I apologise. The blog was obnoxious. For 10 years I watched people smarter than me saying the same thing calmly and eloquently and not getting heard, so I pushed it.
I apologise that people trying to do the right thing felt attacked as that’s not a good thing to do and I apologise that it did not give more space to recognise all the amazing practice out there, including from those foundations that I have been lucky enough to partner with personally on projects. As someone equally committed to doing good in the world as those partners, I don’t think I should be grateful, but as partners, I should have been more respectful.
The intention was to get more people thinking about how to do things the right way. It was done obnoxiously. I apologise.
I’ve had a lot of nice responses, a lot of respectful disagreement and some hideous bile that made me cry. Can we call it evens?
Two things fed back on (used to say ‘got the heaviest endorsement’ but have updated on 24.4 as no longer do based on new numbers/I might have misread numbers in first place – ps. can someone ask me for the survey results so I can give to someone more statistical to analyse) from the snap survey connected to the piece were:
- The idea that foundations should feel free to be more forthright in setting out to achieve things and in having their own agendas; and
- That service users and frontline workers are too disconnected from the funding process/world and don’t have enough space to get their ideas onto the foundation-charity table.
Neither of these involve charities asking for more money and neither actually involve charities having a greater say in how foundations are run.
I know there are already people who have done and are doing thinking about these topics but it looks like there’s real appetite to do more.
If anyone wants to convene some smart people on this, I a) promise not to come and b) will happily pay for the sandwiches.
The Brookfield Group 
Now now, this wasn’t obnoxious, I read it more as lots of pent up frustration and incredible knowledge from over a decade working in the sector. Things need to be said, so say em, even if you need to speak loudly, you have to bring attention to this somehow.
Some insight into the foundations that do things right would be a brilliant follow up. Sharing success stories, examples and even ‘how to’ guides from foundations themselves would also be amazing.
Keep it up, keep shouting (or at least talking loudly) and listen to the feedback. Things can (and will be) improved if we make it happen
Dear Jake–Absolutely no need to apologize. I was happy to see someone willing to be so forthright, and I must say I probably have had an overabundance of patience…having learned what you now understand over a 26 year period (founder and CEO of Nonprofit Finance Fund), writing some about it along the way (with little effect), recently I went over to the other side. I am now President of the F.B. Heron Foundation. We’re changing the business model of the private foundation and thus the incentives and orientation of staff and board toward mission. My observation is that the culture and business model of the conventional foundation is so strong that even with the best will in the world (which most foundation folk possess in abundance) it’s only the most skilled and contrary program officers and leaders who can conquer it and succeed, even in a small way. I am writing something on the journey to an alternative approach now. Thanks for your terrific blog. Clara Miller
Jake in no way should you feel anything other than Proud – it is as Clara notes a terrific Blog – there needs to be public debate – in fact to those spitting bile you note- lets have an HONEST OPEN debate – lets debate it publicly? Ignoring the Economic inefficiency – How do you MORALLY justify a system with $1 trillion of global assets – yet have those assets unaligned with social mission ? – a system where you “give the crumbs to the serfs” to quote a former US Philanthropic regulator, a system that is “bipolar and pre capitalist” based on the financial tools of 1903 ? – to quote the late brilliant Stephen Lloyd. The system neither has the capital, the leverage or as you note the culture, There is a very clear case to be made that only about 1-2% annually of that $1 trillion of core Foundation funds makes it to the social causes on the front line – this fails both the highly dedicated folk in this space, the beneficiaries and with issues like climate potentially all of us.
To end on a constructive note – Perhaps as a Goal we should seek to have 20 % of Foundation assets in Social Investments by 2020 [20 20 20] – though the sector should be heading towards 100% to which Pioneers like Clara (The Heron Foundation) or the Kleissners (Felicitas – the 100% club) are heading – and before some one accuses me of being a self serving Impact Investment player – make sure the Social mission is hardwired – unlike the G8 Impact Report which fudged the issue