Annual Reports – Tell Us How You Want It!
posted on: Friday, February 05, 2010
By Yna C. Moore
Once upon a time, putting together annual reports was pretty straightforward: write about accomplishments and major developments from the past year, print and send them out to a mailing list and hope they get read.
But with the proliferation of new digital media and the rising cost of producing and mailing hard copies, the process isn’t quite as ”simple” anymore. Now, it also involves wrestling with the question: What format should we use?
For most organizations, annual reports serve multiple purposes and have helped with transparency in the charitable sector. But like any other “product,” they’re only as good as their reach and consumption by their intended audiences.
For nonprofits, institutional grantmakers are among the primary target audiences of annual reports, which take considerable time and resources to produce. So the question is – Which format would most likely get read or viewed by foundation staff?
I posed this very question in comments on the Communications Network blog. Blog moderator and head of the network Bruce Trachtenberg’s answer was, we don’t know.
So here’s my (unscientific) attempt at finding out. Why? Many nonprofits are run by overworked staffers wearing multiple hats trying to get as much done with as little budget as possible. Giving these groups a better sense of trends and preferences will help them decide on the most efficient, effective and cost-conscious way to communicate with one of their most important audiences – their funding partners in the civic sector.
I hope that someone or some organization will take on a larger, more “scientific” attempt at gathering, analyzing and sharing the data. It could spell the difference between an annual report that is read or tossed to the bin and never seen.
For now, I invite foundation staffers who read this post to take the poll, or share your thoughts in comments. Thank you!
Yna C. Moore is communications director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).
Labels: annual report, nonprofit, Poll
By Yna C. Moore
Once upon a time, putting together annual reports was pretty straightforward: write about accomplishments and major developments from the past year, print and send them out to a mailing list and hope they get read.
But with the proliferation of new digital media and the rising cost of producing and mailing hard copies, the process isn’t quite as ”simple” anymore. Now, it also involves wrestling with the question: What format should we use?
For most organizations, annual reports serve multiple purposes and have helped with transparency in the charitable sector. But like any other “product,” they’re only as good as their reach and consumption by their intended audiences.
For nonprofits, institutional grantmakers are among the primary target audiences of annual reports, which take considerable time and resources to produce. So the question is – Which format would most likely get read or viewed by foundation staff?
I posed this very question in comments on the Communications Network blog. Blog moderator and head of the network Bruce Trachtenberg’s answer was, we don’t know.
So here’s my (unscientific) attempt at finding out. Why? Many nonprofits are run by overworked staffers wearing multiple hats trying to get as much done with as little budget as possible. Giving these groups a better sense of trends and preferences will help them decide on the most efficient, effective and cost-conscious way to communicate with one of their most important audiences – their funding partners in the civic sector.
I hope that someone or some organization will take on a larger, more “scientific” attempt at gathering, analyzing and sharing the data. It could spell the difference between an annual report that is read or tossed to the bin and never seen.
For now, I invite foundation staffers who read this post to take the poll, or share your thoughts in comments. Thank you!
Yna C. Moore is communications director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).
Labels: annual report, nonprofit, Poll
posted by NCRP at
1:31 PM
|
4 comments
links to this post
A People's loss in the United States: Howard Zinn, historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87
posted on: Friday, January 29, 2010
A People's loss in the United States: Howard Zinn, historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87
On Wednesday, as the nation rightly focused on the President’s first State of the Union address, we lost a revolutionary thinker with the passing of political activist and historian Howard Zinn. Probably most known for his seminal A People’s History of the United States, Zinn’s contributions are too great for this post to do any justice to. That said, the Boston Globe published a great piece, which includes many of the sentiments that I share. Sometimes, things just can’t be said better than others have. So in the words of the Globe staff, Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck, here are my views on the significance of his loss.
From the Globe: “For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. ’A People’s History of the United States‘ (1980), his best-known book, had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and union organizers of the 1930s.”
My addition: If you’ve never read this book PLEASE GO OUT AND GET A COPY NOW! When we think of our country, many of us do so in the ways that the writers state. But remember, it was community organizing and advocacy that led to: a) our freedom from the Empire; b) the abolition of slavery; and c) the women’s rights movement. When everyday citizens are active, we make change happen. When we work together as a community, our impact is even greater. And if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that we’ve been documenting the high “return on investment” of funding directed towards advocacy, organizing and civic engagement under our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.
From Noam Chomsky: “Dr. Zinn's writings "simply changed perspective and understanding for a whole generation. He opened up approaches to history that were novel and highly significant. Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement."
My addition: Chomsky and Zinn have forever changed my perspective on myriad issues. Ranging from the intellectually “jargon-esque” writings to the Boston University strike referenced in the Globe article, Zinn always will be of significant influence on the way I think and act. Academia is all well and good and I love the epistemological. But when we talk basic civil and human rights grounded in that “jargon,” that’s what really gets me fired up! Not only is there power in numbers, but there is always hope for a better tomorrow when we’re civically engaged and active.
From Ben Affleck: “"He taught me how valuable – how necessary – dissent was to democracy and to America itself. He taught that history was made by the everyman, not the elites. "
My addition: Now we’re really talking! Without dissent, there is no democracy and vice versa. All points of view are equally valid and everyone’s voice counts. If we agreed on everything, would we ever change existing structures and institutions that might be unjust? Our first amendment rights may be guaranteed by the Constitution but they’re an essential piece of how we treat each other. (And PLEASE feel free to disagree with anything here – seriously, that is what the comments are for and I’d love to engage in some constructive dialogue). As I noted in Values chapter of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best, the role of dissent is an essential component of policy advocacy and leads to a more just and inclusive society in which all of us are better off.
In Dr. Zinn’s own words: "From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble."
Hm … how does one add to the man himself?! Well, all I can say is this: Education is necessary, but not sufficient. It’s the second piece of acting on that huge knowledge base whenever we see injustice anywhere which, from my perspective, is one of the primary purposes of being educated. As my mentor john powell points out to me sometimes, in Jefferson’s mind, one wasn’t a citizen of this country simply by virtue of being born here. One had to earn that citizenship and the means to earning it was an education.
So, why education? Because, as Dr. Zinn said, education prepares us to speak out and ACT out against inequity. And if you watched the SOTU last night, you couldn’t have missed the emphasis on education reform and this administration’s commitment to ensuring high-quality education for our country’s children and youth. It’s time to take a big step back from our current system and really see what works and what doesn’t and how, working together, the civic sector can complement federal and state level government work like the “Race to the Top fund” to level the playing field in education. (Check out this excellent article written by NCRP board member Pete Manzo on this issue).
As we celebrate the many successes and acknowledge the challenges we still confront after one year of the Obama administration’s being in office, I hope each of us will take the time to reflect on what Zinn’s passing really means for us as a country. What does his work mean for us today? Will we find common cause and work together to help our country emerge stronger and better from the critical crossroads we confront? I sure hope we will and though my heart may be heavy from the loss of such an influential and brilliant man, my spirits are lifted when I think of the work he’s made possible and the millions of lives he’s touched in so many ways. Thank you for everything Dr. Zinn – I’ll certainly never forget you.
Niki Jagpal,
Research & Policy DirectorLabels: A People’s History of the United States, education, Grantmaking for Community Impact, Howard Zinn, human development, Philanthropy at Its Best, social justice, State of the Union, targeted
On Wednesday, as the nation rightly focused on the President’s first State of the Union address, we lost a revolutionary thinker with the passing of political activist and historian Howard Zinn. Probably most known for his seminal A People’s History of the United States, Zinn’s contributions are too great for this post to do any justice to. That said, the Boston Globe published a great piece, which includes many of the sentiments that I share. Sometimes, things just can’t be said better than others have. So in the words of the Globe staff, Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck, here are my views on the significance of his loss.
From the Globe: “For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. ’A People’s History of the United States‘ (1980), his best-known book, had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers -- many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out -- but rather the farmers of Shays' Rebellion and union organizers of the 1930s.”
My addition: If you’ve never read this book PLEASE GO OUT AND GET A COPY NOW! When we think of our country, many of us do so in the ways that the writers state. But remember, it was community organizing and advocacy that led to: a) our freedom from the Empire; b) the abolition of slavery; and c) the women’s rights movement. When everyday citizens are active, we make change happen. When we work together as a community, our impact is even greater. And if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that we’ve been documenting the high “return on investment” of funding directed towards advocacy, organizing and civic engagement under our Grantmaking for Community Impact Project.
From Noam Chomsky: “Dr. Zinn's writings "simply changed perspective and understanding for a whole generation. He opened up approaches to history that were novel and highly significant. Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement."
My addition: Chomsky and Zinn have forever changed my perspective on myriad issues. Ranging from the intellectually “jargon-esque” writings to the Boston University strike referenced in the Globe article, Zinn always will be of significant influence on the way I think and act. Academia is all well and good and I love the epistemological. But when we talk basic civil and human rights grounded in that “jargon,” that’s what really gets me fired up! Not only is there power in numbers, but there is always hope for a better tomorrow when we’re civically engaged and active.
From Ben Affleck: “"He taught me how valuable – how necessary – dissent was to democracy and to America itself. He taught that history was made by the everyman, not the elites. "
My addition: Now we’re really talking! Without dissent, there is no democracy and vice versa. All points of view are equally valid and everyone’s voice counts. If we agreed on everything, would we ever change existing structures and institutions that might be unjust? Our first amendment rights may be guaranteed by the Constitution but they’re an essential piece of how we treat each other. (And PLEASE feel free to disagree with anything here – seriously, that is what the comments are for and I’d love to engage in some constructive dialogue). As I noted in Values chapter of Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best, the role of dissent is an essential component of policy advocacy and leads to a more just and inclusive society in which all of us are better off.
In Dr. Zinn’s own words: "From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble."
Hm … how does one add to the man himself?! Well, all I can say is this: Education is necessary, but not sufficient. It’s the second piece of acting on that huge knowledge base whenever we see injustice anywhere which, from my perspective, is one of the primary purposes of being educated. As my mentor john powell points out to me sometimes, in Jefferson’s mind, one wasn’t a citizen of this country simply by virtue of being born here. One had to earn that citizenship and the means to earning it was an education.
So, why education? Because, as Dr. Zinn said, education prepares us to speak out and ACT out against inequity. And if you watched the SOTU last night, you couldn’t have missed the emphasis on education reform and this administration’s commitment to ensuring high-quality education for our country’s children and youth. It’s time to take a big step back from our current system and really see what works and what doesn’t and how, working together, the civic sector can complement federal and state level government work like the “Race to the Top fund” to level the playing field in education. (Check out this excellent article written by NCRP board member Pete Manzo on this issue).
As we celebrate the many successes and acknowledge the challenges we still confront after one year of the Obama administration’s being in office, I hope each of us will take the time to reflect on what Zinn’s passing really means for us as a country. What does his work mean for us today? Will we find common cause and work together to help our country emerge stronger and better from the critical crossroads we confront? I sure hope we will and though my heart may be heavy from the loss of such an influential and brilliant man, my spirits are lifted when I think of the work he’s made possible and the millions of lives he’s touched in so many ways. Thank you for everything Dr. Zinn – I’ll certainly never forget you.
Niki Jagpal,
Research & Policy Director
Labels: A People’s History of the United States, education, Grantmaking for Community Impact, Howard Zinn, human development, Philanthropy at Its Best, social justice, State of the Union, targeted
posted by Niki Jagpal at
12:20 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
No Strings Attached: Giving Well in Haiti
By Kevin Laskowski
More than $528 million have been raised for
Give cash: Stephanie Strom of the New York Times put it succinctly, “Don’t send shoes, send money. Don’t send baby formula, send money. Don’t send old coats, send money.” MSNBC intoned, “From volunteer medical teams who show up uninvited, to stateside donors who ship boxes of unusable household goods, misdirected compassion can actually tax scarce resources, costing time, money, energy — and lives, experts say.”
Give to local groups with significant experience on the ground: For instance, like many others, GiveWell recommended Partners in Health (PIH), citing “its significant local experience and capacity in
Give general operating support: In his perhaps misleadingly titled piece, “Don’t give money to Haiti,” Felix Salmon argued against earmarking your donations for
Give over the long-term: Under an equally contrarian headline, “Don’t Give Money To Haiti Now,” Perla Ni contended that “donors need to stagger their funding and guarantee it over many years, instead of sending the money all at once.” Donations for
In sum, give, and, when you do, give flexible, long-term support to local groups (or, at least, groups as close to the people you’re trying to help as possible). It’s great advice—and not just for
In following news of this disaster and our response, the hallmark of modern foundation philanthropy—the annually renewed (maybe) project grant with its restrictions and requirements—is absolutely nowhere to be found. In its place, I find all the best advice pointing in the opposite direction, and a responsive public texting millions for a country in crisis. Certainly, that’s partly because grantmaking takes time, but I think it’s also because, on some level, we understand that if we really want impact when the stakes are high and need is great, this is what we ought to do.
I’m all for giving thoughtfully, strategically, even catalytically. However, times such as these remind me that the constraints we often put on our dollars in the name of effectiveness can be luxuries others can’t afford and we can do without. As foundations contemplate their responses to this crisis, I’m hoping they take that lesson to heart—both in this hemisphere’s poorest nation and around the world.
Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Labels: Core operating support report, disaster grantmaking, general operating support, Haiti, philanthropy, responsive
posted by Kevin Laskowski at
10:00 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Catalytic Philanthropy: Trend or Force for Social Change?
posted on: Thursday, January 28, 2010
By Julia Craig
A print ad from the Montana Meth Project
Those working in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors may share my feeling that at times we are swimming in jargon that gets used to the brink of meaninglessness: “strategic” philanthropy, nonprofit “effectiveness,” “impact,” “challenges and opportunities,” and so on. So when I read Mark Kramer’s article in the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) titled “Catalytic Philanthropy,” I admit I was skeptical. Was this just a new buzzword or something truly innovative?
In his article, Kramer profiled Tom Siebel, who started the Montana Meth Project after observing the detrimental effects of methamphetamine on his community. Siebel’s approach to the problem did not follow the traditional grantor-identifies-appropriate-grantee story arc. He engaged fully in the project and took responsibility for its success. Under the project, Siebel drew on existing research, conducted original research, and gathered experts from around the world to focus on making meth use socially unacceptable in Montana. You can view the 30 second commercials developed as part of the media strategy on the project’s website. (Fair warning: they’re disturbing, but that’s the point.)
The Meth Project’s success provides, perhaps, a partial answer to my question about the potential of catalytic philanthropy: according to Siebel, two years after its launch in Montana, adult meth use declined by 72% and meth-related crime decreased 62%. The Meth Project is now a national meth use prevention campaign, utilizing media, public policy advocacy, and community outreach.
On January 26, NCRP field associate Kevin Laskowski and I attended an SSIR webinar discussing the article and its implications for the philanthropic sector. The webinar included Mark Kramer and Tom Siebel, as well as Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector. Kramer explained the theory behind “catalytic philanthropy” and that one of the primary distinctions of this approach is that the donor is responsible for success, rather than the grantee. A catalytic philanthropist:
- Takes responsibility for achieving results
- Mobilizes a campaign for change
- Uses all available tools and resources, including mission investing, policy advocacy, litigation and lobbying
- Builds actionable knowledge, using that information to inform action and to influence others’ actions.
I was struck by Diana Aviv’s commentary on catalytic philanthropy; she posited that what Kramer really identified in the Meth Project was not so much the role of the philanthropist but the role of a dedicated leader willing to take the systemic approach. She pointed to Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone and Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health as examples of such leaders. Dr. Farmer’s work to bring healthcare as a force for social change began in Haiti and has expanded globally to Africa, South America and Russia. Both these leaders take responsibility for the success of their organizations, utilize all available resources – including advocacy and organizing – and involve the communities they serve in action.
So is catalytic philanthropy a new model for foundation leadership, or is it a tried and true strategy that is just now being recognized as a potential model for social change? I found it interesting that Siebel balked at being identified as a model; he was adamant that the Meth Project worked in Montana, but shied away from offering advice to other philanthropists or suggesting that they should follow suit. But he did note that the Meth Project was not the work of a “lone maverick;” rather, the project pulled together a range of people, from global experts to local teen focus groups, to address the problem.
Did you attend the webinar? Even if you didn’t, what is your reaction to the article and to the discussion of what catalytic philanthropy really means? Let us know in the comments!
Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP. Labels: catalytic philanthropy, FSG Social Impact Advisors, Independent Sector, Stanford Social Innovation Review
A print ad from the Montana Meth ProjectThose working in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors may share my feeling that at times we are swimming in jargon that gets used to the brink of meaninglessness: “strategic” philanthropy, nonprofit “effectiveness,” “impact,” “challenges and opportunities,” and so on. So when I read Mark Kramer’s article in the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) titled “Catalytic Philanthropy,” I admit I was skeptical. Was this just a new buzzword or something truly innovative?
In his article, Kramer profiled Tom Siebel, who started the Montana Meth Project after observing the detrimental effects of methamphetamine on his community. Siebel’s approach to the problem did not follow the traditional grantor-identifies-appropriate-grantee story arc. He engaged fully in the project and took responsibility for its success. Under the project, Siebel drew on existing research, conducted original research, and gathered experts from around the world to focus on making meth use socially unacceptable in Montana. You can view the 30 second commercials developed as part of the media strategy on the project’s website. (Fair warning: they’re disturbing, but that’s the point.)
The Meth Project’s success provides, perhaps, a partial answer to my question about the potential of catalytic philanthropy: according to Siebel, two years after its launch in Montana, adult meth use declined by 72% and meth-related crime decreased 62%. The Meth Project is now a national meth use prevention campaign, utilizing media, public policy advocacy, and community outreach.
On January 26, NCRP field associate Kevin Laskowski and I attended an SSIR webinar discussing the article and its implications for the philanthropic sector. The webinar included Mark Kramer and Tom Siebel, as well as Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector. Kramer explained the theory behind “catalytic philanthropy” and that one of the primary distinctions of this approach is that the donor is responsible for success, rather than the grantee. A catalytic philanthropist:
- Takes responsibility for achieving results
- Mobilizes a campaign for change
- Uses all available tools and resources, including mission investing, policy advocacy, litigation and lobbying
- Builds actionable knowledge, using that information to inform action and to influence others’ actions.
I was struck by Diana Aviv’s commentary on catalytic philanthropy; she posited that what Kramer really identified in the Meth Project was not so much the role of the philanthropist but the role of a dedicated leader willing to take the systemic approach. She pointed to Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone and Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health as examples of such leaders. Dr. Farmer’s work to bring healthcare as a force for social change began in Haiti and has expanded globally to Africa, South America and Russia. Both these leaders take responsibility for the success of their organizations, utilize all available resources – including advocacy and organizing – and involve the communities they serve in action.
So is catalytic philanthropy a new model for foundation leadership, or is it a tried and true strategy that is just now being recognized as a potential model for social change? I found it interesting that Siebel balked at being identified as a model; he was adamant that the Meth Project worked in Montana, but shied away from offering advice to other philanthropists or suggesting that they should follow suit. But he did note that the Meth Project was not the work of a “lone maverick;” rather, the project pulled together a range of people, from global experts to local teen focus groups, to address the problem.
Did you attend the webinar? Even if you didn’t, what is your reaction to the article and to the discussion of what catalytic philanthropy really means? Let us know in the comments!
Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.
Labels: catalytic philanthropy, FSG Social Impact Advisors, Independent Sector, Stanford Social Innovation Review
posted by Julia Craig at
10:52 AM
|
2 comments
links to this post
Transforming Race: Crisis and Opportunity in the Age of Obama
posted on: Tuesday, January 26, 2010
By Andrew Grant-Thomas
If you’re reading Keeping a Close Eye… you probably don’t need to be cautioned against the rosy view that Barack Obama’s election ushered in racial and social nirvana. Nevertheless, over the last year and more the counterpoints have come, fast and furious: the disparate impacts of our credit, lending and foreclosure crises; the ongoing economic recession; the debate over health care, now seemingly doomed to an unhappy ending; the hullabaloo over Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” claim, the “Birthers” phenomenon… on and on.
Just yesterday a friend sent a link to an article about a guy named Moose who wants to start a whites-only – actually, for “natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race” – basketball league in Augusta, Georgia. It’s not about racism, says Moose: “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch? … we should have the right to move ourselves in a better direction.” Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Sadly, in this era of continued deep structural or systemic racism, of pervasive implicit biases even among folks who sincerely mean better, of the marginalization of efforts to help the marginalized, and their own marginalization even within such efforts, the Mooses of the world may be the least of our worries. Sound hopeless? It’s not But here’s the million-dollar question:
How do we proceed?
On March 11-13, 2010 in Columbus Ohio, the staff of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and some 600+ of your fellow advocates, activists, scholars, students, spoken-word artists and just-plain-folks of all stripes will engage all this and more at our conference on Transforming Race: Crisis and Opportunity in the Age of Obama. Similar to NCRP’s work under Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project (GCIP), our work is organized around three themes critical to equity and social justice work: Racial Dynamics and Systems Thinking; Race Talk; and Race, Recession, and Recovery. Click this link for more on these themes and to peek at the agenda.
Transforming Race will begin with two pre-conference training sessions for social justice workers – one on “opportunity communities” by the Kirwan Institute, and one on applying systems thinking to race. The second piece is likely familiar to readers of NCRP’s Criteria. The Values chapter, co-authored by Kirwan’s executive director, john a. powell, talks about the concept of “targeted universalism.” Targeted universalism might sound like an oxymoron; it’s not. It’s about ensuring that efforts to meet the needs of our most vulnerable populations are sensitive to the particulars of how they are situated within the web of policies. Institutions, and systems that shape opportunities for us all. Ultimately, it is about creating a more socially inclusive society in which we all fare better.
At a time when major foundations like the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Wood Funds of Chicago, Funders for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Issues, and many other racial justice workers are adopting structural racism and systems thinking as an analytical framework, it is critical that we look to systems work in other arenas (business, environmentalism, engineering, medicine) to inform and deepen our own approaches.
That’s what Transforming Race is really about – taking lessons learned from all sectors to improve practice and life opportunities for the most marginalized, and to build a more just, equitable, and sustainable future for all of us. Like NCRP, of which Kirwan is a member, we see philanthropy playing a crucial role in enhancing the common good by supporting nonprofit advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement through grantmaking. These strategies have shown tremendous “return on investments” for foundations, while addressing the needs of our diverse communities.
Registration is open! We hope to see you in March!
Andrew Grant-Thomas is director of Transforming Race, and deputy director of the Kirwan Institute at The Ohio State University.
Labels: Guest Contributor, Kirwan Institute, racial equity, racial justice, social inclusion, Social justice philanthropy, systems thinking, targeted universalism
If you’re reading Keeping a Close Eye… you probably don’t need to be cautioned against the rosy view that Barack Obama’s election ushered in racial and social nirvana. Nevertheless, over the last year and more the counterpoints have come, fast and furious: the disparate impacts of our credit, lending and foreclosure crises; the ongoing economic recession; the debate over health care, now seemingly doomed to an unhappy ending; the hullabaloo over Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” claim, the “Birthers” phenomenon… on and on.
Just yesterday a friend sent a link to an article about a guy named Moose who wants to start a whites-only – actually, for “natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race” – basketball league in Augusta, Georgia. It’s not about racism, says Moose: “Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch? … we should have the right to move ourselves in a better direction.” Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Sadly, in this era of continued deep structural or systemic racism, of pervasive implicit biases even among folks who sincerely mean better, of the marginalization of efforts to help the marginalized, and their own marginalization even within such efforts, the Mooses of the world may be the least of our worries. Sound hopeless? It’s not But here’s the million-dollar question:
How do we proceed?
On March 11-13, 2010 in Columbus Ohio, the staff of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and some 600+ of your fellow advocates, activists, scholars, students, spoken-word artists and just-plain-folks of all stripes will engage all this and more at our conference on Transforming Race: Crisis and Opportunity in the Age of Obama. Similar to NCRP’s work under Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best and the Grantmaking for Community Impact Project (GCIP), our work is organized around three themes critical to equity and social justice work: Racial Dynamics and Systems Thinking; Race Talk; and Race, Recession, and Recovery. Click this link for more on these themes and to peek at the agenda.
Transforming Race will begin with two pre-conference training sessions for social justice workers – one on “opportunity communities” by the Kirwan Institute, and one on applying systems thinking to race. The second piece is likely familiar to readers of NCRP’s Criteria. The Values chapter, co-authored by Kirwan’s executive director, john a. powell, talks about the concept of “targeted universalism.” Targeted universalism might sound like an oxymoron; it’s not. It’s about ensuring that efforts to meet the needs of our most vulnerable populations are sensitive to the particulars of how they are situated within the web of policies. Institutions, and systems that shape opportunities for us all. Ultimately, it is about creating a more socially inclusive society in which we all fare better.
At a time when major foundations like the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Wood Funds of Chicago, Funders for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Issues, and many other racial justice workers are adopting structural racism and systems thinking as an analytical framework, it is critical that we look to systems work in other arenas (business, environmentalism, engineering, medicine) to inform and deepen our own approaches.
That’s what Transforming Race is really about – taking lessons learned from all sectors to improve practice and life opportunities for the most marginalized, and to build a more just, equitable, and sustainable future for all of us. Like NCRP, of which Kirwan is a member, we see philanthropy playing a crucial role in enhancing the common good by supporting nonprofit advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement through grantmaking. These strategies have shown tremendous “return on investments” for foundations, while addressing the needs of our diverse communities.
Registration is open! We hope to see you in March!
Andrew Grant-Thomas is director of Transforming Race, and deputy director of the Kirwan Institute at The Ohio State University.
Labels: Guest Contributor, Kirwan Institute, racial equity, racial justice, social inclusion, Social justice philanthropy, systems thinking, targeted universalism
posted by NCRP at
9:45 AM
|
2 comments
links to this post
