Trista Harris you are not as smart, funny, or as helpful as you think you are.

That was my humbling revelation last week after our foundation received our Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) Grantee Perception Report. When I first started philanthropy work and this blog, I gave advice for foundation staff not to get caught in the hype of their positions. The CEP data was a good reminder for me to follow my own advice.

First a little background on the data. CEP offers individual foundations the opportunity to assess performance on key dimensions relative to other foundations. The survey also asks very informative questions of grantees about their program officer's ability to clarify the grant application process and the foundation's reputation in the community.

We received our grantee satisfaction data by program officer and in some of the measures I received a score I haven't seen since 5th grade math, a "below average" or more specifically a "below foundation average". For my own self esteem I will say that our foundation's performance on the study was amazing and I am part of an extremely talented program staff with many years of philanthropic experience. Half of us had to get a below average on each measure or else it wouldn't be an average. But still, seeing a below average score is a much needed humbling experience for any program officer.

The Center for Effective Philanthropy has set the data up in a way that makes it easy for staff to see where they can make tangible improvements to how they interact with grantees. Effective and sensitive interactions with grantees is a responsibility of every program officer and the CEP survey is a tool that can help all of us do our work better.

Have you used the CEP tool or a similar evaluation and how did the results change your work?

The Meaning of Letters?

I've been debating lately whether to go back to school for another degree. I don't know if it's a desire to sit in a classroom again, subject myself to large quantities of reading (like I don't do enough of it already through working in philanthropy) or what. Heaven knows I don't miss taking exams. But something inside of me wants to add another set of letters behind my name. And just taking the occassional continuing education class will do; no I must be a graduate of some program from some university.

So what good are the extra letters? Many individuals my age (early 30s) working in philanthropy are simply trying to establish themselves in the field, possibly with eyes towards moving up through the foundation ranks. Current foundation staff with doctorates probably received those degrees before they began working in philanthropy, as it was desired to move ahead in their field or to secure a job in the field they wanted. But what benefit is it in a foundation to secure a second Master's or a doctorate degree? It's not necessarily a sure way to move up in the field.

I tried doing a little research (see? already preparing!) on the educational levels of foundation staff but had a hard time finding any reports or information regarding who has PhDs, Master's, etc. I talked with a co-worker who received his doctorate before coming to the foundation and he simply said "Go for it!"

So maybe I should just follow that advice and go for it. It could be beneficial in the long run, right? Opinions/input are welcome, especially if you know where to find info on foundation staff education levels.

Green Charities

The Chronicle of Philanthropy had an interesting online discussion about charities going green. The discussion was a follow up to a Chronicle article on the same topic. The discussion summary is below:

Many charities are getting serious about taking steps to become more environmentally friendly in their operations -- to both protect the planet and save money.

Some are taking steps to reduce waste in their operations and cut down on their energy use. Others are taking more aggressive steps by undertaking "green" building projects.

For many groups, such moves dovetail with their social agendas -- and have the added benefit of building good will with grant makers and other donors. What approaches can charities take to become more environmentally friendly? What are the costs of these efforts and how can your charity get access to funding? How should they publicize them to donors and the public? What should they consider before adopting "green" policies?

The Guests

Cynthia L. Bailie is the director of the Foundation Center's Cleveland office and of the organization's special online initiatives. Ms. Bailie has held leadership positions in libraries and nonprofit organizations since 1991 and serves on the boards of directors for Greater Cleveland Community Shares, the greater Cleveland chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, and the Village Foundation, a community foundation in Bay Village, Ohio.

Sarah S. Brophy is a consultant who helps museums, historic houses, and other cultural institutions in New England and the Mid-Atlantic become environmentally and financially sustainable through grants and green performance. She is co-author of the book The Green Museum: A Primer on Environmental Practice.

Kimberly Austin is a program associate at the Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta. As part of her role, Ms. Austin is involved in Grants to Green, a new program that provides environmentally focused knowledge and financing to nonprofit groups in metro Atlanta. The program is a collaboration between the Community Foundation, Southface, and Enterprise Community Partners.

What are some best practices that you have seen for charities going green? What role should foundations plan to encourage a more environmentally friendly social sector?

Charity is for the Dogs

The New York Times (free subscription required)

By Stephanie Strom

7/2/2008

Sure, the hotelier and real estate magnate Leona Helmsley left $12 million in her will to her dog, Trouble. But that, it turns out, is nothing much compared with what other dogs may receive from the charitable trust of Mrs. Helmsley, who died last August.

Her instructions, specified in a two-page “mission statement,” are that the entire trust, valued at $5 billion to $8 billion and amounting to virtually all her estate, be used for the care and welfare of dogs, according to two people who have seen the document and who described it on condition of anonymity.

It is by no means clear, however, that all the money will go to dogs. Another provision of the mission statement says Mrs. Helmsley’s trustees may use their discretion in distributing the money, and some lawyers say the statement may not mean much anyway, given that its directions were not incorporated into Mrs. Helmsley’s will or the trust documents.

Even if the resulting total is at the low end of the estimate — $5 billion or so — the trust will be worth almost 10 times the combined assets of all 7,381 animal-related nonprofit groups reporting to the Internal Revenue Service in 2005. Read the rest here.

So what responsibility do her foundation trustees have to making sure that the money is spent effectively? What about donor intent? Should all of the money really go to the care of dogs, even if the amount of the gift dwarfs the nonprofit sector's ability to utilize it?