On November 12-13, 2006 more than a hundred of America’s most generous convened at the Clinton Presidential Library to share lessons learned and mistakes made while giving. The conference marked the tenth anniversary of the Slate 60, a list of the sixty US citizens who give the most to charity each year.
	Clinton Library at night

Central Themes:

Shared Opportunities, Leveraging, Sustainability, Partners, Scalability, Investment, Take Risks, Measure the Right Results, Self-Sufficiency, Innovation, Long Term Commitment, Humanity

Summary of comments made:

President Clinton with guest at Clinton Library

President Clinton’s speech began with humor. He said, “I woke up one day, looked in the mirror and said, “I’ve become an NGO.” He raised the question, “How would you chart the course of philanthropy in the next decade?” He reminded the audience that in the recent election.“Voters screamed for government to get back to work” noting “This is the most interdependent time in history . . . with the earth’s eco structures under stress”. Great economic inequality, unequal distribution of scarce resources like oil and global warming make for an unstable world where there are, “. . . shared opportunities and shared vulnerabilities.” He said that the mission of humanity at this point in history is to, “Increase positive interdependence, reduce the negative consequences of interdependence . . . by “building a world of far fewer terrorists and more partners.”

He highlighted the explosion of NGOs in Russia and China and the “aggressive invasion of entrepreneurs into NGO’s”. In delivering philanthropy he cautioned, “You don’t have to patronize people, just empower them” because “Philanthropy is a word rooted in love.”

Slate Magazine publisher Cliff Sloan set the tone of the private gathering alluding to an “explosion of creativity and innovation in approaches” to giving with “no one content to rest on past laurels” rather tapping the, “collective power to make this a better place”.

Stacy Palmer, publisher of the Chronicle of Philanthropy spoke of the need to “get it right, ratchet it up a little” and “focus on the unwillingness [of grant makers and philanthropists] to take on real risks.”

	New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg focused on the “five benefits of philanthropy that support the work that government wants to do – but can’t, or needs to do but won’t. The benefits include promoting innovation, rising above politics, providing resources, supporting private passions and inspiring the next generation of generosity.
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Bill Gates Sr. of the Gates Foundation was reflective in saying, “The greatest thing about this job is that you get to say yes”. Our foundation’s approach is to “Work with other organizations already doing it” with an emphasis on prevention of disease not cure of disease. He noted that, “To get government support you must first get widespread public support.” With the Gates/Buffett mega gifts he felt that they must have an answer to the public’s question, “What’s the value of my small gift [as an individual citizen] if the Gates Foundation has $60 billion?” “We are anxious not to be seen as monopolizing the situation.” He noted that he is a “. . . fan of the wealthy paying the estate tax. The world is not improved by the concept of inherited wealth . . . public policy should not be built around a policy of being able to pass billions to our kids.” He drew laughter saying, “Bill is not in my Will.”

Adam Meyerson, the Philanthropy Roundtable asked, “How have conservative foundations been so successful in influencing public policy?” He identified five things that effective philanthropists do:

1. Focus on clear objectives with a clear mission
2. Use demonstration projects
3. Redefine the debate by strategic investment in ideas and collecting the right data
4. Build broad base coalitions across
5. Think long term because most public policy reform takes 15-25 years to produce results.

He noted, “If you don’t like controversy don’t get in the public policy philanthropy business.” “If you don’t want to form coalitions with people who have different points of view [stay away as well]” To succeed, philanthropy should “align public policy with public interest.”

Justin Rockefeller of Generation Engage, a Philanthropist in Training (PIT) said, “My generation is not apathetic, they just don’t tend to see politics as the means to the end”. “Democracy should be a dialogue not a monologue” “Young people don’t respond well when told what to do.” “The best investment we can make in the future of our democracy is in young leaders at the local level.” Generation Engage encourages face-to-face dialogue by hiring locals where they grew up and paying them a full-time salary. They identify places where the young hang out [like coffee shops and rap group clubs] and reach youth who do not go to college. They invest in their social capital not TV ads. He commented that “The future of politics is rooted in technology” and “conservatives do face-to-face communications better than liberals”.

Steve Kirsch of the Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation quipped that “The Brookings Institution creates progressive research reports that go in people’s book cases and look nice and the [conservative] Heritage Institute markets its ideas [very well]. He asked,
“Who is the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh?” He noted that there is no liberal equivalent of Fox News and that liberals must be more entertaining to market liberal ideas. “Liberals don’t get it in terms of the marketing” [but do get it in terms of creating public policy]. “If you have a lot of money and want to do good and the best leverage point is [influencing] public policy, why would you put it into a foundation where the money is constrained?” “Put it [your money] into an organization that would do very responsible nonpartisan research and then couple it with a for-profit that has all the marking tools to market the ideas to the public and tell them why it is important.” Educate the public and legislators about why they should vote for it.” “That’s what drives public policy in our country.”

Steve Case (formerly of AOL) of the Case Foundation, said “Public policy must be aligned with public interest.” He noted five things not being done that need to be done to effectively influence public policy:

He re-emphasized the importance of influencing “. . . public policy not by being a 501 (c) 3 because there are too many restrictions.” “You must be able to create or lobby legislation. He also stressed “being entertaining” in getting your message across.

Mario Morino of Venture Philanthropy Partners advised, “Avoid investment in incremental change . . . make delta change, [with] strong leadership, and work in high engagement with the funder.” He reflected on what Peter Drucker and Bob Buford had observed that “innovations were enlivening and exciting and disappointing.” Marino pointed out that “Very few nonprofits have grown to scale.”

In a follow-up e-mail from Mario Marino he said this:

Josh Bekenstein of New Profit, Inc. said, [initiatives] “must be scalable, impact nationally, [and demonstrate] dramatic growth.”

Sheryl Sandberg of Google, Inc. commented that, “Philanthropy must work on intractable problems" and that, "global health and climate change are their priorities." [You must] “use a lot of leverage . . . and get the right people”. She said, “I think it would be good for people to make money doing philanthropy . . . shareholders see it as a positive. [It takes] excitement plus passion . . . and asking '“How do you get the economics right?”' She was adamant about results assessment saying, [you must] “measure what gets at the core issue … for example, feeding village kid’s meals, but they didn’t gain weight because the water was still bad.” [You must] “optimize the whole system, not just part . . . and use the right measure and right metrics.” She described the Google approach as, “Taking the best of what came before, make incremental steps and take new energy to it. People don’t believe you when you say you’re going to do something new.”

Ralph Smith of the Anne E. Cassie Foundation was asked, “Why is there so little philanthropy [in the US in general] for the disadvantaged?" He observed that, “There must be an educational change in the minds of the public” [because the] “public attitude is that the poor aren’t doing enough to take care of themselves.” We haven’t made a connection between the symptoms and the causes . . . as a country we have declined on poverty issues. Result numbers make you more intentional and strategic.” He noted that, "too much philanthropic funding. . . makes safe gifts and wants the instant gratification of results.” He added, “Go to Government before the [privately funded] demonstration [project is underway] and get Government to agree to later fund the successful project based on what the demonstration [project] saves them.” He supported scaling programs and prevention. “Giving in places you don’t live is so much easier than giving in places where you do live.” Speaking of accountability for results he cautioned, “Not everything that’s important is measurable and not everything that is measurable is important.” He urged philanthropists to be persistent and predictable and deeply committed stakeholders. The roles of credible convener and [serving as] a bridge to common sense consensus were stressed. In closing he urged, “Do more in promoting second generation success [in getting out of and staying out of poverty].

There was general agreement on the panels that nonprofits must become increasingly self-sufficient and that scalability and sustainability were major factors in survival and success.

Bobby Shriver of [Product] Red pointed out that “No one wants to fund continuations. They want sexy startups. We must fund organizations to last. When you work together things happen.”

Judith McHale of the Discovery Channel shared the story of the Global Discovery Partnership where their success was related to the practice, “We don’t do it alone; we find partners on the ground.” She was a strong believer that you can’t, “Just go in and out . . . [but must] stay the long term, sustained and committed.”

Joe Robert of the Fight for Children Foundation reflected that, “All of us have donor fatigue or we wouldn’t be in this room”. He advised philanthropists to, “Look at the system to see where you can get greatest leverage”. He cited the principle that, “Research dollars follow research scientists” and gave the example of how a $1-$2 million endowment of a research science chair generated $60-$70 million of research grants.

Ted Turner of CNN and the Turner Foundation in his provocative manner said, “As philanthropists, we’re bombing with funds and good will [not weapons of destruction]. We don’t relieve government of its responsibility by being philanthropic. Government needs help and the US government needs a lot of help. I’ve become an irresponsible, compulsive giver. If you don’t give until it hurts a little bit, you haven’t given enough. I don’t think of giving it away, that’s not smart. I want to make an investment in the future of humanity. I’m having a lot of fun doing it.”

Dr. Maclean attended the Little Rock gathering as a member of the press. He is a donor advocate and author of “Promoting Donor Resiliency . . . Preventing Donor Fatigue” and co-author with the Luxury Institute of the report, “Philanthropic Beliefs & Behaviors of the Wealthy”.