[Comment] Georgia Straight - Charities muzzled in election

Pieta Woolley’s brief article raises more questions about the quality of civic engagement than the challenges of navigating CRA guidelines. There is an endemic over reliance on Canada’s primary funding mechanism, the charitable receipt, which encourages too many Board Directors and Executive Directors to spend time considering opportunities presented by generational wealth transfer than advancing the organizational mission.

The universe of Canadian civil society organizations is varied in voice, yet united in a self-limiting attachment to the primary funder – government. Instead of hand wringing over CRA, members of civil society organizations are better served by encouraging their leadership to explore sustainable revenue mechanisms.

In the UK, the government support for the growth of social enterprise acknowledged civil society as a critical dynamic in societal well-being. As a “third sector” in the economy, community organizations have a duty to fully express the needs of their constituency and be financially viable. The two are inextricable.

The CRA Charities Directorate offers a blunt attempt at public accountability for a sector that is under valued for its’ impact on the daily lives of all Canadians. Finger pointing in the direction of CRA misses a core issue.

It’s worth noting:

• CRA publishes a list of de-registered/annulled charities and the Canada Gazette provides added detail, which range from administrative issues to amalgamation.
  


• IMPACS, with Sisyphean effort under Ms. Sylvester’s leadership, attempted to spur robust community organization dialogue in partnership with the business community – most evidently through VanCity. IMPACS “Election Kit” should be on every Executive Directors desk.



• Paul Martin’s government had undertaken steps to invigorate civil society initiatives and encourage the development of social enterprises, based primarily on the successes in Quebec, as part of his last tabled budget.

---------------------

Interested in learning more about social enterprise? Take a browse through the Vancouver Social Enterprise Book Store (Vancouver | United Kingdom | United States) and see what other social entrepreneurs recommend reading.

Tags for information about: for:vsef, Social Enterprise, Nonprofit, CRA

--------------------

OXJAM - See How Oxfam is Using Technology as a Path to Engagement

What is OXJAM?

Oxjam is a music festival with a difference. Across the UK, from now until the end of October, people like you will be putting on Oxjam music events to raise money for Oxfam.

And we are asking musicians, promoters - in fact, everyone - to get together this month to make music, raise money and help end poverty.

Fancy yourself as a bit of a player? Well, there is still time to organise your own Oxjam event - big or small. See below for ideas on how to get started.

Aside from using on-line sign-up forms and links to media sponsors, the folks at Oxfam are actively courting their supporters.

Take a look:

• You Tube
• Flickr
• My Space
• Technorati

[Photo Credit: Guardian Unlimited: 24 hours in pictures, October 2 2007.]
---------------------

Tags for information about: for:vsef, NGO, Oxjam, Oxfam

--------------------

[Worth Hearing] Finding Philanthropy's New Sweet Spot: What Is The Future Of Venture Models?

If you follow the Stanford Social Innovation Review you already know about the March 20th event, Finding Philanthropy's New Sweet Spot: What Is The Future Of Venture Models?

If you don't read it, here's a good reason ...

At the forum, Finding Philanthropy's New Sweet Spot, the focus was on philanthropy's role in the evolving landscape of how donors can achieve social change. Some familiar names highlighted lessons learned from existing philanthropy models and offered perspectives on a rapidly changing landscape.

The best part ... there's audio. Enjoy courtesy of SSIR and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

Keynote — Venture Models: Past and Future — Katherine Fulton, President, Monitor Institute (44:48 minutes)

Katherine Fulton looks back over a decade of rapid change in the field of philanthropy, and she challenges foundations to find the new sweet spots that will enable them to deliver social change in an ever-changing world.

Thought Leader Response to Keynote — Matthew Bishop, Chief Business Writer/American Business Editor, The Economist (12:49 minutes)

Matthew Bishop, author of The Economist special survey supplement "The Business of Giving" looks at the industrial revolution taking place in philanthropy and reacts to Katherine Fulton's remarks about the past and future of philanthropy.

Thought Leader Response to Keynote — Clara Miller, President and CEO, Nonprofit Finance Fund (15:14 minutes)

Clara Miller shares her views on the limitations of venture philanthropy today and reacts to Katherine Fulton's remarks about the past and future of philanthropy.

Thought Leader Response to Keynote — Kim Smith, Co-Founder, NewSchools Venture Fund (12:34 minutes)

Kim Smith shares her organization's approach to delivering impact and comments on Katherine Fulton's remarks on the past and future of philanthropy.

---------------------

Tags for information about: for:vsef, Social Enterprise, Nonprofit, SSIR

--------------------

The New Philanthropy

This graphic is attached to a LA Times story reporting on another LA Times story - Dark Cloud Over Good Works of Gates Foundation - questioning the ethical calibre of the Gates Foundation investments. That's a mouthful.

If you're interested in mindful comments on Gates or "Dark Cloud" please look here, here, or here, and try this one for something pithy.

We're not interested in either LA Times story. We are interested in the Gates Foundation response and the opportunities to engage with foundations on their investment protocols.

We suggest to appreciate the scope of the "New Philanthropy", listen - as MP3/Vorbis - to this SALT presentation given by Katherine Fulton.

Here's a summary with full credit to Stewart Brand:

Katherine reported:

10,000 families in the US have assets of $100 million or more. Up from 7,000 just a couple years ago. Most of that money is "on the sidelines." The poor and the middle class are far more generous in their philanthropy, proportionally, than the very wealthy.

Philanthropy across the board is in the midst of intense, potentially revolutionary, transition, she said. There's new money, new leaders, new rules, new technology, and new needs. Where great wealth used to come mainly from inheritance and oil, now it comes from success in high technology and finance--- and ideas and expectations from those business experiences inform (and sometimes over-simplify) the new philanthropy. Some of the great older institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation are radically reorganizing around new ideas and opportunities. But still the greatest amount comes from individuals, many of whom are now "giving while living" instead of handing over the task to heirs.

One major new instrument for philanthropy are the community
foundations, "the mutual funds of philanthropy, where donors can outsource their strategy." There are 1,000 such organizations in the world, 700 of them in the US, led by innovators such as Acumen Fund, Social Venture Partners, New Profit Inc., and Women's Funding Network.

Online giving is growing rapidly, including the development of
philanthropic marketplaces for direct, selective, fine-grain giving. Give India, for example, is a national marketspace of charity exchange. "By 2020 we will see a headline, OPEN SOURCE PHILANTHROPIC PORTAL TOPS $1 BILLION IN GIFTS."

An important trend is from local and short-term toward global and systemic, exemplified by Bill Gates' move from bringing computers to American schools to bringing health to Africa.

The trait most often missing in philanthropy, including the new philanthropy, is stamina, patience. "Instead of rewarding success with continued funding, the givers get bored and look for something new. Really effective giving requires deep contextual understanding and tolerance for ambiguity. My advice to new donors is, 'Pick at least one difficult and complex issue and stick with it, and join with others to work on it.'"

The greatest needs require philanthropic stamina but will also reward it. She quoted Danny Hillis: "There are problems that are impossible if you think about them in two-year terms--- which everyone does-- but they're easy if you think if fifty-year terms."

donors have to visit up close with whatever they're giving toward. Dr. Rockefeller supported that, describing how different his view was of Doctors Without Borders once he had worked with the physicians in the field in Peru and Nigeria. He said that direct experience helps free you from lots of theories that are just wrong, and from philanthropy that is a projection of your own neuroses.

Questions from the audience revealed a continuing problem with the whole social sector, which is the lack of clear mechanisms of self-correction and accountability. Government has checks and balances. Business has the bottom line. But "it's hard to speak truth to philanthropy," Katherine said. Richard said he looked closely at a $20 million effort by the Robert Wood Johnson to evaluate its programs and was unimpressed by the result. Larry Brilliant added, "And the new philanthropy is even less accountable than the old."

The generation of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller had a strong religious tradition that inspired public generosity and inventiveness. Those who came of age in the 1960s and early '70s had their experience with political activism as a driver for later philanthropy. "But I notice that many who became adults during and after Ronald Reagan seem to have no framework at all for giving."

Ahem: That's right ... Larry Brilliant and Richard Rockefeller join Katherine.
---------------------

Tags for information about: for:vsef, Philanthropy, Nonprofit, Society

--------------------

Fee For Service, Not Charity

Last week, the Vancouver Social Enterprise Forum (VSEF) looked at funding, and the role foundations play beyond grant-making. In 'Putting Venture Capital Ideas to Work for Foundations and Nonprofits', Allen Grossman, Christine Letts, William Ryan indicate that grant-seeking entities need to communicate clear and compelling strategies for building their organizations. At the same time foundations need to invest in those clearly articulated strategies.

Perhaps 'Social Enterprise' would be better served by consistent terminology ... but taking a cue from a rant against neologism ... we'll stay with it. So if you're a Public-Private-Partnership, a Co-OP, a Collective, a For-Profit, or Non-Profit, you too can be a 'Social Enterprise'. I think Kris Herbst's article will help the on-going naming dilemma.

Herbst's November 2003 article, Business-Social Ventures: Reaching for Impact, offers an overview of the Grameen Dialogue meetings. The item covers a broad swath of activities supported by Grameen and social entrepreneurs around the world.

What do you think?

The last link pulls the above together. Mirjam Schoening of the Schwab Foundation observes the growing interest in social enterprise pacing North American socio-economic policy shifts. While benchmarks are helpful, the clear message is to create local solutions for local priorities. Schoening’s 'Global Trends in Financing the Social Sector', offers a concise document that presents models for expanding and leveraging ideas without large sums of money.

What do you consider to be a local 'social enterprise'? What are the areas of opportunity?