Week 6 Flashcards
Give Smart: Philanthropy that Gets Results is written by two experts. Which fields are represented?
I. Business consulting turned into nonprofit purposes
II. Foundation Leadership
A) I Only
B) II Only
C) Both I and II
D) Neither I nor II
C) Both I and II
Thomas Tierney was with Bain, a business consulting firm, before building Bridgespan, which is focused on the nonprofit and philanthropic world.
Joel Fleishman, his co-author, is an expert on foundations and grantmaking, having written an important book on foundations and having served as President of The Atlantic Philanthropic Company.
The point is they span two worlds. Tierney understand the businesslike approach to problem-solving. Fleishman has a deep understanding of how foundations have operated historically, and how they have succeeded or failed. By partnering in this way, it seems the authors are making a larger point about the nature of the field - that, even at the highest levels, we have to partner with our complementary opposites in other areas of the field, if we are to be maximally insightful and effective.
Which of these is (are) designed to shift power as well as money to grantee organizations?
I. Strategic Philanthropy
II. Community-Centered Philanthropy
A) I Only
B) II Only
C) Both I and II
D) Neither I nor II
B) II Only
Strategic Philanthropy is donor-centered. It is business like and risks making grantees into the equivalent of vendors.
Community centered philanthropy might be called humble philanthropy. It shifts money and power to grantee organizations within the community served. It is also sometimes called “participatory grantmaking,” since grantees participate as partners in the process. Sometimes this is also called “trust based philanthropy” since the foundation has to trust the grantee to do what is right, often with unrestricted gifts.
In Give Smart, what are the five big questions a donor or grantmaker should ask?
A) What are my values and beliefs? What is “success” and how can it be achieved? What am I accountable for? What will it take to get the job done? Am I getting better?
B) Who am I? What is the world I want? What are the obstacles? What are the opportunities? What should I do next?
C) What am I passionate about? What does my faith require of me? What is my obligation to others? How many I overcome myself? If not now, when?
D) What do I want to change or preserve in the world? What gifts have given me greatest satisfaction? How well aligned are my giving and my goals? How will I experiment and revise? Where should I make adjustments?
A) What are my values and beliefs? What is “success” and how can it be achieved? What am I accountable for? What will it take to get the job done? Am I getting better?
The other answers here reflect other viewpoints. In reading books or articles on giving, it is good to have an idea of the range of opinions in the field and to place the authors within that system of possible views. Of the answers listed, A is the most businesslike. It is devoid of language that might be considered literary, passionate, spiritual, political, or religious. The language and the book are about “getting result.” The authors of the book acknowledge, for example, that philanthropy comes from a word for love, but caution that “love is blind.”
Per Give Smart, all of these are among the “terrible truths” of philanthropy, EXCEPT:
A) God works in mysterious ways to bring good out of evil.
B) All philanthropy is personal
C) Results can confound the funder with unforeseen consequences.
D) Excellence is self-imposed. The donor is not corrected by market forces, stockholders, or elections.
A) God works in mysterious ways to bring good out of evil.
All the others are terrible truths.
In Give Smart, the funder should do each of these, EXCEPT:
A) Get clear: What is success?
B) Get real: How can success be achieved?
C) Get personal: What am I accountable for?
D) Get aligned: To whom am I accountable?
D) Get aligned: To whom am I accountable?
The authors of Give Smart suggest that very wealthy funders are not greatly accountable to anyone. Of course, they must observe laws and regulations, but for example, a foundation is not held accountable by anyone outside its walls to be effective in its grants. A big foundation can be ineffective, even idiosyncratic and whimsical, and no outside force can restrain it. Others, however, might argue that a foundation is accountable to the public and to the communities it serves. What the authors of Give Smart suggest, by contrast, is that “excellence in philanthropy is self-imposed.”
Give Smart suggests that among the challenges of philanthropy is the “haze of feel-good rhetoric.” Which of these statements is consistent with their views?
I. Funders often operate with feel-good phrases about what they intend, such as, “make the world a better place,” without being specific as to what they mean by that.
II. Grant recipients often are reluctant to tell the funder in plain terms what the organization has done or accomplished with the money. Instead, the grantee may tell the grantmaker what the grantmaker wants to hear.
A) I Only
B) II Only
C) Both I and II
D) Neither I nor II
C) Both I and II
Both grantmakers and greatseekers may avoid hard truths.
Give Smart discusses what grantees (grant recipient organizations) need to get the job done. The book emphasizes that the recipient organization needs all of these, EXCEPT:
A) Funding for capacity (for the infrastructure supporting the overall organization)
B) Sufficient funding to hire excellent staff
C) Time to accomplish results
D) Rigorous and detailed reporting procedures to make the grantee accountable to the grantmaker
D) Rigorous and detailed reporting procedures to make the grantee accountable to the grantmaker
Give Smart does endorse making the organization accountable to a degree to the funder, but also cautions funders not to make the reporting so rigorous and detailed that it becomes a costly burden to the recipient organization. Give Smart is considered an outstanding book in the field in part because it is so forthright in telling donors hard truths. Donors may want organizations to be accountable, may desire quick and proven results, and may demand a great deal of paperwork, but Give Smart says, in effect, “Be careful, and be patient. Give enough to get the job done; fund basic capacity as well as your favorite project; and spare the organization the burden of unnecessary paperwork.”
Give Smart says, “Power imbalances between donor and grant recipient create poor communication.” Which of these is (are) examples of that?
I. Grantmaker is vague about what he or she wishes to accomplish but rigorous in following up to make sure the grant recipient did accomplish it.
II. The grant recipient dummies up reports to the donor, telling the donor what the donor wants to hear.
A) I Only
B) II Only
C) Both I and II
D) Neither I nor II
C) Both I and II
A funder can be too caught up in their own importance to be clear about what is expected from the lowly grantee. Likewise, the grantee may be tempted to tell the grantmaker whatever will please the grantmaker.
To achieve shared success, per Give Smart, what must align?
I. Donor’s resources and strategic input with nonprofit’s capacities, programs and strategies
II. The mission of the nonprofit with the needs of the community.
A) I Only
B) II Only
C) Both I and II
D) Neither I nor II
A) I Only
Under shared success, the authors of Give Smart are discussing the alignment of funder and the nonprofit funded. The alignment of the nonprofit and the community is important but is not included in the characterization of shared success. In general, the needs of the community and how the donor and charity are accountable to the community are not of central concern to the authors of Give Smart. They tend to see this as how the charity and the donor are in sync.
Give Smart asks, “Are we getting better?” To whom does the book suggest this question applies?
I. Grantmaker
II. Grant recipient
A) I Only
B) II Only
C) Both I and II
D) Neither I nor II
C) Both I and II
Give Smart encourages the maker and receiver of the gift to jointly ask whether they are getting better. Both can learn from experience. Both can improve. This is a shared quest.
Strategic philanthropy is characterized by all the points below, EXCEPT
A) Seeks measurable results
B) Seeks to make grant recipients accountable for results
C) Seeks to produce an outcome that is clearly stated in advance
D) Frames grants in terms of “the moral dimension”
D) Frames grants in terms of “the moral dimension”
The moral dimension may be implicit in all giving, since all giving posits a world made better in some way. But the language of strategic philanthropy is “all business.” he language is that of strategic planning in a businesslike context.
Older women in an underdeveloped country make their living and contribute to their families by doing handwork, including sewing. As they age, their eyesight dims. Glasses are not available. Larry starts a nonprofit to collect used glasses as well as donations and to get these to the women. What sort of issue area or problem has Larry taken on?
A) Simple
B) Complex
C) Complicated
D) Wicked
A) Simple
While the problem is significant and may take a lot of work on the part of the nonprofit, there is a known solution - putting eyeglasses in the hands of those who need them.
A complicated problem is one without a known solution, though we may know how to find a solution, such as a new vaccine.
A complex problem, such as, say, inadequate rural education, may not have a linear solution because other factors causing the problem are interrelated (uninformed school boards, children who come to school hungry, inadequate tax base to support needed teacher, lack of parental support, need for the children to be working at a young age.)
A wicked problem is one so complex that reasonable minds wonder if any solution is possible; world poverty, war in the Middle East, and climate change might be examples.
Linda says, “I prefer to give where I live and to give hand-to-hand. I want to see the charity, walk the ground, meet with those served. When I see it with my own eyes and see it is working, I do not need forms, paperwork, or standardized reports. I will make a quick decision and check in a year from now to see how it is going. Consider me a neighbor and a partner in the work.” What style of grantmaking is she using?
A) Adaptive
B) Strategic
C) Catalytic
D) Grassroots
D) Grassroots
This is what grassroots philanthropy sounds like. Strategic, adaptive, and catalytic tend to be more in the mold of Bridgespan, working on large issues, often at a distance, and wanted to use businesslike, data-driven strategies.
Catalytic philanthropy looks across the sectors and pulls all the levers for change that it can touch.
Adaptive philanthropy is a version of the strategic, best used when the problems are too complex to have predictable solutions. Rather the donor gives it a good shot, sees what happens, learns, adjusts, and tries again. Informally, this is what Tracy Gary is getting at when she asks, “How will you experiment and revise?”
All of these are good descriptions of “grassroots grantmaking” EXCEPT
A) Grantmaking in our own backyard, by getting personally involved with the recipients of the gift and relying on them, as leaders in their own right, to get things done.
B) Grantmaking by walking around
C) Grantmaking in a local context, with deep local knowledge and a personal commitment to life in that community.
D) Grantmaking without a real plan for how the money will produce a good outcome
D) Grantmaking without a real plan for how the money will produce a good outcome
All of these statements are correct except the last. A grassroots giver makes grants to people he or she knows will get the job done. The plan is to rely on the abilities of the local leader, rather than on an abstract business plan or strategic plan. The local leader may or may not have a plan on paper. The point is that the leader knows what they are doing, and the funder is backing that person, based on personal engagement with that person, face-to-face.
“As a deaf person working with the deaf, I receive grants and then distribute them to other organizations I know well who do great work in this area.” What grantmaking style is illustrated here?
A) Catalytic
B) Strategic
C) Adaptive
D) Participatory
D) Participatory
The style could be described as community-centered, trust based, or participatory. The point is that power and control have shifted from the funder to an intermediary embedded in the community served.
