Comments on: Why Haven’t Foundations Made More Progress in Becoming Strategic? (part 2) http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/2010/01/why-haven%e2%80%99t-foundations-made-more-progress-in-becoming-strategic-part-2/ The blog of the Center for Effective Philanthropy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:10:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jara Dean-Coffey http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/2010/01/why-haven%e2%80%99t-foundations-made-more-progress-in-becoming-strategic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-81 Jara Dean-Coffey Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:48:24 +0000 http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/?p=64#comment-81 Hi Bob, I agree that the silver lining may be in a thunder cloud but I remain hopeful. And yes, leadership from within and external to the sector is critical with this change as with all others. I look forward to seeing a more fit and agile sector emerge after a leaner diet ($$) hopefully complimented by more accurate and relevant information (nutrition) and realistic goals. Hi Bob,

I agree that the silver lining may be in a thunder cloud but I remain hopeful. And yes, leadership from within and external to the sector is critical with this change as with all others. I look forward to seeing a more fit and agile sector emerge after a leaner diet ($$) hopefully complimented by more accurate and relevant information (nutrition) and realistic goals.

]]> By: Bob Hughes http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/2010/01/why-haven%e2%80%99t-foundations-made-more-progress-in-becoming-strategic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Bob Hughes Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:43:55 +0000 http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/?p=64#comment-77 Jara, I share your hope that now may be a good time for foundations to become more stratgic, and I agree that the factors you mention - growing access to understanding effective practices, more diverse actors bringing new perspectives - could help. But I think Lucy Bernholz has it just right in her observation that some of these changes also can make it harder. Her example of how community foundations have changed in response to an increasingly competitive environment underscores not only how they have upped their game, but also that it has been tough work and taken 1-2 decades for these dynamics to unfold. So I'm perhaps less sanguine than you are that the field will make significant progress quickly. The systematic pressures on foundations to learn how to become more strategic remain weak compared to organizations in the private sector, and the institutional capacities to adapt appear underdeveloped. To build on your analogy, the organizational muscles of foundations have not been widely used repeatedly to adapt quickly or effectively to new environments. It is a capacity that needs to be learned and practiced, and it will require leadership from within the sector to promote it. Jara,
I share your hope that now may be a good time for foundations to become more stratgic, and I agree that the factors you mention – growing access to understanding effective practices, more diverse actors bringing new perspectives – could help. But I think Lucy Bernholz has it just right in her observation that some of these changes also can make it harder. Her example of how community foundations have changed in response to an increasingly competitive environment underscores not only how they have upped their game, but also that it has been tough work and taken 1-2 decades for these dynamics to unfold. So I’m perhaps less sanguine than you are that the field will make significant progress quickly. The systematic pressures on foundations to learn how to become more strategic remain weak compared to organizations in the private sector, and the institutional capacities to adapt appear underdeveloped. To build on your analogy, the organizational muscles of foundations have not been widely used repeatedly to adapt quickly or effectively to new environments. It is a capacity that needs to be learned and practiced, and it will require leadership from within the sector to promote it.

]]> By: Jara Dean-Coffey http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/2010/01/why-haven%e2%80%99t-foundations-made-more-progress-in-becoming-strategic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Jara Dean-Coffey Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:44:13 +0000 http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/?p=64#comment-73 This conversation continues to engage me on a foggy morning in Marin. My work spreads across sectors and it has been interesting to see how the current economic climate has brought to the forefront the importance, admittedly with lack of clarity on definition, of being strategic. I think of being strategic as a muscle. As with working out,the more you engage in a certain set of activities over time with increased repetition the more likely you are to strengthen a particular muscle. For instance, ones ability to ride a bike 5 miles vs run 5 miles engages different parts of the body and mind. With more information available than we have ever had before about what works and what doesn't, shifting interests, changing resources and a more diverse set of stakeholders, perhaps now is the time when foundations can best be strategic. This conversation continues to engage me on a foggy morning in Marin. My work spreads across sectors and it has been interesting to see how the current economic climate has brought to the forefront the importance, admittedly with lack of clarity on definition, of being strategic.

I think of being strategic as a muscle. As with working out,the more you engage in a certain set of activities over time with increased repetition the more likely you are to strengthen a particular muscle. For instance, ones ability to ride a bike 5 miles vs run 5 miles engages different parts of the body and mind.

With more information available than we have ever had before about what works and what doesn’t, shifting interests, changing resources and a more diverse set of stakeholders, perhaps now is the time when foundations can best be strategic.

]]> By: Lucy Bernholz http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/2010/01/why-haven%e2%80%99t-foundations-made-more-progress-in-becoming-strategic-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Lucy Bernholz Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:38:03 +0000 http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/blog/?p=64#comment-59 I think Bob is onto something regarding the influence that changing environments have on how foundations think about themselves, their strategies and their effectiveness. For almost two decades now it has been plainly clear to community foundations that they operate in an extremely competitive environment when it comes to attracting donors. In response, they've sharpened their services and their messages about what distinguishes them from other vendors of donor advised funds, philanthropic advice, and community philanthropy. (Not to say more isn't needed, but that's for another blog comment). Generally speaking, community foundations are clearer, more strategic and more effective in delivering on their value proposition vis-a-vis the rest of the marketplace for donors - because they've recognized and responded to that competition.* At the same time, it is increasingly difficult to draw straight lines between input and outcomes on any social endeavor - as the mix of participants is likely to include a wide range of philanthropic partners, social enterprises, nonprofits, commercial entities, individual actors, and public agencies. Causal attribution isn't the goal - strategic clarity about the contributions of each actor in the network should be. The point is two fold - greater philanthropic options make it more contingent upon each player to "prove their worth" and also make it harder to do so. *(I would argue private foundations - indeed all philanthropic actors - are similarly challenged to make their case in the market of donor options. Newer foundations, with living donors and uncommitted endowments may be leading the way here.) I think Bob is onto something regarding the influence that changing environments have on how foundations think about themselves, their strategies and their effectiveness. For almost two decades now it has been plainly clear to community foundations that they operate in an extremely competitive environment when it comes to attracting donors.

In response, they’ve sharpened their services and their messages about what distinguishes them from other vendors of donor advised funds, philanthropic advice, and community philanthropy. (Not to say more isn’t needed, but that’s for another blog comment). Generally speaking, community foundations are clearer, more strategic and more effective in delivering on their value proposition vis-a-vis the rest of the marketplace for donors – because they’ve recognized and responded to that competition.*

At the same time, it is increasingly difficult to draw straight lines between input and outcomes on any social endeavor – as the mix of participants is likely to include a wide range of philanthropic partners, social enterprises, nonprofits, commercial entities, individual actors, and public agencies. Causal attribution isn’t the goal – strategic clarity about the contributions of each actor in the network should be.

The point is two fold – greater philanthropic options make it more contingent upon each player to “prove their worth” and also make it harder to do so.

*(I would argue private foundations – indeed all philanthropic actors – are similarly challenged to make their case in the market of donor options. Newer foundations, with living donors and uncommitted endowments may be leading the way here.)

]]>