Posts Tagged ‘communications’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Social Media, Foundations, and Grantees: What Works, What Doesn’t?

Friday, May 27th, 2011

This piece was originally posted on Beth’s Blog on May 12:

This week I attended Center for Effective Philanthropy’s  conference “Better Philanthropy: From Data to Impact” where I participated on a panel about social media, foundations, and grantees.  Vincent Stehle moderated, and other panelists included Paula Goldman, Omidyar Network,  Jacob Harold, Program Officer, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Travis Manzione, Director of Assessment Tools for CEP.

Travis Manzione shared some preliminary data from a survey of over 2,000 grantees from 9 foundations about their social media usage. For the most part,  foundations are using social media as a one-way communications tool about their programs, not for interaction with grantees. Grantees are reading about foundation’s programs through social media channels, but not engaging with funders. A skeptic’s view might be: why waste time? Another lens, ask why?

I shared a few points about nonprofits use of social media, including a maturity of practice model called “Crawl, Walk, Run, Fly.” This prompted discussion about the similarities and differences in practice between nonprofits and foundations and how to move to the next level.  There were questions about social media policies as well as content and engagement strategies and handling mistakes. It all comes down to intention, capacity, and audience as Jacob Harold observed.

Paula Goldman shared some thoughts about foundation intent in using social media, particularly amplifying grantees work and thought leadership. In addition, Kathy Reich mentioned the potential of using social media to help inform and improve grant-making strategy and broader field impact.

Jacob Harold discussed how social media can be of value to a program officer: it is an easy way to stay informed about grantees activities with anecdotal information. It can also facilitate informal communications with other people in the grantee organization. He also added that it is  important to have structured information.

Transparency was a theme that came up throughout the conference.  In our session, Vincent Stehle provoked with this:  “We want to be transparent except when it matters.” Transparency isn’t a black and white definition - share everything or share nothing. Transparency isn’t a means to end, but is part of a ladder or scaffolding, particularly if  used to spark public learning about how to make grantmaking strategies more impactful.

The theme of learning from grants that were not that successful also surfaced as it did during the Networked Funders convening last month, where a new phrase as coined:  “Compost Grantmaking.” This refers to grants for projects that were ahead of their time or more experimental.  Projects that didn’t quite work out perfectly. Later, they turn out to be a rich source of learning to avoid replicating mistakes.

I also attended a  round table discussion with Kathy Reich and Paul Connolly about some of the very preliminary findings from the Packard Foundation’s “Goldmine” evaluation that analyzes 1,300 capacity building grants to find out what works and how to improve impact.

Kathy Reich offered some context. The Packard Foundation Organizational Effectiveness program came out of David Packard’s belief that nonprofits needed to invest in themselves – coaching, leadership, strategic planning – as the for-profit world does. The foundation’s grant making and thought leadership spurred the development of the nonprofit organizational effectiveness movement.

The last evaluation of this work was a decade ago.  Thus,  a retrospective evaluation of capacity building grants would no doubt produce a “goldmine” of insights for in the field. The Packard OE program is working with the TCC Group to analyze this rich data set to answer these questions:

While the ultimate goal is to improve the grantmaking strategy and impact, they are also experimenting with sharing the evaluation process and preliminary findings on the wiki as part of a “public learning” process. It is just getting underway both online and offline.

A couple of nuggets that Paul Connolly shared about the design of capacity grants based on his deep expertise in this area.   He talked about “transformative” versus “transactional” capacity building approaches. The former being a strategic planning process that changes the way the organization works. Transactional capacity building are projects like building a web site or accounting system.

Paul also mentioned the “ready, set, go”  framework. Many consultant engagements focus on the “ready, set” part – expert consulting that helps grantees prepare to  implement – an assessment, research, or a strategy. He suggested that the “go” is very important and approaches  such as peer exchanges or coaching as the organization implements are highly effective in getting to transformative results.

As a nonprofit consultant that works on capacity building projects,  I’m always looking to improve my practice. You can get feedback from clients and keep up on a never ending stream of topic or subject-matter information. But data about how to design capacity building, the trade craft of practice, and what nonprofits are looking for in a consultant and consulting relationship are not quite as plentiful and can be pure gold!

Beth Kanter is a co-founder and partner of Zoetica.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Funder/Grantee Relationships | Comments Off

Connecting the Dots with Data

Friday, May 20th, 2011

This piece was originally posted on The Communications Network blog on May 17:

At last week’s Center for Effective Philanthropy Conference (CEP), it was refreshing to see the role of communications keep popping up during discussions that explored the links between data and foundation impact.

That’s not surprising, either, and for at least for two reasons.

For one, when CEP first began conducting surveys of grantees almost a decade ago, foundations primarily used those findings to learn what their grant recipients liked about doing business with them and what needed improvement.  In the years since, many foundations have seen great value in sharing grantee feedback from these surveys on their Web sites for the public to see.

Often times these postings include discussions about improvements foundations are making spurred by comments from their grantees.  As an example of how much more a foundation can make use of these findings, the James Irvine Foundation went one step further, and instead of just posting the 2010 Grantee Perception Report on its Web site, it recently created a page that invites people to comment on the findings.

Data But a second reason communications is a common topic these days during discussions about assessing impact is because the data that comes out of that work can tell important stories about foundation performance.

Or as CEP President Phil Buchanan puts it, “We see time and again the crucial connection between good data and analysis and good communication. Foundations need to be clear about what they’re trying to do, how they’re trying to do it, and what they’re learning along the way.”

The data, in other words, can be a helpful frame for those stories we want to tell about what foundations and their grantees are accomplishing, as well as how to frame the message about what went wrong and why, as does happen.

A lot of ideas were put forward over the course of the conference about how to use data, including to whom to share it and how. Those conversations, naturally, resonated with the many communications professionals in attendance.

For me, one of the more intriguing suggestions about how to combine data and storytelling, for example, was offered by Molly Martin, operations and learning officer for the Lumina Foundation for Education.  In a post she wrote for the CEP blog during the event, Martin offered this observation:

We all know the power of storytelling in philanthropy.  Stories can move our grantees to action, compel our colleagues to support important work, engage our policymakers, and convince our neighbors to help us build a movement for social change.  But what of stories without stats?  Without data to enrich the tales we tell about our work, how can we be sure we’re even telling the right story?

Martin goes on to say that if foundations want their work to be taken seriously by people they’re trying to influence and move to action, it will take more than anecdotes to make the sale.  She writes:

Emotional anecdotes are calls to react…not calls to action.

Martin illustrates her point by commenting on a discussion during the CEP conference that featured Debi Brooks, Co-Founder of The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, and the actor-turned philanthropist himself.  As Martin notes,

If ever there were a foundation that could ride the tide of a compelling personality, it’s the Michael J. Fox Foundation.  Yet they choose to tell their story—to frame the invaluable currency they have in a beloved actor—by sharing the science…the Foundation chooses to train and arm their best asset with rich data.  Fox becomes more than a compelling personality: he becomes a compelling personality with a well-informed, actionable story to tell.

To Martin, the lesson from the Michael J. Fox Foundation is both clear and simple:

Train your poster children.  Arm your best ambassadors with your best data and let your story of impact unfold.

That comment reinforces a comment made earlier in her post:

Data equips your stakeholders with tools that enable them to become your envoys for the long-haul.  And if that data is couched in the form of a digestible, accessible story told by a beneficiary, it’s all the better.

What do you think? Can storytelling be more compelling with better and more thoughtful use of data?  Do you have experiences of your own to share?  Let us know.

Bruce Trachtenberg is executive director of The Communications Network.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Funder/Grantee Relationships | Comments Off

Three Attributes That Are Vital for Effective Philanthropy

Thursday, May 12th, 2011

As I leave a conference marking the 10th anniversary of the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP), I find myself reflecting on our progress as a field in understanding what exactly constitutes “effective philanthropy.” At the heart of CEP’s approach has been collecting data to learn more about the practices that may contribute to effectiveness. Through various research reports and survey instruments, CEP has helped many foundations, including ours, to understand our work better and, we hope, to make us more effective.

This emphasis on data collection is both commendable and necessary. However, we ought to consider what other attributes, often not grounded in data, may contribute to effective philanthropy. Let me propose three attributes that, while not lending themselves to easy measurement and far more subjective , strike me as vital to the success of any philanthropic enterprise:  listening, synthesizing, and sharing.

Listening: Because of the resources at our disposal, we can meet with just about anyone we’d like to and obtain about any knowledge that is available. This access provides us with a unique platform for learning, but it also requires us to be active and authentic listeners. The power dynamic inherent to philanthropy makes it critical that  we  resist the temptation to talk more than listen, precisely because people will always listen politely to anything we have to say, regardless of its utility.

CEP’s Grantee Perception Report® has helped many foundations listen to their grantees, and its confidentiality helps overcome some of the power dynamic. But foundations’ attempts to listen must go deeper.  How can we listen  effectively and authentically? Here, social media can play a useful role for philanthropy. Twitter and other social media platforms are  powerful tools to  stay attuned to the broader environment and spot trends that can inform our work. We can listen to what others are talking about and participate in and learn from those exchanges. We can integrate ideas from the field into our work. Moreover, these new applications accelerate our ability to learn in real time..

Synthesizing: Precisely because of our access to information, one of the most powerful roles philanthropy can play is to synthesize the large volume of information at our disposal. We can make a valuable contribution to our field if we reflect back what we are hearing, frame the emerging themes and issues, and offer hypotheses about the opportunities before us.

For example, a number of years ago here at the James Irvine Foundation we published a report on critical issues facing the arts in California. The final product reflected more of a synthesis of what we were learning from the field rather than unveiling new ideas.  What surprised us was how valuable the arts community found this synthesis. The community’s eager reception of the report speaks volumes about this valuable, and often underused, role of synthesizer that we can play as foundations.

Sharing: Every foundation has  accumulated a great deal of knowledge about what works and what doesn’t. Now, we need to  share this learning more broadly. Doing so requires us to be as comfortable in sharing our mistakes and shortcomings as we may be in pointing to our successes.

Several  years ago we published a report about one of our major initiatives that was, in retrospect, flawed in both its design and initial execution. We learned a great deal from this experience and wanted others to learn from our mistakes as well. The fact that this report is still cited – four years later – speaks to the reality that philanthropy as a field remains uncomfortable sharing its mistakes and even failures, although there are recent commendable examples, such as a report from the Northwest Area Foundation, that suggest this may be changing.

I don’t know of any foundation that does not want to be effective. CEP has made enormous contributions in the past decade in helping us understand ourselves, and that should be celebrated. Still, we can’t be complacent as a field, and that is why I believe that listening, synthesizing, and sharing must animate our work.

At the heart of these concepts lies our need to embrace humility: the humility to know that working in philanthropy does not automatically confer wisdom upon us; the humility to recognize that the partners we are privileged to support face the much harder task; and the humility to acknowledge that we have a great deal to learn and an obligation to share that learning. This embrace of humility, in all of its forms, ultimately contributes to effective philanthropy. Now, if we could measure and track that, what a contribution that would be.

Jim Canales is president and CEO of the James Irvine Foundation

Tags: , ,
Posted in Assessing Performance | 2 Comments »

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.”

Tags:
Posted in Programming and Communications | Comments Off

For Performance Assessments, How Public Should Foundations Be?

Tuesday, March 8th, 2011

This post was originally published on March 7, 2011 on www.glasspockets.org.

We at the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) are often asked, just how public should foundations be with the results of the assessments tools we provide them?  It’s a simple question, but I am not sure there’s an easy answer.

The question arises most frequently in the context of our Grantee Perception Report (GPR), which we have provided to some 200 foundations of various types and sizes. CEP’s motivation for creating the GPR was simple: in order to be truly effective, foundations need to hear from those they are supporting. Relative to other one-off grantee surveys, the GPR is powerful because grantees can be candid, knowing their identity will be protected, and because the results are comparative.  Through the GPR, funders learn about how they are doing relative to others, helping highlight real strengths and weaknesses.

Since we began delivering these reports eight years ago, about 40 funders of all stripes and sizes, from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (the first do so and unusual enough that it was written about in the New York Times) to The John R. Oishei Foundation (one of the most recent), have elected to post some or all of their CEP Grantee Perception Reports on their websites. (You can also find links to public GPRs listed on Glasspockets.) But many funders have chosen not to post their GPRs. Here and there I’ve been asked why not all funders make their GPRs public and whether I think they should.

There are a few intertwined reasons I see (and hear) about why funders posting their GPRs can be good for philanthropy and can even help to mitigate some of the sector’s inherently asymmetric power dynamics.

  • Clarity: Public GPRs can provide one more resource for grantees and other prospective partners to understand how a particular foundation does its work—strengthening potential future proposals or helping to identify areas of mutual alignment.
  • Transparency about successes and failures: Funders can lead the way in demonstrating that by sharing successes and failures openly, we can best learn and improve.
  • Accountability: Self-imposed accountability can often serve as a first step in a funder making change. While posting the GPR alone might not do this, funders often use the opportunity to tell grantees (and others) what they’re going to change and why. They can prime grantees to start reconsidering any preconceived notions and approach the foundation with a fresh perspective. And in so doing, they might begin to alter the dynamics of the relationship for the better, fostering a greater sense of comfort among grantees in providing feedback, including about whether change is happening—or not.
  • Motivation of internal change effort: When leadership makes the GPR itself public, it’s a powerful statement to staff colleagues about the importance of the GPR feedback and, more importantly, about the importance of always seeking to learn and improve the way the foundation works with its grantees.

These are strong arguments. But here’s the thing: I’ve seen funders that don’t make their GPRs public go on to make real and important changes in their work based on GPR results. And I’ve seen a few funders go ahead, make results public, and then follow-up with half-hearted change efforts.

Posting results is easy. Creating change based on those results is the hard work.

Furthermore, we know that many foundations communicate about their results in some way, even if they don’t go as far as publicly sharing their GPR. Some send a detailed letter or e-mail to grantees. Some have hosted a gathering or discussion with grantees and potential applicants. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, didn’t post its GPR, but it held open conference calls in which foundation leaders candidly described GPR results and invited questions; the Foundation then posted audio recordings of the calls on its web site.

So, here’s a thought: maybe Glasspockets should accept and link to all these types of sharing as “evidence” of transparency and accountability. It’s not just the public GPRs that are real signals of commitment to effectiveness.

CEP’s third-party evaluations indicate that funders are making major changes in their work, whether they’re posting results or not.

And that’s what it’s all about for me.

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


Tags: ,
Posted in Assessing Performance, Funder/Grantee Relationships | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »