Northern California Grantmakers

NCG member Pam David of the Walter & Elise Haas Fund was recently featured in Blue Avocado and if you haven’t read the interview/article, you should.

Pam offers insights on the field, compares government transparency to what she sees in Philanthropy, gives her thoughts on Philanthropy’s role in community change and what she thinks Philanthropy should be doing.

Here are some of the highlights.

On what she’s learned about philanthropy since coming to it from government:

“When I first came to work in philanthropy my first impressions were “No accountability, no urgency.” Particularly compared to the multiple layers of public oversight and transparency in my old job…What I’ve found in this arena is that there is tremendous accountability to the trustees, and rightly so, but the only external accountability is what you yourself bring to the table.”

Comparing accountability in government and philanthropy:

“When a nonprofit drug abuse clinic imploded, my colleagues in the public health department had to somehow maintain those services…A key underlying difference is that local government has real responsibilities for the community; its failure to act responsibly and timely has real-life impact.

In most of philanthropy we aren’t responsible in the same way. So, for example, even if a foundation had a grant to that same childcare center, it wouldn’t necessarily feel responsible for making sure those parents had a place to take their kids the next day. It’s not that philanthropy should be the same as local government. I get that we play different roles. But philanthropy definitely has things to learn from its public sector counterpart.”

On taking risks:

“Part of my old job was running a community development loan fund, and I learned the importance of balancing risk in a portfolio. If every business we made loans to was successful, then we knew we weren’t reaching the people who most needed our community development money, that we probably weren’t making loans to all of the right people.

From what I’ve seen, most foundations don’t usually look at risk in balancing their grants portfolios. As a sector, we are more risk averse than our governmental counterparts, and yet have less reason for being so.”

On philanthropy’s ability to drive community change:

“…I wouldn’t be here if I thought philanthropy couldn’t do a thing. Philanthropy is critical in supporting community change, social change. But…I don’t see philanthropy as the driver of change. I see philanthropic resources — both intellectual and financial — as incredibly important, but when we forget we’re the flea, not the elephant, philanthropy can make tremendous miscalculations.”

On what philanthropy should be doing:

“First, if we’re serious about community change, we can’t do it without the community…

Second, we need to have effective relationships with government, particularly on the local level…

And, yes, part of our role should be R&D: supporting innovation when it really adds value, helping make good work great, investing in leadership and strengthening organizational infrastructure…”

Read Blue Avocado’s full interview/article with NCG member Pam David online.

Great minds think alike.

In this case the great minds are Pablo Eisenberg, senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, and Jim Canales, President and CEO of The James Irvine Foundation.

On Monday both Pablo and Jim reflected on the Gates/Buffet challenge, both issuing forth their own call for philanthropy.

As I mentioned in my blog post yesterday, Jim Canales reflected on the Gates/Buffett challege in a guest blog post on Tactical Philanthropy. Jim called for foundations to reflect on how to improve relationships between grantmakers and grantees.

In his Chronicle of Philanthropy opinion piece Pablo Eisenberg cautions that the Gates/Buffet challenge has the “potential to intensify the inequities that exist both in the nonprofit world and in the rest of society.”

And the questions put forth in his opinion piece are definitely food for thought:

When will this money be distributed to charities?

Mr. Buffett has said that he plans to give away 99 percent of his fortune while he is alive or at his death, and he has made clear in his gifts to the Gates Foundation that he wants the money to be distributed quickly rather than left to sit in the foundation’s coffers. But will other donors do the same, or will they put their money into foundations that give only a small percentage of their assets every year?

Who will provide the leadership to increase the quality of philanthropy, not just the amount of money given?…What steps will be taken to ensure public accountability?

I find it serendipitous that both these thinkers arrive at similar conclusions despite coming at the issue from different starting points.

And very telling.

Because the Gates/Buffett challenge isn’t just for billionaires, there’s the challenge it puts to the field of philanthropy: how will we rise to the challenge of dealing with the pledged money?

Read Pablo Eisenberg’s opinion piece online.

Read Jim Canales’ guest blog post online.

Yesterday NCG member Jim Canales, President and CEO of The James Irvine Foundation, was a guest blogger on Tactical Philanthropy. As part of Tactical Philanthropy’s Audacious Ideas series, Jim reflected on the recent Gates/Buffett challenge:

“Bill and Melinda Gates along with Warren Buffett recently announced their commitment to devote the majority of their wealth to philanthropy. Perhaps more notably, they are encouraging other billionaires to pledge a similar commitment, and a new website, www.givingpledge.org, has been launched to encourage their peers to follow suit and to document these pledges.

This is certainly audacious. And it got me thinking about what similar “pledges” those of us privileged enough to work within organized philanthropy should be thinking about.”

This idea of making a pledge got Jim thinking about what kind of pledge a grantmaker could make.

Jim postulates that “[grantmakers]‘ ability to create positive social impact through [their] grantmaking is directly related to [a grantmaker's] capacity to be effective and thoughtful partners with the organizations [they] are privileged to support.”

So in an effort to improve the working relationship between grantmakers and grantees Jim put forth his audacious idea:

…to suggest—even implore—foundations to make commitments that address the following:

–Transparency: What specific action or actions will your foundation take to increase its openness and render its processes and approaches less opaque and more transparent?

–Accountability: To what specific measures should your grantee partners hold the foundation accountable, and what will be the foundation’s mechanism for reporting publicly on your progress?

–Authenticity: What specific steps will your foundation take to enhance its relations with grantees and grantseekers and create greater authenticity in them, rooted in respect for our partners? What mechanisms will you put in place to ensure that you are listening and learning from your grantees as much as you expect them to listen and learn from your foundation?

So what do you think? Will your foundation make a pledge to improve the working relationship between grantmakers and grantees?

Looking For A Place To Start?

If you’re looking for examples where foundations are making an attempt to increase transparency and accountability, or dialog with grantees I’d like to recommend the Foundation Center’s Glasspockets.org.

Glasspockets provides best practices in foundation transparency and accountability online, as well as links to examples.

Currently there are 20 foundations highlighted on the website for having “glass pockets,” a phrase coined by former Carnegie Corporation Chair Russell Leffingwell.

If you’re interested to putting your foundation to the Glasspockets test, or would just like to assess your Glasspockets quotient, check out their list of indicators on the Glasspockets website.

Read Jim Canales’ full blog post online.