Frumkin [from SocialEdge]:

Large private foundations do not seem to embrace this notion of scale as readily as individuals, though there are some notable exceptions to this. Picking any single nonprofit organization as the one that will be taken to scale may appear unfair and capricious. It implies that a single donor should be able to disturb the competitive landscape and decide who wins and loses in the nonprofit arena.  While this may be precisely what an individual would like to achieve, few foundations want to be perceived as inequitable and heavy-handed. As a consequence, they shy away from tipping the scales completely in favor of one organization over another. Moreover, foundations may be less likely to bring an organization to scale because their interests are not in the organizations they fund per se, but in the specific programs and outcomes which these organizations deliver.  The foundations have priorities that overlap somewhat with the agendas of nonprofit organizations. When these priorities change, funders can and do find new organizations.

Interesting points. When foundations really get the ownership bug, they do a Pew. In one way foundations are like venture capitalists [a tired metaphor, I'm aware]; they want to share the investment risk. I think foundations are becoming less reticent to "disturb the competitive landscape," and to let the nonprofit marketplace play itself out. I see fewer missions to rescue nonprofits [excluding those close to home and soul] that aren't performing. Frumkin's right, though, that foundations' priorities, as currently defined, don't involve helping their grantees grow strategically. That's unfortunate.

WaPo:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

As had been widely blogged, Washington Post reporter John Solomon has perfected the art of taking a relatively minor story [or nonstory] and hyping it to earth-shattering levels. Note to the idiots who run the Post and front-paged this "story": It's a fucking foundation that gives hundreds of thousands of dollars away to charities. I'm sure all that cash would've brought so much ill will the Clintons' way that they purposely didn't disclose it. And, as Josh Marshall points out, the Clinton Family Foundation's tax returns have, as required by the IRS, been publicly available since its inception.

Next up for tomorrow's edition of the Post: Hillary's eighth-grade report card not signed by parents and returned to teacher

Tactical Philanthropy on pain-in-the-ass givers:

Somehow I keep picturing a waiter in a restaurant telling a customer who is complaining about the meal, “Sir, if you can’t complain nicely, I’m not going to serve you any more”. And then the diner leaving the restaurant and never coming back.

Can we come up with some sort of metric that measure the ROI on the interactions with such donors?

Three phone calls from a donor in one week complaining about how their name wasn't in large enough type on the donor recognition plaque: -$2,000.

Two outbursts during a donor gathering about feeling "marginalized": -$2,350.

Four threats to "pull my generous, heart-felt support for this damn organization" if junior doesn't get that marketing internship: -$3,700?

Shoving donor into their Jaguar and telling them never to come back: priceless.

Foundations do the government's job:

Seven philanthropies are announcing today that they will contribute more than $4.3 million to help treat uninsured workers and residents who developed serious illnesses after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

This, of course, is the "traditional philanthropy" conservatives love. When you've got charities available to paint over capitalism's flaws, your belief in the stock market as the arbiter of right and wrong can remain firmly intact.

There's no entry for "philanthropy" in the exciting new Conservapedia, a conservative counterpunch to that left-wing online conpiracy known as Wikipedia. Here's all you need to know:

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Let me offer up an entry for "philanthropy" that complies with Conservapedia's philosophy:

Philanthropy is an activity conducted primarily by Christians who believe "God helps those who help themselves." Examples of good philanthropy would be a cash gift to the Hudson Institute's scholars program. Specifying that your gift go directly toward the Institute's research on the War on Terror, under the watchful direction of Lewis Libby, would be a keen example of what is called "targeted philanthropy." Another great example would be even a small gift, say given by someone who just started working at McDonald's, to the American Enterprise Institute's research on why the minimum wage is bad. Talk about helping yourself!

Most philanthropy in America is conducted by individuals giving to their local houses of worship, but be skeptical of any giving by those of non-Christian faiths. A small percentage of philanthropy in America comes from what are called "foundations"; this is something of an oxymoron given most foundations are left-leaning, and thus seek to tear down, rather than build up, America's foundation, which we all know is based on conservative evangelical Christianity.

Click to submit.

UPDATE: Conservapedia has apparently been swallowed by submissions mocking it. Shame.

WaPo:

The Pennsylvania Senate was not Fumo's only source of OPM, according to the indictment. In 1991 he founded a nonprofit organization called Citizens' Alliance for Better Neighborhoods, and over the next decade he allegedly steered over $30 million in state funds and corporate grants to the group. Then, according to the indictment, he used it as his personal piggy bank.

The Citizens' Alliance allegedly paid $250,000 for Fumo's political polls. It allegedly bought a $36,000 Chrysler minivan for Fumo. It also allegedly bought a Jeep Wrangler, a Dodge Caravan, a Lincoln Navigator and a Cadillac Escalade for the use of Fumo and his cronies. Plus a bulldozer for Fumo's farm and $75,000 for various items for Fumo's various homes, including $3,929 worth of "mosquito magnets," $171 worth of tiki torches and, for $6,500, 19 Oreck vacuum cleaners.

OPM=other people's money=corporate grants. Nice.

the "dude" would have been a prolific program officer. Thanks, Phil.

Jeff Brooks makes some interesting observations about how nonprofits should -- and should not -- advertise to potential donors. I disagree on one point: We need much, much more nudity in nonprofit advertising.

but the Supremes will be hearing a case on the constitutionality of the spectacular failure otherwise known as the Faith-Based Initiative:

Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks with a soft voice, but her message catches attention: Keep God out of government.

Gaylor has helped transform the Freedom From Religion Foundation from obscurity into the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, with a fast-rising membership and increasing legal clout.

Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative.

The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate.

I wish Gaylor the best of luck, especially when Scalia starts spewing his bullshit about how George Washington was a born again Christian.

From the Washington Examiner:

“The real issue is, how do you raise the bar a little bit above what is now required by law and set out principles that will encourage voluntary action?” asked Duke University Professor Joel L. Fleishman, author and expert on foundations. “By agreeing to these principles, not just foundations but all nonprofits will benefit, as will their donors and volunteers,” he said.

It's usually pressure from outside -- some bad press, a congressional hearing, a grantee uprising -- that gets foundations to act. I wish the best of success to those trying to get foundations and nonprofits to voluntarily adopt a set of best practices. I won't be holding my breath.

Tom Watson at Onphilanthropy gets a little philanthropic motivation from Daytona:

As in Daytona, the real test will come when the "stock cars of change" are no longer manufactured in Detroit at all, but are instead manufactured from scratch by philanthropists in India, and China, and Russia, and Indonesia.

Hopefully, there'll be a little less carnage than there was yesterday.

I disagree, respectfully, with Lucy. The mere fact that a grantseeker can express criticism of a grantmaker in a public forum sponsored by criticized grantmaker is a noticeable sign of progress. Lucy pooh-poohs that it's as "far as it goes." Perhaps, but from inside the private foundation prism this seems to be a pretty big leap.

Hat tip: Phil.

Peter Manzo at SSIR:

So, while articles like the Times series can in some cases lead to changes, much broader improvement in investment practices is more likely to happen when foundation leaders see their peers make good use of investment assets, and most importantly, when those peers receive praise and recognition for doing so. Given its sheer size and the energy it has shown in its philanthropic work to date, we shouldn’t be surprised to eventually see the Gates Foundation help lead the way.

My take is that foundation CEOs get to play the role of corporate CEO when it comes to managing their investment portfolios, and in that role they think no differently than your average shareholder-value-obsessed executive. There's a fair amount of penis envy [with all due apologies to Susan Berresford] among the larger foundations when it comes to asset size and growth, in part driven by a news media that cares more about dollar amounts than anything else [and that includes the philanthropic trade media, perhaps the worst offenders].

On one count Manzo is exactly right. When a number of foundations stick their necks out and adopt uncomprising socially responsible investment policies, other foundations will follow. Especially when "those peers recieve praise and recognition for doing so." Never underestimate the power of the ego stroke. It may be the best motivator for change in the world of institutional philanthropy.

From the Feb. 19 & 26 issue of the New Yorker:

The Poetry Foundation functions as an operating foundation, spending most of its money on its own activities rather than on grants. As Ethel Kaplan, a lawyer at a wealth-management firm and the chair of the board, put it, “Nobody wanted to sit back and read grant proposals—especially from poets.” By January, the foundation had received eighty-eight million dollars. After all the money has been distributed, the foundation’s budget will be about ten million dollars a year.

What? No poetry in grantwriting?