Tin foil hats off - primer on what OutGiving 2011 was not

This past weekend I was invited to participate in a panel at The Gill Foundation's OutGiving conference. Philanthropists, representatives from quite a few LGBT organizations and other invitees from around the country met in Miami, Florida. The purpose was to inform donors about the state of the movement to date, and to discuss effective giving strategies. The meeting was off the record.

After all, if you were wealthy and donating to the movement, you'd want to know if those dollars were spent effectively; you'd also want to learn about new grassroots initiatives and technology and how these make an impact as well.

Last week the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) released its latest look at the movement's economic health, I posted it here on the Blend. Lots of interesting data to comb through. Among the report's key findings:

* The 39 participating organizations' combined 2009 expenses of $165.6 million are only half of the combined annual expenses of just the 10 largest organizations working to oppose LGBT equality ($333.1 million).

* Many organizations are scaling back their programs in order to align with available resources. Combined 2010 budgets ($135.4 million) are down 18 percent from 2009 expenses ($165.6 million).

* General financial health remains strong. Organizations have good and rising average working capital (a measure of cash reserves), declining but still-healthy liquidity ratios (funds to cover current obligations), and steady cash and net assets (which speaks to institutional durability).

* Movement groups are highly efficient in their fundraising and programming operations, with all 39 participants exceeding the efficiency standards of both the American Institute of Philanthropy and the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. An average of 79 percent of expenses is spent on programs and services, 9 percent on management and general expenses, and only 12 percent on fundraising.

* Less than 4 percent of all LGBT adults in the U.S. donated $35 or more to these LGBT organizations. While organizations are generally effective at retaining smaller donors (those giving $35 or more) year over year, the number of larger donors (those giving $1,000 or more) is dropping and not easily replaced.

* The staffs of participating organizations are diverse, roughly mirroring the broader U.S. population: 32 percent identify as people of color (12 percent African American, 12 percent Latino/a, 7 percent Asian/Pacific Islander and 1 percent Native American or other). Also, 46 percent are women and 6 percent identify as transgender.

This report used to be confidential, but in its wisdom, MAP now openly shares its data slicing and dicing. It's transparency that is quite enlightening for philanthropists, as well as all of us, to see.

Below the fold, what Outgiving 2011 was not.
What OutGiving 2011 was not:

While there I engaged in an amusing Twitter battle with some folks who were simply enraged by my presence there, the "secrecy" and the motives of those attending. Some of the statements were so preposterous (and revealed more about them than they intended). However, I'm sure many of you would like to know what was not true, from someone on the ground:

* It's a secret cabal of rich folks steering the movement, planning its destiny regarding legislative priorities and planning advocacy positions.

That may disappoint people who wanted to see those in positions of financial influence hashing out how to deal with movement strategy that has many players, some slowing the pace of equality by placing more importance on access than advocacy (it's easier to hide when it's a politically opposition party in control).

That simply was not this meeting, folks. I'm not saying there aren't meetings where the above may occur, it just wasn't this one.

The reality is if our best philanthropists aren't working on movement strategy in some capacity, that's not a good thing. Our political opponents certainly do without a drop of guilt about it.

However, I do think the low- or no-dollar members of the movement -- those who put in sweat equity -- they should be part of the equation, not necessarily in this meeting, because we've seen how the establishment can get stagnant.

And finally, the vast majority of LGBTs who donate nothing at all really have nothing to complain about - giving time or money into federal, state or local organizations for your own equality seems a given. That level of apathy is disappointing, given how thousands show up at Pride events to drink, eat and be merry, but can't even dash off a note to their elected officials or visit them in their offices to make them aware of their LGBT constituents. And, we should focus on bringing in more funds from allies. There's an mostly untapped area for growth.

* "No press allowed" = no accountability. This is simply a function of the privacy of philanthropists who are there to meet one another and see how the money is working in the movement. After all, if you had your business regarding donations (and personal finances) all hanging out in the media, every kook would come out of the woodwork asking for you to fund all sorts of crazy mess. Besides, anyone with access to "teh Google" could probably find out who many of the major movement philanthropists are. The reality is, there was nothing controversial to report anyway, something not true of prior years.

* a place where I was invited as a "token black" to "lend myself to a particular constituency, specifically rich gay white queers for profit."

LOLZ to the max. Considering that in almost every venue (save Blogging While Brown) I attend as a blogger I usually am in the minority as a black lesbian from the South. That's not by design or conspiracy; it's just a fact of life that my demo is woefully under-represented in this sphere to begin with.

If that makes me an "Auntie Tom" so be it; I'm not one to suck up in the first place, but anyone can hold an opinion, even if it is fantasy-based. I didn't ask to attend, I was invited to discuss -- as only one person on a panel of several people -- the impact of social networking has on activism and there were concrete examples to share.

More importantly, I additionally took on the matter of how fragile the mostly self-funded and under-resourced LGBT blogosphere is. I felt it was my duty to try to represent the problem and promise of citizen journalism. And that includes posing the question of whether those donating to the movement 1) see the blogosphere as something to bolster by thinking creatively about a sustainable economic model; or 2) do nothing (the current model), and leave the landscape as is, with the natural course of things -- letting some bloggers fall off the radar (after all, a job loss or too little available time "kills off" a lot of talented bloggers), and others picking up where there is a void. Advertising, if you don't accept "skin" ads, is not a sustainable model except for the largest, earliest established political blogs.

Both of those subjects have been tackled not only by me, but other bloggers at many conferences, no state secret. Clearly no one has come up with an answer to address how independent journalism of this type is sustained outside of hiring the best into existing non-profit or for-profit publishing ecosystems, which in essence crushes "independence" to hold controversial positions without worrying about donor or advertiser pushback. And at the present time, legacy orgs are still struggling to figure out how to work well with bloggers, even though the keyboardists may bite their hands from time to time.

In other words, there's no news here other than delivering the message to a different audience. I'm no more co-opted by this group of philanthropists than by the attendees at, say, Netroots Nation. It's kind of laughable, but sans information (or the desire to take me at my word) anyone can weigh in with an opinion.

Related:

* OutGiving 2011 ... What Really Happened In Miami At The Hands Of Gay Inc And Friends