Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category

Building Millennial Philanthropy, 1% at A Time

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

Daniel Kaufman, founder of One Percent Foundation

UPDATE: I got a couple of factual corrections from Daniel, concerning how OPF grew and their total giving to date (an impressive $200k).  My apologies for the misunderstanding.  Read on!

Beginnings

In 2007, Daniel Kaufman started a conversation about philanthropic giving over dinner with his law school friends that has since blossomed into the One Percent Foundation (OPF), a national organization that engages young adults in philanthropy through giving circles and leadership development.

That first circle of friends realized that they were giving reactively, rather than strategically funding the things they cared most about.  They uncovered a pattern of challenges that stopped them and their generation from doing more:

  • A concern that they couldn’t afford to be philanthropists.
  • Not knowing where their money would be most effectively shared.
  • Doubting their potential to make an impact.
  • That group started their own giving circle, pooling 1% of their incomes and collectively overcoming these challenges to effective philanthropy.

    “I never meant to start an organization,” Daniel admits, but word spread quickly and giving circles began following their model, springing up CORRECTION: the original founders moved to New York, DC, Atlanta, Los Angeles and Seattle, growing into a national giving circle.  By 2009, they realized they were filling a vital niche.  OPF was ready to scale.

    “Millennials aren’t at the table.  [They] don’t control any of the sources of funding, and the non-profit landscape represents the passions and perspectives of its funders.’   This is a critical leadership gap.  Younger generations bring new ideas, energy, and are committed to improving the world they are inheriting.  Traditionally, however, they have to wait in line for leadership in the boardrooms and executive offices of the philanthropic and non-profit worlds, slowing the potential for the positive change they can deliver.  They are also a massive, underutilized resource. According to OPF’s research:

    If every person in their 20s and 30s gave 1% of his or her income to philanthropy each year, it would translate into $16 billion in annual support for non-profit organizations.  This is six times more than the Gates Foundation gave away last year.

    How it works

    One Percent Foundation is changing the equation.  The model is relatively simple.  Participants commit 1% of their earnings, as they define it.  Working on quarterly grant cycles, participants nominate non-profit organizations to receive an OPF grant.  In a key leadership development piece of the program, volunteers act as program officer for one cycle each, learning how to research nominated organizations and complete a due diligence process.  Then, the community votes and grants are awarded.  If they have less time to give, participants can jump in during the voting phase.

    To date, OPF has given $17,000 in unrestricted grants to 10 organizations. CORRECTION: OPF has raised almost $200,000 for organizations, giving $17,000 every grant cycle.

    It almost goes without saying, but online organizing is central to this entire process.  Word spreads through social media and “all the steps [participants] can take happen through our web site.”

    Outcomes

    Beyond giving to important causes, OPF is building individual skill sets and shared confidence in the giving community.  “There’s this really powerful feedback loop where people feel they can trust the community and can change the non-profit landscape by operating through the community.”

    And that change is coming from a willingness to embrace risks, an ability not generally characteristic of traditional grant makers.  “[We]really take a chance on innovative ideas and good leadership.  We’re funding organizations that a year or two later are getting major recognition from the establishment in the philanthropic space.”

    For example, OPF was an early investor in Kiva.  Similarly, they helped seed One Acre Fund, helping East African farmers grow more on their land and alleviate hunger.  Last year, One Acre received a $765,000 Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship and is now serving 55,000 farm families.

    What’s next?

    OPF is ready to grow once again.  They are investing in new leadership (announcements forthcoming) and they are turning growing pains into self-sustaining gains.

    “Growth dims the personal sense of engagement,” that has been so important to OPF’s model.  The foundation has been so successful at youth engagement because of participants’ authentic, meaningful experience with the program.  Daniel doesn’t want participants ever to feel that they are getting lost in a “sea of voices.”

    Instead, OPF is converting their model into a web platform where third parties can start their own one percent circles.   “Now, for example, a group that has gone through Teach for America or a group of friends scattered across the country can give together.”  Daniel hopes this platform will take OPF from a donor and corporate-supported entity to one that earns its revenue.

    Lessons for philanthropy at large

    OPF is a great example of a pattern I am uncovering in my Mapping Trends in Philanthropy project:

    Young leaders + community + smart technology + high risk tolerance = innovative philanthropy.

    While the dollar amounts are often on the small end of the spectrum, these new entrants act like sensitive antennas, picking up promising signals that are too small for bigger institutions to read, then amplifying them with recognition and some cash to get started.  Traditional foundations would be well served to build this offering directly into their strategies by cultivating relationships with new entities working with young leaders.

    Next generation giving is just beginning.  I’ll let Daniel have the last word:

    “We’re trying to create a movement around philanthropy and democratize giving.  There has been a sense that giving circles don’t work with millennials, because they’re too independent.  I think that is a statement that is being made with too broad of a brush.  There are lots of ways that millennials want to connect and do big things as a community, but there’s not the infrastructure to enable it in a meaningfully way.”

    Share

    Mapping Trends in Philanthropy

    Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

    Philanthropy is changing, and I want to contribute to creating the best of all possible worlds for the social sector. Today, I’m launching a series on Mapping Trends in Philanthropy, to share what I am learning and invite a conversation with leaders in the field.

    As I’ve been gearing up to offer consulting services to the non-profit and philanthropic world, I’ve been reading widely and talking to dozens of smart folks to take in the scope of new trends, opportunities, and challenges in what I’ve begun to think of generally as the altruistic economy.

    Today, I’ll start with a basic taxonomy of these trends, and unpack each one over time. All of these trends are interdependent, often reinforcing the others, so as I approach the end, I hope to synthesize them into some working hypotheses and best practices for social impact leverage.

    There are a lot of smart folks working on philanthropic innovation. I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel, and I expect I’ll miss key things during these early passes. I hope readers will help fill in gaps and share resources, either in the comments of these posts or by contacting me directly.

    Without further ado, a bulleted taxonomy of philanthropic trends…

    • new media and technology adoption
    • communities and crowds
    • sectoral hybridity
    • generational shift
    • economic uncertainty
    • and a possible #6:

    • Global engagement

    Read on for a quick breakdown of these trends. I’ll be exploring each in much more detail in future posts.

    New media and technology adoption

    Last week, The Communications Network released a study, Foundation Communications Today, reporting on a survey of 155 foundation communicators. Among their findings, they reported that 47% of their respondents’ employers have blogs. At first, I was underwhelmed – less than half? However, a similar study from 2008 reported that less than 24% of foundations used blogs. An even more impressive indicator from this year’s study – 76% of respondents said their foundation is using online video. It’s safe to assume that new media use is on the rise.

    Communities and crowds

    I’ll go on at length a bit here. Adopting social network-enabling technology is a prerequisite to a deeper change in behavior and values. In a connected society, our technology drives down the costs of coordinating people. And then, brilliantly strange things begin to happen that industrial-era social models don’t anticipate.

    Internet theorists have given us a generous smorgasbord of buzzwords to describe this cultural shift: the wisdom of crowds, smart mobs, web thinking, cognitive surplus. I’m calling it the rise of communities and crowds. Put simply, it’s easier now for people to share – knowledge, money, time, even cars – and they are doing just that.

    (more…)

    Share

    Policy Ain’t the Only Way to Change the Game

    Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

    This piece was published as part of a weeklong online dialogue hosted by Arts Journal called “Creative Rights & Artists,” to which I was asked to contribute.  Join the conversation here.

    ——————————–

    At the risk of being accused of changing the subject, or worse, heresy, I want to offer the following:

    Fighting on the policy front is not the only way for artists (or “creators” going forward) to maintain and expand their creative rights in our communications system.

    I’m going to argue that there are many points of intervention when it comes to the evolution of technology in society, that artists are already taking the lead on these other fronts (in addition to policy), and that recognizing and leveraging creators’ strengths outside of policy-focused strategies will make the policy battles go much better for us.

    Why am I doing this?  I have spent a few years fighting the good policy battle in the media and communications sectors.  As one of the wonkier NAMAC board members, I still do.  I can’t argue with a lot of what’s already been said…

    Policy is hard. Check.
    Big money tends to win in Washington. Check.
    The groups working on cultural and communication policies for the public benefit need more resources. Check.
    Representing and empowering “artists” in policy debates is a non-trivial proposition. Check.

    However, I see at least two problematic trends in the conversation so far.  First, I don’t want us to get stuck on what I would call policy determinism.  The idea that “getting the policy right” will make the world a better place for creators doesn’t always work.  As the political is the art of compromise, no one wins 100% of what they want out of a policy debate.  Reforms come with new loopholes baked in (see campaign finance).  The result of government action are never predictable (see, ARPANET).  Regulators are captured by the industries they were meant to oversee (see, well, any regulator).

    The bottom line is that policy changes are not the sole (or often the most important) mechanisms shaping the structure and impact of any technology or industry.

    Second, I’m afraid we could run in endless circles trying to find the magic bullet that would strengthen the creator’s voice in the policy debate.  I hope we have some great ideas, but we’re up against several limiting factors.

    Leaders in every policy change effort are trying to get everyone, including creators, involved in their thing.  As I sat down to write this piece, I got an email asking me to help involve artists in the climate change fight.  There’s only so much activism time in the day.

    While I support the idea of an awesome iPhone app for creator activism, and I really like what I read about Fractured Atlas’s Bay Area Cultural Asset Map in Ian’s post, I’m always wary of Shiny Object Syndrome.  Online tools are just tools, and a hammer is only going to get you so far without a blueprint.

    Worst of all, we’re limited by the fact that, when push comes to shove, policy fights just aren’t that sexy, especially when technology is at the heart of the debate.  Put as much lipstick on that pig as you want, making law has too much in common with making sausage to turn most people on.  I suppose I slaughtered that analogy.

    For all these reasons, we have to understand what else creators can do and what they are already doing that can play into creating the world of boundless creative freedom that we’d like to see.  In the immortal words of President Bartlett, as he gave Sam Seaborn a priceless chess lesson (Season 3, Episode 58), before you make your next move, you need to “See the whole board.”
    (more…)

    Share

    WiredSafety: Keeping Kids Safe and Informed Online

    Thursday, May 27th, 2010

    Wired Safety Bear

    Last month, I shared a panel at Future Web with WiredSafety’s Parry Aftab.  As I was new to her work and live in DC, she invited me to her annual Wired Kids Summit, which happened today.

    Unfortunately, I could only attend briefly this afternoon.  I caught the tail end of a “grown ups” panel with representatives from Facebook, Nickelodeon, Disney, and various law enforcement professionals, but mostly I was trying too hard to cool down from my walk through the 90 degree DC air to pay my best attention.

    I heard a lot of questions for the Facebook representative – no surprise, given yesterday’s announcement of their renewed commitment to users’ control over privacy and identity (optimistically put, I know).  One very young man (10, 11?) pointed out that pornographers are sending out friend requests that (if one accepts) result in lurid ads showing up on one’s page.  Apparently, this is a big deal for kids who think it’s cool to collect thousands of “friends.”  Our Facebook rep reminded us that they want kids to use the “report” button, available all over the site, when this happens and emphasized that it is “not rude to turn down a Facebook friend request” from strangers.  Sage words.

    After lunch, a panel of WiredSafety TeenAngels presented their own research and new PSAs on teen sexting behavior and attitudes.  For anyone who hasn’t been paying attention to what kids are doing with technology these days, sexting is (broadly speaking) sending sexually explicit, nude or semi-nude, images, usually of and between minors via text, instant message, email, social networking sites, etc.  Obviously, this is linked to abusive behavior, blackmail, ostracism, and a whole lot of ugly no kid deserves.

    I don’t have their numbers, but here are some things I learned from their survey results:

    • ~5% of the 10-12 years old surveyed had sent or received sexts.  This number gets close to 20% for respondents approaching 18 years old
    • Girls send the most sexts, boys receive the most sexts.
    • Sexting is very often an impulsive behavior.  It starts with snap decisions, rather than premeditation.
    • Most respondents think youth are very uninformed about the legal and social consequences of sexting.
    • Most respondents didn’t think sexting was preventable. Why?  Rebellious teen culture is one reason.

    (more…)

    Share