Social entrepreneurs face an interesting dilemma as do many of the nonprofits; how do you get attention and make your organization standout from the others? What makes you different? How can you self fund while “doing good”.

In your blog and in the follow up commentary there is an theme that if followed, seemingly creates a solution to the problem:

– Transparency
– Accountability
– Honesty
– Quality Control
– No Favoritism
– Common Decency

You have been in the industry since 1974, what are your opinions on creating a giving brand that sets a new global standard and makes them transparent to all? Building an ethical foundation that is created with trust, transparency and using the power of the masses through modern technology and mass media. Using mass media and modern technology to better humanity? It’s been used in every other industry, why not here?! We need to empower people to become socially involved with causes they care about and with the ability to make a difference. I have personally met with many Social Entrepreneurs that want to find the solution… that want to make a living doing something that’s “Good” and have true intentions of helping others!

I may be living in a fairy-tale and I may be idealistic and “Life isn’t fair” — However, I hope that never stops people from trying, speaking and wanting to make a difference and make an impact on the future of humanity. I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions.

Sharif Youssef

based on your observations, are you suggesting that foundations are not “more proactive as advocates in the public arena” like you had originally thought? more proactive than someone else? or more proactive rather than reactive?

now, is there an effort underway to bring state agency heads (current or recently left a position) to take an executive-on-loan to a member of PhilanthropyNY?

On the one hand, we shouldn’t find this all that unusual. Why should we think that the philanthropic sector is any different from other sectors in its distribution of caring, mediocre, atrocious, selfish, and even heroic behavior? People are usually self-interested agents as hundreds of studies in Public Choice theory have shown.

On the other hand, foundations still shine with a patina of holier-than-thou (or at least so we believe). Nonprofit organizations (as supplicants) and foundation colleagues have no incentives and few safe opportunities to give specific feedback. The stories told over drinks can be appalling and hilarious diversions, but nothing comes of that. To paraphrase a comment Tony Proscio once made in another context, bad behavior by foundation staff has “no natural predators”!

What can be done? I don’t know, but I do know that boards and executive directors need to attend more closely to these elements of quality control. They are responsible for the tone and culture of their organizations. Some foundations actually now look for humility in new employees. Grantee Perception Surveys have made a big difference for some foundations. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if there were more use of Grantee Perceptions Surveys that compared foundations? The Center for Effective Philanthropy has done some of that. I believe that honest, candid, collegial behavior with grantees does help lead to better results. But in a sector that rightly makes a big deal of taking risks, few foundations seem willing to risk seeing what their reputation really is.

Having been involved in the field at a family foundation for two decades, I, too, could share a number of stories learned in confidence from many of our grantee partners. Quite often, donors pull funding from unsuspecting nonprofits without warning or explanation. In many cases, foundation grant application guidelines are too lengthy and demanding: costing nonprofits valuable time that could otherwise have been devoted to serving their constituents. Too often, applicants are denied funding without any insight into why they were rejected, and given no opportunity to learn and improve upon their applications so that they may be successful with future requests.

It seems to me that too many individuals in our field have forgotten why we’re in the business of philanthropy in the first place. In order to really make strides, foundations and nonprofits alike should be behaving and thinking like partners, collaborating on programs that solve the issues that plague our society. It will take a lot of work for foundations and nonprofits to start believing they are on equal footing. Perhaps greater understanding can come from shared experiences, open dialogues, and active listening. I would encourage all foundation officials, staff and board members to volunteer real services with a favorite nonprofit. I’ve been volunteering for the New York Women’s Foundation for several years and it has profoundly changed the way I think about and interact with other service providers and the people in my community.

As the former executive director of United Neighborhood Houses, with earlier employment at the Vera Institute and Wildcat Services Corporation, I had numerous occasions to apply to a myriad of foundations, particularly in New York City. The best representatives of the philanthropic sector were those who listened respectfully to what I presented, asked challenging but pertinent questions, which could often led to programmatic improvements and let me know all along the process what to expect both in terms of timing and of funding amount. They returned my calls in a timely fashion and did not let bad news arrive belatedly in written form.

Has anyone thought of replicating the idea of principal for a day with program officers being executive directors for a day in a nonprofit agency? This would enable them to better understand the extraordinary complexity of juggling the multiple strands which make up the work of a nonprofit. Maybe this would reduce some of the demands on the time of executive directors and various staff members to respond to unnecessary demands and engender greater respect for those who work in the service delivery nonprofit sector.