annual report - Inyathelo · with trust. Fair We believe in ... I would like to take this...

SAIA AR2007 Cover Final 8/14/07 11:57 AM Page 1

Composite

C M Y CM MY CY CMY K

Energising Civil Society by Inspiring a Passion for Philanthropy

INYATHELO, THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCEMENT

First Floor, The Cape Quarter, Dixon Street,

Green Point 8005, Cape Town, South Africa,

P O Box 818, Green Point 8051, Cape Town, South Africa

Telephone: (+27) 021 425 7928/9 • Fax: (+27) 021 425 7990

Email: [email protected] • Web: www.inyathelo.co.za

NPO REGISTRATION: 023-432-NPO

TRUST REGISTRATION: IT2285/2002

PATRONS: Dr Mamphela Ramphele, Cyril Ramaphosa

TRUSTEES: Shelagh Gastrow, Dr Loveness Kaunda,

Fred Phaswana, Dr Mills Soko, Dr Iqbal Surve, Dr Richard van der Ross

The South African Institute for

Advancement

annual report2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7

TM


Advancement

TM


Inyathelo: The South African Institute for Advancement Annual Report 2006 - 2007

“Energising Civil Society by Inspiring a Passion for Philanthropy”Inyathelo: The South African Institute for Advancement

InyatheloTraining Resources

VIDEOS AND DVDS

Solicitation Training Video

Grantmakers in Conversation Video

Grantseekers in Conversation Video

The Role of the Non-Profit Board Video

The Impossible Dream - Institutional Advancementat the University of Kwazulu Natal Video

Stewardship in Practice - Conversations around Stewardship with Eight Grantseekers and Makers

BOOKLETS

To find out more about the Inyathelo Training Series

call (+27) 021 425 7928/9, visit www.inyathelo.co.za or email [email protected]

Inyathelo Inside cover 8/14/07 9:56 AM Page 1


“Energising Civil Society by Inspiring a Passion for Philanthropy”Inyathelo: The South African Institute for Advancement

InyatheloTraining Resources

VIDEOS AND DVDS

Solicitation Training Video

Grantmakers in Conversation Video

Grantseekers in Conversation Video

The Role of the Non-Profit Board Video

The Impossible Dream - Institutional Advancementat the University of Kwazulu Natal Video

Stewardship in Practice - Conversations around Stewardship with Eight Grantseekers and Makers

BOOKLETS

To find out more about the Inyathelo Training Series

call (+27) 021 425 7928/9, visit www.inyathelo.co.za or email [email protected]

Inyathelo Inside cover 8/14/07 9:56 AM Page 1

11

Our vision…We will be the leading non-profit institution to growlocal philanthropy and build strong and sustainable civilsocieties in South Africa and on the continent, rooted inthe African cultural heritage of sharing.

Our mission…To build an enduring culture of “giving” that results in astrong and stable society and democracy in South Africa.

We do this by:

• Building sustainable organisations and institutions• Creating and sharing new advancement knowledge

and practice• Promoting a culture of social investment,

voluntarism and self-reliance• Developing valued and trusting partnerships.

our rich and fair values

RespectWe believe in treating all people with respect anddignity. We maintain an inclusive and involved approachto our programmes and our organisation. We valuediversity. We oppose oppression in any form based onrace, gender, or religion that is expressed physically,emotionally or psychologically and believe that it isdestructive and should not be tolerated.

Informed Risk TakingWe are driven to lead non-profit philanthropy by “pushingthe envelope”, not being afraid to take risks (when we areproperly informed) and pioneering our future and others.This is aligned with the whole notion of advancement inhelping to grow institutions beyond their existingboundaries. This belief also stimulates personal growthand development amongst our staff.

CommitmentWe are guided by a strong commitment to see tasksthrough to completion and to produce quality outputwhether it be through our programmes, stewardshipwith donors, with our beneficiaries and within our staffenvironment at Inyathelo.

Honesty and IntegrityWe highly value honesty and integrity in all of our relation-ships, dealings and transactions. We value accountabilityand this has led to the Inyathelo name being synonymouswith trust.

FairWe believe in fairness and we value justice. Being open-minded and reasonable makes up a strong componentof our culture at Inyathelo.

Inyathelo AR2007-Final 8/14/07 9:34 AM Page 1

22contents

1 Vision, Mission and Values

3 Living the Dream

Message from the Chairperson: Board of Trustees, Dr Richard van der Ross

4 Advancing Philanthropy in South Africa: Why and How

Message from the Executive Director, Shelagh Gastrow

7 Impacting Beyond Its Size

Message from the Outgoing Managing Director, Patric Mellet

9 Looking Back over the Year

Executive Director, Shelagh Gastrow

13 Keynote Speech at The Kresge Foundation Special Initiative Retreat

Dr Enver Surty, Deputy Minister of Education

16 Breaking New Ground

Nazli Abrahams, Senior Programme Coordinator

18 Towards A Legacy Of Philanthropy

Observations on the Future of Institutional Advancementin South African Higher EducationDr Sean Jones, EduActive

23 Reflections on the Role of NPO Governing Boards

Ricardo Wyngaard, Non-Profit Consortium

26 The Spirit of the Brand

Cause Related Marketing and Mutual BeneficiationDr Ivan May

30 Financial Report

43 Patrons, Trustees, Staff and Associates

43 List of supporters



living the dream

To effect a shift in the way organisations and

institutions think about their strategies, tactics,

and external relationships towards building a

resource base for self-reliance sounds like a very

ambitious ideal. However, five years ago this is

precisely what Inyathelo envisioned. It is a noble

vision, considering our history and the non-profit

sector’s tradition of reliance on foreign funding.

It is remarkable to reflect on the last few years and beable to recognize the footprint being created byInyathelo. Through a range of highly innovative pro-grammes and methodologies, Inyathelo has shaped anew discourse on sustainable resource mobilisation,particularly in the institutional and non-profit sectors. Ithas foregrounded the vital role of proactive and sociallyresponsive organisational leadership and is stimulatinga renewed urgency around the need for all SouthAfricans to invest philanthropically in building a strongand vibrant civil society.

Inyathelo has achieved this through an energetic mix ofhard work and dedication with a spirit of adventure andmoving forward. It follows its own advice in makingevery effort to anticipate, and keep up with thechanging external environment to ensure relevance inthe Advancement field.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Inya-thelo team, the board of trustees, our supporters andour partners for the role they have played in buildingthis special organisation that continues to have a majorimpact on the non-profit and institutional sectors in SouthAfrica and more broadly on the rest of the continent.

Dr Richard van der RossChairperson, Board of Trustees,

The South African Institute for Advancement

33


Change rarely comes from the entrenched main-

stream of society. Rather, new ideas tend to come

from the fringe. In the 20th Century major movements

developed, including the environmental and women’s

movements, both of which have become central to the

global debate. How do these movements grow? How

are these ideas adopted? How do we encourage

innovation that furthers our advancement? How are

these funded?

Do we not, as individuals in society, have an obligation toencourage the growth of innovation and excellence,while making sure that every human being has thecapacity to make a contribution in the future?

At present significant funding for South African non-profit organisations and key institutions such asuniversities, hospitals, and museums comes fromabroad – from intergovernmental sources, aid agencies,private foundations, international NGOs, and from manyindividuals of good will. However, South Africa is seen asan established and sustainable middle-income nation,with fast-growing numbers of individuals and familieswho have the wealth potential to make significantcontributions to South Africa’s needs. In the context ofinternational financial support to emerging demo-cracies, international donors are transferring theirmonies to countries where there are more pressingneeds. It is clear therefore that overseas support toSouth Africa will not continue indefinitely. Internationaldonors are correctly pointing out that we should be able

to support our own institutions and organisations. It istime that, as South Africans, we begin to think how, asindividuals, we can take responsibility for supportingthe continued strengthening of our civil society.Inyathelo recognises that for the long-term sustain-ability of our civil society and our democracy, it isimperative that we grow local philanthropy byencouraging financial support from South Africanphilanthropists for local causes, institutions, and civilsociety organisations.

Philanthropy applies to strategic and sustainable socialgiving to bring about lasting social change. There isoften a misperception that it is only the wealthy whoare philanthropists or social givers. Recent researchshows that social giving is not the exclusive domain ofthe wealthy. On the contrary, the spirit and act of givingspan across South Africa’s social, cultural and economicdiversity. It is up to all of us to harness and nurture theSouth African heritage of sharing and grow it into a localphilanthropic movement that supports our institutions,organisations, and communities.

Making a Difference

In the case of individuals who can afford to make a realdifference in society through a financial commitment,there are many options for giving. Whilst many of usmake financial contributions to our community on an adhoc basis, those with significant wealth occasionally findthat pressure from society to give can be overwhelming.Some people choose to formalise their philanthropythrough the establishment of a philanthropic entity such

44


advancing philanthropy insouth africa: why and how?Message from the Executive Director, Shelagh Gastrow


as a foundation, as a structured mechanism for socialgiving. Such entities can facilitate strategic giving toensure real impact.

Institutionalised philanthropy in the form of foundationsand charitable trusts can offer support to greatinnovators in various fields such as science, technology,business, education, the arts and culture. Importantly,this support is not bound by bureaucracy (the state) orthe market (business). Philanthropic funding is extremelyflexible and versatile. Support can be given at the righttime and place, ensuring that society remains innovativeand responsive to much-needed community services,including community projects, non-profit organisations,environmental organisations, libraries, museums,hospitals and orchestras.

Foundation grants or individual donations are likeventure capital – they frequently provide seed fundingthat enable ideas to be tested. Private foundationsensure the viability of individual ideas and thereby canenhance the diversity and plurality of our society.Unencumbered by heavy bureaucracy and free from thepressures of shareholders or voters, private foundationscan be the one port of call for a project requiring urgentsupport to prevent the loss of initiative. This type ofinvestment gives grantmakers or philanthropistsenormous freedom to participate in the social good andenables them to take risks in finding ground-breakingsolutions to systemic problems in our society.

Giving in Perpetuity: Foundations Withan Endowment

A sustainable foundation is based on endowment. Thisentails a capital investment from which interest accruesand can be reinvested to ensure that the principalamount remains current with inflation. Part of theinterest is used to cover foundation expenses and tomake grants. The benefit of a foundation or trust isthat it keeps on giving and the founder’sgenerosity continues as long as the foundationexists, thus creating sustained impact.

Bringing the Family Together

A family foundation is an exciting mechanism to bond afamily together, especially in those cases where childrenare no longer living at home. A board meeting to discussthe affairs of the family foundation is a wonderfulexcuse to bring the family together to make decisionsthat benefit society, and motivate the next generationto be socially responsible in backing initiatives that theyfeel are worthy of support. Such shared values can formpart of a living heritage which is preserved as a legacyfor future generations of visionaries who contributesubstantially to their societies.

Foundations that memorialise an individual

On occasions foundations are established to memorialisean individual who has played a critical role in a family, acompany or society in general. This is often done after thedeath of the individual concerned when family, friends,colleagues or the nation come together to ensure that thework done by the personconcerned is not forgotten.

55


A foundation can then be established in their namewith a focus that reflects the nature of the individualconcerned.

Foundations as a lasting bond between a group of peers or friends

For some people, a philanthropic foundation can becreated to maintain long-term relationships amongst agroup of peers or friends. Examples can includemembers of a university graduating class; people whohave worked together in a particular field and doneextremely well; women who have found commonground in a particular cause or professionals who wouldlike to ensure innovation in their particular field ofendeavour. The foundation ensures that the foundingmembers come together to make decisions relating tohow the endowment should be invested and the choiceof grantees. This ensures that people who have foundcommon ground in a particular time of their lives do notlose touch in the future.

Foundations that support a particular cause

Many people support a specific cause because of their ownpast experiences. They may have grown up in a specificcommunity, had a parent die of an incurable disease, hadtheir child cured in a particular hospital or have a passionfor animals or the environment. Many people rally aroundthese passions by establishing support organisations towork in the field, but they always require financial support.Individuals therefore often create foundations that have aspecific focus area and whose grants are limited to theconcern of the founder.

The Joy of Giving

There are enormous personal rewards in giving. The joyof the moment when the face of the recipient lights up;the feeling of achievement when you see a new facilitysuch as a computer laboratory with your name on it (orthe name of a person you wish to memorialise); thestrong relationships one builds with beneficiaries such

as students you have supported through university; thecapacity to share in the success of others. Giving is anemotional and tactile experience. It comes from theheart, and engagement with society in a meaningfulway creates purpose in our lives.

Leave a Legacy

The establishment of charitable trusts or foundations isa key part of building effective giving and philanthropyis increasingly viewed as part of financial planning. Acharitable bequest should be a normal part of making awill. It is more tax efficient, involving savings on estateduty, to include donations to charity within your willthan to expect your heirs to do this for you.

Many people are not in a position to establish afoundation during their lifetimes as they are dependenton their own savings and retirement income. However,they can become involved in “planned giving” andestablish a charitable entity as a legacy in their wills.Lawyers can assist people to plan for this eventuality andcan work with individuals to ensure that the foundationmeets their own criteria and matches their values. Thisfoundation can remain a family affair and familymembers can continue to play a role, or it can be run by afinancial services company or any other personmentioned in the will.

Conclusion

South Africa is a nation of great contrasts and offersunlimited opportunities to individuals to make a realdifference in our country. A growth in giving throughcharitable trusts and foundations will show that oursociety is maturing and that individuals are makinggreater commitments to the success of our democracy.

Shelagh GastrowExecutive Director

The South African Institute for Advancement

66



Another successful year has passed at Inyathelo

and almost five years have flown by since Shelagh

and I first started crafting the concept of the

Institute. Since then, we have developed around

20 training modules, numerous resources and over

1000 people have passed through our programmes

which have influenced scores of institutions.

The concept and terminology of institutional Advance-ment at the time that we started was foreign to mostuniversities and organisations. Now most are wrestlingwith establishing some form of institutional Advance-ment apparatus. Today we read and hear about it all overSouth Africa, and some are even replicating our training.

The Institute has also made a broader impact on theSouth African development stage in working with thenon-profit sector and the small entrepreneur, as well asengaging in the development debates in the country.Our successful brand has stood out in the marketplaceand with government. In five short years a neworganisation on the block has had a tremendous impactfar beyond its size. Our first donors, The AtlanticPhilanthropies and the Open Society Foundation ofSouth Africa, who took some risk in supporting us, canbe proud of that decision. At the time that we began onthis road in a tiny office in Oranjezicht, working from atressle-table and a laptop, nine out of ten donorinvestors that we approached felt that while this was agreat idea, it was too risky and there were more pressing

priorities. Since then many have come on board and canalso be proud of their association with the Institute.

The entire period has been a learning curve andInyathelo has learnt that to stay at the cutting-edge, anyorganisation has to constantly engage in strategicconversations and be prepared to re-invent itself overand over again. Inyathelo also learnt that chasing afterdonor money for survival rather than coming up withinnovations that attracted donor-investment was a keyproblem in the NPO sector. An organisation cannot justserve up more of the same product continuously,especially if one is successful in a defined niche-marketand has specifically targeted institutions as clients. Inthis respect Inyathelo has gained much respect frompeer organisations as the combination of having “focus”and “exploration of new innovative concepts” is not aneasy thing to balance.

A key focus area for Inyathelo ismobilising South African giving tosupport cutting edge ideas andthe remarkable talent that existsin South Africa. Internationaldonors need to strategise on howthey can use their investment inSouth Africa to leverage greaterand smarter giving by wealthyindividuals and corporates inSouth Africa. Many foreign donorshave gone the route of puttingpressure on NPOs to be lessdependent on international giving

77

impacting beyond its sizeMessage from the Outgoing Managing Director, Patric Mellet


and, as a result, many NPOs formerly fully reliant oninternational donors are less so. Pressure in variousforms will also be brought to bear on the South Africangiving arena to rectify the imbalance between foreignand local donor giving to break NPO dependencies onforeign aid.

In making a final point of contemplation on past suc-cess, the key component to a successful organisation isconfidence in an energetic and innovative team.Inyathelo has been fortunate to have had a great combi-nation of people. I am proud to have worked with such aproductive team of warm human beings, most of whomlearnt the ropes on the job. But the time does comewhere circumstances require that one should move on. Ithus come to the point of saying my good-byes as theoutgoing Managing Director and as a founding trustee

on the board of the Institute. To all of our donorinvestors, to our patrons, to the board, our staff,associates and the many people with whom we haveworked, and to our Executive Director, Shelagh, I use thisopportunity to say farewell. To the new staff who havecome on board I wish you every success with all that youdo and bring to Inyathelo.

Patric MelletManaging Director (2003-2006)

(Patric is now working as MD and COO of

Absolute Return for Kids – South Africa.)

88



Many people ask us what we mean by

Advancement. Our application of Advancement is

based on an integrated, inclusive approach

through which organisations or institutions, in

partnership with key stakeholders and

supporters, move together towards achieving

long-term sustainability and self-reliance.

Within this paradigm, we encourage organisations andinstitutions to build and maintain strong relationshipswith key outside constituencies, including the state,beneficiaries, supporters, the media and the communitiesin which they operate to bring about long-lasting socialchange, to invest in and develop social capital, and topromote a culture of social giving.

During 2006 we began to note that the concept ofAdvancement itself has now become part of main-stream discourse in the non-profit and institutionalsectors and we are seeing the use of this conceptthroughout the country with a greater understanding ofthe philosophy and business processes that drive it. TheAdvancement model that we propagate has become thebenchmark for good development and fundraisingpractice. More important, a new cadre of Advancementprofessionals is emerging from our training pro-grammes with informal networks that have grown fromthe interaction that people have at our training andresource centre.

Strengthening Advancement throughout Africa

2006 saw Inyathelo moving towards consolidating itstraining programmes, particularly for the non-profitsector and institutions such as universities, hospitalsand museums. During the year we were involved in

running 24 workshops with over 400 participants. Theseincluded the workshops and cadetships that formedpart of The Kresge Foundation Special Initiative in SouthAfrica as well as more specific training for universitypersonnel from other African countries, includingUganda, Botswana and Nigeria.

In September a three-day workshop funded by theCarnegie Corporation of New York was held for repre-sentatives from various African universities focusing onadvancement, development and fundraising includingspecific skills such as prospect research, proposal writingand solicitation. Participants came from universities inNigeria, Ghana, Kenya and Uganda. In addition theUniversity of the Witwatersrand and Rhodes Universitysent representatives.

99looking back over the year


11 00

A highlight of the year was the AnnualLeadership Retreat held at the Lord

Charles Hotel, Somerset West in theWestern Cape in October 2006. The retreat

was attended by Vice-Chancellors andsenior Advancement personnel from 17 South Africanuniversities, as well as representatives from Mauritius,Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria and Australia. Besides SouthAfrican speakers, presenters came from the USA and theUnited Kingdom and included Professor Eric Thomasfrom the University of Bristol; Dr John Dellandrea fromOxford University; Dr Glenda Price former President atMarygrove College in Detroit; Ms Jan Mittan of St Mary’sHealthcare System for Children in New York; and Mr RobHenry from CASE. We were also delighted to host Mr RipRapson, the new CEO of The Kresge Foundation, and MrBill Moses, Senior Programme Officer, who had played amajor role in assisting to conceptualise and work withInyathelo on the roll out of the Special Initiative.

Building Sustainability in the Non-Profit Sector

Every year Inyathelo is approached by large numbers ofpeople working in a variety of organisations for advice onfundraising. We have recognized that there is littleavailable in the market place relating to advancement inthe non-profit sector and we have instituted specificworkshops for that sector. In 2006 we ran two workshops,the first for basic advancement skills and the secondcovering more advanced issues such as monitoring andevaluation, ethics, financial management and comm-unications and marketing. We also conducted two basicfundraising workshops for GreaterGood SA in Boksburgand Cape Town; workshops with HERS Academy foruniversity women administrators and senior academicson donor relations, the donor world, and proposal writing;the LEAP Academy at the University of KwaZulu-Natal inPietermaritzburg; and a workshop for BoE Private Clientsand the SA Institute of Fundraisers.

Growing Philanthropy

Whilst our capacity building and training programmesform the anchor of our organisation, we have begun toventure into the philanthropy building side of our workwith more confidence. During 2006 we successfully rana pilot programme for youth in philanthropy, a schools-based programme which creates a milieu in whichlearners raise funds from within their own communitiesfor a local community organisation. Participatingschools were St Andrews High School, Elsies River;Luhlaza High School, Khayelitsha; and Langa HighSchool, Langa.

We also published a booklet in partnership with BoEPrivate Clients entitled “Advancing Philanthropy in SouthAfrica” which gives the case for the establishment ofprivate charitable trusts and foundations and providesthe legal framework for doing this.



In addition, we established our own giving arm, theSouth African Foundation for Advancement to promotethe establishment of charitable trusts and foundations.Presently awaiting its tax registration, the Foundation isspecifically designed to encourage South Africans athome and abroad to grow South African philanthropyand to contribute strategically to causes that can bringabout lasting and positive social change.

We conceptualised and raised the resources for our newprogramme of Philanthropy Awards to recognizeindividuals who have made a contribution in the area ofphilanthropy in South Africa.This will be rolled out in 2007.

Resources

Inyathelo continues to build its resource base andproduces its own unique training materials appropriateto the South African context. In 2006 we produced atraining video on “Stewardship: How to MaintainRelationships with Donors”. In addition, we produced abooklet entitled “100 and More Thoughts on Fundraisingin the Private Market” which we give to the participantsin our training programmes. We also published abooklet entitled “Voices of Black Women Leaders in theNon-Profit Sector” which reflects the experience of the

participants in our learning co-operative. To continuebuilding our resource centre, new publications werepurchased in 2006 including books on generaladvancement, grantmaking, non-profit management,promotion of philanthropy, strategy and businessplanning, education, and various directories. Ourprospect data base is maintained and kept up to dateand is available at our premises to people from the non-profit sector who would like to conduct prospectresearch. We also use our website as a resource andprovide a comprehensive links page to variouscompanies, organisations or agencies that donate inSouth Africa.

Long Term Impact

Although Inyathelo has been running for four years, theimpact of its work will be seen well into the future.Certain trends emerged during 2006. Firstly, anincreasing number of universities and private schoolshave adopted variations of the advancement model. Thesystems that are now widely being put in place includefunctioning donor-prospect research facilities anddatabases; planned donor relations programmes; moreeffective solicitation methods and efficient stewardshipsystems. The impact of these new business processes

and the increase in numbers of skilledstaff will be evident in three to fouryears time and we will be able toassess if fundraising capacity hasincreased once all systems are fullyfunctional.

A concurrent core strategy is to buildlocal individual philanthropy that willsee South Africans investing in ourown civil society and institutions. Theinstitutions and organisations withwhich we work have in the pastfocused mainly on corporate andfoundation giving. Through theemphasis we have put on individualgiving, we are starting to see the

11 11


growth of a new paradigm focusing on individuals,including major gifts, annual campaigns and plannedgiving such as bequests. Our belief is that the stimulus forgiving is asking and the increased focus on individuals,especially from major institutions such as universities andhospitals, will, hopefully, increase the number ofindividual donors in South Africa over time and create aconsciousness of personal social investment.

Staff Changes

2006 saw a change in leadership with our ManagingDirector, Patric Mellet, leaving and the arrival of BeaAbrahams, our Programme Manager, and Soraya Joonas,our Office Manager. Both bring new perspectives andskills to Inyathelo that have enriched our conceptualframeworks and our output in a short period of time.

Thanks

Many thanks to our staff who made such a majorcontribution to a busy and very successful year. Theirdedication to their work and the enthusiasm that theyshow has produced a strong and effective team. Ourtrustees, under the chairmanship of Dr Richard van der

Ross, have given their time as well as wise advice whenrequired. We would also like to thank many other peoplewho have become part of the Inyathelo family. Theseinclude Heidi Villa Vicencio and Mthenthe Consultingwho undertook our 2006 organisational evaluation andprovided assistance in restructuring the organisation;Jerushah Rangasami and her team at Impact Consultingwho serve as trainers in our workshops and produce ourvideo materials; Michael Daries who designs our writtenoutput including financial reports, booklets andgreeting cards; Sean Jones who we have involved asassessor and evaluator in The Kresge Foundation SpecialInitiative as well as other programmes; Guy Bloch whohas assisted us in formulating human resource policiesand procedures; Richard Rosenthal who has given uswise legal advice and Vivi Cohen who continues to fillour wall space with beautiful works of art.

We would also like to thank those individuals,companies and foundations that have made financialcontributions towards Inyathelo. Their support plays apart in strengthening those institutions and organi-sations that play a crucial role in South Africandevelopment and our democracy.

11 22



Executive Director, The Chairperson of the Board of

Trustees of the South African Institute for Advance-

ment: Dr Richard van der Ross, The Board of

Trustees of the South African Institute for

Advancement, President of The Kresge Foundation,

Representatives of international and local higher

education institutions, Distinguished guests, Ladies

and gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this importantevent. I am happy to note the presence of all the invitedlocal and international speakers and welcome everydelegate to our beautiful Western Cape province. Iwould further like to congratulate the organisationsthat have received funding from the Kresge FoundationSpecial Initiative in South Africa.

Government appreciates the support given by the KresgeFoundation and other donors, and it is in this spirit thatthe Minister of Education, Mrs Naledi Pandor endorsedthis initiative by highlighting the importance of individualgiving to Higher Education. The Minister indicated in herspeech during the launch of this special initiative in April2005, that “ this initiative is about promoting a culture ofgiving, building together and being less dependent onforeign donors through building up your own home-grown culture of giving. It aims to promote diversifiedSouth African giving for greater sustainability.”

South African higher education continues to strive underdifficult conditions and challenges such as limitedresources, increasing student debts, rising costs of doingquality research, and the demands of producing qualitygraduates within the available resources. Considering the

environment that higher education institutions operatewithin, it is important therefore to emphasise the roleplayed by donors and other willing organisations inensuring that higher education continues to grow.

I believe that there is considerable wealth in thiscountry, in individuals, foundations, family trusts, andbig corporations. There is also a greater willingness togive under the right circumstances than is oftenrealised. However, we need to expand participation insuch social responsibility initiatives, by fostering thespirit of Ubuntu (Humanity).

The United States of America has often been acknow-ledged as the pioneers in educational philanthropy.Whether one agrees or disagrees with such a statement isnot the point. The point is that we need to learn from theexperiences of countries that managed to create aphilanthropical culture.

It is also interesting tonote that other countrieshave managed to build apowerful philanthropicalculture, such as China,where a new University(the Shantou University)was built by Mr Li KaShing, who is one of themost successful business-men in Asia and thefounder of the Li Ka ShingFoundation. As a country,we may not have reachedthe economic climate,

11 33keynote speech at The Kresge FoundationSpecial Initiative leadership retreatHeld at the Lord Charles Hotel, Somerset West, on 13 October 2006Deputy Minister of Education, Dr Enver Surty


which promotes the culture of philanthropy. I thereforebelieve that in pursuit of our country’s economicprosperity, we must set about creating such a culture. Inmost countries including South Africa, there is anexpectation that government will adequately providefunding for all educational purposes. More privatefunding is therefore channeled to other programmessuch as welfare, disaster relief, health care, and so on.

How do we then create an educationalphilanthropy culture?

Mr Li Ka Shing’s philosophy is that “an equitable societycan be achieved if each and every individual is ready andwilling to do his or her part”. We therefore need tochallenge every individual, who is, in one way or another,touched or affected by the work of higher education toplay their part in ensuring that the sector prospers.

We need to ensure that students feel connected and arean integral part of the institution while they are stillstudying. Everything that appropriately enhances thesense of community within a higher education institution,and a sense of connectedness for students, will be both

fundamentally desirable and will be an indispensableelement in building the lifelong loyalty or relationshipfrom which philanthropy is most likely to flow.

We must develop a sense among students that they arebeneficiaries of the generosity and labour of those whohave gone before them. Students have a responsibilityto do as much as they can to make the institution betterand to create better opportunities for those who comeafter them. Institutions’ leaders should emphasise themessage that, “you have climbed the ladder throwndown to you, now you must throw down the ladder tothose who come after you”.

Higher education institutions need to engage morewith the alumni community. Institutions need far moreintentional and effective connection with alumni,through regular communication, events, recognition ofalumni and so on. Engagement with alumni should bedone by the institution directly with them asindividuals, and not through the alumni associationbecause it will defeat the purpose of such a relationship.

People need to be able to see how their generosity canmake a difference. They need to see that it is central tothe success of the institution. Publications need tohighlight the difference philanthropy makes ineducation. We have to acknowledge that in educationpeople respond and associate with a vision ofexcellence. Donors will therefore respond to a clearvision articulated and enacted by people in whom theyhave confidence. They respond to opportunities forteaching and research, which seem likely to have apositive impact.

Most importantly, we need to be good custodians of thegifts and resources we receive. Institutions need tocontinually report to donors on the outcomes and remaintransparent, faithful, and accountable to their donors.

In building this culture, institutions require a seriouscommitment to seeking philanthropic support, not justin the short or medium term, but over long-term. A

11 44



considerable investment in resources is needed toachieve this. We need to think of this as an investmentand not just a cost.

A considerable amount of commitment from the Vice-Chancellor and the senior management of an institutionis required. Donors are likely to associate themselveswith an institution where the Vice-Chancellor expoundsthe importance of philanthropy to the institutionalmission and vision.

In taking this initiative forward, as a country we need todevelop the will to learn from the experience of others,especially from those with effective systems.

I would like to conclude by saying that there is greaterphilanthropic potential in this country than what werealise. It is important to note that it is not aboutseeking donations from individuals and big corpo-

rations, but it is about creating a culture of giving andactive participation for greater sustainability of oureducation system.

The success of such an initiative depends on all roleplayers’ participation, on a unified sense of purpose toensure that quality student life is maintained, qualitygraduates are produced, world class institutions arecreated, government and student fee incomes aresupplemented, global competition challenges are met,and the needs of the society are fulfilled.

I wish you all the best in the next two days and hopethat the issues I have touched on will go a long way inshaping your opinions on this topic and in contributingto the success of this event.

Thank you.

11 55


In 2005, Inyathelo partnered The Kresge

Foundation to operationalise its new, five-year,

US$10 million Special Initiative in South Africa.

The Kresge Foundation is best known for its

capacity building challenge grants to non-profit

capital campaigns in the United States. The

launch of the Special Initiative in South Africa was

therefore seen to be a pioneering, bold initiative,

challenging institutions to re-think and re-

formulate their current advancement practices.

The Kresge Foundation Special Initiative was set up inSouth Africa to build self-sustaining advancement,development, and fundraising operations, and topromote a culture of philanthropy. This was to beachieved through operational funding, training,technical assistance and peer learning exchangeopportunities. In December 2005 the Foundation madegrants to four institutions: the University of the WesternCape (UWC), a historically disadvantaged institution; theCape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), amerged institution; the University of Pretoria (UP), ahistorically advantaged institution; and the Children’sHospital Trust, a Non-Profit Trust. The sheer mix ofinstitutions presented a unique challenge: none of theinstitutions are alike – not in their histories, not in theirbureaucracies, not in their infrastructure, and not evenin the ways they are funded. Moving forward togethertowards creating socially relevant institutions that areresponsive to the needs of their constituencies requires

commitment to a common vision and respect fordiversity. South Africa is at a stage in its developmentwhere key strategic and calculated interventions canhave a major impact on the future of its civil society.Currently there is great expectation. There is dynamism,vigor, energy and an intellectual rigor in creating newknowledge. There is a pioneering of innovative solutionsto the country’s very distinct challenges and anoticeable shift in the development of new paradigms.The principles of resource mobilisation apply as much tothe African context as it does to our internationalcounterparts. And though we have much to learn fromour colleagues, we are also mindful of the multiple, andspecific, contexts in which we work, and the particularchallenges these present.

We wanted to stress and promote the importance of theprinciples and values embodied within the programme,and ensure that the learning cascades beyond the fourgrantee institutions and acts as a catalyst towardschange in the institutional advancement sector.

In 2007, building on the lessons learnt over the past year,Inyathelo re-interrogated its unique position within theInitiative, with a view to increasing the strategic value itbrings to the programme and beyond.

To maximise the impact and the discourse value, weidentified the following strategic shifts:

• To create time for reflection on the ways in which wethink about Advancement in order to broaden thediscourse from “ways of doing” towards “ways ofthinking”

11 66


breaking new groundNazli Abrahams, Senior Programme Coordinator


We need to spend time reflecting on the ways in whichwe “think” about Advancement and how this thinkinginforms both practice and process and how these inturn ultimately contribute to a mindset shift.We have tostart thinking about how we define and refine forourselves, and apply, in our own ways, the strategies, theprocesses and the practices required for the success ofour own sustainable futures.

• To stress and assess broad impact and to develop andpromote advancement models for differing contexts

We need to start thinking about how to create aknowledge culture. Knowledge dissemination does nothappen spontaneously- it is the end product ofcumulative actions that could lead to a high quality ofimprovisation and problem solving and a quick awarenessof both the internal and external environment. We wouldlike to stress the importance of the dissemination of theknowledge that is developed as a result of this initiative.New ideas will stem from the recombination of previouslysuccessful, disseminated actions. In the everyday workingenvironment we usually do not pay attention to the kindsof residual knowledge that enables us to do the task athand. The grantee institutions are active partners andparticipants in developing the necessary expertiseneeded to build and enable the development ofcomprehensive advancement structures and are key inhelping identify and define the kinds of learningparticular to their specific contexts.

The challenges being posed by The Kresge FoundationSpecial Initiative in South Africa marks only thebeginning of a much larger challenge: the strategicengagement and alignment of our institutions with thepublic and private sectors. This is fundamental and willfurther serve as a mechanism for social, political andeconomic development.

Now in its second year, the Special Initiative is alreadystarting to see considerable changes in the advance-ment practices that have been adopted by the granteeinstitutions. It is emerging as a significant catalyst forsetting the grantee institutions (and others) on asustainable path. The ability of these institutions torespond to their ever-changing environs and theirimpact on our society, on our cultures, on our economyand political stability is critical.

11 77


Resource mobilisation to supplement fee income

and waning government subsidy rank high among

the numerous challenges faced by higher

education institutions in South Africa.

This imperative has led to a surge, particularly noticeableover the past three to four years, in efforts by universitiesto improve, and in some cases establish formally for thefirst time, infrastructure for effective development andfundraising – or what is now more commonly referred toas “institutional advancement”. This short article offerssome observations on the state of institutional advance-ment in South African universities and makes severalsuggestions for those concerned to build theiradvancement operations (AOs) and secure a healthy andsustainable donor base.

The Current State of InstitutionalAdvancement

The AOs which are spread across South Africa’s 23universities are as diverse as the higher education sectoritself. At one extreme is a very small number ofuniversities, most of them historically white and largelyuntouched by recent re-structuring of the sector. Mosthave well-established AOs, supportive executivemanagement, adequate operating budgets, annual yieldsvarying from tens to hundreds of millions of Rands, andcost-to-income ratios that better, sometimes verysignificantly, the industry benchmark of 1:10. At the other

end is a handful of institutions without formal AOs butwhich, by most accounts, aspire to establishing them.Between these two extremes is a range of university AOs,some fairly long-established and some nascent, which arecharacterised variously by sceptical or disengagedexecutive management, inadequate operating budgets,marginalisation from the mainstream of the institution,benign or unsupportive Trustees and Governors, anduntrained and inexperienced, and often very junior,advancement personnel. Many are still way off the cost-to-income benchmark or have yet even to matchoperating costs with donor income.

Wherever they may sit on this spectrum, all universitiesface one certainty: with more and more institutionslooking to AOs to meet resource needs, and with theemergence of creative and sophisticated approaches tofundraising among public benefit organisations in othersectors, the advancement industry in this country isundoubtedly set for heightened competition –competition for current donors, competition to turnvirgin prospects into active donors, and competition forexceedingly scarce skills and capacity within theadvancement profession nationally. In this increasinglycompetitive arena, what should South Africanuniversities be doing to build their AOs and securesustainable income from philanthropic sources? What isdemanded of universities now to ensure enduringsuccess in their institutional advancement efforts, notjust in the medium-term but for decades to come?

11 88


towards a legacy of philanthropy:

Observations on the Future of Institutional Advancement in South African Higher Education

Dr Sean Jones, Inyathelo Associate


Diversifyng and Enlarging Donor Bases

First, and almost certainly foremost, is the need foruniversities to diversify and expand their donor bases,partly as a hedge against declining interest by thosesegments of the donor market upon which they arepresently most reliant, and partly to exploit better therange of other donor opportunities still to be tapped.Some institutions, mainly those that were looked uponfavourably by the international community during theapartheid era, benefit from high levels of interest fromforeign donor organisations but, in many cases, enjoy farweaker relationships with local donors. Subject as theyare to the vicissitudes of global politics and economy,sentiment, ideology, and leadership, however, theseinternational sources are unpredictable and clearlycannot be relied upon indefinitely. Indeed, with morethan a decade of post-apartheid readjustment behindus, there are already strong indications that inter-national donors now expect South Africans to play abigger part in supporting their own pubic benefitorganisations. Due to international isolation, someother universities in the country were, and to varying

extents remain, reliant for their donor income onnarrowly circumscribed segments of local society andcommerce, mainly a small but wealthy pool of alumniand the corporate enterprises with which they areassociated. The challenge in these cases is very different,relating as it does to scepticism about universitytransformation and waning allegiance among an agingpast-era alumni population.

No matter their particular social and political histories,though, the nub of it is that most South Africanuniversities source their donor income from a verynarrow pool of donors. Unless this changes, they run theserious risk of steadily declining donor revenues in anera when precisely the opposite is so sorely needed.

Ensuring Sustainable Donor Income

Whilst universities should by no means abandon or evencurtail efforts to pursue whatever high returnopportunities present themselves, be they local orinternational, this should not happen at the expense ofnurturing simultaneously the steady, albeit not alwaysas lucrative, income streams which long-term donorallegiance can provide. In higher education, building aloyal donor base translates into a focus on alumnidevelopment; that is, on cultivating strong alumniaffinity and transforming it into enduring alumni givingprogrammes. This is an area where South Africanuniversities are, for the most part, extremely weak. Somehave no alumni cultivation programmes at all, whilsteven those with well-staffed alumni support structuresappear sometimes not to comprehend fully theessential purpose of an alumni affairs or relations office.The short of it is that alumni operations exist topromote institutional advancement primarily, thoughperhaps not exclusively, by generating income. This istheir raison d’etre. Universities should not be spendinglarge sums annually just to keep in touch with alumni,only to leave it at that – as some unfortunately tend todo. Healthy investment in alumni relations is crucial, butonly if its purpose – a multi-fold return on theinvestment – is recognised and pursued actively.

11 99


The reticence of some university management teams toallocate adequate funding to alumni development isperhaps understandable, particularly when resourcesare scarce and expenditure may only show appreciablereturns a generation or so later. Added to this is thegenerally poor performance of South African alumnioffices in respect of resource mobilisation. At the sametime, it is precisely because resources are scarce, and arelikely to remain so, that universities can ill-afford not toinvest properly in alumni development and ensure thattheir AOs are geared to pursue it. When all is said anddone, and although it may require something of a leapin faith, this remains the surest way of generatingsustainable donor income for South Africa’s universitiesin the future.

Professionalising AdvancementPractice

The generally poor state of alumni fundraising issymptomatic of a broader lack within university AOs,namely a large-scale absence of appropriate formaltraining. It is something of a cliché within advancementcircles, but also a truism, that a strong culture ofphilanthropy is dependent, to a greater or lesser extent,upon a strong culture of asking. In the competitiveenvironment which is now emerging, AOs can no longerrely simply on the learning by osmosis and experienceby which staff have, in the main, evolved intoadvancement practitioners.

University advancement practitioners need to beschooled in institutional advancement practice. Whilstsome do well enough without proper training, exposureto the range of methodologies, techniques, andapproaches which underpin an effective culture ofasking will certainly boost the fortunes of virtually alluniversity AOs in the long run. The rub, of course, is thatuniversities must be prepared to invest in this training.Alongside professional skills development is a need to

shift from the laissez faire practice that currentlyprevails in university AOs – which, of course, is alsodirectly linked with a lack of professional training –towards altogether more structured ways of working.Instead of assessing AO performance solely in terms ofgross and net income, as they are prone to do, Universityleadership and AO management boards should bedemanding evidence of such things as growth in donornumbers, improved levels of giving by alumni, andincreases in income from national sources.

AOs should be tracking and analysing trends in giving totheir institutions on an ongoing basis; they should besetting targets, both numeric and monetary, for buildinga variety of income streams; recruiting new donors andservicing existing donors; they should be designing andpursuing, as standard practice, detailed donor culti-vation and solicitation plans to meet their targets; andthey should be linking these targets, processes andplans directly with individual and collective perfor-mance assessment. Introduction of advancementmanagement and planning mechanisms of this kind isessential if AOs in South African universities are to moveto the higher plane to which they aspire.

Lastly, and almost certainly controversially, means mustbe found of incentivising AO staff. Engaged as theyusually are on support staff conditions of service,university AO personnel are often on relatively low salarygrades and, because AOs are small and roles are fairlyspecialist, opportunities for upward mobility tend to belimited. In these circumstances, what is there to motivatethose below senior management level who, unfortu-nately, do not always feel the personal satisfaction andinstitutional recognition that follows a “big hit” orachievement of a record annual target? Without attentionto these and related issues, university AOs will continue tohave difficulty, as they do already, retaining andconsolidating a loyal, motivated and skilled cadre of staff.

22 00



Differentiated And Resonant Cases For Support

The “cases for support” which universities present todonors, and the skills required to produce them, are ofparticular importance in this increasingly competitivearena. Simply put, a case for support aims to demon-strate an institution’s worthiness as a recipient of donorfunding. Like everyone else, though, donors clearly havechoices as to where to allocate their money, or indeedwhether to do so at all. A university’s case for supportthus cannot just demonstrate its worthiness. It mustaim to set the institution apart from, and preferably alsoabove, any worthy others that may be in the market fordonor monies. It must differentiate the university fromothers and it must be competitive. Ideally, therefore, acase for support should be informed closely by athorough and candid internal process of interrogatingand identifying the real strengths and competitiveadvantages of the institution, and linked with this, bytruly creative thinking about a future which aspires totake to new levels, and in new directions, thecompetitive advantages and niche areas which havebeen identified. The case for support is then carefully

crafted to articulate these institutional strengths andaspirations in ways that resonate with, and inspire, thebroadest possible spectrum of prospective donors.

Unfortunately, the cases for support presently producedby South African universities are, for the most part,pedestrian, unexciting and, when it comes down to it,largely indistinguishable from one another. Much thesame litany is rehearsed, in different guises, across thesector: excellence in teaching, research and communityengagement is trotted out, albeit with some contextualelaboration and semantic fiddling, by virtually allinstitutions. Like the vision and mission statementsfrom which they derive, they are usually little more thanre-statements of the goals of universities everywhere.How, then, are donors to differentiate between them?What makes one institution stand out more thanothers? And do the “ivory tower” verbosities whichcharacterise some university cases for support resonatewith a broad spectrum of donors, existing andprospective, who might be prepared to give if they areled to understand the critical contribution of thisparticular university in this particular context to theirsociety, their interests, and their values?

22 11


Lessons From Other Sectors

University advancement practitioners would also dowell to look to, and learn from some of themethodologies of their counterparts in other sectors.Recently, a very modest AO associated with the healthsector, operating on a shoestring budget, reached itscapital campaign target of R50 million within eighteenmonths of initiating the campaign, a year earlier thananticipated. This target was achieved mainly from SouthAfrican sources and by far the largest proportion of gifts,both monetary and numeric, emanated fromindividuals. Although the cause was admittedly a highlyemotive one, this case is clear testimony to thewillingness of the general South African public to investin the social good. It is not, to paraphrase a commonrefrain among university advancement practitioners,that “South Africans don’t give”. As has already beensuggested, it is rather that university AOs have generallyyet to learn how to present cases for support for theirinstitutions which resonate with a broad spectrum ofprospective donors. At least in some cases, too, the lureof foreign currency has led to under-developed thinkingabout, and inadequate capacity, expertise and systemsfor, effective local fundraising. In short, university AOsneed to learn how to ask, and how to engineer giving,beyond their current rather narrow comfort zones.

Nurturing a Broad-Based Culture of Giving

Whilst professionalizing advancement practice anddeveloping capacity for asking will certainly help to buildphilanthropic giving to higher education, there is anotherrespect in which universities can make an appreciablecontribution to cultivating broad-based philanthropy, notjust for their own ends but also – and even more critically –for the general public good. As guardians of the futuregenerators of wealth, universities have the opportunity, andsome would argue the obligation, to instil in their students astrong sense of social justice, civic duty and responsiblecitizenship. Although many pay lip-service to this in theirmission statements and institutional goals, very few, if any,

have integrated fully into their curricula means of ensuringthat all students engage, at some point during their formalstudies, in activities designed to inculcate a commitment tocontributing voluntarily to the general good of society. Ofcourse, it is precisely the values, attitudes and sentimentsunderpinning such a commitment which may, later in life,spawn involvement in philanthropy. By introducing socialgiving as an integral part of the higher learning experience,whether it be through community internships, service-learning, volunteerism, classroom-based learning or acombination of them, universities can at once establish themoral foundations for the kind of broad-based philanthropicgiving upon which the wellbeing of South Africa’s publicbenefit organisations is, and will increasingly be, dependant.

Leaving a Legacy of Philanthropy

Clearly, institutional advancement demands foresight aswell as currency. It is as much about nurturingphilanthropic values, building goodwill, and cultivatingenduring institutional affinity as it is about the next setof annual financial statements. The long-term fortunesof AOs in all South African universities will, therefore, bedetermined very largely by actions which are taken – ornot taken – now. Those institutions and AOs whichapproach resource mobilisation primarily in terms ofhigh return expediency and the immediate bottom line,without simultaneously pursuing strategies to build abroad, diverse and sustainable donor base, will do so attheir peril. Whilst healthy bottom lines now may earnkudos for existing Vice-Chancellors and AO Directors,they will by no means necessarily be those whobequeath healthy bottom lines to their longer termsuccessors. Regardless of where they may presently siton the AO spectrum, sustainable institutionaladvancement will instead be achieved by those SouthAfrican universities whose current leadership recognisethe importance of, and invest properly in, measures thatare likely only to reap rewards well after their tenuresare complete. It will visit those universities whoseleaders have the vision, fortitude, and selflessness toleave their institutions, and South African society atlarge, a legacy of philanthropy.

22 22



As the South African non-profit sector is

increasingly coming to terms with the reduction of

international aid, certain phrases have been

surfacing more often, such as capacity building and

good governance. Some have asked whether a

formal governing board is required in the context of

community-based non-profit organisations as it can

be burdensome and does not seem to be working.

I recently had an interesting discussion with the ChiefExecutive Officer of a community-based non-profit organi-sation.This happened shortly after a presentation was madeon good governance. He had some serious problems withthe requirement that NPOs should have governing boards.He explained to me that the board members of hisparticular organisation did not know what theirresponsibilities were and they also could not give muchmeaningful direction when required to do so. A furtherproblem was the fact that they continuously rotated whichmade it difficult to build up a productive relationship.

His organisation accordingly came up with the followingsolution: the board and the staff members jointly decideon matters that will affect the organisation. The boardwill need the consent of the staff to take certaindecisions and vice versa. I expressed my disagreementwith this arrangement, but it begs the question whetherthe non-profit sector, our system and funders shouldaccept or explore governance models that put lessemphasis on the need for governing boards.

22 33

reflections on the role of NPOgoverning boardsRicardo Wyngaard, Non-Profit Consortium


There are no fixed rules on how to govern an organisation.Governance practices may depend on a number of factors,including the stage of the organisation’s development andthe culture within the organisation. There are differenttheories on governance and there is no conclusiveevidence that one method of governing an organisationwould work for all organisations. In one situation it may bethat the board has a much closer involvement with theoperational aspects of an organisation whilst in anothersituation the board is mostly involved with policy. Bothsituations may produce positive results.

I am of the view that governing boards that arereceiving public money should at the very least complywith the following basic characteristics:

• Take full responsibility for the governance of theorganisation.

• Not receive compensation for fulfilling theirgovernance responsibilities.

Let us explore the reasoning behind this in a bit more detail:

Taking Full Responsibility

Our Constitution protects everyone’s right to freelyassociate and people can in general terms decide howthey wish to structure themselves in the form of anorganisation. The situation changes however once anorganisation starts to receive public funding. Theorganisation may get public funding in the form ofdonations from the public, tax benefits, public fundinginstitutions or government funding. Once we aredealing with someone else’s money we are no longerdancing only to our own tune.

• There should be someone who takes responsibilityfor such public money. Public money cannot simplybe given to one person (or a one-personorganisation) to pursue public benefit objective.,Hence the need for a group of individuals who jointlyform the board.

• Legal responsibility concerning the affairs of NPOs

rests with its governing board and the board cannever shift its responsibilities to someone else. Theoutside world will always come to the board toaccount for such public money. In terms ofresponsibility, the buck stops with the board.

• The organisation takes ownership of the publicmoney and the board members take responsibility.Board members are not the owners of the propertybecause it belongs to the organisation.

There is no reason to change these time-tested principlesin our law and I have not seen a valid alternative to this.If staff members of the organisation do not share thesame legal responsibility for the organisation shouldthey have the same legal powers?

Remuneration

Our legal system does not prohibit remuneration toboard members. The Nonprofit Organisations Act clearlystates that office-bearers of NPOs may get reasonablecompensation for services rendered. If your organisationis registered in terms of this Act it may have a similarprovision in its founding document. If one sees thegovernance responsibilities of board members as a“service”, then it would not be against the law for boardmembers to get paid for such service.

When dealing with public money we should keep thefollowing in mind:

• A remunerated board automatically has a financialinterest in the organisation because they are gettingsome financial benefit out of it.

• Board members having the power to make decisionsabout their own remuneration is not a good idea.They will always be faced with the question: Howmuch do we get and how much does theorganisation get?

• We should be clear that people who are responsiblefor making strategic decisions within NPOs shouldnot be faced with the dilemma of serving their owninterests versus that of the organisation.

22 44



• Would donors be at ease donating a large sum ofmoney to an organisation with a board that may atits own discretion decide how much board membersare getting paid?

Conclusion

I am convinced that the arrangement between theboard and staff, as mentioned earlier, would not reapany long-term benefits for the organisation. The boardhas partly relinquished control over something forwhich it is responsible. It is like the driver of a carallowing the passenger also to steer whilst the driver isstill behind the steering wheel. That is not a good idea.

I would suggest that South African NPOs ratherimprove their governance practices by keeping thefollowing in mind:

• NPOs must be accountable with public money andvoluntary boards are essential in this regard

• We do not necessarily need a change in therequirement for a governing board, but rather achange of mindset in relation to our governingresponsibilities

• Often people are recruited to boards without beingproperly orientated or supported, resulting in diverseexpectations

• Regular board training and the transferring of skillsshould become key activities for organisations

• A voluntary governing board is a key factor that willpromote donor confidence and harness philanthropyin South Africa. Without donor confidence, anorganisation’s chances of securing funding would benegatively impacted.

22 55


"By working together, we can build the South

Africa of our dreams."

Former President, Nelson Mandela

The Ethical Society

The new millennium marked a fundamental key shift inbusiness practices throughout the world: The dawn ofthe “ethical” society. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, (apsychology model for understanding human beha-viour), is often referenced within business marketingand selling strategies. The theory behind the modelstates that; as humans meet basic needs, they seek tosatisfy successively higher needs. Globally, and mostcertainly in South Africa, there is hard evidence thatmany consumers are increasingly reaching towards thetop of Maslow’s pyramid. This is due to a rise inconsumerism, consumer education and disposableincome of the astute consumer. As the general SouthAfrican population gains more access to basic needs likesewage and electricity, their needs and wants expand toother items like washing machines, televisions,refrigerators and cellphones. Once increasing needs aremet, consumers want to spend more quality leisure timeaway from the work environment. In other words,material wealth is no longer sufficient.

South Africa’s King Report 2002 on Corporate Govern-ance addressed the need to realise more holisticprofits. The bottom line, profit uber alles dictum, was

turned on its head. Profit? Yes! A resounding Yes! Butprofit cannot be achieved at the expense of theenvironment and the community.

The triple bottom line became the pay-off line of theJohannesburg World Summit for Sustainable Develop-ment: People, Planet and Prosperity. As it evolves, a fourthdimension can be added; Good Citizenship.

The four pillars of good governance include: Fairness,Accountability, Responsibility and Transparency. The codeof good practice advertising in South Africa lays downthat advertising is a service to the public. It should beInformative, Factual, Honest, Decent, and its Contentshould not Violate the laws of the land. The similaritybetween the hallmarks of good governance and goodbranding is abundantly clear not only to the regulator, butalso to the manufacturer and very much the consumer!

Between 1998 - 2002, both purchasers and brandpurchase decision influencers required that their branddisplayed an increasing higher degree of socialresponsibility, (Source: MORI Research, UK). The researchalso showed that an increasing number of consumersdescribed themselves as ethical consumers who hadactively boycotted products on ethical grounds; boughta brand because of the brand/ company's ethicalreputation, and/or bought a brand because of anestablished link to a credible charitable organisation.Currently in South Africa, JSE (Johannesburg StockExchange) listed companies are required to comply with

22 66


the spirit of the brand

Cause Related Marketing and Mutual Beneficiation

Dr Ivan R. May


the provisions of King 2002, by producing a social orpartnership sustainability report and outlining theimpact on, and contribution to the society, environmentand economy in which it operates.

So-called “soft issues”, traditionally dismissed by compa-nies, are now very real “hard issues”, impacting directlynot only on profitability, but on the retention of highlyqualified and talented employees.

In the UK, the Ashridge Corporate Responsibility Survey2002, makes some interesting observations, particularlyrelative to our South African circumstances: 52% ofrespondents (in the UK) said that companies should bestopped from funding politicians and political partiesand 66% said companies should price sociallyresponsible products, (such as medicines), according to asociety's ability to pay.

Branding Implications And Its History

Companies and their brands face a major worldwidechallenge, but simultaneously an incredible opportunity- the brand has one opportunity to make a firstimpression. It had better get it right the first time!The first wave of Brand Building in the 1950s and the1960s relied on Rational Advertising, possibly then thesole element of brand building was characterised byrational appeals and totally rational models ofcommunication. The second wave in the 1970s and 1980sprogressed to Emotional brand building. This involvedattracting attention, which led to courtship, converted tointerest, then desire and finally action. The third wave,particularly in South Africa, (with new found rights andfreedom), led to an all-inclusive ethical brand building.

Branding for the 21st century needs to be all-inclusiveand built on not only rational, but emotional and ethicaldimensions of a brand. These brands can help fulfil a

22 77


deep consumer need to belong and to achieve self-actualisation. “Trust” is the new key value in theBranding Lexicon, in addition to “Performance” and“Image”. As a local South African marketing commen-tator, Clive Simpkins has often said: “Everything aboutyou speaks. Absolutely everything! On every occasion”!

Evidence Of Effect

Research from the United States clearly demonstratesthat when price and quality are equal, people are morelikely to switch to brands associated with good causes.

David Ogilvy, a global marketing guru, said that directmarketing was a “secret weapon”. Today, Cause RelatedMarketing is equivalently that secret weapon.

The Research International- Business in the CommunityStudy shows that Cause Related Branding is a reallypowerful neo-business tool in the UK:

• 86% of consumers had a much more positive imageof those companies and brands associated with good causes;

• 61% were more likely to buy from them;• 64% believe cause related marketing should be a

regular component of the corporate's business;• 80% thought that a socially responsible brand

provided the competitive edge, and• In higher income homes, these percentages were

even higher.

The research also showed that 75% of UK ChiefExecutives, Marketing Directors and Public AffairsExecutives believed that Cause Related Branding andmarketing enhanced both corporate and brandreputation. The research went on to show that 81% ofconsumers agreed that they were more likely to buy aproduct or service that was associated with a cause theycared about (price and quality being equal). A surprising77% of consumers said it had positively changed theirbehaviour and/or perceptions towards the company or

22 88



brand involved, and a whopping 67% of consumersthought that more companies should be involved inCause Related Branding, Marketing and Selling.

It was found that a brand really needed to fail very badlybefore the loyalty factor (so intimately linked with thegood cause) was threatened.

A Word Of Caution

Corporate giving in any format demands alignment inorder to be effective. Cause Related Branding or mutualbenefit marketing does not work if there is no logical fitor mutuality between the brand and the cause. If thereis no synergy, there is no match.

The fit between “brand” and “cause” is vital. If thissynergy is achieved, only then can the full benefits ofCause Related Branding be realised. Corporates willreceive an ethical brand dimension and the companywill be able to differentiate the brand from thecompetition. The “feel good,” factor will increase drama-tically for both internal and external stakeholders andthus, positive editorial media coverage will be worth farmore than its weight in gold. Long-term sales growthwill be almost guaranteed and consumer loyalty willincrease palpably. The cause, on the other hand, willbenefit substantially from an increased media spendand greatly increased public profile. Donor propositions,consequential fundraising and business developmentwill be supplemented . The cause therefore enjoys a verymuch broader based distribution channel and increasedfundraising avenues.

Critical success factors in effective Cause RelatedBranding include:

• The establishment of successful, powerful andunassailable alliances;

• Chief Executive and Board commitment and • Buy-in from internal stakeholders and an unswerving

commitment and understanding to the process ofthe branding and communications team.

In addition, it is important to engage in long-termpartnerships that are enduring and leverage on sharedbrand values that are built on transparency.

The Three Golden Rules

The three golden rules of Cause Related Branding are:

• Clear, unambiguous contracts must be in placebefore commencement of any funding exchange.The contract must level the playing field and thefunder must not be allowed to act the playgroundbully (no matter how tempting!) Contracts must bebinding and enforceable.

• Establish measurable targets and report back on theirachievements or lack thereof. Accountability must begiven priority and feedback should be valued.

• There must be adequate budgets in place to fund thecause related branding exercise.

To conclude, Cause Related Branding is not about smokeand mirrors. It is about beneficiation and added values,mutuality and respect as well as dignity and integrity.

We often refer to a “brand personality”. Brand Mannersby Hamish Pringle suggests that a self-confident brandis capable of working in all four dimensions of brandpower: Rational (what?); Emotional (how?); Political(why?); and Spiritual (whither?).

Brand Spirit is a unique dimension that values both a socialpurpose and a monetary one, engaging both outsidestakeholders and employees into synergistic goals.

The author gratefully acknowledges inputs from Sue Adkins of

Business in the Community, UK; Hamish Pringle, IPA, London; Juin

Cassie, Johannesburg and Jill Ritchie, Cape Town.

22 99


Trustees R E Van der RossS F GastrowL KaundaT M F PhaswanaM SokoM I Surve

Registered office 27th Floor1 Thibault SquareCape Town8001

Bankers Nedbank, a division of Nedcor Bank Limited

Auditors Moores RowlandCape Town

Approval of the Annual Financial Statements

The financial statements which appear in this report were approved by the trustees on 24 May 2007 and signed ontheir behalf by:

R E Van der Ross T M F Phaswana S F Gastrow

33 00


annual financial statements

The South African Institute for Advancement Trust

(Masters reference IT 2285/2002)

for the year ended 28 February 2007


33 11

We have audited the annual financial statements of TheSouth African Institute for Advancement, whichcomprise the trustees’ report, the balance sheet as at 28February 2007, the income statement, the statement ofchanges in equity and cash flow statement for the yearthen ended, a summary of significant accountingpolicies and other explanatory notes.

Trustees' Responsibility for the Financial StatementsThe company's trustees are responsible for the preparationand fair presentation of these financial statements inaccordance with statements of generally acceptedaccounting practice.This responsibility includes:designing,implementing and maintaining internal control relevantto the preparation and fair presentation of financialstatements that are free from material misstatement,whether due to fraud or error; selecting and applyingappropriate accounting policies; and making accountingestimates that are reasonable in the circumstances.

Auditor's ResponsibilityOur responsibility is to express an opinion on thesefinancial statements based on our audit. We conductedour audit in accordance with International Standards onAuditing. Those standards require that we comply withethical requirements and plan and perform the audit toobtain reasonable assurance whether the financialstatements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain auditevidence about the amounts and disclosures in thefinancial statements. The procedures selected depend onthe auditor's judgment, including the assessment of therisks of material misstatement of the financial statements,whether due to fraud or error. In making those riskassessments, the auditor considers internal controlrelevent to the trust's preparation and fair presentationof

the financial statements in order to design auditprocedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, butnot for the purpose of expressing an opinion on theeffectiveness of the trust's internal control. An audit alsoincludes evaluating the appropriateness of accountingpolicies used and the reasonableness of accountingestimates made by the trustees, as well as evaluating theoverall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained issufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for ouraudit opinion. The trust's policy is to prepare thefinancial statements on the basis of accounting as setout in Note 1 to the financial statements.

OpinionIn our opinion, the accompanying financial statementshave been prepared, in all material respects, in accor-dance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1.

EmphasisWithout qualifying our opinion, we emphasise that thebasis of accounting and the presentation anddisclosures contained in the financial statements arenot intended to, and do not, comply with all therequirements of South African Statements of GenerallyAccepted Accounting Practice.

Supplementary informationThe supplementary schedule does not form part of theannual financial statements and is presented as addi-tional information. We have not audited this scheduleand accordingly we do not express an opinion on it.

Moores Rowland, Registered Auditor, 25 April 2007

Cape Town

Per: David Resnick, Chartered Accountant (SA)

report of the independent auditors to the trustees


33 22


The trustees present their report for the year ended 28February 2007. This report forms part of the auditedfinancial statements.

1. General review

The trust's business and operations and the results thereofare clearly reflected in the attached financial statements.The trust carries on the business of developing andtraining other similar organisations to obtain funding.

2. Statements of responsibility

The trustees are responsible for the maintenance ofadequate accounting records and the preparation andintegrity of the financial statements and relatedinformation. The auditors are responsible to report onthe fair presentation of the financial statements.

The trustees are also responsible for the trust's systemof internal financial control. These are designed toprovide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance as tothe reliability of the financial statements, and toadequately safeguard, verify and maintainaccountability of assets, and to prevent and detectmisstatement and loss. Nothing has come to theattention of the trustees to indicate that any materialbreakdown in the functioning of these controls,procedures and systems has occurred during the yearunder review.

The financial statements have been prepared on thegoing concern basis, since the trustees have every reasonto believe that the trust has adequate resources in placeto continue in operation for the foreseeable future.

3. Property, plant and equipment

There have been no major changes in the property, plantand equipment during the period or any changes in thepolicy relating to their use.

4. Events subsequent to year end

There have been no facts or circumstances of a materialnature that have occurred between the accounting dateand the date of this report.

5. Trustees

The trustees of the trust during the accounting periodand up to the date of this report were as follows:R E Van der RossS F GastrowL KaundaT M F PhaswanaM SokoM I SurveP W T Mellet

During the year Mr Mellet resigned with effect from 28February 2007

6. Auditors

Moores Rowland will continue in office in accordancewith section 270(2) of the Companies Act.

report of the trusteesThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust


33 33balance sheetThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust

as at 28 February 2007

Note 2007 2006R R

AssetsNon-current assetInvestments 3 1,561,605 -

Current assets 5,574,169 7,413,143Trade and other receivables 27,896 25,651Cash and cash equivalents 5,546,273 7,387,492

Total assets 7,135,774 7,413,143

Equity and liabilitiesCapital and reserves 7,115,146 7,406,850Trust capital 100 100General reserve 7,115,046 7,406,750

Current liabilityTrade and other payables 20,628 6,293

Total equity and liabilities 7,135,774 7,413,143


33 44


income statementThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust


Note 2007 2006R R

Gross revenue 2,971,606 3,334,171Other income 1,411,290 525,881Operating costs 5,318,124 4,083,064

Operating loss (935,228) (223,012)Investment income 4 643,524 223,012

Loss for the year (291,704) -


33 55statement of changes in equityThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust


TRUST GENERAL ACCUMULATEDCAPITAL RESERVE PROFIT TOTAL

R R R R

Balance at 01 March 2005 100 4,567,912 - 4,568,012Profit for the year - - -Transfer to General Reserve 2,838,838 2,838,838

Balance at 01 March 2006 100 7,406,750 - 7,406,850Loss for the year - (291,704) (291,704)Transfer of loss to general reserve (291,704) 291,704

Balance at 28 February 2007 100 7,115,046 - 7,115,146


33 66


cash flow statementThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust


Note 2007 2006R R

Cash flows from operating activities (512,271) 136,601

Cash utilised in operating activities 7.1 (1,155,795) (86,411)Investment income 643,524 223,012

Cash flows from investing activities (1,328,948) (124,813)Expenditure to maintain operating capacityProperty, plant and equipment acquired (22,386) (124,813)

Expenditure for expansionInvestments (1,306,562) -

Cash flows from financing activities

Grants received - 2,838,838

(Decrease)/increase in cash and cash equivalents (1,841,219) 2,850,626Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year 7.2 7,387,492 4,536,866Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year 7.2 5,546,273 7,387,492


33 77

1. Basis of preparation

The financial statements are prepared in accordance with statements of generally accepted accountingpractice. The financial statements are prepared under the historical cost method.Unless otherwise specifically stated, this basis is consistent with that of the previous year.

1.1 Revenue recognitionRevenue is recognised once donations and grants have been received.

1.2 InvestmentsInvestments are recognised and derecognised on a trade date basis where the purchase or sale of an investmentis under a contract whose terms require delivery of the investment within the timeframe established by themarket concerned.Investments are measured initially and subsequently at fair value, gains and losses arising from changes in fairvalue are included in profit or loss for the period.

1.3 Property, plant and equipmentAll property, plant and equipment are initially recorded at cost. All assets are written off in full in the year of purchase.

2. Property, plant and equipment

notes to the financial statementsThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust


2007 2006ACCUMULATED CARRYING ACCUMULATED CARRYING

COST DEPRECIATION VALUE COST DEPRECIATION VALUER R R R R R

Owned assetsAudiovisual equipment 96,178 96,178 - 96,178 96,178 -Furniture and fittings 311,024 311,024 - 309,656 309,656 -Telephone equipment 19,809 19,809 - 19,809 19,809 -Office equipment 46,744 46,744 - 39,730 39,730 -Computer equipment 342,117 342,117 - 321,099 321,099 -Computer software 38,264 38,264 - 38,264 38,264 -

854,136 854,136 - 824,736 824,736 -


33 88


2. Property, plant and equipment (continued)

The carrying amounts of property, plant and equipment can be reconciled as follows:

3. Investments

notes to the financial statementsThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust


CARRYING VALUE CARRYING VALUEAT BEGINNING AT END

OF YEAR ADDITIONS DEPRECIATION OF YEARR R R R

2007Owned assetsFurniture and fittings - 1,368 1,368 -Computer equipment - 21,018 21,018 -

- 22,386 22,386 -

2007 2006R R

Listed shares at market value 1,561,605 -

The trust held investments in the following companies:

NUMBER OF SHARES2007 2006

ListedAnglo Platinum Ltd 100 - 103,000 -Anglos PLC 300 - 103,206 -Aveng Ltd 2,000 - 79,000 -Billiton Ltd 900 - 130,689 -Firstrand Ltd 3,000 - 71,850 -Goldfields Ltd 500 - 62,480 -


33 99NUMBER OF SHARES 2007 20062007 2006 R R

Liberty International PLC 500 - 86,425 -Massmart Holdings Ltd 1,000 - 83,900 -Pick 'n Pay Holdings Ltd 3,000 - 44,520 -Richmont Securities AG 2,000 - 79,780 -Remgro Ltd 300 - 51,585 -SABMiller PLC 500 - 80,275 -Sasol Ltd 300 - 69,900 -Standard Bank Ltd 500 - 50,250 -

1,096,860

UNITS2007 2006

Collective investment schemeUSD High Growth InternationalMultifund 3,989 - 464,745 -

464,745

The above shares are classified as held for trading and is shown at market value with the profit or losstaken to the income statement.

4. Investment income

2007 2006R R

Interest income- Interest received 626,891 223,012Dividend income- Dividends received from listed companies 16,633 -

643,524 223,012


44 00


5. Grants received

2007 2006R R

Gross grants received 2,915,306 6,129,609Less:Transfer to general reserve - (2,838,838)

2,915,306 3,290,771

6. Commitments

Operating lease commitmentsThe future minimum lease payments under non-cancellableoperating leases are as follows:Not later than 1 year 312,472 289,326Later than 1 year and not later than 5 years 1,095,560 1,408,032

1,408,032 1,697,358


44 11

7.2 Cash and cash equivalentsCash and cash equivalents consist of cash on hand andbalances with banks. Cash and cash equivalents included inthe cash flow statement comprise the following balance sheet amounts:Cash and cash equivalents 5,546,273 7,387,492

7. Notes to the cash flow statement

2007 2006R R

7.1 Cash utilised in operating activitiesNet loss (291,704) -Adjustments for:Depreciation 22,386 124,813Investment income (643,524) (223,012)Profit on fair value adjustment of investments (255,043) -

(1,167,885) (98,199)Movements in working capital(Increase)/decrease in trade and other receivables (2,245) 8,712Increase in trade and other payables 14,335 3,076

(1,155,795) (86,411)


44 22


2007 2006R R

Gross revenue 2,971,606 3,334,171Donations 56,300 43,400Grants 2,915,306 3,290,771

Income 2,054,814 748,893Cost recovery fees 1,137,332 525,881Dividends received 16,633 -Fair value adjustment on investments 255,043 -Interest received 626,891 223,012Sundry income 18,915 -

Total income 5,026,420 4,083,064

Expenditure 5,318,124 4,083,064Advertising, marketing and publications 484,532 205,090Audit and accounting fees 44,000 50,500Bank charges 55,618 12,023Brokerage fee 35,732 -Cleaning 18,277 15,356Computer expenses 13,078 13,078Depreciation 22,386 124,813Fines and penalties 3,740 -Functions, events, seminars and hospitality 327,307 481,202Hire of equipment 57,444 37,863Insurance 25,345 23,145International conference fees - 3,948Lease rentals 322,292 303,990Legal expenses 1,840 10,800Postage 17,303 19,450Printing and stationery 151,351 33,568Repairs and maintenance 52,147 34,780Resource material 22,838 80,676Salaries 2,333,534 1,658,292Secretarial fees 19,662 13,020Service providers 749,602 535,054Staff development 11,120 25,177Telephone and fax 85,700 109,638Travel - local 153,495 108,664Travel - overseas 290,411 171,880Utilities 19,370 11,057

Loss for the year (291,704) -

detailed income statementThe South African Institute for Advancement Trust



Patrons

Dr Mamphela RampheleCyril Ramaphosa

Chairperson

Dr Richard van der Ross

Board Members

Fred PhaswanaDr Mills SokoDr Loveness KaundaDr Iqbal SurvèShelagh GastrowPatric Tariq Mellet

Executive Director

Shelagh Gastrow

Outgoing Managing Director

Patric Tariq Mellet

Programme Manager

Bea Abrahams

Office Manager

Soraya Joonas

Senior Programme Coordinator

Nazli Abrahams

Programme and Events

Coordinator

Samantha Castle

Personal Assistant to the

Executive Director

Dianne Poyo

Office Administrator

Cassandra Smith

Philanthropy Projects

Coordinator

Afrika Kashe

44 33patrons, the board of trustees and staff

supporters

Inyathelo would like to thank thefollowing organisations andindividuals who have givenfinancial support over the past year:

International

The Atlantic PhilanthropiesThe Ford FoundationThe Charles Stewart MottFoundationThe Kresge FoundationThe Embassy of FinlandThe Carnegie Corporation of New York

South African

The Open Society Foundation forSouth AfricaThe Swiss South African Co-operation InitiativeThe Anglo American Chairman’sFundThe Stella & Paul LoewensteinCharitable and Educational TrustThe Zenex FoundationBellairs TrustThe David Graaff Foundation Ms Shelagh GastrowMr Patric MelletMr Benny RabinowitzDial-A-NerdKult CreativeAlchemyAnonymous donors

We have also worked in

partnership with:

The Synergos InstituteThe Board of Executors – Private ClientsThe Non-Profit Consortium


44 44


staff 2007The South African Institute for Advancement

SHELAGH GASTROWBA (UND)EXECUTIVE DIRECTORFormer Director of Fundraising &Development at the University ofCape Town.

BEA ABRAHAMSPROGRAMME MANAGERBea has been in senior leadership,management, and consultancypositions in NPOs in SA and inparts of Southern and West Africa.

SORAYA JOONASOFFICE MANAGER (FINANCE)Soraya views her position as aperfect marriage between herpersonal ideology and herprofessional expertise.

NAZLI ABRAHAMSSENIOR PROGRAMMECOORDINATORNazli is responsible for managingthe Kresge Special Initiative inSouth Africa.

GABRIELLE RITCHIEPROGRAMME COORDINATORGabrielle Ritchie has joined theinstitute to co-ordinate the newInyathelo Philanthropy AwardsProgramme.

SAMANTHA CASTLEPROGRAMME AND EVENTSCOORDINATORSamantha is responsible for theYouth in Philanthropy ProgrammeSouth Africa (YIPPSA) as well asmanaging all the events that takeplace at the Institute.

DIANNE POYOPA TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORDianne has 12 years experience asa Personal Assistant.

CASSANDRA SMITHOFFICE ADMINISTRATORCassandra has over 25 years ofexperience in officeadministration within theeducation sector.

AFRIKA KASHEPHILANTHROPY PROJECTS COORDINATORBringing youthful energy toInyathelo’s philanthropy projects,Afrika believes that many of theissues facing our democracy canbe dealt with if we successfullyentrench a culture of social giving.


SAIA AR2007 Cover Final 8/14/07 11:57 AM Page 1

Composite

C M Y CM MY CY CMY K


INYATHELO, THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCEMENT

First Floor, The Cape Quarter, Dixon Street,

Green Point 8005, Cape Town, South Africa,

P O Box 818, Green Point 8051, Cape Town, South Africa

Telephone: (+27) 021 425 7928/9 • Fax: (+27) 021 425 7990

Email: [email protected] • Web: www.inyathelo.co.za

NPO REGISTRATION: 023-432-NPO

TRUST REGISTRATION: IT2285/2002

PATRONS: Dr Mamphela Ramphele, Cyril Ramaphosa

TRUSTEES: Shelagh Gastrow, Dr Loveness Kaunda,

Fred Phaswana, Dr Mills Soko, Dr Iqbal Surve, Dr Richard van der Ross


Advancement

annual report2 0 0 6 - 2 0 0 7

TM


Advancement

TM


Date post:	10-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongkhue
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

annual report - Inyathelo · with trust. Fair We believe in ... I would like to take this...

Documents