Networked technologies and big, open data are in the process of reshaping nearly every industry–music, health care, education, scientific research, and journalism, as well as the nonprofit sector, civil society, and government. The consequences of long-tail economics and wise crowds are forcing almost every institution to adapt (and hopefully improve) or face obsolescence. Except, perhaps, one prominent sector: institutional philanthropy.

Read the whole piece here.

Recent economic forecasting suggests that traditional fundraising is not going to get easier any time soon. While it’s tempting to focus on scarcity, a new generation of philanthropists is coming of age. They are young community builders, driven by a DIY ethic, and empowered by social media. They are leveraging the lowered costs of coordination provided by the web and mobile net, and they are stepping up to meet the challenges facing their generations.

What are you doing to find them now and cultivate relationships with them for the long haul?

Read the whole piece here.

The first grant cycle of the Seattle chapter of the Awesome Foundation is now open!

Further details below, but the basic idea is that a small group of Seattleites have committed to showing up together each month, pooling $1,000, and giving that $1,000 to the person we think has the best chance at achieving something awesome.

This isn’t traditional philanthropy. No reporting, no strings, no oversight. Just $1,000 to do whatever it is you think is worth doing. We’re calling out to artists, scientists, activists, geeks, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, and you!

Deadline for submission is September 30th. Then we’ll do it again every month, for at least 6 months.

So let’s get going! Tell us what amazing thing you’d do with a grand.

————————————————————

Connect with us and help us spread the word:
@AwesomeSeattle on Twitter
Awesome Seattle on Facebook
Our announcement list (hot tip: we’ll be having parties to celebrate grantees)

For those of you who refuse to believe it’s that simple:
How it works. Who we are. A detailed FAQ. The founding concept.

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:

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.”

1) Silicon Valley status symbols emphasize mind over material

Jessica Guynn at Los Angeles Times

In brief: “Silicon Valley’s rising young stars are rejecting the traditional symbols of status: fast cars, yachts, luxury homes. To make their mark, they’re putting their wealth into social causes and start-up ventures.”

My 2 cents: If you read through the article, you’ll find some gender-biased comments. The piece is driven by anecdotes, and doesn’t provide any broad data to support its broad premise.  It does reference an ethnographic dissertation published by Alice Marwick, available here.

2) A Modest Story About Moving Cash

Karen Pittelman at Resource Generation

In brief: A quick, inspiring story about a small foundation that took its mission-related investment approach seriously enough to move most of its accounts from a corporate bank to one that shared its social and environmental vision.  Bonus: they’re making better yields on their assets now.

3) Budget Talks Could Put Tax Breaks for Donations in Peril

Lisa Chiu at the Chronicle’s Government and Politics Watch

In brief:

As members of Congress and the White House prepare for this weekend’s closed-door negotiations on a deficit-reduction measure, many nonprofit leaders are worried that charitable deductions for wealthy Americans could face strict new limits.

President Obama this spring said he supports limiting deductions for wealthy people as a way to help bring more tax money into federal coffers—and that would include deductions affluent people take for gifts to charity.

See a more recent follow up post here.

My 2 cents: I’m beginning to wonder if there is an organized lobby for limiting the charitable deduction.  If so, I haven’t seen it mentioned in these stories.

4) Make Today’s Lessons Accessible for Tomorrow with Metadata

Sophia Guevara at Re: Philanthropy

In Brief: Metadata 101 for foundation staff.

My 2 cents: +1

5) It’s The Relationship, Stupid!

Richard Woo at Philanthropy 411

In brief: “When we pay as much attention to authentic relationship development as we do to program development—there is a greater chance of becoming relevant. Relationships are boundless, programs are finite.”

6) Beth Falcone and Jamie MacDonald Launch GiveCorps

at Citybiznews

In brief: “GiveCorps is an online platform that provides an easy way for donors to learn about and give to local nonprofit organizations and get discounts from area merchants in return.”

7) Giving is Love

Brigid Slipka at writings on giving & living

In brief: “Parting with your money is hard. But the hardest thing of all may be acknowledging what giving truly is, without scorn or eye-rolling or uncomfortable silences.”

1) “Scaling Up” in a Time of Scarcity: Some Experiences, Observations, and Caveats

in 3 parts (1,2, & 3)

Gara LaMarche at Intrepid Philanthropist

In brief: This superbly written speech is brimming with comments worth quoting at length…

Notes on scaling:

…it needs pointing out that scaling isn’t for everyone and every issue… when we speak of scaling up we are mainly speaking of initiatives that address big societal challenges, like education, health, and housing, where an approach can tested, improved and proven on a manageable basis and where having done so, given the huge scope of the challenge, it is appropriate or even imperative to extend the benefits much more widely.

Notes on innovation:

…what is often really the case is that the old ways were never really given a chance to work, or that the lessons learned in earlier times have been forgotten or even trampled over by ideological assaults.

Notes on scaling and government programs:

…impact and effectiveness are often no match for the pull of inertia and tradition, of patronage and politics, and evidence alone has never been enough to win the day. What, therefore, do we need to do to communicate more effectively about proven programs? To build the missing constituency for effectiveness?”

Especially check out LaMarche’s comments on playing both partner and adversary to the US government, during both the Bush and Obama administrations, in post #2.

Concluding notes:

I think some of us fear that if we use plain language or speak from the heart, we won’t be taken seriously… But we don’t need to abandon the high road to get the details right. We can do both. Rigor and moral clarity need not be in tension. They are mutually reinforcing and mutually dependent.  It’s fine for us wonks to talk about scaling and metrics, but let’s keep that in the family. To build the missing constituency for what works requires us to understand that evidence does not drive policy unless a compelling message is there…. The only way we can achieve impact at any scale is if we become a movement for change, combining proven metrics and effective programs with communications and advocacy efforts propelled by a shared vision and story of who we are, what we’re trying to achieve, and why the change we seek is vital to the lives of real people in every community.

2) Streamlining Charitable Advocacy and Lobbying Rules

Meredith Brodbeck at National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

In brief: Brodbeck points to Larry Ottinger’s recent “Bringing Nonprofit Advocacy Rules and Culture into the 21st Century” report (PDF).  Noting that 1970′s regulations to limit non-profit lobbying haven’t kept up with inflation Ottinger recommends indexing limitations to inflation going forward and eliminating the $1m cap for large organizations, replacing it with a 5% of expenditures.  Ottinger’s report also recommends Independent Sector’s remedy lifting some limitations on private foundations and their grantees.

“What is needed is a paradigm shift, one that makes participation by foundations, charities and their constituents in the democratic process an ‘ordinary, not extraordinary’ part of the sector’s identity and activities.”

My 2 cents: The current regulations create a chilling effect on most non-profits who either don’t take their 501(h) election to lobby for legislation or don’t take full advantage of it.  Any regulatory relief on this issue is welcome, but won’t address the other major constraint on non-profit legislative efforts: capacity limitations.  Even if foundations and non-profits were freed up to lobby more, how will the field provide them with the resources to do so?

3) More on Philanthropy’s Natural State of Underperformance

Sean Stannard-Stockton at Tactical Philanthropy

In brief: ” …unlike voters or customers, beneficiaries of philanthropic efforts have no mechanism by which to hold philanthropists accountable.”

My 2 cents: I’ve been thinking a lot about asymmetric information flows between grantor and grantee.  Stannard-Stockton is talking about a feedback loop missing in philanthropy that exists, to differing degrees, in markets, politics and evolutionary systems.  Non-profit grantees are understandably fearful of criticizing their benefactors, “biting the hand that feeds them.”

It’s really too bad.  As intermediaries between grantors and beneficiaries, they have deep knowledge of both sides of that equation.  I think it would be exciting to uncover incentives for foundations to get unfettered criticism from their grantees.

I’ve been looking at the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s Grantee Perception Report as one such mechanism.  I’ve asked Sean and his readers for their thoughts on this project.

Reading through the comments also pointed me to Brigid Slipka’s excellent post, Define Failure In Terms of Beneficiaries, Not Donors.

4) Fear of Failure: An Obstacle to Change

Dione Alexander at Money and Mission

In Brief: “Change capital is to the nonprofit world what venture capital is to the for-profit world. It is money that can be used for excellent growth opportunities and to incubate innovation… nonprofits are often rewarded for their ability to effectively produce more of the same even if there are potentially better opportunities on the horizon.”

5) The Glass Filing Cabinet: What the Packard Foundation is Learning about Learning in Public

Paul Connolly at Transparency Talk

In brief: “Rather than scrutinizing Packard’s data on our own behind closed office doors, we are facilitating a “learning in public” process through which we are sharing early research findings widely and encouraging input… How can philanthropies create better filters for seeking commentary when most people actually might not be that interested in poring through all of the information in those glass filing cabinets?”  Connolly’s group, TCC, is using a combo of wikis, social media and convened dialogues in their open evaluation.

My 2 cents: Commendable approach to radical transparency for philanthropy.  Some operational notes: Wikis aren’t great for dialogue.
It’s great to see that they’ve enhanced your wiki with more immediate communications fora, like discussion groups and social media channels. Wikis are great places to create flexible banks of  “canonical knowledge,” which is to say – find patterns of consensus truths among your participants through dialogue, and later fit them into your wiki taxonomy.  You can then target appeals to stewarding the wiki to your most active participants.  Caveat: wiki UI’s aren’t the most user-friendly, so staff time is invaluable in that stewardship – keeping the structure clean and navigable and participants trained and supported.

6) Building Relationships in Public Policy from the Ground Up

Matt Mendenhall at Re: Philanthropy

In brief:

As preparation to enter the public policy arena, community foundations first educate themselves regarding the true limitations as well as the misconceptions about limitations to public policy work. If the term “public policy” creates mental blocks (”we can’t lobby”), using other terms-such as “civic leadership”-may help to expand perspectives on what is both possible and appropriate.

7) Two-Thirds of Nonprofit Executives Plan to Leave Jobs Within Five Years, Study Finds

Philanthropy News Digest

In brief: Quick overview of the key numbers coming out of the recent CompassPoint/Meyer “Daring to Lead” (PDF) report, including the headline statistic.

8 ) Adaptive Philanthropy

Susan Wolf Ditkoff at Tactical Philanthropy

In brief:

I’m intrigued by the questions that adaptive philanthropists are asking. For example, an adaptive strategy requires clear but flexible definitions of what success looks like, for whom, and what is known or assumed about the problem – but not a rigid roadmap of how to solve it. An adaptive strategy articulates clear criteria and a screening process for what will and won’t get funded (guardrails if you will) that help philanthropists quickly assess and decide among emerging opportunities – without succumbing to random opportunism or mission drift.

My 2 cents: An excellent, succinct post, worth reading every word.

We met coders, artists, activists, co-working enthusiasts, and at least one roboticist – a truly awesome mix.  Lots of people couldn’t attend, but wanted to get involved, so here’s our follow up post, as promised.

Read on for:

• A quick overview of the meeting
• Information about next steps
• Notes from the Q&A session

If you already know for sure that you want to get involved and weren’t at the meeting, head over to our Awesome Foundation Commitment Form.  If you are new to Awesome Foundation Seattle, you can read our initial invitation post and my personal note about why I’m psyched to get AF Sea started.

Our Proposal

Tommer welcomes participants

After a getting-to-know you warmup, Tommer introduced the basic Awesome Foundation concept – 10 people (aka “Trustees”) giving $100 and collectively sharing a $1000 grant to the most awesome proposal each month. Awesome Foundation chapters are sprouting all over the world, and Seattle will probably be the 20th chapter.

I talked about a vision for community engagement beyond the basic giving model.  Once we get good at making grants, I’d love to discuss an awesome group blog for Seattle, highlighting everything that makes the city great and helping to identify potential grant applicants.  Maybe we could have awesome volunteer days or give a larger, special grant once a year.

There’s a lot of potential, and our direction will be determined collectively by those who get involved early.

To build that broader engagement, we want to shake up the basic model a bit.  Tommer and I proposed 4 basic participation levels:

1. Full-time Trustees: people who can make the $100/mo commitment for the first consecutive 6 months. This group will form the foundation of the foundation, make the first critical decisions about how the chapter will operate, and review grant applications each month.
2. Guest Trustees: for folks who want to participate at a lower financial level.  Guest Trustees join the full-time Trustees for at least 1 month (or more) out of the first 6 and review grant applications in those months when they are making a contribution.
3. Friends of Awesome: aka “Volunteers!” A number of folks have expressed support of the Awesome Foundation idea, but are not able to participate financially. We do need volunteers in several capacities. Let us know if you would like to help design, build and manage our local WordPress blog; organize events; and/or support our efforts to publicize grant opportunities
4. Grant Applicants: The all-important piece of the puzzle.  We’ll always be looking for fresh, exciting proposals.

Next steps

A mingling of awesome

After the post-meeting mingle, everyone filled out a form indicating their level of commitment. What’s next?

Step 1) If you missed the meeting and want to get involved, it’s very important that you fill out the online Awesome Foundation Commitment Form.  Please fill it out by Monday, July 11.

Step 2) Tommer and I will take all of the input from the paper and online forms and do our best to put together a great mix of full-time and guest Trustees.  We’ll send invitations to join that first group and take final confirmations.

Step 3) Within a couple of weeks, we’ll announce our first group of Trustees and a calendar for future guest Trustees.

Step 4) Trustees will convene to decide and announce our grant-making calendar.

Step 5) The awesome commences – taking applications and making grants by the end of the summer.

Q&A

Participants had lots of questions.  Tommer and I want to make sure everyone understands that we don’t hold all the answers.  Instead, we’ll be looking to our fellow Trustees and Friends of Awesome to guide the way as we get started in Seattle.

Q: What’s the mission statement of Awesome Foundation? What kind of work are you looking to fund?

A: Unlike most initiatives, AF doesn’t have a tight focus on any particular area of work.  Grants from other chapters have focused on the arts, technology, and fun community engagement.  In fact, there’s a new international chapter focused on Food.  The mission of Awesome Foundation Seattle will be as broad and deep as our the imaginations of our Trustees, Friends and Applicants allow.  You can read the shared mission statement here and scan grants that have been given in other cities on the shared blog.

Q: What’s the decision-making process – quorum? majority of trustees? does it need to be unanimous?

A: Every chapter is free to choose its own process.  There is a draft Trustee manual that lays out decision models from several cities, and the first Seattle Trustees will have to decide how to decide.

Q: Would grant applicants be encouraged to reapply?

A: Yes!  Based on the experience of other chapters, we will want to stay in touch with applicants who don’t receive a grant in any given month and encourage them to keep old and new proposals flowing.

Q: Will there be parties?

A: Absolutely!  As often as we can, we’ll want to celebrate our grantees and invite more people to meet and mix with us to keep the awesome growing.

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.

This tendency has already reshaped entire industries – entertainment, software, political campaigns, and more. And slowly, finally, philanthropy and the altruistic economy are starting to feel the effects of this shift.

Outside of traditional funding institutions, we find successful crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter. On a more community-driven level, giving clubs like the Awesome Foundation, The Next Generation Giving Project, Detroit Soup, and 5X5 Night are a nascent, but fast-growing trend.

And foundations are learning about the potential of the crowd as well. Examples include Seattle Foundation’s recent Give Big and Minnesota’s Give to the Max campaigns, both of which leveraged the social networks of local non-profits and philanthropists to great success. It’s worth noting that these efforts came from community foundations, rather than privately endowed foundations.

Beyond crowdfunding, many are investing in a new level of transparency in philanthropy. The Foundation Center’s Glass Pockets project is one example.

These are some of the new behaviors, but they represent a shift in values – towards engagement and conversation (over “informing” and “educating”), collective determination (over professions and institutions), transparency (over knowledge-hoarding), to name just a few.

When behaviors and values shift, so does the fitness landscape in which human organization evolves. And I think we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg in the evolution of the altruistic economy.

Sectoral hybridity

Also referred to as the new “sector agnostic” tendency. People are impatient for positive change. More and more, they don’t care if the catalyst for the change is a traditional non-profit, government or corporate entity. In this environment, hybrid entities and partnerships are on the rise. B Corporations, L3Cs, program related investments, public-private partnerships, government investment in social innovation, social enterprise, venture philanthropy, triple bottom lines… it’s as if the organizational forms of the last 100 years are liquefying and then crystallizing into new configurations all the time, creating new opportunities and pressures for social change leaders.

Generational shift

Baby boomers are retiring, reflecting on their legacy, and seeking opportunities to mentor new leadership. They will also oversee a massive, $41 trillion dollar inter-generational wealth transfer, leading some to predict a “golden age of philanthropy” to come. Generations X and Y are taking the helm of non-profits and philanthropies, and their life experience and style is reinforcing the 3 trends above.

With life spans increasing, Gens X-Y will enjoy the benefits of boomers’ active participation in family and civic life for decades to come, and the inter-generational dialogue can draw from the wisdom of experience and the progressive energy of innovation. 21/64 and Resource Generation are two relatively new initiatives to tackle multi-generational opportunities head on.

Economic uncertainty

Even if we enter a golden age of philanthropy, the economic crisis isn’t turning around any time soon. Unless we see a major shift in political will, government services and safety nets will continue to dwindle. On the one hand, traditional philanthropy will strain to address immediate hardships and execute successful strategies to address systemic inequity. Perhaps more hopefully, communities will continue to turn to local, collectively determined solutions, as in the giving circle examples above.

Global engagement

It’s an easy truism that we live in a globally connected world. Since I want to focus on trends that impact all actors in the social sector, regardless of whether they work at the most local or international levels, I hesitate to include this trend. However, it is worth considering what it means for local altruistic economies when we are increasingly exposed to humanitarian crises around the world and urged to give sporadically through easy channels like text messaging.

So, that’s the basic map of trends, as I see them. I’ll explore all of them in more depth in future posts, but some final notes for now:

I don’t want to suggest that these trends represent a new, already established status quo. In fact, these are novel factors entering a broader field of established practices, and they will sometimes be in conflict with those practices.

At this point, I am neither booster nor critic for these trends. This is simply an attempt to map the terrain. I think there difficult questions arise from all of them. Will foundations find tailored solutions in social media or mistakenly mimic practices from other sectors? Will enthusiasm for social enterprise diminish support for community organizing and political strategies? Can crowdfunding find strategic focus and giving circles scale their impact?

Finally, if you’re still with me, I hope you will join in a conversation. I’m looking for resources, suggestions, tough questions and examples I might flesh out into case studies to dive deeper into these trends.

Please add your thoughts in the comments section or contact me.

I actually missed #1 one, from June 15, in my first roundup.

1) Big Foundations & Effective Government Spending

Sean Stannard-Stockton at Tactical Philanthropy
In brief: Sean continues to argue that private foundations should participate as intermediary partners in the US federal Social Innovation Fund by responding to 4 reasons for non-involvement. Makes for an interesting case study on blockages to cross-sector partnership.

2) Social Impact Evaluation: Useful? Utopian?

Jonathan Lewis at Huffington Post
In brief:

Soon, in-the-trenches anti-poverty practitioners with long experience, community-based organizations close to their clients, market-based programs with real revenues and real customers, and experimental, innovative initiatives with great promise may be written off as woolly-headed, undisciplined or unscalable simply because they are un-evaluated… We need evaluators and critics. The rougher and tougher, the better. What we don’t need is academic hegemony over activism.

3) Person’s Choice Award for Foundation Data Presentation

Lucy Bernholz at Philanthropy 2173

In brief: As part of an ongoing appeal to foundations to share their data, Lucy celebrates the Knight Foundation’s new report, An Interim Review of the Knight News Challenge, for its useful and beautiful data presentation.

4) Passion Needed For Data Driven Analysis in Philanthropy

Phil Buchanan at Tactical Philanthropy

In brief: “We should use stories responsibly, when they reinforce and illustrate what the data shows.”

5) Seattle Foundation Raises More Than $3.5 Million for Charity

Philanthropy News Digest
In brief:The Seattle Foundation has announced that a one-day online fundraising event on June 23 generated donations totaling more than $3.5 million from 18,800 people. From Seattle Foundation president and CEO Norman Rice: “This event represents the democratization of philanthropy, in which everyone can make a difference in the world around them.”

Here are the most interesting posts I’ve found over the last week.

1) Getting to the Root of Social Change Philanthropy

Sonja Swift at Resource Generation.

In brief:

…the power dynamic inherent to philanthropy is something to be considered when we’re put in the position of making decisions about where money will be re-distributed in attempts to address the far-reaching effects of capitalism gone astray. One reliable means of addressing this dynamic is by bridging a grounded community voice with the board’s birds-eye view of the issues.

2) The New Social Economy

Lucy Bernholz at Philanthropy 2173

In brief: In a speech to new Stanford graduates, political philosopher Rob Reich outlines innovations blurring lines between private, public and philanthropic sectors, noting both the promise and potential peril of this trend.  Example: is poverty reduction an opportunity for profit-making?

3) It’s 2011… Do You Know Where Your Foundation Is?

Mark Carpenter at Re:Philanthropy

In brief: When they avoid using social media, foundations are missing out on conversations about their organizations and the programs they support.  Adopting social media takes a mindset change. “You must be willing to give up control, listen and share, seek advice and help from others, be consistent with your strategy, and not be rigid.”

Also at Re:Philanthropy: Six Tips for Foundations to Engage Their Audiences with Social Media, Sophia Guevara.

4) Litigation: an under-funded strategy to achieve lasting change

Aaron Dorfman at National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

In brief: Dorfman argues that foundations should consider supporting more litigation to effect change, using the Rosenberg’s Foundation’s support of Dukes v. Wal-Mart as an example.

5) Crowdfunding allows everyone to be an arts patron

Gus G. Sentementes, The Baltimore Sun

In brief: Solid Kickstarter stats: 20,000 campaigns to date, 8,500+ have reached their fundraising goals. $60 million has flowed through Kickstarter

6) Collective Intelligence in Philanthropy

Eugene Eric Kim at Tactical Philanthropy

In brief: “[Foundations] need to think of themselves as movers of knowledge instead of movers of money.”