Firkin has created a thoughtful theoretical framework for understanding the giving process. Overall key themes reappear throughout the book, including Firkin’s contention that the values, passion, and energy of donors are critical in maintaining the pluralism and soul of philanthropy, an element that the author believes has been severely neglected in recent years. He claims that unless the vision and intent of donors receive greater attention, foundations are likely to become less animated, more bureaucratic, and less effective.
Donor satisfaction, Firkin asserts, is as important to philanthropy as the community and public benefits it produces t has been applied by persona such as the gates foundation and bill and Miranda gates them self He cites five essential elements for a giving strategy: deciding which vehicle to use for giving away the donor’s money; clarifying the purpose of the gift; setting a time frame for giving; choosing the level of donor engagement with grant recipients; and assessing the impact the contributions will have.
CRITIQUE Gates Foundation, with the addition of Warren Buffet’s money, will be donating about 1 0 percent of all foundation money distributed annually. And here will be more menstruations in the next decade. Isn’t it troubling that such gaga antic sums of tax-deductible money will be granted each year at the whim of a few family board members and without the benefit of public debate? He practice of strategic philanthropy has advanced substantially over the past two decades, yet even its most committed theorists and practitioners-?we among them-?have often been disappointed by the results Complexity theorist David Snowed described the differences among problems that are simple, complicated, or complex. A simple problem can be giggly ambitious: Building a hospital is not easy, but it follows a well- understood formula It can however be estimated along a specific time line and undertaken according to previously set out plan .
Improvement of general health within the area is more of a dynamic problem . It is non linear problem and the influence of couple of factor can be interchanging As difficult as it is to make progress against complex social problems, foundations are far better suited to do so than are other institutions because they operate on a long time horizon, insulated from financial and political erasures Emergent strategy explained Emergence is where rigor and flexibility meet, as it inherently challenges strategic organizations to be both rigorous and flexible.
Emergent strategy still requires that a clear strategic intent guide the fender’s actions, but it acknowledges that specific outcomes cannot be predicted Emergent strategy accommodates three core principles of complexity theory that must inform the next evolution of strategic philanthropy: co-creating strategy, working positive and negative attractors, and improving system fitness. All actors, including fenders, are participants in the system they seek to change. The behavior of one organization affects all others; therefore strategies must be co-created and must co-evolve among multiple organizations rather than be developed separately.
Albert Einstein once said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. ” In strategic philanthropy s earnest desire to become more disciplined and rigorous, there has been a tendency to demand and impose simple solutions to complex problems By Paul Brest Outcome-oriented philanthropy has two major focal points: supporting organizations and problem-solving philanthropy. L Examples of supporting organizations range from grants to after-school programs for undeserved children . There are three different strategies for supporting organizations: philanthropic buying, providing risk and growth capital, and impact investing.
Outcome-oriented philanthropic buyers look for the best service in their areas of interest for the lowest cost, and make gifts and grants to help pay the operating costs of non profits providing those services. Main points are : Least gain in the past , using the accounts info to estimate the target of ending . They fund one of the projects rather than the general mission Of the organization Providing rising and growth capital – exact opposite , impact investing The second major type of outcome-oriented philanthropy is problem-solving philanthropy.
Whereas philanthropists often buy seer- vices and support organizations in order to solve problems, problem- solving philanthropists put the problem rather than the organization at the center, and actively engage with their grantees in designing and implementing strategies. Building fields -? development of new strategy towards prior unattractive robber collaboration and link between organizations policy advocacy collective impact – played a role of a multi stake holder collar efforts critique My view is that both approaches have great potential, but that their true value depends on their actual outcomes.
These internecine squabbles aside, internal critics of outcome- oriented philanthropy voice the concerns that it can be income- tenthly executed, and that fenders may exercise inappropriate control over grantees, thereby impinging on their autonomy and stifling innovation . Catalytic Philanthropy BY Mark R. Kramer Four Practices of Catalytic Philanthropy What is needed is a new approach to philanthropy, one that catalysts the kind of social change exemplified by Siebel Meet Project. Over the past decade, the consulting firm that expounded, FSP Social Impact Advisors, has studied many examples of this new approach to social change.
We have distilled what makes catalytic philanthropists so effective into four distinct practices: They have the ambition to change the world and the courage to accept responsibility for achieving the results they seek; they engage others n a compelling campaign, me- powering stakeholders and creating the conditions for collaboration and innovation; they use all of the tools that are available to create change, including unconventional ones from outside the nonprofit sector; they create actionable knowledge to improve their own effectiveness and to influence the behavior of others. . Take Responsibility for Achieving Results- rather than looking for targets of spending fenders look for ways to benefit wider picture . Arab micromanage from 40 k to 3 million with just 400,000 invested . Bob optical 2. Mobile Campaign for change – Monopolizing and coordinating stakeholders is messier and slower than funding a compelling grant request from a single organization. Systemic change depends on a sustained campaign to increase the capacity and coordination of an entire field, together with greater public awareness and, often, stronger government policies.
Catalytic philanthropists have the wherewithal to heighten awareness, raise expectations, and coordinate the many disparate efforts of other fenders, nonprofits, corporations, and governments. 3. Use all available tools -? rather than sousing n the non profit see , we are expected to use annoying that will benefit the company . Corporate resources , investment of capital etc . Advocacy and litigation or lobbying of donors 4. Create actionable knowledge – Catalytic phi- lamentations, by contrast, gather knowledge about the problem they are tackling and use this knowledge to inform their own actions and motivate the actions of others.
Making knowledge actionable requires more than just gathering and reporting data. The informal- Zion must also carry emotional appeal to capture people’s attention and practical recommendations that can inspire them to action. SUMMARY OF The Nonprofit Marketplace The nonprofit marketplace lacks the robust flow of timely, accurate information that is a hallmark of high-performing markets such as stock exchanges, commodity markets, or eBay. To bridge this gap, the sector must capture, analyze, distribute, and use information on nonprofit organ- national performance and social impact more effectively.
This is no small task. Data measuring outcomes for beneficiaries are notoriously difficult to capture. Moreover, there is no uniformly accepted way to measure social impact, and o single repository for information about nonprofit activities and results The good news is that progress is happening. We see increasing agreement among nonprofit organizations on how to define and measure perform- menace and impact, and increasing use of tools to measure, manage, and communicate progress and results.
A growing number of nonprofits share this information online. High-net-worth donors and foundations are asking more questions about results and engaging in meaningful dialogue with their grantees about their work and aspirations . To accelerate these changes, we suggest the following framework for action: Improving the supply of information assessing nonprofit organizational and operational performance (how well is the organization run? ) and social impact (to what extent is the organization achieving its intended goals and outcomes? While nonprofits have made progress in recent years-?with many embracing performance metrics and better communicating what they do and how well they are doing it-?there is still much room for improvement: ; Increasing donor demand for nonprofit performance and impact information ; Strengthening intermediary organizations that facilitate interactions teen donors and nonprofits, provide value-adding services, and help improve donor decision- making and nonprofit performance.