White Courtesy Telephone

Mr. Rumsfeld Insists on Giving Us More of Himself

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       S   T   U   A   R   T

Via onPhilanthopy: AP News reports that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be setting up a foundation to attract people to public service.  Here’s an excerpt from the foundation’s newly-published funding guidelines:

Projects that demonstrate that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to the Rumsfeld Foundation.  There are known knowns we’ll fund; there are things we know we know we’ll fund. We also know there are known unknowns we’ll fund; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know we’ll fund.  Please attach a Form 990 to your proposal.

Trained hermeneuticists are standing by.

Philanthropy's Killer Apps

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       A   L   B   E   R  T

By my count there have been at least six killer apps* in American philanthropy since the founding of Jamestown:

1.  The not-for-profit corporation
2.  The foundation
3.  The donor-advised fund
4.  The Foundation Directory
5.  GuideStar
6.  The common grant application

I'm excluding from my list individual organizations, as well as innovations not specific to philanthropy (e.g., the Internet and QuickBooks).

Once the Foundation Center's PubHub becomes more robust, by adding, for example, user comments and ratings, I believe it will join the list.  Equally important to the field will be the curricula for program officers being developed by The Grantmaking School.

A more telling list, perhaps, would be "Philanthropy's World-Transforming Ideas." Would the list be embarrassingly short? self-promoting? Or would our laptops run out of power before we could finish typing it?

_____

* Used here in the sense of a great innovation that is used widely and adds enormous value to the field.

Image source: mediajunk

Class-Talk in the Third Sector

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       S   A   L   L   Y

Via Gift Hub : The American Ruling Class, a new documentary from Harper’s magazine editor Lewis Lapham, will air July 30 and 31 on the Sundance Channel.  What follows is a reworking of an earlier post on the subject.

Discussions of socioeconomic class are rare and fleeting in the nonprofit sector.*  This is a great shame.  Thirty years ago, the powerful images and texts of American Pictures taught me the meaning of the word “underclass.”  I didn’t hear the word used again with any frequency until Hurricane Katrina blew ashore.

Nobody talks about the underclass anymore.

Foundations are fortunate to do their work largely independent of government and corporations (including the media).  They have a good chance of introducing the topic of class and sustaining the conversation.  Yet despite continuing reminders about the myth of class mobility in this country, and an oft-stated concern for low-income communities, there are significant barriers to engaging the topic:

1.  Race, not class, structures the primary American narrative of oppression   In their book Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s,  Omi and Winant write that

Historically speaking, the call for “class” unity across racial lines has amounted in practice to an argument that non-whites give up their racially based demands in favor of “class” unity on white terms.  This will not be achieved by appeals to “class unity” or by reliance on “bargaining power theory,” which merely offer an abstraction to minorities confronted by racial inequities in the workplace.

Likewise in the nonprofit world, class-talk is sometimes seen as a distraction from issues that are more clearly rooted in racial antipathy.

2.  Class-talk produces in some a mental cramp   Paul Kingston and his intellectual heirs have argued that American society is essentially classless.  These authors don’t deny that sociologists, political scientists, and others can usefully divide the American public into various income categories.  What they deny is the notion that the members of these categories share “life-defining experiences” that license our referring to them as members of a distinct, coherent class.  Make of this kind of argument what you will.  It reminds me of Bill Clinton’s narrow definition of “sexual relations.”

3.  Class-talk is impolite   Few topics will more quickly cast a pall over middle class dinner parties than the history of class struggle in the United States.  In 2003, the President effectively silenced the critics of his tax cuts by accusing them of fomenting “class warfare.”

How do we incorporate class-talk into nonprofit work in a way that doesn’t elide hundreds of years of racial oppression?  How do we bring the lived experience of the poor and working poor into institutions governed by middle class values and norms?  How do we dispel the myth that America is essentially a classless society?

_____

* Based on recent data from the White Courtesy Telephone Department of Armchair Sociology that conducted a mental survey on this subject approximately 45 minutes ago.

Joe Breiteneicher on Compensating Trustees

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       A   L   B   E   R  T

Joseph C. K. Breiteneicher, one the Great Souls of philanthropy, died on June 22nd after a long battle with cancer.  He was a mentor to many in the field—myself included—and one of the pioneers of promoting philanthropy.  He brought incredible intellect, passion, and moral authority to his work, serving most recently as president and CEO of The Philanthropic Initiative.  I republish below a guest post that Joe wrote two years ago for the blog Hail, Sons and Daughters of Carnegie, the predecessor to White Courtesy Telephone.

Restoring the Trust in Trusteeship

Trusteeship is a sacred calling—as should be all work in the philanthropic sector.  Compensating trustees diminishes the stewardship values and moral force of the sector.

Below, I offer several perhaps not-so-obvious arguments why all foundation trustees ought to serve pro bono.

First, I find it a moral disconnect that foundations pay trustees for service while they allow salaries in many grantee nonprofits to hover near subsistence levels.  Because most folks who work in nonprofits (real ones, not tax-exempt businesses like most hospitals and large private colleges) are underpaid, and because foundations have contributed to this “underpayment” by not fighting for better conditions of employment for the nonprofit workforce, foundation trustees should feel obliged to forswear all compensation.  It is the moral thing to do since foundations have helped keep most nonprofit workers economically barefoot and pregnant. And, thanks to Senator Grassley, it may also be the politically wise thing to do.

If the sector cannot get its act together, then Congress ought to adopt Canada’s laws regarding trustee compensation.  Perhaps that could help build momentum toward other things Canadian—universal health care, gay marriage, diversity, police in great uniforms.

The rules of Revenue Canada (IRS nord) proscribe trustee compensation for all types of NGOs/foundations.  The penalty is simple: foundations lose their nonprofit philanthropic charter.  Last I looked, Canada had some very effective, progressive philanthropies with quite active trusteeship.  No U.S. community foundation that I know pays its trustees.  In both cases I can cite great foundations that have participation from less affluent folks who are passionate about their communities and who see philanthropy as real service.  All this without the need to compensate.

M. L. King Meets an Unreconstructed Venture Philanthropist

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       J   O   H   N

V.P.	Dr. King, welcome. Please have a seat.  Now, remind me again what your project is about.
KING	Several weeks ago a member of our community, Mrs. Rosa Parks, was arrested for refusing to vacate her bus seat for a white passenger. To protest this injustice, this past December 5th we urged all people of conscience to boycott Montgomery’s buses. Our organizing effort was very successful, and the following evening, at a meeting of ministers and other community leaders, we formed the Montgomery Improvement Association to continue the boycott. I was chosen to lead that effort.
V.P.	Ah, yes, here’s your proposal. You requested funds to organize carpools, hold weekly meetings with community members, and, together with the NAACP, legally challenge Montgomery’s bus segregation ordinance.
KING	That’s correct.
V.P.	Desegregating Montgomery’s buses is certainly a worthy goal, Dr. King, but I’m afraid I have some bad news for you: your proposal was denied funding. A report from our Research Department tells me that activists in other communities have attempted bus boycotts in recent years, to no effect. I also see from your resume that you have no track record of leading a social change movement …
KING	That’s true, but I firmly believe that the hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined noncomformists, like myself and others, who are dedicated to justice, peace, and brotherhood.
V.P.	Yes, well, permit me to share some of the reviewers’ comments. One of them worries about your business model and the scalability of your efforts. He’s especially concerned about sustainability issues. You write in your proposal that you plan to pass the plate at community meetings and solicit support from other civil rights organizations. Do you have any firm commitments?
KING	Not as yet, but—
V.P.	Dr. King, with all due respect, any social venture worthy of the name requires, at the very least, a plausible theory of change. You write in your proposal that you believe “unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
KING	Those are my words.
V.P.	Well, that’s all rather speculative, don’t you think?

Gates Keepers: New Blog on the Block

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       D   I   X   I   E

A concerned citizen?  A disaffected employee?  The anonymous blogger at Gates Keepers has a wry sense of humor and a minimalist style that contrasts sharply with the overblown polemics of White Courtesy Telephone.

The primary message is in GK’s choice of material.  Then there’s the sometimes subtle play between a headline and a post’s occasional snap of the towel.

GK was inspired to blog by a Toronto Star op ed that raised alarms about the Buffett gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  I look forward to keeping up with the Gateses.

Now Playing

Here, here, here, and here!

The Seven-Storey Mountain: Are You a Social Justice Funder?

       P   O   S   T   E   D       B   Y       A   L   B   E   R  T

You’re one of those foundation folks who still resonates with Eugene Debs’s famous words: “While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”  You haven’t lost touch with your youthful idealism.  Perhaps you’re trying hard to teach your children the proper values.

But how about professionally?  Are you a social justice funder? ...

No …	The social justice framework is not one we apply or would ever consider applying to our grantmaking.
No …	The term “social justice” is laden with ideological baggage. It’s a fluff term that people use as it suits them, referring obliquely to multiple—often incompatible—theories of justice. Liberals use it to flatter themselves. But, okay, I might be wrong about this, so tell me more.
Yes, of course …	We fund organizations and projects that feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and visit those who are in prison. That’s real social justice. Everything else is rather speculative, don’t you think?
Yes …	Rather than (or in addition to) funding direct service organizations, we fund nonprofits that: Advocate on behalf of the poor with public officials and other decision-makers; Train, empower, organize, and mobilize low-income people to address issues of concern to them; and/or Conduct budget, policy, and systems research that can be used by other advocates. We place a premium on organizations that have in their leadership members of the communities that would be most affected by their work. As with direct service organizations, the nonprofits we fund are all about ensuring that the hungry are fed, the homeless are housed, and the sick are cared for. But their tools are not soup kitchens, cots, and health clinics. Their tools are budget hearings, coalitions, and city council meetings.*
Yes …	Ibid. But in addition, we have a well thought out and clearly articulated funding strategy based on a thoroughgoing analysis of how we got into this mess in the first place. Before deciding what to fund, we attempted to answer these questions as best we could: What were the basic assumptions, the habits of mind, the structures, the policies and the laws that led to the creation of social inequalities? What are the mechanisms by which these inequalities are sustained? What has been the legacy of hundreds of years of slavery, colonialism, and other forms of oppression? Our funding strategy is based not only on a sound analysis of social inequalities and their basis, but also on a clear sense of the outcomes we can reasonably expect by funding the organizations we do at the level we do. We’ve taken the time to articulate our theory of change, and we understand we’re in this for the long haul. Because our funding is strategic, we provide general operating and multi-year support whenever possible, and we do our best to minimize the bureaucratic burden on grantees.
Yes …	Ibid. and op. cit. But we realize that for our work to be most effective, we also need to invest in: Leadership development and coaching for nonprofit executive directors and their staffs Capacity-building for organizations, which includes the addition of new staff members, and traditional capacity-building concerns like strong boards, sound financial management, state-of-the-art IT, human resources, etc. Ongoing training for advocates, fundraising assistance, etc. We notice that the work of local advocates seldom connects with that of their national counterparts, and that organizations addressing one set of issues might not know the work of other organizations addressing these same issues. Our funding acknowledges and addresses this lack of communication and coordination within the advocacy community. We make it a point of coordinating our funding with that of other grantmakers.
Yes, yes, yes …	Yes to all that. But we also apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to the organizations we fund. This is reflected in our commitment to board and staff diversity; in our transparency about policies, rationales, victories and failures; and in the kinds of investments our foundation makes. We use all the resources at our command—our money, our knowledge, our convening power, our own voices—to advance the cause of social justice.

* Thanks to Victoria Dawson for this elegant way of describing the work of advocacy organizations.

Philanthropy Twaddle Linked to Global Warming

Looks like I’m going to have to reduce my footprint.

The Maddening Calm: Talking Around Social Change

There’s an urgency in the deliberation of social activists that’s often missing from conversations among those of us who work at foundations.

Social activists breathe fire.  At their best, they’re deeply knowledgeable about the manner in which historical accident, human nature, and ideology have interacted to produce oppressor and oppressed.  There’s plenty of impassioned debate; the causes and the people they champion have an immediate presence.

The atmosphere changes when foundation folks gather to address social problems.  Often, in my experience, there’s a maddening calm.  We’re likely to replace fire by a polite and strangely apolitical bonhomie.  You’ll find many former activists among us, brimming with good ideas and good intentions, striving in our own way to make some kind of difference in the world.

But there’s been a subtle shift.

When somebody in the foundation circle puts the issue of race on the table, to take one example, it’s sometimes treated like Aunt Betty’s Mayonnaise Surprise—one of those potluck dishes everybody comments on but few dare sample.  Those of us in this circle have learned to preserve the outward calm, and we pass over in silence those subjects that would often add the greatest value to our philanthropic interventions.

I pray that I may live to see the day when these two benevolent circles—activists and philanthropoids—converge.  In the meantime, we foundation folks have a lot to learn from our more incandescent cousins.

What activists tend to do well is ask the question, How did we get to this state of affairs in the first place?  The best social activists make it a point to understand the history, the basic assumptions, the habits of mind, the structures, the policies and the laws that led to the creation of social inequalities.  They ask: What are the mechanisms by which these inequalities are sustained?  What has been the legacy of hundreds of years of slavery, colonialism, and other forms of oppression?

Asking these questions is not an idle exercise.  If we fail to ask them before we engage in any kind of philanthropic activity—and, in my view, we fail to ask them roughly 99 percent of the time—we’re simply proposing a kind of triage on society’s wounded that will do good for some, but keep intact the flow of victims.