by Karen Topakian
This past Friday, I received the winter 2009 issue of WIN, the magazine of the War Resisters League, and the March 12th issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy. On the surface, neither of them have anything in common. One speaks to the world of nonviolence, opposition to war and reports from activists around the country. The other speaks to the world of non-profit management, giving and fundraising.
But I noticed a common thread. As the director of a foundation that needs to raise money for social change, I need to know what both worlds are saying. How can I assess the grant proposals that we receive unless I know what’s burning in the hearts and minds of my fellow activists? And how can I raise money unless I know about the successful trends in philanthropy and fundraising?
Those are the two worlds that I constantly inhabit. The one of professional fundraising and management best practices. And the one of peace, human rights and the environment.
Often times, the two publications share little in common. But this time they did.
WIN featured an article titled, “Debt Cancellation And Economic Justice For The World’s Poor” about the impact that private banks, rich governments and international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have played in contributing to poverty in the world’s poorest countries.
While The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported on a bold proposal by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) pushing grant makers to spend at least half of their grant dollars to help poor people and minorities.
Sometimes my worlds do collide.
And when they do, I can see how both worlds think. I’m sure the readers of The Chronicle will have lots to say about this proposal, pro and con. I’m also sure that readers of WIN will want to cheer on NCRP’s efforts to leverage more resources to the poor.
I will continue to read both, all the time keeping a foot in each world!