Response to SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling
The Ktisis Capital team is deeply disappointed by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action. This decision undermines the historical importance of affirmative action in creating opportunities for marginalized communities, particularly communities of color, and threatens to have far-reaching negative implications for these communities.
Affirmative action has been a vital tool in addressing the systemic inequalities that persist in our society. It has played a crucial role in leveling the playing field, ensuring that individuals from historically and systemically disadvantaged backgrounds have access to education and employment opportunities that were once out of reach. By promoting diversity and inclusivity, affirmative action has not only fostered a more equitable society but has also enhanced innovation, creativity, and problem-solving within institutions.
The Supreme Court's ruling jeopardizes the progress made through affirmative action by placing undue restrictions and limitations on its implementation. By diminishing the ability of universities and employers to consider race as a factor in their admissions and hiring processes, the ruling diminishes the opportunities available to qualified individuals from underrepresented backgrounds. This will disproportionately impact communities of color, who continue to face systemic barriers and discrimination.
Furthermore, this decision sets a potentially harmful precedence that could extend beyond the realm of education and employment. It has the potential to impact the philanthropy and nonprofit sectors as well. Many organizations dedicated to addressing social and economic disparities rely on affirmative action as a means of promoting inclusivity within their ranks. By eroding the foundations of affirmative action, the ruling could undermine these organizations' efforts to foster diversity and equitable representation, hindering their ability to serve the communities they aim to support.
At Ktisis Capital, we firmly believe that diversity and inclusivity are essential for a just and prosperous society. We recognize the inherent value of affirmative action and its role in dismantling systemic inequalities. We will continue to advocate and work for policies and practices that promote diversity, equal opportunity, and social justice.
Resources:
The ACLU put together a Q&A in the lead up to the SCOTUS decision answering some top level questions about the impact of the ruling. You can read the dialogue here: https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/what-you-need-to-know-about-affirmative-action-at-the-supreme-court
The WK Kellogg Foundation has developed a toolkit that can be found here: https://everychildthrives.com/defending-racial-equity-the-impact-of-u-s-supreme-court-rulings-on-our-shared-vision/
The Mellon Foundation hosted a town hall where sector leaders discussed the importance of affirmative action and its continued relevance. You can find the recording here: https://www.mellon.org/events/why-does-affirmative-action-still-matter
A Deep Dive Into Donor Advised Funds
📷 credit: Bernd Dittrich via Unsplash
We are often asked by clients, peers, and colleagues about how to select a donor advised fund (DAF) or which providers are on our short list. An increasingly popular alternative to a family foundation as a vehicle to manage giving, donor advised funds have been around since the 1930s. In this short guide, we will define DAFs, categorize DAF providers into a more accessible framework, and offer notes on some key services to review during the DAF research and selection process.
As RSF Social Finance explains:
A DAF is a charitable giving vehicle administered by a public charity created to manage charitable donations on behalf of organizations, families, or individuals. A DAF allows a donor to make a charitable contribution, receive an immediate tax deduction, and then recommend grants from the fund over time. Donors can contribute to the fund and recommend grants as frequently as they like.
Donor advised funds provide a tax advantaged giving vehicle compared to private foundations. Tax benefits vary based on the type of contribution:
When contributing cash directly to a DAF, the donor receives a tax deduction benefit of 50% of adjusted gross income, as compared to 30% with a private foundation.
When contributing gifts of stock or real property the donor receives a tax deduction of 30% of adjusted gross income for DAF contributions as compared to 20% with private foundations.
DAFs have no excise tax and private foundations hold an excise tax of 1-2% of net investment income annually.
Gifts made to DAFs are assessed a fair market value and private foundations are assessed a fair market value for publicly traded stock and are assessed on a cost basis for all other gifts, including gifts of closely-held stock or real property.
To learn more about the differences, the National Center for Family Philanthropy has a helpful article here.
Identifying your priorities for DAF selection
There are at least a hundred progressive DAF providers (and well over 1,000 DAF providers in total including most community foundations, womens funds, Jewish federations, and more) you might select from. Ktisis actively works with or has helped clients place funds at DAFs at a wide cross-section of providers including RSF Social Finance, Amalgamated Bank, Tides Foundation, Grand Rapids Community Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Proteus Fund, North Star Fund, Marin Community Foundation, Liberty Hill Foundation, Impact Assets, and more. Working with these organizations and working in this space has provided insight into the strengths, weaknesses, philosophies, offerings, and priorities among DAF providers.
When working with a client, rather than start with the question of where a DAF should be housed, we encourage people first to focus on their priorities. Questions we might ask a client to consider look something like: Are you looking for a provider that offers full and wrap around services – such as fully digital systems, donor learning communities, investment advisory services; or, are you looking for a provider that is on the bleeding edge of community-focused philanthropy and provides incentives for spending more out of your DAF or granting to BIPOC communities? How much do you prioritize speed or minimizing costs or ease of recommending grants? Are you interested just in traditional 501(c)(3) giving or do you want to engage in other types of giving or investing through your DAF? How important is ideological alignment for you with your DAF provider and/or your point person? No DAF provider will meet all possible needs and priorities so getting clear on what offerings or distinctions matter most to you will make the selection process far easier.
Understanding the range of DAF providers
Today, the two largest categories of DAF providers by number of organizations and assets under management are national values-neutral charitable gift funds (many launched by traditional financial management companies) and community foundations.
National providers like Fidelity Investments, Charles Schwab, Vanguard, and Goldman Sachs sit in the first category. Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund is the largest charity in the world and many banks are now also offering DAF services to their clients. Similarly, there are some large DAF-only providers like National Philanthropic Trust – plus conservative providers to avoid, like Donors Trust or the National Christian Foundation, two of the major conduits to fund the far right.
Community foundations pioneered the DAF model (the first DAF was launched in 1931 at the New York Community Trust) and over 70% of the 900 community foundations across the United States offer a DAF service to their donors.
As a justice-oriented advisory firm, most of our clients come to us for help finding DAF providers that bring a higher level of values alignment than these two primary types of DAF providers. When looking beyond national financial firm-affiliated providers and community foundations, we find it helpful to think about DAFs in a number of buckets – these are not perfectly defined and many providers could be classified in more than one bucket, but this is a good jumping off point to start to wrap your head around the many providers out there.
Local progressive. Groups like the North Star Fund in NYC, Foundation for Louisiana, and Liberty HIll Foundation in Los Angeles or regional funds like the Southern Partners Fund fall into this category (there are at least 40+ local progressive DAF providers). Some have clearly defined progressive values that run the gamut from LGBTQ+ issues, BIPOC justice and racial healing, or the environment and climate justice while others support the full range of progressive nonprofits in their region. Additionally many but not all women’s funds, Jewish federations, and some community foundations like the East Bay Community Foundation or Brooklyn Community Foundation might be considered local progressive DAF providers. These local providers offer expertise, relationships, and insights into local funding that can be a boon for locally-oriented donors plus they will offer learning and networking opportunities for locally-based donors.
Issue Specific. While some donors prioritize giving to their home community or a specific geography to which they are connected, others are motivated by a specific issue and an issue-specific DAF provider can be the best match for their giving. For many issues clients have prioritized, we suggest looking at an aligned nationally-oriented issue-specific fund like the Peace Development Fund (nuclear disarmament, anti-war organizing and general social justice work), Ms. Foundation for Women, Global Fund for Women, Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, Global Greengrants Fund, Thousand Currents (grassroots movements in the Global South), or Grassroots International (human rights & climate justice in the Global South). Additionally, many women’s funds prioritize progressive work in their local communities and some geographies boast an LGBTQ+ fund or an environmentally-focused local fund.
National progressive. There are a double handful of DAF providers with a progressive focus working on a national scale: large providers like the Tides Foundation, or small/mid-sized providers like the Proteus Fund, NEO Philanthropy, and the Common Counsel Foundation. There are others working on a national scale that we would categorize as slightly less progressive than those just listed but still left of center such as Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and Arabella/New Ventures. Amalgamated Foundation is a national progressive DAF provider launched by Amalgamated Bank; they host the Just Fund portal, which emerged out of the Solidaire Network and is a progressive alternative to the financial providers mentioned above. Possibility Labs has launched a BIPOC-led DAF program that centers racial equity and healing in their work. Often larger than their local counterparts, these providers offer a set of national relationships and an understanding of the national movement building field that can be valuable to donors seeking support for their giving that is not tied to a specific geography or issue.
Impact Finance providers. Finally, there are a handful of DAF providers that are leading with the offer to open a DAF that invests its assets differently. Ideologically they are generally liberal to progressive in their orientation and support DAF holders to fund nationally across a wide range of issues. Two of the largest with which we have had considerable (good) experiences with are RSF Social Finance and Impact Assets. Mission Investor Exchange can be a great resource for donors looking to explore impact investing, including support for DAF holders.
Additional considerations when selecting a DAF
Beyond clarifying priorities and considering which type of DAF may best align to those needs, below are a few additional issues that often arise with clients we advise:
Giving across geographies. Any local or national DAF providers will happily make grants to registered 501(c)(3) charities anywhere across the country. Local providers generally pitch their local expertise, but their DAF holders regularly advise grants beyond their geography. However, if you want to do international grantmaking, you should check with the DAF provider about what they will or won’t do – some will do no grantmaking outside the US, some will only make grants to groups that have a pre-established equivalency determination (a IRS-regulated process to prove charitable eligibility), while others will undertake work on your behalf to give to new international recipients.
Advocacy giving. With the rising importance of investing in advocacy, organizing, and voter engagement, more and more donors are exploring ways to support this work. While a considerable amount of advocacy work can be carried out by 501(c)(3) nonprofits which any DAF can fund, some work can only be undertaken by a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. If this type of giving is of interest, a small handful of DAF providers will support c4 grantmaking (and a couple have even begun providing c4 DAFs although those are more for administrative convenience as they offer no tax deduction).
Aligned investments and impact investing from your DAF. Obviously, the Impact Finance providers discussed above have very robust impact investing options from a DAF. However, an increasing number of progressive local and national providers (and many of the issue-specific providers) have robust overall ESG/SRI investment policies for all of their assets, which include their DAFs – but you should check with the specific provider to confirm. It varies by provider if they will allow you to invest your DAF assets outside of their general investment guidelines, often if you create a DAF with assets above a certain threshold.
If you are interested in learning more or exploring specific DAF providers that might fit your needs, please feel free to reach out to us to set up some 1:1 advising time.
Justice for Patrick Lyoya - How to Give
We are distraught and outraged by the murder of Patrick Lyoya at the hands of a Grand Rapids police officer. This tragedy is yet another moment in the ongoing pattern of injustice disproportionately affecting Black communities across the country. To have this happen here in our home city only deepens our determination to continue to fight for racial justice.
Over the last few days as video footage of Lyoya’s murder has placed this on the national radar, we have received numerous asks for where and how to support the Lyoya Family and the local community as we continue to process, demand justice be served, begin the process of healing, and look towards long terms plans to advance racial justice. Below are a couple of avenues as recommended by local activists for you to give and support the family of Patrick Lyoya, the Grand Rapids and West Michigan community, and the movement for racial justice:
Support the Lyoya family via this GoFundMe (direct/non-deductible)
Urban Core Collective – The Urban Core Collective fights systemic racism in Grand Rapids through equal access to: education, economic prosperity, health, power, and influence. (501c3 charitable & deductible)
A Glimpse of Africa – This grassroots social justice organization is providing social and emotional support for both the Lyoya family and the community and long-term works to bring people together to celebrate, educate and share diverse African cultures while breaking barriers and connecting refugees and Immigrants from African countries to local Grand Rapids area resources and opportunities. (501c3 - charitable & deductible)
Equity PAC – Equity PAC is a local Political Action Committee of Grand Rapidians mobilizing money and time to support equity-minded candidates and ballot initiatives, participate in education and advocacy, and encourage direct citizen action to address equity in the city. (PAC - political & non-deductible)
Black Lives Matter Michigan – The local Michigan Chapter of Black Lives Matter works to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilante by combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy. (PAC - political & non-deductible)
Reflections from the Innovations in International Philanthropy Symposium
A conversation with Malala Yousafzai, 2014 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, interviewed by Wendo Aszed, Founder and Executive Director, Dandelion Africa
I recently had the privilege of attending the Innovations in International Philanthropy Symposium, hosted by New England International Donors and The Philanthropic Initiative. The symposium was chock full of amazing leaders from across the globe, all working to forward the mission of globally minded philanthropy and to move funds in a just and equitable way. Speakers ranged from Nobel Peace Prize recipient Malala Yousafzai to industry giants such as Solomé Lemma and topics ranged from impact investing to moving funds to individuals working on the frontlines who are directly impacted by the issues at hand.
The breakout sessions were particularly impactful, providing an opportunity to hear from leaders in the field and connect with peers around topics that we grapple with every day. One question asked the group for suggestions for donors who are uneasy or have anxiety around seeding funds directly to organizations on the ground. This particular topic of conversation piqued my interest as it is particularly relevant and common in Ktisis Capital’s work.. We discussed the distrust that donors often have in directing funds to individuals or organizations who do not have a robust application or reporting systems or staff with the capacity to adhere to funders’ reporting needs. Through robust conversation, we found that these questions often surfaced when funding in communities or countries outside of our own, when funding to groups that we and our peers have not worked with before, and almost always when funding directly to organizations and individuals on the frontlines of movement and cause-driven initiatives.
These questions and concerns can often feel overwhelming and intractable.There are many terms to navigate and organizations often use different terms to describe this type of philanthropy; it can be confusing to know how to focus on just one approach. The two terms that I most often see are trust-based philanthropy and grassroots philanthropy. Each term has its own nuance and differences, but cover the same basic principles – addressing power dynamics,breaking through traditional philanthropic practices of strict funder-centric application and reporting structures, and building systems that are based on developing relationships and mutual learning.
Those closest to an issue often have the best knowledge on how to fix that issue. However, traditional systems of funding often have accountability measures, goals, impact metrics, and reporting structures that are funder-led and mandated. In other words, in traditional systems funders dictate to grantees what their success should look like from outside of the problem and outside the actual work. This is the perfect example of uneven power dynamics where those with the power (in this instance, those holding the grant funds) are telling those without the power (those seeking the grant funds) what they should do to be successful, rather than trusting their expertise in the work they do every day to remedy the issues that they live and work in. In systems that strive toward a more balanced power dynamic, success measures are co-created -- with the grantee leading the effort. Developing these relationships and having these conversations help ensure that each party is being set up for success and building trusting partnerships works to alleviate stress and uneasiness on the funder side. If you make the effort to know the person or the group who is doing the work, it makes it much easier to find the trust to fund the work.
Arriving at the point where you feel comfortable in these shifting practices is a journey that may look different or have a different timeline than your peers. That’s okay! The important thing is that you are asking the question and working toward a solution. It takes time and effort to unlearn old systems and relearn new ones. My advice to you is to take it one step at a time. Try altering your application process so that it’s not so burdensome on small organizations whose staff are juggling multiple roles. Or, in the review and interview process, work with the applicant to co-create outcomes and success metrics. You don’t have to shift your entire system all at once. Just take it one step at a time and keep pushing forward to balance those power dynamics.
A final piece of advice that I would offer is to make sure that the work in the field is being supported while you take this time to learn and grow yourself. We want to have trust and be comfortable moving money, but we don’t want our learning timelines to be at the detriment of the cause. Often organizations or individuals will want to pause their grantmaking until they can completely overhaul their systems and processes. While this would certainly result in a cleaner process on the funder’s side, pausing the flow of grant dollars to the field is the opposite of your goal. Offering interim support grants during your learning process will help to ensure that those on the frontline will be supported and that the work can continue.
If you are interested in scaling up your giving, getting more deeply involved in your personal or family philanthropy for the first time, or stepping into leadership in your family philanthropy, Ktisis Capital has partnered with EDGE Funders Alliance to bring you the Global Donor Learning Journey. Learn more about the program here.
Grounding your giving in times of crisis: 6 questions to intentionality
This is the second part of a two-part blog, please read our previous post titled “Grounding your giving in times of crisis: Three steps for keeping your head above water,” we suggest that you take a look before continuing on with this post.
In the latter half of 2020 and for most of 2021, many of the donors, foundations, and giving groups that we work with have increased their giving – and are getting the money out faster. Throughout, we have found that everyone is grappling with six key questions – and that intentionally and thoughtfully answering these questions is essential for effective giving in this time of crisis. Importantly, these really are questions for you – not recommendations disguised as questions. We do not have the answers to your giving during times of crisis. However, we believe that if you take the time to reflect deeply and develop thoughtful, well-reasoned answers to these questions, you will be better positioned to navigate the ever-changing conditions of the moment, make better decisions, and give more effectively.
Before answering these questions, we suggest that you take a look at our last post titled “Grounding your giving during times of crisis: Keeping your head above water” for three initial steps to build your foundation of intentionality. There are numerous “good” and “sensible” answers to these questions, but how you answer these questions – with thoughtfulness, honesty, and intentionality – is the most important thing you can do to be an effective giver in the current moment.
1. How do you balance your giving between the needs of individual people and families vs. organizational appeals?
Individuals and families are facing unprecedented challenges and hardship. In the past nearly 2 years, more than 23 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits, and the U.S. unemployment rate reached 14.8 percent, the worst since the Great Depression. For the foreseeable future, millions of individuals and families will struggle and hundreds of thousands will be in extreme need. You likely already know someone that fits this description. At the same time, the organizations we support and care about have been upended – some devasted. The cascading economic impact crises both weaken our organizations – financially, programmatically, etc. – while simultaneously increasing the importance of and need for their work and services. For example, in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, this crisis is a literal existential crisis for many groups and organizations – they are fighting to keep the doors open and staving off extinction.
While the scale and nature of responding to individual needs vs. organizational appeals vary, they are both vital. Moreover, thinking through how to balance your giving between the individuals and organizations we care about is difficult, but essential. To get started, take stock and check in with individuals and organizations you’re connected with. Who is struggling? Who has extreme needs? Once you have a sense of the needs in your circle, try to assign buckets for your giving in a way that you feel is commensurate with the need. For example, if you think the needs of your network are fairly commensurate, you could divide your giving into three buckets: one for individuals/families, one for organizations that you’ve been a long-time supporter of, and one an issue area or cause you feel is particularly salient (e.g., policy and advocacy work, given the upcoming election). Giving priorities shift during a crisis, for advice on developing your annual giving strategy, read our post on the 50/30/20 rule here.
Another important consideration in answering this question is appreciating the different ways that you can give. For friends and family members in need, this may amount to cutting a check directly to them. However, you may have investments or assets that you can leverage in the current moment that can also make an impact. For example, if you own rental properties, you might consider deferring your tenants’ payments for as long as you can. If you have a surplus of in-demand items, such as toilet paper, hand sanitizer, etc., consider giving those resources to friends or family members that are more vulnerable and in need.
2. Should you give directly to individuals/organizations or through a fund?
Giving effectively in times of crisis requires urgency. But, if you want to work fast, you have to rely on the expertise of others – and community-level individuals and organizations know best what their critical needs and issues are. Giving through funds is one practice that taps into the expertise of others, because they are often organized by community-level individuals, organizations, and stakeholders. A great example of this are the many funds that have been established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and many existing and a handful of powerful, newly established funds and organizations focused on civil rights and advocacy are doing great work during these times of crisis -- and there are likely some organizations making a great impact right in your own community. If you want to give directly to organizations, it is best to give to organizations you already know and are in conversation with. This familiarity and trust reduces the need for due diligence and vetting you might otherwise conduct when making a gift, allowing you to act more swiftly when need is the highest.
3. How do you balance short-term and long-term needs? Should we give now or hold some for later?
Giving effectively during a crisis requires balancing short-term and long-term needs. To do so, we need to appreciate the current state of the crisis and how our communities and organizations are being affected. Some questions to consider are: What are short-term critical needs, and how much help is needed? How is government responding? How are businesses responding?
The impacts of COVID-19 and the strain placed on the country by the shifting political landscape will reverberate for the foreseeable future – and determining how much you can give and when requires assessing what needs are immediate (now and in the coming weeks), short-term (in the coming months), and long-term (in a year or more). It is important to remember that the effects of crises last long after the sensation of the crisis itself. Many focus on the immediate and short-term needs of their communities but neglect to think about the long-term support that their community may need after the headlines have died down.
4. How much should you prioritize sustaining “your” organizations?
We are all connected to organizations we care deeply about, through board service, historical relationships, etc. – and we often think of them as our organizations. During this crisis, are you helping sustain “your” organizations? As mentioned earlier, many organizations are facing existential crises. Keeping these organizations alive through crisis is one of the best ways to ensure that your giving – both in the past and future – is not in vain. Helping your organizations sustain and carry on their work is just as essential as funding the new, important movements.
5. How do you determine the right amount to give when faced with economic volatility and rising need?
Markets are volatile, portfolios are down, and wealth has contracted. However, for those in positions to give in times of crisis, it’s important to recognize and appreciate that, despite our investments going down, this has not substantively changed our day-to-day lived experiences. So, in the face of these changes, it’s vital to reframe them and ask: how do we stand in solidarity with people that have far less and therefore are far more impacted by crisis? Reframing the situation in this way helps us avoid falling into a self-preservation mindset and move toward a mindset of maximizing our giving.
Here, people often get caught up on trying to determine the right amount to give. However, we almost always come with a range – a minimum and a potential ceiling – in mind. With that said, if you’re unsure what the top of the range is, move forward and give the bottom of your range – because in times of crisis, everyday matters. It’s better to give what you know you can now and potentially give more later than to wait, deliberate, and give the whole gift later.
6. How do you factor in giving for advocacy and policy action vs. other demands?
Government’s response and actions in the face of COVID-19 and other crises will have a greater impact than any private action. This pandemic has laid bare many of the shortcomings in our society – and giving to advocacy and policy action is an opportunity to leverage this moment to make long-term, systemic changes. Drilling down on how you can give to advocacy and policy action is crucial for effective giving in times of crisis.
We hope that these questions help make the task of grounding your giving during a crisis more manageable. As we said before, there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. The most important decision you can make in times of crisis is to be intentional in your strategy.
Grounding your giving in times of crisis: Three steps for keeping your head above water
📷 credit: Fiona Smallwood via UnSplash
In these times of COVID-19, racial violence, social uprisings, and presidential transitions, pre-existing challenges are exacerbated, information is constantly changing, new conditions are emerging, and the urgency to respond couldn’t be higher.
Simply put, the last 20 months could be described as everything at once.
This all culminates in the feeling: it’s all happening right now and it’s just too much.
Making sense of it all is a challenge for everyone. For those in positions to leverage their resources to make a difference, it presents a unique kind of challenge – namely, the tension between the urgency to give now and the dynamic nature of the current environment, which makes good decision-making more arduous and time consuming.
Fortunately, there are steps we can take to allay this feeling, lessen the tension, and better position ourselves to make good and impactful decisions. Below are some steps and considerations that we have pulled together that we find helpful in grounding our giving in times of crisis. These steps will be helpful as the world continues to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic, but will also come in handy as you face other crises, times of change, or uncertainties throughout your philanthropic journey.
Step 1 – Acknowledge, process, and accept that you can’t do everything
The current moment is inundating us with information, difficult questions, gutting realities, and gut-wrenching decisions. In such an environment, it’s impossible for one person – or organization – to do everything. There are more communities, people suffering, and organizations that need support than any one of us can hold up. So, the first step to effective giving during a crisis is to acknowledge, process, and accept that fact. Once you’ve done that, you will be better positioned to assess what you can do, what you should do, and how to do it.
Step 2 – Set your intentions
The most critical factor in effective giving during a time of crisis is intentionality. Over the last nearly two years, you have had to decide if you want to continue your current philanthropic activities only, continue your current activities and ramp up your giving to support organizations in need of crisis support, or temporarily discontinue your current philanthropic giving and pivot your focus to solely support organizations addressing the crisis at hand. There is no right or wrong direction, but the longer you take to set your intentions, the longer the organizations you support have had to wait with the unknown. What is important in this step is for you to take the time to truly think about your intentions for giving, the impact you are hoping to achieve through that giving, and then make a decision on the direction you are going to take. Take a second now and reflect on the last two years; if you haven’t yet taken the time to process through this important step, we suggest you take that time now.
Step 3 – Develop your roadmap
Once you have explored the first two steps, the next area of focus in grounding your giving during times of crisis is to develop your roadmap. Having a clear and concise plan of action will help to mitigate delays in moving funds to often time-sensitive issues. Developing this roadmap at the beginning of the year – or at the starting point of your annual giving journey – will help to reduce stress and anxiety around giving. It is also important to note that this roadmap is not set in stone. If, along the way, you come across an organization or a cause that you feel deeply passionate about, you can always either add it to your plan or pivot, reduce, or eliminate other areas you were planning to give to; just remember that once you have pledged funds to an organization, the ethical step forward is to fulfill that pledge.
We hope these three pieces of advice help you during this ongoing pandemic and will continue to serve as a guide as you navigate future crises and moments of immense change.
Stay tuned for our next post where we will explore six ways to give with intention.
Indigenous Community Support Update
📷 credit: Dulcey Lima via UnSplash
As part of our ongoing learning journey, we attend various funder briefings and informational presentations from organizations and partners in the field. The presentations may be held by organizations doing work on the frontlines, intermediaries raising and moving funds to organizations doing the work, or by donors who are passionate about a cause or movement and want to share the word with other organizers and donors to mobilize support.
Native Americans in Philanthropy hosted a COVID-19 Community Conversation a couple weeks ago. They shared a couple interesting figures on money that has been donated to Indigenous communities in the United States. Between March-October 2020, $32.2M was donated to Indigenous communities. These funds included a mixture of GoFundMe donations ($8.7M) and organizational donations ($23.5M). In addition to sharing the amount raised, the presenters spoke on the importance of continued and consistent support, both financial and other.
The key take away from their presentation were these five items:
Invest in Indigenous-led orgs & initiatives
Maximize general operating support
Diversify vehicles for investment
Invest in Indigenous community strengths & leadership - not the deficits
Invest in tribal policy advocacy and tribal leadership
Why Progressive Donors Should Fund Organizational Operations
📷 credit: Stanley Dai via UnSplash
I am going to begin this article with a statement: If you wish to impact the progressive philanthropic space and approach your grantmaking in a way that is aligned with progressive values, you must fund organizational operations.
Progressive Philanthropy in Broad Strokes
Now, before we move any further - let’s chat briefly about what we mean by “progressive philanthropy.” Progressive philanthropy is a nebulous term. What the heck does it really mean? Even within the progressive sphere, values and the resultant strategy that emerges from those values fall on a very broad spectrum.
For the purposes of this conversation, let’s build the frame around two foundational progressive ideas that underpin the vast majority of work in the progressive landscape:
The need for overarching systemic change;
The elevation and prioritization of a justice lens in the pursuit of said change.
If you have any background in social change work, these two concepts will be familiar to you. As funders, these ideas drive the mission and work of the organizations that we support. I would challenge you to extend the reach of these ideas to not just what organizations and work you support, but how you support those organizations and work.
Philanthropy vs. Charity
To many, philanthropy is often thought of as synonymous with charity. While they are related, often work together, and are both needed, they are not the same. Charity is an empathic response of aid to an acute need. Children are hungry, we feed them. People are sick, we get them access to medicine. Philanthropy, on the other hand, is a gift and investment intended to support longer term solutions to ongoing acute needs (sounds like overarching systemic change, doesn’t it?).
This differentiation is important because it directly impacts both the underlying assumptions and frameworks of our giving strategy and the means by which we measure “success.”
Success through a “charity frame” is most often measured by counting the “number of people impacted” by the work - how many sandwiches are given to hungry kids, how many doses of medicine are given to communities in need. These metrics are useful and incredibly important, but they are not only metrics that should be used in a “philanthropic frame.”
Success through a “philanthropy frame” is complex - harder to measure and definitely harder to count. Measuring the health, strength, resilience, and sustainability of organizations, communities, and societal systems is complicated - much more complicated that counting sandwiches and doses of medication.
Coming back to our framework of “underlying progressive values,” if we truly want to impact positive systemic change and elevate justice and equity in those transitions, we must support both the work that calls to us and the humans and organizations that are committed to executing that work. It is not enough to only address acute needs. We must also support the people and organizations that do the on-the-ground labor of delivering that support. That is why as progressive donors, we must support organizational operations and we must do so generously.
A Business Perspective
As a donor advisor that came to the work from a business background, the single most important area of analysis for me is organizational sustainability. The work, no matter how important, aligned, or inspiring, doesn’t matter if the organization committed to doing said work is not set up for sustainability. As funders and non-profit leaders, we must address organizational health first. Inspiration is irrelevant if ongoing implementation is impossible.
Now I know that this is an incredibly (and perhaps off putting) pragmatic perspective. Most people come to their philanthropy from an emotional empathic place, and there is great value in that. It is necessary and beautiful. Humans should be concerned about humanity. But the next step is to leverage that emotion into implementation and sustained impact.
This does not mean that organizations need to have perfect balance sheets and everything all figured out to deserve attention and support. It does not negate or diminish the fact that all of this work begins with a spark of human feeling. It means that all of us - organizations, donors, citizens of the Earth - must be thinking about how to build and fund the necessary scaffolding and infrastructure to support the inspiration, work, and emotional fortitude that is needed to collectively move us forward
Valuing the Humans Behind the Missions
As a donor advisor that works in a specifically progressive and justice focused firm, I brush up on a lot of different areas - climate, conservation, Indigenous rights, civil rights, activism, policy enforcement, health equity - different donors are called to different causes. But one of the common threads of this work is this - there are no quick solutions - no sprints, only marathons.
We must support the people and organizations that are on the ground running those marathons day after day, month after month, year after year. The world’s changemakers are not an expendable resource to be used up and thrown away when they are empty, broken, and emotionally burned out.
This is why donors must consider the way in which they view and measure the success of their philanthropic work in the world. As a donor, are you considering both the acute work that needs to be done and the needs and welfare of the people that have committed themselves to doing that work?
Stretch your reflection just a little bit more and think about the long term emotional and physical endurance of the people that make up those organizations that you support. What investment do they deserve? How might an investment in their stability and wellbeing positively impact the long term work on the ground?
The Challenge of Securing Operational Funding
As a sweeping statement, securing stable year over year operational funding is difficult. It is much easier for nonprofits and NGOs to obtain program specific funding. This makes sense. It feels good to fund program work. It is easy to measure the good that is being done when you can count the sandwiches and doses of medication. It is less inspiring and emotionally gratifying to support the salaries, benefits, rent, and office supplies of an organization. But why is it less inspiring? Not as easy to measure? Harder to directly tie dollars to sandwiches?
Going deeper, for many, it may be uncomfortable to extend trust and relinquish power to organizations and the communities that those organizations serve. How do we know that our “investments” are being used wisely? How do we know that they are buying the cheapest pens and making the most economical choices when it comes to benefits? If we can’t count the sandwiches, how will we know?
These are trust and power questions that are too complex to be unraveled in a single post, but as an invitation to inquiry, consider this: If we believe that our current system is broken, inadequate, unjust, and inefficient. Why would we use the assumptions and metrics of that current system to build our strategy and measure our success in changing it?
I hope the points and perspectives raised in this post help to challenge you to consider the assumptions that guide your philanthropic strategy and I invite you to keep this conversation in mind as you navigate your own continuous journey of evolution and self reflection.
The “50/30/20” Rule: A Framework for Fulfilled Giving
📷 credt: Piret Ilver via UnSplash
How do you design a giving strategy that is manageable but effective?
There are virtually unlimited amounts of causes, issues, and areas to give to. Do you care about the arts? Are you focused on the environment? Do you feel especially connected to a particular community of identity? Do you want to give in your local community, or across the country? It’s easy to be overwhelmed and, without taking the proper steps, easy to be unfulfilled in your giving.
If you have resources and are in a position to give, it’s natural to fall into a reflexive giving mentality – giving haphazardly in response to requests as they come in. This often leads to frustration, because it can result in not feeling connected to what you’re supporting. A critical first step toward fulfilled giving is intentionally setting your giving priorities. With so many opportunities and needs, getting too hung up on the “best” or “most needed” funding is a recipe for frustration. While prioritizing by need is critical, it’s also critical for your fulfillment as a donor to focus on the issues that light you up. Finding the issues and organizations that you are going to bring the most to – not just your money, but also your time, energy, intellect, curiosity, and networks – will result in you giving more, giving more effectively, and being more fulfilled in your giving.
Another critical step to philanthropic fulfillment is determining an approach or framework to guide your giving. However, giving strategies and approaches are often more complicated than they need to be, and can lead to overthinking, inefficiencies, and frustration. We recommend a simpler framework – the “50/30/20” rule. This framework will help you both focus your giving to ensure your resources are going to the issues that really light you up – and the freedom and permission to say “yes” and “no” to other giving opportunities as they arise.
50% – Passions and Priorities: This category is for the 1-3 organizations within your priority area that you most believe in and are committed to. For these groups, we encourage you to not only make the large financial commitment, but also the personal commitment to yourself to really engage – consistently reading their weekly newsletters and communications, having conversations with staff and stakeholders, finding ways to give outside of financial vehicles, prioritizing attending their events, and so on. Making this kind of commitment and building it into your practice will naturally facilitate the kind of due diligence you ought to be doing for larger gifts – and, most importantly, will result in you being much more connected and fulfilled in your giving.
30% – Community and Obligations: This category is for ongoing mid-level gifts that are tied to your community and/or your social obligations – gifts to your church, synagogue, or temple, groups you used to be involved in, to the arts organization you love, your alma mater, the programs your children are involved with, the workplace giving drive, etc. We all have a set of institutions we support regularly, and we recommend that you build them into your plans in advance. Remember, these are mid-level gifts, so we encourage you to give yourself permission to make them smaller – and also permission to engage with them in a commensurate way: to do less due diligence than the groups in your 50% bucket, to not read every newsletter and communication, to not attend every event, and so on. In addition, for this level, we encourage you to be proactive: reach out to them early and say, “I’m renewing my gift this year for X amount.” They will appreciate your proactive support – and you’ll be able to politely decline later asks in the year and be free of the pressure of those solicitations and by being able to say honestly, "I already gave."
20% – Heartstrings and Friendships: This category is reserved for impulse giving and is not pre-planned – those gifts for times of crisis, when you go to an event and feel moved, when a friend asks for your support for an upcoming fundraising event, and so on. By budgeting for this category, you will be empowered to give yourself permission to just say “yes” – without the due diligence – and, most importantly, allowing yourself to experience the joy of giving in the moment without fretting about your budget. Setting aside money for gifts that are spontaneous is a critical part of being fulfilled in your giving.
We believe that this framework will not only lead you to be more fulfilled in your giving, but also will enable you to principally act and respond to requests, particularly when saying “no.” By establishing a framework and plan for your giving, you can respond clearly and honestly: “I have a plan for my giving, my main priorities are X, Y, and Z, so this is where the majority of my funds go. However, I think your work is also important, so I will continue to support you at this level.” This kind of response depersonalizes the “no” – and empowers you to say it from a much more grounded and principled place.