Transparency Talk

Category: "Community Foundations" (18 posts)

Eye On: Chobani Founder Hamdi Ulukaya
November 18, 2015

(Melissa Moy is special projects associate for Glasspockets. For more information about Hamdi Ulukaya and the other Giving Pledgers, visit Foundation Center's Eye on the Giving Pledge.)

Ulukaya_medium photoFamily and homeland helped shape this Kurdish American billionaire’s interest in global philanthropy and improving the plight of worldwide refugees impacted by war and poverty.

Chobani yogurt founder Hamdi Ulukaya said that his mother’s generosity toward those in need seeded an early interest in philanthropy.  Even the company name reflects his native Turkish roots.  Chobani is the Turkish word for “shepherd,” and Chobani has said that the moniker is an homage to the “spirit of giving farmers.”

“Growing up, I watched my mother give to those who needed and it came from the most amazing place in her heart,” Ulukaya said in his Giving Pledge letter, whereby individuals pledge to give away the majority of their wealth during their lifetime.  Upon joining the Giving Pledge in June 2015, he dedicated his Pledge commitment to his mother.

In addition to family, peer influence also played a part in Ulukaya’s decision to make a “public commitment” to help refugees.  In his letter, the New York resident praised Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for setting an example for global philanthropy.  Ulukaya is among 138 Giving Pledge participants in 16 countries.

“I hope that my commitment to the Giving Pledge will in turn inspire others to do the same,” Ulukaya said in his letter.

Hamdi Ulukaya:

  • Founder, Chairman and CEO of Chobani yogurt
  • Kurdish American entrepreneur and businessman
  • Ernst & Young’s 2013 World Entrepreneur of the Year
  • Founder of the Chobani Foundation, which focuses on youth and underserved communities, and entrepreneurs and small business owners
  • Founder of the  Tent Foundation, which provides direct aid to refugees and advocates for refugee rights and policies
  • Personal net worth is over $1 billion

Humanitarian Giving

The Giving Pledge marked Ulukaya’s public commitment to donate the majority of his personal wealth to helping refugees and finding a solution to this humanitarian crisis. 

Earlier this year, the 43-year-old launched the Tent Foundation to specifically provide direct aid, effect policy changes and develop strategies to help 50 million forcibly displaced people worldwide.  His foundation aims to collaborate with worldwide governments and organizations.

The magic and power of the American dream is something I believe should be available to everyone.

Since the early days of founding his Greek yogurt empire, Ulukaya has donated 10% of his profits to the Chobani Foundation, which focuses on access to food for youth and underserved communities, and supporting entrepreneurs and small business owners. 

In 2013, the Chobani Foundation distributed $624,920 to 17 organizations in the United States, Canada and England, according to the foundation’s 2013 990 Form, a form that certain federally tax-exempt organizations file with the IRS.  The largest gift of $285,630 helped establish the South Edmeston Community Center in Edmeston, New York, and the city that is also home of Chobani’s first yogurt factory.

Other gifts included $100,000 to the Canadian-based Global Enrichment Foundation, which supports leadership in Somalia through educational and community-based empowerment programs; $92,230 for the Halabja Community Playground Project, a London-based charity that built an adventure playground for children in Halabja, Northern Iraq; and $25,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Magic Valley in Twin Falls, Idaho.  The Idaho city boasts a Chobani factory, which opened in 2012 as the world’s largest yogurt factory.

Entrepreneurial Spirit

While studying English in New York in 1994, the Turkish immigrant became fascinated by the idea that “anyone can start something in America,” he said in his letter.  By 1997, Ulukaya enrolled in business courses at the State University of New York.

“The magic and power of the American dream is something I believe should be available to everyone—and is part of my hope for a modern Turkey and for entrepreneurs around the world,” Ulukaya said.

I believe that as people who have been blessed with opportunity in our own lives we must give hope to others.”

Growing up in a hardworking communal culture in Turkey, Hamdi Ulukaya used his background as a Kurdish dairy farmer to cultivate his entrepreneurial dream into a billion-dollar reality.  In 2002, he started a modest feta-cheese factory. 

In 2005, Ulukaya took a risk purchasing a defunct yogurt factory in upstate New York and launched Chobani.  In October 2007, he shipped his first Chobani yogurt order to a Long Island grocer. 

Relying on his entrepreneurial skills, the savvy Ulukaya negotiated with supermarket retailers to pay the slotting fees – the fee to place product on retailer shelves - over time and also in yogurt rather than cash.  He also relied on social media to promote Chobani.  Within five years, Chobani grew into a billion-dollar business.

In his Giving Pledge letter, Ulukaya pointed out the benefits that entrepreneurship has on impacting community change, including his own success.  His foundations provide local and global grants.

 “I believe that as people who have been blessed with opportunity in our own lives we must give hope to others,” Ulukaya said.

--Melissa Moy

Grantmaker Transparency: The Dawn of a New Age in Philanthropy
November 16, 2015

(Aaron Lester is demand generation manager at Fluxx.  This blog post first ran in PhilanTopic.)

Aaron_lester_for_PhilanTopic"People tend to be private about love and money, and in philanthropy, it's both," says Janet Camarena, director of transparency initiatives at Foundation Center.

It's only natural that, traditionally, philanthropy has unfolded behind closed doors. On the one hand, the freedom to make personal funding choices gives grantmakers the ability to stay above the fray, uninfluenced by both market and political pressures. On the other hand, it doesn't allow the public to understand, learn from, or think critically about philanthropy.

"Giving and charitable acts are such private, emotional transactions," says Suki O'Kane, director of administration at the Walter and Elise Haas Fund. "How do you come from such strong traditions of privacy and intimacy, and bring that out into the open?"

Where do things stand?

Indeed ­– how do we as a sector make the switch from a traditionally opaque business model to an enterprise that embraces more transparency? It all comes down to the following questions: What am I funding? Why am I funding what I'm funding? Is my funding making an impact? And perhaps most importantly, how do we improve?

How do we as a (philanthropic) sector make the switch from a traditionally opaque business model to an enterprise that embraces more transparency?

There is good news: transparency in philanthropy is happening, there's no denying it. In fact, it's well under way, with large foundations like Gates, Ford, and Getty, sharing their endeavors with the public, surveying their grantees (and sharing the results), and creating searchable grants databases. Still, transparency can be difficult.

As a grantmaker, you know that sometimes your investments fail, sometimes grantees don't perform the way you expected, and sometimes, despite your best intentions, you can't pull off a new initiative or program. "Philanthropy isn't venture capital," says Christine Maulhardt, director of communications and public affairs at the Blue Shield of California Foundation. "Big losses aren't typical in our sector. We want everything to work out perfectly."

Regardless of the perceived risks, transparency in philanthropy is here to stay. And yes, it can be scary and hard to figure out how to get started. But the rewards for embracing transparency far outweigh the risk of turning your back on it.

Time for Transparency ImageWhere are we headed?

 

As we look to the (not so distant) future, we're particularly excited about the potential for grantmakers and grantees alike to have the ability to track incoming evaluation data, to understand in real time their organization's short- and long-term impact, and to be able to respond to that data and take action to ensure continued progress.

In the past, there was no common language used to talk about impact evaluation. Now, for the first time, technology can help create that common language. It is possible for foundations to not only track their own progress toward a goal, but also to compare results with other groups working toward the same end. The intelligence learned creates a greater potential for real needle-moving impact.

Becoming Transparent: Best Practices

If your foundation is just beginning the journey toward greater transparency, Camarena has suggestions for working in league with your peers. First, there's no need to be revolutionary. "Rather than creating something custom for your foundation, really look across the field to some standard practices," she says. "When it comes to creating the application process, look at grants management systems that exist already, and look at taxonomy so that you're not inventing a language that won't make sense field-wide." Her key takeaways:

  • Look to other foundations for standard practices on transparency; don't reinvent the wheel
  • Take advantage of modern grants management systems to help guide your application process and to create a common taxonomy.
  • Join a regional association of grantmakers so you can network with your peers and share ideas, successes, failures, and best practices. If you're using a grantmaking solution, join the community of users.
  • Participate in field-wide movements like the Who Has Glasspockets initiative and Foundation Center's Get on the Map campaign.

As daunting as it may be to open your foundation's doors to the public, transparency has far more benefits than drawbacks. Not only will you be moving in step with a growing movement, you'll also be in great company. It's time we started to share the why and how of our giving. All of us stand to benefit.

--Aaron Lester

The 30-Layer Cake of Grants Management
November 11, 2015

(Adriana Jimenez is grants manager at the Surdna Foundation and also serves on the board of directors of the Grants Managers Network.  She will be a regular contributor to Transparency Talk, discussing issues pertaining to transparency, data, and grants management.)

AjimenezReality TV is not all mind-numbing. I recently discovered a baking show that had lessons to teach about working in the evolving world of grants management. 

In PBS’s The Great British Baking Show, contestants test different recipes to showcase their baking talents. One of the top challenges on the show was preparing a cake with 30 perfectly distinctive layers. This was the ultimate feat because it would expose the mastery of the bakers’ technical skills.

While the bakers relied primarily on precision and rules to pass this 30-layer trial and other “technical challenges,” the winning bakers also demonstrated “soft” skills: they were creative, flexible, and collaborative; they worked well under pressure; and they knew when to ditch tradition and take a risk when the conditions demanded it. These are precisely the skills that today’s -- and tomorrow’s -- grants managers need to thrive in a changing environment.

This was not too different from the advice I’d heard at a recent Grants Managers Network (GMN) program, Become the Grants Manager of the Future: be flexible and open; be a chief problem-solver and a team-player; and understand the rules so you know when to break them. Grants management, like baking, requires precision, measurement and technique, but it also requires creativity, adaptability, and nimbleness.

Led by Sara Davis, director of grants management at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Daniel Weinzveg, an organizational consultant, Become the Grants Manager of the Future addresses the growing hunger (pardon the food pun) among grants managers to get clarity on where the profession is headed and how we can collaborate to increase our impact in the philanthropic sector.  The program captures the excitement around these new opportunities.

Grants management, like baking, requires precision, measurement and technique, but it also requires creativity, adaptability, and nimbleness.

One of the session’s key points is that by connecting grants managers’ expertise in the “how” of grantmaking with the strategic side of grant practice, we can create frameworks that lead to greater transparency in order to support learning and collaboration. Operations can no longer be siloed from strategy, because transparency is the new norm.

In fact, there are many “new norms.”

The profession of grants management is rapidly evolving. The transactional elements of grants administration (e.g., processing grant requests, getting grantees paid, assembling board books) have always existed, and will remain critical to grantmaking organizations. 

However, over the past decade technology has automated many of these processes. According to the 2014 GMN/Technology Affinity Group survey, 65 percent of foundations now manage some level of paperless grant systems. This has opened up opportunities for grants management professionals to shift into more strategic roles and collaborate more closely with program staff and leadership. 

Grants management has also shifted as organizations have become more data-driven. Foundations now have access to vast amounts of information, and they are relying on grants managers to help them make sense of it.

Grants managers play a central role in collecting key data sets and trends about our grant portfolios over time, such as: demographic information about grantees and constituents served; outcomes, activities and indicators of success; statistics about average grant size/duration; geographic areas served; etc. We can also gather baselines about our internal processes to gauge efficiencies and stopgaps (e.g. turn-around time for making a grant, processing a payment, or reviewing a letter of inquiry).

As we become the grants managers of the future, what should foundations of the future look like?

Access to the right data – and knowing how to interpret it—can help foundations make informed decisions that lead to better outcomes in service of mission and grantees. It can help us set policies and procedures that are based on real needs and not arbitrary rules; it can support us in learning about our portfolios and making strategic course-corrections where needed;  and it can aid us in becoming more transparent about our work and measuring progress towards our stated goals.  We can also use benchmarks, such as Who Has Glass Pockets, to help in this endeavor.

The 2015 GMN Salary Survey found that grants management professionals spend only 42 percent of their time on “core” grants management functions.  Other job responsibilities include IT, evaluation, legal counsel, finance or working within grant programs.

The multi-functional nature of grants management provides an opportunity for transparency, as grants management professionals often act as a liaison between multiple areas of foundation work.  

Meanwhile, this disparity presents a challenge: Are grants managers properly trained to step into leadership roles as data analyst experts and decision-makers? Do we all aspire to be?  Is there an obstacle among foundations who do not recognize this potential in their grants management staff? How can they support grants management in their professional growth?

So, as we become the grants managers of the future, what should foundations of the future look like? From a strategic standpoint, philanthropy leaders have many questions to address if they want to foster a data-driven and learning-based culture:

  • How can foundations leverage their existing data to make informed strategic decisions?
  • What frameworks can be put in place to integrate grants management as key contributors to foundation learning, analysis, and decision-making in order to benefit the foundations themselves and the grantees they support?
  • How can foundations incorporate effective practices into their strategic grantmaking?

Answering these questions is not an easy feat, but neither was baking a 30-layer cake on The Great British Baking Show.

--Adriana Jimenez

#77: Transparency Talk Welcomes the VNA Foundation to Glasspockets
October 14, 2015

(Melissa Moy is special projects associate for Glasspockets.  For more information, visit Foundation Center’s Who Has Glasspockets, and learn about VNA Foundation and the other foundations.)

Vna-foundationIn late September, the VNA Foundation joined our growing collection of “Who Has Glass Pockets?” (WHGP) profiles, which serve as both an assessment tool and a demonstration of a foundation’s commitment to transparency.  VNA became the 77th foundation to join WHGP. 

We thought it would be helpful to use our Transparency Talk blog as a way to introduce our audience to the newest foundation participant, and point out some of the interesting ways in which this Chicago-based foundation that supports healthcare for the underserved is employing innovative methods in how they communicate grantmaking and open up the work of philanthropy.

VNA Foundation, established in 1890 as the Visiting Nurse Association of Chicago, supports nonprofit organizations offering home- and community-based health care to the medically underserved.

About its Glasspockets participation, VNA states on its website: “We believe that foundations need to understand the value of transparency, be more open and clear in our communications, and highlight how the philanthropic sector partners with its grantees to serve the public good.”

"We believe that foundations need to understand the value of transparency, (and) be more open and clear in our communications."

The grantmaking process, from what a successful proposal looks like to what to expect when a funder says they want to meet with you, is often shrouded in mystery—but not at VNA.  The website features an informative prospective grantee area that not only shares the grantmaking process but reaches a high bar in transparency by sharing complete grant applications of successful proposals in addition to providing helpful insights into the foundation’s grantmaking process and its expectations from a site visit.  VNA also has an open invitation for grantees to highlight their work via the VNA Foundation’s YouTube channel.

VNA also shares contextual and historical information about its current and past special initiatives, and includes links to 14 years of its annual reports, an unusually comprehensive report collection.    

Additionally, VNA provides a unique and interactive infographic that discloses a great variety of grantmaking information in a very user-friendly format.  In the infographic, VNA openly shares geographic and financial information, as well as diversity data about its grantmaking in Chicago, from the city to the suburbs. 

Infographic data highlights include:

  • Grant overview & total grantmaking
  • Grant demographics by population, gender and ethnicity
  • Types of medical services and service settings among grantees
  • Types of grant support

Additionally, VNA’s infographic details what its grantees have learned, which may be helpful for other service organizations wanting to build on the work, while also providing other healthcare funders and grantees with helpful knowledge about their shared field.  For example, one grantee shared new and unforeseen challenges in light of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion.  Although the expansion has provided more people with insurance, the number of clinics and providers has not grown to meet the demand.

Does your foundation have glass pockets?  Please take our "Who Has Glass Pockets" assessment.  Your foundation could be #78!

--Melissa Moy

Board Compensation in Grantmaking Foundations: Reasonable and Necessary?
February 19, 2013

Mark Hager is associate professor of nonprofit studies in the School of Community Resources and Development at Arizona State University. He teaches a graduate course in philanthropy each spring semester.

Hager_100Tradition dictates that board members work for free in most quarters of the nonprofit sector, but that isn’t necessarily true for grantmaking foundations, especially independent ones. In a new paper (open access available until late March) published in Public Integrity, the ethics journal sponsored by the American Society for Public Administration, Elizabeth Boris and I consider the question of what varieties of grantmaking foundations compensate their board members for governance duties. It reboots and reframes an earlier analysis conducted by the Urban Institute, the Foundation Center, and GuideStar.

In the paper, we point to several interesting examples, including a very large foundation’s generous policy of trustee compensation spelled out in its organizing documents, another with seven-figure annual compensation paid to a bank to act as a very part time “institutional trustee,” and another that underwent IRS investigation for eye-popping compensation that essentially amounted to trustees looting a charitable trust. These cases aren’t typical, but they are part of the big picture of how work gets done in grantmaking foundations and how much insiders gets paid to do it. In more typical cases, foundations might have justifiable reasons to compensate board members, including to ensure representation from beneficiary populations or to extend health insurance benefits to family founders. It’s the extreme cases, however, that threaten to color all of philanthropy.

Compensation for governance duties is perfectly legal, so long as it falls under the IRS’ broad standard of “reasonable and necessary.” The practice is pretty rare in community foundations, partly due to the fact that they rely so heavily on public contributions and are therefore subject to public scrutiny. It also appears to be fairly rare in corporate foundations, but that may largely be due to the fact that many corporate foundation trustees get paid as corporate executives, making their compensation invisible on the foundation side. About one in five independent foundations, however, appear to report compensation of their board members for governance duties, as reported on Form 990-PF. 

The practice is always concentrated in larger foundations. Of the 10,000 largest U.S. foundations that are the subject of the study, more than half compensate no one, including any staff. Most foundations are small and get their work done by family volunteers. Foundations that compensate staff members are more likely to compensate their board members. However, for the typical foundation, board compensation levels are imminently reasonable. The median individual board member compensation in independent foundations is only about $8,000. That’s not an indication of a rampant problem.

However, a few bad apples always threaten to spoil the bunch. The median may be $8,000, but the mean was $15,700 due to a number of well-compensated apples. When a board member’s one-year compensation reaches $200,000 (this happens), or a bank trustee is compensated $1,000,000 to spend a few hours a month managing investments (noted above), or aggregate board compensation in a given foundation exceeds its grants in a given year (this happens too), we might rightly ask whether compensation has exceeded what is “reasonable and necessary” for governing the foundation’s mission. Also, $1,000 here and $100,000 there adds up to real money, to the tune of more than $100,000,000 paid out to foundation board members in a given year. People hear that and start asking why that money isn’t being allocated to community nonprofits instead.

Who is going to check to see if board compensation is reasonable and necessary? For many organizations in the nonprofit sector, the general public is the first regulator. Service providers and advocates, especially those that rely on public contributions, reign in compensation and overhead costs due to public pressure. This is not the case with independent foundations, however, since they are not beholden to public contributions. Since the general public has no skin in the private foundation game, that public tends to ignore them.

A second regulator candidate, then, is government. Certainly, the IRS can prosecute private foundations that exceed the vague “reasonable and necessary” standard. Thing is, they don’t, at least not very often. For one thing, identification of board member compensation is very difficult on Form 990-PF.  For 2008, the IRS revamped Form 990 for public charities so that compensated individuals are identified as board members or employees. No similar revamp happened to Form 990-PF, where administrative and governance duties are conflated. Picking out board members working on governance duties is tricky; board compensation must be inferred from titles or numbers of hours worked, if reported. So, board compensation is not always obvious on the federal form. Even when unreasonable or unnecessary compensation appears evident, the IRS is often unwilling to take on community elites with deep pockets.

The third regulator, maybe, is private foundation executives and board members themselves. That’s one of the ideas underlying Glasspockets: private foundations will regulate themselves when practices are transparent. Private foundations certainly do not need to eradicate the practice of compensating board members for governance duties. However, when outliers cause observers (like me) to raise their eyebrows, the whole field can get painted as out-of-touch with community needs. Maybe Glasspockets can plant a stake in the ground on this issue to encourage foundation leaders themselves to openly disclose this information as a best practice. Voluntary and widespread disclosure of board member compensation, venues for discussion, and bright lights on questionable practices can help stem criticism of compensation that is “reasonable and necessary” for carrying out the exempt purposes of grantmaking foundations. 

Everyone benefits when somebody, somehow, enforces the “reasonable and necessary” standard. Grantmaking foundations will keep better faith with their local communities. Regulators will be able to concentrate on more worthy offenses. Nonprofits will benefit from resources that are otherwise diverted into trustee pockets. Win, win, win.

-Mark Hager

50 Shades of Transparency
November 29, 2012

(Daniel Matz manages the Glasspockets web site.)

Daniel MatzGlasspockets is turning 50. Well, more like three — in January 2013 — but as of this week, the Glasspockets web site now hosts 50 transparency and accountability profiles. Collectively the foundations that have put themselves to the "Who has glass pockets?" challenge represent $138 billion in assets and more than $6.5 billion in annual giving – close to 15 cents of every foundation grant dollar distributed in the United States. Back in 1952, Russell Leffingwell, then chairman of the Carnegie Corporation, called on the philanthropic community to have glass pockets; that is, to make the work of foundations transparent and to make them accountable to the public and the communities they serve. We now have tangible proof this is happening. Congratulations to the Glasspockets 50 for showing their commitment to transparency and accountability, and meeting the Glasspockets challenge!

... this movement is not just about California or limited to grantmakers with the deepest pockets. Profiled grantmakers hail from 19 states and Washington, DC. And some of the most creative work and most forthright efforts have come from relatively modest quarters.

What exactly is a Glasspockets profile? For the uninitiated, since 2010 we have been cataloging foundations' online transparency and accountability practices — everything from the obvious like contact information and application procedures, to the more demanding like codes of conduct and diversity statements, through to the most challenging activities like making public their grantee feedback and assessing overall foundation performance. We've identified 23 such practices and keep track of them across six types of online communication vehicles (from web sites to blogs to RSS feeds). Together, these indicators help us all see into a foundation; they provide a snapshot of a foundation's "glass pockets." Trends across the sector emerge from aggregated findings displayed as a national Heat Map, the map itself becoming a unique reference tool for other foundations.

Who has glass pockets? Not surprisingly the list includes many of the very largest foundations, many of them at the forefront of the move toward transparency, championing better communication and challenging themselves to ever-greater openness. Some, like the James Irvine Foundation, have even gone so far as to support a statewide initiative to promote transparency among California grantmakers. Thanks, in part, to their support, California grantmakers now represent 40 percent of those foundations with Glasspockets profiles. With such a strong representation of California grantmakers, Glasspockets now features a Twitter feed that opens a window on what California foundations are saying, as well as a California-specific Heat Map showcasing transparency trends among the state's grantmakers. 

But I am also happy to report this movement is not just about California or limited to grantmakers with the deepest pockets. Profiled grantmakers hail from 19 states and Washington, DC. And some of the most creative work and most forthright efforts have come from relatively modest quarters. The Texas-based KDK-Harman Foundation (annual giving of less than $1 million) volunteered to have a Glasspockets profile, demonstrating that even smaller foundations can regularly assess their performance and have a strong voice in larger conversations around transparency. Foundations are increasingly fond of having grantees complete logic models as part of the proposal process. In the case of KDK-Harman, they've applied the logic model to their own work and use it as a way to report on progress and performance to all their stakeholders. In terms of creative energy, the Mitchell Kapor Foundation (annual giving of $4.3 million) produces video annual reports that are a master class on communicating more effectively using digital media technology.

The "Who has glass pockets?" profiles also provide an inventory of foundation communication vehicles, including social media efforts.  The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was an early adopter of these tools and has been offering insights and advice throughout the year on the Glasspockets Transparency Talk blog about the ways in which social media tools are transforming the work of philanthropy as well as how to measure the impact and value of social media efforts.

These are just three of the dozens of narratives throwing light on the sector-wide push  toward transparency. The Glasspockets 50 also includes regional foundations, health foundations, and community foundations; foundations focused on international giving like Trust Africa, and small foundations like Nebraska's Woods Charitable Fund (whose web site is designed and hosted by the Foundation Center). The varied interests and size of these organizations (Woods has a staff of four) are the real measure of how deep the move to transparency has become.

Join us in being among the first 100 foundations to show the world their Glass Pockets. Submit your profile today or to learn more, contact Janet Camarena in our San Francisco office.

Explore the Glasspockets 50»

-- Daniel Matz

Glasspockets Find: Better transparency for community foundations’ donor-advised funds
December 20, 2011

The Community Foundation of Middle TennesseeDonor-advised funds (DAFs) are an increasingly popular vehicle for philanthropic donors. DAFs are often administered by community foundations and comprise a significant and growing portion of their management portfolios. Grantseekers who visit the Foundation Center often ask about how to learn more about the specifics of securing support from this below-the-radar source of funding, and the truth is many individuals like the privacy aspects a donor-advised fund can provide since little disclosure is required.

A colleague recently shared the 2010 report to the community of The Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee. We both agreed that it did a nice job of providing, in a brief paragraph, some transparency for many of the foundations' DAFs. Here's a sample narrative for the Lady Bird Charitable Advised Fund, established in 2005:

"Lady Bird has been an involved civic leader in this community for decades. Most recently, "President Lady" led the Nashville Rotary Club through a campaign to double its endowment, while serving the Bredesen Administration as President of the Governor's Books from Birth Foundation, which has built on the Imagination Library Program created by Dolly Parton and currently provides free books to more than 170,000 children under age five in Tennessee."

Are there examples of donor-advised funds' transparency to which you would like to draw attention?

-- Mark Foley

My Foundation is on Facebook. Now What?
February 7, 2011

(Tina Arnoldi is the director of information management for the Coastal Community Foundation of South Carolina.)

Tina Arnoldi

You've taken that first step. You heard a lot about Facebook and now understand that it's not just for kids. You may even know the majority of users are over 40. After talking about it for so long, someone in your office has finally set up your foundation's Facebook page. It's official. However, there's nothing on there yet. You have no "likes," no activity, and you're wondering what to do next. Allow me to share a few tips we picked up here at the Coastal Community Foundation of South Carolina, as we embarked on our own Facebook journey.

First, the basics: is the information on your page filled out completely? We used the space available to briefly explain the mission of our foundation and then provided multiple ways for people to contact us, including our web site and Twitter accounts. We also uploaded a crisp, high-resolution image of our logo.  

When we set up our page, we realized the importance of having more than one page administrator, who has rights to delete spam and add content on behalf of the foundation. Not only was it more manageable to have multiple people adding content and responding to fans, it also ensured that we would be able to maintain our page without interruption in the event that a staff member left our foundation.

Before we told people about the page, we made sure to add some content so we weren't driving traffic to an empty "shell." Our updates include information about what's going on at the foundation and general philanthropic news in our community. For a while, we imported our blog content as well as our CEO's Twitter feed (@GeorgeStevens). Since then, we've also added more conversational posts, such as, "What type of causes do you support?" and, "Are there any fundraisers coming up this week?" We definitely see an increase in the number of people who "like" our page when we share good news. Plus, not having automated content shows people we're engaged and really do spend time on our page.

At our foundation, we also quickly learned that a steady stream of fresh content is important, but not an outreach strategy in and of itself. Think of the ways you currently communicate with your constituents. Do you send e-mail? Add a Facebook link to your signature. Have a printed newsletter? Include a write-up about your new Facebook page. These are all ways we let people know about our page. We also asked foundation staff to share our page with their Facebook contacts. In a short time, we had the minimum number of fans required for a custom Fan Page URL.

Facebook has worked well for us with public events. Not only does it save postage (although we still do paper mailings), it reaches an audience that isn't in our current database. By making events public, we ensure anyone on Facebook can find them and can also invite their friends by sharing the event link. It's a great way for new audiences to learn about our work, and provides an opportunity for visitors to become fans so they're aware of future events. 

Skeptical that your Facebook page can give you results? I recently gave a presentation on social media at one of our library branches. Undeterred by warnings that this branch often sees a very low turnout at events, I posted the event on Facebook under the foundation's page and also shared it with some Facebook friends. I ended up with a very good turnout for that branch. As much as I would like to think it was all me, I know it was the power and ease of sharing information on Facebook that really helped get people in the door.

If you already have a page for your foundation, what are some tips that worked for you?  Did you find your fan base growing quickly around a certain event? What kind of status updates do your fans respond to? I'd love to hear your feedback. This is a great opportunity to learn from each other.

— Tina Arnoldi

Share This Blog

  • Share This

Subscribe to Transparency Talk

  • Enter your email address:

About Transparency Talk

  • Transparency Talk, the Glasspockets blog, is a platform for candid and constructive conversation about foundation transparency and accountability. In this space, Foundation Center highlights strategies, findings, and best practices on the web and in foundations–illuminating the importance of having "glass pockets."

    The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation Center.

    Questions and comments may be
    directed to:

    Janet Camarena
    Director, Transparency Initiatives
    Foundation Center

    If you are interested in being a
    guest contributor, contact:
    glasspockets@foundationcenter.org

Categories