Phil Cubeta on Givewell and professional philanthropy advising

The signal-to-noise ration on the Gifthub Givewell thread has vacillated, but there's some constructive conversation going on now. One commenter's suggestion that I wasn't being constructive when suggesting that Givewell dissolve rankled a little, 'cuz that's the spirit in which that was offered. Not only is market need an issue to consider in any startup--for-profit or non--but dissolution and merger are hot issues of discussion among nonprofit lawyers, consultants and managers. Someone even recently suggested to me that the Wilson Center--my day job--offer specialized training in this subject, and I'd hate to think it's one of those things we only let ourselves consider in the abstract.

Aaaaaaaaaanyway, back to the Gifthub discussion. Master of ceremonies Phil Cubeta made an interesting observation while I was out that I want to archive here, as it gives an inside look at a world many folks will never see. As I've said elsewhere I may not be into the personae and I don't always agree with what he says (then again, I often disagree with myself from day to day), but it's stuff like this that shows you why so many in the biz look to him for counsel. He's responding to Michelle Moon:

Michelle wrote,

"It interests me that exposure to the 'insider world' of nonprofits would be unusual for you as a donor adviser." Yes, good catch. You see, in the world of finance philanthropy is mostly about estate and finanancial planning around tax, and only secondarily, if at all, around passion, meaning, identity, or social result. To many advisors a foundation is "charity." That is, if the money ends up in a private foundation that is charity because it is deductible going in. Add to that, the advisor may manage the money. Money that leaves the foundation as a grant en route to a nonprofit is, in effect, a leak in the bucket managed by advisors. So, there has been comparatively little work in the forprofit advisory world on the evaluation of nonprofits, or on making good grants. There are certainly players in that niche, like Rockefeller Advisors and The Philanthropic Initiative, but Holden is responding in part of a "hole in the market." Before the recent events, he had been writing me back and forth about business models to support the kind of work he was doing. I told him that many have tried and few have flourished. The standard model is fee for service paid by donor, but that has proven hard going for most who have tried it. Holden was pioneering another model, and clearly, it was in its infancy when this all came to a head last week.

What keeps me blogging is in part having a chance to connect across the silos to good people doing good work in adjacent areas, so begin to built a kind of mental map of the field. An ecosystem, in effect, with many elements. So, yes, I am in learning mode in many areas and am grateful for the stuff you have posted online at Mefi and here.