www.tacticalphilanthropy.com Open in urlscan Pro
34.174.17.247  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

 * Home
 * Speaking
 * Columns
 * Press Coverage
 * About
 * Sean's Bio


 * ABOUT SEAN STANNARD-STOCKTON
   
   Sean Stannard-Stockton is the president and chief investment officer of
   Ensemble Capital Management, located in Burlingame, CA, midway between San
   Francisco and Silicon Valley. From 2006 through 2012, Sean authored the
   Tactical Philanthropy blog and wrote regular philanthropy columns for both
   the Financial Times and the Chronicle of Philanthropy. In 2012, Sean
   officially ended the blog to focus on growing Ensemble Capital.
   
   READ MORE »


 * SEARCH TACTICAL PHILANTHROPY
   
   Click Here To Search


 * ARCHIVES
   
   Archives Select Month January 2016 December 2012 April 2012 November 2011
   October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April
   2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010
   October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April
   2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009
   October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April
   2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008
   October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April
   2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007
   October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April
   2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006
   October 2006


BLOG POSTS


INTRODUCING THE INTRINSIC INVESTING BLOG

January 5, 2016 – 9:00 pm

Hey Tactical Philanthropy Community! It is hard to believe it has been almost
four years since my final farewell post. I’ve been busy working on building
Ensemble Capital, my wealth management firm where we specialize in serving
philanthropic families.

As long time readers know well, writing Tactical Philanthropy was an incredibly
stimulating and joyful experience for me. So I’m thrilled to let you know I’m
getting back to writing with a new blog called Intrinsic Investing.

While Tactical Philanthropy focused on taking an investment approach to
philanthropy, Intrinsic Investing explores for-profit investing.

The Blog: Intrinsic Investing

Our Twitter Presence: @IntrinsicInv

My LinkedIn Profile: Sean Stannard-Stockton

My company: Ensemble Capital Management

This October will mark a full decade since I wrote the first post for Tactical
Philanthropy! I’d love to count members of the Tactical Philanthropy Community
among the readers of Intrinsic Investing as I chart the next chapter of my
writing career.

If you’d like to reconnect, use my LinkedIn page or the Contact Us section of
Intrinsic Investing.

Happy New Year and thank you for your long time interest in my work!

 


Tweet Comments Off on Introducing the Intrinsic Investing Blog


THE TACTICAL PHILANTHROPY BLOG

December 3, 2012 – 6:00 am

From 2006 through 2012, Sean Stannard-Stockton authored the Tactical
Philanthropy blog. At its peak, Tactical Philanthropy played host to
a rollicking debate about effective philanthropy and chronicled what Sean termed
The Second Great Wave of Philanthropy. Far from being just a platform for Sean’s
writing, the Tactical Philanthropy blog published guest posts from some of the
most prominent and innovative members of the philanthropic community and the
25,000 monthly readers engaged in robust discussions in the blog’s comments
section. The ideas and discussions featured on the blog were frequently quoted
and referenced by such media outlets as the Wall Street Journal, the New York
Times, the Financial Times and the Chronicle of Philanthropy. While Sean no
longer maintains the Tactical Philanthropy blog, the six year archive still
attracts thousands of unique visitors each month.

Today, Sean is the president and chief investment officer at Ensemble Capital
Management, a wealth management firm located on the San Francisco Peninsula
midway between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. He is also the lead author of
Intrinsic Investing, a publication of Ensemble Capital. You can learn more about
Sean and Ensemble Capital’s services at www.ensemblecapital.com.


Tweet Comments Off on The Tactical Philanthropy Blog


STRATEGIC & TACTICAL PHILANTHROPY: A TRUCE

April 5, 2012 – 8:55 pm

Paul Brest, the outgoing president of the Hewlett Foundation, has written an
elegant article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review titled A Decade of
Outcome-Oriented Philanthropy. Paul helped push my thinking over the years by
willingly engaging me in public debates about my ideas on Tactical Philanthropy
and his views on Strategic Philanthropy. I’m honored that in his article looking
back at how philanthropy has evolved over the past decade, he draws on a
framework I proposed for distinguishing between different approaches to
effective philanthropy.

After offering a compelling description of the “stirrings of a movement” towards
outcome-oriented philanthropy over the past ten years, Paul writes:

> “Outcome-oriented philanthropy has two major focal points: supporting
> organizations and problem-solving philanthropy.1 …There are three different
> strategies for supporting organizations: philanthropic buying, providing risk
> and growth capital, and impact investing…. The second major type of
> outcome-oriented philanthropy is problem-solving philanthropy. Whereas
> philanthropists often buy services and support organizations in order to solve
> problems, problem-solving philanthropists put the problem rather than the
> organization at the center.”

Paul’s footnote says that his framework is influenced by an essay I wrote titled
The Three Core Approaches to Effective Philanthropy in which I described
strategic philanthropy as “problem-solving philanthropy” and used the terms
“charitable giving” and “philanthropic investing” to describe what Paul calls
“philanthropic buying” and “providing risk and growth capital”. Paul also adds
impact investing as an additional category, which I think makes sense.

In my earliest writing on tactical vs. strategic philanthropy I criticized
strategic approaches, or what Paul calls “problem-solving philanthropy”, as
prone to ineffectiveness due to difficulties I think arise from philanthropists
trying to design and implement solutions to social problems rather than focusing
on investing in nonprofits — “providing risk and growth capital” — so that the
nonprofit can design and implement solutions. But as I debated Paul and refined
my ideas, I came to the conclusion that strategic philanthropy/problem-solving
philanthropy could be executed effectively and that my real concern was that
problem-solving philanthropy was too often put forward as the only form of
effective philanthropy, giving short shrift to the tactical approach of
providing risk and growth capital that I felt deserved more attention.

In my piece on the three core approaches, I put forward the proposal that all of
the approaches could be effective, but that they required very different
expertise and were very different activities. In a sense I was calling a truce
in my debate with Paul. I was putting forward the idea that both his strategic,
problem solving approach and the tactical, organizational supporting approaches
were distinct but legitimate forms of effective philanthropy.

In Paul’s article, he seems to accept my proposed truce and places the tactical
approaches on even footing with strategic philanthropy while recognizing their
distinct methods. Paul still does ask that we refer to all of the approaches as
“strategic” and argues that the investment and buying approaches are species of
strategic philanthropy, not entirely different animals. I can accept that.
There’s no sense arguing semantics if we agree on the meaning.

Paul ends the article writing that, “the decade ends with healthy debates on
these issues in journals and blogs that did not exist at its inception, and with
many of the institutions and practices mentioned in the preceding pages
flourishing.” I’m proud that for the second half of Paul’s “decade of
outcome-oriented philanthropy”, the tactical philanthropy blog was a vibrant hub
for those debates. It was a magnificent five years for me and the most
intensively intellectually stimulating experience I’ve ever had. Those debates
were formative for me and I hope they helped the 25,000 readers who visited each
month expand their own thinking about philanthropy.

But that time is done for me. Having put off officially ending this blog by
declaring myself on sabbatical for the past five months, it is now time for me
to face the fact that I’m not coming back to philanthropy blogging any time
soon.

My firm Ensemble Capital, where we focus on providing investment management to
philanthropists, has been thriving and growing. The intellectual challenge of
investing now consumes me the way thoughts on investing in nonprofits once did.
While I miss writing, if I do decide to start blogging again it would be to
launch a blog about stock picking. As I’ve written in the past, it was investing
that led me to philanthropy. Rather than a departure from the past, my focus on
investing is a return to my roots. A return to the teenager reading books about
stock picking on long family car trips.

When we live our lives online, we by necessity present a piece of ourselves, not
our full selves. I care passionately about philanthropy, but also about
investing, parenting, politics and baseball (among other things), although I
never blogged about those topics. Ending this blog doesn’t suggest I am no
longer passionate about philanthropy (I continue to work with major donors every
day at Ensemble Capital), it just means that it is time for other facets of my
personality to explore their own domains.

As I’ve said before, writing this blog was one of the best experiences of my
life. It was you, the Tactical Philanthropy Community, that made this blog come
alive.

Thank you. I hope our paths cross again soon!


Tweet Leave a comment (7)


TACTICAL PHILANTHROPY GOES ON SABBATICAL

November 7, 2011 – 6:00 am

Almost exactly five years ago I sat down at my computer and typed out eight
simple words.

> “Welcome to the Second Great Wave of Philanthropy.”

They were the first words I ever wrote on this blog. At the time I never would
have guessed that those little words would launch me on a journey of
philanthropic discovery that would take me on a crisscrossing tour (both online
and off) of America’s vibrant philanthropic community. I have learned so much
from the Tactical Philanthropy community and have become only more convinced
that the field of philanthropy is rushing forward toward a Second Great Wave of
philanthropic activity that is fundamentally different from the philanthropy of
the last century.

But now it is time for me to take a break from writing and focus on other areas
of my life. Starting today, I’m taking a sabbatical of indefinite length from
writing this blog. I hope I’ll be back at some point, but I can’t say with any
certainty when. At this time, I find that I want to pour myself into other
aspects of my life; my family, my community, my other personal passions and the
building of my investment management business which gave rise to all of this
half a decade ago.

While I won’t be writing with any regularity, I’ll still be following along with
what’s going on in our field. I believe that the next five years will see the
visible impact of the Giving Pledge, the advent of Social Impact Bonds and the
coming of age of the effective philanthropy movement. While I won’t be
chronicling this shared journey we are on together, I’ll still be a member of
the tribe.

Writing this blog has certainly changed the trajectory of my life. I’d like to
think that as a group we’ve helped nudge the trajectory of philanthropy along
the path leading towards effectiveness.

Every one of you reading this has helped make this blog what it has been. You
gave me the gift of your attention, interest and engagement. I am forever
indebted to the Tactical Philanthropy community for helping make me the person I
am today and nudging me along the path of my own personal life journey.

Thank you.


Tweet Leave a comment (54)


GIVING 2.0

October 14, 2011 – 6:00 am

My friend Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen is a pretty remarkable person. She is the
founder of SV2, a silicon valley based donor partnership focused on venture
philanthropy. After launching and teaching Stanford’s first philanthropy course,
she started the school’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. And now she’s
published a philanthropy book called Giving 2.0 that focuses on how people from
all walks of life can engage in effective philanthropy.

The easiest way to learn more about the book is through this video:



(Click here to see the view if you are reading this via email.)

And of course Laura has a new blog and is trying out Twitter. You can learn more
at the Giving 2.0 website.

In a testament to how deeply connected and admired Laura is in the philanthropy
world, the endorsements for the book reads like a who’s who of the field:

> Melinda Gates: “Giving 2.0 empowers everyone-from volunteers to donors to
> advocates-to get the most out of their giving and themselves.”
> 
> Judith Rodin: “Arrillaga-Andreessen is a brilliant storyteller who has the
> rare gift of animating both the heart and mind of philanthropy”
> 
> Mark Benioff: “Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen shows us the power of new thinking
> around philanthropy”
> 
> Paul Brest: “Through vignettes of individual and family philanthropists, Laura
> Arrillaga, a great philanthropist and leader in her own right, captures both
> the passion and tough analysis and decision making necessary to turn that
> passion into results.”

You can order the book here. If you are in the Bay Area, you should consider
attending the October 27th book launch:

Thursday, October 27, 2011
CEMEX Auditorium at the Stanford Graduate School of Business

Doors Open 5:30pm. Program 6:00pm-7:00pm. Be the first to hear the extraordinary
leader Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, Stanford PACS founder and Advisory Board
chair, and author of the new book Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our
World during launch week. Jim Canales, President of The James Irvine Foundation
and Stanford Trustee will be making the special introduction. Laura is a
remarkable leader, teacher, speaker, and philanthropist providing important,
accessible insights for givers of all ages, interests, or levels, and whether
giving time, networks, or expertise. In Giving 2.0, readers go on a fascinating
journey through the fast-changing world of giving and read compelling stories of
individual philanthropists. This is the Stanford and Silicon Valley main event
for the book launch!

RSVP here: 
http://pacscenter.stanford.edu/laura-arrillaga-andreessen-giving-20-event


Tweet Comments Off on Giving 2.0


AN IDEA THAT SPREADS: INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MICROFINANCE

October 4, 2011 – 5:17 pm

I’ve written a number of times about the tension between logic and empathy. I
think it is critical that the effective philanthropy movement recognize that
while data is an important input to good decision making, it can also dampen the
very emotions that drive giving. That’s why I think it is critical that high
performing organizations learn how to tell authentic stories about their impact.
Stories that are based on solid data about what works, but which respect the
role of emotion in the field of philanthropy.

Kiva is an organization that I’ve held up in the past as really understanding
how to tell an authentic story that “sticks” (in the vocabulary of the must-read
book Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die). The point of Made to
Stick is that a good story is true, but it must also be told in such a way that
it spreads. Too often I worry that the effective philanthropy movement is
convinced that if they can just find the “truth” about what works, the rest will
take care of itself. But I don’t think that’s enough. We need to discover the
“truth” about what works and learn how to tell the story of that “truth” in a
way that spreads.

Here is a new video by Kiva. The video presents data about the increasing level
of microfinance loans made by the organization over time. But this ain’t no
Excel graph…



(click here to watch the video if you’re viewing this in an email)

Wow.

This data is just as “true” as a simple chart like this one (which actual does
represent Kiva’s loan growth from early 2006 through late 2007):



In the book Made to Stick, the authors talk about how a group of food scientists
spent a long time telling people about how much fat was in movie popcorn. But it
wasn’t until they figured out how to tell the story of how bad movie popcorn was
for you through laying out a table top covered with bacon, eggs and cake to
demonstrate how much fat was in the product that people started paying
attention.

First we need to figure out what works. Then we need to figure how to
communicate the story about what works in a way that drives people to action.
Too often, “effective philanthropy” is obsessed with the first step and ignores
the second. Too often, successful fundraising is done with the second step in
mind while the first is ignored.

What we need is storytelling for impact that drives people to take action in
service of programs that work.


Tweet Leave a comment (3)


EXTENDED REGISTRATION FOR GUIDESTAR WEBINAR

October 4, 2011 – 6:48 am

Last week, I posted a note about the GuideStar webinar I’m doing tomorrow,
October 5. The registration response has been overwhelming and GuideStar hit
their 1,300 person registration limit on the same day that I let readers know
about the event. Since a number of Tactical Philanthropy readers have asked if
there is a way for them to attend, GuideStar has agreed to open up a series of
additional registration slots for my readers.

If you’re interested, just shoot me an email.

Details for the webinar on October 5 at 2pm eastern:

> THE SECOND GREAT WAVE OF PHILANTHROPY
> 
> Yesterday: Andrew Carnegie. John D. Rockefeller. Andrew W. Mellon.
> Today: Bill Gates. Oprah Winfrey. You? Your neighbor?
> 
> Today’s major donors don’t look like yesterday’s major donors. And today’s
> major donors don’t look at nonprofits the same way, either. Join us as Sean
> Stannard-Stockton—wealth advisor to philanthropic families, author of the
> influential blog Tactical Philanthropy, and Chronicle of Philanthropy
> columnist—speaks about the Second Great Wave of Philanthropy and how major
> donors are shifting their perspectives on the kinds of nonprofits they want to
> support.


Tweet Comments Off on Extended Registration for GuideStar Webinar


SEAN STANNARD-STOCKTON’S GUIDESTAR WEBINAR

September 28, 2011 – 6:00 am

On October 5th at 2pm eastern, I’ll be leading a free webinar for GuideStar.


> THE SECOND GREAT WAVE OF PHILANTHROPY
> 
> Yesterday: Andrew Carnegie. John D. Rockefeller. Andrew W. Mellon.
> Today: Bill Gates. Oprah Winfrey. You? Your neighbor?
> 
> Today’s major donors don’t look like yesterday’s major donors. And today’s
> major donors don’t look at nonprofits the same way, either. Join us as Sean
> Stannard-Stockton—wealth advisor to philanthropic families, author of the
> influential blog Tactical Philanthropy, and Chronicle of Philanthropy
> columnist—speaks about the Second Great Wave of Philanthropy and how major
> donors are shifting their perspectives on the kinds of nonprofits they want to
> support.

Click here to register or learn more. The last GuideStar webinar I hosted was
one of their top draws ever with over 1,000 people registering. So register now
if you want to make sure you get a spot!


Tweet Leave a comment (2)


THE ULTIMATE QUESTION FOR THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

September 19, 2011 – 6:00 am

This is my newest column for the Chronicle of Philanthropy. You’ll find an
archive of my past columns here.

Foundations and nonprofits are constantly looking for the right tools to measure
success.

One of the most effective sources of information might come from the people who
rely on an organization, suggests a new the book, The Ultimate Question 2.0, in
which the veteran management consultant Fred Reichheld demonstrates that asking
one simple question of a business’s customers can often reveal more about their
performance than more traditional financial or product analyses.

The question is: "How likely is it that you would recommend Company X to a
friend or colleague?"

Since recipients of nonprofit services don’t typically pay the costs of the
services they receive, this approach to measuring results must be modified when
applied to the social sector.

But a number of organizations are working on ways to reach out to beneficiaries
of a nonprofit or foundation as well as to the general public. In so doing they
may find the same connection Mr. Reichheld did.

The Center for Effective Philanthropy is one of the pioneers of this work.

For more than a decade, it has conducted studies of grant recipients and others
to help foundations figure out how to reinforce strengths and fix weaknesses.
Its flagship Grantee Perception Report has now been commissioned by more than
190 foundations.

The center has also been working on a Beneficiary Perception Report. Its pilot
program is called YouthTruth and gathers the feedback of high school students
who attend schools supported by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In a report published this month, the Center for Effective Philanthropy notes
that few foundations collect information from beneficiaries. The fact that the
intended recipients of foundation programs are rarely asked for feedback
highlights how much room there is in the social sector for Ultimate Question
type measurement approaches to be deployed.

Keystone, a London charity, is also doing important work to gather and analyze
the views of people a charity tries to serve.  They are working with students in
university service learning programs to gather what they call constituent voice;
feedback from the beneficiaries of nonprofit programs

Since foundations serve the public good and not just one group of beneficiaries,
they must reach out to a lot of different kinds of people to assess their work.

The James Irvine Foundation, for instance, has been publishing their Grantee
Perception Report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy and actively
seeking public feedback on their annual performance. Importantly, the
foundation’s president, Jim Canales specifically says they are looking for
feedback from critics of their work.

"The power dynamic inherent in philanthropy makes it critical that we resist the
temptation to talk more than listen," Mr. Canales writes, "precisely because
people will always listen politely to anything we have to say, regardless of its
utility."

He recognizes that nonprofits tend not to tell foundations when they’re doing a
bad job and it is the rare foundation that has ever lacked enough groups eager
to take its money.

A similar dynamic exists between many beneficiaries and nonprofits, because a
person in need of social services rarely is in a position to turn down subpar
assistance. Few nonprofits ask such clients what they could do to better serve
them. But organizations could make more vigorous efforts to encourage such
feedback.

It is with this dynamic in mind that I’m reminded of a plea by Frederick Hess of
the American Enterprise Institute for foundations to not react defensively when
they are criticized but instead to actively seek out and encourage criticism.

"Foundations need to make it conscious policy to welcome-and even
encourage-criticism." Mr. Hess wrote in Philanthropy, the magazine published by
the Philanthropy Roundtable.

"Given that even tart-tongued observers will be unusually reluctant to share
their thoughts, foundations need to make it extravagantly clear that they will
not blacklist critics-or look kindly upon those who do. Only this kind of
scrutiny, will flag blind spots, wishful thinking, or ineffective spending.

Whether the foundation personnel agree with such assessments, engaging with them
is essential to forestalling the plagues of hubris and groupthink that are so
much a part of human nature."

It is asking a lot of any organization to actively seek out criticism. But it is
only by asking for constructive feedback that nonprofits and foundations can
expect to improve the quality of their contributions to society.


Tweet Leave a comment (6)


READER SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT HEWLETT PRESIDENT

September 14, 2011 – 10:05 am

Paul Brest, president of the Hewlett Foundation, comments on my post yesterday:

> “I am not taking any part in the search for my successor as president of the
> Hewlett Foundation, but if I were on the Foundation’s search committee I would
> welcome ideas from readers of Sean’s blog.”

Below is the list of people suggested by the Tactical Philanthropy community as
potential successors to Paul Brest. Given the number of emails I got from
readers (I’m intrigued that not a single person made a public suggestion via a
comment, but instead most emails reiterated the importance of anonymity), I’ve
listed those people who were suggested by at least two different readers. If
your suggestion didn’t make the list or if you have yet to make your suggestion,
leave your thoughts as a comment to this post.

So here we go…

Jeff Bradach: Jeff is co-founder and managing partner of the Bridgespan Group, a
nonprofit consulting firm well know for their work with foundations and
philanthropists.

Phil Buchanan: Phil is the president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, a
leading research organization focused on providing information to help improve
the effectiveness of foundations.

Jim Canales: Jim is the president of the James Irvine Foundation and is well
known for pushing the philanthropic field to be more transparent.

Jed Emerson: Jed has played many roles in philanthropy and impact investing. He
has worked in the past at the Hewlett Foundation and is well known to most
readers of this blog.

Katherine Fulton: Katherine of president of the Monitor Institute, a consulting
firm and think tank focused on working with organizations seeking to achieve
social impact.

Paul Grogan: Paul is president of the Boston Foundation where he has a led a
shift at the foundation to focus on making unrestricted, general operating
support grants.

Michael Kaiser: Michael is the president of the Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts. Before entering the social sector, Michael founded a strategic
planning firm that worked with large corporations.

Grant Oliphant: Grant is the president of the Pittsburgh Foundation. Grant is
outspoken, shows up regularly in blogs, video chats and other public venues and
has a history of supporting philanthropic infrastructure.

Sonal Shah: Sonal was the first head of the Office of Social Innovation at the
White House. Prior to working there, she was head of global development
initiatives at Google. Sonal recently left her position at OSI.

Paul Shoemaker: Paul is the public face of the Social Venture Partners movement
and has been deeply involved in many initiatives to advance the field of
philanthropy.

Nancy Roob: Nancy is the president of the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, a
foundation known as a leading practitioner of evidence-based grantmaking and the
recipient of the largest grant from the Social Innovation Fund.

Bob Ross: Bob is the president of the California Endowment… and he has a blog!

Albert Ruesga: Albert is the president of the Greater New Orleans Foundation and
is well known to philanthropy blog readers as the author of the White Courtesy
Telephone blog.

Fay Twersky: Fay recently joined the Hewlett Foundation as a senior fellow who
“will work with President Paul Brest and the Foundation’s program teams to
refine and consolidate the Foundation’s efforts to measure the progress and
effectiveness of its grant portfolios… [and] will spend some of her time writing
and offering reflections to the field on issues facing both nonprofit and
philanthropic institutions.” Previous to joining Hewlett, she was at the Gates
Foundation designing and developing their Impact Planning & Improvement
division. According to Paul Brest, “Fay Twersky is simply one of the most
knowledgeable and strategic thinkers in the field of philanthropy.”

Jane Wales: Jane is president of World Affairs Council of Northern California,
president of the Global Philanthropy Forum and president of the philanthropy
program at the Aspen Institute (yes, all three). She’s also host of the
nationally syndicated NPR radio show “It’s Your World”.

Al Gore: This one only got one mention. But I add it in because it is oddly
appropriate. Vice-president Gore has been out of politics for some time and
focused on environmental issues (a core program for Hewlett). In the age of the
Giving Pledge, might taking over the presidency of a multi-billion dollar
foundation be a new role of choice for ex-global leaders?

I think this is a fascinating list. It is far from exhaustive, but certainly
seems to line up well with the list of characteristics I said I was hoping to
see in Hewlett’s next president.

However, I have a challenge to the Tactical Philanthropy community. Where are
the leaders of nonprofit organizations on this list [update: I meant nonprofit
direct service organizations]? Might not a major foundation and the field of
philanthropy benefit from at least considering the leader of a top nonprofit
organization?

I hope you will consider adding more suggestions to this list or adding your
thoughts to those who have been named in the comments section.


Tweet Leave a comment (9)
← Older posts