More sophisticated, knowledgeable and strategic philanthropists: a challenge for charities?

Posted on May 24, 2013 by Ruth Mantle

Ruth Mantle

At ‘The World of Philanthropy and Why Rich People Give in 2013’ at Cass Business School in May 2013, Theresa Lloyd  and Caroline Underwood shared their impressive experience as fundraisers, donors and advisors to philanthropists. The event brought together fundraisers, CEOs and trustees from small and large charities, all wanting to learn how to nurture the best relationship with their major supporters.

The world of philanthropy in the UK is still a secretive one, with only a few philanthropists willing to speak publicly about why and how they want to give. For those working with philanthropists to create a positive giving experience, it is critical they understand the motivations, perspectives and opinions of philanthropists – especially those in the UK.

Theresa Lloyd’s research in 2002 (published in Why Rich People Give in 2004) provided the first significant study of UK wealthy donors’ reasons to give. Event attendees were pleased to hear that a 10-year update of the study, this time written in collaboration with Dr Beth Breeze, director of the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent, will be published in September 2013. Although the results of the research are still being analysed, Theresa shared some themes of the research, which led to an engaging discussion led by Caroline. Some themes emerged from the event:

All philanthropists are individuals

Campaigns and appeals are widely used in the charitable sector as a fundraising mechanism including in the field of major gifts. There was a lively discussion about whether these were suitable for philanthropists and there was a strong argument put forward to all individual donors giving at a significant level to be treated as individuals and not squeezed into a ‘one size fits all’ campaign or appeal donor.

A relationship is key

The research and experience in the room reiterated the importance to the philanthropist of a relationship with the charity. Philanthropists are still reporting negative experiences with charities including, asking for a major gift despite having no previous relationship. There are very few philanthropists who would consider giving a donation without a strong relationship with the charity before and after the gift. The participants were challenged with the findings that philanthropists rarely want a relationship with a fundraiser but want to engage with senior leadership or their peers who are involved in the charity. The trustees and CEO’s at the seminar were receptive to the idea of the need for their involvement in the process.

Building a strong relationship takes time and money

Building strong relationships with philanthropists takes time, and not just the time of the fundraiser. The group discussed how much time needed to be invested and by whom. An example was given of a CEO investing up to 30% of their time for philanthropy. The group agreed how powerful it can be to set aside a portion of time of the people that philanthropists want to meet – whether the curators in a gallery or scientists in a medical research charity.

The old rule of thumb with major gifts is that it takes between 12 and 18 months to build a relationship. There were those in the room who argued that this has now stretched to 36-48 months. This prompted discussions over how best to report progress to trustees during this period and the need for a reduction in staff turnover in major gifts departments.

What difference will my money make?

A key part of a donor’s motivation to give is confidence that the money will make a difference. This was a key finding in 2002 and remains the case now. The group discussed how well charities were communicating this at both the pre-gift and after-gift stages. An interesting question was posed: how many major gift fundraisers have ‘reporting back to philanthropists’ as a point in their job description?

The giving experience

Stories were shared on philanthropists still experiencing a poor thanking and stewardship process from charities. A quote from 2002 was from one donor wishing that someone would just come and tell him what his money had been spent on rather than a proforma thank you letter, and this still happens. A challenge was put to the group to create impactful giving experiences for philanthropists.

Ruth Mantle is chair of the Major Donor Special Interest Group at the Institute of Fundraising The Major Donor Special Interest Group is open to everyone working in or interested in philanthropy. If you would like to join the Major Donor Special Interest Group, please email Ruth.Mantle.1@city.ac.uk

Posted in Conference reports | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Good news and bad from the public interest law front in China

Posted on May 23, 2013 by Karla Simon
Karla Simon

Karla Simon

There are not many CSOs in China with good luck in public interest suits. The environmental area is one where there is great success, but other types of suits frequently miss their mark because courts often refuse to hear the cases. Recent news, however, suggests that there has been at least one breakthrough, although the CSO that brought the suit later faced significant repression.

Yu Fangqiang, a very brave leader in the public interest world, heads up Justice for All, a Nanjing-based organization, which is an offshoot of the disability rights CSO Beijing Yirenping Center. Yu is a China-educated lawyer, who has been a visiting student at the Civil Society Studies Centre of Hong Kong University, the Long Yingtai Foundation in Taiwan, and Fordham University School of Law in the US.

The good news

In March, Justice for All won a singular victory. It received a summary judgment from the Gusu District Court of Jiangsu Province, in which the court ruled that the defendant, Suzhou Motel 168 Hotel Management, LLC owed ¥21,750 ($3,543.29) in damages as well as the ¥5,000 ($814.55) deposit as compensation to the CSO. As of now, the ruling is the first and only one of its kind in favour of a CSO in a case where a motel/hotel has breached contract due to a police policy of ‘maintaining stability’. Although this is a frequent occurrence for controversial CSOs, there has never been a successful case in the past.

You can read more (in Mandarin Chinese) in this report from Caixin Online, ‘Ruling against hotel for “maintaining stability”, which caused breach of contract’.

The bad news

Working recently in Henan, Yu was forcibly taken into custody by persons claiming to be from the Henan police. They seized his two mobile phones, one computer, one ID card and his credit cards. After being asked to ‘drink tea’ with them (‘drinking tea’ is a euphemism for being questioned by security personnel), Yu was released and went on his way to an 11am meeting. His property continued to be withheld, and he was told he could pick it up from the police department. He did not follow up, of course, fearing more violence.

Speculation by Justice for All and Beijing Yirenping suggests that the invitation to ‘drink tea’ may have been due to the recent involvement of Yu Fangqiang’s organization in the petition of 10,000 signatures for tap water information disclosure, the lawsuit against Motel 168 over breach of contract for ‘maintaining stability’, and/or the disabled youth workshop initiatives. In addition to the successful lawsuit, the two initiatives are described as follows:

10,000 signatures for tap water information disclosure petition

On 22 March, World Water Day, Justice For All created an initiative to obtain 10,000 signatures for a petition for the government to disclose information on tap water. When 10,000 or more signatures have been added to the petition it will send it as a joint letter to the Health Commission, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of/ Environmental Protection. Polluted drinking water is a significant problem in China.

Disabled Youth Workshop

Justice For All hosted a youth workshop on eliminating disability discrimination in Xuzhou, Jiangsu province from 12-14 April, in which over 40 disabled youth participated along with CSO members from Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Anhui and other places. Click here to see a description of a series of 2011/2012 anti-discrimination activities in China.

Karla W Simon (西 门 雅) is Research Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law. She splits her time between Beijing and the Washington, DC area.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

SIAA Impact Groups – the good old ‘local to global’ does work

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Ruth Whateley

Ruth Whateley

Back in December 2012 I was really interested to read Alliance‘s issue on Networks and Philanthropy and see the suggestion that membership associations need to be open to working with other existing networks and entities to become successful. Working for the international Social Impact Analysts Association (SIAA) has given me first-hand insight into the power of working in partnership with in-country networks to support and inspire positive change.

On an individual level it is interesting to reflect on how each of us builds our own personal and professional networks. Whether it is through school, family, university or the workplace, our networks have a profound effect on our successes and how we lead our lives.

It is easy to see how many of us can take these networks for granted. Over time we naturally build up a network of friends or colleagues who we can turn to for advice and support. This can help us to improve our work and become more efficient, even if it is just by providing a bit of reassurance over an after-work drink. However, what if you work in a relatively isolated role and in a rapidly changing field, say as a social impact analyst? Who do you talk to? Where do you seek advice and feedback?

It is because of this growing need that SIAA was established in 2011. Since late 2012 it has been working to establish country- and regional-level impact groups in Europe and further afield.

The aim of an SIAA Impact Group is to build a regional and language-specific group for professionals engaged in social impact analysis. The groups will provide a forum for peer support and networking through meetings, events and online communications.

We also hope that the development of such groups will provide a platform for analysts collectively to approach sector leaders and decision-makers about how organisations can use analysis to become more effective and make better decisions with the scarce resources they have.

Impact groups have been developed through working with in-country partners or ‘local champions’ such as existing professional networks, civil society foundations and expert social impact professionals. The aim is to use existing networks with an interest in this area to make sure the group is relevant for existing and aspiring in-country professionals.

SIAA hopes that impact groups will support analysts locally to share knowledge, but also allow them to connect to a growing international movement of professionals who are passionate about the use of analysis to create positive change.

SIAA launched the first Austria Impact Group in November 2012. Three new country Impact Groups will be launched in Estonia, Bulgaria and Hungary during May and June 2013, with more in the pipeline for late 2013 and 2014. Get in touch with SIAA via hello@siaassociation.org 

Ruth Whateley is manager of the Social Impact Analysts Association (SIAA)

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The growing question mark behind the institution of the foundation

Posted on May 21, 2013 by Michael Alberg-Seberich

Michael Alberg-Seberich

One of the stunning phenomena of our networked world is that certain public debates seem to travel the planet with great speed. Last weekend the German Sunday weekly Welt am Sonntag published an article called Da gehst Du stiften!. The title is a word play on the double meaning of the verb ‘stiften’, which can mean setting up a foundation or to scram. The journalist Inga Michler argues in the article that the foundation as a legal institution may not be so much in the interest of donors and society but more in the interest of bankers and lawyers.

The author develops her argument through conversations with a donor, researchers and practitioners in the field of philanthropy. The arguments are known to most of us in the field: the endowment of foundations is often too small, nobody talks about the administration costs of such foundations, or perpetuity is a very long time. These arguments raise many questions about current foundation administration practices and the legal framework for foundations in Germany.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Rob Reich, director of the Ethics in Society programme at Stanford University, published in the March/April issue of the Boston Review the essay ‘What are foundations for?’. This is a thoughtful piece on the pros and cons of foundations in a democracy. Reich also raises the question of who really profits from the foundation. He critically reflects on the role of the administrators of these institutions. But he takes the case a lot further. He shows how important transparency of foundations is in a democracy. This includes an open communication of the impact or failure of every grant. Reich pledges for more risk-taking and more long-term investments in philanthropy. He suggests that (smart, strategic) giving in the end can be a contribution the public good!

Is this a debate you are familiar with? It would be interesting to read how people around the world think about the future of foundations. How do people in emerging markets – subject of the forthcoming Alliance issue – experience this? It looks like the old institution the foundation is ready for a refurbishment, or even a complete new blueprint. In the end it is important that we do not scram away from giving but instead redefine the way in which we want to give in the future.

Michael Alberg-Seberich is managing partner of Active Philanthropy

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Alliance magazine: Why Markets for Good may go wrong

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Alliance magazine

David Bonbright

Following Alliance’s article from Buzz Schmidt in February titled Divining a vision for Markets for Good, David Bonbright has written a very thought-provoking response. Bonbright, currently chief executive of Keystone Accountability, was part of the initial debate exploring how to create greater social impact through the philanthropic ecosystem. Three years later, he considers how this transformative vision has drifted away from a focus on those who  should be benefitting from social change.

In this article, available to read for free on the Alliance website, Bonbright explores an inconvenient truth about Markets For Good, while making the case that it would be a far more exciting and impactful enterprise were it to open its doors to beneficiaries. He reflects on the points made in the previous article and offers his own amendments to Schmidt’s vision.

“…Instead of holding to the original vision of the beneficiaries as the core agents of change, it seems that Markets For Good is settling on a neutered understanding of beneficiaries as consumers of information about service availability and eligibility requirements. For the beneficiaries, the information flow is one-way, top-down. This prompts the troubling question, why is an exemplary process tending towards the wrong result? If Markets For Good is in every visible way a well-intentioned enquiry seeking a clear result – better lives for those who most need it and solutions to our big societal problems – why is it tending towards technocratic investments in information collaboration, like taxonomies and coding and data interoperability, rather than honouring the more politically seasoned theory of change that occasioned its birth?…”

“…I have been pondering what it would take to bring the beneficiaries back to the foreground at Markets For Good…It would be complicated and inconvenient – but not impossible – to figure out ways to represent beneficiaries directly in the Markets For Good enterprise. Maybe now is the time to give this some thought, before it is too late…”  Read more >

Read the full article on the Alliance website >

This article was published as part of the free content available on the main Alliance website. To discover more about subscribing to access the full content of the magazine, visit www.alliancemagazine.org/subscribe.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , | Leave a comment