Thursday, November 20, 2008

"Invest in good overhead"

"Invest in good overhead."

That is a direct quote from a Harvard Business Review article on "Delivering on the Promise of Nonprofits" that just arrived in my mailbox - the December 2008 issue, p 96. Available now in paper, not yet online.

Here are a few other key insights from the article:
"Realize that everything takes longer and costs more....Instead of placing appropriately sized bets on well-defined strategies, donors often spread too little money among too many recipients."

"....Philanthropy exists in a world without marketplace pressures....Nor do foundations go out of out of business because they miss their numbers...quite the contrary...mediocrity is easily perpetuated."
These insights are neither new nor groundbreaking. The debate over overhead costs has raged for years. Some may argue that market pressures are exactly what are needed and that they do exist, at least for some elements of philanthropy. What matters here is that these ideas are being featured in a leading piece in Harvard Business Review - which will matter to how they are perceived, how they are picked up by donors, and the heft they may begin to carry as ideas in the field.

"Delivering on the Promise of Nonprofits," Jeffrey Bradach, Thomas Tierney and Nan Stone, HBR, December 2008, pp 88 - 97.

Ohio's fast philanthropy

The Columbus Foundation launched PowerPhilanthropy in March of 2008 and moved hundreds of thousands of dollars in under an hour (I wrote about them in this Future Matters 2008.1). This week they beat their own record - on November 18 they used up their entire match fund in 34 minutes, processed 650 gifts in the first 17 minutes alone and 1,000 gifts in 40 minutes.

Their aim was to move $1 million to area nonprofits in 48 hours and they did so in less than 25 hours – to hundreds of nonprofits. One of their donors was a class of kindergarteners - the teacher called one the foundation once the challenge was launched, the foundation staff person walked them through the giving process on the phone and when the gift (to the Nature Conservancy) got through the system and was matched, the entire group of kindergartners cheered!

So now we know what the kids will do, what will you do?

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Networks, metrics, levers, buzzwords


I'm nearing the end of my second to last multi-week road trip of 2008. Way too much travel... Need to go home... Can not think, let alone write, anymore... What follows are notes.

  • Way back in May I wrote about a paper on Working Wikily from the Packard Foundation. To their credit, they've built out a website (a wiki, duh) to continue the conversation. Check it out here. They've got some more to add to the ongoing discussion of Presidential campaigns and social networking; which, of course, some thinkers have already moved beyond.
  • If you need still more to get your social media/social change fix then take the Social Citizens Quiz - in the manner of good ole' prize philanthropy you can win some prizes by doing so.
  • The Alliance for Social Investing met on Tuesday. Here are some of my thoughts. 1) industry benchmarking data actually works to change institutional behavior - the Center For Effective Philanthropy and ICMA are proof of that. 2) There are a lot of efforts to measure performance and conduct due diligence in the philanthropic space. Some of them are really good, all of them could be better. Some ways that better might happen - industry leadership, open source experimentation, financial incentives, sharing ideas. Here are some of the measures, measurers, or intermediaries in this area, if anyone is building a list (and, please, someone, build and share the list or geologic table or evolutionary tree): New Philanthropy Capital, GiveWell,* Urban Institute, SocialMarkets, MissionMarkets, Venture Philanthropy Partners, Midot, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, SocialSolutions, Acumen Fund, Nonprofit Finance Fund, REDF, Center for What Works, and others. Look for an important paper on the philanthropic information markets coming on November 24 from the Hewlett Foundation.
  • A group of folks from the SoCap08 meeting have created a new Google group on social capital data - it is is called Think Social Impact and you can join it here. I would like to merge the group at Social Capital Data over to Think Social Impact - so please join the new group or move yourself from Soc-cap-data to Think Social Impact!
  • The Nonprofit Assistance Fund blog has a good collection of links and writing on nonprofits in down economic times. Find it here. Two invitation-only discussions of these issues will be happening soon, one in NY on Wednesday November 19 and the second in DC in December. I hope something will be made available to the public from these discussions.
  • Videos of the October SocialActions meeting are available here.
And now, some more pleas for help and a few "heads up" items:
  • I'm working on a paper on Giving Portfolios - if you have thoughts or resources to share with me, please do: Email me lucy [at] blueprintrd [dot] com or comment below.
  • It is past mid-November and I've only listed five buzzwords so far. They are 1) Mobile Giving, 2) Labs, 3) Outsourced Program Advising, 4) Design, and 5) Micro -. I'm holding onto numbers 9 and 10 until December - but help me out - what are buzzwords 2008.6, 2008.7 and 2008.8 going to be? Email me lucy [at] blueprintrd [dot] com or comment below. Please, don't make me offer a prize to get suggestions. And, no, Peter, "open philanthropic web" is not a buzzword for 2008. If Change the Web works, it might be in 2009...
*Full Disclosure: I participated in the Alliance meeting as an invited member. I stepped down from the GiveWell Board, effective October 2008. I know the authors and funders of the Working Wikily paper. I know executives at most of the organizations listed in the bullet about the Alliance.


Sunday, November 16, 2008

Wire your cause

cross posted from justmeans

In addition to bringing change to the White House, the Obama Presidential Campaign brought social media to the forefront of community activism. If you weren’t already a believer in the power of grassroots online community organizing before November 4th, you should be now.

Of course, Obama was running for President, so what do his formidable fundraising and community-building efforts mean for the rest of nonprofits or philanthropy? Well, in a word, everything. This post builds off a discussion about political campaigns, social media, and community philanthropy that started while the campaigns were still underway. That said, neither President-elect Obama’s transition team, nor you and your nonprofit or community, should put away the tools or their products. The election was not the end of social media as change tools. President-elect Obama has launched change.gov, where you post ideas, read about transition and administration plans, and stay involved. And the web is alive with recommendations on how the President should keep using the tools and the community to govern.

Having unleashed $660 million in support from three million individual givers (as well as tens of millions of votes from tens of millions of voters), the campaign clearly demonstrated its ability to mobilize. Its podcasts, Flickr tools, facebook pages, organizing tools for house parties, text messages, 30 minute TV shows, twitter feeds, and daily email feeds set a standard that will be required of campaigns to come. Through all 20+ months of this, I personally only experienced a single technological snafu, when a neighborhood group organized for Obama accidentally sent an email with the “old reply all” function enabled. There was a flood of email outrage over about a 4 hr period, 100 or so erroneous and duplicative emails, and then it was over. “Delete Selected” took care of the problem on my end. Think about it– nearly two years of multi-platform daily contact reaching millions of people and only one email glitch – wow.

Tom Watson’s book, CauseWired, was released earlier this month. The book is a must read for nonprofits, community organizers, social entrepreneurs and advocates looking for motivation and examples of social media at work. The book reads much like Watson’s blog of the same name and he has pulled together a coherent narrative of the rapid rise of social media and social causes. My favorite part of the book is Watson’s take on the relationships between “old” and “new” philanthropy – an argument or title that usually sends me screaming from the room. But Watson gets it right – to put it simply, the TV didn’t kill radio, and these two forms – which are ever co-evolving – are interdependent and dynamically linked.

Now, I’m always a little skeptical of arguments that pin major change on a single event, and so I’m not going to totally buy into Watson’s chapters on how Hurricane Katrina was the birth of social media in the social space. The book also misses out on the role of games as tools for social change and comes up short on the mobile revolution we are in the midst of right now. True testament to how useful and relevant CauseWired really is? The book is just now out and its already time for CauseWired 2.0. It’s a good thing Watson has a blog.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Inspiration

Read these winning stories about Encore careers - these are people who changed their careers and are changing lives. Worth a read. These folks really raise the bar on questions of giving more or less - they're giving their all.

I'm in the midst of Mark Freedman's book "Encore" and will have a review soon.

Change The Web 2009



Here I was, thinking about my 2008 end of year predictions and the last few buzzwords for the year when I get a tweet from Peter Deitz and - the next thing I know - its January 2009. Well not really, but it is in Peter's world. The new SocialActions website is live and the "change the web" challenge will be announced in January.

What's the point? Making it easy to take action. Putting action wherever the people are. Letting you be a "click away" from volunteering, giving, petitioning, or any other kind of social action whenever you are online, on your mobile phone, or just about anywhere. Making the web into the philanthropic web. Now that gives another meaning to cross-platform philanthropy. All this "easy" may just help people give.



Thursday, November 13, 2008

From donor to user

I am on the road so watching more TV than usual. The ad campaign for The Salvation Army is eerie, spectral, and moving. The concern expressed by SA leaders that the current economic times may be turning some donors to the organization into users of its services is sad, but in line with my sense of things and with what some food banks in the Bay Area are also noting.

Mobile Blogging from here.

What will you do?

Beth Kanter has a great post about MatchDay, The Columbus Foundation's great use of social media to inspire giving. Beth also asks the key question, (and I paraphrase) "Ask not what your community can do for you, ask what you can do for community."

She notes several examples of individuals digging deeper to give more this giving season. I'm all for it. I hope it happens. I'm doing my best, are you?

But what I want to happen and what I hear is happening are two different things. Since this post and this coverage in the NY Times I've been veritably deluged with emails, tweets, phone calls and hallway conversations with folks who say "my giving is down."

Yesterday, in an all day meeting with three dozen public foundation representatives, the universal sense was that giving was going down from at least one key source of support - individual donors. Layoffs at the Komen Foundation and two other smaller organizations as a result of smaller budgets were the sotto voce topic in the hallways between sessions.

I was hoping to find some real-time data on nonprofit employment statistics to get a closer sense of this. I'm guessing that most nonprofit jobs are classified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics within "service providing," possibly within the subcategory "education and health services." The bigger category dropped only a 108 jobs from September to October and the narrower category actually added 21 jobs - see preliminary data below from BLS. (p = preliminary data)

              |_____________________________________________________
| | | | | |
Nonfarm employment.......| 137,699|p137,371| 137,423|p137,139|p136,899| p-240
Goods-producing (1)....| 21,565| p21,363| 21,367| p21,284| p21,152| p-132
Construction ........| 7,242| p7,148| 7,153| p7,118| p7,069| p-49
Manufacturing .......| 13,563| p13,428| 13,426| p13,370| p13,280| p-90
Service-providing (1)..| 116,134|p116,008| 116,056|p115,855|p115,747| p-108
Retail trade (2)...| 15,337| p15,269| 15,275| p15,230| p15,192| p-38
Professional and | | | | | |
business services .| 17,980| p17,858| 17,854| p17,815| p17,770| p-45
Education and health | | | | | |
services ..........| 18,823| p18,971| 18,997| p18,981| p19,002| p21
Leisure and | | | | | |
hospitality .......| 13,683| p13,637| 13,639| p13,618| p13,602| p-16
Government ..........| 22,439| p22,496| 22,514| p22,473| p22,496| p23
|________|________|________|________|________|________
|
I'm using common sense here, which may be wrong. Please let me know if 1) my analysis above is flawed and 2) if there is a better, readily available source of employment data in the nonprofit/philanthropic space - and we can add employment in the sector to the growing list of key indicators we need to track. Even if my approach above is accurate, it won't give us a lens on social enterprise, public agency, or CSR jobs.

But what I really want to point out is a fine distinction that we need to consider when we look at philanthropic giving. Is the money coming from "already committed" philanthropic sources or is it "charitable choice giving?" I'd qualify "already committed" philanthropy as the following - gifts from foundations, even at increased payout rates, gifts from donor advised funds, gifts from trusts, etc. The trade-off being made on these dollars is growth for the future or giving now. That's a tough trade-off for sure, and its why you see some foundations projecting lower grant budgets for 2009 and others saying they'll be growing or spending more. We may even see a bump in giving from donor advised funds - donors may well look around and say "today's needs matter more than growing this pool." That is wonderful - but remember the tradeoff doesn't hurt the donor, he or she has already given that money.

The other category, "charitable choice giving" contains money that is either going to go to charity or its going to pay for food, heat, gas, rent, savings, entertainment, or other daily expenses. The trade off here is keenly felt by the actual donor - to give the money, he or she may have to give up something else. Now, we don't have data on this distinction (or do we?) and will no doubt need to rely on surveys and interviews and anecdotes. Beth's post, and this survey from PayPal, are encouraging -- lots of folks are definitely "choosing charity." And this is a choice we each make and can encourage others to as well.

But, it isn't what I'm hearing in the hallways.

Predicting pandemics with search engines

Google has realized that it might be able to predict flu outbreaks by monitoring search patterns. To see what they see check out Google Flu Trends.

This is an example of the kind of disruptive innovation that becomes possible when you see new information or old information in new ways. Great potential for viewing philanthropic capital.