Celebrating Launch of the Kapor Center for Social Impact!

The Mitchell Kapor Foundation announces a “new public face”: the Kapor Center for Social Impact!

“For the past year, we’ve been keeping you abreast of an ongoing strategic shift here at the Kapor Foundation. We’re very excited to announce that we’ve arrived. As of May 15, 2013, the Kapor Foundation will have a new public face, the Kapor Center for Social Impact. Through a shared vision, set of values, and program activities, we’ll work more closely with Kapor Capital, our sibling venture capital microfirm focused on seed-stage tech startups…”

The Kapor Center’s working mission is to relentlessly pursue creative strategies that will leverage tech for positive social impact in underrepresented communities, primarily focusing on closing academic, political, health, and economic gaps. This mission represents our deep belief in the power of information technology as a tool to accelerate social good, and fully aligns with the Kapors’ longtime involvement in the tech industry, stemming back to their days at Lotus Development Corporation in the early 1980s.

Going forward, the Kapor Center will engage in partnerships across the for-profit and nonprofit continuum in three primary areas: Educational Access (which includes our College Bound Brotherhood initiative), Tech Tools for Social Impact, and Diversifying Tech. More information will be available at www.kaporcenter.org on May 15th.

As we make this transition, we are also concluding our grantmaking and related activities under the Green Access and Voting Integrity and Civic Engagement program areas, and will share the impact of what our community partners achieved in a series of retrospective reports to the broader community in early spring. We will not make additional responsive grants in these program areas. Additionally, Assistance & Advising will no longer be a distinct program area; it will be integrated into our everyday Kapor Center approach to partnerships. We will continue to be a leading partner in the College Bound Brotherhood.

We recognize that change, especially from a funding institution, always has ripples and repercussions. With this transition, we are now better situated to “provoke social change in communities of color en route to equality” by utilizing the ever-growing power of tech to our advantage. We hope that you join us in the excitement about the possibilities ahead.

Best wishes,

Freada Kapor Klein, Board Chair
Mitchell Kapor, President
Cedric Brown, Chief Executive Officer

NY Newsday & Baltimore Sun, Editorial pages, April 2007

In an April 2007 New York Newsday & Baltimore Sun op-ed, John Newsome contrasts South African vs. US political leadership and equivocation on marriage equality

“Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s support for gay-marriage legislation – even though he acknowledges passage by the State Legislature is unlikely – reflects that new American leaders are emerging on this issue. His backing for such legislation follows the lead of the mayors of Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco…”

Assuming more such leaders follow, and that the gay and lesbian community holds its ground, it’s a matter of time before we see more marriage-equality victories. In the meantime, when searching for moral leaders, I often find myself looking beyond the United States. Many national figures in the United States seem obsessed with caution around critical moral issues such as the Iraq war and gun control.

And marriage equality. Thanks to the cowardice of many of our most promising leaders, including Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the issue of same-sex marriage is becoming the third rail in American politics, when it should be a major “front” in the struggle for civil rights.

So I take my inspiration from South Africa, a country that had long been the scourge of the international human rights community. On Dec. 1, South Africa’s Parliament made headlines around the world when it granted same-sex couples the right to marry. This groundbreaking law did not arrive without major struggle. Its passage is a powerful testament to those committed and unyielding moral leaders who demanded nothing less than full equality for gays and lesbians.

Most notably, in pushing for marriage equality, South Africa’s Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu refused to acquiesce to public and political prejudices against gay people. Drawing upon the country’s painful apartheid history, Tutu drew parallels between racism and homophobia, arguing: “To penalize someone because of their sexual orientation is like what used to happen to us, to be penalized about something about which we could do nothing – our ethnicity, our race.”

Echoing Tutu’s bold moral call for gender equality was South African Minister of Defense Mosiuoa Lekota, who served prison time with Nelson Mandela. In arguing for marriage equality on the floor of Parliament, Lekota called upon South African leaders to uncompromisingly extend the rights of hard-won democracy to all South African citizens: “To look past the prejudices of our time and grant this right to those who have been pleading with us for so long now so that we may bequeath to succeeding generations a society democratic and more tolerant than the one that was handed down to us by those who preceded us.”

Sadly, back in the United States, we are waiting for our own Desmond Tutus and Mosiuoa Lekotas to defend the humanity of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples. Even within the Democratic Party, too many politicians have been AWOL on the issue of marriage equality, kowtowing to antigay prejudice – betraying the party’s commitment to civil rights.

Despite a solid majority’s support for the end of marriage discrimination in Massachusetts, Sen. John Kerry opposed nuptial equality. Although Clinton now says she’s “evolved” and not opposed to marriage equality, she shirks making a case for same-sex marriage. While Obama generally inspires, his stance on marriage equality is frustratingly equivocal.

Asked last month whether they considered gay acts immoral, both initially dodged the question. Then, Obama issued a statement saying he did not believe homosexuals were immoral. Clinton said on her Web site: “I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. Homosexuality is not immoral. . . . That is what I believe.”

The equivocation of our national leaders (on this and other important issues) reflects their own cowardice, true, but it also reflects the LGBT community’s willingness to compromise too much. Many donors and activists, for example, are giving a pass to elected officials who fail to stand up for full marriage equality, maintaining that “civil unions are enough.” “Enough” suggests that there can be “too much” fairness for LGBT people. If only.

In stark contrast, South African LGBT activists were unyielding in their struggle, drawing strength from and giving strength to the country’s courageous moral leaders. Refusing to settle for civil unions, South Africa’s social movement for full marriage equality triumphed.

If people are looking for role models, and proof that seemingly unimaginable change can happen, I would encourage them to look south.

Innovative Public-Private Partnerships

“Corporate World Lends Big Guns to Battle Disease,” Financial Times, Dec 2012 (Interview with  John Newsome)

“A recent report from the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (Gain) argues that nutrition plays a critical role in supporting the health….”

The findings from Gain – a non-profit organisation that promotes public private partnerships to fight malnutrition – present an opportunity for the corporate sector, particularly food companies, to join the fight against the disease.

Companies have long contributed to the battle against HIV and Aids. Many donate money from corporate foundations or add to funds raised by employees. Some have donated large quantities of drugs to developing countries.

Increasingly, however, the corporate sector is also offering the skills and expertise of its executives. In partnership with governments and community organisations, many businesses are developing innovative programmes in areas such as social marketing, capacity building and advocacy.

“Companies such as Mac, Chevron and Levi-Strauss have given millions of dollars, much of which has come from employees as well as the corporation,” says John Newsome, head of the US HIV Initiative at the Global Business Coalition (GBC) on HIV/Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. “But beyond that we’re seeing new levels of engagement more broadly.”

And while many companies run workforce health programmes among their staff in severely affected countries in Africa and elsewhere – some even giving employees free anti-retroviral drugs – many are also addressing continuing infection rates in the US and Europe.

Among them is Mac, the US cosmetics group, which has been using its marketing experience to change perceptions of the disease. As well as earmarking the proceeds from its Viva Glam range for the Mac Aids Fund, Mac has been running an awareness-raising programme with the singer Fergie, who is the face of the Viva Glam line.

As part of the programme, designed to reach Britain’s African community, which accounts for nearly 50 per cent of the UK’s annual new diagnoses, Fergie has visited HIV-positive women leaders from organisations such as the African HIV Policy Network.

Education is another focus for companies, with companies such as Standard Chartered operating prevention-focused HIV education programmes. Meanwhile, in Washington DC, Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals company, is using its sales teams to support the city’s outreach efforts on HIV testing.

Moreover, companies are joining forces with other businesses. In the Washington outreach programme, for example, the initiative also draws on the resources of OraSure, the HIV testing company.

In this respect, organ-isations such as the GBC can play a convening role. “We identify where some of the biggest resource gaps are and identify companies who can meet some of those unmet needs with unique business skills and assets – and then get them to join forces,” says Mr Newsome.

Corporate expertise in areas such as strategy and performance measurement can be applied to fighting HIV-Aids. When Johnson & Johnson, the US healthcare products and services company, works with community and government partner organisations to reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission and its spread among women and young people, the company brings to the table business disciplines as well as funding.

“With the expertise that we have in strategic planning, we have partners who welcome that input,” says Sharon D’Agostino, vice-president of corporate contributions and community affairs.

Companies can also lend their brand and credibility to HIV-Aids initiatives. “Not only are we able to focus on the impact,” says Ms D’Agostino, “but also other funders would be willing to support them.”

For companies, part of the payback comes in reduced absenteeism among staff who are ill or away from work looking after relatives, lower recruitment expenditure on hiring staff to replace those too ill to work and fewer early pension pay-outs.

However, companies are also winning loyalty from employees not directly affected by the disease, and among potential recruits. “We know that these efforts are very important to those who are joining corporations around the globe,” says Ms D’Agostino.

Mr Newsome agrees. “There’s an understanding that employees benefit directly and appreciate the company’s involvement,” he says. “People like to know their company is doing good – it’s motivating and it drives retention and recruitment.”

Copyright 2009 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.

Stanford Social Innovation Review: “What Workers Want Is What the World Needs”

According to Net Impact CEO Liz Maw (SSIR blog, 05.24.12): “Employers who provide workers with tangible ways to make a positive social or environmental impact will find that it pays off” [Read More]