America's Most Prestigious Boards: Make no mistake, serving on the board of directors of a charitable institution is special. But what if you also had the opportunity to serve with the likes of actor Denzel Washington, American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault, or FedEx Founder and CEO Fred Smith? Worth magazine interviewed dozens of experts in the 20 largest metropolitan areas to compile a list of the 100 most prestigious nonprofit boards of directors. Worth is currently redesigning their website, so we have included the list of the nonprofits. A complete description of the institutions can be found in Worth’s March 2003 edition.

GuideStar Expands Horizons: Buzz Schmidt, and his new executive team at GuideStar have been very busy as of late, offering a new high-tech charity screening service, and a British version of their service.

The Barnes Fails While Peers Thrive: Millionaire art collectors Albert C. Barnes, Isabella Stewart Gardner, and Henry Clay Frick had this in common: Each formed a world-class collection that subsequently became a public museum. All three are world-renowned, and each is distinctive and compelling in a way that reflects the personality and taste of its founder. The Gardner and the Frick, established with enlightened and public-spirited philanthropy, did not have their founder trying to administer them from the grave, as the Barnes did. As donors contemplate their philanthropic legacy, this article by the Philadelphia Inquirer's art critic Edward J. Sozanski provides a cautionary tale of how good intentions went bad, resulting in disastrous consequences for the Barnes Musuem and its future.

Giving Benefits Corporate Bottom Line: Companies have a symbiotic relationship with their communities that extends well beyond the factory floors and board rooms. Unfortunately the trend has been to reduce their corporate philanthropy. I have always believed that if you went to a shareholder's meeting, and polled the audience as to what percentage of pre-tax profits should go to charity (5%, 10% or 15%) the majority would select one of the two higher numbers. But wait...the average company only gives 1.2% of their pre-tax dollars to charity! So if shareholders even selected 5%, we would increase corporate philanthropy fourfold!

This is not to chastise corporate America. Their ultimate responsibility is to provide well-paying jobs and stable employment. But if your typical Fortune 500 company took a small percentage of the compensation paid to their CEOs and senior executives and directed it toward philanthropic endeavors that improve the communities in which they and their employees reside, would result in a more attractive economic and social environment to retain and attract prospective employees.

If you don't believe me, Harvard professor Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, a business consultant and cofounder of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, present compelling evidence in their report, "The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy." (this is a pdf file, you need Adobe Acrobat to view). If you want to read a nice summary, read this article from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Want more...visit Professor Porter's Initiative for a Competitive Inner-City, or read another piece featured by Wachovia.

Help for International Grantmakers: The newly redesigned and augmented U.S. International Grantmaking (USIG) Web site is now available for grantmakers who fund projects across international borders.

The USIG Web site is designed to assist international grantmakers as they confront a host of challenges, from communicating across cultures to complying with government counter-terrorism regulations. It features a wide range of links to organizations and information pertinent to legal, administrative, operational and accounting issues facing donors who wish to fund in other countries. The new site offers 30 Country Notes, which contain detailed summaries of the nonprofit legal and regulatory environment in specific countries as well as links to English translations (where available) of each country's nonprofit laws.