Shameless Self Promotion: February Edition

I know it's been a while since I posted on here, but I promise I haven't abandoned the blog. It's been a busy month, which is going to be followed by another busy month, so look for some more stuff soon.

In the meantime, check out this month's edition of VPPNews. This is an issue I'm particularly proud of and I think it has some very substantial content.

Highlights:

• An article about the partnership between Year Up National Capital Region, a workforce development program, and Northern Virginia Community College. This partnership allows participants to receive college credit through the Year Up program, which doesn't seem very revolutionary, but is actually trying to reshape the way young people prepare for successful careers. I think this is the most interesting and substantive article I've written since I worked at the Seattle Times. I think this partnership--if it gets adopted as a model--has the potential to create some real lasting change around the country.
•  VPP Chairman Mario Morino's column on the importance of "organizational culture"--a pretty lofty subject, but he does an excellent job of breaking it down to make it applicable to real-world situations.
• A profile of VPP's two newest investors--Jeff and Cal Leonard.
• An article about JPMorgan Chase's support of the performance management system at Friendship Public Charter School.
• And finally, an announcement from Year Up about their recent partnership with the federal government. Year Up--which places low-income youth, most without a college education, into corporate internships in the region--will begin to place four interns into the US Department of Agriculture. Additionally, two of its alums were also selected to be White House interns, one of whom will be Michelle Obama's sole intern on the "Let's Move" initiative. This news is very exciting to me, and shows that Year Up is leading in the efforts to re-shape the American workforce.

Hope you enjoy! Let me know if you have any questions or comments!

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

The Mountaintop

I'm a person who thinks in the long-term. I'm not much for process or details, but I think about the bigger picture, the end-game. I like ideas and notions more than I like thinking about how to put those thoughts effectively into action. At one point in my life, I dismissed policy and practice as secondary to the concept they are trying to create, but now I'm beginning to realize how important those details are. If you can't make an idea work in the reality of a situation, it doesn't do anyone any good.

But I still tend to think of things in the bigger picture. Especially when considering nonprofit and social change work, I always ask myself, where is this going? What are the eventual goals of this work? Will there really be a time where there is nothing more to solve and don't have to worry about all of the problems we face now?

I'd like to say yes, but I'm not sure if that's based in reality. Last week, I wrote a post about the role of philanthropy in the long-term, and Sean from Tactical Philanthropy commented:

[W]hile I appreciate your goal of "putting yourself out of business", the underlying assumption is that if we work hard enough we can create a utopia where attempts to increase social welfare will not be needed.

That ain't gonna happen.

Sometimes, I agree with him. The intellectual side of me knows that there is no way we as a species can reach a point were we have no problems and there is no suffering. The law of unintended consequences shows that no matter how hard we try to solve all the world's problems, any intervention can spawn new problems where we least expect them.

This intellectual and rational side of me is constantly at odds with the side of me that completely and wholeheartedly agrees with the vision set out by people like Dr. Martin Luther King. He saw a world that was free of struggle and full of love and peace. In his final public speech, "I Have Been to the Mountaintop," he said that he didn't worry anymore, because he knew that one day, somehow, we'd get to that promised land. I'm not one to disagree with a visionary like Dr. King, so I don't know how to reconcile these two opposing thoughts in my mind.

I think the best that we, as those working to put Dr. King's vision into practice, can do is to create a world that can adapt and solve problems as quickly as they arise. As I said in my last post, that is not what the nonprofit sector does right now. There needs to be many changes to how resources are allocated before we can get to that point.

This tension between the desire to build a perfect future and the reality that we can never foresee all the problems we will face is a constant struggle for me. But I cannot keep worrying about the future and what it will look like. I need to trust the words of Dr. King that he saw the future promised to us, and whatever it looks like, we will get there. I can only do my small part to build on the legacy left by him. He was not worried on that night before he was assassinated, and so I too don't worry.

To celebrate the day honoring his memory, a clip from his "I Have Been to the Mountaintop" speech:

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Shameless Self Promotion: January Edition

Another month, another issue of VPPNews. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Highlights:

• VPP President Carol Thompson Cole's column on redefining "scale." I find this a fascinating take on a concept that is thrown around a lot in the nonprofit sector. She expands the definition to consider not just the number of people an organization serves, but its overall impact on a community or a sector. 
• A look at the innovative corporate philanthropy strategy of Capital One.
• A review of the first year of VPP's investment partnership with the workforce development program, Year Up.

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Turning the Dials on an Outdated System

I think one of the hardest things for me to deal with in my professional life is that I am making a living off of the misfortune of others. Without the inequalities that exist in our society, the organization I work for would not have a purpose, and I would not have a job. I have a comparatively privileged lifestyle to those I am trying to help and I live comfortably while they do not. If their problems were solved, or didn't exist in the first place, I would not be able to do what I love, and get paid for it too.

Last week, Lenore Hanisch of the Quixote Foundation wrote a guest blog post on Tactical Philanthropy on its recent decision to spend down all of its endowment by 2017, which resonated with my struggle to be comfortable with my work. Hanisch commented on how the decision to spend all of the foundation's reserves will put her into some personally difficult situations:

Erik [her husband whose father started the foundation] and I have always been clear in our belief that the foundation and its assets exist for the purpose of progressive work—not to give us purpose. This field can be seductive: when you’re associated with a foundation you’re suddenly always funny and interesting, with people eager to hear your opinions. When the money is gone I’ll not only need a new job, I’ll also be left out of quite a few parties and someday, someone might even admit they don’t like me. In other words, spending everything puts us in a fairly normal situation as far as our jobs are concerned.

For those that work in the social sector, our goal should always to put ourselves out of a job, otherwise, we are just making money off of poor people. As I learn more about the field, I'm realizing that nonprofit funding is very donor-driven and subject to the whims of major donors and foundations. This creates a capital stream that is fragmented and variable, which doesn't help encourage organizations to focus on long-term solutions to society's problems. Instead, we get caught in a cycle of charity that aims to fill the needs of the underserved, rather than creating large shifts in systems and values. I benefit from this constant cycle, as I will be constantly employed.

I think the only way I can truly feel good about working the social sector (and, by extension, the whole social sector itself), is to create a shift away from donor-driven cycles of charity. These changes are happening all around with the rise of social entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy, but I feel like it is not enough. It is important for foundations to spend down their endowments and for organizations to work on accomplishing goals so they are no longer needed, but this is only one piece of what is needed. To make a true shift away from charity to solutions-driven change, we need to reshape the rules of the nonprofit sector.

Lucy Bernholz and Steve Goldberg recently had a fascinating exchange about the place of philanthropy in the long term. While discussing the different innovations going on in the nonprofit world (from those great social entrepreneurs and venture philanthropists), Lucy commented that:

[P]hilanthropy as an industry is "designed" by policies. It is a regulated industry. It is shaped by the rules. And the rules, currently, favor "donor centric, fragmented, etc"... The game itself doesn't change because there are new players - it needs new rules.

All of the changes to nonprofits that are currently going on, Lucy said, are mainly financial innovations, or business model innovations. Thinking about effective management or outcomes measurement for nonprofits is important and can create some lasting change, but those changes are just turning dials on an outdated system that can't respond effectively to the needs of the population. Instead, we should try to think about the assumptions that the nonprofit sector is built on and change those.


Developments on this level are the most exciting to me. The creation of L3C's, the growing market for impact investing, and reforming the tax-deductible donation are areas which seem to have the most potential to create some pretty profound systems-wide change. I think that if we can find a way to blend business and philanthropic capital effectively, we could create a capitalist economy that is based on solving society's problems, rather than creating profit. I'm not sure how to do this, but I'm excited to try to figure it out.


                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Music to Change the World By

(I am indulging my inner do-gooder in this post. Please don't pay it any attention.)

In college, when some fellow students and I were creating what would become the Social Entrepreneurs of Grinnell, I would always joke about an "SEG Mix" of songs that we could listen to for our occasional pub nights. Because SEG is a microfinance organization, I couldn't come up with many songs that spoke to our mission and work of providing small loans to entrepreneurs around the world. The only two I came up with were Michael Jackson's "Heal the World" and "We Are the World."

But, with a few years of perspective and a broader sense of social justice, I'd thought I'd revisit my goal to find the perfect social change playlist. And as a holiday present to you all, dear readers, I'd like to share what I've come up with.  It is by no means exhaustive, so please let me know what you would add, or remove. Some of them are pretty obvious (like the Michael Jackson tracks), but some are more personal and obscure. Listen to it when you are feeling inspired; listen to it when you are felling discouraged. Music has always helped me celebrate the good parts in my life and work through the hard times, and I hope these songs can do the same.

You can listen to the playlist on Grooveshark here. 

Here's the list of songs, in no particular order:

For What It's Worth, Buffalo Springfield
Chicago, Crosby Stills Nash and Young
If I Had a Hammer, Peter Paul and Mary
Heal The World, Michael Jackson
We are the World, USA for Africa
Man in the Mirror, Michael Jackson
Get By, Talib Kweli
The Message, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five
Sound is Vibration, Atmosphere
What's Goin On, Marvin Gaye
Inner City Blues, Marvin Gaye
Ball of Confusion, the Temptations
Lean on Me, Bill Withers
Chimes of Freedom, Bruce Springsteen
The Times They Are A-Changin', Bob Dylan
One Fine Day, David Byrne
If You Want to Sing Out, Cat Stevens
Peace Train, Cat Stevens
Changes IV, Cat Stevens
A Change is Gonna Come, Sam Cooke

And here's some other songs I would have added if Grooveshark would have let me:

Imagine, John Lennon
Give Peace A Chance, John Lennon
We Shall Overcome, the Freedom Singers

What should I add? What should I remove?

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

The Inefficiency of Cost-Benefit Analysis

I've been learning a lot about social impact measurement and metrics recently, and I've realized something: I don't care about cost-benefit analyses.

My economics professors would be so disappointed in me, I know. But it's true. Out of all the different methods for deciding why to donate to a certain nonprofit, or for why an organization should pursue a particular program, I think a cost-benefit analysis is the least effective way to determine what to do.

I'm not in charge of a large foundation (yet!), so I can't speak much to the different justifications for funding a particular nonprofit, or a particular program. But I do try to be informed and intentional about my charitable donations, so I can (try to) speak to the justifications behind individual donations.

The organization I decided to support is the Village Enterprise Fund. I did not make this decision based on any sort of cost-benefit ratio. That is, I did not look at where my money would, in a strict numbers and results sense, make the most difference, but rather, where I thought the most important work was being done. I care about opportunity access, and I determined that VEF--which provides start-up business grants to entrepreneurs in East Africa--was the most effective organization working on this issue.

If I was strictly looking at a cost-benefit ratio, I would have given to Village Reach, GiveWell's top-rated charity, which has an "excellent" cost-effectiveness rating. GiveWell says that Village Reach, which strengthens health systems infrastructure in rural areas of developing countries, averts a child's death for ever $545 it spends. By contrast, VEF, while still recommended by GiveWell as a charity to donate to, has only a "moderate" cost-effectiveness rating, the lowest of all the top-recommended charities.

I'm not trying to claim that giving to VEF over Village Reach is inherently better because economic empowerment is more important than health infrastructure, but that is a personal conclusion I've made. I've made that decision mostly for emotional reasons that most others probably don't share with me. And because of that decision, I am comfortable knowing that my money is not going as far as it could if I gave it to another organization.

I am very uncomfortable saying that one problem is more important to fix than another, and I don't think cost-effectiveness measurements claiming that one program is more cost-effective than other changes my opinion about that. It does get tricky to support this position when I consider that we have limited resources, and we want to maximize the most good with what we have, but I am comfortable living with that conflict, for now.

I think the reason I am drawn to the nonprofit sector is because a nonprofit's bottom line is not based on a cost ratio, but on its mission. All problems need solutions, no matter how much money it takes. Improving the lives of the poor in the US is as important as improving the lives of the poor abroad, it just takes different resources and different solutions. Because nonprofit work is about more than money, looking at a monetary bottom-line to determine where we should contribute our own resources will always miss out on something. And missing something is always inefficient.

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Shameless Self Promotion: December Edition

It's that time of month again! VPPNews came out today. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Highlights:

• VPP Chairman Mario Morino's reflections on the last ten years of VPP's work
• A profile of one of our investors, Jack Davies

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners