Authors at Google, Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, “Giving 2.0”

>>Female Presenter: Hello everyone. I’m Winnie
Lam. It is my absolute honor to welcome Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen to Google today who’s
gonna talk to us about her new book, Giving 2.0. Laura is the founder and chairman of the Stanford
Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. She’s also founder, former chairman, and chairman
emeritus of the Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund. She teaches philanthropy at Stanford
University and at the Graduate School of Business. It is my absolute honor to welcome her to
Google today to talk about her new book. So without further ado please give a really warm
welcome to Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen. [applause]>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Thank you Winnie.
I’m so happy to be here. Thank you all so much for taking the time out of your chaotic
schedules to join us here today. As I was prepping for this event, I went onto
the Google Authors site and was watching many of the different presentations: extraordinary
politicians, extraordinary business leaders, extraordinary academics, extraordinary philanthropists. And there was one session that I watched in
particular that I wanted to draw attention to because I think there are so many similarities
between me and this individual who is of course, it goes without saying, Lady Gaga. We have
so much in common. As you can see both of our maiden names end with aga — [laughter] which is important. [laughter] If you Google Lady Gaga, there are about almost
500 million search results and if you Google Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen there are almost
500 million less search results. [laughter] Additionally we both wore black mini dresses
to our Google talks which I think is very important. And additionally Lady Gaga was
selected as one of Time’s most influential people in the world and I read that issue. [laughter] But on a serious note, the one thing, the
one thing that Lady Gaga and I do have in common is that we both have philanthropic
foundations and we are both fiercely committed to access to opportunity and equality for
all. And that is really the core purpose of the work that I’m doing in philanthropy and
my inspiration for creating Giving 2.0. [pause] In each of our lives, we have these moments,
whether it is a disturbing article that we read in a magazine about the state of public
education here in this country, whether it is a personal experience we’ve had perhaps
having access to knowledge through our public library as a child, or well I guess that was
true for my generation but perhaps not true for the generation of every single person
in this room. Or being the beneficiary of somebody else’s generosity like through a
college scholarship or it could be something that we learn about in the world that horrifies
us, that upsets us such as famine or abuses to women and children in a particular country
or simply not having freedom of expression. But each of us has these experiences that
inspire us to realize that there is this whole world outside of ourselves. And these experiences
inspire us to want to reprioritize and to want to make a change and to start living
in service of others; to give. And for me my giving story began with my parents.
I am extraordinarily blessed to be the daughter of two amazing philanthropists. My father,
John Arrillaga, Senior has dedicated easily upwards of half of his time and financial
resources over the last two decades to his philanthropic work. But in particular I want to tell you about
my late mother, Frances Arrillaga. This is Frances. She was my best friend and my soul
mate. She was filled with a radiant grace and generosity and she expressed her generosity
in how she chose to live her life every day. During the last two decades of her life, she
sat on dozens of non-profit boards, she co-founded two non-profits, she ran our family foundation,
but most importantly she was an extraordinary community volunteer. She is my role model. It’s probably not surprising that this woman
birthed a daughter who also shares the giving gene along with, as you can see from this
photo, a lifelong love of wearing mini dresses — [laughter] starting at age two, critically important. But it was the giving gene that she gave me
that was activated at a very specific time in my life. It happened in 1993. I’d just
graduated from Stanford, I was working at a really exciting high tech company here in
the Valley that unfortunately was not Google, and I had just been accepted to Stanford Graduate
School of Business. All of my dreams were coming true. Three weeks later we found out that my mother
had cancer. That day I quit my job and I deferred business school and I stayed at home and became
her primary caregiver. And this was a journey that lead me for the 20 months during her
illness, prior to her passing, to understand for the very first time what human suffering
was, and to live for the very first time completely in service of another human being. And that was the most profound, meaningful
experience of my life. And I realized during this time of essentially becoming a mother
to my own mother in her time of greatest need that the very purpose for my life was to live
in service of others. And ultimately, ideally was to help other people understand ways of
giving that can be deeply meaningful not only to the organizations and people that each
of us aspires to help, but also deeply meaningful to ourselves. [sound of pages being turned] [pause] So how many people here in this room find
giving deeply meaningful? How many people find that giving makes you happy? If giving
makes you happy clap your hands. [clapping] Clap your hands. Thank you so much. Happy Holidays and I’ll
— [laughter] be signing books in the back. Okay, so every single person in this room
is a giver; not only is a giver, but you give joyfully. How many people in this room self identify
as a philanthropist? Raise your hand. [pause] Okay, so only a handful of people in this
room self identify as philanthropists, yet every single person in this room gives. That’s
an interesting disparity. And I think I know why that is the case. Because you might feel
like self identifying as a philanthropist is too self promotional or you do not fit
the mold, or you do not have enough money to consider yourself a philanthropist. For me, I believe the very idea of what a
philanthropist is is ripe to democratized. Philanthropy actually derives from the Greek
word philanthropis which means love for human kind. There is no mention of money in this
definition. The only thing that you need to have to be a philanthropist is generosity;
the only thing you need to have. I believe that a philanthropist is anyone
who gives anything: time, money, experience, skills, networks, passion, compassion in any
amount to create a better world. In the 21st century, this definition is a
redefinition of this word. It’s a departure from what we’ve traditionally thought about
as a philanthropist. In the 21st century there’s actually an enormous spectrum of what a philanthropist
is. If you volunteer at Hospice, you are a philanthropist;
if you write a fund-raising campaign or an awareness-building campaign on Facebook, oh
I mean Google+, you are a philanthropist; if you walk for a cure, if you donate even
ten dollars to provide vaccines for children in developing countries, or if you have the
opportunity to donate a million dollars to your alma mater, you are a philanthropist.
What is so important to remember about the philanthropic spectrum is that there is no
financial hierarchy; there is no financial hierarchy. If a gift is significant to you,
whatever form and whatever size it takes, it will be significant to somebody else. [pause] Democratizing philanthropy, I believe, is
a critical need both for our society and for our world. I want to call out specifically though the
power of the individual giver, the power of individuals like every single person in this
room within the broader context of the philanthropic sector. This is a pie chart. Okay that was really
funny! [laughter] I’ve been gearing up for this one slide for
like three weeks. Come on people! I need you on my team here. [laughter] This is actually a pie that I made for Thanksgiving
this year which is actually a lie because — [laughter] my beloved has actually banned me from the
use of both the oven and the gas stove at home due to several kitchen fires — [laughter] that may or may not have been instigated by
myself. Consequently I’ve developed extremely advanced microwaving skills, but that being
neither here nor there, I digress. Last year U.S. philanthropy totaled in excess
of $290 billion. And you are probably going to be a little bit surprised to hear that
individuals made up over 80 percent of this giving. It’s not the major foundations and
it’s not corporations who drive American philanthropy, it’s individuals like each one of you. Last year in fact three out of four American
households made a philanthropic gift. [pause]
And when we look at who in fact is giving and how much they are giving it is actually
the people who have the very least to give who are giving the very most. Additionally last year almost 63 million Americans
volunteered their time. Yes?>>Female #1: Is that the percent of their
income that they give or is that that percentage that [unintelligible]?>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: This is the
percentage of income that on average each give. Sixty three million Americans volunteered
their time –>>Female #1: [unintelligible]
[laughter]>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: I need to get
back to you on that? But thank you for that question. Sixty three million Americans volunteered
their time. Those efforts totaled in excess of 8.1 billion hours. If you value each of
those hours at what is probably a grossly low $20 per hour, that totals almost 170 billion
dollars in value. You can see from this data that it is in fact
ordinary Americans with extraordinary generosity who are driving American philanthropy. Philanthropy
here in this country is actually about the 99 percent not the one percent, which are
typically the people that we read about. That being said, giving at a time right now may
seem like an economic paradox. It’s a time where in any given state unemployment is wavering
between 8.5 and 13 percent. Now more than ever we need to do more with less. Let me
show you why. [sound of pages turning] [pause] Globally 2.6 billion people are living on
less than $2 a day. Two dollars is less than the price of a loaf of bread at Safeway. [pause] Two point six billion people globally do not
have access to basic sanitation and 1.1 billion people entered the 21st century unable to
read or write their own names. Here in this country, nationally, one in six
Americans is living in poverty. And poverty is being defined at just over $22,000 a year
for a family of four. That’s about the same cost as a low end Prius. Additionally, every
26 seconds a high school student drops out of high school here in this country. So during
the course of our hour together, about 125 students will drop out of high school. High
school dropouts in this country are eight times more likely to go to prison and they
are not eligible for 90 percent of jobs. Locally here in California one in four children
live in poverty; one in four children. And 1.2 million students dropped out of school
in the last year. Right up the road about five minutes up the road in East Palo Alto,
only 18 percent of people over the age of 25 have a high school diploma. These are horrifying realities. And what’s
equally horrifying is the fact that we are not solving these social problems with the
way that we have been giving to date. We have to start giving in a way that matters more. [pause] A recent study, in summer of 2010, estimated
that 65 percent of all gifts by individuals were based purely on emotion; they had no
research behind them. When a gift is based purely on emotion you ultimately have probably
no understanding of the impact that that gift has. You have no understanding of the meaning
of your gift in the organizations that you are trying to support and in the lives that
you are ultimately trying to touch. Which gift would be more meaningful to you?
If you were giving $1,000 would it be more meaningful for you to give that gift to end
poverty or would it be more meaningful for you to know that because of your gift of $1,000,
ten unemployed veterans were able to participate in a job training with the ultimate goal that
seven out of those ten had a new job within six months? I want you to take five seconds and just close
your eyes or look down and think about what gifts you’ve given whether it’s your time
or your influence or your dollars. Which gifts have you given have been most meaningful to
you? Just think about it for a second. [pause] My guess is that the ones that are most meaningful
to you are ones where you did understand the meaning that your gift has and where you didn’t
just give your dollars but you rather engaged all of your resources: you gave your passion,
you gave your time, you gave your influence as well, you gave your portfolio of resources
to that specific cause. So my question, my daily question to myself
and my question today to all of you, is why wouldn’t we put the same amount of time and
effort and thought behind every single social investment that we make as we do behind every
single for profit investment that we make? [pause] The problem that we have is that Americans
give a huge amount of time and money every year, but we are not giving to our fullest
potential. We are giving largely based on emotion and passion when in reality we need
to marry our hearts with our minds. We need to choose the issues that drive our philanthropy
based on our passion but we need to choose the organizations that we fund based on our
intellect. So how do we actualize our philanthropic potential?
How do we, as I like to say, get from 1.0 to 2.0? Let me suggest a basic roadmap for you. [pause] First and foremost we need to shift our giving
from reactive to proactive. So what does reactive giving look like? Reactive giving is when
it’s the holiday season and on our kitchen counters at home, we have dozens of mail solicitations
from very worthy non-profit organizations which we may or may not know anything about
and we make our giving decisions based on those mail solicitations. Or at the end of
the year when we’re looking back at everything that we’ve given we realize that over half
of our giving was based on what other individuals, what our friends and co-workers asked us to
give to as opposed to our own passion. Reactive giving is something you feel like you should
do. Proactive giving is when your giving is based
in your particular passion or passions. It’s when you invest not just your dollars but
also your time, your influence, your networks, and your expertise. Reactive giving is when you give to causes
that move you deeply and that’s what enables you to engage your intellect to have the understanding
that makes your giving not just something that’s momentarily gratifying, but something
that contributes to your life long happiness. Proactive giving is something that you want
to do and when you want to do something as we all know you’re much more likely to do
much more of it. We need to shift our giving from sympathetic
to strategic. Sympathetic giving is when you give based on, for example, a late night television
ad that shows a hungry child in need. While your intentions are very much in the right
place you’re essentially giving into a vacuum. You have no idea if any of the money that
you’re giving will ultimately get to the child who inspired you to give in the first place. I would argue that it actually benefits us
greatly to extract a bit of the emotion that drives our giving and replace it with a bit
of learning and knowledge. When we give strategically we are actually balancing our personal passions
and we are balancing the pull on our heart strings and the emotional drive to give with
an understanding of core public needs and where our dollars can be most effective; sympathetic
to strategic. And finally we need to make a shift from isolated
to collaborative. Isolated giving is when we do our giving sitting at home, at our desk,
writing checks, mailing them off and that constitutes our philanthropy. Isolated giving
is when we give $20 into the collections basket at our place worship once a week or once a
month or once a year. When you give in isolation you’re actually drastically limiting the potential
impact of your gift. So we need to shift from isolated to collaborative.
When you choose to give collaboratively you have a whole new world of possibilities both
for the strategic and the personal or social benefit that your giving can have. When you
give with other people you are essentially sharing your passion and you’re sharing the
experience of expressing your generosity, you’re sharing something that makes you happy.
When you give collaboratively you also have the potential to benefit from each other’s
knowledge and learning. So I encourage everyone to consider coming
together in a giving circle, formally or informally, with members of your family, close friends,
members of your place of worship, co-workers, and do research together about something you
share passion for together. Calling local experts and understand what are the most critical
needs in your particular issue area and then make your giving decisions collaboratively. Reactive to proactive; sympathetic to strategic;
and isolated to collaborative; giving 1.0 to giving 2.0. So let me bring these core tenants to life
with a few examples. This is a tax return like the ones that were
prepared with love and joy for free that helped low income families save more money for back
to school clothes for their kids and healthier meals on the table. These tax returns are
like the ones prepared by Hector Chau. Hector is a retiree who lives on his pension in Western
Los Angeles. Hector does not have financial resources to give, but what he does have to
give are his time and his expertise. Hector was a tax accountant for 20 years.
Hector volunteers with the AARP’s Tax Aid Program which every years harnesses the time
and expertise of over 30,000 volunteers and together they prepare tax returns, free tax
returns, for about 2.6 million families at an average tax return prep cost of $229, that
totals about $600 million in value. So Hector’s time and expertise translates directly into
money saved for low income families. Hector Chau is a philanthropist. [pause] This is a laptop like the ones that were used
to provide computer training for a young girl in Guatemala, who through this computer training
suddenly had access to knowledge from all around the world which she can use to pursue
her lifelong dream of becoming a teacher. This computer training was provided with a
$40 gift by a young professional in Seattle, Washington named Seema Bhende . Seema is passionate about global poverty and
education. Seema is building on generations of volunteerism and social justice work of
her parents and her grandparents in her native country of India. Seema selected this gift
which she made through a funding intermediary called The Jolkona Foundation because of the
role that computer training played in the development of her own career. Seema guides
her giving by strategy not sympathy. Seema is a philanthropist. [pause] This is a soccer ball — [pause] like the ones that are used to teach a group
of East San Jose girls a new sport and in turn a new confidence in themselves which
helps them thrive both in school and in life. And across the field, their mothers are leaning
exercise in a simultaneous program. They’re also learning about nutrition and how to cook
healthier meals for their children. Through this program, through the Bay Area
Women’s Sports Network, an entire family’s well-being is improved. And this non-profit
is funded through a giving collaborative that includes Joon Yun and Kimberly Bazar. Joon
and Kimberly, a married couple who met in medical school, are partners at SV2, the Silicon
Valley Social Venture Fund. They are passionate both about women’s rights
but also about philanthropic innovation. So they choose to give not only their expertise
and their time but also their resources to give collaboratively through SV2 and in turn
are part of a larger portfolio of 35 early stage innovative non-profits. And through
their collaborative giving these non-profits are able to ultimately touch many more lives. [pause] These stories teach us, I believe, a powerful
lesson about how philanthropy is being democratized. There are countless opportunities now for
us as individuals to have tangible, meaningful impact with all of our gifts, again whatever
their size and whatever their form. [pause] [sound of pages turning] So what can you do and what can you do right
now? What can you do when you go back to your desks and you pretend that you’re working
when in reality you really want to be completing all of your holiday shopping online? Sitting here in Silicon Valley, you are at
the epicenter of technology and technological innovation. In my mind this is the most exciting
place to be in the world primarily because of how technology is democratizing things.
Technology democratizes entire nation states as you know, but what I find most beautiful
about technology is how it’s democratizing philanthropy. Four ways, four of countless ways, that it’s
doing this: number one, technology is providing access to information. Any individual who
wants to be a philanthropist can now go online and have access to the funding portfolios
and due diligence of many of the most highly staffed, professionalized philanthropic foundations
in the world. This is like having direct access into super high performance money manager
portfolios. This access to information gives us the power
to shift from not just being charitable but being strategic philanthropists. Technology
also gives us access to unique giving opportunities. Technology connects individuals across states,
across countries, across oceans with unique giving opportunities and an understanding
of how your gift is directly impacting somebody else’s life in another part of the world.
So a lawyer in Kansas City or an engineer here at Google could be directly connected
and make a gift to fund a young girl’s education in Afghanistan or make a $200 gift to provide
a prosthetic limb for a manual laborer in Bangladesh; access to unique opportunities. Through social networks, individuals are now
able to self-identify by the organizations and issues that we are most passionate about.
And with five or ten minutes of your time you can create a fund raising campaign or
an awareness building campaign or an entire movement and with the click of a mouse send
it out to your entire social networks; powerful. And technology also provides us access to
problem solving. Now through creative swarms and crowd sourcing, individuals who are otherwise
completely disconnected can collaborate online to solve some of our world’s most pressing
social problems like famine in East Africa. These are just four simple examples of an
entire world of opportunity that technology is creating for social change. It’s extraordinary
to me that what’s happening right now at this moment is creating an entire new platform
that has potential to in turn create an entire new culture for the philanthropic sector;
a culture of innovation. And in my mind it is the individual donors,
who as we saw earlier, make up upwards of 80 percent of all giving, who have the responsibility
to drive this new culture of innovation. The onus is on us to innovate in our philanthropy. [pause] Every single person in this room has the potential
and has the intellect and the resources to be innovative in your giving. And its innovation,
I believe, this incessant learning and evolution which is what will ultimately drive each of
us reaching our own philanthropic potential. When I think of innovation I think of three
different things: the creation of something new; the renewal of something that already
exists; and new thinking around existing processes and systems and problems; the creation of
something new. For example, peer to peer giving sites like
the Jolkona Foundation and Donors Choose didn’t exist 10 or 11 years ago. Donors Choose was
created by a former teacher. Jolkona Foundation was created by a former Microsoft programmer.
Donors Choose in the last decade has channeled over $100 million directly into core needs
in public education classrooms around the country. [pause] Whoops, wait, we didn’t mean to do that slide
quite so quickly. [pause] The suspense is killing you, I know. The renewal of something that already exists.
For us as individual givers, we are constantly coming together in groups whether it’s a religious
studies group or it’s a work group or you’re part of a book club or an investment club.
You have these built-in micro social networks that you can expand to help improve your philanthropy. You can take any of these clubs, any regular
gathering that you have with your friends or other members of your social network and
you can create a philanthropic element to this group that already exists. On my website
at www dot giving 2 dot com, starting in January, I will be providing free agendas and resources
to help you take any group and have a giving club component to it for 2012. And new thinking around existing problems
and systems and processes. I challenge everyone in this room, myself included, to make a New
Year’s resolution that you’re going to approach your philanthropic giving with the same degree
of seriousness as you do your for profit investments. With philanthropy individual lives are at
stake so why wouldn’t we require an expected return for every single investment that we
make in other people’s lives and in our broader society? These are just three types of ways that we
innovate probably things that you do on a regular basis in your own careers. So these
are things that are very familiar to you. But what’s important when we go back to thinking
about the role of the individual giver, individual givers, yourselves included, gave $235 billion
last year. Imagine the potential of those dollars coupled with volunteer efforts if
we applied innovation to our giving. [pause] So what is your Giving 2.0 going to be? I
believe that what it is we do for other people during the course of our lifetime ultimately
defines who we are as people. What’s amazing is that every single one of us has the ability
to write the chapter of our lives that is our giving legacy from start to finish. There are so many things in our lives that
we cannot control. I cannot control the fact that I lost my mother to cancer, but what
I can control is how I choose to celebrate her legacy through my giving. Giving is one
of the few things in your lives that you can completely control; you get to make every
single decision yourself. Every person here has the potential to be an extraordinary philanthropist,
but what you choose to do with that potential is ultimately up to each of you. So as you go forth and you be philanthropic
I encourage you to always remember that it’s not about what you give but rather it’s about
how you give. Thank you. [applause] Yeah, lunch time! [laughter] [laughs] [pause]>>Male #1: We do have a mic if you have any
questions for Laura. [pause]>>Female #2: Thank you so much for the presentation.
That was wonderful. You talked a lot about accountable giving
and knowing where your dollars are going. I’d be curious if you could provide some comments
on indices or benchmarks or types of metrics people are able to look at when really knowing
where their dollars are going.>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: It’s a fantastic
question and a question that every single person I know in the philanthropic sector,
myself included, struggles with every single day. One of the trickiest parts about metrics for
giving is the fact that it is virtually impossible to create generalized metrics even across
social issue areas because every non-profit organization has a unique model. What I can say is that, for you as an individual
philanthropist, if you’ve seen one non-profit you’ve seen one non-profit and that is it.
So every non-profit you will need to do research on yourself. [pause] There, so there are lots of different online
assessment tools that are, assessment organizations that have been created. There’s GuideStar,
GreatNonprofits, Philanthropedia, GiveWell just to name a few. I would encourage you though, for every non-profit
that you’re making a gift if that gift is significant to you, I would go and read their
annual report or even better, read their 990 report so you can see exactly how their finances
are breaking down. Anybody who claims that having minimal overheard
is a sign of an effectively run non-profit, I believe, does not know what they’re talking
about. There are grass roots advocacy organizations that are going to have upwards of 80 percent
of overhead and that’s gonna be fine for that particular model. Then there are major endowed
institutions who technically are not gonna have any expenses every year that they have
to raise through overhead line items. Again it’s totally specific; I think specific
to the non-profit. I think that if an organization cannot tell you specifically what success
looks like in the short term and the intermediate term and in the long term, that is how they
know if they’re achieving their mission, then I would not invest in that organization. You should be able to easily answer the three
following questions: how many, how deeply, how much? So how many people are being touched,
how deeply are they being touched by a specific dollar amount, that is how holistic is the
approach of this particular non-profit, and how much does it cost them to serve each individual
life that they aspire to transform? And finally, I think that just as leadership
plays a critically important role, actually two final points, just as leadership plays
a critically important role in the for profit sector, the same is absolutely true of non-profits.
So I invest in some non-profits who have extraordinary leaders even when their particular mission
and isuary is totally outside of my area of passion. And then also I think it’s so critically important
that every non-profit involves their ultimate customer, that is the people who benefit from
the services, in the creation of whatever their service model is; so involving the customers
in the products. Winnie was just telling me that Google’s holiday
gift to all the employees was the new phone that you guys have which my beloved actually
got on Friday and is incredibly excited about. But what’s so cool about that strategic corporate
gift is Google now has the feedback loop of individuals who would be in their customer
base in terms of what features work well, what isn’t working well, what’s appealing,
what isn’t appealing, what’s useless, what’s useful. The same needs to be true of how non-profits
create their products. That was a very short answer — [laughter] to that simple question. [pause] Yes, thank you.>>Female #3: I have a question about how you
feel disaster relief efforts fit into this strategic planning about how you wanna give
and where to give to in times of disaster?>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Yeah, in general,
you’re speaking in general, right?>>Female #3: Well yeah, in general but in
the past few years there’ve just been so many and it feels–>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Yeah.>>Female #: like you’re inundated with pleas
to give to different regions of the world who all –>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Yeah.>>Female #3: equally have an urgent requirement.
It’s very hard to understand where you make the most impact.>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Thank you. So
I believe I read about a week ago in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal that
last year alone natural disasters and catastrophes totaled about 300, it’s either 300, and I
know this is a huge different, or 390, Zack to you remember, billion dollars in damage
which is obviously in excess of all philanthropic dollars that were given in the United States. I think it’s really important when you’re
approaching philanthropy that you think of it in terms of a portfolio. And I think the
most significant amount of that portfolio should be driven by your personal passion.
That being said, I also think it’s really valuable to have a friends’ fund where you
allocate a certain percentage of what you’re gonna give every year to what friends and
co-workers etcetera want you to share with them. But I also think it’s important, if emergency
services and disaster relief is not your personal passion, I think it’s important to allow for
space in your giving portfolio for those needs because the reality is when a natural disaster
happens or when a man-made disaster happens or when an individual is attacked or a woman
is raped or a house burns down, that is the greatest equalizer in our world. Like, it
does not matter who you are, where you work, what education you have, we are all equal
in that situation. And I, personally, believe that emergency
services and disaster relief is a critical component of what we all should be doing;
it’s actually the primary issue area that my beloved and I fund with our philanthropy,
primarily because it’s the single most underfunded area in medicine, in institutional medicine.
But I always encourage everyone to participate, but do so only through pre-vetted institutions. So if you choose to give to the Red Cross
do so with full awareness of the fact that the Red Cross when it’s raising money for
any given disaster will be keeping a portion of that money so that it has immediate funds
that can get right into the hands of the people that need them the most when the next disaster
happens. Another great way to meet core community needs
and critical needs through a very secure — [pause] pre-vetted type of organization is giving
through local community foundations. So when Hurricane Katrina happened or — [pause] when 9/11 happened it was the United Way of
New York City and the New York Community Trust that came together and created the September
11th Fund. And that ultimately was one of the most, was probably the most successful
effort that met not only short term but also immediate term needs for that particular crisis
and did so in a way that broadly defined who the victims were. [pause]>>Female #4: Hi –>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Hi.>>Female #4: thanks so much for being here.
My question is about the idea of program funding versus unrestricted funding. And I know nowadays
obviously program funding is really sexy, everyone wants to give to programs because
you can see your direct impact, you can see the people that you’re helping, you’re buying
supplies, blankets whatever, but that the reality of many non-profits is that the kind
of funding they really need is unrestricted funding for their general operating budget.
What’s your, what kind of advice do you give to donors to get them to understand the importance
of that?>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: That’s one of
my very –>>Female #4: Versus like seeding –>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: favorite topics.
One of my personal goals is to make general operating grants even sexier than program
grants, because program funds are the single easiest funds for any non-profit to raise
primarily because if you do a bit of research you can connect directly with a teen, a troubled
at risk youth, who you’re helping to get an education or a family that you’re helping
through providing transitional housing to or a specific number of individuals who are
getting treatment for a particular disease. But in reality none of those programs would
even exist if organizations did not have the general operating funds that provides the
core infrastructure for all of their service provisions. At SV2, the Silicon Valley Social Venture
Fund, we actually only give organizational capacity building grants and we do that primarily
because those are the single hardest funds to raise. The only type of grants that my
husband and I give through all of our philanthropy, and same with my family’s philanthropy, are
general operating grants. So I would encourage you to understand the
impact that a non-profit has, but don’t impose your personal needs or ego or idea of what
the organization needs on that organization; make an investment in the leadership team
and let them allocate those funds. [pause]>>Male #2: Hi.>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Hi.>>Male #2: My name is Sebastian and I work
in a team that actually seeks to provide non-profits with AdWords advertising so I’m particularly
inspired in a way I see us trying to connect NGOs with those millions of givers out there
so thank you for the talk. It’s great to see that you’re educating these givers and you’re
getting much more of them onto giving. What I wanted to ask and something that I
struggle is to in trying to get a more holistic picture of the whole non-profit sector, so
what are the ways I mean understanding the different players, different types of NGOs,
umbrella orgs? And you touch upon some of that from a particular angle in your book,
but are there any courses out there or here in the area that we can take to keep furthering
our understanding of the non-profit sector?>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Ahh –>>Male #2: Any suggestions?>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: That’s such
a fabulous question. [pause] You know what I would love to do is if you
wanna give me your card and Winnie, perhaps, we can work with you in this. Why don’t I
and my team, my two former star students, Stacy Walder from the Business School and
Zack D’Angelo from my undergraduate class, why don’t you give us a couple weeks and we’ll
put together like a big bibliography of resources that you can tap into to help further your
work.>>Male #2: That’d be amazing.>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Okay, great.>>Male #2: Thank you very much.>>Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen: Sure. Thank you all so much. [applause]

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

3 thoughts on “Authors at Google, Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, “Giving 2.0”

  1. You should do a book on "foreign aid."
    The corruption in that (those) programs is *staggering* and it starts right in Washington on K Street!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *