See below for a round-up of what was news this week in the world of philanthropy, social change and women and girls in the Washington metropolitan region and beyond:
In the spirit of our previous conversations on the wage-gap, AlterNet asks in a book review, "Why do we pay our plumbers more than our caregivers?" Excellent question.
And on a similar note, Andrea Learned asks, "Philanthropy: Administered by Men, Driven by Women?", where she considers that, "Steeped in established protocols and tradition, philanthropy may well be the final frontier for proving the women’s market worth (literally and figuratively)," which she notes, is ironic given that "charity really begins with women."
Tactical Philanthropy reminds us that we don’t necessarily have to choose in the debate between "Nonprofits vs. For Profits."
Which brings us to Trent Stamp’s review of the debate between whether high school students should be required to work without profit–and volunteer–in his post, "Would mandatory service breed resentment, or more volunteers?"
Lucy Bernholz confesses to being a geek and asks, "Why is philanthropic analysis so different?, proposing a means of thinking and doing for philanthropy that could "revolutionize the work of typical foundation program officers." Nisha and Carolee, are you ready?
On a nonprofit relational note, Trent Stamp calls The Urban Institute’s new study on what’s going on between charities and their boards "wildly interesting" and recommends a cool article from Money magazine on how donors and volunteers can make the most of their time and money. Sounds like a great addition to Philanthropy 101 to me!
And speaking of money, the Native Financial Education Coalition hosted a briefing in Washington, D.C. regarding the low financial literacy of Native American youth and offered key recommendations to address the problem.
On the heels of previous discussion around the influence (or over-influence?) of wealth and philanthropy on decision-making, as well as a reminder about the tension in Pittsburgh that followed a decision by the Heinz Foundation, a story emerges from New York about how "Patrons’ Sway Leads to Friction in Charter School." Frederick Hess, an expert on philanthropy and education, predicts that this could be an on-going trend. "There would be more disputes like the one in Brooklyn as high-profile donors invest their reputations in schools and face ‘the enormous kind of name-brand question.’”
Feministing adds a new perspective to the immigration bill, noting that it would potentially put women immigrants in the precarious situation of having to decide between domestic violence and deportation.
Google sets out to help non-profits with maps, by offering a program that would allow causes to demonstrate visually for donors and supports that, for instance, there is fire and war ravaging specific villages or to see the devastation of a natural disaster. We all know how much I love Google, but my questions is this: how do you show the effects of poverty–and its disproportionate impact on women–on a map? Seems it’s already easier to get funding for disaster and relief efforts than for sustained development and anti-poverty ones–as noted by how the "Absense of a Major Disaster in ’06 Affected Giving." The article reports, "Since 2002, the percentage of overall giving to human services charities has been declining. The exception was 2005, when gifts increased, perhaps as a result of the overall increase driven by disaster giving." So, Google, get on that poverty visual, okay? (See also "Americans set record for charity in 2006" for more on that breakdown.)
And that’s it for your weekly round-up. Have a great pre-Independence Day weekend and don’t forget to start things off by celebrating your freedom of speech with a few comments and notes on the blog!
