Citizens of Sherburn, Minnesota (population 1,082) are proving that philanthropy isn’t just for the wealthy urban set. They are actively redefining the boundaries of who gives and how they do so.
Though the claim that “rural areas have a ‘terrific philanthropic spirit’” is questionable – they certainly prove that people are capable of redefining giving despite traditionally restrictive circumstances.
Keep a keen eye on this blog in the coming weeks: New Voices of Philanthropy. Essentially, it is providing a platform for a diversity of futuristic views for philanthropy. Called the Giving Carnival, they have a few “preview ideas” already posted. From the looks of it, the final result will be a melange of interesting ideas to springboard giving into the future.
I’ve been mulling over conversations from earlier this week that created a philosophical quandary with a philanthropic bent. Here’s the scenario:
Friend 1, who leans right (politically), gave me the typical lecture heard from politically conservative types that if the government got their sticky fingers off citizens’ money and discontinued their current ‘meddling’ in social affairs then collective individual and corporations’ naturally occurring altruism would have a chance to fix the world’s problems. In the current system, according to said friend, people/companies pay too many taxes to feel the impulse to give in a big way. So according to this theory, paying taxes = philanthropic stinginess. Or less money in your pocket means you are less likely to give away what you have.
Enter Friend 2.
Friend 2 tells me that in a recent 20/20 episode researchers examining the elemental composition of human happiness found that only 50% of happiness is attributed to genetic predisposition; 40% is controlled through daily thoughts and actions; and the remaining 10% is determined by our environment (i.e. how much money we have).
So what do these two things have in common? Well, for one the Danish are considered the happiest people in the world;
AND, the Danish are the highest-taxed people in the world (ie less money in the pocket);
AND, the Danish are top-notch philanthropists when it comes to corporate giving (ie more money given away).
Narrow scope of thought experiment aside, can we say there is there a linkage between money, happiness and giving?
Well, it seems that Friend 1 is dead wrong using the example of Danish company giving habits. So less money does not equal giving less. And we all know that money does not equal happiness. So does giving more equal happiness?
I don’t want to corner myself, but I have a hunch. Here is more fodder for thought: there is evidence that being kind can lead to happiness. So, using Friend 2′s 20/20 information, choosing to be kind in daily thought and actions holds up against other research.
Now, to stretch it further, could we say that being kind is also sharing resources (ie giving away money)? This is not necessarily “proven” (or I couldn’t find direct evidence on this online) but it seems that giving more is a rather happy endeavor. Could it be that if we all gave to our communities with our time, skills and dollars that we could see an increase in the happy quotient of our country?
I can just see the NYT headlines now: Surgeon General says charitable donation good for one’s health.
An explosive discovery related to a local philanthropy organization, GiveWell, has caused ripples through the progressive giving realm. Apparently, one of the founders, Holden Karnofsky, disguised himself on several websites to help drive people to GiveWell.net by posting questions asking where to find charity evaluation services while also providing an answer directing all fellow readers back to GiveWell.net. He did this without ever signifying that he was, well, co-founder and Executive Director of GiveWell.
All of this leads to some interesting questions about the ever-changing dynamics of progressive philanthropy such as:
In the past, dishonesty and poor management practices were tracked by the now-grandfathers of accountability such as the Better Business Bureau and the IRS. Now, with whole organizations going online and pajama-managers on the rise, who is watching whom and to what end?
As one poster commented, “If Holden were pumping stocks, selling penis enlargement nostrums, or promoting Hot Women Looking To Meet You Tonite, I’d chalk it up to more of the same and not give it a second thought but he’s the founder of a charitable foundation that makes bold claims about honesty and transparency.”
Ok, so dicey practices in the private sector get a roll of the eyes and a knowing look but honesty is the only way to play in charitable organizations. For the sake of argument, the lines between the two are getting blurred and folks on either side of the line just can’t think straight. Think: social entrepreneurs, social enterprise, blended value and triple bottom lines, just to name a few. You get two gold stars if you can successfully identify the difference between them and how each relates to the nonprofit and private sector.
To be fair, there is ongoing debate on what the meaning of each is, exactly. So if we don’t know what it is, can we really know where the lines are?
For instance, being a relative blogging newbie I had never heard of the terms “astroturfing” and “sock puppet” before this incident though, admittedly, we all know somewhere deep inside that hiding one’s identity to promote oneself for personal gain is a bit shifty. Rules of the game are difficult to navigate when nobody really tells you what they are. And considering the rapid expansion of online communication lines, I’m sure the rules are in flux as well.
The online community has been swift and fierce in its judgement. In response, GiveWell has posted a mea culpa. Through it all, the critique continues. And in the process, I’m still trying to process these events and understand what the real consequences of GiveWell’s actions will be.
What are your thoughts on this? How will this affect creative philanthropy and the progress of innovation within charities?
Referring back to a previous blog that discussed whether youth were increasingly involved in philanthropy, I want to share this article. Apparently, they are.
We can probably thank technology, the great democratizer, for fostering the upsurge of creativity in philanthropic styles and means, which has provided avenues for the younger set to learn about and participate in philanthropic activities.
A recent children’s penny-gathering campaign in New York City was rather impressive, in both creativity and visual display. Common Cents, an education nonprofit, holds an annual “Penny Harvest” that encourages children to collect pennies for philanthropic purposes. This year the NYC “harvest” gathered pennies from 850 neighborhoods throughout the five-borough New York area from October 22 to November 22.
The most amazing part? The kids raised 100 million pennies, or one million dollars, or 600,000 lbs of coins (whichever is most impressive for you). Also pretty neat is the fact that the kids will choose the charities they want their money to go to. In the meantime, their loot was displayed at the Rockefeller Center until the New Year for all who cared to see.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hByr75CKrc&rel=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=0]
Many of us are in the post-holiday, consumption-glut coma. Each year we swear that the next will be different. But each year we repeat a similar pattern:
Frantic buzzing from store to store via foot or finger (world wide web) searching for that perfect gift for each person on our list without busting our budget. Then Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa (insert holiday here) arrives, wrapping paper flies about and we are left with a small pile of more stuff to call our own.
Then commences the inevitable sense of disappointment – the void that enters when we sense the holiday’s end. Finding myself in this state once again, I began to wonder, really wonder, if it was worth it.
When I was younger and several notches higher on the idealistic scale, I announced a “non-material holiday season” with the zeal only naïve youth can muster. In the end, this failed with miserable a miserable putter. It turned out that people had a need to give things as much as we wanted to receive them. By the next year, tail between my legs, armed with wrapped packages I dutifully added to each person’s new pile of stuff while gaining my own – mouth shut.
But I think I sense a turning point and my bruised idealistic younger self dares emit a celebratory yelp. With the surge of everything “green” from home building to beer making, it was an inevitable progression to consumption itself. Many critics are even questioning the corporate capitalization on the new green frenzy. They are leery of just shifting the ravenous consumption of stuff instead of actually stanching the appetite altogether.
And then there’s Buy(less) Crap. Aaah…finally a catchy campaign after my own heart. With it’s punchy, unapologetic marketing it hits at the exact cross-section between being good to the earth and being good to your fellow human beings. If I knew who did this, I’d probably kiss them.
It’s not about buying more, it’s about giving more. Brilliant! Maybe there is a non-material holiday in my future after all…
In an interesting (and a bit older) article, “The Future of Philanthropy: Innovation, Networks, Thought Leaders and the Fringe” from Worldchanging.com, a key question is asked: if the innovative solutions are coming from the fringe but the majority of foundations and funding are mainstream, how do we fund and encourage innovation?
Basically, the author is addressing the fact that there is a large (and growing) amount of money amongst the cadre of foundation and funds – all earmarked for donation. However, most of these funders do not know how to interpret or react to the kinds of needs that they are now seeing in the field.
To properly respond to this dilemma, there are five questions we need to consider:
1) How do we find and encourage innovation?
2) We live in an era where change is powered by networks but we don’t yet live in an era where networks are funded by philanthropists. So, how do we connect the two?
3) Why have traditional activist NGO groups been aging so rapidly? Or, why are there so few young activists formally joining groups and engaging in philanthropy?
4) How do we support people who are really changing the world?
5) Where and how do we find our allies?
When asking yourself how to contribute real change to the world or where to put that $50 donation you’ve been meaning to send out to somebody (just can’t figure out who yet), these are certainly great questions to ask.
In fact, answers to these questions are already being tackled by various folks in some of the most curious and leading edge ways. Have we reached a place where we can put these questions aside? Absolutely not. Rather, we are entering into the heart of the matter where good ideas, big and small, quirky and mainstream are beginning to pop up to fill in the gaps we see amongst these five questions.
To give you an idea of some of the percolations among us:
1) How do we find and encourage innovation?
Look for organizations that encourage social entrepreneurism. A new “hot topic”, social entrepreneurism is cropping up in many unexpected corners. A general sketch includes organizations like Ashoka; foundations like the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship and Skoll Foundation; and educational institutions like the NYU Reynolds Program in Social Entrepreneurship and the Stanford Center for Social Innovation. Even private companies like Good Capital are getting in on the game. There are but a few and just to get the ideas rollin’.
2) We live in an era where change is powered by networks but we don’t yet live in an era where networks are funded by philanthropists. So, how do we connect the two?
Though I am wary of Google’s ever increasing authority in the internet domination game, they do provide an effective and free option for networking. Not to mention the power of Facebook, Razoo, and Just Means, among others. Just these tools alone prove that networks or the process of networking need not be funded. And for the skeptics out there, consider that there is a growing number of people using these online networks to meet people in real life too. Maybe this doesn’t solve the problem entirely, but it certainly brings us closer.
3) Why have traditional activist NGO groups been aging so rapidly? Or, why are there so few young activists formally joining groups and engaging in philanthropy?
Have they been aging so quickly? I’m not entirely convinced of this though there is evidence that suggests that Generation X and Y are politically apathetic. But with the emergence of new organizations, formal and informal, run by these younger folks I think we’ll see greater numbers engaging in philanthropy into the future.
4) How do we support people who are really changing the world?
This topic warrants its own article. There are so many new ways to use small amounts of money to affect big change.
Though I am biased towards the NYC Venture Philanthropy Fund, there are other options if you are not NYC-based. For one, there are over 400 donor circles throughout the United States and likely one in every major city. These groups donate large sums to democratically chosen nonprofits using the pooled resources of group members.
Also, if you’re keen on affecting international change check out Kiva or Global Giving.
5) Where and how do we find our allies?
This is probably the trickiest question – I suspect it has to do with traditional, grassroots style networking: cocktail parties and open houses, or if you prefer a more modern take: Meetups and Facebook groups. But no matter how many friends or connections one might have online, nothing beats the face-to-face connection between two people. There is no ally like the one you’ve worked beside.
People are finding each other, creating networks and encouraging innovation in the most innovative ways yet. We are using networks whether it be in school, at work, or online to seek out and connect with other like minded folks who feel the current system of giving isn’t working.
I by no means have all the answers to these questions. The items I present here are intended as a springboard for thought and discussion. And real solutions are being driven by dialogue between and amongst all sectors – without this, we stagnate.
So what are your answers to these questions? How do we get ourselves out of the funding bind and towards greater solutions?
So today I was talking to a colleague about VPF’s upcoming Launch Party (Feb. ’08). We were admitting to one another that it often takes at least two attempts to clearly articulate what VPF does. Two attempts being on the low end. And everybody knows that this doesn’t make the ideal elevator speech.
What is the connection between social entrepreneurism and philanthropy?
Social entrepreneurs (SE) – in short definition – are visionary individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. Ambitious and persistent, they tackle major social issues by changing systems, spreading solutions, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps to enact sustainable social change.
The genius of SE’s, as originally identified by Ashoka, is their identification of an existing “gap” in a given community and turning it into an opportunity to change the entire system. They don’t just plug the hole, they knock down the entire wall and rebuild it so no hole exists at all – plugged or otherwise.
But after taking a look around this growing sector, I also realized that SE’s of the non-profit variety often lack one or more of the following resources:
1) Money : start-up money, general operations money and, maybe most importantly, longer term money
2) Skills : administrative and operational, legal, financial, managerial, public relations, sales and marketing, human resources, and the list goes on…
3) Networks : cross industry, cross cultural, multi-geographical
Philanthropically, it serves a community well to offer their support to these unique individuals. One option is to give to a charity that plugs a hole into infinitum, the other is to provide philanthropic charity to a struggling SE and change the system altogether.
Donors are increasingly skeptical of how their carefully placed contributions are used. It seems that across the board donors are fed up with the scandals, the misplaced money, or the unwillingness to disclose exact money allocation among some nonprofits.
A recent article, “Where does your money really go?“, takes a broad view of this issue.
Worth the reading if you ever wondered how your money is spent by nonprofits. There’s even a brief mention of new philanthropy – though I think the author could have developed this further or giving a bigger nod to the upsurge in alternatives coming available to the average giver (like giving circles, for instance).
As always with these types of things, I admit that not all nonprofits act irresponsibly or squander generous donors’ money — but one just can’t be too careful these days.
As the first blog entry for NYC Venture Philanthropy Fund (VPF), I think it appropriate to talk about how we started and why. The ‘how’ and ‘why’ tend to be the most commonly asked questions so it seems a logical place to begin…
It all started as an article about giving circles in an airline magazine. Four months later, it was a meeting in my living room with 10 strangers. Today, it is a burgeoning organization in New York City dedicated to supporting local social entrepreneurs whose good ideas intelligently address persistent issues in our communities.
After that first meeting, I realized what VPF could really be. New York City is brimming with highly qualified, motivated and generous individuals interested and willing to commit precious time and energy to good ideas.
So with the idea of VPF in hand, we’ve managed to develop a Guidance Board and Advisory Council (in the works) to keep us on track. The Membership and Finance Committees have done their part to firm the foundation. We have a website, a partnership as a donor advised fund with the New York Community Trust and we’re on our way.
As for the ‘why’, it was best voiced at that first meeting: people need a place to do giving differently.
Why give differently? What is the impetus for changing the way so many of us give now?
Well, why do we give? Generally, we give because we envision a different reality and we want to support those who are driving the change we wish to see in our world.
VPF questions whether giving in the traditional style actually produces the desired outcome.
Scenario 1: You receive a letter in the mail or email in your box telling you of all the good work Organization X has done in the past year. They outline the horrors of what still exists despite their efforts. And now they are relying on you and your donation to ensure that they continue the good work they do to battle those problems. You write a check, send it off and feel much better for having done it.
You don’t know where your money goes, how it will be used, or the individual who might benefit from your generosity.
Scenario 2: You join VPF and make a personal annual contribution of $365 ($1 a day) to become a voting member. At the beginning of the year you, along with the entire VPF membership, vote on what topic you would like to support: environment, women, kids, education, health, etc.
Topical focus decided, you join the Grants Committee to begin seeking out local social entrepreneurs within the New York City neighborhoods that are addressing the chosen topic. You have a personal hand in deciding which organization or individual makes it to the short list.
In the fall, you again have the opportunity to vote on your favorite social entrepreneur on the short list and decide where your contribution goes. Being an organization based on democratic ideals, majority wins.
In the coming year, your money is distributed to the organization and VPF begins to deploy members that are interested in volunteering their hard won skills to the organization. Having never actually volunteered anywhere beyond writing a letter or answering a phone, you decide to volunteer your skills. Now, not only did you have the chance to find and select the place your money went, you also have a direct hand in shaping and strengthening a powerful effort to affect positive change in your local community.
Now, that’s giving.