Two months ago the Good Capitalist released the first edition of the Social Capital Index, a timely tracking of investments in the social capital market. Through the DealSpace feature, the Index tracks capital movements in social enterprise (health, education, and workforce development), fair trade, digital inclusion, and some clean tech and microfinance investments. This month the SoCap Index returns with a new feature: Deals in Play.
The DealSpace section of the Index lists investments already made, while Deals in Play presents investments waiting to happen. The companies and funds listed in Deals in Play are actively seeking capital to either get their enterprise off the ground or expand an already proven business model. Through an initial screen, Good Capital has identified these companies as promising social enterprises. Good Capital has not conducted due diligence on the entities listed and makes no claims about their viability, but it presents them here in an effort to make it easier for worthy enterprises and investors to find each other. As with the rest of the Social Capital Index that tracks funds and companies that have received money, Deals in Play will eventually be incorporated into a searchable online database.
Either I am blogging in my sleep, or someone out there is interested in referring people to this blog, because I have no idea how this got set up... but it looks like Bloggapedia is another interesting resource to help you find blogs of interest to you.
RAISE Texas was incorporated in 2007. It was formally known as the Texas Asset Building Coalition:
Thanks to a grant from Bank of America, you can just type in your zip code and you will find contact information and the website for the nearest IDA programs, free tax preparation sites, homebuyer education and financial education programs and classes, small business information and technical assistance providers, debt management organizations, and much more.
Earlier today, we launched Google for Non-Profits, a website tailored to the needs of non-profits where people can learn about products that will help make their important work just a little bit easier. Check out our site and blog post for more info.
---------------------------------- What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.
(Continued thanks to Phil Cubeta for pointing us to interesting things like this... does the man ever blink, let alone sleep?)
Sean's question comes as he works to prepare for a "meeting with someone from Google.org next week to talk about what kind of information I think they should make available about nonprofits in Google Finance and other ways that Google.com’s mission statement to “organizing the world’s information” can be directed at the Third Sector."
Here are my thoughts...
As we approach the elections, I am reminded of a similar question: What makes a good country?
Is it simply GDP growth? % of electorate who participate in elections? Average income? Average lifespan?
I think it can be very difficult to gauge a good non-profit organization. In fact, I think that we have a problem with the way that we gauge all organizations.
The over-reliance on financial measures for evaluating a for-profit company is a problem, as well. I am in the minority with this idea, but I do not believe that the purpose of a company is to make money. I believe that it is to provide a needed service or product to the community.
This is the case for non-profit and for-profit companies. Their distinction should be limited to tax designation.
Is it a profitable company a good company if it causes social ills? Is a company that provides social benefits a bad company if it operates at a deficit?
These are the larger questions that we must ask ourselves.
---------------------------------- What do you think? Please click the COMMENTS button below.
Thank you to Tactical Philanthropy for inviting me to respond to their One Post Challenge.
What is the definition of power and influence in the philanthropic sector?
The NonProfit Times has offered an attempt to answer this question by issuing lists of the people whom they consider to hold said power and influence. Their 2007 list was the subject of one of my recent blogs as well as Phil Cubeta's reply on his Gift Hub blog.
The attached image comes courtesy of a 2005 post on adoption curve dot net, which I discovered when running a Google Image search for "power and influence." The analysis struck me as a very fitting image to portray the ideas that I outline in my previous blog.
But their power is not unexpected, and their influence fairly predictable in all but the most extreme circumstances. The "power and influence" of this particular Top 50 list, therefore, is fairly minimal.
Allow me to offer that a far more powerful list -- a philanthromap, as it were -- would be a more revelatory list such as:
The Top 50 Non-Profit Leaders Who are Quietly Changing the Sector
Or, as I with my conspiratorial bent would prefer:
The Secret Leaders of the Philanthropic Revolution
Who are these leaders? What are their defining traits? Are they the sort of folks whom we would be proud to invite to speak at our child's school, or are they of that ilk that should be on some sort of public list that is carefully watched by the shadow government -- or both?
Who, I ask, truly holds the power in the philanthropic sector?
Who, as the diagram at the top portrays, are the true "players" as opposed to merely the "context setters"?
I would propose that the following traits would make for a fairly short but substantive list of the truly powerful leaders of our sector, the likes of which NonProfit Times in all its illustrious glory would never publish:
Their organization is not a household name (i.e. their national and local office are likely the same);
They regularly voice their ideas in speeches, blogs, print publications or other media -- and they write their own material;
As the above image from adoption curve dot net blog illustrates, they have a high stake in the outcome of their actions/publications. This stake is deeply personal, far beyond compensation; that is, they have an intimate connection with the future of our sector.
I also think that an important consideration is whether or not they are compensated for their thoughts (i.e. they are part of a think-tank), or whether their publications are a veiled attempt to gain consulting contracts or sell services/products. This certainly should not fully eliminate people (love it or hate it, Terry Axelrod has made a lot of money while significantly changing our sector through her "Raising More Money" model). But there is a significant difference between Ms. Axelrod's motivation in writing a blog and that of someone like the anonymous writer of Don't Tell the Donor, who certainly has spent more resources on their blog than they will ever reap from its luminosity.
What names would you add to such a list? Phil Cubeta and I offered some initial suggestions in the aforementioned blogs. These are but a beginning.
Please add me your own nominations to this philanthromap as comments on this post, and I will publish the final results on my blog, The Raiser's Razor.
There were few surprises in the 10th annual NPT Power & Influence Top 50 list from The NonProfit Times, which touts itself as "the leading business publication for nonprofit management." The list, along with pics and brief bios of the Top 50 winners, is available here as an Adobe Acrobat PDF:
According to the publication, this report is an attempt to "celebrate some of the sector’s top executives and thinkers. These executives were selected for the impact they have now and for the innovative plans they are putting in place to evolve the charitable sector."
The list is dominated by the leaders of foundations, thinktanks, watchdog agencies and national organizations. There are two notable exceptions:
Robert Egger, founder of DC Central Kitchen, who has transcended the role of leader of a local poverty relief agency to grab an increasingly dominant share of the national conversation on issues related to poverty and the role of charity. As the publication says, "Never one to mince words, he is one of the most effective advocates in the nation. His ability to cut through to the essence of an issue and get people to find a commonality is why he was such a potent force to help lead the recent Nonprofit Congress."
Julie Thomas, Executive Director of the Volunteer Center for North Texas. In her award, the publication sites "Thomas’s entrepreneurial spirit is a magnet for money to support operations, including foundation money and a warehouse outlet where new and gently used items donated by local firms are sold. She also initiated the first criminal background checking system in Texas for volunteers and staff members in nonprofits, including faith-based organizations."
Congratulations to Robert and Julie for making it to this list (this is Robert's second award, and Julie's first). I think that it is critical that such lists integrate leaders like Robert and Julie, who are not associated with a national organization but whose work and voices have national impact. It is critical that those who claim to represeent our sector on an national and interantional basis -- i.e. NP Times -- not forget about these voices.
I find it somehow fitting, therefore, that Mr. Egger's name was somehow left out of the Philanthropy News Digest's article on the release of these awards. As if someone over there thought, "Nahhh, this guy couldn't really be on this list."
I am not trying to detract from the accomplishments of people like Patty Stonesifer (Gates Foundation), Israel L. Gaither (Salvation Army) or Diana Aviv (Independent Sector). Their work is very important and wields great influence on our sector. However, their inclusion on such a list comes at no surprise.
Also, I was disappointed that this list did not reflect the amazing influence of people and companies from outsdie the sector. Although the aforementioned people did a great deal to change the way that our sector operates in 2007, their power or influence was hardly greater than the impact of the following:
Google.org, which is working to integrate philanthropy as a business strategy. Google's free checkout system could potentially revolutionize the way that online donations are processed (something that I called for in an Open Letter earlier this year). Think of it as social enterprise 2.0.
The (RED) Campaign, which is working to change the way that corporate philanthropy influences consumers. Think of it as cause marketing 2.0.
Free Rice, which admittedly was launched too late for consideration, but which has built an incredibly addictive form of fundraising that blends entertainment and advertising with hunger relief. This is the next generation of the "click-to-give" sites such as TheHungerSite.com
YouTube.com, which has helped thousands of non-profits to share their message with donors (especially since their acquisition by Google, and the launch of their nonprofit channel). By empowering even the smallest nonprofit to put their clients in front of their donors, sites like YouTube are moving us away from fundraising and towards relationship-building.
MoveOn.org, which has shaped the way that non-profits lobby for political change. I think that one of the signs of greatness is the number of imitators that one has, and MoveOn.org has inspired countless other sites to quickly and efficiently engage visitors in the lobbying process.
And there are, of course, many others.
But these are all popular names, and there are very few surprises on these lists. That's why I'd rather see a list like this:
The Top 50 Non-Profit Leaders Who are Quietly Changing the Sector
Such a list would not feature the CEOs of international non-profits or Presidents of foundations that drop billions of dollar into the sector annually. It would feature the names of people like Larry James of CDM, Phil Cubeta of GiftHub, and Tracy Gary of Inspired Legacies. People whose names may not appear in the Chronicle of Philanthropy or Nonprofit Times each issue, but who are building a movement to shift charity towards meaningful change.
If you were in charge of creating such a philanthromap, who would you include?
Get Xigi With It: Are you on the map? In their own words, “xigi (pronounced "ziggy") is a social network providing market intelligence and mapping tools to make sense of the capital market for good.” Xigi let’s everyone and anyone find the connections between various players in the fields of philanthropy, social enterprise, and the other constantly evolving fields of “doing good”. Find the people and entities participating in the philanthropic capital markets and identify the deals they’re working on together. Try browsing the various member of the network and you’ll quickly find people and organizations you’ve never heard of who are working on amazing projects.
His challenge was, in essence, to create a social justice "philanthromap." And yes, this term has been used before (though I first thought I was rather smart for coming up with it). Check out this 2005 post:
Phil asked some very compelling questions, which I have been pondering for days (hence the relative lack of blog posts). I have yet to come up with a substantive response that I find suitable to his inquiry, so I would throw the question out to you:
What response do you have to his questions and ideas? Who are the allies we could secure to join us in this effort?
I have posted a selection from his commentbelow. I also recommend that you check out his own blog on this topic:
Thinking through the system of roles, rules and relations is the breakthrough step. I have never been a foundation person, a big funder, nor a fundraiser. Yet as a trainer of advisors I am in the same ecosystem. How can we help our ecosysem, as well as our individual professions, thrive? Has to start by thinking of the roles and imagining ourselves in each, to see the world from the points of view of the others, then thinking where are the dysfunctional points, and how can we overcome them?
Nice to see Pam Gerber in your post too. A clear next step, Jeremy, would be to "map" the ecosystem around CDM. Who are the players around you? What institutions are already in motion with respect to you? City Hally? Dallas Foundation? DSVP? Entrepreneurs Foundation of North TX, various financial services orgs, legal firms, associations of professionals like NCPG and the estate planning counsel? Can you begin to literally sketch a map by sectors? I can help you add to it. Pam could too. So could Dallas Foundation. Why the heck has this not already been done?
Map it by place - Dallas. But then also map it by issues. What is the map of key players for social justice in the US?
Who funds social justice work nationally and locally? What else do they fund? How do they fund it? Who funds them? What are their constraints and criteria?
Who works as a professional with specific social justice funders? What are their strengths, weaknesses and blindspots?
I would like to accept part of Phil's challenge today: making this blog "a collaborative space...(to) convene key players and talk about the maps... (to) identify natural allies. Natural synergies."
Calling all allies! Please comment... even if it is just "I am in." I want to know if there's any interest in this sort of venture.
Two months ago the Good Capitalist released the first edition of the Social Capital Index, a timely tracking of investments in the social capital market. Through the DealSpace feature, the Index tracks capital movements in social enterprise (health, education, and workforce development), fair trade, digital inclusion, and some clean tech and microfinance investments. This month the SoCap Index returns with a new feature: Deals in Play.
There were few surprises in the 10th annual NPT Power & Influence Top 50 list from The NonProfit Times, which touts itself as "the leading business publication for nonprofit management." The list, along with pics and brief bios of the Top 50 winners, is available here as an Adobe Acrobat PDF:
Free Rice
