Notes to Eikenberry 2009
\n\n
Giving circles have are part of new civic engagement characterized by small, informal associations, as well as new philanthropy, which seems to be more engaged and hands-on than what has characterized philanthropy in the 20th century (esp. large federated organizations like United Way).
\nP 8-9 Discusses “voluntary and philanthropic failures;” voluntarism can perpetuate social inequality by linking philanthropy to wealth and status, and 2) it fails to adequately address the needs of society.
\nP “Can GCs counter or ameliorate any or all of these voluntary and philanthropic failtures and thus serve tocreate a more democratic voluntarism that adequately addresses social welfare needs and community problems?...I conclude that givinc circles seem to democratize voluntarism to varying degrees depending on their size, structure and internal activities, but perhaps not to the extent necessary to adequately address thes voluntary and philanthropic failtures in the context of governance beyond the state. GCs do sere to enhance the civic education and participation of its (sic) members; however the broader capacity of these groups to meet social needs and solve community problems is extremely limited and problematic.”
\nSo essentially, GCs are good at cultivating democratic engagement, but that engagement is not necessarily so effective at addressing critical social problems.
\n32 history of philanthropy in US
\nColonial philanthropy = more informal. “Modern” philanthropy and “scientific” philanthropy = institutionalized. Formal. Professionalized. Specialized in techniques.
\nFederated giving like United Way. Donors and recipients anonymous, mediated by the Federation.
\n35 the marketization of voluntarism. Voluntary organizations, foundations, forced to compete with one another, become more streamlined and efficient. More of their $ comes from partnerships with government (gov. contracts) or businesses. Also from selling stuff to raise funds.
\nDonors analyze potential donations like they do investments. Business language of efficientcy, etc. “Venture philanthropy” is part of this.
\nMarketization may serve to increase capacity and efficiency, but at significant cost. Relationships with community stakeholders and individual donors are sacrificed. Orgs have less resources to devote to serving community needs b/c of their energy to stay competitive. “Decrease in communal impulse, neighborhliness, etc.” Also less likely to participate in advocacy b/c don’t want to offend gov. or business partners.
\n38 “plug-in style” volunteerism (later, she refers to episodic volunteerism). Directed from the organization, tells you when and where to show up, what to do. Volunteers get little sense of the importance of what they are doing, little personal investment in the work or cause.
\n39 Impersonal fundraising techniques: direct mail, phonathon, etc.
\nAll of this leads to little connectedness/stake in the organization, as well as serves to tighten the link between wealth and voluntarism. Only the big kahunas get a say in where the money is going, engage in a meaningful way with the organization or its beneficiaries.
\n40 Market pressures take toll on voluntary organizations ability to create social lcapital and enhance civic engagement.
\nOften a complex, highly bureaucratized funding process.
\nLess need to for big orgs to build relationships in the community in order to be successful.
\n43 “We find ourselves, then, in a situation where there are calls for voluntarism to play a more central role in society, but the very reasons we want to be more dependent on them instead of government – their contributions to civic engagement, democracy, and grassroots community and citizen participation – are being eroded”
\nCh 3 Democratization and the new volunteerism
\n45 given this, the democratization of voluntarism must include a broader view of democracy and account for voluntarisms shortcomings and shifts within modernity. The keys to this include expanding voluntary participation not only to counter the effects of modernization but also to combat elite hegemony, asymmetric relationships among citizens, and unequal voluntary outcomes….In summar, a democratic voluntarism would provide opportunities for meninful democratic participation, broaden individuals’ identification with the needs of others, and expand who benefits from voluntarism.
\n45 Getting more people to participate
\nNow: women give more time and money than men (esp. wealth women)
\nAf Ams give highest % of discretionary income
\n46 More people also need power to set agenda, etc.
\nNeed to engage people in routine social relationships (not just episodic, like much volunteering)
\n49 organizations serving women and minorities receive smaller share
\n50 Most people give to orgs they know, and which directly benefit them. Democratizing means – giving to others (cultivating identification with broader society)
\nShe talks about “post-traditional society”, breakdown of large impersonal bureaucratic organizations…but then this leaks into a discussion of breakdown of traditional authority, which sounds like modernity rather than anything post-.
\nShe then talks about the rise of new informal associations (pace Putnam who points to flat out decline in civic engagement). E.g. self-help, support groups, book clubs, etc.
\nAlong with this is new philanthropy. And voluntarism. People who want more than episodic volunteering.
\n53 “new and emerging donors want to control where and hwo their gift is spend, fund issues rather than institutions, and often emphasize impact and accountability with their funding…also typlically mistrust large, bureaucratice institutions.”
\nOne thing she doesn’t address – at least not yet – is how common these people are. To me this sounds like pretty typical rhetoric about “kids these days.” Any data to back this up?
\nCh4 GC landscape
\n57 “cross between book club and investment group”
\nBased on analysis of 188 GCs, total number able to identify in 2005. Other methodology info here.
\n“Giving circles are difficult to define. They come in many shapes, sizes and foci.” Five dimensions common to all:
\n1. They pool and grant money
\n2. they educate members about philanthropy and community issues
\n3. social dimension
\n4. engage members
\n5. maintain independence
\n1.
\n40% of groups don’t keep track of how much members donate!
\nMany have diff. giving levels. Don’t seem to influence decision making, perhaps b/c info not shared.
\nMany interested in tracking gift
\n2. Educate
\nAbout philanthropy, community (doesn’t mention identity stuff)
\n3. Socializing can be primary focus in some
\n4. Engage – hands on. Largely volunteer-run
\n5. Maintain independence. Driven by supply side of philanthropy (ie what donors what to fund rather than need as determined by fundraisers, foundations)
\nNot same thing as “donor circles” that group people based on amount given.
\n61 Typology: small groups, loose networks, Formal organizations. See table on p 52. The majority of ours are formal orgs. Some small groups. No loose networks, I don’t think.
\nFormal orgs: committees, strict procedures, strong engagement with grantees,
\nYoung Leaders Funds – venture philanthropy – using techniques of making money for giving it away
\n½ of formal orgs are affiliated funds
\n75 Why people join giving circles (see list of reasons – scan in perhaps) None of these include connecting with ethnic community/heritage. Our others are mostly there.
78 In many ways GCs are seen as “something different” than other philanthropic vehicles.
79 Value-added benefit to grantees is important (connections, volunteers, expertise) , esp. b/c funding is minimal often. More personal dimension often appreciated.
\nHowever, relationship between grantees and gcs can be more complicated and ambiguous compared to traditional funders.
\nChapter 5 Democratic Effects of giving circles
\n1. Provide more, diverse people with opportunitites for participation in philanthropy? Previously unengaged groups?
\nOverall answer is yes because 1) there are more younger people, who typically don’t give as much according to the research. Also b/c they are predominantly female.
\n83 ppl from diverse walks of life participate, but largest % are 30s-40s.
\n84 only 2 all male gcs she found
\n84-85 stats on minority group giving circles (scan in her chart)
\nWhile there is diversity across gcs, membership within groups tends to be pretty heterogeneous.
\nAt the time of her study, only 15 identity-group gcs. Grown since then.
\nShe goes into racial makeup of diff. kinds of gcs. They are mostly white.
\nForum of Regional ASsociaitions of Grantmakers has a good database of current identity gcs.
\n85 Regarding minority gcs: “It is difficult to say that gcs are explanding the participation of these groups. However, what giving circles may be doing, as with younger individuals discussed above (indeed, many of these individuals are also younger professionals), is expanding the participation of these groups into organized philanthropy.”
\nIn general, her remarks on minority gcs are very preliminary. Great area for further research like ours!
\n85-6 members mostly middle and upper middle class. A few mega-wealthy participate, tho.
\nMany have non profit professionals as members. She says sthis is important from a democratization perspective b/c they give voice to the organizations.
\n“In sum, most of the giving circles…appear to be limited in idveristy within the group, but fairly diverse across groups, attracting people not normally involved in organized philanthropy at a substantial level. Several of those interviewed and docuemntaiton about gcs used the term like-minded to describe gc memberships. This seems to be quite accurate. The homogeneity of these groups is not surprising when one considers that the main recruitment tool for gcs seems to be word of mouth and member referrals. This is typical of most voluntary associations.
\n86 Participation in Deliberation and Decision-making
\nDiff types of orgs have different grantmaking processes. Some, all participate; some, only committees. Overall, they all have a lot of deliberative practice that is rare anymore in voluntary associations and this is a good thing (88-9
\n89 Building capacities of citizens. Several theorists posit this kind of practice, and engaging in voluntary associations in general, as good practice for governance, and equips them for political action.
\n90 A lot of the capacity building of gcs happens through the educative process. They also empower members…this is important b/c “individuals need to feel they have the power to make a difference if they are going to participate and be effective in civic life.”
\n91 Formal orgs are most systematic and comprehensive in educating and engaging members with others in the comm. Loose networks better at empowering individuals and connecting directly to ppl in need.
\n91 Broadening id with others
\nAgain, Putnam’s bonding vs. bridging social capital. Groups are very good at the bonding. Sometimes that’s the primary focus.
\n93 “The gc can provide members who are new to the community with an opp to meet ppl and connect to the wider comm. “
\n93 Identification w non-profit professionals. GC members gain access to np fors, either those who are fellow members or staff of grantee orgs. This used to be only previously open to major donors.
\nBusiness peeps get a better idea of np reality –i.e., can’t just apply business models.
\n94 Little direct interaction with individs in need. More in loose networks.
\n95 all groups promote greater awareness of issues faced by those in need
\n95 Expanding who benefits? Concludsion – yes b/c most grantees are small organizations, and sometimes individuals. (She doesn’t mention minority communities, but this is another way that the pool of beneficiaries expands/diversifies).
\n95 N{s not always thrilled about their GCs’ zest to volunteer. Sometimes they don’t need it.
\n100 Identity group giving circles tend to work/grant/volunteer with organizations that serve their own group. She points to this as a negative for democracy because they are not expanding their identification with Others. But isn’t promoting responsibility/ philanthropy within ethnic groups good for a sort of multicultural democracy? Also, often it *is* identifying with Others (social class others if not racial/minority). I mean, empowering Black people or Latinos or whatever of means to help those who are struggling is a good thing!
\n101 Effects on members giving
\n102 Does seem that members expand their giving b/c of their GC experience. Give more, but also give differently. Often more focused and strategic.
\n", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2013-05-15T15:01:42Z", "dateModified": "2013-05-15T15:01:45Z" } }, { "key": "PQ23US9V", "version": 24, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 147723, "name": "NSAJG", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/147723/items/PQ23US9V", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg/items/PQ23US9V", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/147723/items/JVDWWG77", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 552754, "username": "emdean", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/emdean", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "PQ23US9V", "version": 24, "parentItem": "JVDWWG77", "itemType": "note", "note": "
Zion, Noam. Modern Jewish Discourses of Philanthropy: \"No More Charity!\". Jewish Giving in Comparative Perspectives: History and Story, Law and Theology, Anthropology and Psychology. Zion Holiday Publications. January 2013: http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=16001
\n5/13/13
\nHoly cow this guy Noam Zion is awesome. His knowledge of both Jewish and general Western philanthropy is so comprehensive, and he so fluidly integrates discussion of the two. I read this chapter very quickly, skipped several parts, with an eye toward 1) the lit review of the NSAJG report and 2) my upcoming meeting with Andrew Rehfeld about research I might do in STL. The notes are kinda sketchy.
\nTakeaways:
\nFoundations, and in particular JFeds, were the original democratizers of philanthropy. Got everyone involved. You didn’t have to be a big wig to make a difference. JFeds tied this to a transcendental “civil religion” that made this particularly effective; this connected philanthropy to Jewish American identity. Then what happened? He doesn’t exactly say, but Eichenberry talks about how depersonalized scientific charity became…and then how market forces further marginalized small donors and led fundraisers to neglect relationships with individual and community stakeholders.
\nSo perhaps they can go back to their roots, as it were, and again become centers where Jewish identities crystallize (my metaphors aren’t exactly flowing this evening).
\nThen he talks about the “new philanthropy.” Grass-roots. Hands-on. Local. Empowered and empowering. Social entrepreneurs. Indivudlaistic. Consumerist. Givers give, not b/c of communal or religious obligations, but because it gives them meaning and fulfillment.
\nSeeks to affect structural and social change (This, he says, is what is truly new about new Jewish philanthropy, i.e. no rabbinic bases or precursors.)
\nGreat quote:
\nfrom Lynn and Wisely: “Foundations can ... promote civic engagement and encourage public moral discourse, by cultivating hospitable spaces for reflection and by bringing diverse people and perspectives into conversation in the hope that new vision and fresh action will eventually emerge” I think hosting giving circles/gc type programs is a good way to do this.
\nThat whole section on new philanthropy is very good. Review it before meeting with Andrew. There is a quote by the head of Pittsburg JFed that talked about very successful campaigns in which they sought out causes they thought would appeal to donors and got people very involved in them.
\n---------------
\nStarts out showing how modern J ideas of philanthropy have paralleled those of surrounding elites; including, in 19th-20th centuries, the turn toward “scientific” and institutionalized philanthropy.
\nAlso ideas of the poor – seeing them as corrupt and undeserving when European society, then embracing the more…structuralist or sociological views, I would call them, of Adam Smith when his ideas became popular (the poor aren’t poor b/c they’re schmucks, but rather because of their position in the system (as I interpret it). Their “habits” can be changed thorugh education.)
\nModern (19th-20th century) J philanthropists embrace Maimonides highest level of tzedakah – giving someone a job or entering into a partnership with them. Zion thought this an anachronistic projection of the rabbinic onto contemporary American liberal values, but his colleague Micah Goodman argues for strong ideological relationship between Maimonides and modern ideas of economic independence, individual autonomy. The idea that individuals can change their “destiny” through education, concerted effort. What follows is Goodman’s illumination of this ideology, including Rambam’s ideas of evil (most of it we bring on ourselves, and can avoid by changing ourselves). I really want to read this book! (Damn, it’s in Hebrew)
\nOkay I skipped lots for the sake of time.
\nP 51Philanthropy as nation-building
\nTalks about philanthropy in Israel, or directed toward Israel by American Jews
\n53 starts talking about US
\nTurn of 20th century – birth of “mass philanthropy.” E.g. cultivating a very broad donor base. The idea of “collective responsibility.” As opposed to relying on a few big magnates to fund causes. This kinda thing was first mobilized toward finding a TB cure. Teddy Roosevelt’s project. This idea was incorporated into the first large Federations (United Way) and community foundations.
\n56 New forms of American J giving in 19th century
\nGiving to things like agricultural communes in Israel. Helping them become self-sufficient. Not only to find economic solutions for refugees, but to combat anti-semitic ideas of Jews as commercial parasites. (So that’s always a component of Jewish giving – to promote causes that make us look good to the rest of the world. This makes me think of Alliance Israelite Universelle.
\n58 American Jewish Civil Religion – post WWII
\nThis section is mostly drawn from the book Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews Jonathan Woocher. This looks really interesting.
\nWoocher draws on Durkheim and Bella (?) to talk about the function of religion – to concretize shared values, beliefs, identity , etc. Same is true of “civil religions” . Woocher says Am Jews created a civil religion, largely based on philanthropic instituitions:
\n“Woocher assembles a catechism of beliefs held by the American Jewish civil religion:
\n The unity of the Jewish people (\"We are one!\" says the UJA slogan);
\n Mutual responsibility as \"my brother's keeper\" and as \"guarantors of every other Jew\" (arevim zeh lazeh);
\n Jewish physical survival in a threatening world (pikuakh nefesh); Jewish spiritual-cultural survival and a sense of continuity and rootedness in a transcendent source of meaning;
\n The centrality of Israel both as a sacred national homeland with a right of return for every Jew worldwide and as a platform for fulfilling the mitzvah of pilgrimage. This is implemented through UJA missions, family bar mitzvah trips to Masada and Birthright trips for college students. Israel is also a politically sovereign nation where American political activism such as through AIPAC makes one, at least vicariously, a maker of history;
\n The confluence of American and Jewish identities and values; and
\n The commitment to tzedakah and Tikkun Olam, social justice. “
\nThis was important for bridging ethnic and denominational diffs in america
\n60 philanthropy was “It was identity-constructing both for the individual who engaged in it, and for the community which was created by it.”
\nSo there’s a precedent for J identity thru philanthropy
\n61 people attach themselves to Federation and other agencies as away to connect with Jewish tradition and community
\nFeds democratized giving,
\nCritical to the success of this civil religion was some actual religion (if non-denominational…a component that is metaphysical, transcendental)
\n\n
64 “ One of the most important lessons that can be gleaned from Woocher’s notion of a civil religion is the way that a powerful narrative of giving must be rooted in a larger and deeper theological-ideological matrix that gives individual and communal life metaphysical meaning. Ethics and theology are not fully separable.”
\n\n
P 68 Private Foundations in America:
\nPromoting Public Social Welfare with Private Wealth
\nOpen-ended foundation an American invention
\nCritiques of foundations – perpetuate inequality, serve basically as a way for the rich to look good while gaining a tax benefit. Defenders say they play an important role where gov fails.
\n69 “private foundations like Ford and Carnegie developed a new calling. They would identify public problems, experiment with innovative solutions and then advocate legal, social and economic laws by which the government would make its own welfare policies more effective. Private foundations became think tanks and political lobbyists for government policy changes and they leveraged their power in alliance with the much vaster government resources” in the 1960s
\n72 Postmodern philanthropy
\n“In their seminal essay \"Toward a Fourth Philanthropic Response: American Philanthropy and Its Public\", Elizabeth M. Lynn and D. Susan Wisely sketch this new direction of the last 30 years:
\n\"We hear calls for different voices in public life - not just the voice of the successful, not just the voice of the expert, but the voice of the citizen.
\nIn response, foundations and other philanthropic organizations have begun to turn toward ..civic engagement. They are investing resources in strengthening relationships and nurturing conversations among citizens, in order to build, ‘more reflective and resourceful local communities.’ … Ultimately, the goal of these investments may be to relieve, improve, or reform the communities they serve. Yet the focus of the work and the standard.”
\nPomo b/c wary of top-down solutions. Beyond 1960s liberalism b/c beyond the notion that the state can fix everything.
\nNot the scientific giving or Carnegie et al; not a think-tank to generate new social policy; rather, a nostalgic return to Toquevillian models of voluntary societies. “There is a new commitment to revitalize democracy, especially local communal initiatives:”
\n73 need to strengthen civil society in the wake of gov. retreat from social welfare. “In Israel and within the American Jewish community, that means revisiting the tradition of communal organization in the Diaspora Kehilla, the European immigrant Landsmanschaften and the Yishuv (the pre-state Zionist society of the 1930-40s).” But how would this look for well-assimilated Americans?
\nAll about empowering local groups. Grass-roots. In parternship with those who are needy, giving them voice, etc.
\n74
\n– from Lynn and Wisely: “Foundations can ... promote civic engagement and encourage public moral discourse, by cultivating hospitable spaces for reflection and by bringing diverse people and perspectives into conversation in the hope that new vision and fresh action will eventually emerge” I think hosting giving circles/gc type programs is a good way to do this.
\nPoMo Jewish philanthropists – age of the social entrepreneur
\nGood definitions of what social entrepreneurs are. Share with scientific giving a mistrust in government.
\nThey are individualistic, they seek to implement innovative and effective solutions that benefits giver, recipient and society as a whole, they seek to affect structural and social change.
\nBronfman –today’s giving is frankly self-centered. Not about communal or religious obligation, but “what’s right for me”
\n75 “Therefore one must market to the new donor as one does in high-end boutique advertising”
\n76 Very interesting statement by head of Pittsburg JFed about shopping around for the kinds of causes that donors would want to fund, and in that way attracting previously fringe donors to become important donors.
\nThat individualistic self-centeredness attaches not so much to emblazoning one’s name on the gift which is an ancient tradition, but to the choice of beneficiary as an act of self-definition and hands-on control of the method of problem-solving chosen:.
\n“the old philanthropy was aobut fulfilling a social obligation, the new is about fulfilling my life through making a difference in the world” quote from something, not sure what
\nTalks about decline of large Jewish foundations like UJA and Federations. “Individual donors within the Federation world and individual federation now prefer to allocate their gifts directly to organizations of social change and relief. The advantage is that the donor feels much more engagement and perhaps gives more money and certainly more time and thought to the use of the gift.”
\nDownside: doesn’t necc. Go to the area of greatest need, benefit the community where most needed. Can be haphazard.
\nFeds have changed strategies. Some contribute to universalist causes b/c this is part of many younger Jews’ identities.
\nWow – this pragmatic use of giving to non-Jews has Talmudic bases! Who knew! Those guys thought of everything.
\nThere’s also a religious imperative to help out anyone in need in times of crisis.
\nParticular religious values and dictums are reemphasized…Tikkun Olam is more popular than Tzedakah
\n79 In Summary: Jewish Civil Society and Tzedakah
\nNice summary of different institutions, forms of Jewish giving and charity
\n80 However, what is more typically modern and hardly found in traditional pre-modern Jewish giving is the donors' desire to affect public policy and change society, not just to maintain worthy causes.
\n", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2013-05-14T02:03:03Z", "dateModified": "2013-05-14T02:03:12Z" } }, { "key": "JVDWWG77", "version": 24, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 147723, "name": "NSAJG", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/147723/items/JVDWWG77", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg/items/JVDWWG77", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 552754, "username": "emdean", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/emdean", "type": "text/html" } } }, "creatorSummary": "Zion", "parsedDate": "2013-01", "numChildren": 1 }, "data": { "key": "JVDWWG77", "version": 24, "itemType": "bookSection", "title": "Modern Jewish Discourses of Philanthropy: \"No More Charity!\"", "creators": [ { "creatorType": "author", "firstName": "Noam", "lastName": "Zion" } ], "abstractNote": "", "bookTitle": "Jewish Giving in Comparative Perspectives: History and Story, Law and Theology, Anthropology and Psychology.", "series": "", "seriesNumber": "", "volume": "", "numberOfVolumes": "", "edition": "", "date": "January 2013", "publisher": "Zion Holiday Publications", "place": "", "originalDate": "", "originalPublisher": "", "originalPlace": "", "format": "", "pages": "", "ISBN": "", "DOI": "", "citationKey": "", "url": "http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=16001", "accessDate": "", "ISSN": "", "archive": "", "archiveLocation": "", "shortTitle": "", "language": "", "libraryCatalog": "", "callNumber": "", "rights": "", "extra": "", "tags": [], "collections": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2013-05-14T02:00:18Z", "dateModified": "2013-05-14T02:02:23Z" } }, { "key": "VAD7GN9J", "version": 22, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 147723, "name": "NSAJG", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/147723/items/VAD7GN9J", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg/items/VAD7GN9J", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 552754, "username": "emdean", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/emdean", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "VAD7GN9J", "version": 22, "itemType": "attachment", "linkMode": "imported_url", "title": "Latino philanthropy lit review", "accessDate": "2013-05-12T21:15:02Z", "url": "http://www.philanthropy.org/programs/literature_reviews/latino_lit_review.pdf", "note": "", "contentType": "application/pdf", "charset": "utf-8", "filename": "latino_lit_review.pdf", "md5": "3c2c8c6207bd42867031763919a918c2", "mtime": 1368393303711, "tags": [], "collections": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2013-05-12T21:15:02Z", "dateModified": "2013-05-12T21:15:33Z" } }, { "key": "PUNXV6Q6", "version": 19, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 147723, "name": "NSAJG", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/147723/items/PUNXV6Q6", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg/items/PUNXV6Q6", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/147723/items/I9W7RDIB", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 552754, "username": "emdean", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/emdean", "type": "text/html" } } } }, "data": { "key": "PUNXV6Q6", "version": 19, "parentItem": "I9W7RDIB", "itemType": "attachment", "linkMode": "imported_url", "title": "About Us- Kitchen Table Giving Circle", "accessDate": "2013-04-17T18:55:10Z", "url": "http://kitchentablegivingcircle.org/about/", "note": "", "contentType": "text/html", "charset": "utf-8", "filename": "about.html", "md5": "8de9114ebc2f954fdc9556de9b4e289e", "mtime": 1366224909504, "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2013-04-17T18:55:35Z", "dateModified": "2013-04-17T18:55:35Z" } }, { "key": "I9W7RDIB", "version": 18, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 147723, "name": "NSAJG", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/147723/items/I9W7RDIB", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/nsajg/items/I9W7RDIB", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 552754, "username": "emdean", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/emdean", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 1 }, "data": { "key": "I9W7RDIB", "version": 18, "itemType": "webpage", "title": "About Us- Kitchen Table Giving Circle", "creators": [], "abstractNote": "", "websiteTitle": "", "websiteType": "", "date": "", "publisher": "", "place": "", "DOI": "", "citationKey": "", "url": "http://kitchentablegivingcircle.org/about/", "accessDate": "2013-04-17T18:55:09Z", "shortTitle": "", "language": "", "rights": "", "extra": "", "tags": [], "collections": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2013-04-17T18:55:35Z", "dateModified": "2013-04-17T18:55:35Z" } } ]