Author Archive

Data Point: Foundations’ Use of Logic Models and Theories of Change

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

The use of logic models and theories of change has been much discussed and debated in the field of philanthropy.

Some advocates for their use suggest that foundation staff members need to articulate the logic of how the foundation’s work will lead to the achievement of its goals if they are to have a chance of achieving them – and if they are ever to understand the impact of their efforts. One sector leader who holds this position is Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. As Brest and Hal Harvey, a former Environment Program director at Hewlett, wrote in Money Well Spent, “An intuitively plausible theory of change is better than none at all. [But] the more tested the theory of change, the sounder its use as the basis for a strategy.”

Others argue that the complexity of social problems, and the likely result of getting a logic model or theory of change wrong, means funders should not attempt to lay out the path to their desired goals. Bill Schambra of the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal Director, argues funders should not “worry about solving a problem in the abstract [or] thinking it through in advance with a bunch of flow charts and variables [because] it isn’t going to turn out the way you thought it was going to.”

So what is the state of practice among large foundations? Last year, CEP collected data on this issue through surveys of CEOs of foundations with $5 million or more in annual grantmaking and published a report that highlights trends in the field regarding the assessment of foundation performance.

The data show that:

  • 29 percent of CEOs report using a logic model or theory of change to guide all of their work.
  • 40 percent of CEOs report using a logic model or theory of change to guide some of their work.
  • 31 percent of CEOs report not using logic models or theories of change in any of their work.

CEOs who use these tools generally place assessing their foundation’s effectiveness as a higher priority than CEOs who do not. Specifically, 80 percent of CEOs who use logic models or theories of change rated the priority of assessing the foundation’s effectiveness a 6 or 7 (on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 representing the highest priority). About 60 percent of the CEOs who do not use logic models or theories of change gave that high of a rating to this priority.

CEOs who report using logic models or theories of change also use different types of data when assessing their foundation’s programmatic work than those CEOs who do not. CEOs who use these tools are more likely to use surveys of the foundation’s grantees, conduct focus groups and convenings of their grantees, or carry out evaluations of the foundation’s program or issue areas to understand the effectiveness of their programmatic work.

To see an example of how Wilburforce Foundation has used a logic model to drive their strategic thinking, check out this recent guest post from Paul Beaudet.

What is your take on funders’ use of logic models?

Andrea Brock is Research Manager at CEP.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Data Point, Developing Strategy | 1 Comment »

General Operating Support Remains the Exception

Monday, December 6th, 2010

Reading about philanthropy, you might think everyone agrees that providing general operating support to nonprofits is crucial. Here’s just a few of the publications on this topic in recent years:

I could go on, but the main message in these publications is the same: foundations should provide nonprofit organizations with general operating support.

At CEP, we have also added to the dialogue. In 2006, we published In Search of Impact: Practices and Perceptions in Foundations’ Provision of Program and Operating Grants to Nonprofits. Based on of more than 14,000 surveys of grantee organizations (conducted between 2003 and 2005), we found that those grantee organizations who receive large, long-term general operating support grants perceived their foundation funders as having greater impact on their organization than grantee organizations who received other types of grants. Today, four years later, with more data from grantee organizations of more foundations, our data indicates this finding still holds true.

So, then, why are foundations not providing more general operating support than they did 2003?

CEP’s data gathered through grantee surveys indicate that the number of grantee organizations receiving general operating support grants has not been increasing. In the past few years, our data shows that between 16 percent and 17 percent of grantee organizations that we surveyed received general operating support – down from about a quarter of grantees in 2005 and 2006. (While the samples of foundations whose grantees we survey change year to year, therefore making it impossible to make a direct comparison, this provides us a sense of what’s going on.) Foundation Center data likewise shows that there has been no increase in the provision of general operating support. 

So general operating support remains the exception, and even fewer grantees are receiving a general operating support grant in ways that our research has shown really make a difference: in large amounts over a long period of time.

Why are foundations not providing more general operating support grants? Through our In Search of Impactresearch, we heard from CEOs that the main reasons for not providing general operating support grants include:

  • Difficulty in understanding impact of funding
  • A lack of alignment between the missions of the foundation and grantee organization
  • A lack of familiarity with grantee organization
  • Concerns about grantee dependence

However, there are foundations who have found ways to overcome these challenges and have seen the benefits in providing general operating support grants.

  • The STARS Foundation in the UK, while unique in its approach to grantmaking, published compelling counter arguments to the challenges of providing unrestricted funding in a 2010 publication
  • Blue Shield of California Foundation recently evaluated its Community Clinic and Consortia Core Support Initiative (that it started in 2003) and found that the clinics used the core support grants to meet immediate operating needs and to leverage additional funding from other sources,
  • And F.B. Heron Foundation has, since its inception, provided core support as the majority of their giving. In 2009, 74 percent of the grants they distributed were for core support.

The case for providing general operating support to help nonprofit organizations become more effective and have more impact has been made. But foundation practices do not appear to be moving in that direction.

Andrea Brock is a senior research analyst at CEP.

Tags:
Posted in Funder/Grantee Relationships, Managing Operations | 6 Comments »

Report Watch: Giving While Living Requires Inspiration and Good Strategy

Monday, June 28th, 2010

I uttered several affirmations (everything from “right on!” to “yes!” to even “Amen!”) while reading the Atlantic Philanthropies new report, Turning Passion Into Action: Giving While Living. Atlantic wants to motivate wealthy donors to adopt their founder Chuck Feeney’s approach to philanthropy: the “giving while living” philosophy. It is the belief that donors should give their money away now, while the donor is still alive and can be an active participant.

Atlantic has committed to spend all of its assets by 2020 so that it can, without delay, help to improve the lives of disadvantaged and vulnerable people around the world. Colin McCrea, Atlantic’s senior vice president, articulated the impetus behind the Foundation’s commitment in a speech earlier this year:

“All of us involved in philanthropy would like to see more people giving more money in a more thoughtful way.”

Atlantic’s desire to get “more people giving more money” is evident in Turning Passion Into Action. It is an inspiring publication. For example, it is powerful to learn how Feeney turned his belief that you should use your money to solve today’s problems into a revitalization of Ireland’s higher education system.

The profile of Anthony Welters, founder of the HMO AmeriChoice, is a heartfelt story about the genuine responsibility he feels to support others in gaining an education. “It’s not a one-off,” he says, “not something that we cut back on. If the economy is down, we do more since the need is greater, and make sacrifices elsewhere.”

The sense of urgency for giving money away now is also emphasized in the profile of Declan Ryan — heir of the Ryanair fortune. His One Foundation was created under the guideline that it operate for only ten years (the foundation will close its doors in 2013). 

The report holds true to its intent of inspiring donors to give money, but it does not address the need to get people to give in “a more thoughtful way” with as much fervor. In this way, the report disappoints. 

While the word “impact” creeps into the report from time to time, and each profile highlights donors’ accomplishments, the publication doesn’t hit hard enough the point that Bridgespan’s Susan Ditkoff and Thomas Tierney make in an op-ed about the Buffet-Gates challenge to billionaires.  “Donating lots of money is a necessary first step, but it is only the first step. The real issue is having clarity on what success looks like and how money can help create change, before springing into check-writing mode.”

Atlantic’s report provides “Tips for Donors Considering Giving While Living,” which are useful questions that donors should ask themselves.  I wish these tips were woven more throughout the report rather than coming near the end of the publication. The most helpful questions (and perhaps the hardest ones to answer) are the ones that touch on the impact argument made by Ditkoff and Tierney:

  • What specific issue or problem do you want to tackle?
  • Who else is working in this field, and what are they doing?
  • What are the successful models? Unsuccessful ones?
  • What is your strategy for making change?
  • How do you define and assess success? In the short term? Long term?

These questions to help donors be more strategic in their giving resonate with questions CEP asks in the Strategy Self-Assessment tool, which is based on research findings reported in Essentials of Foundation Strategy. While the tool focuses on how strategic foundation staff are in their decision making, I believe that anyone who wants to use their resources to have an impact should reflect on how they make their decisions.  Of course, some, such as former Atlantic Philanthropies CEO John R. Healy, have argued that the act of deciding to spend down becomes a force in itself for greater strategic clarity – that an end date “concentrates the mind.”   

Promising are the efforts underway to document the experience of foundations in the process of spending themselves out of existence, so others may learn from their example. Former CEP board member Joel Fleishman writes in a recent blog post about his work to document the experiences of the AVI CHAI Foundation. With research like this, choices about whether to spend down or not can then be made with the benefit of some wisdom derived from the experience of others and, ultimately, some insight on what makes most sense given the impact goals of a particular donor. 

I hope that between a greater emphasis on how to be strategic with giving, Atlantic’s efforts to inspire donors to give while living, and more research on the topic by Fleishman and others, that we will indeed see “more people giving more money in a more thoughtful way.”

Andrea Brock is a Senior Research Analyst at CEP.

***

Disclaimers and Disclosures: Atlantic Philanthropies is a funder of CEP.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Developing Strategy | No Comments »