PhilanTopic

The Social Progress Index: Measuring What Counts?

The Washington, D.C.-based Social Progress Imperative made a splash at the Skoll World Forum earlier this month when it launched its Social Progress Index (SPI), an ambitious effort to inform and influence development policies around the globe.

Developed by Harvard Business School professor and competitiveness expert Michael E. Porter in collaboration with Scott Stern of MIT, the index is founded on the principle that "what we measure guides the choices we make." To that end, the index analyzes fifty-two outcome-based (as opposed to input-based) indicators in three dimensions of social progress: meeting basic human needs; establishing the foundations of well-being that enable individuals to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives; and creating opportunity for all to reach their full potential. (For a complete breakdown of indicators, click here.)

While the index and the report (154 pages, PDF) released in conjunction with the launch of the index includes only fifty countries, those countries represent three-quarters of the world's population. Here's a chart from the report that plots their aggregate SPI scores against GDP per capita (PPP):

As the chart shows, the countries included in the index and report are fairly well distributed across income levels, ranging from Switzerland at the high end with a GDP per capita of $51,262; to middle-income countries such as the Russian Federation ($21,246), South Africa ($10,960), and China ($8,400); to lower-income countries like Egypt ($6,281), India ($3,627), and Mozambique ($975).

So, what do the SPI team's findings based on an analysis of a full year of data reveal? For starters, that countries' level of overall development -- as measured by GDP per capita and/or indices of global competitiveness -- often mask striking social and environmental challenges and strengths. For example, Costa Rica, a lower-middle-income country with a PPP of $12,157, ranks twelfth overall in the index, ahead of richer countries such as Israel ($27,825) and Argentina ($17,554); nineteenth in terms of basic human needs; and eighth for opportunity -- ahead of France, Japan, and Germany, all of which rank higher in terms of overall score. In contrast, the United Arab Emirates, the third-richest country ($47,893) in the SPI sample, ranks nineteenth overall, including eleventh in terms of basic human needs, but only thirtieth for opportunity and a disappointing thirty-seventh in terms of foundations of well-being.

The index/report also seem to indicate that economic development is necessary but not sufficient for social progress; that it is possible to achieve a high level of social progress at a relatively modest income level; and that while low-income countries are clustered at the bottom of the index, there is a wide range of social progress within this group. For instance, Mozambique, the poorest country in the SPI sample, is ranked fourteenth in terms of equality and inclusion, whereas Rwanda, the third-poorest country in the sample, is ranked forty-fourth for equality and inclusion. At the same time, Rwanda tops the index in terms of ecosystem sustainability, while the United States, which has the second-highest PPP in the sample and is ranked sixth overall, ranks near the very bottom (forty-eighth) in terms of ecosystem sustainability.

If by highlighting each country's strengths and weaknesses with respect to various aspects of social progress these data get you thinking differently about development, then SPI is off to a good start. "The purpose of the Social Progress Index," the report's authors note, "is to benchmark performance and motivate improvement while providing useful insights that will help all stakeholders to make better choices, prioritize investments, and strengthen implementation capacity to improve the lives of citizens."

Looking ahead, SPI plans to refine its model based on feedback and empirical testing, eventually expanding the number of countries in the index from fifty to a hundred and twenty. It also plans to form a Social Progress Network comprising partners from research and academic institutions, think tanks, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, and international development organizations "to identify the policies, institutions, legal frameworks, and financing mechanisms that can drive more effective and efficient social progress, through international benchmarking and fostering specific research projects." And it will explore the possibility of creating a Social Progress Capacity Index to measure the potential of a country's government, business, and civil society institutions to contribute to innovation in the social sector.

In the meantime, governments are paying attention, with Paraguay already having agreed to incorporate the SPI model into its national development framework. Which perhaps begs the question: How will the philanthropic sector, in the U.S. and elsewhere, respond? The index has already begun to spark discussions about impact investing and social entrepreneurship. Will foundations become more active in those conversations than they have been to date? And how, if at all, might the index change the way we approach economic development -- both overseas and here in the United States? Have thoughts you'd like to share? Use the comments section below.

-- Kyoko Uchida

Weekend Link Roundup (April 6-7, 2013)

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

Advocacy

On NCRP's Keeping a Close Eye blog, Rosenberg Foundation president Tim Silard discusses the foundation's recent decision to increase its payout this year to 6.1 percent to help advance immigration reform. "Our hope," writes Silard, "is that this major step by a mid-sized foundation can go a long way toward encouraging more of us in philanthropy to stretch our funding even further...to respond to this unique window of opportunity."

Communications

In a post on the Council on Foundation's Re: Philanthropy blog, Rita Soronen, president and CEO of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, reminds us why storytelling matters. Indeed, it is "at the heart of all emotions," writes Soronen. "And nonprofits simply must use communications -- storytelling -- as a very important tactic to steward current donors and secure new funders."

Fundraising

Jeff Brooks, author of the Fundraiser's Guide to Irresistible Communications, explains that fundraising is "a two-way conversation" and if you don't know that, you're missing an opportunity to engage your donors in a real way.

Impact/Effectiveness

Center for Effective Philanthropy president Phil Buchanan considers the role of foundations in the emerging impact investing space. Writes Buchanan:

In many of the accounts heralding impact investing as the potential solution to the world's ills, foundations, with their more than $300 billion in assets, are featured prominently. They are portrayed as leaders, or likely leaders, in this new realm....

Clearly, there are some major foundations that have taken significant and important steps into impact investing, such as the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (see CEO Sterling Speirn's excellent post on Kellogg’s experience for the CEP Blog) and the Greater Cincinnati Foundation. But, beyond a handful of much discussed examples, it is unclear how much of the talk about impact investing is just that -- talk -- and how much is reflected in actual practice....

Buchanan goes on to explain that he has heard "many foundation CEOs and board members eschew the idea that they'd ever seek anything other than maximum returns for their foundations' endowments." To that end, Buchanan writes, more research needs to be done "to bring the prevalence of this practice into focus."

Can't get enough of the impact/metrics debate? The Nonprofit Quarterly kicks it up a notch with a great point/counterpoint debate featuring an entertaining post ("Charity Navigator 3.0: The Empirical Empire’s Death Star?") by William Schambra, director of the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, and an equally sharp rebuttal ("Debating the Realities of Ranking Charities") from CN's own Ken Berger.

International Development

Ariel Schwartz, a senior editor at Fast Company's Co.Exist operation, looks at four ideas that Melinda Gates believes will drive the next wave of advances for people in the developing world: M-Pesa, a mobile money system; Digital Green, an organization that helps farmers in India and South Asia create educational videos for other farmers; contraception education and access; and local development.

Nonprofit Management

On the Valcourt Group blog, Jim Jewell looks at seven reasons why nonprofits often fail or flounder.

Regulation/Oversight

The Charitable Giving Coalition (CGC), a group of sixty nonprofits that includes the Association of Fundraising Professionals and Independent Sector, has launched a new Web site, ProtectGiving.org, to help preserve and protect the charitable tax deduction in its current form. Visitors to the site will find a variety of resources (reports, fact sheet, FAQ) designed to raise awareness about the importance of charitable giving in America, examples of the impact nonprofits make in our communities, and a "Take Action" section that includes talking points, a message and media guide, and op-ed and elected official letter templates.

Social Entrepreneurship

Writing on the Gates Foundation's Impatient Optimists blog, GOOD magazine's Mary Slosson announces the launch of the Global Citizenship Project, which will offer five global innovators each a "pop-up fellowship to elevate and expand their work in order to create more equitable and successful neighborhoods."

Social Media

Beth Kanter urges nonprofit leaders to embrace social media -- and "the benefits of effective social media integration that personalizes your organization’s brand with the voice of its leader" -- by making time for Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other tools on a regular basis. As a start, Kanter suggests that execs and senior managers start by asking their communications teams:

• What do you spend time doing now that you could do better via social?
• What other executive directors that you respect, follow, or feel inspired by are using social creatively?
• What are your strengths and preferences and what is the best match in terms of social channels?
• How will social improve things you already KNOW and value

Citing the experience of Udi Ofer, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Kanter points out that Twitter not only enables Ofer to comment "on his organization's most important cases and issues," but also to display his human side and inject "warmth into the organization."

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

-- The Editors

Expanding Our View of Pathways to Grow Impact

(Kathleen P. Enright is president and CEO of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, a community of more than four hundred funders committed to improving their own practices in ways that are critical to nonprofit success. GEO does this by facilitating connections between its members so that they can learn from each other and make more progress more quickly.)

Only a few short decades ago, smoking was both widespread and socially acceptable. To those who grew up in the 1990s, a show like Mad Men, where characters smoke in every imaginable context, might seem more like fantasy than a portrayal of a time gone by. It's a visible reminder of how effective advocates have been in challenging social norms and changing the public’s perception of smoking.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is one of those advocates. Recognizing that 90 percent of adult smokers picked up the habit as teenagers, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation set out to counter the harmful impact of the tobacco industry's promotion of its products to teens. In 1996, RWJF launched the campaign to educate teens and the public about the health risks and social downsides of tobacco and promote policies designed to keep kids from smoking.

The campaign employed a variety of strategies, and its online resource center quickly became a hub for sharing information and ideas, including news about tobacco-related policies and reports and opportunities to get involved. Through its work, the campaign connected with other organizations that shared the same mission in order to spread the idea that smoking wasn't cool and supported policy reforms that reduced the appeal of smoking and made it harder for teens to pick up the habit.

Although traditional notions of scale in the nonprofit sector tend to focus on program replication and organizational growth, a closer look reveals that, like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, most successful nonprofits pursue multiple strategies. After all, the results an organization achieves are far more important than its size.

To gain a deeper understanding of the various pathways to greater impact and the grantmaker practices that best support it, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations engaged in a collaborative project with Ashoka, Social Impact Exchange, the Taproot Foundation, and the TCC Group to answer the question: What is the grantmaker's role in supporting high-performing nonprofits looking to grow their impact? The resulting report, Pathways to Grow Impact (40 pages, PDF), includes a framework that details four distinct pathways adapted from one developed by Julia Coffman for a publication of the Harvard Family Research Project. They include:

• Increasing the reach of a program that has demonstrated reliable results for a specific population over a period of time.
• Spreading a new idea or innovative way of doing something among individuals or organizations within a system.
• Increasing the number of people or places that use a technology or apply a specific skill, practice, or approach.
• Advocating for policy change as a means of transforming behavior.

The report offers recommendations for grantmakers seeking better ways to support nonprofits as they look to grow their impact. Indeed, our work identified four grantmaker practices that are critical to amplifying grantee impact:

• Providing flexible funding in appropriate amounts over the long term enables high-performing nonprofits to invest in the infrastructure and human capital that will keep them strong.
• Supporting an organization's ability to collect and use data and develop an approach to performance management enables it to continuously learn, grow, and concentrate its resources where it is having the greatest impact.
• Providing capacity building and leadership development that is responsive to a nonprofit's context enables an organization to build critical skills and shift gears when appropriate.
• Supporting movements in addition to individual organizations can nurture relationships and help build the momentum required to achieve broad-scale change.

To access the full Pathways to Grow Impact report and read more stories about pioneering organizations and initiatives that have found creative ways to achieve big results, visit www.geofunders.org.

-- Kathleen Enright

Leveraging Momentum in the Movement to End Violence Against Girls and Women

(Jennifer Buffett is the president and co-chair of the NoVo Foundation, an organization that seeks to empower girls and women worldwide and to end the violence and exploitation against them. )

When girls are empowered, they can transform communities and the world. But for too many girls, domestic and sexual violence stands in their way.

Countless advocates have worked tirelessly for decades to end violence against girls and women. Thanks to their work, we have made progress: Attitudes have shifted. Resources have been allocated. Systems have started to change. And yet, rates of violence remain staggeringly high -- violence that makes the headlines, like the gang rapes in India and Steubenville, Ohio, as well as everyday rapes and beatings that are so commonplace in our culture they are not even considered news.

What will it take to create lasting change -- to create a world where women and girls are safe and respected and can reach their amazing potential? We believe it will take bold action. And change is certainly afoot.

There has been incredible momentum building over the last two months around ending violence against girls and women. On February 14, One Billion Rising (an initiative led by V-Day) mobilized millions of women and men around the world in the largest global action in history to end violence against girls and women. On former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's penultimate day in the office, President Barack Obama signed a memorandum that institutionalizes an ambassador-at-large to run the Office of Global Women's Issues, ensuring that girls and women have a place on our national agenda.

During the first week of March, as the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status on Women explored the elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls, President Obama signed the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This version of VAWA, which among other things ensures critical funding for programs that support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, education, and training for the judges and lawyers who prosecute these crimes, now guarantees that the LGBTQ, Native American, and immigrant communities also will find protection under the law. The bill also includes the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, a law designed to prevent trafficking, aid victims, and hold traffickers accountable in court.

While big gains are being realized on the national and international stage, innovative organizations are changing the attitudes and behaviors of hundreds of thousands of Americans in their own communities. A Long Walk Home, an organization that uses art therapy and the visual and performing arts to end violence against girls and women, has educated more than a hundred thousand survivors and their supporters to build safe communities and end gender violence in just a few years. A CALL TO MEN is working to engage men, who have the primarily responsibility for preventing domestic and sexual violence, in the solution. The organization goes where men are, from community centers and college campuses to football fields and boardrooms, and provides education, tools, and strategies to help them change their attitudes and behaviors. Over ten years, A CALL TO MEN has reached more than a hundred thousand people, including thirty thousand young men in high school and college and 90 percent of the teams in the National Football League.

While these incredible sparks of innovation are happening in pockets across America, groups tend to operate in silos, and culture-shifting campaigns like these are disconnected from one another. At the NoVo Foundation, we started the Move to End Violence program, a ten-year operational program to identify visionary leaders who are doing innovative social change work in isolation and bring them together to strengthen the movement to end domestic and sexual violence in the United States. Through their work, we will achieve a movement made up of powerful organizations working toward a shared vision for ending violence against girls and women.

Two years into our commitment, we could not be more pleased with the direction of this work. We are transforming leaders and ensuring they have the resources and capacity to lead the way in ending violence against girls and women. We are bringing together organizations that once saw one another as competitors and now see themselves as invaluable partners. We are helping these advocates adopt a more sustainable, impactful way of doing this work. And the leaders in this program and their allies are beginning to envision a new way of moving forward together.

Right now, leaders in the field are hosting "movement conversations" all across the country, engaging their allies in discussions around a bold vision for ending violence against girls and women and the actions needed to make that vision a reality. The field is on the precipice of becoming a powerful movement for social change in which talented leaders working in concert can leverage the power of their organizations to achieve bold impact.

It is clear the time is now. Years of hard work by many have set the stage for a series of policy wins, a new level of consciousness, a growing group of transformed leaders, and a public ready for change. We must collectively leverage this momentum. We need to invest in the advocacy and social change agenda that these innovative leaders are creating -- and work together as funders to put resources behind these efforts to create lasting change.

-- Jennifer Buffett

Redefining Today’s Business Landscape: A Q&A With David Vidal, Corporate Sustainability Thought Leader

David J. Vidal, a leading expert on the role of business in society, has over the course of a forty-year career served as a senior fellow with the Conference Board Initiative on Sustainability, as vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations, as assistant vice president at Continental Insurance, and as director of public affairs for the Partnership for New York City, a CEO-led civic, housing, and education group. Vidal also is active in industry leadership activities as a member of the judge's panel of the CERES-ACCA Sustainability Reporting Awards, the Newsweek/Daily Beast Green Rankings Advisory Panel, the Giving USA Advisory Council on Methodology, and the U.S. Advisory Council of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Recently, Michael Seltzer, distinguished lecturer at the Baruch College School of Public Affairs and a frequent contributor to PhilanTopic, spoke with Vidal about the corporate sustainability landscape.

Philanthropy News Digest: Corporate engagement in society appears to be in tremendous flux, partly as a result of greater demands for corporate accountability. From your vantage point, what's going on in CEO suites?

David Vidal: The corporate contributions function has been overtaken by the broader business social accountability movement. Forward-looking business leaders are concerned today with a growing array of stakeholders and publics. Yesterday's focus on solely producing shareholder value is no longer sufficient. If you open a corporate annual report today, you will more often see a letter from the CEO addressed to shareholders and stakeholders.

PND: Has the terminology that businesses use also changed?

DV: Definitely. When I ran a corporate contributions program, the term corporate social responsibility was just emerging. In the last twenty years, that phrase was supplanted by global corporate citizenship. Today, many corporate leaders use the word sustainability to encompass the broader array of relationships that businesses now engage in. What's needed now are new business models based on equitable and sustainable growth.

PND: How did we get to this point?

DV: In 1987, the Bruntland Commission introduced the term sustainable development into public global discourse. Three years later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its first assessment report. Around the same time, we also began to see an explosion in both the numbers and scope of civil society actors. That was quite apparent at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development -- the so-called "Earth Summit" -- which was held in Rio de Janiero in 1992. Subsequently, in 1997, the World Bank held a conference dedicated to global corporate citizenship. Meanwhile, in 1992, in the United States, Business for Social Responsibility, a global network that today comprises nearly three hundred member companies, was created, and the United Nations launched its Global Compact in 1999.

Indeed, by the time Al Gore released his film An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, the dialogue in regards to sustainability and its benefits for society, business, customers, and the public had moved to an entirely new level. And that conversation continues to spread and deepen. At the UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals in 2010, for example, a report titled Catalyzing Transformational Partnerships Between the United Nations and Business was issued by the Global Compact at the request of UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

PND: Can you give us an example of a corporation that has traveled down this road?

DV: Unilever is an excellent illustration of what we are talking about. Its leadership knows it can only prosper if the societies and communities in which it operates benefit from its presence. In 2012, CEO Paul Polman went so far as to indicate that the company was in business for, and I quote, "the benefit of consumers, employees, suppliers and society at large" and to create long-term value "sustainably and equitably." To that end, the company has even stopped reporting profits on a quarterly basis. It was a focus on short-termism, after all, that got many businesses into trouble in the first place.

PND: Has Unilever been able to stick to its sustainability guns and demonstrate strong growth at the same time?

DV: According to its annual report for 2011, the company reported sales growth of 6.5 percent. And its share price on the Amsterdam Exchange index was up 14 percent for the year, making it the best-performing stock on the AEX.

PND: Is Unilever an exception?

DV: Clearly, it's a leader among its peers. But it is not alone in traveling down this road. I mean, today every Bloomberg terminal has a "sustainability" tab.

PND: So what's the next big thing in corporate sustainability?

DV: More businesses are endeavoring to foster large-scale systemic changes in areas such as food production, access to health care and education, and job creation. At the same time, they are spending time and money to learn about the complexity of global systems change and the challenges inherent in trying to bring about social change. Fortunately, all three sectors -- public, private, and corporate -- seem more inclined to engage in multi-stakeholder cooperation and are moving rapidly to adopt an all-hands-on-deck approach with respect to solving society's greatest problems. That's where the sweet spot is: when all three sectors work in unison.

-- Michael Seltzer

Announcement: Data Interoperability Grantmaking Challenge

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in partnership with Liquidnet for Good, is looking for groundbreaking ideas to help improve data in the social sector.

Data and information are critical tools for making change in our world, but they are tools that are currently difficult to access and use. New data sets are being collected and opened up to the public every day, but for the average donor, nonprofit leader, or community activist with a question or a good idea, it is very hard to make sense of isolated and fragmented data sets. Linking together different kinds of data will ultimately help us get the knowledge we need to inform our decision making and lead to greater social good. The Data Interoperability Grantmaking Challenge seeks creative and bold solutions to this complex but solvable problem.

Applications will be accepted online from March 4 through May 7, 2013, 11:30 AM PST. Each challenge winner will receive a grant of $100,000.

More information can be found at:
http://www.marketsforgood.org/challenge/

For updates on the challenge, subscribe to e-mail updates from Markets for Good or follow #MFGchallenge on Twitter.

What We Value

(Mark Rosenman is an emeritus professor at the Union Institute & University and directs Caring to Change, an initiative that seeks to improve how foundations serve the public. In his last post, he wrote about accountability -- or the lack thereof -- in government, business, and the nonprofit sector.)

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for government-provided student financial aid to somehow be tied to the value of the education which it helps underwrite. While it's an interesting idea, it presents a challenge not only to institutions of higher education, but to every nonprofit organization in the country. Put simply, who gets to measure the value of any charitable program? Who gets to stipulate their purposes and assess their performance and the outcomes they deliver?

Although such data are not readily available, we know that the White House believes that how well a particular college or university's graduates do in the job market after graduation ought to be a part of a "college scorecard." We also know that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who gave the Republican rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, feels even more strongly about the idea and has joined with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to push The Student Right to Know Before You Go Act, which requires colleges and universities to provide detailed information to prospective students about how much one can expect to make in any given field post-graduation.

Given the state of the economy and students' understandable concerns about their futures, that makes a lot of sense, practically and politically. But should that be the principal measure of the value of higher education? When did we decide that the value of an associate's, bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree should be quantified and measured in vocational education terms? And who decided it?

Most of us can agree that the purpose and function of higher education is to do more than just develop the knowledge and skills needed for graduates to achieve economic success. We look to our colleges and universities to build character and cultivate moral judgment, to teach students about their responsibilities as citizens of our democracy and engage them in community life, to help develop the kind of open-minded and empathetic individuals we all want as neighbors and fellow citizens. In short, higher education is about more than vocational education, even when it's in preparation for an elite profession.

Yes, higher education has a role in making the American Dream a reality, and it is essential to our notions of meritocracy and upward mobility. Most of us take to heart the assertion that a college degree is the surest path out of poverty and into a life better than those of our parents. Yet as the New York Times noted a number of years ago, "At the most selective private universities across the country, more fathers [sic] of freshmen are doctors than are hourly workers, teachers, clergy members, farmers or members of the military -- combined."

As President Obama himself suggested in his 2012 State of the Union address, we know colleges and universities are failing to level the economic playing field for a majority of Americans. Indeed, according to a College Board study, students with high college-entrance exam scores from low-income families are less likely to complete college than those with lower scores from more affluent families. The Education Trust also found that only five of some twelve hundred institutions of higher education in the U.S. were doing a good job of serving low-income students who matriculated.

Does the administration's "college scorecard" even begin to capture what it means to prepare young men and women for productive, meaningful lives? And shouldn't it also reflect whether and how well each college and university is advancing economic equity in society?

Such shortcomings in reflecting organizations' purposes and functions can be seen across the nonprofit sector. In the rush to assess performance, measure outcomes, and be more "accountable" to donors and funders, vital elements of many nonprofits' missions are given short shrift. This despite the fact that charitable groups often seek (and are expected) to provide goods or services in situations -- health care, education, land conservation, and so on -- where the market has failed.

Nonprofits also often work to avert problems before they require remedial intervention and to build individual capacity and community vitality so that fewer government- and charitably-funded services are needed in the long run. They contribute to the strengthening of our democracy and to increased civic and social capital. They inform the development of better policy and public program implementation, resulting in a better quality of life for all of us.

Alas, these kinds of things often are unacknowledged, let alone measured, when assessing the value of services provided by nonprofits. And because of these omissions, they increasingly are ignored by politicians, funders, and others who are keeping score, sometimes even by nonprofits themselves.

This must change. As a society, we tend to make economic calculations in very short timeframes -- daily, quarterly, annually. Maybe it's because we're Americans, always on the move, but we have little patience for long-term investments that favor the common good over narrowly defined short-term payouts. But unless and until the full scope of nonprofits' value to society is included in our assessment and evaluation schemes, all but the most basic functions of the sector will be discounted and marginalized.

From higher education to medical research, daycare and recreational opportunities to culture and the arts, all will be subject to a brutal economic calculus: Is the "commodity" produced by the organization worth the cost? Were we to pursue such a path, broader social benefits and the common good eventually would fade from practice and our collective value system.

Which brings me back to where I started. How do we assess the value of higher education? Do the schemes floating around the White House and Congress even consider what it means to develop good citizens and good neighbors? How do we assign value to the splendid wonder of someone pulling him or herself out of poverty compared to someone who benefits from a stable family structure, unlimited resources, and powerful economic and social networks?

What is the worth to society of a strong, evidence-based belief in the validity and legitimacy of the American Dream? Doesn't that benefit all of us?

If we care about such things -- as foundations, individual donors, and government must -- we need to accord them the value they deserve and make sure that any college or nonprofit scorecard goes beyond individual profit to include measures of broad social benefit. Failure to build that into our calculus will make us all poorer over the long term.

-- Mark Rosenman

Steve Goldberg: 'SIBs Are Here to Stay'

I don't always agree with Steve Goldberg, but I admire his ability to say what he means and to say it well. Earlier this week, Goldberg, the author of Billions of Drops in Millions of Buckets: Why Philanthropy Doesn't Advance Social Progress and a vocal proponent of social impact bonds (also known as pay-for-success bonds), posted a long rebuttal to a post by Jon Pratt, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, in which Pratt suggested that the two main claims for SIBs, more resources and better results, are "admirable but dreamy."

I'm not going to get into the details of Pratt's argument or Goldberg's counter-argument (you should definitely take the time to read both). I was struck, however, by Goldberg's assertion that the "real reason" SIBs are here to stay is because "Government is out of money and out of breath" (a phrase he credits to Sir Ronald Cohen, a "founding father of social investing"). Goldberg continues:

We are enmeshed in a long-term fiscal and economic crisis that will increase the need, but decrease the funding, for effective social services long after unemployment returns to normal levels. This is a "new normal" of government retrenchment, rising inequality and decreasing social mobility to which we have not yet adjusted. The safety net ain't what it used to be, plus we can’t afford it.

While there are many encouraging trends in social sector innovation, as well as room for improvement, beleaguered nonprofits are in no position to take up the slack left by an eroding public sector. They don't just, as Mr. Pratt puts it, "frequently feel under-compensated, need more resources, and blame their limited success on lack of funding," they are under-compensated, in need of more resources and held back by a chronic and worsening lack of funding. Nonprofits are fighting a holding action that they can't win over the long term. They, too, haven't figured out how to cope with the new normal....

Now, Steve Goldberg isn't the first person to make this argument, and he won't be the last. But if denial is a river in Egypt, then many nonprofits are ill prepared for what's coming.

What do you think? Was the Great Recession merely a prelude to a "new normal" characterized by government retrenchment, reduced funding, and lowered expectations? Are most nonprofits prepared for such a reality? Will SIBs gain traction as more traditional funding sources dry up? And what do you think the sector will look like a decade from now? Use the comments section to share your thoughts....

Interested in learning more about the pay-for-success model? As part of its social innovation work, McKinsey has put together a nice package of resources, including the 2012 report From Potential to Action: Bringing Social Impact Bonds to the U.S., an animated video that introduces the topic of SIBs, and an introductory article that describes the SIBs landscape. Well worth checking out...

-- Mitch Nauffts

Survey: The State of Social Sector Leadership

Anyone in a position of leadership these days understands that organizations have a choice: disrupt or be disrupted. That's as true for nonprofits, foundations, public private partnerships, and social enterprises as it is for profit-seeking businesses.

To better understand how social sector leadership is changing, McKinsey & Company is inviting social sector leaders to participate in an online survey.

Among other things, the management consulting firm is interested in learning more about the attributes of high-performing social sector leaders -- what do they, and the peers they admire, excel in -- and how do they think their job descriptions will change over the next five to ten years. The firm also is interested in learning whether the sector is walking the talk when it comes to collaboration -- are social sector leaders committing their organizations to multi-stakeholder partnerships where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and attribution and credit are shared -- or is their primary focus still on fundraising and media coverage for their organizations.

As Laura Callanan, who leads McKinsey’s Learning for Social Impact (LSI) initiative, notes: "There are a number of key trends affecting the social sector environment today which require successful leaders to have different strengths from what was important in the past. The social sector is a dynamic environment and a lot happens over a ten-year period." We couldn't agree more.

McKinsey will be sharing the results of the survey -- in the context of a broader "landscaping" it has developed on the state of funding, resources, and research on social sector leadership -- with all who participate later in the year.

To take the survey, click here.

Investing for Impact: Conservation and Environmental Restoration Through Mitigation Banking

(Ashley M. Allen is a founder and managing partner of i2 Capital Group, a merchant banking firm focused on impact investments in the energy and natural resource, education, and health sectors.)

In industrial and post-industrial economies around the world, economic development has often come at the expense of the natural environment. Over the coming decades, the United States will experience significant negative impacts to ecosystems and watersheds from energy development, infrastructure build out, and urbanization. Growing demand for low-carbon electricity and biofuel production is likely to involve large amounts of publicly and privately owned land, while energy developers anticipate drilling tens of thousands of oil and gas wells across more than two million acres of leased land. Against this backdrop, the implementation and expansion of effective habitat conservation and mitigation practices and policies has the potential to dramatically reduce and offset many of the less desirable impacts associated with this kind of development, thereby helping to create a sustainable economy in which economic development and conservation are valued and promoted.

Habitat Mitigation

Habitat mitigation is the practice of avoiding, minimizing, or offsetting negative impacts on natural habitats and wildlife from energy and other development activities. In the U.S., the Clean Water Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), and the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) together form the policy underpinnings for environmental mitigation activities. As defined by the Council on Environmental Quality, mitigation includes: (a) avoiding negative impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying negative impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) reducing or eliminating impacts over time by maintaining mitigation activities over the life of the action; and (e) compensating for negative impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources/habitats (compensatory mitigation).

Habitat "Banking"

Historically, compensatory mitigation activities took place on a one-off basis. Projects likely to cause negative impacts to habitats and species would include minimally required compensatory activities as part of an overall project plan. Over time, this approach morphed into the creation of advanced mitigation efforts led by third-party experts and "credits" that could be "banked" and/or sold on an arm's-length basis to developers in need of offsets. Wetlands mitigation banking, for instance, makes it possible for wetland mitigation efforts to be aggregated across larger sites in ways that drive ecological, operational, and financial efficiencies. Importantly, habitat banking has created opportunities for private landowners to generate profits by investing in a variety of mitigation and conservation activities, thus creating a compelling market-based incentive for them to support conservation and restoration activities. The Environmental Law Institute estimates that private and public expenditures on compensatory mitigation activities has risen to more than $3.8 billion annually. This large and growing segment of the market presents a dynamic and compelling opportunity for impact investors interested in supporting key environmental and conservation goals.

Opportunities for Impact Investors

As the regulatory framework has been clarified, the number of such banks in the U.S. has exploded. According to Ecosystem Marketplace, a leading source of news, data, and analytics on markets and payments for ecosystem services, there are presently 440 active mitigation banks and 77 active conservation banks in the U.S., with several hundred more seeking approval. These banks fall into three main categories: (i) private, entrepreneurial banks established by land owners seeking financial returns from the sale of credits; (ii) public banks set up by federal, state, or local governments; and (iii) nonprofit banks established by environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Fund. Private banks, which account for more than 70 percent of the habitat banks in the U.S., typically are established by landowners or mitigation asset origination firms. The following examples provide models for impact investors to consider:

Wildlands, Inc. in Rocklin, California, is a privately held mitigation and conservation banking company that is working to "create a legacy of thriving and protected natural habitat through ecologic and economic cooperation." The company is the largest mitigation banker in California and manages over seventy-five projects on more than 31,000 acres in California, Oregon, and Washington State. Wildlands has partnered with Parthenon Capital Partners to grow its offerings of economically sound solutions to existing environmental challenges.

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Falling Springs, LLC develops, owns, and partners on a variety of environmental credit trading projects, with a focus on mitigation banking opportunities where preservation, enhancement, and restoration of natural systems meets environmental and economic expectations. The company deploys capital from its parent company, Tredegar Corporation, to restore degraded wetland and stream systems, largely in Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

Timbervest, LLC manages timberland and other conservation-related investments across the United States, with an eye to capitalizing on what it describes as "often undervalued and overlooked environmental resources." Headquartered in Atlanta, the company, which is growing, currently manages two investment portfolios with approximately $270 million dedicated to conservation assets. Investors include public and corporate pension plans, corporations, foundation, endowments, and high-net-worth individuals.

According to the Timbervest site, "Mitigation banking is estimated to be a $3 billion industry that is expanding rapidly due to the growing scarcity of our nation's natural resources, as well as the political and regulatory environment in the U.S., which has increasingly recognized the instrinsic value of our nation's environmental infrastructure."

As the drive to exploit the region's carbon-based and renewable energy sources accelerates, the West, in particular, offers abundant opportunities to expand mitigation banking activities. Indeed, several projects in the early stages of development promise to bring scale and growing awareness to the mitigation banking field. As impact investors around the globe seek new asset classes in which to deploy capital, mitigation banking represents an increasingly important and exciting opportunity. For more information, visit the National Mitigation Banking Association Web site.

-- Ashley Allen

Here Today, Not Gone Tomorrow

(Lisa Brooks is a co-founder of IssueLab and director of knowledge management systems at the Foundation Center. In her last post, she wrote about the importance of archiving old research.)

About a month ago, IssueLab received an e-mail from a man in Jackson, Michigan, who runs an organization focused on mentoring high-risk youth. He found a report on the IssueLab site he wanted to share at a meeting he was about to host, and he wanted to know how he could obtain twenty-five hard copies. The report, The Promise and Challenge of Mentoring High-Risk Youth: Findings From the National Faith-Based Initiative, was published in 2004 by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV). The fact that the report was published nine years ago by P/PV made his e-mail especially interesting.

As many of you know, P/PV, after thirty-five years in operation, closed its doors in the summer of 2012. About six months later, the Public Education Network (PEN), which had been doing good work for twenty-years, closed its doors. One of the last tasks both organizations completed was to partner with IssueLab to preserve their respective publications. So while neither organization is around today, anyone can browse P/PV's research reports, case studies, and evaluations or PEN's white papers, case studies, testimonies, opinion polls, and survey results through the special P/PV and PEN collections on the IssueLab site. And that's a good thing, because as our friend from Michigan can attest, these publications continue to provide data, insights, and case studies that can inform the efforts of those working in the fields of education and children, youth and families.

What would have happened to P/PV or PEN's publications had they decided not to turn over stewardship of their published collections to IssueLab?

In a recently released report from the Commonwealth Fund titled The Archives of U.S. Foundations: An Endangered Species, author John E. Craig, Jr. wrestles with exactly this question and provides the sector with a thorough accounting of why foundations need to take seriously the archiving of their own publications. Among other things, Craig argues that foundations play a key role in social change through their efforts to build "the knowledge base for social improvements and scientific advancement and, through the support of individual researchers, contributing to the nation's intellectual capital." What's more (and directly to the point of this post), Craig notes that "foundation records are also frequently one of the few sources for historical research on small, relatively short-lived organizations (and their leaders) that had significant impact in their day."

Neither PEN nor P/PV were short-lived organizations, and in this case IssueLab rather than a foundation has assumed responsibility for archiving their research and publications going forward, but Craig's point is no less valid: organizations close their doors, and it is up to other organizations and individuals to preserve their legacies and learnings. IssueLab continues to ensure that the work of P/PV and PEN will remain a part of the historic record and that their documentation of specific social problems and solutions designed to address those problems will continue to be shared.

The story of P/PV, PEN, and IssueLab is a hopeful one, and the attention that groups like the Commonwealth Fund are giving the issue of knowledge preservation is encouraging. But the question remains: How can the social sector shift from "knowledge preservation by chance" to a more sustainable approach that encompasses the complete cycle of knowledge generation, distribution, and preservation in perpetuity? At IssueLab, we're looking for answers and for thought partners. Use the comments section below to post your thoughts and ideas, and let's get this much-needed conversation started!

-- Lisa Brooks

Foundations and the Freedom Not to Forget

(Bradford K. Smith, president of the Foundation Center, wrote about Lucy Bernholz's annual look at trends in the social economy in his last post.)

Recently I had a front-row seat for two profoundly moving presentations that highlighted philanthropic freedom in action. Both involved groups of forgotten people -- the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam and rural Americans without Internet access -- and one foundation, the Ford Foundation.

First, Charles Bailey, the former representative of the Ford Foundation in Vietnam, spoke to staff here at the Foundation Center about the "Make Agent Orange History" campaign. During the Vietnam War, the United States dumped 12 million gallons of a herbicide known as Agent Orange on South Vietnam, exposing in the process some 4.5 million Vietnamese and hundreds of thousands soldiers from America and other nations. Agent Orange contains the chemical dioxin, which remains toxic to living things for hundreds of years and is concentrated in contaminated soil, or "hot spots," throughout the Vietnamese countryside. The Ford Foundation quietly began working on the issue of dioxin remediation at a time when there was no official dialogue between the American and Vietnamese governments and none of the sixteen corporations that had produced Agent Orange would accept any liability for its devastating side effects.

Subsequently, in 2000, Ford announced its Special Initiative on Agent Orange/Dioxin, which was transferred to the Aspen Institute in 2011. Over time, other foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Atlantic Philanthropies began to contribute to the effort and Congress started to act. Today, while lives have been restored and hot spots have been cleaned up, legal action has yielded almost nothing and millions of people remain at risk. The effort lives on, however, spearheaded by Bailey and the Aspen Institute, in partnership with the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/Dioxin.

Later in the evening, I stopped in at the Ford Foundation to hear Susan Crawford talk about another group of forgotten people: the millions of Americans without Internet access. Crawford opened her remarks by painting a vivid picture of a mother and daughter sitting in a car outside the local library after dark. Why? So the child could piggy-back on the library's wireless connection to do her homework.

Crawford, a dynamic professor of law at Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law here in New York City, is the author of the just-released Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age, which chronicles how a combination of bad policy and corporate power have turned the U.S., once the undisputed leader in all things Internet, into a nation that pays higher prices for slower download speeds than virtually any industrialized country in the world and where Internet access is anything but universal.

That Ford was sponsoring such an event should come as no surprise. Crawford's work and that of other scholars and activists inform the foundation's Advancing Media Rights and Access initiative -- which has supported a number of high-profile public events under the banner "Wired for Change," as well as grants to organizations around the world working on these issues. (Many of those organizations also can count on the Open Society Foundations for support.) Tackling issues like "net neutrality" (which is anything but neutral) and supporting research that often runs counter to the "facts" and analysis provided by industry giants such as Comcast can be controversial. But Ford has been a leader in this space.

Indeed, issues like Agent Orange remediation and the digital divide receive relatively little foundation support compared to more traditional causes. The fact that a handful of foundations like Ford choose to take them on tells us something important about philanthropic freedom. More than just a tax code-enabled right, private foundations' freedom to work on issues of their choosing is also a unique asset, one that must be used responsibly and, at times, courageously.

What an inspiring day that was. It reminded me of the many ways in which private foundations -- free from the bottom-line pressure of markets, the partisanship of electoral politics, and the demands of fundraising -- can use their independence to do remarkable things, whether it's taking on issues that no one wants to touch, sticking with an issue for decades if required, or keeping the rest of us from forgetting the millions of people who, through no fault of their own, continue to be harmed and/or excluded by war, economic injustice, disease, and discrimination.

-- Brad Smith

“Beep, Beep”: The Sound of Philanthropy and the Social Economy in 2013

(Bradford K. Smith is president of the Foundation Center.)

"We will change what we do with and without institutions, and we will change how our institutions (funders, nonprofits, and others) work." So predicts self-described philanthropy wonk Lucy Bernholz in Philanthropy and the Social Economy: Blueprint 2013, a must-read roadmap available for the first time as a GrantCraft publication. "Beep, beep." Wile E. Coyote (me, nonprofit executive) has just been left holding a burning stick of dynamite while the Road Runner (Lucy, blogger extraordinaire) races headlong onto her next prediction. That is the true value of Blueprint 2013 for those who are busy running the institutions that make up the "social economy": Lucy has seen the future for us, and now we must struggle to adapt, respond, and innovate. The data- and technology-driven future she envisions is both exhilarating and a bit unsettling, but one thing is clear: the Silicon Valley credo is fast approaching the staid world of philanthropy: "Disrupt yourself or be disrupted."

The vast majority of today's social sector leaders grew up in a world where foundations were the funders and nonprofits were the doers. Blueprint 2013 lays out a vision of a social economy inhabited not only by traditional nonprofits, but also by social businesses, socially responsible corporations, peer networks, and institutional forms not yet invented. Donors in this economy have choices between well-known forms of charitable giving (like creating a foundation), impact investing, and political giving to bring out the change they desire.

Running throughout the social economy is the lifeblood of data. In 2012 alone:

• GuideStar and the Nonprofit Finance Fund released an online tool for comparing the financial health of nonprofits;
• 15 of the largest U.S. foundations teamed with the Foundation Center to launch the "Reporting Commitment," making their grants data available in open, machine readable form; and
• the China Foundation Center started rating more than 2,000 Chinese "foundations" with an elaborate Transparency Index.

These are but a few of the examples included in Blueprint 2013 to illustrate how "new data-driven insights will become a first step, an input, into the practical work of decision-making." Lucy notes that the "next step in using social economy data is for community organizations and funders to join in this ethos of using, sharing, comparing, and contrasting data and tools."

While fast-developing technology makes it easier by the minute to collect, access, analyze, and visualize data, unresolved issues loom on the horizon. "Nonprofits in the future will be defined by how they use their data for public good while protecting the personal privacy rights of all who contribute that data." Data use, ownership, and access rules will be as definitional for the social economy in the 21st century as the charitable deduction was for nonprofits in the 20th century. Blueprint 2013 urges the social sector to take the lead in setting standards for collecting, using, storing, and sharing individual data in ways that thread the needle between personal control and social good. The Worldwide Initiative for Grantmaker Support (WINGS), a federation of some hundred and forty philanthropy support organizations around the world is doing just that by promoting a global philanthropy data charter much like that already adopted in the field of health.

Not all of Lucy’s predictions are about the shimmering world of data and technology. Something everyone in our sector cares about -- the charitable deduction -- is also on her radar: "They (Congress) will set lower limits for charitable deductions." Others -- "Civic crowdfunding will grow and may exacerbate inequality" -- require serious debate and reflection. But among the rich density of Blueprint 2013, the most interesting thought comes toward the end in a section entitled "Glimpses of the Future": "We still need to think about what purposes we want served and what the right mix is of institutional and financial systems to accomplish those goals." Lucy laments that a narrow focus on maintaining the tax deductibility of charitable gifts will crowd out a much-needed and broader discussion about "the most effective ways to provide incentives for private involvement on behalf of the public benefit."

In this regard, perhaps philanthropy and the broader social sector cannot escape the largest question facing our global community -- what kind of world do we want? Data, technology, institutional forms, and regulation are tools to be used to create a better world. While no one expects a return to the failed welfare states of the 20th century, we still need a destination. Otherwise all of our networking, crowdsourcing, analytics, social entrepreneurship, and innovation will occur in a vacuum where change, though sometimes inspiring, will ultimately be retail. Aspiring to something greater requires the kind of thought and questioning contained in Blueprint 2013: a roadmap filled with tantalizing glimpses of where we might be able to reach. As the fuse grows shorter, defining the destination is our responsibility.

-- Brad Smith

2012 Year in Review: Impact Investing, Other New Forms of Giving Gain Traction

Impact investing -- the practice of making loans and equity investments in nonprofits and socially minded businesses working to generate measurable social or environmental impact with the expectation that the money will be repaid over time -- and other new forms of giving continued to gain traction in 2012, thanks in part to the efforts of organizations like the Nonprofit Finance Fund, Omidyar Network, and the Skoll and Rockefeller foundations.

The year got off to a flying start when, in February, NFF announced a $40 million New Markets Tax Credit allocation in support of community development projects across the United States; an initiative of the U.S. Treasury Department, the NMTC program enables nonprofits to affordably complete facility improvements and finance projects in low-income areas around the country. In March, Omidyar Network and ACCION International made a $3.2 million investment in Zambia-based Mobile Transactions to boost financial transactions across the Zambian economy. In April, the Skoll Foundation and the U.S. Agency for International Development launched a $44.5 million global initiative to identify and fund high-impact social entrepreneurs who have created workable innovations and sustainable, scalable business models. And, in May, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation announced its participation through its Knight Foundation Enterprise Fund in a $3.7 million Series A venture financing round for Umbel, a privately held digital audience measurement company.

The year also saw the announcement of the first social impact, or pay-for-success, bonds in the United States. In May, the Omidyar Network announced $2.1 million in grants to London-based Social Finance Ltd. and its sister organization, Boston-based Social Finance, Inc., to encourage the use of social impact bonds as a tool to finance sustainable solutions to social problems in the U.S., Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, and Scotland. Then, in August, shortly after the release of a report from McKinsey and Co.'s Social Innovation practice that examined how SIBs might be applied to persistent homelessness and recidivism in the criminal justice system, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that investment banking firm Goldman Sachs had agreed to provide a $9.6 million loan to a New York City-based nonprofit overseeing a four-year program aimed at reducing the rate at which young offenders incarcerated at the city’s Rikers Island complex re-offend after their release — and that the Wall Street firm could profit from the investment if the program exceeds certain benchmarks. Bloomberg's announcement was preceded by a few days by news that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had selected seven nonprofit social service providers to tackle the problems of chronic homelessness and juvenile recidivism in the state under a new program that rewards the agencies only if their programs prove effective.

The White House also got into the act when, in May, it proposed a series of new rules designed to encourage foundations to use their assets in more creative ways to promote social good. Later in the year, the Global Impact Investing Network, which was established in 2009 to encourage impact investing globally, announced a three-year collaboration with  Omidyar Network, the Rockefeller Foundation, and USAID to promote and help build the emerging field. And news organizations like the Washington Post and the New York Times did their part to put the concept on the map by reporting on and highlighting institutions that were looking more closely at allocating a portion of their capital to impact investing approaches.

Ironically, as the field and its promoters basked in the newfound attention, a note of caution was sounded by Philanthrocapitalism author Matthew Bishop, who warned that impact investing was likely to experience growing pains as it grew in popularity, just as microfinance had before it.

Taking Bishop's words in the spirit in which they were meant, Nonprofit Finance Fund CEO Antony Bugg-Levine told the Times that it was incumbent on the field "to harness the best of both the capital markets and the social sector to address problems we cannot solve inside the two silos. [But any] ensuing confusion," added Bugg-Levine, "is a small price to pay if what it ends up in is adaptations that bring some sustainability to our social endeavors."

Related items:

Nonprofit Finance Fund Awarded $40 Million in New Markets Tax Credit Allocation (2/28/12)

Omidyar Network, ACCION International Provide $3.2 Million to Zambian Mobile Technology Company (3/02/12)

Skoll Foundation, USAID to Partner on Global Development Efforts (4/30/12)

Omidyar Network Awards $2.1 Million in Support of Social Impact Bonds (5/03/12)

White House Aims to Boost Spending, Investment by Foundations (5/11/12)

Knight Foundation Enterprise Fund Invests in Digital Audience Measurement Tool (5/30/12)

'Impact Investing' on the Rise (7/17/12)

Goldman Invests $9.6 Million to Reduce Recidivism Among Young Offenders in New York City (8/03/12)

Massachusetts Announces Nonprofit Partners in 'Pay for Success' Experiment (8/03/12)

Global Impact Investing Network Announces Partnership to Expand Reach of Impact Investing (10/04/12)

Foundations Making 'Impact Investments' See Positive Returns (12/13/12)

Weekend Link Roundup (December 22-23, 2012)

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

Giving

Philanthropy 2173's Lucy Bernholz wants to know which would have a greater effect on charitable giving: "[G]etting rid of the tax deduction or removing the ability to give anonymously." Cast your vote here.

In the most recent installment of her Social Good podcast series, Allison Fine chats with Giving Tuesday creator Henry Timms, deputy director of the 92nd Street Y, about "the phenomenally successful first year of the event."

"The day took on a life of its own," Fine says on her blog. "Organizations broadened the original concept to include volunteerism as part of the 'donations' for the day and it became [part of] a larger conversation about creating what Henry called Opening Day for the giving season."

Impact/Effectiveness

As part of its annual awards program, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy is asking people to help choose the three grantmaking institutions that "embody philanthropy at its best."

Impact Investing

On their Philanthrocapitalism blog, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green wonder whether the latest position taken by activist hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, should be considered a form of "impact investing." Ackman's firm is shorting the stock of Herbalife, a vitamin supplements company it believes is little more than a "pyramid scheme," and has promised to donate any profits from its bet against the company to charity. "If this is as much as he expects, most of the money will go to his Pershing Square Foundation," write Bishop and Green, although Ackman has "guaranteed that $25m will go to the Sohn Conference Foundation, a pediatric cancer charity....Short selling by a hedge fund is not normally thought of as impact investing," Bishop and Green add. "Yet if Mr Ackman is onto something with his move against Herbalife, perhaps impact investors will start to see shorting as a valuable tool of social progress."

Nonprofits

Charity Navigator's Sandra Miniutti shares a few facts from the Urban Institute's new Nonprofit Almanac 2012, which "features the most recent data on the philanthropic sector, presented in more than 50 charts and 100 tables."

Social Good

On the Impatient Optimists blog, Melinda Gates, co-chair and trustee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, reminds readers to pursue their passions with a vengeance. "There are many reasons Bill and I remain inspired and optimistic about the work we do at the foundation," she writes. "But one very important reason that doesn't come up as much is this: It's a lot of fun."

Youth and Philanthropy

Measuring the Networked Nonprofit co-author Beth Kanter has some advice for parents looking to engage their children in charitable work. Her tips include:

1. Help your children learn more about nonprofits;
2. Let your kids choose how to spend some of your charitable dollars;
3. Offer to match their contribution;
4. Set up a spend, give, and save allowance policy; and
5. Encourage them to give their time.

That's it for now. What did we miss? Drop us a line at rnm@foundationcenter.org. And have a very Happy Holiday!

--The Editors