Archive for September, 2010

Student Feedback: The Missing Piece in Education Reform

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

We are in the midst of an unprecedented period of experimentation across the US education system. Check out any of the recent debates on proposed teacher assessment systems or commentary on the DC mayoral election, which many describe as a referendum on education reform, for evidence. In addition to significant government investment, foundations and individual philanthropists are instrumental in supporting these reform efforts, providing critical matching funds for programs like Race to the Top and advancing local community reform efforts. For example, just this past week, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook pledged $100 million to support the Newark school system. Across all these reform efforts, one point of view is almost invariably omitted: the perspective of the students themselves.

While I am in no position to argue about the efficacy of planned interventions, it concerns me that education leaders are not accessing the full breadth of feedback loops available to them and that they are making assumptions about what students find effective without asking the students directly. If you want to know whether a new program is achieving its intended impact, shouldn’t you be getting feedback from the students? Let’s not treat students as cogs or “inputs” into education reform, but rather recognize that it’s all about them.  Let’s respect their autonomy and responsibility in shaping their education experience.

In 2008, CEP launched the YouthTruth project — an initiative that gathers comparative feedback from the beneficiaries of education funders, in this case, high school students — about what’s working and not working in their schools. More than 21,000 students from 86 schools nationwide have participated in YouthTruth to date, with 100 schools slated for 2010-2011 participation. This project affirms that students have a lot to say about how their school experience could be improved and that their input — when harnessed effectively — can lead to real school improvements. Through YouthTruth, students assess whether they feel they are being challenged in their classes, whether they feel close to an adult at school, and the distractions that make it hard for them to do their best.

Participating school leaders are responding and making changes based on the feedback received through YouthTruth, as demonstrated by the testimonials below. 

In the words of one faculty member, “we learned [through YouthTruth] that a lot of times we were taking into consideration the thoughts of the adults and not the students.”

Preliminary feedback from participants in YouthTruth has been extremely positive. A recent independent evaluation of YouthTruth found that ninety nine percent of principals agree that YouthTruth has been helpful in planning specific changes in their schools. One hundred percent of participating principals would recommend YouthTruth to another school.

Check out the videos below to see how YouthTruth is being implemented in schools and what students and staff have to say about YouthTruth.

While YouthTruth is still a young initiative, we are extremely excited about its potential to be a complementary indicator to other routinely collected assessment data like test scores and graduation rates. We’re eager to amplify student voices to inform efforts to improve the educational system at large. Stay tuned for other observations about YouthTruth later this week.

Leadership, Strategy, and Focus: Reflections on the COF Community Foundation Conference

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

Last week, Vice President—Assessment Tools Kevin Bolduc and Senior Research Analyst Andrea Brock attended the Council on Foundation’s Community Foundation Conference in Charlotte, NC. Here they reflect on some of the conference’s major speakers and themes.

Kevin: Andrea, I was a little nervous when Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, got up to speak during the lunch plenary on Wednesday. After hearing Michelle Obama’s videotaped address earlier in the week, I was worried that his address would be just as, well, worrisome. I was disappointed to hear the First Lady move past her opening boilerplate about the importance of community to ask every single community foundation in the room to add another focus to their work.

The cause she is advocating for is undoubtedly a worthy one: work on veterans and military family issues. And keeping this on the forefront of philanthropic leaders’ minds is certainly important. However, I just don’t think that community foundations adding more goals and strategies to their work will lead to increased impact on communities. (Of course, she reminded everyone that they didn’t have to start a “new program;” they could just sprinkle this new goal into all their existing programs.) That’s why I was so happy to hear Secretary Duncan make an impassioned plea for focus (and I’m paraphrasing here): “foundations that are doing 15 things probably aren’t doing any of them well.”

Andrea: Kevin, you make some great points. It was a privilege to hear Secretary Duncan and the First Lady address community foundations. However, I took something different out of their speeches, which I believe had a number of similarities, actually. After all, didn’t Secretary Duncan essentially urge everyone in the room to start working on education if they weren’t already? But you’re right, Secretary Duncan did make the point that he believed community foundations couldn’t be everything to everyone and still make considerable impact.

But what I believe was most unifying in their remarks and the linchpin of the conference, for me, was the importance and need for community foundations to collaborate and leverage other resources.  Both of these issues — education and veteran services — are areas where the government spends considerable amounts of money. What I heard the First Lady and Secretary Duncan say to the crowd was (my paraphrasing): “Come work with us! Leverage the money we are spending so that we can be all successful in these areas.” It was not only a message of foundation collaboration, but of collaborative and supportive efforts between foundations and government.    

Kevin: Fair point, Andrea. We do need more and more open conversation about collaboration — both their successes and the barriers to funders collaborating well. One of the barriers to success that struck me as I chatted with people at the conference is how little really reliable information many community foundations have on their communities’ needs. The dive in the economy seems to have left a lot of community foundations working from “community needs assessments” that are five or six years old, or even older. Things have changed so much in the last few years. Maybe there’s an opportunity for collaboration around creating the information needed to develop better shared goals and strategies across funders – both individuals and foundations. Tools like the Boston Indicators Project, highlighted at one of the sessions, are a step in the right direction.

Andrea: I should also point out that the conference had several sessions on successful collaborations, despite the challenges inherent in collaborating with others. One of the sessions I thought was particularly good highlighted Read to Succeed Buffalo, a collaborative effort between the Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, The John R. Oishei Foundation, and several other partners (including government). This session highlighted what has worked and why. Sharing experiences of successful and long-term collaborations, like this one, are needed. Like you mentioned, only more research and more data — even on what doesn’t work — will help more collaborations succeed.  

Kevin: I left  COF feeling positively because I don’t think I’d ever heard as many conversations, like the one you’re describing about significant community leadership efforts, at a previous COF Community Foundations Conference. I’m optimistic that Secretary Duncan’s point of view will win the day and that we’ll see more and more community foundations thinking carefully about how they can align resources across a community to focus coherently on producing critical community change.  Here’s hoping.

Andrea: I completely agree. I witnessed a number of interesting conversations among leaders about community foundation strategy. Hopefully our research that is currently underway about community foundation strategy will aid in those conversations.

Lessons in Grantee Interactions

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

November 2010 will mark my second year as a grantmaker. It’s been a whirlwind of new information, new people, and new ways of working in the nonprofit sector, for which I am extremely appreciative. In response to CEP’s recent study of best practices among highly rated program officers, I’d like to share some of the things I’ve learned in my first two years.

1. Power dynamics are real.

The stories I heard before taking this job are true. People are often happy to hear from me. My phone calls and emails are returned promptly. I’ve had conversations with grantees and said, “These are just ideas,” and received proposals with verbatim transcriptions of my thoughts. It happens. These power dynamics are inherent in the relationship between nonprofit organizations (grantees or not) and grantmakers. I do try to mitigate them as much as possible, first and foremost by acknowledging them openly. I know it’s touchy-feely of me to say, but I think it’s important to remember that we’re human.We have families and histories and interests outside of our jobs. Getting to know the staff members at grantee organizations as people has been really helpful in breaking down the power barrier and also quite rewarding, as the arts world is filled with fun and interesting folks. It also lays the groundwork for building trust and mutual respect, which are important antecedents to my next point.

2. Meet grantees where they are.

Candor, on the part of both the grantmaker and the grantee, is vital to strategic grantmaking. In order to create this relationship, I start by doing my homework and getting first-hand exposure to a grantee’s activities. I familiarize myself with their artistic work by going to see performances and sitting in on classes and rehearsals. I learn about the communities they serve and try to get to know the neighborhoods in which they operate. I want to be fluent in my grantees’ work and deepen my understanding as much as possible. That way, when we sit down to talk about strategic challenges, new opportunities, declining revenue streams, or the latest artistic success, I have a strong base of knowledge with which to enter that conversation. Also, I read whatever recent grants documents we have on hand – yes, all of them. To the extent possible, I want to speak my grantees’ language and meet them on their turf. I think it helps grantees trust that I too am invested in the work they do.

3. Listen more. Talk less.

In conversation with grantees, I like to exhibit a discerning openness. I’ve found that the ability to ask thought-provoking, open-ended questions is a useful skill. Open-ended questions often serve me better than pointed ones because they have a way of revealing where the leaders of organizations are in their thinking. There are, of course, exceptions to this approach, and there is always a time and place to probe deeply on critical issues or to offer ideas or suggestions. However, I’ve learned more and made more progress talking through tough problems with grantees when I’ve been able to follow their train of thought rather than try to steer it. There’s a lot of value in letting organizations find their own answers, even when I think I might have an idea for a solution. Once things are on the table, we can scrutinize together.

4. The 30,000-ft. view can be useful.

Many nonprofit leaders are very much in the weeds of running their organizations, supporting their communities, and dealing with the myriad demands on their time. I’ve found that sharing what I’ve learned from speaking with other grantmakers and organizations or directly connecting grantees can have real value for the organizations with which I work. I recognize that, as a grantmaker, I have access to people and conversations that my grantees do not. It’s nice to be able to be a resource.

In reference to my last post, I think the common thread running through all of these lessons is the fact that giving organizations multi-year, general operating support grants of significant size makes grantee interactions easier. General operating support is as much an affirmation of my trust in an organization and its leadership as it is a reflection of strategic alignment.

Before I bid my time as guest blogger “adieu,” I want to re-orient a bit. I sometimes worry that with all of this left-brained thinking and emphasis on effectiveness, I may forget about why I’m here on this planet and why I do this philanthropic work. I passionately believe in the transformative power of the arts in the lives of individuals, communities, and for our world.  I want to leave you with a quote by one of my favorite poets, Audre Lorde. She once said:

 For women, then, poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence. It forms the quality of the light within which we predicate our hopes and dreams toward survival and change, first made into language, then into idea, then into more tangible action. Poetry is the way we help give name to the nameless so it can be thought. The farthest horizons of our hopes and fears are cobbled by our poems, carved from the rock experiences of our daily lives.

If I may be so bold as to expand this amazingly powerful statement, I believe that all creative expression functions in this positive way and for everyone – not as a luxury, but as a “vital necessity of our existence.” I encourage all of us to remember this truth and to realize it every day.

Ron Ragin is an associate program officer in the Performing Arts Program at Hewlett Foundation.  The views expressed are his own.

CEP’s 2011 Conference: Learning from the Veterans and the New Players

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

CEP’s conference will include perspectives from outside the world of organized philanthropy, such as those of Esther Duflo and Michael Mauboussin, but we can also learn from those among the ranks of foundation leaders. Today I am announcing two more confirmed speakers for our May 10-11 conference in Boston: Jeff Raikes, CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and Christine DeVita, CEO of the Wallace Foundation.

Jeff will address the topic of strategy in philanthropy in an interview conducted by Nadya Shmavonian, president of Public/Private Ventures and a member of the CEP Board. Jeff is still relatively new in his role, having assumed the position of CEO of the Gates Foundation in September of 2008 after a highly successful career at Microsoft. Many in philanthropy have been surprised by his candor about what he thinks the Gates Foundation can do better: listen, for example, to these recordings of conference calls the Foundation had with all their grantees after receiving a Grantee Perception Report (GPR) from CEP.

At our conference, Jeff will focus on strategy. He’ll discuss what’s different about strategy in philanthropy relative to business, including the challenge of remaining focused while addressing problems as complex and multi-faceted as U.S. education and global health.

Chris, who is retiring from Wallace Foundation after nearly 24 years, will discuss the remarkable transformation of the Foundation to one that is highly strategic and data-driven. Wallace is one of the (too) few foundations with a scorecard of measures against which its board gauges progress, and one of too few that routinely makes public data about how it is doing. In a refreshingly candid annual report released today, Assessing a Decade: Report ’09, Chris discusses the Foundation’s successes and failures.

For each of Wallace’s areas of work — Education, Arts Participation, Arts for Young People, and Out-of-School Time Learning — the report provides an overall assessment. Each summary outlines “successes” and then segues to a “but” that candidly reveals shortcomings in the foundation’s work.  It sounds simple, but this kind of openness remains more rare than it should be — both because foundations frequently decline to share those reflections and because foundations too frequently haven’t defined their goals or strategies clearly enough to be able to candidly gauge progress. This is the kind of transparency and accountability we should see more of, as CEP’s Ellie Buteau argues in this recent op ed.

As Wallace Board Chair Kevin W. Kennedy puts it in his opening letter:

We have … spent a great deal of time trying to identify metrics to assess how well we are producing social benefits. These metrics are tough to develop and can be ambiguous. But they are absolutely necessary. The surest way to do better is to measure and analyze results.

At our conference, I will interview Chris, exploring both how she defined the right measures and how she created a culture of data-driven decision-making.

Registration is not yet open for our conference, but it will be on September 29. Check our conference page for regular updates.

Full disclosure: Both the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wallace Foundation are users of CEP assessment tools and both also provide some grant support to CEP.

Thoughts on General Operating Support in Uncertain Times

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

The Hewlett Foundation has long been an advocate of making general operating support grants when appropriate alignment between an organization’s goals and strategies and those of the Foundation programs exists. Our President’s statement in the Foundation’s 2008 Annual Report covers this topic in detail. The large majority of the Performing Arts Program’s grants are multi-year general operating support grants of significant size (relative to grantees’ annual operating budgets) because such an alignment does exist. 

As Paul Brest mentions in the above-linked statement, nonprofit organizations place a high value on this type of support for a number of reasons. It gives organizations the financial stability, autonomy, and flexibility necessary to direct their spending where it is needed. It enables innovation and risk-taking, providing nonprofits with resources to take advantage of new opportunities as they arise. It eases the fundraising burden and mitigates the potential for mission creep.

In challenging economic times such as these, the benefits that general operating support can provide to nonprofit organizations are placed in high relief. In addition to financial challenges, there are many other environmental factors creating great pressure on nonprofit arts organizations — changing demographics, technological innovations, and shifts in consumer preferences, to name a few. (Note: If you’ve got a moment, check out this fabulous speech by Diane Ragsdale, formerly of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Actually, you should just carve out some time to watch it. She provides a clear analysis of the challenges that arts organizations face and offers some potential paths forward).

All of this environmental uncertainty is challenging some basic assumptions about best practices. Here’s an example. I recently asked the leader of a local nonprofit arts organization what he was learning through the strategic planning process that his organization is undertaking. He said something to the effect of, “You know, Ron, we’re creating a strategic plan that doesn’t look like anything we’ve used before. There’s too much uncertainty to plan three years out, so we’re working on a new vision for the organization. Then we’re going to develop an operational plan for the year and start piloting new ideas, monitoring the whole way.”

His answer was refreshing and realistic, and I appreciated his candor. Organizations need to set visionary and achievable goals and require the flexibility to pursue them in ways that make sense given the rapidly changing environmental context in which we find ourselves. General operating support is one way in which we provide our highly aligned grantees with that opportunity.

Ron Ragin is an associate program officer in the Performing Arts Program at Hewlett Foundation.  The views expressed are his own.