Photo: PaoloMazzo
This week’s release of the NCRP report Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best is creating quite a stir. Just read Paul Brest’s Huffington Post commentary and Trista Harris’ response. (Harris is executive director of Headwaters Foundation for Justice, an MCF member.)
Personally, I think the controversy is a good thing. But I’m a firm believer that healthy conflict can lead to creative, higher level solutions. No matter whether you agree with NCRP’s recommendations, this new work is forcing us all to examine core questions about the impact and effectiveness of philanthropy in our society.
Years ago I worked at a communications agency that used a simple “So what?” exercise to guide clients from talking about features to promoting the highest level benefits of their products or services. I’ve sometimes used the same device to develop more compelling messages for nonprofits: “We train 500 adult literacy volunteers each year.” “So what?” “The volunteers taught 2,000 refugees who learned English.” “So what?” “The refugees can now fill out job applications, decipher a bus schedule, follow medical instructions, read to their kids…” You get the idea.
If we all want to reach the ultimate ”So what?” of philanthropy — to enhance the public good — isn’t it useful to debate how to most effectively achieve that goal? And if we all start to more rigorously ask ourselves and each other the hard questions about impact and accountability, doesn’t this hullabaloo serve a useful purpose?
Join the conversation: What tangible steps is your foundation taking to maximize your impact? When you examine your work, can you answer the “So what?” question with confidence?
- Wendy Wehr, MCF Vice President of Communications and Information Services
