Gillian Triggs at Melbourne Women’s Fund Forum


Gillian Triggs

Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs was the keynote speaker at the Melbourne Women’s Fund inaugural forum held in Melbourne.

Professor Triggs spoke of having grown up post-war, as a baby-boomer, given a free legal education and becoming a practising barrister at 22.  This was an optimistic age and she was influenced by Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own which with absolute clarity and no weasel words stressed the importance of financial autonomy for women. (Financial autonomy and independence – and especially superannuation, was to be a key theme throughout the Forum).

Professor Triggs believes that economic empowerment is crucial for strong societies and strong communities, and sees health, housing and employment as legal rights.  She also believes that human rights for women, children as well as men are good for business.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Index measures where countries stand in relation to these rights.  Australia has dropped from 15th place to 46th (behind Rwanda, Burundi and Nicaragua).  The Index compares economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment.  It is not just that in Australia only 25.4% of board members on the ASX200 are women and that women retire with on average 46% of the superannuation balances of men.  What is striking is that Australia ranks No 1 for educational attainment for women yet the highest growing poplation of homeless people here is women over 55.

Professor Triggs noted that the spirit of equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunity of the early 1960s has been lost. There had been a view that if women had education they would be able to resolve all other problems, but even this week, a report by Plan International on the attitudes of young women has shown a growing loss of confidence, a drop in ambition and declining mental health.  98% of the young women and girls surveyed believed they are treated differently to boys.

Professor Triggs referred to the high standards of “evidence” required to support advocacy for “women’s issues”, noting the criticism of the recent Human Rights Commission report on sexual assault on university campuses.  Despite having been approved by 39 Vice-Chancellors (in itself no mean feat) and with more than 39,000 respondents to a survey and 2,000 submissions provided in writing, parts of the press doubted the methodology of the findings and in doing so attempted to diminish the report’s significance.

For Professor Triggs, the optimisim of the1960s has not delivered what her generation had hoped.  Society ignores the productivity supported by women through unpaid caring responsibilities, has imposed high costs of child care and reduced women’s career opportunities through the development of casual, contract and gig economy employment.  Structural issues such as changes in penalty rates will further penalise women who had been its main beneficiaries.

Occupational and industry segregation still exists and barriers such as non family-friendly workplaces also prevent women’s full economic participation.

The phenomenon of “post truth” is a concern.  While there has always been spin and propaganda, for Professor Triggs, the issue now is that we are starting to believe it. “Alternative facts” is an absurb proposition, yet false news is increasingly pervasive and informing people’s positions.  Professor Triggs referred to Jennifer Hochschild’s Do Facts Matter which posits that the danger of post truth is that you get political benefit by muddying the waters (eg – by mixing the issue of religious freedom with the same-sex postal survey).

There is also the strange phenomenon of raising an issue, proposing a solution, and then accusing women of manipulating the process (the maternity leave double-dipping fiasco).  The result of this is that women have now lost 18 weeks paid maternity leave – due to lies.

Professor Triggs spoke about domestic violence and the clear link between social disadvantage and vulnerability to violence.  While the government is now rolling out a $100 million package to stop violence against women, this is not enough for structural change, particularly while the government is cutting funding for refuges and defunding community legal centers.

Professor Triggs views these issues through the prism of human rights (not surprising given her background), and referred to the Beijing Platform for Action. A difficulty in Australia is that although Australia is a signatory to many international human rights treaties, these have not been passed into Australian law. This then affects women, children and families in many ways.  Professor Triggs noted that it was fortunate that we at least have the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984.

Other issues still to be addressed include the UN sustainable development goals, which call for gender equality by 2030.  While aspirations are important, strategies, plans and leadership are also needed.

There are also initiatives for women’s economic empowerment championed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  The IMF recently published research Banking on Women Leaders and wants to double its lending to women from $1billion to $2billion as well as develop new financial tools for women in emerging markets.  (Consider this – in Myanmar, less than 10% of women have a bank account).

And progress is happening in Indonesia, where the country is considering allowing working women to file tax returns independent of their husbands.

So what is happening in Australia?  According to Professor Triggs – not very much.  We have no national action plan for women in relation to finance, only abstract and high level objectives.  Although we have an Office for Women, there is no dedicated Minister at the Federal level, and the Office for Women has a miniscule budget of $3million which is trivial if it is to address major problems.

There’s the Women’s Money Tool Kit as part of ASIC’s MoneySmart website, but we need to do more to work more closely with women.

The conservative press considers women’s issues to be “identity politics” (I could include a link here, but don’t want to give the Hun more web hits).

So while there is a bit of doom and gloom, and there is a challenge to bring work down to a level where it will have an impact – there is something we can all do.

Professor Triggs took us back to the other literary influence of her earlier years – Germaine Greer.  She suggests we should be more aggressive and bolder, speak up more clearly and push back against “alternative truths”, present our arguments with evidence, and even be more vulgar -because “we have played the game for far too long“.

Who is with us?

A couple of questions from the audience:

Q: from the Australian Women Donors Network: “Where are we on progress vs pushback?”

A: there is real pushback in the media and manifest in the statistics – we need to produce strong statistics and spokespersons to speak up in these dangerous times where civil society is retreating from advocacy – especially in the case of community legal centres who are no longer able to stand up and speak.  Our freedom of speech is being curtailed and there needs to be accurate, measured balance.  Attention to detail in research methodology is important or the media will refute it.

Q: from Sisterworks: from the perspective of an advocate for women dependent on welfare and working in the social sector, there is a gap where people are struggling to do their best, but they don’t have the means.

A: Women need higher levels of economic stability and women need to have public voices (like Anne Summers, Liz Broderick and Rosie Batty). How have we allowed things to get to this point?  Professor Triggs made the point that if the 70 women killed by their partners each year had instead been killed by terrorists, the government would be throwing money at the issue.

ozphilanthropy attended the Melbourne Women’s Fund Forum as a guest of the Melbourne Women’s Fund.

 

Advertisements
Posted in advocacy, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American Vertigo: Philanthropy & Democracy in Uncertain Times


MaeHong

Mae Hong, from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers (whom she calls the “poor cousins of the Rockefeller Foundation”) was in Australia for a second tour with Australian Executor Trustees (who brought her out last year).

She gave talks in Melbourne and Sydney on how philanthropy is adapting to the
new regime in the US – hence the title of her talk and this post – American Vertigo: Philanthropy & Democracy in Uncertain Times.

Mae feels that the biggest surprise of the US election was that so many people were so surprised, even though Lewis Lapham predicted that the US was moving towards populism and its simmering malcontent thirty years ago. The idea that since the end of the Cold War, greed and hedonism have taken such hold as to secure favourable tax benefits, policies and concessions for the wealthy few is still not widely held. Yet, in Mae’s view, the country has become a plutocracy where the poor have no power or influence, the government has been weakened fiscally and has no legitimacy, and the system works against the people.

There is chronic under-investment in the public good and inequality is the new global threat. (The eight richest people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom half
that is $3,600,000,000 people).

So where does that leave philanthropy and civil society? Mae says that civil society and the voluntary sector are now the new guardians of the public good while the very wealthy are exercising their own agendas. Big philanthropists like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation set their own policy priorities (but who voted them in?).

Mae sees philanthropy’s role as a counterbalance and talked about the democratisation of philanthropy and new ways to give (yes giving circles), crowdfunding and ordinary citizens exercising their voice. There has been a seismic shift in the relationship between money and power – and also an inverted meaning of public and private. Remember when public was inherently good – the public service & public hospitals? But in the 80s this was inverted and private became the new beautiful (private planes, private personal trainers, private schools).

So what does this mean for democracy? This talk took me back to the recent presentation by Lucy Bernholz and Rob Reich on Philanthropy and Democratic Societies and last year’s presentation by the Reichstein Foundation on the Imperialism of Economics with Dr Edward Nik-Khah. There seems to be a bit of a theme developing. Is protest the new brunch?

Responses to changes in the political climate have invoked new terms like “rage giving” – where people voice to their disapproval by supporting causes which have been downgraded or derided by the government, such as Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) who raised $100s of millions of dollars after the US election – (think of the recent boost to Dress Like a Girl after the comments from Cory Bernardi). Foundations have redirected $700 million to respond to Trump’s policies creating rapid response funds and critical response funds. They want to be nimble, and some companies(Paypal and Apple Pay) are blocking funds to hate groups. No platforms are neutral anymore. “If you aren’t against something you are for it – and silence is consent”.

The military developed a term – VUCA – which stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity – and Mae says this is the new normal. Everything is connected – in unpredictable ways – the 2006 “Tortilla Riots” apparently sparked by corn being produced for ethanol rather than food following 3000 oil wells being taken out of commission by Hurricane Katrina (and making the price of corn in Mexico jump 400%), Walmart selling cashmere sweaters for $20 leading to more goat farming in China leading to sandstorms.

So we need to build better shock absorbers, better resilience and maintain who we are when conditions are radically changed. Mae suggests we replace VUCA with VUCA – vision, understanding, clarity and adaptation (resilient design).

Mae concluded with a quote from Maya Angelou’s essay The Sweetness of Charity, in which she says that charity “liberates the soul of the giver” and that with each gift, we strengthen the pillars of the world.

What do you think?  Does philanthropy need to be more accountable?  How can we best deal with the new disruptions in society and the economy?  I look forward to your thoughts.

Posted in advocacy, donate, engaged philanthropy, grantmaking, philanthropy, social action | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A bit more on collective giving


impact100wa

Just in case you missed it, the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership commissioned Creative Partnerships Australia to write a report on collective giving.

I am thinking that this is more because James Boyd, the report’s co-author, is an expert in collective giving, having established the first Impact100 group in Australia – in Western Australia, rather than it being something particular to the arts community.

It has an overview on the state of collective giving in the US, UK and Asia as well as here, provides some insight into the demographics of current members, and discusses some of the issues and challenges giving groups are facing.

It discusses motivations for joining, operational and structural differences, and reports on positive feedback from the charities involved.

You can read Collective Giving and Its Role in Philanthropy here and don’t forget that several of the collective giving groups are still recruiting members for this year, and will be distributing their grants in November, so it’s not too late to become involved.

 

Posted in donate, grantmaking, philanthropy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Philanthropy & Democratic Societies


democracy.jpgPerpetual Ltd presented a session on Philanthropy and Democratic Societies at the State Library of Victoria with a panel comprised of Krystian Seibert from Philanthropy Australia, Lucy Bernholz, philanthropy and data expert, Bill Birnbauer, investigative journalist and Rob Reich, Faculty Co-Director, Stanford Centre on Philanthropy and Civil Society – hosted by Caitriona Fay, National Manager, Philanthropy and Non-profit Services, Perpetual.

Lucy and Rob are two of the co-editors of a new publication: Philanthropy in Democratic Societies: History, Institutions, Values.

Caitriona introduced the session with the story of Perpetual’s oldest charitable trust – coming in at 128 years – the Edith Campbell-Walker Trust – which was set up to provide housing for women – especially those who had been in “house service” and which now supports women moving away from domestic violence.  With a nod towards the dead hand from the grave, she noted that this Trust had a deed  which enabled it to adapt to the needs of the times, while still honouring the intent of the donor.  That said Caitriona acknowledged that there can be a difference between “good philanthropy” and “bad philanthropy”, especially given the power imbalance which exists between donors, bequestors and grant applicants/supplicants.

Rob commenced the session started with a “provocation” around what he considers “bad philanthropy”, and for me, raised more questions than answers – though in a good way.

Rob gave a couple of different definitions of philanthropy.

a) the direction of private resources for some public benefit (ie money, time, blood, organs, data) and referred to Peter Singer’s moral argument that what most people give is far less than they should (see The Most Good You can Do: How Effective Altruism is changing ideas about Living Ethically).

b) considering the array of public policies which champion or hinder philanthropy from contributing to healthy democratic societies such as tax incentivisation of a liberty we are already free to take with our own money, and the legal codification of private foundations.

Rob then put forward several arguments as to why we should be very skeptical and suspicious of private foundations (in the spirit of provocation).

Consider:

The Rockefeller Foundation – which in order to be established, required its own Bill from Congress, which was variously described as a “menace to democracy“, in its desire to use private wealth of influence public affairs.  Rob noted – large philanthropy is an exercise of power and deserves our scrutiny – not our gratitude.

The Gates Foundation – in funding schools – Bill Gates has been called the unelected “nation’s schools’ superintendent“.  Rob notes – large philanthropy is an exercise of unaccountable power (and deserves our scrutiny – not our gratitude).

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations – on an anecdote where staff couldn’t set priorities for the Foundation, it is said that George Soros said – “it’s my money, so we’ll do it my way”.  He was not happy to be reminded that but for the tax concessions available, 40% of the funds would belong to Treasury.  Rob calls this tax subsidised unaccountable power (and deserves our scrutiny – not our gratitude).

So his question is – why do democratic societies think that big philanthropy is a good idea?

Given this rather devastating critique of institutionalised generosity, Caitriona attempted to seek a view from the panel that would redeem philanthropy.

Rob noted that if philanthropy takes a long-term view with risks which were presented to the public for evaluation and approval (such as Carnegie’s experiment with public libraries), then the vice of big philanthropy can become a virtue.  He also suggested that perhaps there should be a minimum size for foundations – if one wants to put away an endowment of $500,000 – why not just write cheques to one’s charities of choice.

Another question – how does data fit into the future of philanthropy?

Lucy talked about how when you give money away – you have given it away, but that if you give data away, you still have it.  She mentioned the Digital Public Library of America and how being surrounded by digital data is a new resource which can affect our understanding of philanthropy in civil society.  However, despite the benefits of the digital space creating an opportunity to share information, Lucy seemed to be giving a warning about the platforms and infrastructure on which the information depends – which is held in private hands (of corporations) and subject to government scrutiny and monitoring.  Her question in relation to this is – where is the independent space for philanthropy?  She reminded  us of the ubiquitous park bench in spy movies where the protagonist meets someone for the purpose of an unmonitored, private conversation and noted that there are no park benches on the internet. Lucy tells us that today, the only unmonitored spaces in the digital world are public libraries.  (Net neutrality is not an area I have any understanding of, so I will leave it to you to look into this).

Moving from the park bench to the fourth estate, Caitriona asked about the role of philanthropy in journalism.  Bill talked about the move of mainstream journalists to work in the nonprofit sector following the market failure of journalism and its devastation by the internet, and wondered why journalism doesn’t fall under the Charities Act.

This led to a  reflection and a question about the current Treasury discussion paper on DGR and the government’s view of activist nonprofit organisations as disruptive, and its suggestion that advocacy should be limited.

Krystian noted that we haven’t really had a discussion about the power and influence of nonprofit organisations and recommended David Callahan’s The Givers: Wealth, Power & Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age.  Krystian noted the rather cynical view presented by the Treasury discussion paper, that environmental charities should limit themselves to work “downstream” – such as cleaning up environmental spills and damage to wildlife and plants, rather than addressing the causes of pollution to a river, which may relate to legislation, emissions guidelines and disposal of waste regulations.  He reminded us of the Aidwatch decision in 2010 which protects the rights of charitable organisations to undertake advocacy activities.

While democracy is a sign of a healthy civil society, Krystian also raised the tension between democractically elected government and organisations which may be encouraging democracy (even if they themselves are not democratically elected).  The example of LGBTQI rights in some countries, where the government and the general public wish to support the status quo (ie lack of rights) but foundations (such as Open Society) wish to challenge the democratic will of the people (for their own good, perhaps).  Thus demonstrating that philanthropy in a democratic society is a complicated issue.https://wordpress.com/post/ozphilanthropy.com/2648

A question from the audience on the ability of corporations to act as lobbyists without limitations, contrasted with the scope available for nonprofits.  Rob responded with “is expressing a political position a philanthropic act?”  He noted the work of Civicus which tracks the health of civil societies – particularly noting then there are changes in tax privileges and reporting requirements for nonprofits – and banning of international funding.

A question on the power of crowdfunding – the response is that the jury is still out – it is insecure and voluntary.  Rob suggests that people having to crowdfund in order to meet their own medical expenses is unacceptable (our taxes should pay for this) – but that raising funds towards arts projects is ok. (I think that this borders on a market deciding what is valuable argument which is always problematic because I don’t believe the market knows best).

Krystian cited Getup  which is not charitable but successful, and the Climate Council (abolished by the government, but reborn and refunded by the people) as examples of successful crowdfunding and demonstrating powerful case studies of what crowdfunding can achieve – the converse (cynical) argument is that if the Climate Council can be funded by crowdfunding – why did the government need to fund it in the first place?

An ethical dilemma question from the audience – if a donor for a particular charity could have solved the problem in question by not engaging in particular corporate action – and thus the donor is part of the problem – how can we work with them when we consider them to be responsible?  Rob talked about how people can make money legally, but perhaps not ethically and that charities should be aiming to make themselves redundant by preventing issues, rather than remediating them (as has been charity’s traditional role).

This is a long post – but I think that it was all worth recording.  It would be great to have feedback, comments, corrections and refutations to any positions taken as all too often many of us working in the philanthropy area carry on with our doing good – without stopping to look at the bigger picture.

Posted in corporate social responsibility, donate, effective altruism, engaged philanthropy, grantmaking, impact and measurement, Legislation, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DGR Reform


clock-time-to-discuss-image-nice-44612024The Treasury Department has called for submissions commenting on a new discussion paper around Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) reform.  Read the paper here.

Submissions are due by 4 August – as per the website – the discussion paper had 14 July as the deadline but there has been an extension.

 

Some Background

DGR has been around since 1915 and there are 51 different categories including 4 separate registers – for overseas aid, harm prevention, environmental organisations and cultural organisations.

There are no sunset clauses for most DGR organisations and eligibility is not regularly reviewed.  Some DGRS are also required to maintain a separate public fund, which creates further compliance obligations.

Some key points

The proposed changes suggested in the discussion paper do not relate to eligibility of DGR organisations, but focus on activities rather than purpose, and perhaps distressingly, suggest requiring environmental charities to spend 25% of their budgets on direct environmental remediation.  There is also a slightly punitive flavour to the wording around advocacy.

While this may not affect all charitable organisations, I am concerned that once we start singling out sectors for special treatment or scrutiny, then there is no telling how far restrictions may go for everyone else.

I encourage anyone with a direct interest in the DGR and nonprofit sector to put in a submission – even if only to address some of the points brought up – to show solidarity and to have your say.

A few organisations have been circulating some drafts for a unified response.  You can contact me directly if you would like to know about how to access these.

I look forward to seeing and hearing your comments on this – either to Treasury or here.

Posted in advocacy, donate, fundraising, Legislation, philanthropy, social action | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

11 local giving circles – find one near you


helpinghands

There has been phenomenal growth in giving circles in Australia recently, so here’s a handy list to help keep track.

Act of Women Giving  Membership: $250, $500 or $1,000 – supporting advancing opportunities for women & girls through education or capacity building, social connection, career development, financial literacy or sport.

Impact100 Fremantle Membership: $1,000 – supporting Aboriginal Health and Wellbeing in 2017

Impact100 Melbourne  Membership: $1,000 – supporting education – promoting learning  – in 2017

Impact100 South Australia Membership: $1,000- supported positive outcomes for the youth (12 – 24 years) and/or mental health.  The 2016/2017 grant was awarded to Youth Opportunities Association SA

Impact100 Sydney  Membership: $1,000 – supported young people at risk.  The 2016 grant was awarded to Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre

Impact100 Sydney North Membership: $1,000 – supporting young people at risk in 2017

Impact100 Tasmania  Membership: $1,000 – grants open to any registered Tasmanian charity

Impact100 Western Australia Membership: $1,000 – grants across 5 focus areas – arts & culture, education, environment, family & community, health & wellness

Melbourne Womens Fund Membership: $1,000 x 3 years – grant applications by invitation, in health, education and wellbeing, benefitting women and families in greater metro Melbourne

The Channel, a giving circle Membership: $25, $50 or $100 per month – 2 circles – Haring (dgr) and Hampton (non dgr).  First grants round focussed on Brave Representations – growing representations of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and sex characteristics in Australian culture – the arts, media and beyond

Women and Change – Queensland’s first giving group.  Membership: $1,000.  2017 grant to a charitable organisation providing social welfare support to those in the community who are most disadvantaged.

So there’s no excuse, unless you are in the Northern Territory, there is a giving circle not far from you.  Check them out to join or apply for a grant.

Let us know if there are others who should be included on this list.

 

 

Posted in donate, fundraising, grantmaking, philanthropy, volunteering | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Giving Australia 2016


Giving AustraliaThe Giving Australia 2016 reports, commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership, and researched and developed by QUT, Swinburne and the Centre for Social Impact, has now been completed.

Bite size portions are now available together with fact sheets, background papers and literature reviews (thanks Christopher, Wendy, Jo and your teams).

You can check out philanthropy and philanthropists, structured giving vehicles, bequests, individual volunteering, individual giving, what businesses think and the perspective of not for profit organisations.

This report has some comparisons to the research undertaken back in 2005 for the first ever Giving Australia national study.  Because so much has changed (and yet stayed the same) there are some points of comparison which were more difficult to measure.

It’s great to have this resource which reminds us of what has happened, and how much scope there still is for growth in this sector.

Let’s hope that we don’t have to wait another 11 years for the next review of how we are travelling in this field.

Posted in donate, fundraising, grantmaking, impact and measurement, philanthropy, volunteering | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social Impact Investing – Government Review


socialimpact_graphic-480x248Not a lot of time for this one.

The Federal Government has announced a review into Social Impact Investing – calling for submissions by Monday 27 February 2017.

Key areas for response are:

  • the potential role of the Commonwealth Government in the social impact investing market;
  • principles for social impact investing to guide Commonwealth Government involvement in the social impact investing market; and
  • possible Commonwealth regulatory barriers to the growth of the market.

As social impact investing is a growing field impacting on the not for profit sector, I encourage anyone with views to put in a submission.

Enquiries to :

David Crawford +61 2 6263 2757.

 

Posted in impact and measurement, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Women Moving Millions


women-moving-millionsThe Australian Women Donors Network has just completed the “Power of Women” tour introducing Women Moving Millions in Sydney and Melbourne.  Women Moving Millions was started in 2005 by Helen LaKelly Hunt and Swanee Hunt, who wanted to “raise the bar on women’s giving” by making big and bold gifts for women and girls. It now has a membership of 262 women around the world who have pledged to commit $1,000,000 over ten years to projects supporting women and girls, promoting gender equality.

Carol Schwartz, one of three Australian members of Women Moving Millions,  committed to the network through the establishment of the Womens’ Leadership Institute Australia. Carol spoke of her passion for supporting projects for women and girls, which was catalysed by learning that only 12 cents in every philanthropic dollar goes towards women. When Carol first heard of Women Moving Millions, the only funder specifically supporting women in Australia was the Victorian Women’s Trust, while in the US there were around 250 – 300 women’s funds.

Carol’s pledge for Women Moving Millions is to promote women in the media, to grow women’s power, influence and decision-making over time (reminding us that just three years ago there was only one woman in Cabinet in Australia).

ann_lovell_foundationwmm

Ann Lovell

Carol introduced Ann Lovell, a founding director, former Vice President and current Board President of Women Moving Millions, and Jacki Zehner, their Chief Engagement Officer who were “interviewed” by journalist, Catherine Fox.

Ann told us that between 2007 and 2009, Women Moving Millions members contributed $182 million to organisations and projects promoting women, and have created a community which learns from its members through their Circles, Speakers and Writers programs.  These cover topics such as anti-pornography, anti-trafficking, refugees and impact investing.  Since it was formed, Women Moving Millions has catalysed more than $1 billion in working to change policy around women and girls.  And it is “oh so much more fun to give together”.

jackizehnerwmm

Jacki Zehner

Jacki Zehner was youngest women and first female partner at Goldman Sachs, where she worked on culture and leadership, thinking about why there were so few women in senior roles and what could be done about it. For Jacki the personal became political. Jacki believes in championing women’s leadership and announced a partnership between Women Moving Millions and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop a leadership curriculum around philanthropic strategies.

Ann and Jacki reflected on recent events in the United States, noting that there will be opportunities women funders can respond to and that they want to be ready to unpack the “locker room” conversation and think about how to turn that into action in men’s’ lives. They also talked about the power of creative tools to stage an intervention in particular issues, through film and projects like Good Pitch.

wmm

a visual summary of the discussion by Devon Bunce from Digital Storytellers

Questions at the Melbourne session:

Q. Why are corporates and senior figures standing up now for family violence but not other gender equity  issues?

A. When the personal becomes political people wake up, and the Rosie and Luke Batty story has been a strong catalyst.  Issues have heroes and good storytellers create echoes and ripples.  While poverty and violence have been around forever, creating a “standing ovation” effect, catching the zeitgeist, and making the personal public is key to catching the attention of the crowd. Consider the Vagina Monologues,  the Good Men Project spearheaded by Michael Kimmel, Tony Porter,  and Jack Myers, talking about what it means to be a man, and The Mask You Live In, and Tiffany Schlain’s 50/50 (there have been 50 elected female prime ministers and presidents – can we name them?).  Moving out thought from scarcity to abundance.  With awareness comes responsibility, emotion and empathy affects us.

Q. Examples of where Women Moving Millions gifts go?

A. Women Moving Millions are not funded directly by the members, some gifts are deeply personal, some support microfinance in Liberia and India, some donors support one project, some take a portfolio approach.  The issue areas cover 100s and 1000s of organisations.

Q. Is there a global map of projects being funded?

A. Resources not available to itemise and locate every gift and some donors are quite private – the best use of the network is the exchange of ideas and the importance of advocacy and its effect on legislation.  When members get together they gain value from learning from each other and are free agents to invest where they choose.

Q. Evaluation, impact, evidence?

A. Each member supports 1 to 100 organisations, the Circles programs discuss strategy and issue areas and information is shared at all levels, but not publicly.  The benefit of Women Moving Millions is in its informal leveraging of relationships.  Unfortunately, they don’t have an easy way to make what they have learned more accessible.

Q. What is the impact of small grants?

A. The level of funding needs to relate to the needs of the organisation being funded so yes, small grants are important and effective.

Q. Relationship to sustainable development goals?

A. Women Moving Millions is looking at different ways to express impact, and donors don’t always have the time, energy and resources to measure to specific targets.  Sometimes impact is a judgment call rather than statistics. When trying to change social norms, it will take a long time and you may not meet these specific goals.  While the goals are a powerful framework, they need to be relevant for smaller donors and it is a challenge to incorporate them into the conversation.

Finally, everyone in the room was asked to consider what each of us can do to make a change for gender equity, and what action we would commit to, continue or ramp up as a result of what we had heard.  This led to further discussion and ideas.

Julie Reilly concluded the session with a reminder for people to check out the genderwise toolkit, and Ann and Jacki spoke of how enlightened they had been by their trip to Australia, and how the were moved by how engaged we are here, our energy, commitment, and interest.

What do you think about funding projects for women and girls?

What are your ideas for how best to address inequality?

 

ozphilanthropy attended The Power of Women Melbourne event as a guest of the Australian Women Donors Network

 

Posted in advocacy, donate, grantmaking, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Giving Australia 2016 – a preview


generousThe Giving Australia 2016 report is being launched on 1 December.  It’s been just over ten years since the last major survey of generosity and philanthropy in Australia was undertaken.  Both these reports were initiated by the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership.

The new iteration has been painstakingly worked on for more than a year by a research team at the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at QUT in collaboration with the Centre for Social Impact at Swinburne University.

We were given a little taster of the report at the Centre for Social Impact Swinburne’s annual Alumni, Students & Friends Professional Development Day.  Dr Christopher Baker and Professor Jo Barraket presented some overarching findings based on more than 6000 surveys to households, 24 focus groups and 9 one-on-one interviews with engaged donors that they have conducted over the last year.

There have been some significant changes in the philanthropy landscape since 2005, not least being the growth of Private Ancillary Funds and the global financial crisis.

Anyway, here for your reading pleasure are some headline results which I found interesting:

  • Volunteering has increased
  • Business giving is greater – particularly through partnerships with not for profit organisations
  • There is a trend towards the democratisation of philanthropy (giving circles, peer to peer fundraising, crowdfunding, online technologies supporting giving) – but there is no hard evidence of the changes this is creating – the trend has been reported anecdotally and is considered “aspirational”.

The key insights from the report relate to what matters.  Here’s the list:

  • Culture matters – the underlying norms and values of our communities
  • Family and community matters
  • Mechanisms for giving matter
  • Impact matters – that is, the idea of making a difference, having agency and being able to play a part in things which matter, seeing the fruits of one’s labour and giving while living – not SROI, outcomes, evaluation or statistics.
  • Ease and access to giving matters (some PAFS commented on barriers to giving and the need for legal advice in order to operate within the regulations).
  • Infrastructure matters

and here’s a new acronym for us: EAST – easy, accessible, sociable and timely – where giving is made simpler and makes more sense, it attracts more support.

A few more thoughts on changes since 2005:

  • Capturing the diversity of giving and the giving experience is still a challenge.
  • There is more emphasis now on impact
  • Donors are more open to longer term investment
  • There is strong interest in transparency and evaluation
  • Donors want to engage with their communities in co-creating  solutions
  • Donors want to understand where their money lands.

The report has noted some perceptions of generational shifts in that younger people and retirees are more likely to volunteers while middle-aged people are more likely to give (reflecting their time availability). Younger people also want to align their giving with their careers, creating meaning with their work. (I hope to have a post on Effective Altruism up soon which pushes this idea very strongly).

There is a strong sentiment among those who do give that everyone with the capacity to do so, should do so.

There is strong support for broader accessibility to giving structures like private ancillary funds.

So what does the report tell us about the future of giving in Australia?

There is a strengthening culture of giving, there is support for diversity in giving platforms, people want to encourage collaborative efforts (between communities, philanthropists and government) and there is strong support for innovation such as matched funding, more policy to boost giving and greater transparency.

I look forward to reading the full report once it is launched, and to hearing your comments and reactions.

 

 

Posted in donate, engaged philanthropy, fundraising, grantmaking, impact and measurement, philanthropy, volunteering | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment