tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48657182837868918332024-03-05T10:50:01.944-05:00Capital Epiphaniesnews, commentary, events, and more from <br>Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy in the nation's capitalKevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-26992851176065553402009-09-15T15:30:00.000-04:002009-09-15T15:30:00.223-04:00<a href="http://epipdc-september.eventbrite.com/">Today</a> marks a new day in the life of Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy in DC. A newly-minted Steering Committee, guests from EPIP's national leadership and dozens of young philanthropic leaders in the DC metro area gather tonight to announce a new agenda for the next generation of grantmakers in DC.<div><br /><div></div><div>The event marks the latest advance for the national organization as EPIP chapters around the country continue to build momentum. EPIP welcomed two new chapters in Michigan and Seattle this summer, and the Philadelphia chapter re-launches today with <a href="http://phillyepip.eventbrite.com/">a similar celebration of emerging leadership</a>.<br /><div></div><div><br /></div><div>Declaring "<a href="http://epipdc.blogspot.com/2009/09/breaking-beloved-benefactor.html">philanthropy as usual is dead</a>," EPIP-DC hopes to build something new while maintaining EPIP's long-standing commitment to strengthening networks, supporting leadership, and advocating for social justice philanthropy. </div><div><br /></div><div>We'll have more from the event later tonight.</div><div></div></div></div>Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-64098238722508057552009-09-10T16:14:00.000-04:002009-09-10T16:14:19.186-04:00BREAKING: Beloved Benefactor Philanthropy A.S. Usual Passes Away<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhePDtyhq-ChR1BsBEwHGx2dKz2gywUS6Dbd2ZRvhamo5vXKsCk-0pHDtLK_GTc_c2ymYzvI3dpDuHlWf3Ly2I1NaD4fzsZ9Ms6T19qy3fFhrkMofCsaPdcf8CryybDcrSS3cRphDiRSqwR/s1600-h/examiner.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5379829463323154450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhePDtyhq-ChR1BsBEwHGx2dKz2gywUS6Dbd2ZRvhamo5vXKsCk-0pHDtLK_GTc_c2ymYzvI3dpDuHlWf3Ly2I1NaD4fzsZ9Ms6T19qy3fFhrkMofCsaPdcf8CryybDcrSS3cRphDiRSqwR/s320/examiner.jpg" style="display: block; height: 240px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center; width: 240px;" /></a><br />
<b>Philanthropy A.S. Usual</b> passed away this morning after a long struggle with a number of social ills. He was more than a century old.<br />
<br />
His heirs will be celebrating his life and legacy <a href="http://epipdc-september-eivte.eventbrite.com/">Tuesday, September 15, 2009</a>.<br />
<br />
“Phil,” as he was known to friends and colleagues, began his beneficent life in the latter part of the nineteenth century, during which he pioneered the use of endowed funds for charitable causes.<br />
<br />
At the time of his death, Phil’s successful empire represented more than 75,000 foundations, 122,000 donor-advised funds, 45,000 supporting organizations, and countless other grantmaking institutions, supporting a nonprofit sector of more than 1 million charitable organizations, employing about 7 percent of all Americans.<br />
<br />
Critics charged that Phil’s generosity often got in the way of larger social change, saying that it was no longer suited to the challenges ahead. Others disapproved of Phil’s more “strategic” projects, noting that they excluded or disempowered some groups with little to show for their intrusive ambition. Those who knew him, however, found inspiration in all his efforts, however imperfect, to make a difference in the lives of others.<br />
<br />
Phil is survived by four generations of grantmaking professionals and volunteers. Experts estimate that, in a historic wealth transfer, some $41 trillion will pass from one generation to the next before 2052. It is unclear what Phil intended for this money. His last will and testament is deliberately vague, though Phil seemed excited by the potential of those who would care for his legacy.<br />
<br />
“If you are reading this, <span style="font-weight: bold;">Philanthropy A.S. Usual is dead</span>,” he wrote to his successors. “I am certain that I leave a world slightly better than the one I entered. I am not as certain that my descendants will enjoy the same fate if they attempt to do exactly as I have done. Do not be afraid to do things differently. I put fires out all my life. If you find you need to start a few, remember to use long fuses and to strike a match for me. I’ll be watching for the fireworks.”<br />
<br />
Additional excerpts from the last will and testament of Philanthropy A.S. Usual will be read at the reception. In lieu of flowers, please send your contributions to the next generation of grantmakers in DC: <a href="http://epipdc-september-eivte.eventbrite.com/">Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy</a>.Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-69073557850476055932009-08-05T17:00:00.001-04:002009-08-05T17:18:22.458-04:00The Eleventh<span style="font-style:italic;">Today, in a special event for summer interns and young nonprofit staff members, the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal hosted a literary discussion of Henri Barbusse's short story "<a href="http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/BradleyCenter/The_Eleventh.pdf">The Eleventh</a>."<br /><br />From the <a href="http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=703#">Hudson Institute</a>:<blockquote>On Wednesday, August 5, Hudson Institute's Bradley Center invites summer interns and young staff members to a panel discussion we'll launch in an unusual way - with a story. In Henri Barbusse's 1918 short story "The Eleventh" (required reading - <a href="http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/BradleyCenter/The_Eleventh.pdf">click here to download</a>), a young administrator at a luxurious high-end sanitarium is tasked with its most honored charitable tradition, admitting ten AND ONLY TEN "vagabonds" off the streets to enjoy its lavish accommodations for thirty days. He must turn the eleventh away. Is this task charitable at all, or is it part of some "evil deed," the young man asks himself. <br /> <br />On August 5, the Bradley Center will ask a panel of young "experts": What's it like to be young and on the front in the nonprofit sector? What should this young man do? The panel will feature MINDY HERNANDEZ, formerly of the Carnegie Corporation and currently with <a href="http://test.iq.harvard.edu/ideas42/">Ideas42</a>; EVAN SPARKS of the <a href="http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org">Philanthropy Roundtable</a>; MELISSA JOHNSON of the <a href="http://www.ncrp.org">National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy</a>; and the Bradley Center's own KRISTA SHAFFER. Hudson Institute Senior Fellow AMY KASS will serve as the discussion's moderator. </blockquote>I've read "The Eleventh" before, and I really enjoyed the discussion. Read the story, and look for the forthcoming transcript of the event. What follows is my own take on the story and the resulting discussion.</span><br /><br />It's a wonder to me sometimes why we call them grantmakers. A colleague once described the incredible amount of proposals her foundation receives. In a given grant period, the foundation might see several thousand requests. Many will be rejected outright. The program may not fit the fund's mission. The organization may not be a 501(c)3. Many will be more extensively reviewed. A comparatively lucky few will be funded. I thought about this, and realized that the foundation will always decline more proposals than it accepts, so foundations are as much or more grant-deniers than they are grantmakers. The protagonist of "The Eleventh" is so uncomfortable with turning people away that he finds himself unable to continue in his post.<br /><br />The story is a terrific choice for young professionals in the sector because it's about the struggle for authenticity amid an idealistic young professional's (first?) encounter with a world that is not only unfair but makes him complicit in its cruelties. Like the protagonist, I find my sympathies pulled in a number of different directions and fumblingly try to find a way to honor them in action.<br /><br />On the one hand, I'm surprised at how much, on successive readings, I actually like what this palace-hospital does. They admit the first ten vagabonds that come to them. They don't pretend to be picking the best supplicants, the most deserving, or the most effective. There's no grant process, no monitoring, no reporting, and no evaluation. In the time it often takes us to find out if we're really effecting social change, the opportunity to do a tremendous amount of good for the people right in front of us passes by. Comfort, solace, rest, these things matter. Participants in today's discussion pointed out how palace-hospital doesn't provide opportunities for long-term change. By the same principle, we'd dispense with the fine arts.<br /><br />Even as I look to become a greater advocate for the causes I believe in, I wonder sometimes how much social change might be effected if we all just actually took care of the first ten that came our way. And I wonder how much of our bleating about strategy, theories of change, and logic models is a futile attempt to rationalize what this young man finds himself unable to explain - why some people get money and others don't. Better then, the Master may have reasoned, to help those who come to our door as best we can. On some level, that's no more arbitrary than the "strategic" alternative.<br /><br />But this approach has its own dangers. The choice to admit the first ten is itself a strategy, another pretension that the Master and his staff can easily hide behind. Why ten? Why not eleven? Why does the house never lack for ten? Is there something that can be done for the eleventh? Are we doing enough for the ten? Most of today's panelists agreed that more could be done, and that they would advise the assistant to investigate the values of the institution and see what could be done.<br /><br />I don't find anything wrong in what the hospital does, but a great deal more good can, indeed, be done. They could campaign for a change in house policy. They could fundraise among their richer patients to double the number of vagabonds they can take in every month. They could start another sanitarium in a neighboring town and help the next ten. The assistant could just admit the eleventh and the twelfth next month, and see what the Master does. He could even start organizing the vagabonds!<br /><br />There are endless possibilities, but I have a feeling that none of them will satisfy the assistant. He doesn't want to be the one who turns another away. Despite having seen and been haunted by the faces of those he cannot help, it's still the "idea" of injustice and his part in it that bothers him the most. This is to turn the moral and professional problem of "how do I help more people?" into a self-absorbed existential drama about God, the universe, and human limits. There is always going to be an eleventh, in some sense. If it wasn't the eleventh, it'd be the hundredth. To want to help everybody is to be philanthropic. To help somebody is to be a philanthropist. <br /><br />That means making choices, sometimes awful, sometimes arbitrary. That certainly doesn't excuse our choices. It merely gives us the agenda for tomorrow: to try and make things better. <br /><br />We can't lean on tradition, authority, and the unseen wisdom of the Master's plan either. Traditions can evolve. High-minded defenses of one's duty and one's place are too often excuses for protecting only those like us, for doing what comes naturally and easily, for the path of least resistance, for doing the minimum the way we've always done it, and for our own baseless choices and preferences. Young leaders should be ready to spot these instances and to stand up, where possible, for a better alternative.<br /><br />The assistant in the story isn't prepared for that. If he can't provide comfort and solace to some and look the eleventh in the eye and maybe do better tomorrow, then how is he ever going to be capable of the great systemic changes that are necessary and face the 11 million still to be helped?<br /><br />Everybody at some point learns that the world isn't fair. Those of us concerned with social justice know that there are a lot of things in this world that aren't fair. That injustice isn't a permanent feature of our universe but the creation of thousands of individual human decisions. However awful or arbitrary our choices, our organizations, our jobs, our world may seem today, that may change for the better tomorrow. The lesson for the assistant is this: if we're brave, and a little lucky, we can be a part of that. Is he up for it?Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-76451139135259196542009-05-03T01:33:00.000-04:002009-05-03T01:33:24.142-04:00The Spirit of Philanthropy Yet to ComeThe EPIP pre-conference is dubbed "Innovation and Legacy: The Place of the Next Generation in Philanthropy" to evoke both the great changes a new generation of grantmakers will bring to the sector and the storied tradition they inherit and will eventually pass on to others. It's a look at philanthropy from a generational perspective, past, present, and future, so it's only fitting we next gens were visited by three spirits.<br /><br />(My philanthropic education thus complete - and "A Christmas Carol" is nothing if not a man's philanthropic education - I plan to call room service tomorrow and demand the turkey as big as me.)<br /><br />Host Committee Co-Chair Ann Cramer, Director of the Americas at IBM Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Affairs, is every bit the gracious host in her thirty-second hello. Noting her affiliation, she reminded the up-and-coming EPIP attendees, some of whom are high school students, that philanthropic opportunities are available in the corporate world. <br /><br />Cramer promised anything we might need for a successful pre-conference. She is, she said, "a voice, an advocate, and a friend" to the next generation.<br /><br />In candid comments, Conference Committee Chair Kathy Merchant, President and CEO of the <a href="http://greatercincinnatifdn.org/">Greater Cincinnati Foundation</a>, marvelled at the diversity present in the room, remarking that one could put a similar number of people of her generation in the room "and we wouldn't look like you."<br /><br />History's most diverse generation has come of age and not a moment too soon. As someone who has worked in the nonprofit world her entire professional life, Merchant noted the incredible challenges ahead for our nation and our world and wondered if the structures we have built would be sufficient to handle them.<br /><br />"We've installed a lot of fences," added Council Board Chair Ralph Smith, Executive Vice President of the <a href="http://www.aecf.org/">Annie E. Casey Foundation</a>. Smith noted his admiration for how EPIP has been able to use generation to unite young people across the barriers erected between different types of grantmakers and between funders and nonprofits. <br /><br />"It augurs well for our field," he said. "These barriers are not natural, and they're not inherent [to this work]."<br /><br />Whether these obstacles remain a part of philanthropy will rest with those with the courage and the wisdom to break down the walls that keep those in the sector apart from one another.<br /><br />"Not many in my generation know how to do that," Smith said.<br /><br />All in all, this visit from the Council's leadership was both an impressive vote of confidence in the next gens assembled and a recognition of the power of the next generation's collective voice. It wasn't long ago that programs like this were unheard of. And if they did occur, they didn't always receive the welcome we did. That's an innovation I would like to see passed on.Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-32111248200253471832009-05-03T00:28:00.003-04:002009-05-03T00:33:17.433-04:00The Panel is DeadRusty Stahl, Executive Director of <a href="http://www.epip.org">EPIP</a>, and Trista Harris, Executive Director of the <a href="http://www.headwatersfund.org">Headwaters Foundation for Justice</a>, put a call out for potential next gen bloggers and kindly included me. I thought that I'd take notes and post my thoughts during the breaks or in the evenings. <br /><br />Silly Kevin. That's how people blogged in the Stone Age, in like, oh, 2006 maybe. These days, you've got to be a media empire of one. Arriving at the EPIP pre-conference, several folks came armed with laptops, digital cameras and recorders, the whole shebang.<br /><br />I was a little overwhelmed. Here I am thinking, "I've joined the new media!" only to discover I'm publishing a zine. Remember those? <br /><br />But do you know who I really feel bad for? The panelists. <br /><br />Dear Panelists, Blackberries, laptops, and digital video aside, your audience is paying attention. It's just also grabbing photos, typing out what it thinks about what you just said, reading what that guy three rows back just said about what you just said, and responding for their Twitter followers and the whole Internet to see. By the way, when you're done, you have 16 new Facebook Friend requests. Don't ignore them.<br /><br />The conversation used to be between the panelists. It's not even in the room anymore.<br /><br />Of course, if the panelists weren't in the room to begin with, we wouldn't have them and their opinions to blog about - which is another way of saying:<br /><br />The Panel is dead. Long live the Panel!Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-78284481807229500932009-05-02T23:34:00.003-04:002009-05-03T00:03:29.238-04:00Blogging the 2009 COF Annual ConferenceCapital Epiphanies has joined the <a href="http://epip.blogspot.com">EPIP motherblog</a> in blogging the <a href="http://www.cof.org">Council on Foundations'</a> 60th Annual Conference in Atlanta, Georgia this week. I have no idea what the traditional media presence is going to be at this event, but conference-goers will be blogging, tweeting, and otherwise drumming up an online storm.<br /><br />EPIP joins <a href="http://www.tristaharris.org/">New Voices</a>, <a href="http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com">Tactical Philanthropy</a>, and <a href="http://rosettathurman.com/blog/2009/05/council-on-foundations-epip-next-generation-pre-conference/">Perspectives from the Pipeline</a>, among others, in covering the conference. <br /><br />I know I'm forgetting some people. If you're here in Atlanta, send links and come say hello. And if you'd like to join the blog army, send word to one of us. Folks are forming teams, and encouraging others to post.<br /><br />Things got rolling today with EPIP's much-anticipated pre-conference "training and retreat": <strong>Innovation and Legacy: The Place of the Next Generation in Philanthropy</strong>.<br /><br />Tune in for session recaps, opinion, and conversation from this yearly gathering of grantmakers.Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-15257530073342512492009-03-27T09:00:00.000-04:002009-03-27T10:29:15.354-04:00How Much Stays Local?Released last month, a study from the Foundation Center <a href="http://foundationcenter.org/media/news/pr_0902a.html">revealed</a> that one-third of the grant dollars awarded by Washington-area foundations in 2006 went to locally-focused organizations. The remaining two-thirds went to Washington organizations with a national or international focus or to organizations outside of Washington.<br /><br />The study, "<a href="http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/dc_giving2009.pdf">Giving By Foundations in the National Capital Region: How Much Stays Local?</a>" is the "Foundation Center’s first-ever examination of locally-focused giving within a specific metropolitan area." As a report of giving in 2006, the report presents an interesting snapshot of the local funder community before the recession and raises an important question for the DC philanthropic sector: how much stays local? <br /><br />As DC and its nonprofits look out for the nation, who's looking out for DC? Fannie and Freddie, for instance, were the second- and eighth-largest foundations, respectively, in the area in 2006, and they were taken over by the government in September of last year, leaving charities to wonder who would fill the vacuum.<br /><br />A June 2007 report from the Foundation Center "<a href="http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/keyfacts_dc_2007.pdf">Key Facts on Washington, DC Area Foundations</a>," noted that "foundations in the area targeted a larger share of their funding than U.S. foundations overall for the economically disadvantaged" and that "foundations in the area also gave more for the benefit of ethnic or racial minorities." The report attributed this to "regional demographics." But, when this new study shows that fully two-thirds of DC funders' attention is focused elsewhere, that critical support for economically disadvantaged and minority communities goes with it at a time when it's most needed.<br /><br />Perhaps, the urgency of the times will encourage new donors to step up or urge current funders to look locally. Perhaps, the Foundation Center report on DC for 2009 will paint a different picture, but the tension between local ties and national focus will always be with those living in and near the nation's capital. <br /><br />This morning's <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603620.html">Washington Post</a></span> chronicles the latest instance of these conflicting impulses: <blockquote>A D.C. fund created to improve the city's neglected neighborhoods is being divided among several agencies and funneled to big-budget nonprofits such as the Kennedy Center in Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's new proposed spending plan.</blockquote> While it's comforting to think that our nonprofits can be both local and national, that funders can fulfill their missions elsewhere and be engaged local citizens, the economy will push many to make difficult choices. A recent Washington Grantmakers <a href="http://www.washingtongrantmakers.org/s_wash/bin.asp?CID=10634&DID=23499&DOC=FILE.PDF">survey</a> captured the economic catch-22: 86 percent of respondents reported a decrease in assets in 2008, and four out of five grantmakers reported receiving more grant requests in 2008 than 2007. Appealing to funders already caught between increasing needs and declining financial resources, will local nonprofits survive? How much will stay local - and how much of what's local will stay?Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-36851703273734536282009-02-23T15:00:00.000-05:002009-03-19T16:29:48.372-04:00Emerging Leaders Salon Takes Off<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXKvwxTlpzmlu2fvD10tU3_YLVTkbaSsqTFrx7lxGFG5D0wRBneHcpvqYxcs9r85BE04wwP2iO4YIRP6bvohzh5kTTVWIaOyIFth6ZcgZUvStsC2wENfdDM1L4EjnWF2vJmlqo7ShkB8Mg/s1600-h/DSCN0795.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXKvwxTlpzmlu2fvD10tU3_YLVTkbaSsqTFrx7lxGFG5D0wRBneHcpvqYxcs9r85BE04wwP2iO4YIRP6bvohzh5kTTVWIaOyIFth6ZcgZUvStsC2wENfdDM1L4EjnWF2vJmlqo7ShkB8Mg/s320/DSCN0795.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314604237027852946" /></a><br /><a href="http://epipdc.blogspot.com/">EPIP-DC</a> kicked off the return of its Emerging Leaders Salon with a conversation with Virginia Esposito, Founder and President of the <a href="http://www.ncfp.org">National Center for Family Philanthropy</a>. February's well-attended discussion had participants talking about careers in philanthropy, the world of family giving, and the economy.<br /><br />Esposito began the discussion with some of DC's emerging leaders by telling the story of her own 29-year career in the field. She had started out as a schoolteacher before arriving, partly by chance, at the <a href="http://www.cof.org">Council on Foundations</a>. It was there that she discovered a fascination with the contributions of philanthropic families.<br /><br />"All I hear about is how family detracts [from giving]," Esposito said, relating the story of one philanthropy professional who wanted to work for "families - but families without issues." <br /><br />"That's just sad because, 'issues' and all, family adds so much to the process," she said. "Giving families embody the central democratic principle of personal initiative for the public good. Their work is as much an act of citizenship as their industry, their vote, and their taxes."<br /><br />That passion for family philanthropy encouraged Esposito, along with other leaders in family giving, to create the Council's Program on Family Philanthropy and, in 1997, the independent National Center for Family Philanthropy.<br /><br />She spoke of the roots and traditions, the values that transcend generations, that families bring to their philanthropy, and called attention to the commitment, passion, and responsiveness that families' giving reveals.<br /><br />"We haven't done a good job of increasing understanding about what it is that foundations and, more specifically, family foundations do," she argued, pointing to NCFP's recent initiative to combat public misperceptions by articulating the "value of family philanthropy."<br /><br />She encouraged emerging leaders to follow their own passions and to be open to new opportunities and the chance to do something different.<br /><br />"When I first started out, we didn't even use the phrase 'family foundation,'" Esposito said. "Now there's the National Center, and family giving has its own department at the Council and at community foundations and organizations around the world."<br /><br />Esposito also acknowledged a debt to her many mentors, among them foundation trustee, educator and former dean of the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University <a href="http://prostores2.carrierzone.com/servlet/ncfporg/-strse-1034/S1Ylvisaker/Detail">Paul Ylvisaker</a>.<br /><br />"I think any career in philanthropy takes passion, commitment, and a willingness to take the long view," she said. "But it also takes a group of mentors that inspire, teach, and encourage. I am the product of so many people who took the time to teach me – to invest in my knowledge and, consequently, my career. They daily play some part in who I am and what I do and I remember each one with enormous respect and gratitude."<br /><br />The conversation then turned to the topic of philanthropy and the economy as giving families struggle to keep up with rising needs amid declining assets and the added tragedy of the Madoff scandal.<br /><br />"Foundation assets are down as much as 30 to 40 percent over the last year," Esposito said. <br /><br />She noted that <a href="http://www.ncfp.org/fp_online/fp_online?resourceItem=a87cca29-39f7-4922-863a-207c23d927b4">families were getting creative to meet growing needs</a>: renegotiating grant agreements, convening nonprofit groups, collaborating, giving access to professional and technical assistance, and offering lines of credit and no-interest loans.<br /><br />Esposito contended that the crisis was an opportunity for reflection, for foundations to ask themselves: "What are we really doing here?" <br /><br />"You don't have to give up your dream of perpetuity to step up," she said. "It's gotten to the point that we boast of our investment returns as much as we boast of impact. Payout should be a function of what you're trying to do - not what you're trying to make."<br /><br />She encouraged grantmakers to see how they might help both with grants and beyond grants.<br /><br />Of particular concern to some members was the loss of some well-known social justice grantmakers.<br /><br />"We're losing foundations that were willing to go into places and be advocates that others weren't, like the JEHT Foundation," Esposito acknowledged. "It's a real loss."<br /><br />"There seems to be a new awareness that government isn't taking care of the vulnerable," Esposito said, pointing to the aftermath of Katrina and the more recent housing and credit crises. "Social justice may be at the forefront of people's minds in a new way."<br /><br />"I was concerned about speaking to the 'Emerging Practitioners' because I feared it implied I better have already emerged or, at my age, had little chance of doing so!" Esposito explained. "What I realized is that EPIP-DC is an impressive group of leaders – nothing 'emerging' about them. The great delight I took in spending time with them was enhanced by the opportunity to pay tribute to my own leader-mentors."<br /><br /><i>Special thanks to Ginny Esposito and the National Center for Family Philanthropy for hosting this event.</i>Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-88016876234796880562009-02-22T20:00:00.000-05:002009-03-18T15:33:15.023-04:00Safe Space for LetAt a recent conference, a group of young leaders were talking about the need for "safe spaces." Can a young person of wealth, for example, feel safe in a room full of people that might be looking for something from them? Can a person of color, for another example, feel safe in a room full of people that don't look like them? We young people wanted to discuss wealth, poverty, philanthropy, race, class, gender, the whole lot, but these aren't easy conversations for many people. Where were the "safe spaces" for these delicate discussions?<br /><br />I found it all very unfortunate.<br /><br />I thought to myself, "'Safe space?' I don't need 'safe space.' I have plenty of 'safe space.' I call it 'daily life.'"<br /><br />As a straight, white male, I have safe space to spare. It's what being privileged is all about. I'm safe everywhere. I don't get a double-take or a repulsed gasp when I tell people about my wife because people expect my spouse to be female. I've never been denied a loan, a job, a friendship, or a hello because of the color of my skin because that doesn't happen to people that look like me. I don't have to worry about whether people take me seriously at work because I'm a card-carrying member of the boys' club. Safe space? It's my home address.<br /><br />So I can spare an hour or four at 3 AM to listen without judging because I can talk pretty much whenever I want. And I can take a conversation or a convening that makes me a little uneasy because, at the end of the day, I could tear down a wall or four and still be safe in my own skin. The way I figure it, a difficult conversation now and then is a small price to pay to make somebody else feel safe. Some people don't have safe spaces to return to. I might even learn something. <br /><br />So if you need safe space, people, please don't expend time and energy creating it. Just borrow mine.Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-82495229185707408212009-02-12T11:50:00.000-05:002009-02-12T13:59:09.504-05:00Exercise Restraint on the Excise TaxThings just keep getting worse and worse.<br /><br /><br />According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/business/12tax.html">The New York Times</a>, foundations who invested with Bernard Madoff may be subject to additional loss in the form of an excise tax. This tax is meant to ward off potentially risky investments by funders and to encourage exercising a thorough vetting process for identifying investors. <br /><br />The financial implications can be huge. For example, if the IRS enforced this tax in the current scenario, the following could happen:<br /><br /><strong><em>"The penalty can equal 10 percent of the amount invested during the tax year in question. If the foundation fails to try to recover the funds, there is an additional 25 percent penalty. The foundation’s officers, directors and trustees also face a 10 percent penalty, and a 5 percent additional penalty if they ignored red flags or did not thoroughly vet Mr. Madoff’s investments and proposals." </em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />But with the huge losses of many foundations, particularly those that invested heavily with Madoff, what's 25% of $0?<br /><br />Though the IRS has yet to make a definitive decision on whether or not to enforce this tax, I can only hope that this situation is given special consideration. This scandal was clearly a huge shock to everyone involved and seems to be a fairly isolated one. <br /><br />Point blank: The philanthropic community is in need of redemption. And additional slashes to what little assets remain is <strong><em>not</em></strong> the solution...Tamar Cloydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15939473432235552967noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-7140044420986222422009-02-11T13:45:00.000-05:002009-02-11T13:56:32.676-05:00The Emerging Leaders Salon Returns to DCThe DC chapter of Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) presents the return of the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Emerging Leaders Salon</span>!<br /><br />If you're an aspiring leader in philanthropy, join us for our signature conversations with leaders and thinkers in the field.<br /><br />This month features a discussion with Ginny Esposito, president and founder of the National Center for Family Philanthropy. Ginny will discuss her own career path in the field, the world of family foundations and funds, and how they're meeting the challenges of today's economy.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Date:</span> February 19, 2009<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Time:</span> 12:00 - 1:30 PM<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Place:</span> National Center for Family Philanthropy, 1818 N St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20036<br /><br />As with most of our salons, it's brown-bag lunch, but refreshments will be provided.<br /><br />Click <a href="mailto:dcepip@gmail.com?subject=RSVP for Emerging Leaders Salon Feb 19&body=I would like to attend the EPIP Emerging Leaders Salon February 19, 2009. %0A%0aNAME:%0AAFFILIATION:%0APHONE:%0AEMAIL:%0A%0AThank you.">HERE</a> to RSVP for this event.Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-5011098428631395312009-02-03T10:14:00.000-05:002009-02-05T13:33:29.983-05:00Over(compensation)headThe issue of nonprofit executive compensation is once again making headlines. According to the <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/scoutslogging/398082_scoutfinances30.html">Seattle Post-Intelligencer</a>, the Boy Scouts of America's chief executive earned $589,000 in 2006, exceeding the 75th percentile level of average salary ranges for comparable nonprofit CEO salaries. Critics assert that these hefty salaries take the executives' focus away from fulfilling the organization's mission. However, Boy Scouts representatives insist that this level of compensation is needed to retain quality executives for the long-term.<br /><br />Nonprofits have long been known for their poor staff compensation, not only with respect to yearly salary but retirement benefits. And the solution has been to create more attractive compensation to compete with the for-profit industry. Yet, with our current economy, does this practice still make sense given the increase of competition for foundation funds?<br /><br />Since salaries are included as overhead in organizational budgets, many grants that will be awarded in the coming year will undoubtedly cover a portion of this. In this economic recession, should funders take into account higher than average executive salaries when considering whether to award a grant?<br /><br />What do you think?Tamar Cloydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15939473432235552967noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-81068101414431435872009-01-22T09:08:00.000-05:002009-01-23T13:41:13.988-05:00Yes We Did; Now Are We Done?<p>Ah, yes. It is done. Change has finally come to The White House.</p><p>For millions of Americans, our country's shameful legacy of racism and inequality was effectively <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/2A7ADA1F10E85FEC8625754300079323?OpenDocument">muted</a> at 12pm on January 20, 2009, when a man with a name like Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the highest post in the land. As President Obama so eloquently stated in his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/">inaugural address</a>, "This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed...and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.” Yet, while significant progress has been made in reforming the face of our political system, the work is far from over in ensuring equality for all.</p><p>African American and Hispanic students still lag behind their white counterparts in obtaining their high school diploma. The foreclosure crisis and environmental pollution continues to disproportionately impact communities of color. Subtle bias in hiring decisions effectively limits minority populations from attaining meaningful employment. Unfortunately, the list continues. </p><p>These are all issues that President Obama's administration is undoubtedly aware of. Various nonprofit civil rights groups have already reached out to him, highlighting the work that still must be done to improve the lives of disenfranchised communities. For social justice funders, now (more than ever) is the time to stand firm with these groups to fight for equality. </p><p>We all know the scale of the current economic crisis, enhanced for many by the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1866154,00.html">Madoff scandal</a>. Several foundations and community organizations have had to close their doors as a result.<br /><br />Yet, the philanthropic community must stay the course in supporting social justice programs. </p><p>As changes are occurring at the national level, we must continue to mirror these changes on the ground. And let's not look at the solution to this problem as simply a monetary one. Funders have various levels of capacity. Below are my thoughts on how philanthropy is uniquely situated to continue addressing civil rights issues in the Age of Obama.</p><p>1) <strong><u>Funder Collaboratives</u></strong>. Many grantmakers have realized the power of pooling their money in addressing social ills. This format not only allows likeminded funders to share strategies with each other but it reduces the amount of time that nonprofits spend approaching these grantmakers for support.</p><p>2) <strong><u>Knowledge Management</u></strong>. Grantmakers have done an excellent job of sharing best practices. Whether it’s online through a foundation's Web site or convening grantees, funders are already highlighting the wealth found in peer learning circles.<br /><br />3) <strong><u>Harnessing the Power of Peer Pressure</u></strong>. Funders that support social justice and advocacy efforts are already aware of the importance of using their resources to address inequity. However, there are others that do not for a variety of reasons. Through organizations like <a href="http://www.epip.org/">EPIP</a>, grantmakers can continue to highlight the need for social justice funding within the philanthropic community.<br /></p>Tamar Cloydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15939473432235552967noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-49877189175473474242008-12-19T19:35:00.000-05:002008-12-19T16:36:08.248-05:00The Giving MapThe <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/giving/?hpid=topnews"><span style="font-style:italic;">Washington Post</span></a> has created an interactive map of metro DC charities:<blockquote>In this holiday season of particular economic hardship, charitable giving is critical to many in our region. The Giving Map is designed to make it fast and easy to connect you with a nonprofit organization that helps others and fits your areas of interest, whether that's hunger and homelessness or arts and education. The D.C. region is home to many with considerable resources, and others with few. We hope those who can afford to help others will find this tool useful.<br><br>Know of a bona fide charity that isn't included in this list? Please <a href="mailto:tellus@wpni.com">tell us</a>. Charities can <a href="mailto:tellus@wpni.com">contact us</a> to be added to the map, to correct their entry or to specify what donations they need.</blockquote>Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-10310620834687633192008-12-19T12:00:00.000-05:002008-12-19T10:32:41.516-05:00The Myth of GenerationsLucy Bernholz wrapped up her terrific list of <a href="http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2008/12/buzzword-200810-philanthrocapitalism.html">2008 buzzwords</a> yesterday with "philanthrocapitalism." While it's "a term with serious buzz," she says, it has to be "one of the worst word mashups ever." This year's list got especially interesting as <a href="http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2008/12/buzzword-20088-next-gen.html">Buzzword #8 "<span style="font-weight:bold;">NextGen</span>"</a> got <a href="http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2008/12/buzzword-de-listing.html">de-listed</a>. The folks at eJewish Philanthropy have actually <a href="http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-nextgen-rip/">buried the term</a>: "The NextGen is no longer. They are the NOWGen."<br /><br />As a "NextGen" myself, I'm all for a good de-listing (or D-listing, if you will). NextGen, ThisGen, NowGen, let's call the whole thing off. And not just the first part - all of it.<br /><br />With much respect to the stellar work of organizations like <a href="http://www.2164.net/">21/64</a> and <a href="http://www.resourcegeneration.org/home.html">Resource Generation</a>; to authors like Frances Kunreuther, Helen Kim, and Robby Rodriguez who penned <a href="http://workingacrossgenerations.org/index.cfm"><span style="font-style:italic;">Working Across Generations</span></a>, and to the nation's 37,000 family foundations for whom, as <a href="http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/nextgen-a-flawed-concept-for-our-times/">Richard Marker</a> notes, this phrase and its attendant discussions have obvious, immediate, and deeply personal implications, it might be helpful for the sector to realize that <span style="font-weight:bold;">there's really no such thing as a "generation."</span><br /><br />Pondering the so-called "digital generation" in the <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i04/04b00701.htm">Chronicle of Higher Education</a></span> (via <a href="http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200809190016">Altercation</a>), Siva Vaidhyanathan, an associate professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia, puts into words a suspicion I have long had about the "generational" differences and changes at play in the philanthropic sector:<br /><blockquote>Consider all the pundits, professors, and pop critics who have wrung their hands over the inadequacies of the so-called digital generation of young people filling our colleges and jobs. Then consider those commentators who celebrate the creative brilliance of digitally adept youth. To them all, I want to ask: Whom are you talking about? There is no such thing as a "digital generation."</blockquote>From there, Vaidhyanathan contends we should drop the term entirely, and I agree. Repeat after me: it's never a "generational" thing. Here's why:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Variation <span style="font-style:italic;">within</span> generational groups exceeds variation <span style="font-style:italic;">between</span> generational groups.</span> <br /><br />I'm technically a Capricorn, but, since my birthday is so late, I was once told that I'd share characteristics with Aquarians. I was born on a "cusp," you see. Likewise, in a discussion of generational differences, I wondered why my natural skepticism is touched by a bit of idealism (or vice versa). I was told that I was born at the tail end of Generation X and the beginning of Gen Y, so naturally I'd be a bit of a mixed bag. (Hey, Ptolemy, throw in a few more epicycles - it's working fabulously.)<br /><br />As Vaidhyanathan says:<br /><blockquote>Ask any five people when Generation X started and ended. You will get five different answers. The borders of membership could not be more arbitrary. Talking as if all people born between 1964 and (pick a year after 1974) share some discernible, unifying traits or experiences is about as useful as saying that all Capricorns are the same. Such talk is not based on any sociological or demographic definition of a generation; it's based on whatever topic is in question.</blockquote>Indeed, we use generational distinctions (traditionalist, baby boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y) as proxies for talking about work ethic and style; technological savvy; attitudes toward religion, government, and authority; and more. Wouldn't it be more helpful to talk about these things directly instead?<br /><br />There is far more variation with regard to these differences within the generations than between them. This is particularly true when it comes to technology. It's unfortunate that traditionalists and boomers get stereotyped as past-their-prime, Luddite technophobes while their Gen X and Y children get to be social entrepreneurs who will Facebook us all to utopia. I know traditionalists with web pages. My wife's grandfather gives classes in Photoshop. I know boomers who require regular surgical removal from their Blackberries and iPhones. I know Gen Xers and Gen Yers who are consistently confounded by the technology around them, technology they're just supposed to know because they're "digital natives." <br /><br />While we're at it, can we please drop the idea that people are tech-savvy because they buy the right gadgets and frequent the right web sites? It doesn't take a single innovative thought to get a new iPhone, and it doesn't take a genius to use Youtube (see most of the material there). It takes money, and it takes leisure time. When you can in some way produce or reproduce the technologies you consume, then we'll call you tech-savvy. Until then, you're not much more than a kid with a MySpace page, and you'll make about as much difference in the world. <br /><br />Generational advocates point to the fact that generations are not about work preferences or lifestyles, which, as I note, vary considerably, but about the historical events that inform a given cohort. The problem is that historical events affect people very differently. I was overseas on September 11 and didn't return to the United States until late December. I differ very much from some of the millennials who were here in DC when the Pentagon was struck. We speak as frequently of the digital divide as we do of a "digital generation." Clearly, we can't say that every millennial is this or that, so why call them millennials? If millennials are indeed the most diverse of generations, maybe it's near impossible, unhelpful, even counterproductive to put them all in the same box? It's this kind of thinking that that gives us a <a href="http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122790823133465197.html">Barron's</a> profile of next-gen givers, most of whom are rich, white males. I've nothing against their efforts and accomplishments, but this is the next generation? Really? <span style="font-style:italic;">Plus ça change</span>...<br /><br />It's not that I don't think there might be generational differences. I just think that discussions of generational differences mask more important differences and divisions, and that it's important, especially for those in philanthropy, to recognize and respect those differences, rather than pay them lip service with the sociological equivalent of a horoscope.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Descriptions are not explanations.</span><br /><br />Ever done a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? I took it first in high school and again at work some years later. I came out the same way: INFP. Take that how you will. The thing that struck me about both tests was that, for two weeks or so after classmates and colleagues took the test, one's type explained everything. Introverts suddenly understood why they had so much trouble with public speaking. Perceptors understood why they never finished things. This is to get it all wrong. You're not having trouble with public speaking because you're an introvert. We call you an introvert because you tend to prefer not to talk in public. Descriptions are not explanations. And they're certainly not excuses.<br /><br />Discussions of generational differences are ultimately, I think, counterproductive because a generational label too often substitutes for a convenient, nonthreatening explanation of a situation. Let's take two examples.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Example #1: A young nonprofit professional complains that her boss doesn't know how to use technology. The boomer boss admits his reticence to use certain software that would make work easier on people but says it's a generational difference.</span> <br /><br />Being born a few years later doesn't suddenly turn you into web guru. And being born a few years earlier isn't an excuse for not keeping up with industry standards. What we've got here is a difference in work style that has to be respected and dealt with. Instead of inferring that it's just a generational difference, which lets older people off the hook and younger people in self-righteous snit, people need to get back to figuring out how to work together. The team isn't in the midst of grand demographic and paradigmatic shifts that can only be solved with a high-priced consultant's retreat on intergenerational conversations. They just need to figure out how to work together, and that would be true regardless of their generational differences.<br /><br />Generational differences too often obscure the real dynamics at work:<br /><ul><li>Maybe the young professional knows more about computers because she had the good fortune to go to a school that had special computer classes or required audiovisual aids with presentations. Not everyone in her generation knows these things. Somebody made an investment in her.</li><br /><li>Maybe she put in extra hours going to classes after work because it would make her more of an asset to an organization she believes in. Now she wants to put those ideas to work for the organization and its clients.</li><br /><li>Maybe she knows a lot about computers because she ran D&D Night in middle school using Quattro Pro. (Ah, memories.) </li><br /><li>Maybe the boss needs paper copy because he knows he reads more effectively if he has paper copy. He's always made really important catches in grant requests because he reads it like the foundation program officer will. </li><br /><li>Maybe he's just the boss. Maybe people should just respect his wishes instead of questioning him all the time. He's sacrificed quite a bit to build the organization. Is it too much to ask a new hire to print him a paper copy? </li> <br /><li>Maybe the organization has gone through a number of software changes and nothing has ever made as much difference as him going through a paper copy in his office.</li> </ul>Vaidhyanathan argues:<br /><blockquote>Talk of a "digital generation" or people who are "born digital" willfully ignores the vast range of skills, knowledge, and experience of many segments of society. It ignores the needs and perspectives of those young people who are not socially or financially privileged. It presumes a level playing field and equal access to time, knowledge, skills, and technologies. The ethnic, national, gender, and class biases of any sort of generation talk are troubling. And they could not be more obvious than when discussing assumptions about digital media.</blockquote> We're ignoring the real stories - of class, of privilege, of race, of gender, and more.<br /><br />And if we're willing to obscure why some people use technology, we're all too willing to overlook why we think the way we do.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Example #2: Young conservative newcomers to a family foundation board clash with their more liberal parents about the direction of the family's philanthropy. The parents are discussing closing the foundation. A consultant is brought in who helpfully suggests some generational dynamics might be at work.</span> <br /><br />I've deliberately set this example contrary to the popular stereotype. I've seen the conservative parent-liberal child clash. It works much the same way. The conservative parents built the institutions the kids say are destroying society (incidentally, the kids are probably right), and naturally the parents think the kids are ingrates (incidentally, the parents are probably right.) <br /><br />An astute staff member, advisor, or consultant should point out that there might be some generational differences at work. For example, boomers faced more competition for jobs and prestige. Gen Xers, by comparison, faced less; there are fewer of them. Naturally, the boomers are wedded to certain institutions. They fought hard to get where they are. Meanwhile, the Gen Xers saw divorce rates skyrocket among friends and in society generally. They saw a president resign in disgrace. They listened to the Iran-Contra hearings. You'll forgive them if they're a little skeptical of traditional institutions. (Thanks to Sharna Goldseker for this. Seriously, one of the most enlightening sessions I've ever been to.)<br /><br />At the same time, though, while one's generation might have had something to do with it, one's choices have everything to do with it. One thing that has always irritated me, even insulted me, is when people who are older than me assume that I think the way that I do because I just haven't lived long enough. And one thing that tends to infuriate your elders is when you assume that they think the way they do because they're just old. How come nobody seems to think that people think the way they do because they looked at the world around them, considered the possibilities, made a decision, and had the guts to act on that belief? I don't think the way I do, and I certainly don't give the way I do, because I'm a Gen Xer, so please stop marketing your organizations and your causes by appealing to some demographic that some sociologist said includes me.<br /><br />That's why I flipped the example. These people have come to different conclusions about the world. There are things in this world about which reasonable people can disagree. I don't think patting millennials on the back and fantasizing about all the things they're going to do with Twitter gets us anywhere. I don't think letting people off the hook for generational reasons pays appropriate respect to the people who, despite generational tendencies, sacrificed to move things forward. I don't think putting people in boxes is particularly helpful. <br /><br />I do think that behind the generational curtain is a wealth of reasons why people believe what they do, give to what they give to, and dream the way they do. And calling them a traditionalist, a boomer, a Gen Xer, or a millennial is a good way of missing that story. I want to hear about the accidents, the coincidences, all the wrong turns, the stumbles and falls that brought you here - and made you who you are. <br /><br />Because I've seen families who've had the generational conversation, and it's been helpful. <br /><br />And I've seen families who've told those stories, and it's changed lives.<br /><br />A sector that claims to be strategic ought to know that the differences within generations are more important than the differences between them - and act accordingly.<br /><br />A sector that says it wants to get to the root of social ills ought to know the difference between a description and an explanation - and refuse to indulge in pop sociology because it makes us feel a little better about our differences. <br /><br />A sector that really wants to bring people together to make a difference ought not put people in such clumsy boxes but help them tell the stories they were born to tell. <br /><br />Let's de-list the whole "gen" conversation.<br /><br />NextGen, ThisGen, NowGen are no longer. There's you. And there's me. Let's start there.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">(This post has been updated for clarity and to correct a few typographical mistakes. - KL)</span>Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-46708971850226696452008-12-18T10:38:00.001-05:002008-12-18T11:26:13.417-05:00Two ObservationsAt a recent meeting, DC EPIP members discussed the difficulties of managing an organization like ours in a city like DC. As a group of under-fortysomethings, we're getting established in our careers, taking on new professional obligations, finishing college, entering graduate school, having families, and more. In short, we're busy, busy, unbelievably busy people. That's not to say that other generations aren't busy. I can only assume that it just gets worse. <br /><br />Add to the mix the transience of DC professionals. People are constantly coming and going. New opportunities take us to different places and back again. <br /><br />It's a fast-moving, fluctuating membership of emerging leaders going places. Obviously, it's going to be tough to bring those people together. So we tried to come up with a new way of looking at the situation and a way of dealing with it:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Observation #1: When a leader leaves, celebrate. That's what we call a victory.</span> If EPIP is about networking and professional development for emerging leaders, when an emerging leader gets an opportunity to lead through a promotion or a new job elsewhere, that's a victory. Yeah, it's going to be tough losing that leader to new responsibilities, but the organization should anticipate that. EPIP has to anticipate - at the very least, believe - in the possibility of its own success.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Observation #2: Go in pairs - at least.</span> That means redundancy has to be built into everything we do. It means the buddy system. If only one person is heading up a program or event, that program or event is one scheduling conflict, one promotion, one job away from not happening. The Third Thursday lunches have survived leadership transitions and more because several wonderful people have taken it on. When one can't make it, another steps up. It's like a phalanx of gracious hostesses - and I get great lunches and great conversations because they scout for restaurants and send an invitation every month.<br /><br />We work as a team. We work in teams. If one of us moves out, up, or on, we can celebrate with them because there's someone else to take up the tasks tomorrow. If we don't do this, we watch what we build disappear with the builders.Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4865718283786891833.post-46108478402503841372008-11-11T17:02:00.000-05:002008-11-11T17:06:10.612-05:00InaugurationWelcome to the new blog of EPIP-DC!<br /><br />Capital Epiphanies is the virtual salon of <a href="http://">Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy</a> in Washington, DC. Look for news, commentary, events, and more from the next generation of grantmakers in DC.Kevin Laskowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07213104628237671645noreply@blogger.com0