With all the terrific donation aggregation sites out there like Global Giving and DonorsChoose, or the micro lending leader, Kiva, (all of whom I donate or lend to regularly) it's hard to think of an innovation to this model that would make you stop and say...."That's awesome!"
Unless, of course, it's the Awesome Foundation.
The basic idea is that 10 people (the trustees) get together to donate $100 per month and make monthly $1,000 grants for an awesome idea. 100% volunteer run, the idea is spreading fast. Started in Boston, the foundation currently has 27 chapters in the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany and Switzerland.
You can fill out an application to start a local chapter online. If you're a charity or individual, you can apply for a grant as well.
How cool is all of this? More than cool: Awesome.
Showing posts with label volunteering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label volunteering. Show all posts
Monday, December 19, 2011
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Many hands, light work
Most of us donate some of our time, talent and/or treasure to nonprofits.
In the treasure department, I'm all about aggregators for charity donations. Whether loans through Kiva, or direct donations through groups like DonorsChoose, or GlobalGiving, a group of us can help an individual or small group by each pitching in a few dollars. There are dozens of other sites like these, some that get a worthy social enterprise going, or a highly creative idea, like KickStarter.
So, we have a way to micro target our donations of money, but what about our time and talent? I can volunteer on a ton of websites, but that usually means the standard volunteer positions that take up a lot of time and require a longer commitment. What if I just have a little bit of time, or am interested in solving a vexing problem for a nonprofit?
Enter Sparked, a cool and growing solution for just this problem. Not only can your nonprofit post needs, or individuals (or small groups) provide help, but Sparked also encourages and facilitates small business and large corporations to facilitate volunteering through the site.
Very cool...check it out.
In the treasure department, I'm all about aggregators for charity donations. Whether loans through Kiva, or direct donations through groups like DonorsChoose, or GlobalGiving, a group of us can help an individual or small group by each pitching in a few dollars. There are dozens of other sites like these, some that get a worthy social enterprise going, or a highly creative idea, like KickStarter.
So, we have a way to micro target our donations of money, but what about our time and talent? I can volunteer on a ton of websites, but that usually means the standard volunteer positions that take up a lot of time and require a longer commitment. What if I just have a little bit of time, or am interested in solving a vexing problem for a nonprofit?
Enter Sparked, a cool and growing solution for just this problem. Not only can your nonprofit post needs, or individuals (or small groups) provide help, but Sparked also encourages and facilitates small business and large corporations to facilitate volunteering through the site.
Very cool...check it out.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
For Your Online Viewing....
Two places you can find me online today:
First, the July issue of the Mission-Based Management Newsletter is up. This issue's topic is "Evaluating Volunteers". You can also scroll down and see past single-topic issues. Subscription is free, if you like what you see.
This summer, I'm also doing a bit of blogging for Serenic Software on nonprofit issues. You can see my first couple of posts here.
If you're in the Eastern US, stay cool!
First, the July issue of the Mission-Based Management Newsletter is up. This issue's topic is "Evaluating Volunteers". You can also scroll down and see past single-topic issues. Subscription is free, if you like what you see.
This summer, I'm also doing a bit of blogging for Serenic Software on nonprofit issues. You can see my first couple of posts here.
If you're in the Eastern US, stay cool!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Venting a bit....
A story in today's New York Times got me going this morning. It reports that Goldman Sachs, the investment bank, is considering increasing the requirements for charitable contributions from it's top paid employees--you know, the ones who helped screw up the economy and are now getting million and multi-million dollar bonuses a year later.
The article noted that Goldman has long had a requirement that top earners give 4% of their income to charity--and then check their tax returns to assure that there is compliance. Thus, there is no real charity at Goldman, just an enforced policy, like a dress code or the expectation of cheery attendance at a hated boss's birthday celebration.
The key part of the article was whether this policy--of wringing donations out of otherwise unwilling employees from their obscene bonuses--would reduce public anger over the bonuses themselves.
Yet again, these people are clueless about how real people think and act. I must have heard two dozen interviews over the last year from Wall Street types who absolutely do not understand why the country is mad at them for taking crazy risks (on all our behalf) to make money (for themselves). While there were many, many people who contributed to the economic mess, the Wall Street bankers stand out above the rest for their endless and self-serving rationales of why they were not the ones that brought the nation (and much of the world) to its economic knees, then needed tax dollars to bail them out, and now can go back to business as usual (with no oversight, PLEASE--we know what we're doing).
All of which is a rant to get to this question. Is forced charity really charity? Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that some nonprofits will get what, on my quick accounting, is a ton of money (Goldman has set aside $16.7 billion for compensation this year--calculate 5% of that and you see what I mean), but still, is it charity? Goldman has reported that the firm also put aside $200 million for it's Foundation. I wonder how much of that $ will be given to charity, and how much will be kept in the foundation, invested by Goldman--and who at Goldman will earn investment fees. Pardon my cynicism.
There's a related issue here that has been bugging me for a long time--the courts sentencing people to community service. This sets up a conversation I had with a high school student a few months back where he told me he was busy after school: "doing my community service alongside the felons and DUI guys". His school requires volunteering, but limits the places students can volunteer, the time, and the type of volunteering. The kids get it--this isn't charity, it's forced labor.
A few years back, I was in London giving a talk at a conference and the main topic of discussion at the breaks was the new Charity Act, which paid young people to volunteer as a solution for years of reduced volunteering, particularly by people under 30. All of the attendees from the UK thought this was a great idea. The three or four Americans there smugly noted that we don't pay our volunteers--they actually show up on their own.
Well, sort of.
The article noted that Goldman has long had a requirement that top earners give 4% of their income to charity--and then check their tax returns to assure that there is compliance. Thus, there is no real charity at Goldman, just an enforced policy, like a dress code or the expectation of cheery attendance at a hated boss's birthday celebration.
The key part of the article was whether this policy--of wringing donations out of otherwise unwilling employees from their obscene bonuses--would reduce public anger over the bonuses themselves.
Yet again, these people are clueless about how real people think and act. I must have heard two dozen interviews over the last year from Wall Street types who absolutely do not understand why the country is mad at them for taking crazy risks (on all our behalf) to make money (for themselves). While there were many, many people who contributed to the economic mess, the Wall Street bankers stand out above the rest for their endless and self-serving rationales of why they were not the ones that brought the nation (and much of the world) to its economic knees, then needed tax dollars to bail them out, and now can go back to business as usual (with no oversight, PLEASE--we know what we're doing).
All of which is a rant to get to this question. Is forced charity really charity? Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that some nonprofits will get what, on my quick accounting, is a ton of money (Goldman has set aside $16.7 billion for compensation this year--calculate 5% of that and you see what I mean), but still, is it charity? Goldman has reported that the firm also put aside $200 million for it's Foundation. I wonder how much of that $ will be given to charity, and how much will be kept in the foundation, invested by Goldman--and who at Goldman will earn investment fees. Pardon my cynicism.
There's a related issue here that has been bugging me for a long time--the courts sentencing people to community service. This sets up a conversation I had with a high school student a few months back where he told me he was busy after school: "doing my community service alongside the felons and DUI guys". His school requires volunteering, but limits the places students can volunteer, the time, and the type of volunteering. The kids get it--this isn't charity, it's forced labor.
A few years back, I was in London giving a talk at a conference and the main topic of discussion at the breaks was the new Charity Act, which paid young people to volunteer as a solution for years of reduced volunteering, particularly by people under 30. All of the attendees from the UK thought this was a great idea. The three or four Americans there smugly noted that we don't pay our volunteers--they actually show up on their own.
Well, sort of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)