$theTitle=wp_title(" - ", false); if($theTitle != "") { ?>
By: Nick Deychakiwsky In: 2012 Fall Conference| Community Foundations| Philanthropy
3 Aug 2012I’m feeling “old.” Not as opposed to “young,” but as opposed to “new.” I think it’s all this talk in our sector lately about innovation. Whatever happened to “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” It’s just oh so sexy and attention-grabbing to label something as “new” even when it’s not.
OK, so I’m sounding like a stuffy old curmudgeon pining for some mythical good ol’ days. But I still do have serious questions about how “new” some hot trendy things in philanthropy really are (e.g., venture philanthropy, collective impact, scaling, even community leadership). Are they just things people have been doing for quite a while but have been calling something else, or not calling them anything at all but still doing? They could very well be the proverbial “old wine in new bottles.”
Anyway, in thinking about a session at the upcoming Fall Conference on some new (there I go—as guilty as the rest!) and exciting things going on at community foundations around the world and in the U.S., Jenny Hodgson and I almost went with “old wine in new bottles” for (a feeble attempt at) a catchy title for the session. But then we realized: Although there’s certainly some of that in what we’d like people to learn and think about, there’s more of the reverse going on. If the bottle is the value base and purpose of community foundations, then the wine is what they actually do day to day to make a difference in their communities.
A recent report called “The New Generation of Community Foundations” talks about how this “new generation … blurs the boundaries between mutual aid and philanthropy by placing a particular emphasis on the role and value of local assets and resources [note: don’t see nothin’ new here yet], which may include money as well as different forms of social capital, such as trust and volunteerism or mutual help and support [note: there it is!].”
Whether or not you think that’s really new, I would say that it’s different than most of the last few decades in the U.S. community foundation field. Or, at the least, it represents a shift in emphasis between the various components of the value proposition of community foundations. And it’s beyond just the by-now-slightly-tiring and somewhat false dichotomy between asset development/endowment building/donor service on the one hand and community change/social justice/lasting impact on the other.
Especially in places around the world facing huge challenges, there seems to be a new (different?) way of considering what community assets really are—certainly beyond endowments or even money—by whom and for whom and how they are unleashed and applied and what role community foundations play in all this.
In many cases this “new generation” of community foundations stretches the concept of what a community foundation is. So are we talking about new bottles as well? Is it really new wine? Or is it all just same old same old, but using different terms?
Please join the conversation by reading the report and posting a comment to this blog and/or interacting at the session called, A New Generation of Community Foundations: New Wine in Old Bottles? on Tuesday, September 11, from 4–5 p.m.
Nick Deychakiwsky is a program officer at the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
* Register for the conference by August 3 to take advantage of the $150 early bird discount.
4 Responses to The Old and the New
Judy Sjostedt
August 3rd, 2012 at 9:57 pm
In rural America — e.g., places like my home — West Virginia — by necessity, our communities have always defined assets very broadly. For our own growth and emotional health, it is crucial to see our places as ones with many assets, not simply places of great need. So, I would offer that I think we should look to the grassroots and to our smaller, more rural communities to better understand this phenomena. In my opinion, I don’t think it’s anything new; but I think it is examining new ground, in that rural America’s strengths often go unrecognized. I think we are talking about old wine in old bottles when one looks to what has been happening with rural philanthropy for many years. What our communities produce may be small in traditional monetary terms, but the vintage of our communities is not new, it is old and it is quality. The situation is not an either-or in our case; it’s both. We need to be expending energy building permanent resources for our communities, while concurrently we tackle some pretty big issues. If we fail to build permanent assets concurrently, we will continue to lack the catalyst to propel our communities past simple subsistence.
Paul Nagle
August 5th, 2012 at 7:57 am
“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”???!!! I don’t know a single person trying to engage the 5013c system to make art, who doesn’t think there are serious problems with how philanthropy is currently conducted. Major shifts in how we communicate, organize and support are underway, but much of philanthropy plods along, talking to itself, convening itself and congratulating itself on measurable impacts while those who struggle to keep civl society afloat are going without pay, cutting programs and thinking of making career changes to more personally sustainable trajectories. I suggest that “old” program officers start convening “young” people (under 30) about how they are creating social change and support. There are so many interesting ideas pecolating out there, but they literally have no connection to the 501c3 system. People entrenched in the current foundation system really need to reach beyond the philanthropic sector for insight and inspiration.
Paul Nagle
August 5th, 2012 at 7:58 am
“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”???!!! I don’t know a single person trying to engage the 5013c system to make art, who doesn’t think there are serious problems with how philanthropy is currently conducted. Major shifts in how we communicate, organize and support are underway, but much of philanthropy plods along, talking to itself, convening itself and congratulating itself on measurable impacts while those who struggle to keep civl society afloat are going without pay, cutting programs and thinking of making career changes to more personally sustainable trajectories. I suggest that “old” program officers start convening “young” people (under 30) about how they are creating social change and support. There are so many interesting ideas percolating out there, but they literally have no connection to the 501c3 system. People entrenched in the current foundation system really need to reach beyond the philanthropic sector for insight and inspiration.
George McCully
August 6th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Excellent column, Nick.
I haven’t read the Report yet, but in the case of “different forms of social capital, such as trust and volunteerism or mutual help and support”, that’s actually “old”— but if revived would amount to “new.”
The last time our country had a deep philanthropic culture was in the Colonial and Revolutionary period, when as Tocqueville pointed out later, almost all public projects were carried out by “voluntary associations”—or in John Gardner’s definition of “philanthropy”, “private initiatives for public good”.
The early forms of our national government were modeled on voluntary associations, which were intrinsically and necessarily democratic. Alexander Hamilton, in paragraph one, page one, of the first Federalist Paper, launching the Founders’ argument for ratification of our Constitution, identified the new government explicitly as “philanthropy”, saying that was its (our national) purpose!
So bring on the renewal as a national renaissance!