Tag: Philanthropy

Trends in Diaspora Philanthropy as represented by The Optimists of Bangladesh and USA

The pictures are horrifying… the sort that newspaper editors decide not to publish, for reasons of taste and human dignity (and subscriber backlash).

Faces of lifeless children caked in concrete dust, bodies buried in rubble. Female arms and legs protruding from pancaked concrete floors of the crumpled factory, colourful clothing contrasting against the grey ruins. Rescuers tugging heroically, too often fruitlessly. Sudden, catastrophic death everywhere.

The collapse of the eight-storey Rana Plaza clothing factory in the Savar district of Dhaka, Bangladesh on April 24, 2013, killed 1,129 people, most of them young women. Another 2,515 were injured or maimed. The event shocked the world and put a searing spotlight on the worst excesses of global capitalism and blind consumerism.

For The Optimists, a Bangladesh-focused diaspora charity formed in 2000, Rana Plaza was just the latest call to action, if the most tragic in scale. The organization quickly posted graphic photos on its website as it reached out to supporters for donations.

The Optimists (not to be confused with Optimist International clubs) was established by ex-pat professional Bangladeshis living in New York City. Most of the founders have finance, medicine, or business backgrounds. They represent an increasingly mobile global professional class that has greatly influenced the modern evolution of diaspora philanthropy.

“During the information revolution of the 1980s and 1990s, a new generation of philanthropists emerged from the booming finance and information technology industries,” note the authors of Diaspora Philanthropy: Private Giving and Public Policy, a 2010 study published by Washington, D.C.-based Migration Policy Institute. “In the first decade of the twenty-first century, strong economic growth in emerging economies (particularly in South and East Asia) led to the emergence of new philanthropists with direct ties to the developing world.”

Helping The Optimists and diaspora philanthropists everywhere is a powerful tool that an early ex-pat philanthropist, the Scot-American Andrew Carnegie, could not possibly have imagined: the Internet. The charity maintains a website, offers online donations, runs a Facebook page, operates a blog, and publishes online videos. Material is published in both English and Bengali. The Internet “is making it possible for dispersed populations to organize, collaborate, and nurture ties across borders,” observe the authors of Diaspora Philanthropy.

The goal of The Optimists is to both address the symptoms of poverty and also its causes. The group provides underprivileged students with the means to continue their education. The Child Sponsorship Program, for a $135 USD annual donation, funds a student from grade 6 through grade 10. The Special Sponsorship Program is similar. A $310 annual donation supports a student from grade 11 through to a bachelor degree. Candidate students must show promise and must be from “underprivileged, distressed, dispossessed, orphaned, deprived, broken and/or vulnerable families,” according to the group’s website.

“Many children from rural areas in Bangladesh are unable to attend school in their villages because their parents can’t afford it,” says Fahmida (Farah) Ahmed, a New York-based volunteer for The Optimists. “They barely have enough money to sustain life. Most people barely even make a dollar a day in those areas. So sending their kids to school is luxury, not a priority.”

After the Rana Plaza disaster, The Optimists focused on supporting students directly affected by the loss or maiming of mothers or sisters who supported them. On January 17, 2014, the organization announced at an event in Dhaka that it had raised funds to support 81 students in its “Rescue Savar’s Future” program.

Philanthropy in the Arctic: Good Intentions or Good Works?

There may be no better phrase to describe the past century of southern intervention in the Canadian Arctic than the maxim “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” As philanthropic, charitable, and non-governmental organizations seek to address development challenges in the region unmet or abandoned by the public sector, it is well worth asking whether their good intentions are redressing past injustices or perpetuating them.

Ideological and paternalistic

To be sure, the history is spotty. Ask Northerners what they think of when they think of outside charitable or non-governmental actors, and Greenpeace will probably come to mind. In 1976, Greenpeace Canada began a campaign to expose and end the commercial hunting of marine mammals, in particular the seal hunt. The campaign effectively destroyed the market for seal pelts, resulting in severe socio-economic ramifications for Indigenous and non-Indigenous hunters. It also vilified their traditions and livelihoods, casting them as murderers of innocent, cherubic seal pups.

Greenpeace apologized for their role in this debacle in1985 and adopted a policy in 2014 in support of Indigenous rights to a subsistence lifestyle and the right to sustainable development. But not everyone is ready to forgive and forget. Nunavut MP Leona Aglukkaq, in a 2014 speech to the Inuit Circumpolar Council, iterated that “these groups do not base these campaigns on facts or science, but instead on what they view to be a moral high ground. The ironic part is that from their moral high ground, they completely disregard the rights and traditions of entire groups of people.”

Actions speak louder than words. Many Arctic inhabitants are critical of Greenpeace’s popular #SavetheArctic campaign, which has been a boon to the organization’s fundraising efforts. But to the skeptical, the entire premise of #SavetheArctic implies, variously, that: a) the people of the Arctic need external actors to save them; b) the Arctic environment needs saving and the people don’t matter; and c) the people of the Arctic are either incapable or unwilling to protect their own environment. It can be galling.

Greenpeace is the most prominent, but certainly not the only, example of a Southern organization pursuing ideological ends at the expense, intended or not, of local interests. As new groups with philanthropic mandates have sought to engage in the Arctic, they may have been surprised and dismayed by the mistrust and suspicion they’ve been greeted with. But given recent history, it’s justified. Philanthropy in the Arctic seems too often to be motivated by either condescension or paternalism.

Canadian Foundations Explore Philanthropy’s Role in Public Policy

SUMMARY: The newly elected Liberal Party’s platform declaring the end of political harassment and a modernization of the rules governing the nonprofit sector was a key topic at the Philanthropic Foundations of Canada (PFC) symposium in late October 2015. Among the questions discussed were: Should foundations and corporate funders participate in discussions about public policy? What are the rules? What are some of the creative tensions involved in working across sectors, given different expectations about timelines, risk, and accountability? Can smaller foundations work together to share their creative strategies in these areas? And, how do we measure the impact of our work, even if we are not looking specifically for policy change? The Philanthropist’s community engagement consultant Jillian Witt covered the conference and reports on these discussions as well as highlights from guest speakers.

RÉSUMÉ : La plateforme du Parti libéral nouvellement élu, qui annonce la fin du harcèlement politique ainsi qu’une modernisation des règles régissant le secteur sans but lucratif, a été un thème clé du colloque de Fondations philanthropiques Canada (FPC), à la fin octobre 2015, où l’on a notamment discuté des questions suivantes : Est-ce que les fondations et les entreprises donatrices doivent participer aux discussions concernant les politiques gouvernementales? Quelles sont les règles? Peut-on citer certaines tensions créatives qui surgissent lors du travail intersectoriel, compte tenu des attentes différentes en ce qui a trait aux échéanciers, aux risques et à la responsabilité? Est-ce que de plus petites fondations peuvent collaborer en partageant leurs stratégies créatives à ce chapitre? Et comment pouvons-nous mesurer l’impact de notre travail, même si nous n’attendons pas expressément un changement au niveau des politiques? La consultante en engagement communautaire de The Philanthropist, Jillian Witt, a présenté la conférence et les rapports portant sur ces discussions, et souligné les points saillants des interventions des conférenciers invités.

The newly elected Liberal Party’s platform declaring the end of political harassment and a modernization of the rules governing the nonprofit sector was a popular discussion topic at the Philanthropic Foundations of Canada (PFC) symposium this fall. More than 150 philanthropic leaders came together in Toronto a week after the October 19th federal election to tackle how the philanthropic sector can work with governments at all levels. Here are key questions posed at the symposium, with highlights from guest speakers.
There was resounding support among participants for the sector’s participation in public policy. In fact, several people insisted that foundations have a moral imperative to do so, for reasons including:

The philanthropic sector has important knowledge and insight.
Voices within the sector are independent; unlike the public and private sectors, the nonprofit sector represents public interests rather than commercial or political ones.
In a time of an “advocacy chill” when charities are cautious to participate, foundations must step up.
Most importantly, public policy is integral to creating the long-term social change the sector seeks.

Speakers agreed that the timing is right, too. The new government’s platform acknowledged the value of the nonprofit sector and its commitment to reform. Amidst general optimism about the election results, there was also a recognition that the sector must ensure these commitments are kept.

Roger Gibbins of Max Bell Foundation warned that we are at risk of being regulated out of public policy discussions. He suggested that we need to “create a parade” that is coordinated and clear about what we want our role to be in public policy. Otherwise, he said, advocacy restraints could have us bringing “butter knives to a gunfight.”

Alex Himelfarb of both World Wildlife Federation and Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness agreed that this is not the moment for complacency. If the role of civil society is building democracy, then we need to maintain the sector’s independence of voice, independence of action, and ability to innovate to ensure we enhance the quality of democracy.

Matthew Mendelson of Mowat Centre said the nonprofit sector can build capacity to represent itself and self-advocate so that government will instinctively include it when creating public policy.

Participants debated the best approach to engage a broad audience in the sector’s issues. Some suggested that we should emphasize how the sector improves society as a whole in order to appeal to the middle-class rhetoric commonly used to win public favour. Others suggested that the sector’s responsibility is to increase the public’s attention to those most marginalized. Participants also weighed the risks of professionalizing organizing tactics, including that it may detract from valuable community-based organizing and activist approaches to policy change.

Despite enthusiasm over the new political climate, Adam Parachin, Associate Professor in the University of Western Ontario’s Faculty of Law, and other speakers underscored how advocacy guidelines remain confusing and at times contradictory. For example, it is charitable to educate about a point of view, but it is political to promote that same point of view. Parachin advised participants to understand how the law distinguishes charity from politics in order to advocate legally and effectively.

What’s next for philanthropy? More investment and more cooperation.

Washington-area philanthropy is becoming unabashedly business-minded. Practices such as impact investing and public-private partnerships that were experiments after the recession are now expected to be regular giving habits for many do-gooders. And that’s just for starters. Capital Business caught up with a few local philanthropy thought leaders to see what’s next for local giving in the region:

Jennifer Pryce

President of the Calvert Foundation

The Calvert Foundation does not operate like a traditional foundation, shelling out grants to nonprofits. Instead, it invites individuals to invest in notes backing a portfolio of organizations with social missions, such as education, affordable housing and fighting poverty. This is not a new idea. Calvert has been doing it for 20 years, raising $1 billion over that time. But Pryce said we can expect to see much more of it in Washington this year, as more foundations look to invest their endowments in socially minded concerns. “If their mission is creating jobs, they are looking for investments that are supporting job growth,” Pryce said. “How do you invest the endowment in a way that preserves the capital but you have it invested in good? This is huge in the foundation world and a lot are asking themselves that question.”

Another trend Pryce expects is more partnerships between government, businesses and philanthropists to fund social causes — public-private partnerships. Last fall, then-D.C. mayor Vincent C. Gray explored the idea of offering bonds to fund a project that would reduce teen pregnancy. “Much much more often I’m working in partnership with foundations and the government. It’s really a group hug,” Pryce said.

Jean Case

Chief executive of the
Case Foundation and the wife of
AOL co-founder Steve Case

In June, Steve and Jean Case committed $50 million to the Case Foundation for impact investing. Jean Case said she believes the momentum for impact investing will increase particularly for what is known as pay-for-success bonds, or social impact bonds. If a public project achieves its goal, the government pays back donors with a small profit. There is currently a bill before Congress, the Social Impact Bond Act, that would provide incentives for communities across the nation to introduce these bonds. She said this trend will heighten the standards of performance for the nonprofit sector, even more than it has in the past few years. “It’ll put a heavy focus on measurement and outcomes, which will have a spillover effect to make all of our programs more effective,” Case said.

Bill and Melinda Gates: More philanthropy can work against inequality

Since they launched their foundation in 2000, Bill and Melinda Gates have become America’s philanthropic golden couple — giving away more than $30 billion of their wealth and saving millions of lives in the process.

But their influence goes far beyond the work of their own foundation. The pair is credited with reinventing how philanthropy is done with their focus on concete measurable goals and consensus-building between foundations, businesses, development groups and governments.

In 2010, Bill Gates teamed up with his friend Warren Buffet to launch a campaign — called The Giving Pledge — to convince other super wealthy people around the world to give away at least 50 percent of their money to charity. There are now nearly 130 billionaires with a net worth of more than $700 billion who have signed the pledge.

This year, the Gateses are rallying other global citizens — ordinary people — to get involved in charity work.

“Having individuals stand up and say I care about the rest of the world, I care about these inequalities and I’m going to hold my government accountable for what they do — that’s what we’re hoping will happen,” Melinda Gates said in a joint interview with her husband earlier this year.

This interview, one in a series of conversations with tech figures who are shaking up philanthropy, has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: This year is your foundation’s 15th anniversary. When you reflect on all the work you’ve done, what are you most proud of?

Melinda: The work in vaccines and immunizations has really been transformative in bringing down childhood deaths. The two biggest killers of children are diarrhea and pneumonia. We now have new vaccines in those two areas that we’ve been involved in getting created, bringing the prices down and trying to get the lag time down. When we got into this work, the lag time in getting a vaccine from the United States to somewhere like Kenya was 20-25 years. That’s down now to one to three years. That’s something we’re in­cred­ibly proud of.

First Book mixes market forces and philanthropy to help poor children

In a small, two-bedroom apartment in Corona, Calif., Trinity Santos, 5, reads her hardcover copy of “Green Eggs and Ham” again and again. She never tires of the Dr. Seuss classic, sometimes reading it to her 3-year-old brother, Joshua, said their mother, Diane.

Life is a struggle for the Santos family. Diane worked as a waitress before her children were born, and the family of four lives on the $35,000 that her husband earns as a phlebotomist. They don’t have much.

But the children own the four dozen books in a small, homemade bookcase, courtesy of First Book, a nonprofit organization that combines market forces and philanthropy to get new books into the hands of poor children to encourage early reading.

“I didn’t have books at home when I was growing up in the Philippines,” said Diane Santos, 33, who connected with First Book through a local parent­ education program she attended shortly after Trinity was born. “I learned the most important thing is reading with them, talking to them, introducing new words.”

First Book, founded in the District in 1992, has grown into a sophisticated national enterprise that gave away more than 15 million new books to low-income children and teens in 2015. But as financial troubles have deepened in households nationwide, First Book has turned to items well beyond books, this year adding winter coats, nonperishable snacks, toothpaste, fleece blankets, underwear and other goods to its charitable arsenal.

“There’s a profound need that is really unprecedented,” said Kyle Zimmer, 55, a onetime corporate lawyer who formed First Book with two friends after she volunteered at a D.C. soup kitchen and realized that many of the children had no books at home.

Even as the economy recovers from the housing collapse of 2008, many families continue to falter. The number of homeless children in public schools has doubled since before the recession, reaching a record total of 1.36 million nationwide in the 2013-2014 school year, the most recent one for which data is available.