« April 2019 | Main | June 2019 »

12 posts from May 2019

What's New at Candid (May 2019)

May 30, 2019

Candid logoSpring has been an exciting time here at Candid. Since Foundation Center and GuideStar joined forces, the two organizations have been busy with strategic planning, listening, and sharing, in addition to all the research, trainings, and campaigns we usually do. Here’s a recap of recent goings-on:

Projects Launched

  • We added new data and research to our Peace and Security Funding Index that highlight the diversity of funders and strategies focused on addressing issues of peace and security globally. For the past five years, Candid and the Peace and Security Funders Group have chronicled thousands of grants awarded by hundreds of peace and security funders, shedding light on who and what gets funded in the sector. You can learn more about that work here: peaceandsecurityindex.org.
  • Earlier this month, Candid, along with the Center for Disaster Philanthropy (CDP) and the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, launched U.S. Household Disaster Giving in 2017 and 2018 Report, the first comprehensive study of household donations to disasters. The study provides new data on U.S. households' disaster giving and answers many of the questions most often asked about patterns, preferences, and practices related to individuals’ charitable giving for disaster relief efforts.

Data Spotlight

  • Since March, we've been streamlining the process for developing the FC 1000 research set, which we use to track year-over-year trends in philanthropic giving. As part of this work, we're introducing systematic quality assurance checks on the grants data and aiming for a close date (for the 2017 grants set) in early fall. As of April, we've identified ~650 funders (out of an eventual 1,000) for whom we have complete-year grants data, and we've tracked down and outsourced grants lists for a hundred more. For the remaining funders, we'll be looking to the IRS for their grants lists and reaching out directly via email over the coming months.
  • Approximately 70 percent of grantmaking for peace and security issues includes some type of population focus. In 2016, funding for children and youth and women and girls each accounted for 14 percent of total peace and security funding, while funding for refugees and migrants accounted for 8 percent. Learn more at: peaceandsecurityindex.org/populations.

In the News

What We're Excited About

  • Candid Midwest will launch Candid's Nonprofit Startup Assessment Tool (NPSAT) on June 13 in Kansas City, Missouri, with the help of a generous grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The event will include our new course, Is Starting a Nonprofit Right for You?, as well as a demonstration of NPSAT and an Open House featuring our Funding Information Partner, the Kansas City Public Library (central location).
  • Candid South has completed a lease agreement with CARE in Atlanta and will be relocating our staff there in order to better leverage our existing community partnerships. CARE is a global leader in the worldwide movement to end poverty and is known for its unshakeable commitment to the dignity of all people. Learn more about Candid South's transition here.
  • Candid's other library resource centers, located in San Francisco, Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, DC, will be redirecting their in-person library services to local community partners in 2019. On June 20, Candid West will bid adieu to our San Francisco library and office with a Farewell Open House from 5:00-7:00 p.m. Then, sometime after June 217, the Candid West team will be relocating to Oakland to join the remainder of our Bay Area team. You can read more about Candid's plans to expand its outreach into local communities here.
  • On May 22, Candid West officially launched its virtual peer learning circle, Setting Your Development House for Success. We're accepting more participants through the learning circle's next session on June 19, however. Help spread the word! To register, click here.
  • On May 30-31, Candid West will be collaborating with Funding Information Network partner John F. Kennedy University’' Sanford Institute of Philanthropy and local funders and county supervisors to present a two-day convening in East Contra Costa County. The event will focus on the importance of strategies related to achieving a fair and accurate census and will include a capacity-building needs assessment as well as fundraising training.
  • Candid West will once again partner with CCS Fundraising and the Commonwealth Club on June 20 to present "Giving USA: A National and Bay Area Perspective." Historically, this has been one of our best-attended programs, and this year's event promises more of the same.
  • In June, Candid Northeast New York will begin teaching our core curriculum on a monthly basis at our Brooklyn Public Library partner site and will also visit and do public trainings at partner locations in Greenwich, Connecticut; Westerly, Rhode Island; and in Queens and Brooklyn.
  • On June 5, Candid's DC office will lead a contract training on proposal writing at the Glenstone Museum as part of Glenstone's Emerging Museum Professionals program.
  • On June 6 , Candid South will launch its Nonprofit Consultant Cohort, a four-part series, in Atlanta. Sessions will cover how to establish your client criteria and issue area, how to develop a marketing strategy that generates client leads, determining fee structure, and creating a business plan and presentation.
  • On June 6, Candid and Hispanics in Philanthropy will release a new dashboard, LATINXFunders, which illustrates philanthropy’s support for Latinx populations across the U.S. and its territories over a five-year period, 2012-2017.

Upcoming Conferences and Events

It's the season for conferences! Our staff will be attending these upcoming events:

Services Spotlight

  • 40,874 new grants added to Foundation Maps in April, of which 2,034 were made to 1,376 organizations outside the U.S.
  • Foundation Directory Online updates its database daily. Recipient profiles in the database now total more than 800,000.
  • The first-ever meeting of the NYC Grant Professionals Group was held in March. Join us for the second gathering on Friday, June 7. The purpose of the group is to support a community of grant professionals committed to serving the nonprofit community in the New York City metro area. Network and learn from your fellow grant professionals in a warm, engaging setting. Candid will be the host of the group's meetings.
  • New data sharing partners: Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Ecstra Foundation, Urania C. Sherburne Trust, Helen and Ritter Shumway Foundation, McPherson County Community Foundation, Merancas Foundation, Inc., Permanent Endowment Fund of the Moody Memorial First United Methodist Church, and TCF Foundation. Tell your story through data so we can communicate philanthropy's contribution to making a better world — learn more about our eReporting program.
  • Candid's DC staff presented at the ECDC Refugee Resettlement Conference on May 1 to more than 200 participants from grassroots nonprofit groups across the country. With about forty attendees, our session on identifying prospective funders and using Candid resources was one of the best-attended breakout sessions at the conference.
  • Candid's DC staff also presented on Candid resources and the basics of proposal writing at the University of Maryland's Do Good Institute on May 5. Attendees were mostly graduate students from UMD's Nonprofit Management program and are future (or current) nonprofit staffers or social entrepreneurs.
  • Our lineup of online programs (webinars and self-paced e-learning courses) has attracted more than 10,000 registrations since the beginning of 2019, while over 5,000 people have attended our in-person classes since the beginning of the year.
  • In April, Candid Northeast New York hosted its third annual Nonprofit Formation Fundamentals Bootcamp, featuring a series of five weekly sessions on the essentials of starting a nonprofit organization. The series was produced in partnership with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest and the Support Center, and each session reached more than seventy participants, making this year’s event the best-attended iteration of Nonprofit Formation Fundamentals yet.
  • In April, Candid Northeast New York taught a public webinar at our partner location in Andover, Massachusetts, and did staff training at our partner locations in Riverhead, Queens, and Brooklyn. And in May, we did public trainings in Albany, Saratoga Springs, Brooklyn, and Queens. Learn more about our Funding Information Network partners here.
  • New partners:
    • Gary and Mary West Foundation (a group project with our Knowledge Service team)
    • Handbid (new API client)
    • RelPro (new API and data customer)
    • Bloomberg Philanthropies (new API customer)

Content Published

If you found this update helpful, feel free to share it or shoot us an email! I’ll be back next month with another update.

Jen Bokoff is director of stakeholder engagement at Candid.

A Conversation With Mark Zuckerman, President, The Century Foundation

May 29, 2019

For Massachusetts folks of a certain age, the name Filene's Basement evokes memories of a crowded emporium where the hunt for bargains, especially on weekends, often resembled competitive sport. The basement was the brainchild of Edward A. Filene, whose father, William, founded Filene's in 1908. It was Edward, however, who recognized that growing numbers of American factory workers represented a new market and persuaded his father to start selling surplus, overstock, and closeout merchandise in the basement of his flagship Downtown Crossing store.

The experiment was a huge success, and the Filenes soon joined the ranks of America’s wealthiest families. In 1919, Ed Filene, already recognized as a progressive business leader, founded the Co-operative League — later renamed the Twentieth Century Fund — one of the first public policy research institutes in the country.

Mark Zuckerman joined TCF — which changed its name to the Century Foundation in the early 2000s — as president in 2015. A veteran of the Obama administration, where he served as Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, leading teams on initiatives to reduce student debt, increase accountability at for-profit educational institutions, reduce workplace discrimination, and expand access to job training, and Capitol Hill, where he served as staff director for the House Education and Labor Committee, Zuckerman has worked over the last four years to bring the organization’s research efforts and policy work into the twenty-first century.

PND spoke with Zuckerman recently about some of those changes, the meaning of the 2018 midterm elections, and TCF’s efforts to advance a progressive policy agenda.

Headshot_mark_zuckermanPhilanthropy News Digest: The Century Foundation is marking its hundredth anniversary in 2019. Tell us a bit about Edward Filene, the man who created it back in 1919.

Mark Zuckerman: Ed Filene was a prominent businessman but also somebody who was deeply engaged in public policy, a rare combination in those days. The era in which he was working was a time when there wasn't strong governmental involvement in the economy, and where it was involved, it was too weak to effectively address the economic chal­lenges of the day. Things like workers' wages and benefits, anti-trust enforcement, and a lack of transparency with respect to Wall Street, something that eventually led to passage of the Securities and Exchange Act.

Ed Filene very much believed in more robust engagement by local, state, and the federal government in people's lives. And he felt that research was a linchpin of good public policy. At the time, there were very few think tanks — the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had been started a year earlier and Brookings had been started two years before that. 

So, the idea of a private entity taking on challenges that, in the past, only government had had sufficient resources to address was something new. Today, of course, there are think tanks all over the world focused on many different subjects, but Ed Filene really was in on the beginning of the think tank movement and on think tanks as places where social policy, progressive social policy in Mr. Filene's case, would be discussed and developed.

Like Henry Ford, he believed that paying a decent wage to your employees was good for the overall economy, and in his writings he expressed support for a mandatory minimum wage. He also gave speeches about the importance of supporting the Roosevelt admin­istration in its attempt to get Congress to pass something that looked a lot like Medicare and urged people to call in their support for initiatives Roosevelt and his brain trust were proposing.

One of the public policy innovations he was most interested in was the credit union movement, and for a specific reason. At the time, the nineteen-thirties, financial institutions mostly were there to lend and cater to businesses and wealthy individuals. There simply was no infra­structure in the United States to provide the middle class — never mind lower-income folks — with capital to buy their first home or even to invest in a small business. Ed Filene viewed credit unions as a critical tool for providing Americans with capital that could help them thrive and grow the middle class. And so he embarked on a major effort, not only at the national level but at the state level, including his own state, Massachusetts, to authorize the creation of credit unions, which sort of makes him the father of the credit union movement.

PND: Let's jump ahead a bit. How does the Century Foundation's work support a progressive policy agenda in 2019? And how has the organization's model evolved over the last hundred years to support that work?

MZ: Well, one of the big changes the Century Foundation went through — and I would say it was in keeping with changes in the way policy was made over the decades — is that it evolved over the years from being essentially a book publisher, which was what it was for decades. Back then, it would engage influential thinkers about specific social policy ideas they wanted to promote in book form. Many of those titles were, of course, written for policy elites, with the idea that these ideas would be circulated and eventually find their way into the halls of Con­gress or onto the floor of state legislatures. It was a common sort of model for academic institutions and emerging think tanks during the mid-twentieth century. But over time, and especially as the Internet became more widely used, the model changed. Today, having influence in or impact on public policy requires a lot more than just having a good idea, and too many of these books end up sitting on shelves, unread. Maybe they're filled with great ideas, but there are fewer and fewer people willing to pull those ideas out of those volumes and turn them into policy.

So, the Century Foundation today is very differ­ent than it was seventy or fifty or even twenty years ago, in that we are taking more responsibility — not only for coming up with creative solutions to today's challenges, but for figuring out how to use the resources we have beyond research and the development of policy ideas to create impact.

That's the big shift — the leveraging of intellectual and advocacy resources and institutional relationships to drive policy change. When I joined TCF as president four years ago, I hired a number of people who had recent experience in the White House or in federal agencies or on Capitol Hill, because I wanted people who understood how best to approach those institutions, and how they could have an impact on those institutions. They were also people with a high level of expertise in their particular subject matter. That's been my focus as president — finding people who know who the policy players in Washington are, who have deep expertise in their subject matter and the ability to do good research, and who have wide, influential networks in the advocacy, policy, and academic communities.

PND: Can you give us an example of how that focus has played out with respect to a specific issue?

MZ: So, the day after Barack Obama's second term in office ended, I hired a woman named Jeanne Lambrew who had been President Obama's top healthcare expert. Jeanne came to the Century Foundation for two years to be a resource to us in our efforts to defend the Affordable Care Act, which was under attack by Republican members of Congress. We felt that healthcare advocates needed to have access to someone who knew the history of the legislation, someone who knew how it was being undermined administratively or could be repealed or compromised in a significant way. And for two years, thanks to our investment, Jeanne did just that, making herself available to people on Capitol Hill who had technical questions or questions about strategy, and laying the groundwork for an in-depth analysis of competing proposals that could serve as the basis of the next generation of healthcare reform. Besides Medicare for All, there are four or five other proposals out there that could serve as the basis for a new and improved version of the Affordable Care Act. And through convenings, conferences, commissions of work, and her own work, Jeanne brought attention to those proposals, which, in my opinion, are going to very much be front and center in the next presi­dential election cycle.

PND: In their book The Liberal Hour, MacKenzie and Weisbrot argue that while civil rights activists, New Left dissidents, and student protesters all played important roles in driving social change in the 1960s, it was "the institutions of national politics, and the politicians and bureaucrats who inhabited them, that produced the social and economic changes that became the deep and enduring legacy of that decade." Do you agree with that?

MZ: I think underlying your question is the question of how much government intervention there should be in the economy. Capitalism has great strengths, but as we know, it also tends to leave a lot of people behind. And I think the debates of the last several decades, to a significant degree, have been about what level of government intervention in the economy is appropriate in terms of making sure that the rich and powerful aren't the only ones with the power to make decisions, aren't the only ones who do well, and that everyone has adequate access to the kinds of resources, whether it's education or housing or healthcare or retirement security, they need to realize their full potential.

The Century Foundation and other progressive institutions will say, unabashedly, that in some cases there needs to be significant intervention by gov­ernment to ensure that all Americans have access to the resources they need to realize their full potential. And, of course, there are people on the right who subscribe to the idea that each of us is on our own, that capitalism creates winners and losers, and that if you're a loser in a capitalist system, well, then, you're a loser and that, moreover, government has no role to play in terms of ensuring that everyone has a shot, that everyone gets to participate in our democracy, and that everyone enjoys the full rights of citizenship.

PND: The freshman class elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms includes record numbers of women and people of color. What's your view of what happened in November?

MZ: I think 2018 was one of the most significant midterm elections since 1974, when the first post-Watergate class came in and passed a number of reforms to the way Con­gress does its business, not to mention broader reforms in the economy. In some ways, the 2018 midterms were even more consequential, because of the diversity and energy that the new representatives have brought to Washington. They look a lot more like America looks in 2019, and to my mind they represent what America in the future will look like.

Now, it may take two, four, even ten years to deliver on some of the most progressive ideas that many in this freshman class are pushing and fighting for, but I think they're trying, as a group, to shift where the center is, and that's very important to making progress in public policy — shifting the center of the debate. And I think they're succeeding. As a group, they're expanding the definition of what's possible in terms of government intervention, especially as it relates to the security of the middle class, as well as low-income populations that haven't been given access to the kind of tools and resources and opportunities they need to prosper.

PND: What is the Century Foundation doing in 2019 to advance a progressive agenda in the United States?

MZ: One of the things we're tackling is the college affordability issue. The single most important thing we can do as a country, in my opinion, is to make sure young people have the opportunity to prosper economic­ally, and that simply is not the case right now. There are too many young people who don't have access to a four-year education or even a two-year or vocational education. Or they get to college only to drop out because they don't have the kinds of support, beyond tuition assistance, they need to navigate the college landscape — things like basic living expenses and child care and money for food and transportation. None of that is properly figured into the actual cost of college, and that's a problem, because we have to make it possible for more young people to get the kind of education they're going to need to thrive in the twenty-first century.

So, one of the things we're looking at here at TCF is the idea of debt-free college, with a focus on the kinds of resources and training we can provide to the next generation who are going to college — and who, in many cases, may be the first in their family to go to college. We spend tens of billions of dollars on higher education in this country, and only $5 billion on college-prep training and vocational programs. That's just wrong. And it means we're shortchanging young people who are looking for something other than the traditional college path

None of that is acceptable, and so we're working hard to come up with proposals, especially in the context of federal-state partnerships, that would provide millions of more young people access to college and, when they get to college, make it possible for them not to have to take on backbreaking amounts of debt in order to graduate. I mean, that's just not what the American dream is about. Ultimately, the idea is to have federal-state partnerships that help make college accessible and affordable for every­one, and to invest in alternative tracks like vocational or certificate training for those who feel that that's a better path for them. We have to invest in those individuals as well, and not just people on the four-year college track.

PND: Obviously, there is a lot of anxiety in America about the way the economy has changed and how the nature of work is changing. What is the Century Foundation doing to address those challenges?

MZ: One focus is labor unions. A lot of your readers can recall a time, as recently as the 1970s, when organized labor represented as much as a third of all the people employed in the United States. The simple fact of the matter is that unionization had the effect of preserving good wages and benefits for American workers, and of giving workers bargaining power in their dealings with employers. But in the decades since, we've seen a dramatic decline in union membership in America, especially in private-sector unionization, where today it's only 6 percent of the private-sector workforce. Meanwhile, Congress, for the better part of three decades, has been absolutely stuck in terms of doing what one would like to see it do when it comes to important social legislation, and that is to update and modernize laws already on the books so that they continue to work for the benefit of American workers.

One of the things I wrote about earlier this year concerned the opportunity for the labor movement and its allies to do something that is done in political campaigns, and that, of course, is to promote themselves with modern tech­nology and digital marketing techniques to activists and people who are interested in creating new unions. Technology has been deployed in hundreds of ways and in every area of the economy — whether it's filing your taxes, or booking an airline reservation, or automatically paying a toll with an E-ZPass — to make life easier for the consumer and help individuals work more efficiently. And it's unfortunate that the same technologies have not been marshaled to help people understand their right to form and be part of a labor union.

So what I outlined in my paper is how digital marketing techniques can be used to present the benefits of labor unions to a new generation — a generation, I might add, that is very used to and receptive to these technologies. It gives labor and its allies specific suggestions with respect to how the labor movement could be revived and strengthened because, as I said, it's one of the keys to making the American economy work for all Americans again.

There are also policy changes we need to make, some of which are being discussed at TCF and elsewhere in think-tank land — things like a guaranteed basic income for every American, a higher minimum wage, better overtime protections, an updating of the National Labor Relations Act, putting some teeth into our anti-trust laws, and passing corporate respon­sibility legislation.

All those things — along with better trade policy — play a role in addressing what has become an historic level of inequal­ity in the United States. In the last thirty years, we've seen wages stagnate for the lower quintiles and explode for the very highest quintile. And it's going to take more than one strategy to fix the problem; it's going to take half a dozen strategies to change the trajectory of wage gains for most Americans. If we do nothing, the problem will only get worse, creating greater and greater economic inequality in the country, and posing a real threat to our democracy.

PND: Ed Filene's foundation was an early promoter of public-private partner­ships, and the foundation con­tinues to work very much in that spirit. Over the last forty years or so, however, Americans have been conditioned to believe that government is inefficient and expensive. What can progressives do to change their fellow citizens' view of government and the role it plays in promoting the common weal?

MZ: This is a big chal­lenge for the progressive movement, especially at a time when so many good things have hap­pened in the country with respect to the protection of individual rights. The phenomenon you describe was observed during the debates on the Affordable Care Act, when it wasn't unusual to hear people express the belief that Medicare was a private-sector program. They would slam the Affordable Care Act as a tyrannical federal program and in the next breath say, "And keep your hands off my Medicare," failing completely to make the connection between the two.

So, yes, we face a big challenge around educating people about all the ways in which our investments in the federal government improve their lives, and that those investments have involved decades and decades of hard work aimed at trying to perfect these programs so that they are reliable, efficient, and — no small matter — properly understood and appreciated. Look at Social Security. When it was first proposed, it was bitterly contested and argued about, and for a few years after it was passed into law there were attempts to undermine and repeal it. Eighty years later, it is woven into the fabric of the country — so much so that something like President Bush’s attempt to privatize it was met with massive resistance. By and large, Americans just expect that they're going to get a monthly Social Security check when they reach a certain age, and they don't make the connection between their own reliance on the program and it actually being a big, successful government program that is emblematic of the best of what government can do for them.

Long story short, I think progressives have to do a better job of pointing to the government programs that work and improve people's lives and then make the case that without more interventions in the economy to balance the depredations of global capitalism, they're going to be worse off than they would be with a little more government in their lives. That's what the debate over the last few decades has been about, and it will continue to be what the debate is about for the foreseeable future. Progressives need to fight hard against this philosophy that we're all on our own, and that government is just a big, wasteful bureaucracy with no redeeming value.

That said, I also think it’s important for government to make itself more efficient through the smart use of modern tech­nologies, and to work in a way that is more responsive to individuals who need help. In some cases, that means making more investments in things that it under-invests in, especially K-12 education. That's the challenge for the progressive movement.

PND: What is your take on the new generation of politicians and policy leaders that has emerged in Washington and in state capitals around the country?

MZ: I think it's a fantastic development and the Democratic Party should be very proud of the diversity it represents today, both in terms of people of color and the representation of women. In Congress and in state legislatures across the country, the power structure is more reflective of the citizens it is meant to serve than ever before, and that is essential if our democracy is to thrive.

Beyond that, I think this is a transformative moment in our democracy, and I think this new generation of leaders is already doing a good job of identifying the shortcomings of existing public policy and making it clear what kinds of public policy we need going forward, whether it's universal health care, or action on climate change, or tackling income and wealth inequality. They are successfully engaging the country in these hard-to-solve problems, and they are doing so with specific solutions, in some cases even going around elite power structures and appealing directly to the people. That's probably the only way they will succeed, given the state of our extremely inadequate and counter-productive campaign finance laws.

PND: So, I take it you do not think the United States is a country in decline. If that's not the case, what makes you optimistic about the future?

MZ: No, I don't think we’re in decline, but I do think people are frustrated, because they see we have a set of very big challenges that need to be addressed, and they don't see any evidence that government is willing or able to address them. What they see instead is partisanship and grid­lock, and that causes them to be frustrated.

But what is hopeful about this rising generation is that so many of them are courageous and outspoken and seem to be willing to put their shoulder to the wheel. They are also very clear-eyed about who is blocking progress and the changes that the country wants and needs. Whether it's the Parkland students, or the new generation of legislators in the House who want to open things up and create processes that work better for the American people, or those who think the judiciary needs to be more responsive to ordinary Americans. Whatever the forum, there is this sense, I think, of optimism that new blood can revive our democracy and deliver on its promise — not just for Americans but for the world.

But they need to be sup­ported. That's the reason that the Century Foundation, in honor of our hundredth anniversary this year, launched Next100, a new, independent, and first-of-its-kind pop-up think tank for the next generation of policy leaders. For the next two years, we'll select six emerging policy leaders and give them training, resources, and support to tackle a policy challenge of their choosing, all while providing them full-timed salaried positions and benefits. After we announced Next100 earlier this year, more than seven hundred people applied — from all walks of life and backgrounds, wanting to work on all sorts of challenges. It was an inspiring response to witness, and we just finished interviews and will be announcing the incoming class of leaders in July. Stay tuned.

So that's, in part, what makes me optimistic about the future of America — the next generation of leaders coming up.

Mitch Nauffts

How to Find Your Most Engaged New Board Member

May 23, 2019

Board-meetingThere are nonprofits that enjoy a celebrated status in their communities. Powerful people clamor to be on their boards, and they earn those seats with significant contributions and meaningful introductions. And then there are most nonprofits. Their boards work to attract qualified board candidates but often end up wondering whether they should make do with less.

What are these nonprofits to do? The good news is that it is possible to recruit board members whose commitment to your cause more than balances out their lack of connections or personal wealth.

Now, it doesn't hurt to have a few well-connected (and deep-pocketed) people on your board. But having too many can be a problem. Increasingly, nonprofits are looking to solve the challenge of board member engagement. They struggle with board members who don't do much beyond showing up for meetings, or who write a big check to the organization once a year and then drop out of sight. But when it comes to that long-term project or software integration the organization desperately needs, the one that requires board members willing to do research and outreach until the goal is met? Fuggedaboudit.

For a nonprofit to achieve big wins, it needs the kind of engagement that can only come from board members who are committed supporters of the cause. In other words, don't ignore the benefits of recruiting board members who — regardless of their wallet size — are passionate and energetic. When done well, board recruitment with an eye for passion and enthusiasm usually results in a board that follows through on its assignments, is willing to engage in robust discussion, and does everything in its power to strengthen the organization. Individual gifts often disappear when a board member's term is up. But the programs and internal systems shaped by engaged board members often continue long after they have left the board.

There are other benefits to prioritizing passion when recruiting board members. For one, board membership is a natural way for an organization to listen to and reflect the community or population it serves. And these days, it is essential that a nonprofit have at least a few board members who can speak directly to the needs and perspectives of the people most impacted by its work. If your area of focus is animal welfare, your board should include someone doing animal welfare work. If your focus is homelessness, you should try to find someone who has firsthand experience of or with it. If your organization supports individuals with a specific health condition, you need someone on the board who understands the unique challenges of the population with that condition. Besides being invaluable in terms of informing your organization’s strategies and programs, board members from the communities and/or population you serve also tend to be powerful ambassadors for the work you do.

Okay, so you've done an assessment of the kind of people, in terms of skills and experiences, you still need on your board. How do you find these rockstar board members? Start by asking your most active and committed volunteers. Odds are they know exactly who in the community already supports and is committed to your work. If you have a young professionals board or other non-board member committee, ask them. People who are already giving their time and talent to your organization are more likely to be engaged board members than those who don't. By recruiting from those already on the front lines of your work, you have a better chance of identifying board candidates who truly care about your success and will go the extra distance to help you achieve it.

In the short term, it's great to have board members able to write a nice check and willing to invite a group of friends to do the same once or twice a year. But in many ways, the better board member is the one willing to do the difficult work of positioning your nonprofit as a trusted resource for and friend of the community. Finding those people isn't always easy, so be careful not to fall into the trap of putting "butts in the seats." You'll be much better off having ten engaged, committed, active board members than twenty warm bodies.

Cultivating a strong, engaged board is a never-ending process for a nonprofit. Bit it doesn't always have to be a competition for the wealthiest or best-connected people in your community. By carefully considering candidates' talents and enthusiasm for your cause and keeping an open mind, a well-balanced and committed board is within any nonprofit's reach.

Headshot_Jeb BannerJeb Banner is the founder and CEO of Boardable, a nonprofit board management software provider, as well as two nonprofits, The Speak Easy and Musical Family Tree. He also serves as a board member of United Way of Central Indiana and ProAct Indy.

When It Comes to Reaching Donors, One Size Doesn’t Fit All

May 21, 2019

OnesizedoesnotfitallLet's say you’ve decided it’s time to buy a new pair of jeans. You’re thinking maybe skinny dark jeans or perhaps a light-wash high-rise boot cut. But when you walk in to your favorite store, the sales associate directs you to a table piled high with denim and a sign that reads: ONE SIZE FITS ALL. Um, no. The one-size-fits-all model may work with scarves, but it definitely does not work with blue jeans. Why? Because people’s body types are as diverse as their senses of style. (The Internet literally has hundreds of pages dedicated to breaking down the best style for your body type — seriously, there are algorithms for this stuff.) Your reaction to this abomination, this affront to your unique sense of style and individuality?

You walk out of the store.

Which is why, if you are attempting to engage all your donors in the same exact way, you’re going to see a lot more of them turning their back on your organization than buying what you’re selling.

In 1994, a team of social scientists conducted a study to determine what motivates an individual’s interest in and support for a nonprofit organization. Their research concluded that donors fall into seven distinct groups, which they dubbed "The Seven Faces of Philanthropy" (Maru, Karen & Prince, Russ Alan. Jossey-Bass 1994).

Astonishingly, we tracked down seven donors, one from each category, and asked them what they respond to when it comes to engagement.

Here's what we learned....

Name: REGINA REPAYER

Her motto: "Pay it forward."

Why she gives: Regina was positively affected by a nonprofit when she was a child. Now an adult, she feels a strong sense of obligation to give back to organizations that have missions similar to the one that helped her.

How to approach her: Regina is likely to be moved and motivated by hearing the personal story of an individual whose life was deeply affected by the work of your organization.

How to involve her: Regina might be interested in volunteering with your organization and might even be willing to tell her own story as part of a campaign.

How to thank her: Regina doesn’t want individual attention or recognition, but a handwritten thank-you note is always appreciated.

_____

Name: INGRID INVESTOR

Her motto: "Doing good is good for business."

Why she gives: Ingrid runs a large corporation and understands that partnering with and supporting nonprofits is a good look for her company. She is skilled at cost-benefit analysis and wants to know how her gift to your organization will be used to create the most impact. Just like her stock portfolio, Ingrid diversifies her giving among a range of organizations.

How to approach her: Ingrid wants charts and numbers — data that supports exactly how her gift will be used in the present and will contribute to a better future. She wants to be assured that her gift is not just changing one life, but potentially dozens of lives. And yes, she’d like you to talk with her about ROI.

How to involve her: Show Ingrid you appreciate her business savvy as well as her generosity. Invite her to join your board and finance committee. Solicit her thoughts on scalability. And do your best to persuade her that having her company be a sponsor of your next event is a win-win for both organizations.

How to thank her: Ingrid typically appreciates both public and private acknowledgement of her contributions.

______

Name: SALLY SOCIALITE

Motto: "If it's not fun, you're not doing it right."

Why she gives: Sally has a big heart and free time that she wants to use to make the world a better place — all the better if she can have fun doing it! She has an extensive social network and likes to work with others to create enjoyable ways for people to donate their time, treasure, and talent.

How to approach her: Sally is always looking for ways to burnish her reputation as a philanthropic mover and shaker. So invite her to an event! Make sure she has a good time and meets lots of people. Then follow up with a phone call or a coffee date and ask what she thought about the event. While you’re at it, feature a picture of her at the event in your newsletter or on your social media feed.

How to involve her: Ask Sally if she would be willing to help organizing a future fundraiser or social event — maybe even one at her home. If she’s a good spokesperson for the organization and believes in your cause, you can bet she’ll get her friends to believe in it, too.

How to thank her: Sally desires formal and public recognition of her generosity. Be sure to mention her generosity to others in her social circle.

_____

Name: COLIN COMMUNITARIAN

Motto: "Help others achieve their dreams, and you will achieve yours."

Why he gives: Colin is a local business owner with a strong sense of civic responsibility. He enjoys bringing people together around a common purpose and believes everyone has value and adds value.

How to approach him: Colin knows his community, and he knows there are problems that need solving. Using data-driven research, show Colin that your nonprofit also knows the community and the challenges it faces. Demonstrate that you and your colleagues care deeply and are dedicated to addressing those challenges and need his help to do it.

_____

Name: DEVIN DEVOUT

Motto: "We should feel grateful instead of entitled. We have a moral obligation to give back."

Why he gives: Devin gives because he has a strong belief in the cause and wants to align his efforts on its behalf with like-minded folks.

How to approach him: Devin is an ideal donor because he will unselfishly give everything he can in terms of time, treasure, and talent. But first he needs to establish trust in the leadership and values of your organization. Acknowledge Devin’s commitment to the cause and build his trust with a meaningful encounter with a senior leader at your nonprofit. Recognize that other organizations also are trying to court Devin, and be sure to keep checking in and listening to his hopes and priorities.

How to involve him: Devin is driven by his passion and commitment. You’ve done the leg work to gain his trust; once you have it, involve him as a thought partner.

How to thank him: Devin doesn’t seek public acknowledgement, but he should be thanked privately, personally, and often. When you thank him, consider sharing specific stories about individuals who have been helped thanks to his generosity.

______

Name: ALLIE ALTRUIST

Motto: "If you want to feel good, do good."

Why she gives: Allie gives out of generosity, empathy, and because she feels it is simply the right thing to do. And it feels good!

How to approach her: Allie chooses the nonprofits she supports based on her feelings of empathy and her heartfelt connection to the people involved. She is moved by personal stories of struggle and triumph and wants to know specifically how her assistance will make a difference.

How to engage her: Allie gets joy out of helping others and seeing the results of her assistance. She would welcome hands-on experience working with the community served by your organization. Offer her as many volunteer opportunities and ways to give her time, treasure, and talent as you can.

How to thank her: Allie almost always wishes to remain anonymous.

_____

Name: DINAH DYNAST

Motto: "Tradition simply means we must end what began well and continue what is worth continuing."

Why she gives: Dinah believes that philanthropy is everyone’s responsibility, and she sees it as part of her identity. Dinah’s family has been long-time supporters of many causes, and she very much is interested in carrying on that legacy.

How to approach her: Acknowledge that you understand and appreciate the valuable contributions Dinah’s family has made over the years. Dig into your organization’s history and site specific examples of how her family’s generosity has benefited the community you serve. Dinah is a donor you don’t want to lose, so be sure to give her lots of personal attention.

How to involve her: Dinah believes that giving time is as important as giving money. Ask her to serve on your board or a committee. If it isn’t already, she may also be interested in having her family’s name attached to a program or capital improvement. This can be a delicate conversation, so make sure you’ve thoroughly vetted her interest before broaching it.

How to thank her: Dinah should be thanked publicly, privately, and often.

_____

As you can see, each of these individuals has different philosophies and motivations with respect to their giving, and if you’re looking to maximize their contributions, the last thing you want do is to engage them as if "one size fits all."

Headshot_ashley_watersonAs for the type of jeans they prefer? Stay tuned for our next post.

Ashley Waterson, creative messaging guru at Envision Consulting, has more than ten years' experience crafting content for various platforms, including comedy sketches, NPR features, and websites.

A Conversation With Angelique Power, President, Field Foundation

May 20, 2019

A Chicago native, Angelique Power started her career in philanthropy in the public affairs department of Marshall Field's Department Stores, where she learned about corporate social responsibility and what effective civic engagement in the business world looks like. She went on to serve as program director at the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation and as director of community engagement and communications at the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago, before being named president of the Field Foundation of Illinois in the summer of 2016.

Since stepping into that role, Power has helped catalyze new ways of thinking about racial equity and social justice at a foundation that has engaged in that kind of work for decades. Under her leadership, the foundation has expanded its relationships with the community-based nonprofits it historically has supported as well as a range of philanthropic partners in Chicago.

Philanthropy News Digest spoke with Power about how the foundation is rethinking its approach to racial equity, its new partnership with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and why she is optimistic about the future.

Heasdhot_angelique_powerPhilanthropy News Digest: The Field Foundation was established in 1940 by Marshall Field III, grandson of the man who founded the Marshall Field’s department store chain. Although the younger Marshall Field worked on Wall Street, he was also a committed New Dealer. What did Field think he could accomplish through the foundation, and what happened to the foundation after his death in 1956?

Angelique Power: As someone who in the day practiced what we refer to today as racial equity and social justice grantmaking, Marshall Field III was a leading financial supporter of Saul Alinsky, the godfather of community organizing. And the Field Foundation in the early '60s was a significant supporter of Dr. Martin Luther King, especially around some of the voter registration campaigns that Dr. King led. It’s always interesting to me to reflect on Field's trajectory, a person who was born into great wealth but who saw the racial inequality in Chicago and nationally and decided to use his resources and his platform as a white man of privilege to effect change in the system.

Marshall Field V is on our board, and I often tell him, "You know, I never met your grandfather, but I have such a crush on him." Marshall Field III was a visionary in the way he thought about democracy and the institutions that hold power accountable in a democracy and how you can support individuals who are working to create change at a systems level. And I'm pretty sure he had all of that in mind when he set up the foundation.

After he passed away in 1956, the foundation was broken up. His widow moved to New York and created the Field Foundation of New York, and his son, Marshall Field IV, stayed in Chicago and created the Field Foundation of Illinois. The Field Foundation of New York spent itself down after twenty years, while the Field Foundation of Illinois is what we today refer to as the Field Foundation. In many ways, I feel like the path we've been on since I arrived three years ago — and going back beyond that to the tenures of the foundation's last few presidents — has been to try to put into action the ideals of Marshall Field III.

PND: You're the third consecutive African American to serve as head of the foundation, and individuals of color comprise a majority of your board. Whom do you credit for ensuring that the leadership of the foundation reflects the community it aims to serve?

AP: In the late 1980s, the Field Foundation made a couple of very interesting and unusual moves for the time. One was adding Milton Davis, an African-American man, to the board. The other was hiring Handy Lindsey, Jr. as president. Handy, who recently retired as president of the Ruth Mott Foundation, is so well respected in the field, both locally and nationally, that for years there was a lecture series named in his honor.

There are a couple of other things about the Field Foundation that make it unique. One, we are not a family foundation, although we do have some family members on our ten-person board, including Marshall Field V, who is a director for life, and two other family members; everyone else is a person of color. And the board has a keen interest in having the foundation operate as a private independent foundation, rather than as a family foundation. Family foundations are great and allocate capital in really interesting ways. But there was a decision early on here at the Field Foundation to put the resources and influence of the foundation in the hands of civic leaders, as opposed to solely family members.

Marshall Field V was instrumental in that decision, and he has never served as board chair. He is also very careful about how he participates in board meetings. I'm talking about a brilliant human being who serves on many boards, who has raised a tremendous amount of money for conservation and arts organizations and other causes, and who understands that his voice carries a lot of weight. He is very intentional in the context of his Field Foundation duties about sharing power, and always has been.

The decision to diversify the center of power at the foundation began in the 1980s, and that's also something I attribute to Marshall Field V. It's because of Marshall that our last two board chairs — including Lyle Logan, who recently stepped down as chair after serving more than ten years in that role — have been persons of color.

According to the D5 coalition, nationally, 14 percent of foundation board members are people of color, while the population of Chicago is 60 percent people of color. Our new board chair, Gloria Castillo, who also serves as CEO of Chicago United, a robust organization of CEOs of color that is working to create a more inclusive business ecosystem in Chicago, is very thoughtful about how leadership should look and operate, and she is absolutely committed to making sure that our organizational culture reflects equity in every sense of the word.

I would also mention Marshall's daughter, Stephanie Field-Harris, who chaired the search committee that selected me and was fiercely committed to speaking to candidates for the job who could come into a situation and not do what most people expected them to do but would be willing to lead an inclusive process that tried to radically re-imagine philanthropy. I credit all those folks, and each of our board and staff members, for making the Field Foundation the special institution it is today.

PND: How has the foundation changed its approach to grantmaking and evaluation since you became president?

AP: I joined the foundation in 2016, and since then we've changed how we fund, who we fund, and how we evaluate our grantmaking. We've even changed the way we look at the function of a foundation.

It all started with a process we initiated in 2016, shortly after I arrived. It was a time in Illinois, and in Chicago in particular, that a lot of us were asking, "What can we do differently?" When I started at the foundation, in July, the state's budget had been frozen for a year. It would remain frozen for another year, which meant that a lot of nonprofits were put on a starvation diet. They were not receiving their usual funding from the state, and they were turning to foundations and the private sector to keep their doors open. At the same time, the city was halfway through what would, because of gun violence, turn out to be the second bloodiest year in its history. The video of the shooting of Laquan McDonald, the African-American teenager who was shot sixteen times by a white police officer, had been released about eight months before I started, and the sense of urgency in the city was palpable.

The Field Foundation had had a history of funding community-based organizations under Handy Lindsey, and that work had continued under the brilliant leadership of Aurie Pennick, who succeeded Handy. We had a thirty-year track record of building deep, trusting relationships with local organizations that didn’t always receive funding from foundations, and that helped lay the groundwork for what followed.

Staff and the board were starting to ask questions about impact and whether our resources were helping to reduce violence in Chicago. But with the number of shootings going through the roof, it was hard to argue that the grants we were making were helping to reduce violence. So staff and board got together to study the problem and possible responses to it. We looked at being both more responsive and more strategic. And we talked about an equitable approach where you focus more on dismantling power dynamics within philanthropy and try to move the needle on questions like, Who gets to establish theories of change? And who gets to decide what success looks like?

Then we took a deep dive into racial justice. The full board — and this is extremely important, in my opinion — as well as staff went through racial justice training. I started that session by reciting a parable I'm sure many of your readers have heard. I'm sure you've heard it:

A woman is walking along a river and all of a sudden sees a baby floating downstream. Alarmed, she jumps into the river to save the baby, only to see another baby floating in her direction, and then another, and another. She saves as many of the babies as she can and starts to panic about how she is going to shelter, feed, clothe, and educate them. All the while, babies keep floating down the river, and she never has a moment to think about heading upstream to find out where all the babies are coming from.

That was really important in helping my board understand the difference between charity and social change work. In the nonprofit sector, writ large, it's the difference between direct service and systemic interventions. If we are standing on the banks of the river, so to speak, and are asking questions like, "Have we helped reduce violence in Chicago?" we really either have to ask ourselves better questions, or, if the answers are unsatisfactory, we need to travel upstream to the source of the problem.

PND: What are the biggest challenges you and your colleagues face in working to advance racial equity in Chicago?

AP: One of the biggest challenges is that nobody knows how to talk about race in mixed company. We are all scared of offending, and we’re all scared of being offended. And most of us have not been given the tools to do it properly. It's really important to engage in training, to have a shared language, and to have the presence of mind to avoid the obvious traps that await everybody when the conversation turns to race.

We also find ourselves in a period when hate crimes are on the rise, and you have this extreme rhetoric coming from the highest office in the land, and you have racism showing up in unexpected places and ways. What's especially difficult is thinking that race conversations are mostly about unpacking individual racism, when in fact you need to be able to identify its influence in policy, and how it shows up in a city budget, and how it shows up in philanthropy, particularly in philanthropy metrics.

PND: Can you give us an example of how it shows up in philanthropy metrics?

AP: Say, you're giving a capacity-building grant to a small ALAANA organization [African/Latinx/Asian/Arab/Native-American organization] and expecting that the organization will use it to build out its board and increase its ability to access working capital. But, as we know, there's a significant racial wealth gap in many of these communities; you won't necessarily find a lot of high-net-worth individuals who are spending their volunteer time sitting on nonprofit boards. That's a metric that's never going to be attainable for a lot of these organizations.

And, yet, lots of studies have been done about the number of people in communities of color who volunteer and about how they give their time and talent and treasure, which they do; it's just in different ways. It doesn't show up in the same format that it does in, say, white, communities. Which means if we have metrics designed to gauge whether ALAANA organizations operate the same way that larger, mostly white organizations do, we are asking the wrong questions.

PND: How did your recent collaboration with the MacArthur Foundation come about, and what is the primary goal of the collaboration?

AP: It's a new chapter for us. We've never had this type of re-granting partnership with a foundation, and it's enabling us to do interesting things that we weren't able to do before, things like giving dollars directly to individuals.

It came about as a result of conversations with different people at MacArthur, which as you know awards hundreds of millions in grants annually and is a global foundation with tremendous reach. And even though MacArthur is headquartered in Chicago, and many of its staff are based here, due to the leadership of the past two presidents, the Field Foundation has extremely deep relationships in the city and a level of trust among nonprofits that we've earned through thirty years of local funding characterized by intentionality and trust building.

When we sat down with the folks at MacArthur, there was an understanding among everyone at the table that there are different kinds of capital — including social and financial capital — and that, collectively, we were all interested in doing something beyond how our respective foundations normally operate. So, we began to unpack the differences in the way we think about our work, and how we could learn from and with each other, and then we tackled the question of how we could do something that is better for the people we serve here in Chicago. We weren't fooling ourselves, thinking that from our positions of privilege we could create transformative solutions to all the major problems in our city. Instead, we asked folks in the nonprofit community to help us design a new giving program — what do journalists and storytellers need? What does philanthropy need to understand and do differently? So now we're rolling out a program designed by journalists and storytellers rather than by us on their behalf. We also heard that nonprofit visionaries need unrestricted capital to further develop their leadership capacity. We are listening and doing our best to respond.

PND: Is the collaboration with MacArthur an example of how the Field Foundation punches above its weight?

AP: We think of ourselves as being in the civic architecture business. Yes, we award grants, and that makes us a conduit to cash, which we try to provide responsibly and respectfully. But like any foundation, we also have a power and privilege that grants us access to many tables, in many different rooms. In some rooms we get to hear the voices of people who are smarter than we are, the nonprofit folks who are doing the actual work. In other rooms, often where decisions about policy or capital are made, those voices are woefully absent. We see our job as changing the architecture of those rooms, so all voices are deciding together.

PND: In recent remarks you made at Northwestern, you analogized diversity, equity, and inclusion work to owning and operating a restaurant. Focusing on diversity, you said, is like giving a handful of new customers a prized table in your restaurant and inviting them to enjoy a meal from a menu that hasn't changed much in years. In the analogy, inclusion is equivalent to checking on the folks you've seated to see how they're enjoying their meal. And equity is about totally re-defining the dining experience by disrupting the power dynamics of the business. Do you think philanthropy needs to be disrupted in order for it to advance racial equity more broadly?

AP: One hundred percent, which is why Winners Take All, by Anand Giridharadas, and Decolonizing Wealth, by Edgar Villanueva, are resonating so much right now. We're living in a time of intensely concentrated wealth and intensely concentrated poverty. At the same time, we're watching the equivalent of modern-day lynchings on our iPhones, we're seeing children torn from their parents and thrown into cages, we're seeing a huge rise in Islamophobia and outright bans on people from certain countries.

Solutions to problems like those cannot be dictated solely by people for whom access to capital is a given. While many of us might have been born on third base and had home plate moved halfway up the line in our direction, we are not in the best position to conceive of the solutions we need to the urgent problems we face. Those solutions need to be designed by folks who have struggled and are more resilient because of that struggle. By folks who have a deep understanding of the problems and who have a vision for their communities. If those people are not at the table with us determining how philanthropic capital is allocated, it means we are wasting resources and diminishing our return on investment.

Right now, the conversation people are having about racial equity is largely about the sharing of power and resources. It is not a conversation about representation. Equity is about changing the default operating system. Do I think philanthropy is a space with well-intentioned, thoughtful people and a tremendous amount of resources? Yes. Do I think it is as accountable to the communities on whose behalf it works as it needs to be? No.

PND: You did an interview with Marshall Field V for StoryCorp in which you mentioned the "unsaid" in the work of philanthropy. What are some of the things that go unsaid in philanthropy?

AP: First of all, that was one of my favorite interviews. I love that he sold encyclopedias door-to-door to learn everything about the businesses he ran. We have it on our website if anyone is interested in hearing more of his story.

But to answer your question about the unsaids in philanthropy, racialized systems and racism are the biggest. We talk a lot about "achievement gaps" and "immigration reform" and "community engagement" and "hard-to-count" populations. But we avoid the word racism, and I think that's because we associate it with people with tiki torches and polo shirts spewing intolerance and hate. As I mentioned earlier, hate crimes in the America are on the rise, and we haven't seen this kind of blatant dog-whistling in decades. But when we attempt to be race agnostic in philanthropy, we ignore how racism is designed. If we can't start with the correct diagnosis — which is that the history of our country is one in which genocidal policies targeting Native peoples were the norm and black people were enslaved for centuries and poor white people were trapped in indentured servitude well into the twentieth century and immigrants from some countries were and are turned away while immigrants from other countries are welcomed — then we will never be able to design solutions that address these problems.

To be honest, I don't think most people understand what we mean when we say "racial equity." People think it's about including a person of color here or there. That's not what we mean. What we are talking about is a rethink. It's about rebuilding systems so that they benefit everyone, and I mean everyone. Often in these conversations we pit communities against each other: urban communities of color versus white rural communities, for example. We need to understand that there are more similarities there than differences.

PND: When you look at where we are as a country, where we've been, and where we're headed, can you say that you are optimistic?

AP: I am an optimistic person by nature. While I believe one can and should be skeptical of systems, especially entrenched systems, I think you have to be optimistic because those systems, at the end of the day, are controlled by and can be changed by people. Today, more than ever maybe, people are desperate for connection and to be understood. We long to belong to something bigger than ourselves, to let our bravest selves shine through. People are awake. There are more women in Congress than at any other time in our history, we have our first black openly gay female mayor in Chicago, and people across the country, from every walk of life, are getting involved, joining school boards and running for city council and working to turn out the vote.

So, I am optimistic, extremely optimistic, that by shifting the allocation of power and resources we will go much further, much faster, toward designing the solutions the country desperately needs. And we will be a better country for it.

— Matt Sinclair

Trends and Transitions in Education Reform and Philanthropy

May 13, 2019

Philantopic_denver_public_schoolsA few months ago, Susana Cordova, the new superintendent of Denver Public Schools, released her one-hundred-day entry plan. Having survived a divisive selection process and a difficult teacher strike at the beginning of her tenure, Cordova took a moment to ask the question: "What does it take to ensure that every child in our city thrives?"

With the release of her plan, she has put forth a vision that includes students, families, and staff working together to ensure that students do exactly that, with an emphasis on the need for her administration to reach out with new and intentional modes of engagement that ensure inclusion of all members of the community.

After reading the plan — and with Cordova's commitment to families front and center — my lingering question for Denver's education eco-space is whether the philanthropic community is willing to get behind community empowerment and advocacy as part of the solution. In order to do that, funders will need to be less prescriptive of the solution and more authentically responsive to what families say are their most critical needs.

Recently, Grantmakers for Education released its Trends in Education Philanthropy Benchmarking Surveywhich takes the pulse of and tracks trends in national education philanthropy. The results reflect a number of changes in education philanthropy, including a greater focus on the "whole learner," as well as deeper investments in postsecondary education and workforce career readiness. A notable finding of the report is that among respondents to the survey, more than 60 percent provided funding for community and family engagement, and many anticipate growth in those investments over the next two years. The report also notes that among the factors or trends funders identified as having the greatest potential impact, engagement with learners' families ranked near the top, while a number of respondents emphasized the role of community organizing in driving and sustaining local school system change.

For more than ten years, a group of local Denver funders — now known as the Colorado Education Organizing (CEO) Funders Collaborative — have worked together to help sustain the education organizing community in our region. As a  group, we  share the view: 1) that foundations have the power to either validate or legitimize entire fields of work due to philanthropy's outsized power and influence; 2) that collaboration among funders can foster and incentivize collaboration among grantees; and 3) that districts and schools often fail to develop a clear vision that permanently places families and students at the decision-making table. Our grantmaking focuses on involving communities of color and communities who are living in poverty to help determine solutions, instead of funders telling communities what they need.

Three years ago, Rose Community Foundation launched Climb Higher Colorado to create a bridge between grassroots and "grasstops" organizing and high-impact family engagement strategies. Both the CEO Funders Collaborative and Climb Higher are thriving, but the reality is that not all funders, in Denver or nationally, view community engagement and family engagement as key to changing educational outcomes. Even more truthfully, many funders are uncomfortable with the notion that communities should bring solutions to us, rather than the other way around.

The Benchmarking Survey highlights the important and difficult question: "How will we navigate the challenge of sharing power with those who have historically had little, especially on occasions when their ideas differ from our own?" Which foundations have the appetite for and courage to take that risk? The Denver education environment is changing. Many school districts locally and across the country are experiencing strategy changes with new leaders. Many local funders — including Rose Community Foundation — are in the process of determining how we must evolve, deepen, and in some cases pivot from our current path.

Philantopic_headshot_janet_lopezWhat we hope emerges from this era of change is greater willingness among education funders and those in power to enable local communities drive and shape their own education systems.

Janet Lopez is a senior program officer for education at Rose Community Foundation, where she works to help all children achieve academic success in the K-12 public school system.

Weekend Link Roundup (May 11-12, 2019)

May 12, 2019

0510_flooding_CNNA weekly roundup of noteworthy items from and about the social sector. For more links to great content, follow us on Twitter at @pndblog....

Communications/Marketing

There’s been an email marketing paradigm shift in the nonprofit sector, writes Caroline Fothergill on the npEngage site. Whereas the size of a list used to be all that mattered, "collectively [we've] come to realize the value of quality over quantity." Today, open and click rates are where it's at, and Fothergill shares some practical advice designed to help nonprofits improve their results in both areas.

Criminal Justice

"As a person who uses drugs," writes Louise Vincent on the Open Society Foundation's Voices blog, "I know that no one person is to blame. What is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths from drug overdose is a broken drug policy, a system that prioritizes punishment over treatment, and a culture of prohibition that leads us to use drugs alone and in shame." 

Health

What does it take to build fair opportunities for health in rural communities? On the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Culture of Health blog, Whitney Kimball Coe,  coordinator of the National Rural Assembly, a movement geared toward building better policy and greater opportunity across the country, shares some of the lessons she has learned in her work.

Book reading has been declining for decades, and language and communications experts are concerned. Markheim Heid, a health and lifestyle writer, takes a closer look at the research — and the implications for society.

Higher Education

It's time to shift the social contract of education away from short-term job training toward long-term development, writes David M. Perry, a former professor of history, on the Pacific Standard site. And free college has to be part of that shift.

In The Atlantic, Tom Nichols, author of the Death of Expertise, argues that the idea that students on college campuses should have "a say in the hiring and firing of faculty whose views they merely happen not to like...is a dangerous development — a triple threat to free speech, to the education of future citizens, and to the value of a college education." Readers of Nichols' article respond.

On the Charity Navigator blog, Emily B. Tyree, associate director of communications at Action Against Hunger, shares three ways mothers in developing countries are finding ways to deal with hunger and food insecurity and making a critical difference for their children and  communities.

Nonprofits

"[T]he lack [of resources] from which the nonprofit sector suffers is...a mindset," argues Nell Edgington. "But a mindset that can be overcome."

Lots of good posts on the the GuideStar blog. Be sure to check out "What Does It Take to Be Happy at Work?" by Nadia Elboubkri and Ruby Johnson; "Boost Your Fundraising by Centering Your Audience in Your Content and Engagement Strategy" by Brad (Schenck) Caldana; and "Fundraising Lessons from Freddie Mercury & Queen" by Barbara O'Reilly.

How is the nonprofit sector like Game of Thrones? Nonprofit AF's Vu Le explains.

Philanthropy

On the Heron Foundation blog, Jasmine McGhee, a communications associate at the foundation, chats with Mary Jo Mullan, who wore many hats at the foundation from 1992 to 2009, about why philanthropies should place general operating support front and center in their grantmaking strategies.

Pam Foster, a lawyer and strategic operations specialist with more than twenty years' experience in the philanthropic sector, looks at the growing field of collaborative philanthropy in a post on the Center for Effective Philanthropy blog and explains how collaboratives can help new grantmaking organizations benefit from lessons learned by those who preceded them.

On Glasspockets' Transparency Talk blog, Genevieve Boutilier, a program associate at the Peace and Security Funders Group, suggests that "simply understanding who and what gets funded is only the start of the conversation" and that without more timely, detailed data, the sector will never be able to answer "tough questions...like: Why are certain regions, issues, and strategies underfunded? Why are certain populations prioritized over others? Why isn't awarding general operating support increasing, especially given the ample evidence that suggests that it’s a best practice? Why are certain kinds of grantees passed over for funding?"

And in the latest issue of Town & Country, Melinda Gates talks to activist and entertainer John Legend about about giving, her family, and her plans to change the world.

(Photo credit: CNN)

That's it for this week. Got something you'd like to share? Drop us a note at mfn@foundationcenter.org

Philanthropy Has Changed How It Talks — But Not Its Grantmaking — in the Decade Since NCRP's 'Criteria' Was Released

May 10, 2019

Ncrp-image-1-234x300It's been ten years since NCRP released Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. As I reflect on the animated response to the report, I'm struck by how far the sector has come since 2009 — and, paradoxically, by how little has changed.

Our decision to publish Criteria was, shall we say, controversial. That NCRP had the temerity to assert that any set of criteria be applied to the field of philanthropy, let alone criteria grounded in our belief that grantmakers needed to prioritize marginalized communities and support grassroots-led problem solving to address the systemic inequities and injustices confronting communities in America every day, had more than a few people aghast.

Here's a sampling of the some of the pushback:

"[NCRP's] hierarchy of ends is breathtakingly arrogant." — Paul Brest, former president, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, in the Huffington Post, 2009

"We reject the use of a single template to promote effective philanthropy." — Steve Gunderson, former president, Council on Foundations, 2009

"In the NCRP worldview, philanthropic freedom is not only at risk, it's an oxymoron." — Heather Higgins, former VP, Philanthropy Roundtable, in Forbes, 2009

Criteria earned NCRP new fans and more than a few critics. But when I consider the many books published in the last few years that have been critical of the field, I'm pretty sure that if we released the report today, few would bat an eyelash.

What's changed?

Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best: At A Glance

Criteria offered the following aspirational goals for grantmakers looking to maximize their impact in the world:

Criterion I: Values

...contributes to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.

a) Provides at least 50% of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color, and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.

b) Provides at least 25% of its grant dollars for advocacy, organizing, and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity, and justice in our society.

Criterion II: Effectiveness

...invests in the health, growth, and effectiveness of its nonprofit partners.

a) Provides at least 50% of its grant dollars for general operating support.

b) Provides at least 50% of its grant dollars as multiyear grants.

c) Ensures that the time to apply for and report on the grant is commensurate with grant size.

Criterion III: Ethics

...demonstrates accountability and transparency to the public, its grantees, and constituents.

a) Maintains an engaged board of at least five people who include among them a diversity of perspectives — including those of the communities it serves — and who serve without compensation.

b) Maintains policies and practices that support ethical behavior.

c) Discloses information freely.

Criterion IV: Commitment

...engages a substantial portion of its financial assets in pursuit of its mission.

a) Pays out at least 6% of its assets annually in grants.

b) Invests at least 25% of its assets in ways that support its mission.

 

Philanthropic sector discourse has come a long way in the last decade

It has become commonplace for foundation staff to talk publicly about trusting grantees with long-term general support, investing in marginalized communities, and funding structural change.

An ecosystem of philanthropic support organizations devoted to spotlighting the unique needs of marginalized people has flourished with the help of foundation funding.

Equity, justice, and even power have become watchwords for an ascendant progressive philanthropy that is happy to speak openly in the digital pages of sector publications and the well-lit stages of the conference circuit about the kinds of values Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best embodies.

The core idea expressed in the publication — that foundations should be held to a higher standard of equity and community impact — has moved from the margins of sectoral discourse to its center.

The bottom line: The money didn't follow

NCRP's analysis of Candid data shows that the share of domestic foundation giving by the country's one thousand largest foundations for the intentional benefit of marginalized people — a category that, statistically speaking, includes most of the country — inched up from 28 percent to 33 percent between 2009 and 2015.

What do we mean by "marginalized communities"?

There are populations that experience disparities, are politically disenfranchised, or are otherwise marginalized by those with more power and privilege. Funders may use other terms such as "disadvantaged," "vulnerable," "at-risk," "underserved," or "underresourced."

NCRP's definition is intentionally broad and includes (but is not limited to) eleven of the special populations tracked by Candid — i.e., economically disadvantaged; racial or ethnic minorities; women and girls; people with AIDS; people with disabilities; aging, elderly and senior citizens; immigrants and refugees; crime/abuse victims; incarcerated and formerly incarcerated; single parents and LGBTQ citizens.

 

Over the same period, foundation support for structural change strategies, the work that truly transforms systems of deprivation and injustice, declined to less than 10 percent.

And general support grantmaking has remained flat at around 20 percent of domestic giving.

Some notable funders stepping up

A handful of innovative, courageous institutions have deeply transformed the way they make grants, and many of those with the least wealth and power in this country are better for it.

  • The California Endowment, once a skeptic about funding advocacy, is now a field leader as it pursues its mission to expand access to affordable, quality health care for marginalized Californians.
    In 2003, 17 percent of the foundation’s grantmaking was for social justice work. In 2015, that number had jumped to 73 percent.

  • The NoVo Foundation has accelerated institutional change in support of marginalized communities and social justice.
    In 2004, 31 percent of the foundation’s grantmaking supported marginalized communities and 14 percent went to social justice causes. By 2015, 100 percent of NoVo's grantmaking supported social justice for women and girls, Indigenous communities, and other marginalized people.

  • The Bush Foundation stepped up its efforts to make Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota better places to live for all residents, including members of the twenty-three Native nations in the three-state region.
    Between 2003 and 2015, the foundation increased the share of its grantmaking that benefits the region's marginalized communities from 39 percent to 83 percent.

  • The Weingart Foundation has made a public commitment to funding equity efforts in Southern California.
    Between 2003 and 2015, the foundation’s support for marginalized communities increased from 41 percent to 76 percent of its grantmaking. And in 2016, the foundation announced "a long-term commitment to base all of our policy and program decisions on achieving the goal to advance fairness, inclusion, and opportunity for all Southern Californians — especially those communities hit hardest by persistent poverty."

While the above examples can be considered clear signs of progress, the data and my own observations of the sector suggest that while the majority of foundations have grown comfortable with the language and concepts embodied in Criteria, not much has changed.

A shift in philanthropic rhetoric is a necessary first step toward a more just and equitable sector. But without accompanying actions, the words ring hollow.

Two lessons for changing philanthropic norms and practices

NCRP's board, staff, and allies firmly believe that now is the time for grantmakers to walk the talk. Our democracy is increasingly threatened by growing economic inequality, political disenfranchisement, and the resurgence of white nationalist rhetoric and violence.

We have had deep, reflective conversations among ourselves about how to get the sector to take action and have identified two takeaways that will inform our strategies in the years ahead:

1. Social movements — people power — are the best hope for changing the way money and power moves in philanthropy. Mass movements, from labor to civil rights to LGBTQ rights, have wrought the deepest transformations in American society — and the philanthropic sector has been similarly shaped, at least in part, by those societal shifts.

Through our nonprofit membership program, we've renewed our focus on building a vibrant community of grassroots nonprofit organizations eager to advocate for foundations to support their rhetoric with their resources.

A few weeks ago, we launched the Movement Investment Project, which articulates new data, new norms, and a new vision for how foundations and donors can and should relate to and support social movements, grounded in the experience, needs, and knowledge of grantee leaders on the frontlines of those movements.

2. Unless the philanthropic sector reckons with its power, grantmaking is unlikely to change for the better. The concentration of resources and certain kinds of expertise at foundations lends them significant power in the broader social sector. That concentration of power will continue to be an impediment to systemic change to grantmaking trends until foundations choose to build power among their grantees, share power with communities, and wield their power, in the form of their social and political capital, to benefit marginalized people.

If you're a foundation leader comfortable with the language of equity and justice, I hope you'll be inspired to take a hard look at your grantmaking through the lens of NCRP's Power Moves toolkit, or resources such as:

Pop the hood, do a deep dive into the data, and ask yourself whether your current reality matches your rhetoric.

In times of crisis, it can be challenging to think beyond the daily headlines. But consider your legacy: In a decade or two, when you look back on this time, a time when the fate of American democracy — indeed, the fate of many species, including our own — seemed uncertain, what do you hope to be able to say about your work?

Headshot_aaron_dorfman_finalNow is not the time for business as usual. The philanthropic community has a significant amount of money and power at its disposal. It is time to start using it to support grassroots social movements.

Aaron Dorfman is president and CEO of NCRP.

Design Therapy for the Purpose-Driven Organization

May 08, 2019

Branding_Alpha Stock ImagesThe value of brand design for nonprofits or foundations — when done right — is not just in the outcome but in the process. Design is the act of (re)imagining how we see and communicate ideas. It's an opportunity to challenge assumptions, change minds, and test the status quo. Brand design, in particular, is rife with such opportunities and, of course, potential landmines. For organizations that are prepared to embark on the adventure, it can be transformative in unexpected ways. At its best, a brand redesign can reinforce and strengthen an organization's work, increase its engagement with internal and external audiences, and pave the way for real growth.

Clarity, Meet Beauty

Branding is the process of figuring out the clearest, truest manifestation of who you are as an organization through words, images, and graphics. A great brand elucidates the "who" (people and ethos) and the "why" (purpose) succinctly and clearly. And the process of getting to a great brand typically starts with a design firm gathering as much qualitative data as it can about your organization.

By data, I mean the perspectives of internal and external stakeholders; an operational values assessment; deep dives into strategic business goals, personality drivers, competitive landscape, and positioning; and audience identification. It's similar in these respects to how an organization would approach a strategic planning process.

All the insights are then distilled into a strategy that highlights key elements such as organizational personality, values, and market differentiation. This strategy guides the creation of new messaging, tagline, logo, website, and so on.

So, what's the big deal? It seems pretty straightforward.

Branding in the for-profit world is often defined in marketing terms: name recognition and consistency leading to monetary transactions and customer loyalty. Starbucks' ubiquitous global brand presence is based on and contributes to a standardization of its customers' experience. People recognize the brand immediately and know what they are going to get.

Qualitative insights, strategizing, and collateral creation are elements of any good branding process, but the real key to a stellar nonprofit brand is activation of the "purpose" driver. A successful nonprofit brand boldly states what the organization delivers and establishes a recognizable identity through the compelling expression of the organization's core mission — both visually and via messaging. It shares the "awareness" goal of for-profit branding but emphasizes mission.

Let me give you an example. When we were first approached by the Oregon Community Foundation, the organization's identity fell short of expressing its mission and incredible legacy as Oregon's largest foundation. Over the months that followed, we led the foundation through a full rebrand which resulted in a new identity system that conveys the foundation's personality (steadfast, optimistic, approachable) and approach to its work of bringing together Oregonians to create real, community-driven impact.

Change Requires Courage

The process of reimagining an organizational identity can produce both excitement and fear. Going through a rebranding process means holding up a mirror to your organization — and yourself. What you see sometimes can be disconcerting. Often, people realize that their own vision for the organization hasn't been aligned with the organization's goals, or there may be disagreement among colleagues about who gets to define what the organization is and should be.

We started using the term "design therapy" with our clients to prepare them for what they're likely to experience. Undertaking a rebranding project requires courage, patience, and a lot of effort. Any therapeutic process includes some discomfort on the road to success. Whether it's recovering from a torn muscle, processing a momentous life event, or rebranding an organization, therapy involves grappling with, ironing out, and coming to terms with hard truths — and eventually making breakthroughs and arriving at compromises that serve the greater good.

A good agency comes to this work prepared to be a guide and with real empathy and understanding for the challenges that lie ahead. Every project presents a different mix of personalities, history, mission and culture. Inviting clients into the design process builds trust, transparency, and ultimately a powerful partnership that helps organizations embrace the uncertainty inherent in the process.

The real bottom line of any nonprofit branding process, however, is the collective nature of the work. Securing equitable stakeholder buy-in from the executive team, program leaders, and the board from the very beginning ensures that team members have a chance early on to weigh in.

Bringing these (oftentimes) disparate viewpoints into alignment via the branding process usually results in a renewed sense of engagement and belonging for all. Through the work, staff and leadership gain a renewed appreciation for the potential of the organization and are invigorated by it.

The process often results in a transformational shift in the organization's culture that leads staff to see the revived brand as a platform for deeper audience engagement and growth, as well as the "why" behind their commitment to the work. Only then can designers reimagine the visual elements of the brand in ways that capture the organization's aspirations for the future, creating resonance with internal and external audiences for year to come.

When executed well, a brand redesign helps your target audiences better understand what your organization is and does and will have them thinking: "I want to be part of that."

The rest is up to you.

Philantopic_headshot_Talie-Smith copy

(Image credit: Alpha Stock Images)

Talie Smith is a partner and creative director at Smith & Connors, where she draws on her background in visual design, literature, and foundation work to help organizations understand who they are and express their identity through brand, web design, and compelling user experiences.

 

How Foundations Are Transforming Risk Into Opportunity

May 06, 2019

At the downtown Los Angeles office of Southern California Grantmakers, dozens of leading thinkers from philanthropic organizations recently gathered for a Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors' "Theory of the Foundation Seminar." The lively discussion addressed philanthropic time horizons, ways to achieve greater operational effectiveness, and driving strategic impact.

Eventually, the conversation turned to risk: the multitude of risks associated with operating in a world increasingly characterized by growing instability and need; and the importance of taking and absorbing risk as a philanthropic actor. Underlying the conversation were a number of current global trends, including:

  • growing populism and socio-political instability;
  • a backlash against private philanthropy in part based on the belief that the growing concentration of wealth is a main contributor to societal problems;
  • the expansion of what philanthropy entails to include impact investing; and
  • a renewed interest in advocacy, capital aggregation, and partnerships in philanthropy.

As the discussion revealed, risk is often believed to be innate to philanthropy, deeply tied to the sense that a philanthropist should also be an innovator, and that philanthropic giving is synonymous with risk capital. Many philanthropic organizations with sizable resources (both financial and non-financial) and the will to confront global challenges welcome this idea — in theory. In reality, however, many see risk as a barrier to strategic philanthropic giving. In part, this is because the meaning of risk itself isn't always adequately unpacked across programs, governance, and staff. As one attendee stated, "We are using the word 'risk' as if we all...agree on its meaning, but we…are not all using it the same way."

To overcome this lack of clarity, donors need to develop a clear strategy around risk. This first requires an understanding of the different types of risk and an awareness of their sources and triggers. The next step is to define specific risks for the donor or community served, as well as the sector at large, as well as methods and remedies for mitigation. Based on discussion at the seminar, generally agreed-upon types of risk fall into six main categories.

  1. Investment/Financial Risk: potential financial loss and uncertainty of "return" when engaging in economic development of communities, impact investing, or investing in a new field or project.
  2. Operational Risk: potential financial or social loss resulting from insufficient or failed human resources, procedures, systems, or policies.
  3. Grantmaking Risk: potential failure of grants, particularly when granting to new issues or people with little track record or history.
  4. Political Risk: potential adverse impact of policies, governmental decisions, political events, or conditions.
  5. Reputational Risk: damage to an organization's reputation through action deemed controversial or politically sensitive.
  6. Innovation Risk: potential failure when adopting, supporting, or creating new approaches, solutions, or technologies.

These risk types are interwoven through a range of risk determinants, influences, and considerations, which can include:

  1. time-horizon: the philanthropic lifespan of an organization, whether limited or in perpetuity, impacts intrinsic risk tolerance, as well as other related considerations including donor intent, collaboration, and resource allocation.
  2. organizational culture and values: the values and culture of an organization playa a key role in shaping its organizational approach to risk, as well as levels of risk-aversion or risk-taking among its individual staff members. 
  3. social bias vs. diversity, equity, and inclusion: the internal biases projected toward marginalized social groups can influence to whom philanthropic organizations give grants, who they employ, and the voices they seek to amplify. In many cases, organizations committed to DEI internally as well as externally will act to balance the social biases that make them risk-averse.

There was broad consensus in the room that foundations should not shy away from risk. Indeed, a better solution to enhance strategic effectiveness and impact is to address it head-on. Actionable suggestions to mitigate risk included:

  • collaborating with like-minded partners to build legitimacy and increase opportunity;
  • encouraging an internal culture of experimentation and failure;
  • explicitly devoting a designated percentage of funds or funding to higher-risk activities or investments;
  • allocating discretionary funds to risky investments;
  • building trust with the communities being served;
  • shifting hiring practices to recruit staff representative of the communities served, and with skills and knowledge to effectively address risk; and
  • creating and sharing knowledge around risk.

Rockefeller_blog_post_20190506

Within each organization, there are risk takers or owners of the various types and levels of risks outlined above. The risk takers include: 

  • philanthropies and funders
  • leaders (i.e., CEOs, executive directors)
  • staff (i.e., program officers)
  • grantees and communities served

While each of these groups absorbs a different form of risk depending on the role they play in decision-making and the philanthropic funding cycle, they, too, are impacted by the risk determinants noted above. Moreover, some groups —particularly Funders and Leaders — bear responsibility for all or most risk types. Accordingly, it falls to them to actively work to define each type of risk, develop strategies, and advance solutions designed to minimize the identified risks.

Philanthropic organizations are uniquely positioned to embrace risk and identify solutions to the world's most pressing challenges. This includes taking part in more conversations around risk and viewing failure as a learning opportunity, building an a knowledge sharing ecosystem of peers and practitioners, and taking on risk collaboratively. As one attendee noted, "Risk is about being more nimble, more reactive to the environment, and creating a platform that allows for transformation to happen, and it is the work of foundations to keep pushing these things forward."

Kalyah_olga_2Olga Tarasov is director, knowledge development at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, where she oversees and advances research, publications, and both internal and external programs. She previously worked at the National Endowment for Democracy and also has served as a spokesperson on issues affecting the region and the field of international philanthropy. 

Kalyah Ford is a senior researcher at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Kalyah previously worked as a research and policy specialist with the World Bank Group, and drove advocacy communications at Human Rights First, developed public diplomacy policy at the United States Department of State, and worked as the Research Lead on a pan-African study for the Open Society Foundations West Africa Initiative (OSIWA).

The Privilege and Peril of Becoming a Foundation CEO

May 02, 2019

GettyImages-612396272-v2-compressorThe occasion of recruiting and hiring a new CEO presents an important opportunity for members of the board to collectively reflect on the unique challenges entailed in the leadership of a private foundation. While professional search firms usually have a profile in mind in terms of what constitutes an appropriate CEO candidate, in many ways the CEO role at a foundation is not a typical CEO position. To truly do justice to the position, the leader of a foundation should not only be able to articulate a vision, inspire confidence, and exemplify other classic qualities of leadership, s/he should also have the strength of character to manifest the unique values that characterize philanthropy at its best.

CEOs of grantmaking foundations occupy positions of immense privilege. They control access to significant sums of flexible capital and, for all intents and purposes, are accountable only to their boards. Typically, they have a significant amount of autonomy in how they choose to define their role, and it's not uncommon for a CEO to exert significant personal influence over the foundation's strategic priorities and grantmaking practices. For some boards, that equates to dynamic, visionary leadership. But there are potential pitfalls in the exercise of that privilege, and they can be damaging to the ultimate effectiveness of the institution. With the caveat that more than one of these traits often is evident in a single person, here are a few we've observed.

The CEO as Pundit

Compounding the significant privilege inherent in the CEO role is the likelihood that a foundation CEO will receive a daily shower of affirmation for his/her irreproachable wisdom and vision. To be susceptible to constant flattery is human. But unless the CEO makes a special effort to remain grounded, it's all too easy for him/her to succumb to the countless ego-gratifying opportunities to pontificate and exercise inappropriate personal influence over the agenda and daily operations of the foundation.

Internally, that can take the form of exercising an extreme form of control over every aspect of the foundation's work. Externally, a CEO may begin to feel the position qualifies him/her to offer regular opinions on the direction in which society should be moving, or even that the world of public affairs can uniquely benefit from the leadership of someone who is not beholden to the political process or company shareholders. Obviously, there is a role for foundation CEOs to speak out on issues of importance to their foundations, but it should be done in a thoughtful and intentional fashion that minimizes self-aggrandizement.

The CEO as Culture Weaver

Particularly if the CEO is embedded in a large organization, it's easy to misjudge and underestimate the unique internal management role s/he is expected to play within a foundation. Most foundations have a relatively small staff and embody something more akin to the culture of a family rather than an impersonal bureaucratized structure. That kind of culture calls for a leader who is aware of the critical importance of "soft skills" and is committed to a personalized approach to management.

Foundation CEOs also have a critical role to play in orchestrating the work of the staff. They are the one person in the organization that is uniquely situated to see the big picture and empowered to operate from that perspective. Finding the right balance in that role is a critical leadership success factor. Asking the right questions at the right time, guiding rather than controlling, and pushing for an appropriate synthesis of competing interests and ideas are essential aspects of the CEO role.

Rather than adopting a stereotypical "academic" style of leadership that by necessity cedes a high degree of autonomy to deans and departments, successful foundation CEOs should play a more integrative role, respecting and nurturing the talents of staff but also assertively articulating incentives for and the boundaries of effective cross-department collaboration that benefits the entire institution.

Above all, the CEO should take responsibility for focusing the foundation's attention and resources on opportunities within its field(s) of interest that are actionable. It takes special skill to translate compelling data and expert knowledge into a plan of action that effectively capitalizes on a foundation's unique strengths, and it takes real discernment to recognize where and how to creatively utilize the foundation's capacity for influence and maximum leverage.

The CEO as Wrangler

When it comes to dealing with the board, newly-minted CEOs display a tendency to demonstrate their leadership by asserting their point of view on every issue. Some even think that the best way to truly establish their authority is to ignore (or even disparage) the achievements of previous leaders. In the name of decisiveness, new CEOs also may feel compelled to move quickly to put their stamp on the organization and apply their spurs, as it were, to jolt their new mount into action.

In any truly mission-driven organization, however, recognizing and valuing the importance of the existing web of human relationships is another key leadership success factor. A new CEO's instinct may be to be seen as a doer able to quickly take charge. But, often, a more productive approach is to take the time to fully appreciate the talents and capabilities of current staff and observe and ask questions in order to capitalize on the strengths of the organization's existing culture before trying to introduce significant changes.

Particularly if a new CEO comes from a government or university setting and has little prior experience in working with a board of directors, it's essential that s/he invest the time and effort at the beginning of his/her tenure to understand and clarify the CEO role. No matter how much experience s/he might have in other management roles, being CEO is a qualitatively different kind of challenge. It's a role subject to ambiguity and hinges on one's ability to understand and appreciate nuance. It requires lots of intentional work to be sure everyone has a clear understanding of their respective roles, responsibilities, and organizational boundaries. Not devoting sufficient time or energy to those conversations at the outset is likely to set the stage for ongoing misunderstandings and associated difficulties.

It's also possible to overdo the listening. Foundations are notorious for taking as much as a year off from their grantmaking to think through the next phase of their evolution. The arrival of a new CEO frequently is the stimulus for a top-to-bottom assessment of a foundation's operations. Often, however, such a pause is perceived by the grantseeking public as self-indulgent and rarely of enough benefit to warrant the time and resources expended on it. Instead, it's important for new foundation CEOs to acknowledge and capitalize on whatever positive momentum they have inherited and to continue to move the herd forward while committing to learning and making appropriate adjustments in strategy and personnel along the way.

When and if the time comes to make changes in personnel, how those transitions are handled is of critical importance. Particularly if a program staff person has been part of the organization for some time, they are likely to have developed constituencies across the foundation's field(s) of interest. Organized philanthropy is a relatively tight-knit community: how people are treated by a new CEO can have significant ramifications for the reputation of the organization among its peers.

The CEO as Expert

Foundations tend to hire CEOs who are acknowledged experts in their areas of grantmaking. By that, we mean experts in the subject matter of greatest interest to the foundation. Often, experience in philanthropy itself is of secondary importance. There's a widespread belief that the era of the generalist is past, and that the future of foundations is best shaped by specialists.

Paradoxically, there can be unanticipated consequences to hiring a specialist as CEO that are not always to the benefit of the foundation. Experts tend to come with fully formed opinions about the most effective strategies to pursue. They have established networks of colleagues and may not be particularly open to expanding those networks. After all, if you're an expert, by definition you know what the best course of action is. It can also be exceedingly difficult for an acknowledged expert to extract him or herself from the details of the work to assume the critical "big picture" perspective referred to above.

Foundations are not universities or think tanks. They may manifest aspects of those institutions, but they have a unique opportunity — even an obligation — to not just follow the advice of academic experts but to look at problems in different ways, bring unexpected perspectives to bear, and craft strategies that move society forward. It's a unique space in the spectrum of organizations, and it takes a relentless curiosity and willingness to consider alternative solutions to use that privilege to full advantage. It may strike some as "old school," but a CEO whose greatest gift is a full appreciation of the potential of philanthropy may be a better fit to lead such an enterprise.

The CEO as Program Officer

It's tempting for a foundation CEO to want to also function as a kind of "uber" program officer. Having a "discretionary" grants budget at his/her disposal is a first step in that direction. It's quite common in the foundation world for a CEO to have a private pot of money from which s/he make grants at his/her discretion. When those funds are used for "corporate giving," in the sense of joining other foundation CEOs in making expected — and relatively modest — contributions to organizations or special events that support the field (e.g., to underwrite a conference), that's one thing. But it can be a slippery slope and quickly lead to more substantial resources being directed to a CEO's personal priorities, as opposed to those of the institution.

When a CEO is unable to resist being a grantmaker, it sets up several potentially unhealthy dynamics for a foundation. Grantseekers who enjoy a personal connection to the CEO quickly learn that they can sidestep the foundation's announced priorities and procedures and directly approach the CEO for support. And when they're successful, it not only sends a message to others in the community but also to those within the organization. Board members can begin to feel that it's appropriate for them to leverage their personal access to the CEO to secure funding for their own priorities, while grantmaking staff can be put in an uncomfortable, even untenable position.

A foundation may pride itself on the use of objective research and analysis in establishing its grantmaking priorities and making individual grant decisions. But when the CEO is playing by a different set of rules, it sends the wrong signal to staff about the integrity of the organization's processes and sets up an unfair competition for scarce resources. And when a CEO's personal priorities begin to consume a greater share of the foundation's grantmaking dollars, things can go sideways. Staff can be put in the position of not knowing what to anticipate. They may also have to "front" for those CEO decisions with the public while trying to keep to established procedures. Needless to say, it's not a pleasant position to find oneself in.

The CEO as Brand Icon

We live in an era where foundation boards are not just satisfied to support good work; they want to be publicly recognized for that work. As a result, the foundation world has embraced the kind of brand consciousness that was previously the purview of corporations, celebrities, and politicians. Corporate communications strategies that focus on grantee accomplishments without spotlighting the special contributions of the foundation (and its dynamic leader) are now passé.

When a foundation styles itself as a changemaker rather than as a grantmaker, the "brand promise" entails a different interpretation of the CEO role and a new set of criteria for hiring one. If a key component of a CEO's performance is to maintain a high public profile for the foundation, there is a real danger that philanthropic resources will be used to promote image and style at the expense of substance.

There's also a danger that a CEO's enthusiastic promotion of a personal brand can come to compete with the foundation's institutional brand. Some boards may not mind, but we are of the view that the foundation's mission and values, rather than any single person, should be the ultimate driver of its brand.

Securing and promoting a "name brand" CEO may be an accepted business strategy in our celebrity-obsessed culture, but the benefit to a philanthropic foundation is difficult to gauge. Indeed, as more foundations are coming to the realization that collaboration and funding partnerships are essential in addressing complex problems, a preoccupation with brand enhancement can most assuredly get in the way of genuinely collective ventures. Indeed, there is little incentive for a foundation to publicly admit to failure when it is focused on burnishing its brand as a pathfinding innovator. Foundations should think twice before heading down that path.

Headshot_julia_lopez_tom_david_compJulia Lopez is the former president and CEO of the College Futures Foundation (2008-17) and a former senior vice president at the Rockefeller Foundation, where she provided oversight, management, and evaluation of the foundation's strategic program grantmaking. She has also served in roles in the California State Legislature, the New Mexico Department of Criminal Justice, and the San Francisco Department of Social Services and currently serves on the board of public radio station KQED in San Francisco. 

Tom David advises foundations and other public benefit organizations on matters of strategy, organizational learning, and evaluation. Until July 2004, he was director of organizational learning and evaluation at the Marguerite Casey Foundation in Seattle and, prior to that, served as executive vice president of the California Wellness Foundation, vice president of the S.H. Cowell Foundation, and senior program officer at the James Irvine Foundation. David (http://www.tdavid.net/) was the recipient of the 2002 Terrence Keenan Leadership Award in Health Philanthropy from Grantmakers in Health

5 Questions for…Lori Bezahler, President, Edward W. Hazen Foundation

In 2000, Lori Bezahler was young, idealistic and running the Education and Youth Services division of a large nonprofit in New York. She came across an ad that piqued her interest: Public Education Program Officer Edward W. Hazen Foundation. Bezahler was intrigued by the foundation’s idea that organizing could be used as a tool to change the conditions that adversely affect people’s lives, with a focus on communities of color and in the area of education. So she applied for and got the job. A few years later, in 2004, Barbara Taveras, the foundation's then-president, decided to step down. The foundation's board conducted a search for Taveras's replacement and chose Bezahler.

In the decade and a half since, Bezahler and the Hazen Foundation have been in the forefront of the movement for racial justice in American society, supporting the leadership of young people and communities of color in dismantling structural inequity based on race and class. To accelerate that work at this critical juncture, the Hazen board announced in March that the foundation would be spending down its endowment over the next five years in support of education and youth organizing, with a focus on racial justice.

PND spoke with Bezahler shortly after the board’s announcement to learn more about how and why the decision to spend down was made, how it will be executed, and what the foundation hopes to achieve over the next five years.

Headshot_lori_bezahlerPhilanthropy News Digest: The Hazen Foundation was established in 1925, making it one of the oldest private foundations in the United States. For decades, the foundation focused its resources on "the lack of values-based and religious instruction in higher education." Then, in the 1970s, it began to focus on public education and youth develop­ment, and in the late '80s it shifted its focus to community organizing for school reform. In 2009, under your leadership, the foundation made another shift, and began to focus more explicitly on race as the basis of oppression. Can you speak, broadly, to the process and the people who’ve helped shaped the foundation’s evolution over the last ninety-plus years?

Lori Bezahler: I'm glad you brought up the foundation's establishment, because I think Edward and Helen Hazen, the couple who created it, were really interesting people. They were childless themselves and were involved, during their lifetimes, in a number of char­ities that focused on young people. A lot of that work influenced the founding docu­ments of the foundation and its approach from the beginning, especially the importance of thinking about young people in terms of their whole selves, thinking about character development, about the way each of us incorporates our values and our beliefs into our lives. That's been a common thread through all the years and decades of the foundation's work. And over that span of time, a couple of people have been especially important in shaping the institu­tion that is Hazen today.

The first is Paul Ylvisaker, who was well known for the urban planning and anti-poverty work he did for the Johnson administration in the 1960s and later at the Ford Foundation, before becoming a dean at Harvard. He also was a trustee of the Hazen Foundation. From what I've read of our history and in board minutes and things like that he was influential in a number of ways. One was thinking about policies and their impact in broad structural terms. The other was the decision to recommend bringing Jean Fairfax, who just passed away at the age of 98, onto the board. At the time, Jean was a young African-American woman and lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and as far as we can tell from our research, she was the first African-American woman to be appointed to the board of a national foundation. In that role, she was instrumental in bringing attention to issues of race and representation by demanding that prospective grantees of the foundation share information about the demographics of their leadership, the nature of the community they served, and whether leadership was representative of that community. Jean was instrumental in moving the foundation's board to think more intentionally about where we, as an institution, put our dollars and the importance of self-determination.

There were others who followed in her footsteps. Sharon King led the foundation for a few years in the late 1980s, and it was under her leadership that the foundation began its work in the field of community organizing, or, as Sharon used to say, with organizations that had their feet in the community, that were grounded and embedded in the com­munity and not parachuting in, and that had leadership that was representative of the community.

After Sharon left, Barbara Taveras took over as president and really built out the foundation's understanding of organizing. She was very thoughtful in considering how a foundation could and should relate to the field through partnering, listening, and acting in a learning mode, rather than a prescriptive mode.

There were also a number of people who helped move the foundation in the direction of having an explicit focus on race. The person I would call out especially in that respect is Daniel HoSang, who was appointed to the board when he was at the Center for Third World Organizing and today is an associate professor of American studies and ethnic studies at Yale. Dan was a member of the board for ten years and really championed the idea that the foundation should specify race as a focus and think about it structurally rather than individually. He was crucial in that regard.

PND: Your board recently announced that the foundation was going to spend out its endowment over the next five years. How did that decision come about?

LB: The impetus to consider a dramatic change in how the foundation does business came about as the result of a sort of fundamental questioning of the foundation's role in a time that presents us all with great challenges but also great opportunities. It's a moment that is lifting up the potential and possibilities for the very work the Hazen Foundation has spent so many years doing. The relationships we've created, in the fields of youth organizing, racial and education justice; the way we've been able to bring that kind of work into the broader philanthropic conversation and raise it up to some of our peers and partners — all that figured into it.

And all those different factors caused us to pause and say, Are we stepping up? Are we doing everything we can be doing? Clearly, there are assumptions around perpetuity in philan­thropy, and they're based on some good thinking. I'm not saying that perpetuity is ridiculous — it's not. If you look at the numbers, you actually spend more over time, it gives you the opportunity to build something and be there for the long haul.

But there are moments when it's not enough, when the damage done by misguided policies or irresponsible leadership in the short-term will have ripple effects across time that demand you think differently about how you use your resources. And when, on top of that, there's an established body of work that you can build on to do something meaningful by concentrating your resources — well then you don't really have a choice.

That was the question we asked ourselves, and the process to get to the announcement took nearly two years. We did a lot of research, everything from literature scans to interviews to surveys. We talked to lots of people in the field, including our grantees and partners. We talked to people who had served in leadership roles in other spend-down institutions and asked them what worked and what didn't work, what were the pros and what were the cons. We looked at other options besides spending down. And we did a lot of financial modeling. I mean, we conducted an enormous amount of research, because I think the board felt very strongly that if we were going to do this, if we were going to turn out the lights on this institution and the work we have been supporting over many decades, it's got to be done in a way that is meaningful. The approach was deliberate and rational, but we also did a lot of soul searching about what it all meant and whether we were doing everything possible to fulfill the mission of the institution or whether there was something different we needed to do.

Continue reading »

Contributors

Quote of the Week

  • "The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned...."

    — Bryan Stevenson

Subscribe to Philantopic

Contributors

Guest Contributors

  • Laura Cronin
  • Derrick Feldmann
  • Thaler Pekar
  • Kathryn Pyle
  • Nick Scott
  • Allison Shirk

Tweets from @PNDBLOG

Follow us »

Archives

Other Blogs

Tags