Dance with me

Earlier, I posted about the "save a dance" feature of certain conference websites. This allows conference-goers to pre-book meetings with others who will be attending the conference - cutting down on all that frantic chasing in hallways that otherwise happens. You can see it in action and read about it here - from a conference hosted by Civic Ventures.

Thanks, Amy, for finding the link.

Strategic Plans Online

You here a lot of talk about transparency in philanthropy. Mostly about the need for more of it. Two grantmakers, the Vermont Community Foundation and Changemakers have actually done something about. Both have posted their Strategic Plans online. You can see VCF's Ends Statement here and download its Strategic Plan (and previous iterations of it) here. Changemakers' Plan is here.

Jan predicts the future

In an "exit interview" with The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Jan Masaoka, is asked her thoughts on future trends. Her call: "I think we're going to see foundations increasingly doing program work directly."

Jan also notes that she is leaving her current position to find the one "last big project" for herself. While she anticipates facing race, gender, and age discrimination, she says, "If I want to do something that takes 10 or 15 years, I figure I'd better start now." Read the full interview here.

Good luck, Jan. Thanks for everything. Go get 'em!

Give it away and manage it yourself

Stanford University (Endowment of ~$12 BB) joins Harvard University (endowment of ~$30 BB) in offering donors the opportunity to invest their Charitable Remainder Trust contributions along with the Universities' endowments (Stanford and Harvard both managed more than 15% average annual growth over the last ten years)

Creating Infectious Action

Bad health metaphors aside, this class at the Stanford d.school is intriguing. Imagine if philanthropists and nonprofits could deploy what is learned "to spread positive behaviors."

This class, on Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability puts into practice one of my seven "building blocks" of open philanthropy which is to "build for the poorest."

Learning from success

Democrats, giddy from electoral success on Tuesday, are already gearing up for the Presidential election in 2008 (no doubt, Republicans, while less-giddy, are also gearing up). To steal a line from Stephen Colbert, if November 7 was known to most Americans as "next Tuesday," then November 8 was to be known as "the start of the 2008 campaign."

Among the cacophonous outburst of blogging, real-time news reporting (I got 2 emails announcing Rumsfeld's resignation while I was waiting for the streaming audio of Bush's press conference to start), media-analysis and self-congratulatory puffery floating around the web, I found this post by Zack Exley on Roots Camp. This is a series of "un-conferences" for democratic political leaders and the grassroots organizers who made the victory possible to come together and make sure the infrastructure isn't lost in the victory. Roots Camps will be held in DC, San Francisco, Bloomington, IN, and Columbus, OH with support from the New Organizing Institute and Emerging Progressives.

As the Council on Foundations prepares for its Philanthropy 2008 event, there is lots to learn from these kinds of unconferences (foo camp, bar camp and, now, Roots Camp). Inclusive agenda setting, participatory discussions, the use of dance cards and back channels, smaller real-life gatherings networked into a larger movement - this is how to get together and make change happen.

Dismal Science

Economics is called the dismal science. Despite the recent popularity of Freakonomics and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, I've always assumed it was called this because 1) the quality of economic writing was so dreadful and 2) because the content of economic analysis was often so dreary. Maybe its just because its just so rationally depressing...as seen in yet another study showing that there is nothing economically sound about philanthropy. Read a review here and download the paper here (click on link, "recent experiment")

Traffic circles. Not sexy, but important.

The Cleveland Foundation deserves praise for investing in improving the safety of the University Circle area of Cleveland. There is nothing sexy, or exciting, or innovative about fixing a city infrastructure, but as this story in Wednesday's NY Times shows, such infrastructure is critical to revitalizing a neighborhood, a downtown, a city, a state, (egad, even a nation, witness the non-rebuilding in Iraq).

Even though the story opens with the role played by a commercial architecture firm, the laundry list of organizations involved in literally rebuilding this part of the city is a "who's who" of nonprofits, including the Cleveland Orchestra, Case Western Reserve University, the Cleveland Clinic, the Cleveland Botanical Gardens, and the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

And, just a random note, University Circle in Cleveland is nearby the city's Rockefeller Park. The story on this rebuilding effort appeared on page C6 of Wednesday's national edition of the NY Times. On page C7 (facing page) was a story of a super "green"development called Riverhouse, the address of which is One Rockefeller Park (New York City).

And some more on microfinance

I really like this blog, "How the World Works" by Andrew Leonard. Here is his thoughtful piece on the need for evidence that microfinance institutions work to get people out of poverty, not just that they can be good businesses.

Community foundations and public policy

Some community foundations are active on local policy issues. Witness the Rhode Island Foundation, which has worked hard for months on a statewide bond for affordable housing. Lots of this work was done in partnership and much of it happened behind the scenes.

But as the election neared, the Foundation's weekly e-news included information on the issue, the Foundation President sent an email blast encouraging the Foundation's constituents to vote for the measure, and the Foundation's home page includes a prominent call to vote.

And it looks like the ballot measure passed.

Impressive.

Dashboards for democracy

I've had plenty to say over time about philanthropy and metrics. "Dashboards" are one hot item in philanthropy - quick, easy to read presentations of key metrics.

Last night's elections across the USA gave MSNBC plenty of "quick"moving data to feed into its dashboard - check it out here. For another cool, real-time dashboard check out the People Ranker at "Eat the Press" on The Huffington Post (HuffPo in blog speak).

Green Philanthropy

This week San Francisco is host to the Green Business Summit and the Green Festival.* With the exception of the Calvert Foundation's involvement in the Festival, there aren't many signs that philanthropy is part of this movement.


* Also in town: Grantmakers for Education and Web 2.0 Summit, but they have nothing to do with my point.

More microfinance

I ranted about the recent rush to microfinance here. Then I received this press release about a big gift from the Gates Foundation to Unitus to "study and improve efficiency in the microfinance industry." All the work is focused on making microfinance institutions work more efficiently and grow faster. That's great. But do they WORK?

Fantasy philanthropy

There are online marketplaces for almost everything. Fantasy football has been big business for twenty years and you can now trade professional athletes on ProTrade the way you'd trade stocks on e*trade. Today I heard radio announcers talking about playing "Fantasy Congress" tomorrow. The Motley Fool has been running Foolanthropy for ten years - pick a nonprofit, vote for it, get others to, and see how much money you can drive to the cause of your choice.

Social connections and elections

Allison Fine, author of Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age will host the first chat for the Chronicle of Philanthropy beginning on November 13. Finally, the philanthropic conversation goes on line. Join in here to learn more about connectivity and social change, to celebrate or bemoan election results (this is being written while polls are STILL open) or to share stories of how your organization is working with communities in new ways.

Vote Today!

Global millions and billions

In a recent talk at the Long Now Foundation, Katerhine Fulton noted that there are more than 10,000 Americans with net worth of more than $100 Million. This year, everyone on the Forbes 400 list had at least a billion US Dollars.

The money isn't just in America. China has "27,310 people with private property worth more than 50 million yuan, and 3,220 own more than 100 million worth." The country had 15 billionaires on the Forbes 400 list. Here's a map of the rest of the billionaires.

Not your father's nonprofit

My previous post on capital markets made some bold claims about the money. Don't forget the structure of those doing the work in the social sector is also changing.

Take a look at Biopact, for example. This is an international (intercontinental, actually), grassroots, volunteer-run effort to develop mutually beneficial biofuel for Europe and Africa. Lets hope funders don't screw it up.

Capital Markets: Follow the Money

The biggest opportunity for philanthropy in the next 25 years will be to proactively redesign capital markets for public benefit work. After a recent conversation with Jed Emerson, I have a hypothesis: There is more money flowing to public benefit endeavors from commercial investors and the corporate sector than from philanthropy.

That is to say, with commercial investments in alternative energy, real socially-beneficial enterprise, inner-city employment and job training efforts, and so on, the funds that are paying for things that we think of as nonprofit social goods coming from entities trying to make a buck are greater than those coming from individuals and foundations (which were about $242 BB USD in 2005).

NOW don't get me wrong - I AM NOT saying that the commercial investments in social goods is greater than the corresponding investments in social "bads" - pollution, corrupt leadership, lousy pay, union busting, human and natural resource exploitation, etc. etc. I am saying the capital markets for social goods are 1) not well understood, 2) not transparent, and 3) full of surprises. As long as foundations, for example, keep 95% of their assets off the table for investing in their missions, we can be pretty sure the big bucks are coming from somewhere else.

I'd love the opportunity to work with the right folks to track these revenue flows. If we can map the revenue (follow the money) we stand a much better chance of advocating for the capital market changes that Jan Masaoka, Clara Miller and others are calling for.

Show me the...proof...not just the money

Thanks to the friends who know my pile of New Yorker magazines is taller than my son. They know that the chances I've read an article in the October 30 2006 issue are slim to none and so drew my attention to last week's article on microfinance and Muhammad Yunus.

So here's the question: Where is the proof? Does microfinance actually get people out of poverty or does it just make them less poor?

Since microcredit and microfinance has become the 20-years-in-the-making-overnight-sensation of American philanthropists it is sure to attract 100s of millions (perhaps even billions) of USD in philanthropic investment. But there's plenty of time for a track record - where's the proof that it works?

worldchanging

This book - WorldChanging - is cool. It well deserves its moniker as "the Whole Earth Catalogue for the iPod generation." As someone who still owns a copy of the Catalogue and also owns an iPod, I find it reassuring that the book and the website exist.

Why 2173?

The title of this blog, Philanthropy 2173 refers to the year 2173. Why that year? Attached is dialogue from Woody Allen's movie, Sleeper, which takes place in 2173.

Person 1: "HAS HE ASKED FOR ANYTHING SPECIAL ?"

Person 2: "YES, THIS MORNING FOR BREAKFAST. HE REQUESTED SOMETHING
CALLED WHEAT GERM, ORGANIC HONEY AND TIGER'S MILK."

[ Laughs ]
Person 1; "OH, YES. THOSE WERE THE CHARMED SUBSTANCES...THAT SOME YEARS AGO WERE FELT TO CONTAIN LIFE-PRESERVING PROPERTIES."

Person 2: "YOU MEAN THERE WAS NO DEEP FAT ? NO STEAK OR CREAM PIES
OR HOT FUDGE ?"

Person 1: "THOSE WERE THOUGHT TO BE UNHEALTHY, PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE
OF WHAT WE NOW KNOW TO BE TRUE."

So, lets talk about the future. But we best keep our sense of humor about how sure we are of what we say.

Warren Buffett Redefines Payout

I had an interesting conversation with Buzz Schmidt of Guidestar UK. He claims that Warren Buffett did not give $30BB to the Gates Foundation, as was widely publicized. Schmidt's read of the Buffett announcement (as reported in Fortune Magazine) is that Buffett gave 5% of the value of a set amount of Berkshire Hathaway stock. Under certain likely circumstances, which Schmidt details in an upcoming piece in Alliance Magazine, Buffett figured out a way to give the Foundation an awful lot of money (as long as Bill and Melinda Gates remain actively involved), while holding onto even more of it. If he's giving 5% of the value of the shares, that means he's holding on to 95% of the value - thus getting credit for giving $30BB while actually retaining the majority of the pile and watching it grow.

On the face of it, its not too surprising that "America's greatest investor" would figure out a way to make a buck even while giving it away. And its not at all unlike what foundations themselves do, granting 5% of their assets to good causes while investing the other 95% to perpetuate themselves.