Phred on Philanthropy

Former President Bill Clinton has proven a formidable philanthropist, on par with Bill Gates. Arguably one of the best fundraisers around, at last week’s 3rd Annual Global Initiative Meeting he unfurled a tidal wave of philanthropy. And he created this tsumani by deploying two forms of viral marketing.

Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting

The first form of viral marketing is old-school, offline. Over 1000 power brokers from 6 continents, including 50 current and former heads of state, met last week in New York “to examine today’s most pressing global challenges and transform that awareness into tangible commitments to action.” The net result: 245 philanthropic commitments were solidified.

How is this viral? Because it is all about networking. People making connections with people and getting things done. And it keeps going. Those who met in New York will undoubtedly spin the networks out, making “Six Degrees of Separation” more than a theory or a game.

And it’s not just the leaders who met in New York. It’s the half-million people who watched the meeting online, or those of us who saw the recaps on TV or most importantly, those who made their own small commitments online.

As the Chief Networker, Clinton understands his role is not to create a hierarchy but a network. Speaking on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, September 30th 2007, he affirmed to Tim Russert that his role in the Global Initiative meeting is that of a “broker.”

Mycommitment.org

The Clinton Foundation unveiled a new web initiative seeking micro-commitments. You can commit online whatever amount of time or money you want towards a plethora of community-improving, world-changing opportunities. To get you started, the web site offers a “My Commitment 101 Kit” that includes a database of volunteer opportunities, downloadable charity badges for posting on your web site or blog, lists of organizations and resources and, taking a cue from MoveOn.org (not to mention Paul Simon,) a ready-made list of 50 Ways to Improve the World.

Clinton, ever the populist, reaches out to those who could not attend the New York meeting by inviting our participation through this web initiative. His point is simple: “No act of giving is too big or too small.”

Over the course of the three-day summit, over 40,000 individuals visited the newly launched web site. Hundreds pledged nearly $130,000 and 200,000 volunteer hours.

That’s what I call “global initiative!”

According to the September 14th, 2007 Wall Street Journal, kids are the new niche among art collectors. Children from wealthy families are entering the hallowed halls of Sotheby’s and art galleries, bidding on and buying expensive works of art. One 11-year-old boy made a successful $352,000 bid for a Jeff Koons’ sculpture. Granted, the WSJ article points out that in some cases, parents are sheltering assets under their children’s trusts. Other parents and children are genuinely interested in collecting fine art.

I’m all for art appreciation. And I think kids should have hobbies that nurture their brains not just their bodies. I was a philatelist and numismatist as a kid (not to mention a mean pogo stick bouncer). But kids should be guided in developing their values. And money is all about values.

I’m no Clark Howard, but I believe the first thing we should teach children about money is to use it to help the less fortunate. Remember the tin cans you used to save part of your allowance for church or for Jerry’s Kids? Or the UNICEF boxes? Or the local diner that had a tip jar for the local animal shelter? I recall food and clothing drives, and most of all, baking big Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners to take to less fortunate families.

One of the first social skills children must acquire is learning to share. It’s not easy when you’re just beginning to develop of sense of yourself and you are so aware of your own needs, to open your eyes and heart to what others need. We know that kids learn by watching their parents and other adults in their life. If grownups model sharing behavior, kids will adopt these skills more readily.

Grandparents, parents, teachers, members of the clergy, and other authority figures: there are many easy ways you can involve kids in sharing, philanthropic activities. Here are a few thoughts. I invite you to add others that have worked for you.

1. Take your kids to volunteer day (my version of “Take your kid to work day”). Habitat for Humanity offers volunteer opportunities for the entire family. Or participate in your neighborhood park cleanup.
2. Adopt-a-Senior. Find out through your local place of worship which seniors would welcome occasional visits involving children. Or ask at the local senior center or home. Children and old people can be good for each other. This teaches children that volunteering is not just about giving, it’s about receiving too.
3. Require your children to set aside a portion of their allowance and/or outside income (odd jobs, not day trading for kids!) for charity. Match their funds. Encourage them to research and select the cause and charities themselves.
4. Expand the network of sharing to include neighboring families or your kids’ friends. Start a giving circle of close-knit families where the kids have input and share resources as well as the adults.

And for those wealthy children who want to collect art, why not also encourage these families to donate to causes that support the arts - especially arts education for children? For those sophisticated art collecting kids who flip their investments, why not donate the profits? It’s possible for wealthy families to teach kids about aesthetics, investments and philanthropy by encouraging art collecting. The challenge is to make sure that the priorities are clear. Caring and sharing should come first. Me and mine, last.

The cover story in the September 10th 2007 issue of Time magazine makes “The Case for National Service.” Not compulsory service, but broadening the options available for young people to give a year or more in service to our country, whether through the military or civilian volunteer opportunities.

I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes a person philanthropic, or as it relates to the Time magazine article, what makes a person want to volunteer? Is it because you have a lot of money or time? Is it because your family raised you that way (which I credit as my primary drive)? Is it because you are idealistic and want to change your world? Or, as Richard Stengel, the author of the Time article, hopes - is it because “it should become a countrywide rite of passage, the common expectation and widespread experience of virtually every young American?”

Note: The Time article is not touting “mandatory service,” a contradiction, not merely an oxymoron. Call it service, but don’t call it volunteer service. Moreover, the program outlined is for (nominally) paid service.

Young people should have broader opportunities than military or public service to be a part of making our country better. I think old people should too. I think national service of some form should be available to all Americans. This isn’t just about inculcating values in our young people. It’s about providing everyone with ways to improve our communities, our nation, our world.

Some folks may want to transition in their careers from the business to the nonprofit sector. National service would allow them to test the waters, establish networks in their field of interest and build their resumes.

Some people have extra time on their hands and want to get involved. Not so much soccer moms, but Baby Boomers who are not quite ready for retirement. Or parents who want to ease their way back into the workforce after a period of being stay-at-home dads and moms.

Our nation’s recent traumas - 9/11 and Katrina spring to mind - have heightened our willingness to lend a hand. But there is a difference between neighborliness and paid service.

The biggest issue is how to structure a national service program. Do we assign or create a government agency or Volunteer Czar to administer the program?

We already have good progams in place, some public, many private. The largest public service corporation is the Corporation for National and Community Service, an independent federal agency that oversees three initiatives:

1. Senior Corps
2. AmeriCorps
3. Serve America

In the private sector, the dominant nonprofit for volunteer action is the Hands On Network, with over a half million volunteers within and outside the US. HandsOn is merging with the nation’s other leading volunteer clearinghouse, the Points of Light Foundation and Volunteer Center National Network in Washington, D.C., which actually placed nearly four times as many volunteers as HandsOn in 2006. Many cities have their own voluntary action centers, often affiliated with local United Way chapters.

Schools offer various types of volunteer service, from mandatory service to service-learning programs integrating academia and service. Faith groups have hosted service programs for youth and adults as long as organized religion has been around. Sororities and fraternities tout their service projects as central to their mission.

Perhaps the newest entrant to sponsoring volunteer service is the corporate world. Many companies large and small encourage employees to get involved in their communities. That paternalistic concept in itself is not new. What is new is doing it on company time - and getting paid. Journalist Jonathan Ledgard proffers a novel proposal for companies to either pay or provide unpaid leave to mid-career managers to do community service. He terms this NGO “Executives without Borders,” modeled on Doctors without Borders.

My point is that we already have several national and international volunteer clearinghouses. Why not let the free market market these opportunities?

The institutions that inculcate personal values are family, faith institutions and schools. Government should not be in the business of character development. It should support, encourage, provide incentives and nurture its own agency, but it should not take over proven institutions.

Oseola McCarty
Washerwoman and Philanthropist
1908 - 1999

I want to display perhaps a different face of philanthropy to underscore my point that we all are philanthropists.

I recently attended an exhibit of Annie Leibovitz’s photography at the High Museum in Atlanta. One of her most striking portraits is of Oseola McCarty, a washerwoman in Mississippi who made a $150,000 bequest to the University of Southern Mississippi. The gift endows a scholarship fund for African-American students demonstrating financial need.

Miss McCarty didn’t inherit much money from the few relatives she had. She didn’t marry money - or marry at all. She scrimped and saved the money she earned doing laundry for families in Hattiesburg for 75 years.

Miss McCarty never attended college. She probably never even visited the USM campus. But she was set on her desire to help underprivileged African-Americans obtain a college education.

I am amazed at this woman’s heart and discipline. We Americans are not very good at saving money. It is striking that someone could become a philanthropist by giving away her life savings. Savings generated not from grand incomes or inheritance or winning the lottery, but from a lifetime of frugality.

I’m a philanthropist. So are you. We all are.

No, I am not sitting atop a pile of cash doling it out to the needy. I’m simply an engaged citizen who wants to make a difference. My monetary contributions are meager compared to what I would give if I were to win the proverbial lottery. My heart, however, is all in.

Philanthropy has a bad rap as elitist. I contend that many of us can be – and are – philanthropists.

Money, Money

Many people think of philanthropists as rich people, companies and foundations making large grants of cash to worthy nonprofit organizations.

But it’s not just the wealthy who can afford to donate money. Those with household incomes less than $100,000 contributed over one-third of all charitable donations in 2005, according to a recent study by Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy.

One could make a case that those who work in the nonprofit sector are themselves philanthropists as they often earn less income than they would in the corporate world (opportunity cost). For example, Tim Schultz earned about $300,000 as a trust director for Northwest/Wells Fargo when he accepted a position in the United Way’s planned giving department for about one-fifth his previous pay.

Volunteering = Philanthropy

How easily we forget that philanthropy includes giving more than money. Over one-quarter of Americans (61.2 million) volunteered in 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Volunteers give much more than time. They offer special talents, like the volunteer pilots who provide free air transportation for medical patients who can’t afford it for the nonprofit Air Charity Network. They work their social networks and stake their personal reputations. (Check out this social network map of America’s “ruling elite.”) They raise money, like the Girl Scouts. And of course, let’s not forget the unsung heroes whose unpaid labor forge a powerful hidden (or “shadow”) economy.

Philanthropy = Investing in Common Good

Too often philanthropy is synonymous with charitable giving or donating, a no-strings attached relationship. Gifts are not earned; they are given voluntarily and without expectation. I feel the practice of philanthropy should be an invitation to a long-term relationship (not every dollar pitched in a bucket at a stop light or response to a natural disaster, but thoughtful, strategic gifts should be). Like anything worthwhile, philanthropy should be considered an investment.

An investment in the common good.

Σ Investment Impact

Philanthropists who consider their donations to be investments should evaluate the impact of their largess. It is natural to wonder if you created or contributed to the intended results or change over time.

But how do you measure returns on such investment? Should you?

I’m not suggesting we apply traditional business models and algorithms. As an industry analyst, researcher and consultant, I’m interested in new metrics, new ways of evaluating the impact of our investments in social change.

In America our model for ROI (Return on Investment) can be myopic. Our time horizon rarely stretches beyond next quarter. We seek quick payback periods. We pump up stock prices over the short term. American business is gung-ho, action-packed, like a 12 -year old with ADD hyped up on sugar playing Grand Theft Auto.

It’s hard to apply traditional American business metrics to the work of social good. Or is it? As an MBA with solid corporate and consulting experience, I preach benchmarking, best practices, Balanced ScorecardÓ and strategic planning. As a nonprofit founder, board member, fundraiser and volunteer, I loathe the burdensome reporting often required by grant-makers. “Just let us do our good work,” I beg.

How to reconcile these two parts of myself? How to merge the best of business and nonprofit sectors? It’s like integrating the both lobes of the brain. Easier said than done!

Phred on Philanthropy Blog Mission Statement

I dedicate this blog to my own struggle to operate in both the for-profit and nonprofit arenas. Specifically I’m interested in the resources that enable and support the social sector. I am focused on investments of money, in-kind gifts, talent and other resources that fuel the nonprofit world. I welcome disparate perspectives on how philanthropy can make the world a better place. I challenge my readers to dig deep and find new ways that we can invest in the common good.