A few times, yesterday included, I touched on the application (or imposition?) of for-profit business models on non-profit organizations. Should non-profits take the lead from more traditional businesses or are the two models incompatible? In the future, I would like to delve further into this question. But for now, I’d like to raise a more specific one: can and do these two entities meet and talk about one another? In other words, do non-profits have a forum to discuss corporate partnerships and do corporations have one to discuss community outreach?

Enter Companies for Causes, whose aim is just that: bringing together medium-sized local businesses to brainstorm and launch philanthropic endeavours as well as entrepreneurial ones. Essentially, this effort will provide the network and resources for companies to expand their reach (and deepen their impact) in the Greater Washington community. Their first symposium is coming up next Wednesday, October 27. You can see the agenda here, sign up for more info, and check out these interviews:

Read all »

Good morning, folks! I’m still thinking about the TIME magazine article and all the buzz surrounding the Facebook CEO’s $100 million donation to the Newark schools. First, the buzz is impossible to escape — just type “mark zuckerberg newark” into Google News. Second, no matter how you consider the issue, this is a serious gift with the potential to be a serious game-changer — not just in Newark, but on the whole. So I thought that I’d add a couple more voices to the mix. Definitely jump into the comment thread with your thoughts. (If you’re reading this on the Catalogue homepage, click BLOG to comment.)

NPR – CEO’S Gift: Philanthropy of Image Control? “Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show on Friday to announce a $100 million donation to public schools in Newark, N.J. But the timing of the gift has raised questions about the social networking wunderkind’s motivation…”

The Star Ledger/NJ.com (blog) – Newark schools by the numbers: “Grousing seems like checking the teeth of a gift horse. A hundred million is not chump change, even for a wealthy entrepreneur. But let’s look at the bigger picture [...] if Newark schools cannot produce quality education at $23,500 per student, it seems hard to believe that that they will do much better with an additional $2500 per pupil.”

What do you think?

“In order to be successful, any philanthropist must cause a lot of disruption and consequently upset plenty of people.”

Hmm. That’s a pretty bold statement.

I did just take that quotation completely out of context though. So for some quick background: Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook, announced on September 22 that he would donate $100 million to the Newark Public Schools. Zuckerburg also has a growing friendship with City Mayor Cory Booker who, as part of the terms of the gift, will take on “some control of the long-troubled state-run operation” from Governor Chris Christie.

In response, TIME magazine published a list of “5 Philanthropy Lessons” for the 26-year-old Zuckerburg, suggesting that he “study up on all the education grantmaking” that has come before his own if he wants his gift to have a serious effect.

The above quotation actually comes from the final suggestion and TIME goes on to note: “If you just want to be liked, education reform is not for you … if you do this right, not everyone will be rushing to friend you on Facebook.”

I am honestly not sure how to respond to this. Both the gift itself and his desire to catalyze change are pretty remarkable. But does his ability to make a difference mean that he must also outline how that difference is made? Is he not “serious” without that extra step? Without shaking things up? To put it another way, what if Zuckerburg truly believes that Booker has the right ideas and the right team in place and simply wants to give him the means to move forward? Or does a gift of that size demand some clear and personal ideas for its use? Maybe he needs to jump into the fray (and make some enemies) to ensure that this gift truly puts ideas into action?

Again, I don’t have a clear answer. What do you think? Overall, do disruption and reform often go hand-in-hand? Sure. But I’m not certain that the article has nailed the philanthropist’s role in that process. Or rather, I’m not sure that that role has such a vigorous, clear-cut definition.

That said, this point (plus the others in the article, including “Go big or go home”) are all good and vital food for thought, particularly for a donor like Zuckerburg who has the means and opportunity to spark systemic change in a very large system, very quickly. But I’m not crazy about the general tone of the article, which focuses so intently on big gifts and big change. Do we want to “go big?” Definitely. But impact on a small and personal scale is just as “real” — and for the kids in school right now, just as big.

From bright-red bikes to non-profit administrative operations, what are we ready and excited to share?

Regarding the new Capital Bikeshare program, the New York Times explains that Internet services, from Netflix to Pandora, have “changed the way Americans think about sharing and ownership. Collaborative habits online are beginning to find expression in the real world.”

Perhaps this ethic of collaboration spread from products and purchasing to operations and funding. Just last Friday, the Boston Globe reported that the Boston Foundation (along with three others) has unveiled “a new fund to help local charities … form partnerships, combine functions like bookkeeping or community services, or merge into new groups … to better serve their communities.”

Of course, the comparisons are not perfect. But speaking broadly, have cooperation and sharing become newly interesting? Haven’t they always been part of the picture?

Says the founder of NeighborGoods, an online resource where users can enter their zip code and locate neighbors willing to borrow or loan, “everyone thought we were completely crazy two years ago [but our success has sprung from] a desire for community, a desire to be more sustainable and, frankly, it’s the economy.”

Philanthropy 2173 asks an intriguing question: “if communities and businesses built on sharing — mutual aid — can really regain traction … what will this mean for organized, outside philanthropy as we know it?”

Will this trend last? Does it excite and inspire you? And are new models indeed on the horizon? Or have non-profits long employed this model and businesses are actually catching up? What do you think?