Philanthropy

The Clintons are in the headlines again - and for two of my absolute favorite topics: transparency and public diplomacy.  I’m giddy with excitement at all the ways you can slice the conversation - marriage, careers, national security, politics, philanthropy, international development, republicans/democrats, and can she do it?

I won’t drag you through the internal conversations I’ve been having - but will pose a few questions to get yours started:  What does philanthropy have to do with politics?  If someone wants to be anonymous, shouldn’t we respect that right?  If Bill pulls back from his philanthropy, does that ultimately hurt those he was seeking to help?  Does his personality matter more than the work of his organization?  Will the world see Hilary as an effective Secretary of State?  What could this do to her campaign dreams of 2012?  Do the Clintons always have to cause such a ruckus?  Are Bill’s dealings really as shady as the media makes out?

Honestly, it’s better than TV.

If you haven’t been keeping up, here, here, and here are a few articles to get you started.  What an incredibly complex and interesting conversation - certainly one for the holiday parties! 

There is an electric feeling in the air and a sense of optimism that feels so fresh - as though we’ve finally sloughed off the woolly, fear-laden misery of the last eight years.  I would say it feels like spring, but there is snow on the ground. 

Last night’s victory by Barak Obama was historic - a clear example that America is empowered to choose its future direction with Americans setting the course.  While there is much to celebrate, there is much to do. 

In acceptance and conciliatory speeches alike, the candidates, each a role model in service to the country, emphasized that we must get on with our work – and there is much work to be done. Obama’s words put it clearly into perspective:

“So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.”

What can this new spirit of service look like? 

For starters, both Obama and McCain are co-sponsors of the Serve America Act sponsored by Edward Kennedy to usher in renewed commitment to strengthen community service and increase funding for innovative, non-profit programs.  Tripling participation in Ameri-Corps, incenting non-profit programs to reach scale, and helping to recruit more volunteers are just a few key initiatives of the Act.  

Newly introduced, it will be the will of both parties to protect this bill from bogging down in the too-much/not-enough-government-intervention debates surrounding philanthropy and the charitable sector.  Our politicians must remember, they are among the strongest role models for service that our country has to offer – and now, they must lead to make this vision a reality.

Beyond the government and its role in promoting service and responsibility, there is the opportunity for each American to find a place where they can serve.  On their neighbourhood block’s safety watch, with their religious organization’s food drive, fundraising for a NGO working in the developing world, as a young person starting their own social venture, mid-career service on the board of a local non-profit, as a retired person contributing their professional skills to the Peace Corps…and most importantly, as an ordinary citizen being aware of and curious at the world around them.  The options are limitless.

But hard work starts now.  Don’t wait.  Yes you can.

With Gustav, Hanna, and Ike just behind us and many more letters of the alphabet still to go, the GAO’s report Voluntary Organizations:  FEMA Should More Fully Assess Organizations’ Mass Care Capabilities and Update the Red Cross Role in Catastrophic Events asks what the federal government’s role should be in coordinating between disaster management providers (i.e. voluntary organizations) during times of crisis.

As the report points out, “State and local governments generally have the principal responsibility for meeting mass care and other needs in responding to a disaster; however, governments largely carry out this responsibility by relying on the services provided by voluntary organizations.”

Should FEMA be responsible for laying out the duties for which organizations, such as the Red Cross, would be responsible?  Should the federal government take a larger role in orchestrating the coordination of voluntary organizations when a disaster strikes?

FEMA agrees with some of the GAO’s recommendations including: establishing a time frame for updating the role of the American Red Cross in the Catastrophic Incident Supplement, which describes the federal vision a national response to catastrophic disaster, and clarifying federal guidance to states on potential recipients of preparedness grants.  However, FEMA disagreed on their role in incorporating voluntary organizations’ capabilities in assessments - citing that the government cannot command and control private sector resources.  (Like bailing out the private financial sector?)

Good commentary on the report is offered in the NY Times, the Post, and CNN.

With hurricane season barely underway and the Red Cross asking for $150 million in federal aid for victims of Gustav and Ike, its a good time to acknowledge that disaster management can not be handled by one organization.  Voluntary organizations, along with local, state, and federal assistance is needed.  Without an assessment of what each participant can manage in a disaster, the government will have an incomplete picture of available resources.  Assessing capabilities does not automatically imply a need to control these resources - rather it is an example of cooperation, in obtaining and sharing information.

This week’s government take over/bail out/acquisition of Fannie and Freddie Mac has prompted some very interesting conversations on all sides of government, business, and the non-profit sector - including how to balance the drive for profit with the desire to promote the social good.  In addition to the questions of how Fannie and Freddie’s charitable giving will be affected by government intervention, others are contemplating on how future organizations (and the future Mac’s) will be able to achieve this balance.  Politicians, business leaders, and charities are all speculating on how organizations will be able to meet their social goals and continue to maintain financial stability.

A quick round-up ~ both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have commented on the effect this intervention will have on Fannie and Freddie’s social mission.  Even more interesting are the commentaries by Peter Panepento and Sean Stannard-Stockton on how and whether this intervention changes our views on social enterprise and philanthrocapitalism. 

Regardless of where you land, the failure of this giant corporate philanthropist is a wake up for all sectors - and the discussions coming forth are necessary as future organizational structures, missions, and goals are concerns.

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.

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.