Philanthropica

Money Well Spent?

2008-12-22T16:00:00.000-05:00

I have greatly enjoyed Paul Brest and Hal Harvey's Money Well Spent: A Strategic Plan for Smart Philanthropy. And I'm digging this whole multimedia approach. There's the book itself. There are the supplemental materials on the site smartphilanthropy.org, and even a blog. It's a great way to get a conversation going. I hope I can add some value.

On the plus side, Money Well Spent is written for a popular audience, which is fantastic. Money Well Spent could definitely encourage people to get involved in organized philanthropy and spur those who already are to be more thoughtful about the difference they might make.

Ultimately, though, I think it suffers from some of the problems in Peter Frumkin's academic Strategic Giving. Philanthropy may be more strategic, but will a more strategic philanthropy be more democratic?

I sympathize greatly with the criticisms voiced by Aaron Dorfman (strategy turns grantees into contractors), Lucy Bernholz (giving is as much a matter of the heart as the head), and Bill Schambra (forget the strategy - cut a check).

In my own response, I'd like to focus on the first part of the book and the last part of the book, which, for my money, are the most fascinating. In the book's preface, introduction, and first few chapters, Brest and Harvey are laying out the case for strategic philanthropy. In a delightful afterword, the authors anticipate some of the criticisms of strategic philanthropy and attempt to address them. Don't get me wrong. There's great stuff in the middle: presumption in favor of general operating support, mission investments, and a terrific section on "tools of the trade." As "tools of the trade" implies, though, the middle largely constitutes common practice for a growing number of grantmaking professionals. If you're interested in why this constitutes philanthropic practice, and to what extent it should be common practice, and that's where my interest is, well, read on.

According to strategic philanthropy, donors, in accordance with their values and some sort of empirically valid assessment of the world, act in the philanthropic space - creating funds, investing assets, making grants to charities, etc. - with a view to getting the most value for their efforts.

There's nothing immediately wrong with this view of philanthropy. Who, after all, wants to waste time and resources?

But, if it's all about aligning your resources for impact, you have to ask: what sort of impact? That's something to which Brest and Harvey, despite working for specific ends in their own philanthropic work as heads of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and ClimateWorks Foundation, respectively, deliberately don't speak.

I think there's something wrong in there, so what I'd like to do over the course of a few posts is throw out the makings of what I'll just go ahead and call a communitarian critique of strategic philanthropy. Even if its authors don't in the course of their work, Money Well Spent "brackets" discussion of substantive, constitutive moral views. This bracketing is a serious weakness of the book and of the philanthropy it promotes.

We'll start with "strategy." They keep using this word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

A Fellow Human

2008-12-19T13:47:00.000-05:00

Phil Cubeta is far too kind to us at Gift Hub:

One of the best posts ever on philanthropy. Two years ago. And then the next day, one more post. Then total silence. I am sure there are lots of reasons, but one of them is that our sector is so polite, it just kills the human voice. At a tony philanthropic gathering in our nation's capitol, in the Cosmos Club, I sat next to a fellow human who smiled conspiratorially at me and acknowledged that he - yes, he himself - was none other than the mad monk. I asked him to resume blogging, but he never has.

I remember that post, and, looking back, I consider it a miniature triumph. It's not every day that you manage to say pretty much what you really think. But where did I go from there? I tried to be a blogger. I failed.

There are, indeed, lots of reasons for the inexplicable lapses. While it's true that our sector represses and deadens a certain kind of voice, you shouldn't attribute to martyrdom that which can be adequately explained by cowardice and laziness. I lacked a certain courage, a certain discipline, which this requires. All told, it's really that simple.

But I take the moniker seriously. This is a sort of scriptorium for me. I have my tasks, and my inability to carry them out is no excuse for their not being completed. Such is vocation.

So expect better from Philanthropica. I'm turning the lights back on.

Ira Contra Machina

2008-12-19T13:45:00.000-05:00

Why stand on a silent platform?

GOTV

2006-11-07T12:03:00.000-05:00

Today is Election Day. Make your voice heard - whatever your political affiliation.

Find your polling place here. If you've already voted, great. If not, finish reading and make your way to the polls.

Report any problems you encounter here or call 866-OUR-VOTE.

When voting, remember that they work for you, and not the other way around. If you're satisfied with your representatives' performance, keep them on. We can always use good people in government. If you're less than happy with your representatives, fire them and get somebody who truly represents you.

Tomorrow, recall that the only person who can truly represent you is you. Don't let Election Day be the only day your elected representatives hear from you. Don't let Election Day be the only day they care about you, your family, your friends, and your fellow citizens. Don't let Election Day be the only day you fight for your loved ones, your values, and your dreams.

Vote - because today is a reminder of who's really in charge here. Remember that this morning, remind them of it at the polls, and don't forget it tomorrow.

Anger is a Gift

2006-11-06T14:09:00.000-05:00

A certain Aristotle quote is trotted out with a bit of frequency, and I have a bit of a problem with it. Here it is on the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors site:

To give money is an easy matter in any man’s power. But to decide to whom to give it, and how large and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every man’s power nor an easy matter. Hence, it is that such excellence is rare, praiseworthy, and noble.

But this quote often leaves something out. Phil Cubeta at Gift Hub wonders where our "voice[s] of poetry, particularly satire, comedy or carnival" are. I suppose that has its place. I want to know: where are our voices of anger? Who are our Jeremiahs? Who's our Howard Beale? Who is taking us to task? Who among you is angry?

I ask because Aristotle was talking about more than philanthropy in his discussion of his doctrine of the mean, from which this passage is taken. Here's the full passage from the Nicomachean Ethics:

For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the middle of a circle is not for every one but for him who knows; so, too, any one can get angry -- that is easy -- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble. (Ross translation, emphasis mine)

In the same breath that Aristotle is talking about giving away money, he's also talking about getting mad. Like giving away money, anybody can do it. It comes naturally, but virtue is found in its cultivation.

Which is particularly significant. We operate in a sector that aims to deal with some of the world's most devastating and debilitating diseases, the most complex and intractable social problems, and the most unjust and cruel conditions, and yet we speak this forcibly inert, consummately professional language of strategy as if these things are so many billiard balls to be bounced off of one another just so. Where is the outrage?

Aristotle declares:

Righteous indignation is a mean between envy and spite, and these states are concerned with the pain and pleasure that are felt at the fortunes of our neighbours; the man who is characterized by righteous indignation is pained at undeserved good fortune, the envious man, going beyond him, is pained at all good fortune, and the spiteful man falls so far short of being pained that he even rejoices.

Shorter version: if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. If you witness someone suffer undeservedly, that ought to madden. If you see someone profit through malice or fraud, that ought to infuriate. When you see cruelty, when you see pain, when you see injustice, and you know it would sacrifice nothing of moral consequence to end that cruelty, to soothe that pain, or right that wrong, and yet it persists, something has to explode inside you if you've got anything resembling a soul. As Paul Ylvisaker wrote in his essay "The Spirit of Philanthropy and the Soul of Those Who Manage It":

Don't ever lose your sense of outrage. Bill Bondurant [Executive Director, Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, 1974-92] can't forget, nor can I after he related it, the wondering comment of an applicant who looked about Bill's comfortable office and lifestyle: "How, Bill, do you keep your sense of outrage?" There has to be in all of us a moral thermostat that flips when we're confronted by suffering, injustice, inequality, or callous behavior.

Professionalism has its place. Humor and whimsy, I suppose, have their places, too, but so do our passions, so does our anger. And yet we continue to speak this suffocatingly reasonable vocabulary of effectiveness and accountability, this stilted professional jargon of leverage and targets and benchmarks. Do you people ever get angry?

Because I could just as easily have lifted Aristotle's words and said the following:

To get angry is an easy matter in any man’s power. But to decide at whom to be angry, and how much and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every man’s power nor an easy matter. Hence, it is that such outrage is rare, praiseworthy, and noble.

Trick or Treat

2006-10-31T13:23:00.000-05:00

Ramadan just passed, and we're coming up on Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, and Christmas, all holidays that provide occasions for platitudinous discussions of giving, but Halloween and its mass disbursement of sugary wealth doesn't provoke similar discussion. Given the overwhelming sense of gratitude that is supposed to buoy Thanksgiving and the religious underpinnings of the other holidays, it's easy to see why the sector gravitates toward them to wax poetic about what it is that we do here. Amidst all the hustle and bustle of contemporary life, amid the sad commercialism of the holiday season, we are called to pause and remember how fortunate many of us truly are, to think of others who may not be as fortunate, and to give to others without expecting in return.

But all that goes out the window at Halloween. And while we'd like to think that Ramadan, Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, and Christmas best exemplify what it is we do around here, Halloween, too, is a metaphor for the philanthropic sector.

Consider the plight of the trick-or-treater. What makes for a truly successful trick-or-treater? A male teen (stronger, possible access to personal transportation) without much of a costume (expensive and can impair movement) who targets several wealthy neighborhoods (more and better candy) is easily the better trick-or-treater than the six-year-old waddling around the block in a pumpkin costume with a pair of doting parents. Which nonprofit are you?

Consider the plight of the candy distributors. How do you juggle the expectations of the trick-or-treaters showing up now with those of future trick-or-treaters who might show up later that night? Give all the good candy out now or save it until later? Buy the same candy for the entirety of the night? How much do you want left over to enjoy for yourself? Do you give candy to the teens who aren't supposed to be trick-or-treating but are nonetheless out there? Do you decorate? How much? Do you build a haunted house on your porch or a graveyard on your front lawn or do you just carve a pumpkin? Will you dress up? As what? How much will you spend? Do you leave a bowl outside full of candy and, when it's gone, you're done for the night? Do you check out what the neighbors are doing? Do you compete? How well do you measure up? Do you just turn off the porch light and pretend no one's home? What kind of donor are you?

Now consider the relationship. The desired mark when trick-or-treaters ring the doorbell is someone who comes to the door, gives you great candy (no Tootsie rolls), and lets you go on your way. The undesirable mark is the elderly gentleman or lady who takes forever to get to the door, has a costume on and tries to scare you, and comments on your costume, before finally insisting on giving you candied apples, which your paranoid parents are just going to make you throw away. The desired trick-or-treater is a young person accompanied by a chaperone to prevent mischief that politely asks for candy out of the depths of a costume that demonstrates their enthusiasm for the holiday and accepts whatever they're given with sincere gratitude. The undesirables are the older kids who ring the doorbell several times, demand good candy, complain if given something other than what they want, and egg your house in retaliation. Naturally, expectations are all over the place. What kind of relationship do you have with your fellow donors or grantees?

There's your sector right there. We can decorate over it, dress it up in fancy costumes, and declare a holiday, but there it is, all too human. We stare out the window at the costumed freaks demanding our hard-earned wealth. We ring the doorbell and hope the guy behind it isn't the cheapskate the other guy was. We are eager costumed people running about, looking for bits of sugar to brighten our night. We are weary people doing what we can and looking for a little gratitude in a world of desperation and greed. Pause between Hershey bars tonight and give it a bit of thought.

We're going to spend $4.96 billion this year on Halloween. Will we be better people for it?

Foundations gave almost $32 billion in 2004. Will we be better people for it?

Trick or treat?

Give it some thought and have a safe and happy Halloween!

Another Level of Giving

2006-10-31T10:48:00.000-05:00

Upon careful reading of Maimonides' "Eight Levels of Charity," Madmunk humbly proposes another level:

Perfect charity is done when, by your gifts, the recipient is not only no longer dependent on others but is a giver himself as well, for, if at day's end, he is still the recipient and you are still the giver, his hand is not truly strengthened and, indeed, nothing much has changed.

The Real Difference Between Charity and Philanthropy

2006-10-26T16:44:00.000-04:00

"The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest."
Albert Einstein
The adage "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime" is, for many, at the heart of the difference between charity and philanthropy. Charity refers to the relief of suffering while philanthropy is the seeking out of the root causes of social problems and solving them. There is much truth to this. After all, that's the distinction Rockefeller and men like him drew when they insisted that they were doing something more, something greater, than their merely charitable peers.

Nonetheless, I believe that the true difference between the charity that is practiced by your average schmoe who tosses the Salvation Army a few coins at Christmas, and the philanthropy practiced by a man whose foundation is involved in a number of innovative initiatives aimed at effecting important social change is much simpler: compound interest.

While I marvel at American philanthropy's insistence on private solutions to public problems, its Tocquevillean associations, and its incredible can-do Yankee individualism and generosity, I am in still greater awe of its true genius: an entire system dedicated to harnessing the engine that is compound interest for the good of humanity.

When the charitable man makes a donation, he digs in his pockets for whatever he's got on him or he conscientiously strokes a check for a sizable sum and hands it off to a grateful beneficiary. Bada-bing-bada-boom. Charity.

When your philanthropist, on the other hand, makes a grant, that money's coming from a foundation, or a giving circle, or a donor-advised fund, where that money is invested for social benefit. You can make grants for the next five days, the next ten years, or forever. Bada-bing-bada-BOOM! Philanthropy!

While the charitable man's power is exerted and exhausted in the act of giving, the philanthropist's power is conserved even as it's exerted.

Give a man a fish, feed him for today. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Charity is for today; philanthropy is forever.

There's your difference between the philanthropic and the "merely" charitable: compound interest.

A Gentle Reminder of What It Is We Do in This Sector

2006-10-24T10:48:00.000-04:00

I got a prospectus from a socially responsible investment group and this petite parable was printed on their materials:

Thousands of starfish washed ashore. A little girl began throwing them in the water so they wouldn't die.

"Don't bother, dear," her mother said, "it won't make a difference."

The girl stopped for a moment and looked at the starfish in her hand.

"It will make a difference to this one."

From Strategic Giving to Democratic Giving

2006-10-22T16:16:00.000-04:00

Peter Frumkin's great achievement in his new volume, Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy, is to declare what philanthropy is for a significant group of donors and philanthropic professionals: the development and carrying out of a coherent strategy for effecting social change.

I was impressed with Frumkin's main argument surrounding a "philanthropic prism," the five components of a philanthropic strategy: the value produced through giving, the vehicle of institution for giving, the time frame guiding giving, the identity and style of the giver, and the logic model supporting the giving. I could certainly imagine a donor sitting down and thinking through these issues and attempting to bring greater alignment and coherence to their philanthropic project.

I was also heartened to hear a voice in favor of constructive failure. For Frumkin, an ardent defender of the pluralism the sector represents, failure and mistakes come with the territory. We're dealing with complex social phenomena and attempting to effect social change. It's not a question of whether or not we're going to make some mistakes. That will happen. The question is: will we learn from these experiences? Are we up for the kind of scrutiny that pores over our failures as well as our successes? Do we report on our failures so that we and others might improve? For Frumkin, we can learn just as much from those challenges as we can from successful pilot projects, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Most of all, I am keenly interested by Frumkin's claim that the effectiveness and accountability questions obscure what's really at issue in these debates: legitimacy. In some sense, these questions of effectiveness and accountability define current debate, and credit Frumkin for seeing these arguments for what they truly are, questioning the right of private donors, philanthropic institutions, and professionals to act on behalf of the public. Our sector tends to focus on effectiveness and accountability as proxies for the real issue: what ultimately justifies philanthropic action? What legitimizes this sector?

According to Frumkin, "the best and only source of real and lasting legitimacy for philanthropy rests in the development of sound strategy." This argument intrigued me, so, at a recent panel discussion on Strategic Giving, I took the opportunity to ask Frumkin about it afterward. Frumkin contended that sound strategy is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of philanthropic legitimacy. Without a strategy, it's unlikely that we'll be effective. Without being able to point to results, we cannot be truly accountable. Without accountability, not mere transparency, we cannot claim legitimacy for our sector.

This is where I think Frumkin and many donors miss and will continue to miss an important opportunity. By whom exactly is Frumkin's prism to be used? Where does this discussion of values and vehicles take place? From the look of things, it's for donors - with the possible help of advisors, given Frumkin's skepticism of philanthropic professionals - with the goal of creating a coherent strategy. However, values are not developed in a vacuum, nor do we make grants and conduct the business of philanthropy in isolation. The development of a philanthropic strategy happens in a social context, not least because donors don't do it all themselves. Armchair philanthropy simply doesn't happen.

Frumkin doesn't claim that strategy is a sufficient condition for philanthropic legitimacy because it actually does very little in the way of convincing the public that donors have the right to act publicly on their behalf. Is the Gates Foundation's massive charitable wealth justified because Gates has a strategy? Are their grants more legitimate because they've got a logic model? Strategies and logic models certainly help - but only because they're often useful in getting people's consent to continue philanthropic work.

I assert that philanthropic action is legitimate if and only if all those involved consent to the action (and, I would argue, in some way participate in it and benefit from it). Truly legitimate philanthropy is democratic philanthropy. To adapt Frumkin: the best and only source of real and lasting legitimacy for philanthropy rests in the development of shared sound strategy.

This is where donors and philanthropic professionals alike miss an important opportunity to democratize the philanthropy prism. When a donor wants to accomplish something, their wealth can be used not only to achieve their philanthropic goals but to build a community, to build democracy. Donors should be encouraged to invite others into their philanthropic prism, to experience it and all the challenges and triumphs that come with it. Donors can afford to be strategic, can afford to think about appropriate logic models, time frames, and charitable vehicles. What of those who cannot afford "strategy" but nonetheless stand to lose or gain by the philanthropist's actions? What of them? By inviting them in, by working with them, side by side, for common benefit, donors can give others control of their own destiny, perhaps for the first time. Our goal is not necessarily coherent strategy(although that certainly helps), but cohesive communities.

To some extent, this already happens. As I noted, we are not armchair philanthropists. We discuss our views with others, learn, act, and grow among family, friends, colleagues, fellow trustees, fellow philanthropoids, and fellow citizens. We don't do this all by ourselves. I contend, though, that strategic giving ought to be a collective enterprise, deliberately developed of, by, and for the people. It can start with anyone, a new donor, a seasoned program officer, or your average citizen with a little money to give, but it continues with others.

Every grant is a new social contract, and I hope that given the choice between creating a strategy and creating a community, donors will opt for creating community by inviting them to participate in their strategic giving. That way, philanthropic legitimacy has a better chance of being assured because philanthropy will not mean one thing to a significant group of donors and philanthropic professionals. It will mean the development and carrying out of a shared strategy for improving our common life in one way or another. It will mean something to everyone.

On Notice

2006-10-19T01:01:00.000-04:00

Is this thing on?

2006-10-18T23:10:00.000-04:00

What do you say you and me try this one more time?

My name is Madmunk, and this is Philanthropica.

Estate Tax Resources

2005-09-07T11:33:00.000-04:00

The upcoming vote on the estate tax has been postponed as Congress concentrates on the Katrina relief effort. I was unable to attend a recent blogger conference call on the estate tax, but Becky Lewis at OMB Watch was kind enough to send along these resources discussed at the conference, which I pass along to you with some suggestions of my own:

General Resources

Americans for a Fair Estate Tax Talking Points

Estate's Rites

Recent Estate Tax Poll Results

The Estate Tax: Myths and Realities

OMB Watch's Budget Blog

Books

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes

Organizations

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Coalition for America's Priorities

OMB Watch

United for a Fair Economy

If you have any more suggestions, let me know. I'll be updating this post as I find more.

The best argument against the estate tax ever

2005-08-31T00:40:00.000-04:00

Ted Frank at Overlawyered (via Clicked), talking about how much Batman/Bruce Wayne would get sued for his exploits in the movie Batman Begins, contends:

Separately, Wayne's escapades would never have been possible in the first place if there had been an estate tax: otherwise, his wealth would've been dissipated by the government by two successive taxations on the Wayne Estate, one when his parents died, the other when Alfred declared him dead and inherited Bruce's assets.

When you tax the rich, their sons can't afford the appropriate lairs, vehicles, and gadgetry to effectively dispense vigilante justice. Is that the kind of America you want to live in?

Save the estate tax!

Save the Estate Tax

2005-08-31T00:08:00.000-04:00

From OMB Watch:

Join our conference call Wednesday at 2:00 EST and learn how you can help stop President Bush and the Republicans in Congress from doing what they do best: acting in the interests of the wealthiest in our society.

The estate tax is the most progressive part of the tax code, and it is under seige. Repealing it will save a handful of wealthy and powerful individuals billions of dollars, while making the rest of us pay more. The effort to repeal the estate tax is one of the most egregious examples of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

We need your help in order to combat the plethora of cash currently being spent by pro-repealers. Join us to find out how you can help fight back to preserve this important and progressive tax.

Details are below - Please RSVP to blewis@ombwatch.org if you plan on joining:

What: Blogger Conference Call on Estate Tax
When: Wednesday, August 31, from 2:00 - 3:00 pm EST
Where: By Phone (Dial-in at 1.800.820.4690; passcode: 2022348494)

Moderated by:
Adam Hughes, Budget Policy Analyst, OMB Watch

Policy Experts:
John Irons, Director of Budget and Tax Policy, Center for American Progress
Joel Friedman, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

CharityFocus

2005-08-30T19:31:00.000-04:00

Jane King at The Giving Blog points people to an organization called CharityFocus.

According to the website:

CharityFocus has no paid staff members. A common downfall of nonprofit organizations is that their pure intentions are often overshadowed by the challenges for survival. What begins as a way to serve others, very easily becomes a self-propagating system that aims to stay alive at all costs. Noticing that trend, CharityFocus took another route -- keep the organization fully volunteer-run. No money to raise, no vested interests, no hidden agendas, no image to uphold. So long as volunteers give, the organization will continue to thrive.

It's gloriously utopian:

CharityFocus has no leaders, no followers; its strength comes from its emptiness and its beauty resides in the hearts of its volunteers.

Take a look at their programs. Amazing. I'd tell you to donate, but I don't think they want your money.

Hurricane Katrina

2005-08-30T17:06:00.000-04:00

I haven't said anything about Hurricane Katrina because there's really nothing to say when these things happen.

FEMA has information on how you can help.

As for me, I donated to the Red Cross.

Please do what you can for those in need.

Once you've done that, come back and read the rest of this.

First, if you're one of my conservative readers who just puts up with my left-leaning ways, and you're a fan of G.W. Bush, scroll to the next paragraph. Nothing to see here. This just burns me. And so does this. And this. Now you could argue that Think Progress is exploiting the tragedy for to score political points with these posts. I'd reply that it takes one to know one. The fact is, at times like these, we need funds and we need leaders. And I have learned where to begin looking for those things - and where not to. [UPDATE (5:25 PM): I'll give Bush some credit. He's cancelling his vacation, which is great. So why do I find myself recalling this?]

Foundation boards and staff, please take a moment to review your emergency grantmaking policies. If you don't have one, get one. I know you've got an endowment to manage and program areas that deserve your continuous support, but there's no reason that your foundation can't give a little in the event of some calamity. Many certainly do, and that relief is incredible. The Council has some resources on disaster grantmaking created in the wake of 9/11 that can help you with your discussion. Just make disaster relief a part of your foundation's machinery so that when disaster strikes, the funds to rebuild are there.

Philanthropists as a group should also prepare for these things. If your program area is scientific research, the more we know about how hurricanes form and behave, the more prepared we can be for them. Also, every region has its natural disasters - earthquakes in California, hurricanes in the southeast, tornadoes in the plains - is there any way that funds can be set up in a given region as a sort of philanthropic insurance in the event of these disasters? Foundations could contribute to a separate regional fund or to a set of donor-advised funds at community foundations in the area so that funds would be available for use in the event of a disaster. I know, I know, it's called FEMA. It's called the Red Cross. But, seriously, do such funds exist? If not, would they be a good idea? Philanthropy as social insurance - it might be worth some thought.

Finally, philanthropists ought to be concerned with rising levels of poverty in our country. Natural disasters disproportionately affect the poor. Your important work in matters of social and economic justice matters, especially at times like these.

For now, though, don't think. Give.

Telling Stories

2005-08-30T16:00:00.000-04:00

While I'm in the mood on donor intent, The Chronicle of Philanthropy has a story on storytelling in family foundations.

Now I’ve never heard of anyone who said, "Talking to your kids about your philanthropy is a really bad idea. Talking about your values with your children is just plain despicable. And telling stories! God, that’s just...criminal."
Nonetheless, I started reading Darlene Siska's piece with tremendous skepticism. I read the slug, "Foundation leaders spin tales from their families' lives as a way to share values and traditions," and, instantly, I was off --

Storytelling? You mean indoctrination. What’s the point of storytelling if it props up the dated views of a backward donor? Storytelling is great in and of itself; it’s just that when people say "storytelling," especially in family foundations, they don’t mean "sharing" stories. They mean older generation gets to tell the younger generation a story, so that the littluns lern they place. When did we start assuming only one generation has a story worth telling? If your stories are going to keep the next generation from telling its own, then sucks to your storytelling. Families might want to ask: why do I want to tell this story? to share my experience? or to duplicate it? to enlighten? or to indoctrinate? Families should be encouraged to tell their stories — as long as they understand that their story isn’t the whole story. As for me, stories? I don't need no stinking stories.

Yes, I've been sitting on those issues for a while... I might want talk to somebody about that. But the article seems impervious to my skepticism: most storytelling is simply not that didactic; most story-tellers, simply not that vicious.

If anything, storytelling can save us from the philanthropy-speak that too often bogs us down in meaningless buzzwords. William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund trustee William C. Graustein argues later in the article:

Story works at a very different level than analytical thinking...We're schooled to think analytically, but story communicates at a level that is much more powerful at building things like trust and imagination.

Narrative short-circuits the philanthropy-speak we frequently fall back on, breathing new life into our discussions. Just when thought you could get away with dismissing a grantee, with a wave of your "we're looking for a more collaborative, scalable approach" wand, they tell you what the grant would mean for the people they serve. Just when you thought you could dismiss your cousin Percy's latest program idea, he tells you how much Grandpa cared about that sort of thing. Suddenly, the people behind the buzzwords appear. It was easier, you think, when they were just buzzwords, but it makes for better philanthropy.

Stories? I think we could use some good stories.

Against donor intent

2005-08-30T11:40:00.000-04:00

Phil Anthropoid's reflection on an op-ed in Forbes has me thinking about donor intent, and I suppose it's as good a time as any to declare my instinctive hostility toward it.

This isn't to say that I don't think the views of those who have gone before us shouldn't factor into our decisions. G. K. Chesterton once wrote, "Tradition is the democracy of the dead," and I believe that - our forebears should get a vote. I also believe, though, what Mordecai Kaplan said, "The past has a vote not a veto." So I guess I'm not against donor intent so much as the privileged status of the donor. The donor's views shouldn't count for any more than ours simply because they're the donor's views.

Frequently, the appeal to donor intent is a sham. Say I want my family foundation to venture into a particular program, but my cousin, Percy, prefers things to stay as they are and have been for a long time. Percy might appeal to the values and vision of our venerable grandfather who established the foundation. My dear cousin, however, couldn't care less about Grandpa's values and vision except in this particular case where it serves his purposes. It's me vs. Percy right now, but if my cousin can swing it, it'll be me vs. the grandfather without whose wisdom we wouldn't even be having this argument. Suddenly, I'm arguing uphill. Instead of deciding between the alternatives before us and arguing the case on its merits, we often wrap ourselves in tradition and deliberately confuse the issue.

If we had any respect for so-called donor intent, we'd see a great deal fewer people appealing to it. Think about it this way: imagine Percy could actually resurrect my grandfather, bodily with all his opinions, thoughts, hopes, dreams, and fears. Instead of Grandpa-the-argument, which is all donor intent makes him, we'd actually have Grandpa-the-person back. My cousin and I are arguing, and he says, "We'll settle this the old-fashioned way - VOODOO!"

You have your board meetings; we have ours, okay?

So my grandfather appears. Naturally, my cousin resurrects him thinking that my grandfather will agree with him, but what if he doesn't?

"Sorry, but I think Madmunk's right on this one. Grandson, what kind of a name is Madmunk?"

Or, more likely, what about the next issue? Maybe, when the discussion moves on, my cousin would very much like my grandfather to go back to being dead. Grandpa was all for Percy on Issue #1, but on Issue #2, he's sided with me.

"Sorry, but I think Madmunk's right on this one."

"What are you talking about?

"I think maybe Madmunk's got a point."

"I think maybe you should go."

"No, I think I'll stay. Grandson, what kind of a name is Percy?"

My cousin doesn't want my grandfather around anymore, but he's opened Grandpa's Box and there's nothing to be done now. In fact, I think he might come around to my point of view after enduring a stern lecture from Grandpa:

"Madmunk, why should Grandpa's views count for any more than mine?"

And now we're on to something.

Thomas Paine wrote in his Rights of Man:

There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the 'end of time,' or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered. (The emphasis is all mine; those are incredible lines.)

Now, you might argue that I shouldn't be appealing to historical figures in a discussion against donor intent, but I think it shows that history has a place in the discussion. I'm not against that - especially when they state the case very well. I'm against the presumption that the views of the donor matter more simply because he or she made the money. I don't listen to Thomas Paine because he's Thomas Paine. I listen to Thomas Paine because the guy was right. Similarly, I shouldn't listen to the donor because he or she was rich but because they had something important to say.

So I suggest a compromise. Donors should be allowed to speak, but that speech should be limited. Donors, if you have a specific intent (and by specific I mean anything more specific than "for the general improvement of humankind," but I could be persuaded otherwise) for your charitable dollars, you must place a time limit on the existence of the foundation (anything from the lifetime of the donor to, say, one or two generations). If you want the money to go to a specific community or cause, you must limit the number of generations you bind to that community or cause. When the foundation's time is up, it must either spend down or convert to a general-purpose foundation. The next generation must be allowed to chart its own course.

You see, I see this a lot from deliberative democracy theorists. "If only people were informed and gathered to discuss the issues, they would make the right decisions," they say, and by the "right" decisions, they too frequently mean "their" decisions. In the same way, if people want more respect for "donor intent" and a true "democracy of the dead," I say let them have it. Just understand that it will be a true democracy, which means at least two things: the past isn't always going to vote with you, and neither will I.

Who is Madmunk?

2005-08-28T00:38:00.000-04:00

Either I was cursed with very cruel parents; I was blessed with very prescient parents who prepared me for a career as a supervillain, D&D fanatic, or blogger; or, Madmunk is a pseudonym.

Anonymity has an important place in the philanthropic world. The great philosopher Moses Maimonides placed anonymous giving just below the highest form of giving, entering into a partnership, in his eight levels of charity. Anonymity can protect the benefactor from unsolicited requests and enable him or her to practice giving solely for giving's sake. For these reasons, among others, donors sometimes seek to remain anonymous.

Anonymity also has an important place in the blogosphere. It protects a blogger from ad hominem attacks and frees a blogger to say what he or she thinks and feels without fear of reprisal. For these reasons, among others, I have elected to publish under a pseudonym.

If you must know, I live and work in the DC metro area, my heroes are Thomas Paine and Friedrich Nietzsche, and my favorite Bath & Body Works fragrance is Sheer Freesia. For those of you who do know who I am or happen to find out, I trust you to keep my identity secret for the time being.

I can be reached here.

In the meantime, my name is Madmunk, and this is Philanthropica.

Emerging Issues Tours Philanthropy's Blogosphere

2005-08-27T16:10:00.000-04:00

The Council on Foundations' blog Emerging Issues gives a rundown of philanthropy's blogs.

Philanthropica is graced with a mention (thanks very much!), and Candidia Cruikshanks over at Wealth Bondage is simply thrilled with the recognition.

Thanks to Phil for all his work getting the conversation going.

The Weary Titan

2005-08-27T10:35:00.000-04:00

Timothy Garton Ash in The Guardian (via Clicked):

If you want to know what London was like in 1905, come to Washington in 2005. Imperial gravitas and massive self-importance. That sense of being the centre of the world, and of needing to know what happens in every corner of the world because you might be called on - or at least feel called upon - to intervene there. Hyperpower. Top dog. And yet, gnawing away beneath the surface, the nagging fear that your global supremacy is not half so secure as you would wish. As Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, put it in 1902: "The weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate."

Someone else noticed, I see. I work in the district, and I've been telling friends lately that it feels like Paris just before the Revolution. His analogy's a better one. I don't imagine guillotines - just the end of an era. There's a creeping anxiety beneath the Mall's monuments. You feel like you're standing on top of something that can't quite hold itself together, can't go on much longer. It could be your political leanings, but even some people on the other side of the aisle can sense that all is not well in DC. I know a few folks who were here a decade ago or grew up here long ago and now have moved back, and, for them, there has been a tremendous change in the tenor of the city. Whether or not you agree with his claim that "Iraq is America's Boer war," I think Ash is on to something, and you can feel it in DC.

But this little blog of ours is supposed to be about philanthropy, and Ash's conclusion is a test for the philanthropic imagination:

So this is no time for schadenfreude. It's a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when American hyperpower has faded; and to encourage rising powers such as India and China to sign up to such an order. That is exactly what today's weary Titan should be doing, and we should help him do it.

People set up foundations in perpetuity and make international grants, but do we consider when making these grants that America may not always occupy the place it does in today's international order? Can we count ourselves among those far-sighted few?

I ask because I don't think that looking at the world with these questions in mind demonstrates any lack of faith in America. If anything, it demonstrates a tremendous faith in our principles to think that they can and should survive even when the power that once sustained them passes away. Philanthropy is our way of assuring that our ideals live on even though we do not, that America still lives though its hyperpower fades.

If you're going to reform the sector...

2005-08-26T16:15:00.000-04:00

...we have a few suggestions.

Authors Jan Masaoka and Jeanne Bell Peters offer an amazing set of "reforms to make nonprofits more effective and accountable." You'll wish you'd thought of them. You'll wish you'd said it first and laid it all out there like this. I know I do; they had me from proposal #1.

Scrapping "concerns of what is politically achievable," Masaoka and Peters are freed to tell it how it should be. It's fantastic. Circulate this to everyone you know. As much as I respect what Independent Sector has done with the Panel, I'd like this in the back of our leaders' minds come this fall.

Thanks to reader Nick for pointing us to this great critique.

SRI

2005-08-26T15:34:00.000-04:00

Stephen Viederman, former president of the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation and co-founder of the Initiative for Fiduciary Responsibility, emailed Philanthropica some time ago with some fantastic resources on socially responsible investing (SRI) and the power of institutional investors to change the world for the better through shareholder resolutions and strategic investments. You can email Viederman here for those resources. They were just a few articles but very interesting stuff.

I'm extrapolating here and more than likely projecting, but I detected three major themes for philanthropists in his works:

agents: philanthropy is mainly the province of large institutions run by elites, a group of folks Robert Monks simply called "top people;"

aims: the philanthropy of these large institutions tends to favor the status quo; and

actions: many foundations have become grant factories, forgoing the responsibility to consider the political, social, and environmental consequences of their investments out of a misplaced concern for the bottom line (when evidence shows that SRI can actually produce better results).

Reading through the articles, I am struck by the tremendous democratizing power of SRI. You'll notice that these themes basically describe a philanthropy of, by, and for elites as opposed to a more democratic philanthropy of, by, and for the people. Institutional investors, particularly foundations, can exert a powerful check on corporate power through their status as investors. We do tremendous good with our grants; imagine the good that could be accomplished via shareholder resolutions and the like.

SRI also democratizes the investment discussion. One of the things that I think keeps the philanthropic world in the shadows is that a lot of people don't know how foundations work exactly. The simple mechanics of it are lost on many who just see rich people giving money away here or there (or not). Furthermore, even those in the foundation world (and you find this, for instance, when training new board members) don't quite understand how the investment side of foundations works. I don't always anyway. With SRI, however, investments aren't an esoteric analysis of economic forces and trends but a consideration of the political, social, environmental, moral, and cultural implications of one's investments as well as that analysis. This makes investment not just a discussion for the financially hyperliterate but for everyone. I may not understand how to protect the bottom line in the way my expert investment manager would, but I do know that I don't want to compromise my mission through dealing with certain types of companies and that I might need to change how I deal with a company to make a difference. SRI makes that desire part of the investment equation, and it's brilliant.

Thanks to Steve for sending the stuff our way.

A Cynic's Guide to the Foundation World, Part One

2005-08-25T10:43:00.000-04:00

Community Foundations
In 1914, Frederick Goff did for philanthropy what halitosis did for Listerine: he created the "The Community." While no one knows who exactly this Community is (The Community does not keep membership records), thanks to Goff, we all know that (1) we owe it a great deal; (2) we are supposed to "give back" to it; and (3) community foundations like Goff's Cleveland Foundation can help us do that. Despite such auspicious beginnings, however, today, community foundations are the ruling elite's answer to the redneck front lawn, little more than parking lots for inoperable giving vehicles. Cut a philanthropist's grass, and you'll find another donor-advised fund his wife didn't know existed.

Company-sponsored Foundations
American corporations sponsor foundations the same way you sponsored that adorable child you saw on TV. Ever wonder what Sally Struthers' camera crew was eating? (Mmm, hey, let's order some pizza. No, you can't have any. This is mine.) Think about that the next time you read a corporate foundation's annual report. Thirty-five cents does go a long way, but if you spent half as much on grants as you did on PR, you could go much further. Company-sponsored foundations, however, are hampered by the fact that corporations are created to maximize shareholder value; hence, they cannot in good conscience give away someone else's hard-earned money. Corporate foundations, thus, have a great deal to learn from family foundation program officers.

Operating Foundations
For the discriminating philanthropist who truly understands that nonprofits are too stupid to be trusted with your philanthropic dreams, operating foundations allow you to foist your conception of the common good on unsuspecting at-risk folks without the annoying middlepersons. If you're up for "Extreme Makeover: Social Engineering Edition," consider the operating foundation your Home Depot. Sure, it might be better to call a plumber after a toilet explodes, but, hey, you're doing just fine on your own. Thank you very much. It's only medical research that could save millions of lives or none at all, a think tank that can inform Congress or lead it astray, or a museum that can preserve our common human history for generations to come or let it disappear forever - honestly, how hard can it be?

Independent Foundations
If a foundation doesn't give back to The Community, provide excellent PR for a foundering corporation, or, well, operate, the foundation is considered "independent." This independence, however, is exceedingly tenuous. As long as the your investment manager takes good care of your wallet, regulation isn't overly burdensome, the IRS doesn't order an audit, and the state attorney-general takes his foot off your neck, you're independent. Since none of these conditions currently obtain, "independent foundation," like "civil society," is a contradiction in terms.

Family Foundations
Family foundations form the last bastion of the aristocracy in our civilization on the brink of collapse. It’s incredibly important, nay, vital to the continued prosperous existence of our polyarchic society that you hold your considerable wealth hostage to your dysfunctional family dynamic. This incredible power to change the world for the better must be mercilessly tied in perpetuity to your dated dogma, backward values, and mindless idiosyncrasies lest the underclass climb out of the muck in which we so painstakingly keep them.

The Hiatus is Over

2005-08-25T09:54:00.000-04:00

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming already in progress.

Bailing on the Boys & Girls Club

2005-07-06T10:58:00.000-04:00

Board members are bailing on a struggling Texas nonprofit. From the Brownsville Herald:

After threatening to shut down last Friday, the Brownsville Boys & Girls Club’s future remains uncertain, pending a potential loan from the city and with several administrators resigning this week.

“The Boys & Girls Club is on life support,” said Lynn Anderson, president of the club board. “We’re going to do Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and if we don’t see anything by Friday to make the payroll then we’re going to have to shut down.”

Club officials announced an indefinite closure of the club Friday before a meeting with city officials led to an agreement to re-open the club with loan money

...

Al McClandon, regional service director for Rio Grande Valley, has been working with the Brownsville club from his San Antonio office, and will visit the area today to assess the situation.

He said the problems faced by Brownsville are not unusual for non-profit organizations.

“Funding is one of our main challenges, so pretty much it is a problem in most places but we find a way to work through it,” McClandon said. “There is always a cash flow problem when you talk about the number of kids versus the money coming in.”

To further complicate matters, executive director Lou Gracia informed board members she would resign when her contract ends on Aug. 1. She did not return calls by press time Tuesday.

“She’ll be there until August and they’ll put out a search to locate a replacement,” McClandon said, adding they were looking for people from other clubs. “But the most important thing is how you can work with people and energize them for the mission.”

Gracia isn’t the only one stepping down.

Of the club’s eight board members, treasurer Chris Inderidson, has resigned and member Dean Owens is expected to resign soon. Other board members may follow, according to Thirlwall.

“It seems that if they’re going to close the club, everybody is thinking about resigning and the financial responsibility is what everybody’s trying to avoid,” he said. “This past week several board members put in the money themselves.”

Before the city discussed loaning money to the club, board members had to use $4,000 of their personal money to cover employee wages.

Thirlwall said some people see the club as a lost cause and are ready to cut their losses.

“There’s no value that you can put on this for the children of the community but the people that wanted to close it down are just tired of fighting,” said Thirlwall, adding that funding changes over the last several years have led to the club’s financial dilemma.

Until today, I didn't know where Brownsville, Texas was exactly. I certainly didn't know it's the sixth fastest growing manufacturing region in the United States. But I do know that a nonprofit there is struggling to keep its head above water, and some are looking to cut their losses. Is there a philanthropist in the house?

After a cursory search, I couldn't find any foundations in Brownsville, TX (I found one in Brownsville, Wisconsin), but I did find seven foundations based in Corpus Christi (four hours north of Brownsville) that might be willing to help a nonprofit in the Brownsville area:

Coastal Bend Community Foundation
The Six Hundred Bldg.
600 Leopard St., Ste. 1716
Corpus Christi, TX 78473
Telephone: (361) 882-9745
FAX: (361) 882-2865
Contact: Ed Harte
E-mail: eh@cbcfoundation.org

Ed Rachal Foundation
500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 1002
Corpus Christi, TX 78471-1016
Telephone: (361) 881-9040
FAX: (361) 881-9885
Contact: Paul D. Altheide, C.E.O.
E-mail: info@edrachal.org

Earl C. Sams Foundation, Inc.
101 N. Shoreline Dr., Ste. 602
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 888-6485
FAX: (361) 884-4241
Contact: Bruce S. Hawn, Pres.

Allen Lovelace Moore and Blanche Davis Moore Foundation
3765 S. Alameda, Ste. 416
Corpus Christi, TX 78411
Telephone: (361) 814-6700
Contact: Gary Leach, Dir.

Paul and Mary Haas Foundation
P.O. Box 2928
Corpus Christi, TX 78403-2928
Telephone: (361) 887-6955
FAX: (361) 883-5992
Contact: Karen L. Wesson, Admin. Dir.
E-mail: haasfdn@aol.com

Estill Foundation
4022 Lowman St.
Corpus Christi, TX 78411-3133
Contact: Jeannette Holloway, Pres.

Behmann Brothers Foundation
P.O. Box 271486
Corpus Christi, TX 78427-1486
Contact: Charles L. Kosarek, Jr., Pres.

Contact these seven foundations and tell them not to bail on the Brownsville Boys and Girls Club.

Boys & Girls Club of Brownsville Inc
1338 E 8th St
Brownsville, TX 78520
Telephone: (956) 546-4254

Fourth of July

2005-07-04T09:36:00.000-04:00

In celebration of the Fourth of July, I offer the following: a statement of our ideals, a witness to their betrayal, and a hope for their defense.

"The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind."

May we never forget that.

Happy Fourth!

The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" 5 July 1852:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense:

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying of a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the Concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling...

Bitek Okoye

2005-07-01T14:32:00.000-04:00

Live8 starts tomorrow, and, while I'm all for raising awareness and pushing government to enact reform, I really couldn't care less about Live8.

From The Long Walk to Justice, the Live8 site:

Every single day, 30,000 children die, needlessly, of extreme poverty.

On July 6th, we finally have the opportunity to stop that shameful statistic.

8 world leaders, gathered in Scotland for the G8 summit, will be presented with a workable plan to double aid, drop the debt and make the trade laws fair. If these 8 men agree, then we will become the generation that made poverty history.

But they'll only do it if enough people tell them to.

That's why we're staging Live 8. 10 concerts, 100 artists, a million spectators, 2 billion viewers, and 1 message... To get those 8 men, in that 1 room, to stop 30,000 children dying every single day of extreme poverty.

We don't want your money - we want you!

You want to do something about world poverty? Let's start with the fact that 8 unelected leaders have had the power to stop 30,000 children from dying and haven't. Let's begin with the idea that 8 unelected leaders have that kind of power on a planet of six billion. Then, let's think about the fact that Bob Geldof's response is not "let's make sure that those 8 people are good people who protect people as well as trade" or "let's make sure that such institutions are accountable to the people their decisions will affect" or even "hey, are we doing enough in the way of foreign aid" but "let's have a rock concert." Hey, you do what you can, right?

I hope something comes of this, I really do, but I have two words for you: Bitek Okoye. While we're rocking out to U2 feeling just great about ourselves, you have to wonder if our lavish show of solidarity makes any appreciable difference in the lives of the people we're trying to help.

For his part, Eric Alterman says it more bluntly than I would, "To Hell with Live 8 (And I mean that.)":

I’m an idiot, I know, but I just figured out that Live 8 is not raising any money for famine relief or malaria cures or AIDS treatment in Africa. It is just designed to “pressure” G8 countries into doing what’s right. Thing is, guys, the G8 doesn’t, (and shouldn’t) care what Madonna, Elton John, U2, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, R.E.M., Coldplay, Bjork, Sting, Dido, Justin Timberlake, Green Day, Snoop Dogg, P. Diddy, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Celine Dion, Tim McGraw, and Faith Hill think about anything, particularly if they won’t put their own riches where their big mouths are. (Ditto Pitt, George Clooney, Will Smith, Natalie Portman and Salma Hayek.) I am in favor of harnessing the power of celebrity for global good but where’s the good in this? Good God, this is a moral crime. All that money available just for the asking—all those lives that could be saved by people who won’t miss the money--and these guys won’t even bother to ask? They won’t even allow charities to canvass the audience. Turns out the concert is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING but moral vanity, and the exploitation of starving, sick Africans, by pampered, rich as**oles and their self-interested corporate sponsors rather than their potential salvation. This is really unspeakably shameful.

The man, as always, has a point.

Bill Gates, the supposed lord of a new generation of robber baron philanthropists, has done more for African children than Bob Geldof, their self-appointed champion, ever will.

So all I want is some much needed perspective here. If we're going to make a difference, let's make a difference, but let's not pretend that this is anything other than what it is. It's not charity. It's not philanthropy. It's not justice. It's a rock concert.

Now we'll have to work harder

2005-07-01T10:00:00.000-04:00

From yesterday's Aspen Philanthropy Letter (hyperlinks mine):

Contact information for ten large Atlanta-area foundations has been posted on a new philanthropy-specific Web log, or blog, and readers are urged to pressure these foundations to help a struggling Atlanta nonprofit cover an impending loss of $65,000 in federal funding. The June 8 post to the months-old Philanthropica blog has the potential to become a model for similar, new-media-focused funding campaigns, especially as blogs continue to grow in number and cover more topics. Among the dozen or so blogs to emerge in the past year that regularly cover philanthropic concerns, Philanthropica is unusual in its willingness, even eagerness, to make blunt demands and go beyond diplomatic criticism of the sector. In earlier posts, the author, identified only as "Madmunk, philosopher and philanthropoid," called on foundations to stop complaining about the quality of research about foundations and do something about the problem by increasing support for independent university research. He's also expressed outrage at the "elitist" suggestion that foundation abuses could be curbed by requiring that foundations have assets of at least $1 million.

This blogger's willingness to be so frank is likely a reflection of his anonymity. Madmunk provides no personal contact information, identity, though it is believed that he works as a donor consultant. By email, Madmunk declined to reveal his identity for readers of this newsletter.

Large national importance

2005-06-23T23:45:00.000-04:00

I will admit I haven't read the book Martin Morse Wooster reviews here, but take a look at this comment:

Whether CEOs of large establishment groups such as the San Francisco Foundation or the Ford Foundation are white or black, male or female, they present themselves as pasty grey people who have long shed any passions or quirks that would make them interesting. Consequently, many people have quit listening to them. It’s been decades, for example, since the president of a major foundation has written an article or given a speech of large national importance.

If I were Sandra Hernandez or Susan V. Berresford, my response might be, "This from a conservative hack toiling in the book review section of Philanthropy? You write much material of 'large national importance' sneering at the work of others?"

But I'm not them, you see, and I think he's got a point. So all I see is a challenge.

Not just for the wealthy

2005-06-23T23:11:00.000-04:00

From Philanthropy Magazine:

Most observers now recognize that lifetime giving understandably increases as people move up the economic ladder. For instance, the richest 1.2 percent of American wealth-holders contribute 28 percent of all charitable donations according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy (CWP).

But CWP research also suggests that it’s not just the objective size of people’s pocketbooks that matters but also their subjective sense of financial security.

...

A sense of financial security has a strong positive relation to charitable giving. Why? At the least, these findings reflect a growing ability and desire among people who have settled the economic question for themselves and their heirs to discern their discretionary resources and to invest that surplus in socially and spiritually purposive ways. For this reason, a growing and vibrant economy that fulfills the desires for family well-being is an indispensable ally of philanthropy.

Charts not included in the online feature seem to show that people don't just give because they can but because they feel they can. Even with more modest wealth, people give when they feel financially secure. It's not about whether or not you are rich; it's about whether or not you feel rich.

Key to democratizing philanthropy, to making philanthropy a viable option for everyone, then, is a "a growing and vibrant economy." In such an economy, philanthropy is not the exclusive privilege of the rich but the promise held out to anyone who seeks to better the conditions of others.

Happy Birthday

2005-06-23T22:57:00.000-04:00

There's a cute story in the Minneapolis Foundation's Spring issue of Catalyst (good name for a magazine).

A woman donated $18,263 to a group called YouthLink in honor of her husband's 50th birthday. 18,263, one dollar for each day of his life.

It makes you wonder what you might accomplish even with modest wealth as long as you do it over time and with a few like-minded friends. When you can feed the Queen of England for a buck-twelve a year, what else might we achieve?

Bite the Hand that Feeds

2005-06-23T15:13:00.000-04:00

After conservatives criticized Amnesty International for calling Gitmo "the gulag of our times," conservatives are now targeting the Red Cross. In a report titled "Are American Interests Being Disserved by the International Committee of the Red Cross?," the Republican Policy Committee questions whether or not the organization "has lost its way." From the Los Angeles Times:

The ICRC is the only organization mandated by international treaty to monitor the observance of the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, and it has the right to visit prisoners. But the GOP report charges that the group has exceeded the bounds of its mission by trying to "reinterpret and expand international law" in favor of terrorists and insurgents; lobbying for arms-control issues that are not within its mandate, such as a ban on the use of land mines; and "inaccurately and unfairly" accusing U.S. officials of not adhering to the Geneva Convention.

I'm amazed that the government can tell this organization that it's lost its way. I'm pretty sure they're very clear on what their mission is. If you don't like what they see, don't criticize the organization - look in the mirror. When ICRC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other groups are reporting on North Korea, China, or Sudan, they're lauded as courageous organizations who speak truth to power. We can't suddenly wonder about their credentials when the spotlight is turned on us; we should be worried about our own.

It's a disturbing trend to see this kind of rhetoric. One of the more dangerous recommendations the Senate Finance Committee included in its July 2004 white paper on charitable reform was having the tax-exempt status of every charity and foundation reviewed every five years. Adam Meyerson, President of the Philanthropy Roundtable, called this "a serious threat to philanthropic freedom," saying:

This automatic power, unless it is very carefully circumscribed, would be an open invitation for presidential administrations to use the IRS as a weapon against charities and foundations they disagree with philosophically. Even if tax-exempt status were not revoked, a serious IRS challenge to the exemption would tie up in administrative knots a politically disfavored charity or foundation, making it much more difficult to carry out its mission.

Meanwhile, the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal held a discussion in November of last year entitled Philanthropy and the American Regime: Is It Time for Another Congressional Investigation of Tax-Exempt Foundations?, in which Hudson scholar John Fonte advocated another Congressional investigation into American foundations and whether or not their grantmaking served to undermine the American regime. I don't mean to say that any of these occurrences are related, but I do think they contribute to an atmosphere in which it becomes possible to shut down charities not for any financial indiscretion or instance of self-dealing but for what they try to accomplish. If people can go after the Red Cross, of all groups, what marginal grassroots nonprofit stands a chance?

The Costs of Compliance

2005-06-23T14:21:00.000-04:00

I've never accepted "it's hard work" as an excuse for noncompliance or underperformance, but I wonder if the regulatory atmosphere in the third sector doesn't make the nonprofit CEO's job unnecessarily difficult. Not only does overly burdensome or unclear regulation divert precious charitable resources but such regulation prices the people out of the charitable marketplace.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Business executives who worry about meeting growth targets every quarter may think they would have fewer headaches running a nonprofit. In fact, the job is more stressful than ever as more nonprofit groups compete for limited funding. And while juggling myriad personnel and other duties, heads of nonprofits also feel pressured to strengthen governance practices and codes of ethics. In this post-Enron era, many nonprofits, including Juilliard, have adapted the governance practices laid out in Sarbanes-Oxley, the 2002 corporate reform law.

"Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't apply to nonprofits, but like ink in water it's changing the way they operate," says Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware's Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. "Suddenly you've got accounting firms that audit nonprofits clamoring for the same financial controls now in place at for-profits." And nonprofit trustees want more transparency. Although they're exempt from financial liability in most states except in cases of fraud, they worry that in this climate their reputations could be hurt if money is misused or the organization falters.

Charities worry less about actual instances of abuse and more about the appearance of abuse. It's understandable. Public trust is their stock-in-trade. On the advice of professionals, they adopt a regulatory framework that doesn't even apply to them, which increases the compliance headache, which pushes them back to professionals, and you get the idea. I don't have anything against the accountants, lawyers, and financial advisors who, to a great extent, have made the good work of this sector possible. Instead of or in tandem with the contemplation of creative, carefully crafted regulation and figuring out ways of installing the proper safeguards, we turned those professional energies to how to make compliance easier for nonprofits. If we want to do more to make the sector more effective and accountable, we should be exploring ways to make it easier to be such. Expanding e-filing programs and the capacity of the IRS come to mind. As Thomas Paine once wrote, "Laws difficult to be executed cannot be generally good."

Quotable

2005-06-22T14:39:00.000-04:00

I caught the American Film Institute's top 100 movie quotes last night.

I'm not about to engage in what should have made the list (what? not one quotation from a Quentin Tarantino movie?). Any list is bound to have omissions. The whole list isn't as much about ranking as much as it is about pointing out just how much these words have become part of our culture, part of our lives.

I was in England as an exchange student for a semester in college with a group of about twenty other college kids. We hopped on a charter bus in Oxford and went to Bath and Stonehenge to see the sites. We took these trips as part of a month-long British history, culture, and civilization orientation course. We'd been to Stratford-upon-Avon, to London, and one of the trips was Bath and Stonehenge. I don't remember much of the trip, except posing for pictures, but on the long way home, the bus had television and a VCR and, for reasons I don't understand, we end up putting in a beat-up VHS tape of "A Few Good Men."

The movie's winding toward its finale as we wind our way back to our destination near the Bodleian. We arrive, the movie's cut off right before the final confrontation, and we're told it's time to go. Of course, Jack Nicholson lecturing Tom Cruise at the film's end is the only reason to watch this movie, so we convince the driver and our teacher guide to let us stay and watch. Finally, we all got what we stayed for:

"You want answers!?"

"I want the truth!"

"You can't handle the truth!"

The whole bus explodes into applause. It's total pandemonium. We were cheering, yelling, screaming. It was one of the most incredible movie-watching experiences I've ever had, and it happened one September evening on a bus in Oxford with a Tom Cruise movie.

Are you crying?

2005-06-22T13:44:00.000-04:00

This is absolutely ridiculous:

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.

Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."(my emphasis)

"A tearful apology."

"Choking up."

What is going on here? Here's what the man actually said:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said. "Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

I don't see anything to apologize for. Torture isn't something you'd expect from Americans. True. This is something we're supposed to be above. True. Suddenly, instead of answering the charge, he's made to answer for his rhetoric. We go after Durbin for what he says instead of others for what they do?

Ridiculous.

This quotation gets at the heart of this:

Then, Chicago's Democratic mayor, Richard M. Daley, declared: "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military would act like that."(emphasis mine)

Note that. It's not a disgrace to do such things; it's a disgrace to say somebody did those things.

Absurd.

And, then, after holding out for a time, he apologizes. Tearfully.

Pathetic.

Senator Durbin, you had no reason to apologize, and you gained absolutely nothing for yourself, your party, or your cause by doing so. You work among people who have apologized for nothing. They don't apologize for being asleep at the wheel, for dropping the ball on Osama bin Laden. They don't apologize for largely abandoning Afghanistan. They don't apologize for a bungled Iraq war, the deficit, anything. There are things in this world for which you should be made to answer, but you didn't do them, so why are you apologizing?

Coward.

UPDATE: See Eric Zorn's "What Dick Durbin Should Have Said."

Strong and Weak Accountability

2005-06-21T14:40:00.000-04:00

I'm skeptical of accountability as a concept because of the coercive social control apparatus I see at work behind it. The charitable sector is allowed to take risks, to be innovative, to be different precisely because it doesn't answer to constituents or stockholders. As long as there are convictions that aren't up for a vote or sale, there ought to be a sphere in which we are largely able to act upon them, and that sphere is the philanthropic world.

So the problem for nonprofit and philanthropic accountability is: to whom do we answer? The quick answer for me, in the interest of absolute and perfect freedom, is: no one.

But how do we account for the fact that we employ accountability as a concept?
Perhaps, introducing a new distinction in to our notions of accountability might help. I'm aware of procedural/legal (filling out your 990) vs. substantive (do you fulfill your mission?) distinctions that have been drawn, but I don't know of any that specifically highlight the coercive element. Actually, in the notion I'm about to talk about legal accountability is the only accountability there is. In my mind, you're only really accountable if you can be either stopped (strong thesis)... or bested (weak thesis):

Strong thesis: Person X is accountable to Person Y if and only if:
1. Y may question the activities of X.
2. X must answer to Y to the satisfaction of Y.
3. Y can legitimately compel X to cease and desist his/her activities.

Weak thesis: Person X is accountable to Person Y to the extent that:
1. Y may question the activities of X.
2. X must answer to Y to the satisfaction of Y.
3. Y can engage in competing activities that neutralize the effects of Y's activities.

This demonstrates the alternatives available to those who want to see the sector become more accountable. In an attempt to make philanthropy as free as possible, the only notion of accountability I can admit is one which minimizes the amount of coercive power brought to bear on the sector. Therefore, I endorse the strong thesis, and I'm incredibly skeptical of most regulation of the charitable sector. This, however, leaves a lot of room for abuse of the sector. What good is this freedom of ours if it's squandered? This is where the weak thesis ought to come in. Accountability is about competition, pushing someone to compete with you, to answer to you.

We make the tools of philanthropy available to as many people as possible so if someone comes in to the sector and creates a think tank we don't like, we are able to answer them in kind - we start our own think tank and neutralize the overall effect they might have. If people are funding harmful groups, we fund the helpful. They counter with more refined efforts; we anticipate their actions and push ourselves to innovate.

Accountability is often about the less powerful demanding more from the powerful or vice versa. Viewed in the way we just described, however, accountability can become about equals demanding more from one another and pushing one another to greater heights.

Conrad responds

2005-06-21T14:11:00.000-04:00

In response to an email I sent, I just now received a response from Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. He writes (apologies, no scanner, must type):

Thank you for contacting me regarding Washington, D.C., property taxes. It was good to hear from you.

The homestead deduction is a reduction in the assessed value of a home, prior to tax computation, for a property owner claiming Washington, D.C., as his principal residence. I maintain a residence in Washington because I have been elected by the people of North Dakota to represent them in the nation's capital. However, since my principal residence is North Dakota, I have repeatedly asked the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue not to give me this deduction. Enclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote the D.C. government, and a copy of the letter I received in response.

Again, thank you for contacting me... (emphasis added)

He encloses a copy of his handwritten letter, which begins "As I explained last year..." and includes this great passage:

Although we apparently qualify for the homestead credit, we choose not to receive it.

The letter from the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue reveals that Conrad "neither applied nor qualified" for the deduction in question.

I sent all the Senate Finance Committee members who received the DC homestead deducation an email and Conrad is the only one to have responded with a letter. I did get a few confirmation, you-sent-us-an-email-thanks-very-much responses. I don't begrudge the others' not responding to me. I am a Virginian who works in DC, emailing about a DC issue to a senator from North Dakota, among others. While senators' decisions might affect me, technically, they don't answer to me, so I don't expect the thorough response Conrad gave to my email. Thanks and kudos to Conrad for taking the time out to answer a concerned citizen's questions.

It's good to know that this is an error.

Keeping Hopes Hi

2005-06-08T12:42:00.000-04:00

An Atlanta-area nonprofit that serves developmentally disabled adults stands to lose federal funding for meals due to how the federal grant guidelines define the services such a grantee can provide. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Some of the developmentally disabled adults who spend their days at the Hi Hope Service Center in Lawrenceville have been dining for free in the agency's cafeteria since they were children, but that's about to change.

Starting this month, the 46-year-old nonprofit center, which offers training services, work programs and housing for its clients, will lose about $65,000 a year in federal grants. Hi Hope officials say replacing that revenue will require the agency to charge clients $75 a month for meals in Hi Hope's cafeteria. The food subsidy paid for breakfast and/or lunch for about 100 Hi Hope clients.

Other recent cuts in the agency's funds may require the center to assess clients' families other charges for services, Hi Hope's executive director said Monday.

"Everybody is going to have to pay something. At the rate we're going, there's going to have to be an assessment fee," said Alice Cunningham, the executive director. "It concerns me because without doing the assessment fee to families, it's going to be very difficult to stay open."

This is pretty standard nonprofit news fare as nonprofits whose services often depend on receiving such subsidies face budget cuts on the federal and state level. This forces them to pass the expense on to families that may not be able to afford them. What isn't so standard about Hi Hope is why they stand to lose out:

Mentally disabled children who started coming to Hi Hope when it was a school in 1959 are now adults who do part-time work in the center's workshop — putting nuts and bolts together, stuffing envelopes or labeling packages — for less than minimum wage.

The goal of the workshop is to make participants productive people in the work force.

And it turns out that's bad for Hi Hope.

The center has been disqualified from the federal meals subsidy because it doesn't meet the definition of an adult day care center, said Todd Blandin, spokesman for the Bright From the Start, Georgia's Department of Early Care and Learning, which administers the program money.

If the workshop were being used to maintain mental alertness and motor skills and not to train clients for future employment, Hi Hope would qualify for the food subsidy, Blandin said.

"There are guidelines and clear definitions, and based on that information, they're not eligible," Blandin said. "It has to come down to something, otherwise it's just all a gray area."

But the way Cunningham sees it, that means that if the center's clients sat around and watched TV all day, rather than work, they would qualify for the meals subsidy.

"That's the government," she said. "That's the law, so it would be a matter that the Legislature would have to look at."

It's simple. Where the government ought not, cannot, or does not provide adequate social services, it falls to the philanthropic sector to pick up the slack. Often, philanthropy claims that it cannot do this. It's simply not up to the task; the philanthropic sector doesn't have the resources the government does. However, organizations like Hi Hope don't need $2.338 trillion; they need $65,000 per year to serve meals to their clients. That's not out of the realm of possibility for Atlanta's generous.

The following ten foundations are among the biggest givers in the Atlanta area. Contact them, refer them to the story in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and ask them to contribute to this nonprofit that has been doing good work in their backyard for the past 46 years.

Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, Inc.
50 Hurt Plz., Ste. 1200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 522-6755
FAX: (404) 522-7026
Email

The UPS Foundation
55 Glenlake Pkwy., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (404) 828-6374
FAX: (404) 828-7435

Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta, Inc.
50 Hurt Plz., Ste. 449
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 688-5525
FAX: (404) 688-3060
Email

J. Bulow Campbell Foundation
The Hurt Building, Ste. 850
50 Hurt Plz.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 658-9066
FAX: (404) 659-4802

The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation
3223 Howell Mill Rd, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 367-2100
FAX: (404) 367-2059

The Goizueta Foundation
4401 Northside Pkwy., Ste. 520
Atlanta, GA 30327-3057
Telephone: (404) 239-0390
FAX: (404) 239-0018
Email

The Marcus Foundation, Inc.
1266 W. Paces Ferry Rd., No. 615
Atlanta, GA 30327-2306
Telephone: (404) 240-7700

The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc.
1 Coca-Cola Plz., N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30301
Telephone: (404) 676-2568
FAX: (404) 676-8804

Turner Foundation, Inc.
133 Luckie St., 2nd Fl.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 681-9900
FAX: (404) 681-0172
Email

The Wilbur and Hilda Glenn Family Foundation
1201 W. Peachtree St., Ste. 5000
Atlanta, GA 30309

This isn't just a job for big foundations though. Please consider getting involved yourself. Contact the Center:

The Gwinnett County Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc.
Hi-Hope Service Center
882 Hi-Hope Road
Lawrenceville, Ga 30043
Telephone: 770-963-8694
Fax: 770-963-0038
Email
Donations

Could Thomas Paine have written today?

2005-06-03T11:02:00.000-04:00

Great post by Digby via Atrios.

If the true test of the vitality of a culture is whether or not it could, in principle, reproduce the forces that brought it into being, produce such people as those that made it great, then I think we've got some serious thinking to do.

A Vision for Philanthropy

2005-06-02T19:26:00.000-04:00

I want a democratic philanthropic sector.

I want a sector "of the people, by the people, for the people."

I want a world in which anyone with a personal computer, an Internet connection, time to spare, money to burn, and a desire to make a difference can become a philanthropist.

I want to be able to walk in to a public library tomorrow, sit at a public terminal on a public network, and, from there, at little or no cost, start my own giving vehicle - be it giving circle, donor-advised fund, or private foundation.

I want, with a few taps on a keyboard and a few clicks of a mouse, to make investment decisions, make grants, and report on my efforts to the appropriate authorities and to the public at large.

I want a national conference, sponsored by the nation's largest philanthropies and attended by its smallest, to examine how this vision might be realized.

And I want the nation's wealthiest ten foundations to commit substantial sums over the next twenty years to the promise of this new democratic philanthropy.

The people are to be given a place to stand and a lever long enough, and, together, we will move the earth.

From this day forward, the legacy of Prometheus is to be the birthright of all who aspire to it.

Emmett floats the idea

2005-06-01T13:20:00.000-04:00

The transcript for the April 21, 2005 Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership Issues Forum "The Cost of Caution: Advocacy, Public Policy, and America's Foundations" is now available.

I didn't get the chance to attend the event, but, before I talk about the thrust of the argument that seemed to have gone on, I was interested to see that Emmett Carson floated his $1-million floor at this presentation.

His comments, at least, in the transcript, seem to come out of nowhere on page 18. It's such a non sequitur that the panelists don't respond until two pages later and promptly move on.

Here's how the panelists respond:

Bill Schambra: I think Emmett Carson’s proposal is a terrible idea, the notion of banning foundations under $1 million. If we are going to have a grass roots agenda in this country that does, in fact, cut across the political spectrum, it's going to come not from the large foundations that are entrenched in the technocratic agenda, but from the folks who have set up a very small foundation, who are moved by some very small, particular concern on some issue, who are focused on their locality. Those smaller foundations, I think, are the hope of the future.

I think Emmett made a telling remark, that if you were to ban those foundations, it wouldn't affect the membership of the large philanthropic associations at all. This is part of that general process of eliminating amateurs by professionalizing and credentialing and raising the barrier to entry for new start-ups. I think this is happening in the foundation world. I think that the philanthropic associations are very likely to game the Senate in such a way that they actually manage to get restrictions that are more onerous for new struggling start up organizations of all sorts, and that is a dangerous thing.

Emmett Carson: For those of you who are listening to what I am saying, let me be quite clear: These individuals can continue to give, continue to be effective, continue to have whatever values that they have, but there are 48,000 entities that don’t have annual reports, that don’t have any access to professional information, to ideas, to research - to a whole range of things. The structure of a foundation is very complicated, but it offers no inherent advantage to individual giving. There are other ways that donors can be just as effective, not have a tax return every year, not drain resources. The issue is the structure. It’s not the giving.

Pablo Eisenberg: Emmett, I would feel a lot more comfortable about your suggestion if, in fact, there were a minimal payout requirement for those funds under community foundations and other financial institutions to make sure that the small donors actually pay out some of their money.

I think Schambra's comments clinch the issue: "Those smaller foundations, I think, are the hope of the future." Carson's vision of philanthropy is threatened. It should be.

Do the research

2005-05-31T16:13:00.000-04:00

I got another one of those "that wasn't a very good study" comments last week. People are still complaining about the Georgetown study on trustee fees, a phenomenon I dealt with in this post.

Geez. Will you people ever let this go?

Apparently not.

In a recent conversation about board compensation, statistics from the Council on Foundations and the Georgetown study were cited. The Georgetown study provoked the bad study remark despite the fact that you can't exactly say that the Council's numbers are much better. They're better, I suppose, but they're not perfect either. The Council only surveys its members. Respondents tend to be larger foundations who are more likely to pay higher trustee fees, artificially inflating the bounds of acceptability, and, from what I understand, the information given in the management surveys isn't double-checked against the organizations' 990's. (I'm not saying the Council's members can't be trusted. I'm just saying people make mistakes.) So you've got a small, unrepresentative sample and a questionable self-reporting methodology. Nonetheless, the Council's numbers pass with a nod, but Georgetown is mentioned in a huff.

For the umpteenth time, it's not intended to be the definitive statement on trustee fees. It says so on page 4. What it is intended to do is draw attention to the fact that some people in the foundation world are paid incredible amounts of charitable dollars to do work that could just as easily be done by motivated, creative volunteers. And considering the effort that is expended by philanthropoids in attempting to dismiss its findings, I can say that it's certainly doing its job.

What I'm attempting to understand is why no one will fund the research to replace it. I mean, if that research isn't the best, stop complaining about it, and give Ahn, Eisenberg, and Khamvongsa the money to do the right kind of study.

Why aren't we funding the university centers to do the research? As it is, you're pretty much paying nonprofit infrastructure groups to do research, and these groups live and die by the information of which they can be the exclusive provider. Ask them to do a research study, and it's going to be very difficult convincing them to share information in the way that universities do.

If the foundation world is serious about research, serious about doing scientific research in order to really examine itself in the face of so much scrutiny, it would do well to fund independent university research. There's an entire research apparatus we are simply not using and could be to greater ends. We're not going to make everybody happy, but the mode of thinking around here ought not to be "that's a bad study" but "here's a better one."

An Ethical Dilemma

2005-05-31T14:29:00.000-04:00

Imagine you're a recent college graduate working at a relatively well-known nonprofit headed up by a very creative and charismatic CEO. The nonprofit is doing great things, making a difference in many people's lives. Funds are flowing in, and the nonprofit and its CEO are getting a fantastic amount of favorable press and public goodwill. In short, the nonprofit couldn't be more successful, and you're just thrilled to be a part of it all.

Then, one day, you begin to notice inconsistencies in the finance department. You dismiss it at first as something you don't understand. It would seem your CEO is skimming money off the top. Impossible, you think, he'd never do something like that, but the thought stays with you. Eventually, a pattern emerges, and you and a like-minded co-worker confront him about it. He tells you that you have no right to tell him how to run his business. You respond that it's not really his business; it's a nonprofit. The conversation doesn't go much further, and you're both told to get out of his office. You arrive the next morning to find out that the nonprofit is restructuring, and your jobs have been eliminated.

You consult a sibling who also happens to be a lawyer and find out that you could pursue this but at a great cost not only to you but to the nonprofit and to the cause it is a part of. You believe in the cause. You believe in the nonprofit, and, until recently, you believed in the CEO, too.

Do you rat out this CEO even if it means that the ensuing scandal would shut the nonprofit down?

My answer: absolutely - if for no other reason than the CEO is counting on your silence. He's counting on the fact that he can hide behind his supposed philanthropy. He's counting on your altruism and the altruism of thousands of others who are prepared to overlook his faults in the name of charity. He's counting on charity - and he doesn't deserve yours.

Free speech for the dumb

2005-05-25T14:31:00.000-04:00

The Parents Television Council, you know, the people responsible for 99.8% of complaints filed to the FCC in 2003, has called a hamburger ad featuring Paris Hilton "soft-core porn." Thanks to the Council's remarks, a commercial I might not otherwise have seen is playing everywhere.

I've got to tell you. In the Council's defense, the ad is indecent. I've viewed it several times now, and upon the 342nd viewing you really do begin to see the crass indecency of it all.

It's only 30 seconds long.

Update: The LA Times agrees.

So does this guy.

Leave it to the professionals

2005-05-24T13:53:00.000-04:00

Emmett D. Carson, CEO of the Minneapolis Foundation and chairman of the Council on Foundations, has "An Easy Way to Curb Foundation Abuses" in this week's Chronicle of Philanthropy: "require donors to contribute at least $1 million if they want to create a foundation." It's an op-ed so riddled with condescension and even contempt for smaller and family-run foundations that I think Minneapolis and the Council ought to seriously rethink their relationships with him. Instead of seeing recent regulatory and media scrutiny as an opportunity for needed self-examination, Carson sees it as an opportunity to self-servingly reinvent the sector by jettisoning the 70% of the sector he thinks simply isn't up to the task. Carson overlooks better solutions to industry woes, creates a small foundation straw man, and then attacks it with all the arrogance that grantees, small foundations, and infrastructure organizations have come to expect from philanthropoids like Carson.

Carson conveniently overlooks the fact that there is a reason the IRS cannot oversee the vast charitable sector. Excise taxes paid by the nonprofit sector have become general revenue. The government has grown into this revenue stream, and, hence, any mention of putting more money toward IRS enforcement has been termed a "political non-starter," despite the fact that the money already exists for full enforcement and is taxed for that purpose. Carson overlooks the fact that any abuse that has been found has been found because somebody somewhere took a look at the Form 990's that these organizations fill out. The solution, then is to pay someone to look at those 990's, i.e., fully fund IRS enforcement. From the December 15, 2003 Nonprofit Times:

"While the public's trust with our field depends on government oversight, we have practically no oversight," said Dorothy S. Ridings, president of the Council on Foundations, an organization that must balance demands for further scrutiny with the interests of its members. The excise tax that the IRS levies on excessive compensation was originally designed to fund enforcement of nonprofit foundation rules. Instead, the tax revenue has been routinely diverted to other government programs since its inception in 1969.

"It's been an absolute farce to say that the excise tax has anything to do with oversight of the industry," Ridings said.

Admittedly, this is an old source, but I cite it to demonstrate that Dot Ridings is aware of this even if Carson doesn't want to see it. The solution begins with greater oversight of the sector we have. It is interesting that Carson would rather reinvent the sector.

Carson paints a startingly inaccurate portrait of small foundation work, proceeding by assertion rather on the evidence. I challenge Carson to produce serious evidence showing that, despite having only 5% of the wealth, the smaller foundations are responsible for the majority of foundation abuses. Carson claims:

Philanthropies with $1-million or less in assets seldom have staff members, typically do not produce annual reports or grant-making guidelines, and usually offer no means by which grant seekers can contact them. What's more, most of those foundations do not join national or local professional associations so they do not often get exposed to training sessions and educational materials that would help them understand changes in laws governing nonprofit organizations and learn how well-respected, effective grant makers operate.

Where to begin? Smaller philanthropies do typically have little or no staff; they have competent volunteers, sometimes highly trained businesspeople or lawyers by profession, sometimes simply people that care to make a difference. They're volunteers - the people that built the voluntary sector, and Carson should show more respect. He conveniently omits the fact that many of his vaunted big foundations aren't the greatest about regular annual reports or connecting with grantees, and they wouldn't consider themselves any less a foundation for opting not to publish an annual report. Carson's claims would be laughable if they weren't so gallingly self-serving. Carson doesn't need to trumpet the value of the Council by denigrating the contribution of hard-working, passionate volunteers who might not have the time or resources for the Council's annual conferences and the like. After seeing his op-ed, many foundations may have just found the reason why they avoided such places. He just told smaller grantmakers and the organizations that serve them, the Association of Small Foundations, the National Center for Family Philanthropy, and dozens of other infrastructure organizations, that they're all simply not doing a good enough job. Carson just told 70% of the nation's foundations to go to hell, that they don't know what it is to be a "well-respected, effective grantmaker."

I'm not so sure the larger grantmakers do either, though. Remember the man who paid for his daughter's wedding with foundation assets? The Paul & Virginia Cabot Charitable Trust, The Bielfeldt Foundation, The Kimbell Art Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, The James Beard Foundation, foundations at the middle of the scandals, these weren't small foundations. Read this. Smaller foundations were not the target of so much of the media scrutiny of recent years. Again, I challenge Carson to provide serious evidence that asset size has anything to do with recent foundation abuses.

True, creating a $1-million floor for foundations wouldn't prevent people from giving, but it would prevent smaller grantmakers from participating in foundation discourse, a discourse that is increasingly professional, bureaucratic, and jargon-laden. Small foundations don't have a place in our high-falutin' foundation discourse, says Carson, what with our collaborative convenings, our targeted partnerings, and our social venture leverage. You may give generously through that precious donor-advised fund of yours or indulge in checkbook philanthropy, but you will never be quite the grantmaker we are. The condescension is appalling. Pat the smaller grantmakers on the head, and send them off to bed. Leave philanthropy to the philanthropoids. I'm sorry but philanthropy is far too precious to be left to the likes of Carson.

Carson wants to codify the difference between professionalized, organized, big money philanthropy and small-scale, volunteer philanthropy, allow the big foundations to retreat from the vitality and responsiveness that 50,000 new and different voices would provide. This is readily apparent at the end of Carson's piece where he demonstrates that experts say it's not worth it to create a foundation with less than $1 million. Instead of allowing people make their own philanthropic choices, Carson, knowing that there's no good reason to exclude smaller grantmakers, now attempts to say that they should exclude themselves. It's in your interests, Carson says, not to give as a foundation. The professionals say so, says Carson.

It's akin to telling women or blacks they shouldn't be allowed to vote because it would just be too hard for them. They're not up to the privilege. If women and blacks were uneducated, that wasn't their fault; they were systematically denied educational opportunities. Similarly, if smaller foundations aren't educated grantmakers, as Carson maintains, it's because people like Emmett Carson, with their baseless preference for larger, professionalized institutions, have routinely excluded them from mainstream philanthropic discourse to the detriment of the sector.

It boggles the mind that Carson is actually proud to restrict foundation status to the top 30% to the point of publishing this op-ed. Carson's $1-million floor would nothing but exacerbate claims that the foundation community is an isolated, elitist clique of well-to-do, arrogant, paternalistic technocrats - you know, like Carson. Carson ought to be wary of wanting to boot 70% of the foundation world. That 70% may respond in kind.

Clarification: Accountability/Responsibility

2005-05-23T11:22:00.000-04:00

If there is any inconsistency in my desire for a more democratic sector and my views on responsibility and accountability, it is in my discomfort with the coercion that I see as implied in notions of accountability.

I'm all for a more democratic, responsible sector. I don't know that a more accountable sector would be the same thing, and, if I have to choose between them, I'll take democracy to accountability. In my view, accountability is having to answer to somebody else for one's own actions, and, to a great extent, I don't think one should have to answer for one's philanthropic choices. There's a difference between being responsible, the condition of having moral obligations, and being accountable, the condition of being held to those morals. If there is any muddying of the waters here, it's only because of the element of coercion I see in the push for greater accountability.

Accountability and Legitimacy

2005-05-19T12:44:00.000-04:00

The next installment in the Dialogues on Civic Philanthropy occurs today in St. Paul and is entitled "Accountability: For what and to whom should philanthropy be responsible?"

I think Peter Frumkin's analysis of accountability is dead-on. Expanding on his diagnosis of the philanthropic sector in Trouble in Foundationland, Frumkin argues that debates over accountability and effectivness obscure the real question of philanthropic legitimacy. Our preoccupation with effectiveness and accountability is merely a manifestation of our collective insecurity about our sector's legitimacy in a democratic society.

How do we reconcile the vast amount of wealth allowed to accumulate tax-free in the hands of self-appointed stewards of a public trust with the egalitarian and democratic ethos of our society? How does one legitimize such a practice?

Usually, legitimation requires some vision of the just society. Anybody up for demonstrating that philanthropy follows from John Rawls' "original position?"

Thankfully, we have a vision of the just society, a democracy, and we might simply say that the more democratic a practice is, the more legitimate it is. We're looking for a more democratic philanthropy. Although Frumkin never says the word democracy, I think his second definition of philanthropic legitimacy is working at a vision of a more democratic sector:

Philanthropic legitimacy can be defined as the just and fair exercise of philanthropic power. By this, I mean donors can claim to have met the test of legitimacy when they are perceived by the full range of relevant stakeholders around them as acting in a way that is just, fair, and free of caprice and ill-intent.

Frumkin then goes on to claim that by engaging the issue of legitimacy, the sector will find:

...it is impossible to be legitimate without being substantively accountable for their work. They will also soon discover that it is impossible to be substantively accountable without being able to demonstrate their effectiveness at achieving their own objectives and missions.

That is where I disagree. I do think that a more democratic sector, a philanthropy "of the people, by the people, and for the people," would certainly be a more responsive, more responsible sector. That isn't the same thing as a more accountable sector.

I'm of the frame of mind that the philanthropic sector is largely unaccountable, and this is as it should be. This doesn't mean that philanthropy doesn't have responsibilities. I think it does. This doesn't mean that an unaccountable philanthropy is undemocratic. In fact, I think the opposite. I think unaccountable philanthropy can actually serve democracy more than it harms it.

I think the problems start when we start to appoint people who will hold philanthropy accountable for its philanthropic choices because, as much as democracy is about checking and balancing power, it is also about creating spaces in which we don't have to answer to anybody. Philanthropy ought to be one of those spaces as long as there are matters that are not up for a vote or up for sale. There ought to be a way to affect the political process, to gain control of the forces that affect your life and the lives of your fellow human beings, without having to effectively ask somebody else's permission first, and philanthropy is one of those ways.

I don't want an accountable sector as much as I want a philanthropy that inspires, and I find very little inspiration in a sector that is so insecure about its place in a democratic society that it is willing to accept the chains of accountability in the hope that it will somehow be ennobled and made better by those chains. Prometheus wasn't more philanthropic because he was chained to a rock. Prometheus was chained to a rock because of his philanthropy.

Of Charity and Philanthropy

2005-05-19T02:32:00.000-04:00

[I've been sitting on this post for quite some time. It's in response to the first of the Dialogues on Civic Philanthropy entitled "Goals and Intentions: What Should Today's Philanthropy Aim to Do?"]

The Dialogue focused on a discussion of the difference between charity and philanthropy as a way of envisioning what it is that philanthropy ought to be occupying itself with. This is a relatively easy distinction to draw with regard to institutions. Charities are the grantseekers; philanthropies, the grantmakers.

I prefer, however, to refer to these entities as virtues because, too often, philanthropoids like to flatter themselves with the term philanthropy as if what they do is somehow superior to "mere charity," which is left to other, lesser beings. Never mind the fact that, organizationally, philanthropy depends on charity to actually accomplish its goals. Anyone can claim to be a philanthropist from an organizational perspective. If you work for a philanthropy, you're a philanthropist. Well, not necessarily, as somebody once told a particularly arrogant foundation program officer, "You're not a philanthropist. The man who set this place up was. You just work here." I am so irritated by the hubris of some that I just want to define philanthropy out of the hands of everybody, and, in due time, I plan to do just that and make it hubris to call yourself a philanthropist.

So charity and philanthropy ought to be looked at as virtues, but what's the difference? Well, I like Karl Stauber's vision of a continuum with charity at one end and philanthropy at the other, and so I will attempt to travel this continuum beginning with charity.

Amy Kass began the dialogue with a quotation from Lao Tzu: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." This begins to illustrate our continuum. Someone responded that this progression is all well and good, but sometimes you have to change the fishing industry, too. (I respond with the words of Terry Pratchett: "Build a man a fire, you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, you keep him warm for the rest of his life.")

She was right. The charitable impulse is that impulse, that excellence, that allows us to identify with the problems of another person, and to care about and to work toward a solution to those problems. So we meet this man who is hungry, and being blessed with copious amounts of these fish, we give him some. We see him the next day and give him some more. Eventually, though, we realize that maybe if we just taught the guy how to fish, we wouldn't have to keep doing this because he'll feed himself. Maybe he'll even catch more than he needs, and he can sell the surplus. Maybe he too will become a philanthropist just like us.

But if we're really charitable, we begin to see that this guy has friends, and they're hungry too. In fact, we have an entire village of people who don't know how to fish. Most of them are illiterate, too, so the "How to Fish" books we ordered won't help right now. So we set up fishing schools to teach these people how to reap the resources of the nearby river, but it turns out that another village, a village of farmers, upriver has been allowing their fertilizer to run off in to the river, and it's killing all the fish. So we start campaigns for better environmental regulation to protect the wildlife, and talk to the people downriver who've begun complaining that there aren't enough fish for them now.

Notice the picture keeps getting bigger and bigger, and pretty soon we've forgotten the original guy's name. Come to think of it, did we ever learn it? No, because we didn't ask. His name is Mortimer. He married Louise, his high school sweetheart. They have two kids, Lisa and Marie. But we didn't know about that. How could we? I hadn't made that part up yet. Then again, we never bothered to find out about them. We were too busy reforming the fishing industry.

In my mind, the perfection of the charitable virtue would be philanthropy. Charity allows you to identify with the condition of another and work toward its amelioration, but this impulse naturally drives us to help more and more people. At some point, though, human fallibility creeps in. Humans have to abstract. We don't think about Mortimer. We think about Mortimer's town. What's the town's name? Townville. We just learned that, too. We think about "the commmunity," an abstraction which may or may not include Mortimer. This is only human. Maps are not the same size as the places they represent for a reason; humans can't take that much information into account, nor would we want to. If we had a map of Townville as big as Townville, what would be the point of the map? Essentially, we cannot work the big picture with perfect resolution. We cannot see all and each at the same time, but the absolute perfection of the charitable excellence, i.e., philanthropy, would require doing just that.

But if seeing, understanding, and working for the benefit of all and each is impossible, then it would follow that philanthropy is impossible for human beings. Correct. There is a reason that the first recorded mention of the word "philanthropic" is applied not us mere mortals but to a god, Prometheus. Only a god could see the potential within all and each, never lose sight of that, and sacrifice for it. There is a reason that the philosopher Francis Bacon identified "philanthropia" as "the character of the Deity."

So what of all us would-be philanthropists in the world? We should get used to the fact the power that set this place up is the philanthropist among us. We just kind of work here.

To be charitable is human. To be philanthropic is divine.

Who, then, are our saints and who are our charlatans?

The Luminous Web

2005-05-19T00:16:00.000-04:00

My soon-to-be mother-in-law gave me an autographed copy of Barbara Brown Taylor's The Luminous Web for Easter. It isn't my usual fare by any means, but it's a topic I'm interested in, the relationship between science and religion, and it was a gift from the woman who gave birth to the love of my life, so I went ahead and read it. And why not? Taylor's a spiritual person fascinated by science; I consider myself a skeptic fascinated by religion. We're foils for one another. I can learn from her.

Offhand, Taylor preaches to the choir. If you're a believer, you'll see that science has something to offer religion. If you're a skeptic, you'll see little value in interpreting quantum mechanics through a religious lens. Perhaps, that's what's needed in the current political climate - getting religious people to see that science is not necessarily a threat. The problem is that Taylor fails to take the argument in the other direction and show that religion isn't a threat to science.

As an Episcopalian priest, Taylor probably sees herself as a child of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, of religion and science. I too see myself this way but my perspective on the divorce seems to be markedly different from my sister's. I don't know what she thinks about the break-up but let me tell you what I know.

Our parents, Science and Religion, stopped speaking a long time ago, and Taylor, like some children of divorce, hopes that if she just tries hard enough, they're going to get back together. They're not. It's not going to happen. Not any time soon anyway. Religion cheated on Science a couple of times with her off-and-on lover, Politics. After a bitter custody battle, I went with Dad; she went with Mom. Religion has been bad-mouthing Science in front of me, and her new husband, Politics, isn't much better about it. He's worse in fact. Science, on the other hand, is quite happy to be living the single life once again, but he doesn't think much of our new step-dad and said as much when he dropped me off the other day. I believe him.

So what we have here is a situation in which she lives with Religion and visits Science every once in a while, and that's fine. Her book is refreshingly optimistic, and it's good to know that there are religious people out there who take it upon themselves to look at what science can really offer in the way of making sense of our absurd existence.

I live with Science and visit Religion, but that's not okay. I'm always going to hate going over there as long as Politics is skulking about. I love my sister, but I can't stand her step-dad.

Taylor succeeds in presenting a world in which believers can see science as non-threatening but fails to show skeptics that religion isn't a threat. Of course, that's not entirely her fault. We're called skeptics for a reason. You see, no one's ever going to be good enough for Mom.

How Charitable Are You?

2005-05-18T23:23:00.000-04:00

Discover just how charitable you really are.

Parable of the Cats

2005-05-18T21:12:00.000-04:00

Once upon a time, there were two cats, one of whom had learned to fetch in her own special sort of way. She learned that if she brought her owners a ball, they would throw it for her so that she could chase it. This she enjoyed very much. The problem was that this cat didn't pay attention to where the ball was thrown. She'd always run in the same direction and expect the ball to appear somewhere along her path, which sufficed for the times that it was thrown that way but confused when it wasn't. The other feline was content merely to watch the entire affair. He watched the ball, saw where it was thrown, looked at his companion running the wrong way, looked back at the ball, and remained where he was.

I suppose there's a lesson in there somewhere.

On effectiveness

2005-05-18T11:03:00.000-04:00

It seems to me that effectiveness has already been defined to a great extent. Despite all the anxiety surrounding the effectiveness question, foundations make decisions all the time as to what they will fund and what they won't. The conversation about effectiveness, about the impact you're having, then, should begin with a simple question: would you fund you?

Accountability

2005-05-13T12:08:00.000-04:00

I sent the Senators Baucus, Rockefeller, Conrad, Jeffords, Bingaman, Snowe, and Crapo an email detailing my concerns laid out in this post. Here's my email:

Dear Senator [name]:

I was wondering if you would care to comment on a recent report in the Kansas City Star that you are receiving the homestead deduction normally reserved for those whose primary residence is in the District.

Since I would think that your primary residence is in your home state home of [state], you would seem ineligible.

Furthermore, as a worker in the nonprofit sector, I was wondering how you see this perceived oversight in light of your work on the Senate Finance Committee to root out just this sort of abuse.

As with several of your colleagues, I am certain that this is a mistake and that there is an explanation. As a concerned citizen, I would simply like to know what that is.

Sincerely,

[my name]

It looks as though I'm going to have to call them, however, because the Senators are bombarded with so much email that they'll only answer to their constituents. In this case, I hope they'll make an exception. It's simply irritating that despite setting policy that affects a Virginian like me and taking a tax deduction that affects District-dwellers, Senator Snowe will only send a written response to someone in Maine.

That's the funny thing about representation based on geography: Senators are accountable to their constituencies but not necessarily to the people their decisions will affect.

Finance Committee Members Taking "Questionable Tax Breaks"

2005-05-13T10:09:00.000-04:00

The Kansas City Star (link via Wonkette) reported:

Nearly two dozen senators, including Kit Bond and Sam Brownback, got tax breaks on their Washington houses supposedly reserved only for those who make D.C. their primary residence.

By taking the tax breaks, the U.S. senators - several of whom are millionaires - cost the district government thousands of dollars in tax revenue, a review by The Kansas City Star shows.

Because lawmakers generally must be residents of the states they represent, district officials said they did not qualify for the Homestead Deduction, which is for people who are domiciled in Washington and make the city their permanent residence.

A quick review of the names reveals that seven of these Senators are members of the Senate Finance Committee, currently leading the charge in the nonprofit sector to root out just this sort of abuse.

The list of Senators taking the deduction, which includes not only a third of the Finance Committee but also its ranking Democratic member, is here (asterisks indicate Finance Committee members):

Wayne Allard, CO
*Max Baucus, MT
*Jeff Bingaman, NM
Sam Brownback, KS
Richard Burr, NC
Maria Cantwell, WA
Susan Collins, ME
*Kent Conrad, ND
*Michael Crapo, ID
Pete Domenici, NM
Michael Enzi, WY
Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
James Inhofe, OK
*James Jeffords, VT
Edward Kennedy, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Joseph Lieberman, CT
*Jay Rockefeller, WV
*Olympia Snowe, ME
Arlen Specter, PA
George Voinovich, OH

Update: Contact these seven senators and ask them to explain how it is that they can claim this deduction when their primary residence should be in the state they represent and what they plan to do about this perceived abuse:

Max Baucus, MT
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2651
(202) 224-0515 (Fax)
(800) 332-6106 (from MT)
(202) 224-1998 (TDD)

Jeff Bingaman, NM
703 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3102
Toll-free (in NM): 1-800-443-8658
DC: (202) 224-5521
TDD: (202) 224-1792
Fax: (202) 224-2852

Kent Conrad, ND
530 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3403
Phone: (202) 224-2043
Fax: (202) 224-7776

Michael Crapo, ID
239 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6142
Fax: (202) 228-1375
TDD: (202) 224-2806

James Jeffords, VT
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-5141

Jay Rockefeller, WV
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-6472

Olympia Snowe, ME
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1903
v: (202) 224-5344
f: (202) 224-1946

On Cover Songs

2005-05-12T14:49:00.000-04:00

"To redeem those who lived in the past and to recreate all 'it was' into a 'thus I willed it'--that alone should I call redemption."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra in Walter Kaufmann, trans., The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin, 1954), 251.
I like cover songs - not mash-ups or remixes or sampling (although come to think of it I like these for the same reasons) but covers. For one reason or another, they have tremendous power for me. I had trouble articulating why exactly I like the idea of covers so much until I remembered the above passage from Nietzsche.

So what follows is a quick and dirty examination of the function of cover songs:

Homage - It's important that this be pronounced "oh-mazh." This is cultural criticism here and I simply won't sound anything less than utterly pretentious. Homage covers your tribute bands: Beatles, Led, Stones, GNR, KISS. We love the band; we play the band; we are the band. It also covers bands that simply enjoyed another band's material and felt like playing it, e.g., bands doing a one-off of David Bowie at a club. We love the artist; we play the artist, but we obviously are not that artist.

Irony - While some covers demonstrate affection, respect, or even worship for a given band or tune, other covers have a different relationship with the covered. I'm thinking here of three covers in particular: Dynamite Hack's cover of Eazy-E's "Boyz in the Hood," Nina Gordon's cover of N.W.A.'s "Straight Outta Compton" and Ben Folds' cover of Dr. Dre's "Bitches Ain't Shit." All these covers are of material by hardcore rappers N.W.A. or its former members. The deadpan sincerity of the covers allow for the misogyny, profanity, and violence of rap music to shine in all its glory. Gordon's singing of Ice Cube's verse gives the words "punk motherfuckers" a sweet beauty, and you can hear the dejection of a man who discovers his ho with another man when Ben Folds sings, "Man, fuck that bitch." It's sublime. It borders on parody, but I don't know that Dre would take the hit if he weren't in on the joke, so I call it irony. Then again, I don't know Dre not to take a hit when offered.

Paying your dues - While the first two functions deal in a band's relationship to the artist covered, these next two deal with where a band is at in its career when it releases the cover. Early in their careers, bands have to build up their repertoires, and naturally they fill out their sets with other people's material. Sometimes, you see bands score their first hit with a cover, e.g., Alien Ant Farm with "Smooth Criminal" and Limp Bizkit with "Faith." Maybe they go somewhere from there; maybe they don't, but you have to be able to draw like Leonardo before you can paint like Picasso. You have to show that you have the ability to play just about anything before you can legitimately choose to play a certain way. You have to pay your dues, so you play a few covers. I cannot believe I implicitly compared Michael Jackson and George Michael to Leonardo and Picasso. My apologies to all who were offended.

Phoning it in - You'll also see bands playing covers at the end of their careers. You're under contract for another album but the band is coming apart at the seams, or maybe your career is waning and you need to build momentum. Either way, you need to do something and do it now, so you phone it in. You play some covers. I'm not saying these bands don't like the artists and songs they're covering, nor am I impugning the quality of cover or covered. I'm just saying that, at some point in a career, you can tell when a band isn't terribly invested in coming up with original, provocative material anymore (if they ever were in the first place). Rage Against the Machine's last album was all covers, but the biggest sinner here is Metallica. Since "Metallica," their last good album, they've written a sequel (songs have sequels?) to "Unforgiven," released a double disc of covers in "Garage, Inc." (covers we've played before and covers we haven't), and essentially covered themselves with "S&M."

Now, after that last category, I could accuse the inimitable Johnny Cash of "phoning it in" for the several albums of covers he did at the end of his career, but Cash's project reveals the redemptive power of the cover. Due to Cash's wide-ranging appeal, the video for Cash's "Hurt," for instance, played on all the music video channels, MTV, VH1, and CMT. Now, on CMT, they display the songwriter's name as well as the name of the artist, song, and album, so, for "Hurt," you saw Trent Reznor's name. My thought upon seeing that was: "Hell yes, there are millions of country music fans out there who hate the music I love and they're proud of it, and here they all are, marveling at the work of Nine Inch Nails." That's what I'm talking about when I say redemption, the work of both artists is raised up, if only briefly, from the mediocre morass of popular music by a creative and gifted will.

No More Excuses

2005-05-12T11:02:00.000-04:00

[This was one of those fetal posts. I don't know about the tone, but the general idea is right: as much as some people talk about how hard it is to quantify what it is that we do, what impact we have, it seems that the sector almost deliberately relies on incomplete research. Whatever research has been done on the sector, the sector has had to carry it out and fund it itself, so if there isn't any one place for objective, rigorous information, it's because we haven't done it or simply don't want it. Whenever research comes out that we don't like, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy's research on HR 7 or a study on trustee fees, for instance, people tend to come back with what those foundation reports leave out. If they're not telling the whole story, please fund nonprofit sector research and tell the whole story yourself. More often than not, though, I think we don't want it because it would deprive us of our excuses. If we do bad research and it tells us something good, we can sing the praises of the philanthropic sector. If we do bad research and it tells us something bad, we can dismiss the results. We do it on purpose, and that has to stop.]

In September 2003, a study on trustee fees came out of The Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown University. The authors, Christine Ahn, Pablo Eisenberg, and Channapha Khamvongsa, examined the 1998 990-PF reports of 238 U.S. foundations, 176 of the largest foundations and 62 smaller foundations.

Some fun facts from their survey of foundation behaviors:

In 1998, the 238 foundations surveyed paid a total of more than $44 million in trustee fees.

14 of the larger foundations paid their trustees more than $100,000. This includes $750,000 and $747,000 to Kay and Ben Fortson of the Kimbell Art Foundation, and $500,000 to Walter Annenberg of the Annenberg Foundation.

5 of the smaller foundations paid their trustees more than $100,000, including $232,619, paid by the Ira and Doris Kukin Foundation.

There's a whole lot more: people getting paid $250,000 a year for a whole two days' worth of work (see the part about the May and Stanley Smith Charitable Trust on page 13), potential conflicts of interest (Stewart Kwoh, same page), and foundations stonewalling the researchers by referring the researchers to their accountant but then refusing to give them his contact information (see page 14).

I was shocked. Wow, this is nice work if you can get it, and I took this to friends. I'm new to the sector, and this was nuts. Unfortunately, when I talked to a few colleagues about this study, I got the same response: "Now you know that's not the most representative or scientific study in the world." Hemming and hawing followed: "Not that I don't agree with you, but you have to put that into context."

What?

First of all, this is a clear insult to the intelligence of anyone who actually read the report. The authors of the study contend on page 4: "This study is not intended as a definitive study of trustee fees." It has to be evaluated for what it was - a revealing look at how some, not all, foundations behave. I'm all for more rigorous research in the sector, but really, if the picture isn't pretty, please don't blame the researchers, and please don't make excuses, especially when foundations were given a chance to explain, and they arrogantly elected not to do so.

Second, this study came out amidst a firestorm of criticism, brought on by excellent investigative reporting in the Boston Globe, San Jose Mercury News, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and in other sources. To say that abuse isn't widespread is to ignore a good amount of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the fact that abuse is happening at all is an incredible breach of public trust, which is the only thing that keeps the government from taxing the sector into oblivion.

One of the things I would like to see come out of the work of the Senate Finance Committee and Independent Sector is more scientifically rigorous research in the sector. [Or maybe you could just pay somebody, I don't know, the IRS maybe, to acutally look at the 990's? It's amazing to me that most, if not all, of these abuses are already illegal, and we're going through this fantastic rigamarole when the simplest thing to do would be to fully fund IRS enforcement.]

The fact remains that most of these abuses were uncovered because reporters started sifting through 990-PF reports. It is a matter of public record where our grants go, whom we pay, and how much. The information is there, and we've only just begun to start looking through it. My question is: why haven't we been looking? I almost think that we have studies like the incomplete Georgetown study on purpose.

Why? Because what would happen if a representative sample turned up a decadent culture of arrogance, deceit, and greed that cloaks itself in charity? What would we say then?

What would happen, if instead of inferring malice where incompetence will do just fine, we found a jarringly rampant lack of self-awareness in a sector that preaches accountability and effectiveness?

For that matter, what are we going to say when the Foundation Center, Guidestar, and the Urban Institute finish their study of the 990-PF reports of the top 10,000 foundations? (And when is that coming out?)

Prepare your talking points now; "that's not a representative sample" isn't going to cut it.

It is time, as some have argued, for a peer-reviewed journal of philanthropy. From the Aspen Philanthropy Letter:

Philanthropy will remain a "cottage industry and primitive craft," and its practitioners will continue to be unrecognized for and a bit insecure about their contributions - not to mention those of their colleagues - if the field remains without a peer-reviewed journal, according to two philanthropy observers. Frank Karel, formerly vice president for communications at both the Robert Wood Johnson and Rockefeller foundations, argued at a Duke University foundation research seminar earlier this year that the sector needs a refereed journal incorporating the best features of other similar journals, such as Science, Health Affairs, and the Harvard Business Review. More expansive than the Stanford Social Innovation Review, this journal should present scholarly studies as well as offer independent, investigative journalism and share information from academic presentations and discussions, according to Karel. His prepared text can be requested from the author by email, with "Request for Duke paper" as the "subject" line.

Peter Karoff of The Philanthropic Initiative made a similar recommendation in his chapter of TPI's recently released book, Just Money: A Critique of Contemporary American Philanthropy. For Karoff, a "Journal of Philanthropy" would incorporate reflective pieces and discussions of practice in the field, and would be equivalent in value and influence to the New England Journal of Medicine or Foreign Affairs.

Karel echoed his call for greater information about philanthropy at a May gathering of Florida philanthropy leaders organized by the University of Florida's Askew Institute on Politics and Society. He also called on philanthropy to help "reduce the anger, hostility and contentiousness that so mars public discourse in our society." A summary of Karel's keynote speech, as well as other speeches and recommendations from the gathering, has just been published in a report from the Askew Institute.

It is time that, instead of making excuses for the inexcusable, instead pointing fingers at everyone but ourselves, researchers and reporters sifted through the 990's, asked the hard questions, published the results, and forced foundations to take a good, hard look at themselves. The Stanford Social Innovation Review is an incredible step in the right direction. I wonder why more people aren't doing this. If the sector is as great as we all believe it to be, fund the research that will tell us that.

Now I don't want to take away the freedom of foundations to make creative, innovative grantmaking choices.

I don't want to take away the ability to reasonably compensate competent, indeed visionary, board members and staff.

I want the sector's self-serving privacy, its insularity, its arrogance, its greed, its indifference.

I want this sector's excuses because the only flaw I found with the Georgetown study was that it let us keep them.

How I (Used to?) Blog

2005-05-11T20:32:00.000-04:00

I started this blog back in October of last year, but, finding myself unable to match what I thought the blog ought to be, I scrapped all the posts I'd created (all two or three of them) and more or less cyber-squatted (not that anyone was clamoring for Philanthropica) until this past April.

I had this system, you see. I would use the fantastic BlogThis! feature on the Google Toolbar to sort of clip online newspaper articles. Throughout the day, whenever I came across something interesting, I would sketch out an outline of a decent post and then save it as a draft so that I could go back later and make the post what it ought to be. Of course, I would never actually finish the post, and the fetal posts would keep piling up. The only posts that made it to the blog were the ones that required less than two minutes' thought - not a way to run a blog at all.

But, tonight, all that changes. Stay tuned. I might actually say something important.

Taibbi on Friedman

2005-05-09T16:04:00.000-04:00

Thomas Friedman's new book is out and about and this guy has his number.

Personally, I've always gotten the impression that Friedman is five to ten years behind the rest of us and he's still missing the bigger picture.

Feel free to decide for yourself if Friedman's happy, slappy hero metaphor is enough to think he has his fingers anywhere near the pulse of whatever he's diagnosing.

Somebody saw this coming

2005-05-03T09:46:00.000-04:00

In today's Express:

ON TV TONIGHT...

WELL, NOT BY DUNBAR
A victim can't be identified on BLIND JUSTICE (10 p.m., ABC).

It's wrong, so very, very wrong.

Am I crazy?

2005-05-02T20:38:00.000-04:00

Could somebody do me a favor?

Listen to White Zombie's "El Phantasmo and the Chicken-Run Blast-O-Rama."

Now listen to TRUSTcompany's "Downfall."

Am I crazy or do they sound really similar?

Give me your apathetic...

2005-04-22T10:29:00.000-04:00

...your disaffected, disenfranchised, suburban middle class yearning to make a difference!

Thomas criticizes a group of World Bank protestors over at Mile Zero. They probably deserve a great deal of his criticism, if not the vitriol. Nonetheless, I see a problem with his exhortation to go through legitimate channels in order to create change.

After all, I've seen the legitimate channels. What would we have these protestors do instead of protesting? Gather together a team of experts and interested parties for a conference? A nice dinner party with iced tea, cocktails, and some sort of free-range chicken dish with a vegan option for the animal rights conscious or simply finicky? Light entertainment afterward followed by workshops with self-important development gurus?

Those are your so-called legitimate channels - and not only can these folks not afford the price of admission (although with such nice signs I have to wonder if they do have the money...) but you have to wonder if our "convenings" are any more effective than their protests. They're certainly more boring. When you think of all the resources that are pumped in to putting together one of those development conferences and getting the attendees to the site, you can't help but ponder the irony of hundreds of people attending a five-star resort and conference center to talk about how they deplore world poverty. Telling these people to go through these channels assumes that these channels are going to create the kind of change that they wish to see. The nature of these somehow more privileged channels is, to these protestors, part of the problem, and they're partly right.

I understand that there will always be nuts out there who won't be happy with anything any authority does. I understand that being an anarchist for a day is a whole lot easier than being an activist for life. That being said, the political means available to the disenfranchised masses are always going to look less than sophisticated and be less than effective... but that's why we call them disenfranchised.

Jonathan Swift on Blogging

2005-04-18T16:23:00.000-04:00

From Part III, Chapter 5 of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels:

The first Professor I saw was in a very large Room, with forty Pupils about him. After Salutation, observing me to look earnestly upon a Frame, which took up the greatest part of both the Length and Breadth of the Room, he said perhaps I might wonder to see him employed in a Project for improving speculative Knowledge by practical and mechanical Operations. But the World would soon be sensible of its Usefulness, and he flattered himself that a more noble exalted Thought never sprung in any other Man's Head. Every one knew how laborious the usual Method is of attaining to Arts and Sciences; whereas by his Contrivance, the most ignorant Person at a reasonable Charge, and with a little bodily Labour, may write Books in Philosophy, Poetry, Politicks, Law, Mathematicks and Theology, without the least Assistance from Genius or Study. He then led me to the Frame, about the Sides whereof all his Pupils stood in Ranks. It was twenty Foot Square, placed in the middle of the Room. The Superficies was composed of several bits of Wood, about the bigness of a Dye, but some larger than others. They were all linked together by slender Wires. These bits of Wood were covered on every Square with Paper pasted on them, and on these Papers were written all the Words of their Language, in their several Moods, Tenses, and Declensions, but without any Order. The Professor then desired me to observe, for he was going to set his Engine at Work. The Pupils at his Command took each of them hold of an Iron Handle, whereof there were fourty fixed round the Edges of the Frame, and giving them a sudden turn, the whole Disposition of the Words was entirely changed. He then commanded six and thirty of the Lads to read the several Lines softly as they appeared upon the Frame; and where they found three or four Words together that might make part of a Sentence, they dictated to the four remaining Boys who were Scribes. This Work was repeated three or four Times, and at every turn the Engine was so contrived that the Words shifted into new Places, as the Square bits of Wood moved upside down.

Six Hours a-day the young Students were employed in this Labour, and the Professor shewed me several Volumes in large Folio already collected, of broken Sentences, which he intended to piece together, and out of those rich Materials to give the World a compleat Body of all Arts and Sciences; which however might be still improved, and much expedited, if the Publick would raise a Fund for making and employing five hundred such Frames in Lagado, and oblige the Managers to contribute in common their several Collections. (Emphasis mine.)

Far be it from me to engage in the usual sniping about bloggers but this is a pretty fair description of the medium - a fairly primitive computing machine designed to allow anyone to put any combination of words together on art, science, politics, and theology and archive it, however broken, nonsensical, or ignorant, for anyone and everyone.

Instead of a Manifesto

2005-04-01T15:02:00.000-05:00

When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government.

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man