Transparency Talk

Category: "Social Media" (38 posts)

Opening Up Emerging Knowledge: New Shared Learning from IssueLab
May 23, 2019

Janet Camarena is the director of transparency initiatives at Candid.

This post is part of the Glasspockets’ #OpenForGood series in partnership with the Fund for Shared Insight. The series explores new tools, promising practices, and inspiring examples showing how some foundations are opening up the knowledge that they are learning for the benefit of the larger philanthropic sector. Contribute your comments on each post and share the series using #OpenForGood.

Balloons1024x512

Though it’s hard to believe, we are already almost halfway through 2019! Given that midpoints are often a time to reflect and take stock, it seemed good timing to mine the knowledge that the field has shared in IssueLab to see some examples of a few of the reports and lessons learned that our GlassPockets foundations have shared over the last six months. Scanning the recent titles, some themes immediately jumped out at me that seemed to be a focus of research across the field, such as racial and gender equity, global trends, and impact measurement.

This is also a good reminder that IssueLab helps make your knowledge discoverable. Though I’m highlighting seven recent publications here, I only had to visit one website to find and freely download them. Acting as a “collective brain” for the field, IssueLab organizes the social sector’s knowledge so we can all have a virtual filing cabinet that makes this knowledge readily available. If it’s been a while since you uploaded your knowledge to IssueLab, you can add any of your publications to our growing library here. It’s a great way to make your knowledge discoverable, mitigate the knowledge fragmentation in the field, and make your foundation live up to being #OpenForGood.

And, speaking of #OpenForGood, our inaugural awards designed to encourage more knowledge sharing across the field will be announced at the upcoming GEO Learning Conference during lunch on May 29th. If you will be at GEO, join us to learn who the #OpenForGood knowledge sharing champions will be! And remember, if you’ve learned something, share something!

Opening Up Evaluations & Grantee Reports

“It’s a refreshing reinvention of the traditional grantee report, placing priority on collecting and sharing the kinds of information that will be helpful to other practitioners, rather than just the data that the funder might need.”

Foundations pilot initiatives all the time, but do they share what they learned from them once the evaluation is all said and done? And what about all the potentially helpful data filed away in grantee reports? This first cluster of new reports opens up this kind of knowledge:

  • Creative City (published by Animating Democracy, Funded by the Barr and Boston Foundations, April 2019) The Creative City pilot program, created by the New England Foundation for the Arts in partnership with the Barr Foundation, supported artists of all disciplines for art in Boston that would serve to drive public imagination and community engagement. Artists, funders, and administrators alike will find much to learn from this report about how to rethink arts in the context of people and place. One compelling example is the Lemonade Stand installation, created by artists Elisa H. Hamilton and Silvia Lopez Chavez, which made the rounds of many Boston neighborhoods, and attracted many people with its bright yellow kiosk glow. Though it looked on the surface like a lemonade stand, it was actually an art installation inviting the community to connect by exchanging stories about how they turned lemons into lemonade.
  • Giving Refugees A Voice: Independent Evaluation (MacroScope London, Funded by the C&A Foundation, March 2018-February 2019) The C&A Foundation supported the Giving Refugees a Voice initiative, designed to improve working conditions for Syrian and other refugees in the Turkish apparel sector using social media monitoring technology. The pilot initiative used social media monitoring technology to analyze the public Facebook posts of millions of refugees associated with the apparel sector in Turkey. The purpose of this analysis was to galvanize brands, employers, and others to take actions and make changes that would directly improve the working conditions for Syrian people in Turkey. This impact report forthrightly reveals that though the social media efforts were an innovative way to document the scale of the Syrians working informally in the Turkish apparel industry, the pilot fell short of its goals as there was no evidence that the social media analysis led to improved working conditions. Rather than keep such a negative outcome quiet, the C&A Foundation publicly released its findings and also created a blog summary about them earlier this year outlining the results, what they learned from them, and what would be helpful for stakeholders and partners to know in an easy-to-read outline.
  • Grantee Learnings: Disability (Published by Ian Potter Foundation, December 2018) The information documented in this publication has been taken from the final reports of disability-serving grantees, which were submitted to The Ian Potter Foundation following the completion of their projects. The Ian Potter Foundation routinely shares out grantee learnings for each of its portfolios as a way to support shared learning among its existing and future grantees, and this is the most recent of these. The report is easily arranged so that other disability services providers can benefit from the hard-won lessons learned of their peers when it comes to likely areas of shared challenges such as staffing, program planning, working with parents and partners, scaling, evaluation measurement, and technology use. It’s a refreshing reinvention of the traditional grantee report, placing priority on collecting and sharing the kinds of information that will be helpful to other practitioners, rather than just the data that the funder might need.

Lessons Learned from Scholarship & Fellowship Funding

Donors looking to make a difference using scholarships and student aid to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion have two new excellent sources of knowledge available to them:

  • Delivering on the Promise: An Impact Evaluation of the Gates Millennium Scholars Program (Published by American Institutes for Research, Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, May 2019) This report shares findings from an impact evaluation of the Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS) program and reflects on findings from implementation evaluations conducted on the program since its inaugural year. The GMS program is an effort designed to improve higher education access and opportunity for high achieving low-income students of color by reducing the cost of entry. The program also seeks to develop a new and diverse generation of leaders to serve America by encouraging leadership participation, civic engagement, and the pursuit of graduate education and careers in seven fields in which minorities are underrepresented—computer science, engineering, mathematics, science, education, library science, and public health. It discusses the extent to which the program has made an impact, and offers concluding thoughts on how the Foundation can maximize its investment in the higher education arena. A central argument of this report is that philanthropic activities like the GMS program can indeed play a crucial role in improving academic outcomes for high-achieving, disadvantaged students.
  • Promoting Gender Equity: Lessons From Ford’s International Fellows Program (Published by IIE Center for Academic Mobility Research & Impact, Funded by Ford Foundation, January 2019) As part of its mission to provide higher education access to marginalized communities, the Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program (IFP) sought to address gender inequality by providing graduate fellowships to nearly 2,150 women—50% of the IFP fellow population—from 22 countries in the developing world. This brief explores how international fellowship programs like IFP can advance educational, social, and economic equity for women. In addition to discussing the approach, the program took in providing educational access and opportunity to women. The brief looks at two stories of alumnae who have not only benefitted from the fellowship themselves, but who are working to advance gender equity in their home communities and countries. Activists, advocates, and practitioners can draw upon the strategies and stories that follow to better understand the meaning of gender equity and advance their own efforts to achieve social justice for women and girls worldwide.

Sharing Knowledge about the Social Sector

Foundations invest in knowledge creation to better understand the ecosystem of the social sector, as well as to address critical knowledge gaps they see in the fields in which they work. Thanks to these titles being added to IssueLab, we can all learn from them too! Here’s a couple of recent titles added to IssueLab that shed new and needed light on the fields of philanthropy and nonprofits:

  • Philanthropy in China (Published by Asian Venture Philanthropy Network, Funded by The Rockefeller Foundation, April 2019) Philanthropy is now a global growth industry, but philanthropic transparency norms in other parts of the world are often lacking, so knowledge can be scarce. Philanthropy in China today is expanding and evolving rapidly, so filling in these knowledge gaps is even more pressing. This report presents an overview of the philanthropy ecosystem in China by reviewing existing knowledge and drawing insights from influential practitioners. It also provides an analysis of the key trends, opportunities as well as a set of recommendations for funders and resource providers who are inspired to catalyze a more vibrant and impactful philanthropy ecosystem in China.
  • Race to Lead: Women of Color in the Nonprofit Sector (Published by the Building Movement Project, Funded by New York Community Trust, Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, Community Resource Exchange, New York Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, Center for Nonprofit Excellence at the United Way of Central New Mexico, North Carolina Center for Nonprofits, Russ Finkelstein, February 2019) This report is part of the Race to Lead series by the Building Movement Project, seeking to understand why there are still relatively so few leaders of color in the nonprofit sector. Using data taken from a national survey of more than 4,000 people, and supplemented by numerous focus groups around the country, this latest report reveals that women of color encounter systemic obstacles to their advancement over and above the barriers faced by white women and men of color. Another key finding in the report is that education and training are not enough to correct systemic inequities—women of color with high levels of education are more likely to be in administrative roles and are more likely to report frustrations about inadequate and inequitable salaries. Building Movement Project’s call to action focuses on systems change, organizational change, and individual support for women of color in the sector.

Is this reminding you that you have new knowledge to share? Great—I can’t wait to see what you will #OpenForGood!

--Janet Camarena

An Interview with Jennifer Humke, Senior Program Officer, MacArthur Foundation…On How Bottom-Up, Citizen-Made Media Strengthens Democracy
September 19, 2018

Jennifer Humke is senior program officer for Journalism and Media at the John D. and Catherine T.  MacArthur Foundation. Jennifer focuses primarily on grantmaking in participatory civic media as part of the journalism and media team. In this role, she makes grants to enable more individuals and groups to use participatory media for social change.

Recently, Janet Camarena, director of transparency initiatives for Foundation Center, interviewed Humke about how supporting citizen-made media can improve our democracy. This post is part of the GlassPockets’ Democracy Funding series, designed to spotlight knowledge about ways in which philanthropy is working to strengthen American democracy.

Jennifer Humke 2GlassPockets: The MacArthur Foundation has long supported media. How has the way that the MacArthur Foundation thinks about the connection between journalism, media, and a healthy democracy changed over the years?

Jennifer Humke: MacArthur has invested in media for more than three decades. The first grants made in the 1980s focused on supporting independent and diverse perspectives on broadcast television and documentary film to ensure a multiplicity of voices and viewpoints were contributing to and represented in the media.

Of course, the world and the media have changed and evolved enormously since then, introducing new opportunities and new challenges. Our grantmaking also has evolved as a result, but we still hold strong to the fundamental belief that a high-functioning democracy is dependent upon a well-informed and engaged American public.

”Investments are designed to strengthen our democracy by supporting just and inclusive narratives that inform, engage, and activate Americans to build a more equitable future.“

Today, our Journalism and Media program makes grants totaling approximately $25 million each year to support nonfiction storytelling (primarily documentary film), investigative and accountability reporting (primarily through the support of national nonprofit newsrooms), and participatory citizen-made media (and I use the term citizen in the broadest sense to include everyone living in this country). Investments are designed to strengthen our democracy by supporting just and inclusive narratives that inform, engage, and activate Americans to build a more equitable future.

A priority of this grantmaking is to ensure all Americans, and especially those from historically marginalized groups, are able to have their voices heard and help us move toward a more inclusive and pluralistic American society.

GP: While on the topic of inclusion and pluralism, more foundations are developing initiatives around diversity, equity, and inclusion. How is the lens of racial equity informing your grantmaking strategies and practices?

JH: When Julia Stasch became President of the MacArthur Foundation, she charged all of us -- her staff -- to lead with a commitment to justice in all that we do. This included everything from elevating the voices of those who are not always heard in policy discussions to ensuring that our grantmaking considers and supports a broad diversity of organizations and helps to address historic and structural inequities. You can read an update by Julia Stasch about MacArthur’s “Justice Imperative” here.

The Journalism and Media program has an explicit focus on inclusion. Our grantmaking focuses on amplifying the voice and influence of often excluded and under-represented individuals, organizations, and communities, and on facilitating leadership opportunities for people of color.

Macarthur foundationGP: “Elevating the voices of those who are not always heard in policy discussions” makes me think of young people today. Since the students who survived the Parkland High School shooting have so effectively organized around gun control, there seems to be growing interest in youth movements and youth organizing. Yet, when I look at Foundation Center’s historic data about the populations served by most foundation democracy grants, youth-focused democracy grants have received less than 1% of funding. Is this changing at MacArthur? Do you think this is changing field-wide?

JH: MacArthur does not have a strategy to support youth movements and youth organizing. But our grantmaking in participatory civic media was deeply influenced by findings from a research initiative MacArthur supported to explore new strategies and approaches for preparing young people to be good citizens in a digital world. Called the Youth and Participatory Politics Research Network, it was a nearly decade-long effort, carried out by an interdisciplinary group of academics and practitioners, who worked together on a range of intersecting projects. One of the Network’s main insights was that young people are as engaged today -- if not more so than in any era in the past – in civic and political activity, but that it looks different today. Young people are not engaging through traditional civic and political institutions, but rather their engagement and participation is reflected through their media making online.

”Young people are not engaging through traditional civic and political institutions, but rather their engagement and participation is reflected through their media making online.“

The fact is that most young people, especially youth of color and from other marginalized groups, do not believe that many of our country’s institutions care about or are interested in meeting their needs. As a result, their organizing and engagement is taking place in spaces where they are better able to influence policy, culture and institutions, and that is oftentimes online and fueled and scaled using social media and other digital technologies.

The March for Our Lives is a prime example. The scale, reach and pace of that effort to organize youth in support of gun control happened largely outside the realm of adults, and it was made possible by new media tools, practices and platforms. It was the result of a highly distributed network of young people who together were able to shift public debate and, in some cases, sway multinational corporations to change their policies in support of the young people’s demands, through their media making and organizing online.

It is clear that Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have become the new public sphere, and our grantmaking is designed to enable inclusive and equitable participation in our democracy through these platforms and practices. We are supporting a number of youth-focused organizations -- such as Youth Speaks, Youth Radio and Voto Latino -- in part, because young people have been historically marginalized from public debate, but maybe more importantly, because they tend to be the leaders in using participatory media for social change. 

GP: It’s interesting to hear about some of the organizations in your portfolio. To help bring your work to life a bit more, can you describe some of the new grants you are making as part of your Participatory Civic Media grantmaking? And how does this complement the other longer-standing parts of the program?

JH: The participatory civic media strategy is the newest part of our Journalism and Media Program. It encompasses the media produced, remixed, and circulated by individuals and small groups to express their lived experiences, viewpoints, and concerns with the goal of influencing policy and culture. A significant hallmark of this type of media making is its low barrier to participation. Advancements in technology and communications have dramatically expanded the ability of non-experts to use media and storytelling for social change. Today, anyone with a smartphone can help to shine a light on long-ignored issues, such as police brutality or violence against immigrants. These are issues that have been marginalized from public debate for decades, if not longer, because they disproportionately affect communities that hold little political power, and as a result do not have access to traditional gatekeepers of news and information. New media platforms, tools, and practices are enabling bottom-up citizen participation in our democracy by knitting together the individual voices of those from marginalized communities that, together, have significant influence over public debate and agenda setting.

We are supporting organizations and activities that are doing work in various ways at the national level to create more opportunities for individuals and groups, especially those that have been historically marginalized from inclusion or representation in mainstream media, to contribute to public dialogue.  This ranges from improving the media making and media literacy skills and knowledge of youth in news deserts across the country (with grants to organizations such as Appalshop’s Appalachian Media Institute and Utah’s SpyHop,) to supporting storytelling initiatives that amplify the voices of under- and misrepresented communities (examples include, Pillars Fund, Define American and The Opportunity Agenda.) The goal of this grantmaking is to increase civic participation in our democracy, largely through the making, sharing, circulating, and critiquing of media online.

”Social media platforms have disrupted traditional news business models, diverting most ad revenue away from publishers and into the coffers of large technology platforms.“

Of course, we recognize the negative impacts these new platforms and practices are having on our democracy. Social media platforms have disrupted traditional news business models, diverting most ad revenue away from publishers and into the coffers of large technology platforms. At the same time, the participatory nature of these platforms has empowered extremists and hate groups to spread and, in some cases, mainstream misinformation and lies. These, of course, are messy problems with no simple answer. We have entered into this space with great humility, making a small number of exploratory grants – to organizations such as The Tow Center for Digital Journalism and Data & Society – to examine the dynamics of these problems with the goal of identifying interventions and seeding and building alliances and processes to address them.

GP: What you’re referencing reminds me that #FakeNews is a hashtag that has grown in prominence since the presidential election. Since working toward a more informed citizenry is at the heart of much of your Journalism and Media portfolio, how has the aftermath of the election and what we’ve learned about how misinformation played a role, affected your grantmaking moving forward?

JH: As a foundation, we spent a lot of time post-election reflecting on whether our grantmaking strategies were addressing the most pressing issues in our fields of operation. The spread of false and misleading information and the role it played in the election was of great concern to us in the Journalism and Media Program. As I mentioned earlier, we have made some new grants since the election to more deeply explore the role large technology platforms have played in spreading lies and amplifying hate, but we also believe that our continued investments in the range of efforts we have supported over the years to ensure all Americans are well-informed and highly engaged is the most important contribution we can make to strengthening our democracy in the current media environment. We will continue to support nonprofit newsrooms and independent documentary filmmakers to create and distribute rigorously researched and nuanced news and narratives and support individuals and citizen groups to use participatory media to engage civically. Together, we believe, these strategies work to hold power to account, uncover injustices, and result in more just and inclusive narratives that reflect the needs and aspirations of all Americans. 

--Janet Camarena

The Risky Business of Foundation Opacity
May 23, 2018

Janet Camarena is director of transparency initiatives for Foundation Center.

Janet Camarena PhotoIn case there was ever any doubt that foundation philanthropy suffers from an opacity problem, a recent Foundation Review article, Foundation Transparency: Opacity — It’s Complicated, by Robert J. Reid, helps settle the matter through research findings that confirm the existence of “significant opacity.” From the lack of foundation websites and annual reporting, to perpetual insider control, and a desire to keep a low public profile, the author’s research confirms what many of us have been saying for years--that there is much room for improved transparency in the field.

The problem is, one can read the entire article, and not get the message that opacity is a problem, and a risky one at that. In our networked world of social media, open data, and audience-generated reviews, sending a message that transparency or opacity are operational approaches of choice is dangerous and much higher risk than encouraging donors to discover and tell their own story, lest others tell it for them.

History also confirms that philanthropic freedom is most at risk from an opaque approach than from a transparent one. Foundations learned this lesson the hard way in the 1950’s during McCarthyism, when two separate congressional commissions were formed to investigate foundation activities. Since there was no central place containing information about institutional philanthropy, no aggregate industry data, no collective data about the grants they were making, foundation leaders spent years telling their stories one foundation at a time, giving testimony to defend their work against accusations that they were committing “Un-American” acts.

It became clear to the foundation leaders who were called to testify that it was this lack of public understanding of institutional philanthropy that led to the suspicions and accusations they were facing, and that as a result of opacity, they may lose the philanthropic freedom that the tax laws allowed. As a result of this crisis, foundation leaders established Foundation Center as an organization devoted to providing transparency for the field of philanthropy. During his testimony, Russell Leffingwell, at the time chair of the Carnegie Corporation, said: “The foundation should have glass pockets,” so that anyone could easily look inside foundations and understand their value to society, and inspire confidence rather than suspicion. This is both the origin story for Foundation Center and for our Glasspockets website and initiative to champion greater foundation transparency.

“...existing and emerging technologies and networks are making foundation opacity obsolete...”

The lessons in this history couldn’t be more relevant to today’s operating environment where existing and emerging technologies and networks are making foundation opacity obsolete, and more importantly, creating conditions that actually serve to strengthen philanthropy such as facilitating feedback loops, peer benchmarking, and stakeholder input. Though foundations can continue to practice what Reid refers to as “opaque practices” or “situational transparency,” it’s important that foundations also understand that they do so at their own peril, because due to new user-review tools and open data platforms that didn’t exist previously, the relative level of transparency and opacity are rapidly slipping out of their control. Let’s review a few of these new tools that are poised to shake up the quiet, insular world of foundations.

Open 990-PF

990-PF graphicBeginning in 2016, the IRS started releasing e-filed Forms 990 and 990-PF as machine-readable, open data. Because the data is now not only open, but digital and machine-readable this means that anyone from journalists to researchers to activists can aggregate this data and make comparisons, correlations, and judgments about philanthropy at lightning speed, all without input from foundations and regardless of how opaque they may prefer their activities to be. Investment practices, demographics of beneficiaries, and compensation practices are examples of 990 data that can get easily turned into compelling narratives about foundations. This has institution-wide implications for foundations, from governance practices to grants data and from staffing to investment management and communications strategy.  Foundation administrators who have not been looking at their foundation’s 990-PF with an eye to the story that it tells about their work, probably should. Because of how the open 990-PF has the potential to transform foundation transparency, Glasspockets has devoted an ongoing blog series to providing guidance and helpful examples to prepare foundations for this new age of open data.

GrantAdvisor

Phil goalsIndustries as diverse as restaurants, travel, retail, health, and even nonprofits have had the blessing and curse of receiving unfiltered user feedback via online review sites for many years now, so it’s hard to believe that until 2017 this was not the case for philanthropy. With the launch of GrantAdvisor.org last year, now foundations can view, for better or worse, what their stakeholders really think—and so can anyone else. (For transparency’s sake, I currently serve in an advisory role to this platform.) Anyone can register to give feedback, and once a foundation receives more than five reviews their profile goes live on the site for the world to see, whether the foundation wants it there or not, so opacity here is not an option the funder controls. Given the power dynamic, reviews are anonymous, and foundations are able to post responses. A profile with emoji-symbols invites users to rate foundations on two principal metrics: the length of time it takes to complete a foundation’s application process, and a smiley/frowning face rating what it’s like to work with the particular funder.

So far, enough reviews have been submitted to provide 69 foundations with unfiltered feedback, and participation is steadily growing. And, more than 130 foundations have registered to receive alerts when feedback is posted, has yours? And some, which Reid may refer to as “transparency enthusiasts,” are even inviting their grantees to leave them a review on GrantAdvisor. These foundations understand that this kind of transparency about how applicants can provide feedback, and the open, unfiltered way in which it’s collected, can actually serve to strengthen and improve foundation policies and practices.

These are just a couple of emerging platforms that exist that are specific to philanthropy itself. When you zoom out to think about the entire universe of user generated content that is now easily available to all, from blogs to Twitter and employee-review sites like Glassdoor, it’s clear that while you can choose opacity, opacity may not choose you, because opacity as we all know it is over. To think otherwise is to risk adopting practices that don’t actually mitigate risk, but rather promote a false sense of security while only serving to limit effectiveness. So don’t make the mistake of thinking transparency is too complicated, or that opacity is the convenient and safer choice, because it’s actually not a choice at all, but a risky and ultimately obsolete way of working.

--Janet Camarena

Give for Good: Telling Your Corporate Philanthropy Story
October 11, 2017

Debbie Johnson is author of  Give for Good: A How-to-Guide for Business Giving.

2x3Debbie IMG 008I have been devoted to philanthropy for a long time because I love it. But when I think about what I enjoy the most, it’s learning about the lives that are changed and the impact of the work. As a result, I’m a big fan of telling your philanthropy story, loud and clear. While humility may lead you to keep your philanthropy anonymous because you don’t want to “toot your own horn” or perhaps to avoid being flooded with requests, being transparent with well-told stories about the positive results of giving back can be very inspirational for other businesses, engaging for employees, and also help your favorite causes to build momentum.

So it’s important to tell your story both internally within the company and externally to the public.

Salesforce Group photo

Internal Communication

Cone LLC, a noted strategy and communications firm, found that 87 percent of Americans’ job loyalty would increase if their company supported activities that would improve society. Internally telling your story allows employees to see themselves and their co-workers doing good in the world by giving back, generating pride in the knowledge that their company helps improve the community.

There are many ways to share your good work with your staff: company newsletters, meetings, blogs, on your website, in social media, at new hire orientations, and visually around the office.

Salesforce, the San Francisco-based cloud computing company, is a great example of a corporation that gives back and makes it a big deal. Salesforce was ranked #1 in the 2017 Fortune 50 Best Workplaces for Giving Back. Its hub offices have large framed photos of employees volunteering all around the world.  These pictures are obtained from “Aloha Ambassadors,” employees who are passionate about their culture. These ambassadors plan volunteer events and then get points for taking pictures and posting them in Chatter, Salesforce’s internal collaboration tool. The points can be used for prizes such as Salesforce t-shirts and hoodies. What a great way to visually show the company’s culture of giving back!

Facebook Screen Shot No CropExternal Communication

Communicating externally is critical so that others know about a company’s generosity and culture of corporate citizenship. According to a Cone LLC survey, 80 percent of US adults favor brands that are socially responsible over others of similar price and quality that aren’t associated with charitable causes, and further, nearly 20 percent would switch to a more expensive brand to support a good cause. However, if you don’t get the word out about your good work, consumers won’t know to choose your brand.

There are also many methods for communicating your good deeds externally, including your website, in social media, in customer or public newsletters, at shareholder meetings, in external blogs, in company brochures, via public relations and industry publications. The Glasspockets’ transparency self-assessment tool provides a helpful roadmap with many ideas for how corporate philanthropy can open up its work. Human interest stories and photos are highly engaging, so use storytelling for maximum effect.

Rackspace, the San Antonio-based managed cloud provider, has a very active employee volunteer group and shares information about its activities and volunteering through a dedicated communications portal, Rack Gives Back.  Rack Gives Back also has a knack for communicating with followers.

Newsletter ScreenshotSalesforce, too, shares its 1:1:1 social responsibility plan externally through its website. The Salesforce 1:1:1 model is about integrating corporate philanthropy by encouraging businesses to pledge to give 1% of its product, time, and resources to philanthropy from an early stage. This example is unique, because it’s clear that Salesforce is not just aiming to highlight stories about its giving, but also trying to grow a movement by motivating corporate peers to prioritize giving.

And you don’t need to be a Fortune 500 company to share these stories. Another good example of sharing giving news comes from Austin-based sign maker, BuildASign, which supported relief efforts for Hurricane Harvey victims then told their customers and followers about it in a colorful newsletter.

Last but not least, another great way to share your philanthropy story is through an annual giving report posted to your website. Many companies are now realizing the importance of including corporate giving close-ups in these reports. Here are a few examples:

  1. HP sets up access to its report by stating the importance of transparency
  2. Procter and Gamble uses its report to share its community impact
  3. Unilever provides ongoing progress on its sustainable living hub

These are only a few examples of how companies are increasingly using internal and external platforms to share the good that they are doing in the world.

How are you telling your story?

--Debbie Johnson

Give For Good Book CoverGive for Good: A How-to-Guide for Business Giving

Learn more about Debbie Johnson and Sam Woolard's book Give for Good: A How-to-Guide for Business Giving.  In the book, Johnson brings her business expertise and extensive nonprofit volunteering to bear, helping clients be strategic in their philanthropy.  

True Board Engagement: How openness and access to board conversations has changed Creating the Future
April 23, 2015

(Karl Wilding is the director of public policy at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), the umbrella body for charities and the volunteer movement in England. Justin Pollock the principal and founder of Orgforward, a community-focused consultancy working with organizations and their leadership to build the capacity to sustain thriving communities. Both Karl and Justin are Creating the Future board members.)

””

Karl Wilding

””

Justin Pollock

It’s a widely held maxim that sunlight, read as transparency and openness for the purpose of this post, is the best disinfectant. While true, we feel this view has an unfortunate undertone of emphasising the negative: greater transparency is needed in order to prevent and/or catch wrongdoing. It focuses attention on what we hope to avoid rather than what we hope is possible.

At Creating the Future, rather than thinking of sunlight as that thing that disinfects, we embrace the photosynthetic view that letting the light in allows for growth and transformation. We recognize our role in supporting thriving communities and believe that the community should have a role in creating our success at all levels of the organization. Though Creating the Future is not a grantmaking foundation, we believe that all organizations, including foundations, gain by opening up to and actively engaging the communities we are passionate about and that we profess we serve.

In a conversation about boards and governance recently, someone remarked to one of us that “transparency can be transformational,” and it’s this sort of thinking that powers Creating the Future’s approach to leadership, trusteeship, and governance. Beyond just being transparent – allowing people to see us, we are open – people can actually interact with us and influence our growth in real time.  This approach to governance is open, not just in the sense of visibility, but open to challenge, praise, and, since board members live stream from various places around the world, the occasional ribbing for the state of our living rooms and barking dogs (how much more “real life” can it get than that?).

We use Twitter, monitoring our hashtag during the meeting, to encourage people to share their curiosity and brilliance so we can respond in real time to the ideas that break us out of the group-think commonly found when people of like passions gather.

All well and good in theory. But what does this really look like in practice and what does it make possible for us as trustees and anyone else interested in the work of the organization we serve?

In practice, our board meetings are entirely open, end to end. We leverage Creating the Future’s presence online. Prior to every monthly board meeting, our board chair posts a blog providing the context and agenda for our upcoming meeting, our operational leaders post video progress reports, and you can find a link to our upcoming meeting which are all live-broadcast using Google Hangouts.

We use Twitter, monitoring our hashtag during the meeting, to encourage people to share their curiosity and brilliance so we can respond in real time to the ideas that break us out of the group-think commonly found when people of like passions gather. But it doesn’t stop there: most board meetings, we invite a guest to take part in the broadcast in the anticipation that they might just lead us to change the questions that we’re asking ourselves. And if you missed something and want to know what happened next, or would like to check back on something we did, we’re in plain sight - all the meetings are archived and available on the website.

And  anyone can see this. In fact, the world gets to see it at the same time as we can, and it’s the internet, so they can share their opinions and thoughts freely. Now, we understand that this might be heresy to a foundation, in which board meetings often include sensitive topics such as grantee deliberations, however, board meetings also include strategy, planning, and policy discussions, which are exactly the conversations that thrive at Creating the Future through this open model. Thankfully the web makes it easy to segment out each part.

You might be wondering what is the value of this approach and how does it ultimately help us?What does all this effort make possible?

For us as board members, the most powerful thing about openness is that it fosters conversations where there is nothing to hide and therefore nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed by (we are sure that there is some social science that helps explain this – but we just feel it in our bones).

At the top of our list: better conversations that lead to better decisions. We think this might be one of the most compelling reasons for foundations to consider, since foundations are in the business of decision-making and idea generation. What does that look like? We actually dialog with one another, asking better informed questions, hearing different perspectives and reflections, getting positive affirmation, and gaining more confidence in the decisions we make. The last bit is important: we’re all human, taking on leadership as a trustee isn’t always easy, so it’s nice to get a bit of praise for a decision we’ve made.

For us as board members, the most powerful thing about openness is that it fosters conversations where there is nothing to hide and therefore nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed by (we are sure that there is some social science that helps explain this – but we just feel it in our bones). Any decision we make has been vetted and thought through. The assumptions that can often go unidentified when making decisions are all brought into the open so that we, in our leadership roles, deeply understand the implications and rationale behind the actions and decisions we make. Personally, we love this aspect as it encourages our own growth and strengthens our resolve around the beliefs and values we hold.

Next is the thing we often hear is missing - better engagement. We’re all in one way or another seeking to better engage board members, beneficiaries, and stakeholders. For us, this is at the foundation of our work. We know we are “better together” when we can draw on the abundant wisdom that is out there. So involving stakeholders and other interested people in the leadership and governance of Creating the Future is pretty much saying to them that they are as important as us – it’s not about the people in the room, but rather about the ideas, plans, and actions that result from the gathering.

CreatingtheFutureLogoB&W492x104Finally, we find openness raises trust – among each other as trustees, with the community that supports us, and with the staff that work tirelessly to facilitate the execution of our strategy. Everyone has an opportunity to shape decisions and everyone can see we’re just ordinary people, not some nonprofit rock stars or even mysterious alchemists who work in dark smoky rooms. And we reckon ultimately that engagement and trust build capacity: people want to join us on the journey because they realize they can be part of it in meaningful ways.

The skeptics at this point are probably wondering: what could go wrong? What about sensitive issues, confidentiality, or errant voices? This is straightforward: there’s always going to be stuff we want to think or talk about without the world watching, and for that we allow for closed sessions. And we  do this transparently as well, acknowledging the rationale each time it is needed. We think people appreciate us for being honest and up front about that. And for those  who may fear negative comments or hijacked conversations, all we can say is that it just doesn’t happen. Rather than taking us in a direction we don’t want to go, external voices elucidate new paths that we excitedly travel down and may not have seen because of the inherent nature of “group think.”

We honestly have not experienced anything scary: openness has become mundane, with many of us shedding the nervousness that comes from thinking about the fact that the world could be watching. This is a good thing, unless you are offended by seeing an untidy living room or a person eating their lunch.

Things have occasionally gone wrong: the technology is the obvious candidate, with broadband connections dropping out. But this is part of the warp and weave of normal life, and we’ve found people stick with us. In fact, the biggest risk is that no one cares, no one’s watching. And if that’s the case you may well have some bigger issues to contend with, but that’s a topic for another blog post.

Our aim is to tip the scales from the common practice of making openness rare and exclusivity common (think of most every board meeting you’ve been to), to making exclusivity that rare bird that is hard to find. In fact, we honestly have not experienced anything scary: openness has become mundane, with many of us shedding the nervousness that comes from thinking about the fact that the world could be watching. This is a good thing, unless you are offended by seeing an untidy living room or a person eating their lunch.

Openness is our “not-so-secret sauce.” Maybe it’s just the people around the virtual table, maybe it’s keeping the meetings open to guests, or just the sense that we’re visible, but the meetings are highly enjoyable and stimulating; plus, we get business done. We think opening up gives boards more vitality, richer conversations, and better engagement.  And we reckon fear of failure, of “getting found out,” is the biggest barrier to opening up. So foundations: be brave, join us for one of our board meetings to see how we roll, then hopefully try this format for yourself. You have nothing to lose but your broadband connection. 

--Karl Wilding and Justin Pollock 

Getting Down to Social Media Brass Tacks
March 18, 2015

(Sally Crowley is the communications director for The John R. Oishei Foundation.)

Sally Crowley In my two previous posts, I wrote about the importance of using social media as part of an integrated communications plan and how to build a solid strategy.

This week, it’s time to talk tactics. One of the things I love about social media is that there’s always something new to try. Here are a few relatively current tricks of the trade.

Post or send at peak viewing times, based on the outlet. 

Twitter usage is highest on weekends and on weekdays between 12 -3 pm. Facebook is stronger on weekdays, mainly from 6-8 am and 2-5 pm.

Email blasts are said to be best sent at 9:30am or 2:30pm on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. We found our open rates were highest at 9:30am on Wednesday. Test what works best for you and stick with it.

During weekdays, post or send about 5-10 minutes before or after the hour, when people are just back or just heading off to a meeting.

Sally Crowley's Blog Post ArtAdd a photo or video to every post.

You can actually double the reach of your posts by including a picture or video.  If you need visuals, try Freepik or make a visual of your own, like I did here using Canva. In fact, the list of sites providing no or low-cost graphics and photos is as long as Rip Van Winkle’s beard. BufferSocial lists 53 viable options on its blog. Don’t be shy. I used to think you could only tweet one picture at a time, but you can add up to four pictures per tweet. And, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So, cut your text and say more with less.

You can actually double the reach of your posts by including a picture or video... And, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So, cut your text and say more with less.

“It’s not about you.”

Keep people’s interest by mixing up your content. Don’t just talk about your own activities. Sprinkle in links to articles about what’s new in philanthropy, what’s new in your community and how to find out more about the hottest fundraiser of the year. Share others’ posts that relate to your work and your funding. The result: more engagement and wider reach for your organization!

Don’t get in over your head.

If you’re like us here at The John R. Oishei Foundation, you have limited communications staff. It’s tough to join every new social media outlet that pops up. Focus on the best matches for your organization and your staff’s capacity. It’s better to choose a few outlets and maintain them well than to stretch yourself too thin across 20 sites.

Remember to Be Human.

Some of our most highly-read posts are about our staff members or about people that we have helped in some way with our funding or our philanthropic support. we all want to relate to others in a personal way. After all, even though we work in the “business” of philanthropy, isn’t it all really meant to help people live better lives?

What have you tried that’s worked well in the social media scene? 

--Sally Crowley

Building Your Social Skills
February 18, 2015

(Sally Crowley is the communications director for The John R. Oishei Foundation.)

Sally Crowley Last month, I wrote about some of the benefits of using social media as part of an integrated communications plan for foundations.

This month, I’d like to share a few of the lessons we learned, as well as our process for outlining and implementing different social media strategies, at The John R. Oishei Foundation.

Once I had buy-in from my teammates to dip our toes into “social waters,” we started by taking a look at what other foundations were doing.  We used the defined peer group that we are benchmarked against in the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s Grantee Perception Report. We found that some of our peers were very active in social outlets and others had very minimal presence. Promotion of foundation, grantee and partner events was a very common practice as was the sharing of news/media releases.

Being relative social “newbies,” we kept our objectives simple: increase awareness of the foundation’s goals and activities and support and promote our grantees and partners.

We then defined objectives that supported our foundation’s mission which is to be a catalyst for change to enhance the economic vitality and quality of life for the Buffalo Niagara region through grantmaking, leadership and network building. Being relative social “newbies,” we kept our objectives simple: increase awareness of the foundation’s goals and activities and support and promote our grantees and partners. Next, we fleshed out our strategy. A well-defined strategy is key to earning strong audience engagement.  We used the old-fashioned communications framework-- the 5 W’s: who, where, what, when and why. We identified:

Timing (when): We created a rough target schedule that defines how often we post content. We shoot for at least two postings per week, every week. This is minimal by most standards, but we wanted a goal we knew we could meet given our small staff. It also helps us keep content “post worthy.”

Types of content (what): We found it critical to keep our content manageable and somewhat easy to obtain and share. We work with countless grantees, partners and leaders who host a plethora of events, seminars, luncheons…you name it. So we decided that posts in support of events and community happenings would be at the top of our content list. News about Oishei, other foundations and philanthropy in general were next on our potential content list. Photo albums and links to videos from our grantees and of our own staff and board out in the community fill out most our ongoing needs. When this type of content gets scarce, we proactively look for infographics about philanthropy and positive local happenings such as art openings and seasonal celebrations.

Who within our organization will provide/develop/post content: In order to maintain our brand identity and consistent “voice” we agreed that posting would be limited to me, the communications director, and our knowledge management officer. We are a relatively small, close-knit group, with just nine full-time staffers, so we work very closely together on many major foundation initiatives. Program officers often supply us with input about grantees, news, etc. that we morph into posts.

We found it critical to keep our content manageable and somewhat easy to obtain and share.

Where: We again stuck with basics for now: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. In order to maximize our reach and frequency, we’ve linked our Facebook page so that all of our posts are automatically “tweeted.”  We are considering hiring a social media company to take us to the next level, but hesitate to use our funds for that purpose. Our team is inherently frugal -- we’d rather use the funds for grants, mission-related investing, convening and other efforts that improve our community at this point.

“Why” circles back to the objectives we started with!

Lastly, we review the amazing analytics available from social media outlets to track our progress and tweak our strategies as we go along. We’ve seen that the most viewed posts for us are media releases, published articles and photo albums of on-site grantee tours.

What strategies have worked for you? Are you considering hiring a social media company to handle this type of communications for your organization?

--Sally Crowley

Losing the Social Anxiety
January 26, 2015

(Sally Crowley is the communications director for The John R. Oishei Foundation.)

Sally Crowley When I first suggested to our organization that we enter the social media scene a few years ago, my colleagues and I shared anxiety about it.

Would it be worth our time to tweet? Will we open ourselves up to criticism or attack? How could we use the social outlets effectively?

I reminded myself and my team of two of our strategic goals: "to better communicate our work and role to the community" and "to serve as a leader, convener and network builder."

I did not want us to be thinking at the "tactical level," which can be easy to do when it comes to communications. After serving on nonprofit boards and spending many years as a communications consultant, I was used to pulling folks out of the "tactical basement." My peers and I have a name for the often-requested tactic-without-objective. We call it a "COULDN'TCHA JUST."

"COULDN'TCHA JUST write a press release? COULDN'TCHA JUST do a flyer? Or a billboard?"

Social media allows us to inexpensively promote not just our own events, activities, and programs, but also those of our grantees and community partners.

The answer is NO. Wildly created tactical communications can actually be effective, but it is RARE and based upon, pretty much, pure luck.

I am a firm believer that effective marketing communications stem from clearly defined goals and a well-thought-out communications plan. One of the first steps in developing a yearly communications plan is writing a situation analysis that includes an environmental scan, or a review of the "market," in which one looks for best practices, benchmarks, and the newest trends.

In our scan, we found that social media has many benefits for foundations. The reach is amazing, and the promotional costs are minimal when compared to traditional paid media. The numbers we found were astounding...

  • 72% of all internet users are active on social media
  • 18-29 year olds average 89% usage with 30-49 year olds at 72%
  • 60% of 50-60 year olds and 43% of age 65+ plus are active
  • Facebook has over 1.15 billion users, with 23% logging in at least 5 times per day
  • Twitter has over 550 million registered users, 215 million of which are active
  • Pinterest has 20 million active monthly users
  • Instagram counts 150 million active monthly users
  • LinkedIn, YouTube, Tumblr, Vine, Slideshare and others also continue to grow in popularity

In addition, most social media is easy to track, so we can see what topics our audiences are most interested in, and what types of content and media are most effective.

Social media allows us to inexpensively promote not just our own events, activities, and programs, but also those of our grantees and community partners.

We're reaching out to our audiences rather than simply building a website where we hope "they will come."

Plus, we've created a two-way dialogue, one where anyone interested in our work and/or our community can comment and share a photo, video, or link. We're reaching out to our audiences rather than simply building a website where we hope "they will come." We're using social media to drive folks to our website, maximizing our substantial investment in a content-management-driven, open source, cutting-edge website.

However, the use of social media, and any communications tactic, is most effective when used as part of a strategic, integrated, thoughtful communications plan.

If you haven't taken the "social" plunge, and it's a tactic that comes out of your long-term plan in support of your mission, then it's time to take the leap!

-- Sally Crowley

Through The Looking Glass: The Tactics and Importance of Transparency
July 2, 2014

(Epaminondas Farmakis is the President and CEO of elpis Philanthropy Advisors and serves as Program Director of the EEA Grants NGO Programme for Greece. A version of this post originally appeared in The Huffington Post.)

HeadShot2Many in the developed world take for granted that NGOs and non-profit foundations follow the highest standards of transparency when they dispense funding. Access to data is a pre-requisite for all organizations that apply for, and receive, either public or private funding. Grantees must share their funding sources and publicize their activities and results through their websites, newsletters and social media profiles. Indeed, this reporting and sharing of results compose a large part of how those organizations solicit and secure additional funds for future work.

When considering grant requests, foundation program officers look for certain information, and the applicant’s web presence is essential to that search. Program officers must assess how active the organization is and whether donors have access to results and metrics. The level of local community engagement can also play a role depending on the nature of the applicant’s work.

Funding applicants expect scrutiny and understand the need and power of telling their stories in ways that both ensure transparency and support development goals. But what about funders? Shouldn’t they hold the same high standards of openness that they request from prospective grantees?

It’s a bit of a double-edged sword—how much should funders reveal, and is it possible to reveal too much? However, it’s only fair to ask foundations to address the same issues that grantees have to navigate. Applicants that resist transparency risk losing funding or clients. Historically in traditional philanthropy, closed off funders had nothing to lose. But the current environment of open source platforms, social media and easily accessible data and analytics urges a new model of public collaboration. Resources such as GrantCraft, an online tool provided by The Foundation Center, offer many examples of how foundations and donors may adopt full transparency in their work.

Publicizing clear guidelines and selection processes translates to better grant requests, and sharing of internal data and reports with other funders results in a more efficient philanthropic practice. Foundations and donors need to make a choice: Will they continue to do their business behind closed doors or share their practices with the community?

And the benefits are plentiful, too. Publicizing clear guidelines and selection processes translates to better grant requests, and sharing of internal data and reports with other funders results in a more efficient philanthropic practice. Foundations and donors need to make a choice: Will they continue to do their business behind closed doors or share their practices with the community?

While transparency is the goal, there are also myriad associated benefits along the path to achieving it. Here are a few:

Building Trust

Foundations and non-profits exist in a symbiotic relationship imbued with an inherent level of trust. If one party wants to improve its work, it needs to ask for feedback from its partners as well as the community it serves. Foundations and non-profits alike seek the public’s support in their charitable endeavors. The alignment of goals and organizational objectives is a critical factor in building trust through transparency. With a full understanding of a foundation’s mission and purpose, grantees can articulate and refine their own program objectives in order to fulfill that mission. This also prevents “mission creep,” in which the grantee initiates projects just because funding is available. The philanthropic community benefits overall from this trust. Parties on both sides have a clear understanding of the issues addressed and neglected in the community.

Creating Effectiveness

Smaller foundations and family trusts often keep their priorities a secret. They avoid revealing information such as strategic goals, issues and geographic areas of interest in order to maintain flexibility in the projects they fund. However, that mystery also discourages applicants. A foundation website with clear guidelines and descriptions of the selection process should be the absolute minimum standard for transparency. Regular communications through workshops or online tutorials—with advice on what donors look for in an application—will help create a better understanding from applicants on how to navigate the often complex funding request process. Tips on what constitutes a “red flag” are also helpful in ensuring that applicants don’t waste their efforts on non-priority issues or requests. A transparent explanation of a foundation’s process and strategic goals can help both sides work toward more effective and meaningful projects and programs together.

Ensuring Collaboration

Last but certainly not least, sharing information, data, reports, practices and failures leads to better grant-making. The era when every foundation was working in isolation is long gone. In today’s interconnected world, if your goal is making an impact, then the only way forward is through collaboration. Representatives from the philanthropic community need to meet regularly, exchange views and data and create networks with other stakeholders. In a perfect world of transparent grant-making, donors would commit to give only to those organizations that are forthright with their funding sources, projects and results. Minimum standards of transparency should appear on donors’ websites and throughout the donation process. The drafting of the International NGO Accountability Charter was a great first step in setting global standards for NGO accountability. Donors around the world should embrace such initiatives and commit themselves publicly to fund organizations that comply with such standards. In addition, foundations must commit to ongoing collaboration. As the sector evolves and matures, so must our ability to work toward common best practices for all.

-- Epaminondas Farmakis

Transparency in Family Foundations: The Strength of Glasspockets
June 9, 2014

(Jean Whitney is former executive director of the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation and a current board member of Associated Grant Makers.  She has decades of experience in working with family foundations. A version of this post appeared earlier on Family Giving News.)

Jean-whitney-150x150Family foundations, by their very nature, are complex. With significant involvement of family members on the board and sometimes in operations as well, there can be layers of generations, widely divergent views, and the need to preserve positive family relationships.  This complexity is a challenge but not an excuse for avoiding transparency or openness about how family foundations do their work.

At the recent National Forum on Family Philanthropy in Cambridge, MA sponsored by the National Center for Family Philanthropy, a session on Transparency in the Family Philanthropy Context did much to illuminate the continuum of viewpoints on the issue as well as to provide valuable resources to improve practice.

With advances in technology and social media, the question today is not whether or not to be transparent, but how to be transparent – and how far to take your efforts to be fully transparent.

Why worry about transparency?  On one end of the spectrum of views is the argument that many families prefer to do their philanthropic work quietly, with some degree of privacy for their choice of interest and funding decisions.  Humility is, after all, part of the tradition of American philanthropy and too much transparency can bring interest from parties ranging from friends and business colleagues to government regulators.  On the other end of the spectrum is the belief that all foundations have an obligation to be accountable to the public and that being accountable requires some degree of openness.  The conversation about foundation accountability also includes the question of foundation impact.  Can a foundation establish trust, create partnerships, and achieve the outcomes it desires without being transparent? With advances in technology and social media, the question today is not whether or not to be transparent, but how to be transparent – and how far to take your efforts to be fully transparent. “The data is out there…,” they say, and the most effective families invest in managing how information about their giving and practice is shared.

Best practices for foundations aiming for greater transparency include basics like having a web site, posting guidelines and listing grants. As someone who has worked in the field of family philanthropy for many years, I think my colleagues in the field will find the Foundation Center and its Glasspockets web site to be a great resource.  Glasspockets resources include a helpfullist of 23 indicators of transparency and accountability for foundations and also a wealth of practical resources to assist any foundation in becoming more transparent.  The site even includes a “Foundation Web Builder” service to help foundations get started if they lack a web presence.  The name of the web site comes from a quote by Russell Leffingwell, a banker and Carnegie Foundation board member, testifying in 1952 before a Congressional Committee investigating foundations for the support of un-American activities.  He said, “So far as there is a justification -- and I am sure there is -- for the existence of these institutions, it is that they serve the public good. If they are not willing to tell what they do to serve the public good, then as far as I am concerned they ought to be closed down.” And one of his most quoted statements is that "We think that the foundation should have glass pockets."  

A key distinction discussed by the session participants was  between transparency about the “product” of a foundation’s work (e.g., grants, results against strategies, etc) and the “process” it uses (meeting deliberations, criteria for funding, internal planning documents, board selection and terms). Many family foundations would agree that sharing much of the process publicly can be difficult.  And that it’s unnecessary.  While younger family members who are used to sharing everything in their lives on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram may disagree, more experienced family members say that intentional dialogues and training can help tap the best of both perspectives and encourage a practice that lies somewhere in between.

Whether or not a foundation makes an effort to share information publicly about its work, there is already plenty of information out there. The 990s have been accessible to the public for some time, but the next few years will bring the advent of mandatory online tax filing.  In addition, new web sites have sprung up that invite public ratings of foundations and invite feedback from stakeholders to assess foundations

Brad Smith, president of the Foundation Center, advises that the best way for the field of philanthropy to be responsible and to protect itself is to be proactive and to frame its work. For a family foundation, this starts with developing a web site where it can tell its story, talk about its interests and share its aspirations.  The unique stories of families are often both compelling and inspirational. Why leave information about the family’s history, passions and work for others to interpret when you can communicate this most clearly yourselves?  This takes some work, but so many resources exist and a lot can be accomplished in short order.

Many foundations may find that the path to being more open leads to thoughtful discussions on present efforts and future directions.  This can only translate into becoming more effective and spur greater collaboration.  Who knew that having glass pockets could add such strength?

-- Jean Whitney

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