Upload
studio-two
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The New Normal: Resetting, Rethinking, Restructuring for a New Age of Philanthropy
Citation preview
Women & Philanthropy Philanthropic Round TableApril 8, 2010
The New Normal: Resetting, Rethinking, Restructuring
for a New Age of Philanthropy
Fourteenth Annual Philanthropic Round Table
The New Normal: Resetting, Rethinking, Restructuring
for a New Age of Philanthropy
Convened by Miss Hall’s School
and held at
New York University’s Kimmel Center
New York, New York
April 8, 2010
© Copyright 2010 Miss Hall’s School. All rights reserved.
2010 Participants
MODERATOR
Jeannie NorrisHead of School, Miss Hall’s School
PANELISTS
Sara K. GouldPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Foundation for Women, Brooklyn, New York
Donna P. HallPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Women Donors Network, San Francisco, California
Joanna L. KrotzDirector, Women’s Giving Institute, Author, The Guide to Intelligent Giving, New York, New York
Katelyn L. Quynn, JDDeputy Chief Development Officer, Massachusetts General Hospital, Author, Planned Giving: A Guide to Fundraising and Philanthropy, Boston, Massachusetts
Lisa WitterChief Strategy Officer, Fenton Communications, Author, The She Spot, New York, New York
1
One may be tired of hearing that change is the only constant, but there is no denying it. As Jeannie
notes in her introduction, the new philanthropic paradigm focuses not on the transfer of wealth but
on large-scale societal issues, their root causes, and what is required in response.
Panelists echoed that assertion, noting movement away from large, unresponsive organizations
to small, entrepreneurial bodies, as a new generation emerges that wants to leap past treating
symptoms and proceed directly to uprooting and re-thinking systems. Those involved in social
issues are, increasingly, insistent on changing the game. In addition, as so many other aspects of life
globalize, there is a corresponding adjustment in thinking around giving that allows us all to see not
just the neighbor on our block, but also the neighbor across the planet.
These large changes in mindset are putting both strains and positive pressures on nonprofits. There
is the oft-noted pressure on us to demonstrate return on investment and, at the same time, the need
to invest more time and energy in engaging with constituents, in order to allow for more voices to be
heard and a broader coalition to be built. And technological change plays its own role, both making
more possibility and creating daunting complexity.
The steady influx of women’s philanthropic involvement on a large scale is one of the game-changers
noted. As one panelist said, the subject of empowering women is “hot” right now as, increasingly,
there is general acknowledgement that providing women with education, health care, and economic
opportunity grows healthier families, stronger communities, richer economies, and greater political
stability. Much, although not all, of this discovery has come about because women were interested in
helping other women. And because of that sensibility, families and generations have become part of
the discussion and the process, as well. The picture is not so much about saving the individual as it is
now about empowering the individual who will strengthen the fabric of society.
Just as Miss Hall’s School, with its Go Far, Go Together Campaign theme and its collaborative work
with students, has recognized the power of collective action to motivate and engage the individual,
the panel often made the same assertion. They talked about critical mass and called for women to
come together, to be at the center of change, and to be our own media in a world where 24/7 media-
bombardment is the new normal.
That new normal for women? Greater visibility, greater outspokenness, greater willingness to risk
failure, more initiative, and more collaboration. It is, they said, for each other’s sake that we cannot
sit still. That sounds like just what the girls would tell you, if you joined us at Miss Hall’s.
Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Head of School Chief Advancement Officer Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Head of School Chief Advancement Officer Head of School Chief Advancement Officer Head of School Chief Advancement Officer
Jeannie Norris
MS. NORRIS: There seems to be a great
deal of ferment in current thinking about
philanthropy. And why not? There equally
seems to be ferment in our thinking about
most major social institutions. Perhaps
it is because the future seems uncertain.
Nobody knows for sure what the long-term
effects of the financial crisis, high levels of
national debt, and high unemployment will
be. The economic “new normal” suggests
lower growth for quite some time. And
most polls show an electorate sharply
divided about the role of government in the
future of the country. Within this high level
of angst, thoughtful writers are wondering
whether the old models of philanthropy are
broken and whether new approaches will
appear anytime soon.
Pablo Eisenberg wrote a few months ago
in The Wall Street Journal that it is “hard to
overstate the crisis facing charitable giving
today.” Much of current philanthropy, he
says, isn’t meeting the needs of charitable
organizations or urgent public needs.1
In an article called “The Coming Paradigm
Shift in Philanthropy: It's Not about the
Money,” Susan Raymond decries the
asymmetry in philanthropy, i.e., the fact
that it is about the transfer of money from
an individual with it to individuals without
it. The problem with this relationship,
she says, is that it is not “one of mutuality
of responsibility and accountability but
one of giver and receiver.” The result, she
continues, is that “fundamental social
problems continue apace, showing little
progress for the dollars spent.” In the midst
of this frustration, Raymond posits, the
new paradigm is emerging, one that seeks
solutions to “fix” the problem and does
not simply transfer resources to “help.”
Further, the loyalty in the new paradigm is
to the problem, not between the giver and
the receiver. Perhaps most importantly,
the new paradigm seeks to “flow resources
to problems in ways that create sustained
institutional capability,” i.e. continuous,
self-sustained resource flows. Finally, it
values partnership, a mutuality of problem
definition and program execution. 2
In a recent article in The Chronicle of
Philanthropy, titled “Philanthropy Needs
a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the
Common Good,” Michael Edwards argues
that philanthropy is currently based on a
strange assumption: “Let's develop a costly
and divisive system for creating wealth and
then hope that those who benefit most
will give some back to solve problems
2
that they have helped to cause.” This is,
he says, probably the least efficient way to
tackle social problems. He asserts that the
system must be rebuilt, according to these
basic principles: involve as many people as
possible; put those who experience society's
problems at the center of the system; find
ways to direct as many resources as possible
to the most difficult and entrenched social
problems, since that is where government
and business usually fear to tread; and
strengthen openness, accountability, and
education to spur innovation without
the need for too much government
intervention. Social transformation, he says,
can’t be left to market forces or to the whims
of billionaires…it must be more supportive
of people’s own self-development efforts to
bring the change society needs. 3
Another tantalizing analysis, by Jed
Emerson, supposes that “today's young
Americans will reshape corporate culture
as they become CEOs, focusing companies
on financial gains and fighting poverty,
improving the environment, and other
causes.” He imagines a blended business
and nonprofit approach to charity, with
large companies integrating giving into
their operations. 4
What we wonder is whether American
philanthropy is indeed edging its way to a
new social normal, a style that brings more
people to the decision-making table and
in some way is increasingly progressive in
character. Are we in turmoil because turmoil
is the order of the day, or is the gigantic
system of American philanthropy truly
evolving to solve social problems that have so
far shown themselves to be intractable?
We have observed in other meetings of this
roundtable that philanthropy is essential
to social change in this culture. The
kinds of initiatives that might be taken by
government in other countries are, here,
left to loosely associated individuals and
groups. It seems that if our society is to
evolve in terms of basic fairness and equity,
it will be because individuals with money to
give feel the need. The Dalai Lama says that
compassion is the radicalism of the current
age. So, will philanthropy become the
vehicle for that compassion? And in what
form? Are we in a new normal?
MS. HALL: What is changing is that
philanthropy has begun moving away from
large foundations, which have become
very bureaucratic and not very responsive,
and toward individuals, small family
foundations, and social entrepreneurs who
say, “What can I try? Who can I work with
in a more collaborative way? How can
we learn from mistakes, talk about those
mistakes, and then move forward?” It is a
transition toward more entrepreneurial
models, involving many more people. We
have to figure out how to involve more than
the traditional, inherited-wealth donors
who run family foundations, broaden
the base, and institutionalize that. We
need to work together to be much more
entrepreneurial and much more risk-taking.
MS. KROTZ: There certainly is a new
normal, but I don’t think it is just because
of the economic meltdown. There is now
3
a great deal of hands-on engagement
by people and institutions that want to
partner with nonprofits, which is incredibly
exciting but also a little nerve-racking.
Everyone has her own term for it, but
social entrepreneurship is basically about
hands-on tools, people, and for-profit
companies doing good. It’s where Avon
will support a charity and give 2 percent
of what you spend to that charity. We have
Google investing in things that push an
agenda, which may be one that I agree with,
but perhaps it isn’t. There are companies
engaged in giving profits to good causes,
and all kinds of for-profits trying to do
good and at the same time trying to engage
the customer to buy their products. This
collaborative nature is not about being “the
giver” and not about being “the receiver.” It’s
people moving forward together to get the
job done. There is just a certain discomfort
I have with social entrepreneurship. I am
watching it, thrilled with it, and love that it
is happening, but I am a little leery, as well.
MS. GOULD: Another part of social
entrepreneurship is investing directly
in real people by individuals who are
motivated by wanting to solve a problem or
change the world. They are using business
models and business thinking. One of the
problems in the new normal is this possible
over-reliance on business thinking as an
answer to problems that we face. One of
my favorite readings is by Jim Collins, who
has a small monograph called Good to
Great and the Social Sectors. On the cover,
it says, “Why Business Thinking is not the
Answer.” As someone who has been in a
nonprofit foundation, the Ms. Foundation
for Women, for twenty-four years, the last
six years as president, I also believe that
business thinking is not the answer. When
Mike Edwards says we have to engage more
real people in real communities, it means
we have to put people who are experiencing
problems at the center of finding solutions.
This is a fundamental value in the
Foundation for Women.
I also am nervous about the social
entrepreneurship concept and this thinking
that we need to have more measurable
results. Part of the new normal is this
emphasis on metrics. Instead, we need
to focus on the fact that as we try to find
solutions, we will not always succeed. There
will be failures. We learn from failures.
MS. WITTER: I am most excited about the
new normal in communications. The way
we are using social media is changing us as
[W]e have to put people who are experiencing problems at the center of finding solutions.
Sara K. Gould
4
human beings. Those tools, in particular,
are women’s tools, with the activities, the
sharing, the documenting, the engagements,
and I’m excited about the possibilities. Also,
the new philanthropy is really different.
People my age and younger do not use the
word “charity.”
MS. QUYNN: I come from the viewpoint
of a healthcare fundraiser. I work at
Massachusetts General Hospital, and in 1994
we combined with Brigham and Women’s
Hospital to form Partners HealthCare,
which is now the largest healthcare system
in Massachusetts. Nationally, we are all
seeing dramatic changes in healthcare.
Our “new normal” includes all the aspects
of your “new normal,” plus the healthcare
crisis, government changes, and the fact that
hospitals are not getting reimbursements
from Medicare as we used to. It is causing
enormous stress on people seeking primary
care physicians and worrying about getting
care and enormous stress on the entire
hospital system. At Massachusetts General,
we do so much in terms of healthcare
for the underserved locally and globally.
For example, we currently have about ten
physicians working in Haiti.
Because of broadening services, the donor
base is expanding for all of us. Ours is no
longer simply a grateful patient base, but
the world is our donor base. We are seeing
many more people getting involved, and
we need them. We are talking with them
about investing in us and the work that we
do—research, for example—and how that
will help the world, not just our community.
Last year, we got our largest gift, $100
million. It was built on a small connection
with a patient, but it was somebody who
wanted to invest in the research we do. It’s
by talking about how our work will impact
the world more broadly that new donors
invest in us. That’s where my “new normal”
comes from.
MS. KROTZ: I want to add to the
discussion what women are bringing to
the party in philanthropy. That’s more
of a game-changer. Women tend to be
socially engaged. They tend to be hands-
on. Everyone needs to be educated about
getting engaged in philanthropy—men as
well as women—and I would rather see that
engagement than a $500 million fund.
MS. NORRIS: That was my next question.
In which ways might women and women’s
organizations be especially well equipped to
enter this new normal?
MS. WITTER: Women, as a topic, are
“hot” right now. What I worry about is
keeping women “hot.” How do we keep
front-and-center the idea of investing in
women and the idea that there is a real
return on those investments? How do we
deal with systemic problems—not just
educating women, but changing the system?
How do we build on the passion around the
international women’s piece? The challenge
we have as American women is to bridge
this excitement about supporting women
and girls abroad and bring it back home.
MS. GOULD: Another challenge is to
get women to engage in the most pressing
5
issues of our day as women while working
with everyone to do this. My experience for
many years has been working in progressive
settings where people are addressing what’s
considered to be a universal issue, and yet
nothing is a universal issue. There is always
a gender, a race, a class, all kinds of lenses.
For example, too often what we miss in
developing a solution is that those affected
are women and not men, and so it’s a huge
missing piece. For the Ms. Foundation for
Women, being for women means to be
everywhere, talking about every issue.
MS. HALL: One of the things that I focus
on is getting women involved in change—
individual change, systemic change, and a
combination of those. Women need to be
at the center of the conversation, because
they are living the problems. An example: A
woman named Kiran Bedi, who was the first
female police officer in India. She famously
had the prime minister’s car towed from a
no-parking zone. In 1994 she was named
warden of India’s largest prison, which was
run by a gang. She turned it inside out—to
the point where she was educating the
prisoners. She revolutionized that system.
Another example is that of a law professor
who was talking about how women are
marginalized because we are so few in
numbers in the positions that we take. Until
we have more numbers and have reached
some sort of tipping point, we are very
unempowered. A number of years ago, in
a law school where she was teaching, this
professor instituted a requirement that
when a professor called on a woman, no
matter what answer she gave—right or
wrong—another one of the few women
in the class was in line with a follow-up
comment and support. As a result, there has
been a huge change in how these women
function in law school and afterward.
I bring up these examples because as we
think about what philanthropy is—or what
it should be—there’s a connection between
changing the system and supporting
individuals. The question is, how do we
set things up so we are working with
individuals and focusing as a group on
entrenched systems?
MS. NORRIS: What other examples are
there of partnerships between those who
are providing resources and those who are
living the problems?
MS. GOULD: Women’s funds, of which
there are about one hundred and thirty
around the world, and the Ms. Foundation
Women need to be their own media—telling stories and getting the word out, educating.
Lisa Witter
6
are examples. What comes out of the
relationship between funders and those
experiencing problems is transformative.
Women’s funds were among the first in
philanthropy to bring this together.
MS. QUYNN: I have a question for my
co-panelists. Can you name a major gift that
has been made by a woman—with money
that she has earned—that has transformed a
system, a charity?
MS. HALL: I went to business school
with Michelle Clayman, who is the founder
of New Amsterdam Partners, a financial
management firm. She created a company
that is completely family-friendly. In fact,
she is known to go through offices at
6:00 p.m. to turn off computers and tell
people to go home. She has engaged her
employees in philanthropic work, but, in
addition to that, she has not been afraid to
put her name on major gifts that she has
made. She gave Stanford Business School,
which has had a very low percentage of
women in its classes until the last three or
four years, a gift that hinged on providing
scholarships for women and making sure
that they were working to change policies
and the percentage of women in classes. She
also funded a research center on Stanford’s
campus. The Michelle R. Clayman Institute
for Gender Research is doing a lot of
collaborative work with other departments
and is focused on work-family issues. That’s
an example.
MS. WITTER: One of the “new normal”
things that I want to chat a little bit about
has to do with the iPad—and, by the way,
they probably did not have a woman in
the focus group when they named it. It has
changed the way we work and how we do
our business. You can imagine how much
of how we interact with donors is going to
change. They can go online. They can see a
video. It changes the raising of money. We
need to be in communication with people.
Our customer service has to be better than
ever. We need to tell stories better than ever.
Reading is not going to be what we will be
doing anymore. People are going to watch
things. They are going to want to interact.
They are going to have what we are calling
“filters,” where they’re going to want to learn
only what they want to learn. It’s going to be
hard to get to them in ways that we have in
the past.
Also, for women in particular, if we’re going
to have more involvement in philanthropy,
women need to be their own media—
telling stories and getting the word out,
educating. Right now, women blog more
than men. They do more online. They are
making online video content. If we don’t
start making our own media, we are going
to see a real problem as to what gets funded
and what gets attention. If anyone does not
already have a Flip camera—it’s $100, and
well worth it—go buy one today. It’s an easy
way to shoot and make your own video.
This is the future of how we’re going to do
our work. We have to be part of that change.
MS. KROTZ: There is a generation shift.
Young women use video all the time. It’s
the wireless generation. They grew up on
war and the economic meltdown. This is
7
a whole new category of young people,
and we are seeing, in fundraising, ways
that younger people are engaging with
philanthropy. We’re seeing gender-specific
kinds of behaviors bridged. Many women
in their twenties are different than women
in their forties and fifties. They use texting,
not direct mail, which, by the way, is
plummeting. I have been covering women
donors and women in philanthropy [as a
journalist] for about six years now and I
am seeing this change. I have great hope for
that, great hope.
MS. NORRIS: We were talking about
small changes that have huge effects—the
story of having a woman ready to confirm
a comment of a female law school student,
for example. What comes to mind is women
needing permission. For example, women
very often need permission to run for office.
They need to be told, “You have all the skills
that everybody is looking for, so why don’t
you just go do that?” We see that, of course,
with girls, as well, and we teach our girls to
encourage each other to take healthy risks.
The question is, do women need permission
to give?
MS. GOULD: I think there was a time
when everybody needed permission to
give. As a fundraiser, one of the things
you learn is that the single largest reason
why someone does not give is that no one
asked them. In that sense, everybody needs
permission to give.
MS. WITTER: A lot of women like to
give in communities. Women like to give
in circles.
MS. HALL: The conversation and support
of a philanthropic community bolsters
some of that self-confidence in the practice
of giving. In my organization, initially
most women who were giving came from
inherited-wealth families. They came into
the world not knowing very much about
money. They just knew that they had it.
They did not know how to manage it. They
did not know how to write a check. They
never worked. Their families were much
more male-oriented. These women did a
lot of work—which they did collectively—
to get to a point where they realized that
they could be powerful and that they
could make a difference with money. That
gave everybody permission to be more
empowered, to feel okay, and to recognize
that it is both a responsibility and a privilege
to use money wisely and to be able to talk
about it. But talking about money, that’s still
The conversation and support of a philanthropic community bolsters self-confidence in the practice of giving.
Donna P. Hall
8
a struggle. In my organization, it’s much
more difficult to talk about how much
money we have than to talk when we hold
a sex class. Women can talk about sex from
now until tomorrow. They can talk about
where they want to buy shoes, but they
will not talk about money. We conduct an
anonymous questionnaire every year at
our conference. The questionnaire is just a
postcard that asks how much are your total
assets and how much did you give away, and
the response rate—even in an anonymous
questionnaire that is put into a box and
nobody can see it—is very low.
MS. NORRIS: What is that about?
MS. KROTZ: Women don’t feel that they
own their assets or that they’re in charge of
the dollars. They feel that the money came
from the man and they do not share the
power of the checkbook. There is also this
issue of being seen as a woman of wealth.
For some women, it’s terrifying. It is a very
powerful position, and society, by and
large, does not do well with that, with how
it treats women who are wealthy. They’re
often stereotyped as bitchy, stupid, bimbos.
Again, I come back to education, media,
and marketing. The education has to be: Be
in charge of yourself, be in charge of your
money, be in charge of your assets, and then
you can give with passion and distinction.
MS. NORRIS: Connecting with others
is important. At Miss Hall’s we have had
donors who wanted to be anonymous and
did not want a name on a building. We told
them, “The girls need to see your name.
They need to know that you are there, that
you are thinking about them, that they are
a part of what you are a part of.” After that,
there was no problem; the name is on the
building. Connecting in this way makes it
much more comfortable.
In a similar vein, girls and women
sometimes have difficulty promoting
themselves. We teach girls to advocate for
themselves, because they will need to do
that when they step out of academia. We
allow them to practice doing that by asking
them to list their strengths and note how
those strengths, for example, helped to win
the game for the whole team. When a girl
can talk about herself in relationship
with other girls and what they all did
together, she is eager to speak out. How
do we create those relationship zones in
philanthropy for women?
MS. WITTER: The next book that I
am working on talks about women who
promote themselves better. Every year I go
to a conference with a woman named Nancy
Lublin, who created Dress for Success. One
year, there was a panel, and I was the only
woman. There were eight very successful
men telling me how much humility they
had, and they asked a question that stuck
with me. They asked if the most important
thing to teach your children is humility.
I don’t think that it is, and I think that
women might have too much of it. I’ve
been doing a lot of thinking about humility,
what it means, and this hiding behind the
good virtue of humility. I started a project
with Marie Wilson, founder and President
of The White House Project, and I asked,
9
“Why don’t we have more women quoted
in the media?” She said, “We don’t know
any.” I said, “That’s absurd! We have to
create a database of women whom we can
call and quote when news breaks.” The
challenge that we have had is that we will
call a woman and say, “Jane, you’re an expert
on this or that, can we talk?” and Jane will
say one of three things: “Yes,” although that
happens probably only a third of the time;
“No, I need to pick up my kids;” or “I really
don’t know enough about that issue.” This
notion of somehow “not knowing your
expertise” is a huge issue that we have to
change. As philanthropists if we can’t say
“I’m a philanthropist,” then how can we
inspire other people to be philanthropists?
I want to create a web site of women
philanthropists and include their pictures. I
want to be proud of being a philanthropist.
MS. GOULD: Too often, women say, “I
don’t know enough.” That perfectionism
is an enormous barrier to get over. Having
worked with Marie Wilson myself for
eighteen years, I always heard Marie say,
“Being mediocre was never a problem for
men.” You just have to get over it and know
that what we are bringing to the table is
every bit as important as what anyone else is
going to say.
MS. HALL: We have to figure out ways
to get ourselves over these barriers. We
have to do that together, we have to do it
individually, and we have to do it through
funding. I don’t think that we can wait
for the large foundations to help us. I
cannot emphasize that enough. That’s the
fundamental difference between men and
women. Women have tended to give very
quietly, underconfidently. But [because of
female longevity and social change], women
are coming into the majority of the assets; by
the year 2040 or 2044 the wealth that women
will have will total about $44 trillion, and
the opportunity to do something with that is
ours. So, we have to help each other—except
for maybe Miss Hall’s students—get over
this issue. I’ve been at meetings where each
woman was asked to talk for two minutes
about her strengths and what she is good at.
I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen
women just not be able to do it. We come up
with all sorts of excuses. We get embarrassed.
Isn’t it interesting how difficult this is for so
many of us?
MS. QUYNN: I want to go back to the
generational issue. I believe that younger
women are becoming more philanthropic,
learning how to give, and have benefited
from the educational process that has been
The education has to be: Be in charge of yourself, be in charge of your money, be in charge of your assets, and then you can give with passion and distinction.
Joanna L. Krotz
10
taking place around philanthropy. But it is
the older generation of women, who have
the money and who could really make a
major impact, who are not giving. They
don’t have that sense of permission or
whatever it is, and yet they are the ones with
the money. That’s the problem for all of us.
MS. NORRIS: What can we do as women
to help each other become bolder about
how we use the power of money?
MS. HALL: We also need mentoring and
generational exchanges between women.
We need job shadowing or philanthropy
shadowing. By making things more
intentional, I think that they will become
more systemic.
MS. QUYNN: Again, I come back to
financial education. It’s not that you need a
lot of money to be a philanthropist, but you
need to be in charge of it.
MS. WITTER: I get really excited for
younger women. They go to college and law
school in equal numbers with men. They
have jobs. They make a lot of money. But
where it all switches for women is when
they have kids. In philanthropy, you need to
find ways to engage women and families in
real ways—and I’m not just talking about
fundraising. I’m talking about nonprofits
having sections of their websites with
online gaming for kids or places where
they engage children in doing part of the
fundraising. It’s about engaging the family.
As philanthropists, if we want to engage
women, we need to think about how to
engage the fullness of what that means.
Eighty percent of us will be mothers at some
point, 80 percent. If we don’t understand
women as mothers, we are missing this
large opportunity.
MS. NORRIS: What role will women be
playing in some of these changes?
MS. QUYNN: I expect that in the future
we are going to see participation by more
people, participation with their time, and
maybe smaller gifts, but certainly their
time. Gone are the days where donors say,
“Take my money and do what you want
with it. I trust your organization.” More and
more donors are getting involved, not just
with wanting to know how their money is
being used, but also with knowing what the
institution is doing more broadly. That’s
a plus and a minus. You have the well-
intentioned volunteer donor who wants to
step in and change the system. How does
that go? Sometimes it goes very well, and
sometimes not so well.
As institutions, we need to be thanking our
donors, thanking them again and again and
again. The new normal is thanking them
over and over for the $25 gift, as well as for
the $1 million gift. It is about increasing
our stewardship. It is absolutely a time to
invest in more development staff, not fewer.
We are all going to be working harder and
harder for fewer dollars.
MS. WITTER: I think the field is going
to change a lot. There is a new generation
coming up, and we are going to see a shift
from large foundations, some of which will
become smaller or disappear. We are going
11
to rely more on the internet and on doing
philanthropic work in a more women-
friendly way. That’s going to become more
dominant, because women are going to get
organized and are really going to step up to
the mantle of their responsibility. There’s
going to be a big shift.
MS. GOULD: The private foundations are
going to be here, but they are transforming.
They feel these differences that we are talking
about, these trends. Even when a private
foundation does not transform, it is still
saying, “We’re going to be more focused.”
MS. KROTZ: Women have to be engaged.
Women need to talk to their brokers.
Women need to talk to program directors
about the way they prefer to be approached.
“This is how I want to be recognized. This is
the communication that I want.”
MS. WITTER: I agree. One of the things
I did when writing this book was look at
the private sector, for example, how the
oil change company Jiffy Lube was being
sold to women. Jiffy Lube used to be a
company where women would go in and
be expected to just sit there and wait for
the car. Then, the company realized that
maybe women have more to do than just
get their oil changed. They realized that
what women needed was an area for kids
to play, magazines to read, a place where
they could make phone calls, so Jiffy Lube
changed the environment. I feel like a lot of
what we have done—as women who have
been breaking barriers—is to go in and live
in a man’s world instead of figuring out how
to live in a woman’s world. Although the
corporate sector is beginning to understand
how to market to women, the philanthropic
arena does not understand that as well.
When I ask, “Do you market to women?”
they look at me like I am sexist. Somehow,
when you say that men and women are
different, it triggers this idea that men and
women aren’t equal. That’s not what it
means to me at all. It is understanding the
differences between men and women.
MS. NORRIS: Questions from
the audience.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: There are two things
that I observed today that I don’t think are
being acted upon. First, there are a lot of
organizations doing the same things. Second,
and even more importantly, you are ignoring
the culture change. There’s the African-
American community, and there’s the Asian
community, and we are not all at the same
income. Unfortunately, white America sees
It’s not that you need a lot of money to be a philanthropist, but you need to be in charge of it.
Katelyn L. Quynn, JD
12
only this one income. I work for a national
organization that has raised over $200
million. I’m sure none of you has approached
us to collaborate, nor do we feel that we
should call you to collaborate. There’s money
sitting out there, and nobody is going after
it because of the culture in America. We are
still very segregated. I think there should be a
panelist on your panel from that community.
I’m not saying this as a criticism, but you’re
talking about a new normal, so you have to
have a new thinking.
MS. HALL: I agree with everything you
have said. My organization is working with
the Twenty-First Century Foundation,
which is a New York foundation. We
are having a conversation next week to
discuss that exact issue—what can we do
to collaborate, because we do operate in
very different worlds, but yet we’re doing
the same work. We will discuss some of the
things that we can do together to begin to
break down those barriers, recognizing that
institutionally we are very different, and we
need to bring in new structures to do that.
MS. GOULD: None of us lives our life in
just one identity. It’s the connections. We are
talking about women’s causes and yet we are
not bringing race, class, sexual orientation,
and age into the conversation and looking
at it all together. We are totally missing the
change that’s happening in the world, which
is what you’re talking about.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We talk a lot
about women and how we educate women
or bring them into the dialogue, but what
about men? We are talking about changing
the paradigm here, the structure of our
society. How do we connect that back to
the men?
MS. GOULD: We need to engage mothers
and daughters, and we need to connect
that to the workplace, and men are in the
workplace. Change is only going to happen
by men and women working together. It’s
not 1972. It’s not even 1995 anymore. Your
point is extremely well taken.
MS. NORRIS: Please join me in thanking
the panel. (Applause)
1 Eisenberg, Pablo, “What’s Wrong with Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It,” The Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2009.
2 Raymond, Susan. “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Philanthropy: It’s Not About the Money.” on Philanthropy.com. September 5, 2008. accessed: October 20, 2008. http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/ News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7591
3 Edwards, Michael, “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 14, 2010, 31.
4 Wilhelm, Ian. “Charity and Business Will Blend in New Ways by 2020,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy. January 7, 2010. accessed: April 11, 2010. http://philanthropy.com/article/CharityBusiness- Will-B/63582/
13
Women and Philanthropy Round Table Panelists, 1997–2009
Jeannie Norris ’97–’09Round Table Facilitator
Head of School, Miss Hall’s School
Karen Ansara ’07co-Founder
Ansara Family Foundation
Patricia H. Arnold ’06Board Member, The Posse
Foundation; Trustee, Wheaton College; Philanthropist
David Blinder ’00Vice President for Resources and Public Affairs, Wellesley College
Betsy Brill ’08Founder and President, Strategic
Philanthropy, Ltd.
H.P. Colhoun ’05Philanthropist, Businessman,
and 32-year veteran of Wall Street Week
Charles Collier ’01Senior Philanthropic Adviser
Harvard University
Joan C. Countryman ’02Head of School, Lincoln School
Julie Fisher Cummings ’09Managing Trustee, Max M. & Marjorie S. Fisher Family
Foundation; Presidential Appointee to the Board, Corporation for
National and Community Service;President and co-Founder,
Lovelight Foundation
Sarah Daignault ’99President, Board of Trustees
The Madeira School
M. Christine DeVita ’06President, The Wallace Foundation
Anita Diamant ’04Author The Red Tent, Good Harbor,
Pitching My Tent, The New Jewish Wedding
Nina McNeely Diefenbach ’05Vice President for Development
and Marketing, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Barbara Dobkin ’02Founder and Chair, Ma’yan: Jewish
Women’s Project; Chair Jewish Women’s Archive; Board Member,
The White Huse Project
Mary Maples Dunn ’99Director, Schlesinger Library
Radcliffe College
Jean M. Entine ’98Executive Director
Boston Women’s Fund
M. Burch Tracy Ford ’99Head of School
Miss Porter’s School
Linda Franciscovich ’07 Managing Director and National Head,
Private Philanthropy Group at U.S. Trust
Keller Cushing Freeman ’98Writer; co-Founder,
the Emrys Foundation; Former Trustee, Radcliffe College
Karin George ’03Vice President for Advancement
Smith College
Tracy Gary ’98, ’99Principal, Community Consulting
Services; Author, Inspired Philanthropy: Creating a Giving Plan
Claire Gaudiani ’07Professor, New York University
Author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism
Pamela Gerloff, Ed.D. ’04Editor, More than Money Journal
Joan F. Gillman ’98Director of Special Industry
Programs, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business
Cynthia Smith Gordineer ’08CEO, American Red Cross (Southern Tier Chapter)
Elisabeth Griffith ’99Headmistress
The Madeira School
Elizabeth S. Gross ’97, ’98Management Consultant
The Wayland Group
Agnes Gund ’06MoMA President Emerita;
New York Arts Philanthropist
Alexandra Herzan ’02Founder and Chair
Lily Auchincloss Foundation
Sheila Holderness ’97President
The New York Women’s Foundation
Caroline Hovey ’97Vice President of Marketing,
Jennison Associates Capital Corp.
Helen LaKelly Hunt ’01President, Board of Directors
The Sister Fund
Blair Jenkins ’00Head of School, Dana Hall School
Sheila C. Johnson ’04co-Founder,
Black Entertainment TelevisionCEO, Salamander Development
H. Peter Karoff ’06Founder and Chairman,
The Philanthropic Initiative
Beth Klarman ’99Philanthropist
Facing History and Ourselves
Linda Kutsch ’00Managing Director
The Trefler Foundation
Jennifer Ladd ’01Executive Director, Class Action
Renee M. Landers ’00Counsel, Ropes & Gray
Barbara Fish Lee ’99Philanthropist
Kathy LeMay ’09President and CEO, Raising Change
Naomi Levine ’06Founding Chair
and Executive Director,George H. Heyman, Jr., Center
for Philanthropy and Fundraising
Lee Link ’97Former President of the Board,
The Citizens Committee for Children, New York City;
Trustee, Miss Hall’s School
Laura Liswood ’99Secretary General,
Council of Women World Leaders, Kennedy School at Harvard
Jacqueline B. Mars ’07Board Member,
Mars Corporation and Mars Foundation
Janis Martinson ’98, ’00Chief Advancement Officer
Miss Hall’s School
Beth Pfeiffer McNay ’97Member, National Leadership Gifts
Committee, Wellesley College
Leah McIntosh ’00Dean for Development, Planning,
Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Harvard University
Molly Mead ’03Director, University College of Citizenship and Public Service,
Tufts University
Ruth Messinger ’09President,
American Jewish World Service;Former Borough President,
Borough of Manhattan
Betsy Michel ’08Attorney and Former Board Chair, St. George’s School, Trustee of the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation
Lynn Miles ’99Director of Leadership Gifts
Wellesley College
Suzanne Mink ’05Vice President for Development
World Wildlife Fund
Helen Monroe ’02President
Endowment Development Institute
Joy Moore ’00Director of Development
Dana Hall School
Kristi Nelson ’01Executive Director, The Women’s Fund of Western Massachusetts
Iris Nowell ’05Author, Women Who Gave Away Millions and Generation Deluxe
Ana Oliveira ’06President and
Chief Executive Officer,New York Women’s Foundation
Siobhan A. O’Riordan ’03Director, Giving New England
Susan Ostrander ’97Chair, Department of Sociology, Tufts University; Author, Money
for Change: Social Movement Philanthropy at Haymarket People’s Fund and Women of the Upper Class
Marian Phelps Pawlich ’03Chicago Philanthropist
Sally S. Peabody ’98President, Associated Grantmakers
of Massachusetts
Edith B. Phelps ’98Author; Educational Consultant;
Former Headmistress, Dana Hall School
Marnie Pillsbury ’05Executive Director
of the David Rockefeller Fund and Philanthropic Associate
to David Rockefeller
Karen H. Putnam ’02Principal, Director of Philanthropic
Services Bessemer Trust
Katelyn Quynn, JD ’01Director of Planned and Major Gifts
Massachusetts General Hospital
Paula Rayman ’00Director
Radcliffe Public Policy Center
Ellen Remmer ’02Director of Family Practice,The Philanthropic Initiative;
Treasurer, The Remmer Family Foundation
Edgenie H. Rice ’06Chairman, CIVITAS Citizens, Inc.;
Director, Seventh Regiment Armory Conservancy; Philanthropist
Susan Ritz ’08Director and Grants Chair,
The Larsen FundCouncil Chair, The Vermont
Women’s Fund
Robin Robertson ’03Head of School, Milton Academy
Susan Rodgerson ’04Executive Director
Artists for Humanity
Ann Sanders ’97Executive Director
New England Women’s Fund (NEWFUND), Boston
Abbie J. von Schlegell, CFRE ’04Managing Director
Brakeley Briscoe, Inc.
Jill Sheffield ’09Founder and President Emeritus,
Family Care International;Founder, Women Deliver
Mignon C. Smith ’06Philanthropist
Patsy Manley Smith ’03Chair, MHS Centennial Campaign
Sheree Stomberg ’08Head of Operations & Technology,
Citi Global Wealth ManagementBoard Member with The Hunger Project
Virginia K. Stowe ’07Founder and Director,
Parenting Development Resource, Inc.Board Member,
Audubon New York and National Audubon Society
Margot Stern Strom ’99Executive Director,
Facing History & Ourselves National Foundation, Inc.
Nicki Newman Tanner ’05Board Chair, WNYC Radio, Jewish Women’s Archive;
Trustee Emerita, Wellesley College; co-Chair, Wellesley College Campaign; Philanthropist
Pamela Trefler ’00President, Trefler Foundation
Diane Troderman ’01Board Member, The Women’s Fund
of Western Massachusetts
Michaela Walsh ’09Founder and Trustee
Women’s World Banking
Linda Whitlock ’04President and CEO
Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston
Robin Brown Woods ’99Philanthropist;
Trustee, Miss Hall’s School
Yasmina Zaidman ’08Director of Knowledge and
Communications, Acumen Fund
Miss Hall’s School holds annual Round Tables on women and philanthropy because we want to raise the level of discourse. We believe that from these conversations will grow more purposeful work, truer impulses for giving and asking, and, eventually, a strong legacy for philanthropic efforts.
If you would like to join the audience as part of the fifteenth Miss Hall’s School Philanthropic Round Table, to be held in New York City on April 7, 2011, please call the MHS Development Office, (413) 395-7062. Space is limited.
Miss Hall’s School492 Holmes Road
Pittsfield, MA 01201
www.misshalls.orge-mail: [email protected]