Spreading a Culture of Giving

Transcript

19/20 Ottobre 2006 - Convegno internazionale
Dare un futuro alle opportunità
PROMUOVERE IL DONO: RUOLO E PROSPETTIVE
DELLA FILANTROPIA COMUNITARIA
Timothy L. Seiler
Director, Public Service andThe Fund Raising School
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University
T. Seiler
How to spread a culture of giving is a daunting topic, especially in a multi-cultural setting. The
United States seems to hold a revered position as a culture of giving. It must be acknowledged,
though, that the United States received philanthropy - - a culture of giving – from English and
other European forebears.
Many data, particularly those reported in the annual publication, Giving U.S.A., suggest that the
United States boasts a well-developed culture of giving and that the country is a generous,
maybe the most generous, nation in the 20th and 21st century world. That level of generosity
may have as much to do with how such measurements are conducted and what is counted as it
does with giving habits of the citizens of the United States.
The experience of cultures throughout the world demonstrates strong traditions of giving,
traditions that are centuries, even millennia, old. But a lot of that giving looks different from
how giving looks in the United States.
The giving that is tracked in the United States is
organized and formal; it’s highly structured. This is largely what gets counted as philanthropy.
That difference is one of the differences in societies throughout the world. For example, in
many countries giving to church is not counted as philanthropic giving, and in the United States,
giving to church represents 36% of all philanthropy as measured and reported through formal
means. In the United States there are numerous private, nonprofit universities (as opposed to
state-run) as well as many nonprofit art museums and health-care institutions. In the United
States giving to religion, education, health, and arts and culture represents 2/3 of all tracked
giving. That alone makes the United States look more generous than other cultures or countries.
There have long been vibrant cultures of giving, albeit informal and unstructured, throughout
the world. The United States cannot lay claim to any unique perspective on how to spread a
culture of giving. What does seem to be different today, and where the United States may,
perhaps, play a leading role, is in an interest in studying and improving cultures of giving.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University was created as a vehicle for enhancing the
fundraising training already being provided by The Fund Raising School, an organization that was
already in existence and which became the centerpiece for the Center on Philanthropy. At The
Center on Philanthropy we believe that we can help spread a culture of giving by increasing the
knowledge of philanthropy and improving its effectiveness.
At The Fund Raising School we
believe that fundraising is servant to philanthropy, and thus improving effective, ethical
fundraising also increases philanthropy and its effectiveness. The Center on Philanthropy offers
programs in effective fundraising, programs that lead to academic degrees, and programs in
research that seek to understand and inform philanthropy and fundraising.
1
T. Seiler
One of the observations we and others have made about formal philanthropy in the United
States is a changing pattern of giving. Elizabeth Lynn and Susan Wisely have written about four
interrelated yet distinct traditions of philanthropy.
The grid below shows the traditions of
philanthropy along with the principles of operation and the primary objective of each.
Four Traditions of Philanthropy
Philanthropy as…
Relief
Improvement
Social Reform
Civic Engagement
Operates on principle Operates on
Operates on principle Operates on principle
of compassion
principle of
of
of
progress
justice
participation
Alleviates
Maximizes human
Solves social
Builds community
human
potential
problems
suffering
The tradition of philanthropy as relief might be the most common and best understood of
the traditions. Often known as charity, philanthropy as relief strives to alleviate suffering and
operates on the principle of compassion for others. We see this tradition especially in times of
disaster, when relief is needed for neighbors and friends. Critics of philanthropy as relief argue
that it addresses symptoms, not problems, and therefore does not get to the root of what causes
the need in the first place.
Another tradition of philanthropy is that of general improvement, individual and civic.
Operating from the principle of human and civic progress, philanthropy as improvement strives
to maximize human potential. This type of philanthropy builds networks of connections and
provides opportunities for individual and social betterment.
Critics of philanthropy as
improvement maintain that this type of philanthropy is elitist, offering help and opening
opportunity’s door only to the select few, the already favored groups of mainstream society.
Social reform philanthropy is a third distinct tradition of philanthropy.
This type of
philanthropy seeks to solve social problems and operates on the principle of equality and justice.
Social reform philanthropy seeks to affect social change by identifying and addressing social
problems. Critics of social reform philanthropy suggest its limitations by arguing that those who
2
T. Seiler
lead this type of effort are not in the best position to recognize the most pressing social
problems.
The newest tradition of philanthropy identified by Lynn and Wisely is described as
philanthropy as civic engagement. Motivated by a desire to increase civic participation, civic
engagement philanthropy builds and nurtures reflective local communities by strengthening the
connections among ordinary citizens.
The desire to encourage civic conversations drives this
type of philanthropy and is behind the recent world-wide growth in the establishment of
community foundations. In the United States as of the year 2005 there were approximately 630650 community foundations with $39.4 billion in assets (Giving USA 2006). These community
foundations represented only 1% of grant-making foundations but about 92% of the giving (The
Foundation Center). Internationally, about 1200 community foundations have been identified in
46 countries.
Approximately 40% of community foundations exist outside the United States
(WINGS 2005 Community Foundation Global Status Report). It is this type of philanthropy that
addresses social needs, especially the needs of the weakest of our citizenry, and seeks to act for
the broadest general welfare.
All four of these traditions of philanthropy share a culture of generosity. In her book The
Greater Good Claire Gaudiani asserts that the United States is not generous because it is rich,
but rather it is rich because it is generous.
Gaudiani presents numerous examples of
philanthropy’s role in American society in addressing human and civic needs and in innovating in
areas where government and business are slow to move. She argues that generosity is a longstanding tradition of a people who, while being ruggedly individualistic, also seek to build and
share community.
Paul Schervish, a sociologist at Boston College and director there of the Center on
Philanthropy and Wealth, studies the motivations of the wealthy and concludes that there are
several factors that influence the formation of a generous identity. Schervish identifies the
following donor motivations:
Communities of participation: involvement in family, church, school, civic
groups
Frameworks of consciousness: values and beliefs from religious upbringing, political involvement,
a sense of reciprocity
Early childhood experience: role models such as parents, other adult influences, teachers,
coaches
Socializing agent: peer networks inviting philanthropic participation
Intrinsic/Extrinsic rewards of giving: making a big difference, recognition, legacy, tax benefits.
Invitation to join: being asked to give.
3
T. Seiler
Schervish discusses also fundraising practices and how fundraising strategies might influence
negatively or positively a culture of generosity.
Two distinct models of fundraising practice, using the language of Paul Schervish, are the
scolding model and the discernment, or inclination, model. The fundraising models derive from
how one thinks about philanthropy. If we take the scarcity approach, there’s anxiety that there
is not enough wealth to go around. On the other hand is the abundance model which suggests
that there’s plenty of wealth available.
What Schervish maintains is that in the United States right now, and from the tenor of
discussions at this conference it sounds like this is true also in Italy and much of the rest of
Europe, there is an abundance of wealth.
If fundraising is approached from the scarcity side, there’s a sense of competition with
every other organization trying to fundraise, chasing a limited amount of money. This approach
tends to create a demand side kind of fundraising, what Schervish calls a “scolding model,”
where there’s a sense of trying to talk people out of their money, or as was described in another
presentation, to “threaten people,” to create a sense of guilt that “if they don’t give they are
going to be left out.” That’s a type of fundraising called “twisting people’s arms” to cajole
them into giving, to embarrass them. That creates a fear that if your name is not on the list of
donors and all your peers’ names are on the list, you’re going to feel bad. That’s a type of
demand side fundraising. That’s fundraising that focuses on the needs of the organization and is
inward –looking. That is to say, it’s fundraising that delivers a message something like “we’re in
a position of great need, please help us. If you don’t help us, we can’t do the important work
we’re trying to do.” This type of scolding model works –that’s why we use it—we’re a very
pragmatic bunch, we fundraisers.
You’ve heard or read that in the United States philanthropic giving annually represents
about 2% of gross domestic product. For the fifty plus years that giving data have been tracked,
philanthropy has varied from 1.7% to 2.3% of gross domestic product. If we’re living in a culture
of generosity, why can we not move the percentage higher? Many observers of the philanthropic
scene suggest that we don’t move the number higher because fundraising is stuck on the demand
side scolding model and our donors are weary.
They are tired of being lectured to or scolded, hounded into giving. This theory suggests
that if fundraising moved out of the scolding model into an inclination model, also called a
discernment model, we could move the percentage higher. What does it mean to fundraise from
an inclination/discernment model?
4
T. Seiler
It means that you work with donors in such a way that you find out what their primary
interests are, what they discern to be the way they want to participate in philanthropy. You
discover what they are inclined to support and then you invite them accordingly. After they
have discerned their primary interests, you match their interests with your organization’s
interests and the resulting gifts are larger. I mentioned earlier that Shervish studies the wealthy
who give very large gifts, so I think he’s onto something with this idea of the discernment
model. Now let me say also that, just as the four traditions of philanthropy are not exclusive of
one another, but they all have a role in everyone’s giving history at one point or another, so do
these fundraising models.
The scolding model has a place and the discernment model has a place. The discernment
model is the more emerging kind of model of fundraising in the United States right now. We’re
getting a little bit smarter about and more sophisticated about how to interact with our donors
and how to invite them to participate at appropriate levels as they discover their own interests
and needs.
In the midst of these different fundraising models are several challenges facing
philanthropy and fundraising. I’ve addressed some of them with the models that we’re using,
but here are a few others that are out there right now and that we’re going to have to deal
with.
A very big challenge, perhaps more applicable to the United States than to other
countries, is the challenge to the tax-exempt status of nonprofits. What has prompted this
challenge is the erosion of trust in the nonprofit sector; the erosion has been caused by
misbehavior of a very small number of non-profits. Nevertheless, one organization misbehaves,
we all get judged by that behavior, so we have to be careful about openness, transparency,
honesty, accountability: concepts and practices that are very important as we move forward in
philanthropy. If we can regain that trust, we will be in a position to do far better with our
fundraising and ultimately with our philanthropy.
In the United States, the cost of fundraising is a particularly challenging issue. Many
donors don’t like to pay for the cost of running programs or infrastructure, administrative
overhead, so we’re going to have to deal with this – the true cost of fundraising. In the forprofit world we talk about the bottom line, that’s profit; in the non-profit world we talk about
the top line, that’s mission, service to the community. But what we also recognize in the non
profit work is without a bottom line there is no top line. So we have to raise money and we just
need to be open about this.
Another challenge facing philanthropy today is that of executive compensation.
There are
executives who are very well paid, and it’s probably open to question whether it is within
keeping of the spirit of non profits, so we are going to have to deal with that question going
5
T. Seiler
forward. We must be able to articulate compelling, justifiable reasons for paying leadership
generously.
In conclusion to this overview of how to spread a culture of giving, I’m going to give just
a glimpse into some of the training programs and academic programs that address the big
picture of philanthropic studies, nonprofit management, and fundraising at the Center on
Philanthropy at Indiana University.
We believe that studying philanthropy and studying
fundraising will make both of those activities better.
When we opened the Center on
Philanthropy in 1987, we were about the fifth or sixth center in the United States; we were not
the first, but the fifth or sixth. As of today, there are probably sixty plus academic centers in
the United States affiliated with colleges and universities that are studying nonprofit
management, fundraising, philanthropy, or one or more of those in some fashion, so it has been
an exploding area of interest in the United States. Giuliana Gemelli’s program at the University
of Bologna, the Masters in International Studies in Philanthropy, is flourishing.
There is a
fundraising training program in Frankfurt, Germany, called the Fund Raising Academy, so there
are many of these programs underway today.
Some of these programs lead to degrees in fundraising, but most of them lead to degrees in
philanthropic studies or non-profit management.
The professional organizations such as the
Association of Fundraising Professionals and Certified Fund Raising Executives International
promote continuing education and credentialing of fundraisers, including adherence to a code of
conduct and ethical practices.
From academic programs leading to degrees to continuing
education for practitioners, this attention to the study of philanthropy, nonprofit management,
and fundraising is making more reflective practitioners leading to a growing culture of giving.
The Fund Raising School at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University has taught courses in
forty countries around the world, and we have partnership arrangements in several countries.
We have a partner in Mexico, we have a partner in Argentina, we have a partner in Austria,
Vienna, and we are looking at a partnership with the University of Bremen in Germany. We have
taught in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. Wherever we have
gone, we’ve gone by invitation. We don’t just show up somewhere and say “we know how to do
this, why don’t we help you” but people invite us and we go where we’re invited, and I think
that that outreach, that extension, is one of the critical ways that the Center on Philanthropy
and other centers like ours in the United States and around the world are contributing to the
continuation and the spreading of a culture of giving.
6
Community Philanthropy in the US
and the World: Scenarios and
Opportunities
Lucy Bernholz
Blueprint Research & Design, Inc., San Francisco
Lucy Bernholz
Community Philanthropy
in the US and the World:
Scenarios and Opportunities
Grazie il sig. Vello. Anniversario Felice. Sono spiacente che non parlo italiano.
Imagine a place, a farming village, where the people come together daily, contribute a few
small coins each to a common account. This account is not owned by the Church. It is not
required by the government. It is a small, but increasing source of funding, to spend toward
improving the community – the community of the people who gave those small amounts. They
give the money. They decide where it goes.
Imagine a place, a neighborhood in large and growing city, where several people, similar in age
and background, can come together to meet with another group, themselves similar but
different from the first group, and talk about the shared possibilities now that they are all living
in the same city neighborhood. They can meet peacefully, away from the eye of the press, and
talk about the things they have in common – both the good and the bad – and try to develop
solutions.
Imagine a place, a small city with a long history, where a single community member has a dream
for renovating the parks in her town. The government no longer provides adequate funds. The
benches are breaking, the tile is cracked, and litter is more common than grass. She remembers
what they used to look like and has a vision of what they could be. What she needs are some
other community members who also remember and envision, each of whom might add some of
their time to the project, some of their expertise and help raise the funds needed to match
those of the original donor to make the work happen.
Community foundations are part of each of the stories above. In the farming village – this one is
in the Philippines – community members make daily deposits of small change and then meet to
decide how to use the funds to improve their community. In the larger city, in a country longtorn by religious violence, neighbors do come together to move beyond the losses and damage
each side has experienced and build something better together. The third story is from a city in
the middle of America, but it happens all over the world all the time.
1
Lucy Bernholz
There are more than 1200 community foundations around the world. Even as they share the
common goals of “building permanent financial resources for and from their community,” they
are as different as is each place.
The structures and purposes of community foundations are ‘customizable’ to the
traditions of giving in each place. They also take into account the society’s expectations
about the role of the government or of the church in providing certain services to the
community. Community foundations in former Soviet countries have very different
relationships to local government than do those in the United States. The right answers
only exist for each place and time.
Over several decades, Community foundations have received extraordinary support from
private foundations and, in some places, public support in terms of tax advantages.
1. There have been many deliberate attempts to grow CFs in parts of the world
(South Africa, Eastern Europe, Former Soviet Union).
2. There are lots of reasons for this. It is in part because of the community
foundation’s unique ability to bring together many stakeholders, who understand
the local situation, and who can both advise on solutions and catalyze more local
giving. They provide a place to be generous. They are, almost naturally, a way to
bring inside as many outsiders as possible – as we were encouraged to do by
yesterday’s speakers.
Key trends influencing Community Foundations around the World
Community foundations are not static. They are subject to the forces of change both at
their local level – changing demographics, such as an aging population, for example – and
more global forces, such as the corporate opportunities presented by the creation of the
EU.
Major global forces include:
o
Technological change – more information, more products for giving, more
opportunities to collaborate
o
Global economies and mobility – people can move around more freely. This can
change what and where they care about things.
A small digression on this point. My family and I have had the joy of spending 6 days in Rome
prior to this conference. My 6-year old son is very outgoing. So far on this trip to Italy he has
2
Lucy Bernholz
made friends with a number of people. He has learned to count to 10 in Punjabi, Malayalam and
Tumbuka. He purchased castagne (chestnuts) in Chinese behind the Duomo here in Milan. He
learned and played a skipping game from a Scottish girl and an Italian boy. My point: The world’s
diversity is right here in Italy and that will matter to your community foundations.
o
Blending of the sectors – commercial organizations and nonprofit organizations
increasingly doing similar things – providing services, selling philanthropic
products, running businesses.
At the local level:
1. Local politics – who needs to be on board? Who is independent and trustworthy
2. How is the community changing? What businesses are thriving? Which are
struggling?
3. Demographic changes – old and young? New and old residents? Growing or
shrinking?
At the national level:
1. Law s about giving.
2. Role of government in providing certain services
3. Health of national economy
Donors are not static. Each is an individual. Some know what they want to support,
others might want help. Some live in a region all the time (and their families have for
centuries) others are globe hopping business people with a strong attachment to many
places in their lives. Some have lots of financial resources. Some have lots of time. All
have lots of ideas and a desire to do good.
Donors have a lot of choices about ways to give and when to give.
4. In the United States, a donor can choose from among at least a dozen different
types of giving options. Some of these are organizations like community
foundations others are products of the nation’s large commercial investment firms
and banks. Philanthropy is a hybrid industry with both commercial and nonprofit
pieces.
5. This increased choice in product means donors can select based on price, service,
efficiency, customer attention, and local knowledge.
Donors have access to lots of information. They don’t have lots of tools for making sense
of it, applying it to their decisions about giving, or ways of filtering the different requests
they might receive.
3
Lucy Bernholz
Everyone cares about accountability. How can an individual donor know the funds he
gives are used for the purposes stated? How can a board of local community leaders make
fair decisions that won’t leave people questioning their own conflicts of interests? How
can a nation as a whole make sure that it is supporting an independent sector that is
credible, accountable and effective?
Opportunities
Infrastructure varies significantly in each country – in some cases it supports the growth
of new foundations in others it is focused on meeting common standards. In most places –
Italy being a KEY exception – the infrastructure was not deliberately designed. Italy has
great opportunity to lead because it is building foundations and infrastructure
simultaneously and deliberately.
There may be potential for Italian Community Foundations to work together in ways that
have worked well in few other countries – namely Canada.
Community foundations in Italy may also look to peer foundations in other countries to
address issues such as immigration.
What the USA could learn from Italy.
I see three major opportunities for community foundations in Italy that can inform the rest
of the community foundation movement:
1. Fondazione Cariplo is building both individual community foundations and an
infrastructure to support them. Italy has a chance to address local, regional and
national issues in ways that other countries have not been able. What does it mean to
build these simultaneously? What does it promote? Does anything get left behind?
2. Italy’s rapid development of community foundations will allow the field to take on
issues of ethics, credibility, the role of industry data and the skills of philanthropy
from the beginning of the development period.
3. If a country builds community foundations on a shared technology platform – as is
happening here – can you share information better? Ca you build better industry
research? Can you address regionally and nationally complex issues collectively?
These are just a few of the questions that Italy’s unfolding community foundation future may
answer. I look forward to learning from you.
4
A problematic identity: the need
to rethink our mission
Bernardino Casadei
Fondazioni Comunitarie Project Manager
Fondazione Cariplo
B. Casadei
A problematic identity:
the need to rethink our mission
Introduction
The high growth rates and the diffusion throughout all the continents that characterize
community philanthropy and more specifically community foundations, must not allow us forget
that we are dealing with a very complex reality whose identity is often problematic and is
difficult to define.
Furthermore, it is important to note that large investments made by some of the main private
foundations have, on the one side, surely been very important in promoting take off in this field,
but, on the other side, have driven parties, whose characteristics could not always be identified
with the community foundations’, to call themselves this way in order to obtain grants and
technical assistance. Finally, in the United States, where the model’s success encouraged other
types of parties even with a commercial nature, in entering the field, there are more and more
people inviting the foundations to redefine their identity and mission.
An Alternative right from the start
The community foundation’s identity actually appeared to be problematic since the beginning.
In fact, if we analyse the two that used to be the major community foundations in the world:
The Cleveland Foundation and the New York Community Trust, we will easily find out that these
two realities have taken very different roads since their birth.
Right from the beginning, the aim of the New York Community Trust was to help people donate
freeing them from all the bureaucratic burdens that distinguish such activities. A contemporary
defined it as “the mechanical side of philanthropy”. The foundation is very similar to a bank, not
only due to its sober and reserved style, but also because of its inclination not to publicly
express its opinion, for the simple reason that its role is to help present and future donors
pursue their philanthropic goals and not that of achieving its own political and social projects,
whether shared or not.
The approach of the Cleveland Foundation, which since its constitution, when it still had very
limited financial resources, was aimed at influencing the public opinion developing strategies
which would allow it to improve its community’s quality of life, is radically different if not
actually opposite.
Such approach is very well describe by the Foundation’s decision to use the first resources to
finance some studies which were then used throughout a decade, not only to address the
foundation’s activity, but also to influence the public policies in that community. Anyway,
amongst the first collaborators of the foundation in Ohio were some of the eggheads that would
later on contribute together with Roosevelt in the achievement of the New Deal. Today the
1
B. Casadei
Cleveland Foundation still elaborates and publishes reports with the aim of arranging the models
that may be needed to address social policies in its city, but that also have the ambition to be
used in the rest of the Country.
However reticent and reserved the New York Community Trust may appear, almost invisible
within the Big Apple, the Cleveland Foundation instead is always present and it is practically
impossible to live in that city without being in touch, even indirectly, with Frederick H. Goff’s
creature.
The New York Community Trust Model
As has already been pointed out, the foundation’s task is to assist donors that can be identified
as the main customers of the foundation. This structuring has widely spread above all in the last
decades and has prompted foundations to re-write their mission clearly stating that their aim is
to serve donors.
A similar approach made it that the non-profits are actually considered as suppliers. In concrete
terms the donor establishes his/her wishes and the foundation makes the effort of finding the
non-profit organisations that are in a position to achieve the projects that the former wants to
support, guaranteeing at the same time for the quality of the initiatives identified.
The logical consequence to this approach is the tendency to consider the performance purely in
quantitative terms. An annual research carried out by the Columbus Foundation with a table
reporting data related to funds raised, grants made and the value of the assets concerning all
the foundations, is the symbol of this tendency. These are the criteria that, for a long period of
time, have been considered as the only ones to measure the value of a community foundation in
the United States.
If the growth of the community foundations’ assets and resources is certainly due to the
diffusion of this model, it is not immune to risks that are becoming apparent above all in recent
years. In particular, new instruments, even of a commercial nature, are coming forth that have
the aim of allowing donators to maximize tax relief. In 1991, the creation of the Fidelity
Charitable Gift Fund, soon followed up by similar institutions constituted by finance companies,
was a real shock for community foundations. For the first time the American Foundations were
forced to face with tough competition and someone imagined, perhaps too hastily, that
community foundations were coming to a near end.
Besides, it was soon realised that competition was not only coming from finance institutions.
The development in technology and, in particular, the diffusion of internet, are making a
consistent part of the community foundations’ services obsolete and useless. Thanks to the
development of new research instruments, it is becoming everyday easier for the single donor to
2
B. Casadei
identify directly the non-profit agency that suits best the aims dearest to him/her without
having to ask for assistance to a community foundation.
However, the biggest danger of this approach is losing one’s ideal dimension. When one’s value
translates directly into book value, there is a risk of focusing one’s attention only on financial
data and it soon becomes difficult to affirm one’s identity and specificity with respect to the
commercial field with the consequence of being influenced by the latter’s logic.
The Cleveland Foundation Model
As opposed to what happened in New York, since the beginning, the Ohio foundation’s aim was
to find a solution to its community’s problems. As has already been said, its first resources were
destined to financing studies that could then be used to elaborate strategies that were able to
give an important contribution to the improvement of its community’s quality of life. Whereas in
the New York model, the improvement of the quality of life is the consequence to the increase
in grants, in this case, it is the result of a specific strategy that elaborates solutions and then
tries to implement them in the community, through the granting activity after having identified
the common problems causes.
This approach changes donors into real sponsors that support the foundation’s activities with
their financial resources. This means that, whilst the most common instrument used by the
foundations to promote services to donors are the donors advised funds, where the donor must
be involved in identifying the destination of the grant deriving from his/her contributions, for
the foundations that follow the Ohio model instead, the aim is to obtain gifts without
restrictions, so that financial resources may be used to implement strategies that the board has
elaborated.
Even in this model non-profit organisations have the role of supplier. This time though, the true
buyers are not the donors but the community foundation that, instead of pursuing its own
strategy through direct project management, makes grants. From this perspective, the
community foundation ends up being very similar to any grantmaking foundation. Actually, the
main difference between a community foundation that follows this approach and a private
foundation that has decided to focus its attention on a well-defined territory, is that the first is
a public charity, a technical term with which the American law establishes that an agency is
able to pass the public support test, that is a mathematical calculation aimed at checking that a
consistent amount of resources derive from different subjects, as an index consensus degree
that the foundation has been able to arouse within its community. By the way we should point
out that the more the foundations’ assets increase, the more it becomes difficult to pass the
3
B. Casadei
test, because it is necessary to generate an increasing number of donations to balance the
revenue from the investment.
Of course, for this kind of foundation the performance is measured through the social change it
has been able to generate. It is a particularly difficult measure to elaborate, as grantmaking
foundations know very well, but that anyway, above all in a limited geographical context, as is
that in which community foundations operate, it is not impossible to elaborate.
If, above all in recent times, the idea that a community foundation should have as its major goal
the promotion of social change is gaining great interest and attention, it is advisable to be
conscious of the risks that characterize also such approach.
Besides the fact that it has still to be proved that a foundation with a clear granting strategy is
able to generate more donations compared to one that instead offers its services to donors,
there are criticalities that could end up preventing the foundation from carrying out its role
efficiently, if they are not adequately analysed and managed.
We therefore must not forget that one of the strong selling points of a community foundation
has always been its neutrality and therefore the ability to serve all non-profit organisations in
the territory. One of the most popular slogans used in fact reads: “You do not donate to a
foundation, but through a foundation.” But the moment that a foundation should decide to play
a significant orientation role, being able to maintain such neutrality risks becoming more of a
problem and the non-profit organisations, whose strategies are not provided for in the
foundations’ action plans, could consider this as a dangerous competitor. The consequence of all
this would be that of not being able to exercise its catalyst role which till then has often
enabled it to give an important contribution to its community.
Even political relations become more complex. For a foundation serving its donors, protecting
itself from political parties influences becomes relatively simple, also because it is clear to
everyone that if the foundation should lose its independence, fundraising would immediately
become more difficult, if not impossible.
Nevertheless, when a foundation starts elaborating a personal political project, it becomes
important for politicians to be able to control a structure that, thanks to its financial resources,
could influence their activities in a significant way. On the other hand it is difficult for a
foundation to resist interference attempts from those who, due to a clear democratic
justification, can pretend representing at the best what the real community needs are.
Finally, a similar approach risks generating the ivory tower syndrome that often distinguishes
granting foundations. The foundation has qualified personnel that sometimes loses touch with
reality and feels obliged to impose its vision to the non-profits, that not only submit themselves
to such wills, but often avoid any kind of criticism fearing that it may have negative effects on
4
B. Casadei
future grants. If this imposition is sometimes positive for the non-profits themselves, in other
cases it generates abstract projects lacking in real social impact. Even though having to face
with donors’ will, may be frustrating, it may help foundation personnel to develop self-criticism
and avoid making similar mistakes.
Compromise or superior synthesis
This summary analysis of the two models clearly demonstrates how both are carriers of
important petitions but also of risks that could be dangerous for the community foundations’
activities. It is not an accident that there is often a debate on whether it is fairer to focus one’s
attention on donors or on the community, with the awareness that none of the two are fully
satisfactory. To face this tension there are two possible paths to follow: the research of a
compromise that can balance the needs of these two approaches or, as an alternative, the
elaboration of a new synthesis that gives us the necessary cultural instruments to allow the
community foundations to carry out their task overcoming the identified contradictions.
The compromise is a pragmatic approach based on common sense and that tries to identify a fair
though unsteady balance between the conflicting needs mentioned above. It is a particularly
frequent approach in the United States where, often, the pendulum metaphor is used and there
is a need to avoid extreme behaviours whose abstractness is often negative. It is an approach
that, playing more on the ésprit de finesse then on the ésprit de géometrie, helps in finding
adequate solutions also beyond the operators’ awareness, who, due to their experience, avoid
the dangers of ideology.
Instead, for the person who can count on a limited experience, in Europe above all, it is very
important to try to develop a thorough analysis that can serve as a compass for the management
of a community foundation. A method which has often been efficient to reach this goal, is to
identify if both approaches have a common pre-requisite, that they have not analyzed critically
and that is a limit common to both. By overcome such a limit we may end up bringing new and
fruitful light to this problem. Practically speaking it is a matter of elaborating a new synthesis
that will be based on exceeding such a limit.
The limit: giving as a means
In the brief analysis that has just been made, we have seen how in both cases, the non-profit
agencies are realities considered as suppliers. Their value concerning community development is
actually identified by their ability to produce goods and services that can satisfy donors’ needs
or the aims established by the foundation’s board. This attitude in particular clearly shows how,
at least theoretically speaking, because practically speaking it is often a different reality, both
5
B. Casadei
models consider a gift as a means and not as an aim to pursue independently from the practical
consequences of the latter.
If we analyse the New York Community Trust model from this point of view, we will easily see
how the aim is not giving, but it is fundraising. The extent of success is actually given by the
amounts raised. Of course the funds raised are the fruit of donations, but there is a substantial
difference between fundraising and promoting donations, at least because promoting donations
can also be done for the benefit of other subjects, whereas fundraising must necessarily be done
through the foundation structure.
Similarly this also goes for the Cleveland Foundation model. In this case instead, the donations
are the means to obtain the necessary financial resources to achieve one’s projects. In this case
also there is a fundraising activity rather than giving promotion. As a final analysis it means
having the necessary resources at disposal to give concreteness to one’s strategy and the
donations are but only a particular efficient means to achieve such an aim.
Giving as an end
Instead, the theory we want to bring out here is that promoting donations may be the most
important and real aim for a community foundation, that which can define its identity and
distinguish it from other organisations operating in the territory, with the awareness of the
strategic meaning that pursuing this aim can have in the development of our society.
In fact, a donation may be considered the true basis for a community that wants to call itself
civil. The most recent studies on social capital have shown the importance of the latter, above
all in a globalisation context, not only in moral and civil growth, but also for economic and social
growth. Now you don’t need to be an expert to notice the deep relation that links giving, trust
and social capital. Furthermore one must admit how it is the donation that generates that asset
of civil values that both the open market and the rules of the game in democracy need to be
able to work out and that however they are not able to generate autonomously.
The donation is then the engine and the identity of the charitable sector, of that third sector in
which everybody recognises an increasingly important role in our communities’ organic
development, but that it finds hard to assert its role. It is not by accident that today such a
sector is defined with negative terms: non-profit, non-governmental, in confirmation of a
cultural deficit that sentences it to a sort of dependence towards state and market, almost as if
its role was not but compensating their failures and balance shortages. What actually
distinguishes the third sector must not be sought for in goods and services that it can produce,
even if important, in activities that can be carried out also by others, but in its ability to support
gratuitousness, in any form, something that is structurally barred both to commercial companies
6
B. Casadei
that must pursue profit because of their essence, and to the public administration because
generosity, by definition, cannot be forced, not even by the law.
Finally, and this is the most important aspect, the donation is really a fundamental need for
each person who wants to live its humanity. Giving is in fact what really makes a human being
human and what gives concreteness to every person’s dignity. In a world where all relationships
are necessarily exploited, where men are instruments or obstacles for each other, only a
donation can make us break this vicious circle that isolates us, that alienates us and makes us
actually powerless, in order to allow each person to live really human relationships in which
Kant’s second categorical moral principle, to never consider the other uniquely as a means but
always as an aim, may materialize in everyday life.
Definition of giving
If giving can thus have such an important role in the development of our civilisation, it is
essential that we try to give it a definition that allows us to catch its essence in order to avoid
mistaking it with some of its deteriorations.
In the first place a donation is a relationship, it is a relation that is established between two
persons and not a demonstration of superiority or the execution of a social duty. These are the
activities that have often been mistaken with a donation. In fact cultural anthropology studies
have shown how a donation has had such social duties, above all in ancient societies, so much
that the possibility of pursuing these aims in modern society through other instruments has
urged many to deny any social meaning to giving, confining it in the private life of each
individual.
Instead, a donation is really an exchange that, as opposed to what happens in business, does not
involve swapping for something equivalent, but it is an act of trust in another human being. Even
if often what we receive in return is bigger than what we have donated, which is well testified
by all those who go through this experience, we cannot know this beforehand and there is
always the risk that the grantee pays us back with ungratefulness or intolerance. Moreover,
unlike what happens in trade, where incorrect behaviours can be repressed, in giving, the risk
completely depends on the donor, who at the most can regret having trusted in an ungrateful
person. However, it is the act of faith and the acceptance of this risk that allows a donation to
give life to really free and therefore human relationships.
Of course giving does not simply mean opening up ones wallet but also and above all, it means
putting something you have, such as time, resources, contacts at disposal to what you really
believe in. This does not only mean that promoting donations cannot be limited to fundraising
and therefore one must encourage all other expressions of generosity, but also that real
7
B. Casadei
donations can only come from listening to ones conscience, from the analysis and a close
examination of our values, and lastly from the ability to put oneself in relation to superior
principles that can give a sense and a meaning to ones existence. In a society where distraction
and noise dominate, a person who may want to promote donations cannot get out of trying to
help individuals listen to their conscience, in the silence of passions.
This last reflection leads us to consider how a donation is a fragile dimension that needs
protection and support. Without a suitable environment a donation struggles in becoming
apparent. In fact our society hinders this aspect of human life. Besides that distraction we have
just mentioned, we must reckon with the complexity of a world where specific competency and
professionalism are needed to carry out any activity, particularly when an individual mostly
needs help from his neighbour in order to overcome its own weight. If in fact, a donation is an
essential answer to a deeply rooted need within each person, like climbing a mountain, it means
struggle and sacrifice. In the same way often, if our near ones do not spur us, we are corrupted
by sloth and end up not taking the opportunities that life offers us, without concrete help on
behalf of the community, we risk living marginally or not living the pleasure of giving.
The utopia related to giving
To promote donations, having a strong awareness of its importance and a clear vision of its
essence is not enough, it is also necessary to imagine an utopia, an ideal society based on the
assertion of this principle. In other terms, it is about elaborating an image that can help us
address our actions and motivate our effort.
Unlike other utopia that imagine a perfect society as a society without something: no classes, no
poverty, no pain, no illnesses, etc., the utopia based on giving does not believe that a perfect
community should be a community without problems. On the contrary problems are challenges,
they are St. Augustine’s press where the oil or the sludge come out from.
The utopia related to giving instead is a community in which each one is helped and supported in
their efforts to follow the dictates of their conscience to give their contribution to the definition
and the achievement of common well being. Naturally each time such efforts will translate into
fighting against hunger, suffering, solitude, but not the illusion to be able to eliminate evil from
Earth one day, but convinced that this is the only way we will be able to fully express our
humanity and our dignity.
The instrumental use of giving
Having an utopia must not push us to taking refuge in the illusion, but on the contrary it must
help us to face with everyday reality with the awareness of how easy it is to promote giving in
8
B. Casadei
an instrumental manner, in order to pursue other aims that, even when they are legitimate, end
up impoverishing the experience related to giving.
Often the community is in fact more interested in seeing its own problems solved rather than
making an effort in encouraging the development of its social capital. Of course, everybody
agree that investments in this field are fundamental for the future growth of the community,
but in front of everyday pressures and of the need to give prompt replies to concrete problems,
we look for short-cuts and forget that in the end what is really important is not solving a
problem that will soon be replaced by another, but creating that energy heritage and
reciprocate respect that alone allows us to deal efficiently with the challenges that history does
not fail to propose.
A similar question also goes for the non-profits that are often more interested in receiving
contributions rather than creating relationships with the donors. Besides the shortsightedness
that distinguishes this approach also from a purely instrumental point of view, it is advisable to
remember what was stated above regarding the charitable sector role in our society. What
should characterise these agencies is the ability to turn into catalysers of generosity. It is the
fertility of the latter that will then generate goods and services and not, as often happens, the
will to realise such services that drives us in using the generosity that surrounds us in an
instrumental manner. Of course, even in this case the daily nature, the need to balance a
budget and to pay off bills at the end of the month, prevents many people from thoroughly
understanding this truth or in any case from putting it fully into practice.
Finally, the donors themselves often do not have the strength or the ability to make a further
even emotional investment in terms of participation that alone allows us to fully experience the
joy of giving. The latter is often experienced in abstract terms like a duty dictated by tradition
or social pressure and not as an experience that has the ability to give a sense and a meaning to
ones existence. Therefore a donation does not become a relationship and remain a simple item
in the family balance sheet or an investment in advertisements.
Specific indicators
If community foundations really want to pursue giving and withstand the pressures of all those
who refrain from capturing the poetry that distinguishes it so as to see only the prose made up
of grants and receipts, then we need to develop specific indicators. Without such indicators that
could be used to verify the coherence with ones mission, it will be hard to resist the pressures
aimed at changing the foundation in a mere almoner, a sort of cash point that distributes the
funds raised in a more or less efficient manner.
9
B. Casadei
In other words we must ask ourselves if the granting activity encourages the development of
social capital and the feeling of community or not. Solving problems is not enough; this activity
must be performed through the active participation of citizens who must not be considered pure
consumers of the services offered, but the real protagonists in the development of their
community.
At the same time it is necessary to verify whether the foundation’s contribution was useful as
catalysers of new donations, both in cash and goods and services. Whilst a simple granting
foundation can only go so far as verifying the efficacy in the use of its contribution, for a
community foundation it is more important knowing that such contribution has served as a
catalyser for new generosity even in terms of voluntary work also if a similar participation has
negative effects on the administrative efficiency in the management of the project sustained.
Lastly, it is advisable to check if the funds raised have only left tracks in the bank accounts,
tracks that the tax inspectors will need for their assessments, or if they have changed into
relationships between donors, with the non-profit organisations and with the end recipients of
the contributions themselves. This is an extremely important aspect in the life of a community
foundation that, as we have said, is the “business of making relationships,” even if of course,
elaborating indicators with the ability to measure this dimension is extremely difficult and
complex.
The triple bottom line
A consequence to this argument is that it is not enough for community foundations to obtain
economic sustainability nor is the verification of the impact of ones grants sufficient. These have
to face with another dimension that, in perhaps somewhat overblown terms, we could define as
the humanisation of life. Therefore we must elaborate a true triple bottom line to measure each
foundation’s performance with.
Of course it is essential to put together data on financial sustainability in this analysis. The funds
raised, the yield in property investments, the incidence of management costs in the foundation’s
activities are fundamental values that must be monitored constantly. It is not an optional that
can be disregarded in the name of more noble values. Of course it concerns means, but essential
means that cannot however be forgotten, if they do not need to be changed into foundation
activities, if it really wants to pursue its objectives.
At the same time however it is essential to measure the social impact of ones activity. Doing
good must be done properly and therefore we must have a good knowledge of the needs and
potential of our territory, have the instruments for an accurate verification of the real impact of
our allocations, without fooling oneself that reality can be controlled, and having promoted
10
B. Casadei
those partnerships that in a complex society like ours are the essential condition for the
elaboration of adequate solutions to challenges that nobody can think of solving without
involving others. Furthermore, it is fundamental that the foundation learns to capitalise on the
knowledge generated in each of its allocations. The methodical collection of this information
and its transformation into knowledge, will soon become the most important heritage, even
more important than the allocations themselves, that the foundation will ever be able to put at
its community’s disposal.
Nevertheless, all this is not enough, however important it may be. As we have already stated
repeatedly, the really fundamental role of a community foundation must be sought for in the
humanisation of life. In other words, it concerns asking oneself what the foundation’s
contribution in the spreading of the solidarity culture also between the non-profits themselves,
which, because they are too concentrated in pursuing their specific mission, often forget that
they
can express their values only by respecting the principles of solidarity which are the only
true basis of the charitable sector.
While pursuing its activities a community foundation must always ask itself whether it is really
contributing to strengthening the sense of community and belonging. In a world where the
formalization of civil relationships, the development of technology, the globalisation process
itself tend to have a standardisation and atomisation impact that denies individuals’ identity, it
is a fundamental duty that must never be put above the solution to even important social
problems.
Lastly, it is a case of asking oneself whether real human relationships are promoted through the
foundation’s activities. As we have already stated repeatedly, giving is perhaps one of the few
principles that allow us to defeat formal rationality, whose diffusion in modern society as Max
Weber has already stated, risks depriving the world of any magic and, at the same time, denying
it the poetry and the joy of living, which we try to replace with amusement in vane. A
community foundation worthy of that name should therefore verify whether its activity changes
into stories whose human dimension always has the place it is entitled to, that is the first.
Conclusions
In a rich and advanced society like ours, what we really need is the ability to be able to put
efficiency, efficacy, and inexpensiveness below a person’s dignity. It is not a matter of denying
the importance of these principles, whose role in the development of each society is obvious to
everyone, but to admit that their absolutization risks destroying the community’s true essence.
In other words it is a matter of rediscovering the difference between means and aims and
11
B. Casadei
rediscovering that the only aim that deserves being pursued is the assertion of a person’s
dignity, not just mere rights which we can often abuse from.
This is a challenge that involves each one of us and which the future of our society depends
upon. Community foundations, owing to their structure, their characteristics, and their role in
society, can offer a fundamental contribution in the humanisation of the world that we live in.
Perhaps the real reason for the enthusiasm and vitality that characterizes this field and that
allows it to grow as we can all verify is our conscience that we are carrying out such a duty,
even if we are not always fully aware of it.
On the other hand the proof that the paradigm that tends to confine a person in mere selfishness
and in the maximisation of its marginal usefulness, is, though dominant nowadays, false and
reductive is actually the spreading of agencies whose only real aim is to help people giving. The
concrete everyday witness that man is much more than this, gives us the strength to live life
with the faith, hope and charity that are the real basis of every human being’s dignity even in
this world full of conflicts and strains.
12
Un’identità problematica: ripensare
la propria missione
Bernardino Casadei
Responsabile progetto Fondazioni Comunitarie
Fondazione Cariplo
B. Casadei
Un’identità problematica:
Ripensare la propria missione
Introduzione
I fortissimi tassi di crescita e la diffusione in tutti i continenti che caratterizzano la filantropia
comunitaria e più specificatamente le fondazioni di comunità non devono farci dimenticare che
si tratta di una realtà molto complessa la cui identità è spesso problematica e di difficile
definizione. Inoltre, è importante notare come i grandi investimenti fatti da alcune fra le
principali fondazioni private se, da un lato, sono stati sicuramente importantissimi nel favorire il
decollo del settore, dall’altro, hanno anche spinto soggetti, le cui caratteristiche non sempre si
identificavano con quelle delle fondazioni di comunità, a chiamarsi in questo modo per ottenere
erogazioni e assistenza tecnica. Infine, negli stessi Stati Uniti, dove proprio il successo del
modello ha favorito l’entrata nel settore di altre tipologie di soggetti, anche di natura
commerciale, sono sempre più numerosi coloro che invitano le fondazioni a ridefinire la propria
identità e missione.
Un’alternativa sin dalle origini
In realtà l’identità delle fondazioni di comunità è apparsa problematica sin dalle origini. Se
infatti analizziamo le due più grandi fondazioni comunitarie esistenti al mondo: The Cleveland
Foundation e il New York Community Trust, scopriremo facilmente che queste due realtà hanno
seguito dalla loro nascita strade molto diverse.
Scopo della fondazione newyorchese è stato da subito quello di aiutare le persone a donare
liberandole da tutti gli oneri burocratici che contraddistinguono tale attività. Un contemporaneo
ebbe infatti a definirla l’aspetto meccanico della filantropia. La fondazione è molto simile ad
una banca, non solo per lo stile sobrio e riservato, ma anche per la tendenza a non esprimere la
propria opinione pubblicamente, per la semplice ragione che il suo ruolo è quello di aiutare i
donatori presenti e futuri a perseguire le loro finalità filantropiche e non quello di realizzare un
proprio, più o meno condivisibile, progetto politico e sociale.
Radicalmente diverso, se non addirittura opposto, è l’approccio della fondazione di Cleveland
che, invece, dalla costituzione, quando ancora aveva risorse finanziarie molto limitate, si è
posta come obiettivo quello di influire sull’opinione pubblica elaborando strategie che potessero
permetterle di migliorare la qualità della vita della propria comunità. Illuminante a tal proposito
è la scelta della fondazione di utilizzare le prime risorse per finanziare alcuni studi che poi per
decenni sono serviti, non solo per indirizzare l’attività della fondazione, ma anche le stesse
politiche pubbliche in quella comunità e non solo. Del resto, fra i primi collaboratori della
fondazione dell’Ohio ci furono alcune delle teste d’uovo che in seguito contribuirono con
1
B. Casadei
Roosevelt alla realizzazione del New Deal. Ancora oggi la fondazione di Cleveland elabora e
pubblica rapporti con l’obiettivo di predisporre modelli che possano servire ad indirizzare le
politiche sociali della propria città, ma che hanno anche l’ambizione di poter essere utilizzati
nel resto degli Stati Uniti.
Per quanto il New York Community Trust appare schivo e riservato, quasi invisibile all’interno
della grande mela, la Cleveland Foundation è invece ovunque presente ed è praticamente
impossibile vivere in quella città senza entrare in relazione, seppure in modo indiretto, con la
creatura di Frederick H. Goff.
Il modello New York Community Trust
Come è già stato rilevato, il compito della fondazione è quello di assistere i donatori, i quali
possono essere identificati come i principali clienti della fondazione. Questa impostazione si è
molto diffusa soprattutto in questi ultimi decenni e ha spinto diverse fondazioni a riscrivere la
propria missione affermando a chiare lettere che il loro scopo è quello di servire i donatori.
Un simile approccio fa sì che di fatto le nonprofit vengano considerate come dei veri e propri
fornitori. In pratica il donatore stabilisce i suoi desiderata e la fondazione si impegna a trovare
le organizzazioni nonprofit che sono in grado di realizzare i progetti che il primo vuole
sostenere, facendosi nel contempo garante della qualità delle iniziative individuate.
Conseguenza logica di questo approccio è la tendenza a considerare la performance in termini
puramente quantitativi. Emblema di questa tendenza è la ricerca annuale fatta dalla Columbus
Foundation, la quale raccoglie in una vera a propria classifica, i dati relativi alle donazioni
raccolte, alle erogazioni fatte e al valore del patrimonio di tutte le fondazioni. Sono questi i
criteri che per lungo tempo sono stati considerati gli unici sui quali misurare il valore di una
fondazione di comunità negli Stati Uniti.
Se la diffusione di questo modello è senz’altro responsabile della crescita dei patrimoni e delle
risorse delle fondazioni di comunità, esso non è immune da rischi, i quali si stanno manifestando
soprattutto in questi ultimi anni. In particolare, stanno nascendo nuovi strumenti, anche di
natura commerciale, che hanno come fine proprio quello di permettere ai donatori di
massimizzare i benefici fiscali. La creazione nel 1991 del Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, presto
seguito da istituzioni analoghe costituite da altre società finanziarie, fu un vero shock per le
fondazioni comunitarie. Per la prima volta le fondazioni americane furono costrette a
confrontarsi con una concorrenza agguerrita e vi fu chi, forse un po’ frettolosamente, immaginò
una fine prossima per le fondazioni di comunità.
Inoltre, presto ci si rese conto che la concorrenza non veniva solamente dagli istituti finanziari.
Lo sviluppo della tecnologia e in particolare la diffusione di internet, rischiano infatti di rendere
2
B. Casadei
obsoleti e inutili una parte consistente dei servizi delle fondazioni di comunità. Grazie allo
sviluppo di nuovi strumenti di ricerca, diventa sempre più facile per il singolo donatore
individuare direttamente l’ente nonprofit che meglio di ogni altro può perseguire le finalità che
gli sono care e ciò senza dover più chiedere l’assistenza ad una fondazione di comunità.
Il pericolo più grande è però quello di perdere la propria dimensione ideale. Quando il proprio
valore si traduce immediatamente in dati contabili, si rischia di focalizzare la propria attenzione
solo sui dati finanziari e diventa presto difficile affermare la propria identità e specificità
rispetto al settore commerciale, con la conseguenza di lasciarsi condizionare dalla logica di
quest’ultimo.
Il modello Cleveland Foundation
Diversamente da quanto è accaduto a New York, la fondazione dell’Ohio si pose sin da subito
l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione ai problemi della propria comunità. Come è già stato
ricordato, essa finalizzò le sue prime risorse al finanziamento di studi che potessero poi essere
utilizzati per elaborare strategie in grado di dare un contributo importante nel miglioramento
della qualità della vita della propria comunità. Mentre, nel modello newyorchese, il
miglioramento della qualità della vita è la conseguenza dell’incremento delle erogazioni, in
questo caso, esso è frutto di una specifica strategia che, dopo aver individuato le cause di
problemi comuni, elabora soluzioni che poi cerca, attraverso l’attività di erogazione, di
implementare nella propria comunità.
Questo approccio fa sì che i donatori si trasformino in veri e propri finanziatori che, con le loro
risorse finanziarie, sostengono l’attività della fondazione. Questo significa che, mentre per le
fondazioni che promuovono i servizi ai donatori lo strumento più utilizzato è quello dei fondi con
diritto d’indirizzo, in cui il donante può influire sulla destinazione delle erogazioni derivanti dai
propri contributi, per le fondazioni che invece seguono il modello inaugurato nell’Ohio,
l’obiettivo è quello di ottenere donazioni senza vincoli, cosicché esse possano utilizzare le
risorse finanziare per implementare la strategia che di volta in volta il proprio consiglio
d’amministrazione avrà elaborato.
Anche in questo modello le organizzazioni nonprofit svolgono di fatto un ruolo di fornitori.
Questa volta però il vero committente non sono i donatori, ma la fondazione di comunità la
quale, invece di perseguire la propria strategia attraverso la gestione diretta di progetti, lo fa
erogando contributi a soggetti terzi. In quest’ottica la fondazione di comunità finisce ad essere
molto simile ad una qualsiasi fondazione d’erogazione. In realtà, la principale differenza fra una
fondazione di comunità che segue questo approccio e una fondazione privata che ha deciso di
focalizzare la propria attenzione su un determinato territorio, è che la prima è una public
3
B. Casadei
charity, termine tecnico che nel diritto americano stabilisce che l’ente è in grado di superare il
public support test, ossia un calcolo matematico volto a verificare che una quota consistente di
risorse provenga da un numero elevato di soggetti diversi, quale indice del grado di consenso che
la fondazione ha saputo suscitare nella propria comunità. A tal proposito è opportuno notare
come, più il patrimonio della fondazione si incrementa, più superare questo test diventa
difficile, in quanto è necessario suscitare un numero crescente di donazioni per bilanciare la
rendita patrimoniale.
Naturalmente per una fondazione di questo tipo la performance viene misurata attraverso il
cambiamento sociale che essa è stata in grado di suscitare. Si tratta di una misura
particolarmente difficile da elaborare, come ben sanno le fondazioni d’erogazione, ma che
comunque, soprattutto in un contesto geograficamente limitato, come appunto quello in cui
operano le fondazioni di comunità, non è impossibile da elaborare.
Se, soprattutto in questi ultimi tempi, l’idea che una fondazione di comunità debba avere come
obiettivo quello di promuovere il cambiamento sociale, sta suscitando notevole interesse ed
attenzione, è opportuno essere coscienti dei rischi che caratterizzano questo approccio. Al di là
del fatto che è tutto da dimostrare che una fondazione che abbia una chiara strategia erogativa
sia in grado di suscitare maggiori donazioni rispetto ad una che invece si pone al servizio dei
donatori, vi sono delle criticità che, se non adeguatamente analizzate e gestite, potrebbero
finire per impedire alla fondazione di svolgere con efficacia il proprio ruolo.
Non dobbiamo infatti dimenticare che uno dei punti di forza di una fondazione di comunità è
sempre stato quello di presentarsi come una struttura neutrale in grado di mettersi al servizio
delle organizzazioni nonprofit presenti sul territorio. Uno degli slogan più utilizzati recita infatti:
non si dona alla fondazione, ma attraverso la fondazione. Nel momento però in cui la fondazione
dovesse decidere di svolgere un marcato ruolo d’indirizzo, riuscire a mantenere tale neutralità
rischia di rivelarsi più problematico e le organizzazioni nonprofit, le cui strategie non rientrano
nei piani d’azione della fondazione, potrebbero considerare quest’ultima come un pericoloso
concorrente. La conseguenza di tutto ciò sarebbe quella di non potere più esercitare quel ruolo
di facilitatore grazie al quale è spesso stata in grado di dare un contributo importante allo
sviluppo della propria comunità.
Anche i rapporti con la politica diventano più complessi. Per una fondazione che è al servizio dei
donatori diventa relativamente facile proteggersi dai condizionamenti dei partiti, anche perché
è chiaro a tutti che se la fondazione perdesse la sua indipendenza, la raccolta diventerebbe
immediatamente più difficile, se non impossibile. Quando però la fondazione inizia ad elaborare
un proprio progetto politico, diventa importante per i politici poter controllare una struttura
che, grazie alle sue risorse finanziarie, potrebbe influire in modo rilevante sulla loro attività.
4
B. Casadei
D’altro canto diventa difficile per la fondazione resistere ai tentativi d’ingerenza di quei
soggetti che, avendo una chiara legittimazione democratica, possono ben pretendere di
rappresentare meglio di altri quelle che sono le vere esigenze della comunità.
Infine, un simile approccio rischia di generare quella sindrome da torre d’avorio che spesso
contraddistingue le fondazioni d’erogazione. La fondazione dispone di un personale qualificato il
quale però, a volte, perde il contatto con la realtà e si sente in dovere di imporre la propria
visione alle nonprofit, le quali, a loro volta, se vogliono ricevere le erogazioni, devono sottostare
a tali volontà e non di rado evitano qualsiasi critica, nel timore che ciò possa avere effetti
negativi sui finanziamenti. Se questa imposizione si rivela a volte positiva per le stesse
nonprofit, in altri casi genera progetti astratti privi di reale impatto sociale. Sebbene possa
essere frustrante, il dover confrontarsi con la volontà di un donatore, può aiutare il personale
della fondazione a sviluppare una maggiore autocritica ed evitare di cadere in simili errori.
Compromesso o sintesi superiore
Questa sommaria analisi dei due modelli mostra chiaramente come entrambi siano portatori di
istanze importanti, ma anche di rischi che potrebbero mettere in pericolo l’attività stessa di una
fondazione di comunità. Non è un caso che molto spesso si dibatta se sia più giusto focalizzare la
propria attenzione sui donatori o sulla comunità, nella consapevolezza come nessuna delle due
soluzioni sia pienamente soddisfacente. Per affrontare questa tensione è possibile seguire due
strade: la ricerca di un compromesso in grado di bilanciare le esigenze di questi due approcci o,
in alternativa, l’elaborazione di una sintesi superiore che ci doti degli strumenti culturali
necessari per permettere alle fondazioni di comunità di svolgere al meglio il proprio compito
superando le contraddizioni qui identificate.
Il compromesso è un approccio pragmatico fondato sul buon senso e che cerca di individuare un
giusto, seppure instabile, equilibrio fra le esigenze contrastanti qui sopra esposte. È un
approccio particolarmente diffuso negli Stati Uniti, dove, non di rado, si usa la metafora del
pendolo e si pone l’esigenza di evitare i comportamenti estremi la cui astrattezza è spesso
negativa. Si tratta di un approccio che, facendo più leva sull’ésprit de finesse che su quello di
géometrie, permette di trovare soluzioni adeguate, anche al di là della consapevolezza degli
stessi operatori, i quali, grazie all’esperienza, evitano di cadere nei pericoli dell’ideologia.
Per chi invece, soprattutto in Europa, può contare su una esperienza ancora limitata, è invece
molto importante cercare di sviluppare un’analisi più approfondita che possa servire da bussala
nella gestione di una fondazione di comunità. Per conseguire questo scopo, una modalità che si è
spesso rivelata efficace, è quella di verificare se entrambi gli approcci non contengano un
presupposto non problematizzato, ossia un limite che li accomuna e il cui superamento potrebbe
5
B. Casadei
illuminare questo problema di nuova e più feconda luce. In pratica si tratta di elaborare una
nuova sintesi fondata proprio sul superameno di tale limite.
Il limite: il dono come mezzo
Nella breve analisi che è stata fatta dei due modelli, abbiamo potuto verificare come in
entrambi i casi gli enti nonprofit siano in realtà considerati come dei fornitori. Il loro valore per
lo sviluppo della comunità viene di fatto identificato con la loro capacità di produrre beni e
servizi in grado di soddisfare le esigenze dei donatori o gli obiettivi stabiliti dal consiglio della
fondazione. Proprio questo atteggiamento mostra chiaramente come, almeno a livello teorico,
perché nella prassi la realtà è spesso diversa, entrambi questi modelli considerino il dono come
un mezzo e non come un fine da perseguire indipendentemente delle conseguenze pratiche di
quest’ultimo.
Se analizziamo da questo punto di vista il modello New York Community Trust, vedremo
facilmente come il fine non sia il dono, ma la raccolta. La misura del successo è infatti data
dalle somme raccolte. Certo la raccolta è frutto di donazioni, ma vi è una differenza sostanziale
fra raccogliere fondi e promuovere il dono, se non altro perché la promozione del dono può
essere fatta anche a favore di altri soggetti, mentre la raccolta passa necessariamente per la
propria struttura.
Un discorso analogo vale anche per il modello Cleveland Foundation. Qui il dono è invece il
mezzo per ottenere le risorse finanziarie necessarie alla realizzazione dei propri progetti. Anche
in questo caso si ha un’attività di raccolta fondi, piuttosto che di promozione del dono. Si tratta
in ultima analisi di avere a disposizione quelle risorse di cui si ha bisogno per dare concretezza
alla propria strategia e le donazioni non sono che un mezzo particolarmente efficace per
conseguire tale obiettivo.
Il dono come fine
La tesi che invece si vuole esporre in questa sede è che la promozione del dono potrebbe essere
il vero e più importante fine di una fondazione di comunità, quello che ne può definire l’identità
distinguendola dalle altre organizzazioni operanti nel proprio territorio, nella consapevolezza del
significato strategico che il perseguimento di questo fine può avere nello sviluppo della nostra
civiltà.
Il dono, infatti, può essere considerato il vero fondamento di una comunità che voglia chiamare
se stessa civile. Gli studi più recenti sul capitale sociale, hanno mostrato l’importanza di
quest’ultimo, soprattutto in un contesto di globalizzazione, non solo per la crescita morale e
civile, ma anche per quella economica e sociale. Ora non bisogna certo essere degli esperti per
6
B. Casadei
notare il profondo rapporto che unisce dono, fiducia reciproca e capitale sociale. Inoltre è
necessario riconoscere come sia proprio il dono a generare quel patrimonio di valori civili di cui
sia il libero mercato, sia le regole del gioco della democrazia hanno bisogno per poter funzionare
e che però non sono in grado di generare autonomamente.
Il dono è poi il motore e l’identità del privato sociale, di quel terzo settore di cui tutti
riconoscono il ruolo sempre più importante per lo sviluppo organico delle nostre comunità, ma
che stenta ad affermare il proprio ruolo. Non è un caso che oggi tale settore venga definito in
termini negativi: nonprofit, non governativo, a riprova di un deficit culturale che lo condanna ad
una sorta di subordinazione nei confronti di stato e mercato, quasi che il proprio ruolo non fosse
altro che supplire ai limiti di questo e alla ristrettezze di bilancio di quello. In realtà ciò che
contraddistingue il terzo settore non deve essere cercato nei pur importanti beni e servizi che è
in grado di produrre, attività che possono essere svolte, anche da altri, ma nella sua capacità di
mobilitare la gratuità, in ogni sua forma, cosa questa che è strutturalmente preclusa sia alle
società commerciali che, per la loro essenza, devono perseguire il profitto, sia alla pubblica
amministrazione, in quanto la generosità, per definizione, non può essere imposta, neppure per
legge.
Infine, ed è questo l’aspetto più importante, il dono è in realtà un bisogno fondamentale di ogni
persona che voglia vivere la propria umanità. È infatti il dono a rendere veramente umano
l’umano e a dare concretezza alla dignità di ogni persona. In un mondo in cui tutte le relazioni
sono necessariamente strumentali, in cui gli uomini sono gli uni per gli altri strumenti o ostacoli,
solo il dono può permetterci di rompere questo circolo vizioso che ci isola, ci aliena e ci rende,
di fatto, impotenti, per permettere ad ogni persona di vivere relazioni veramente umane in cui il
secondo principio della morale categorica kantiana, non considerare mai l’altro unicamente
come mezzo, ma sempre anche come fine, possa concretizzarsi nella vita di tutti i giorni.
Definizione del dono
Se il dono può dunque svolgere un ruolo così importante per lo sviluppo della nostra civiltà, è
indispensabile cercare di darne una definizione che permetta di coglierlo nella sua essenza, così
da evitare di confonderlo con alcune sue degenerazioni.
In primo luogo il dono è relazione, è un rapporto che si instaura fra due persone e non una
manifestazione di superiorità o l’esplicazione di un dovere sociale. Sono queste attività che
spesso si sono confuse con il dono. Gli studi di antropologia culturale hanno infatti mostrato
come, soprattutto nelle società arcaiche, il dono abbia avuto proprio tali funzioni sociali, tanto
che la possibilità di perseguire questi fini nella società moderna attraverso altri strumenti ha
7
B. Casadei
spinto molti a negare al dono ogni significato sociale, rinchiudendolo nella sfera privata del
singolo.
Il dono invece è uno vero e proprio scambio, che però a differenza di quanto accade nei rapporti
commerciali, non implica la permuta di equivalenti, ma un atto di fiducia nell’altro. Anche se
spesso quanto riceviamo in cambio è superiore a quanto abbiamo donato, come è ben
testimoniato da tutti coloro che vivono questa esperienza, non possiamo saperlo a priori e vi è
sempre il rischio che il donatario ci ricambi con ingratitudine o insofferenza. Inoltre, a
differenza di quanto accade nello scambio commerciale, in cui i comportamenti scorretti
possono essere repressi, nel dono, il rischio è tutto a carico del donante, che potrà al massimo
rimpiangere di aver avuto fiducia in un ingrato. Ma è proprio l’atto di fiducia e l’accettazione di
questo rischio che permette al dono di dar vita a relazioni veramente libere e perciò umane.
Naturalmente donare non significa semplicemente aprire il proprio portafoglio, ma anche e
soprattutto, mettere a disposizione di qualcosa in cui si crede, tempo, risorse, contatti. Ciò non
significa solo, che la promozione del dono non possa limitarsi alla raccolta fondi e debba perciò
favorire tutte le altre manifestazioni della generosità, ma anche che il vero dono non può che
nascere dall’ascolto della propria coscienza, dall’analisi e dall’approfondimento dei propri
valori, in ultima analisi, dalla capacità di porsi in relazione con principi superiori in grado di dare
senso e significato alla propria esistenza. In una società in cui invece domina la distrazione e il
rumore, un soggetto che voglia promuovere il dono non può esimersi dal cercare di aiutare i
singoli ad ascoltare, nel silenzio delle passioni, la loro coscienza.
Proprio quest’ultima riflessione ci porta a considerare come il dono sia una dimensione fragile
che ha bisogno di protezione e di sostegno. Senza un ambiente adatto il dono fatica a
manifestarsi. La nostra società infatti pone numerosi ostacoli alla piena affermazione di questa
dimensione della vita umana. Oltre alle distrazioni appena ricordate, bisogna fare i conti con la
complessità di un mondo in cui occorrono competenze e professionalità specifiche per svolgere
qualsiasi attività e ciò proprio quando il singolo avrebbe maggior bisogno d’aiuto da parte del
proprio prossimo per superare la propria gravità. Se infatti il dono è una risposta indispensabile
ad un bisogno profondamente radicato nella persona, esso, come un’ascesa in montagna, impone
fatica e sacrificio. Così come, spesso, se non veniamo stimolati dalle persone vicine a noi, ci
lasciamo corrompere dall’accidia e finiamo per non cogliere le opportunità che la vita ci offre,
senza un aiuto concreto da parte della comunità, rischiamo di non vivere o di vivere solo
marginalmente il piacere di donare.
L’utopia collegata al dono
8
B. Casadei
Per promuovere il dono, non basta avere una forte consapevolezza della sua importanza e una
chiara visione della sua essenza, è anche necessario immaginare un’utopia, una società ideale
che sia fondata proprio sull’affermazione di questo principio. Si tratta, in altri termini, di
elaborare un’immagine che possa servirci per indirizzare il nostro agire e per motivare il nostro
impegno.
A differenza di altre utopie che immaginano la società perfetta come una società senza
qualcosa: senza classi, senza povertà, senza dolore, senza malattie, ecc., l’utopia fondata sul
dono non crede che una comunità perfetta debba essere una comunità senza problemi. I
problemi al contrario sono le sfide, sono il torchio di Sant’Agostino da cui esce l’olio o la
morchia.
L’utopia collegata al dono è invece una comunità in cui ciascuno è aiutato e sostenuto nei suoi
sforzi volti a seguire i dettami della propria coscienza per dare il proprio contributo alla
definizione e alla realizzazione del bene comune. Naturalmente tali sforzi si tradurranno di volta
in volta nella lotta contro la fame, la sofferenza, la solitudine, non però nell’illusione di potere
un giorno eliminare il male dalla terra, ma nella convinzione che solo così potremo manifestare
pienamente la nostra umanità e la nostra dignità.
L’uso strumentale del dono
L’avere un’utopia non deve spingerci a rifugiarci nell’illusione, ma al contrario deve aiutarci a
confrontarci quotidianamente con la realtà, nella consapevolezza di come sia facile promuovere
il dono in modo strumentale, per perseguire altri fini che, anche quando sono leciti, finiscono
per impoverire l’esperienza collegata al dono.
Molto spesso la comunità è infatti più interessata a vedere risolti i propri problemi, piuttosto che
a impegnarsi a favorire lo sviluppo del proprio capitale sociale. Certo, a parole tutti sanno che
gli investimenti in questo settore sono fondamentali per la crescita futura del proprio territorio,
ma davanti alle pressioni quotidiane e all’esigenza di dare risposte tempestive a problemi
concreti, si cercano scorciatoie e ci si dimentica che alla fine ciò che è veramente importante
non è risolvere un problema che sarà presto sostituito da un altro, ma creare quel patrimonio di
energie e di rispetto reciproco che solo può permetterci di affrontare con efficacia le sfide che
la storia non manca mai di proporci.
Un discorso analogo vale anche per le nonprofit, le quali sono spesso più interessate a ricevere
contributi, piuttosto che a creare relazioni coi donatori. A parte le miopia che contraddistingue
questo approccio, anche da un punto di vista meramente strumentale, è opportuno ricordare
quanto sopra affermato relativamente al ruolo del privato sociale nella nostra società. Quello
che dovrebbe caratterizzare questi enti è la capacità di trasformarsi in catalizzatori di
9
B. Casadei
generosità. È la fecondità di quest’ultima che genererà poi beni e servizi a favore della comunità
e non, come invece di norma accade, la volontà di realizzare tali servizi che ci spinge ad
utilizzare strumentalmente la generosità che ci circonda. Naturalmente, anche in questo caso la
quotidianità, l’esigenza di far quadrare il bilancio e di pagare le bollette di fine mese
impediscono a molti di comprendere a fondo questa verità o comunque di metterla pienamente
in pratica.
Infine, anche gli stessi donatori spesso non hanno la forza e la capacità di fare quell’ulteriore
investimento in termini di coinvolgimento, anche emotivo, che solo ci permette di vivere
pienamente la gioia collegata al dono. Quest’ultimo viene spesso vissuto in termini astratti,
come un dovere imposto dalla tradizione o dalla pressione sociale e non come un’esperienza in
grado di dare senso e significato alla propria esistenza. Il dono quindi non si trasforma in una
relazione e rimane una semplice voce nel bilancio familiare o un investimento in pubblicità.
Indicatori specifici
Se le fondazioni di comunità vogliono veramente perseguire il dono e resistere alle pressioni di
tutti coloro che si limitano a non cogliere la poesia che lo contraddistingue per vederne solo la
prosa fatta di erogazioni e ricevute, è necessario sviluppare indicatori specifici. Senza tali
indicatori che possano essere utilizzati per verificare la coerenza con la propria missione, sarà
molto difficile resistere alle pressioni volte a trasformare la fondazione in un mero elemosiniere,
in una sorta di bancomat che distribuisce in modo più o meno efficace le risorse raccolte.
In altri termini bisogna chiedersi se l’attività di erogazione favorisca o meno lo sviluppo del
capitale sociale e del senso di comunità. Non basta risolvere i problemi, occorre che questa
attività avvenga attraverso il coinvolgimento attivo dei cittadini, i quali non devono essere
considerati meri consumatori dei servizi offerti, ma i veri protagonisti dello sviluppo della loro
comunità.
Contemporaneamente è necessario verificare se il contributo della fondazione sia servito o meno
come catalizzatore di nuove donazioni in denaro, ma anche di beni e servizi. Mentre una
semplice fondazione di erogazione può limitarsi a verificare l’efficacia con cui il proprio
contributo è stato utilizzato, per una fondazione di comunità è più importante sapere che tale
contributo sia servito a catalizzare nuova generosità, anche in termini di volontariato e ciò,
anche
quando
un
simile
coinvolgimento
possa
avere
effetti
negativi
sull’efficienza
amministrativa nella gestione del progetto sostenuto.
Infine è opportuno verificare se le donazioni raccolte abbiamo lasciato una traccia solo sui conti
bancari, traccia che servirà agli agenti del fisco per i loro accertamenti, o sia siano trasformate
in relazioni fra i donatori, con gli enti nonprofit e con gli stessi beneficiari ultimi dei contributi.
10
B. Casadei
È questo un aspetto estremamente importante per la vita di una fondazione di comunità che,
come è stato detto, è il “business of making relationships”, anche se naturalmente elaborare
indicatori in grado di misurare questa dimensione è estremamente difficile e complesso.
La tripla bottom line
Conseguenza di questo ragionamento è che per le fondazioni di comunità non basta ottenere la
sostenibilità economica e non è neppure sufficiente verificare l’impatto delle proprie erogazioni.
Esse devono confrontarsi con un’ulteriore dimensione che, forse in termini un po’ pomposi,
potremmo definire l’umanizzazione della vita. Occorre quindi elaborare una vera e propria tripla
bottom line sulla quale misurare la performance di ogni fondazione.
Naturalmente in questa analisi è indispensabile raccogliere dati sulla sostenibilità finanziaria. Le
donazioni raccolte, la rendita degli investimenti patrimoniale, l’incidenza dei costi di gestione
nelle attività della fondazione sono valori fondamentali che devono essere costantemente
monitorati. Non si tratta di optional che possono essere trascurati in nome di più nobili valori. Si
tratta certamente di mezzi, ma di mezzi indispensabili che, se non devono essere trasformati in
fini dell’attività della fondazione, non possono però nemmeno essere dimenticati, se essa vuole
realmente perseguire i propri obiettivi.
Contemporaneamente è però indispensabile misurare l’impatto sociale della propria attività. Il
bene bisogna farlo bene e perciò bisogna avere una buona conoscenza dei bisogni e potenzialità
del proprio territorio, darsi gli strumenti per una puntuale verifica dell’impatto reale delle
proprie erogazioni, senza con questo illudersi di poter controllare il reale, e l’aver promosso
quelle partnership che in una società complessa come la nostra, sono la condizione
indispensabile per l’elaborazione di soluzioni adeguate alle sfide che ormai nessuno può illudersi
di risolvere senza il coinvolgimento di altri. Inoltre è fondamentale che la fondazione impari a
capitalizzare sul sapere generato in ogni propria erogazione. La raccolta sistematica di queste
informazioni e la loro trasformazione in conoscenza, diventerà presto il patrimonio più
importante, più importante delle stesse erogazioni, che la fondazione potrà mettere a
disposizione della propria comunità.
Tutto questo però, per quanto importante, non è però sufficiente. Come è già stato
ripetutamente affermato, il vero e fondamentale ruolo di una fondazione di comunità deve
essere cercato nell’umanizzazione della vita. Si tratta in altri termini di chiedersi quale sia il
contributo della fondazione nella diffusione della cultura di solidarietà fra le stesse nonprofit, le
quali, non di rado, troppo concentrate nel perseguimento della loro missione specifica, si
dimenticano che quest’ultima potrà manifestare il proprio valore solo nel rispetto di quei
principi di solidarietà che sono il vero e unico fondamento del privato sociale.
11
B. Casadei
Nel perseguimento delle proprie attività una fondazione di comunità deve sempre chiedersi se
essa stia realmente contribuendo al rafforzamento del senso di comunità e di appartenenza. In
un mondo in cui la formalizzazione dei rapporti civili, lo sviluppo della tecnologia, lo stesso
processo di globalizzazione tendono spesso ad avere un impatto massificante e atomizzante che
priva gli individui della loro identità, si tratta di un compito fondamentale che non deve mai
essere subordinato alla soluzione di pur importanti problemi sociali.
Infine, si tratta di chiedersi se attraverso l’attività della fondazione vengano promosse relazioni
veramente umane. Come è già stato ripetutamente affermato, il dono è forse uno dei pochi
principi che possano permetterci di sconfiggere la razionalità formale, la cui diffusione nella
società moderna rischia, come già affermato da Max Weber, di privare il mondo di ogni incanto
togliendogli nel contempo la poesia e la gioia di vivere, a cui invano cerchiamo di surrogare con
il divertimento. Una fondazione di comunità degna di questo nome dovrebbe perciò verificare se
la propria attività si trasformi in storie in cui la dimensione umana abbia sempre il posto che le
spetta, ossia il primo.
Conclusioni
In una società ricca e avanzata come la nostra, ciò di cui abbiamo veramente bisogno è la
capacità di saper subordinare l’efficienza, l’efficacia e l’economicità alla dignità della persona.
Non si tratta di negare l’importanza di questi principi, il cui ruolo per lo sviluppo di ogni società
sono evidenti a tutti, ma di riconoscere come la loro assolutizzazione rischi di distruggere la vera
essenza della comunità. In altre parole si tratta di riscoprire la distinzione fra mezzi e fini e di
riscoprire come l’unico fine che meriti di essere perseguito è l’affermazione della dignità, non
dei meri diritti, dei quali spesso si può abusare, della persona.
È questa una sfida che coinvolge ciascuno di noi e da cui dipende il futuro della nostra civiltà. Le
fondazioni di comunità, per la loro struttura, le loro caratteristiche e il loro ruolo nella società,
possono offrire un contributo fondamentale nell’umanizzazione del mondo in cui viviamo. Forse
è proprio la coscienza, più o meno consapevole, di svolgere un simile compito, la vera ragione
dell’entusiasmo e della vitalità che caratterizza tale settore e che ne permette la crescita che
tutti possono verificare.
Dall’altro lato, proprio la diffusione di enti il cui unico vero fine è quello di aiutare la gente a
donare è la prova di quanto sia falso e riduttivo il paradigma, seppur oggi dominante, che tende
a confinare la persona nel mero egoismo e nella ricerca della massimizzazione della propria
utilità marginale. La concreta e quotidiana testimonianza di come l’uomo sia molto di più ci
dona la forza, anche in questo mondo così carico di conflitti e di tensioni, di vivere la vita con
quella fede, speranza e carità che sono il vero fondamento della dignità di ogni essere umano.
12
One Foundation, Many People:
Engaging Donors for Greater
Community Benefit
Peter de Courcy Hero
Silicon Valley Community Foundation, San Jose, CA, USA
P. Hero
Community Benefit
Thank you, Bernardino, it is very good to be here and congratulations on the splendid first 15
years of the Cariplo Foundation!
My community foundation, Community Foundation Silicon Valley, is 52 years old this year.
It began in 1954 with just $50,000 in assets and today it has $1 billion. We serve a region of 2
million people in one of the most ethnically diverse regions of the world, which is also the
center of global technology innovation. This year we have given away about $2 million per week,
all year, 60% in my region, 40% around America and the world as our more than 700 donorfamilies and 30 corporations carry out their distinctive charitable strategies we helped them
create and have given away $600M in the last 10 years.
But this vigorous philanthropic activity did not always characterize CFSV. When I arrived
in 1988 we were a stable but slow-growing foundation, with $7M in assets and just 3 staff, as we
sought to implement the then-gospel philosophy of community foundation development, that of
building long-term unrestricted assets. I say gospel because this goal/purpose had not changed
since the first ever community foundation was created in Cleveland in 1914. The mission was
basically to convince donors to give you their money and then, preferably, to die, or at least get
out of the way so that your foundation could decide where to give it away now and in the
decades ahead. This model was the terra firma of U.S. community foundations and remained so
most of the 20th Century. But in 1988 when I arrived in Silicon Valley I found terra incognita. Our
donors were, and still are, young, hands-on, smart, idealistic, focused on their giving as
investments not as charity. The Cleveland model was and is, irrelevant to them. They want to be
involved, not be simply passive purses for other giving institutions. I realized at once that I
needed to create a new adaptive enterprise, shaped by and with the emerging trends of our
donors’ behavior. And so I began to explore entirely new ways for a community foundation to
develop. I set out to create nothing less than a center for philanthropy. My colleagues often
cautioned me that I was straying too far from the norm, and at times I felt much like 14th—15th
century Italian ocean explorers whose navigation charts, at the outer edge of their knowledge,
simply carried the words: “beyond here there be dragons.” While I found no dragons I did fine
new ways to build community by engaging donors rather than waiting for them to die. And so
today I want to tell you briefly:
1. What philanthropic trends and opportunities CFSV used to build a donor-centric
culture of giving in Silicon Valley.
P. Hero
Community Benefit
2. Describe briefly some methods of engaging donors, to better animate their giving
and build my—and perhaps your—foundation’s mission.
3. Suggest several ways community foundations outside the U.S. might adapt what
we learned.
Lets first talk trends. I’ve already described some of the behavior of a typical Silicon
Valley donor. Every four years we conduct research on the charitable attitudes, motivation
behavior of our donors, you can find it all on our website, www.cfsv.org. By the way I urge you
to conduct similar research for it informs your work and that of the nonprofit community, the
media loves it, and your CF is perceived as the “go-to” place for charitable info. Our region’s
donors, with their wealth derived mostly from the tech sector, practice a kind of “venture
philanthropy,” that is, investing charitable grants as they invest in for profit companies: They
look for an outstanding nonprofit leader with a great idea, back him/her over several years,
create mutually agreed upon performance measures and often have an exit strategy. These
donors also want to do 6 other things:
1. Network with other donors to leverage their charitable investments, if you think
about it, it is only a CF which can meet this need (vs. private foundations). The
capacity to connect donors is one of our greatest assets and should be developed.
2. Use technology and the internet to inform their giving, but not to give. People give to
people. But the internet can identify causes, organizations, and leaders which look
promising.
3. Use multiple charitable vehicles, as Lucy has said, for multiple charitable purposes
and strategies. For example, the Chairman of my Board of Directors has a donoradvised fund with my foundation as well as a private foundation and a charitable fund
at Fidelity, a charitable gift fund.
4. Find a trusted “neutral” advisor organization, in this case the CF to help them refine
their giving (but not sell them a cause).
5. Carry out their giving locally, nationally, globally and often in other communities
where they may have grown up or may have 2nd or 3rd homes.
6. Remain personally involved, even if their hectic work schedules provide them with
little discretionary time for their philanthropic activities.
P. Hero
Community Benefit
My foundation, over time, has created specific donor engagement strategies to meet these
needs, needs which are evolving each year. Like one of Italy’s best football players, we aim to
move toward where the ball—in this case the donor—will be, not where he or she is now.
So now lets talk specifics. Here are some strategies which work for us:
1. We think donors are smart and have good ideas. We invite them to the table early on. We
ask for their ideas on how to solve community problems and we listen to them. You’d be
surprised how readily they fund good program ideas that they have helped shape!
2. We have also institutionalized this active donor participation. Donors want to be
connected with each other, to network, trade ideas, learn from each other. Several years
ago we created the Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund to do just that. Donors contribute
$2,500 to $25,000 into a charitable pool each year and then regularly meet with, and
work with, other donors and my foundation staff to research, decide upon, and award
two very large grants each year. Today we have nearly 200 members—we call them
“partners”—and they have collectively given away over $3 million. SV2 donors meet in a
peer-based stimulating environment, learn from us, and each other. Today there are over
25 such “donor circles” in other American regions.
In addition, here are three other ways we are building donor engagement. First, we
regularly connect to other community foundations where our donors have multiple homes—
Aspen, Hawaii, and elsewhere. We work as a team with those foundations encouraging shared
donors to give in both regions. Second, we have created brand new software, still very much in
development, which will enable donors to 1) develop a specific and sound charitable strategy
around any cause, field of interest or nonprofit sector, 2) find specific public benefit
organizations anywhere in America which are most effective addressing that concern, 3) help
find other donors who share that interest. Using the working title RIVP-Matrix, I hope to have
this new product available for us, and other community foundations to use in 2007.
And finally, we consistently offer donors the opportunity to seize exciting and high
impact giving opportunities. For example, when the corrupt Enron Corporation caused an
unprecedented energy crisis during a burning hot California summer four years ago, we e-mail
surveyed (today you can use Survey Monkey) our data base of local NGO’s, found which had been
hardest hit—childcare centers, senior citizens day centers—presented the facts and data to the
media at a press conference, and to our donors, and quickly raised a significant “energy
P. Hero
Community Benefit
retrofit” grants program to immediately alleviate the worst situations. All in six weeks. Our
donors deeply appreciated the chance to take immediate action, and see the results, in concert
with the CF.
In the few minutes remaining, let me leave you with a few suggestions that you might
consider here in Italy or elsewhere to better engage donors. First, visit the CFSV website, for all
of our research and donor services programs are listed there. Second, establish simple low cost
ways to help your donors to meet each other and to better learn the needs and opportunities in
your region. Informal site visits, topic briefings which also have a social component, and enewsletters are simple and effective ways to begin. Donors want to know their donations are
well deployed. And telling stories about the impact your CF is making is most effective. Third,
go on the internet and look up Social Venture Partners International (SVPI.org), you can learn
how to establish a giving circle (like my SV2) here in Italy or elsewhere. And fourth, don’t forget
to create a nimble, professional internal culture. For example, you cannot thank your donors
enough. Have a good back office with grant checks that go out on time and numbers that add
up, for these are the absolute necessities of donor participation. Train your staff to be
responsive to donors. I tell all of my 35 staff, no matter what their jobs, that each is in donor
service. We also assign key donors to senior staff members, almost like a “private banker”
model, so those donors know who to call with questions and suggestions.
And finally, always network. My advice is don’t hesitate to contact one of your colleague
community foundations in other countries for advice and ideas. Another idea, see if there are
corporations headquartered elsewhere which do business in your region which might become
your donors. My foundation currently works with community foundations in Dublin, London,
Berlin, Prague and elsewhere, connecting our corporate donors to these colleague
intermediaries. Perhaps you have donors who also give elsewhere, so be sure to connect to those
regions as well. In America we are seeing more community foundation donors give overseas,
especially as the global reality of our lives became clearer after 9-11. Community foundation
giving by U.S. CF’s going overseas has increased 5-fold in the last five years. Many U.S.
community foundations also work with diaspora populations and immigrants and help guide their
giving back to their countries of origin. You are part of a global community foundation network, I
hope you use it, and I hope these remarks are helpful to you today as you engage and animate
your donors where they live in your region.
Thank you. I’d be glad to answer questions.
Involving and transforming
the community
Diana Sieger
President and CEO, Grand Rapids Community Foundation, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
D. Sieger
the community
Introduction/Overview
I am honored to be here in Milano with all of you and I want to thank the Cariplo Foundation and
Bernardino Casadei for inviting me to this celebration and conference.
I am the President and CEO of the Grand Rapids Community Foundation located in the western
part of the state of Michigan in the United States. We distribute more than $7,500,000 (U.S.) a
year to nonprofits (NGOs) in our area and have financial assets of $215,000,000 (U.S.). Because
of the generosity of the people in West Michigan, we like to think that Grand Rapids is il centro
della filantropia!
While this may seem amusing, there actually is a Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State
University which is based in Grand Rapids. The Center has an excellent reputation in the United
States providing training for nonprofit leaders while growing in stature in terms of research and
formal education in philanthropy. The Grand Rapids Community Foundation and the University
formed a unique partnership creating the Community Research Institute seven years ago. I will
refer to this Institute in a moment because it is essential in our ability to make the community
more aware of important issues.
There are approximately 800,000 people who live in the geographic area that the Foundation
serves and it is considered the fastest growing area in the state of Michigan. Our local economy
is doing well in comparison to the conditions in other parts of the state. We truly are the world
leaders in the production of office furniture and have developed other businesses that are
focusing on technology and what we call the “knowledge based” industries including the life
sciences requiring great skill, research and education.
The state of Michigan, which has a population of 10 million people, is experiencing a substantial
loss of manufacturing jobs due in part to the decline of the automobile industry.
It has been
estimated that more than 200,000 jobs have been eliminated since the year 2000.
Detroit, which is 225 km to the east of Grand Rapids, has been known as an automotive giant in
the world and many businesses in our state are directly linked to this industry. The economic
conditions in our state do have an impact on the dollars we raise in our communities.
1
D. Sieger
the community
Reading reports from Bernardino on the progress of the community foundations in the Lombardy
region is exciting. You are all to be commended and I congratulate you all on your success so
far.
I had the pleasure of working with Emilio Amigoni the Executive Director of the Lecco
Community Foundation in the summer of 2000 through an exchange program sponsored and
funded by the C.S. Mott Foundation, the German Marshall Fund and the King Baudouin
Foundation. I am very grateful that the Transatlantic Community Foundation Program was in
existence at that time as it did provide a wonderful opportunity to learn more about community
philanthropy between the United States and Europe. People in Lecco were clearly quite proud
that the Lecco Community Foundation was created and there was great interest by the local
newspapers, associations, community leaders and citizens of the province.
After seeing the
results thus far, I am sure that the citizens of Lecco are very pleased with their community
foundation.
After six years, it is tremendous to see that there are now 15 community foundations in the
region that are growing and providing needed funding for projects in their respective
communities.
I understand that there are approximately 20 community foundations in total
throughout Italy.
Thank you Cariplo Foundation and to the generous communities of the
Lombardy Region!
What I am going to talk about today is how all of you and your foundations can involve people
from your community to create a culture of giving. This means that the community foundations
take a leadership role to show people examples of how good programs in your community can
really improve the lives of people. People need to see what is happening in your community and
all of you are in the right place to be able to do that! You are creating a culture of giving.
I would like to show you how the Grand Rapids Community Foundation connects with people in
our area providing a greater understanding of community issues and how we have helped create
a culture of giving in our area. I will provide some practical applications and examples around
these two issues which will begin to answer the following questions:
♦ How can community foundations become the heart of your communities and how can
you play an important role in creating and growing a giving community?
2
D. Sieger
the community
♦ What are some ways to involve your community in the life of your foundation and how
do you communicate the needs in your community to all people?
♦ Ultimately why is this so important for the community foundation and your
community?
The Community Foundation is the heart of your community
Understanding Community Needs
Community Foundations can play significant roles in their communities in addition to funding
programs and projects.
The first thing is to understand the needs and the issues in your
community. How can this be done? One simple way is to keep up on all the news! Other ideas
are:
Read all the newspapers, talk to people – your board members, your friends, your family –
what is on their mind? What do people view as the top issues in your community?
Contact and partner with universities who can help by identifying and reviewing data on
your communities and share this information with your foundation.
As I mentioned
before, we have a partnership with our local university creating the Community Research
Institute which helps us with information relating to the impact of our grant distributions
and statistical information on the social and human conditions in our area. They provide
demographic information on the trends in our area. The Institute has been in existence
for eight (8) years and the Grand Rapids Community Foundation has provided more than
$1 million (U.S.) to finance this effort and will continue to do so in the future.
Convene nonprofits/NGOs in your community and ask them what they think are the most
critical needs.
Ask your government officials what they believe are the most important needs and what
role do they think that the community foundations could play?
Has there ever been a research study done on the cities and towns throughout the
Lombardy Region? Is that something that all of your foundations could do together?
You want to know what the quality of life is for the children, youth, and families in your
communities. What are the basic needs that people have like being able to afford good housing,
3
D. Sieger
the community
nutrition and food – essentially basic needs? What is the crime level, educational achievement
of the youth in your area, and how can you reach out to make people more aware of the needs?
Communicating Community Needs
Communicating the needs in your area can help demonstrate how your community foundation
plays a critical role in addressing these issues. Further, you need to try to generate interest in
your communities to involve people in addressing the issues.
I have some ideas that may be of interest to you. You may already be doing some of these
things or maybe some of these things will seem strange as they may not fit your culture. But
that is the point of having the opportunity to have all of us together from all around the world –
to share and understand how we can learn from one another. You may want to consider:
Creating information sheets that can be distributed at meetings you convene and at
individual meetings with donors or potential donors.
Write a weekly or monthly article for your local newspaper on topics of interest that you
have learned from the results of your grants.
What has happened because of the
funding?
You all produce beautiful annual reports and websites. I am so impressed by the design
and beauty of the reports and websites. Your publications and websites do provide a way
for your communities to understand what the foundation can do to contribute to the lives
of people.
Your websites should have information on issues and inform people about what is
happening in your community. It is the front door to your community foundation.
Other ideas –
A blog – I write a blog on the Grand Rapids Community Foundation website.
Recent articles include the issue of improving the quality of education in our
public schools; the importance of community philanthropy; Warren Buffett’s
unprecedented gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; this visit to the
Cariplo Foundation and the growth of community foundations in your Region.
–
A radio program – I have a monthly program called “Perspectives on
Philanthropy”. This has been a good way of communicating what we think are the
important issues and needs in our community including the economic conditions of
the area, housing needs, the rate of poverty, child abuse and neglect and many
4
D. Sieger
the community
other topics. I talk about what the community foundation is doing in partnerships
with other nonprofit organizations, foundations, and the government to address
the needs.
Bringing people together to address the issues
Your community foundations have the ability to bring people together to discuss issues that may
have a positive impact on the quality of life in your area. You can host a meeting and ask what
the foundation can do to help.
As an example, in 1992 the Grand Rapids Community Foundation hosted such a meeting at a time
when we needed to bring attention to key issues facing our community. We asked them to tell
us what the foundation should be addressing and they told us that protecting children and youth
was the most important issue in the community.
After hosting that forum, we asked 35 people to commit to a weekly meeting and formed a
committee to discuss more in-depth over a nine month period of time. We conducted research,
brought in experts and talked to many citizens concerned about the issue. We issued a report on
the alarming incidence of child abuse in our community including 16 recommendations for
immediate action.
The Grand Rapids Community Foundation has been funding a variety of programs to help families
since that time to attempt to prevent abuse and neglect of our community’s children. We have
been very vocal with government officials and others to change the way we work with families
and protect our children. We will continue to work on this and we are committed to this issue.
We brought a difficult issue to the attention of the community and addressed it and
demonstrated good leadership. So I encourage you to host meetings to talk about community
issues.
Over the past 16 years, we have continued to bring people together around issues relating to
improving our educational system, developing ways to help older adults with health, housing,
and other major issues, and other ways to keep our community strong into the future.
5
D. Sieger
the community
Developing Resources
Doing all of this does require raising funds and working with donors and interested people to
become more involved. You really do need to focus on raising all types of resources: human
capital, financial resources, information on needs and be knowledgeable on needs and
opportunities. As has been noted in previous presentations, you are developing trust with your
community.
How to Involve Your Community – Other Ideas
Community Tours – Conducting tours showing donors and others those agencies and programs
of interest that the foundation has funded.
These tours can include more in-depth
information on the critical needs in your community. This has given us the opportunity to
talk to our donors and other people interested in the learning more about community issues
as well as to demonstrate our knowledge.
Involving community people on foundation committees who may not be members of your
boards of directors. This will involve more people who will become aware of the community
foundation.
Once people are involved, they become more interested in the community
foundation.
Social Venture Investors – Throughout the United States, many community foundations
involve groups of donors who are generally between the ages of 30 to 50 years old who do
grantmaking as a team. They donate money to a fund and then participate in making grant
distribution to programs in the community.
Participating in this activity helps them to
become more engaged with the foundation and with the community.
Youth Grant Committee – The W.K. Kellogg Foundation provided funding to community
foundations in Michigan to grow resources and to create committees of young people who
could learn about philanthropy through making grants to nonprofits. Community Foundations
throughout Michigan have created committees of high school students who come together to
learn more about their communities and make funding decisions and distributions to
programs. This is a good way to help young people understand what is going on in their
community and play a significant role. The C.S. Mott Foundation also funded this effort and
has been a significant funder of community foundations not only in Michigan, but throughout
the world.
6
D. Sieger
the community
Helping families who are interested in giving back to their communities and the community
foundation can provide specialized services. We provide services to a number of families
who are trying to involve the future generations in their family in giving back to their
communities.
Hosting forums – seminars on issues in your community which I discussed previously.
Celebrations are important! You need to bring the good news of successful efforts to your
community and host occasional celebrations to bring people in and learn more about your
programs.
Communicating information about your community in an interesting way through occasional
briefing papers, brochures, websites and other methods which help create a culture of giving
and caring.
The Grand Rapids Community Foundation publishes a summary version of our annual report in
our local newspaper; we present grant checks at the board of directors meetings of nonprofit
organizations we have funded involving our board members; we host speakers at local service
clubs bringing issues and information to various audiences in partnership with that service
organization.
This is important for the community foundation and your community.
The ideas presented today may help in the development of a culture of giving in your
communities. You all have been so successful and you can continue to grow if people know more
about needs and how they can help. Developing partnerships with other nonprofit organization
can strengthen the message out to your communities. Your community foundation will be seen
as a good partner and strong leader. The results will be a more involved community who care
about giving back and helping one another.
Community Foundations in Italy will continue to grow and distribute needed money to
nonprofits. The next step will be involving the community in understanding the issues and helps
bring awareness to the needs.
Congratulations on your success and I looked forward to your future and observing your progress.
I learn so much from all of you and I appreciate this opportunity to be with all of you. Please
remember that community foundations are here – For Good! For Ever!
7
The Opportunities
of national network
Stephen Hammersley
Chief Executive, Community Foundation Network, London, UK
S. Hammersley
The opportunity of
national network
Introduction
Thank you for your invitation to speak. I run Community Foundation Network (CFN). CFN is the
infrastructure body that supports community foundations in the UK. Although we face a number
of challenges, the growth of Community Foundations in the UK has been spectacular:
•
Community Foundations (CFs) now cover 90% + of the UK population, Grant making has
grown threefold over the last 5 years to 110m Euros p.a. and endowment is at 220m
Euros up from only 140m two years ago.
•
We are the fastest growing part of the UK philanthropic scene.
Our success is down to the people in the community foundations, but infrastructure is essential
and I am delighted to share our learning.
1/ Help from outside
Early stage community foundations (CF’s) need support and help from outside. Nowadays this is
help / advice / learning, but one of the critical events that sparked UK growth was a challenge
grant programme in 1991 funded by CS Mott, CAF and the UK government. This successful
challenge proved the concept in the UK and showed that the community foundation model
worked in our environment.
And while CFs are small and developing, their national infrastructure organisation also needs
support. CS Mott have generously supported CFN over the years and have helped us maintain
links with practitioners in the US and Europe. The King Baudouin Foundation has also helped
here.
2/ Time For Growth
But once CFs were established in the UK, a key challenge for the national network was to
encourage faster growth. The slide shows how grant making and endowment have grown in the
UK. But the growth in recent years has been stimulated by some CFs coming together supported
by a large UK foundation to invest in fund development planning and activity.
1
S. Hammersley
The opportunity of
national network
The results were spectacular; a 1.6m investment in staff yielded 31m Euros of endowment. In
terms of learning, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation helped us fund an independent study and
the national network organisation has been able to use this learning to help government and
other key players understand the potential in the UK of CFs.
3/ The State as Donor
The second key opportunity for the national network in the UK that I want to mention has been
to help the state as a donor get money out more effectively to smaller groups and voluntary
associations. The UK government wants to help people at the front line where small amounts of
money are multiplied by local community voluntary action.
In the UK the most significant opportunity for CFN has been to help the national lottery give
around 80m Euros to build the capacity of the non profit sector in 70 of the UK’s most
disadvantaged communities. We have been able to show the government and the Lottery that
local people can be trusted to agree a long term grant programme, and we have been able to
help the Lottery think through its approach to working with community groups. And crucially we
have made the Lottery’s money go further by levering in private sector donor money.
4/ Banks and Intermediaries
Turning to another area, a key focus of our national network has been to create opportunities
for CFs to develop relationships with professional advisors and intermediaries that have a
national perspective.
In the UK we believe that, as in the US, the relationship we have with professional advisors are
key to growing endowment.
And we are delighted to have had some success with Coutts, the UK’s largest (by number of
clients) Private Bank who have led the way by creating a national philanthropic advisory service
with community foundations as one of the delivery partners.
2
S. Hammersley
The opportunity of
national network
5/ Network Standards
As I draw to a close let me say a word about ‘national standards’.
In the UK we are in course of implementing a national quality accreditation process agreed with
members that we believe will:
•
Make CFs more credible when together we approach companies and other national donors
•
Protect our ‘brand’ from poor practice
•
Give a focus to our development efforts
We believe that national quality standards are an important investment to release our potential.
Facilitating the agreement of those standards has been an important role for the national
infrastructure organisation.
6/ National Organisation
Finally, the network organisation plays an essential role in making sure that we bring people
together to learn, to share good practice and (particularly in the early days of a CF) to provide
encouragement to trustees and staff. As in Italy we also provide essential services like IT.
The picture on my slide comes from a celebration organised by the Milton Keynes CF. It is one of
our network’s great success stories. At this event I saw a community come together to celebrate
its diversity; to celebrate the value of all sectors of the community; to celebrate partnerships
between people with money and people using their skills to put that money to use to build
communities. The CF was and I quote “an institution by which individuals in Milton Keynes were
able to express their ideals and concern for fellow man”.
Those of you who were here yesterday will have recognised that those are words taken from
Charles Stewart Mott. The picture is a reminder to me of how much our network has benefited
from the learning and experiences and thinking of others. I hope that our network can help
others in the UK and further a-field in a similar way.
Thank you.
3
Bürgerstiftungen in Germany –
Promoting a new concept in
continental Europe
An introduction to the German model of
“community foundations”
Nikolaus Turner
Initiative Bürgerstiftungen, Berlin
N. Turner
continental Europe
Thanking you for the invitation to take part in the Cariplo Foundations Birthday Symposium I
take the opportunity to send you “Herzliche Glückwünsche” and “Tanti Auguri” or “Happy
Birthday” on behalf of all community foundations in Germany.
We wish you well and thank you for including the idea of community foundations to your goals
and the fields of interest of your foundation.
The vision of individual civil engagement within the context of a free-democratic society in
Germany is experiencing a notable renaissance these days. This phenomenon can be seen by the
development of non-party electoral interest-groups. The establishment of initiatives, lobbygroups, associations and foundations for communal purposes and for the interest of the
community are, however, of a more far-reaching nature and of greater numbers. More and more
“Bürgerstiftungen” are being set up, spurred on by the success of community foundations in the
US, UK and Canada, but also in regard to a very European tradition, since the model of the
“Bürgerstiftungen”(“German version” of community foundations) is hundreds of years old and
originates in central Europe.
Foundations are about money. So aside of fantastic projects, the enormous engagement of
volunteers, which we call “donors of time” in addition to “donors of money” and changes made
through community foundations in their areas and regions I keep to the “money”-aspect for my
statement.
There are several different types of foundations in use which many would classify as „Municipal
Foundation”, “Field of Interest Foundation”, “Capital Campaign Foundation” etc.
The term “Bürgerstiftung” defines a foundation of a group of citizens for a variety of purposes in
a defined area, like a city, a region or a district.
Foundations with a locally defined social and cultural domain as a charitable (non-profit)
institution, initiated by many citizens, have existed in Germany as long as citizens themselves.
In view of limited and declining public funds on the one hand and considerable private wealth on
the other hand, civil engagement is being both demanded and encouraged these days.
1
N. Turner
continental Europe
Apart from the setting up of foundations by one donor, a donor family, or a company, which are
mostly intended for one or several purposes without local restrictions, the focus is concentrated
ever more on finding potential donors with moderate fortunes, who may not necessarily want to
set up their own foundation.
In this context the idea of the community foundation, which increasingly gathers allies and
donors, is to been seen. In keeping with the times, where decentralisation in politics and public
life is more and more favoured, several donors get together mostly in order to act within a
specific region and with limited means. By virtue of birth or settlement within this region they
identify with it and wish to share their success by giving back an effective, enduring and
prospective endowment.
Bürgerstiftungen in the sense of charitable institutions with specifically limited social or cultural
fields of activity and initiated by numerous citizens, are to be considered a long-term possibility
to solve the relevant problems encountered.
Differing from the „classical“ private foundations set up by a wealthy donor, the characteristic
of a Bürgerstiftung consists of a combination of many donors bestowing smaller and larger
amounts of money in order to make up the entire monetary fund of the community foundation.
Not one individual but many citizens contribute to the creation and development of „their“
foundation.
After originating in Europe, these foundations have been refined in many cities and regions
throughout the U.S., realising community beneficial projects in the direct personal field with the
help of quite astonishing financial backing and are now again popular in Germany based on the
American model and experience.
Thanks to these jointly established foundations it is possible to supply private funds for
beneficiary purposes and professional know-how can be used in a compact and concentrated
manner without the necessity of a potential donor having to set up their own foundation.
Within a very wide scope of the foundation’s aim it will be rendered possible for the community
foundation to offer promotion and support within specific local limits whereby their benefits are
to be granted in addition to those of the public hand and not as a substitute.
2
N. Turner
continental Europe
Besides the promotion of a wide range of purposes, community foundations also serve as a
means to promote public spirit and civil engagement.
For Germany it all started with an inspiring presentation of the US-model to Reinhard Mohn by
Shannon St. John in Gütersloh and at the same time the visit of Christian Pfeiffer at the New
York Community Trust.
As a result the decisive impulse for re-spreading the idea of community foundations was the
establishment of the „Stadt Stiftung Gütersloh – die Bürgerstiftung“ (1996/97) and the notable
furtherance of the idea of community foundations by the „Bertelsmann Foundation“.
Of the impressive number of over 100 community foundations that has been formed in between
times, only a few key facts can be mentioned here:
It all started with the „Stadt Stiftung Gütersloh“ set up on January 1, 1997, through the
initiative of Reinhard Mohn and the Bertelsmann Company, closely followed by the first bottomup model, when in December 1997, 31 donors established the „Bürgerstiftung Hannover“. In
1998 among a few the „Bürgerstiftung Steingaden“ was granted a permit. In the course of 1999 a
permit was granted to the „Bürgerstiftung Dresden“ on January 13, on March 23., the
„Bürgerstiftung Hamburg“ received its permit, on 3. May permission was granted to the
„Bürgerstiftung für den Landkreis (District) Fürstenfeldbruck“ with 147 listed donors and on 26
July the „Bürgerstiftung Berlin“ followed.
Even though the number of over 100 licensed community foundations in Germany, the steadily
rising interest in this particularly democratic form of foundations has caused the Association of
Foundations in Germany, the „Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen“, to form a affinity group called working-group for „Bürgerstiftungen“ - that comes together twice or three times per year
and regards the exchange of information and experience as only one aspect of its work. Above
all it seeks to make its demands felt in politics and in society to support the important
involvement of each individual citizen on a long-term basis and to assist him by creating the best
environmental framework therefore.
Most lessons we learn by personal contacts such as personal exchanges or Transatlantic
Community Foundation Network (TCFN) meetings.
3
N. Turner
continental Europe
One lesson learnt by attending US-Fall Conferences, the Denver Conference brought as a first
result the creation and implementation of “first” standards in Germany.
The affinity group at the Association of Foundations in Germany as early as in 2000, passed
“Characteristics” / “first” Standards that define 10 criteria a so called “real” or “100 %”
Bürgerstiftung should cover.
A result is the branding to the field and to the public awareness.
A summary of those criteria might be given by the Preamble:
“A Bürgerstiftung (community foundation) is an independent, autonomous, non-profit foundation
with a broad charitable purpose. A Bürgerstiftung provides lasting and sustainable support for a
community within a defined area and serves all members of the community by making grants
and operating programs. Bürgerstiftungen seek to foster the commitment of the residents to
their community.”
To support and assist the development of the Bürgerstiftungen in Germany, three major
foundations in the country, Bertelsmann, Körber and Tschira, jointly along with the Association
of German Foundations and with support of C. S. Mott Foundation and a federal ministry build up
and created the “Initiative Bürgerstiftungen” a staffed project, based in Berlin, to promote –
independently and without any own interests - the idea of community foundations and to help,
assist and support community foundations and initiatives for CFs during their development. The
demand for assistance and guidance is enormous and Katrin Sachs, the head of the project and
expert for marketing and fundraising campaigns, Dr. Burkhard Küstermann, the legal counsellor,
as well as Gabriele Fleischer, the assistant and office manager are more than busy to meet the
needs and hopes.
To spread out the idea and the know-how we declared October 1st as Day of the community
foundations and try to get nationwide awareness by articles and media coverage. We announced
regional ambassadors of the community foundation idea to cover direct contact to community
foundations and initiatives. We started with 5 last year and just announced additional 3.
We can find three main models of Bürgerstiftungen in Germany nowadays.
4
N. Turner
continental Europe
The foundations started from the bottom up with a number of individual donors providing the
initial capital for the foundation, from the top down with a single donor or company to start
with and a mixture of both which means some donors and an individual or a company putting up
a “matching fund” to double every Euro given by a donor.
What we call a misleading wrapping is seen in some cases with foundations labelled
“Bürgerstiftung”, but consisting of an overwhelming majority-influence of one donor or a
donating company, often the case with banks, savings banks, or community bodies or city
administrations.
In order to continue the story of success of Bürgerstiftungen in Germany the demand is on
citizens with time and/or money to lend beneficiary support in their immediate surroundings.
As of October 1st we count and are proud of 6.600 donors to the endowments of the 103
community foundations with the Seal of the association of German Foundations.
Even so we are still representing the smallest – but quickest growing - section of foundations in
Germany we might be the ones most travelling, not only because travelling broadens once mind
but because success and development is – if not all – but most about people, inspiring contacts
and possibilities to learn.
So in Germany we are grateful to those who enable us to learn abroad for at home.
Let me finish our story of success with a sentence I learnt from friends in the States that now
runs through the country, describing who should serve on a board of a community foundation:
“Give, get or go”. No way to describe it more exact but who could explain it to once colleagues?
One more reason to travel, to share know-how and to help each other to teach and to translate
“How to do”-experiences to the other audiences.
And to drop a little water into the wine: We are all thrilled by the community foundation idea
and its impact but, to promote the concept possibly we have additionally to take into account
the aspect of time as the demographic “future” will teach us, that we cannot compare our
development with the past development in the US or Canada as there may not be the same time
period of around up to 90 years of a successful society and prosperous economy in Europe to
come.
5
N. Turner
continental Europe
So I would add, let’s tell the story, let’s get started quickly to give and get.
Time is running, some experts define the door open for donations to the endowment in average
of about 15 – 20 years, so we have to be quick to get as much as possible for the common good.
This idea might give you an idea why we try to establish the community foundation model so
quickly and lasting in our country.
Thank you for your attention.
6
Arbeitskreis Bürgerstiftungen des Bundesverbandes Deutscher Stiftungen
ASSOCIATION OF GERMAN FOUNDATIONS
Affinity Group „Bürgerstiftungen”
Characteristics of Bürgerstiftungen
– the German version of community foundations
A Bürgerstiftung is an independent, autonomous, non-profit foundation with a broad charitable purpose. A Bürgerstiftung provides long-term and enduring support for the community
within a specified area and by making grants and operating programs serves all the members
of the community. Bürgerstiftungen seek to foster the commitment of the residents to their
community.
1. A Bürgerstiftung is a non-profit, charitable institution that operates for public benefit and
plays an active and supportive role in civil society.
2. A Bürgerstiftung is typically established by several donors. The initiative to set up a
Bürgerstiftung can be put forward by individuals or individual institutions.
3. A Bürgerstiftung is economically and politically independent. It is neither associated with
political or religious confessions nor dominated by single donors, groups, or companies.
Political and administrative agencies shall not exert influence on the foundation’s
decision-making.
4. A Bürgerstiftung’s activities are limited to a clearly defined area.
5. A Bürgerstiftung continuously builds an endowment. It accepts donations from those who
care for their community and share the vision of the Bürgerstiftung. A Bürgerstiftung also
accepts flow-through resources and provides the opportunity to establish funds that may
pursue specific purposes or serve a particular community or region.
6. A Bürgerstiftung meets a wide array of local needs and therefore has a broad charitable
purpose, as a rule encompassing arts and culture, youth and social issues, education,
nature and environment and the protection of historic buildings. A Bürgerstiftung pursues
its goals by making grants and/or operating programs.
7. A Bürgerstiftung supports programs which foster the engagement of the citizens or provide the means to help people help themselves. In doing so, a Bürgerstiftung instigates
new forms of civic engagement.
8. A Bürgerstiftung publicizes its activities and has a comprehensive communications strategy to give every member of the community the possibility to engage in the projects and
programs.
9. A Bürgerstiftung may coordinate a local network of non-profit organizations.
10. A Bürgerstiftung conducts its activities in a transparent and participatory way. A Bürgerstiftung has several governing bodies (Executive and Advisory Board) that allow members
of the community to direct and monitor the performance of the foundation.
Translation of the document „Merkmale einer Bürgerstiftung“, which was passed by the Affinity Group „Bürgerstiftungen“
at the 56th Annual Conference of the Association of German Foundations in May 2000.
Chairman of the Affinity Group: Nikolaus Turner, Munich
Haus Deutscher Stiftungen, Mauerstraße 93. 10117 Berlin
Tel. (030) 89 79 47 – 92, Telefax (030) 89 79 47 – 91
[email protected]
www.die-deutschen-buergerstiftungen.de
The Cariplo Foundation’s Community Foundations Project
The goals:
1. to create in the area were the Cariplo Foundation operate, with the exception of the city
of Milan, a network of organizations that could become its natural partner for managing
small grants;
2. to create an infrastructure that could promote the culture of giving and therefore
catalyze resources to support projects that will improve the quality of life of local
communities.
The strategy:
1. to involve the most important local institutions since the beginning;
2. to constitute, with the help of the local institutions, a steering committee that will:
a. develop a three year strategic plan;
b. collect a budget to cover the running costs;
c. prepare the statute and by-laws;
d. identify the board;
3. to promote a major challenge grant with that will provide each foundation with a starting
endowment of 15 million euro.
The financial resources provided by the Cariplo Foundation:
1. 10.320.000 € as challenge grant with a 2:1 ratio (two euro given for each euro raised);
2. the creation since the beginning of a fund of 5.160.000 € for each foundation, this fund
will be integrated with the same amount that the foundation is raising in endowment and
will be transfer to the community foundation when it will have raised in endowment
5.160.000 €;
3. an annual grant whose value is proportional to the capital that has been raised by the
community foundation. This grant will be however given to the foundation only if it has
raised 516.000 in gift for its endowment in the previous year;
4. the possibility to manage in behalf of the Cariplo Foundation a budget that it was
planning to spend in small grant in the community where the local foundation operate;
5. the possibility to use up to 5% of that money to cover its operating costs.
The technical support provided by the Cariplo Foundation:
1. an office whose function is to help the community foundations to achieve their goals;
2. the development of a web based software for the management of community
foundations;
3. the organization of conferences and meeting to discuss about issues related to
community foundations;
4. periodical meetings among the community foundations general secretaries;
5. training classes for staff and volunteers.
The results:
1. since 1999 fifteen foundations have been created serving the all territory where the
Cariplo Foundation operate with the exception of Milan;
2. the quality of local grant-making has improved with a greater control on what has been
achieved (since the beginning 83 million euro have been granted by the community
foundations to support 7.000 projects);
3. the activity of the community foundations is fully transparent and all the information are
easily accessible on their web-site;
4. the community foundation where able do raise 51 million euro in gift;
5. the project has been presented in many different countries ad an example of best
practice;
6. the project is and will be replicated in other Italian regions.
Endowment Composition
€ 180.000.000
€ 160.000.000
€ 140.000.000
Endowmentnt
€ 120.000.000
€ 100.000.000
€ 80.000.000
€ 60.000.000
€ 40.000.000
€ 20.000.000
€0
Without Cariplo Foundation
From Cariplo Foundation
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
€ 2.239.283
€ 3.738.801
€ 5.244.815
€ 14.896.280
€ 19.288.483
€ 24.134.165
€ 30.761.891
€ 39.001.562
€ 14.443.544
€ 36.897.556
€ 58.049.166
€ 77.357.041
€ 81.490.220
€ 87.305.801
€ 96.477.094
€ 120.193.484
In this graph it is possible to see the growth of the community foundations endowment and to
identify how much of that growth do not depend on Cariplo gifts.
Incidence of flow-through from Cariplo in grant-making
€ 20.000.000
€ 18.000.000
€ 16.000.000
€ 14.000.000
€ 12.000.000
€ 10.000.000
€ 8.000.000
€ 6.000.000
€ 4.000.000
€ 2.000.000
€0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Funds from Cariplo Foundation
€ 103.291
€ 206.583
€ 4.890.976
€ 9.547.559
€ 11.171.781
€ 11.474.290
€ 11.105.200
€ 12.766.550
Grants
€ 510.686
€ 1.727.506
€ 5.962.411
€ 8.055.644
€ 15.938.114
€ 18.411.352
€ 14.410.473
€ 17.952.477
In this graph it is possible to see how much the community foundations still depends on Cariplo
transfer for their grantmaking.
Gifts
€ 12.000.000
€ 10.000.000
€ 8.000.000
€ 6.000.000
€ 4.000.000
€ 2.000.000
€0
Sponsorships
European Social Fund
Other gifts
Gifts for endowment
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
€0
€0
€0
€0
€0
€ 5.000
€ 2.500
€ 92.500
€0
€0
€0
€0
€0
€ 3.138.795
€0
€0
€ 288.922
€ 1.164.867
€ 1.609.265
€ 795.238
€ 1.987.094
€ 1.760.714
€ 2.609.289
€ 4.584.824
€ 2.096.040
€ 2.224.425
€ 1.099.537
€ 7.034.301
€ 4.618.291
€ 4.731.350
€ 4.913.719
€ 6.329.057
This graph is showing the amount of gift the community foundations where able to raise not
considering the transfers from the Cariplo Foundation. In 2004 they also managed more then 3
million euro coming from the European Social Fund. More recently some community foundations
are also collecting social sponsorships from local companies.

Spreading a Culture of Giving

Transcript

Documenti analoghi

Italian Network of ecological Villages Italian Network of

“harvest moon gala” della meta foundation

Piccolo Vademecum Dal momento che le varie attività in

CV completo Sara Salvarani

Curriculum Vitae

UffCultura | Comune di Seregno Alink

2016 06 30 Programma off-site meeting

Lo Specchio 30 anni 1

La donazione di tessuti nel Medioevo – oggetti, protagonist