Dalinuosi naujausia M. Čiuželio labdaros ir paramos fondo veiklos metine ataskaita. 2019-aisiais baigėme pirmąjį savo veiklos penkmetį. Penkeri metai ieškojimų, kūrybos, atradimų, naujų patirčių, įkvėpimo. Arba penkeri metai gyvenimo, kurį labai norisi gyventi. Penkeri metai – 5 skirtingi projektai. Fondo veiklą pradėjome nuo Vaikų ligoninės Neonatologijos centro, kuriam padovanojome pirmąją Lietuvoje ultragarsinę hemodinamikos pokyčių stebėjimo sistemą ir motinos pieno analizatorių, padėjusį pagrindą dabar sėkmingai veikiančiam donoriniam motinos Pieno bankui. Vėliau pasirinkome senėjimo sritį ir pozityvios senatvės idėją su socialine akcija #Prisiliesk, “Sidabrinės linijos” ir “100 metų kartu” projektais. Išsikėlėme sau ambicingą tikslą atvesti Lietuvą į Pasaulio sveikatos organizacijos puoselėjamą draugiškų senatvei šalių bendruomenę (po trejų metų darbo Vilniaus miestas pirmasis Baltijos šalyse į šią bendruomenę priimtas 2019-ųjų sausį, o ryškiausias realus pokytis Vilniuje – įkurtas “Senjorų avilys”). Norime priminti ir nepaliaujamai kartoti, kad senatvė – tai ne liga, kurią turime gydyti ar problema, kurią reikėtų spręsti. Tai natūralus ir neišvengiamas kiekvieno žmogaus gyvenimo etapas. Vyresnio amžiaus žmonės yra čia, šalia mūsų, tad atsigręžkime, pastebėkime, išgirskime, sugrąžinkime juos į visavertį gyvenimą. Kviečiu susipažinti ką mums pavyko nuveikti praėjusiais metais. Metinę ataskaitą rasite čia: https://www.slideshare.net/mciuzelis/m-iuelio-labdaros-ir-paramos-fondo-2019-m-veiklos-ataskaita?from_m_app=ios
M. Čiuželio labdaros ir paramos fondo 2019 metų veiklos ataskaita

No comments yet
Be the first to comment

Download Qoorio to comment, talk & learn
Learn more by discovering other insights
Am reading a book and a quote sounded beautiful for me today.
Philanthropy vs Corporate Social Respondibility While both philanthropy and corporate social responsibility (CSR) have the potential to be very effective and are indeed relied upon by those in the charity and not-for-profit sectors, they are very different. The differences between the two can be measured in the return that flows back to the giver. Businesses who engage with the charity sector like to believe that they are doing more than just donating a portion of their net profit to their chosen charity, and in effect have a corporate social responsibility program in place. Truth be known, many businesses who believe they are engaged in CSR, are really only engaged in corporate philanthropy. What is the difference between the two? Philanthropy is often defined as using wealth to bring about social change. A ‘philanthropist’ is a bit like a venture capitalist in the not-for-profit sector; they make a decision to invest a portion of their wealth to bring about social change in something they believe in. There may be an investment of their time and knowledge, but more often than not, the support is financial. The philanthropists desire to participate beyond that can vary, but often they are happy to support from an at arms length. While they will likely seek to find out the impact their funds have achieved for the charity, they will usually not get involved beyond that. For businesses of all sizes that engage in CSR (this domain is not limited to corporate enterprises as the name might suggest), it is in their interest to be involved beyond simply giving money. If a business can turn their CSR into a profit centre, then they are more likely to deepen their engagement, stay strong during hard economic times, and—as they see their CSR have a positive impact upon their own business—give more. A CSR program that is built on the back of a shared experience—wherein there has been the opportunity to engage with a charity beyond a monetary transaction—is likely to return business benefits such as improved morale, increased staff retention, status as an employer of choice, attracting new business, and differentiation from competitors. These benefits are seldom achieved through the donation of money and money alone. If corporate CSR program is limited to the CEO greenlighting donation request received, then in fact it’s not a CSR program, but rather corporate philanthropy. Neither are wrong and one is not better than the other, but if a business engages in a more engaged form of giving with clear objectives in terms of KPIs and ROI from the program, all of those involved will benefit, and therein lies the magic.
Establishing a Family Philanthropy Program It’s not necessary for a family to have a private foundation to establish a family philanthropy program. Studies have shown that individuals receive many of the same benefits from charitable giving regardless of the amount of money that they actually give. Before engaging in family philanthropy, it’s important for the elder generation to first facilitate a family meeting, which should include a meaningful discussion about philanthropy with the entire family—ideally, one where each member of the family proactively participates. Research has shown that: (1) conversations between parents and children about charity have a greater positive impact on children than parents simply serving as a silent role model through their own philanthropic activity; and (2) talking about charity is equally effective regardless of a parent’s income level or a child’s gender, race and age. With the additional help of a neutral professional facilitator, this family meeting also could benefit from the inclusion of effective communication exercises as well as the use of tools to help the family members discover their common values and vision. To maintain a strong family philanthropy program over time, the program should have the following four components: 1. Philanthropic projects should be chosen based on shared family values. 2. Family members should proactively participate in shared decision making. 3. Results should be reviewed and successes should be measured and evaluated. 4. The family should continually learn from experience in order to improve in the future. Children can become part of a family philanthropy program as young as five years old and can begin to play a deeper role with respect to the actual administration and investments of the family philanthropy program before they’re teenagers. The family members could set standards for performance to accompany each grant given as part of the family philanthropy program, and selected charities that attain those standards might be allocated more funds in future years. Each child is capable of proposing and advocating a grant request, which could include site visits to the proposed grantee or even interviews. A family philanthropy program could even require each participant to make some type of personal investment in any organization that will be receiving funds, such as actively volunteering with the organization or making a small personal gift along with the larger donation from the family philanthropy program. As part of the family philanthropy program, each younger family member might be given a relatively small amount to donate to charity on their own, and then a separate larger amount may be set aside for all of the younger family members (for example, siblings or cousins) to give away as a collective unit, in which case they will be required to discuss and agree together on the organization receiving the donation. Many organizations encourage children’s participation in philanthropic activities and would welcome the younger members to visit their facilities and even volunteer, which is often a terrific way to unite family members as they work together toward a common goal. For more substantial donations, particularly ones in which the family name will be recognized, involving the whole family can help instill a sense of pride in the family legacy. As long as the elder generation is not asserting too much oversight or control over the program, family philanthropy almost always is an extremely positive experience for the younger generation.
What keeps us healthy and happy as we go through life? Over 80 percent of millennials said that a major life goal for them was to get rich. And another 50 percent of those same young adults said that another major life goal was to become famous. The Harvard Study of Adult Development may be the longest study of adult life that's ever been done. What are the lessons that come from the tens of thousands of pages of information that have been generated on these lives? Well, the lessons aren't about wealth or fame or working harder and harder. The clearest message that we get from this 75-year study is this: Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period. Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. We've learned three big lessons about relationships. (1) The first is that social connections are really good for us, and that loneliness kills. It turns out that people who are more socially connected to family, to friends, to community, are happier, they're physically healthier, and they live longer than people who are less well connected. And the experience of loneliness turns out to be toxic. People who are more isolated than they want to be from others find that they are less happy, their health declines earlier in midlife, their brain functioning declines sooner and they live shorter lives than people who are not lonely. (2) And we know that you can be lonely in a crowd and you can be lonely in a marriage, so the second big lesson that we learned is that it's not just the number of friends you have, and it's not whether or not you're in a committed relationship, but it's the quality of your close relationships that matters. It turns out that living in the midst of conflict is really bad for our health. High-conflict marriages, for example, without much affection, turn out to be very bad for our health, perhaps worse than getting divorced. And living in the midst of good, warm relationships is protective. (3) And the third big lesson that we learned about relationships and our health is that good relationships don't just protect our bodies, they protect our brains. It turns out that being in a securely attached relationship to another person in your 80s is protective, that the people who are in relationships where they really feel they can count on the other person in times of need, those people's memories stay sharper longer. And the people in relationships where they feel they really can't count on the other one, those are the people who experience earlier memory decline. And those good relationships, they don't have to be smooth all the time. Some of our octogenarian couples could bicker with each other day in and day out, but as long as they felt that they could really count on the other when the going got tough, those arguments didn't take a toll on their memories. So this message, that good, close relationships are good for our health and well-being, this is wisdom that's as old as the hills. Why is this so hard to get and so easy to ignore? Well, we're human. What we'd really like is a quick fix, something we can get that'll make our lives good and keep them that way. Relationships are messy and they're complicated and the hard work of tending to family and friends, it's not sexy or glamorous. It's also lifelong. It never ends. The people who fared the best were the people who leaned in to relationships, with family, with friends, with community. The Harvard Study of Adult Development: https://www.adultdevelopmentstudy.org
Harvard Second Generation Study
What is the Spectrum of Impact Investing Approaches? Given the field’s growth and increased number of actors, the last ten years have also seen a proliferation of definitions and terminology related to impact investing. In fact, strong opinions prevail regarding whether or not the term “impact investing” is the best to capture this field. While some prefer mission-related investing or sustainable/responsible investing, still impact investing is most commonly used. Rather than arguing about the terms, let's discuss three approaches and one overarching strategy to describe impact investor practices. Depending on who you are—and your goals and capacity—you may have the resources and willingness for some but not all of these approaches. See the image of the home as a good metaphor for describing these approaches to managing and being accountable for your assets. Clean Up: This approach reflects the belief that your assets should align with your values, and by holding or divesting specific assets you can increase that alignment and express your values. For example: Clean and remove toxins. Renovate: In this approach, you select assets based on specific investment criteria that define eligible and ineligible investments with the goal of incorporating the positive and negative externalities into your investment decision. For example: Paint your house. Add a Room: By picking a specific theme, you are using your capital to drive the generation of a specific environmental or social impact. For example: Add a new addition to your house. Manage and Measure: This overarching strategy is to continuously measure and manage the positive and negative impact of your assets and respond to new data and events. You will track the emergence of new environmental and social movements, as they become impact investment products. For example: Maintain and repair your roof.
I dont know her personally yet (unfortunately) but the interview is just another source for inspiration and a clear proof social impact investing is an area where you can profit and make sizable returns. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillgriffin/2020/06/26/how-one-female-investor-breaks-the-rules-and-thrives/amp/
How One Female Investor Breaks The Rules And Thrives
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors yesterday published its handbook for impact investors, a refresh of a guide they first published ten years ago, a lifetime ago in impact investing. It is a comprehensive (182 pages) guide to the nuts and bolts of impact investing, with some help from a 45-year old avatar investor named Sophia. With so many people now trying to get themselves oriented in investing their money for social and environmental impact, it is excellent to have a fully updated primer for beginners, and a reference book for the more experienced. The Handbook is available (for free) at: https://lnkd.in/dH8qK7U
Am I getting better? It is a question about continuous improvement, not the status quo. “Am I getting better?” is a challenging question, because it means confronting a basic, and uncomfortable, fact of life: getting better is a choice. Getting better—striving for excellence—is a fundamental choice. Life offers many ways of getting lucky, but getting better, steadily better, requires learning. This is true for any professional activity disregarding you are an athlete or business executive, an actor or a doctor. It applies to hobbies (improving a golf handicap) and to our personal lives (learning to be a good parent). When people and organizations become set in their ways, as a result of arrogance or closed-mindedness, they stifle real learning.
Philanthropy is a buyers’ market, and nonprofit leaders are seldom in a position to negotiate aggressively with potential donors. On the contrary, the selection process is (and feels) quite one sided, as though potential grantees are participating in a beauty contest in which the only imperative is to please the judges. So, for better or worse, the views of an individual donor (especially a very large one) can strongly influence grantee behavior. Often this influence will take the form of tweaks to an existing program, or the addition of a new activity, more or less aligned with the nonprofit’s existing strategy, about which a leading donor is enthusiastic. When such an intervention is supported on the donor’s part by deep knowledge of the field, it can provide helpful input to the grantee’s strategy.
Philanthropy has no built-in systemic forces to motivate continuous improvement. The absence of external accountability is what gives philanthropy its freedom to experiment, take risks, and pursue long-term initiatives on society’s behalf. At the same time, it also means that if you do not demand excellence of yourself no one else will require it of you. Of all the characteristics that distinguish philanthropists, the single most consequential may be the fact that they are essentially accountable to no one but themselves. Sooner or later, businesspeople, politicians, and nonprofit leaders all have to answer for their performance to others: business executives to their stakeholders; politicians to the electorate; nonprofit leaders to their funders. Philanthropists have no such “market” dynamics with which to contend.

Gabija GrušaitėAuthor of Stasys Šaltoka, Co-Founder of Qoorio & Vieta
Very interesting point. I was thinking that maybe philanthropists would benefit from creating a feedback loop with communities they engage. I know this is quite problematic to achieve, at least in my experience there are so many stakeholders with different opinions that it's hard to hear through the noise. Still that would be a more meaningful way to create a sense of accountability without venturing into market dynamics.
Otto Scharmer is a senior lecturer at MIT and co-founder of the Presencing Institute. In his book Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges: The Social Technology of Presencing (Berrett-Koehler, 2009), Scharmer presents his model of listening. Here’s a summary of the four levels of listening as described in that model. 1. Downloading “Yeah, I know that already”: listening to reconfirm what I already know. Listening from the assumption that you already know what is being said; therefore you listen only to confirm habitual judgments. 2. Factual “Oh, I didn’t know that”: listening to pick up new information. Factual listening is when you pay attention to what is different, novel, or disquieting when contrasted with what you already know. 3. Empathic “I know exactly how you feel”: listening to see something through another person’s eyes, forget one’s own agenda. Empathic listening is when the listener pays attention to the feelings of the speaker. It opens the listener and allows an experience of “standing in the other’s shoes.” Attention shifts from the listener to the speaker, allowing for deep connection on multiple levels. 4. Generative “I can’t explain what I just experienced.” Listening from the field of possibility. Generative listening is difficult to express in linear language. It is a state of being in which everything slows down and inner wisdom is accessed. In group dynamics, it is called synergy. In interpersonal communication, it is described as oneness and flow. Which levels of listening do you habitually employ? When was the last time you managed to get below levels 1 and 2 to the deeper connections possible at levels 3 and 4? In the words of the old limbo tune, “How low can you go?”

Justas JanauskasCEO @ Qoorio
Thanks for sharing, did more research about it, found very useful
"The industry has increasingly focused on meaningless, unaudited environmental, social and governance scores. Investing based on categories linked to the UN sustainable development goals is useless, because they do not show whether the money is doing any good." "We need to refocus on people and their suffering. If we truly care about the families <...> we should ask them directly what they want and whether these services have had any effect." https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.ft.com/content/378ebd1a-65d0-11e9-b809-6f0d2f5705f6
Towards a Hippocratic oath for impact investing
Download Qoorio to comment, talk & learn
Become Open HumanFAQBlog