569 posts categorized "Nonprofits"

Unfinished business: Why the social justice movement needs nonprofits

June 18, 2021

BlackLivesMatter_protest_fist_minneapolis_foundationIn 2020, social justice issues moved front and center in ways most of us couldn't have predicted. As some of the largest and broadest demonstrations for racial justice in U.S. history erupted across the country, corporations came under greater pressure than ever before to take an active role in addressing social injustices.

At the same time, the events of 2020 highlighted how essential nonprofit organizations are to efforts to advance social justice.

Understanding equity vs. equality

The ongoing fight for equality in our country has traveled a long and storied road. The related but separate movement for social equity digs deeper into the ways in which opportunities are presented — or are closed — to different groups.

While equality means each individual or faction is given the same resources or opportunities, equity recognizes that each person or faction comes from different circumstances, which may require a restructured allocation of those resources and opportunities. Incorporating those factors into programs serving marginalized populations results in better outcomes; nonprofits make it their business to understand those complexities.

"Equity is a way, not a what," André Ledgister, communications catalyst at Partnership for Southern Equity, told me. "We make sure our efforts reflect equity in that we take into account what specific community organizations need in order to access resources. In that sense, the work of nonprofits is to empower the community to create their own change."

Nonprofit leaders know that fostering allies beyond donors, volunteers, and sponsors is critical to success. Similarly, for social justice activism to effect lasting change, education and advocacy efforts need to cross various divides to become truly multiethnic and multicultural.

"Nonprofit organizations teach, whether the work is relevant in science, in STEM fields, or in humanities and the arts," said Vicki Crawford, executive director of the Morehouse College Martin Luther King Jr. Collection. "The hope is that this type of education will open people up to exploring the ways in which we are inextricably linked; to open up the conversation around the commonality of all humans across the differences of race, class, gender, religious affiliation."

Taking that understanding one step further means recognizing the ways in which we fall on either side of the ally relationship.

"Everyone has multiple identities, some of which can be privileged and some of which can be marginalized," said Sharmila Fowler, founder, coach, and consultant for the Red Lion Institute. "Your particular situation really depends on which room you're in. I could be a woman in a room full of women with very few men, or I could be an Asian American in a room full of many other ethnic identities and few Asian Americans. It's important to recognize that your identity shifts around privilege and marginalization, and to allow for that fluidity of identification."

Connecting the dots

Driving fundamental social change requires multiple levels of expertise and influence. For nonprofits, making connections and appealing to specifically focused stakeholders is a way of life. Already primed to network toward a goal, these organizations know how to pull the right levers to move social justice causes forward in an impactful way.

"For us, relationship acceleration is connecting those philanthropists, policy makers, community organizers, grassroots groups — putting everyone into the same room and saying, 'Okay, this is the problem we need to address,'" Ledgister explained. "They're all coming together from different areas of life, different industries, working together to push for change."

Leadership development

Social justice can't happen in a vacuum, nor can real change be achieved when dictated from outside the communities where the greatest need exists. In addition to creating social equity by clearing access to resources, nonprofits are positioned to build sustainable social change by inspiring community-based leaders and, more importantly, potential leaders.

"Supporting leadership development is so important," said Ledgister. "Making sure community members have the opportunity to be trained on initiatives is essential to progress. They can bring that forward and continue to push for change in the way that best fits. Those in the community are closest to the issue; they are the ones closest to the solution."

Generational mindset

The hard, long-term work needed to move the social justice needle can be daunting. Organizations looking for quick solutions will likely be disappointed and unable to sustain the effort. But nonprofits are used to going for the long game. Change doesn't happen in a funding cycle; it requires unwavering focus on the horizon despite the inevitable setbacks.

"All this work we're doing, this is generational work," said Ledgister. "I may not see results in my lifetime, but my daughter will hopefully see the purpose of this labor — when she goes into the marketplace and she's not looked at as somebody that is 'less than,' when she is looked at in the fullness of her character and has everything she needs to thrive."

Crawford agreed, recognizing that by drawing from the past, nonprofits and allies can better inform the future for the next generation. "It's important to learn the history of a particular era, because that moment speaks to the present moment," she told me. "Because ultimately, it's unfinished business that we're dealing with."

If we are going to finish that business by learning from and improving upon the work of past social justice leaders, nonprofits will have to be at the forefront leading the way. With their boots on the ground and connections to local communities, nonprofits are the heartbeat of the development pipeline for future leaders, the ones who know how to listen as allies, lean on their constituencies, and push new paths forward. We need these leaders now more than ever, and it's more important than ever to support them in every way possible.

Sima Parekh_PhilanTopicSima Parekh is executive director of 48in48.

Funding criminal justice reform in Latin America: Investing in affected communities

June 15, 2021

Casa de las Muñecas_PhilanTopicThere is always a glass-half-full aspect to grantmaking: While we are proud of what our grants have helped accomplish, we recognize that we can always do better. Looking back on the past decade of grantmaking by the Open Society Foundations' Human Rights Initiative in support of criminal justice reform, we can draw critical lessons from both our successes and our failures.

We would like to share some lessons learned from our work funding communities affected by over-policing, mass incarceration, and state violence in Latin America.

A bedrock principle for us is that affected communities are the most capable drivers of long-term, sustainable change, and funders need to prioritize providing them with direct support.

There are four fundamental reasons why donors funding criminal justice reform should support leaders of the movement who are directly impacted by the system:

1. Investing in collective organizing and leadership provides affected communities with resources to build their power. It enables them to shape a narrative on public safety that highlights the stories of the victims and exposes the root causes of violence and harm such as social, economic, and racial injustices — and the way the criminal justice system is designed to criminalize and discriminate against marginalized communities. Funding their leaders also empowers affected communities to develop solutions to problems that directly impact them, and funding is critical to effectively challenging structural inequality and injustice through a bottom-up, rather than top-down, approach.

2. Investing in affected communities contributes to a more representative, diverse, and inclusive criminal justice movement that nurtures new and emerging leaders. In Brazil, for example, white — and often elite — legal and policy advocacy groups tend to dominate the criminal justice field — but this is changing. More Black activists and Black-led organizations such as the newly formed Black Coalition for Rights, are leading advocacy on criminal justice reform and placing racial justice squarely on the agenda of the broader movement, and more donors are funding racial justice work in the country. In Mexico, the trans-led NGO Casa de las Muñecas is introducing new perspectives in the criminal justice debate regarding discrimination against trans women, which other organizations in this space have not prioritized. Building the leadership of affected communities has a knock-on effect on mainstream organizations as well, motivating them to recruit staff and board members from these communities, diversifying their membership.

3. The strong connection between directly impacted people and their families, neighbors, and/or people with similar experiences gives those leaders and organizations legitimacy in the eyes of their communities and the public. They therefore have a greater capacity to mobilize and galvanize people around their demands. In the United States, as a result of the shift in the profile of its leadership to include more people from impacted communities, the criminal justice movement has pushed new and more radical ideas to the fore, such as "prison abolition" and "defunding the police," and is placing greater emphasis on initiatives dealing with violence prevention, community reinvestments, and reentry. In Latin America, a nascent network of formerly incarcerated women (including Red de Acciones por la Justicia in Mexico, Mujeres Libres in Colombia, and Amparar in Brazil), is developing an advocacy platform to promote transformative justice across the region, a topic that traditional criminal justice organizations, which have been more focused on technical legislative reforms, have not prioritized.

4. While directly impacted individuals are arguably the most capable and effective leaders of the criminal justice movement, they are also the most in need of and the least able to access resources. Groups and movements led by affected communities are typically under-funded and conduct most of their work on a volunteer basis. They lack the vital resources required for organizational and professional development (e.g., fundraising, advocacy) and end up giving their time and energy free of charge, despite precarious living conditions, such as insecure housing, lack of access to basic services (health care, education, etc.), and the stigma that comes with having spent time behind bars or the trauma of having lost a family member to state violence.

Donors have an important role to play in supporting affected communities' efforts to organize, strategize, and develop their own solutions to problems of which they have an intimate knowledge.

Here are four lessons we'd like to share from our experience in Latin America:

1. Funding affected communities requires grantmaking that is flexible, long-term, and premised on trust. Keep in mind that while grantees will choose the path that works best for them, it may take time to figure this out, and results may not be immediately tangible. There may be an advocacy win down the road, but the organizing, strategizing, and mobilizing necessary to make it happen could take years. Results need to be measured against movement-building milestones such as agenda setting, increased visibility of advocates and positions, stronger networks/development of new organizations, and law and policy reform).  

2. Affected communities should make their own decisions, but they need allies and assistance from well-established organizations that can offer respectful accompaniment and technical support. Allies (including donors) must perform a delicate balancing act: committing to nurturing the leadership of affected communities while knowing when to step back to let them make their own decisions.

3. We need to navigate movement dynamics carefully. Funding one set of affected leaders or organizations but not another may pit groups against each other. Donors need to understand alliances and rivalries and asses how best to support the movement as a whole. It is also important to recognize the tensions between movements. For instance, in Colombia, we cannot assume that solidarity is automatic between female coca growers in rural areas and women who use or sell drugs in urban settings, but they could rally around common goals such as the need for economic opportunities.

4. Some communities self-organize to defend their rights and interests but do not focus on criminal justice reform. For instance, while associations of sex workers, people who use drugs, or LGBTQI communities are victims of violence and criminalization, they tend not to operate in the criminal justice field. They could, however, be allies and help break silos between movements.

It's too early to demonstrate, in a quantifiable way, the impact of this strategic shift on policy and practice and people's lives. Yet, after a few years of funding affected communities in Latin America, we already see changes in the types of organizations and activists present in the criminal justice field across the region: They are more diverse, they have brought new voices and perspectives to the table, and they have given a sense of empowerment to disenfranchised communities. We hope the donor community embraces this approach and understands that systemic change requires a sustained and collaborative effort and a commitment to invest in building the infrastructure for movements that have historically lacked access to resources.

(Photo credit: Casa de las Muñecas)

Soheila Comninos_Nina_Madsen_PhilanTopic Soheila Comninos and Nina Madsen are program officers in the Open Society Foundations' Human Rights Initiative.

 

What the donor-advised fund payout rate means for philanthropy and how it fits into the bigger charitable giving picture

June 08, 2021

Those of us who work with donor-advised fund (DAF) donors every day know that they are caring, committed, and creative givers. We also know they use DAFs for both their long- and short-term giving. This has never been more apparent than in the past year, when grantmaking from DAFs skyrocketed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While generosity is not a calculation, the DAF payout rate is an important philanthropic benchmark.

What is the DAF payout rate?

The DAF payout rate is a calculation of grantmaking dollars awarded from DAFs to charities relative to the total charitable assets in those DAFs. More simply: it's how much DAF donors granted compared with what they could have granted.

How should we calculate payout rate?

Candid uses a formula to estimate payout from private foundations that National Philanthropic Trust (NPT) replicates in our annual Donor-Advised Fund Report. The Candid formula is:

This year's grant $$ ÷ Previous year's charitable assets = payout rate

For 2019, the latest year for which aggregated data is available, the formula is:

FY19 grants ÷ FY18 charitable assets

or $27.37B ÷ $122.18B = 22.4% payout

NPT uses the Candid formula for several reasons. First, like DAFs, private foundations are widely used giving vehicles for both short- and long-term philanthropy, so using the formula creates a useful point of comparison between the two types of vehicles.

Second, the formula is not just an industry standard, it's practical. The Candid formula reflects common budgeting techniques — that is, plan for the current year based on the prior year's income and expenses and factor in the remaining balance (if any).

Third, other payout-rate formulas ignore certain practical and particular aspects of giving to and from DAFs, such as the time between the date of contribution and the availability of the funds for grantmaking. More on this below.

A look at other ways to calculate payout rate

Since there is no mandatory payout requirement for DAFs, there are several reasonable ways to calculate it.

Thumbnail_DAF Payout Blog_Chart_2

The "Three-Year Average" and "Five-Year Average" methods use the average of the charitable assets held by DAFs over two different periods. These formulas are also allowed by the IRS as a way for private foundations to calculate their payout. Using multiyear averages can smooth out any "lumpiness" in either major contributions or grants. However, for fast-growing giving vehicles such as DAFs, it also generally underestimates charitable assets available, as the year with the highest total — typically, the most recent year for which aggregate data is available — is averaged with lower values from earlier years.

The "One-Year" method, a formula that NPT used to calculate DAF payout in our annual Donor-Advised Fund Report prior to 2014, uses grants and charitable assets (plus grants) in the same year to calculate payout. This formula assumes that every dollar contributed to a DAF can be immediately granted out, which can have the effect of overestimating the value of assets that are truly available for grantmaking.

For example, a donor who contributes to her DAF in the last days of December (and receives her tax deduction at that time) will recommend grants from those DAF charitable assets the following year and beyond.

How do we put the DAF payout rate into context?

The Candid method offers the best point of comparison. As a vehicle for giving, private foundations are similar to DAFs, and this method most accurately represents payout by using numbers that reflect the amount granted relative to what is definitively available for grantmaking.

It's also worth noting that private foundation payouts can include eligible operating and administrative expenses, such as staff salaries, overhead, and administrative expenses. By contrast, DAF payout takes into account charitable grantmaking only and does not include any of the DAF sponsors' operating or administrative expenses.

Using the Candid method, DAF payout is typically at least four times higher than that of private foundations. While foundations typically grant out the legally required minimum of 5 percent of their assets annually, the DAF payout rate has been above 20 percent for each of the last ten years.

All of the proposed formulae show that the DAF payout rate is historically and consistently higher than that of private foundations. And as such, it helps us understand that DAF donors are committed to the charities they support over both the short and long term.

DAFs provide substantial and sustained support

A consistent DAF payout rate is good news for charities. DAF donors have proven that they are a sustainable source of charitable support. They give dependably across economic cycles (yes, DAF donors gave at a 20+ percent payout rate through the Great Recession); through political seasons (no, there's no need to worry that campaign giving reduces charitable giving by DAF donors); and in the face of great challenges (natural disasters, global pandemics, mass social movements, etc.). The data is clear: DAF donors are committed to the long-term viability of nonprofits.

The DAF payout rate is an important metric, and it's not the only way to measure philanthropic activity from DAF donors. Grantmaking from DAFs has nearly doubled over the last five years — a clear signal that DAF donors are active givers. In fact, growth in grantmaking from DAFs (93 percent) has outpaced growth in contributions (80 percent) to them over that period.

DAF donors' response to the COVID-19 global pandemic — which saw grantmaking from DAFs soar 33 percent on a year-over-year basis — is yet another indication of their philanthropic commitment. So is the fact that they have irrevocably donated money to DAFs that can only be used for philanthropic purposes.

While there is no magic formula that can make people give, DAF donors have consistently chosen to do so quickly and generously.

Andrew Hastings_NPT_PhilanTopicAndrew Hastings, chief development officer at the National Philanthropic Trust, the largest national nonprofit manager of donor-advised funds, has twenty-five years of experience in the philanthropic and nonprofit marketplace. To read NPT's annual Donor-Advised Fund Report or COVID Survey, visit NPTrust.org.

Venture philanthropy: The secret weapon for unlocking biomedical research's full life-changing potential

June 04, 2021

Eye_retina_gettyimages_batkeMore than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been much reflection around "lessons learned" across all sectors. In the biomedical research space, we've seen science meet the urgent need for safe and effective vaccines at miraculous speed to contain the spread of the virus. The mRNA technology used in some of those vaccines has broad implications for future treatments for a variety of other viruses, cancers, and diseases and is a clear indication of how far science has evolved in a short period of time. Imagine what treatments and cures could be unlocked — with the necessary funding.

In the United States, public funding for basic research has long come from the National Institutes of Health, but the U.S. government lags other advanced economies in the amount of funding it provides for the translational research required to convert basic science into tangible patient treatments. And while more public funding for biomedical research at the critical clinical trial stage is essential, it is going to take public, private, and philanthropic dollars to ensure that biomedical research into promising treatments and cures doesn't wither on the vine. Federal programs such as the Cancer Moonshot, state-level initiatives like the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and promising legislation aimed at providing private-sector loans to companies developing novel treatments for disease and disability are all helpful — but still leave a funding gap. There needs to be a third leg to stabilize those public- and private-sector efforts, and we believe that third leg is philanthropy.

As successful entrepreneurs and venture investors, we see our donations as investments in the mission of the nonprofit organizations we support. We each have a personal connection to the mission of the Foundation Fighting Blindness: one of us has experienced loss of sight from retinitis pigmentosa as a young adult, and the other has raised two sons with vision impairment caused by Stargardt disease. Based on our personal experiences, we have a keen understanding of what it is like to be a patient or have a loved one waiting for life-changing treatments to become available.

For fifty years, thanks to the generosity of donors, the Foundation Fighting Blindness has successfully funded research in pursuit of treatments and cures for the entire spectrum of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) and dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which together affect more than two hundred million people globally. Yet, more needs to be done. The key discoveries made in labs need to make it into the hands of industry-led therapy developers to conduct clinical testing and win FDA approval. But a gap in funding often prevents this progress, and in this case, the science is now outpacing the funding.

To bridge this funding gap, the Foundation Fighting Blindness created the Retinal Degeneration Fund (RD Fund), a nonprofit, pure-play venture philanthropy investment vehicle designed to help accelerate the technical aspects of the organization's mission and advance its financial goals. Our respective family foundations contributed significant capital to launch the fund, which allowed us to be more involved in the organization's work by funding highly visible activities in biotech startups and spinouts. We've taken concepts and techniques from our venture capital finance and business management experience and applied them to our philanthropic goals of accelerating the progress on treatments and cures, while positioning the organization for long-term sustainability.

Launched in late 2018 with $72 million under management, the first fund is now 90 percent committed, with nine investments plus reserves. This invested capital has attracted an additional $400 million in capital to date from institutional co-investors and has produced its first exit with the sale of Vedere Bio to Novartis for $280 million, enabling the organization to plug a financial gap in its long-range science spending plan and roll over significant funds to seed Fund 2. 

We take comfort in knowing that the venture philanthropy model already has been successfully scaled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, just to name a few. One key element is to manage it professionally and deliberately; one cannot just wander into biotech equity investing without experience, deep scientific know-how, and world-class advice and oversight. The RD Fund has an independent board of directors with expertise spanning retinal biology, clinical ophthalmology, finance, and entrepreneurship, and the board works closely with an executive management team with significant operational, strategic, and leadership experience. Importantly, the fund is able to rely on an international scientific advisory board and leverage the organization's patient registry and clinical consortium. In other words, the brain trust of the Foundation Fighting Blindness and its venture arm have the collective scientific and business acumen to best determine what is or is not an investible mission-related opportunity.

We are encouraged by venture philanthropy's ability to reap a return to be re-invested in furthering an organization's mission, especially in times of economic uncertainty. Most important, our experience has demonstrated that jump-starting the pipeline for treatments and cures through venture philanthropy holds real promise as a viable, scalable approach for addressing other underserved diseases impacting so many.

(Photo credit: GettyImages/Batke)

Gordon Gund_Paul_Manning_PhilanTopicGordon Gund is chair and CEO of Gund Investment Corporation; after losing his sight from retinitis pigmentosa in 1970, he co-founded the Foundation Fighting Blindness with his wife, Lulie, and others. Paul Manning is founder, chair, and CEO of PBM Capital; both of his sons were diagnosed with Stargardt disease.

What COVID-19 has taught us about the humanitarian system and women's rights organizations

June 02, 2021

CFTA_feminist_humanitarian_networkWhen the COVID-19 pandemic struck — and with it came public health measures including stay-at-home orders — women's rights organizations (WROs) the world over were quick to sound the alarm: Gender-based violence (GBV) would increase. Women and "marginalized" groups would be disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, and the inequality they already face would deepen. The gendered impacts of crises are well documented, and COVID-19 would be no different.

WROs acted swiftly to address those issues, working to strengthen community-based mechanisms to ensure that women could report GBV and expect a response. Organizations adapted their systems and approaches to ensure that women could continue to access critical services during lockdowns, including psycho-social support, maternal and newborn child health care, and sexual and reproductive health services. WROs also advocated for recognition of the impacts of the crisis on women's rights and called for funding to be targeted to mitigating those impacts.

While responding to the pandemic and its fallout, WRO members of the Feminist Humanitarian Network (FHN), a collective of women leaders working together to transform the humanitarian system into one that is guided by feminist principles, saw an opportunity: Here was a moment to document the essential role WROs play in humanitarian action, to capture the work that they do, any time an emergency occurs, to ensure that women and "marginalized" groups aren't left out of relief efforts.

FHN member organizations — of which 70 percent are WROs working in the Global South and 30 percent are international non-government organizations (INGOs) and organizations based in the Global North — are working to achieve a global humanitarian system that is responsive, accountable, and accessible to women and the diverse organizations that serve them, and that challenges rather than perpetuates structural inequalities. A pervasive lack of recognition of WROs as humanitarian actors and leaders is just one of a number of critical issues that FHN is working to change.

The current humanitarian system and the actors it is comprised of (governments, United Nations agencies, INGOs, and national actors) systematically exclude women and their organizations from all phases of humanitarian action, from funding to decision making. WROs are rarely invited to contribute to national planning processes for humanitarian response or to sit on emergency committees. When a funding call is made, WROs rarely receive the information, and when they do, rarely succeed in their grant applications.

Needless to say, the impacts of this exclusion are enormous. Women's needs — and indeed, the needs of "marginalized" groups, such as people with disabilities, refugees, and the LGBTIQA community — go unaddressed as a result. WROs and women-led organizations, which often represent diverse groups of women and their communities, are uniquely positioned to highlight the needs of those they work with and ensure that they are addressed. When the leadership role of those organizations is undermined, basic requirements like including sanitary supplies in relief distributions and ensuring that distribution sites are accessible to people with disabilities are overlooked.

In addition to presenting an opportunity to showcase the role that WROs working at grassroots, local, and national levels play on the frontlines of humanitarian action, COVID-19 offered a snapshot of the global humanitarian system — how the current system works and the challenges it presents for WROs in the Global South — the patriarchal and colonial practices embedded in the system that are at the root of the lack of recognition, lack of access to resources, and exclusion that WROs experience.

And so FHN members in Bangladesh, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Nepal, Nigeria, Palestine, and South Africa – conducted research to document their own humanitarian leadership, and that of their peers in the response to the pandemic. Their findings have been published in a series of national reports and a global report entitled Women's Humanitarian Voices: Covid-19 through a feminist lens. The reports highlight multiple critical barriers presented by the humanitarian system that undermine the leadership of WROs, and describe not only their ability to respond to crises but their long-term sustainability as essential women's rights actors working to protect and advance women's rights.

In six of the eight studies, WROs were unable to access donor funding, in large part as a result of excessive due diligence requirements that these organizations, working around the clock to respond to the emergency with limited resources, were (particularly in times of crisis) unable to fill. Instead, WROs undertaking critical work — ensuring that women with disabilities were able to meet basic needs throughout the crisis, for example — funded their efforts with their leaders' personal resources or funds contributed by the community. At the same time, women and their organizations were excluded from decision-making processes — left out of planning undertaken by international and national actors and from emergency response committees at all levels.

And yet those organizations persevered, working collectively in the "spirit of sisterhood" to challenge injustice, demand that their voices be heard, and work to influence the response efforts — and ensure that women's needs were addressed in each context. WROs continue to take action so that women are not left behind in the COVID-19 response and women's rights are advanced through humanitarian action.

For many of us working in the humanitarian sector, the pandemic has re-emphasized much of what we already knew: Emergencies exacerbate gender injustice, in part because the humanitarian system reinforces existing patriarchal social structures by excluding women from funding and decision making. Women's Humanitarian Voices: Covid-19 through a feminist lens has captured the creativity, resourcefulness, and deep feminist approaches of WROs in the Global South and has presented a powerful argument for why that system must change.

To be part of that change and to create a system that is inclusive of all and creates sustainable, transformative change, humanitarian actors across the system must immediately increase support for organizations advancing women's rights, in the form of direct, long-term, flexible funding. They must recognize their expertise and follow their leadership. A feminist humanitarian system is not only possible; it is critically needed and requires every humanitarian actor — including, importantly, donors — to take action.

Holly_Miller_Naomi_Tulay_Solanke_PhilanTopicHolly Miller is lead at the Feminist Humanitarian Network, a global collective of women leaders working together to achieve a humanitarian system that is guided by feminist principles. Naomi Tulay-Solanke is executive director of Community Healthcare Initiative and a member of the Feminist Humanitarian Network Steering Committee.

The pain of leading while Black

May 25, 2021

Wright-GlobalProtestsGeorgeFloydIt's been a year since George Floyd was murdered by people who were supposed to protect and serve him.

I can spend time analyzing how the nonprofit sector has — or hasn't — changed since then; but there are plenty of others who will do that in the coming days. Instead, I have been reflecting on what it means to lead a national organization centering racial justice as a Black woman moving through a world in which my Black skin could get me killed for merely existing.

The reality is, I walk through the world scared for my life, my child, and my man. We are George. Ahmaud. Sandra. Tamir. Even Ma'Khia. The pain never ends. Today, the video of Ronald Greene's torture at the hands of police has been making the rounds. And even in those rare moments when supposed "justice" is served, I am forced to sit back and witness others continue to justify the murders of people who look like me.

The weight of this compounded trauma is crushing me, and other Black leaders, too.

There is no handbook on how to lead while reliving trauma. It's not even talked about much outside of "Black spaces." And while philanthropy has been talking more about anti-racism and anti-oppressive practices, I've seen very little to show me that the sector understands what leading through this pain looks like, feels like, and sounds like.

So much of the anti-racism work in our sector focuses on moving white-led organizations to center Black people and their voices. But then what? Are we actually changing the dynamics of the industry or simply putting a new face on the same problem? As the first Black executive director of re:power, I can assure you, we don't have this figured out yet.

I am trying to create a new reality for people like me — not only in our impact work but also within my organization, and so are many of my fellow executive directors of color across the country. We are all trying to answer an impossible question: How do we lead when faced with the never-ending and persistent trauma we are experiencing in America?

Truth moment: when George Floyd's murderer was convicted, I took the day off and spent most of it crying on my bedroom floor. I shared this truth with my staff and asked them to prioritize their own peace as well. We are all very busy, often stretched, but we were quiet that day. And I think we're better for it.

What has become increasingly clear for me is this: if I don't invest in my own self-care as a Black woman executive, I can't effectively lead my organization to do its important work. When I have ignored what I need to do to take care of myself, my pain is multiplied — and is also transferred onto the folks closest to me, including my staff.

Taking my time to protect my peace is not a selfish act. It is an act of self-preservation and resistance. 

The smartest thing any executive director of color can do right now is take the time necessary to give our organizations the leader they need. Philanthropy can and should help by acknowledging that Leading While Black presents unique challenges to those who do it and addressing those challenges in its funding priorities.

Ask leaders of color what they need to take care of themselves right now, not just what they need to continue the work. Seeing our humanity should be part of your work as an anti-racist philanthropic institution. Philanthropy is focused on creating big impact, changing the material conditions of people who look like me through large-scale policy reforms and power-building. But how do leaders like me, who identify as a member of one of the "marginalized groups" we serve, fit into the picture?

If the philanthropic community wants to see real change and support the centering of Black folks within our sector, we can't forget about those who are tasked with leading the way.

Heashot_karundi williamsKarundi Williams is the executive director of re:power, a national training and capacity-building organization focused on racial justice. re:power trains primarily Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) leaders and organizers who are reclaiming their power for radical change.

How trust-based values can transform philanthropy

May 21, 2021

PhilanTopic_hands_collaboration_trust_GettyImages_Prostock-StudioWinston Churchill is credited with being the first to say, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." While the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in immeasurable pain and suffering, it has also inspired action around how philanthropy can better address global crises in the future. At the start of the pandemic, more than eight hundred philanthropic organizations agreed to provide greater flexibility to and eliminate administrative barriers for their grantees. With a pandemic raging, funders who signed the pledge recognized they needed to act swiftly and to lean into the expertise of their nonprofit partners. By committing to the values of trust-based philanthropy, an approach to giving that seeks to address the inherent power imbalances between funders, nonprofits, and the communities they serve, the signatories to the pledge agreed to put faith in and share power with those hardest hit by the crisis.

As the world begins to emerge from the pandemic, the philanthropic community must resist the urge to return to the status quo. The need for such a pledge underscored the reality that funders need to do more to make their grantmaking accessible, equitable, and empowering for grassroots leaders. And they can do that by moving to a trust-based philanthropy model.

I know firsthand the power of trust and service. Before taking the helm at The Pollination Project, a micro-granting organization that provides funds to community leaders in support of early-stage projects, I spent a decade as a monk. Four values guided my daily life during that time: faith, humility, relationship, and service. All four show up in the trust-based philanthropy model and offer a framework for how funders — and our grantee partners — can better solve the global challenges of today, and tomorrow.

Here's how those values can reshape philanthropy:

Faith

Monks believe that everything in life is a dynamic proposition of faith. A trust-based funding approach is similar, in that it calls on funders to reevaluate their grant application process to allow more opportunities for smaller organizations. Automatically rejecting volunteer-led organizations or early-stage projects, for instance, closes the door to many deserving recipients.

Over half of the grant dollars awarded by U.S. foundations are directed to just 1 percent of recipient organizations. Black, Indigenous, and people of color leaders historically have been overlooked by philanthropy and often receive fewer grants, less money, and are given less freedom to decide how to use that money than their white counterparts. We are at risk of perpetuating these inequities unless we lead with faith and understand that those most directly impacted by an issue almost always are in the best position to solve it.

Directly investing in communities isn't just a moral issue; it works. For years, The Pollination Project has supported projects that mainstream philanthropy would likely deem risky, including providing seed funding to grassroots volunteers without a traditional educational background or nonprofit experience. But we go a step further than the current trust-based model by committing to an open application process through which anyone can share their vision for a project and seek funding. By providing grants directly to individuals, we allow those without access to other sources of institutional funding — especially underrepresented groups such as Indigenous people, women in the Global South, and religious and ethnic minorities — to launch impactful, meaningful projects. Take, for instance, a volunteer in Kolkata, India, who mobilized marginalized youth to manufacture hand sanitizer and distribute it to families living in urban slums at the start of the pandemic. Community leaders have the passion, skill, and trust to drive local efforts, and philanthropy should grant them the resources to do so.

Humility

Trust-based philanthropy recognizes that because philanthropic leaders don't have all the answers, they must redistribute and share decision-making power. Too often, those making funding decisions at nonprofits are disconnected from the communities they serve. Paternalism and elitism are deeply rooted in philanthropy, and it takes humility to give back some of that power.

A peer-to-peer giving model is one way to redistribute power. In such a  model, a network of grant advisors — none of whom is paid staff and most of whom are previous grant recipients — decide which projects receive our funding. By democratizing funding decisions, philanthropic organizations can address the inherent power imbalance between funders and grant recipients.

Relationship

The ability to forge meaningful relationships is critical to driving social change; in 2020, however, fewer than a third of foundations provided any assistance to their grantees beyond the grant itself. To make the greatest impact, funders must move from solely providing financial resources to viewing ourselves as a partner to our grantees and ensuring their long-term success by offering non-monetary support such as introductions to other funders, capacity-building training, and promoting their work to our networks.

Monks recognize the power of relationships. We lean into the vulnerability required to develop authentic relationships and find strength in connection. I've used these teachings to foster a global community of four thousand changemakers who share learnings, work to build capacity, and form community with one another. Smaller and people of color-led organizations typically don't have the same resources as larger nonprofits, which in turn drives inequities in the field. Philanthropic leaders can support the long-term success of such organizations by ensuring that their relationships with grant recipients don't end with a check.

Service

The trust-based philanthropy model recognizes that nonprofits currently spend a lot of time completing funder-required application forms and reports, which takes precious time away from their mission.

As philanthropists, we must remind ourselves to whom nonprofits are accountable and consider how we can be of more service to the ones we support. We must ask ourselves how we can minimize bureaucracy and free would-be change agents to do what they are called to do. Putting more value in conversations instead of written reports or applications allows small organizations with limited bandwidth to focus more on their work and on creating a kinder, more compassionate world.

One thing COVID-19 has taught us is that philanthropy works better when power is distributed equitably and those closest to the issues have the opportunity to lead. By embracing trust-based and monastic principles, philanthropic leaders can make a more direct and immediate impact in communities. Crises can be an opportunity to change things that no longer work; let's not waste this one.

(Photo credit: GettyImages/Prostock Studio)

AJ Dahiya_PhilanTopicAJ Dahiya is a former monk who is now a writer, speaker, and chief vision officer at The Pollination Project, a global community of four thousand-plus grassroots volunteer leaders in over a hundred and twenty-five countries.

Strategies for nonprofit success in a post-pandemic landscape

May 11, 2021

News_keyboard_donate2A recent survey by the Nonprofit Finance Fund found that 60 percent of nonprofits experienced conditions in 2020 that threatened their long-term financial stability. As a result, most nonprofits had to reimagine how they engage with donors and the beneficiaries of their programs and services. Looking ahead, there are several strategies nonprofits can leverage to ensure their success in a post-pandemic world.

The power of storytelling

COVID-19 has underscored the importance of organizations staying connected to their mission and core values. Creativity and innovation are essential to engaging donors effectively, not only in terms of telling the "right story" but also in selecting the best virtual platforms to engage donors, who want to believe their contributions will have a direct impact on the causes they believe in.

Take the Downtown Women's Center (DWC) in Los Angeles. After the pandemic forced most things to shut down, the organization established a series of virtual community meetings to stay in touch with its clients; began to send regular email updates to donors, volunteers, and community stakeholders; and converted its largest fundraising event of the year — its annual in-person gala — into a virtual event. But its best move might have been the decision to adopt a peer-to-peer fundraising strategy. The resulting three-week campaign, Together Housed, encouraged donors and volunteers to leverage their own personal and professional networks on behalf of the organization, with DWC providing step-by-step instructions on how to set up a fundraising page, as well as email templates and social media content. Sure enough, at the end of three weeks the organization had exceeded its fundraising goal for the campaign by 35 percent and had secured support from eight hundred new donors.

Although grants from foundations tend to be top-of-mind for many organizations, the majority of giving to nonprofits comes from individual gifts and donations (Giving USA). No surprise, then, that building successful, long-term relationships with individuals is an important development strategy — and that donor retention strategies, including peer-to-peer fundraising and the use of third-party auction platforms, are critical.

Adaptive leadership is crucial

The pandemic also highlighted the importance of creativity and innovation for every organization. In the months and years ahead, nonprofits need to allocate time for experimentation and learning if they hope to adapt their programs and revenue-generating efforts to changing needs and opportunities. According to an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Community Wealth Partners, the organizations that thrive during challenging times tend to have strong and decisive leadership able to make quick decisions in response to evolving challenges.

Nonprofits should also evaluate their boards to ensure that the composition of the board is appropriate for where the organization is in its lifecycle. As BoardSource notes, "High-performing nonprofit boards are both thoughtful and intentional in creating a strategically composed board of directors […] Every board's ideal composition should be considered in the terms of the specific needs, strategies and lifecycle of the organization as the board looks forward several years."

A recent article by sgENGAGE echoes the importance of investing in leadership. Organizations should invest in diverse talent and provide opportunities for employees at all levels to grow and develop.

Modernize to engage donors

Innovative virtual programming is the key to creating new revenue streams. Not only is such programming a good bet to generate additional funds, it also is a wonderful opportunity to reach audiences beyond an organization's traditional geography.

A great example of how it should be done is the Petersen Automotive Museum, which last year launched its first-ever virtual museum and vault tour. The tour, along with a number of other innovative programs designed to keep virtual visitors returning for more, enabled the museum not only to reach a wider audience but to raise much-needed funds from people who had never heard of it.

Do not delay digital transformation

In its most recent Nonprofit Trends Report, Salesforce highlighted the correlation between organizations with high levels of "digital maturity" and those with the most innovative and confident responses to change. According to the report, 85 percent of nonprofits say technology is important to their long-term success, yet only 23 percent have a long-term strategy or vision for how to use it.

In a digital-first environment, nonprofits must be able to leverage data to inform decision making, reach new audiences, personalize communications, and make accurate fundraising forecasts. And with a reasonable investment in a virtual platform, there's no reason to restrict outreach and programming to an organization's local geography.

The thing to remember is that what worked in the past is less likely to work today or in the future, so establishing and tracking key performance metrics and trends across key functions is essential. According to the latest Charitable Giving Report from the Blackbaud Institute, the share of giving done online has grown steadily over the last three years. If they hope to maintain and improve their donor retention rates, nonprofits need to be on board with online giving and other important trends in giving. And if those retention rates are not improving, or are falling, it's probably a sign that the organization is not directing enough resources to its donor engagement efforts.

Seize the day

The pandemic brought much of the world to a standstill, but things are beginning to open up. For nonprofits that took a hit last year, investing in technology to improve program service delivery and impact measurement is a good place to start. Organizations should also evaluate their internal processes to ensure they are as efficient as possible and that their strategic plan is still aligned with their programs and mission. And they should have regular conversations with key funders — not only to keep them engaged, but also to make sure that appropriate actions can be rolled out quickly if a funder decides to shift priorities or cut back on its support.

Community Wealth Partners agrees: "First and foremost, make time to revisit your vision for social impact — the impact you are trying to create and how you plan to create it. This helps ensure that your work remains relevant."

Whether the end to the pandemic comes in two months or two years, the need for the kinds of services provided by nonprofits is not going away. Nonprofits with forward-thinking leadership and staff that can keep up and innovate in an ever-changing digital world are most likely to thrive and create the greatest impact. No one says it's going to be easy, but the alternative isn't really an option.

Wilson_Donella_philantopicDonella Wilson, CPA, leads GHJ's Nonprofit Practice and serves as president and chief philanthropy officer at the GHJ Foundation. She was recognized in 2018 as a "Women Executive of the Year" and in 2017-20 as one of the "Most Influential Women in Accounting" by the Los Angeles Business Journal.

A case for self-support: serving ourselves in a time of great stress

April 30, 2021

Man_on_cliff_David Lusvardi_unsplash"How are you doing?" I asked a donor on a phone call last summer. Her response stayed with me. "I'm doing pandemic fine," she said, before explaining that that was the kind of response one gives during a public health emergency instead of something like: "I'm doing okay. I have my job, and it's stressful, but at least I have work. And the family is fine. No one is sick. Virtual homeschooling is a struggle, but we're fine."

Her response was both amusing and perplexing, because when I ask someone how they're doing, I'm the type of person who wants and expects to hear all the details. In fact, I believe it helps explain why I enjoy working in philanthropy as much as I do, and is one of the main reasons so many of my meetings run longer than scheduled.

Organizational experts Paul Davis and Larry Spears would call my exchange with the donor a "fortuitous encounter — "[t]hose moments where a person, place, or thing causes our lives to change in a more positive direction." While I did not feel all that positive after the exchange, in the months since it has contributed to a transformation in the way I think about taking care of myself, my colleagues, and our philanthropic partners.

Of course, the donor's reply was informed by the unprecedented events of the past year — events for which our sector as a whole was largely unprepared. I live in Houston, where hurricanes and flooding events are commonplace, but once the water recedes, we jump back in our cars and check on our friends, neighbors, and even our donors. The coronavirus pandemic, by contrast, has been a "silent" storm during which we've been encouraged to care for others by literally keeping our distance from others.

What fundraising professionals are doing well…and not so well

From a fundraiser's perspective, the sector's collective response to the pandemic has been something of a mishmash. With respect to day-to-day operations, we're seeing good content related to engaging our supporters, innovating in our programming, and staying the course. I can't say enough about the creativity and resilience of the sector and the people who work in it. And without their advice and knowledge, I know I would have been less effective over the last twelve months in mapping out my own organization's fundraising strategies.

That said, nearly everything I've read over the last year has been focused on practical problems and challenges, things like how to strengthen a pandemic case for support, when to schedule a Zoom meeting with a new prospect, and retaining your supporters after you've made the decision to move your next fundraising event online. Yes, it's important to develop and strengthen our practice in normal times, and even more so during times of uncertainty. But what I'm not seeing are stories about self-care during one of the most challenging periods in recent memory, stories that remind us that if we want to do our best work, we need to make sure we’re well enough to fire on all cylinders. "[J]ust as they tell you on airplanes when the oxygen masks come down,” says Chris Mosunic, chief clinical officer at Vida Health, "we can't help others if we don’t take care of ourselves first."

I’m a realist who knows that a big part of my role as a fundraiser is to deliver maximum net revenue for my organization. I also know that many of us worry about cultivating donor relationships and meeting ambitious goals, but that we are not always honest about how we ourselves are holding up. Sure, I've found a reasonable groove during the pandemic and I'm doing the best I can. But let's face it, the current fundraising environment is different than the one many of us are used to. And, truth be told, it's different for our donors as well.

A practical reason for self-care

You may not know this, but the work of fundraisers is never "done." Between programs, events, and annual reports, the effort to steward and engage donors and prospects is a year-round affair, and at times it can feel like we’re laboring on our own little island, disconnected from the day-to-day work of the organization and with no sign of help on the horizon.

From a purely practical perspective, this has an impact on our work. Leadership guru Kevin Krause suggests that "[e]ngaged employees lead to better business outcomes." And a survey of more than five hundred business leaders by the Harvard Business Review found that 71 percent "rank employee engagement as very important to achieving overall organizational success."

Also relevant in this context is what Virgin Group founder Richard Branson has to say about an employee-first mentality: "If the person who works at your company is 100 percent proud of the job they're doing…they're gonna be happy and therefore the customer will have a nice experience."

But how can we expect our donors and supporters to have a "nice experience" if those tasked with engaging them in the work of the organization are struggling?

Doing the work of self-care

The events of the past year are likely to resonate for years to come, and work will continue to be challenging for many frontline and back-end fundraising staff. But there are things we can do for ourselves, and our team members, that will result in a happier, healthier workplace.

First, be mindful of your time. For many, working from home has morphed into living at work. Don't be that person. Instead, set real start and finish times for your workday — and stick to them. It'll be easier to do that if you make the effort to wear work clothes during the work day. And because your day-to-day tasks aren’t going anywhere, unless there's an emergency, don't check your email before 9:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. (Managers, you can help by refraining from the super early/late email messages.) In addition, try to create a schedule for your meals and stick to it. Limiting food consumption to mealtimes can be great for your well-being, and equally beneficial to your waistline.

Second, be mindful of technology. These days, our big, medium, and little screens are where we spend a big chunk of our time. Indeed, Americans spend an average of 2.3 hours a day on social media — the equivalent of roughly thirty-one days a year. To combat screen-induced burnout, try to establish "no glow breaks" throughout the day — on a run, in the bathroom, while out doing errands — where you put the technology in your life on pause. Also, make an effort to incorporate some analog technology like paper into your life. For what it’s worth, Scientific American suggests that our screens "[p]revent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way. In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension."

Finally, be mindful of your state of mind. One in six Americans sought counseling in 2020, joining the one-third of Americans who were already receiving some kind of counseling. Perhaps more than at any other time in recent history, we are willing to acknowledge the need for self-care. For those who are feeling stressed, reducing some of the distractions in your life, like  notifications on your phone/tablet, will go a long way to calming an overly busy mind. Similarly, when lodged in your home "spaceship," try to organize your space into discrete areas — a corner of one room for exercise, a certain chair for reading or chatting on the phone — and don’t use your sleep space for other tasks like work or social media.

The last year has been difficult for many. If you find yourself struggling with something more serious than time management or the distractions that come with being plugged in all the time, give yourself permission to talk to a professional or, at the least, a friend. And remember, you may have challenges; but you are not your challenges.

Our colleagues and donors rely on us, but more than anything we are responsible for ourselves.With that in mind, don’t be afraid to take the leading role in your own self-care.

(Photo credit: David Lusvardi via Unsplash)

Evan_Wildstein_PhilanTopicEvan Wildstein has served on the fundraising team at the Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University since 2017.

5 Questions for...Frances Sykes, President and CEO, Pascale Sykes Foundation

April 27, 2021

For much of its existence, the New Jersey-based Pascale Sykes Foundation has worked to strengthen low-income working families in the New Jersey/New York region through what it calls the Whole Family Approach, a preventive (as opposed to crisis-driven) strategy that helps family members, both adults and children, support one another in achieving their long-term goals. With the understanding that financial stability, healthy relationships, and physical well-being are linked, families are matched with a coach who works alongside family members to identify and set their goals; ensure they have the resources and tools needed to achieve those goals; and connect them to a network of agencies able to deliver holistic, coordinated support. The approach has been applied in various settings and with immigrant families, foster youth, and families dealing with members who are re-entering society from the criminal justice system.

The foundation's work extends into other areas as well. After rural families in southern New Jersey identified transportation as a major challenge, the foundation supported an initiative known as Transportation Plus, which provides residents of the region with connections to NJ Transit. And through its Economic Initiative, a partnership with a community development financial institution, the foundation invests in a series of low-interest loan funds for small businesses and nonprofits in the region.

Frances P. Sykes has led the foundation since its founding in 1992. In 1995, Pascale Sykes trustees voted to sunset the foundation by 2022. PND spoke with Sykes about the foundation's Whole Family Approach, where things stand with the spend-down process, and her hopes for the field.

Headshot_frances_sykesPhilanthropy News Digest: You've said you created the Pascale Sykes Foundation with two intentions: to serve working low-income families that aren't eligible for many safety-net services, and to help reshape the way social services in the United States are delivered. How did you come to settle on those two objectives?

Frances Sykes: When I was teaching, I witnessed a working family struggle to get help for their eleven-year-old, who was in danger of going down the wrong path. The family made too much to qualify for free supportive services, and under a sliding scale they would have been asked to pay more than they could afford. They were stuck, whereas a middle-class family in the same situation more than likely would've been able to afford to pay out of pocket for counseling and other services for their child. It wasn't fair that the issue the child was experiencing wasn't severe enough, or that the family wasn't poor enough, to allow them to access the resources they needed. Far too many families are in that same position — living one step above the poverty line and lacking access to the kinds of support they need. I wanted my work to be a part of the solution to that challenge — to help build a bridge between what families need and the agencies that have the resources to empower them.

The Whole Family Approach evolved over ten years. By working alongside grantees, Pascale Sykes trustees, staff, and grantees could see what made a lasting difference in families' long-term well-being. And we also came to realize that families know what they want and are capable of achieving it if they are taught how to navigate the system. It's not complicated. Adults in charge. Financial stability, relationships, and physical/social/emotional health reinforcing each other. What happens to one person affects the entire family, and what happens to the family affects each individual within it. Root causes must be addressed or problems recur.

The approach turns traditional social work on its head. In our approach, social workers are no longer expected to fix problems or work with individuals in isolation or address isolated issues. Instead, coaches work to build trust and walk alongside every member of the family as they work to achieve their self-defined goals.

PND: A critical component of the Whole Family Approach is the requirement that two "dependable adult caregivers are actively engaged with the children in the family." Why is it important that two adults be involved?

FS: All families look different. But every adult needs someone to call or turn to in an emergency, or just to share good news with. The second adult not only supports the primary caregiver but is an additional support system for children in the family as well. And that's a win-win for everyone. The stronger the support system, the healthier the family and the more likely its members will reach their shared goals.

PND: A July 2020 report that examined the results achieved by eight collaboratives using the Whole Family Approach found that participating families were in a better position to handle the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis because of the stronger familial ties they had forged and the access they had to support networks, even though they still experienced anxiety and mental health issues in addition to the stressors they were facing pre-pandemic. Are you seeing any evidence that the field in general is shifting toward this type of strategy? And looking down the road five to ten years, where do you see challenges to more widespread adoption of the approach?

FS: The field has been shifting for a few years. You see variations of the Whole Family Approach promoted by larger funders like Kellogg, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and other high-profile organizations under names like "2Gen" or "Intergenerational Approach."

I really see no challenges to its adoption by others in the field — even if others give it another name and make it their own. It's a proven approach that we know works better for families. Our research has shown that adults have less financial stress, that ties between adults in a family are strengthened, that children's health and educational achievement improve, and that the academic aspirations of both adults and children are raised. In the time remaining before we officially sunset later this year, the foundation is on a mission to raise awareness of the approach and to get others to embrace it. We believe it can advance the field and put more of our working families on a path to stability.

PND: The foundation's approach emphasizes collaboration — among family members, nonprofits, and human services agencies, and between the foundation and its partners. In a 2019 post for our blog, you urged funders to shift their grantmaking so as to foster more collaboration and less competition among grantees. What are your thoughts about the state of collaboration in the social sector today?

FS: The competition for limited resources has resulted in a fragmented approach to service provision that undermines the value of those services for families in need. Too often, families are forced to start from scratch in their efforts to access services, filling out the same form multiple times for multiple agencies, then receiving a separate set of recommendations from each of those agencies. What's more, different agencies often will offer differing and/or conflicting advice. Families become overwhelmed. Parents become frustrated, unable to prioritize and plan their next steps. Children feel the lack of stability and bear the brunt of its effects. It's also difficult for busy family members to build solid, trusting relationships with representatives from multiple agencies.

We believe collaboration is key. That's what the Whole Family Approach is all about. To maximize their effectiveness, funders, nonprofits, and agencies that have bought into the approach capture and share information about their clients' goals, progress, and life changes in a centralized database, enabling partner agencies to see families as holistic entities with their own unique challenges, vulnerabilities, and strengths. Instead of operating individually, agencies begin to see other nonprofits in the collaboration not as competitors but as teammates they can lean on to organize priorities, share resources, and advance their mutual goals and objectives.

The more foundations see the benefits of the Whole Family Approach, the greater the chances we'll be able to change the system so that it is more efficient and effective in helping families thrive.

PND: In 1996, your board voted to sunset the foundation within thirty years, and in 2009 a non-trustee workgroup researched and set up plans for the spend-down process. How much of an impact has your status as a limited-life foundation had on your grantmaking strategies? And would you recommend the approach to others who may be thinking about establishing a private foundation?

FS: Being a limited-life foundation is necessary for any small foundation that wants to create real change. Change requires the flexibility to respond to unexpected situations. This can only happen if a funder is focused on making change, not preserving the corpus.

The decision to sunset was based on two key factors. First, the decision to make a large impact was critical, and distributing 5 percent to 6 percent of our investment income each year simply would not accomplish that goal. And second, when we started, the Whole Family Approach was not well known. Thirty years later, we're proud of the fact that more foundations and organizations are implementing a version of the approach, and that it is leading to greater impact. I have no doubt the approach will be accepted more broadly. And when it is, instead of shifting into a new focus area or something less relevant to us, we'll be able to say we accomplished our mission.

We look forward to more funders picking up the mantle and moving this work forward in their own way. And I highly recommend our grantmaking strategy and the Whole Family Approach as a way forward for others who want to make a big impact in a particular way.

Kyoko Uchida

Social issues are getting personal

April 21, 2021

I’ve talked in this space about how social issue engagement builds from what interests and engages us: we educate ourselves, get motivated to act, then look for like-minded people to join in pushing for change. In the recent past, research conducted by the Cause and Social Influence research team I lead has revealed that young Americans (ages 18-30) are concerned about social issues that impact others, including racial equity, climate change, hunger, and animal rights. But a third of the way into 2021, we're seeing a new twist.

Findings from the first Cause and Social Influence survey in 2021 reveal that the issues of most interest to young Americans right now are those that directly and personally affect them.

Empathy is a normal human trait

Being concerned about the well-being of others is the definition of empathy. Learning that countless number of our fellow Americans go to bed hungry each night motivates some of us to do what we can to address the immediate need and prompts others to do something to eliminate the root causes of hunger in America. Both reactions are normal and a necessary component of action for change.

Having empathy means we put ourselves in the place of another and try to share the feelings he or she is experiencing. But when an issue is relevant to our own situation — when we're the ones sharing, feeling, and experiencing the issue as our own — our empathy deepens to another level. We begin to understand what someone else is feeling because we've been or are in the same situation.

This is where many young people find themselves today. Previous research has shown that millennials and Gen Z are especially empathetic, and that their empathy leads them to be socially aware and active. In 2020, they (like many of us) took action on a range of social issues, including racial injustice, social isolation, and voting rights. Now, in 2021, they are finding that some of those issues have more personal relevance than others and have entered the stage of engagement where an issue's relevance to one's own situation is driving their engagement.

Empathy is directed inward

The biggest indicator of the shift? According to Influencing Young America to Act, Spring 2021, healthcare premiums now rank among the top three issues of interest to millennials and members of Gen Z. Given the pandemic's effect on healthcare systems, joblessness, and most every other aspect of life, that makes sense. And it certainly makes sense that it has raised concerns among young Americans about their own ability to be and stay healthy while financially supporting themselves.

Given that young people were already dealing with high levels of student debt and job insecurity, the pandemic and the health concerns it poses has underscored the precarity of their personal situations. And while healthcare premiums may not be a burning social issue, it is a very personal issue.

Fig.1.1_Cause and Influence_1Q201

Indeed, while healthcare reform as a general concept was of concern to young Americans in 2020, healthcare premiums only showed up in the top tier of issues for the first time in March 2021. Two weeks after President Biden expanded health insurance premium subsidies as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, 60 percent of our survey respondents said they believed the country was on track/totally on track -- though they were less hopeful about where things would be a year from now.

Fig.1.2_Cause and Influence_1Q201

Fig.1.3_Cause and Influence_1Q201

As young Americans look to a post-COVID economy, their own well-being and that of others appears to be top of mind. And while they are still deeply engaged in helping others, especially when it comes to racial equity and animal rights, their own changing health and economic situation cannot be ignored.

Causes must recognize how other issues affect them

Causes always have had to pay attention to how their issue can be made relevant to target audiences. Typically, they do this with campaigns featuring compelling images, videos, and stories crafted to help supporters and potential supporters feel what people most impacted by the issue are going through. So what does a cause do when its target audiences and people impacted by the issue are one and the same?

For starters, their campaigns need to encourage those who are impacted by the issue to talk to their peers about their own experiences while also standing up in support of the issue. This goes beyond people impacted or interested in an issue looking to recruit like-minded people to the cause. It means getting individuals with the same lived experience to join forces as a collective and share their hard-earned insights to bring about change.

It also means causes must intimately understand how they relate to the young people they’re trying to reach. The best way to do this is to interact with them and help them understand the interconnectedness of your particular issue with the issues young people are dealing with at the moment.

Finally, causes need to encourage supporters to elevate their voices in a way that directly and personally communicates the relevance of their individual experience. For example, while petitions continue to be popular, causes should start to think about augmenting them with personal stories. Rather than simply asking members of your target audience to sign a petition, package it with a story of someone impacted by the issue that potential signers of the petition can relate to.

The shift in how empathy is being channeled as the pandemic begins to wind down is something we all need to pay attention to. COVID impacted all of us, one way or another, and issues that once may have been seen as only involving certain groups or populations have changed and, in many cases, broadened out. As nonprofit leaders, we need to recognize that yesterday's supporter may also be today’s beneficiary.

Heashot_derrick_feldmannDerrick Feldmann (@derrickfeldmann) is the founder of the Millennial Impact Project, lead researcher at Cause and Social Influence, and the author of The Corporate Social Mind. For more by Derrick, click here.

The 7 Recruiting Principles of Highly Effective Nonprofit Boards

April 15, 2021

Board-member-serviceThe challenges of governing a nonprofit are often more complicated than those faced by board members of similar-sized for-profit entities. This is because nonprofit board members are called upon to be trustees of the public good, voices for their communities, advocates of their cause, and ambassadors eager to build a band of true believers, giving their organizations the best chance to create the greatest impact for the most people.

Attending to the seven principles of highly effective nonprofit boards can help your organization set the stage for success:

Principle #1: Culture. Every board has a culture — either by default or intention. Culture is the foundation on which sound governance is built. Healthy cultures are inquisitive and invite diverse perspectives and debate. They embrace generative and strategic thinking. Innovation is valued. In healthy cultures, board members work collaboratively and with humility to solve problems. Members understand their governance oversight responsibilities. They respect the role of management and form a constructive partnership with the CEO. They are intellectually and emotionally invested in the cause they serve and are its champions. Reorienting or reinventing a productive, conscious culture does not happen overnight. It requires board members to recognize the problematic culture and, once they recognize its consequences, accept that it must change and commit to implementing that change.

Principle #2: Character. The time to screen for character is before a board member is seated. Too often, assumptions are made about a person's character based on first impressions or just because they are willing to serve on your board. It's important, therefore, to screen for character during the board member recruitment process. Yet how many boards do? Asking sitting board members to assess character in the recruitment process may feel like too much of a hassle, or they may be embarrassed to check up on someone they know socially or through business. Nevertheless, it is a critical step in the process. When done well, investigating character won't upset a prospective member; instead, it communicates that serving on your board is serious business.

Principle #3: Competence. It is vital for a sitting board to genuinely examine the board member competencies it may be lacking and needs in order to become a highly effective board. There is a significant difference between competence and credentials. A credential is a certification of sorts for which an individual has successfully completed training or course work. The value of that credential is dependent on the credentialing agency, its reputation, and the rigor of the course work. But a credential on its own is not a guarantee  of competence. By contrast, competence is the mastery of knowledge and/or a skill that enables one to consistently deliver high-quality results. Competence is assessed by an individual's performance and success in the field in which he or she endeavors.

Principle #4: Connections. Being connected to your constituency is fundamental to a nonprofit's ability to achieve its mission. When organizations fail to achieve the levels of support they need to thrive, they often assume it's because they lack  visibility. The truth is, they need to develop a band of believers among a cross-section of constituencies. To thrive, nonprofits need to have healthy relationships with at least four types of constituencies: those served by the organization, those who are influential within the community, well-heeled philanthropists, and those who possess unique skills or insights that can fuel an organization's success.

Principle #5: Composition. Building strong boards that comprise the character, competence, connections, and diversity that organizations need to thrive is not a complicated process. The approach is straightforward, but it takes time and discipline to do it right. To truly represent the communities nonprofits serve, they must have individuals on the board that carry the perspectives and concerns of people who live in those communities. Diversity, inclusion, and equity are essential concerns for nonprofits—and governing boards are the trustees.   Even beyond the obligation to have representative governance, research shows that boards are more effective when diversity and inclusion are integrated with competence and character.

Principle #6: Continuity. Knowledge of how a nonprofit is organized, functions, and performs over time is critical to sound governance and decision-making. In a nonprofit organization, staff are the fuel that make things go. They are the source of the passion (competence and commitment) and reputation (authority and action) all organizations need to function effectively. And they power every critical function of the organization, from program management to fundraising to administration.  So it's imperative that members of the governing board know how the organization is wired, and they have a special responsibility to ensure it continues to run, and run well, over time. While steering clear of meddling in day-to-day management of the organization, board members must understand how staff are deployed, how things work, and which policies guide them.

Principle #7: Collaboration. Collaboration is the mindset that enables people to work together cooperatively to advance a cause. A collaborative mindset also creates places where ideas can be shared and explored safely and environments that are conducive to respectful inquiry. It is a kind of give-and-take attitude grounded in trust and the pursuit of mutually satisfying goals. But true collaboration is difficult to achieve. Creating a truly collaborative mindset requires a constant, concrete commitment to the cause the nonprofit serves. And that commitment needs to resonate in the hearts and minds of the organization's leaders if they hope to overcome the hurdles and pain points that so often scuttle its realization.

Have a board member recruiting tip of your own? Feel free to share it in the comments section below.

Heashot_James Mueller

James Mueller is president of James Mueller & Associates and author of the new book Onboarding Champions: The Seven Recruiting Principles of Highly Effective Nonprofit Boards.

11 questions you should always ask a recruiter

April 06, 2021

Ask a recruiterRather than ignoring the next email or call you get from a recruiter, think of it as a learning opportunity — even if you aren’t seriously considering leaving your current position. In most cases, the experience will help you learn about yourself as a job prospect and give you a sense of what employers are looking for — insights that can be invaluable when it is time to make a move.

Time and again, I've seen job candidates who weren’t even beginning to think about a  career move completely change their perspective — and strategy — when presented with a compelling opportunity.

So, if you are contacted by a recruiter, consider asking the following:

Why is the position open? Find out whether it's a newly-created role or an existing position that has become vacant. If the latter, ask why the person who occupied the position previously left and how long the position has been open.

What are the skills and experiences the hiring manager is prioritizing? Ask the recruiter to list the desired skills and experiences for the position. Having such a list will make it a lot easier for you to compare the employer’s requirements to your own skillset and decide whether it is worth pursuing the opportunity.

What does the day-to-day of the job look like? Asking this is a great way to get beyond the boilerplate of a job description and to really start to understand what the role entails. Is it a meeting-heavy position? Does it require research and/or writing? How much? How closely supervised is the position? Ask questions that will help you understand how you would be spending most of your time.

What can you tell me about the person to whom I would report? Research shows that the biggest reason people leave their jobs is their manager, not the work itself. Your manager is critical to your success and level of satisfaction. Ask the recruiter to tell you what the person who will be managing you is like, what she values, and how she prefers to operate.

Why did you reach out to me? What in my background suggests I'd be a good fit for the position? The answer to this question can help you understand how people outside your organization view your work and accomplishments, as well as how diligently the recruiter did her homework, which might also be an indication of how well they understand the position they've been hired to fill.

Is there anything in my resume or background that could be a concern? This is a great way to get a sense of how competitive you are for the role, and it will also provide information you can use to map out a strategy for addressing any perceived gaps in your cover letter, resume, and during the interview process.

What is the compensation range for the position? Asking about compensation up front shouldn't impact your candidacy in any way. Indeed, the recruiter should be ready for this question and have no qualms about sharing a range. And remember, in many states it's illegal to ask a candidate for a job what her current salary is, so don’t feel you have to share it if asked.

What kind of flexible work arrangements does the job offer? This is especially important information in the era of COVID, when many people have gotten used to working from home and may want to continue to do so. Understanding the range of benefits that come with position more generally is also a good way to learn about the organization’s culture and values.

Tell me about the organization's culture? What are its values and how do they show up in the organization's work? For most people, organizational culture and values are critical factors in deciding whether to accept a position at a new organization. Ask the recruiter to provide details that go beyond what's on the organization's website or in a handbook and show how its values actually manifest themselves in its day-to-day activities. Ask, too, about professional development opportunities, its human resources practices, and all the other things that go into creating a vibrant organizational culture.

What work has the organization done to become more diverse, inclusive, and equitable? This is deeply important in 2021 to candidates who are seeking workplaces that are inclusive and equitable. Feel free to ask about the diversity of the staff, senior leadership team, and board of directors. Ask about diversity and equity-focused trainings and development opportunities. And don't be hesitant to ask how the organization has responded to external events that have put a spotlight on racial injustice and equity.

What are the steps in and timeline for the interview process? The answer to this question should give you a sense of how much of a time commitment you’ll be asked to make if you want to pursue the opportunity, and whether it is something that’s worth the investment of your time and energy.

The questions above are meant to be a starting point for determining whether a potential role may be a good fit and deciding whether you want to pursue an opportunity that a recruiter puts in front of you. Be creative and come up with some of your own. Moving to a new organization can be scary, but it's also a great way — maybe the best way — to advance your career. Gather as much information as you can before making a decision and act accordingly.

Headshot_moly_brennanMolly Brennan is founding partner at executive search firm Koya Partners, which is part of the Diversified Search Group, where she is also the nonprofit practice lead. A frequent contributor to Philanthropy News Digest and other publications, Brennan also authored The Governance Gap: Examining Diversity and Equity on Nonprofit Boards of Directors.

Jobs for America’s Graduates supports our nation’s most vulnerable students

March 29, 2021

Jobs for Americas GraduatesJobs for America's Graduates (JAG) was founded forty years ago to address the inequities experienced by too many young adults in America. Over those four decades, JAG participants have shown that a well-executed model can help those historically held back by discrimination, poverty, and other barriers achieve equal or greater success in high school, postsecondary education, and employment. As a national nonprofit with affiliates in 40 states operating across 1,450 communities, JAG reaches 76,000 of the most underserved youth in America each year, providing them with the essential skills they need for success.

As the country continues to grapple with the ongoing pandemic and renewed calls to address racial and social inequities, JAG continues to support young people who have been hardest hit — and are likely to be impacted the longest. JAG represents the diversity of America and serves people of color, those with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged, and other underserved populations with programs that help them achieve equality in outcomes and opportunities.

During the past year – and throughout its forty-year history — JAG has achieved remarkable outcomes. Consider the following:

  • JAG students achieved a 97 percent high school graduation rate in 2020, which is higher than the 84 percent national graduation rate. And JAG serves the lowest performing 20 percent to 40 percent of the high school population.
  • JAG graduates are 230 percent more likely to be employed full-time than their non-JAG peers, and for African-American participants the rate is nearly 290 percent.
  • JAG graduates are twice as likely to go on to postsecondary education as their non-JAG peers.
  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that as of May 31, 2020, the highest unemployment rates in the nation were experienced by youth 18 to 19 years old (30+ percent). But for the JAG Class of 2019, the rate was less than 11 percent — a third that of the national average for all youth in that age group, not just the most vulnerable students served by JAG.

JAG achieves these kinds of outcomes thanks to a "village" of supporters, including governors, nineteen thousand employer partners, donors, legislators, school administrators, and other champions and advocates. Fourteen of the nation's acting governors serve on the JAG board of directors — the largest number of governors serving on any board in the country. The board is chaired by Gov. John Bel Edwards (D-LA), with support from vice chair Kim Reynolds (R-IA). Indeed, JAG has benefited from bipartisan support since its inception, while legislatures in twenty-four states have continued their support for the organization, recognizing that the most underserved populations need our services today more than ever.

Behind the scenes, JAG Specialists (teachers) are the key to student success, managing the day-to-day with their students, helping students master JAG’s 37 Employability Skills Competencies, and showing unwavering support for their kids.

Among other things, they:

  • Serve as a lifeline for their students. JAG Specialists often are the most consistently present adult in their students' lives, offering guidance that helps disadvantaged young people stay in school, graduate on time, and pursue postsecondary education and/or a career. In addition, because JAG is a trauma-informed organization, JAG Specialists have been able to help their students overcome feelings of anxiety, depression, and isolation stemming from the COVID crisis.
  • Go above and beyond for their students. JAG students (and their families) have been disproportionally impacted by job losses during the pandemic, with many no longer able to depend on regular paychecks to cover their basic expenses. During the pandemic, JAG Specialists have delivered groceries to food-insecure families that might otherwise not eat, laundered students’ uniforms to ensure they have clean clothes to wear to work, and provided masks and cleaning supplies to students and families in need as well as learning materials where Internet access is not available.
  • Have worked tirelessly with school districts, our corporate partners, and other supporters to provide much-needed tech equipment and connectivity during the pandemic. The sudden, unplanned switch to remote and/or hybrid learning in many school districts spotlighted the homework gap: students without access to technology are at a distinct disadvantage. For vulnerable youth who already faced economic and academic challenges, this leads to a growing risk that they will wind up a lost generation. JAG has partnered with companies like T-Mobile and AT&T to provide computers and connectivity to JAG students so they can stay engaged and involved with school, jobs, and support systems.
  • Provide virtual job-readiness training. JAG Specialists have always trained their students in the organization's thirty-seven job-readiness skills (e.g., resume writing, interview prep, etc.). Now, they're doing it virtually, preparing students to enter one of the most daunting job markets in recent history.
  • Facilitate partnerships. JAG Specialists, working with JAG National, are securing employment and learning partnerships with companies like Adecco, McDonald’s, Honeywell, Synchrony, AT&T, and Entergy. These partners provide JAG students with real-world experience, mentoring, and — often — their first jobs.

While JAG has enjoyed overwhelming support during this difficult year from its partners, donors, legislators, administrators, and teachers, it’s also important to acknowledge the 76,000 JAG students who rose to the occasion, showing their resilience and determination in the face of adversity. They are the real heroes in this story.

Headshot_kenneth-m-smithKen Smith serves as president and CEO of Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG), the nation's largest dropout prevention and school-to-career transition program for young people of promise. He also serves as a trustee of the America's Promise Alliance, a cross-sector partnership of more than three hundred corporations, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and advocacy groups that are passionate about improving lives and changing outcomes for children and young people.

To save lives, fund syringes

March 15, 2021

SyringesWhen COVID-19 struck, the United States was already facing a number of public health crises, with national rates of overdose, HIV, and viral hepatitis rising due to increases in substance use linked with a surge in prescription opioids.

The pandemic has converged with these crises, worsening health outcomes for people who use drugs — a crisis that is likely to persist unless we change our approach to drug use.

Take overdose deaths, which increased some 20 percent in the United States between June 2019 and June 2020, to more than 81,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's the most fatal overdoses ever recorded in a single year.

And while national figures for new HIV and viral hepatitis cases are not yet available, it's likely they are growing, too, given reported spikes in injection-drug use. (Both diseases can be transmitted via the sharing of injection supplies.) From 2014 to 2018, HIV diagnoses increased 9 percent among Americans who use drugs overall, while some 2.4 million Americans had been diagnosed with hepatitis C as of 2016.

Such grim statistics underscore the need for the U.S. to adopt evidence-based drug policies that can save lives and improve outcomes for people who use drugs. The willingness of the Biden administration to think differently about national drug policy and the changing views of Americans present a critical opportunity to do that.

For decades, policy makers and medical professionals have addressed substance use in two main ways: demand reduction and supply reduction. Both approaches treat substance use as an immoral behavior to be eschewed, instead of as a personal response to social factors or difficult life circumstances.

Neither strategy has significantly reduced substance use or its associated harms. Even though drug arrests jumped 171 percent between 1980 and 2016, the price of most illicit drugs fell, while attempts to dismantle the international drug trade have resulted in extreme violence.

Indeed, America's War on Drugs has tyrannized countless numbers of Black and brown families with racialized policies like mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Such policies have resulted in the overcriminalization of minor drug offenses, the mass incarceration of Black and brown people, and fractured communities across the nation.

Meanwhile, Americans are still using drugs.

It is long past time for the U.S. to embrace the principle of harm reduction, which has proven to lower rates of substance use around the world. Harm reduction recognizes the humanity of people who use drugs, acknowledging that people's relationships with substances usually change over time, and aims to minimize the negative consequences of substance use by fostering the inclusion of those who use drugs in an ecosystem of interventions and services.

The most effective harm-reduction interventions are syringe-services programs (SSPs), which were introduced in the 1980s and '90s as a community-based response to injection-drug use amid the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Today, they provide syringes, overdose-prevention education, syringe-litter cleanup, infectious-disease testing, and — crucially — naloxone, the lifesaving overdose antidote. SSPs also connect their clients to treatment for substance-use disorder, as well as primary care and social services.

Despite this vital work, U.S. laws have long constrained service providers. In 1988, bipartisan opponents of syringe services prohibited providers from receiving federal funds until the government determined they were safe and effective. The ban remains partially in effect, even as reams of research have shown the benefits of syringe services, from reducing emergency medical costs to lowering rates of HIV and hepatitis C. SSPs still cannot use federal funds to purchase syringes, which help prevent infectious disease among people who inject drugs.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I've seen a dramatic spike in people receiving syringe services through my work managing AIDS United's Syringe Access Fund, which disburses about $1 million in philanthropic funds to SSPs annually. And it is happening at a time when public and private funding for harm-reduction services was already inadequate.

Although Congress has allocated billions of dollars to combat the opioid crisis, many of those programs stop short of addressing the complex health, psychosocial, and socioeconomic factors underlying chronic substance use. For instance, half of all State Opioid Response (SOR) grants — a major federal initiative designed to help states expand their opioid addiction treatment services over the course of two years — went unspent, a federal watchdog has found, by the time the program was wound down. At the same time, our Syringe Access Fund grantees are struggling to meet their clients' needs and pay their bills. This not only imperils lives and public health but strains local resources.

It is time Americans recognize that the best way to reduce the staggering number of lives lost to overdose each year is to invest in services that support people while they are using drugs. To do that, we need to reach people who use drugs where they are. Syringe services programs are a cost-effective way to serve communities that many see as hard to reach, but which actually are hardly reached, as well as an opportunity to invest in a more holistic and inclusive public health infrastructure.

Without greater investment in that infrastructure, hundreds of thousands of Americans are likely to slip through the cracks and die from overdose in the years to come. We have the tools to prevent these deaths, so long as we invest in the lives of people who use drugs.

Zachary_Ford_AIDS_United_philantopicZachary Ford is a senior program manager at AIDS United, where he oversees the Syringe Access Fund, a grantmaking initiative focused on improving health outcomes for people who use drugs.

Quote of the Week

  • "[L]et me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance...."


    — Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States

Subscribe to PhilanTopic

Contributors

Guest Contributors

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

Tweets from @PNDBLOG

Follow us »

Filter posts

Select
Select
Select