October 13, 2008
Reviews of Philanthrocapitalism
The new book Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World is drawing cheers and jeers from a variety of readers.
In The Wall Street Journal, Richard J. Riordan, the former mayor of Los Angeles, writes that a question “hovers over” the book: Why don’t more billionaires use their time and money to fight global ills?
Mr. Riordan writes that it’s not because of greed, but because they do not know how to start in earnest.
“One way to bring these donors into the philanthrocapitalist fold may be through partnerships like those of the [Bill] Gates and [Bill] Clinton variety, because they combine prestige with ‘entrepreneurial’ social goals. Another way would be for these untapped billionaires to take a look at this book’s enlightening analysis of how they might do the most good,” he writes.
In The Financial Times, reviewer John Gapper wonders about the book’s premise during a financial crisis.
“Philanthrocapitalism? Crony capitalism or crooked capitalism, or the end of capitalism feels more like it,” he writes. Yet, he says, as the authors “argue in this thoroughly researched and enjoyable survey of the new rich and their new-found devotion to charity, as it was once known, capitalist do-gooders will always be with us.”
In The Chronicle, Phil Buchanan, president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, a foundation research group in Cambridge, Mass., writes that the book deserves to be read, but is hollow in its idea that nonprofit groups should adopt the tactics of business.
“My hope is that nonprofit organizations respond to this book with a strong and clear voice—and do not cede ownership of crucial concepts like strategy and performance assessment to anyone,” he writes.
Several readers have responded to Mr. Buchanan’s thoughts at the end of his opinion article.
What do you think of the new book? Are there other notable reviews in newspapers or on nonprofit blogs?
Creating Attention For War-Torn Nations
How can aid groups help the public understand the world’s often-overlooked humanitarian crises, asks writers on AlertNet, a Web site created by the Reuters news wire.
According to a recent survey by the British Red Cross, when asked to name countries with ongoing conflicts, most respondents identified Iraq and Afghanistan, but fewer than 1 percent failed to identify Sudan, Somalia, or other war-torn African nations.
“What’s most frustrating is that despite years of effort by the aid community to shine the spotlight on forgotten crises — with lists of top 10s, celebrity visits, and the like — they still rumble on pretty much in the darkness,” says AlertNet’s blog writers, who were not named.
“Bearing in mind the global credit crunch is hogging all the headlines, how would you force the world to start taking more notice of places like eastern Congo? Is the level of awareness in your country as low as in Britain? If so, why?” the writers ask.
What do you think? How can charities gain attention for humanitarian problems?
October 10, 2008
Company Asks Public to Direct Its Giving
TripAdvisor, a Web site that helps visitors book airplane tickets and hotels, is the most recent grant maker to get into so-called participatory philanthropy, that is, allowing the public to vote online for which cause the company supports.
The company, in Newton, Mass., is asking people to choose between five large charities: Conservation International, Doctors Without Border, the National Geographic Society, the Nature Conservancy, and Save the Children. TripAdvisor will divide $1-million among the organizations based on the percentage of votes each garners. Polls close November 9.
American Express and several nonprofit funds have created similar grant-making programs. Read about The Chronicle’s article about public participation in philanthropy.
Critics of the strategy, which some deride as American Idol-style philanthropy, argue it will lead to giving that takes less risks and focuses only on well-known causes.
What do you think of such giving programs? Which nonprofit group would you vote for?
What Ails America's Disaster-Response System?
What’s wrong with the U.S. disaster-response system? And why have the U.S. government and nonprofit groups failed to reassure the public and Congress that they can effectively respond to a large-scale disaster?
Writing on his blog for Harvard University’s Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Tony Pipa blames episodic fund raising, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s limited ability to coordinate charities, and confusion about government’s role after a disaster.
For example, the government clearly sees itself as responsible for rebuilding infrastructure after a natural disaster. But “people issues,” says Mr. Pipa, “seem to get revisited every time.”
And they can often become politicized, he says. Mississippi sustained half as much damage after Hurricane Katrina as Louisiana, but Congress required that they share almost equally federal funds for long-term recovery.
Mr. Pipa also criticizes the episodic nature of fund raising for disasters, which leaves nonprofit groups and governments with too-few resources. Local nonprofit groups, meanwhile, have very little ability to raise money outside of disaster-affected areas. So large groups, such as the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army, wind up receiving the most money, even though they are often slower to arrive after a disaster than local organizations.
Coordinating nonprofit groups is another big challenge, says Mr. Pipa. The Federal Emergency Management Agency still lacks the ability to do so, even though it assumed that responsibility after squabbling with the Red Cross after Katrina.
Many people seem to believe that improving the disaster-response system means strengthening existing agencies and organizations such as FEMA and the Red Cross. Mr. Pipa isn’t so sure.
“We need to develop an approach that is decentralized and supple enough to integrate the strengths of hundreds of nonprofit groups if necessary,” he writes.
What do you think ails the U.S. disaster-response system? What lessons do overseas relief efforts offer?
October 09, 2008
New Social-Issue Blogs Seek to Be Part Gawker, Part About.com
Change.org, a Web site started 18 months ago to connect donors with causes, has reinvented itself as a network of blogs that discuss social issues. Joshua Levy, the site’s managing editor, recruited 13 bloggers who he says combine scholarly knowledge of their field with a more-witty-than-academic writing style.
Michael Bear Kleinman, an aid worker and lawyer, kicks off his blog on humanitarian relief by discussing what the presidential candidates had to say about Darfur during Tuesday night’s debate.
He also recounts how U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon went “temporarily insane” at a U.N. meeting honoring the rapper Jay-Z. The secretary general composed his own rap song for the occasion, beginning with the line: “Global Classrooms are a cinch, with the help of Merrill Lynch. When you put the org in Google, partnerships go truly glooobal.” “Our champ” Ted Turner, “the valiant work of (RED),” and the Cisneros Foundation (“hope for Earth’s salvation”) also figured in the song.
Nathaniel Whittemore, founding director of the Center for Global Engagement at Northwestern University, offers up his “Top 10 Ways to Get Involved with Social Entrepreneurship” with his blog on the topic. Among his recommendations: enter a competition (such as changemakers.net) or contact a social entrepreneur through http://www.socialedge.org.
Shannon Moriarty, a graduate student at Tufts university, introduces her blog about homelessness with a post about Genesis Home, a charity in North Carolina that keeps homeless families together under the same roof. Genocide, gay rights, and global warming are among the other topics discussed on Change.org’s blog network.
Ben Rattray, the Web site’s founder, says he hopes the revamped site will provide readers with more guidance about how they can take action on causes they care about. In addition to the blogs, the new site includes information about charities working on each of the 13 causes, as well as advocacy campaigns they are starting.
In its previous incarnation, Change.org had 115,000 members — or people who created profiles — and raised $250,000 for charities. Mr. Rattray says he hopes the new site can attract a wider audience and appeal to readers who are invested in a single cause.
Mr. Levy says that much writing on social issues is academic, and he hopes the blogs can draw readers in. He calls the new site a combination of “Gawker Media and About.com.”
Have you seen the site? What do you think?
New Gates Chief Brings Midwestern Values to His Job
While Jeffrey S. Raikes has been at his current job just a short time, the new chief executive of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “is putting his stamp on the culture” of the organization, writes Patricia Sellers, editor-at-large for Fortune magazine.
On her blog for the publication, Postcards from the Pinnacles of Power, she writes that in “sessions with employees, he’s been talking about his 10 values and how he works them into his life and career. Value No. 1: work ethic. He grew up on a Nebraska corn farm, so it was up early and work hard.”
The other values include passion, diversity, humor, devotion to community, and conservative spending.
“He’s plainspoken, bordering on folksy, but the style seems to work with a foundation staff that’s all about saving the world,” writes Ms. Sellers, who says she got to know Mr. Raikes and his wife while writing a profile of Melinda Gates.
Despite her insight into the chief executive of America’s largest philanthropy, Ms. Sellers’s laudatory tone drew jeers from the anonymous author of Gates Keepers, a blog that is critical of the foundation.
“Here is a postcard fluff piece on Raikes, including bullet points on the values he says he lives by to illustrate how good he is. Actions will speak louder than words. Is ‘conservative spending’ a positive value at the foundation?” the writer asks.
(Read The Chronicle’s article about Mr. Raikes.)
What do you think? What questions do you have for Mr. Raikes? What will you look for to see if his tenure at the foundation is successful?
October 08, 2008
Foundation Leader And His Blog
As the saying goes, once you work at a foundation, everybody laughs at your jokes.
But to know what makes the leader of $4-billion foundation laugh (and occasionally cringe), visit the GaraLog, the personal blog of Gara LaMarche, president of the Atlantic Philanthropies.
Mr. LaMarche uses the Web site to speak outside of his role at the foundation, showing photos from recent trips to Vermont and Rhode Island, making observations on the presidential race, and indeed, telling the occasional joke.
While grant seekers may flock to the blog to gain insight to a potential donor, Mr. LaMarche doesn’t take his musings too seriously.
“It goes without saying that to publish your random thoughts on the assumption that others will be interested in them is an extremely self-centered activity,” he writes on the blog’s introduction. “Anyway, I hope you like reading it. If not, you don’t have to come back!”
October 07, 2008
Donor Questions Fund-Raising Pitch
Holden Karnofsky, founder of GiveWell, a grant maker that offers advice to other donors, questions a popular way that many nonprofit groups raise money by telling potential contributors exactly what their donation would pay for.
For example, Mr. Karnofsky points to a women’s group that promises that for every $45 gift it receives, it will teach an African woman basic reading skills and how to write her name.
Mr. Karnofsky writes on GiveWell’s blog that if this is literally true — that a donation directly benefits one aid recipient — “this would seem a horribly inefficient way to run projects — spending all the overhead to pay staff, set up the class, etc., and leaving one woman out because of a $45 shortfall.”
Yet if the pitch is simply a way to appeal to donors and the money actually flows instead into the charity’s general coffers, “your donation is really an unrestricted donation to a large organization; to understand your impact, you need to understand the entire organization.”
“All in all, I’m skeptical of any claim that says ‘your $1000 buys X.’ It’s a good way to make things feel tangible, but a donor truly trying to understand his or her impact should take a different approach,” he writes.
In a separate post, Mr. Karnofsky suggests that donors conduct research on a charity’s “strategy, priorities, and activities” and give unrestricted gifts, instead of ones for specific efforts.
What do you think of Mr. Karnofsky’s argument against the fund-raising pitch?
October 06, 2008
Scandals Prove Need for Leadership Turnover
An expert on nonprofit governance says nonprofit groups should be more careful about limiting the power of their leaders in wake of the recent embezzlement scandal at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn.
In May year, a whistle-blower in the organization forced the disclosure that Dale Rathke, brother of Acorn’s founder and chief executive, Wade Rathke, had embezzled nearly $1-million from Acorn.
Dan Prives, an expert on charity finances, writes on Where Most Needed, that the situation raises significant questions about how much authority should be given to nonprofit leaders.
Mr. Prives writes that Wade Rathke, who founded Acorn in 1970, set up the organization in such a way that other employees and its board of directors could not easily follow its financial structure. That structure helped enable the embezzlement scandal, he says.
Worse, Mr. Prives writes, the organization has lost much of its influence and credibility.
“Executive tenure over a decade is always going to be problematic, especially since board tenure is typically much shorter,” Mr. Prives writes. “Some people would like to call it founder’s syndrome, but the issue isn’t about being a founder as much as it is about being in power long enough to be the only one remaining who really understands how everything works.
“The result is often a crash-and-burn scandal, confirming the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. “
Is it possible for long-tenured leaders to maintain successful organizations? Or should there be “term limits” for those who oversee nonprofit groups?
Click on the comments link below this post to share your thoughts.
October 03, 2008
Newspaper Blog Follows Charity Trial
On the Crime Blog, Jason Trahan, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, is following the retrial of five men affiliated with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Muslim charity based outside Dallas accused of supporting the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
A previous case ended last year in a mistrial after jurors were deadlocked on charges against the defendants. Prosecutors charge the five men raised more than $12-million to support terrorism. The defense says there is no evidence that private donations went to finance violent activities.
Mr. Trahan this week writes that the judge decided to allow the jury to see videos produced for the Holy Land fund that feature a controversial Palestinian cleric, who is reportedly a spiritual mentor to Osama bin Laden.
While the videos were not found at Holy Land’s offices, a prosecutor “argued that the advertisements were authentic because they were found among many other documents and videos naming the defendants and showing them interacting with Hamas leaders. They are relevant to the case because they show that the defendants were not merely a charity, as they claim, but rather Hamas’ designated fund-raising arm,” Mr. Trahan writes.
However, a defense lawyer “said there is no proof the defendants had anything to do with producing them. Besides, she said, the videos were made well before support of Hamas was outlawed in the U.S. in 1995. Also, she said, the government just wants another opportunity to mention Osama bin Laden,” Mr. Trahan writes.