DOCSLIB.ORG

Interview JACQUELLINE FULLER

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

interview JACQUELLINE FULLER If you do a Google search on Jacquelline Fuller you will find her mapping epidemics, number -crunching different methods of pro- tecting wildlife, and plotting “moon shots” for disadvantaged high-achieving students. She is the director of Google.org, the charitable giving arm of the tech supergiant. Since its beginning in 2004, Google.org has received 1 percent of its parent company’s net profit, and currently donates about $100 million in grants, 200,000 employee service hours, and $1 billion in products annually, both locally in northern California and around the world. She’s also on the board of GiveDirectly, and formerly served on the boards of the Eastern Congo Initiative, World Vision USA, International Justice Mission, and the California Emerging Technology Fund. Prior to Google.org, Fuller worked at a startup—it really was at that point— called the Gates Foundation. She launched its public-health initiative in India. Before entering the world of philan- thropy, she worked on public policy at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Philanthropy spoke with Fuller about the promise and perils of corporate philan- thropy, Silicon Valley’s climate for giving, and what has driven her idealistic career. Philanthropy: Google’s corporate philanthropy appears to be pretty wide-ranging. How do you describe Google’s giving priorities? What does and doesn’t interest your team? Google.org’s Jacquelline Fuller leads a team tasked with applying Google’s resources to the common good. Fuller: Google.org is fully a part of Google. We’re employees of the com- pany and get our funding directly from Philanthropy: Can you give an exam- be really helpful is if we could help with it. So we think about how we can invest ple of what this philosophy looks like predictive modeling and data analytics. resources where Google brings something in practice? What does a quintessential Through our relationship with UNICEF, unique to the table. That means we lean Google grant look like? we sent some engineers, product designers, toward innovation and technology. Topics Fuller: Let’s take the Zika virus. We have and user interface experts to work with the like education and learning, opportunity, a Google office in Brazil, and we knew UNICEF Innovation lab to help build a economic impact, and ensuring people are that we wanted to provide funding to help platform linking data on things like travel able to participate in society are themes fight Zika. In conversations with that and incidence of Zika to think about where Lea Crespi/Figarophoto/Contour by Getty Images Getty by Crespi/Figarophoto/Contour Lea that cut across what we do. office it became clear that what would the virus might be headed. WINTER 2017 11 interview Philanthropy: Was giving a priority and sometimes when people think about “Actually, I want to contribute through from the beginning of the company, or corporate philanthropy that’s what they the social enterprise that I’m starting.” has that emerged over time? Did it take think about. But there’s actually huge the company a while to find its philan- potential if you bring the best of who Philanthropy: How have you seen givers thropic niche? you are as a company to the table. Doing use different financial instruments, like Fuller: In their first letter from the founders that can reap huge rewards both in terms limited-liability companies, program- before our IPO, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of the charitable impact and the health related investments, pay-for-success made a commitment to philanthropy. They of the company. We’ve seen at Google, bonds? Have you seen those grow in said that Google is not a conventional com- for example, that philanthropy is import- popularity in charitable work? pany, and part of that is devoting 1 percent ant to the folks that we want to hire. It’s Fuller: There’s some slow growth there. of net profit each year to Google.org and pretty clear that believing in the work We have done some investing using philanthropy. So this philanthropy has been that Google.org is doing and having the pay-for-performance, specifically in our in our DNA from the beginning. opportunity to get personally involved is homelessness portfolio. There are Bay- a key factor in people staying at Google. area philanthropists setting up LLCs so Philanthropy: Why did you decide to they have the freedom to say, “I just want join the Google team? Philanthropy: What’s your take on the to put my money to work to achieve these Fuller: During the eight years I worked philanthropic climate in Silicon Valley right outcomes, whether I’m funding a nonprofit at the Gates Foundation I had seen what now? Do you see a lot of other companies or a social enterprise.” could be done when two individuals put giving effectively? Are there any specific their hearts and minds and wallet behind causes that you see gaining popularity? Philanthropy: I read that you’re the making a humanitarian impact. Not only Fuller: There are several leaders stepping child of a diplomat, and I’m curious how the good that they did directly, but how forward. There are also several companies your background and childhood affects they raised the bar for all private philan- coming forward. Some other tech compa- your work today. thropy to be taken more seriously, and for nies work with us on getting more women Fuller: We lived in Germany when I was achieving high returns on investment in and underrepresented minorities inter- young, and we spent time in the Soviet humanitarian projects. I thought to myself, ested in computer-science careers. That’s Union before the wall came down, so I grew Bill and Melinda Gates have done that for important to Google because we believe up in a family that was globally minded, and private philanthropy, but I haven’t really that having computational skills is the new they passed that on to me, along with a love seen that in corporate philanthropy. Of the literacy standard for many twenty-first of travel and exposure to lots of different $373 billion in annual giving in the U.S., century jobs. That’s something we want in cultures and ways of thinking. only 5 percent comes from companies. high schools nationally, including opportu- I heard that Google.org was starting up, nities for those who want to develop skills Philanthropy: So why didn’t you end up that Google was serious about the level of as programmers or data analysts. in diplomacy? resources it would put in, and that it would Fuller: I thought I was going to. In fact be very experimental and open to new ways Philanthropy: Do you think the phil- I was majoring in arms control as an of doing things. So I thought, “I want to go anthropic approach in Silicon Valley is undergrad. But my heart got in the way. down and see what they’re doing.” different because many of the business I was living in Los Angeles, and I was founders are young and starting philan- volunteering in the neighborhood with Philanthropy: Some people consider thropy young? a community group, and I saw the issues corporate philanthropy mostly public Fuller: Maybe in older generations there of urban poverty. I thought, “there are a relations. What do you think distin- was more of an attitude of “I’m going to lot of powerful people trying to figure out guishes smart corporate giving from work really hard and build my business issues like nuclear disarmament, and I’m other efforts that are less effective and and then I’m going retire and think about more confident that will get solved.” But more puffy? charity.” Some of today’s young founders in impoverished communities I didn’t see Fuller: There are some slippery “cor- are saying, “Actually, I want to do both a swell of people or money or thought or porate social responsibility” programs, at the same time.” Some are even saying, creativity or technology aimed at solving problems. So I decided that might be a I saw what could be done when two individuals better use of my life. put their hearts and minds and wallet behind making Philanthropy: You also worked for Kay Coles James. How did that connection a humanitarian impact. The Gateses raised the bar happen? What was it like working for her? for all private philanthropy. Fuller: It was actually my first job out 12 PHILANTHROPY of college. I graduated from UCLA on a “one, there is a lot I don’t understand in Friday, and I started at the U.S. Depart- this book, and two, God loves the poor ment of Health and Human Services the and we have a responsibility to ensure that following Monday. Kay Coles James was we’re never the oppressor, and that we’re the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs taking care of strangers and widows and at the time in the first Bush administra- orphans and the fatherless.” It made me tion, and she had been appointed to the think that this is something I should do as National Commission on Children. I’d a Christian. That really started the journey. Sir John Templeton. applied for a job at HHS and someone thought, “oh, this person could help Kay on Philanthropy: We hear stereotypes that the National Commission on Children.” being a person of faith in Silicon Valley Roger Hertog. So I got hired. is rough. Have you encountered anything strange about living and working there as Charles Koch.
Recommended publications
  • Protecting Donor Privacy Philanthropic Freedom, Anonymity and the First Amendment

    Protecting Donor Privacy Philanthropic Freedom, Anonymity and the First Amendment

    Protecting Donor Privacy Philanthropic Freedom, Anonymity and the First Amendment www.PhilanthropyRoundtable.org www.ACReform.org Contents 1 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 3 A Rich Tradition and History of Anonymous Giving 7 A Constitutionally Protected Right 9 Activists and Attorneys General Threaten Donor Privacy 13 Legislators Seek to Undermine Anonymous Giving 14 Is Anonymity Still Needed? 16 Confusing Politics, Government, and Charity 18 Ideology and Donor Privacy 20 Donor Anonymity is Worth Protecting 22 Endnotes Executive Summary among them for supporters of unpopular causes or organizations is the reality that exposure will lead to harassment or threat The right of charitable donors to remain of retribution. anonymous has long been a hallmark of American philanthropy for donors both large Among the more prominent examples is the and small. Donor privacy allows charitable harassment of brothers Charles and David givers to follow their religious teachings, Koch, who have helped fund a broad range insulate themselves from retribution, avoid of nonprofit organizations ranging from unwanted solicitations, and duck unwelcome Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center publicity. It also upholds and protects important to the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute, as First Amendment rights of free speech and well as organizations that engage in political association. However, recent actions by activity. As a result of their giving, the Koch elected officials, activists, and organizations brothers and their companies routinely face are challenging this right and threatening death threats, cyber-attacks from the hacker to undermine private philanthropy’s ability group “Anonymous,” and boycotts aimed at to effectively address some of society’s most the many consumer products their companies challenging issues.
  • Olin Foundation in 1953, Olin Embarked on a Radical New Course

    Olin Foundation in 1953, Olin Embarked on a Radical New Course

    THE CHRONICLE REVIEW How Right­Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education By Jane Mayer FEBRUARY 12, 2016 ​ If there was a single event that galvanized conservative donors to try to wrest control of higher ​ education in America, it might have been the uprising at Cornell University on April 20, 1969. That afternoon, during parents’ weekend at the Ithaca, N.Y., campus, some 80 black students marched in formation out of the student union, which they had seized, with their clenched fists held high in black­power salutes. To the shock of the genteel Ivy League community, several were brandishing guns. At the head of the formation was a student who called himself the "Minister of Defense" for Cornell’s Afro­American Society. Strapped across his chest, Pancho Villa­style, was a sash­like bandolier studded with bullet cartridges. Gripped nonchalantly in his right hand, with its butt resting on his hip, was a glistening rifle. Chin held high and sporting an Afro, goatee, and eyeglasses reminiscent of Malcolm X, he was the face of a drama so infamous it was regarded for years by conservatives such as David Horowitz as "the most disgraceful occurrence in the history of American higher education." John M. Olin, a multimillionaire industrialist, wasn’t there at Cornell, which was his alma mater, that weekend. He was traveling abroad. But as a former Cornell trustee, he could not have gone long without seeing the iconic photograph of the armed protesters. What came to be ​ ​ known as "the Picture" quickly ricocheted around the world, eventually going on to win that year’s Pulitzer Prize.
  • How Right-Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education

    How Right-Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education

    • • • 28 THE CHRONICLE REVIEW How Right-Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education Chronicle Review illustration by Scott Seymour, original image by Randy Lyhus By Jane Mayer FEBRUARY 12, 2016 PREMIUM If there was a single event that galvanized conservative donors to try to wrest control of higher education in America, it might have been the uprising at Cornell University on April 20, 1969. That afternoon, during parents’ weekend at the Ithaca, N.Y., campus, some 80 black students marched in formation out of the student union, which they had seized, with their clenched fists held high in black-power salutes. To the shock of the genteel Ivy League community, several were brandishing guns. At the head of the formation was a student who called himself the "Minister of Defense" for Cornell’s Afro-American Society. Strapped across his chest, Pancho Villa-style, was a sash-like bandolier studded with bullet cartridges. Gripped nonchalantly in his right hand, with its butt resting on his hip, was a glistening rifle. Chin held high and sporting an Afro, goatee, and eyeglasses reminiscent of Malcolm X, he was the face of a drama so infamous it was regarded for years by conservatives such as David Horowitz as "the most disgraceful occurrence in the history of American higher education." John M. Olin, a multimillionaire industrialist, wasn’t there at Cornell, which was his alma mater, that weekend. He was traveling abroad. But as a former Cornell trustee, he could not have gone long without seeing the iconic photograph of the armed protesters. What came to be known as "the Picture" quickly ricocheted around the world, eventually going on to win that year’s Pulitzer Prize.
  • Agenda Setting: a Wise Giver's Guide to Influencing Public Policy

    Agenda Setting: a Wise Giver's Guide to Influencing Public Policy

    AGENDA SETTING MILLER Agenda Setting A Wise Giver’s Guide to Influencing Public Policy Donating money to modify public thinking and government policy has now taken its place next to service-centered giving as a constructive branch of philanthropy. Many donors now view public-policy reform as a necessary adjunct to their efforts to improve lives directly. This is perhaps inevitable given the mushrooming presence of government in our lives. In 1930, just 12 percent of U.S. GDP was consumed by government; by 2012 that had tripled to 36 percent. Unless and until that expansion of the state reverses, it is unrealistic to expect the philanthropic sector to stop trying to have a say in public policies. Sometimes it’s not enough to build a house of worship; one must create policies that make it possible for people to practice their faith freely within society. Sometimes it’s not enough to pay for a scholarship; one must change laws so that high-quality schools exist for scholarship recipients to take advantage of. Yet public-policy philanthropy has special ways of mystifying and frustrating practitioners. It requires understanding of governmental practice, interpretation of human nature, and some philosophical perspective. Public-policy philanthropists may encounter opponents operating from different principles who view them as outright enemies. Moreover, public-policy struggles never seem to end: victories and ZINSMEISTER and ZINSMEISTER one year become defeats the next, followed by comebacks, then setbacks, and on and on. This book was written to help donors navigate all of those obstacles. It draws Agenda on deep history, and rich interviews with the very best practitioners of public- policy philanthropy in America today.
  • Moving a Public Policy Agenda Introduction

    Moving a Public Policy Agenda Introduction

    ······························ A REPORT FROM MOVING A PUBLIC ······· ······ POLICY AGENDA: THE THE STRATEGIC NATIONAL PHILANTHROPY OF COMMITTEE CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS FOR RESPONSIVE ····· · ··············· PHILANTHROPY July 1997 C P ················· NCRP Board of Directors NCRP Staff John Echohawk, Chair Margaret Fung Carol Mollner President: Native American Asian American Women’s Funding Network Robert O. Bothwell Rights Fund Legal Defense and Education Fund Anne Firth Murray Vice President: James W. Abernathy, Jr. The Global Fund for Women Beth Daley Environmental Margaret Gates Support Center The Aspen Institute Louis Nuñez Associate Director: Steve Paprocki Jean Anderson Herb Chao Gunther Terry Odendahl Public Media Center National Network Director of Foundation Barbara Bode of Grantmakers Responsiveness Project: Disability Rights Thomas Harvey Sally Covington Education and Defense Center of Concern Gordon Raley Fund Partnership National Assembly Director of Field Operations: Norbert Hill, Jr. of Voluntary Health Kevin Ronnie Paul S. Castro American Indian Science and Social Welfare Jewish Family and Engineering Society Organizations Corporate Grantmaking Services (CA) to Racial/Ethnic Wendy Johnson Elisa Maria Sanchez Populations Project: JoAnn Chase Southern Regional Council MANA, A National Marquita O’Connor National Congress of Latina Organization American Indians Thomas C. Layton Assistant Director: Wallace Alexander Nan Steketee Cindy Ho Donna Chavis Gerbode Foundation Center for Responsible Native Americans Funding (PA)
  • Helping People to Help Themselves

    Helping People to Help Themselves

    Helping People to Help Themselves A GUIDE FOR DONORS Michael E. Hartmann Helping People to Help Themselves A Guide for Donors Michael E. Hartmann (c) 2005 The Philanthropy Roundtable All rights reserved. The Philanthropy Roundtable 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Suite 503 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.822.8333 www.PhilanthropyRoundtable.org Contents Letter from The Philanthropy Roundtable . 5 Introduction. 6 I Helping People to Manage Money . 10 II Improving Health Care for the Poor . 22 III Reinforcing Personal Responsibility Among the Poor . 32 IV Helping the Poor by Preventing Crime . 40 V Improving Access to Higher Education. 51 VI Expanding Economic Opportunity for the Poor. 64 VII Rehabilitating the Drug- and Alcohol-dependent . 77 VIII Promoting Work by the Poor . 83 IX Conclusion. 94 Acknowledgements . 97 Appendix . 99 Charities, projects, and resources in this report . 99 Funders in this report . 110 5 Letter from The Philanthropy Roundtable Letter from The Philanthropy Roundtable The Philanthropy Roundtable is proud to publish this book on how funders can best help the poor. This guidebook is one product of a Roundtable project to research and ana- lyze strategies in this field. The project was generously funded by the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation in Owings Mills, Maryland. The Roundtable is committed to helping donors effective- ly aid the poor. The subject often sparks controversies, but we are dedicated to whatever works. We place a special emphasis on advancing the freedom and dignity of the poor, expanding economic and educational opportunities for the poor, and reinforcing personal responsibility among all Americans. The Roundtable holds special meetings around the coun- try at which donors can exchange ideas, strategies, and best practices.
  • Axis of Ideology: Conservative Foundations and Public Policy

    Axis of Ideology: Conservative Foundations and Public Policy

    Axis of Ideology Conservative Foundations and Public Policy By Jeff Krehely, Meaghan House and Emily Kernan March 2004 GIVING AT WORK 2003 1 NCRP Board of Directors NCRP Staff Michelle T. Abrenilla James Abernathy, Environmental Support Center Chief Operating Officer Christine Ahn, Institute for Food & Development Policy Gary Bass, OMB Watch Adzo Amegayibor Paul S. Castro, Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles Research Associate Lana Cowell, Greater Cleveland Community Shares (NCRP Board Secretary) John Barkhamer Louis Delgado, Philanthropy & Nonprofit Sector Program, Research Assistant Loyola University Chicago Mike Doyle, Community Shares of Illinois Rick Cohen Pablo Eisenberg, Georgetown University Public Policy Institute Executive Director Angelo Falcon, Institute for Puerto Rican Policy Andrea M. DeArment Richard Farias, Tejano Center for Community Concerns Finance and Membership Associate Margaret Fung, Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund Robert Gnaizda, Greenlining Institute Marissa Guananja Laura Harris, Americans for Indian Opportunity Research Assistant David R. Jones, Community Service Society (NCRP Board Vice Chair) Rhoda Karpatkin, Consumers Union (NCRP Board Treasurer) Meaghan House Larry Kressley, Public Welfare Foundation Research Associate Julianne Malveaux, Last Word Productions Inc. Peter B. Manzo, Center for Nonprofit Management Jeff Krehely William Merritt, National Black United Fund Deputy Director Nadia Moritz, The Young Women’s Project Elly Kugler Terry Odendahl, Institute for Collaborative Change Research
  • Irving Kristol's Philanthropy

    Irving Kristol's Philanthropy

    BRADLEY CENTER FOR PHILANTHROPY AND CIVIC RENEWAL PANEL DISCUSSION AND COMMISSIONED RESPONSES The Problem of Doing Good: Irving Kristol’s Philanthropy Complete Edited Transcript featuring Rachel Wildavsky • Leslie Lenkowsky James Piereson • Roger Hertog • Amy Kass (moderator) Reminiscences Capitalism and Corporate Philanthropy Kim Dennis Irving Kristol and Philanthropy Chester E. Finn, Jr. Public Spiritedness and Conservatism Hillel Fradkin Our Godfather Adam Meyerson Foundations and the Sin of Pride: The Myth of the “Third Sector” Irving Kristol On Corporate Philanthropy Irving Kristol HHUDSONUDSON INSTITUTEINSTITUTE The Problem of Doing Good: Irving Kristol’s Philanthropy Copyright © 2010 Hudson Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 978-1-55813-170-5 The Problem of Doing Good: Irving Kristol’s Philanthropy Complete edited transcript of the Bradley Center panel discussion held on December 15, 2009 featuring Rachel Wildavsky • Leslie Lenkowsky • James Piereson Roger Hertog • Amy Kass (moderator) Reminiscences by Kim Dennis • Chester E. Finn, Jr. Hillel Fradkin • Adam Meyerson And two essays by Irving Kristol on philanthropy Edited by Krista Shaffer and Kathy Swain Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal HUDSON INSTITUTE June 2010 Table of Contents The Probem of Doing Good:.................................................................1 Irving Kristol’s Philanthropy Complete, edited transcript of December 15, 2009 Bradley Center panel discussion Reminiscences......................................................................................23 Capitalism and Corporate Philanthropy................................................23 by Kim Dennis Irving Kristol and Philanthropy.............................................................24 by Chester E.
  • Thinking with Wolves: Left Legal Theory After the Right's Rise (Review Essay)

    Thinking with Wolves: Left Legal Theory After the Right's Rise (Review Essay)

    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Book Reviews Faculty Scholarship 2007 Thinking With Wolves: Left legal Theory After the Right's Rise (review essay) Martha T. McCluskey University at Buffalo School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/book_reviews Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Martha T. McCluskey, Thinking With Wolves: Left legal Theory After the Right's Rise (review essay), 54 Buff. L. Rev. 1191 (2007). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/book_reviews/41 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Book Reviews by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEW Thinking with Wolves: Left Legal Theory After the Right's Rise MARTHA T. MCCLUSKEYt LEFT LEGALISM/LEFT CRITIQUE. Edited by Wendy Brown' & Janet Halley. 2 Durham: Duke University Press, 2002. Pp. viii, 447. $22.95 (paper). TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................... 1193 I. M ore (Left) Theory ...................................................... 1197 A. Theory for Left Politics ....................................... 1197 1. Affirming Theory in Politics ....................... 1197 2. Affirming Politics in Theory ....................... 1199 t William J. Magavern Faculty Scholar and Professor, State University of New York at Buffalo. Thanks to Martha A. Fineman and participants at the Feminism and Legal Theory Project 20th Anniversary Workshop for the opportunity to present and discuss an early version of this paper.