Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation

David Grant, President and CEO

As I write my next-to-last blog entry as President of the Dodge Foundation, I am drawn back to the title of my first – not just because I am thinking about this field as I prepare to leave it, but also because there was an important gathering about the future of philanthropy in New York earlier this month that has grabbed my attention.

It was a panel discussion titled “Disrupting Philanthropy: Changing the Rules,” hosted by the Council of the Americas and the Stanford Alumni Association. You can already tell from the title that there is some deliberate ambiguity going on. Are outside forces disrupting the complacent self-satisfaction of organized philanthropy? Or is organized philanthropy disrupting itself and the world (in a good way) through changing its own rules and practices?

I couldn’t go to the event, but happily the Stanford alumni group distributed some vivid notes written by Emily Robbins, which I will excerpt and comment upon here.

Ms. Robbins begins as follows:

Nothing, not even rain and rush-hour crowds, could dampen the enthusiasm of the capacity crowd that turned out Thursday evening for the “Disrupting Philanthropy” panel discussion … It hardly seemed possible that a year had passed since I’d been in the same room to hear Hewlett Foundation president Paul Brest, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors CEO Melissa Berman, and Stanford professors Debra Myerson and Rob Reich discuss the potential and pitfalls of strategic philanthropy. That night, with the U.S. economy in freefall, it was impossible to ignore the tension and anxiety in the room.

This year’s event, in contrast, was marked by a palpable sense of excitement and possibilities, on both sides of the funder/grantee divide. Indeed, at times it felt as if we had all arrived at a transformative movement together.

This mirrors a feeling I have sensed recently in meetings at Dodge and elsewhere. And it reminds me of a theory of change I subscribe to which posits that unless there is significant dissatisfaction with the status quo, it is very hard for things to change in any significant way. Perhaps that time has come. On so many levels and with so many issues—from global climate to state budgets to local news—there is a sense that the way we have been doing things is unsustainable. That DOES fuel the momentum for change, even for transformation. But what is the role of philanthropy?

At this panel, the Council on Foundations President Steve Gunderson asked, “Is the main role of philanthropy to provide funds? What if, instead, we provided leadership for social change? What if we acted more as partners and provocateurs?”

This sounds good if you are working for a foundation, or sitting at its Board table – maybe a little scary if you are asking, “Who elected those guys?” Yet it is undeniably true that the flexibility foundations have to act as what Paul Ylvisaker famously called “society’s passing gear” is under-utilized.

Ms. Robbins’ notes from Professor Robert Reich’s remarks suggest the extent of the change we may have to bring about:

Reich likened the changes roiling society to nothing less than a rewriting of the social contract, with the traditional roles of the public, private, and nonprofit sectors suddenly open to reinterpretation. He noted that philanthropy is changing much more quickly than the public-sector regulations to which it is subject and argued that as business discipline and techniques increasingly are applied to social benefit work, nonprofit practitioners need to make sure the sector doesn’t sacrifice its soul in the pursuit of greater impact and efficiency. He also urged those in attendance to remember that the vibrancy of the sector is dependent on its freedom to innovate and that foundations and nonprofits should not be afraid to embrace the “permission” they are given to do that as a result of rapid and disruptive changes in society.

Wow. There is a lot to think about here. He is saying both that the nonprofit sector needs to work in different ways with business and government and that its “soul” may be at risk in doing so. He hints at the great measurement debate – the potential (and I believe unnecessary) tension between quantitative and qualitative assessment, between short-term outcomes and long term impact, between solving problems in existing systems and creating new ones. And he lands on the question of “permission.” It is a crucial one, I think. Maybe that permission has already been given, as he suggests, but I believe our efforts would be well-spent in surfacing that assumption – or perhaps better yet, reinforcing it through the very act of collaboration with other sectors around shared values and visions.

Meanwhile, as we strategize based on the public, private and nonprofit sectors as they are now, the playing field is changing under our feet. The “Disrupting Philanthropy” meeting notes summarize the presentation of panelist Lucy Bernholz, the founder of consulting firm Blueprint Research & Design and a force behind the influential Philanthropy 2173 blog:

(She) was fired up by the idea that the traditional role of 501(c)(3) nonprofits was being challenged by the emergence of entities with a “triple bottom line” — e.g., low-profit limited liability companies, otherwise known as L3Cs, and so-called beneficial corporations, aka “B corps,” which recently were recognized as legal entities by the state of Maryland. She noted that Americans need to develop a better understanding of the laws, here and abroad, that shape and determine global philanthropic giving. And she suggested that while nonprofits’ use of social media is advancing by leaps and bounds, as evidenced most recently by the success of various mobile text campaigns for Haiti earthquake relief, we are still in the early stages of understanding the multiple possibilities for these tools in terms of how they can help us better organize and finance our social change efforts.

Two big, new ideas – the emergence of L3C’s and of social media. Think about what might be possible if the economic power and visibility of businesses were brought to bear on social missions at a large scale. And social media has already changed our daily lives – someone may even tweet this blog and set up a conversation for me I never could have found on my own. As Bernholz notes, we are just beginning to understand the possibilities. Both ideas beg for gatherings of foundations asking what these developments mean for our work, as opposed to each of us trying to make sense of them on our own.

The last panelist at this event was Diane Aviv, the President and CEO of Independent Sector. I again turn to Emily Robbins’ notes:

She asked those in attendance to imagine what the good foundations could do if they looked beyond the 5 percent they are legally mandated to pay out and found ways to harness the other 95 percent in the service of social change. And she noted that the new paradigm of interconnected global markets — for capital, labor, information — means that, now more than ever, the philanthropic sector needs leaders who favor change over the status quo and are committed to innovation and taking risks.

I can say as the outgoing President of one foundation and an ongoing Board member of another (Surdna), that her first point, the potential of Mission-Related Investing, has moved from a back-burner issue to the front in both organizations. And of course such discussions are inextricably linked to Aviv’s second point about tolerance for risk — risk within a complex and dynamic system and by organizations often perceived by the greater society as being risk averse.

It is no wonder, though, that we are drawn to doing things the way we have always done them, in foundations and elsewhere. At least we can wrap our minds around what is going on, and what we expect will happen.

This is one of the points I most appreciate in Chip and Dan Heath’s book Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard – that we get overwhelmed by choices, by complexity, and by ambiguity, the very world the “Disrupting Philanthropy” panel described as the one in which foundations now operate. The result is paralysis, which is not what we need.

Emily Robbins—whom I thank, whoever and wherever she is—ends her notes with a final quote from Diane Aviv: “A good chess player thinks a couple of moves ahead. The great ones think ten, twenty moves ahead.”

Let’s not fault the chess analogy because there are multiple players in the game of social change and many of them are not aware they are in the game, not to mention the fact that we may want more than a single winner in this game. Let’s just embrace the metaphor for its evocation of planning backwards strategically in the midst of complexity.

I see every decision about every Dodge grant, and every attempt at collaboration, in this light. They are part of something twenty moves ahead – a creative and sustainable New Jersey—as well as important to the current day.

And if the playing board and the rules of the game are changing, as the “Disrupting Philanthropy” panel suggests, that is probably a good thing, for this is a game with the highest of stakes, which requires our most creative and open-minded efforts. It has been a great privilege to be part of this world for a time.

Chess photo: Josep Altarriba

David Grant, President and CEO

I had one of those trains of thought last week that come, at least to me, in repose.  It began with pride in a colleague and ended with pride as a father, and along the way, I was reminded about something I have treasured in my time at Dodge.

I was on vacation on the island of Vieques, which is as quiet and laid back as northern New Jersey is energized and in your face.  I took a break from reading and checked the Dodge website – not to work, mind you, just to see what was going on.

It was the day of my colleague Wendy Liscow’s blog entry, “When I Put On These Shoes,” which I read admiringly.  As part of Leadership New Jersey’s Class of 2010, Wendy had spent a day in the shoes of “Miriam,” a harried mother and victim of domestic abuse, and through this simulation, she glimpsed what it is like to negotiate the health care and social service systems as a poor, battered, and frightened woman.

As Wendy pointed out, no day-long exercise can approximate the full realities of Miriam’s life, but it was an admirable exercise in empathy.  I got to thinking about empathy, and where it comes from, and how we can create more of it.

Ironically, I had put down my book for a few minutes to take a break from it.  I was deep into Colum McCann’s novel, Let the Great World Spin.  (If you stop here and order the book, I will have done you a favor today.) I don’t usually take book jacket blurbs too seriously, but I think Dave Eggers got it right on this one when he wrote, “There is so much passion and humor and pure life force on every page that you’ll find yourself giddy, dizzy, overwhelmed.”

I had in fact been feeling overwhelmed: fighting back tears over a mother who had lost her son in Vietnam; feeling confused and unsettled as an Irish monk in the Bronx struggled with his vow of chastity; holding my breath as a man walked out onto a tight rope suspended between the two towers of the World Trade Center.  (Yes, the actual walk of Philippe Petit in August, 1974 provides the back drop for all the action.)  I thought to myself if you don’t have a Leadership New Jersey to create an experience of empathy for you, reading literature ain’t bad.

But what comes of all this?  Experiential education works, and great art works, to expand our sympathies and understanding.  But what changes as a result?

Here my train of thought took me to the other part of my bookshelf I love – the much nerdier section of books on organizational development and change.  The latest page-turner there is called Switch, by Chip and Dan Heath, and the subtitle is How to Change Things When Change is Hard. It doesn’t have the prostitutes and judges and cops and man on a wire a hundred and ten floors off the ground of Let the Great World Spin, but it has its own excitement if you’re in the change business.

And it has its own metaphor for how change happens: a human rider on an elephant going down a path.  The Rider is the analytical part of our brain – the part of us that plans for the future and thinks through all the alternatives.  The Elephant is the emotional part of our brain – the part that loves routines and familiarity and comfort.

It’s an effective metaphor right off the bat because it reminds us who is in charge.  We can know intellectually what we should be doing and pull on the reins, but if the Elephant decides to go in another direction, that’s the way we are going.  It’s what happens when we decide we should lose a few pounds but there are Oreos in the house.

You can see both the dangers and the possibilities inherent in this metaphor.  The Rider can think long-term, but can also get overwhelmed by choices and spin his or her wheels through endless analysis.  The Elephant is not thinking long-term – in fact is not thinking at all.  It tends to go for instant gratification if it is there for the taking, or it hangs out in the comfort of the status quo.

But the Elephant is what moves us – literally and figuratively.  It is motivated by love and compassion and sympathy and loyalty.  It is motivated by empathy.  It can provide the energy if the Rider can provide the direction.

So the Heaths simplify the complicated terrain of change – social change or personal change – down to three simple suggestions: 1) Direct the Rider; provide crystal clear directions to a destination we can understand; 2) Motivate the Elephant; engage people’s emotional sides; and 3) Shape the Path; do what you can to create the conditions for change, given the situation you are operating in.

Not a bad way to think about what empathy does – it motivates the elephant.  No wonder Leadership New Jersey engages the emotions of Wendy and the rest of her LNJ cohort: because changing the lives of the Miriams of the world is hard indeed.

I think this is what the “phil” in philanthropy is about, too – the emotional commitment that leads us to tackle things that are hard. What a daily privilege that has been for me here at Dodge since the fall of 1998.  It is why we have been such a steadfast supporter of the arts, and of experiential education.  It is why we tell stories, here on the blog and elsewhere. It is why, when we talk about a more Creative and Sustainable New Jersey, we don’t just analyze the problems as the Rider; we try to motivate the elephant by envisioning, and feeling, what is possible.

One final thought finished my musings on empathy.  Dodge co-sponsored a conference in 2000 called Learning and the Arts, where one researcher reported she had found only one significant correlation between life experiences and observed empathetic behavior – many of the “high empathy” people had had experience in drama.

I won’t have my first-hand daily experience with empathy at Dodge after June, but I look forward to a vicarious one over the next three years. My younger son Rob was just accepted into the MFA program at Yale School of Drama, as an actor.

Today’s post comes to us from Sidney Hargro of the Community Foundation of South Jersey

Sidney Hargro, Community Foundation of South Jersey

Four years in the making, the Community Foundation of South Jersey (CFSJ) is now poised to inspire philanthropy from South Jersey for South Jersey that effectively addresses today’s challenges while building a community endowment that will address the emerging issues of tomorrow. To all of those who had a hand in the formation of CFSJ, take a deep breath…and a bow! You did it!

The passionate and committed early efforts of the coordinating committee members, led by Chair Jack Tarditi, Vice Chair Mindy Holman, Nina Stack of the Council of New Jersey Grantmakers, and others has been rewarded with a $600,000 operating and grantmaking grant from the Ford Foundation and a $50,000 operating grant from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation for which we are extremely grateful. With this seed investment, CFSJ will create a brand of philanthropy that is fueled by a framework of listening, leveraging, and learning.

Listening

Every great endeavor must begin with listening, and listening will take on a variety forms at CFSJ. The first act of listening has already begun in the form of listening to those who had a hand in creating the foundation to capture their “hopes and dreams” for the region. This will be followed by a regional tour to engage leaders from the nonprofit sector, business, government, higher ed and others in conversations about the diverse communities that constitute South Jersey. We want tohear their ideas about how CFSJ can help them make a difference. Why? Because we believe innovative ideas and solutions to the greatest challenges in South Jersey lie within the people of South Jersey. This tour will also help us identify community ambassadors throughout the region to serve as the foundation’s eyes and ears.

Leveraging

Lucy Bernholz, Founder and President of Blueprint Research & Design, Inc. and visiting scholar at the Stanford University Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society,  simply defines philanthropic leverage as “the use of dollars in pot A to access dollars from Pot B”. For CFSJ, we will expand this notion by using existing human and financial capital to access additional human and financial capital, all for the purpose of seeding a movement that will continuously improve the quality of life in South Jersey. In other words, we will not only play the role of philanthropic advisor to individuals, families, and businesses – conveniently connecting them to the causes they care about – but we will also cultivate relationships between donors, regional and national funders, and others that have similar social change agendas.

Learning

One of the best definitions that I have heard for the term “learning organization” is:

“Organizations with an ingrained philosophy for anticipating, reacting and responding to change, complexity and uncertainty.”  —Yogesh Malhotra, PhD

Using this definition, it would appear that community foundations are ideally positioned to be a community’s foremost learning organizations, especially with the economic realities that some say is the “new normal”. To that end, CFSJ is committed to monitoring and evaluating incremental improvements on the road to making a difference in the region.

Listening, leveraging, and learning is not a linear process. It is a continual, artistic symphony of elements that simultaneously works to make CFSJ a relevant philanthropic organization. For more information on the the work of the foundation, please visit our website at www.communityfoundationsj.org.

David Grant, President and CEO

I recently spent an afternoon with the Board and staff of another foundation. They were planning to “spend down” the foundation’s several hundred million dollars and were planning backwards from twenty years out, thinking about their legacy.

What would make a foundation great as it closed its doors, and in whose eyes?

We are tempted to focus on the “what” – the outcomes and impacts of a foundation’s philanthropy. Maybe success would be a library, or laboratory, or theatre with the foundation’s name on it for years to come. Maybe success would be a program that becomes so widely known and accepted in society that no one remembers where it came from – a Head Start or a 9-1-1. Or maybe success would be the eradication of a disease, where ironically it is the absence of something that becomes an important legacy.

The “what” is critically important. But just as critically important is the “how.” (more…)

The Foundation Center has launched a new “Focus on the Economic Crisis” section on their website, which provides an array of interesting and useful articles, podcasts, blog posts and other tools for helping nonprofits and foundations navigate the challenging economy.

This interactive “Mapshot,” for example, gives an interesting snapshot of the most recent foundation giving and program related investments, state by state, related to the recession; click on the states to get specific information. You can sign up for their grant RSS feed here to get the most current data.

And for commentary on the philanthropic world, the Foundation Center’s blog, “Philantopic” is here.