Watching NBC’s premiere of The Philanthropist left me with more questions than answers.  Luckily, I’m not the only one with conflicted views on the effect the show will have on philanthropy. 

Last night, we were saturated with quite a portrayal of white man’s guilt - where the most honest moment comes when our hero, Teddy Rist, is questioned on his true intentions.  He never really tells us, but then again, neither do many philanthropists.

The hero’s British accent, his American company, and the African music accompanying the intro, commercial breaks, and credits lay it on quite thick.  He’s successful in his mission and the hour show wraps up with a warm fuzzy feeling - except for that awkward neocolonialist pang in your stomach. 

Philanthropy is hard work - and yes, it is exciting and no, it doesn’t have to be colonialist (though that could be an entirely separate blog).  The complexities of philanthropy are much more than this series acknowledges - or are at least much more mental, than physical.  But if the show at least gets folks talking - about what Philanthropy is and isn’t, then  perhaps it will have been a worthwhile show to have watched.

There are likely to be many opinion on the show.  For other’s check out these:

• Round up of Media commentaries:  from good to worse
• Steve Gunderson, Council on Foundations - “The Philanthropist is to charitable giving as The Pink Panther is to police work.”
• Jeff Trexler, Uncivil Society - “It’s empire. It’s racial supremacy. And it’s something we should not indulge.”

Hudson Institute released the Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances for 2009.   The full report and executive summary are available.  Once again, the Index shows that Remittances are a larger percentage of U.S. Economic Engagement in Developing Countries than Official Development Assistance and Private Philanthropy.  Private capital flows are slightly higher. 

The Index confirms that Remittances will continue to increase in significance:

Despite the economic downturn in 2008, remittances to the developing world still grew nine percent to an estimated $305 billion. Only in the beginning of 2009 did remittances begin to decline, but the World Bank
projects remittance fl ows to developing countries will fall by only 5–8 percent in 2009. Thus, as private capital flows decline in 2009, the more resilient remittance flows, along with philanthropic
donations, will continue to be critical lifelines to help developing countries weather the economic storm.

A slightly different take on global philanthropy was addressed at the Global Philanthropy Forum by Peter Buffett of the Novo Foundation, in that we must avoid “philanthropic colonialism”.  It’s a smart perspective that we should keep talking about - and share ways to avoid the pitfalls of short-term projects and neglecting local needs.

The Forum also highlighted a Track II Diplomacy discussion on Iran with a panel from both diplomacy and philanthropy.  I’m always on the look out for overlaps between my two favorite disciplines.

For as much as I want help philanthropy become an accessible, mainstream norm and value  - I’m still wrestling with the idea of a billionaire playboy turned vigilante philanthropist as our superhero for doing so.  NBC’s June premiere of The Philanthropist is making my head spin.

From a foreign policy point of view, do we really need television show endorsing the Americans know best philosophy (i.e. we’ll come to your country with our own agenda) - even if it is for “good” causes?  Do we really want America’s philanthropists thinking they can run into countries, bargain with drug dealers and dodge bullets - all in the name of  saving the world?  Maybe we do?  

Philanthropy is a personal choice and journey.  Are we through with philanthropy as a collaboration?  Is this the beginning of the individual action being more effective, less bureaucratic, and quicker?  I’m starting to think that we are okay with folks pursuing their own agendas up to a point - and perhaps this TV show will illuminate our cut-off. 

I’m still working through my thoughts about the show.  I’ll definitely have to watch and find out.  Though if this is the sector’s break-out moment to the mainstream, I’m a little nervous that we’ll have more explaining to do - not less.  However, if folks come away knowing what philanthropy is - and how to pronounce it, perhaps it will have all been worth it?

Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a big deal for non-profit funders and organizations.  How do you determine the most effective approach to solving homelessness, bettering education, or curbing poverty?  Is it possible to weave a standard method of evaluation through a variety of themes, lens, and perspectives?  Should we even try for one approach, or is it enough that we are even trying at all?

Evaluation within the non-profit sector is not always easy to understand.  It’s difficult to apply evaluation for many non-profits with lack of staff, lack of funding, etc.  It’s even more difficult when the numbers for evaluating are just not available - a lack of accessibility or a lack of existence.  Even with the best of intentions to evaluate, organizations face the added difficulty of venturing into a jargon-filled arena of inputs, outcome, impacts, consultants, and methodologies. 

All that said, we must evaluate.  And we must get better about sharing those evaluations.  If we want to be effective, to avoid common stumbling blocks, we need to learn from what has come before us.  So its thankful that there are folks (who love the jargony world of evaluation) out there working to improve what evaluation means.

Alliance has published a clever interview with some of the leading minds in evaluation and offers links to a round up of different evaluation models being used by U.S. Foundations.  There are different models, there are different perspectives - this is unlikely to change.  But SROI is also likely to remain, and its good that folks are working it out for the rest of us to understand.

If you missed Obama’s comments last night regarding charitable deductions, I’ve included them here.  For the past few weeks, the non-profit sector has been a flutter with commentary on the lowering of charitable deductions for wealthy donors.  In summary, instead of deducting 39%, wealthy American will be able to deduct 28% of their charitable giving.  While I realize that we are in a recession, charitable donations should not be driven by the deduction you receive on your taxes.  As a sector, our stories should compel folks to give.  As a people, we should not simply expect to get something when we give.

The debate has gone around and around in the sector, but Obama is right: 

When I give $100, I’d get the same amount of deduction as when some, a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent, he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.

If we believe the work we are doing is valuable, donors will as well.  A higher tax deduction shouldn’t make or break our case.

Transcript:

Mike Allen, Politico? Hi, Mike.

Q: Mr. President, are you — thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

OBAMA: No, I think it’s — I think it’s the right thing to do, where we’ve got to make some difficult choices. Here’s what we did with respect to tax policy.

What we said was that, over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even in times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter, their incomes didn’t go up. And so, well, we said, Let’s give them a tax cut. Let’s give them some relief, some help, 95 percent of American families.

Now, for the top 5 percent, they’re the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I, I fall in that category. And what we’ve said is, for those folks, let’s not renew the Bush tax cuts, so let’s go back to the rates that existed back in, during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine, and let’s look at the, the level at which people can itemize their deductions.

And what we’ve said is: Let’s go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you’re in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you’re writing off 28 percent.

Now, if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.

And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to write off 39 percent.

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I’d get the same amount of deduction as when some, a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent, he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who’ve benefited enormously over the last several years.

It’s not going to cripple them. They’ll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

 

Whether you eat, sleep, and breathe philanthropy or whether you can barely pronounce the word, the entire sector revolves around personal choice.  No matter how fancy or interactive our industry is able to make the word, the feeling, the community - the decision on when, where, or whether to participate will always be based on the individual. 

With that option, you can choose not to participate.  Or to participate a little.  Or to participate when nothing better is on TV.

The same goes for technology in the sector.  Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Podcasts, Webinars, and on and on - as a funder, non-profit, or individual you are responsible for how you choose to work.  What is most effective may not be your style - and thus, making it less effective for your mission.

I hear folks in the field say they want to adopt certain practices, certain technologies because “they think they should”, but I offer another way to think about it.  A tool is just a tool - until you understand why you want to use it and when you need to use it. 

If your position in the sector is thriving with direct mail and telemarketing, then switching for the sake of the times, may not be for you.  On the flip side, if you have nothing to say or don’t know what you are trying to say - there are no amount of tools and widgets to help you  focus your communication.

As far as I’ve seen, there’s no one right way to do philanthropy.  Being authentic that giving is an individual choice may help us to create stronger communities around issues as a whole.  Driving communication with the individual in mind is the goal, no matter which medium you choose.

Knowing that there is more than one way to communicate, we can be reassured that “space” will never run out.  We’re in this together, regardless of our tendencies to stereotype generations. 

Embracing philanthropy, embracing technology - it’s a lifestyle.  And not one size fits all.

Between the blogs I follow and my twitter-feed, I’m feeling issue-fatigue on the financial crisis and how the sector is coping.  My weekly Economist continues to report the most pressing financial difficulties from manufacturing to mortgages -  in every corner of the globe.  Even for a sector-junkie, its challenging to keep up on the most current thoughts regarding Obama’s stimulus package and the administration’s decision to limit charitable-giving deductions for the wealthy.

When it gets a little blurry and numbing to continue navel gazing, its always a good time to see how things are stacking up elsewhere.  Alliance provides a free article this week on the Financial Crisis Around the World.  It’s actually not as dismal as it sounds - it’s nice to hear that there is some stability certain regions even while others are becoming more tightly focused.  And for subscribers of Alliance, your bonus is in the uplifting news that commitments in reconstruction to Gaza are defying the recession.

Never a bad thing to gain a little perspective.  It’s refreshing to get a glimpse of what’s happening beyond these borders.

All for multi-tasking and passing the boredom of standing in the grocery line, this new application from The Extraordinaries has gotten me excited about the new possibilities of volunteering.

Smartphone software that allows someone to use micro amounts of spare time for social good. We deliver volunteer tasks on-demand directly to the phone like a stream of new adventures, that people complete on the phone in a few minutes, while riding the bus or waiting in line. It’s information age volunteerism, enabling doctors, scientists, organizations, and more to harness the power of the crowd.

While my quality of life is enhanced by learning the latest gossip in the tabloids and in the lives of celebrities, the possibilities of micro-volunteerism may be equally as thrilling (and certainly more useful).  I’m hesitant to love the new jargony term, but I love how the term makes volunteering more accessible and more dispersed.  Less about a central system and more about doing a little for a lot of different organizations/causes/etc.

I’m not alone in the excitement over The Extraordinaries - they’ve just won $25,000 through the We Media Pitch It! Awards.  The global is now very local. 

Kudos to the Administration for passing a Stimulus bill that, both in voice and in funds, supports volunteerism and community activism.  While I’m still not sold or sure of the government’s increasing presence in the sector (i.e. Office of Social Innovation), its not being overdone…yet. 

The combination between improvements in public diplomacy and philanthropy by the government will go a long way in cleaning up the U.S.’s image.  I was nearly giddy to see the State Department’s new blog and twitter feed (@dipnote).  It won’t be the end all, but it opens communication - and transparency.

With people excited about the U.S.’s role in the world once again and with folks fired up to volunteer, its no wonder that PeaceCorps and Teach for America’s application numbers are increasing.  I would think that the U.S. Foreign Service is experiencing the same increase - or will be shortly.

With the increase in funding via the Stimulus plan for these service-based opportunities, it will be interesting to see how organizational capacity will function.  Will an increase in funding and an increase in applications result in more candidates hired to serve - or will candidates simply need to be more qualified?  How is “qualified” defined?  The Chronicle of Philanthropy asked this same question about the future of AmeriCorps - the comments posted debate the quality v. quantity of candidates, the effectiveness of individual programs, and how to improve AmeriCorps on whole.

The country has just received the message, “go and out get involved”.  While an increase in funding is available and the government support is encouraging, change will not happen overnight.    Application rates may rise, but organizational capacity to handle the influx may not increase.  The number of applicants will rise, but the diversity of applicants and skill sets may not.  Excitement to serve is heightened, but increased capacity and stronger support are not necessarily included.

I love seeing public diplomacy and philanthropy getting their time in the sun.  If taken slowly and applied correctly the increase in funding and popularity will be a huge success - both for U.S. image and for citizen pride.  We can’t take this recent surge in transparency and interest as a quick fix - its for the long term, and folks need to be ready to commit to that.

With both Canada and the U.S. passing new federal stimulus packages, it has been interesting to hear from the respective non-profit sectors on how pleased they are with the outcomes.  The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that a congressional compromise will include funding for arts, social service, and volunteerism - including $50 million for capacity building grants for non-profit organizations.

This contrasts with a view from Charity Village, a Canadian sector non-profit advocate, that reported a tepid response to the Federal Stimulus package.  From the numbers, $15 billion of $29 billion will impact folks in the non-profit sector.  However, depending on where you are in the sector - you may or may not be as pleased.

Details of stimulus packages are not necessary my forte, but it is interesting to observe what is expected of each country, by each country - and how their packages resonate with their people and in each sector.  Kind of amazing how many ways you can slice the pie.