In this month’s Social Velocity interview, I’m talking with Ruth McCambridge.
Ruth is Editor in Chief of the Nonprofit Quarterly. Her background includes forty-five years of experience in nonprofits, primarily in organizations that mix grassroots community work with policy change. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Ruth spent a decade at The Boston Foundation, developing and implementing capacity building programs and advocating for grantmaking attention to constituent involvement.
If you want to read interviews with other social changemakers in the Social Velocity interview series go here.
Nell: The Nonprofit Quarterly sometimes serves as a watchdog for the nonprofit sector. For example, shortly before his death last year, Rick Cohen took the nonprofit sector to task for not standing up against anti-refugee legislation. But in some ways the sector’s hands are tied because of real or perceived rules against too much political activity. What is (or should be) the nonprofit sector’s role amid an increasingly polarized, gridlocked political system?
Ruth: The nonprofit sector’s hands are by no means tied and pretty much everyone knows that. We who work in 501(c) 3s do have to avoid partisan political activity and be a little careful when it comes to direct lobbying, but this leaves a whole world of political activity in which nonprofits can be and are involved, and there are plenty of powerful examples of political activism by nonprofits.
Look at the way that planned Planned Parenthood Action (a 501(c)4) has mobilized around this election season. Four years ago, in fact, the Sunlight Foundation found it had the highest ROI of any electorally focused PAC.
This response you speak of, of not being allowed to be political is, it seems to me, a convenient and patently obvious cop-out. It’s not that nonprofits do not know they can be involved in these kinds of issues, it is that they are employing a facile excuse for not doing what is right.
What is perhaps most disturbing about this dynamic – what most exposes the true nature of the excuse – is the tendency of some nonprofit infrastructure groups to mobilize nonprofits only on the most institutionally self-interested causes, resisting any limitations on fundraising, for instance. The fact that these campaigns are launched in favor of refugee rights to a safe harbor is not attractive to those who expect integrity from the sector.
Of course, there are issues that combine long term institutional self-interest with the interests of communities – for instance, recently a few statewide nonprofit networks have stood up for a living wage requirement and have accompanied that with work on rate adjustments, but in general, nonprofits, specifically those which are not expressly organized around advocacy, need to consider how to use their institutional power for what is right and stop playing coy in the face of current intense political scrums around issues of basic human and civil rights.
But let’s get back to the NPQ as watchdog idea. We have been hearing this increasingly over the past few years, but we have always tried to afflict the comfortable so maybe our voice has just become louder. We have many more readers than this time last year – I know that!
Nell: The mainstream media is sometimes criticized for holding the nonprofit sector to an unfair standard compared to the private sector. Do you agree with that criticism, or is the nonprofit sector not analyzed enough?
Ruth: That unfair standard coin has two sides. The nonprofit sector is more trusted by the public than government or business and that means that people expect more from us in terms of consistency of ethics. When we violate those higher expectations – yes – we may look like we are being held to a higher standard because the contrast between what they want and expect to see from us and what we give them is sometimes so starkly disappointing. This, by the way, causes some of the obsession with executive salaries that are seen as overly high. There is a sensitivity to wage justice in the context of mission and other compensation of staff that is easy to play on because people just expect us to act from the highest possible ethical position.
Nell: As a journalist, what is your take on the state of journalism and its role in democracy given the 30% decline in the number of journalists over the last decade. What will become of journalism and its role in democracy? And what do you make of the emerging breed of nonprofit newsrooms?
Ruth: Journalism is a changing form, and I would be talking far above my pay grade to suggest that I knew exactly what it was evolving toward, but it has always been clear to me that the role of journalism is central to democracy – to the ability of a populace to act in an informed manner and thus it is as important to democracy as the right to associate, which is at the basis of our nonprofit sector.
In a way, this commonality of purpose links the two, and so it is no surprise that there are now more nonprofit journalism outlets springing up – entities that are not placing profit above mission. That makes sense.
Just as interesting are the conversations around how people choose who can be trusted to inform them and on what basis, and who is going to pay for the long term investigative journalism that always has to be central to the mix, and what part open data plays in breaking stories. Other interesting trends are the evolution of citizen journalism, collaborative journalism and niche journalism. It is unendingly interesting.
Nell: In your interview last Spring with Douglas Rushkoff he had some very interesting things to say, one of which was that the nonprofit business model is superior because it more equitably distributes wealth than the for-profit model. Do you agree with his assessment, or what is your take?
If we do not want to encourage the pillaging of the earth and its peoples by the few – I guess I do agree.
Photo Credit: Nonprofit Quarterly
October was a bit of a whirlwind in the world of social change. Continued concerns that philanthropy is not positioned to truly impact wealth inequality, a confusing pivot by Charity Navigator in the Overhead Myth movement, some case studies of networked approaches to social change, and a great blog series on nonprofit financial health all made for some interesting reads.
Below is my pick of the top 10 social change reads in October. But, please add what I missed in the comments.
- There seems to be a growing discussion around whether philanthropy, which results from wealth inequality, can actually be effective at remedying that inequality. Writing on the openDemocracy blog, Michael Edwards takes the Ford Foundation and other foundations working on wealth inequality to task for not seeking to reform the underlying systems that feed that inequality. As he puts it, “Imagine what would happen if we re-configured the supply of money for social change…It would mean the wholesale transformation of institutional philanthropy, since for Ford and others like it an assault on privilege is essentially an assault upon themselves.” And in an interesting and related development, this month head of the Ford Foundation Darren Walker joined the corporate board of Pepsico, which some argue contributes to the obesity epidemic and ultimately economic inequality. But David Callahan argues that Walker could serve as a positive force to push Pepsico to “do better.”
- For only the second time in its 26 years The Chronicle of Philanthropy‘s annual Philanthropy 400 list ranks a nonprofit other than the United Way Worldwide as the biggest fundraiser. This year Fidelity Charitable, which houses donor advised funds, took the #1 spot. And some think this is a bellwether for philanthropy. But Jim Schaffer has some issues with the list and how it ignores the deeper complexities of philanthropy.
- If you are looking for data about where the social sector is going, this month provided lots of it. From Fidelity Charitable’s report on the future of philanthropy, to a new study from the Alliance for Nonprofit Management on nonprofit board chairs, to new data from the Urban Institute on the nonprofit workforce.
- In a head-scratching move, Charity Navigator, one of the proponents of the campaign to overcome the Overhead Myth wrote a blog post arguing that nonprofits that keep their overhead percentage to 15% or less are “excellent.” Many, took them to task.
- On the eve of the presidential election, Kiersten Marek from Inside Philanthropy offers some predictions about how philanthropy focused on women’s and children’s issues might fare under a Clinton presidency.
- In what has become an incessant drumbeat, ProPublica again criticizes the American Red Cross, this time for a botched response to the Louisiana flooding this summer.
- As I mentioned earlier, I’m a huge fan of Twitter, but it’s struggling. NPR tech writer Laura Sydell wonders if becoming a nonprofit might be the answer for this social network that is playing a growing role in social change efforts.
- Using networks for social change is a hot topic lately. Talia Milgrom-Elcott provides a case study for a networked approach to growing STEM education, and R. Patrick Bixler, Clare Zutz, and Ashley Lovell provide a case study on using networks for regional conservation. But Jake Hayman, writing in Forbes argues that philanthropy actually dis-incentivizes nonprofits to pursue a networked approach.
- In a not-to-be-missed blog series, the Nonprofit Finance Fund provides a great tutorial on “Best Practices for Nonprofit Financial Health” (part one, part two, and part three).
- And if you wonder why you are here and what your role is, look no further than Steven Pressfield who writes: “I believe that life exists on at least two levels. The lower level is the material plane…The higher level is the home of…the Muse. The higher level is a lot smarter than the lower level. The higher level understands in a far, far deeper way. It understands who we are. It understands why we are here. It understands the past and the future and our roles within both. My job, as I understand it, is to make myself open to this higher level. My job is to keep myself alert and receptive. My job is to be ready, in the fullest professional sense, when the alarm bell goes off and I have to slide down the pole and jump into the fire engine.”
Photo Credit: Peter Griffin
I was in a meeting with a group of nonprofit leaders the other day, and one of them voiced an often-heard complaint: “There just aren’t many foundations funding nonprofit capacity building.”
I was instantly reminded of my mother’s admonishment when I would come home from school with complaints about a classroom rule or a frustrating teacher. She would say, “Well, you have a mouth on you, don’t you?” Her quip was intended to encourage me to stop complaining about an inadequacy (however small, in my case) and do something to change it.
While I am the first to bemoan the lack of adequate resources in the nonprofit sector, nonprofit leaders themselves do have some agency to turn the tide and find funding to create more effective and sustainable organizations.
Rather than searching for donors who already express an interest in funding nonprofit capacity (like fundraising staff and systems, program evaluation, technology), it is actually more effective if a nonprofit leader takes it upon herself to create her own capacity funders.
But that requires a process, like this:
Move From Scarcity to Abundance Thinking
You can’t hope to solve your capacity challenges without thinking that they are, in fact, solvable. Many nonprofit leaders are so used to going without that they don’t allow themselves and their staffs to envision what could make things better. So start by brainstorming with your staff the hurdles standing in your way (lack of fundraising staff, inadequate technology, poor long-term planning, disengaged board of directors). Then list the kinds of investments you could make to solve those challenges (new staff positions, new technology and systems, strategic planning, board training) without constraining those potential solutions due to their costs.
Create a Capacity Building Plan
Once you have articulated what is standing in your way and the potential solutions to those hurdles, create a plan for overcoming your nonprofit’s challenges. Because funders often see capacity funding as more “risky” than traditional programming support, a nonprofit leader interested in securing capacity building funds must put together a clear plan for the need, solutions, costs and execution plan for capacity support. Clearly articulate what capacity changes you need to make, why, what those changes will help you accomplish, and over what timeframe.
Create a Capacity Building Budget
Attached to your capacity building plan must be the dollars necessary to implement the plan. What would it cost for a new donor database, a program evaluation, or your other needed capacity investments? Do the research and then create the capital requirements, over an adequate timeframe (2-3 years), for the capacity building needs you have. Now you know how much capacity capital you need to raise.
Brainstorm Capacity Donors
Just as you would with a traditional capital campaign, create a list of potential donors to whom you will pitch this “capacity capital campaign.” This is where the real magic happens — when you turn traditional donors into capacity building donors, perhaps without them even knowing it. A good capacity building donor is someone (a major individual donor, board member, or foundation funder) who is already a donor to your nonprofit and can be convinced (through your excellent persuasion skills) that an investment in your capacity building plan (above) will actually help your organization do even more of the things they love.
Work the Prospect List
Just as you would in a major donor campaign, begin meeting one-on-one with these prospective capacity building donors to share your capacity building plan and articulate how critically important these capacity building investments are to the future of your work together. Make a clear, compelling argument about how greater organizational capacity will help you further the mission that these donors love. Connect greater effectiveness and sustainability directly to more programming, more people served, more outcomes achieved.
Demonstrate the Return on Their Investment
Once you’ve secured them, provide those donors who become capacity builders a regular update on the progress of your capacity building efforts. And I have seen tremendous results that nonprofits can report on these types of capacity investments. One of my clients was able to translate $65,000 worth of capacity building investments in strategic planning, board development, fundraising training and leader coaching into 300% growth in the number of people they reached with their services. Another client turned $350,000 worth of capacity building investments in a new donor database, fundraising staff and training, and donor research into a $1.4 million annual increase in fundraising. If you make enough and the right kind of capacity investments, you can see gains in programming, efficiency, and fundraising effectiveness, so share those wins with those who invested in them. And believe me, your capacity donors will be hungry for more.
Instead of continuing to complain about a lack of capacity funding in the nonprofit sector, let’s fix it. A big part of the solution lies in nonprofit leaders planning for and initiating capacity building conversations with their current donors. And in so doing, nonprofit leaders themselves can change philanthropy for the better.
To learn more about turning your donors into capacity funders, download the Launch a Capacity Capital Campaign Step-by-Step Guide.
Photo Credit: taxcredits.net
Change is certainly happening within the nonprofit sector and the philanthropy that funds it. From efforts to make philanthropy better at addressing inequity, to movement away from the overhead myth (and other myths), we are witnessing important shifts in how we tackle (and fund that tackling of) social challenges.
But I’m hungry for more.
And more could emerge from honest and transparent conversations about what is holding the social change sector back. There are some key hurdles facing the sector, and we have no hope of finding solutions to those challenges unless we start some no holds barred conversations, like:
- What keeps nonprofits from creating more sustainable business models?
Everyone understands that nonprofits are sorely under-resourced and struggle to find sustainable financing for their work. But few are trying to really understand how we change this reality sector-wide. A few funders have commissioned research on the state of money in the sector, but it’s not nearly enough. I would love to see a real, solutions-oriented conversation about a problem that everyone (nonprofit leaders, boards, funders) knows exists.
- Why do we hold nonprofits to a different standard than for-profits?
Because the nonprofit sector was borne out of the charitable impulse, we continue to see it as more holy than and separate from the for-profit sector. Therefore we are uncomfortable with nonprofits being too political, raising too much money, or spending too much on infrastructure. As a stark example, the nonprofits working for reform to our fairly dysfunctional political system have many fewer resources for and many more restrictions on their efforts than the for-profit lobbyists that the nonprofit reformers are fighting.
- Why won’t we treat nonprofits as equal partners in the economy?
Related to this, because the nonprofit sector emerged as a side-note to the business-driven economy, nonprofits have always been viewed as secondary to, and thus less valuable and important than, the private sector. But you simply cannot have one without the other. The nonprofit sector often provides the research and development, worker support, quality of life and other services that fuel the success and profits of the private sector. Without the nonprofit sector there would be less profit and a weaker economy. So we have to recognize the critical (and equal) role that nonprofits play in creating a strong economy. And we have to begin investing equally in the success of those nonprofits.
- Why are nonprofit boards largely ineffective?
Another truism of the nonprofit sector is that boards just don’t work. I have yet to meet a nonprofit leader who doesn’t have at least some frustration with her board and many are resigned to their board’s deep dysfunction. It is extremely difficult to corral a group of volunteers, to be sure, but instead of accepting that challenge as a rule, let’s figure out how to fix it. Perhaps greater standards and regulations, perhaps compensation for their efforts — I don’t know what the right answer is, but let’s analyze the root causes of this inefficiency and change it.
- How do we direct more money to efforts that result in social change?
There is much debate about whether donors want to give based on the results a nonprofit creates. But if the government is going to continue to off-load social interventions to the nonprofit sector, we don’t have the luxury of letting the funders of those nonprofits give solely based on emotion, reciprocity, or duty. You may not believe in “effective altruism” (the idea that philanthropy should flow to the most effective social interventions), but the fact remains that with mounting social problems and a resource-constrained and gridlocked government, a growing burden for addressing social challenges is falling to the nonprofit sector. Nonprofits will only be able to rise to this challenge if the solutions that work have enough resources to actually work. So let’s recognize the tension among increasing social problems, less government involvement, and lack of money and figure out how to fix it.
It’s time for bigger conversations. We have to openly face the challenges standing in the way of social change and figure out a way forward together.
Photo Credit: Paul Thompson
A lot of the conversation in September centered around inequality, philanthropy and data. When do data and philanthropy address inequality and when do they actually reinforce it? And if you add to that discussion about whether donors really care about impact; concern about the distracting, addicting influence of social media; and a call for philanthropists to be more supportive of nonprofit organizations, September was a very interesting month in the world of social change.
- Equity has certainly become the new buzzword in philanthropy. But some are skeptical that philanthropy, as it currently operates, can actually impact it. Writing in The Guardian, Courtney Martin argues that in order to truly achieve equity, philanthropy must fundamentally change: “If we really want to reinvent philanthropy then we are going to have to look at the underlying historic and structural causes of poverty and work to dismantle them and put new systems in their place. It’s also about culture – intentionally creating boundary-bashing friendships, learning to ask better, more generous questions, taking up less space. It’s about what we are willing to acknowledge about the origins of our own wealth and privilege. It’s about reclaiming values that privilege often robs us of: first and foremost, humility. But also trust in the ingenuity and goodness of other people, particularly those without financial wealth.”
- Marjorie Kelly argues that the key to addressing wealth inequality is to return to the old model of worker ownership.
- And speaking of wealth inequality, The New York Times slices and dices U.S. income data over the last couple of decades to understand how inequality varies by state over time.
- According to Cathy O’Neil’s new book, Weapons of Math Destruction, the increased availability of data may actually be worsening wealth inequality. Journalist Aimee Rawlins reviews O’Neil’s book, which paints a very unsettling picture of how data is being used to lengthen prison sentences for people with a family history of crime, raise interest rates on a loan because of the borrower’s zip code, and otherwise reinforce our broken system. But perhaps data can also help address wealth inequality. The Salvation Army and Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy have released a new tool for mapping poverty in the U.S. The Human Needs Index (HNI) uses Salvation Army service data from communities across the country to track human need across seven areas. The idea is that with an improved ability to map need, philanthropy can more effectively address that need.
- One of the biggest uses of data in philanthropy is to prove the impact an intervention has, but Matthew Gerken argues that donors aren’t actually interested in impact. New research from Penelope Burk’s Cygnus Applied Research might disagree.
- Andrew Sullivan, the formerly prolific blogger, has had an epiphany about our addiction to social media and writes an amazing long-form piece about our “distraction sickness.” If you worry that our always on culture is leaving something to be desired, read this.
- Last month many were bemoaning philanthropy’s slow and weak response to the devastating summer flooding in Lousiana. Well, it looks like crowdfunding has come to the rescue.
- Long-time funder Elspeth Revere, retired from the MacArthur Foundation, writes a scathing critique of philanthropy’s unwillingness to fund nonprofits effectively and sustainably. As she puts it, “The challenges facing America and, indeed, the world require philanthropy to be as effective as possible. Nonprofit organizations are philanthropy’s partners in addressing these challenges. They have unusual flexibility to take risks and pursue solutions to our most pressing problems. As grant makers, we need to focus our attention and philanthropic resources on building strong leadership and solid, sustainable, and diverse institutions that address the problems and opportunities we care most about.” Amen!
- Jyoti Sharma, president of the Indian water and sanitation nonprofit FORCE, worries that a current focus on social entrepreneurship as the solution to world ills leaves much behind. As she argues, “Do we need to see social entrepreneurship as a “non”-nonprofit? Should we instead promote hybrid models that plan the social change effort with both charity and revenue streams? Should we encourage community entrepreneur networks where charity funds are used to support entrepreneurial efforts from within a beneficiary community that help solve their social problem? Should we advocate for governments and corporates to join hands with nonprofits in planning, delivering, and monitoring welfare services? Equally, should we set ethical and social responsibility standards for entrepreneurships and applaud them for their contribution to society?”
- And finally, the Nonprofit Tech for Good blog pulls back the curtain on social media with their “12 Not-So-Great Realities About Nonprofits and Social Media.”
Photo Credit: Ixtlilto
It never ceases to amaze me how often nonprofit leaders give away their expertise and their time – for free.
Here’s just the most recent example I’ve encountered.
A leader of an education nonprofit, let’s call her “Amy,” was approached by a group of funders who wanted to start a similar program in a different city. They had already identified a potential leader of the effort, but this leader, let’s call him “Mark,” was pretty inexperienced in working with school districts and in managing a large scale nonprofit effort.
So the group of funders asked if Amy would be willing to help Mark. This would involve Amy sitting in on some community meetings and providing one-on-one coaching on a regular basis to Mark.
Because Amy’s nonprofit also received funding from some of these funders, she felt obligated to comply. And let me be clear, Amy was offered absolutely no compensation for her time, effort and expertise.
There are several things wrong with this situation.
First, although this group of funders found tremendous value in Amy’s expertise, they did not assign any financial value to that expertise. They sought her out, and indeed already determined that their effort would be hampered without Amy’s guidance. However, they also assumed (perhaps subconsciously) that this nonprofit leader was so passionate about the education space, that she would be more than willing to donate her time.
Second, Amy herself did not assign a financial value to her time. She was complicit in the funders’ assumption that, while her time has huge social change value, it has no financial value. But the two must correlate. Amy’s time is a limited resource. And thus she must calculate the financial value of that resource.
But, third, nonprofit leaders don’t necessarily have the tools to calculate the value of their time.
In the hopes that other nonprofit leaders don’t get caught in Amy’s predicament, here’s a quick three-step process for calculating the financial value of your time as a social change expert, based on the financial value your organization assigns to your time.
- Determine Your Annual Cost: Take your annual salary and add the monetary value of your annual benefits (healthcare contribution, social security contribution, etc.). Typically benefits are calculated at an additional 25% of your salary. So, if your annual salary is $85,000 you would multiply that by 1.25 to get the total of your salary plus your annual benefits: $85,000 x 1.25 = $106,250.
- Determine Your Hourly Cost: Then, divide that salary + benefits number by the average number of working hours in a full-time position (so 52 weeks a year at 40 hours per week is 2,080 hours per year). I know you probably work more than 2,080 hours in a year, but this is just a general full-time number of hours. So, in this example, your hourly rate would be $106,250 / 2,080 = $51.08. Or $51 per hour, just to make it easy.
- Determine Your Hourly Value: If you are feeling bold, you can add a profit margin to this number, just as anyone who is paid to offer their expertise (lawyer, consultant, doctor) does. The idea here is that if someone pays you $51 for an hour of your expertise, you are only breaking even. But if you actually want to make a bit of profit that you can plow back into your organization, you could add in a little margin. So perhaps you round up to $65 per hour.
Now, you have a number you can use.
If Amy had been armed with such a calculation, when the group of funders came to her, she could have estimated the number of hours required (including community meetings, coaching, etc.) and then presented it to the funders. Perhaps the hours totaled 50 over the course of a 12-month period. This would have a financial value then of 50 x $65 per hour = $3,250, which I would argue is still a very conservative valuation.
So that group of funders would need to make a payment to Amy’s nonprofit (above their normal contributions) of $3,250 in order for her to agree to their request.
(And now that you have a way to calculate the hourly value of your time, you can also use it to determine the value of your time spent on other things — for example, fundraising activities like this.)
I can hear nonprofit leaders and funders gasping, “How dare you suggest that a nonprofit leader ‘charge’ a funder for her time.” And others might worry that funders would be offended by the request and end their other contributions to Amy’s nonprofit.
But shouldn’t nonprofit leaders be aware of (and transparent about) the costs embedded in how they are spending (and being asked to spend) their time? Nonprofit leaders and funders could then have a more illuminating conversation. Perhaps Amy’s group of funders won’t want to invest $3,250 in starting up Mark’s new nonprofit. If that is the case, then they probably weren’t very committed to the new effort in the first place. Far better to know that up front rather than after Amy sunk 50 hours into something that has nothing to do with her organization.
It’s time for nonprofit leaders (and their funders) to recognize the financial value of the social change expertise those leaders possess and invest accordingly.
Photo Credit: David Lofink
In today’s Social Velocity interview, I’m talking with Aaron Dorfman, President and CEO of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a research and advocacy organization that works to ensure America’s grantmakers are responsive to the needs of those with the least wealth, opportunity and power. Before joining NCRP in 2007, Dorfman served for 15 years as a community organizer with two national organizing networks, spearheading grassroots campaigns on a variety of issues. He also serves on the board of The Center for Popular Democracy.
You can read other interviews in the Social Velocity Interview Series here.
Nell: What is your take on recent concerns about donor advised funds locking too much philanthropic money away from directly reaching nonprofits? Is the recent growth of DAFs a good thing or a bad thing, or is it more complicated?
Aaron: It’s definitely complicated.
On the one hand, I’m sympathetic to how much easier DAFs have made things for donors. I do some of my own charitable giving through a small DAF, and I love the convenience of it. I have no doubt that other donors also find DAFs to be a very helpful development in philanthropy.
However, many of the concerns raised by critics are also valid.
There is little or no evidence that DAFs have contributed to an increase in overall charitable giving, for example, and there certainly isn’t any evidence that the funds have boosted giving to historically marginalized communities. So, if there has been no increase in overall giving, then what DAFs have done is to delay the giving.
Another concern is that DAFs provide donors with significant tax advantages over private foundations – but at the cost of transparency. Most DAFs don’t accept unsolicited proposals, and reporting by sponsoring institutions doesn’t identify grants with individual funds. Practically speaking, that means that most of these funds are inaccessible to most nonprofits. They’re traditionally housed at community foundations, but they’re not directly open to receiving proposals from community-based nonprofits, though proposals may be steered there by foundation staff acting as gatekeepers.
We found this to be true in a recent in-depth assessment we conducted of the Oregon Community Foundation. This was especially the experience of nonprofits serving and/or led by communities of color, who already have the hardest time accessing mainstream philanthropic support.
The lack of access by community nonprofits is even more troubling when you consider the fastest growing of the DAFs: the funds located at the giant financial industry warehouses like Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard. There, no one is putting nonprofit proposals in front of donors who might be interested.
The lack of adequate reporting reinforces this problem of access: since the IRS does not require DAF sponsors to report which funds made which grants, grant seekers cannot take advantage of reports to identify potentially like-minded donors. (DAF sponsors have begun making greater amounts of information available about their grants, but what they provide is of limited help to grantseeking nonprofits because they don’t identify which funds made which grants.) This is further compounded by the fact that at present the major foundation database (Foundation Center) doesn’t systematically track giving by the likes of Vanguard, Schwab and Fidelity, most of whose funding simply doesn’t appear in the database.
Nell: Some people have argued that since philanthropy itself is built upon an inequitable market economy it can serve to reinforce that inequality. Is there a disconnect, or can we expect philanthropy to appreciably contribute to greater equity? What do you make of the debates about philanthropy that redistributes wealth and philanthropy that simply reinforces power and economic imbalances?
Aaron: There is no question that philanthropy can and has done both of these things.
When the Ford Foundation provides support for grassroots community organizing, or for litigation to protect and expand civil rights, that’s an example of philanthropy clearly contributing to greater equity.
When Atlantic Philanthropies, The California Endowment and other funders supported advocacy that contributed to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), that, too, was a case of philanthropy appreciably contributing to a more equitable society.
These are just a couple of examples of funders who understand their goals and their vision for society to be disruptive to the status quo; funders who understand the role unjust economic systems have played in the issues they would like their dollars to help overcome. The “disconnect” between market economics and progressive philanthropy is not impossible to overcome, and many of the more than 200 grantmakers that have signed on to NCRP’s Philanthropy’s Promise initiative are leading the way in showing other funders how to do just that.
However, when certain foundations support elite universities, when they invest only in white-led cultural organizations that emphasize European-American culture, or when they invest in advocacy to privatize public education at the expense of low-income communities – then you have some clear examples of how philanthropy reinforces inequality.
There was a great series of articles published recently in The Nation that explores these ideas, and what the future of philanthropy might be for those of us who hope to see a greater philanthropic contribution to fairness, equity and justice.
Nell: You have written before about philanthropy’s historical role in funding social movements. What do you make of philanthropy in the Black Lives Matter movement? How involved has philanthropy been, and how involved do you think philanthropy should be?
Aaron: There is a paradox here. Philanthropy has always under-funded social movements. However, philanthropic funding has also been essential to the success of social movements. We documented this in a 2014 paper Freedom Funders: Philanthropy and the Civil Rights Movement, 1955-1965.
The Black Lives Matter movement has thus far received very little support from institutional philanthropy. A group of foundation staff members have formed Funders for Justice as a way to learn together and to accelerate the flow of funding to the movement. They’re making headway, but the movement is still receiving very little support. Some individual donors, mostly younger and working through the Solidaire Network, have been able to move money more quickly to the movement.
The Hill-Snowdon Foundation, a small family foundation based in D.C., has been a real leader on this. They dipped into their corpus and have devoted new resources to creating the Making Black Lives Matter initiative and are attempting to organize their peers in philanthropy to invest in black-led organizing and in the Movement for Black Lives. The foundation is a past winner of the NCRP Impact Awards, which recognizes smart philanthropy that empowers underserved communities and achieves real results.
Also, Black professionals in philanthropy have been organizing through the Association of Black Foundation Executives and its Philanthropic Action for Racial Justice initiative.
I should add, too, that movement leaders have rejected some philanthropic support that was offered to them because it came with too many strings attached. In some respects, it’s been a good thing that the movement has not been dependent on philanthropy, since foundation support so often serves to rein in radical social movements.
Nell: The nonprofit sector has historically stayed away from advocacy work, but that seems to be changing. What role do you think nonprofits can and should play in advocacy, and will there be more of a push for that in the future?
Aaron: Advocacy and community organizing are among the best ways for foundations and nonprofits to leverage their limited dollars in pursuit of their missions. By changing public policies and/or the regulatory framework, we can transform society and build the kind of nation we all want to inhabit. Any nonprofit or foundation that is serious about achieving its mission must understand how advocacy fits into their overall strategy.
NCRP has challenged grantmakers to devote at least 25% of grant dollars to funding nonprofit advocacy and organizing, but fewer than 100 of the largest 1,000 foundations in the country meet that benchmark. The number of serious advocacy funders is increasing, but slowly.
Nonprofit advocates bring the voices of people and communities to policy makers. They are a greatly needed counter balance to the growing influence of corporate lobbyists, who often advocate only the narrowest self-interests of their industry. I think many, many people in our sector understand this and that we will see an expansion of nonprofit advocacy in the coming years, and that an increasing number for foundations and high net worth donors will provide ever-increasing resources for that advocacy work.
Photo Credit: NCRP
I’m excited to be heading to Pennsylvania next month to speak at the 2016 Nonprofit Day Conference. My keynote address for the conference will be “The Future of the Nonprofit Sector.” I wanted to share an abbreviated version of the speech with you here via the Social Velocity Slideshare library.
In my mind, there are some fundamental shifts happening in the sector that will be important to watch. They include:
- Increasing competition in the space
- A greater demand for results and social change
- An increased use of advocacy to achieve that change
- A move to more “networked” approaches
- Less “starving” nonprofits of their operational needs
- And (of course) a move from fundraising to financing
These are interesting times, and they hold tremendous opportunity, I think, for the social change sector.