants you made, the internal reports that tracked the progress of those grants, and why the investments you made did, or did not, succeed. Take it a step further and create a forum on your Web site where grantees can come together and learn from each other about what worked and didn't. At a minimum, it will help them think about new approaches to their existing work and perhaps lead to new ideas that you may want to support in the future.

There you have it. Let's create a philanthropic marketplace where risk is celebrated, not avoided, and serves to bring us closer to solving some of the biggest challenges we face. History invariably shows that if we give good ideas a platform and a chance to succeed, they will. The sooner we get over our aversion to risk and instead support those individuals and organizations willing to think outside the box, the sooner we'll prove history right.

-- Derrick Feldmann