The New Normal:
Resetting, Rethinking, Restructuring for a New Age of Philanthropy
Women & Philanthropy Philanthropic Round Table April 8, 2010
Fourteenth Annual Philanthropic Round Table
The New Normal:
Resetting, Rethinking, Restructuring for a New Age of Philanthropy Convened by Miss Hall’s School and held at New York University’s Kimmel Center New York, New York April 8, 2010
© Copyright 2010 Miss Hall’s School. All rights reserved.
2010 Participants MODERATOR Jeannie Norris Head of School, Miss Hall’s School PANELISTS Sara K. Gould President and Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Foundation for Women, Brooklyn, New York Donna P. Hall President and Chief Executive Officer, Women Donors Network, San Francisco, California Joanna L. Krotz Director, Women’s Giving Institute, Author, The Guide to Intelligent Giving, New York, New York Katelyn L. Quynn, JD Deputy Chief Development Officer, Massachusetts General Hospital, Author, Planned Giving: A Guide to Fundraising and Philanthropy, Boston, Massachusetts Lisa Witter Chief Strategy Officer, Fenton Communications, Author, The She Spot, New York, New York
One may be tired of hearing that change is the only constant, but there is no denying it. As Jeannie notes in her introduction, the new philanthropic paradigm focuses not on the transfer of wealth but on large-scale societal issues, their root causes, and what is required in response. Panelists echoed that assertion, noting movement away from large, unresponsive organizations to small, entrepreneurial bodies, as a new generation emerges that wants to leap past treating symptoms and proceed directly to uprooting and re-thinking systems. Those involved in social issues are, increasingly, insistent on changing the game. In addition, as so many other aspects of life globalize, there is a corresponding adjustment in thinking around giving that allows us all to see not just the neighbor on our block, but also the neighbor across the planet. These large changes in mindset are putting both strains and positive pressures on nonprofits. There is the oft-noted pressure on us to demonstrate return on investment and, at the same time, the need to invest more time and energy in engaging with constituents, in order to allow for more voices to be heard and a broader coalition to be built. And technological change plays its own role, both making more possibility and creating daunting complexity. The steady influx of women’s philanthropic involvement on a large scale is one of the game-changers noted. As one panelist said, the subject of empowering women is “hot” right now as, increasingly, there is general acknowledgement that providing women with education, health care, and economic opportunity grows healthier families, stronger communities, richer economies, and greater political stability. Much, although not all, of this discovery has come about because women were interested in helping other women. And because of that sensibility, families and generations have become part of the discussion and the process, as well. The picture is not so much about saving the individual as it is now about empowering the individual who will strengthen the fabric of society. Just as Miss Hall’s School, with its Go Far, Go Together Campaign theme and its collaborative work with students, has recognized the power of collective action to motivate and engage the individual, the panel often made the same assertion. They talked about critical mass and called for women to come together, to be at the center of change, and to be our own media in a world where 24/7 mediabombardment is the new normal. That new normal for women? Greater visibility, greater outspokenness, greater willingness to risk failure, more initiative, and more collaboration. It is, they said, for each other’s sake that we cannot sit still. That sounds like just what the girls would tell you, if you joined us at Miss Hall’s.
Jeannie Norris Head of School
Janis Martinson Chief Advancement Officer 1
Jeannie Norris
MS. NORRIS: There seems to be a great deal of ferment in current thinking about philanthropy. And why not? There equally seems to be ferment in our thinking about most major social institutions. Perhaps it is because the future seems uncertain. Nobody knows for sure what the long-term effects of the financial crisis, high levels of national debt, and high unemployment will be. The economic “new normal” suggests lower growth for quite some time. And most polls show an electorate sharply divided about the role of government in the future of the country. Within this high level of angst, thoughtful writers are wondering whether the old models of philanthropy are broken and whether new approaches will appear anytime soon. Pablo Eisenberg wrote a few months ago in The Wall Street Journal that it is “hard to overstate the crisis facing charitable giving today.” Much of current philanthropy, he says, isn’t meeting the needs of charitable 1 organizations or urgent public needs. In an article called “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Philanthropy: It's Not about the Money,” Susan Raymond decries the asymmetry in philanthropy, i.e., the fact that it is about the transfer of money from 2
an individual with it to individuals without it. The problem with this relationship, she says, is that it is not “one of mutuality of responsibility and accountability but one of giver and receiver.” The result, she continues, is that “fundamental social problems continue apace, showing little progress for the dollars spent.” In the midst of this frustration, Raymond posits, the new paradigm is emerging, one that seeks solutions to “fix” the problem and does not simply transfer resources to “help.” Further, the loyalty in the new paradigm is to the problem, not between the giver and the receiver. Perhaps most importantly, the new paradigm seeks to “flow resources to problems in ways that create sustained institutional capability,” i.e. continuous, self-sustained resource flows. Finally, it values partnership, a mutuality of problem 2 definition and program execution. In a recent article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, titled “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good,” Michael Edwards argues that philanthropy is currently based on a strange assumption: “Let's develop a costly and divisive system for creating wealth and then hope that those who benefit most will give some back to solve problems
that they have helped to cause.” This is, he says, probably the least efficient way to tackle social problems. He asserts that the system must be rebuilt, according to these basic principles: involve as many people as possible; put those who experience society's problems at the center of the system; find ways to direct as many resources as possible to the most difficult and entrenched social problems, since that is where government and business usually fear to tread; and strengthen openness, accountability, and education to spur innovation without the need for too much government intervention. Social transformation, he says, can’t be left to market forces or to the whims of billionaires…it must be more supportive of people’s own self-development efforts to 3 bring the change society needs. Another tantalizing analysis, by Jed Emerson, supposes that “today's young Americans will reshape corporate culture as they become CEOs, focusing companies on financial gains and fighting poverty, improving the environment, and other causes.” He imagines a blended business and nonprofit approach to charity, with large companies integrating giving into 4 their operations. What we wonder is whether American philanthropy is indeed edging its way to a new social normal, a style that brings more people to the decision-making table and in some way is increasingly progressive in character. Are we in turmoil because turmoil is the order of the day, or is the gigantic system of American philanthropy truly
evolving to solve social problems that have so far shown themselves to be intractable? We have observed in other meetings of this roundtable that philanthropy is essential to social change in this culture. The kinds of initiatives that might be taken by government in other countries are, here, left to loosely associated individuals and groups. It seems that if our society is to evolve in terms of basic fairness and equity, it will be because individuals with money to give feel the need. The Dalai Lama says that compassion is the radicalism of the current age. So, will philanthropy become the vehicle for that compassion? And in what form? Are we in a new normal? MS. HALL: What is changing is that philanthropy has begun moving away from large foundations, which have become very bureaucratic and not very responsive, and toward individuals, small family foundations, and social entrepreneurs who say, “What can I try? Who can I work with in a more collaborative way? How can we learn from mistakes, talk about those mistakes, and then move forward?” It is a transition toward more entrepreneurial models, involving many more people. We have to figure out how to involve more than the traditional, inherited-wealth donors who run family foundations, broaden the base, and institutionalize that. We need to work together to be much more entrepreneurial and much more risk-taking. MS. KROTZ: There certainly is a new normal, but I don’t think it is just because of the economic meltdown. There is now 3
[W]e have to put people who are experiencing problems at the center of finding solutions. Sara K. Gould
a great deal of hands-on engagement by people and institutions that want to partner with nonprofits, which is incredibly exciting but also a little nerve-racking. Everyone has her own term for it, but social entrepreneurship is basically about hands-on tools, people, and for-profit companies doing good. It’s where Avon will support a charity and give 2 percent of what you spend to that charity. We have Google investing in things that push an agenda, which may be one that I agree with, but perhaps it isn’t. There are companies engaged in giving profits to good causes, and all kinds of for-profits trying to do good and at the same time trying to engage the customer to buy their products. This collaborative nature is not about being “the giver” and not about being “the receiver.” It’s people moving forward together to get the job done. There is just a certain discomfort I have with social entrepreneurship. I am watching it, thrilled with it, and love that it is happening, but I am a little leery, as well. MS. GOULD: Another part of social entrepreneurship is investing directly in real people by individuals who are motivated by wanting to solve a problem or change the world. They are using business models and business thinking. One of the 4
problems in the new normal is this possible over-reliance on business thinking as an answer to problems that we face. One of my favorite readings is by Jim Collins, who has a small monograph called Good to Great and the Social Sectors. On the cover, it says, “Why Business Thinking is not the Answer.” As someone who has been in a nonprofit foundation, the Ms. Foundation for Women, for twenty-four years, the last six years as president, I also believe that business thinking is not the answer. When Mike Edwards says we have to engage more real people in real communities, it means we have to put people who are experiencing problems at the center of finding solutions. This is a fundamental value in the Foundation for Women. I also am nervous about the social entrepreneurship concept and this thinking that we need to have more measurable results. Part of the new normal is this emphasis on metrics. Instead, we need to focus on the fact that as we try to find solutions, we will not always succeed. There will be failures. We learn from failures. MS. WITTER: I am most excited about the new normal in communications. The way we are using social media is changing us as
human beings. Those tools, in particular, are women’s tools, with the activities, the sharing, the documenting, the engagements, and I’m excited about the possibilities. Also, the new philanthropy is really different. People my age and younger do not use the word “charity.” MS. QUYNN: I come from the viewpoint of a healthcare fundraiser. I work at Massachusetts General Hospital, and in 1994 we combined with Brigham and Women’s Hospital to form Partners HealthCare, which is now the largest healthcare system in Massachusetts. Nationally, we are all seeing dramatic changes in healthcare. Our “new normal” includes all the aspects of your “new normal,” plus the healthcare crisis, government changes, and the fact that hospitals are not getting reimbursements from Medicare as we used to. It is causing enormous stress on people seeking primary care physicians and worrying about getting care and enormous stress on the entire hospital system. At Massachusetts General, we do so much in terms of healthcare for the underserved locally and globally. For example, we currently have about ten physicians working in Haiti. Because of broadening services, the donor base is expanding for all of us. Ours is no longer simply a grateful patient base, but the world is our donor base. We are seeing many more people getting involved, and we need them. We are talking with them about investing in us and the work that we do—research, for example—and how that will help the world, not just our community.
Last year, we got our largest gift, $100 million. It was built on a small connection with a patient, but it was somebody who wanted to invest in the research we do. It’s by talking about how our work will impact the world more broadly that new donors invest in us. That’s where my “new normal” comes from. MS. KROTZ: I want to add to the discussion what women are bringing to the party in philanthropy. That’s more of a game-changer. Women tend to be socially engaged. They tend to be handson. Everyone needs to be educated about getting engaged in philanthropy—men as well as women—and I would rather see that engagement than a $500 million fund. MS. NORRIS: That was my next question. In which ways might women and women’s organizations be especially well equipped to enter this new normal? MS. WITTER: Women, as a topic, are “hot” right now. What I worry about is keeping women “hot.” How do we keep front-and-center the idea of investing in women and the idea that there is a real return on those investments? How do we deal with systemic problems—not just educating women, but changing the system? How do we build on the passion around the international women’s piece? The challenge we have as American women is to bridge this excitement about supporting women and girls abroad and bring it back home. MS. GOULD: Another challenge is to get women to engage in the most pressing 5
Women need to be their own media—telling stories and getting the word out, educating. Lisa Witter
issues of our day as women while working with everyone to do this. My experience for many years has been working in progressive settings where people are addressing what’s considered to be a universal issue, and yet nothing is a universal issue. There is always a gender, a race, a class, all kinds of lenses. For example, too often what we miss in developing a solution is that those affected are women and not men, and so it’s a huge missing piece. For the Ms. Foundation for Women, being for women means to be everywhere, talking about every issue. MS. HALL: One of the things that I focus on is getting women involved in change— individual change, systemic change, and a combination of those. Women need to be at the center of the conversation, because they are living the problems. An example: A woman named Kiran Bedi, who was the first female police officer in India. She famously had the prime minister’s car towed from a no-parking zone. In 1994 she was named warden of India’s largest prison, which was run by a gang. She turned it inside out—to the point where she was educating the prisoners. She revolutionized that system. Another example is that of a law professor who was talking about how women are 6
marginalized because we are so few in numbers in the positions that we take. Until we have more numbers and have reached some sort of tipping point, we are very unempowered. A number of years ago, in a law school where she was teaching, this professor instituted a requirement that when a professor called on a woman, no matter what answer she gave—right or wrong—another one of the few women in the class was in line with a follow-up comment and support. As a result, there has been a huge change in how these women function in law school and afterward. I bring up these examples because as we think about what philanthropy is—or what it should be—there’s a connection between changing the system and supporting individuals. The question is, how do we set things up so we are working with individuals and focusing as a group on entrenched systems? MS. NORRIS: What other examples are there of partnerships between those who are providing resources and those who are living the problems? MS. GOULD: Women’s funds, of which there are about one hundred and thirty around the world, and the Ms. Foundation
are examples. What comes out of the relationship between funders and those experiencing problems is transformative. Women’s funds were among the first in philanthropy to bring this together. MS. QUYNN: I have a question for my co-panelists. Can you name a major gift that has been made by a woman—with money that she has earned—that has transformed a system, a charity? MS. HALL: I went to business school with Michelle Clayman, who is the founder of New Amsterdam Partners, a financial management firm. She created a company that is completely family-friendly. In fact, she is known to go through offices at 6:00 p.m. to turn off computers and tell people to go home. She has engaged her employees in philanthropic work, but, in addition to that, she has not been afraid to put her name on major gifts that she has made. She gave Stanford Business School, which has had a very low percentage of women in its classes until the last three or four years, a gift that hinged on providing scholarships for women and making sure that they were working to change policies and the percentage of women in classes. She also funded a research center on Stanford’s campus. The Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research is doing a lot of collaborative work with other departments and is focused on work-family issues. That’s an example. MS. WITTER: One of the “new normal” things that I want to chat a little bit about has to do with the iPad—and, by the way,
they probably did not have a woman in the focus group when they named it. It has changed the way we work and how we do our business. You can imagine how much of how we interact with donors is going to change. They can go online. They can see a video. It changes the raising of money. We need to be in communication with people. Our customer service has to be better than ever. We need to tell stories better than ever. Reading is not going to be what we will be doing anymore. People are going to watch things. They are going to want to interact. They are going to have what we are calling “filters,” where they’re going to want to learn only what they want to learn. It’s going to be hard to get to them in ways that we have in the past. Also, for women in particular, if we’re going to have more involvement in philanthropy, women need to be their own media— telling stories and getting the word out, educating. Right now, women blog more than men. They do more online. They are making online video content. If we don’t start making our own media, we are going to see a real problem as to what gets funded and what gets attention. If anyone does not already have a Flip camera—it’s $100, and well worth it—go buy one today. It’s an easy way to shoot and make your own video. This is the future of how we’re going to do our work. We have to be part of that change. MS. KROTZ: There is a generation shift. Young women use video all the time. It’s the wireless generation. They grew up on war and the economic meltdown. This is 7
The conversation and support of a philanthropic community bolsters self-confidence in the practice of giving. Donna P. Hall
a whole new category of young people, and we are seeing, in fundraising, ways that younger people are engaging with philanthropy. We’re seeing gender-specific kinds of behaviors bridged. Many women in their twenties are different than women in their forties and fifties. They use texting, not direct mail, which, by the way, is plummeting. I have been covering women donors and women in philanthropy [as a journalist] for about six years now and I am seeing this change. I have great hope for that, great hope. MS. NORRIS: We were talking about small changes that have huge effects—the story of having a woman ready to confirm a comment of a female law school student, for example. What comes to mind is women needing permission. For example, women very often need permission to run for office. They need to be told, “You have all the skills that everybody is looking for, so why don’t you just go do that?” We see that, of course, with girls, as well, and we teach our girls to encourage each other to take healthy risks. The question is, do women need permission to give? MS. GOULD: I think there was a time when everybody needed permission to 8
give. As a fundraiser, one of the things you learn is that the single largest reason why someone does not give is that no one asked them. In that sense, everybody needs permission to give. MS. WITTER: A lot of women like to give in communities. Women like to give in circles. MS. HALL: The conversation and support of a philanthropic community bolsters some of that self-confidence in the practice of giving. In my organization, initially most women who were giving came from inherited-wealth families. They came into the world not knowing very much about money. They just knew that they had it. They did not know how to manage it. They did not know how to write a check. They never worked. Their families were much more male-oriented. These women did a lot of work—which they did collectively— to get to a point where they realized that they could be powerful and that they could make a difference with money. That gave everybody permission to be more empowered, to feel okay, and to recognize that it is both a responsibility and a privilege to use money wisely and to be able to talk about it. But talking about money, that’s still
a struggle. In my organization, it’s much more difficult to talk about how much money we have than to talk when we hold a sex class. Women can talk about sex from now until tomorrow. They can talk about where they want to buy shoes, but they will not talk about money. We conduct an anonymous questionnaire every year at our conference. The questionnaire is just a postcard that asks how much are your total assets and how much did you give away, and the response rate—even in an anonymous questionnaire that is put into a box and nobody can see it—is very low. MS. NORRIS: What is that about? MS. KROTZ: Women don’t feel that they own their assets or that they’re in charge of the dollars. They feel that the money came from the man and they do not share the power of the checkbook. There is also this issue of being seen as a woman of wealth. For some women, it’s terrifying. It is a very powerful position, and society, by and large, does not do well with that, with how it treats women who are wealthy. They’re often stereotyped as bitchy, stupid, bimbos. Again, I come back to education, media, and marketing. The education has to be: Be in charge of yourself, be in charge of your money, be in charge of your assets, and then you can give with passion and distinction. MS. NORRIS: Connecting with others is important. At Miss Hall’s we have had donors who wanted to be anonymous and did not want a name on a building. We told them, “The girls need to see your name. They need to know that you are there, that
you are thinking about them, that they are a part of what you are a part of.” After that, there was no problem; the name is on the building. Connecting in this way makes it much more comfortable. In a similar vein, girls and women sometimes have difficulty promoting themselves. We teach girls to advocate for themselves, because they will need to do that when they step out of academia. We allow them to practice doing that by asking them to list their strengths and note how those strengths, for example, helped to win the game for the whole team. When a girl can talk about herself in relationship with other girls and what they all did together, she is eager to speak out. How do we create those relationship zones in philanthropy for women? MS. WITTER: The next book that I am working on talks about women who promote themselves better. Every year I go to a conference with a woman named Nancy Lublin, who created Dress for Success. One year, there was a panel, and I was the only woman. There were eight very successful men telling me how much humility they had, and they asked a question that stuck with me. They asked if the most important thing to teach your children is humility. I don’t think that it is, and I think that women might have too much of it. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about humility, what it means, and this hiding behind the good virtue of humility. I started a project with Marie Wilson, founder and President of The White House Project, and I asked, 9
The education has to be: Be in charge of yourself, be in charge of your money, be in charge of your assets, and then you can give with passion and distinction. Joanna L. Krotz
“Why don’t we have more women quoted in the media?” She said, “We don’t know any.” I said, “That’s absurd! We have to create a database of women whom we can call and quote when news breaks.” The challenge that we have had is that we will call a woman and say, “Jane, you’re an expert on this or that, can we talk?” and Jane will say one of three things: “Yes,” although that happens probably only a third of the time; “No, I need to pick up my kids;” or “I really don’t know enough about that issue.” This notion of somehow “not knowing your expertise” is a huge issue that we have to change. As philanthropists if we can’t say “I’m a philanthropist,” then how can we inspire other people to be philanthropists? I want to create a web site of women philanthropists and include their pictures. I want to be proud of being a philanthropist. MS. GOULD: Too often, women say, “I don’t know enough.” That perfectionism is an enormous barrier to get over. Having worked with Marie Wilson myself for eighteen years, I always heard Marie say, “Being mediocre was never a problem for men.” You just have to get over it and know that what we are bringing to the table is every bit as important as what anyone else is going to say. 10
MS. HALL: We have to figure out ways to get ourselves over these barriers. We have to do that together, we have to do it individually, and we have to do it through funding. I don’t think that we can wait for the large foundations to help us. I cannot emphasize that enough. That’s the fundamental difference between men and women. Women have tended to give very quietly, underconfidently. But [because of female longevity and social change], women are coming into the majority of the assets; by the year 2040 or 2044 the wealth that women will have will total about $44 trillion, and the opportunity to do something with that is ours. So, we have to help each other—except for maybe Miss Hall’s students—get over this issue. I’ve been at meetings where each woman was asked to talk for two minutes about her strengths and what she is good at. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen women just not be able to do it. We come up with all sorts of excuses. We get embarrassed. Isn’t it interesting how difficult this is for so many of us? MS. QUYNN: I want to go back to the generational issue. I believe that younger women are becoming more philanthropic, learning how to give, and have benefited from the educational process that has been
taking place around philanthropy. But it is the older generation of women, who have the money and who could really make a major impact, who are not giving. They don’t have that sense of permission or whatever it is, and yet they are the ones with the money. That’s the problem for all of us. MS. NORRIS: What can we do as women to help each other become bolder about how we use the power of money? MS. HALL: We also need mentoring and generational exchanges between women. We need job shadowing or philanthropy shadowing. By making things more intentional, I think that they will become more systemic. MS. QUYNN: Again, I come back to financial education. It’s not that you need a lot of money to be a philanthropist, but you need to be in charge of it. MS. WITTER: I get really excited for younger women. They go to college and law school in equal numbers with men. They have jobs. They make a lot of money. But where it all switches for women is when they have kids. In philanthropy, you need to find ways to engage women and families in real ways—and I’m not just talking about fundraising. I’m talking about nonprofits having sections of their websites with online gaming for kids or places where they engage children in doing part of the fundraising. It’s about engaging the family. As philanthropists, if we want to engage women, we need to think about how to engage the fullness of what that means.
Eighty percent of us will be mothers at some point, 80 percent. If we don’t understand women as mothers, we are missing this large opportunity. MS. NORRIS: What role will women be playing in some of these changes? MS. QUYNN: I expect that in the future we are going to see participation by more people, participation with their time, and maybe smaller gifts, but certainly their time. Gone are the days where donors say, “Take my money and do what you want with it. I trust your organization.” More and more donors are getting involved, not just with wanting to know how their money is being used, but also with knowing what the institution is doing more broadly. That’s a plus and a minus. You have the wellintentioned volunteer donor who wants to step in and change the system. How does that go? Sometimes it goes very well, and sometimes not so well. As institutions, we need to be thanking our donors, thanking them again and again and again. The new normal is thanking them over and over for the $25 gift, as well as for the $1 million gift. It is about increasing our stewardship. It is absolutely a time to invest in more development staff, not fewer. We are all going to be working harder and harder for fewer dollars. MS. WITTER: I think the field is going to change a lot. There is a new generation coming up, and we are going to see a shift from large foundations, some of which will become smaller or disappear. We are going 11
It’s not that you need a lot of money to be a philanthropist, but you need to be in charge of it. Katelyn L. Quynn, JD
to rely more on the internet and on doing philanthropic work in a more womenfriendly way. That’s going to become more dominant, because women are going to get organized and are really going to step up to the mantle of their responsibility. There’s going to be a big shift. MS. GOULD: The private foundations are going to be here, but they are transforming. They feel these differences that we are talking about, these trends. Even when a private foundation does not transform, it is still saying, “We’re going to be more focused.” MS. KROTZ: Women have to be engaged. Women need to talk to their brokers. Women need to talk to program directors about the way they prefer to be approached. “This is how I want to be recognized. This is the communication that I want.” MS. WITTER: I agree. One of the things I did when writing this book was look at the private sector, for example, how the oil change company Jiffy Lube was being sold to women. Jiffy Lube used to be a company where women would go in and be expected to just sit there and wait for the car. Then, the company realized that maybe women have more to do than just get their oil changed. They realized that 12
what women needed was an area for kids to play, magazines to read, a place where they could make phone calls, so Jiffy Lube changed the environment. I feel like a lot of what we have done—as women who have been breaking barriers—is to go in and live in a man’s world instead of figuring out how to live in a woman’s world. Although the corporate sector is beginning to understand how to market to women, the philanthropic arena does not understand that as well. When I ask, “Do you market to women?” they look at me like I am sexist. Somehow, when you say that men and women are different, it triggers this idea that men and women aren’t equal. That’s not what it means to me at all. It is understanding the differences between men and women. MS. NORRIS: Questions from the audience. AUDIENCE MEMBER: There are two things that I observed today that I don’t think are being acted upon. First, there are a lot of organizations doing the same things. Second, and even more importantly, you are ignoring the culture change. There’s the AfricanAmerican community, and there’s the Asian community, and we are not all at the same income. Unfortunately, white America sees
only this one income. I work for a national organization that has raised over $200 million. I’m sure none of you has approached us to collaborate, nor do we feel that we should call you to collaborate. There’s money sitting out there, and nobody is going after it because of the culture in America. We are still very segregated. I think there should be a panelist on your panel from that community. I’m not saying this as a criticism, but you’re talking about a new normal, so you have to have a new thinking. MS. HALL: I agree with everything you have said. My organization is working with the Twenty-First Century Foundation, which is a New York foundation. We are having a conversation next week to discuss that exact issue—what can we do to collaborate, because we do operate in very different worlds, but yet we’re doing the same work. We will discuss some of the things that we can do together to begin to break down those barriers, recognizing that institutionally we are very different, and we need to bring in new structures to do that.
MS. GOULD: None of us lives our life in just one identity. It’s the connections. We are talking about women’s causes and yet we are not bringing race, class, sexual orientation, and age into the conversation and looking at it all together. We are totally missing the change that’s happening in the world, which is what you’re talking about. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We talk a lot about women and how we educate women or bring them into the dialogue, but what about men? We are talking about changing the paradigm here, the structure of our society. How do we connect that back to the men? MS. GOULD: We need to engage mothers and daughters, and we need to connect that to the workplace, and men are in the workplace. Change is only going to happen by men and women working together. It’s not 1972. It’s not even 1995 anymore. Your point is extremely well taken. MS. NORRIS: Please join me in thanking the panel. (Applause)
1
Eisenberg, Pablo, “What’s Wrong with Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It,” The Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2009. 2
Raymond, Susan. “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Philanthropy: It’s Not About the Money.” on Philanthropy.com. September 5, 2008. accessed: October 20, 2008. http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/ News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7591 3
Edwards, Michael, “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 14, 2010, 31. 4
Wilhelm, Ian. “Charity and Business Will Blend in New Ways by 2020,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy. January 7, 2010. accessed: April 11, 2010. http://philanthropy.com/article/CharityBusiness- Will-B/63582/ 13
Women and Philanthropy Round Table Panelists, 1997–2009 Jeannie Norris ’97–’09
Mary Maples Dunn ’99
Sheila Holderness ’97
Round Table Facilitator Head of School, Miss Hall’s School
Director, Schlesinger Library Radcliffe College
President The New York Women’s Foundation
Karen Ansara ’07
Jean M. Entine ’98
co-Founder Ansara Family Foundation
Executive Director Boston Women’s Fund
Patricia H. Arnold ’06
M. Burch Tracy Ford ’99
Board Member, The Posse Foundation; Trustee, Wheaton College; Philanthropist
Head of School Miss Porter’s School
David Blinder ’00
Linda Franciscovich ’07
Vice President for Resources and Public Affairs, Wellesley College
Managing Director and National Head, Private Philanthropy Group at U.S. Trust
Betsy Brill ’08
Keller Cushing Freeman ’98
Founder and President, Strategic Philanthropy, Ltd.
Writer; co-Founder, the Emrys Foundation; Former Trustee, Radcliffe College
H.P. Colhoun ’05
Karin George ’03
Philanthropist, Businessman, and 32-year veteran of Wall Street Week
Vice President for Advancement Smith College
Charles Collier ’01
Tracy Gary ’98, ’99
Senior Philanthropic Adviser Harvard University
Principal, Community Consulting Services; Author, Inspired Philanthropy: Creating a Giving Plan
Joan C. Countryman ’02 Head of School, Lincoln School
Julie Fisher Cummings ’09 Managing Trustee, Max M. & Marjorie S. Fisher Family Foundation; Presidential Appointee to the Board, Corporation for National and Community Service; President and co-Founder, Lovelight Foundation
Sarah Daignault ’99 President, Board of Trustees The Madeira School
M. Christine DeVita ’06
Claire Gaudiani ’07 Professor, New York University Author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism
Pamela Gerloff, Ed.D. ’04 Editor, More than Money Journal
Joan F. Gillman ’98 Director of Special Industry Programs, University of WisconsinMadison School of Business
Cynthia Smith Gordineer ’08
President, The Wallace Foundation
CEO, American Red Cross (Southern Tier Chapter)
Anita Diamant ’04
Elisabeth Griffith ’99
Author The Red Tent, Good Harbor, Pitching My Tent, The New Jewish Wedding
Headmistress The Madeira School
Nina McNeely Diefenbach ’05 Vice President for Development and Marketing, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Barbara Dobkin ’02 Founder and Chair, Ma’yan: Jewish Women’s Project; Chair Jewish Women’s Archive; Board Member, The White Huse Project
Elizabeth S. Gross ’97, ’98 Management Consultant The Wayland Group
Agnes Gund ’06 MoMA President Emerita; New York Arts Philanthropist
Alexandra Herzan ’02 Founder and Chair Lily Auchincloss Foundation
Caroline Hovey ’97 Vice President of Marketing, Jennison Associates Capital Corp.
Helen LaKelly Hunt ’01 President, Board of Directors The Sister Fund
Blair Jenkins ’00 Head of School, Dana Hall School
Sheila C. Johnson ’04 co-Founder, Black Entertainment Television CEO, Salamander Development
H. Peter Karoff ’06 Founder and Chairman, The Philanthropic Initiative
Beth Klarman ’99 Philanthropist Facing History and Ourselves
Linda Kutsch ’00 Managing Director The Trefler Foundation
Jennifer Ladd ’01 Executive Director, Class Action
Renee M. Landers ’00 Counsel, Ropes & Gray
Barbara Fish Lee ’99 Philanthropist
Kathy LeMay ’09 President and CEO, Raising Change
Naomi Levine ’06 Founding Chair and Executive Director, George H. Heyman, Jr., Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising
Lee Link ’97 Former President of the Board, The Citizens Committee for Children, New York City; Trustee, Miss Hall’s School
Laura Liswood ’99 Secretary General, Council of Women World Leaders, Kennedy School at Harvard
Jacqueline B. Mars ’07 Board Member, Mars Corporation and Mars Foundation
Janis Martinson ’98, ’00
Susan Ostrander ’97
Abbie J. von Schlegell, CFRE ’04
Chief Advancement Officer Miss Hall’s School
Chair, Department of Sociology, Tufts University; Author, Money for Change: Social Movement Philanthropy at Haymarket People’s Fund and Women of the Upper Class
Managing Director Brakeley Briscoe, Inc.
Beth Pfeiffer McNay ’97 Member, National Leadership Gifts Committee, Wellesley College
Leah McIntosh ’00 Dean for Development, Planning, Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Harvard University
Molly Mead ’03 Director, University College of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University
Ruth Messinger ’09 President, American Jewish World Service; Former Borough President, Borough of Manhattan
Betsy Michel ’08
Marian Phelps Pawlich ’03 Chicago Philanthropist
Sally S. Peabody ’98 President, Associated Grantmakers of Massachusetts
Edith B. Phelps ’98 Author; Educational Consultant; Former Headmistress, Dana Hall School
Marnie Pillsbury ’05 Executive Director of the David Rockefeller Fund and Philanthropic Associate to David Rockefeller
Karen H. Putnam ’02
Jill Sheffield ’09 Founder and President Emeritus, Family Care International; Founder, Women Deliver
Mignon C. Smith ’06 Philanthropist
Patsy Manley Smith ’03 Chair, MHS Centennial Campaign
Sheree Stomberg ’08 Head of Operations & Technology, Citi Global Wealth Management Board Member with The Hunger Project
Virginia K. Stowe ’07 Founder and Director, Parenting Development Resource, Inc. Board Member, Audubon New York and National Audubon Society
Attorney and Former Board Chair, St. George’s School, Trustee of the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation
Principal, Director of Philanthropic Services Bessemer Trust
Lynn Miles ’99
Katelyn Quynn, JD ’01
Director of Leadership Gifts Wellesley College
Director of Planned and Major Gifts Massachusetts General Hospital
Executive Director, Facing History & Ourselves National Foundation, Inc.
Suzanne Mink ’05
Paula Rayman ’00
Nicki Newman Tanner ’05
Vice President for Development World Wildlife Fund
Director Radcliffe Public Policy Center
Board Chair, WNYC Radio, Jewish Women’s Archive; Trustee Emerita, Wellesley College; co-Chair, Wellesley College Campaign; Philanthropist
Helen Monroe ’02
Ellen Remmer ’02
President Endowment Development Institute
Director of Family Practice, The Philanthropic Initiative; Treasurer, The Remmer Family Foundation
Joy Moore ’00 Director of Development Dana Hall School
Kristi Nelson ’01 Executive Director, The Women’s Fund of Western Massachusetts
Iris Nowell ’05 Author, Women Who Gave Away Millions and Generation Deluxe
Ana Oliveira ’06 President and Chief Executive Officer, New York Women’s Foundation
Siobhan A. O’Riordan ’03 Director, Giving New England
Margot Stern Strom ’99
Pamela Trefler ’00 President, Trefler Foundation
Edgenie H. Rice ’06
Diane Troderman ’01
Chairman, CIVITAS Citizens, Inc.; Director, Seventh Regiment Armory Conservancy; Philanthropist
Board Member, The Women’s Fund of Western Massachusetts
Susan Ritz ’08
Founder and Trustee Women’s World Banking
Director and Grants Chair, The Larsen Fund Council Chair, The Vermont Women’s Fund
Robin Robertson ’03 Head of School, Milton Academy
Susan Rodgerson ’04 Executive Director Artists for Humanity
Ann Sanders ’97 Executive Director New England Women’s Fund (NEWFUND), Boston
Michaela Walsh ’09
Linda Whitlock ’04 President and CEO Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston
Robin Brown Woods ’99 Philanthropist; Trustee, Miss Hall’s School
Yasmina Zaidman ’08 Director of Knowledge and Communications, Acumen Fund
Miss Hall’s School holds annual Round Tables on women and philanthropy because we want to raise the level of discourse. We believe that from these conversations will grow more purposeful work, truer impulses for giving and asking, and, eventually, a strong legacy for philanthropic efforts. If you would like to join the audience as part of the fifteenth Miss Hall’s School Philanthropic Round Table, to be held in New York City on April 7, 2011, please call the MHS Development Office, (413) 395-7062. Space is limited.
Miss Hall’s School 492 Holmes Road Pittsfield, MA 01201 www.misshalls.org e-mail: alumnae@misshalls.org