San Diego Giving Stories: Making College A Reality

By San Diego Grantmakers

Reality Changers is a current Investee of San Diego Social Venture Partners

Wasn't Considering College
In junior high, Robert Silva was an average student with no college aspirations. His mother worked at a convenience store and his father repaired gas stations. They couldn’t afford college savings and were unfamiliar with college preparation. Naturally, Robert “didn’t know anything about college.” So when he was approached by a substitute teacher to participate in a program to get kids college bound, he was skeptical: “I had zero interest.”

Access to Education Leads to Healthy, Safe Communities
The California Wellness Foundation’s (TCWF) mission is to improve the health of people in California. In 2008, TCWF awarded a $225,000 grant to Reality Changers, a San Diego program to help build healthy communities by developing first-generation college students. Chris Yanov - Robert's subsitute teacher - was Reality Changers' founder and president.

“Reality Changers is in the business of changing lives,” said Julio Marcial, program director at TCWF. “The RC model has become a nationally recognized program utilizing its experience to help high-risk kids become the first in their families to attend college.”

Providing Meaningful Support
Robert eventually agreed to participate in the Reality Changers program. But school was still a struggle. He avoided expulsion as a sophomore thanks in part to a personal plea from Chris to school officials. Then Robert’s mother was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer at the same time she found out she was pregnant. His parents were considering divorce, and a fight between he and his father resulted in Robert moving into his grandparents’ garage.

During this difficult time, a Reality Changers staffer named Grace Chaidez became both a mentor and friend to Robert. The Reality Changers team encouraged his community service and attended a breast cancer walk in honor of his mother. They helped him with college applications and paid for him to live in the dorms and take a summer course at the University of California, San Diego. This support fueled Robert’s own drive and helped him ultimately complete his senior year with a 4.2 grade point average. Today, Robert is a sophomore at Cal State Los Angeles.

How TCWF Helped
“After the recession hit, I don’t know what we would have done without the grant from TCWF,” said Chris. The support helped them attract additional funding to operate in new areas and offer expanded services. Reality Changers has created nearly 200 first-generation college students since it began in 2001, and it promotes the concept of philanthropy by motivating students, families and tutors to volunteer.These accomplishments have prompted two visits in 2010 by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

What Does This Mean About Philanthropy?
Grants for core operating support from foundations can help promising nonprofit programs - like Reality Changers - enhance services to realize their full potential. And during times of reduced individual contributions and government funding, such grants may be what keep a nonprofit going. For foundations, the benefits are mutual: they learn from their investments in successful programs and can apply that knowledge toward projects addressing similar problems in other areas throughout California.

When You’ve Made Enough to Make a Difference

From Harvard Business Review
by William Foster and Susan Wolf Ditkoff
January 2011

Simply writing checks to organizations that do great work won’t create the ambitious changes many philanthropists are looking for. Even the richest individuals and largest foundations don’t have enough money to end poverty, reverse climate change, or cure cancer. Their staggering assets are tiny relative to the dollars involved in large, complex systems like education, the environment, and medical research…To achieve breakthrough changes, donors need a multiplier effect—an approach that delivers many dollars’ worth of impact for each dollar invested.

Click here to read more.

SDSVP’s College Volunteer Visits SVP Tokyo

For those who I haven't gotten a chance to introduce myself to yet, I am Lindsay Ujiie. I have been volunteering with SDSVP since last September and it has definitely been a great and inspiring experience. I am a senior at UC San Diego and study political science. I grew up in Japan until I turned 18 and came to the States for college.

I took a trip back to Japan this winter for job hunting and also had an opportunity to visit SVP Tokyo. Although I was not able to make it to their Network Meeting, I attended the dinner party held afterward and met a lot of their Partners and prospects. I was very surprised to see that the people there were mostly in their 20's and 30's and there weren't as many retired ones. Since the concept of "philanthropy" is still very new in Japan compared to the States, it seems that it’s attracting younger people. (The term "volunteer" was first introduced in Japan when San Francisco Earthquake happened in 1989. A group of 38 students came to help and it was the very first time Japanese people made a physical move instead of just writing a check in the interest of helping others.) Also, the gate to SVP seems to be more open to younger people there because their annual donation is lower. The biggest difference I saw is that SVP Tokyo has to put more effort in defining what philanthropy really is when recruiting new Partners, while SDSVP starts with why it is needed. However, according to their executive director, Junko Kishigami, they do share some common goals to pursue such as increasing the percentage of engaged Partners and broader recognition of SVP.

Although it was just a two hour dinner party, it was great to meet the people from an international SVP office and I was able to learn a lot more about how each office could be run differently. I hope this amazing SVP network will continue to grow both nationally and internationally, and someday become a Partner myself after I gain more business experiences and money to invest!

Why Can’t a Nonprofit Be More Like a Business?

Business people and funders often say they want nonprofits to act more like a business but then criticize them and withhold funding when they do. At First Friday on January 7, 2011, SDSVP Partners JoAnne Berg and Duane Tromblywere joined by Laurin Pause, Executive Director of Community Resource Center, to discuss this sometimes provocative subject. All three speakers serve on the SDSVP Board of Directors and have extensive experience in both the nonprofit and for-profit worlds.

by Mandy Sherlock

Nonprofit and for-profit businesses are different.

Anyone who has worked in the for-profit world understands that revenues are the measure of success. It’s all about the bottom line. In the nonprofit world, success is measured differently because there’s a disconnect between revenues and service delivery. The service recipient (“client”) is divorced from the revenue source. The funder or donor is not the person getting benefit from the service delivery - it’s the client. For-profits are very customer-centric, focusing on the needs of the customer. So who’s the customer in the nonprofit world? The “customers” are the funders. Nonprofits are serving their clients but at the same time, they must keep the funders happy. Because of this split, there are many unique challenges to running a nonprofit organization.

So how does a nonprofit determine if they are successful? Ultimately it comes down to outcomes. During a recent strategic planning session as an Investee of San Diego Social Venture Partners (SDSVP), Community Resource Center (CRC) asked themselves, “how are we successful based on the different categories of people we serve?” They determined that feeding a chronic homeless person in the breadline would be considered successful. But there are other levels of success too. After a three year process, CRC was able to put three homeless people, who had been on the streets for over 10 years, into safe housing which also provided a huge cost saving to the county. For a victim of domestic violence, CRC provides safe shelter which is the first step of success. The next steps include the woman staying away from the abusive situation, finding a job, getting a home and staying off welfare. This process of service delivery resulting in outcomes takes 2-3 years, where as in the for-profit company, a product can be developed and taken to market within a year. Instead of counting how many clients they serve as an indicator of success (outputs), CRC measures whether their clients move forward and become self-sufficient (outcomes). Success doesn’t have to do with money; it’s all about the client’s end result which is a major difference separating the nonprofit from the for-profit world.

Another difference: A nonprofit could have $750,000 in the bank and be broke. Why? A donor could write a big check, but restrict the funds. So just because there’s money in the bank doesn’t mean they can spend it. Typically donors don’t want to fund general operating support like lights and staff and printing. They want to give toward the program or directly to the people whom the nonprofit is serving. Often, funders have the unrealistic expectation that nonprofits can run their organization on 10 percent overhead. This is not possible because nonprofits are businesses too. Part of acting like a business is investing in infrastructure and staff and program capacity. For example, Community Resource Center needs real estate – buildings – in order to serve their clients and this involves marketing, sales and administration expenses. If a nonprofit organization doesn’t make these kinds of investments, they can’t implement their mission and ultimately they will fail. For this reason, SDSVP funds general operations and doesn’t restrict funds to its Investees.

In 2004, Community Resource Center’s technology system was failing them. Their computers crashed every week. Data was lost and they couldn’t access reports on time. A few years later when CRC became an Investee of SDSVP, their IT insufficiencies were diagnosed and they put together a plan of attack. In the first year, they spend $20,000 on upgrading CRC’s hardware, let go of their IT staff, substituted a service company and started a computer replacement plan…and ultimately saved $25,000! Now, employees are working efficiently, management information is available, and reports are on time. Because of SDSVP, Community Resource Center was able to invest in its internal infrastructure and come up with an innovative solution to produce an effective outcome.

Before joining San Diego Social Venture Partners, many members donated to charities. However, SDSVP transforms people from check writers to effective donors who build capacity and infrastructure in nonprofits. Money donated to nonprofits who work to prevent violence, feed the homeless, transition foster youth is wonderful but effective giving is about investing in organizations that can be a sustainable business and work to fix social problems for good.

San Diego Social Enterprise Venture Competition

With San Diego Social Venture Partners support, the Academies for Social Entrepreneurship and its Venture Competition was a great success. Fourteen nonprofit organizations participated in the program, developing a variety of earned income strategies which will expand their impact as well as their revenues. They received training through five workshops including a marketing session led by Partner John Burnett. Those who chose to “pitch” their venture to a panel of private and social investors, were matched with successful entrepreneurs including PartnersKaren Brailean, Patrick Duffy, and Duane Trombly for one-on-one mentoring.

Welcome New Partners

• Linda Barone and Larry Zilli
• Juliet and Ken Davenport
• Mark Fisher
• Jola and Alex Sonkin
• Kathliene and Jon Sundt
• Rhonda and Kevin Wixom

Thank you to Mark Fackler, Joyce Ross, Emmy Sobieski and Alan Sorkin for introducing our new Partners to SDSVP.

Learn more about becoming a Partner! Call Membership Director, Jacqueline Silverman at (858) 724-6067.

SDSVP Congratulates…

Happy 1-Year Anniversary!
(Partners who completed their first year in the quarter Oct-Dec 2010)

• Nahieli and Reed Caldwell
• David Cornsweet
• Kate Leonard and Richard Forsyth

We look forward to many more years to come!

Holistic Philanthropy: An Integration Model For Giving

By John Burnett

“Wealth is not new. Neither is charity. But the idea of using private wealth imaginatively, constructively, and systematically to attack the problems of mankind is new.” John Gardner

“Unless someone like you cares a whole lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” Dr. Seuss

It is generally agreed that the word Philanthropy was coined 2500 years ago in ancient Greece by the playwright Aeschylus. Etymologically, the term means “the love of what is to be human.” Aggregating modern interpretations of philanthropy produces the modern definition, “private initiatives for public good, focusing on quality of life.”

Although the names of philanthropists have changed, the confusion as to the appropriate purpose of philanthropy is still being debated. Some posit that philanthropy is about helping the poor. Others contend that philanthropy is about acts of altruism resolving social needs that are not served, or are underserved. A third approach is about community building via aggregating funds in order to make a significant impact. Finally, and I hope least prevalent, philanthropy is about self-aggrandizement and receiving recognition.

While all these approaches contain some truth, there is an overriding acceptance that philanthropy necessitates large donations and financial support sustained over time. There is also a noted distinction between philanthropy and charitable giving. The latter term refers to individuals who are willing to give of their money, time, and talent to charitable causes. There is typically no strategic plan behind their giving decisions. Further, their individual efforts alone are seldom recognized as instigating significant change.

For the most part, the word philanthropy applies mainly to wealthy persons, and sometimes a trust created by a wealthy person with a particular social cause in mind. Because of the amount of support provided, philanthropists often make a significant impact on the cause being supported, i.e., think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Because of their greater capacities, philanthropists can address both short-term and long-term needs. They can also respond to emergencies.

Although this perspective on philanthropy has remained constant, much of the context has changed. Several factors affecting philanthropy have emerged in the last decade.

Most notably, the importance and evolution of the Internet and supportive technologies have changed the face of charities in the U.S. and worldwide. Every nonprofit now has the capability/requirement to create a website that delivers their “story” and a mechanism for collecting donations. It means that the competition for these dollars is worldwide. It means that transparency and accuracy of information is vital and required by donors. It means that head-to-head comparisons can be made. In addition, social media that directly connects through the Internet creates a personal process for sharing facts and opinions. All these technological advances allow philanthropists to employ the same investment model they might use to determine a possible for-profit investment and/or purchase.

A second factor that has greatly impacted philanthropy has been the degeneration of the world economy starting in 2008. It is reported by economists that this is the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s that the affluent class has been impacted. As a result, donations by the wealthy has declined by up to 30% in some sectors, and 9% overall. Keep in mind that only 6% of donations are made by individuals or trusts, with incomes over $1 million. Still, fewer assets have produced philanthropists who are more careful, and insist on transparency and accountability. Once again, the traditional investment model is considered as the preferred framework for decision-making.

A third factor is the greater challenges faced by nonprofits in 2011. Virtually all nonprofits are facing tremendous financial stress. Keep in mind that although U.S, donations were approximately $335 billion in 2010, the costs of these nonprofits was over $ 1 trillion. As a result, employees have been fired, salaries reduced, and responsibilities have increased. There is also the double-headed coin of nonprofits. The causes have increased by 34% but the funding has decreased by 11%. In addition, the first Baby Boomers reached retirement age in January 2011, with almost 40% expecting to live on Social Security.

All these changes require adjustments if philanthropy is to remain a viable part of our society, or become an even more effective solver of societal problems. Here are some suggestions:

• Philanthropists need a multiplier effect – an approach that delivers many dollars’ worth of impact for each dollar invested i.e., an investment model.
• Philanthropists must understand the methods of change that breakthrough results require, e.g., scaling back, policy changes, and partnerships.
• Philanthropists must carefully determine how they can best support these efforts – through the roles they play, the resources they devote, and the relationships they develop -- and how these interface with their personal objectives.
• Philanthropists must avoid adding to the costs of the nonprofit through unreasonable requests, convoluted processing, and imposing their personal agenda.
• Philanthropists should focus on their investment model and avoid meddling in programs and organization management.
• Philanthropists can contribute to a better understanding of optimum capacity building, but must do their homework to do this effectively.
• The best contribution a philanthropist might make is influencing public will and government policies, along with supporting research and developing solutions.
• Philanthropists should adopt a 3.0 model of holistic giving, which means going beyond dealing with solving the specific cause, 1.0, through the consideration of the various stakeholders affected, 2.0, to a perspective that takes all societal elements into consideration, e.g., how the success of my nonprofit impacts the effectiveness of other nonprofits, 3.0.

If these suggestions are followed I believe that your philanthropic efforts will be more personally satisfying. It will also mean that the long-range impact of your resources will be more effective to both the nonprofits you support, and society- at- large.

I conclude with an observation. An organization I am currently affiliated with, San Diego Social Venture Partners, exhibits many of the guidelines I just listed. It reflects the new face of philanthropy.

Dr. John Burnett is President of John Burnett Marketing and author of “Nonprofit Marketing Best Practices.”

The Partner 4-1-1

Tony Broad is lending his financial expertise and passion for creating a safer environment and joined the Board of Investee,Tariq Khamisa Foundation (TKF) as its new Treasurer.

Lenore Hawkins recently received an invitation to become a member of the Mont Pelerin Society. In October, Lenore attended her first meeting in Sydney, Australia. Members include high-level government officials, Nobel Prize recipients, economic and financial experts, and legal scholars from all over the world who regularly come together to present the most current analysis of ideas, trends and events.

In April, Ray Ellis is slated to assume the President’s position of the San Diego Employees’ Retirement System’s (SDCERS) Board of Administration. Ray is one of 7 Mayoral Appointees serving with 6 other Trustees.