Philanthropy Ireland’s Post

In an article for Stanford Social Innovation Review, leaders of several intermediary organizations share how they envision their role within—and how they ultimately hope to upend—the philanthropic landscape. “Despite this recognition from large, influential funders and institutions, the roles of intermediary organizations are often opaque to those outside of them—funders and grantees alike. With only a handful of published articles describing their methods and impact, there are significant knowledge gaps about how and why these models exist, let alone what they could be called. Our organizations raise every dollar in our budgets. We have no endowments sitting in the stock market. While foundations are only required to distribute five percent of their holdings each year, we deploy between 50 and 80 percent. Much of the rest goes to additional support and programs that augment our grantmaking (more on that below). Because we believe our role is not to hoard wealth but to channel resources to those who can best use them, the vast majority of dollars that come into our organizations leave within the first year or two from their donation date. A critical mission element of movement-accountable intermediaries is to circumvent the unjust design of institutional philanthropy. Although replication in a system can be important for building resilience, in a system with such power imbalances, we try to minimize duplicative efforts and build symbiotically. We are, and ought to be, discerning about when and where philanthropic infrastructure is necessary. When possible, we guide funders to move money directly to organizations on the ground, rather than through us.”

Woah--great Stanford Social Innovation Review article https://lnkd.in/gMguNnvw by Mark Kramer and Steve Phillips: "Where Strategic Philanthropy Went Wrong." They argue that "strategic philanthropy" has been ineffective at solving urgent challenges in our society. We operate on the model where the wealthy decide how to allocate charitable resources (which causes to fund, which programs to fund) when what we should be doing, is allocating resources to those affected by challenges and empowering them to make their own choices: "Instead of making choices for other people, philanthropists must learn to empower individuals economically and politically to make choices for themselves and then celebrate their successes to inspire others, thus opening a far more pivotal role in fast-tracking widespread, lasting social and environmental progress." "Carnegie’s belief that the wealthy are wise because of their wealth and those in poverty are ignorant because of their poverty laid the foundation for a persistently paternalistic approach to philanthropy that endures to this day. No wonder philanthropy’s track record is as underwhelming as it is." This ties back to the themes we discussed at the Ensemble Capital Management Tactical Philanthropy Panel (Sara Lomelin Dwayne Marsh Jaimi Cortes, MBA Adam Pisoni Sean Stannard-Stockton, CFA, CAP Shilpa Andalkar, CFP®, CDFA® Ludo Thomasson, CFP®) on Collaborative Funds--one great way that (even) individual donors can give their money to let "others" decide how to allocate the resources--especially when the Funds are curated by folks from the communities the nonprofit recipients are supporting. Check out a database of 400+ collaborative funds here: https://lnkd.in/g55YQ5Ha

Now I'm not one to say, "We told you so," but here we are. It's frustrating that perspectives that challenge the current philanthropic model are mostly valid when they are not coming from communities and practitioners whose lived experiences bear out the premise that strategic philanthropy was a harmful mechanism used to justify inequitable funding practices. Strategic philanthropy created metrics and barriers that did not consider the resources and infrastructure of grassroots, small, and mid-sized organizations - who are all doing worthy work in communities - to meet externally conceived KPI's. For example, strategic philanthropy sometimes steered resources away from communities' most urgent needs in favor of philanthropy's whims and ideas. I once heard a senior leader of an international foundation say, "We're just experimenting to see what sticks." What a waste! Strategic philanthropy elevated white organizational norms around organizational effectiveness with no regard for what services were offered, what communities needed, and how communities felt about the services offered. Strategic philanthropy elevated "research and data" but often failed to fund organizations with the closest proximity to communities so that they could meet those demands. Strategic philanthropy failed to fund BIPOC, women and LGBTQIA leaders. Strategic philanthropy elevated "scale" over "impact". I could go on. The incredibly wise Ana Oliveira, President and CEO of The New York Women's Foundation has been championing a kind of "Radical Generosity" that promotes, unapologetically, the idea that "problems and solutions reside in the same communities." Yes, the foundation is strategic, but strategy brings focus to the work. It does not dictate what communities need or how they should address man-made systemic problems like poverty, economic injustice, homophobia, and sexism. Support for nonprofits should not mean control of nonprofits - i.e. using funding as bait to get institutions to bend to the will of people who couldn't survive under the conditions that impacted communities must contend with. These tactics are not true to philanthropy. The very word philanthropy literally means love of humanity. Support for nonprofits means giving people the resources it actually takes to be effective; it means playing a supportive role to subject matter experts; it means equitable funding across communities and identities. I am encouraged that the academy and other students of the sector are finally assessing their practices. But, as Ana often says, "Philanthropy has lost its sense of urgency." The reality is we've been toying with solving seemingly intractable problems in our society while remaining largely uncommitted to disrupting and dismantling the systems that make all of this work necessary. Yes, let's pull the babies out of the water. But, also, who the heck is throwing the damn babies into the water in the first place?

Give philanthropic funding and support people in need directly; back changemakers with talent and commitment; and increase the focus on influencing Government and corporate activity. Three key takeouts from a FSG webinar today that expanded on Mark Kramer and Steve Phillips's recent Stanford Social Innovation Review article on strategic philanthropy. While philanthropy has made positive differences to people and communities, it hasn't managed to effect the scale of social change many funders and not for profits aspire to. The article and webinar suggested three changes: 1. Empower individuals as research shows when people are directly given money or other types of support they will use it to successfully improve their situations - increase their education, pay down debt, improve their health (Check out this interesting site regarding the effectiveness of peer driven change https://peerchange.org/). 2. Back the changemakers, for example through a fellowship/scholarship. This is cheaper and more effective in effecting system-level change than giving a grant to an organisation delivering services (although, it's important to continue supporting those that alleviate the symptoms of issues like poverty). 3. Focus on influencing Government, including through voter engagement. Because government has the capacity to impact social and environmental problems on a national scale, either positively or negatively. There are many NZ funders engaged in supporting community-led change; and philanthropists and grantmakers know the value of individual changemakers to outcomes. They are increasingly wary of organisations and people who act on behalf of communities that don't have those communities engaged in their decision making (Board, management, staff). The area of least visible activity is strong and confident funding to influence Government (whether that's through voter engagement; voter education; or funding advocacy for certain policies and programmes). Again, there's some awesome funders in this space and increasing dialogue - but scope to do much more to create change. I am sure there are many thoughts on this and perspectives that see into corners of giving in NZ that I am unaware of. The article below is a stimulating read (although admittedly US focussed) on these topics and more. There's another webinar coming up to further this discussion for anyone interested, register here: https://lnkd.in/gKjRwWrA. Community Foundations of Aotearoa New Zealand Philanthropy New Zealand Kate Frykberg Lani Evans MNZM Dr Christina Howard Cheryl Spain Alice Montague Robyn Scott Seumas Fantham Eleanor Cater Annette Culpan Chiara LaRotonda Linn Araboglos Natalia Sexton Jennifer Chowaniec Hainoame Fulivai amongst many other awesome thinkers in this area :-).

Fascinating read in Stanford Social Innovation Review on how “strategic philanthropy” has failed. https://lnkd.in/dYx9UpDK “This failure of strategic philanthropy is rooted in a set of assumptions…that the beneficiaries of philanthropic support are incapable of solving their own problems, that wealthy donors have the wisdom and incentive to solve society’s many challenges, and that the social sector is an effective alternative to government in building an equitable and sustainable society.” “Mounting evidence suggests that these assumptions are wrong.” “This mismatch between charity and well-being is not limited to the United States. Countries with the highest per capita charitable giving—the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom—tend to perform poorly on measures of social progress. The countries that perform best—Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Japan—give to charity as little as 2 percent of what the United States gives per capita, relying on government rather than philanthropy to meet their society’s needs.” “The more we highlight philanthropy as the solution, the more we excuse government and corporations from the need to change.”

Wonder what philanthropy should look like in the future? On my quest to identify successful models in philanthropy, also seeing myself as a “catalyst”, I bumped into an article on "catalytic philanthropy" in Stanford Social Innovation Review, that asserts my own beliefs.   The article from Mark Kramer, dated 2009, is more judicious than ever in a landscape of numerous positive and enthusiastic but small and underfunded non-profits. All actively work for the common good but are too often limited in scope as they pursue a predefined own goal and therefore often unable to pivot and assemble the required elements of a solution, that must be brought together to achieve social impact at scale.   Based on a deep experience, Kramer synthesises the must-do's to make a difference on urgent social problems: - Take responsibility for solving a problem, without delegating it; and keep going until you solve it, - Mobilise and engage broad cross-sector coalitions to create the momentum for change on the issue at stake, - Use all the necessary tools – not only the traditional non-profit & public sector but also for-profit tools – selecting the techniques that are required to achieve the impact sought after, - Use actionable knowledge (prefer on the ground facts to high level research) to engage your target audience.   I strongly believe in "catalytic philanthropy" which today, 15y later remains underexploited. I also want to add on Kramer’s assertions. To achieve long-lasting measurable change on major social topics, we must: - Evolve from the usual small and scattered philanthropic donations, to fewer and larger donations, having donors assemble their contributions. Fundraising takes too much time & ressources to non-profits, who lack means to attack the social challenges. - Leverage professionals with top tier business experience to work with non-profit experts. We need people who have proven management, consultancy and entrepreneurial experience. Today, many of these stay in the for-profit world. If we believe some social matters are urgent, we need more resources, we need people to dedicate themselves to impact. - Federate non-profit organisations and/or bring them at scale, rather than merely multiplying start-ups. Both are necessary, of course, but nothing replaces experience. This requires good listening & co-creation skills. - Encourage local initiative that anyone can start up around him/her, that is autonomous and self-multiplying, that therefore does not require support or only a minimum.   These are steps I believe will enable us to make steps to multiply impact. My thoughts can be synthesised as follows: Bring together & finance small groups of dedicated and experienced entrepreneurs to work on social matters. As such complement the work of specialists, with transversal "catalysts" who "get things done", and complement the "give away"-philanthropy with a "solving (complex) problems"-philanthropy. But who am I?

Which Organizational Model Is Most Facilitative of Philanthropy? Hint: Philanthropy, as measured by giving to organizations (charities, nonprofits, NGOs) is most robust in the healthiest of democracies. Democracies foster the creation of purpose-driven organizations (PDOs). PDOs address what government does not, or augment what government doesn't do as much of or as well as what many people hope, want or expect. PDOs constitute a vital part of a functioning democracies. No matter how they are formed, they won't last if don't attract, retain and re-inspire the monetary and voluntary votes of significant segments of the people. Therefore, the less democratic an organization is in its orientation, the more it will become a private club dependent on the wealthy few. The more it remembers it was once a cause born in the streets and commits itself to listening and responding, the more it will resonate and attract time, talent and treasure. The diagram below show the three dominant models of purpose driven organizations. The first mimics the church. We are the keepers of the faith. We know best. Listen to us, trust us and give generously when we pass the offering basket. It's fine as long as you have a large congregation of kindred spirits who see you as god-like and feel led by your spiritual direction. It's not fine if you don't provide the same but expect the same obedience. The second represents the adaption that many organizations made when they realized, either by experimentation or emulation, that you attract more private support when you give people choices. Some of those organizations came to realize they could attract even more private support if they defined how levels of investment would drive them closer to society-serving goals. Just changing mindsets from "gifts" to "investments" helped many organizations adapt to changing philanthropic realities including the rise of the entrepreneurial donor. The third model represents the dynamic from which many PDOs were formed years, decades or centuries ago but, as they grew larger, lost sight of. It is the dynamic to which they must return if they hope to sustain their relevance and attract a larger share of monetary and voluntary votes.

The Center for Culturally Responsive Engagement at MPHI is pleased to share its latest research report Limitless Possibilities: A Guide to Power Shifting Approaches, which showcases actionable practices, used in real-world philanthropic organizations, that deliver more sustainable social change and advance equity. You can download a copy of the report at: https://loom.ly/-ahHzoM This new contribution to the field, produced with support from the Barr Foundation and Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, equips leaders and staff in philanthropy with information and resources to establish and strengthen shared practices for power shifting. Shifting power means that funders change structures and processes within their organization to avoid limiting the power of grant partners and communities. The report’s aims are to better understand: • The range of power shifting approaches, including key features, core practices, benefits, practice examples, and considerations for effective implementation. • The changes in mindset, policies, processes, skills, and resources needed to use different power shifting approaches. • The capacities needed to focus on equity, particularly racial equity, in the implementation of power shifting. Highlights of the report include: • The one practice that offers the greatest impact with minimal structural changes: provide and expand multi-year general operating support. • Eight Power Shifting Profiles based on the experience of real-world philanthropic organizations and grant partners. • Actions philanthropy can take now to start or deepen their journey to shift power. • Questions grant partners and philanthropic staff can ask to spark meaningful conversation and shift power in their relationships. A reminder, one can download a copy of the report at: https://loom.ly/-ahHzoM Center for Culturally Responsive Engagement - MPHI #limitlesspossibilities #philanthropy #powershiftingapproaches #racialequity #racialjustice

Philanthropy, traditionally perceived as a benevolent force, is increasingly coming under scrutiny for perpetuating a model that, though well-intentioned, may not be sustainable in addressing community challenges. There is a burgeoning recognition that the concentration of wealth, and the consequent philanthropic power, has frequently reinforced a status quo where solutions are constrained within the parameters of what is deemed 'fundable' by the affluent. Those within the sphere of influence — the communities facing these very challenges — often find themselves on the periphery of decision-making. This top-down approach to philanthropy risks echoing an archaic framework, reminiscent of a time when power imbalances went unquestioned and the voices of the many were funneled through the few. In this way, modern philanthropy can inadvertently parallel the 'plantation' mindset, operating under the presumption that the wealthy inherently possess the foresight and understanding necessary to dictate the appropriate courses of action for the less affluent. Yet, it is a pivotal moment for philanthropy to evolve. This entails a shift from a dynamic of 'doing for' to one of 'partnering with' communities, thereby engaging with those who are most intimately acquainted with the intricacies of their own needs and potential solutions. True progress lies in the democratization of philanthropy, fostering an inclusive ecosystem where decisions are not unilaterally imposed but collectively deliberated upon. In this reimagined paradigm, philanthropy can transcend its historical shackles and emerge as a truly progressive and participatory force for social change. No one person or persons are to blame, the barriers of racism and who is trusted to solve community problems are systemic and made to feel natural and necessary. My call to action is simple, ask yourself who is more suited to solve community problems the stranger with a 10 million dollar budget who has never experienced the whirlwind of problems associated with being black, indigenous, poor, migrant, or the leader who has risen from the fire of the situation and now needs ten million dollars to make sustainable impact?

My team and I have been thinking a lot about philanthropic trends in community, corporate, and global settings. Ever-evolving trends and changes in philanthropy reflect a broader shift toward more strategic, collaborative, and impact-focused social investment. One prominent trend is the rise of 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, where donors invest in projects and organizations that generate social and environmental benefits, often alongside financial returns. This approach aims to create sustainable change by supporting ventures that address pressing challenges including climate change, poverty, and inequality. Another important trend is the continued increased focus on 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, or DEI. Many philanthropic organizations and their donors recognize the importance of addressing inequities and are channeling resources toward initiatives that promote social justice and better support historically marginalized communities. This shift may include re-evaluating internal processes and practices to ensure that funding and decision-making processes are equitable and inclusive. 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐲 is also gaining momentum. Donors pool resources and expertise to tackle complex challenges beyond the scope or capability of individual, siloed efforts. Working together, philanthropic organizations can leverage their collective impact, share knowledge, and reduce duplication of efforts. The global COVID-19 response provided powerful illustrations of how collaborative efforts can lead to more effective coordinated responses to widespread crises. We continue to see a growing emphasis on 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚-𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐲. Donors are increasingly leveraging the power of data and technology to assess the effectiveness of their work, better track outcomes, and make better-informed decisions. This trend is driven by a desire for greater accountability and transparency and underscores the role of technology in shaping the future of philanthropy and social impact. Finally, the increasing popularity and deployment of 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫-𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 (𝐃𝐀𝐅𝐬) reflect a shift towards more flexible giving options. DAFs empower donors to make charitable contributions, receive immediate tax benefits, and recommend grants from the fund over time. These funds offer a strategic and engaging way for donors to manage their philanthropic activities, making DAFs an attractive option for those seeking a more adaptable approach to giving. Overall, these trends (among others) indicate an evolution toward more intentional, inclusive, and collaborative philanthropy aimed at optimizing impact and more effectively addressing global challenges. Your thoughts? I’d love to hear them!