Follow Social Velocity on Google Plus Follow Social Velocity on Facebook Follow Nell Edgington on Twitter Follow SocialVelocity on Linked In View the Social Velocity YouTube Channel Get the Social Velocity RSS Feed

Download a free Financing Not Fundraising e-book when you sign up for email updates from Social Velocity.

Advocacy

Philanthropy in Troubled Times: Blogging the 2018 GEO Conference

Next week, as part of the 2018 Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) Conference, I’m excited to host some exceptional guest bloggers here on the blog. GEO’s biennial conference is where the most engaged philanthropists gather to talk about how they can more effectively support nonprofit leaders. GEO has asked me to host a blog series about the conference this year (as I did at the 2016 GEO Conference), and I was more than happy to oblige.

I’m particularly interested this year to see how the GEO Conference plays out amid these troubling times. Certainly the world is a very different place than it was at GEO’s last conference, and this gathering of the most engaged and thoughtful philanthropists could be, I hope, an opportunity for philanthropy to find a way to lead in a time that is arguably dismantling the progressive causes many of these philanthropists have been championing for decades. Indeed, leading philanthropic leaders like Grant Oliphant of the Heinz Endowments has argued that philanthropy “can’t win the battle of ideas by hiding,” and Darren Walker of the Ford Foundation has described his hope that philanthropy will “realize the urgency of now.”

The GEO Conference, held this year from Monday, April 30  to Wednesday, May 2 in San Francisco, is a first-in-class display of philanthropists thinking long and hard about their role in social change. Particularly now, when there is a real opportunity for philanthropy to stand up and have a stronger voice about where our country is headed, this conference provides a real opportunity. I’m looking forward to some open, honest and challenging conversations about how philanthropy can and should do more to lead in these challenging times.

I am particularly excited about several of the planned sessions, including “Supporting Advocacy during Turbulent Times,” “Strengthening Nonprofits as a Social Justice Strategy,” “Philanthropy’s Role in Closing the Nonprofit Racial Leadership Gap,” and “Power and the Future of Philanthropy.”

And starting next Tuesday, May 1st you’ll be hearing from this great group of guest bloggers:

Kathy Reich, Director of BUILD at the Ford Foundation  
Kathy guides Ford’’s efforts to implement sector-leading approaches to support the vitality and effectiveness of institutions and networks that serve as pillars of broader social movements. Before joining Ford, Kathy worked for 15 years at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, most recently as organizational effectiveness and philanthropy director. Prior to that, she was policy director at the Social Policy Action Network, served as a legislative assistant on Capitol Hill, and worked for state and local elected officials in California. Kathy currently serves on the boards of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations and the Peninsula Jewish Community Center, and co-chairs the Fund for Shared Insight. She was named a Schusterman Fellow in 2016. She has also been featured on the Social Velocity blog several times in the past, as an interviewee twice (here and here) and a guest blogger.

 

Sean Thomas-Breitfeld, Co-Director of the Building Movement Project
Prior to joining BMP, Sean spent a decade working in various roles at the Center for Community Change, developing training programs for grassroots leaders, coordinating online and grassroots advocacy efforts, and lobbying on a range of issues, including immigration reform, transportation equity and anti-poverty programs. Before joining the Center, Sean worked as a Policy Analyst at UnidosUS (formerly the National Council of La Raza), where he focused on employment and income security issues. Sean received a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from NYU’s Wagner School, where he now serves as an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Public Service. You can read my past interview with Sean here.

 

Pia Infante, Trustee and Co-Executive Director of The Whitman Institute
Pia speaks and teaches on radically embodied leadership and trust based practice in many settings including Harvard Kennedy School: Center for Public Leadership, Ashoka Future Forum, Opportunity Collaboration, Net Impact, Council on Foundations, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, International Human Rights Funders Group, and the Skoll World Forum. She also proudly serves as the Board Chair for the Center for Media Justice and is on faculty for the M.A. in Leadership Sustainability at the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources as well as Thousand Currents Academy. She is an I.C.F. certified executive leadership coach and holds an M.A. in Education from the New School for Social Research.

 

After the conference is over I’ll do a wrap-up post that will bring the blog series to a close.  If you plan to be at the GEO Conference, please let me know, I’d love to see you there!

Photo Credits: GEO, Ford Foundation, Building Movement Project, The Whitman Institute

Tags: , , , ,

Will There Be a #MeToo Moment for the Nonprofit Sector?

In light of the recent #MeToo movement raising awareness about sexual harassment and gender disparity in Hollywood and other industries, the Chronicle of Philanthropy/AFP study released earlier this month showed that 25% of nonprofit fundraisers have experienced sexual harassment in their job, most often from donors.

Perhaps this will be the impetus for the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors to uncover and reckon with gender disparity.

And I wonder if this reckoning will also include a recognition that the nonprofit sector itself suffers from a larger gender-based disparity between those who have money and those who seek that money for their cause.

The nonprofit sector is predominantly female — 70% of workers in the nonprofit sector are women. And the leadership of the private sector (from which much of the money to fund nonprofits comes) is predominantly male — 96% of the CEOs in the S&P 500 are male, and 80% of all C-Suite roles belong to men.

Kristen Joiner pointed out this discrepancy a couple of years ago in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article, arguing that the gender power imbalance between those who have money to invest in nonprofit solutions and those running those solutions is based on the larger gender disparity of our society:

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that leaders of startups in the male-dominated sector get financial support for their ability to develop and execute original ideas, while the leaders of start-ups in the female-dominated sector get financial support for their ability to manage someone else’s idea well. Maybe. But I believe it’s likely that the power dynamics at play between the nonprofit and private sectors reflect the gender dynamics of our larger society.

The nonprofit sector is mainly run by women, the private sector is mainly run by men. Is it possible that the power imbalance we talk about between nonprofits and funders has its roots in good old fashioned sexism?  And if we acknowledge and discuss that, could we at long last perhaps find a way through it?

If we were to rectify the gender disparities at play in the nonprofit sector, it might look like this:

More Nonprofit Advocacy
Regulators, board members and funders ask nonprofit leaders to keep their political voices silent, sometimes even on issues that directly impact their ability to achieve their mission. While businesses can spend millions on lobbying and support of political candidates, nonprofit political action is much more restrictive. Nonprofit leaders need to be allowed to raise their voices, whenever and wherever it will help their mission.

More Access to Unrestricted Money
Money given with strings attached is a signal that the funder doesn’t fully trust the skills and abilities of those he is giving the money. More unrestricted dollars means nonprofit leaders are freed up to do whatever they think it takes to achieve their organization’s goals.

More Support of the Fundraising Function
Robust marketing and sales operations are a given in the business world. But “fundraising” (the nonprofit equivalent of “sales”) remains a dirty word. Nonprofit leaders need to be emboldened to build robust, sophisticated fundraising functions, and they need sufficient financial investment to be able to do that.

Rejection of the Overhead Distinction
Nonprofit leaders are often encouraged to spend only a small amount of money on infrastructure, administration and fundraising (overhead expenses). But overhead is a meaningless distinction made in the nonprofit sector, and one that is not made in the for-profit sector. Nonprofit leaders need to remove the overhead shackles so that they can create strong, effective, well-supported organizations.

Development of Strong Leaders
Business leaders often invest in professional development, training, and coaching, but a nonprofit leader must figure it all out on her own. We need to recognize that strong nonprofit leaders are every bit as important and necessary as strong for-profit leaders, and we should invest in nonprofit leadership development accordingly.

I say Time’s Up for the debilitating restrictions placed on nonprofit leaders around securing unrestricted money; investing in organizations, fundraising and leadership; and pursuing political activity. We must recognize and rectify practices born from a history of gender disparity if we want to truly benefit from the solutions nonprofit leaders have to offer.

Photo Credit: numb3r

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Nonprofit Scarcity Thinking Will Get You Nowhere

Scarcity thinking is incredibly pervasive in the nonprofit sector. And it makes sense that it would be. Nonprofit leaders have been told for so long that they must scrape by, are not worthy of real investment, and deserve only the leftovers. No wonder the belief that resources are scarce is baked into their DNA.

This scarcity thinking is the starvation cycle in which nonprofit leaders often exist – we can’t attract enough money so we skimp on staff and systems, becoming less effective, forcing us to serve fewer clients, resulting in less social change. It is a vicious downward cycle. And one that funders certainly play a key role in as well.

But when a nonprofit leader chooses instead to come from an abundance mindset – the idea that there are an abundance of resources and you need only to get crystal clear about what you want to achieve and those resources will come to you – it is amazing to see what she can accomplish.

Most recently I saw this with a national membership organization that had spent years either just barely scraping by or having to cut staff and budgets because they simply could not attract enough support. But once they got crystal clear on their goals for the future and what it was going to take to make those goals happen, they attracted some significant new and long-term investments from funders.

Moving from the pervasive scarcity mindset to the incredibly powerful abundance mindset can be a game changer.

And we can start by flipping some of the most common conversations happening each day in nonprofit boardrooms around the country, crossing out the typical scarcity mindset and fully embracing an abundance mindset, like this:

Scarcity Mindset: “How much money are we able to raise?
Abundance Mindset: “How much money will it take to accomplish our goals?”

Rather than thinking of money as an extremely scarce resource, figure out what social change your organization truly wants to accomplish. Chart your future course, figure out what it will take (in terms of staff, systems, technology, dollars) and then use that strategic plan to engage donors and others to invest in bigger ways. The excitement you generate from board, staff, and funders when you think big and long-term will translate into the money you need to accomplish your future goals. This is the cornerstone of moving from a fundraising approach to a financing approach.

Scarcity Mindset: “Let’s not add fundraising staff until we have the money”
Abundance Mindset: “Let’s fully invest in our fundraising infrastructure”

So many nonprofit leaders are unwilling to take the risk of hiring a top-notch fundraiser (or securing the best donor database, or revamping their online presence, or investing in other critical fundraising infrastructure) because they don’t have the money. But without making improvements to how you raise money, you will never raise more money. So figure out what it will take to upgrade your fundraising infrastructure and how much those improvements will cost and then convince a couple of close donors to provide the capacity capital necessary to get you there. And keep in mind, the right improvements to your fundraising infrastructure will pay for themselves (many times over) after 12-18 months, so it is really just a short term investment you need to take your financial model to the next level.

Scarcity: “We can only breakeven”
Abundance: “We will create a healthy reserve fund”

It amazes me that there are still nonprofit leaders who believe (and funders who insist) that the ideal nonprofit income statement show only a slight net income. On the contrary, a healthy, effective, and sustainable nonprofit organization should have a robust (at least 3-6 months of operating) reserve fund. This reserve allows a nonprofit leader to feel secure about cash flow, invest in program development, and engage in other normal and necessary activities as a successfully functioning organization. And donors tend to be more attracted to organizations that demonstrate sustainability (like having a reserve fund), than organizations that can barely breakeven.

 Scarcity: “There just aren’t enough hours in the day to get the work done”
Abundance: “Let’s engage more people and organizations in our work.”

Because of their perception of resource constraints, often nonprofit leaders isolate themselves and their organizations from others with similar social change goals – those entities who may be competing with them for limited funds. But instead of thinking that you must go it alone, break down your walls and connect with other people, organizations and networks that have similar visions for the future. Figure out how you can combine efforts for much larger gains. Because a networked nonprofit is far better positioned to create sustainable social change than an isolated, solitary organization is.

Scarcity: “Given the difficult political climate, we must limit our goals.”
Abundance: “How can we seize the opportunity of this challenging political climate to engage new people in new ways?”

Since the 2016 election and the resulting and ongoing blows to progressive social change agendas, I have seen some nonprofit leaders bury their heads in the sand, figuring they will wait out these punishing political winds until something better comes along. But if you have a compelling social change vision, there is an abundance of outrage and activity that you can tap into now — in fact some argue that nonprofit advocacy is enjoying a rebirth. And while the federal government may be outside your current purview, there is opportunity for policy change happening at the state and local levels. In fact, research suggests that a state-by-state strategy is often the way real social change happens in this country anyway. So stop seeing what isn’t possible and instead embrace what may be.

Certainly there are real challenges facing every nonprofit leader. But you do have agency. You can choose to see the limits in front of you, or the opportunities. And in seeing the opportunities, and the abundance, you can accomplish so much more.

Photo Credit: Pixabay

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A Reactive Nonprofit Leader Will Get Us Nowhere

Let’s be honest, nonprofit leaders tend to be a pretty reactive bunch. Instead of creating or controlling a situation, they tend to simply react to it. And it makes sense.

A foundation suddenly changes their funding strategy, and a nonprofit leader must scramble to find a new revenue source. A shift in how or where the government provides social services and a nonprofit leader suddenly sees a dramatic spike in the number of her clients. A board chair finds a job in a new city and a nonprofit leader finds his board leaderless. Nonprofit leaders are incentivized and learn quickly to react to ever-changing internal and external circumstances.

But I worry that in the face of the relentless shocks that 2017 brought, many nonprofit leaders have gone from a mode of normal reactive to super reactive. And the problem is that when you are operating from a point of reacting to circumstances instead of creating circumstances, you are much less effective at achieving your ultimate goals.

Lately I have seen some nonprofit leaders swept up into the chaos wrought by our divisive political and social climate and thus become less effective than they could otherwise be.

Let me give you an example. A nonprofit leader who runs a national nonprofit recently became understandably concerned about a proposed federal policy change that would dramatically affect her mission. She became obsessed with emailing, calling, texting everyone and anyone in her network and encouraging them to call, write, email their members of Congress. She became so controlled by this need to react to this policy change — a change, by the way, that was ultimately outside of her control because the political will simply did not exist in the current Congress — that it made her sick. She became wild-eyed, exhausted, and ill and ultimately of little use to her staff, board or social change mission. If she had instead taken a step back, become quiet, and analyzed what was within her ability to change and what was not, she could have then developed a way forward from that knowledge. And I think she would have been much more successful.

If our actions come from a place of anger, frustration, or despair in reaction to the behavior of others, then we are only exacerbating the problem. This has become even more obvious since the 2016 election. The Trump Administration will take an action or make a statement that is so egregious, that goes so completely against what we as social change leaders have worked our whole lives to promote, and our initial response is to react, to fight, to bend in despair.

But we are only making it worse. We are feeding the demons of division, anger, and hatred.

I think Brene Brown would likely agree.  In her latest book, Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to Stand Alone she argues that in feeding into the anger and hatred that swirls around us, we are only hurting our efforts for larger social change and a better, more just world:

If we zoom way out and take a wide-angle shot of our world that’s increasingly defined by twenty-four-hour news, politics and social media, we see a whole lot of hatred. We see posturing, name-calling, and people trading humiliations…Pain will subside only when we acknowledge it and care for it. Addressing it with love and compassion would take only a minuscule percentage of the energy it takes to fight it…Holding on to [anger] will make us exhausted and sick. Internalizing anger will take away our joy and spirit; externalizing anger will make us less effective in our attempts to create change and forge connection. It’s an emotion that we need to transform into something life-giving: courage, love, change, compassion, justice.”

I wonder how the tide might shift if each one of us stepped away from the noise and the hatred and instead came from a place of courage, love, change, compassion, and justice, as Brene suggests. Instead of reacting to the noise, we became silent and sought to truly listen, to understand, to find common ground with those around us.

I was raised in the Catholic faith, and although I no longer practice, I’m sometimes reminded of the beautiful prayers of that faith. One of my favorites is the Prayer of St. Francis. I wonder if in these historic words there is something for those of us who want to see a more just, inclusive, loving world. Perhaps as true leaders we must do what sometimes feels impossible and instead of reacting to hatred and anger, offer love and hope, as the prayer suggests:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy…

I am not suggesting that we pardon behavior or comments that we find objectionable. But rather, that we refuse to add fuel to them by stirring up the anger, frustration, and despair of our friends, our family, our employees, our donors, our board members, our fellow social change leaders.

What if instead of spending time forwarding, commenting or re-Tweeting depressing news or comments; obsessively refreshing our news feeds for the latest dose of adrenaline; or worrying over what the next outrage will be, we build effective organizations and work across organizations, we develop smart strategies and deep networks, we instill social change leaders with confidence and ample resources, we focus on what brings us joy and peace so that we are refreshed each day to start anew, we take good care of our families and friends so that we all have the energy and the optimism necessary to see our goals realized.

There is no doubt that these are incredibly challenging times. But what if the social change leaders who dream of a more compassionate, equitable and inclusive world work towards that goal from a place of calm and confidence, rather than a place of anger and fear. Indeed, I wonder if that is truly the only way forward.

Photo Credit: sarowen

Tags: , , , , , ,

10 Great Social Innovation Reads: June & July 2017

Since I was on vacation (and off social media) for a chunk of June, I decided to combine the June and July 10 Great Reads lists into one.

But that proved to be a tricky feat, since there was no shortage of activity in the world of social change during those two months. From the U.S. leaving the Paris Climate Accord and cities stepping up in its wake, to a new book from philanthropy expert David Callahan, to a new approach to the healthcare debate, to ways nonprofits are using artificial intelligence for good, it was a busy couple of months. In my (limited) view, these were the 10 best reads in the world of social change in June and July.

But I am quite sure that I missed some great stuff during those months, so feel free to add to the list in the comments.

And if you want to see past months’ 10 Great Reads lists, go here.

  1. President Trump announced in June that the U.S. would leave the Paris Climate Agreement, making us one of only three countries in the world that are not participating. Lest you think there’s nothing to worry about, check out this interactive map that projects how hot your city could be by 2100. But governors, mayors, and business and nonprofit leaders across the country defiantly stepped up to outline how they would fight climate change without the federal government.  Even on an individual level, there are things you can do to combat climate change, says a new study. And Tate Williams argued that philanthropy must now step up to fund a comprehensive social movement to combat climate change.

  2. Speaking of philanthropy funding social movements, Kate Kroeger from the Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights explained how funders can support civic action in our current political environment,  and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy put out a call to social movement leaders for ideas on how to do just that.

  3. As Republicans in Congress continued to struggle to function as a party, some took a look at what’s going on with the Democratic party. Caroline Levine wondered if the Democratic party can change enough to effectively engage Millennials. And Lee Drutman argued that the Democrats are suffering from an inability to engage organizers at the local level.

  4. The biggest example of our Congressional leaders struggling to lead may be their inability to fix healthcare, but Malcolm Gladwell suggested a new way to reframe the conversation that could move it forward.

  5. As the Internet of Things, the increasing online connectedness of everyday things, continues to grow, Pew Research explored what the implications are. But at the same time, good old fashioned libraries are being increasingly used, particularly by Millennials.

  6. Artificial intelligence can be a scary, new thing, but nonprofits (not Silicon Valley) are actually leading the pack in developing some pretty socially positive things with it. And Beth Kanter offered some ideas for how nonprofits can use bots to advance their missions.

  7. Lucy Bernholz discussed the importance of a new report from Betterplace Labs that describes how Germany has used technology to integrate 1 million+ refugees. For Lucy, this report is a critical read because we all are, or will, face population displacements, and we must learn how to become resilient together: “This prospect – welcoming, receiving, moving forward together – is our collective future. Lessons learned now, about the politics, social challenges, technological realities of building welcoming and resilient diverse communities is information we can all use.”

  8. David Callahan released a new book, The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age, which charts the growth over the past two decades in the number and scale of mega philanthropists. He argues they have a new kind of influence on public goods and public policy, perhaps to the detriment of broader, more inclusive civic engagement.  His book found some criticism, which Callahan himself answered.

  9. But at the same time, some like Cathy Cha from the Haas Fund, would argue that we are witnessing a dramatic increase in civic engagement. As she wrote: “At a time when so much is on the line, people are stepping out of their comfort zones and becoming more involved in our democracy. We are marching, participating in spur-of-the-moment protests, volunteering, giving money, and contacting our elected representatives — all in unprecedented numbers, and all in an effort to show we’re paying attention and we care.”

  10. A day before the big announcement that Amazon was taking over grocery giant Wholefoods, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos announced he was getting into the philanthropy game with a Tweet asking for advice about how to make a difference “right now.” His focus on the short-term, irked many (manymany) philanthropic thought leaders who argued that he should focus on long-term social change. But philanthropic historian, Benjamin Soskis argued that direct charity (like cash transfers to the poor) is actually seeing a resurgence and perhaps for good reason.

Photo Credit: perzon seo

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Why Philanthropy Must Speak Out: An Interview with Grant Oliphant

In today’s Social Velocity blog interview, I’m talking with Grant Oliphant, president of The Heinz Endowments (and frequent contributor to their excellent blog).

Prior to running The Heinz Endowments, Grant was president and chief executive officer of The Pittsburgh Foundation for six years. Before that, he served as press secretary to the late U.S. Sen. John Heinz from 1988 until the senator’s death in 1991.

Grant frequently leads community conversations around critical issues such as public school reform, civic design, the ongoing sustainability of anchor institutions, domestic violence, riverfront development and various socio-economic concerns. He also serves extensively on the boards of local nonprofit and national sector organizations, including the Center for Effective Philanthropy, which he chairs. He has also served on the boards of Grantmakers Evaluation Network, Pennsylvania Partnership for Children, and the National Children’s Book and Literacy Alliance.

You can read other conversations with social changemakers in the Social Velocity interview series here.

Nell: You have written on the Heinz blog and elsewhere about the importance of philanthropists speaking out against government policies or decisions that are at odds with their work. However, philanthropy is often hesitant, because of both real and perceived limitations, to become too political. What do you think philanthropists, and the nonprofits they fund, can and should do to speak out against political decisions that are at odds with their missions?

Grant: This question makes my brain hurt. I mean, seriously, we live in a time when everything is labeled as political—affirming the science of climate change, standing up for equity, denouncing racism, defending basic math, you name it. A cultural institution we support recently faced criticism from its own docents for posting an inclusion policy they condemned as “political” because it welcomed all visitors, including immigrants. When your core values are suddenly defined as political, what are you going to do—run from your ideals and hope they somehow survive in the shadows? Or are you going to step into the light and advocate for what you say you believe in?

We have to remember this is about policy and the marketplace of ideas and values, not politics. Philanthropy shouldn’t be about trying to influence who wins an election, and private philanthropy can’t lobby on specific legislation. But foundations of all ideological bents have long understood that on some issues, the only way to bring about meaningful change is to persuade the broader culture that it matters and then translate that into supportive policy. In telling the story of its own impact, philanthropy loves to point at successes like universal vaccinations. But now even vaccines are under attack, along with the science informing them. So what should philanthropy do—stand mutely by and pretend it doesn’t have a point of view on saving lives and preventing suffering, or for that matter on the importance of science as a basic decision-making tool for public policy? You can’t win the battle of ideas by hiding.

We have to speak honestly about the perils of policy rooted in magical thinking and so-called alternative facts. That sort of candor is described as courageous in the foundation world, but really what’s brave about speaking the truth when everything you believe in and work for is under attack? We are witnessing a jaw-dropping assault on fundamental institutions of democracy—the press, the judiciary, free speech, basic notions of civility, even the right of the people to assemble. The American system of philanthropy, which hinges on an engaged civic sector, simply cannot work in the context of dysfunctional or broken democracy. Speaking out against these attacks is basic self-defense for the sector but it’s so much more than that. It’s really a defense of the democratic freedoms and governance that make philanthropy matter in the first place. And if we’re not willing to fight for that, then what in the world do we stand for?

Nell: Some argue that philanthropy is at least partly to blame for the divides currently impacting our country because philanthropy is a result of wealth inequality and sometimes perpetuates inequity. What are your thoughts on that?

Grant: Martin Luther King commented on this far more eloquently than I ever can, and recently Darren Walker at The Ford Foundation has done some excellent writing on it. There’s not much more I can add. No question, the ideal goal for philanthropy should be to help create a society where it is no longer necessary. And it’s fair to ask whether a by-product of massive wealth disparity can really address the social inequity that in some ways helps drive it.

At the same time, to dismiss philanthropy as merely a symptom of inequality is to understate both the enormous value of enterprise creation and the positive social impulse that drives philanthropy at its best. Foundations and other forms of philanthropy may be imperfect expressions of an imperfect system but they also can do tremendous good, especially at a time when government is paralyzed and the private sector has become so removed from social and community concerns.
So much of the social good that philanthropy has helped support—from sensible thinking on climate change to marriage equality—is being unraveled right now, and that’s terrifying. But if nothing else maybe it’s giving those of us who are privileged to work in this field a renewed appreciation for the value philanthropy really can contribute and a heightened sense of responsibility and urgency to actually deliver it.

Nell: What role do facts play? We are arguably living in a “post-truth” world where opposing sides can no longer agree on a common set of facts. How can the social change sector hope to create change when there is no longer agreement about what the current reality is? What do we do about that?

Grant: I’d joke that the Bowling Green massacre changed my thinking on this, but I worry folks might miss the sarcasm. This is a scary time. We have leaders just making stuff up and hiding behind disinformation machines posing as media. It’s bizarre but that’s the landscape now, and I hope the social sector wakes up to it in two critical ways.

First, we need to stop confusing facts with persuasion. Our sector loves to throw data at people and preach from what we assume is our scientific and moral high ground. But neuroscience has taught us that people rely more on their emotions and “gut feelings” to make important decisions than they do on reason. It turns out we are more likely to be persuaded by a good story than by a good fact. I’ve long thought our sector could do better at simply bearing witness, at telling stories that help people see themselves in the lives and suffering of others. That’s the most basic work of philanthropy, this process of sowing compassion. In a time of unprecedented division when humanity’s notions of who we mean by “us” are being challenged as never before, philanthropy needs to get back to that.

But, second, at the same time we need to fight like hell against the normalization of “alternative facts.” Data may be a weak tool to shift closely held beliefs but over time it can move civilizations. Think about how dismissive the medical establishment was initially of the idea that germs cause disease and how conscious our society is today of antibacterial everything. Truth wins in the end, but we need to remember the end can take a long, long time to arrive. Give up on science and suddenly you end up in the Dark Ages for a millennium. For philanthropy that means continuing to invest in science and research, but it also means investing in the institutions and processes that help facts become more broadly known, including journalism. And it means not backing off when propagandists try to peddle their lies as just an alternate reality. We need to have the courage to call that nonsense out.

Nell: For many in the social change sector these are dark days. What gives you hope?

Grant: Oh wow, I could so easily sink sanctimonious piety here, which is not what any of us needs right now. The truth is, there are plenty of days I despair over what’s happening, and it’s important to acknowledge that. If you work in the social sector and these aren’t dark days for you, then you seriously aren’t paying attention.

For me, though, hope is connected with purpose. If we only feel hope when it seems like we’re making progress or winning, then that’s not really hope, is it? It’s expectation. And there is absolutely nothing about the goals we are fighting for that can be taken for granted. Every single step of humanity’s journey toward justice and sustainable community has been marked by hardship and reversals, and often outright losses, so who are we in this era to only feel hope if the circumstances are right?

If it were up to me, Rebecca Solnit’s “Hope in the Dark” would be required reading for us all right now, because the only way any of this gets better is if people of good intent keep pushing, even when we don’t know what the outcome will be, even when it feels like we’ve lost on something irredeemable, like the climate. We have to be humble enough to own that none of us ever really “controls” anything, but over time somehow progress still happens as long as we keep at it.

The other day the President tried to drag my hometown of Pittsburgh into his myopic decision on the Paris climate accords. I loved how local leaders here and all over the country responded with a collective roar of “no way,” which was not just about saying “that isn’t us” but went beyond that to “we’ll do it ourselves.” That’s what gives me hope—all the people I get to work with every day who greet the darkness by bringing the light of their own creativity and unrelenting determination.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

10 Great Social Innovation Reads: April 2017

April saw a debate about whether or not crowdfunding is transforming philanthropy, critiques of Harvard Business School, a report on the lack of philanthropy in the Deep South, a first-person account of the effects of founder’s syndrome, and tools to help more funders engage in advocacy. Add to that a new Supreme Court Justice, some new data about fundraising, and two fascinating new books, and April was a very interesting month in the world of social change.

Below are my 10 favorite reads about nonprofits and philanthropy in April, but feel free to add to the list in the comments. And, as always, for a longer list, follow me on Twitter @nedgington.

You can also see past months’ 10 Great Reads lists here.

  1. The dramatic growth of person-to-person crowdfunding efforts may be fundamentally transforming philanthropy argued Ben Paynter in an interesting long read in FastCompany. As he puts it: “[This] vast pool of money [is] fundamentally shifting who is funding charitable work and how that work gets done.” But Eduardo Andino would seem to disagree. Writing in Philanthropy Daily he argues that crowdfunding is not all that different or disruptive: “As has always been the case, Americans give money when they see an organization with a mission they believe in or a person whose need moves them. GoFundMe simply allows more Americans to encounter more people in need of immediate assistance than ever before.”

  2. A new report on the state of philanthropy in the Deep South showed the dramatic discrepancy in per capita funding there versus other areas of the country. As Ruth McCambridge from The Nonprofit Quarterly described the findings of the report: “Funders do not invest in homegrown power-building efforts in the Black Belt because they are not drawn in the image of the more-built-up grantees they know well and favor.”

  3. Now is definitely the time for more philanthropists to engage in advocacy, and to help in that effort The Foundation Center released a suite of tools for funders interested in advocacy collaborations.

  4. Two new (and diametrically opposed) books came out in April. First, Duff McDonald’s The Golden Passport (reviewed by Andrew Ross Sorkin of The New York Times) took a hard look at Harvard Business School, which McDonald argued bred a greedy generation of corporate leaders. And for a completely opposite worldview, check out the new edition of The Power of Kindness: The Unexpected Benefits of Leading a Compassionate Life by Piero Ferrucci (reviewed by Mirielle Clifford on the PhilanTopic blog), which could be a balm for our divisive times.

  5. Linda Wood, Senior Director of Leadership Initiatives at the Haas Jr. Fund, encouraged other foundations to invest in the capacity not just of individual organizations, but also larger social movements. As she put it: “We need to be more attentive to the interplay between the strength and agility of leaders and organizations and the dynamics of their broader movements.” And Patrick Guerriero discussed the evolution of the social movement that resulted in marriage equality.

  6. I think I could probably very happily spend hours digging into Pew Research data. It is fascinating stuff, especially their recent 10 demographic trends shaping the U.S. and the world in 2017.

  7. Speaking of data, there was new fundraising data on donor retention and how more effective an in-person (versus email) solicitation is.

  8. An anonymous nonprofit staff member in the United Kingdom wrote a scathing critique in The Guardian of their nonprofit’s founder who has stayed at the organization too long.

  9. April saw the nomination, confirmation, and swearing in of a new Justice on the Supreme Court, and Michael Wyland provided an analysis of what the implications of a court with Justice Gorsuch could mean for the nonprofit sector.

  10. And finally, if you are feeling a bit overwhelmed by these challenging times, look no further than Steven Pressfield who wrote: “You were born for adversity. It’s in your DNA as much as it’s in the DNA of a shark or an eagle or a lion…Our stubby little ancestors left us not just the ability to endure adversity, but the capacity to thrive under conditions of adversity.” Yes!

Photo Credit: Andy Roberts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can Philanthropy Lead In These Challenging Times?

Last week I was in Boston for the Center for Effective Philanthropy conference. It was an amazing gathering of leaders talking about how philanthropy should respond in these difficult times. If you couldn’t make the conference and want a run down of the three days, CEP’s Ethan McCoy recapped Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3 on the CEP blog. And you can also see the #CEP2017 Twitter feed.

The conference gave me a lot to think about, so I wanted to share a few of my takeaways.

The conference was bookended by two incredible speakers. I was blown away by the first night’s keynote address by Bryan Stevenson. Bryan is the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama, which works to end mass incarceration and challenge racial and economic injustice.

He gave a completely mesmerizing speech about the historic roots of racial inequity and injustice and how we can move forward from America’s past and present toward a more just and equitable society. He argued that there are four things we must do:

  1. “Get proximate” to communities we want to help
  2. Work to understand and change the long-standing American narrative of racial difference
  3. Stay hopeful, and
  4. Accept that the work will be uncomfortable

It is impossible to do justice to his amazing speech, so I offer his Ted Talk from 2012 to show you what a thought-provoking speaker he is. I also plan to read his best-selling book, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, about how to fix our broken criminal justice system.

The final keynote speaker of the conference, Harvard historian Nancy Koehn, gave a riveting talk about looking at historic leaders, like Ernest Shackleton — an explorer who led expeditions to the Antarctic — to draw lessons about leadership in our current times.

She argued that “leaders are not born, they are made.” Every single one of us could step up and become a leader. And what defines a real leader is that “effective leaders help us overcome the limitation of our own selfishness, weakness, laziness, fears and get us to do harder, better, more important things than we can get ourselves to do on our own.”

In between those two amazing speakers were breakouts and plenaries that encouraged philanthropy to step up to the plate. There were urgings for foundation leaders to embrace advocacy, support nonprofit sustainability, explore state-by-state (instead of national) strategies for social change, listen to beneficiaries, understand their own networks, and fund evaluation, among other things. There certainly was an underlying theme that philanthropists should do more and be more in this new political era.

And these are incredibly challenging times, to be sure. Professor of Economics at Stanford, Raj Chetty, painted a very dire picture of income inequality in the U.S. Things have only gotten worse in the past several decades. In fact, as the slide below demonstrates, “the American Dream” is actually now more attainable in the U.K., Denmark and Canada than it is in the United States.

The final plenary session of the conference really pushed philanthropists to think hard about whether they are helping or hurting the causes they support. Jim Canales, President of the Barr Foundation, led a conversation among Sacha Pfeiffer (reporter from the Boston Globe), Vu Le (author of the Nonprofits With Balls blog), Grant Oliphant (president of the Heinz Endowments), and Linsey McGoey (senior lecturer at the University of Essex) critiquing philanthropy’s influence.

In particular, I really appreciated Linsey McGoey’s determination to push philanthropy farther, arguing that philanthropists working on issues of inequity need to address the much larger systems at work: “If foundations care about inequality, they should focus on the tax code and reduced government spending that worsens inequality.”

The CEP conference was an opportunity for philanthropy to take a hard look at itself and, I hope, find the determination to step up as the leaders we so desperately need now.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share




Popular Posts


Search the Social Velocity Blog