Beyond Advisers in Barron's Penta Magazine

Beyond Advisers was featured in Barron’s Penta magazine, where founder Scott Curran discussed the changing philanthropic landscape and countless opportunities for meaningful change.

Amid Geopolitical Concerns, Major Philanthropy Continues to Forge Ahead…Creatively

By Geoff Nudelman

Even amid two international conflicts and an upcoming U.S. presidential election, some philanthropic leaders are optimistic about the direction of overall giving through 2024. 

Penta spoke with heads of several non-profits and leading philanthropists to gauge whether charitable giving will continue its reported slump from 2023 or rebound alongside renewed interest in various political and economic issues. 

“Contrary to what some might expect, philanthropy has had resilience in these times,” says Stacy Huston, executive director of Sixdegrees.org, a youth empowerment non-profit based in Virginia founded by actor Kevin Bacon in 2007. 

Huston’s view echoes recent data from the biennial Bank of America Study of Philanthropy published last year, which found that while affluent giving is largely down, the value of the average philanthropic gift is up 19%, surpassing pre-pandemic levels. 

The notion of what these gifts look like is changing, and is partially responsible for the growth. Philanthropy can be executed through more avenues than ever, whether through celebrity association, tech titans stewarding large endowments, or  athletes using their platforms to advocate for and create meaningful change. 

“The industry and movement is creating new models, and you want to get it right,” says Scott Curran, CEO of Chicago-based Beyond Advisers. “No one should take their foot off the gas pedal.”

Curran spent a number of years with the Clinton Foundation in its infancy before leaving in 2016 to open his own consultancy, which focuses on philanthropy strategy at the highest levels. Curran and his team work with celebrities, athletes, multi-generational family foundations, and other affluent givers who need guidance in directing their philanthropic efforts. It’s a growing area of interest: Over half of affluent households with a net worth between US$5 million and US$20 million have, or are planning to establish, “some kind of giving vehicle” within the next three years, according to the Bank of America report.

Corporate philanthropy, rather than individual giving, is the cornerstone of Marcus Selig’s work as chief conservation officer at the National Forest Foundation, a Congressionally chartered non-profit based in Montana responsible for protecting millions of acres of public lands.

“Our outlook is business as usual,” he says, advising that giving may slow down, but not enough for the foundation to change course. 

Factors such as political polarization in the U.S. and the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are pushing nonprofits to consider their niche, and how they might work with other groups, both on the corporate and philanthropic levels, Selig says.

“It leads to a little more sharing on the ground in what needs to be done,” he adds.

Steve Kaufer, founder of Massachusetts-headquartered e-commerce giving platform Give Freely and founder of TripAdvisor, says that the economy has a much bigger role in election years, as he looks to build and grow something that can act as a “counterbalance.” 

“There’s a trend towards democratization, and acting collectively can lead to greater impact,” he says. 

Kaufer’s new platform hopes to leverage the everyday philanthropist through online shopping dollars to benefit major charity partners like UNICEF and charity:water, who earn funds as shoppers choose an organization to benefit through an online clickthrough process. 

“Whether a good year or bad year, e-commerce will continue to keep growing,” he says. “Nobody doubts that.”

Whether a legacy foundation, corporation or individual, the political landscape this year is requiring some to exercise caution as they consider what their own charitable actions might be and how it could be viewed more broadly. For the personal philanthropist, every move is now scrutinized more closely. On the nonprofit side, entities are exercising more due diligence to understand if a specific donor aligns with their mission and that there aren’t any underlying issues that could cause greater pushback. 

“You have to be able to walk the walk,” Huston says. “For example, we’ve had to turn down very large donor checks from corporations because there’s a Reddit stream calling them out on their human rights practices.”

She adds that even a routine charity activation could now be aligned with a political party, and that adds complexities to how a higher-profile organization like Six Degrees can activate, especially as the film Footloose turns 40 in 2024 (which Bacon starred in). 

“A lot of organizations and states want to align themselves with this feel good moment, and we should be able to stand side by side with everyone, but we have to be aware,” she says.

Another topic attracting donor interest today is  mental health, an area that historically has been underfunded and under-resourced by philanthropy, according to Two Bridge partner Harris Schwartzberg, who has been closely linked to the mental health space for more than a decade. 

Today, the issue for mental health nonprofits is less about resources and more about societal divisiveness and polarization around the topic. There’s an “overwhelming demand” for solutions, but the space is in a “perfect storm” for the broader political issues to make things worse, Schwartzberg says.

In Curran’s opinion, the storms brewing are troublesome, but they are also creating new opportunities for corporate and personal giving. The  current state of philanthropy is one of “dynamic, expansive, and blurred lines,” meaning a careful blending of targeted giving combined with an understanding of the broader geopolitical landscape could lead to a successful overall philanthropic strategy. 

“There are a lot of headlines that distract, but shouldn’t,” he says. “2024 needs more serious philanthropists than ever.”

Beyond Advisers Speaks with Devex about Race-Based Grantmaking

Beyond Advisers spoke with Devex about race-base grantmaking, and in particular, the challenges it is facing within the U.S. court system and their implications for DEI efforts.

The legal case threatening to upend philanthropy's DEI efforts

The outcome of a legal complaint against race-based grantmaking that is making its way through the U.S. court system could have major implications for global DEI efforts.

By Stephanie Beasley

Philanthropy leaders in the United States are closely following a legal challenge to race-based grantmaking that is working its way through the court system. At the heart of the lawsuit is the question of whether it is discriminatory to give grants to people or organizations based on their race.

In a separate case last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against colleges considering applicants’ race in deciding which students to admit as part of their efforts to make admissions more equitable for Blacks and other historically marginalized groups. Now the man behind that suit has launched a similar one targeting philanthropies. The outcome has the potential to not only affect U.S. domestic nonprofits but also global grantmakers based in the U.S. — such as the Ford Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation — whose programs support marginalized groups abroad.

A ruling that race-based grantmaking is discriminatory could reverse much of the progress philanthropy has made in recent decades especially after the global racial reckoning of 2020, according to advocates for diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.

“If this lawsuit were successful, it would undermine the rights of individuals and organizations to give to equity and justice in race-conscious and race-based ways,” said Kathleen Enright, president and CEO of the Council on Foundations, or COF, a trade group representing the U.S. philanthropy sector that has publicly supported race-based grantmaking.

“And our emphatic belief is that philanthropy is enriched, communities are enriched when people give in ways that support their values,” she told Devex.

However, some conservative groups have questioned using race as a basis for deciding who should have access to certain opportunities for jobs, education, and other resources. They say the practice is unfair to those outside of specific racial groups.

This case is an example of how U.S. domestic culture wars over race are affecting foreign aid and even private philanthropy. Tens of millions of philanthropy dollars are at stake both in the U.S. and globally.

Questions about discrimination

The case centers on the Atlanta-based Fearless Fund venture capital firm and its foundation. The group is subject to a lawsuit filed in August by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, or AAER, a nonprofit organization run by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum.

Fearless Fund provides grants to Black women entrepreneurs. In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the alliance argues that Fearless Fund’s “Fearless Strivers Grant Contest,” which awards $20,000 to winning applicants, violates Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibiting racial discrimination in contracts. The nearly 160- year-old law was enacted in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War to prevent discrimination against African Americans, most of whom were newly emancipated from slavery.

“Fearless Fund’s explicit racial exclusion in making contracts flaunts section 1981,” AAER said in its complaint, adding that its own members “are being excluded from the program because they are the wrong race.”

Arguments in the case were presented to a three-judge panel last week. A ruling is due in the coming weeks.

If the court decides race-based grants aren’t discriminatory then it should be “business as usual” for philanthropy, said Scott Curran, a U.S.-based lawyer and the founder of the Beyond Advisers consultancy firm for nonprofits.

“I don’t think that’s actually going to stop these efforts,” he said, referring to conservative efforts to go after DEI. “I think we’ll see another bite at the apple.”

However, if the court rules in favor of the alliance, then funders would have no choice but to eliminate such grants, Curran added. And if more of these cases arise, the issue could eventually end up back before the Supreme Court, he said.

Some foundations have already started discussing what changes they might need to make if race-based

grantmaking is deemed illegal, said Elisha Smith Arrillaga, vice president and manager at the Center for Effective Philanthropy, a U.S.-based nonprofit that provides philanthropy research and advisory services to donors.

CEP collected data on 280 U.S.-based foundations between September and November of last year, including their responses to the Supreme Court’s race-based admissions decision. More than half of respondents said they’d had or planned to have internal discussions about the future of their DEI programs, Smith Arrillaga said. Many of these funders also hosted discussions with grantees and consulted with attorneys.

CEP plans to release its survey findings later this month.

Philanthropy’s response

The philanthropy sector isn’t just waiting to see what the court decides — they’re also trying to fight back. In December, COF and fellow nonprofit trade group Independent Sector filed an amicus, or “friend-of-the-court” brief, supporting the Fearless Fund. Amicus briefs are written documents submitted by individuals or groups not directly involved in a legal case that want to offer expertise or insight to help the court make its decision.

In the brief, the groups argue that grantmaking is an expression of free speech, which is protected under the U.S. Constitution. AAER’s lawsuit is an attempt to “chill” free speech and “express an ideal by donating to a community or cause,” the groups said.

“We are always going to protect the way for philanthropies to give in a race-conscious way,” COF’s Enright told Devex.

She called the lawsuit “frivolous” and said it was disheartening to see it follow expanded efforts to support Black people and members of other marginalized or historically oppressed groups.

Some people may have felt threatened by that because they “support the status quo and don’t want change,” she said.

COF also issued a public statement signed by more than 200 nonprofit organizations, including the Ford Foundation, the Global Fund for Women, Imaginable Futures, Omidyar Network, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Some of these organizations lead race- or equity-based work in the global south. Imaginable Futures, which was part of the Omidyar Network created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam until 2020, provides grants to Black-led groups in Brazil, for example.

The Hewlett Foundation, which was not a signatory to COF’s statement, also has advocated for maintaining race-based grants. The $13 billion, California-based foundation has a $150 million racial justice strategy that distributes grants worldwide, including in the global south.

“This is long-term work,” Elizabeth Peters, Hewlett’s interim president, said.

The foundation structured its racial justice strategy as a decade-long strategy, “knowing that progress can face pushback,” she added.

Another view

However, other key players in U.S. philanthropy disagree with the race-based approach to grantmaking.

Following the Supreme Court’s college admissions ruling last year, the conservative-leaning trade group Philanthropy Roundtable issued a statement in support of removing race from consideration in philanthropy.

“Throughout the philanthropic landscape, the clear takeaway is that the Supreme Court has sent a strong signal: stop discriminating based on race.”

“More importantly, the Court’s decision highlighted the need to treat individuals as unique people with unique perspectives, values and experiences,” the group added.

Philanthropy Roundtable created its own framework for philanthropic diversity programs, called True Diversity. Among its guiding principles is the belief that “each person is a unique individual worthy of dignity and respect” and that donors shouldn’t assume they know the best way to support them “based on how they look.”

In August, the group also published a True Diversity toolkit for philanthropists that discusses the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the philanthropy sector. It was written by attorney Jonathan Berry, who was head of the regulatory office at the U.S. Department of Labor under former President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court’s decision on race-based admissions “is at the minimum a clear warning that simply reciting ‘diversity’ is no excuse for racial discrimination,” Berry wrote.

Philanthropy Roundtable did not respond to a request for comment.

What’s next

Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, legal and philanthropy experts don’t expect it will put an end to the issue of race-based grantmaking.

And if the nation’s highest court takes up the issue, Curran said, its decision would set a standard for how U.S.-based grantmakers can distribute equity-focused funding abroad.

It’s important to keep in mind that the pendulum on issues like affirmative action can swing in either direction over the years, Curran said.

“I think the goal, in my view, is to have the pendulum not swing wildly, but to have it steady,” he said. “And that’s where those clear boundaries are so helpful.”

“And that’s what this case law is going to tell us is what the boundaries are now and as we go forward,” Curran added.

Smaller nonprofits, in particular, could struggle to contend with legal challenges over DEI programs because they have less money available to them, he said. This could mean restructuring their programs and dropping language that specifically refers to race.

Some donors are already doing that, Curran said. In the U.S., nonprofits are targeting communities based on their zip code, or their specific neighborhoods and communities rather than making race part of their consideration for grant funding. Internationally, some funders might soon start using country boundaries or certain cities as a proxy for race. The goal of all of this would be to reach the same people without violating U.S. anti-discrimination laws, Curran said.

However, there is concern that some of these changes could dilute the intent and potential impact of DEI programs.

It feels like philanthropy and other sectors are being forced to “rewind the time machine” when it comes to the terminology that can be used without legal challenge or public backlash, said Mae Hong, a vice president at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ Chicago office.

It took decades for conversations to evolve past the simple concepts of tolerating marginalized groups to concepts such as promoting anti-racism and inclusion, she said. Now people are “having a very strong allergic reaction” to such words, and that’s concerning, Hong said.

“There’s been a widening continuum about the vocabulary of what it is we’re actually aiming for, and that is being rolled back,” she said.

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