Category: Opinion

Hi everyone, I’ve been doing a lot of travel lately in promotion of my book, Reimagining Nonprofits and Philanthropy. It’s been exhausting, but also fun, as I get to meet with really cool people who remind me just how brilliant, creative, and badass our sector can be. Plus, I get free swag chapsticks and sometimes socks.

At one of these events, I was on stage with the amazing Jennifer Nguyen of the Stupski Foundation. We both wore white wigs—think Marie Antoinette—as a visual reminder for how old-fashioned so many grant practices are. (If you’re still giving restricted funds, refusing to support advocacy work, or pausing giving for a year to do a strategic plan, your board and staff might as well wear one of these wigs, because your foundation is old-fashioned as hell and looks ridiculous).

During our conversation, the question of invitation-only grants (IOG) came up. IOGs are grants where the funder must invite applicants to apply. Without that often-coveted invitation, nonprofits are not qualified, and their proposals would not be considered. They remain the unwashed masses, peasants, hoi polloi, staring from outside the windows while those with invitations get to cavort in the inner circles, where there are cake and ponies.

These types of grants have been causing consternation across the sector. For many nonprofits, it seems unfair, steeped in favoritism, arbitrary, and undemocratic that some organizations are allowed an opportunity to get funding while others are locked out from even getting a chance to compete and present their case. And inequitable, as often the excluded organizations are ones led by and serving marginalized communities, as these nonprofits are least likely to have relationships with funders that would increase their probability of being invited to apply.

For funders, though, they are a way to channel limited funding to aligned organizations without wasting the time and energy of those who wouldn’t have a chance to get funding anyway.

So are IOGs good or bad? I tried to go onto Reddit’s “Am I the Asshole” (AITA) to ask whether a foundation that has an invitation-only process is an asshole, and apparently that is “not what this subreddit is for” and “I don’t think you understand the internet, Boomer.” (Accurate, but hurtful).

Here’s where I stand on this: I’m not necessarily against IOGs. I think when they are done right, they can be a tool to advance equity. For example, a funder that is focused on addressing the attacks on trans people should have a process where only trans people-led-and-serving organizations are eligible for funding, which means only those orgs would be invited to apply. Same goes if a funder wants to help address the plight of missing and murdered Indigenous women; funding should only go to Indigenous-led-and-serving organizations. Ensuring only organizations led by communities that are most affected by systemic injustice get funding they need, instead of forcing them to compete in an open process, that’s equity.

…

Read more here…

Hi everyone, before we get into this week’s topic, if you’re available this Thursday May 7th at 11am Pacific, please join me in this FREE webinar where I’ll be discussing board governance with Dimple Abichandani, author of A New Era of Philanthropy, and Monika Kalra Varma, President and CEO of BoardSource. Register here.

Also, on May 28^th at 1pm to 2pm Pacific, I’ll be in conversation with some brilliant leaders (including Jan Masaoka and Al Cantor) about regulatory and tax reform of private foundations. Basically, we need to understand what’s going on so we can push for policies and laws to curb foundations’ and wealthy individuals’ unconscionable wealth hoarding habits. Yes, it’s a bit wonky, but we’ll break it down so it’s easy to digest. It’ll be fun! And it’s free. Register here.

—

A few days ago, I joined 100+ leaders at the Community-Centric Fundraising family reunion in San Diego. There are few events I attend where I feel completely at ease. Everyone was thoughtful about not recreating the default (i.e., white corporate) dynamics we see in other spaces. Even though we were discussing some serious issues—such as the ethics of using AI in fundraising—there was a palpable sense of community, authenticity, and joy. I never once felt like I had to code-switch. It was a rejuvenating couple of days for me.

Especially since I didn’t present at all. I didn’t do welcoming remarks. I gave zero speeches. I attended the sessions in t-shirt and flip-flops and stuffed my face with snacks, listening and learning from the many amazing voices who led the workshops and discussions.

But because I stayed on-site, I saw how hard the CCF leaders worked. They had planned this event for months, handling hundreds of logistical details needed to make this gathering a success. Before the reunion took place, they were already there, having a pre-reunion retreat on CCF’s direction. Easel papers covered with sticky notes were pasted all around the walls. Several leaders stayed up until midnight or later the day before the event, preparing their presentations and then were up at 6am the next day to set up signs, lay out breakfast, and do other tasks.

Conveners like the CCF leaders are an example of our sector’s “spaceholders,” a term I learned from healer Gina Breedlove at a gathering of progressive donors and movement leaders last fall, where I was invited to do a 30-minute stand-up comedy set about nonprofit and philanthropy. Gina came up to me and said, “Vu, I see you as a spaceholder. I’m having a meeting of fellow spaceholders later and I welcome you to attend.”

…

Read full article here…

Hi everyone, if you’re in Seattle next Monday, May 4th, 6pm to 8pm PT, please join me and fellow rabble rouser Glen Galaich, author of CONTROL: Why Big Giving Falls Short, for a no-bullshit conversation about philanthropy. RSVP here so we know how much hummus to order.

It’s been half a year since my book was released. Thank you to everyone who has bought a copy, read it, made it a part of their book club, or sent it anonymously to various funders with ominous notes like “read chapter 8…” Because of you, the publisher is already hounding me to start working on my next project.

I think I have an idea that they’ll like. It came to me during a Q&A at one of my keynotes where I was talking about philanthropy and what we need to unlock our sector’s full potential. Someone remarked, “Vu, it seems the people who really should be in these rooms having these types of conversations, are never here. I’m talking about foundation board trustees. They hold all the power!”

Yes, this has for decades been a huge obstacle in our sector. Foundation trustees are probably the most powerful people in our sector, and yet they are elusive as the ghost orchid. These folks, with a few very cool exceptions, are never found among us peasants. Whenever I think of them, I imagine cloaked figures, like druids, having secret meetings at night in a forest, chanting in ancient tongues, around a fire.

It’s a serious problem, because foundation trustees have such influence on the sector, and yet because they have little first-hand experience with various issues and they are seldom in community to learn, they are probably the least informed people in our field. It makes little sense. We need to find a way to understand and connect to them.

So here’s my book idea: I’m going to infiltrate a foundation’s board, observe their behaviors in their natural environment, gain the confidence of the trustees until I am seen as one of them, and move them toward effective grantmaking purposes. The book will document this process, in diary format. Here’s what imagine some sample excerpts of what this book could look like:

Day 1: Dear Diary, it would be a lie to say that I am not nervous. I am trembling and could barely hold down the hummus I had this morning. Jane, who is on the board and who convinced the rest of the trustees I might be a valuable addition to the foundation, reminded me that trustees could sense fear. And poverty. I had ditched my normal outfit, bought at Ross Dress for Less, in favor of higher-end brands, to blend in. For weeks now, I have been practicing the language of foundation trustees, trying to use phrases like “how are our stocks doing,” “what does our general counsel say,” and “can we just allocate funds to a DAF to fulfill our 5% payout requirement” naturally, without hesitation.

…

Read full article here…

Hi everyone. If you’re free on May 7th at 11am Pacific, please join me in this webinar where I’ll be discussing board governance with Dimple Abichandani, author of A New Era of Philanthropy, and Monika Kalra Varma, President and CEO of BoardSource. As our world faces increasing challenges, many of the board philosophies and practices we’ve been used to need to change. Drastically. The webinar is free; register here. Attending will net you one hour of credit for your certification of being a badass nonprofit platypus.

Last week, I wrote about the importance of liberal funders investing in progressive leaders the way the right wing invests in conservative ones. A colleague wrote in the comment section on social media, “I don’t think the left is going to win by copying the Right. The Right appeals to the interests of the wealthy. The truly radical Left does not. In fact, the radical Left poses a direct threat. Master’s house, Master’s tools…”

Several colleagues agreed. I think the comment is thought-provoking. The right appeals to the wealthy, whereas true leftists are a threat to those who hoard wealth and power; I can’t agree more.  

However, I do think Audre Lorde’s quote has been frequently used out of context. People bring it up every time I mention learning from the right. Like when I talked about how we need to be politically engaged. Or how we need to use money the way the right does. Whenever anyone suggests learning anything from the conservative movement, someone will mention the quote.

Here is Audre Lorde’s full essay where the quote is mentioned. She had been invited to speak at a conference on feminism. From my reading of the essay, she was frustrated being tokenized as one of the few Black women invited to speak. She called out the exclusion by the conference of other women, including those who were poor, lesbian, or from other countries. She called out white women using the same oppressive tactics on other women that men often use against women to maintain the patriarchy. Here’s the extended quote:

“Those of us who stand outside the circle of this society’s definition of acceptable women; those of us who have been forged in the crucibles of difference—those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are Black, who are older—know that survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support.”

…

Read full article here…

Hi everyone, next week, on April 20^th at 11am Pacific time, please join me and Rusty Stahl of Fund the People, as we talk nonprofit staff, burnout, what’s needed right now in this political context, and what we need to learn from the right-wing movement about how they invest in their leaders and cultural warriors that makes them so effective. The webinar is free. Get more details and register here.

A few months ago, a colleague reached out to me. She had been deeply involved in the right-wing space and spent years there before finally realizing that it didn’t align with her values and leaving the movement. While we talked on video, I was simultaneously impressed by and envious of what she described, which I’m paraphrasing here:

“We are treated so well. They found all sorts of ways to support you: mentorship, internships, professional connections, training, retreats, concerts, you name it. They sent us to all-expense paid conferences all the time, with the best accommodation and perks. It didn’t matter that we were new to the conservative movement and hadn’t accomplished much. They really make you feel like you belong and that they care about you. Because they do.”

In Sally Covington’s seminal research paper on the differences between conservative and liberal funders, investing in “cultural warriors” is one of the five key strategies the right has used so effectively (The other ones are: Build effective institutions through 20+-year grants, get conservative politicians elected, do whatever it takes to ensure judges including on the Supreme Court are right-wing, and control every form of media to shape cultural narrative.)

…

Read full article here…

A few weeks ago, I was at a gathering that included many high-wealth individuals. I talked to a man who told me his family was concerned about the environment, so they used a ton of money–millions!–to form an organization to do climate policy work. I asked how it had been going.

“Terrible,” he said, “we did so much work on all these amazing policies, but we didn’t have the votes. Everything was blocked by the people in office.”

This story encapsulates many of the patterns and challenges with so much of our work. We are often more comfortable addressing the symptoms of injustice, thinking that political work is forbidden or somehow beneath us, and this tactic ends up derailing everything.

Let’s change that. While we continue doing needed programmatic and advocacy work, we need more people from our sector running for office. If you’ve ever had any desire to be an elected official, and your motives are not to inflame cruelty and hate and protect billionaires and corporations, now is a good time to run. People are sick of those currently in power and are looking for fresh faces and ideas.

We need you to run.

Like, immediately.

Seriously, in Washington State, where I live, you have a month left to file the paperwork if you plan to run. If you’re in other states, here are the filing deadlines you need to be aware of.

Everything is on fire right now, and I can’t think of a group of people who would be better elected officials. Most people who are in this sector are here because they care about the world. Many have first-hand experience with poverty, homelessness, and other problems in society, which many current people in power have never experienced. Nonprofit leaders are often connected to the community, used to dealing with high levels of stress, and are super creative and persistent due to constantly having to face challenges such as lack of funding.

Which makes me wonder why our sector is not a stronger pipeline for political candidates. I think there are a few reasons.

One is the lack of financial resources. The wealthy are often able to finance their campaigns, whereas those who make less money can’t. This can be solved by funders and donors stepping in. For example, First Mile Circle provides financial support to candidates of color who are running in their first race, and it’s been very effective:

“In the six years since First Mile launched in 2019, our cross-class, multi-racial donor circle has moved over $2.3 million in total to 200 progressive candidates of color across 31 of Washington state’s 39 counties, helping 110 community leaders win and step into public office.”

…

Read full article here…

Hi everyone, I spent all day frolicking under some cherry blossom trees while it was sunny in Seattle, and then going to a nursery to buy some cherry blossom trees, and then contacting the City to initiate the process to get the permit to plant them in front of my house. Planting ornamental trees is an optimistic gesture, and a declaration of defiance and resistance.  

But all that to say, I didn’t spend much time on this blog post, so if you were hoping for something that’s “profound” or “makes sense” or “is edited” this week, please temper your expectations.

A while ago, maybe like 15 years, I had a meeting with this one corporate sponsor who, over lunch, told me that his company didn’t like paying for overhead, so I shouldn’t put staff wages or other indirect costs in the grant application to his company. I was so annoyed that I stuffed my face with mango salad to avoid berating this man for his company’s ignorant and toxic stance on overhead.

I went on this blog and complained about how funders and donors expect nonprofit professionals to be like elves or unicorns, magical beings who can operate with few resources. We don’t need pay, or decent chairs, or healthcare, we’re sparkling unicorns!

Anyway, that kind of took off, and for the next several years, the unicorn became kind of an unofficial mascot for the sector. I co-wrote a book called Unicorns Unite: How Nonprofits and Foundations Can Build EPIC Partnerships. I’d get random unicorn-themed gifts, including the stuffed unicorn mascot of Squatty Potty. At a few keynotes, colleagues would wear light-up unicorn horns.

The unicorn is great. Majestic. Magical. Pure of heart. It reflects a lot of our sector and people in it. What’s not to like.

However, there are downsides to this symbol. Unicorns are not real; they exist only in fantasies. And being “pure of heart” and “magical” means funders, donors, and the public have unrealistic expectations on the sector all the time. For example, there’s the pervasive idea that nonprofit professionals shouldn’t be paid well; after all, we should be helping people out of the goodness of our hearts. And there’s also the sector’s propensity for being nice and deferential and conflict-avoidant, even to people and entities who are assholes, the way a sweet and gentle pony would behave.

Well, it may be time to say goodbye to the unicorn and adopt a different symbol. I am nominating the platypus. Think about it, the platypus is the perfect representation for nonprofits and what we need to be right now:

…

Read full article here…

Hi everyone, remember a few years ago when most organizations didn’t list salary numbers in job postings, often instead putting meaningless stuff like “competitive salary,” and many of us fought against it? Our rabble-rousing worked, and now, I’m surprised when I see any job posting that DOESN’T disclose the salary, and ones that require salary history are very rare (and thoroughly embarrassing). Let’s all pat ourselves on the back and take a short nap to celebrate.

When you get up, let’s tackle another equity practice that should become standard in hiring: Paying job candidates for the time they spend interviewing and doing special assignments. I wrote about this earlier: “It’s time we pay interview-stage job applicants for their time.”

Paying job candidates when they reach the interview stage is equitable for several reasons, including:

·       There are tons of costs that job candidates must absorb, including taking time off from work and paying for childcare, transportation, professional clothing, hair care, and other expenses.

·       People who are doing the hiring work are compensated, while job candidates are expected to provide free labor

·       Like everything else, the issue disproportionately negatively affects people of color, women, disabled people, and other people from marginalized communities.

It’s been five years since I wrote that article, and, prompted by a friend who’s been trying to convince a board to pay job candidates for interviews, I asked colleagues for updates on who has been adopting this practice. The responses gave me hope. Lots of organizations are doing this! Here’s a sample of things colleagues said: 

·       “My organization, Grow Food Northampton, pays candidates for their time interviewing (second interview after a brief screening interview)”

·       “Funders for LGBTQ Issues paid me (fairly, even generously!) for my 3rd interview work assignment/presentation several years ago.”

…

Read full article here…

Hey everyone, it’s my birthday this week, and if you’d like to help me celebrate, please donate to Mujer Al Volante, the QTBIPOC Nonprofit Mutual Aid Fund, and UnKoch My Campus.

It’s been a while since we’ve done a good news roundup. While there are horrible things happening every day, there’s also good, hopeful, and community-affirming stuff. Here are just a few of them that I’ve compiled, in no particular order, from various sources. Read and be hopeful, and add your good news in the comments section:

Mexico is restructuring or eliminating predatory mortgage loans for five million people! Also, its jaguar population has increased significantly.

Spain was able to, for one day, have all its electricity be generated from solar, wind, and hydro. 50% of the country’s electricity is already produced by renewable sources.  

Spain also opens pathway for legal residency for half a million undocumented people. Over 500,000 people living and working in Spain now have a path to becoming lawful residents.

Ireland’s universal basic income for artists is paying off! Remember in the previous roundup when we mentioned the Ireland is providing 325 Euros a week to 2,000 artists to create art? Well, it has recovered its net costs and is generating lots of other benefits to society, proving that investing in artists is always a good thing to do.

France made it illegal to make products that are designed to fail. It’s called planned obsolescence when companies make products that intentionally break down after a few years (cough, iPhones). France passed a law against it.

Democrats are flipping seats in deep-red states: In deep Republican strongholds, including Georgia and Texas, democrats have been flipping seats, a sign that a huge blue wave is coming for the midterms. At least 26 seats have been flipped, with more coming!

…

Read full article here…