Archive for the ‘Programming and Communications’ Category

Data Point: Learning From Failure

Friday, October 21st, 2011

The use and management of data stands at the core of the work undertaken by the Center for Effective Philanthropy. The set of survey tools CEP has developed as well as field-wide research builds comparative data drawn from key constituent groups—grantees, donors, staff members and others—providing insights that enable funders to better define, assess and improve their effectiveness.

Here is another finding from our recent survey exploring the current status of performance assessment among larger foundations. The survey was conducted in January and February of this year, and we received responses from CEOs of 173 U.S. foundations with annual grantmaking of at least $5 million.

For the above item, CEOs taking this survey were asked to indicate, on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement:

“Foundations would benefit from being able to hear more stories about foundation failures”

Just over three-quarters of CEOs agreed with this statement and another 14 percent were neutral. Meanwhile, fewer than one in 10 CEOs disagreed and not a single one responded stating they “strongly disagree” that stories about foundation failures would benefit their work.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

To read about current foundation CEOs’ attitudes toward assessment and what foundations are doing to understand their performance, see the report, The State of Foundation Performance Assessment: A Survey of Foundation CEOs written by Ellie Buteau, Ph.D. and Phil Buchanan and published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

 

Ellie Buteau is Vice President – Research at the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

 

 

 

 

 

Data Point: Importance of Social Networks to Donors

Friday, October 7th, 2011

The use and management of data stands at the core of the work undertaken by the Center for Effective Philanthropy. The set of survey tools CEP has developed as well as field-wide research builds comparative data drawn from key constituent groups—grantees, donors, staff members and others—providing insights that enable funders to better define, assess and improve their effectiveness.

 

This data point comes from the Donor Perception Report (DPR), which helps community foundations identify actionable strategies for more effectively engaging their donors. The DPR covers topics such as donor preferences, future giving plans, perceptions of impact on the community, and foundation communications.

The data point shown above results from responses to the following question:

“Please think about your use of online social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). How important to you are these online networks?”

Donors taking this survey were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (Not at all important) to 7 (Extremely important) the importance of online networks. With over 1,500 respondents answering this question, the majority of donors (64%) gave the lowest possible rating to the importance of social networks, with an average rating of 1.9. Only a tiny sliver (2%) felt these networks were extremely important.

Perhaps even more striking, an overwhelming 91% of respondents indicate that they would NOT like to receive information about a foundation’s work over social networks.

Because this question is an optional addition to the standard DPR, results reflect respondents from only thirteen funders.

Readers of this blog post are invited to respond. Do donors really not want to be engaged through online networks or could their minds be changed with more effective social media outreach?

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

CEP’s work is rooted in the conviction that feedback can play a role promoting change in foundation practice. For a broader look at the role of feedback in philanthropy, see the report, Can Feedback Fuel Change at Foundations? written by Phil Buchanan, Ellie Buteau, Ph.D., and Shahryar Minhas and published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

 

Kevin Bolduc is Vice President – Assessment Tools at the Center for Effective Philanthropy

Michael J. Fox: Getting Results By Going the Unconventional Way

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

Almost from the start, Michael J. Fox and Debi Brooks began upending the way foundations typically do business.

The co-founders of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research did so because they felt an urgency about finding a cure for Parkinson’s—and because in the beginning, they didn’t know any better.

When Fox decided to start a new foundation dedicated to finding a cure for Parkinson’s disease, he said he knew he wanted to keep its efforts tightly focused on research. 

“One of the reasons we focused on research was because it was a huge task, it was an essential task,” said Fox, who spoke at the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s (CEP) 2011 conference. “If we started going in all sorts of other directions, no one would be served.” 

The decision to center the foundation’s mission around Parkinson’s research, rather than patient services, was just one of the first ways that Fox and his colleagues forged their own way.

Fox, an acclaimed television and film actor as well as bestselling author, established the foundation in 2000, following the public disclosure of his diagnosis in 1991 at age 30 of young-onset Parkinson’s disease. Since its inception, the foundation has funded more than $240 million in research to speed development of breakthrough treatments and a cure for Parkinson’s disease. Today it is the world’s largest private funder of Parkinson’s research and has been held up as an exemplar of a new breed of nimble, strategic, and fast-moving disease research funders.

At the CEP conference, which marked its 10th anniversary, Fox said that the hallmark of the foundation is “informed urgency.”

“It’s been like a joke in our board meetings—POM—purity of motive,” he said. “Whenever we get bogged down in anything, we [remind ourselves] we are here for one thing. We are in business to get out of business.”

Co-founder Debi Brooks, a former Goldman, Sachs & Co. executive, said that the foundation began taking unconventional approaches like asking its researchers to meet and share what they learned simply because it made sense. Brooks and her colleagues did not realize that wasn’t the way that competitive scientists typically approach their work.

Brooks pointed out that many academics are accustomed to receiving grants of up to five years’ duration from funders who do not routinely require detailed updates on their progress. Brooks and her colleagues, by contrast, began making smaller  grants over shorter timeframes. And, they wanted researchers to provide in-person updates on their work. It was a request that the foundation’s own scientific advisory board challenged. Board members said it would result in scientists simply sending their postdoctoral students because they were too busy to attend, Brooks recounted.

“I said, ‘We’re kind of busy too,’” she said. “We did some pushback.”

The requirement to meet was meant to help focus the work, Brooks said. Initially, the scientists simply tolerated the obligation of making an in-person presentation of their work in front of their competitors. But their reluctance soon changed to a different attitude, she said.

“What we found was that there was so much cross fertilization and problem solving in the moment that the assessment meetings ended up as some of the best work that we could spawn. [There were] partnerships, collaborations, [people saying] ‘I’m sending you my antibodies, you help me with this.’ Then it became that you wouldn’t miss the assessment meetings. We would say ‘Given what we heard, what are the challenges we should be thinking about?’ If you weren’t at the assessment meeting, you’d miss the chance to influence us.”

Meanwhile, as scientists compared notes at the assessment meetings, Fox’s presence provided an unexpected motivation, he said.

“I would go by the foundation [with these] large groups of scientists in the conference room who were busy swapping stories,” Fox said. “I would come in to say thank you. Their response [to me] was not as Michael Fox or as the founder of the foundation, but as a Parkinson’s patient. I would be very symptomatic in front of them. I could see them make the connection between what they were doing and this shaky person at the front of the table. It was about ‘fix the shaky person.’”

The full video interview of Michael J. Fox and Debi Brook’s talk at the CEP conference is available here. The conversation was moderated by Rockefeller Brothers Fund President and CEP Board Chair Stephen B. Heintz.

Susan Parker is owner of Clear Thinking Communications.

The Most Important Topic We Never Talk About: Exit Strategies

Friday, May 6th, 2011

Philanthropy is about beginnings – new ideas, new projects, new awards, and new initiatives.  Foundation program staff are attracted to philanthropic jobs because of the opportunity to start projects that will make a difference in people’s lives.  To the extent the public thinks about foundations, it is as grantmakers

But for every new grant, program, or initiative, sooner or later there is an exit. Too often, these exits are neglected. 

A session at the upcoming Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) conference Better Philanthropy: From Data to Impact (May 10-11, 2011) will tackle the vital topic of exit strategies. I’m excited that CEP is taking on this often overlooked topic in philanthropy.

The neglect occurs despite the fact that foundations know that sound exit strategies are necessary to achieve sustained impact. We know that the absence of thoughtful exit strategies harms grantees, foundations, and the legacy of good work done together. 

In my experience as a grantmaker and a consultant, I’ve seen foundations exit a grantmaking program for a variety of reasons.  Among them: 

  • A foundation board changes priorities
  • New foundation leadership adds new goals and drops others
  • An economic downturn leads to fewer dollars to award
  • An initiative achieves its goals or financial sustainability
  • Grantee performance is unsatisfactory
  • New funders enter an area and existing funders pull back
  • A foundation “spends down” or closes

In other words, there are many explanations for foundation exits, most of which have little to do with the performance of the grantee.  But the diversity of reasons for exits does not explain why exits are often problematic or awkward. 

One source of awkwardness is that too often the funding size and duration (and thus the timing of the exit) is more often determined by funder constraints that do not fit the problem or need the project intends to address. This can result in grantees accepting support that is insufficient to meet the aims of the project. Another potential source is that expectations between funders and grantees are rarely discussed. When the relationship approaches the end, divergent expectations that haven’t been voiced can lead to problems.

The Wednesday, May 11th CEP panel on exit strategies will examine this rarely discussed topic. It will be moderated by Debra Jacobs of the Patterson Foundation and kicked off by remarks from Kevin Walker from the Northwest Area Foundation, Mayur Patel from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and Ann Monroe from the Community Health Foundation of Western & Central New York. The panel will include ample time for discussion among panelists and attendees to share their ideas. 

As I anticipate participating in this session, some of the questions that I hope panelists and attendees will discuss are: 

  • Does it matter why foundations exit a grantmaking area? That is, do the reasons for the exit influence the approach to an exit strategy?
  • When does it make sense to begin a discussion of exit strategies in a foundation?
  • When does it make sense to begin talking about exit strategies with grantees?
  • Have foundations found effective exit strategies in working with their board, their program staff, and their grantees?
  • What hasn’t worked in exit strategies?
  • How can foundations best anticipate various exits and prepare for them in a responsible manner?

I’m looking forward to a lively and interactive discussion at the CEP panel.

Robert Hughes is a consultant and Learning Lens Manager for The Patterson Foundation.

Boston Foundation’s David Trueblood to Join CEP as Vice President

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

In January, I blogged about some impending transitions at CEP. I am pleased to be able to share now this news about the newest member of CEP’s leadership team.  Press release is below.

April 28, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Boston Foundation’s David Trueblood to Join CEP as Vice President

Cambridge, MA… The Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) has named David Trueblood Vice President – Communications & Programming.  Trueblood, currently Director of Public Relations for The Boston Foundation, will be responsible for promoting CEP’s messages related to foundation effectiveness and increasing the visibility of CEP’s research and assessment tools.

“We are absolutely delighted to be welcoming David to CEP,” said CEP President Phil Buchanan.  “He has earned an impressive track record in the community foundation world and brings tremendous talent and creative energy to this crucial leadership position.”

Trueblood has served since 2005 in his role at The Boston Foundation, where he raised visibility for that organization’s civic leadership role in the region.  Earlier, he served from 2001-2004 as Director of Communications at Trinity Church in the City of Boston where he designed and executed the communications strategy to support the largest capital campaign in the church’s long history.

Trueblood’s early career was as a journalist, working as a reporter and editor at a variety of newspapers and, most recently, serving as Managing Editor of the Community Newspaper Company from 1997-2001.  He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and has a master’s degree in Intellectual History from Harvard.

“CEP has a compelling mission and one that only grows more relevant over time,” said David Trueblood.  “I am excited to join the CEP team and I look forward to working to help raise the profile of that mission and that organization.”

Trueblood will assume his post at CEP in June.  He succeeds Alyse d’Amico, who is transitioning into a new, part-time role as Special Assistant to the President / Director of Development in order to spend more time with her young son.

“I am deeply grateful to Alyse for her tremendous achievements in her eight years at CEP and, most recently, in her role overseeing communications, programming, and development,” said Buchanan.  “She has helped build this place into what it is, and CEP’s strong identity and reputation exist in great part because of her.  I look forward to working with her in her new role.”