Archive for April, 2010

Naming Names: Five of the Best Program Officers

Friday, April 30th, 2010

On Monday, we’ll be releasing a new report, Working with Grantees: The Keys to Success and Five Program Officers Who Exemplify Them. The report is the culmination of new analyses conducted primarily by CEP Vice President – Research Ellie Buteau and CEP Research Analyst Tim Chu on our dataset of surveys of thousands of foundation grantees. 

In the report, we describe how five key questions in our grantee survey get at one underlying measure: Relationships. We looked at what most powerfully predicts strong performance on this measure. These keys to working with grantees are the focus of our report.

But we take it a step further, naming names of program officers who are among the best on the Relationships Measure.  Our survey asks grantees to rate foundations, but we have often seen tremendous variation in grantee responses for the same foundations.  One big reason for that variation?  It’s as simple as the luck of the draw –  which program officer a grantee happens to have been assigned.  (For a flavor of the ends of the spectrum of grantee experience, see my colleague Kevin Bolduc’s recent blogs on positive and negative grantee comments.) Building on CEP’s 2007 Stanford Social Innovation Review article, we have segmented our data based on primary contact for those foundations that have asked us to gather that information, selecting five program officers who are among the very best performing on the Relationships Measure to profile – with their permission, of course.

On Monday, we’ll release the report and the names of the five program officers – along with video interviews with three of them.  We hope this well-deserved recognition inspires foundation leaders and program officers to focus with renewed energy and determination on what our analysis shows to be the keys to strong funder-grantee relationships.

These relationships matter.  Wallace Foundation President Christine DeVita puts it this way: “Because foundations like ours can only achieve their mission through the work of others, it is important that we have strong and effective partnerships with all our grantees.”  It’s a simple point, but one that gets lost, all too often, within the walls of foundations.

Crystal Hayling Reminds Us of 5 Things We Know, But Keep Forgetting

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

On Saturday evening in Denver, I had the great pleasure of hearing one of the best talks on philanthropy I have ever heard.  The venue was the Association of Black Foundation Executives’ James A. Joseph Lecture and the speaker was Crystal Hayling, a member of CEP’s board.  Crystal, who was until December the president of the Blue Shield of California Foundation, and is now living in Singapore with her family, entitled her talk 5 Things We Know, But Keep Forgetting.

Describing the first of the “5 Things,” she said:

Number 1: We should take more risk.

I don’t mean the kind of risk that is a narrow calculation of whether this grantee has a 48 or 63% chance of achieving these four goals. When we define risk in philanthropy we place it outside of our own walls and begin to assess the grantees’ risk of success or failure. But I am talking about us taking more risk. And I mean heart-stopping, “omigosh what have we just done?” “is that even legal?” kind of risk. The kind of risk that makes the safety players chuckle uncomfortably and snidely remark, “Gee, I hope that works out for them.”

Nehru once said, “The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all.” But that is not how it feels when making grantmaking decisions.

When I think about risk, I think about the people I know who have taken big risks. My dad for one. He was raised in a Southern Black upper class, lower-income family. You know. We have those in our community. Black folks who had risen in “class” because of their education if not because of the size of their wallets.

My dad was the son of those kind of Black folks. And he risked stepping off that precarious rung on the upwardly mobile ladder, to be a civil rights activist. To be in solidarity not with his ability to get ‘up and out’, but in solidarity with his community. And he risked his parents’ disapproval. Something we don’t often talk about is that everyone in our community supports civil rights leaders NOW, but everyone didn’t support them then. Many, like my father, heard constant admonitions to stop “worrying about all that marchin’ foolishness” which was clearly preventing him from grabbing the brass ring that, as a trained dentist, was so within his reach.

So how has that shaped how I think about risk in philanthropy? It reminds me that risk needs to feel personal. It needs to feel dangerous.  I haven’t felt that as often as I would like, but I have felt it. Like when I worked at the California Wellness Foundation almost 20 years ago and we launched a $30 million youth violence prevention initiative. We were a brand new foundation and I remember meeting with some established foundations. You’d have thought we had hillbilly painted on our foreheads. They questioned our science, poked holes in our theory, and seemed to say, “who do you think you are anyway, talking about $30 million?” And then we went into communities where parents of kids who’d been shot in drive-by’s asked us how dare we think some little bit of our money was going to change anything. I remember being mortified, and then I remember thinking about my dad and thinking, “Well we may not be right, but we better go ahead and find out.” There was too much at stake not to try.

I want to take the kind of risk guaranteed to piss someone off.

And not just the detractors. We have to be willing to piss off our friends and allies as well. To avoid the group think. There are examples: the education funders who want to strengthen public education but who supported charter schools, the funders who support and criticize the Gate’s Foundation’s approach to public health. When I took over the Blue Shield of California Foundation, many of my friends thought I had gone over to the dark side because our foundation was staunchly supporting the notion that every American not only has a right to health insurance, but also has a responsibility to have it. The idea of the individual mandate, a part of the recent historic health reform legislation, made us pariahs among the health advocates in California. And this was just 5 years ago. In order for risk to have real consequences, think of it less in terms of will this project succeed or fail, but will this funding have the opportunity to dramatically push progress forward and will it outweigh a real and tangible alternative use of the funds.

To quote the great American philosopher Chris Rock (who is in fact quoting his mother), “She would always say, If they don’t pay your bills and they can’t beat your ass, what do you care what they think of you?”

In order to take risks, we need thicker skins. Number one: Take more risk.

Crystal went on to describe the four other “things we know but keep forgeting.”  Number 2:  The time is now.  Number 3: Design matters. Number 4: Technology is just a tool. But it’s a power tool.  Number 5: We Need New Leadership.

This was the kind of talk that simultaneously inspires you and makes you reach for a notebook and pen.  Crystal’s words got me thinking in a way most talks don’t.

It’s well worth reading every word.

The Case for Foundation Performance Assessment

Monday, April 26th, 2010

Fueled by new technology and a change in mind-set, foundations have become more transparent about their activities and operations in recent years. This has been heartening, given the responsibilities and privileges inherent to our tax status, and the fact that we must work in partnership with many constituents and stakeholders in order to achieve our goals.

Just recently, there has been a major contribution in this regard by the Foundation Center’s Glass Pockets website, which provides a look at best practices in foundation transparency and which encourages the field to move further in this direction. The number of foundations and array of practices reflected on that site is impressive, and Irvine’s work on performance assessment, the subject of these blog posts, has sought to contribute to this movement. 

In the first three posts of this series I described why we developed a performance assessment framework, outlined some of the challenges we’ve encountered in assessing Irvine’s performance, and shared feedback from our board, the primary audience for the Annual Performance Report. In this final post I want to argue that robust performance assessment activities — and the transparency they encourage — serve to make philanthropy more effective. 

Based on our experience over the past five years in developing a performance assessment framework and reporting on it annually to our board, I am persuaded that our work has been enhanced by the discipline and rigor that this process has imposed upon us. We focus each year on providing thoughtful and thorough answers to the six central questions at the heart of our approach to performance assessment: 

  • Where are our grants going?
  • Are we achieving what we set out to achieve?
  • How do lessons from our program work improve our approach?
  • How is the Foundation exercising leadership in the field?
  • How do key stakeholders perceive us, and how do their perceptions inform our work?
  • How are we performing along measures of financial health and organizational effectiveness?

By focusing on these questions explicitly and reporting on our answers annually, I believe we are stretching ourselves in ways that ultimately advance our mission and goals.  As a private foundation, making grants is a key tool for us — indeed the primary tool — but absent clarity of goals and objectives, ongoing reflection and refinement, and purposeful evaluation and assessment, such grantmaking may not reach its full effectiveness. 

These six questions may not be the right ones for everyone, and they may even evolve for us, but the process of clarifying the questions at the center of how we think about our foundation’s performance has been useful as has the process of reporting on our annual progress.  But more than the process, I hope our ability to have positive impact has been accelerated, and I’m eager to hear what others might think in this regard. 

Finally, at the same time as I advance this argument, I’ll quickly add that we need to be cautious that exercises in performance assessment do not lead us to become so internally focused and metrics obsessed that we lose the bigger picture. This remains in my view one of the primary tensions inherent to this work that we need to balance consciously at all times. 

I hope this set of posts on our approach at Irvine can stimulate a broader dialogue that ultimately advances our field’s understanding and improves our practices. In the end, we need to be  concerned principally with the advancement of our respective missions, which I believe is enhanced by the presence of a well-considered approach to performance assessment. 

Jim Canales is President of the James Irvine Foundation 

*****

Disclaimers and Disclosures: The views expressed in the CEP blog by guest bloggers are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

The Data a Foundation Board Needs

Monday, April 26th, 2010

 The following was originally posted by the Council of Foundations on its blog, Re: Philanthropy.

What data does a foundation board member need to gauge foundation effectiveness?  That was the question we grappled with at a trustee-CEO summit session Saturday at the Council on Foundations annual conference in Denver.  Our session received invaluable help from the CEO and a trustee of a foundation that has pushed further than most: the Stuart Foundation in California.

Christy Pichel and Davis Campbell described how the Foundation has moved beyond the usual, easily available metrics to get a handle on effectiveness.  For example, the Foundation surveys its grantees regularly and looks at how it performs relative to other funders (disclosure: Stuart uses the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s (CEP) Grantee Perception Report to do this).  The Foundation learned that grantees valued deeply its program officers’ expertise – and wanted more of their time and help. The result was board approval of the hiring of additional staff. 

In the area of child welfare, Stuart is seeking better life outcomes for foster youth in California, but recognized that the state lacked an adequate data system.  So the Foundation made an investment that has led to the creation of a database that allows the Foundation – as well as grantees and government officials – to track the efficacy of efforts to help foster youth establish lifelong connections with caring adults. Stuart can now monitor whether its Child Welfare strategy is working. (For more on this, see CEP’s case study on Stuart.) 

Performance assessment for foundations is challenging (much more so than for businesses or operating nonprofits).  And, as Christy and Davis noted, you can’t understand your effectiveness if you don’t have an articulated strategy.  It’s tough work, as another California Foundation CEO, Jim Canales of the James Irvine Foundation, has been discussing on the CEP Blog in recent days. 

But, I wonder: Is there a more central board responsibility than assessing the foundation’s effectiveness? I am not sure there is.  Let’s hope more and more foundation boards and CEOs follow the lead of funders like Irvine, Stuart, Wallace, RWJF, and others and really push for the data will let them answer that deceptively simple question: “How are we doing?” 

Disclosure: CEP provides assessment tools and/or receives grant support from the foundations mentioned in this post.

Phil Buchanan is the President of the Center for Effective Philanthropy

Our Board’s Perspective on Performance Reporting

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

In an earlier post on this blog, I pointed out that the audience for the Annual Performance Report is Irvine’s board of directors. As we delivered the fourth of these at our annual board retreat last month, we devoted some time to learning more about the board’s perspectives on the report.

There were two key themes that emerged, related to the value of context, and the appropriate frequency of the report. Regarding context, board members expressed in numerous ways how much they value the contextual information that the report provides.  Two sections stood out in this regard: first, a table that describes how Irvine’s funding compares to other funders in our program areas, and second, a section on program context indicators, where we provide broader indicators related to our programs, such as per capita public spending for the arts across the U.S. or data on high school drop-out rates in California. This latter section is not meant to suggest that our work will necessarily affect those numbers, but rather to expose the board to broader data sets that help contextualize our program work. 

The positive reaction to these sections of the report underscores for me how important it is to help our boards gain a deeper understanding of the environment for the Foundation’s activities. We can explain our goals and strategies and describe grants aligned with them, but there will always be a missing piece if the board is not able to contextualize our foundation’s work. The board’s feedback encourages us not only to consider other ways to use the report to provide such context, but also to explore how we can shape other board materials and meetings in ways that expose them to the broader environment for our work.  

The second main theme from our board discussion related to timing. The board questioned whether it is possible to report on foundation performance in such a comprehensive way within a 12-month period. My earlier post described the tension between reporting on activities and describing impact and outcomes, and the timing question became a related point. The board encouraged us to consider a more streamlined Annual Performance Report that might be complemented by a comprehensive report that examines a multiyear period. The discussion led us to recognize a potential mismatch in timing between annual reports and longer-term program goals that operate on a three- to five-year timeframe. 

The discussion with the board also encouraged us to revisit the question of audience. We developed this performance assessment framework with the board as the primary audience, but now that we are committed to posting these reports on our website, we also need to give further thought to what other audiences might want to learn. With more foundations providing online grants databases and with the broad adoption by foundations of websites as the primary communications tool, traditional annual reports may be less relevant. With all of this in mind, we are considering how we could integrate more elements of the Annual Performance Report to the board into our traditional annual report to the public. 

Most of these ideas are still in development, and we have not yet settled on answers. In fact, we are still digesting the board retreat discussion and its implications. I welcome your thoughts on these subjects. 

In my final post I will make the case that, various challenges and difficulties notwithstanding, performance assessment is a vital part of being an effective foundation.

Jim Canales is President of the James Irvine Foundation 

*****

Disclaimers and Disclosures: The views expressed in the CEP blog by guest bloggers are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Center for Effective Philanthropy.