Philanthropy Sketchbook

Although this essay by Dr. Andre Perry is largely aimed at education funders, it is true of philanthropy generally, and one of the best things I’ve read about philanthropy in awhile.

I was especially struck by this point, about metrics:

“To keep their philanthropic funding, nonprofits have to live up to metrics that often come from the business world. These are measures funders understand, because that’s how they gained their wealth. But that money often was acquired through privilege and sometimes exploitation of impoverished groups. Expecting black and brown organizations to perform like their white counterparts often means working against their interest.”

The Library of Things in London is a place where members can borrow items (tools, sewing machines, camping gear, cooking utensils, etc.) for a week, just like checking books out of a library. There’s a similar sharing service in the US called Neighborgoods which I wrote about a long time ago. Whereas Neighborgoods is more like an impersonal marketplace, the Library of Things fosters in-person connections in the community through pot luck dinners as well as workshops and training sessions. I love this model and would love to launch a Library of Things in New Jersey.

A similarly great idea: the Repair Cafe, which was originally launched in Amsterdam, brings people together to help each other fix the stuff they have, rather than buying new stuff. It turns out there are quite a few repair cafes in the US, though none near me in NJ.  

Here’s how to start a Library of Things via Shareable

Here’s how to launch your own Repair Cafe

Is the Library of Things an answer to our peak stuff problem? (Guardian)

San Francisco artist mends clothes and builds community - just by giving a darn (Grist)

Photographs: Sebastian Wood, Guardian

on philanthropy - on the Dos and Don’ts of proposals, on honesty, metrics, and what I think is a big missed opportunity for nonprofits. Take a listen to this short podcast with Joan Garry interviewing me: Unlocking the Mystery of Foundation Funding

Image

The MacArthur Foundation is going to give one organization $100 million to solve one of the world’s problems. 

There are three things I really like about this:

1. It’s bold. Philanthropy should be bold. 
   
2. It sounds like they’re being thoughtful about giving the winning organization a lot of technical assistance, and 
   
3. They are smartly inviting other foundations into the process with the hope that some of the ideas will be funded by others (this is where I wish I could just write checks on behalf of wealthy individuals).
   

MacArthur President Julia Stasch is an inspiration.

More details on the announcement here. I can’t wait to see what comes out of this.

This is the start of a list:

- Your idea / proposal does not meet our guidelines. Guidelines are more nuanced than what can be captured on a foundation’s website - research is important to try to understand what those guidelines actually mean.

- There is no money in the budget to fund your idea this year. Maybe next year.

- We are already funding similar work. 

- We’re not convinced that you can deliver on your promises. 

- It’s not the right timing - you might be proposing something that the foundation cares about but just isn’t ready to fund yet.

- Your proposal doesn’t connect to any other work that the foundation is already funding; it’s always best when you can demonstrate intersections with other ideas / programs / grantees a foundation is funding.

- We didn’t feel energized by your proposal because you didn’t communicate your idea clearly enough.

Image

“Farhad Ebrahimi would like to see philanthropy as we know it, and the inequality that created it, cease to exist.”

One of the ways that philanthropy fails routinely - if you ask me - is that it is far too risk averse, when in fact the luxury and privilege of philanthropy is to be bold. Which is why this profile of Farhad Ebrahimi and the Chorus Foundation  is one of the best things I’ve read about philanthropy in a long time. Bravo, Farhad.  via Inside Philanthropy

A piece of advice:

When you go back to a foundation and ask for more money - separate from the regular renewal process - be judicious with your request and give compelling reasons. Make that extra request count.

Foundations are not ATMs, so don’t treat them that way.

Image

These are two thought-provoking pieces especially when read side-by-side: “Philanthropy Is on a Collision Course With Presidential Campaign Politics” and “Jane Mayer’s ‘Dark Money,’ About the Koch Brothers’ Fortune and Influence.”

I suspect that philanthropy is generally still equated with “charity” - feeding the hungry, providing shelter and services to the homeless, donations to universities for cancer research - which is why it tends to get a pass for its lack of transparency. The assumption is that the intentions are almost always good, even if the impact or outcome isn’t always as intended. 

Yet, as Mayer points out in her book, over three decades the Koch brothers “contributed well over $100 million, much of it undisclosed, to dozens of seemingly independent organizations aimed at advancing their radical ideas.” This is also philanthropy, also tax-deductible.

I won’t be surprised if the continued deluge of dark money in politics and high profile Silicon Valley donations force nonprofits and the philanthropic sector to grapple with transparency sooner than they would prefer and not on their own terms.

Image

In his recent New Yorker piece, James Surowiecki is essentially arguing that because big philanthropy helps target large, sticky problems that government and the private sector are unwilling to pay for, then we ought to be grateful for the Zuckerbergs and the Gates of the world. 

He seems to make the assumptions that “philanthropy” always has good intentions and usually, on balance, has a broad public benefit. 

 Surowiecki notes :

“Philanthropies, by contrast, have far-reaching time horizons and almost no one they have to please.” 

[i.e. no accountability whatsoever. Shudder.] 

And

“This can lead them to pour money into controversial causes, as Zuckerberg has with education reform.” 

[This was a a disastrous $100 million investment. Read Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize”.]

Philanthropy often inflicts harm - whether it’s misguided/ignorant (Zuckerberg’s funding of Newark school reform) or outright intended to undermine democractic processes (donations to super PACs).

If you want to read some really thought provoking work on how philanthropy undermines democracy and civic participation, check out Rob Reich at Stanford.

I am not always a fan of David Callahan at Inside Philanthropy, but found myself nodding vigorously to these paragraphs in his recent look at Pierre and Pam Omidyar’s more expansive vision for philanthropy and the tools we have at our disposal that we’re not making use of:

Let’s face it: The traditional model of philanthropy is ridiculously limited. Decades from now, we may look back in disbelief at how the biggest foundations in America kept the vast majority of their assets sitting on the sidelines as they tried to pursue hugely ambitious goals using one limited tool for social change, while ignoring the potential of for-profit social enterprises, and abiding by conservative payout rates.

I understand the reasons why moving away from the old model is hard, slow, and scary. Even more so, I sympathize with the ideological discomfort with allowing market-based thinking to penetrate to the heart of the social sector. In a world where too much is already for sale, it’s not an appealing thought that business types may colonize yet another part of society.

But the thing to remember is that Omidyarism is not about throwing out one tool chest and summarily replacing it with one more to the liking of Milton Friedman. It’s about drawing on a much wider array of tools to have impact.