Philanthropy

On Wednesday, I joined thirty of my fellow citizens to listen as my city and a local non-profit presented a land use and transportation plan for the next sixty years.  The meeting, promoted as a call to arms, was slightly lackluster - as the city didn’t seem full of passion for the plan, the non-profit fixated on letter writing as their strategy, and the audience moaned “we’ve seen this, done this before”.  As the conversation swirled around the issues, the goals, the players - someone mentioned the “1,000 Friends” strategy.  Reaching across neighborhoods, disciplines, organizations, and politics to develop a coalition of committed citizens who could stand up to the status quo (currently, single family home developers and the city council).

In two hours, no decision was reached on many of these fronts and letter writing was dismissed as a waste of talented peoples time.  Still, at two hours, no one had left.

This meeting struck a chord because it was such a contrast to the imagery I consumed when I returned home.  The Democratic National Convention was on, and Joe Biden was up to bat.  All week long I’ve watched, with my heart beating a little faster and my hopes rising a little quicker that this could really work, this time.

The similarities between the two events came as I read the many-paged 2008 Democratic Platform  and wondered, how on earth is all of this going to get done?

Being this the philanthropy blog, I did a quick search of the word in the document and sadly only came up with two entries.  But upon a closer read - the topics are all there: health care, global health, education, environment,  poverty, and on and on.  There is nothing easy about what the Democrats are trying to accomplish.

In both my local area and across the country, it will take 1,000 Friends - or higher multiples of this number - to make the change which we are seeking.   It will take “no one leaving” even when the strategies and tactics feel a bit loose-knit and ambiguous in their outcomes.  If you think too much about the challenges, it is overwhelming - but just knowing that people share your desire is energizing.

A bit of an idealistic blog to end this week, but one that is also a call - to apply your time, treasure, and talent to those areas in which you care the most.  And if you’re not sure where to start, the Democrats certainly have created a list from which you can borrow.

Michelle Obama’s comments last night at the Democratic National Convention focused on “values” - the values with which she was raised and the values she hopes to pass to her daughters.  Amidst the comments on Hilary Clinton’s 18-million-cracks-in-the-glass-ceiling, mention of the historical significance of the convention’s timing (anniversaries of the 19th Amendment and MLK Jr’s “I have a dream” speech), and her own decision to leave the law office to work in public service - my mind started swirling around the ”next generation” in philanthropy. 

For the past few years, the sector has increasingly discussed the lack of leadership that the non-profit and philanthropic sectors will face when the baby boomers begin retiring.  Commentaries abound on the internet here, here, and from Canada’s sector here.  Websites aimed at young professionals in philanthropy including YNPN, FLiP, and EPIP are striving to provide resources to the prepare the next generations of non-profit, philanthropy, and grant making leaders.  Additionally, conferences such as Nonprofit 2020 are trying to give voice to those who are seeking to become the next leaders.

Earlier this year, the Meyer Foundation in partnership with CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Idealist.org published a survey of emerging nonprofit leaders, the largest to date.  The result was Ready to Lead which asked nearly 6,000 next generation leaders how they foresee the upcoming leadership challenges and opportunities within the sector.  While the survey addressed potenial barriers, including work-life balance, compensation, and professional develop - it was illuminating that one in three respondents aspire to be an Executive Director (ED) someday and 40% of these respondents say they are ready now or within the next five years to take up this leadership role.

While many of the articles and blogs published on this topic give light to the problem the sector is facing - there are still few concrete examples being shared on how organizations are internalizing and strategically applying this information.  I’m on a hunt to find these examples. 

Still, Ready to Lead is clever in its format, giving current non-profit ED’s, the next generation, Funders, Board of Directors, and Leadership Capacity Builders some tangible steps to follow.  Coming from the next generation perspective, these recommendations empower us to take the next steps.  We become accountable for the success of the sector - we become leaders ensuring its future.  It’s much better than continuing the melancoly warnings of demise.

With all of that in mind, Hilary is on the stage tonight and this lesson is in her story as well.  We must make the space for new leaders to emerge.

Catching up on some reading, this Chronicle of Philanthropy article sparked my interest - and goes back to my musings on counterterrorism laws and the sector.

“Donors who want to provide aid in areas of the world threatened by terrorism should consider forming partnerships with the U.S. government to distribute their money, a top federal official said last week.”

While it’s exciting to hear that Democrats will discuss proposals aimed at helping the sector during next week’s convention and it’s thought-provoking to consider increased support for non-profits from the next administration or a potential Department of Global and Human Development, it’s difficult (for me) to wholeheartedly endorse the U.S. Treasury’s proposal to distribute donor’s funds to areas of the world threatened by terrorism. 

(Gentle snark:  Haven’t we been told that this is a global war on terror?)

Still, no matter where along the spectrum your opinions fall - the increasing interest the U.S. government is taking in the work of the non-profit sector is undoubtedly a great conversation for the this fall and the next administration.

I’m one of the many who can not get enough of the Olympic games this summer - the medals, the upsets, the drama - and am happy to see that philanthropy isn’t being forgotten.

The joint IOC (International Olympic Committee) and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) “Giving is Winning” initiative is only 574 donations away from their goal of 50,000 for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. 

Giving is Winning asks everyone (National Olympic Committees, Federations, sponsors, Recognised Organisations, members and supporters of the Olympic Movement) to donate unused sports and casual clothes which will be distributed by the UNHCR to various refugee camps around the globe.  Donations are being accepted in three waves: pre-Beijing, during the games, and any surplus clothing remaining after the games, until December 2008.  Most of the current donations were collected in the one-year run up to the July 2008 start date.

The 2008 campaign is looking to exceed the number of donations given at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games donations by 20,000. 

Read more about the origins of the initiative here.  For more information or donate - contact givingiswinning@olympic.org

While 9/11 sits nearly seven years behind us, the consequences of new laws and unintended effects are still coming to light.  The public continues to debate the intricacies and politics of U.S. counterterrorism laws under the Patriot Act - from the ambiguity over what constitutes reasonable suspicion to whether electronic surveillance without a warrant is an acceptable policy of a democratic government. 

Last month, OMB Watch (a non-profit watchdog organization in Washington D.C.) and Grantmakers without Borders (a philanthropic network focused on social justice and international philanthropy) published a jointly-researched white paper, Collateral Damage: How the War on Terror Hurts Charities, Foundations, and the People They Serve .  The paper highlights the unintended consequences of counterterrorism laws on the U.S. non-profit sector and international philanthropy.  

1) In the wake of 9/11, counterterrorism laws have morphed to require only reasonable suspicion as the rationale for designating an organization as a supporter of terrorism.  Meaning organizations can have their property seized, they can have their finances frozen, and they can be put under electronic survelliance, if the Department of Treasury or Justice Departments find a reasonable suspicion of terrorist activity.  (For the legal minded:  Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch, but considerably below preponderance of the evidence.  Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. at 695; Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 235.) 

Not knowing an organization that has come under reasonable suspicion, I’m curious as how the determination is made.  Too many wire transfers?  A vague mission statement?  Dealings with particular countries, in particular areas? 

2) International philanthropy suffers because the U.S. sector must operate under this suspicion. When a natural disaster hits, international relief organizations, such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent, are some of the first to respond in local crisis area - with money, goods, and expertise.  Collateral Damage discusses that after the 2004 tsunami, there were U.S. organizations operating in areas of Sri Lanka which were controlled by the Tamil Tigers, whom the U.S. had designated terrorist organization.  Under the counterterrorism laws, these relief organizations were at risk of violating prohibitions against providing “material support” to terrorists - when they were creating displaced persons’ camps and hospitals or providing food and water. 

Extensive infrastructure, strong financial backing, and large talent pools make the U.S. non-profit sector one of the best in the world - yet Collateral Damage made me (once again) ask the question of whether U.S. law allows the sector to exemplify the standard for international philanthropy.  The ability of counterterrorism laws to detract from a non-profit organization’s mission is completely at odds with what the sector seeks to achieve - and with how international philanthropy operates.