Podcast: Scott Curran on the We Are For Good Podcast

Scott Curran had a dynamic discussion with Jonathan McCoy and Becky Endicott for the We Are For Good podcast, where he discussed practical tools for maximizing social impact, specifically focusing on a key two-part frame: Board & Human Resources.

Listen below, and scroll on for We Are For Good’s great summary of the conversation!

From We Are For Good:

Overview

Meet Scott. He’s a visionary social impact and legal adviser to global brands and nonprofits🌍 He’s the CEO and Founder of Beyond Advisers, with current and former clients including the Clinton Foundation, UN Foundation’s Clean Cooking Alliance, The Starbucks Foundation, Sean Penn’s CORE and many more. Navigating uncertainty and fostering organizational growth is a challenge, but Scott's insights remind us to learn from other’s success remembering that all nonprofits have the same four core tenants. Tune in to get excited about maximizing your organization’s impact in 2024🌟

💡Learn

• How nonprofits are simple and all have the same core 

• Ways to simplify and scale for nonprofits of all sizes and profiles

• The importance of doubling down on core functions
  

Today’s Guest

Scott Curran, CEO + Founder, Beyond Advisers

— Scott Curran, CEO + Founder, Beyond Advisers

Episode Transcript

Download Full Episode Transcript Here

Episode Highlights

• Scott’s story and journey to where he is today (2:45)

• What makes a team and organization truly dynamic (7:55)

• Board

• Operations

• Programs

• Partnerships

• Scott’s take on how philanthropy, government and the private sector all fit and work together (14:00)

• Case studies (18:10)

• Double down on core functions during times of uncertainty (25:55)

• What makes up a great annual calendar for an org (33:45)

• A powerful moment of philanthropy in Scott’s life (40:30)

• Scott’s One Good Thing: Stay curious. (50:00)

• How to connect with Scott and Beyond Advisers (51:45)

  
  

FOCUS ON ENGAGING WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE POWERING YOUR MISSION: 

Board

1. Schedule 4 board meetings now (shoot for 1 a quarter!)

2. Let your board know that cannot wait to see them at the next meeting and that you’ll be sending the agenda within 30 days of the meeting date

Team

1. Pick up on those year-end reviews we did. Put your calendar reminder for October 1 that “year-end starts now”

2. Have each person on the team review their performance and start there. They are leading the year-end process with a self-reflection of their performance

3. Develop position descriptions with 3-5 essential functions for everyone on the team including yourself!

4. June 1 - schedule mid-year check-ins with your team. What’s going great? What would you like to have go better? How can we support you?
   

Impactful Quotes

“I look at social impact as the umbrella that covers all of the ‘do-gooding’ in the world.” -Scott

“They're all special, but none unique. Every single one of them has to have a board. Every single one of them has operations. Every single one of them has programs and every single one of them has partnerships.” -Scott

“Success leaves clues, borrow success from those who've done it well.” -Scott

“There's great power in borrowing, and there's no trophy for the struggle.” -Scott

“Think about the origin story and the intent.” -Scott

“What do you do better than anybody else in the world.” -Scott

“This is a very crowded space. It does become a competitive marketplace. They have to define what makes them uniquely interesting in this marketplace.” -Scott

“If we're endeavoring to get it perfect, we might get it 80% right. So don't worry if it's not perfect, but you should be excited about it.” -Scott

“Let that charitable purpose, north star, and guide pull you forward.” -Scott

“Not every organization with a great board will achieve its highest and best purpose. But no organization without a great board will ever achieve its highest and best purpose.” -Scott 

“Momentum begets momentum.” -Scott

“Where focus goes, energy flows.” -Scott 

“Think about last year at this time. Didn’t this year go quickly? Next year is going to feel the same way. Where do we want to be this time next year?” -Scott

“My greatest moments in philanthropy and those quiet moments, those curious questions, those incredible stories of lives and communities impacted by work, of people just like those on this podcast now, and listening to it.” -Scott

“Stay curious.” -Scott

Beyond Advisers on CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta

Beyond’s CEO Scott Curran spoke with Jim Acosta on CNN’s Newsroom to discuss recent litigation targeting corporate DEI initiatives, and what it means for corporate America in 2024 and beyond.  

Beyond Advisers Speaks With The Chronicle of Philanthropy

Beyond Advisers founder Scott Curran was featured in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, where Scott, along with our frequent collaborator Gene Takagi, discussed whether the SCOTUS decision barring affirmative action in college admissions can be applied to grantmaking.

Grant Making Groups Stand Firm in Defense of Race-Based Philanthropy

The Council on Foundations and Independent Sector have filed an amicus brief supporting the Fearless Foundation, which is defending a lawsuit that tests whether the SCOTUS decision barring affirmative action in college admissions can be applied to grant making.

Two prominent philanthropy organizations on Tuesday filed a friend of the court brief supporting a foundation named in a lawsuit, which tests whether last summer’s Supreme Court decision barring affirmative action in college admissions can be applied to philanthropic grant making.

The Council on Foundations and Independent Sector’s amicus brief comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit American Alliance for Equal Rights, founded by conservative legal activist Edward Blum. Blum’s group Students for Fair Admissions successfully argued two cases before the Supreme Court that resulted in a ruling against affirmative-action admissions policies at Harvard University and University of North Carolina.

In the current case, the American Alliance for Equal Rights argues that the Fearless Fund Management, LLC, an Atlanta venture-capital fund, and its associated philanthropy, the Fearless Fund Foundation, discriminated against applicants from other racial groups by offering a $20,000 grant program exclusively to Black women.

The suit says the fund violates Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the first federal law prohibiting racial and ethnic discrimination when making and enforcing contracts.

In response, the amicus brief argues that philanthropic grant making is an example of free expression protected by the First Amendment. “The First Amendment protects expression not only from unconstitutional laws, but also unnecessary litigation that chills speech,” the groups wrote in the brief.

The brief states that directing an organization where to donate alters its speech.

“Prohibiting the Foundation from directing its generosity to Black- women-owned businesses, or forcing it to donate equally to non-Black-owned businesses would indisputably dilute, if not completely impede, the Foundation’s expression of its message,” the brief says.

Since the increased calls for racial justice after the police murder of George Floyd in 2020, progressive philanthropy has emphasized grants to Black-led organizations or ones that promote racial equity. For foundations and nonprofits that focus on removing racial barriers to success, the lawsuit is a “direct attack on philanthropy,” according to Kathleen Enright, president of the Council on Foundations.

Enright said that the Reconstruction-era civil-rights law on which the American Alliance for Equal Rights is basing its case was passed to ensure that previously enslaved Black Americans could have the same rights as their white counterparts.

“To use that section of the Civil Rights Act in this case is a bastardization of its intent,” she said.

Other legal experts, however, contend that any discrimination based on race is intolerable.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Students for Fair Admissions cases made clear that promoting diversity as a rationale for discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions is unconstitutional, said Jonathan Berry, a lawyer who was a U.S. Department of Labor official during the Trump administration. The decision, he said, could be applied to other activities, including limiting philanthropic grants to people of a certain race.

Rather than making grants to members of a specific race to right historic wrongs, Berry said, grant makers should tailor their grant making to specific instances of injustice. “Using race as a proxy for injustice itself leads to all manner of injustice and should not be perpetrated,” he said.

Fallout From Affirmative-Action Decision

Since the Students for Fair Admissions decisions, the nonprofit sector has been on edge because it isn’t clear whether the ruling would extend to charities, said Scott Curran, a philanthropy adviser and former general counsel of the Clinton Foundation.

At the heart of the current lawsuit is the question of whether a grant is considered a contract that benefits both parties involved, Curran said, adding that grants have historically been seen as gifts that are outside of contract law, which forbids discrimination.

Still, the lines between the two are not clearly drawn, Curran said, which puts a big target on the back of wealthy foundations that make grants based on race.

Small organizations that rely on foundation grants are also exposed, especially if lower court decisions get appealed, said Gene Takagi, principal of the NEO Law Group, which represents charities.

“Small nonprofits are low-hanging fruit and easy targets because they can’t put up a defense that’s going to take it up through the court system unless they’ve got money backing them up,” he said. “They’re probably going to just give in and say, ‘OK, we’ll cut out those programs.’”

Philanthropy leaders including Akilah Watkins, president of Independent Sector, have complained that the summer’s Supreme Court decision has had a “chilling effect” on grant making that aims to achieve racial equity. Most grant makers have continued their support, she said, but some have started to target their grants to grantees serving people in certain ZIP codes or of certain income levels, which can beused as proxies for race.

Doing so, she said, ignores the reality of racial discrimination.

“When we embed the challenges of a race within economic proxies or social proxies, it doesn’t allow us to have a more full and robust conversation about a particular group’s historical and contemporary structural barriers,” she said. “It changes the conversation.”