By Susan Wolf Ditkoff

Yesterday I had the privilege of spending the day with Marshall Ganz, the well-known community organizer. As he spoke eloquently about the power of stories to create social change, he also described “inhibitors” to action—inertia, apathy, fear, and isolation—among individuals who may be well-intentioned, but who can’t see a clear path forward.

Ganz didn't just talk about inhibitors to action; he discussed the antidotes too, the things that can unlock effective change—a sense of urgency, outrage, hope, and empathy. As he reminded us: These motivators aren't "touchy feely." They are prerequisites to effective problem solving; they inspire the best in us all, perhaps hope most especially.

I was struck by how many of his lessons are directly applicable to philanthropists. As a donor it can be truly difficult to see a clear path and far too easy to fall into a change-blocking trap. For example, you may think you're creating change—charging forward with the best intentions—only to realize that you have underestimated just what the challenges ahead will require. Or you may try to fly solo despite the reality that tackling important causes will most certainly require you to work with other concerned players and philanthropists.

But we needn't let the most common philanthropy traps get the better of us. We have the wisdom of the philanthropic community to help advise us, and we too have access to the antidotes—a sense of urgency to kick-start our philanthropic efforts, empathy to help us see what's needed, and outrage to keep us going when things get tough. And, of course, we have hope, which gives us our most cherished and powerful story that social change is even possible in the first place.

For more on how to overcome philanthropy traps, read "What Are the Five Most Common Traps I Should Avoid in My Philanthropy?"

By Susan Wolf Ditkoff

The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University has just published a great new online resource. The Million Dollar List shows publicly announced grants over $1 million since 2000 by U.S.-based donors. It is searchable by donor, recipient, specific subsectors, location, and amount given.

As I’ve discussed in previous posts, philanthropists can anchor their philanthropy in many ways. Do you care about specific places? Problems? People? Pathways to getting results? Perhaps you have a philanthropic philosophy (like market-based or community-based solutions) that will tie your giving together. Regardless of your anchor, one critical aspect is learning from how others about how they’re giving so you can get a sense of the landscape you’d be operating in. The Million Dollar List is one tool that can help you do just that.

You can see which causes your peers are funding, what gaps in funding exist, and which of your causes are already receiving large gifts. Beyond the data, you can read compelling stories of donors and peruse a growing list of other resources. Such information can even help you find collaboration partners—donors with causes similar to your own—so that you don’t have to fly solo.

How might you use this list? Let’s say you care about the environment. You can click on “Subsector” and then click on “Environment.” You can then click on donors who are large contributors and read more about each one's investments. Similarly, you can break this down by your favorite geography or recipient.

A useful resource indeed. We look forward to watching the library grow over time!

By Susan Wolf Ditkoff

An exciting new wave of donors is getting serious about philanthropy. One question they often have is how to give–specifically, should they create a foundation in perpetuity or spend down their funds in a given period? While there are technical issues (such as tax implications) involved in these decisions, here's the really interesting question: Which approach creates the best results and the most social impact?

In the course of our work, we've uncovered good reasons why donors spend down or give in perpetuity; for example, do you want to try to solve problems in your lifetime or ensure that your family is engaged in philanthropy over generations? (See our Spend Down vs. Perpetuity FAQ for more questions to consider.)

Not understanding your motivations can lead to bad, and unintended, consequences. Take, for instance, the challenges faced by one family facing this decision upon the death of its benefactor.

This benefactor had been a tremendously successful entrepreneur, having grown and managed a multi-billion dollar company. In fact he was known for making big bets in business, many of which paid off handsomely. And when he turned his attention to charities, his investment philosophy was no different. He was known for making rapid (and large) decisions, often awarding multi-million dollar grants. As he grew older, his son pleaded with him to articulate how he wanted his foundation to be managed after his death. Unfortunately, he was visibly uncomfortable confronting his mortality, and he never got around to discussing the issue of spend down vs. perpetuity.

Upon the benefactor's death, the family faced a choice. Out of respect for his legacy, and with no instructions to the contrary, they opted to continue the foundation in perpetuity. They also promised to continue his legacy of making big bets on causes they knew that he cared about. Beyond that, unfortunately, no one felt prepared or empowered to fill his shoes in making those big decisions. It's not that they were uncomfortable with money, but most of the family members, while wealthy, had no experience making professional investment decisions in their careers–for-profit or nonprofit. (Their careers were in education, the arts, law, and the like.) The most expensive decision most of them had ever made was buying or selling their homes. Investment managers had handled their wealth management decisions, quite ably, and their father had managed charitable decisions on his own.

As a result, the board members saw themselves as custodians and stewards of the family legacy–without experience as true decision makers. Fast forward to two years after the benefactor's death: Despite their professed desire to make big bets like the benefactor, their only large investments had been to continue the grants he'd already committed. Every new grant was under $100,000, and even getting enough votes for those was a struggle. This might be understandable: It is hard enough to make big bets with your own money. It's even harder when you feel like your primary responsibility is to preserve someone else's legacy and, on top of that, that you're fundamentally afraid of making big financial investment decisions.

Furthermore, as stewards, the family members could never meaningfully discuss whether they should spend down the endowment. (Any such suggestion was seen by some other board members as practically traitorous.) So the foundation continues to feel its way along but without any way to decide whether the money spent today or saved for tomorrow would have greater impact on society.

To make sure you don’t fall into the same trap, don’t put off the hard conversations until it’s too late, because if you don’t make a choice, a choice will be made for you.

Susan Wolf Ditkoff is a partner at the Bridgespan Group and co-leader of its philanthropy practice.