The Changing Landscape of
Donor Relations:
Knowledge, Networks, New Thinking Barbara Grantham
Vice President, Community Leadership
Vancouver Foundation – May 24, 2007
…the choice of how to give and who to give to. Giving money, time or expertise – and doing it well - has never been easy. The choices today are more numerous, more varied, and often more daunting than ever.
Philanthropy is all about CHOICES
The new ecology of social benefit
- Philanthropy changes when there is the right combination of outside forces and inside will, environmental pressure for change and individual interest in adaptation. The early days of the 21st century is just such a moment.
- If we understand how philanthropy is evolving and could evolve in the next generation we will make better decisions today to support in future the issues, institutions and communities we care about.
Charitable Giving vs. Philanthropy
Charitable Giving
• Immediate one-time relief to problem.
• Personal and emotionally driven.
• No ongoing relationship. • No opportunity to
influence disbursement of funds.
Philanthropy
• Lengthy process focused on root causes of problems.
• Setting long term strategic goals.
• Rational strategic decision making.
• Ongoing monitoring &
assessment.
EXAMPLES: Homelessness in DTES, HAART’s in Africa
Changing Social Values
1950’s
• Deference to authority• Deferred gratification• Organized religion• “Peace, order and good
government”
2000’s
• Autonomy• Gratification• Spiritual quest• “Life, liberty and
happiness”
Changing Attitudes
towards Philanthropy
1950’s
• Motivated by guilt.
• Noblesse oblige.
• Religious sense ofduty.
• Conspicuous.
2000’s
• Personal choice/ control. May be faith-related.
• Desire to make difference.• Need to achieve measurable
results.• Quest for intensity, experience
and escape.• Desire for fun and spontaneous
gratification.• Less ostentation, but some
recognition expected.
Other Societal Influences
Social problems becoming larger and more complex:– Affordable housing: Densification and land use– Single Parents: Child Care and Education– Mental Illness: Supportive Housing and Employment
• Government funding of charities shrinking/shifting since 1980’s .
• Donors overwhelmed by number of requests and frustrated by inability to ensure their gifts will make a difference.
• No longer content to contribute to good causes. Want to get to root causes of problems and even to effect change in public policy.
Privatization
• The architecture of public and private worlds has shifted.
• There has been, and continues to be a shift of power out of public sphere, away from gov’ts/public institutions into private sphere, to business, non profits and individuals.
• NPO’s can work with government across boundaries; individuals can play a bigger role in in public works….the stage has changed
Multiplication/Diversificationof Philanthropists
• Not only that rich getting richer; there are more of them
• More donors, donor advised funds, foundations, giving circles, businesses vying to assist wealthy, non profits competing for donors
• Different types of donors- younger, different cultural values, global millionaires/billionaires
Acceleration
• Accelerating rates at which:
- information is communicated
- information is incorporated into other processes
- number of people who can use that info to create new ideas, make new discoveries and synthesize new inventions
• New pressure on public and private institutions to respond more swiftly to shifting external circumstances
Connection in the Global Village• Instant access to others around the world through the
internet, telephone networks, cellular phones and text messaging services.
• Advances in communication and transportation allow disease, environmental threat and political instability to spread more quickly; consequently, social, medical, economic and political problems can span borders.
Philanthropy Todaya) More focused and strategic
• Pursuing one or a few issues of particular interest.• Proactive - i.e., seeking out the organizations they want to
support or even creating organizations if needed.• Making fewer but larger grants.
Consequences:
• Less support for traditionally supported local organizations.• Focus on issues, rather than organizations, e.g., environment,
human rights, civil society.• Potential to influence public and decision-makers to change
policies.
Philanthropy Today, cont’d.
b) Bringing knowledge, as well as money, to the table
• Some philanthropists draw on their business experience to apply to social issues.
• Philanthropists acquire considerable knowledge about the issues they support.
• Funders tend to acquire a broad view of the sector which is a good complement to the charity’s more focused expertise.
Philanthropy Today - cont’d.
c) New kinds of partnerships
• Foundations partner with other foundations, individuals and even governments for more effective results.
• Formal and informal networks are developing.
Philanthropy Today - cont’d.
d) Concern for effectiveness and accountability
• Demanding accountability.
• Shared responsibility.
• Auditing own programs for effectiveness.
• Growing amount of media scrutiny of philanthropy and philanthropists.
• Stewardship of funds.
• Aligning financial investments with granting policy.
Philanthropy Today - cont’d.
e) “Venture Philanthropy”
Entrepreneurs are applying successful business approaches to philanthropy, thereby treating their philanthropy as “venture capital applied to social issues.”
Philanthropy Today - cont’d.
f) Increasing Professionalism
• Need for expertise
As philanthropy has become more complex and strategic, the need for expert knowledge and experience has become paramount.– need staff with experience in grantmaking and/or expertise
in the granting area
– directors need to become familiar with issues and recognize opportunities for targeted funding
– need for professional development opportunities for staff and directors (publications, courses and seminars)
– newcomers to philanthropy may need help to develop a granting focus and program
Our Mission
DonorServices
DonorServices
Fund Management
Fund Management
CommunityLeadership
CommunityLeadership
To create positive lasting impactsin communities through knowledge, networks
and philanthropy
Funder, Leader, Convenor & Partner
• More than 1,000 funds– Unrestricted– Field of Interest– Donor-advised– Donor designated
• $830 million in assets
• More than $40 million in annual funds disbursed across B.C.
• Cumulative grants of over $600 million since 1943
Vancouver Foundation:“Vital Information”
Vancouver Foundation
Vital Signs:Origins, Goals & Stakeholders
• Initiated by Toronto Community Foundation in 2001
• Gather information to inform our granting and related decisions
• More deeply engage donors, key informants and a broad spectrum of our community’s citizens to facilitate good decisions by us all
Vital Signs: What It Is
A civic education and engagement tool
A knowledge resource - useful in informing the discussions of decision makers, policy makers and citizens at large
An accessible, readable publication
A change driver A work-in-progress
Vital Signs 2006: 12 Key Areas
The Livable City
Diversity As A Way Of Life
Work
Getting Started
Gap Between Rich and Poor
Housing
Safety
Learning
Arts and Culture
Belonging and Leadership
Health and Wellness
Environment
Vital Signs 2006: 12 Key Areas and Grades
KEY AREA GRADE
The Livable City B+
Diversity As A Way Of Life B+
Work B
Getting Started C+
Gap Between Rich and Poor C-
Housing D+
Safety B-
Learning BB
Arts and Culture BB
Belonging and Leadership B-
Health and Wellness BB
Environment BB
BB
Online Grading
• How would you grade Vancouver when it comes to safety? Please think about things like the level of violent crime and property crime, traffic deaths, level of policing, etc.
• And in your opinion what are the top 2 priorities that need to be addressed in the next 2 years when it comes to safety in Vancouver?
Public Opinion Research
Omnibus survey, conducted in two waves, polled 240 Vancouver residents (+/- 6.3% points in accuracy) and probed perceptions of:
Quality of life 48% very good, 49% good, 2% poor/very poor
Changes to quality of life over the past three yearsImproved: 23%, Stayed the same: 52%, Worsened: 22%
Factors that contribute to our quality of lifeEnvironment/natural setting: 14%, Weather/mild climate: 12% Employment: 6% Good healthcare came in at 4%
The issues that need to be addressed to improve our quality of lifePoverty/homelessness at 17%, transportation at 12%; affordable housing at 11%, crime reduction at 9%. Drug addiction and improved healthcare system ranked at 5%
Extended Distribution Through Community Partners
Post-Launch Stakeholder& Community Engagement
Insert distribution through: Community centres Library branches Public health centres Vancouver School Board City Hall S.U.C.C.E.S.S.
Presentations and discussions: Progress Board SFU Centre for Dialogue Vancouver School Board Vancouver Park Board International Volunteer Day Board of Trade (Premier’s Leadership
Summit) United Way Board of Directors Leadership Vancouver BC Population Health Network GVRD Dialogue Series Volunteer Organizations Consortium
of BC BC Rural Leadership Network
How is Vital Signs an example of how we maintain relevance in The
Changing Landscape?
• Positions VF as an information resource, knowledge centre
• Builds global/local connections• Provides focus for donors, for our case• Attracts partnerships – corps, govts,
others• Develops expertise• Informs, provides measurement for our
own work
The intersection between:– Good public policy– Being a knowledge resource– The value-add of Philanthropy
= the crucial “sweet spot” we seek to find
“Out beyond the ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing, there is a field.
I’ll meet you there.” (Rumi)
Thank you!