Venture Philanthropy is the application of venture capital principles and practice in the field of philanthropy. It is an approach to philanthropy that emphasizes capacity building of organizations and the belief that grants to nonprofit groups really represent a form of investment in an entity. In the same way that one would not make a significant investment and then walk away, Venture Philanthropists look for ways to be appropriately engaged in supporting the work of the nonprofit beyond simply providing funding. Social Venture Partners provide expertise to their nonprofit investees (grantees.) See the SVP Model of supporting nonprofits here.
Is there a body of literature on Venture Philanthropy?
There are not many pieces one may refer to in order to understand the basics of this approach. A good place to start is the article "Virtuous Capital," published in the January/February 1997 issue of the Harvard Business. Another good resource is the paper was developed by the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (REDF), "The Challenge of Change." See SVP in a Box to understand the details of the SVP Model of Venture Philanthropy. See Case Studies on SVP here.
Venture Philanthropy so controversial?
Venture Philanthropy is relatively new to the field; SVP has been practicing VP since 1997. Venture Philanthropy as a model is often presented as a critique and alternative to traditional or Classical Philanthropy. In public discussions and articles, it is often easier to make cursory critiques of each approach rather then spending the time to really dig down and understand the relative value of each. In addition, the advocates of VP have sometimes had to justify the very practice of VP in the face of opposition from those who feel any direct involvement of donors in relation to their grants is inappropriate and that nonprofits should be free to pursue their vision without what is perceived of as "interference" by funders. Furthermore, many practitioners of VP ask their investees to engage in significant documentation of the results of their work, often called social return on investment or other approaches. Some critics of VP feel that the central work of the nonprofit sector is beyond measurement and it is wrong to attempt to enable nonprofit organizations to measure and quantify the value of their work.
In point of fact, all funds moving through the nonprofit sector represent types of capital that are being applied in the creation of social value. This capital represents a Nonprofit Capital Market and as in any capital market, there is a place for many and all types of investors. In the for-profit market, some players are venture capitalists, while others are investment bankers. In the same way, the nonprofit sector needs both venture philanthropists and classical funders in order to provide nonprofits with the array and type of capital necessary for true success. At the end of the day, we need more resources and types of support if we are to have any chance of substantially addressing the significant challenges before us all. Social Venture Partners provide financial resources as well as professional expertise in a variety of areas.
"engaged grantmaking" is different from Venture Philanthropy.
Many of those involved in what has been called Venture Philanthropy are realizing that in many ways "all" they are doing is becoming more connected - more engaged - to the work of the nonprofit sector. For some funders this means being involved in monthly meetings with investees, but for others it may manifest in other forms. In some ways, Venture Philanthropy is simply a subset or smaller component of the larger movement of philanthropy toward engaged grantmaking. As we move forward over coming years, it will be interesting to see how philanthropy continues to evolve in response to the many demands of the nonprofit sector as a whole.
Additinal reading:
A war of words and egos broke out in the philanthropy world a few years back, one that paralleled a similar clash in the business world. On one side were the new "venture" philanthropists, who, flush with cash and confidence after revolutionizing the technology industry, were hellbent on triggering a similar revolution in philanthropy. Whatever traditional philanthropists were doing, the venture philanthropists concluded, wasn't working—society was still brimming with problems. Clearly, if you really wanted to save the world, you had to do more than write checks: You had to act. You had to find great people, help them build great social-service organizations, and then hold them accountable for their results. In other words, you had to attack social problems the way venture capitalists and entrepreneurs attacked business problems—with hands-on, we're-in-this-together, failure-isn't-an-option partnerships between investors and investees.
On the other side of the argument were the traditional philanthropists—the Establishment. For a century or so, they had given time and money to innumerable causes, and, in so doing, had made the world a better place. True, they hadn't fixed everything, but unlike some private-sector windbags, they had at least tried. Traditional philanthropists knew that they were often better at providing capital than doing actual social-service work and, therefore, that it was often best to give high-quality nonprofits the money and the room to do their thing. Traditional philanthropists also knew that you couldn't "measure results" at nonprofits the way you could at software companies—"reducing illiteracy," for example, was a harder objective to track than "selling licenses" or "generating free cash flow." Traditional philanthropists knew that much of what the venture philanthropists were espousing wasn't new and that some of what was new was also harebrained. The more support and adulation venture philanthropy garnered, the more traditional philanthropists took offense.
And no wonder: Reading some early treatises on venture philanthropy, circa 1999, brings back unfortunate memories of the dot-com era: There's lots of self-importance, hot air, and conviction that an enlightened few had discovered a revolutionary secret that had forever eluded the benighted masses. Some early venture philanthropists who waxed passionately about "investing like venture capitalists" had never been venture capitalists, nevermind philanthropists. And some weren't advocating a new style of philanthropy—they were just describing philanthropy that works. Thankfully, when the market crashed, much of the revolutionary rhetoric disappeared.
powered by Yahoo Answers
I would like to hear opinions about it….
PLEASE ANSWER AND THANK YOU!!!!
I don't think it is a yes or no question. See "prisoner's dilemma" for a theory on why altruism can be a viable evolutionary strategy.
We are not yet wise enough to know exactly who will and who will not be a valuable addition to our gene pool. Allowing impoverished people to starve and preventing them from reproducing may deprive the next generation from a Steven Hawking.
powered by Yahoo Answers
During the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation hosted the 2nd Davos Philanthropic Roundtable. The event gathered founders and leaders of the foremost philanthropic institutions of the world.
Duration : 0:9:24
Philanthropy means the love of the mankind. In modern society at this stage, the concept of philanthropy spirit among people is the most significant entity to bring harmonious environment in the society and it is the crucial moment of recovering spirit of togetherness and spirit of peace back to back.
powered by Yahoo Answers
Every year my Music Fraternity puts on a Philanthropy called "24 hours of music" The basic premise is that there is a stage with sound equipment on the quad of our university and we have twenty-four 1 hour musical acts and raise money for the local area schools' music programs.
We have had slogans such as "rock for a reason" and "Rock out with your clock out" before, but we would like to 1. have new slogan
2. Not have it have vulgar connotation.
Any ideas?
You get more with 24, 24 brings you more, 24 hours of power, 24/7 music heaven, empower the hour,
Oh, I have a question for you: how do you raise the money? Do you charge admission or just take donations or ???? The best slogan would be one which is catchy and sounds familiar. It may even be unrelated to the theme or purpose - at first; examples would be "Apple Computer" and "Apple Records" which resulted in the "Apple Corp", and so on. But, if you do it right, you will have something which will "stick" in the memory and will remind people about the concerts and their purpose, etc. So, I need to know the details, the purpose, how the money is raised, etc., in order to really do this justice! Since I assume it is for a charitable cause, I will put in some time working on it if you can supply me with details.
Thanks
powered by Yahoo Answers
I have a project for school please help me
"Social Darwinism is a theory that competition between all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. The term is an extension of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest."
"Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, time, or effort to support a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time and in regard to a defined objective"
powered by Yahoo Answers
Edison Chen held a press conference to speak about the Hong Kong sex pictures scandal.
Duration : 0:9:32
That's really not something that there are careers in. You could work for a charity or as a volunteer or in a service industry but unless you are very rich and can give away money you're just working in the service sector.
powered by Yahoo Answers
I want to get into an organization and eventually run my own, I need to know if I have this understood. If I join an organization then I can raise money on my own by doing fundraisers then contributing the money I receive to the organization, right? Or will I have to work directly with the organization any time I have an idea of how to raise money?
If the way in which you raise money has nothing to do with the organization, even if you plan to donate it, you can do what your want. However; if you plan to use an organization's name, logo, or anything else that would be intellectual property, you would have to get permission from the group's board members.
When representing an organization, you have to run it by them and get their permission. I know this can be very frustrating, because many well intended ideas have been shot down by organizations. They have to make sure their group is re presently correctly, not held liable for anything, and not associated with a group that conflicts with their interest. Organizations also have to be careful with fund raising because of their need to stay qualified for tax exemption status.
The main thing when doing this is to learn about the group and its bylaws.
I do not wish to discourage you, just tell you what you need to do in order to make your ideas work.
powered by Yahoo Answers
Poverty is relevant and relative. It’s about perception… within reason, anyhow. Disparity causes poverty to ‘dawn on’ us.
Our tunnel vision forces us to see charity on an individual basis. By broadening that scope, we *might* find that our help does more damage than good on a society at large.
Not everyone defines hardship the way we define it. Not everyone wants to be like the West.
If I’d never tasted chocolate & you hand a piece to me, I will take it, like it and be happy… but it’s not good for me.
proteanview
Duration : 0:6:0
