Posts Tagged ‘funder/grantee relationships’

Data Point: How Do Program Staff Decide What Assistance to Provide Beyond the Grant?

Friday, November 18th, 2011

CEOs and program staff believe that providing assistance beyond the grant is important both for the achievement of their goals and those of their grantees. Yet few know whether the assistance they provide to those grantees is proving helpful. In that context, the small proportion who conduct a formal needs assessment to determine what type of assistance to provide grantees is surprising – only three percent of program staff report always doing so.

Our report More than Money: Making a Difference Beyond the Grant explored which factors program staff consider when making decisions about what assistance to provide to grantees. We asked program officers at foundations with $100 million or more in assets to rate on a scale of 1 (Not a significant consideration) to 7 (Significant consideration) the extent to which they considered fourteen different factors when deciding what type(s) of assistance beyond the grant check to provide to a grantee.

With data from 103 respondents, we learned that the number one factor in decisions about what type of nonmonetary assistance to give is a request from the grantee for a specific type of aid. Program staff members also give significant consideration to their confidence that a grantee will make the most of the assistance being provided. Their own perception of what grantees need factored third in this list – 63 percent say this is an important consideration.

Near the other end of the spectrum, relatively few program officers factored in information about assistance that the grantee is already receiving from other funders, the length of time they had been funding a grantee, the size of grant they provided, or the budget of the grantee organization receiving the assistance.

* * * * * * * *

What are the attitudes and behaviors related to providing assistance beyond the grant at large foundations? For a fuller exploration of nonmonetary assistance, see the report More Than Money: Making a Difference with Assistance Beyond the Grant written by Ellie Buteau, Ph.D., Phil Buchanan, Cassie Bolanos, Andrea Brock, and Kelly Chang.

Ellie Buteau is Vice President – Research 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.

Giving As Good As We Get

Monday, December 13th, 2010

A recent Harris Interactive poll suggests that Americans intend to give less in 2010 than in 2009. A combination of high unemployment and economic uncertainty have caused generous people to feel slightly less so. Despite this fact, it is also clear that Americans are giving more in new ways this year than ever before. Five years ago, we didn’t have the option to Tweet for Change, or, through Foursquare, Check-in for Change.*

One young woman who was interviewed about “check-in giving” through the CauseWorld app said, “CauseWorld makes me feel like I’m doing some good in the world every day. I don’t have much money to give to charity these days, like most people, so having a chance to direct money to some really important causes means a lot to me.” Declines in charitable giving have occurred in the past, but never before has that decline been coupled with the rise of so many other quick-hit ways to express generosity.

If the desire to be generous can be assuaged by directing someone else’s money, will we still feel compelled to give? Will we be willing to sacrifice our own money to support the causes we care about? For example, Starbuck’s has tested making charitable contributions as a benefit of checking-in. While this may be an appealing experiment to Starbucks regulars, it should be noted that these $4-latte-lovers are not offering to drop their Starbucks habit in order to direct those funds to charity.

Questions such as these were raised by Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker piece as well. Will casual support displace deep commitment? The jury is still out, but I think the potential difference in how nonprofits receive funding from individuals could, over time, be quite important. In aggregate, annual giving—usually defined as contributions from individuals—represents a core, stable funding base for many nonprofits. In fact, annual giving is often the counterweight to time-limited or non-renewable funding from corporations and foundations.

If, over time, nonprofits receive more and more funding from these embedded giving/contribution consolidators, will that negatively affect nonprofits’ cash flow? One recent study by Network for Good suggests the answer is yes. When offered a gift, the question nonprofit leaders often ask is not just “how much?” but “how often?” They all know that a consistent gift of X is almost always more valuable than a one-time gift of X+. So that leads to another question, how can nonprofits convert those casual givers to become regular givers?

In order to help nonprofits do this, foundations need to support the development of fundraising practices that help nonprofits engage with these new giving vehicles. Nonprofits shouldn’t simply be passive recipients of grants from social media philanthropic aggregators, they should be active participants. But as Beth Kanter regularly points out in her blog posts, an effective nonprofit social media fundraising strategy requires thought and time (and funders, that means money).

Nonprofits will need to learn how the ease of transaction (“Press # now on your cell phone to give a dollar to Haiti relief efforts”) can be maintained without nonprofits having to cede the entire relationship to a charity portal. In his recent Harvard Business Review post, Dan Pallota also points out the importance of foundations placing strategic emphasis on their grantees’ fundraising capacity. While I am a strong advocate of general operating support, I think that foundations should go further to engage with grantees about fund development and adapting to the changing technological landscape.

Those of us who fund nonprofits can often be heard criticizing the lack of strategy and financial planning among nonprofits. But if embedded giving allows people to express support for many groups, will that lessen people’s allegiance to specific groups? Maybe funders should be putting more thought, research, and money into helping nonprofits creatively respond to these new fundraising challenges and amazing opportunities.

* Geo-location sites like Foursquare and Gowalla are game-like mobile phone applications that invite people to “check-in” when they have arrived somewhere and give a quick status update, similar to Facebook. On most sites, people gain points or credits the more often they check-in. Companies are beginning to offer coupons or time limited deals when people check-in. Causeworld is a similar site which gives people points they can use like frequent flyer miles to make donations to charities.

Crystal Hayling is Former President and CEO of the Blue Shield of California Foundation and a member of the CEP Board of Directors. Crystal will be contributing more posts to the CEP Blog in the new year.

Taking the Next Step(s)

Monday, May 17th, 2010

My posts last week were about how best to engage those on the front lines in philanthropy’s work. Of course, your strategy for engagement must be informed by what you’re trying to accomplish and how your organization perceives its role. However, there are some universal actions that philanthropy can undertake that would benefit grantees regardless of individual foundation goals and strategies.

I’ll leave you with this short list of actions that may help you more clearly see the world—and your own decisions—through the eyes of those you intend to serve.

  1. Solicit anonymous grantee feedback. For any funder that hasn’t yet solicited feedback from grantees, this is the place to start and you won’t be disappointed. The feedback will be illuminating and will spur important clarifying conversations. The Center for Effective Philanthropy’s Grantee Perception Report has enabled hundreds of foundations to get a better view of themselves through comparative feedback. Armed with this view, grantmakers are in a better position to make smarter decisions.
  2. Start with what your community needs rather than what you are equipped to provide. Try to work backwards by developing a stronger sense of what people want and need.  For instance, the next time your foundation is considering something new, start from an initial framing of the problem you hope to address, but leave your actions and the format of your response open to shaping by input from those closest to the issue. This can be applied to a new online grants application process as well as to the structuring of a new grants portfolio.
  3. Hire your grantees. GEO’s 2008 national study of foundation effectiveness, Is Grantmaking Getting Smarter?, found that grantmakers with staff members who have nonprofit experience are far more likely to engage in a host of “grantee – friendly” practices. Intentionally hiring folks with nonprofit experience will help you create an organization where employees at all levels have a deep connection to people outside your walls – especially those who receive your funding and ultimately benefit from your efforts. That connection will help you make hundreds of better decisions every day.
  4. Go into the community. Bill Somerville in his book Grassroots Philanthropy: Notes of a Maverick Grantmaker extols the importance of understanding what’s happening on the ground and in the community in order to be an effective grantmaker. He talks about hanging out at a community center or soup kitchen and talking to some of those receiving the service as an irreplaceable part of intelligence gathering when considering who and what to fund.
  5. Update your nonprofit experience set. Many in philanthropy got their start in the nonprofit sector, but it may have been years, even decades, since they’ve worked on the front lines. Grantmakers might consider creating periodic opportunities for staff members to work a three- to six-month stint inside a nonprofit of the size and scope typical of their grantees. Experiences like these provide grantmakers with a front row seat to understand the realities of grantees’ work and give them a variety of insights and firsthand experiences they need to do a better job as grantmakers.
  6. Go all the way. The highest level of stakeholder engagement involves creating a sense of shared ownership with grantees and communities. By including stakeholders in shaping foundation strategy and grant decisions, you’re giving up some of the power while at the same time exhibiting incredible trust in those most closely connected to the work. In the end, none of the problems we hope to address in philanthropy will be solved by independent actors. Attentiveness to philanthropy’s role as one actor in a collaborative problem-solving process will likely lead to shifts in some practices that serve as barriers to doing work in partnership with others.

My question for you is, what’s holding philanthropy back from more regularly putting what we hope to accomplish at the center of our decision making rather than the particulars of our individual organizations?

GEO and CEP are both shining the spotlight on ways to meaningfully engage important stakeholders in philanthropy’s decision making.  Please stay tuned for a soon-to-be-published GEO report on strategies for engaging stakeholders in order to get results that really matter for the people and communities we serve.

I’d like to extend my thanks to Phil Buchanan and the top-notch team at CEP for inviting me to participate in this dialogue.  Feel free to respond to this post or to contact me directly at enright@geofunders.org.

Kathleen P. Enright is President and CEO of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations

*****

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.