Gunderson to leave COF at start of September

Steve Gunderson is to step down as president and CEO of the Council on Foundations with effect from 1 September, it was announced on Sunday. In an open letter posted on the Council’s website, Gunderson said that he stepped down confident that he was leaving ‘an outstanding organization’ to his successor. In announcing the news, the Council was keen to affirm its commitment to the expanded horizon of its work ushered in under Gunderson’s tenure. Carol Larson, chair of the Council’s board of directors, expressed its gratitude to Steve ‘especially steering our association through perilous economic times and for bringing global vision to council initiatives,’ while COO Kisha Green Dimbo remarked that the ‘Council is committed to continuing our work with the Global Philanthropy Leadership Initiative, which remains a high priority for the board and staff.’ The board will appoint an interim president and CEO by September.

For more information
www.cof.org

Partnership foreshadows ‘new model’ of increased cooperation for charitable sector

At the end of last month, Beyond Philanthropy, the for-profit affiliate of the Forum for Active Philanthropy, and the Swiss philanthropy consultancy Social Investors Partners signed a cooperation agreement to pool their knowledge and resources. The two organizations will cooperate closely on both individual consultations and project management services for donors from across Europe. According to Patrick Frick of Social Investors Partners, ‘It is our goal, in our partnership with Beyond Philanthropy, to suggest a new model for the charitable sector: that in order to bring about the largest possible positive effect on society, we must all increase the level of cooperation within this sector – as much between donors as between those who help them to apply their resources effectively.’

For more information
www.activephilanthropy.org

Priya Viswanath

Philanthropy Leadership Confluence brings Indian donor association a step closer

The Philanthropy Leadership Confluence (PLC) was held in Mumbai on 15 June 2011 and organized by the Centre for the Advancement of Philanthropy, one of India’s leading philanthropy resource centres and Samhita, a philanthropic initiative that aims to create an enabling ecosystem for NGOs, donors, volunteers, service providers and other support organizations.

The meeting brought together grantmakers, private wealth individuals and philanthropy support organizations to explore setting up a network or association of donors. The day-long meeting was attended largely by Mumbai-based donors who are engaged in local and national grantmaking.

The organizers brought together an impressive range of donors. Established family foundations and trusts, including the Tata Trusts, N M Wadia Trust, Mahindra Trust and Rangoonwala Trust, were present alongside emerging new wealth and corporate foundations: Axis Bank Foundation, Destimoney, Edelgive Foundation, Forbes Marshall, Altamount Capital, Volkart Foundation, Johnson & Johnson and Wockhardt Foundation to name a few. The Bombay Community Public Trust and Navam represented the community foundation sector. The India Foundation for the Arts, the country’s leading arts grantmaker, also participated, as well as support organizations such as GIVE, Dasra and Credibility Alliance, and organizations promoting social venture philanthropy including Acumen Fund, LGT Venture Philanthropy and Asian Venture Philanthropy Network. The presence of established grantmakers, many of them well known to the field of grantmaking in India – such as Russi Lala, Jamshed Setna, Deanna Jeejabhoy and Anmol Vellani – provided rich insights and perspectives. A range of bankers, venture capitalists, financial advisers and development consultants were also present and participated in a lively discussion on Indian philanthropy, grantmaking and the needs of this sector.

Rohini Nilekani, founder of Arghyam and the face of the new age of philanthropy in India, delivered the keynote address and reflected on the potential for collaborative philanthropy. Talking about the power of aggregation, she referred to some of the new initiatives that focus on successful collaborative engagement – the Public Health Foundation, Indian School of Business and Pratham. ‘Our society rests on three pillars – sarkaar (government), samaaj (civil society) and bazaar (market forces). Philanthropy has a critical role to play in filling the gaps that the sarkaar or the bazaar cannot plug so that samaaj can thrive,’ she said.

Vijay Mahajan, chairman of BASIX and president of the Micro Finance Institutions Network, spoke about ‘co-creation’ in his keynote address. He reflected on the ecosystem of symbiotic entities and the current need to adapt and change, in order to leverage the power of giving. He urged participants to focus on identifying key issues of our times, pooling knowledge with humility and honesty to learn mutually and develop supportive legislation and to act to co-create between donors and grantees.

Paula Johnson, VP and director of the Center for Global Philanthropy, The Philanthropic Initiative Inc, shared her insight on global trends in philanthropic giving and networking while emphasizing that support networks are essential to assist foundations to create more impact. WINGS reported 200 foundations in India, and estimated grantmaking in India at about US$5-7 billion. ‘The time is right for India to have a network that can support the work of donors and assist the new philanthropists,’ Johnson added.

In his address, Noshir Dadrawala of the Centre for Advancement of Philanthropy aptly remarked: ‘Having a donor network seems like an idea whose time has come!’ He reflected on the growth of wealth and the development of the sector in India and the importance of having a learning-sharing network to enhance the growth of philanthropy.

The PLC followed a part-learning, part-interactive format, with the second half comprising interactive sessions. The keynote addresses of the day were followed by simultaneous roundtable sessions that discussed the need for a network of donors, and the activities that such a network could undertake.

The need for a network that would act as an information provider, knowledge builder, adviser, collaborative facilitator and advocate for the sector were some of the aspirations outlined by participants, summarized Anmol Vellani, executive director of India Foundation for the Arts, who led the concluding session.

The day ended with pledges to fund such an initiative, establish a taskforce to follow through on suggestions and develop a road map for the network’s development.

Priya Viswanath is co-founder and managing director of Dāna Asia. Email priya@danaasia.org

For more information
www.philanthropyconference.com

Husk Power Systems wins Ashden Award for Sustainable Energy

Indian organization Husk Power Systems (HPS), which generates electricity for remote villages in the Indian state of Bihar from the gasification of rice husk, and which featured prominently in the latest issue of Alliance, has been named one of the five international winners of this year’s Ashden Trust Awards for Sustainable Energy. Sarah Butler-Sloss of the Ashden Trust, who chairs the judging panel, speaking at the awards ceremony last Thursday (16 June), hailed Husk Power’s combination of ‘personal passion and commitment with technological know-how and entrepreneurial drive’.

The 2011 Gold Award went to Toyola Energy Ltd from Ghana, which makes efficient charcoal stoves accessible to low-income families. The other international winners were Abellon CleanEnergy Ltd, from Gujarat, India, which produces biomass pellets from crop waste; the Aga Khan Planning and Building Service, Pakistan, which installs a range of energy-efficient products in remote mountain villages; and ToughStuff International, Africa and UK, which manufactures and markets a range of low-cost and robust solar products to off-grid communities, mainly in Kenya and Madagascar.

For more information
www.ashdenawards.org/winners

Report on US non-profit funding of journalism shows achievements and limits – and has lessons for Europe

In the last ten years, the US non-profit sector has invested over a billion dollars in safeguarding and promoting quality journalism to combat perceived threats to the role of the media as the watchdog of democratic principle and practice. The figures appear in a study released today, The Field of Nonprofit Funding of Journalism in the United States.

According to the report which was initiated by the Technical University of Dortmund and carried out by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the involvement of American foundations has had a significant impact on practices in local journalism, investigative journalism and in topics such as health policy. Financing from foundations, claims the study, provides a basis for new ideas that plug gaps in the changing media landscape. Moreover, the American example also shows that big experiments can be started, and new forms of quality journalism tested, with relatively modest resources. However, the report also clearly shows the limits of foundation financing for journalism when it comes to the sustainability of projects and securing funds to take them beyond the initial stage.

Why should a German university sponsor a study of non-profit activity in the US? Because, given what a press release from the Technical University of Dortmund calls ‘the similarities between the situations in the USA and Europe’, the US experience shows that similar engagement from European foundations could help preserve quality journalism on this side of the Atlantic, too.

The report is available for download from today from: www.activephilanthropy.org

Philanthropy’s Promise: beyond the Giving Pledge

Last week, more than 60 grantmakers from across the US publicly expressed their intention to maximize the effectiveness and impact of their grants by prioritizing the underserved, and substantially supporting advocacy and community organizing.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), which is leading the initiative, hopes that more institutional givers will be inspired to sign up by the diverse group of participating grantmakers, which includes the Ford Foundation, McKnight Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation and United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

Perhaps due to the popularity of the Giving Pledge, some people in the sector wonder about or assume a strong and deliberate connection between Philanthropy’s Promise and the Giving Pledge. Like millions around the world, NCRP has followed the progress of the Giving Pledge. This Gates-Buffett initiative brings value to the sector by encouraging people of wealth (and others) to think about charity instead of solely living the high life. And by boldly reaching out to their peers, Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett are challenging many of them – especially those that don’t yet have a philanthropic track record – to think about their wealth as something to give back and not just to keep. We learned from their approach and applied some tactical ideas to our own initiative, but the inception and objectives of Philanthropy’s Promise were not modelled on those of the Giving Pledge. And Philanthropy’s Promise was not prompted by the Pledge – we would have taken this initiative regardless of the Giving Pledge.

As for the foundations that are participating in Philanthropy’s Promise, NCRP cannot speak about their respective perceptions of the Giving Pledge and whether it influenced their decisions to be part of our initiative. But one thing is clear: all 60+ foundations have expressed, in a variety of ways, an underlying belief in the importance of being intentional about who benefits from their giving and supporting strategies that help address the root causes of social problems, not just alleviate symptoms.

By signing on to Philanthropy’s Promise, these grantmakers are sending a strong signal about their resolve to maximize their contribution to the public good.

Sean Dobson is field director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). For more information about Philanthropy’s Promise, visit www.philanthropyspromise.org

Malcolm Hayday

NESsT doing a great job but social enterprise needs more actors

If you Google social enterprise development in Hungary you get singular references to the CEE Trust and the Euclid Network but almost all the content comes from NESsT, which began its work with nascent social enterprises in Hungary almost 15 years ago. It was therefore no surprise that the first Social Enterprise Day, held in Budapest on 3 June, was organized by NESsT and was a showcase for NESsT and its portfolio’s work in addressing critical social issues.

The Day was actually the culmination of three days of events: a private day among NESsT and its portfolio organizations; the Social Enterprise Marketplace at the Hungarian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association conference and the NESsT-Citi awards for social enterprise performance; and the Social Enterprise Day. The latter was attended by some 120 social enterprises, community organizations, charities, one or two bankers and funders and government officials. A similar event was held contemporaneously in Santiago, Chile but an opportunity was missed to link the two and to appreciate the global reach of social enterprise.  

NESsT had previously surveyed the Hungarian market in depth in 1999 and, in a key part of the Day, reported its new findings, ten years on. There has been some improvement but nowhere near enough. Social enterprise development appears focused on social marginalization and employment. While the development of the non-profit Ltd (KfT) corporate legal form is a help, there is still a lack of awareness of the potential of social enterprise among policymakers. With donors also considered to be averse to making risk investments – as opposed to grants – social enterprises have to embrace business tools and become self-financing if they wish to grow.

NESsT issued a call to action based on recommendations for four groups: the audience, funders, social enterprises and government: the development of a more supportive infrastructure; a paradigm shift in the thinking of non-profits about independence; new structures (business skills) and innovation; donor education, risk-taking attitude and combining financial support with capacity building; and policy initiatives at national and EU level.

Therein lie some key challenges. Hungary is not a large economy and the role of social enterprise within it is still tiny. If social enterprise is to flourish it needs a social capital market – probably on a regional basis – to be sustainable. Funders need more case studies. They need advisers to help them invest and understand the impact they can have. Government needs to facilitate much more capacity building and investment readiness. There need to be more sources of finance: social business angels; patient capital; more venture philanthropy; social investors. In time a social bank or two for it is clear that this is a market the commercial banks really don’t get. Above all, right now, social enterprise needs a platform, a voice.

For the past 15 years NESsT has been pioneering most of this on its own. By necessity it is doing too much and must allow others to pick up the call to action it has championed. The NESsT team in Hungary and the wider central Europe has achieved amazing success with its portfolio over 15 years. It has learned what works and what doesn’t but a market will only develop when other actors enter the stage. Then funders, commissioners and purchasers will want to engage. Joint chief executive of NESsT Lee Davis called for a national social enterprise strategy. Government can do more, but does the reality of social enterprise development in Hungary today really connect with the reality portrayed by the government? Be careful what you wish for.  

Malcolm Hayday is chief executive of Charity Bank. Email mhayday@charitybank.org

Prompted by Gates, Buffett and NCRP, US foundations adopt Philanthropy’s Promise

Apparently prompted by the much-touted Giving Pledge of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, more than 60 US foundations have set up their own pledge, Philanthropy’s Promise, by which they undertake to channel at least 50 per cent of their grant money to the poor and other disadvantaged people.

If the immediate stimulus for the Promise is the Gates-Buffett Pledge, however, the real mover is the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), which has been agitating for a number of years for foundations to give at least 50 per cent of their grant money to help the poor and other groups the NCRP defines as economically disadvantaged: minority groups; disabled people; women and girls; those who live in rural areas; or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.

Signatories have also undertaken that least 25 per cent of their spending on disadvantaged groups will go to projects that promote advocacy, community organizing and other efforts designed to solve the policy problems that hurt vulnerable members of society.

Among the foundations signing up to the Promise are the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Arcus Foundation, the Foundation for the Mid South, the General Mills Foundation, the Needmor Fund and the Wallace Foundation. The money in question is a significant sum. According to NCRP, the signatories give a total of $2.5 billion a year.

The move seems part of a ripple effect from the Gates-Buffett Pledge and came only a few days after the launch of the so-called Hollywood Pledge through which entertainment and sports stars are attempting to encourage their fans to increase their support for charitable causes.

Source
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 8 June 2011
www.HollywoodPledge.com

David Pritchard

Why bother with a theory of change?

As a recent guest on BBC Radio’s Desert Island Discs, Martin Sheen described why he is a social activist. He said that he never expects to change anyone’s mind through his activism. He does what he does because he has to, it is right. That is not enough for me, and I suspect, not enough for many who work in the charitable sector. There is nothing wrong with being motivated by principle and values alone. But I imagine most of us need to make a difference. If I was not making a difference, I would go somewhere else that pays more!

As an alternative to acting solely out of principle, at New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) we advise our clients about the importance of having a clear, explicit theory of change. Such a theory of change describes how what you do should lead to the impact that you want to have.

This sounds rudimentary. But we are often surprised at how many clients have not articulated a coherent theory of change. Some have to be convinced of the need for one.
The benefits are clear. A theory of change helps identify organizational priorities and inform strategic choices. Understanding what makes a difference distinguishes what an organization has to do to achieve an impact from what is nice to do.

It also helps staff and stakeholders work towards a common purpose, promoting collaboration for shared goals and objectives. Having different views in an organization is healthy. But too many differences can lead to inaction or, worse, different parts of the organization frustrating or undermining each other.

Crucially, a theory of change also helps an organization use new data and evidence to assess and improve its effectiveness. One client we have been advising on measurement provides advisory services to people who are financially stressed. The organization contacted a sample of service users who had received one-off telephone support rather than more intensive support. They expected that those who received one-off support would have found that was all they needed. In fact they found that people who received minimal support often did not follow the advice given and ended up with poor outcomes. The charity is now reassessing their business practices based on this new information.

But developing a theory of change can be difficult. Many charities start by responding with a strong vision to a clear need and grow organically and opportunistically as the environment and funder priorities change. It can be challenging and frustrating – and may seem pointless – trying to weave apparently disparate programmes together into a single causal model. This was my experience early in my career trying to make sense of how our work with young people and families in Northern Ireland was somehow meant to promote ‘peace’. It was a lofty aim, but it took a big leap of faith (in the absence of evidence) to get from our programmes to this nirvana.

Making the theory of change explicit can also create discomfort and tensions. People working in the charitable sector often are, admirably, passionate and committed. Questioning whether what they do is the best way to achieve organizational goals can be threatening. Colleagues can find themselves strongly disagreeing with each other. One forceful chief executive in a theory of change workshop we ran squashed dialogue with his forceful views. Maybe that helps short-term planning, but it did not seem conducive to increasing the organization’s impact over the long term.

As yet, we only have anecdotal evidence to show that charities that have a clear and logical theory of change are more effective than those that do not. Producing more robust evidence will go onto our list of future research.

David Pritchard is Head of Measurement and Evaluation at NPC. Email DPritchard@philanthropycapital.org

Rich Australians keep their chequebooks in their pockets

It’s paradoxical that while Australia topped a recent World Giving Index of 153 countries in terms of people's willingness to give money, volunteer and help strangers, wealthy Australians are apt to be relatively stingy when it comes to philanthropy. This state of affairs is roundly castigated by, among others, Daniel Petre, a former Microsoft executive who describes Australia’s wealthy as ‘morally bankrupt’.

‘Generally speaking,’ he claims, ‘they don't see a moral obligation to give generously to the society in which they've built their wealth.’ The average worker, he says, gives more than the super rich, a state of affairs he describes as ‘just appalling’. Simon McKeon, investment banker and corporate philanthropist, who works part-time to pursue philanthropic interests such as the Global Poverty Project and who has been named Australian of the Year, agrees, though in less categoric terms. ‘We really are not overly generous,’ he says, adding that fostering giving among the rich is a ‘national challenge’.

Why has a US-style culture of giving not emerged among wealthy Australians? Opinions differ. For one thing, believe observers of the sector, much of the wealth in Australia has been accumulated over the past four decades, compared with the long-held philanthropic traditions of US dynasties such as the Rockefellers. Australia has no estate or death duty, which could be a powerful trigger for the wealthy to give money during their lifetime, rather than let the state take it off their heirs. At the same time, there has been a greater reliance on government here to provide welfare.

One researcher, Wendy Scaife of the Australian Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at Queensland University of Technology, believes that a major factor may be what she calls the ‘quiet code of giving’ – people making donations anonymously for fear of being lambasted for showing off or for seeking publicity.

Not everyone agrees. Such secret donations would make themselves felt in tax statistics and charities' coffers, argues Daniel Petre. Taxpayers, for example, claimed $2.1 billion in deductible gifts in 2008-09, down 10.8 per cent from the year before. While the number of people overall who claimed gifts rose slightly, the value of donations fell, and McKeon asserts that of about 8,000 Australians earning more than $1 million a year, ‘more than a third made no gift at all’.

Whatever the reasons for the reluctance among rich Australians to put their hands in their pockets for the public benefit, it remains a curious fact that the most striking philanthropic example in the country has been set by an outsider, Chuck Feeney. Having donated more than $500 million in Australia through Atlantic Philanthropies, he is now seeking to build ‘giving while living’ networks across the country, calling on philanthropists to pool their funds for large projects.

Earlier this year, for example, he pledged $10 million to the University of New South Wales’s Kirby Institute for infection and immunity in society for new $80 million facilities on condition that the federal and state governments and the university pay $60 million, and other wealthy people find the remaining $10 million. The university has so far raised about two-thirds of that from wealthy donors.

For more information
www.smh.com.au/business/frankly-they-dont-give-a-damn-20110603-1fl7r.htm...