Women & Philanthropy Philanthropic Round TableApril 8, 2010

The New Normal: Resetting, Rethinking, Restructuring

for a New Age of Philanthropy

Fourteenth Annual Philanthropic Round Table

The New Normal: Resetting, Rethinking, Restructuring

for a New Age of Philanthropy

Convened by Miss Hall’s School

and held at

New York University’s Kimmel Center

New York, New York

April 8, 2010

© Copyright 2010 Miss Hall’s School. All rights reserved.

2010 Participants

MODERATOR

Jeannie NorrisHead of School, Miss Hall’s School

PANELISTS

Sara K. GouldPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Foundation for Women, Brooklyn, New York

Donna P. HallPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Women Donors Network, San Francisco, California

Joanna L. KrotzDirector, Women’s Giving Institute, Author, The Guide to Intelligent Giving, New York, New York

Katelyn L. Quynn, JDDeputy Chief Development Officer, Massachusetts General Hospital, Author, Planned Giving: A Guide to Fundraising and Philanthropy, Boston, Massachusetts

Lisa WitterChief Strategy Officer, Fenton Communications, Author, The She Spot, New York, New York

1

One may be tired of hearing that change is the only constant, but there is no denying it. As Jeannie

notes in her introduction, the new philanthropic paradigm focuses not on the transfer of wealth but

on large-scale societal issues, their root causes, and what is required in response.

Panelists echoed that assertion, noting movement away from large, unresponsive organizations

to small, entrepreneurial bodies, as a new generation emerges that wants to leap past treating

symptoms and proceed directly to uprooting and re-thinking systems. Those involved in social

issues are, increasingly, insistent on changing the game. In addition, as so many other aspects of life

globalize, there is a corresponding adjustment in thinking around giving that allows us all to see not

just the neighbor on our block, but also the neighbor across the planet.

These large changes in mindset are putting both strains and positive pressures on nonprofits. There

is the oft-noted pressure on us to demonstrate return on investment and, at the same time, the need

to invest more time and energy in engaging with constituents, in order to allow for more voices to be

heard and a broader coalition to be built. And technological change plays its own role, both making

more possibility and creating daunting complexity.

The steady influx of women’s philanthropic involvement on a large scale is one of the game-changers

noted. As one panelist said, the subject of empowering women is “hot” right now as, increasingly,

there is general acknowledgement that providing women with education, health care, and economic

opportunity grows healthier families, stronger communities, richer economies, and greater political

stability. Much, although not all, of this discovery has come about because women were interested in

helping other women. And because of that sensibility, families and generations have become part of

the discussion and the process, as well. The picture is not so much about saving the individual as it is

now about empowering the individual who will strengthen the fabric of society.

Just as Miss Hall’s School, with its Go Far, Go Together Campaign theme and its collaborative work

with students, has recognized the power of collective action to motivate and engage the individual,

the panel often made the same assertion. They talked about critical mass and called for women to

come together, to be at the center of change, and to be our own media in a world where 24/7 media-

bombardment is the new normal.

That new normal for women? Greater visibility, greater outspokenness, greater willingness to risk

failure, more initiative, and more collaboration. It is, they said, for each other’s sake that we cannot

sit still. That sounds like just what the girls would tell you, if you joined us at Miss Hall’s.

Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Head of School Chief Advancement Officer Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Jeannie Norris Janis Martinson Head of School Chief Advancement Officer Head of School Chief Advancement Officer Head of School Chief Advancement Officer

Jeannie Norris

MS. NORRIS: There seems to be a great

deal of ferment in current thinking about

philanthropy. And why not? There equally

seems to be ferment in our thinking about

most major social institutions. Perhaps

it is because the future seems uncertain.

Nobody knows for sure what the long-term

effects of the financial crisis, high levels of

national debt, and high unemployment will

be. The economic “new normal” suggests

lower growth for quite some time. And

most polls show an electorate sharply

divided about the role of government in the

future of the country. Within this high level

of angst, thoughtful writers are wondering

whether the old models of philanthropy are

broken and whether new approaches will

appear anytime soon.

Pablo Eisenberg wrote a few months ago

in The Wall Street Journal that it is “hard to

overstate the crisis facing charitable giving

today.” Much of current philanthropy, he

says, isn’t meeting the needs of charitable

organizations or urgent public needs.1

In an article called “The Coming Paradigm

Shift in Philanthropy: It's Not about the

Money,” Susan Raymond decries the

asymmetry in philanthropy, i.e., the fact

that it is about the transfer of money from

an individual with it to individuals without

it. The problem with this relationship,

she says, is that it is not “one of mutuality

of responsibility and accountability but

one of giver and receiver.” The result, she

continues, is that “fundamental social

problems continue apace, showing little

progress for the dollars spent.” In the midst

of this frustration, Raymond posits, the

new paradigm is emerging, one that seeks

solutions to “fix” the problem and does

not simply transfer resources to “help.”

Further, the loyalty in the new paradigm is

to the problem, not between the giver and

the receiver. Perhaps most importantly,

the new paradigm seeks to “flow resources

to problems in ways that create sustained

institutional capability,” i.e. continuous,

self-sustained resource flows. Finally, it

values partnership, a mutuality of problem

definition and program execution. 2

In a recent article in The Chronicle of

Philanthropy, titled “Philanthropy Needs

a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the

Common Good,” Michael Edwards argues

that philanthropy is currently based on a

strange assumption: “Let's develop a costly

and divisive system for creating wealth and

then hope that those who benefit most

will give some back to solve problems

2

that they have helped to cause.” This is,

he says, probably the least efficient way to

tackle social problems. He asserts that the

system must be rebuilt, according to these

basic principles: involve as many people as

possible; put those who experience society's

problems at the center of the system; find

ways to direct as many resources as possible

to the most difficult and entrenched social

problems, since that is where government

and business usually fear to tread; and

strengthen openness, accountability, and

education to spur innovation without

the need for too much government

intervention. Social transformation, he says,

can’t be left to market forces or to the whims

of billionaires…it must be more supportive

of people’s own self-development efforts to

bring the change society needs. 3

Another tantalizing analysis, by Jed

Emerson, supposes that “today's young

Americans will reshape corporate culture

as they become CEOs, focusing companies

on financial gains and fighting poverty,

improving the environment, and other

causes.” He imagines a blended business

and nonprofit approach to charity, with

large companies integrating giving into

their operations. 4

What we wonder is whether American

philanthropy is indeed edging its way to a

new social normal, a style that brings more

people to the decision-making table and

in some way is increasingly progressive in

character. Are we in turmoil because turmoil

is the order of the day, or is the gigantic

system of American philanthropy truly

evolving to solve social problems that have so

far shown themselves to be intractable?

We have observed in other meetings of this

roundtable that philanthropy is essential

to social change in this culture. The

kinds of initiatives that might be taken by

government in other countries are, here,

left to loosely associated individuals and

groups. It seems that if our society is to

evolve in terms of basic fairness and equity,

it will be because individuals with money to

give feel the need. The Dalai Lama says that

compassion is the radicalism of the current

age. So, will philanthropy become the

vehicle for that compassion? And in what

form? Are we in a new normal?

MS. HALL: What is changing is that

philanthropy has begun moving away from

large foundations, which have become

very bureaucratic and not very responsive,

and toward individuals, small family

foundations, and social entrepreneurs who

say, “What can I try? Who can I work with

in a more collaborative way? How can

we learn from mistakes, talk about those

mistakes, and then move forward?” It is a

transition toward more entrepreneurial

models, involving many more people. We

have to figure out how to involve more than

the traditional, inherited-wealth donors

who run family foundations, broaden

the base, and institutionalize that. We

need to work together to be much more

entrepreneurial and much more risk-taking.

MS. KROTZ: There certainly is a new

normal, but I don’t think it is just because

of the economic meltdown. There is now

3

a great deal of hands-on engagement

by people and institutions that want to

partner with nonprofits, which is incredibly

exciting but also a little nerve-racking.

Everyone has her own term for it, but

social entrepreneurship is basically about

hands-on tools, people, and for-profit

companies doing good. It’s where Avon

will support a charity and give 2 percent

of what you spend to that charity. We have

Google investing in things that push an

agenda, which may be one that I agree with,

but perhaps it isn’t. There are companies

engaged in giving profits to good causes,

and all kinds of for-profits trying to do

good and at the same time trying to engage

the customer to buy their products. This

collaborative nature is not about being “the

giver” and not about being “the receiver.” It’s

people moving forward together to get the

job done. There is just a certain discomfort

I have with social entrepreneurship. I am

watching it, thrilled with it, and love that it

is happening, but I am a little leery, as well.

MS. GOULD: Another part of social

entrepreneurship is investing directly

in real people by individuals who are

motivated by wanting to solve a problem or

change the world. They are using business

models and business thinking. One of the

problems in the new normal is this possible

over-reliance on business thinking as an

answer to problems that we face. One of

my favorite readings is by Jim Collins, who

has a small monograph called Good to

Great and the Social Sectors. On the cover,

it says, “Why Business Thinking is not the

Answer.” As someone who has been in a

nonprofit foundation, the Ms. Foundation

for Women, for twenty-four years, the last

six years as president, I also believe that

business thinking is not the answer. When

Mike Edwards says we have to engage more

real people in real communities, it means

we have to put people who are experiencing

problems at the center of finding solutions.

This is a fundamental value in the

Foundation for Women.

I also am nervous about the social

entrepreneurship concept and this thinking

that we need to have more measurable

results. Part of the new normal is this

emphasis on metrics. Instead, we need

to focus on the fact that as we try to find

solutions, we will not always succeed. There

will be failures. We learn from failures.

MS. WITTER: I am most excited about the

new normal in communications. The way

we are using social media is changing us as

[W]e have to put people who are experiencing problems at the center of finding solutions.

Sara K. Gould

4

human beings. Those tools, in particular,

are women’s tools, with the activities, the

sharing, the documenting, the engagements,

and I’m excited about the possibilities. Also,

the new philanthropy is really different.

People my age and younger do not use the

word “charity.”

MS. QUYNN: I come from the viewpoint

of a healthcare fundraiser. I work at

Massachusetts General Hospital, and in 1994

we combined with Brigham and Women’s

Hospital to form Partners HealthCare,

which is now the largest healthcare system

in Massachusetts. Nationally, we are all

seeing dramatic changes in healthcare.

Our “new normal” includes all the aspects

of your “new normal,” plus the healthcare

crisis, government changes, and the fact that

hospitals are not getting reimbursements

from Medicare as we used to. It is causing

enormous stress on people seeking primary

care physicians and worrying about getting

care and enormous stress on the entire

hospital system. At Massachusetts General,

we do so much in terms of healthcare

for the underserved locally and globally.

For example, we currently have about ten

physicians working in Haiti.

Because of broadening services, the donor

base is expanding for all of us. Ours is no

longer simply a grateful patient base, but

the world is our donor base. We are seeing

many more people getting involved, and

we need them. We are talking with them

about investing in us and the work that we

do—research, for example—and how that

will help the world, not just our community.

Last year, we got our largest gift, $100

million. It was built on a small connection

with a patient, but it was somebody who

wanted to invest in the research we do. It’s

by talking about how our work will impact

the world more broadly that new donors

invest in us. That’s where my “new normal”

comes from.

MS. KROTZ: I want to add to the

discussion what women are bringing to

the party in philanthropy. That’s more

of a game-changer. Women tend to be

socially engaged. They tend to be hands-

on. Everyone needs to be educated about

getting engaged in philanthropy—men as

well as women—and I would rather see that

engagement than a $500 million fund.

MS. NORRIS: That was my next question.

In which ways might women and women’s

organizations be especially well equipped to

enter this new normal?

MS. WITTER: Women, as a topic, are

“hot” right now. What I worry about is

keeping women “hot.” How do we keep

front-and-center the idea of investing in

women and the idea that there is a real

return on those investments? How do we

deal with systemic problems—not just

educating women, but changing the system?

How do we build on the passion around the

international women’s piece? The challenge

we have as American women is to bridge

this excitement about supporting women

and girls abroad and bring it back home.

MS. GOULD: Another challenge is to

get women to engage in the most pressing

5

issues of our day as women while working

with everyone to do this. My experience for

many years has been working in progressive

settings where people are addressing what’s

considered to be a universal issue, and yet

nothing is a universal issue. There is always

a gender, a race, a class, all kinds of lenses.

For example, too often what we miss in

developing a solution is that those affected

are women and not men, and so it’s a huge

missing piece. For the Ms. Foundation for

Women, being for women means to be

everywhere, talking about every issue.

MS. HALL: One of the things that I focus

on is getting women involved in change—

individual change, systemic change, and a

combination of those. Women need to be

at the center of the conversation, because

they are living the problems. An example: A

woman named Kiran Bedi, who was the first

female police officer in India. She famously

had the prime minister’s car towed from a

no-parking zone. In 1994 she was named

warden of India’s largest prison, which was

run by a gang. She turned it inside out—to

the point where she was educating the

prisoners. She revolutionized that system.

Another example is that of a law professor

who was talking about how women are

marginalized because we are so few in

numbers in the positions that we take. Until

we have more numbers and have reached

some sort of tipping point, we are very

unempowered. A number of years ago, in

a law school where she was teaching, this

professor instituted a requirement that

when a professor called on a woman, no

matter what answer she gave—right or

wrong—another one of the few women

in the class was in line with a follow-up

comment and support. As a result, there has

been a huge change in how these women

function in law school and afterward.

I bring up these examples because as we

think about what philanthropy is—or what

it should be—there’s a connection between

changing the system and supporting

individuals. The question is, how do we

set things up so we are working with

individuals and focusing as a group on

entrenched systems?

MS. NORRIS: What other examples are

there of partnerships between those who

are providing resources and those who are

living the problems?

MS. GOULD: Women’s funds, of which

there are about one hundred and thirty

around the world, and the Ms. Foundation

Women need to be their own media—telling stories and getting the word out, educating.

Lisa Witter

6

are examples. What comes out of the

relationship between funders and those

experiencing problems is transformative.

Women’s funds were among the first in

philanthropy to bring this together.

MS. QUYNN: I have a question for my

co-panelists. Can you name a major gift that

has been made by a woman—with money

that she has earned—that has transformed a

system, a charity?

MS. HALL: I went to business school

with Michelle Clayman, who is the founder

of New Amsterdam Partners, a financial

management firm. She created a company

that is completely family-friendly. In fact,

she is known to go through offices at

6:00 p.m. to turn off computers and tell

people to go home. She has engaged her

employees in philanthropic work, but, in

addition to that, she has not been afraid to

put her name on major gifts that she has

made. She gave Stanford Business School,

which has had a very low percentage of

women in its classes until the last three or

four years, a gift that hinged on providing

scholarships for women and making sure

that they were working to change policies

and the percentage of women in classes. She

also funded a research center on Stanford’s

campus. The Michelle R. Clayman Institute

for Gender Research is doing a lot of

collaborative work with other departments

and is focused on work-family issues. That’s

an example.

MS. WITTER: One of the “new normal”

things that I want to chat a little bit about

has to do with the iPad—and, by the way,

they probably did not have a woman in

the focus group when they named it. It has

changed the way we work and how we do

our business. You can imagine how much

of how we interact with donors is going to

change. They can go online. They can see a

video. It changes the raising of money. We

need to be in communication with people.

Our customer service has to be better than

ever. We need to tell stories better than ever.

Reading is not going to be what we will be

doing anymore. People are going to watch

things. They are going to want to interact.

They are going to have what we are calling

“filters,” where they’re going to want to learn

only what they want to learn. It’s going to be

hard to get to them in ways that we have in

the past.

Also, for women in particular, if we’re going

to have more involvement in philanthropy,

women need to be their own media—

telling stories and getting the word out,

educating. Right now, women blog more

than men. They do more online. They are

making online video content. If we don’t

start making our own media, we are going

to see a real problem as to what gets funded

and what gets attention. If anyone does not

already have a Flip camera—it’s $100, and

well worth it—go buy one today. It’s an easy

way to shoot and make your own video.

This is the future of how we’re going to do

our work. We have to be part of that change.

MS. KROTZ: There is a generation shift.

Young women use video all the time. It’s

the wireless generation. They grew up on

war and the economic meltdown. This is

7

a whole new category of young people,

and we are seeing, in fundraising, ways

that younger people are engaging with

philanthropy. We’re seeing gender-specific

kinds of behaviors bridged. Many women

in their twenties are different than women

in their forties and fifties. They use texting,

not direct mail, which, by the way, is

plummeting. I have been covering women

donors and women in philanthropy [as a

journalist] for about six years now and I

am seeing this change. I have great hope for

that, great hope.

MS. NORRIS: We were talking about

small changes that have huge effects—the

story of having a woman ready to confirm

a comment of a female law school student,

for example. What comes to mind is women

needing permission. For example, women

very often need permission to run for office.

They need to be told, “You have all the skills

that everybody is looking for, so why don’t

you just go do that?” We see that, of course,

with girls, as well, and we teach our girls to

encourage each other to take healthy risks.

The question is, do women need permission

to give?

MS. GOULD: I think there was a time

when everybody needed permission to

give. As a fundraiser, one of the things

you learn is that the single largest reason

why someone does not give is that no one

asked them. In that sense, everybody needs

permission to give.

MS. WITTER: A lot of women like to

give in communities. Women like to give

in circles.

MS. HALL: The conversation and support

of a philanthropic community bolsters

some of that self-confidence in the practice

of giving. In my organization, initially

most women who were giving came from

inherited-wealth families. They came into

the world not knowing very much about

money. They just knew that they had it.

They did not know how to manage it. They

did not know how to write a check. They

never worked. Their families were much

more male-oriented. These women did a

lot of work—which they did collectively—

to get to a point where they realized that

they could be powerful and that they

could make a difference with money. That

gave everybody permission to be more

empowered, to feel okay, and to recognize

that it is both a responsibility and a privilege

to use money wisely and to be able to talk

about it. But talking about money, that’s still

The conversation and support of a philanthropic community bolsters self-confidence in the practice of giving.

Donna P. Hall

8

a struggle. In my organization, it’s much

more difficult to talk about how much

money we have than to talk when we hold

a sex class. Women can talk about sex from

now until tomorrow. They can talk about

where they want to buy shoes, but they

will not talk about money. We conduct an

anonymous questionnaire every year at

our conference. The questionnaire is just a

postcard that asks how much are your total

assets and how much did you give away, and

the response rate—even in an anonymous

questionnaire that is put into a box and

nobody can see it—is very low.

MS. NORRIS: What is that about?

MS. KROTZ: Women don’t feel that they

own their assets or that they’re in charge of

the dollars. They feel that the money came

from the man and they do not share the

power of the checkbook. There is also this

issue of being seen as a woman of wealth.

For some women, it’s terrifying. It is a very

powerful position, and society, by and

large, does not do well with that, with how

it treats women who are wealthy. They’re

often stereotyped as bitchy, stupid, bimbos.

Again, I come back to education, media,

and marketing. The education has to be: Be

in charge of yourself, be in charge of your

money, be in charge of your assets, and then

you can give with passion and distinction.

MS. NORRIS: Connecting with others

is important. At Miss Hall’s we have had

donors who wanted to be anonymous and

did not want a name on a building. We told

them, “The girls need to see your name.

They need to know that you are there, that

you are thinking about them, that they are

a part of what you are a part of.” After that,

there was no problem; the name is on the

building. Connecting in this way makes it

much more comfortable.

In a similar vein, girls and women

sometimes have difficulty promoting

themselves. We teach girls to advocate for

themselves, because they will need to do

that when they step out of academia. We

allow them to practice doing that by asking

them to list their strengths and note how

those strengths, for example, helped to win

the game for the whole team. When a girl

can talk about herself in relationship

with other girls and what they all did

together, she is eager to speak out. How

do we create those relationship zones in

philanthropy for women?

MS. WITTER: The next book that I

am working on talks about women who

promote themselves better. Every year I go

to a conference with a woman named Nancy

Lublin, who created Dress for Success. One

year, there was a panel, and I was the only

woman. There were eight very successful

men telling me how much humility they

had, and they asked a question that stuck

with me. They asked if the most important

thing to teach your children is humility.

I don’t think that it is, and I think that

women might have too much of it. I’ve

been doing a lot of thinking about humility,

what it means, and this hiding behind the

good virtue of humility. I started a project

with Marie Wilson, founder and President

of The White House Project, and I asked,

9

“Why don’t we have more women quoted

in the media?” She said, “We don’t know

any.” I said, “That’s absurd! We have to

create a database of women whom we can

call and quote when news breaks.” The

challenge that we have had is that we will

call a woman and say, “Jane, you’re an expert

on this or that, can we talk?” and Jane will

say one of three things: “Yes,” although that

happens probably only a third of the time;

“No, I need to pick up my kids;” or “I really

don’t know enough about that issue.” This

notion of somehow “not knowing your

expertise” is a huge issue that we have to

change. As philanthropists if we can’t say

“I’m a philanthropist,” then how can we

inspire other people to be philanthropists?

I want to create a web site of women

philanthropists and include their pictures. I

want to be proud of being a philanthropist.

MS. GOULD: Too often, women say, “I

don’t know enough.” That perfectionism

is an enormous barrier to get over. Having

worked with Marie Wilson myself for

eighteen years, I always heard Marie say,

“Being mediocre was never a problem for

men.” You just have to get over it and know

that what we are bringing to the table is

every bit as important as what anyone else is

going to say.

MS. HALL: We have to figure out ways

to get ourselves over these barriers. We

have to do that together, we have to do it

individually, and we have to do it through

funding. I don’t think that we can wait

for the large foundations to help us. I

cannot emphasize that enough. That’s the

fundamental difference between men and

women. Women have tended to give very

quietly, underconfidently. But [because of

female longevity and social change], women

are coming into the majority of the assets; by

the year 2040 or 2044 the wealth that women

will have will total about $44 trillion, and

the opportunity to do something with that is

ours. So, we have to help each other—except

for maybe Miss Hall’s students—get over

this issue. I’ve been at meetings where each

woman was asked to talk for two minutes

about her strengths and what she is good at.

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen

women just not be able to do it. We come up

with all sorts of excuses. We get embarrassed.

Isn’t it interesting how difficult this is for so

many of us?

MS. QUYNN: I want to go back to the

generational issue. I believe that younger

women are becoming more philanthropic,

learning how to give, and have benefited

from the educational process that has been

The education has to be: Be in charge of yourself, be in charge of your money, be in charge of your assets, and then you can give with passion and distinction.

Joanna L. Krotz

10

taking place around philanthropy. But it is

the older generation of women, who have

the money and who could really make a

major impact, who are not giving. They

don’t have that sense of permission or

whatever it is, and yet they are the ones with

the money. That’s the problem for all of us.

MS. NORRIS: What can we do as women

to help each other become bolder about

how we use the power of money?

MS. HALL: We also need mentoring and

generational exchanges between women.

We need job shadowing or philanthropy

shadowing. By making things more

intentional, I think that they will become

more systemic.

MS. QUYNN: Again, I come back to

financial education. It’s not that you need a

lot of money to be a philanthropist, but you

need to be in charge of it.

MS. WITTER: I get really excited for

younger women. They go to college and law

school in equal numbers with men. They

have jobs. They make a lot of money. But

where it all switches for women is when

they have kids. In philanthropy, you need to

find ways to engage women and families in

real ways—and I’m not just talking about

fundraising. I’m talking about nonprofits

having sections of their websites with

online gaming for kids or places where

they engage children in doing part of the

fundraising. It’s about engaging the family.

As philanthropists, if we want to engage

women, we need to think about how to

engage the fullness of what that means.

Eighty percent of us will be mothers at some

point, 80 percent. If we don’t understand

women as mothers, we are missing this

large opportunity.

MS. NORRIS: What role will women be

playing in some of these changes?

MS. QUYNN: I expect that in the future

we are going to see participation by more

people, participation with their time, and

maybe smaller gifts, but certainly their

time. Gone are the days where donors say,

“Take my money and do what you want

with it. I trust your organization.” More and

more donors are getting involved, not just

with wanting to know how their money is

being used, but also with knowing what the

institution is doing more broadly. That’s

a plus and a minus. You have the well-

intentioned volunteer donor who wants to

step in and change the system. How does

that go? Sometimes it goes very well, and

sometimes not so well.

As institutions, we need to be thanking our

donors, thanking them again and again and

again. The new normal is thanking them

over and over for the $25 gift, as well as for

the $1 million gift. It is about increasing

our stewardship. It is absolutely a time to

invest in more development staff, not fewer.

We are all going to be working harder and

harder for fewer dollars.

MS. WITTER: I think the field is going

to change a lot. There is a new generation

coming up, and we are going to see a shift

from large foundations, some of which will

become smaller or disappear. We are going

11

to rely more on the internet and on doing

philanthropic work in a more women-

friendly way. That’s going to become more

dominant, because women are going to get

organized and are really going to step up to

the mantle of their responsibility. There’s

going to be a big shift.

MS. GOULD: The private foundations are

going to be here, but they are transforming.

They feel these differences that we are talking

about, these trends. Even when a private

foundation does not transform, it is still

saying, “We’re going to be more focused.”

MS. KROTZ: Women have to be engaged.

Women need to talk to their brokers.

Women need to talk to program directors

about the way they prefer to be approached.

“This is how I want to be recognized. This is

the communication that I want.”

MS. WITTER: I agree. One of the things

I did when writing this book was look at

the private sector, for example, how the

oil change company Jiffy Lube was being

sold to women. Jiffy Lube used to be a

company where women would go in and

be expected to just sit there and wait for

the car. Then, the company realized that

maybe women have more to do than just

get their oil changed. They realized that

what women needed was an area for kids

to play, magazines to read, a place where

they could make phone calls, so Jiffy Lube

changed the environment. I feel like a lot of

what we have done—as women who have

been breaking barriers—is to go in and live

in a man’s world instead of figuring out how

to live in a woman’s world. Although the

corporate sector is beginning to understand

how to market to women, the philanthropic

arena does not understand that as well.

When I ask, “Do you market to women?”

they look at me like I am sexist. Somehow,

when you say that men and women are

different, it triggers this idea that men and

women aren’t equal. That’s not what it

means to me at all. It is understanding the

differences between men and women.

MS. NORRIS: Questions from

the audience.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: There are two things

that I observed today that I don’t think are

being acted upon. First, there are a lot of

organizations doing the same things. Second,

and even more importantly, you are ignoring

the culture change. There’s the African-

American community, and there’s the Asian

community, and we are not all at the same

income. Unfortunately, white America sees

It’s not that you need a lot of money to be a philanthropist, but you need to be in charge of it.

Katelyn L. Quynn, JD

12

only this one income. I work for a national

organization that has raised over $200

million. I’m sure none of you has approached

us to collaborate, nor do we feel that we

should call you to collaborate. There’s money

sitting out there, and nobody is going after

it because of the culture in America. We are

still very segregated. I think there should be a

panelist on your panel from that community.

I’m not saying this as a criticism, but you’re

talking about a new normal, so you have to

have a new thinking.

MS. HALL: I agree with everything you

have said. My organization is working with

the Twenty-First Century Foundation,

which is a New York foundation. We

are having a conversation next week to

discuss that exact issue—what can we do

to collaborate, because we do operate in

very different worlds, but yet we’re doing

the same work. We will discuss some of the

things that we can do together to begin to

break down those barriers, recognizing that

institutionally we are very different, and we

need to bring in new structures to do that.

MS. GOULD: None of us lives our life in

just one identity. It’s the connections. We are

talking about women’s causes and yet we are

not bringing race, class, sexual orientation,

and age into the conversation and looking

at it all together. We are totally missing the

change that’s happening in the world, which

is what you’re talking about.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We talk a lot

about women and how we educate women

or bring them into the dialogue, but what

about men? We are talking about changing

the paradigm here, the structure of our

society. How do we connect that back to

the men?

MS. GOULD: We need to engage mothers

and daughters, and we need to connect

that to the workplace, and men are in the

workplace. Change is only going to happen

by men and women working together. It’s

not 1972. It’s not even 1995 anymore. Your

point is extremely well taken.

MS. NORRIS: Please join me in thanking

the panel. (Applause)

1 Eisenberg, Pablo, “What’s Wrong with Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It,” The Wall Street Journal, November 9, 2009.

2 Raymond, Susan. “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Philanthropy: It’s Not About the Money.” on Philanthropy.com. September 5, 2008. accessed: October 20, 2008. http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/ News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7591

3 Edwards, Michael, “Philanthropy Needs a Major Overhaul to Better Serve the Common Good,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 14, 2010, 31.

4 Wilhelm, Ian. “Charity and Business Will Blend in New Ways by 2020,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy. January 7, 2010. accessed: April 11, 2010. http://philanthropy.com/article/CharityBusiness- Will-B/63582/

13

Women and Philanthropy Round Table Panelists, 1997–2009

Jeannie Norris ’97–’09Round Table Facilitator

Head of School, Miss Hall’s School

Karen Ansara ’07co-Founder

Ansara Family Foundation

Patricia H. Arnold ’06Board Member, The Posse

Foundation; Trustee, Wheaton College; Philanthropist

David Blinder ’00Vice President for Resources and Public Affairs, Wellesley College

Betsy Brill ’08Founder and President, Strategic

Philanthropy, Ltd.

H.P. Colhoun ’05Philanthropist, Businessman,

and 32-year veteran of Wall Street Week

Charles Collier ’01Senior Philanthropic Adviser

Harvard University

Joan C. Countryman ’02Head of School, Lincoln School

Julie Fisher Cummings ’09Managing Trustee, Max M. & Marjorie S. Fisher Family

Foundation; Presidential Appointee to the Board, Corporation for

National and Community Service;President and co-Founder,

Lovelight Foundation

Sarah Daignault ’99President, Board of Trustees

The Madeira School

M. Christine DeVita ’06President, The Wallace Foundation

Anita Diamant ’04Author The Red Tent, Good Harbor,

Pitching My Tent, The New Jewish Wedding

Nina McNeely Diefenbach ’05Vice President for Development

and Marketing, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Barbara Dobkin ’02Founder and Chair, Ma’yan: Jewish

Women’s Project; Chair Jewish Women’s Archive; Board Member,

The White Huse Project

Mary Maples Dunn ’99Director, Schlesinger Library

Radcliffe College

Jean M. Entine ’98Executive Director

Boston Women’s Fund

M. Burch Tracy Ford ’99Head of School

Miss Porter’s School

Linda Franciscovich ’07 Managing Director and National Head,

Private Philanthropy Group at U.S. Trust

Keller Cushing Freeman ’98Writer; co-Founder,

the Emrys Foundation; Former Trustee, Radcliffe College

Karin George ’03Vice President for Advancement

Smith College

Tracy Gary ’98, ’99Principal, Community Consulting

Services; Author, Inspired Philanthropy: Creating a Giving Plan

Claire Gaudiani ’07Professor, New York University

Author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism

Pamela Gerloff, Ed.D. ’04Editor, More than Money Journal

Joan F. Gillman ’98Director of Special Industry

Programs, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business

Cynthia Smith Gordineer ’08CEO, American Red Cross (Southern Tier Chapter)

Elisabeth Griffith ’99Headmistress

The Madeira School

Elizabeth S. Gross ’97, ’98Management Consultant

The Wayland Group

Agnes Gund ’06MoMA President Emerita;

New York Arts Philanthropist

Alexandra Herzan ’02Founder and Chair

Lily Auchincloss Foundation

Sheila Holderness ’97President

The New York Women’s Foundation

Caroline Hovey ’97Vice President of Marketing,

Jennison Associates Capital Corp.

Helen LaKelly Hunt ’01President, Board of Directors

The Sister Fund

Blair Jenkins ’00Head of School, Dana Hall School

Sheila C. Johnson ’04co-Founder,

Black Entertainment TelevisionCEO, Salamander Development

H. Peter Karoff ’06Founder and Chairman,

The Philanthropic Initiative

Beth Klarman ’99Philanthropist

Facing History and Ourselves

Linda Kutsch ’00Managing Director

The Trefler Foundation

Jennifer Ladd ’01Executive Director, Class Action

Renee M. Landers ’00Counsel, Ropes & Gray

Barbara Fish Lee ’99Philanthropist

Kathy LeMay ’09President and CEO, Raising Change

Naomi Levine ’06Founding Chair

and Executive Director,George H. Heyman, Jr., Center

for Philanthropy and Fundraising

Lee Link ’97Former President of the Board,

The Citizens Committee for Children, New York City;

Trustee, Miss Hall’s School

Laura Liswood ’99Secretary General,

Council of Women World Leaders, Kennedy School at Harvard

Jacqueline B. Mars ’07Board Member,

Mars Corporation and Mars Foundation

Janis Martinson ’98, ’00Chief Advancement Officer

Miss Hall’s School

Beth Pfeiffer McNay ’97Member, National Leadership Gifts

Committee, Wellesley College

Leah McIntosh ’00Dean for Development, Planning,

Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Harvard University

Molly Mead ’03Director, University College of Citizenship and Public Service,

Tufts University

Ruth Messinger ’09President,

American Jewish World Service;Former Borough President,

Borough of Manhattan

Betsy Michel ’08Attorney and Former Board Chair, St. George’s School, Trustee of the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation

Lynn Miles ’99Director of Leadership Gifts

Wellesley College

Suzanne Mink ’05Vice President for Development

World Wildlife Fund

Helen Monroe ’02President

Endowment Development Institute

Joy Moore ’00Director of Development

Dana Hall School

Kristi Nelson ’01Executive Director, The Women’s Fund of Western Massachusetts

Iris Nowell ’05Author, Women Who Gave Away Millions and Generation Deluxe

Ana Oliveira ’06President and

Chief Executive Officer,New York Women’s Foundation

Siobhan A. O’Riordan ’03Director, Giving New England

Susan Ostrander ’97Chair, Department of Sociology, Tufts University; Author, Money

for Change: Social Movement Philanthropy at Haymarket People’s Fund and Women of the Upper Class

Marian Phelps Pawlich ’03Chicago Philanthropist

Sally S. Peabody ’98President, Associated Grantmakers

of Massachusetts

Edith B. Phelps ’98Author; Educational Consultant;

Former Headmistress, Dana Hall School

Marnie Pillsbury ’05Executive Director

of the David Rockefeller Fund and Philanthropic Associate

to David Rockefeller

Karen H. Putnam ’02Principal, Director of Philanthropic

Services Bessemer Trust

Katelyn Quynn, JD ’01Director of Planned and Major Gifts

Massachusetts General Hospital

Paula Rayman ’00Director

Radcliffe Public Policy Center

Ellen Remmer ’02Director of Family Practice,The Philanthropic Initiative;

Treasurer, The Remmer Family Foundation

Edgenie H. Rice ’06Chairman, CIVITAS Citizens, Inc.;

Director, Seventh Regiment Armory Conservancy; Philanthropist

Susan Ritz ’08Director and Grants Chair,

The Larsen FundCouncil Chair, The Vermont

Women’s Fund

Robin Robertson ’03Head of School, Milton Academy

Susan Rodgerson ’04Executive Director

Artists for Humanity

Ann Sanders ’97Executive Director

New England Women’s Fund (NEWFUND), Boston

Abbie J. von Schlegell, CFRE ’04Managing Director

Brakeley Briscoe, Inc.

Jill Sheffield ’09Founder and President Emeritus,

Family Care International;Founder, Women Deliver

Mignon C. Smith ’06Philanthropist

Patsy Manley Smith ’03Chair, MHS Centennial Campaign

Sheree Stomberg ’08Head of Operations & Technology,

Citi Global Wealth ManagementBoard Member with The Hunger Project

Virginia K. Stowe ’07Founder and Director,

Parenting Development Resource, Inc.Board Member,

Audubon New York and National Audubon Society

Margot Stern Strom ’99Executive Director,

Facing History & Ourselves National Foundation, Inc.

Nicki Newman Tanner ’05Board Chair, WNYC Radio, Jewish Women’s Archive;

Trustee Emerita, Wellesley College; co-Chair, Wellesley College Campaign; Philanthropist

Pamela Trefler ’00President, Trefler Foundation

Diane Troderman ’01Board Member, The Women’s Fund

of Western Massachusetts

Michaela Walsh ’09Founder and Trustee

Women’s World Banking

Linda Whitlock ’04President and CEO

Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston

Robin Brown Woods ’99Philanthropist;

Trustee, Miss Hall’s School

Yasmina Zaidman ’08Director of Knowledge and

Communications, Acumen Fund

Miss Hall’s School holds annual Round Tables on women and philanthropy because we want to raise the level of discourse. We believe that from these conversations will grow more purposeful work, truer impulses for giving and asking, and, eventually, a strong legacy for philanthropic efforts.

If you would like to join the audience as part of the fifteenth Miss Hall’s School Philanthropic Round Table, to be held in New York City on April 7, 2011, please call the MHS Development Office, (413) 395-7062. Space is limited.

Miss Hall’s School492 Holmes Road

Pittsfield, MA 01201

www.misshalls.orge-mail: alumnae@misshalls.org