The Changing Landscape of

Donor Relations:

Knowledge, Networks, New Thinking Barbara Grantham

Vice President, Community Leadership

Vancouver Foundation – May 24, 2007

…the choice of how to give and who to give to. Giving money, time or expertise – and doing it well - has never been easy. The choices today are more numerous, more varied, and often more daunting than ever.

Philanthropy is all about CHOICES

The new ecology of social benefit

- Philanthropy changes when there is the right combination of outside forces and inside will, environmental pressure for change and individual interest in adaptation. The early days of the 21st century is just such a moment.

- If we understand how philanthropy is evolving and could evolve in the next generation we will make better decisions today to support in future the issues, institutions and communities we care about.

Charitable Giving vs. Philanthropy

Charitable Giving

• Immediate one-time relief to problem.

• Personal and emotionally driven.

• No ongoing relationship. • No opportunity to

influence disbursement of funds.

Philanthropy

• Lengthy process focused on root causes of problems.

• Setting long term strategic goals.

• Rational strategic decision making.

• Ongoing monitoring &

assessment.

EXAMPLES: Homelessness in DTES, HAART’s in Africa

Changing Social Values

1950’s

• Deference to authority• Deferred gratification• Organized religion• “Peace, order and good

government”

2000’s

• Autonomy• Gratification• Spiritual quest• “Life, liberty and

happiness”

Changing Attitudes

towards Philanthropy

1950’s

• Motivated by guilt.

• Noblesse oblige.

• Religious sense ofduty.

• Conspicuous.

2000’s

• Personal choice/ control. May be faith-related.

• Desire to make difference.• Need to achieve measurable

results.• Quest for intensity, experience

and escape.• Desire for fun and spontaneous

gratification.• Less ostentation, but some

recognition expected.

Other Societal Influences

Social problems becoming larger and more complex:– Affordable housing: Densification and land use– Single Parents: Child Care and Education– Mental Illness: Supportive Housing and Employment

• Government funding of charities shrinking/shifting since 1980’s .

• Donors overwhelmed by number of requests and frustrated by inability to ensure their gifts will make a difference.

• No longer content to contribute to good causes. Want to get to root causes of problems and even to effect change in public policy.

Privatization

• The architecture of public and private worlds has shifted.

• There has been, and continues to be a shift of power out of public sphere, away from gov’ts/public institutions into private sphere, to business, non profits and individuals.

• NPO’s can work with government across boundaries; individuals can play a bigger role in in public works….the stage has changed

Multiplication/Diversificationof Philanthropists

• Not only that rich getting richer; there are more of them

• More donors, donor advised funds, foundations, giving circles, businesses vying to assist wealthy, non profits competing for donors

• Different types of donors- younger, different cultural values, global millionaires/billionaires

Acceleration

• Accelerating rates at which:

- information is communicated

- information is incorporated into other processes

- number of people who can use that info to create new ideas, make new discoveries and synthesize new inventions

• New pressure on public and private institutions to respond more swiftly to shifting external circumstances

Connection in the Global Village• Instant access to others around the world through the

internet, telephone networks, cellular phones and text messaging services.

• Advances in communication and transportation allow disease, environmental threat and political instability to spread more quickly; consequently, social, medical, economic and political problems can span borders.

Philanthropy Todaya) More focused and strategic

• Pursuing one or a few issues of particular interest.• Proactive - i.e., seeking out the organizations they want to

support or even creating organizations if needed.• Making fewer but larger grants.

Consequences:

• Less support for traditionally supported local organizations.• Focus on issues, rather than organizations, e.g., environment,

human rights, civil society.• Potential to influence public and decision-makers to change

policies.

Philanthropy Today, cont’d.

b) Bringing knowledge, as well as money, to the table

• Some philanthropists draw on their business experience to apply to social issues.

• Philanthropists acquire considerable knowledge about the issues they support.

• Funders tend to acquire a broad view of the sector which is a good complement to the charity’s more focused expertise.

Philanthropy Today - cont’d.

c) New kinds of partnerships

• Foundations partner with other foundations, individuals and even governments for more effective results.

• Formal and informal networks are developing.

Philanthropy Today - cont’d.

d) Concern for effectiveness and accountability

• Demanding accountability.

• Shared responsibility.

• Auditing own programs for effectiveness.

• Growing amount of media scrutiny of philanthropy and philanthropists.

• Stewardship of funds.

• Aligning financial investments with granting policy.

Philanthropy Today - cont’d.

e) “Venture Philanthropy”

Entrepreneurs are applying successful business approaches to philanthropy, thereby treating their philanthropy as “venture capital applied to social issues.”

Philanthropy Today - cont’d.

f) Increasing Professionalism

• Need for expertise

As philanthropy has become more complex and strategic, the need for expert knowledge and experience has become paramount.– need staff with experience in grantmaking and/or expertise

in the granting area

– directors need to become familiar with issues and recognize opportunities for targeted funding

– need for professional development opportunities for staff and directors (publications, courses and seminars)

– newcomers to philanthropy may need help to develop a granting focus and program

Our Mission

DonorServices

DonorServices

Fund Management

Fund Management

CommunityLeadership

CommunityLeadership

To create positive lasting impactsin communities through knowledge, networks

and philanthropy

Funder, Leader, Convenor & Partner

• More than 1,000 funds– Unrestricted– Field of Interest– Donor-advised– Donor designated

• $830 million in assets

• More than $40 million in annual funds disbursed across B.C.

• Cumulative grants of over $600 million since 1943

Vancouver Foundation:“Vital Information”

Vancouver Foundation

Vital Signs:Origins, Goals & Stakeholders

• Initiated by Toronto Community Foundation in 2001

• Gather information to inform our granting and related decisions

• More deeply engage donors, key informants and a broad spectrum of our community’s citizens to facilitate good decisions by us all

Vital Signs: What It Is

A civic education and engagement tool

A knowledge resource - useful in informing the discussions of decision makers, policy makers and citizens at large

An accessible, readable publication

A change driver A work-in-progress

Vital Signs 2006: 12 Key Areas

The Livable City

Diversity As A Way Of Life

Work

Getting Started

Gap Between Rich and Poor

Housing

Safety

Learning

Arts and Culture

Belonging and Leadership

Health and Wellness

Environment

Vital Signs 2006: 12 Key Areas and Grades

KEY AREA GRADE

The Livable City B+

Diversity As A Way Of Life B+

Work B

Getting Started C+

Gap Between Rich and Poor C-

Housing D+

Safety B-

Learning BB

Arts and Culture BB

Belonging and Leadership B-

Health and Wellness BB

Environment BB

BB

Online Grading

• How would you grade Vancouver when it comes to safety? Please think about things like the level of violent crime and property crime, traffic deaths, level of policing, etc.

• And in your opinion what are the top 2 priorities that need to be addressed in the next 2 years when it comes to safety in Vancouver?

Public Opinion Research

Omnibus survey, conducted in two waves, polled 240 Vancouver residents (+/- 6.3% points in accuracy) and probed perceptions of:

Quality of life 48% very good, 49% good, 2% poor/very poor

Changes to quality of life over the past three yearsImproved: 23%, Stayed the same: 52%, Worsened: 22%

Factors that contribute to our quality of lifeEnvironment/natural setting: 14%, Weather/mild climate: 12% Employment: 6% Good healthcare came in at 4%

The issues that need to be addressed to improve our quality of lifePoverty/homelessness at 17%, transportation at 12%; affordable housing at 11%, crime reduction at 9%. Drug addiction and improved healthcare system ranked at 5%

Extended Distribution Through Community Partners

Post-Launch Stakeholder& Community Engagement

Insert distribution through: Community centres Library branches Public health centres Vancouver School Board City Hall S.U.C.C.E.S.S.

Presentations and discussions: Progress Board SFU Centre for Dialogue Vancouver School Board Vancouver Park Board International Volunteer Day Board of Trade (Premier’s Leadership

Summit) United Way Board of Directors Leadership Vancouver BC Population Health Network GVRD Dialogue Series Volunteer Organizations Consortium

of BC BC Rural Leadership Network

How is Vital Signs an example of how we maintain relevance in The

Changing Landscape?

• Positions VF as an information resource, knowledge centre

• Builds global/local connections• Provides focus for donors, for our case• Attracts partnerships – corps, govts,

others• Develops expertise• Informs, provides measurement for our

own work

The intersection between:– Good public policy– Being a knowledge resource– The value-add of Philanthropy

= the crucial “sweet spot” we seek to find

“Out beyond the ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing, there is a field.

I’ll meet you there.” (Rumi)

Thank you!