The paradox of insular language
3 years ago
Monday, March 29, 2010
My Blog has moved!
My blog has changed names and its web address to better capture the focus of my postings. Please go to Smart Philanthropy to subscribe to the new feed.
Read more!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Philanthrovestment: A philanthropic investment that shares returns with difference-making organizations
Where do you stand on the continuum between charitable giving without expectations and social capital markets that expect social and financial returns? Philanthropists and their advisors are staking claims all along the continuum. The balance many are seeking is to learn from the best business practices without overreacting against the beautiful simplicity of charitable intent.
David Hunter staked his claim in an October 2009 article entitled The End of Charity: How to Fix the Nonprofit Sector Through Effective Social Investing where he demanded that pure charitable intent (which he admits can degrade into “delusional optimism”) be replaced by social investors requiring demonstrated social impact. His passion is performance-based philanthropy. In a recent series of Tactical Philanthropy blogs Sean-Stannard Stockton has been pushing for the integration of philanthropy and social capital markets. In fact his review of the 2009 SoCap Conference in Alliance Magazine made such an impact that conference organizer Kevin Jones has created the Tactical Philanthropy Track for Sean to present his ideas at the 2010 conference. This momentum surfaces the question: what new ways can we combine smart giving that gets results and investments that produce financial returns?
Defining Philanthrovestments
One answer is a philanthrovestment. A Philanthrovestment combines the characteristics of a grant with the financial returns of an investment. It targets giving opportunities that build the capacity of a nonprofit organization while providing ongoing revenue streams for operational sustainability. How does it work? To ensure that the capital injection will produce ongoing revenue for the nonprofit the recipient of the funds agrees to return a portion of the philanthrovestment to the philanthrovester at a designated time in the future. Since the philanthrovester is passionate about proving the viability of the new revenue streams and impacting humanity through the organizations services, there is a financial repayment but the the repayment is only partial. Then the philanthrovester has the opportunity to decide if another deposit into the nonprofit program is appropriate. That decision can be made based on the organization’s demonstrated impact or lack there of.
What does a philanthrovestment look like in action? Recently our philanthropic advisory firm Excellence in Giving sat down with a young microfinance organization in South Africa to create one. The US-based organization, Paradigm Shift, partners with South African churches who want to serve the poor by creating locally operated economic development programs that combine business training, microloans, and mentoring. For about $14,800 Paradigm Shift can launch the program, train volunteers to operate it, create a steering committee to oversee it, and establish a $10,000 revolving loan fund that serves approximately 175 entrepreneurs every 2 years. Once established the industry-low interest rate of 19.6% on the 5-month microloans can fully fund the program for years to come (taking into account currency risk). In this scenario a philanthrovestment is priced at $14,800 where $4,800 will be expended permanently on building the new program’s capacity while $10,000 (minus inflation) will be returned to the philanthrovester in 24 months. The philanthrovestment model would work for this organization because they require the local partner to buy out the microloan fund over the course of 2 years to ensure local ownership of the program. When we presented this “paradigm shift” to their executive director, their board approved it enthusiastically.
Philanthrovestment 2-step Diagram
The Potential for Philanthrovestments
The philanthrovestment represents one new medium that both invests carefully expecting a return and shares those returns with effective organizations out of love for humanity. In the case of a Guatemalan soccer organization that provides recreation, education, and personal development for children, we introduced one of our clients to a possible philanthrovestment that would produce a financial return and create operational self-sufficiency for their annual programs. Instead of giving a one-time $50,000 gift to cover a year’s worth of programming, a one-time philanthrovestment of $260,000 could build a regulation size Astroturf soccer field that would produce over $100,000 in rental profits annually. Those profits could be split 50/50 between the philanthrovester and nonprofit organization for the life of the field, or the philanthrovester could turn over all profits to the organization once the original amount is repaid and/or real social impact has been demonstrated for multiple years.
As philanthropists and their advisors continue to think critically about combining the best business practices and philanthropic goals, philanthrovestments should take their place alongside the best ideas. And if philanthrovestments sound to you like the right combination of accountability and love for humanity, then give us a call at Excellence in Giving to start maximizing your philanthropic portfolio and making a verifiable difference.
Read more!
David Hunter staked his claim in an October 2009 article entitled The End of Charity: How to Fix the Nonprofit Sector Through Effective Social Investing where he demanded that pure charitable intent (which he admits can degrade into “delusional optimism”) be replaced by social investors requiring demonstrated social impact. His passion is performance-based philanthropy. In a recent series of Tactical Philanthropy blogs Sean-Stannard Stockton has been pushing for the integration of philanthropy and social capital markets. In fact his review of the 2009 SoCap Conference in Alliance Magazine made such an impact that conference organizer Kevin Jones has created the Tactical Philanthropy Track for Sean to present his ideas at the 2010 conference. This momentum surfaces the question: what new ways can we combine smart giving that gets results and investments that produce financial returns?
Defining Philanthrovestments
One answer is a philanthrovestment. A Philanthrovestment combines the characteristics of a grant with the financial returns of an investment. It targets giving opportunities that build the capacity of a nonprofit organization while providing ongoing revenue streams for operational sustainability. How does it work? To ensure that the capital injection will produce ongoing revenue for the nonprofit the recipient of the funds agrees to return a portion of the philanthrovestment to the philanthrovester at a designated time in the future. Since the philanthrovester is passionate about proving the viability of the new revenue streams and impacting humanity through the organizations services, there is a financial repayment but the the repayment is only partial. Then the philanthrovester has the opportunity to decide if another deposit into the nonprofit program is appropriate. That decision can be made based on the organization’s demonstrated impact or lack there of.
What does a philanthrovestment look like in action? Recently our philanthropic advisory firm Excellence in Giving sat down with a young microfinance organization in South Africa to create one. The US-based organization, Paradigm Shift, partners with South African churches who want to serve the poor by creating locally operated economic development programs that combine business training, microloans, and mentoring. For about $14,800 Paradigm Shift can launch the program, train volunteers to operate it, create a steering committee to oversee it, and establish a $10,000 revolving loan fund that serves approximately 175 entrepreneurs every 2 years. Once established the industry-low interest rate of 19.6% on the 5-month microloans can fully fund the program for years to come (taking into account currency risk). In this scenario a philanthrovestment is priced at $14,800 where $4,800 will be expended permanently on building the new program’s capacity while $10,000 (minus inflation) will be returned to the philanthrovester in 24 months. The philanthrovestment model would work for this organization because they require the local partner to buy out the microloan fund over the course of 2 years to ensure local ownership of the program. When we presented this “paradigm shift” to their executive director, their board approved it enthusiastically.
Philanthrovestment 2-step Diagram
The Potential for Philanthrovestments
The philanthrovestment represents one new medium that both invests carefully expecting a return and shares those returns with effective organizations out of love for humanity. In the case of a Guatemalan soccer organization that provides recreation, education, and personal development for children, we introduced one of our clients to a possible philanthrovestment that would produce a financial return and create operational self-sufficiency for their annual programs. Instead of giving a one-time $50,000 gift to cover a year’s worth of programming, a one-time philanthrovestment of $260,000 could build a regulation size Astroturf soccer field that would produce over $100,000 in rental profits annually. Those profits could be split 50/50 between the philanthrovester and nonprofit organization for the life of the field, or the philanthrovester could turn over all profits to the organization once the original amount is repaid and/or real social impact has been demonstrated for multiple years.
As philanthropists and their advisors continue to think critically about combining the best business practices and philanthropic goals, philanthrovestments should take their place alongside the best ideas. And if philanthrovestments sound to you like the right combination of accountability and love for humanity, then give us a call at Excellence in Giving to start maximizing your philanthropic portfolio and making a verifiable difference.
Read more!
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Being Generous by Theodore Roosevelt Malloch: Paul Penley's Book Review
Theodore Roosevelt Malloch’s embrace of the generous life and its reciprocating benefits bleeds through every page of his new book Being Generous. He wrote this short book with one simple goal for its readers: “Discover what being generous means, and begin living it.” Although he proficiently educates us on the tangible value of developing a generous life, he comes up short on practical advice to “begin living it.”
Chapter One (“Generosity: A Universal Moral Urge”) cogently captures the universal religious appreciation for generosity. Whether called Tsedekah, caritas, zakat, dana, Patshatl, or philanthropy, Malloch ably demonstrates that being generous is “not just a core part of the human condition, but a universal moral urge, our defining nature.” (29)
In Chapter Two (“Charity and Gift”) he focuses on his personal religious heritage and explains how Christianity continues the heart of the Jewish Torah summed up in the Creator’s command to “love thy neighbor.” From his analysis of Jesus‘ parable of the Good Samaritan he concludes that “a neighbor is someone whom we encounter and whose need we observe and to which we have the opportunity to respond by giving....” (32) That Christian call to charity has grown louder and wider as “[t]he growing interconnectedness of people around the globe” exposes us to the pressing needs of so many people near and far “from other ethnic groups, other nations, and other religious faiths.” (32) Malloch’s conclusion: God has created us to give, and therefore commanded us to embrace that blueprint for our life.
Chapter Three (“Stewardship Spirituality”) in essence continues the argument of Chapter Two while focusing on the concepts of grace and gratitude. “Those who truly understand the meaning of grace ultimately have just one way to respond, and that is with gratitude.” (41) In a genius historical observation Malloch presents evidence that socialist states replacing the concept of gift with the concept of one’s “right” to all resources for a good life actually dehumanize their citizens and destroy their generosity. For example, Lenin eliminated private charities after the Bolshevik revolution, and the Communist party closed down all ten thousand volunteer societies in Hungary after two years of control. In Malloch’s words, “Remove gift and gratitude from human society, and what remains is not a community but a ‘lonely crowd’.” (43) The main point: erased awareness of undeserved gifts undermines the gratitude that drives generosity.
In making this point about gift, gratitude, and generosity Malloch falls victim to reductionistic logic. How? First, he labels every person’s time, talent, energy, influence, and resources as a gift that they should steward gratefully. Then, he concludes, “[I]f a transformation is to take place and if stewardship is to become a way of life--a kind of ‘life principle’ that touches every corner of life--it must begin with gratitude, with genuine thanksgiving to God for all his wonderful gifts.” (45) This assertion contradicts both scientific facts (see Chapter Six) and anecdotal examples used elsewhere in the book (e.g., Ted Turner). A person may choose to give not out of gratitude but in pursuit of the joy that comes from generosity. It may not be with thankfulness for what one has but with the goal of gaining a feeling and reputation that one does not yet have.
The strict connection between selfless stewardship and gratitude for gifts particularly breaks down when one considers that many resources and talents are the result of working diligently and sacrificially and not merely receiving a gift. It is hard to treat what one has earned as if it were a gift. Of course, here the pragmatic reader bumps into a theological claim that all things come from God whether you earned them or not, and there is no real argument to be had on matters of faith. However, the careful reader will find that Malloch has a difficult time consistently using that logic in his promotion of generosity and view of personal resources. For example, he attributes good generosity in Chapter Five to an “appreciation” for “earning it,” and again in Chapter Eight, “[I]n giving we help ourselves. In giving, we demonstrate that it is we who control our possessions, not vice versa. ...The more we advance in generosity the more we advance in happiness and in turn are motivated to increase the good fortune of others.” (102) there are many more motivations to give than gratitude for gifts.
Chapter Four (“Time, Treasure, and Talent”) provides a concise reminder that giving can and in its most fulfilling forms will involve our time and talent, not just our treasure. There is little argument to be had, and I might add, fresh insight to be gained from his basic reminder. Overall, I applaud his comments in Chapter Four on “risky” giving but question his reductionistic claim about the concept of “genuine” gifts. As for “risky” giving Malloch notes that our “risk-averse society” blockades great gifts and hinders our growth as human beings (58). If the risk of giving ourselves and our resources prevents bold giving, then it in fact frustrates our pursuit of the deepest human experiences and joys. Being a philanthropy advisor myself, I have seen clients confirm his conclusion when they recall that the greatest gift they ever gave involved financial risk. As for his comment on “genuine” giving, I believe he succumbed to unnecessary semantics: “In short it is only when we devote our time on earth to others that we make genuine gifts.” (56) To judge the “genuineness” of gifts by one’s internal devotion appears somewhat superfluous or tendentious. I don’t think the many Oxford graduates whose lives have been boosted by Oxford’s educational quality and reputation are concerned with the insincerity or genuineness of Dr. John Radcliffe’s significant benefaction at the end of a miserly life.
Chapter Five (“Economics and Morality”) presents a striking macroeconomic argument. The thesis is: Good economies go hand in hand with virtuous practices and people.
Malloch employs arguments from economists Herbert Gintis, Tibor Machan, and Adam Smith to make a solid case for low taxation, free market societies producing more generous people with more money to give. He asks a sensible question: Would not earners be better trusted giving their money to help others than the government would be? As he sees it, “[G]overnments are poor at generosity because they use other people’s money and have no appreciation for either earning it or stewarding it.” (70) Here I am persuaded by his logic and wholeheartedly agree that there is a difference between a person carefully spending hard earned money to benefit others and politicians spending citizens’ hard earned money to ensure re-election.
Chapter Six (“Generosity and Science”) presents scientific data that humans are hardwired for generosity. From Stephen Post’s psychological research to Martin Nowak’s evolutionary research, Malloch makes an adequate case that humanity is designed for being generous and benefiting from it (despite the fact the he missed or omitted other significant supportive studies that Nicholas Kristoff has reported in the New York Times).
Chapter Seven (“Responsible Generosity”) is the first chapter to finally address the question of how to execute one’s generosity rather than simply exploring the motivations behind it. His intention with the chapter is noble. “Responsible generosity consists of more than mere good intentions. It steers clear of careless strategies or ideologically motivated theories. It includes a willingness to follow through, to examine the results of the charitable giving. It takes full responsibility for the use of the donated resources.” (83) Although I applaud the written description of responsible generosity, he does not provide guidelines for giving, possible accountability structures, or practical steps to examining results. Instead he cities ad campaigns and books promoting giving and an internet site that lists giving opportunities with no clear vetting process mentioned for those projects and their results. Since I serve multiple family foundations with the purpose of strategizing and executing high-impact philanthropic portfolios, I find the chapter void of practical guidance on the matter of “responsible” generosity.
Chapter Eight (“Generous Society”) is a difficult chapter to describe. From a reader’s perspective, it represents the least organized and coherent collection of thoughts in the book. Whereas Chapters One, Five, and Six present thematically coherent arguments, Chapter Eight joins Chapter Seven and Ten in compiling somewhat disjointed thoughts not always plainly connected to the chapter title.
Chapter Nine (“Generosity and the Purpose of Life”) is a questionable venture in overestimating the book’s call to generosity. As he considers the question of life’s ultimate meaning, he concludes, “[T]he answer is giving. That is what life is all about. Living well has to do with the extent to which we live generously.” (106) It is one thing to demonstrate that generosity breeds joy and quite another to assert its practice as the totality of life itself. His claim seems to be a classic case of unwarranted extrapolation (poor argumentation) driven by noble zeal (honorable intent).
Chapter Ten (“Final Thoughts”) ends with some simple and practical advice for becoming generous. His thesis for becoming generous is that generosity is formed in a person; so it is best to start young. That’s good advice. As for how to practice generosity, he urges a whole life commitment and provides four one-sentence tips on good giving execution. His point can be summed up in some of his closing words. “To be generous, therefore, it is not sufficient to give money: you must also give time and energy--the time needed to follow things through and the energy needed to convey your gift into the hands of the ones whom you wish to help.” (123)
As a believer in the joy and meaningfulness of generosity, I commend his compilation of motivations for being generous. Although they are not always presented coherently in thematically linked and structurally sound arguments, there is enough substance to make any reader give serious consideration to his call to generosity. However, as a philanthropy advisor, I must acknowledge that his practical advice on how to “begin living it” leaves the reader wanting. In my experience good intentions are not enough in the discipline of giving. Those readers who will undoubtedly be inspired by Malloch’s call to generosity will need more specific steps for evaluating past giving, creating a philanthropic focus, using available resources to create and measure impact, leverage gifts and influence, and find joy in the celebration of proven results. Of course, my critique is driven by the fact that I spend each day of my life walking people through those practical steps. So maybe I am being a bit hard on him and could benefit from a more generous review of his finer points. Hopefully one day I will get a chance to talk these things though with him and experience the generous character that so deeply shines through his words. Read more!
Chapter One (“Generosity: A Universal Moral Urge”) cogently captures the universal religious appreciation for generosity. Whether called Tsedekah, caritas, zakat, dana, Patshatl, or philanthropy, Malloch ably demonstrates that being generous is “not just a core part of the human condition, but a universal moral urge, our defining nature.” (29)
In Chapter Two (“Charity and Gift”) he focuses on his personal religious heritage and explains how Christianity continues the heart of the Jewish Torah summed up in the Creator’s command to “love thy neighbor.” From his analysis of Jesus‘ parable of the Good Samaritan he concludes that “a neighbor is someone whom we encounter and whose need we observe and to which we have the opportunity to respond by giving....” (32) That Christian call to charity has grown louder and wider as “[t]he growing interconnectedness of people around the globe” exposes us to the pressing needs of so many people near and far “from other ethnic groups, other nations, and other religious faiths.” (32) Malloch’s conclusion: God has created us to give, and therefore commanded us to embrace that blueprint for our life.
Chapter Three (“Stewardship Spirituality”) in essence continues the argument of Chapter Two while focusing on the concepts of grace and gratitude. “Those who truly understand the meaning of grace ultimately have just one way to respond, and that is with gratitude.” (41) In a genius historical observation Malloch presents evidence that socialist states replacing the concept of gift with the concept of one’s “right” to all resources for a good life actually dehumanize their citizens and destroy their generosity. For example, Lenin eliminated private charities after the Bolshevik revolution, and the Communist party closed down all ten thousand volunteer societies in Hungary after two years of control. In Malloch’s words, “Remove gift and gratitude from human society, and what remains is not a community but a ‘lonely crowd’.” (43) The main point: erased awareness of undeserved gifts undermines the gratitude that drives generosity.
In making this point about gift, gratitude, and generosity Malloch falls victim to reductionistic logic. How? First, he labels every person’s time, talent, energy, influence, and resources as a gift that they should steward gratefully. Then, he concludes, “[I]f a transformation is to take place and if stewardship is to become a way of life--a kind of ‘life principle’ that touches every corner of life--it must begin with gratitude, with genuine thanksgiving to God for all his wonderful gifts.” (45) This assertion contradicts both scientific facts (see Chapter Six) and anecdotal examples used elsewhere in the book (e.g., Ted Turner). A person may choose to give not out of gratitude but in pursuit of the joy that comes from generosity. It may not be with thankfulness for what one has but with the goal of gaining a feeling and reputation that one does not yet have.
The strict connection between selfless stewardship and gratitude for gifts particularly breaks down when one considers that many resources and talents are the result of working diligently and sacrificially and not merely receiving a gift. It is hard to treat what one has earned as if it were a gift. Of course, here the pragmatic reader bumps into a theological claim that all things come from God whether you earned them or not, and there is no real argument to be had on matters of faith. However, the careful reader will find that Malloch has a difficult time consistently using that logic in his promotion of generosity and view of personal resources. For example, he attributes good generosity in Chapter Five to an “appreciation” for “earning it,” and again in Chapter Eight, “[I]n giving we help ourselves. In giving, we demonstrate that it is we who control our possessions, not vice versa. ...The more we advance in generosity the more we advance in happiness and in turn are motivated to increase the good fortune of others.” (102) there are many more motivations to give than gratitude for gifts.
Chapter Four (“Time, Treasure, and Talent”) provides a concise reminder that giving can and in its most fulfilling forms will involve our time and talent, not just our treasure. There is little argument to be had, and I might add, fresh insight to be gained from his basic reminder. Overall, I applaud his comments in Chapter Four on “risky” giving but question his reductionistic claim about the concept of “genuine” gifts. As for “risky” giving Malloch notes that our “risk-averse society” blockades great gifts and hinders our growth as human beings (58). If the risk of giving ourselves and our resources prevents bold giving, then it in fact frustrates our pursuit of the deepest human experiences and joys. Being a philanthropy advisor myself, I have seen clients confirm his conclusion when they recall that the greatest gift they ever gave involved financial risk. As for his comment on “genuine” giving, I believe he succumbed to unnecessary semantics: “In short it is only when we devote our time on earth to others that we make genuine gifts.” (56) To judge the “genuineness” of gifts by one’s internal devotion appears somewhat superfluous or tendentious. I don’t think the many Oxford graduates whose lives have been boosted by Oxford’s educational quality and reputation are concerned with the insincerity or genuineness of Dr. John Radcliffe’s significant benefaction at the end of a miserly life.
Chapter Five (“Economics and Morality”) presents a striking macroeconomic argument. The thesis is: Good economies go hand in hand with virtuous practices and people.
Malloch employs arguments from economists Herbert Gintis, Tibor Machan, and Adam Smith to make a solid case for low taxation, free market societies producing more generous people with more money to give. He asks a sensible question: Would not earners be better trusted giving their money to help others than the government would be? As he sees it, “[G]overnments are poor at generosity because they use other people’s money and have no appreciation for either earning it or stewarding it.” (70) Here I am persuaded by his logic and wholeheartedly agree that there is a difference between a person carefully spending hard earned money to benefit others and politicians spending citizens’ hard earned money to ensure re-election.
Chapter Six (“Generosity and Science”) presents scientific data that humans are hardwired for generosity. From Stephen Post’s psychological research to Martin Nowak’s evolutionary research, Malloch makes an adequate case that humanity is designed for being generous and benefiting from it (despite the fact the he missed or omitted other significant supportive studies that Nicholas Kristoff has reported in the New York Times).
Chapter Seven (“Responsible Generosity”) is the first chapter to finally address the question of how to execute one’s generosity rather than simply exploring the motivations behind it. His intention with the chapter is noble. “Responsible generosity consists of more than mere good intentions. It steers clear of careless strategies or ideologically motivated theories. It includes a willingness to follow through, to examine the results of the charitable giving. It takes full responsibility for the use of the donated resources.” (83) Although I applaud the written description of responsible generosity, he does not provide guidelines for giving, possible accountability structures, or practical steps to examining results. Instead he cities ad campaigns and books promoting giving and an internet site that lists giving opportunities with no clear vetting process mentioned for those projects and their results. Since I serve multiple family foundations with the purpose of strategizing and executing high-impact philanthropic portfolios, I find the chapter void of practical guidance on the matter of “responsible” generosity.
Chapter Eight (“Generous Society”) is a difficult chapter to describe. From a reader’s perspective, it represents the least organized and coherent collection of thoughts in the book. Whereas Chapters One, Five, and Six present thematically coherent arguments, Chapter Eight joins Chapter Seven and Ten in compiling somewhat disjointed thoughts not always plainly connected to the chapter title.
Chapter Nine (“Generosity and the Purpose of Life”) is a questionable venture in overestimating the book’s call to generosity. As he considers the question of life’s ultimate meaning, he concludes, “[T]he answer is giving. That is what life is all about. Living well has to do with the extent to which we live generously.” (106) It is one thing to demonstrate that generosity breeds joy and quite another to assert its practice as the totality of life itself. His claim seems to be a classic case of unwarranted extrapolation (poor argumentation) driven by noble zeal (honorable intent).
Chapter Ten (“Final Thoughts”) ends with some simple and practical advice for becoming generous. His thesis for becoming generous is that generosity is formed in a person; so it is best to start young. That’s good advice. As for how to practice generosity, he urges a whole life commitment and provides four one-sentence tips on good giving execution. His point can be summed up in some of his closing words. “To be generous, therefore, it is not sufficient to give money: you must also give time and energy--the time needed to follow things through and the energy needed to convey your gift into the hands of the ones whom you wish to help.” (123)
As a believer in the joy and meaningfulness of generosity, I commend his compilation of motivations for being generous. Although they are not always presented coherently in thematically linked and structurally sound arguments, there is enough substance to make any reader give serious consideration to his call to generosity. However, as a philanthropy advisor, I must acknowledge that his practical advice on how to “begin living it” leaves the reader wanting. In my experience good intentions are not enough in the discipline of giving. Those readers who will undoubtedly be inspired by Malloch’s call to generosity will need more specific steps for evaluating past giving, creating a philanthropic focus, using available resources to create and measure impact, leverage gifts and influence, and find joy in the celebration of proven results. Of course, my critique is driven by the fact that I spend each day of my life walking people through those practical steps. So maybe I am being a bit hard on him and could benefit from a more generous review of his finer points. Hopefully one day I will get a chance to talk these things though with him and experience the generous character that so deeply shines through his words. Read more!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Strategic Giving Opportunities for Haiti Relief Efforts
Many lessons have been learned from international disaster response and recovery efforts over the past 50 years. Excellence in Giving hopes to make giving recommendations with those lessons in mind. What are some of those lessons? Here is a short list:
Evaluation Criteria
The following giving recommendations are based on an organization’s:
5 Giving Recommendations
There are many more great organizations who are working in Haiti that do not meet all these requirements (e.g., Doctors without Borders, Partners in Health, Red Cross, Americares), but these 5 organizations stood out after evaluating a couple dozen that had created a Haiti Disaster Response fund and met most of the above criteria. Here are the giving recommendations and their rationale:
1. WORLD RELIEF
Rationale: The day after the earthquake WR’s country director Dr. Hubert Morquette was performing surgeries at King’s Hospital in PAP as WR staff began organizing themselves. Within 72 hours WR added relief experts to their 40-person Haiti staff, set up the first of many feeding centers, and shipped in clean water and additional supplies from the DR. World Relief has years of experience in disaster relief, an indigenous staff that has been living in Haiti, strategic partnerships (with MAP Intl, World Concern, HOPE Intl, Tearfund, Medical Teams Intl, etc.), and a stable functioning office inside Port au Prince to direct the relief efforts. They have been designated as the lead organization for this disaster on behalf of the Integral Alliance of relief organizations (www.integralalliance.org). Their work will maximize the compassionate outreach of Haitian churches, and they are committed to ongoing community development in Haiti in partnership with churches for years to come. Due to their partnerships with other organizations and community members, their initial funding needs are lower than other pure disaster response efforts, but they will continue to invest millions in ongoing relief and recovery efforts if funding is available.
2. SAMARITAN’S PURSE
Rationale: In 24 hours SP had their disaster response team on the ground to assess the situation and deliver an initial batch of relief supplies. Comparatively, they have been one of the most successful organizations at landing planes full of supplies at the overwhelmed and damaged airport in PAP (3 DC-6s by Friday, 2 C-130s on Saturday, etc.). They have delivered those supplies to the Baptist Mission Hospital and partnered with Food for the Hungry to distribute survival kits, tarps, and water purification kits in parts of the city. Although they do not have long-term development goals, their efficient transportation, strategic network, and quality staff on the ground (e.g., medical team leader Dr. David Gettle) makes them a strategic gift recipient during the initial weeks of the relief effort. They will spend $20-30 million on their efforts based on comparisons to the Tsunami and Katrina (where they are still working today).
3. CURE International
Rationale: The day after the earthquake CURE’s hospital in the Dominican Republic sent a 5-person team led by Dr. Scott Nelson into Port au Prince to add their surgical expertise to an emergency medical location. They have been performing surgeries nonstop and more medical workers and supplies are being sent each day. CURE’s greatest strengths will be utilized after the initial relief efforts that focus on triage when there is a transition to reconstructive surgery both at temporary medical facilities in PAP and at their hospital in Santo Domingo (DR gov’t has promised to bring in large numbers of casualties). For the long-term CURE hopes to raise millions of dollars to cover the cost of building or rebuilding a modern children’s hospital in PAP where they can continue serving Haitians for years to come. So donations will cover costs of doctors operating in PAP and the DR, medical supplies, and the eventual building of a permanent CURE hospital in PAP.
4. WATER MISSIONS International
Rationale: Two days after the earthquake Samaritan’s Purse had delivered 2 water purification mobile units to PAP. WMI has 10 more en route, 20 more should be ready by Tuesday, and they have orders for a total of 62 units from organizations like Samaritan’s Purse, Food for the Poor, and Convoy of Hope. WMI has engineered a unique water purification system that is mobile, solar-powered, and capable of purifying 2,000 liters of water every hour from diverse and dirty sources. When diesel is scarce, water is needed in large amounts, and money must be spent efficiently to provide it now and for coming months and years, WMI offers the best solution I know. WMI already had a presence in Haiti with country directors who are ready to train volunteers and NGO partners on the proper setup and operation of the water systems. On Saturday more WMI staff entered Haiti from the DR via ground transportation. After their initial relief efforts, all units will be used for long-term development programs in Haiti that include health and hygiene training. They estimate that one unit costs around $25,000 to build, transport, and train others in its proper use and in the health and hygiene curriculum.
5. MAP International
Rationale: Medical Assistance Programs Int’l is a provider of medical supplies (like the larger Americares) to many key relief organizations like World Relief, World Vision, International Medical Corp., etc. They had $2.7 million worth of medical supplies entering PAP 4 days after the earthquake and a total of $5 million scheduled. With the combination of donated pharmaceuticals from large medical corporations and cash donations, they will be able to keep a steady supply of medicines entering the country. Because of the large amount of pharmaceutical donations, they claim that $1 donated equals $75 in medical supplies provided. Since an organization like World Concern ran out of medical supplies to distribute from their PAP warehouse in one day, medical suppliers with experience in disaster relief and a solid network of partners are critical to support during the initial weeks of the relief efforts especially.
Confidence in Your Giving
The philanthropic advisory firm Excellence in Giving will be collecting reports on the quality of work and the effectiveness of each organization’s expenditures on Haiti relief. We have evaluated effective and ineffective funding in previous disasters and believe donations to these organizations will prove highly effective in relieving the suffering in the next couple weeks and rebuilding the country in the long-term. If you agree with the criteria we used to recommend these organizations above the rest, then you should have the confidence you need to give what you determine is appropriate and experience the joy of helping those whose story is breaking your heart. Read more!
- Relief & Recovery: Smart donations go to organizations with quick disaster response (for the purpose of saving lives) and long-term recovery plans and experience (for the purpose of rebuilding lives).
- Overfunding & Underfunding: Organizations focused on the immediate disaster response tend to be overfunded (e.g., the Red Cross after 9/11) whereas recovery and reconstruction efforts are underfunded after the news stories stop.
- Cash & Commodities: Smart donations come in the form of cash and are better spent on commodities and services in the affected country to promote economic development in the process of relief and recovery.
- Foresighted Funding: Smart donations support recovery efforts focused on disaster preparedness and improved infrastructure.
- Culturally Informed Funding: Effective organizations to support have an existing knowledge of communities, cultural norms, and power dynamics that reduce unintended negative consequences.
Evaluation Criteria
The following giving recommendations are based on an organization’s:
- quality of staff on the ground in Haiti
- current and significant role in the immediate relief efforts of food, water, shelter, and medical services
- functional headquarters in/around Port au Prince
- a strong network of partners in the relief effort
- proven disaster response capabilities
- ability to transport supplies into Haiti efficiently
- commitment to long-term development after disaster response
- faith-based organization concerned about physical, social, and spiritual care
5 Giving Recommendations
There are many more great organizations who are working in Haiti that do not meet all these requirements (e.g., Doctors without Borders, Partners in Health, Red Cross, Americares), but these 5 organizations stood out after evaluating a couple dozen that had created a Haiti Disaster Response fund and met most of the above criteria. Here are the giving recommendations and their rationale:
1. WORLD RELIEF
Rationale: The day after the earthquake WR’s country director Dr. Hubert Morquette was performing surgeries at King’s Hospital in PAP as WR staff began organizing themselves. Within 72 hours WR added relief experts to their 40-person Haiti staff, set up the first of many feeding centers, and shipped in clean water and additional supplies from the DR. World Relief has years of experience in disaster relief, an indigenous staff that has been living in Haiti, strategic partnerships (with MAP Intl, World Concern, HOPE Intl, Tearfund, Medical Teams Intl, etc.), and a stable functioning office inside Port au Prince to direct the relief efforts. They have been designated as the lead organization for this disaster on behalf of the Integral Alliance of relief organizations (www.integralalliance.org). Their work will maximize the compassionate outreach of Haitian churches, and they are committed to ongoing community development in Haiti in partnership with churches for years to come. Due to their partnerships with other organizations and community members, their initial funding needs are lower than other pure disaster response efforts, but they will continue to invest millions in ongoing relief and recovery efforts if funding is available.
2. SAMARITAN’S PURSE
Rationale: In 24 hours SP had their disaster response team on the ground to assess the situation and deliver an initial batch of relief supplies. Comparatively, they have been one of the most successful organizations at landing planes full of supplies at the overwhelmed and damaged airport in PAP (3 DC-6s by Friday, 2 C-130s on Saturday, etc.). They have delivered those supplies to the Baptist Mission Hospital and partnered with Food for the Hungry to distribute survival kits, tarps, and water purification kits in parts of the city. Although they do not have long-term development goals, their efficient transportation, strategic network, and quality staff on the ground (e.g., medical team leader Dr. David Gettle) makes them a strategic gift recipient during the initial weeks of the relief effort. They will spend $20-30 million on their efforts based on comparisons to the Tsunami and Katrina (where they are still working today).
3. CURE International
Rationale: The day after the earthquake CURE’s hospital in the Dominican Republic sent a 5-person team led by Dr. Scott Nelson into Port au Prince to add their surgical expertise to an emergency medical location. They have been performing surgeries nonstop and more medical workers and supplies are being sent each day. CURE’s greatest strengths will be utilized after the initial relief efforts that focus on triage when there is a transition to reconstructive surgery both at temporary medical facilities in PAP and at their hospital in Santo Domingo (DR gov’t has promised to bring in large numbers of casualties). For the long-term CURE hopes to raise millions of dollars to cover the cost of building or rebuilding a modern children’s hospital in PAP where they can continue serving Haitians for years to come. So donations will cover costs of doctors operating in PAP and the DR, medical supplies, and the eventual building of a permanent CURE hospital in PAP.
4. WATER MISSIONS International
Rationale: Two days after the earthquake Samaritan’s Purse had delivered 2 water purification mobile units to PAP. WMI has 10 more en route, 20 more should be ready by Tuesday, and they have orders for a total of 62 units from organizations like Samaritan’s Purse, Food for the Poor, and Convoy of Hope. WMI has engineered a unique water purification system that is mobile, solar-powered, and capable of purifying 2,000 liters of water every hour from diverse and dirty sources. When diesel is scarce, water is needed in large amounts, and money must be spent efficiently to provide it now and for coming months and years, WMI offers the best solution I know. WMI already had a presence in Haiti with country directors who are ready to train volunteers and NGO partners on the proper setup and operation of the water systems. On Saturday more WMI staff entered Haiti from the DR via ground transportation. After their initial relief efforts, all units will be used for long-term development programs in Haiti that include health and hygiene training. They estimate that one unit costs around $25,000 to build, transport, and train others in its proper use and in the health and hygiene curriculum.
5. MAP International
Rationale: Medical Assistance Programs Int’l is a provider of medical supplies (like the larger Americares) to many key relief organizations like World Relief, World Vision, International Medical Corp., etc. They had $2.7 million worth of medical supplies entering PAP 4 days after the earthquake and a total of $5 million scheduled. With the combination of donated pharmaceuticals from large medical corporations and cash donations, they will be able to keep a steady supply of medicines entering the country. Because of the large amount of pharmaceutical donations, they claim that $1 donated equals $75 in medical supplies provided. Since an organization like World Concern ran out of medical supplies to distribute from their PAP warehouse in one day, medical suppliers with experience in disaster relief and a solid network of partners are critical to support during the initial weeks of the relief efforts especially.
Confidence in Your Giving
The philanthropic advisory firm Excellence in Giving will be collecting reports on the quality of work and the effectiveness of each organization’s expenditures on Haiti relief. We have evaluated effective and ineffective funding in previous disasters and believe donations to these organizations will prove highly effective in relieving the suffering in the next couple weeks and rebuilding the country in the long-term. If you agree with the criteria we used to recommend these organizations above the rest, then you should have the confidence you need to give what you determine is appropriate and experience the joy of helping those whose story is breaking your heart. Read more!
Monday, January 4, 2010
Learning to Give . . . From Those To Whom You Have Given
Many of us still remember the rapid outburst of violence in Kenya at the beginning of 2008. Hundreds of thousands were displaced from their homes, and thousands confirmed dead and hospitalized. I want to tell you a brief story about a few Kenyans who were affected and the unlikely men that stepped in to fund the rebuilding of their lives. The story is reminiscent of the widow whom Jesus himself admired as she gave her last two coins (Luke 21:1-4).
The period of panic and unrest in Kenya forced many people to leave their homes in search of a safe place to hide. Specifically, 9 prison chaplains who work with a ministry our clients have supported ended up camping out at local police stations. It was the safest place in town until the government could restore order.
Of the 9 men, some had their homes burned, some had lost their furniture, and one had been hospitalized after being robbed. Peter Mosabi Kihingu who supervises the chaplains in Kenya had no resources to help these men rebuild their lives after the devastation. So he wrote to his partners in the U.S. home office asking for help. The home office itself had no financial reserves, but one Colorado chaplain had an idea to help.
He took the request for help to his church on Sunday. Now this was no ordinary church that you or I could attend. The church consists of prisoners that meet in a chapel behind many layers of barbed wire fence, video surveillance, and armed guards. In a room of convicted criminals, the chaplain read the letter and asked the men to help these Kenyan chaplains who have spent their lives helping inmates across the ocean. By the end of that one service, a small group of men who make about 60 cents per day gave $375 worth of Inmate Withdrawal Slips.
When Peter Mosabi Kihingu received the generous gift to distribute among the suffering chaplains, he wrote the following response: "I must say I am deeply overwhelmed by the donations to an extent that I really lack the words to express myself as to what this really means to me and to us here in Kenya. Being a former prisoner myself I really know what this means to them."
At Excellence in Giving, our passion is to advise clients how to give wisely. However, we must never forget the nobility of giving sacrificially. These prison inmates who gave much or all of their discretionary income present an example to emulate. Out of their poverty and magnanimity, they gave. They gave to help 9 suffering Kenyan chaplains because a chaplain had been giving to them.
This story is powerful. It is an inspiration to give boldly-to display the moral rectitude of transformed prisoners. And who knows... maybe your giving will create new communities of sacrificial givers like this prison church in Colorado. In my estimation, that would be both sacrificial and wise giving. Read more!
The period of panic and unrest in Kenya forced many people to leave their homes in search of a safe place to hide. Specifically, 9 prison chaplains who work with a ministry our clients have supported ended up camping out at local police stations. It was the safest place in town until the government could restore order.
Of the 9 men, some had their homes burned, some had lost their furniture, and one had been hospitalized after being robbed. Peter Mosabi Kihingu who supervises the chaplains in Kenya had no resources to help these men rebuild their lives after the devastation. So he wrote to his partners in the U.S. home office asking for help. The home office itself had no financial reserves, but one Colorado chaplain had an idea to help.
He took the request for help to his church on Sunday. Now this was no ordinary church that you or I could attend. The church consists of prisoners that meet in a chapel behind many layers of barbed wire fence, video surveillance, and armed guards. In a room of convicted criminals, the chaplain read the letter and asked the men to help these Kenyan chaplains who have spent their lives helping inmates across the ocean. By the end of that one service, a small group of men who make about 60 cents per day gave $375 worth of Inmate Withdrawal Slips.
When Peter Mosabi Kihingu received the generous gift to distribute among the suffering chaplains, he wrote the following response: "I must say I am deeply overwhelmed by the donations to an extent that I really lack the words to express myself as to what this really means to me and to us here in Kenya. Being a former prisoner myself I really know what this means to them."
At Excellence in Giving, our passion is to advise clients how to give wisely. However, we must never forget the nobility of giving sacrificially. These prison inmates who gave much or all of their discretionary income present an example to emulate. Out of their poverty and magnanimity, they gave. They gave to help 9 suffering Kenyan chaplains because a chaplain had been giving to them.
This story is powerful. It is an inspiration to give boldly-to display the moral rectitude of transformed prisoners. And who knows... maybe your giving will create new communities of sacrificial givers like this prison church in Colorado. In my estimation, that would be both sacrificial and wise giving. Read more!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Philanthropy 2.0: Making a Difference Not a Donation
Charitable giving is quickly transforming into philanthropic investment. Donors (especially major donors and foundations) no longer want to give because their heart breaks over the severity of a problem. They want to invest in a solution that will solve the problem. This shift in philanthropy has been described in technological terms as a shift from Philanthropy 1.0 to 2.0.
If philanthropy 1.0 focused on the need, then philanthropy 2.0 focuses on a sustainable solution that is making a verifiable difference. It is no longer good enough for a nonprofit to ask for support by stirring our emotions. With over 1 million 501(c)3 organizations, we now have to discern which program model can comfort our broken hearts with sound solutions.
Donor fatigue in the face of ever-growing “asks” is pushing this investment approach to charitable giving. One new gold standard in giving is project sustainability. A donor wants to know that at least part of their donation is “seed money” that funds a partially self-sustaining and locally adapted program. They do not want to be asked for the same donation next year to support the same activity. There is simply not enough money to go around. So donors are demanding nonprofits to more creatively design and sustain their important work.
To capture this transition in philanthropy, I have created a presentation and have begun delivering it to different audiences in the past month. You can check out the pdf version posted on the Excellence in Giving website by clicking here. I hope it motivates you to give more wisely and to comfort your broken heart with investments in proven or promising solutions. Read more!
If philanthropy 1.0 focused on the need, then philanthropy 2.0 focuses on a sustainable solution that is making a verifiable difference. It is no longer good enough for a nonprofit to ask for support by stirring our emotions. With over 1 million 501(c)3 organizations, we now have to discern which program model can comfort our broken hearts with sound solutions.
Donor fatigue in the face of ever-growing “asks” is pushing this investment approach to charitable giving. One new gold standard in giving is project sustainability. A donor wants to know that at least part of their donation is “seed money” that funds a partially self-sustaining and locally adapted program. They do not want to be asked for the same donation next year to support the same activity. There is simply not enough money to go around. So donors are demanding nonprofits to more creatively design and sustain their important work.
To capture this transition in philanthropy, I have created a presentation and have begun delivering it to different audiences in the past month. You can check out the pdf version posted on the Excellence in Giving website by clicking here. I hope it motivates you to give more wisely and to comfort your broken heart with investments in proven or promising solutions. Read more!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Millions of Dollars Designated for Poor Families Are Trapped in Washington D.C.
A relatively unknown section of the February 2009 Stimulus Package contains a $5 billion Emergency Fund for poor families. The fund allows states to receive millions of dollars to help their poor families during the economic recession. However, the funds will not necessarily be distributed to needy families across the U.S. unless certain requirements are met by each state.
What requirements? They basically include increased expenditures from the same quarter in 2007-2008 on eligible TANF programs like subsidized employment, rent and utility assistance, or back-to-school money for poor families. Since states are struggling to balance budgets, many cannot increase their spending to draw down federal stimulus funds. But the law gives the state an alternative for accessing the money. Third party private donors can give to the poor on behalf of the state. In essence, if a state spends $10 million to help poor families, 20% can be covered by private donations and 80% will be reimbursed by the federal government. So why does it look like millions and maybe even billions of dollars will never leave washington before the program fund expires on September 30, 2010?
At first, it seems like no strategic donor who wanted to provide humanitarian aid to the U.S. poor would pass up the opportunity to in essence quintuple their donation. The most notable example of one such philanthropist is George Soros. Founder of the Open Society Institute, George Soros, made headlines in August 2009 with a $35 million donation to poor families in New York State. The gift covered back-to-school expenses for poor families struggling in hard economic times. Families that qualified received deposits of $200 per child into their state public assistance EBT accounts.
George Soros’s $35 million gift released an additional $140 million from the federal government. So in total George Soros directed $175 million to help over 850,000 children in poverty prepare for the 2009-2010 school year. Why aren't more philanthropists following suit?
At Excellence in Giving we had a group of client philanthropists that wanted to recreate the gift to the poor in Texas. According to the stimulus bill, Texas has $243 million that it could receive from the federal government, and the State only plans to draw down around $12 million. So we spent a couple months speaking with State officials, community organizations serving the Texas poor, and representatives from the CBPP and HHS. Our clients decided that providing rent and/or utility vouchers to low-income families who completed a course on financial and family management would be ideal. So we submitted our proposal to the state and federal officials for review.
Unfortunately, the plan was rejected. Requiring a representative from a poor family to attend or to graduate from a financial management or life skills course before receiving the free money was deemed unlawful. The only program that would be approved is the free distribution of money to low-income families in a designated zip code, region, or state. Our donors, our research, and the local community organizations that operate life skills development courses all questioned the lasting impact of giving out money without an educational component and ongoing support from a local community organization. So our efforts came to a halt.
It is unfortunate that $5 billion has been designated to help poor families, but many families will not receive it. Generous donors are being prevented from drawing down the federal funds for their state's poor if they want to increase its impact with attendant educational programs. Literally millions of dollars are trapped in Washington D.C., and the fund will expire in 10 months. Our submitted plans to inject millions for rent and utility assistance, financial and relational management courses, subsidized employment and vocational skills training have all been denied. Yet, I would imagine that the tens of thousands of low-income families concentrated in West Dallas neighborhoods and Houston wards would have gladly taken the courses or completed the training to receive the financial assistance during this great recession. We can do better. We must do better.
Share
Read more!
What requirements? They basically include increased expenditures from the same quarter in 2007-2008 on eligible TANF programs like subsidized employment, rent and utility assistance, or back-to-school money for poor families. Since states are struggling to balance budgets, many cannot increase their spending to draw down federal stimulus funds. But the law gives the state an alternative for accessing the money. Third party private donors can give to the poor on behalf of the state. In essence, if a state spends $10 million to help poor families, 20% can be covered by private donations and 80% will be reimbursed by the federal government. So why does it look like millions and maybe even billions of dollars will never leave washington before the program fund expires on September 30, 2010?
At first, it seems like no strategic donor who wanted to provide humanitarian aid to the U.S. poor would pass up the opportunity to in essence quintuple their donation. The most notable example of one such philanthropist is George Soros. Founder of the Open Society Institute, George Soros, made headlines in August 2009 with a $35 million donation to poor families in New York State. The gift covered back-to-school expenses for poor families struggling in hard economic times. Families that qualified received deposits of $200 per child into their state public assistance EBT accounts.
George Soros’s $35 million gift released an additional $140 million from the federal government. So in total George Soros directed $175 million to help over 850,000 children in poverty prepare for the 2009-2010 school year. Why aren't more philanthropists following suit?
At Excellence in Giving we had a group of client philanthropists that wanted to recreate the gift to the poor in Texas. According to the stimulus bill, Texas has $243 million that it could receive from the federal government, and the State only plans to draw down around $12 million. So we spent a couple months speaking with State officials, community organizations serving the Texas poor, and representatives from the CBPP and HHS. Our clients decided that providing rent and/or utility vouchers to low-income families who completed a course on financial and family management would be ideal. So we submitted our proposal to the state and federal officials for review.
Unfortunately, the plan was rejected. Requiring a representative from a poor family to attend or to graduate from a financial management or life skills course before receiving the free money was deemed unlawful. The only program that would be approved is the free distribution of money to low-income families in a designated zip code, region, or state. Our donors, our research, and the local community organizations that operate life skills development courses all questioned the lasting impact of giving out money without an educational component and ongoing support from a local community organization. So our efforts came to a halt.
It is unfortunate that $5 billion has been designated to help poor families, but many families will not receive it. Generous donors are being prevented from drawing down the federal funds for their state's poor if they want to increase its impact with attendant educational programs. Literally millions of dollars are trapped in Washington D.C., and the fund will expire in 10 months. Our submitted plans to inject millions for rent and utility assistance, financial and relational management courses, subsidized employment and vocational skills training have all been denied. Yet, I would imagine that the tens of thousands of low-income families concentrated in West Dallas neighborhoods and Houston wards would have gladly taken the courses or completed the training to receive the financial assistance during this great recession. We can do better. We must do better.
Share
Read more!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Is Your Giving Actually About You? A New Heart Test with Impact.
Generous giving might be a sign of a selfless heart. Jesus once said, “Where you put your money is the same place you’ll find your heart.” It makes sense. If all my money goes to fund youth mentoring programs in downtown, I may have a selfless heart. The same could be said if I sponsored a Chilean child, funded a rural clinic in Cambodia, and significantly contributed to HIV/AIDS reduction in Zambia.
Giving does say something about my (metaphorical) heart. However, the story better not start and end as a tale all about me. Think about it. If generosity is just a test of the heart that determines how selfish or selfless I am, then philanthropy (love of humanity) becomes philegy (love of myself)--a much less impressive word I made up from its Greek origins. In that scenario I give primarily to prove my selfless heart regardless of the impact. The fact I give proves the quality of my compassionate heart.
Many people have heard the adage that God loves a cheerful giver. Personally I have no qualms with the notion of having joy in one’s generosity. After all it is the slogan of my philanthropic advisory firm, and I think it’s essential that we experience the joy of loving and empowering people rather than simply the compulsion of tax code benefits. However, we must beware of focusing too singularly on the state of the heart. We must not let giving become limited to an exercise in legacy-building. The impact we make or miss because of our giving decisions must be added to the equation.
Here is the bottom line. If giving is only about you proving your character, it’s actually about you. That is not something most of us want to discover if it’s true. But if our giving is about strategically creating credible solutions to social, spiritual, and physical problems that plague humanity, then I think we pass a more important heart test. Our heart moves beyond philegy to philanthropy.
In true philanthropy we are not satisfied with good intentions or generous amounts. Rather the measure of our generosity has become meaningful and lasting impact. Our hearts yearn to change the lived experience of people in need, and nothing less will do. We educate ourselves, seek advice, analyze past giving, and strategize for the next move to ensure that our hearts’ desire to transform lives is realized.
As a philanthropic advisor I have listened to foundations report their giving successes. Sometimes it inspires me, and sometimes I am left hanging. When a Montana funder demonstrates how a few million strategically placed dollars significantly lowered the use of Meth in their state, I get pumped. When some other foundation announces that they have now distributed over $100 million in grants, I have no reaction. The amount of money going out the door passes no test for success in my book. It is the quality of giving not the quantity of giving that makes a real difference in the life of those you seek to support.
In a recent article in the Financial Times, columnist and philanthropic blogger Sean Stannard-Stockton called this concern “the vanguard of philanthropy.” He applauds “individuals who have recognized that philanthropy is not defined by the act of giving but by the achievement of impact. It is both an emotional act of love by the giver as well as a strategic investment in our social fabric” (Read Sean’s full article). So giving generously is only the first step in demonstrating compassionate character. The second step is taking the time and effort to give wisely.
In the end, if having a verifiable impact is the new “heart test” for giving, then that is a test I hope to pass. I do not want to be remembered for making donations. I want to be remembered for making a difference--by the people who experienced the impact of my giving. Read more!
Giving does say something about my (metaphorical) heart. However, the story better not start and end as a tale all about me. Think about it. If generosity is just a test of the heart that determines how selfish or selfless I am, then philanthropy (love of humanity) becomes philegy (love of myself)--a much less impressive word I made up from its Greek origins. In that scenario I give primarily to prove my selfless heart regardless of the impact. The fact I give proves the quality of my compassionate heart.
Many people have heard the adage that God loves a cheerful giver. Personally I have no qualms with the notion of having joy in one’s generosity. After all it is the slogan of my philanthropic advisory firm, and I think it’s essential that we experience the joy of loving and empowering people rather than simply the compulsion of tax code benefits. However, we must beware of focusing too singularly on the state of the heart. We must not let giving become limited to an exercise in legacy-building. The impact we make or miss because of our giving decisions must be added to the equation.
Here is the bottom line. If giving is only about you proving your character, it’s actually about you. That is not something most of us want to discover if it’s true. But if our giving is about strategically creating credible solutions to social, spiritual, and physical problems that plague humanity, then I think we pass a more important heart test. Our heart moves beyond philegy to philanthropy.
In true philanthropy we are not satisfied with good intentions or generous amounts. Rather the measure of our generosity has become meaningful and lasting impact. Our hearts yearn to change the lived experience of people in need, and nothing less will do. We educate ourselves, seek advice, analyze past giving, and strategize for the next move to ensure that our hearts’ desire to transform lives is realized.
As a philanthropic advisor I have listened to foundations report their giving successes. Sometimes it inspires me, and sometimes I am left hanging. When a Montana funder demonstrates how a few million strategically placed dollars significantly lowered the use of Meth in their state, I get pumped. When some other foundation announces that they have now distributed over $100 million in grants, I have no reaction. The amount of money going out the door passes no test for success in my book. It is the quality of giving not the quantity of giving that makes a real difference in the life of those you seek to support.
In a recent article in the Financial Times, columnist and philanthropic blogger Sean Stannard-Stockton called this concern “the vanguard of philanthropy.” He applauds “individuals who have recognized that philanthropy is not defined by the act of giving but by the achievement of impact. It is both an emotional act of love by the giver as well as a strategic investment in our social fabric” (Read Sean’s full article). So giving generously is only the first step in demonstrating compassionate character. The second step is taking the time and effort to give wisely.
In the end, if having a verifiable impact is the new “heart test” for giving, then that is a test I hope to pass. I do not want to be remembered for making donations. I want to be remembered for making a difference--by the people who experienced the impact of my giving. Read more!
Monday, October 19, 2009
2009 Financial Outlook for Faith-based NonProfits
How has the Great Recession affected the financial stability of faith-based nonprofits? In 2009 faith-based nonprofits are 2.5 times more likely to be facing declines in cash contributions than in 2007. In fact, only 28% of faith-based nonprofits are expected to avoid a decrease in cash contributions during the span of 2008-2009. These statistics have been pulled from a recent survey and analysis that I completed as the Senior Research Analyst at Excellence in Giving.
So what is the financial landscape for faith-based nonprofits and how are organizations adjusting their budget? In sum, organizations facing financial shortfalls are cutting back program services significantly (74% surveyed). The organizations finding a way to increase cash contributions in 2009 are streamlining operations through reduction in administrative costs (38%). The decrease in administrative costs is being matched 2:1 by the increases to fundraising expenses (80% increasing fundraising budgets).
If an organization has maintained increasing cash contributions in FY07 and FY08, the statistics show that they still only have a 53% chance of continued growth. This financial crunch is forcing many organizations to place strategic plans on hold. Hopefully, the financial restrictions will force faith-based nonprofits to identify their most important programs while cutting ineffective ones.
To read the full report, click on the following link: EIG 2009 Financial Outlook for Faith-based Nonprofits. Read more!
So what is the financial landscape for faith-based nonprofits and how are organizations adjusting their budget? In sum, organizations facing financial shortfalls are cutting back program services significantly (74% surveyed). The organizations finding a way to increase cash contributions in 2009 are streamlining operations through reduction in administrative costs (38%). The decrease in administrative costs is being matched 2:1 by the increases to fundraising expenses (80% increasing fundraising budgets).
If an organization has maintained increasing cash contributions in FY07 and FY08, the statistics show that they still only have a 53% chance of continued growth. This financial crunch is forcing many organizations to place strategic plans on hold. Hopefully, the financial restrictions will force faith-based nonprofits to identify their most important programs while cutting ineffective ones.
To read the full report, click on the following link: EIG 2009 Financial Outlook for Faith-based Nonprofits. Read more!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
10 Simple Giving Ideas
Do you feel the pain of those less fortunate and wonder what you have to give? Often the average person who wants to help has trouble figuring out a feasible action plan. The following 10 ideas should provide anyone with plenty of simple paths towards giving within your means.
1. Give a goat to African poor.
For $20 you can provide a goat that will produce about three-quarts of milk each day for purposes of drinking or making cheese. Go to www.ihfonline.org to pay the actual cost of a goat for a Kenyan family in need.
2. Buy a GOOD gift card for a friend.
Purchase this tax-deductible gift card and empower one of your friends to support one of the 1.5 million participating public charities. To purchase the card, go to www1.networkforgood.org/good-card.
3. Surf the internet to benefit the world.
GoodSearch allows you to designate a charity that will receive proceeds from the money made by each one of your searches. Go to www.goodsearch.com to begin creating revenue for your preferred organization with each one of your clicks.
4. Be a low-cost monthly donor.
For $38/month you can provide education, food, and a loving context for a child through Compassion International (www.compassion.com/sponsor_a_child). For $40/month you can fund a loan to a poor South African entrepeneur who will use it and the required business training to start and/or grow their business to sustain their families (www.your40story.com).
5. Blog for orphans.
You can provide the personal connection between orphans around the world and their sponsors in the U.S. as a blogging advocate or a leader of a group of Facebook friends. Go to http://fiftyfriendsforswaziland.blogspot.com to see how one blogger enables 50 orphans in Swaziland to receive care.
6. Give your time locally.
Find an opportunity to volunteer at a local organization you respect. Go to www.christianvolunteering.org or www.volunteermatch.org.
7. Take advantage of a corporate gift matching plan.
If you own or operate a business, start a corporate gift matching plan for your employees to encourage giving. If you work for a corporation, use your company’s gift matching plan to increase the amount you give for free. Check company gift matching plan availability online at www.matchinggifts.com/coloradocollege.
8. Create a charity badge to raise money for your favorite cause.
Customize a banner that promotes your favorite charity and allows visitors to your personal webpages to learn about and donate to the cause. Go to www.sixdegrees.org to get started.
9. Purchase products that benefit the world.
Shop at www.worldofgood.com or buy RED products at www.joinred.com to economically empower small businesses around the world, support charitable causes, and promote eco-friendly consumerism.
10. Recycle cell phones, ipods, and cameras for charity.
Recycling for Charities is a nonprofit recycling company committed to protecting the earth and supporting causes that benefit humanity. Collect your old electronics or have a recycling drive to benefit your charity of choice. Go to www.recyclingforcharities.com. Read more!
1. Give a goat to African poor.
For $20 you can provide a goat that will produce about three-quarts of milk each day for purposes of drinking or making cheese. Go to www.ihfonline.org to pay the actual cost of a goat for a Kenyan family in need.
2. Buy a GOOD gift card for a friend.
Purchase this tax-deductible gift card and empower one of your friends to support one of the 1.5 million participating public charities. To purchase the card, go to www1.networkforgood.org/good-card.
3. Surf the internet to benefit the world.
GoodSearch allows you to designate a charity that will receive proceeds from the money made by each one of your searches. Go to www.goodsearch.com to begin creating revenue for your preferred organization with each one of your clicks.
4. Be a low-cost monthly donor.
For $38/month you can provide education, food, and a loving context for a child through Compassion International (www.compassion.com/sponsor_a_child). For $40/month you can fund a loan to a poor South African entrepeneur who will use it and the required business training to start and/or grow their business to sustain their families (www.your40story.com).
5. Blog for orphans.
You can provide the personal connection between orphans around the world and their sponsors in the U.S. as a blogging advocate or a leader of a group of Facebook friends. Go to http://fiftyfriendsforswaziland.blogspot.com to see how one blogger enables 50 orphans in Swaziland to receive care.
6. Give your time locally.
Find an opportunity to volunteer at a local organization you respect. Go to www.christianvolunteering.org or www.volunteermatch.org.
7. Take advantage of a corporate gift matching plan.
If you own or operate a business, start a corporate gift matching plan for your employees to encourage giving. If you work for a corporation, use your company’s gift matching plan to increase the amount you give for free. Check company gift matching plan availability online at www.matchinggifts.com/coloradocollege.
8. Create a charity badge to raise money for your favorite cause.
Customize a banner that promotes your favorite charity and allows visitors to your personal webpages to learn about and donate to the cause. Go to www.sixdegrees.org to get started.
9. Purchase products that benefit the world.
Shop at www.worldofgood.com or buy RED products at www.joinred.com to economically empower small businesses around the world, support charitable causes, and promote eco-friendly consumerism.
10. Recycle cell phones, ipods, and cameras for charity.
Recycling for Charities is a nonprofit recycling company committed to protecting the earth and supporting causes that benefit humanity. Collect your old electronics or have a recycling drive to benefit your charity of choice. Go to www.recyclingforcharities.com. Read more!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Solving Problems that Concern You: Diversified Giving Portfolios
Do you give for the good feeling you get or for specific results you want to achieve? To be honest, most of us land somewhere in-between. We see a need and want to help. But, what if we see a big problem and actually want to solve it?
If you want to start solving problems that concern you instead of just supporting projects you admire, then I recommend a diversified giving portfolio that addresses the problem's short-term and long-term effects and provides credible solutions to the root causes. Because you can't stop AIDS in Africa with more meds. You can't stop the pain in the lives of orphans with orphanages. You can't stop the cycle of urban poverty with more affordable housing. Any viable plan to change the direction of a community's downward spiral must take a more comprehensive approach.
What does that look like? Take, for example, the plight of an increasing number of orphans in Swaziland. To truly solve the problem of their increased suffering, you can devise a diversified giving portfolio that addresses causes and symptoms. Specifically you can identify organizations that are "best-in-class" for each of the following areas:
Why is it necessary to support effective programs in all these areas to solve the problem? Think about it. The majority of orphans in Swaziland are a direct result of the AIDS pandemic that has reduced the national population over the course of 10 years from its projected 1.2 million people to 912,000 in 2007. Children do not have parents because over 16,000 adults die every year from AIDS. To mitigate the suffering from the HIV/AIDS pandemic medication would help, and to prevent the spread of the HIV virus abstinence education could also contribute. So a strategically crafted giving portfolio that intends to solve the increasing orphan problem in Swaziland would provide medication and abstinence education.
For those children whose parents do not die from the disease, many struggle to care for children because of lack of economic opportunity. So microenterprise initiatives are also critical to keeping children in independent family contexts. If such employment opportunities could be combined with parental training and adult counseling programs, the root causes for increasing orphans in Swaziland could be addressed to ensure long-term change.
However, short-term symptoms still need attention. That is the reason for supporting orphanages and a culturally fitting foster care program. For example, Children's HopeChest employs village grandmothers who oversee multiple child-headed households in a village to ensure their health and development without having to place them in an orphanage. Adoption programs with local orphanages also contribute to solving the short-term symptoms of this deeply rooted problem. In all of these programs, the solution to the problem remains the same: reduce the number of children without parents and promote the return of displaced children to a healthy family context.
We do not necessarily need more giving, but we do need smarter giving. So the next time you go to give, consider solving a problem with a comprehensive solution: a diversified giving portfolio. If you do it right, you can track real change on a large scale through appropriate post-grant impact analysis. The results of your giving to multiple programs in one geographic area can be tested against the government, UN, or World Health Organization numbers. Over a 5 or 10 year period you could actually watch the percentage of child-headed households and unclaimed children drop. You would truly be solving the problem.
If you need help evaluating organizations, understanding cultural dynamics, or analyzing root causes and short-term symptoms, call 719-329-1515 and speak to one of our philanthropy advisors at Excellence in Giving about becoming a short-term or long-term client that solves the problems that concern you most.
Read more!
If you want to start solving problems that concern you instead of just supporting projects you admire, then I recommend a diversified giving portfolio that addresses the problem's short-term and long-term effects and provides credible solutions to the root causes. Because you can't stop AIDS in Africa with more meds. You can't stop the pain in the lives of orphans with orphanages. You can't stop the cycle of urban poverty with more affordable housing. Any viable plan to change the direction of a community's downward spiral must take a more comprehensive approach.
What does that look like? Take, for example, the plight of an increasing number of orphans in Swaziland. To truly solve the problem of their increased suffering, you can devise a diversified giving portfolio that addresses causes and symptoms. Specifically you can identify organizations that are "best-in-class" for each of the following areas:
Abstinence Instruction
Relationship/Parent Coaching
Parent Attrition Prevention: HIV/AIDS prevention, Substance Abuse Counseling, Employment Opportunities for Impoverished Heads of Household, etc.
Orphanage/Group Home
Foster/Village Member Care
Adoption
Why is it necessary to support effective programs in all these areas to solve the problem? Think about it. The majority of orphans in Swaziland are a direct result of the AIDS pandemic that has reduced the national population over the course of 10 years from its projected 1.2 million people to 912,000 in 2007. Children do not have parents because over 16,000 adults die every year from AIDS. To mitigate the suffering from the HIV/AIDS pandemic medication would help, and to prevent the spread of the HIV virus abstinence education could also contribute. So a strategically crafted giving portfolio that intends to solve the increasing orphan problem in Swaziland would provide medication and abstinence education.
For those children whose parents do not die from the disease, many struggle to care for children because of lack of economic opportunity. So microenterprise initiatives are also critical to keeping children in independent family contexts. If such employment opportunities could be combined with parental training and adult counseling programs, the root causes for increasing orphans in Swaziland could be addressed to ensure long-term change.
However, short-term symptoms still need attention. That is the reason for supporting orphanages and a culturally fitting foster care program. For example, Children's HopeChest employs village grandmothers who oversee multiple child-headed households in a village to ensure their health and development without having to place them in an orphanage. Adoption programs with local orphanages also contribute to solving the short-term symptoms of this deeply rooted problem. In all of these programs, the solution to the problem remains the same: reduce the number of children without parents and promote the return of displaced children to a healthy family context.
We do not necessarily need more giving, but we do need smarter giving. So the next time you go to give, consider solving a problem with a comprehensive solution: a diversified giving portfolio. If you do it right, you can track real change on a large scale through appropriate post-grant impact analysis. The results of your giving to multiple programs in one geographic area can be tested against the government, UN, or World Health Organization numbers. Over a 5 or 10 year period you could actually watch the percentage of child-headed households and unclaimed children drop. You would truly be solving the problem.
If you need help evaluating organizations, understanding cultural dynamics, or analyzing root causes and short-term symptoms, call 719-329-1515 and speak to one of our philanthropy advisors at Excellence in Giving about becoming a short-term or long-term client that solves the problems that concern you most.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My Philanthropic Advisory Firm
Posts
