In today’s Social Velocity interview, I’m talking with Isaac Castillo, Director of Outcomes, Assessment, and Learning at Venture Philanthropy Partners, where he leads VPP’s approach to data collection, data reporting, and outcome measurement.
Prior to coming to VPP, Isaac served as the Deputy Director for the DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative (DCPNI). At DCPNI, Isaac led efforts to improve outcomes in the Kenilworth-Parkside community in Ward 7 of the District of Columbia through the strategic coordination of programmatic solutions and research-based strategies. Prior to his time at DCPNI, Isaac served as a Senior Research Scientist at Child Trends where he worked with nonprofits throughout the United States on the development and modification of performance management systems and evaluation designs. In addition, Isaac was also the Director of Learning and Evaluation for the Latin American Youth Center (LAYC) where he led the organization’s evaluation and performance management work.
You can read interviews with other social change leaders here.
Nell: You have spent your career using data to improve the performance of the nonprofits for which you worked. Why do you think performance management is so important for nonprofits? Do you think all nonprofits should pursue performance management? When does it make sense and when doesn’t it?
Isaac: I believe that every nonprofit should pursue some form of performance management because they owe it to the clients they serve. Most nonprofits will assume that they are making a positive difference in people’s lives, but in the vast majority of cases they are just guessing. Using some form of performance management will allow every nonprofit organization to confirm this thinking and to identify areas that can and should be improved so that the next cohort of participants can get better services than the last.
Unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges preventing a nonprofit from implementing some form of performance management isn’t a lack of resources, expertise, or time. It is fear. The fear that they will find out that their work isn’t having a positive effect. This fear is what nonprofit leaders need to overcome, not for the benefit of themselves or their organization, but because they owe it to the clients they serve today and the clients they will serve in the future. I believe that every nonprofit should strive to serve tomorrow’s clients better than today’s clients, and one of the only ways to ensure that this happens is the sustained use of performance management.
The type of performance management that each nonprofit should pursue should vary by the size and scope of their work. At a minimum, small nonprofits should be tracking basic demographic and attendance information on their participants, and hopefully at least one meaningful output or outcome. Whether this occurs in a computerized system or in a spiral paper notebook is up to the nonprofit. But it doesn’t have to be costly, and it doesn’t take expertise. It only takes the will and desire to improve as a nonprofit.
Nell: In the nonprofits in which you’ve worked how have you been able to secure resources to fund performance management? What is the case you and your colleagues have made to funders and what do you think it will take to get more funders investing in performance management?
Isaac: Raising funding for performance management work usually takes a mix of several different strategies and approaches for potential and existing funders.
First, I strongly encourage nonprofits to include some percentage (1 to 5 percent – possibly more) of funding in each grant submission or proposal dedicated to supporting performance management and outcome measurement work. By placing this small percentage into each proposal, a nonprofit can begin to raise funds for internal evaluation and performance management activities. It may not seem like a lot, but it can add up, and eventually generate enough funds for a half-time or full-time position to support in-house performance management work.
Second, I also strongly encourage nonprofits to engage in regular ‘funder education’ – where a nonprofit proactively meets with their funders to have ongoing conversations about outcome measurement and evaluation. This allows both the funder and the nonprofit to come to agreement on measurement expectations and to ensure that both groups are focused on the same concepts. I often suggest that the first of these types of meetings focuses on each group’s definitions of three commonly misunderstood terms: outputs, outcomes, and impact.
Finally, I would recommend that the nonprofit and funder have an honest discussion regarding expectations of results and the funding necessary to support the related evaluation work. If a funder is expecting an random control trial (RCT) to be completed to determine ‘impact,’ then the nonprofit should be willing to push the funder to support a large investment to pay for a high quality evaluation. If the funder is only willing to support a small amount for outcome measurement, then the nonprofit should clearly articulate what is possible.
Nell: Ken Berger and Caroline Fiennes recently argued that we may have gone too far by asking nonprofits to produce research about their own outcomes. What’s your response to that argument?
Isaac: I fully support Ken and Caroline in their argument that most nonprofits should stay away from trying to produce impact research. The desire for ‘impact’ is something that has been (and continues to be) pushed unfairly (and without financial support) by the funding community.
I honestly think a lot of confusion in this space comes from inconsistent use and understanding of the term ‘impact’. The term ‘impact’ has a precise definition among researchers but is often used in a much broader context among funders, nonprofits, and the general public. In the research and evaluation world, impact is used to describe the effectiveness of a program while eliminating as many potential confounding factors as possible. That is why the use of random control trials (RCTs) is usually the cornerstone of impact research – RCTs are the easiest way to control for and eliminate confounding factors.
When most non-researchers use the term ‘impact’ however, they are usually just asking if the program or organization works and if it is making a difference for its intended service population. That is a much lower bar to set, and yet it is a critical distinction in this discussion. If you are thinking about ‘impact’ as a researcher, you will need a large amount of resources and expertise to determine ‘impact,’ which usually means completing one or more formal evaluations. If you are thinking about ‘impact’ in the more general sense and less strict way, then pursuing some form of performance management system will allow a nonprofit to determine if their efforts have been successful.
I do think every nonprofit should pursue some form of performance management to ensure that their work is having a positive effect as a complement to existing research that others have done. Relying only on the use of others’ research does not guarantee that a nonprofit will provide effective services and achieve positive outcomes. This type of research is a like a recipe – it shows what has worked in the past and provides a guide for the nonprofit – but a recipe can still be ruined with poor implementation or planning.
Every nonprofit has an obligation to the people they serve (and not to their funders) to ensure that their programming is having a positive effect (or at the very least not causing harm). Without some form of performance management system in place (even one that just uses paper and pencil), a nonprofit will never know if they have strayed too far from the recipe provided by previous research.
I also think there are a growing number of very sophisticated nonprofits that should be using AND producing research on effective programs. Every year, I see more and more nonprofits that hire talented and unbiased researchers dedicated to internal evaluation and outcome measurement work. These individuals are just as talented and unbiased as their colleagues working in traditional research and evaluation organizations. They can, and should, produce original research that can help inform the nonprofit field. The real challenge comes in nonprofit organizations finding the resources to support the hiring and retention of these individuals. Not every nonprofit will have the resources or capacity to hire one or more of these individuals – but those that do should absolutely be trying to produce original outcome and impact research to provide ‘recipes’ for effective programming that nonprofits with fewer resources can use in the future.
Nell: Your former organization, DC Promise Neighborhoods, is part of the national Promise Neighborhoods Initiative launched by the US Department of Education in 2010 and modeled after the famous Harlem Children’s Zone. How successful has this national replication of a successful local model been? Have you been able to replicate outcomes? And what hurdles, if any, have you and other replication sites found?
Isaac: I think that there has been some initial success among the Promise Neighborhoods. Part of the challenge that all the Promise Neighborhoods face is that the Harlem Children’s Zone did not achieve their success overnight. They have been working in Harlem for decades, so it would be unrealistic to believe that the Promise Neighborhoods would be able to create large scale change in a matter of a few years.
However, there are signs of progress across all of the Promise Neighborhoods. Each of the Promise Neighborhoods started to address a few outcomes with the initial round of funding, and these outcomes varied. Some focused on math and reading proficiency for students, some focused on obtaining medical homes for young children, and others sought to increase the amount of healthy food consumed by residents. In DC, we focused on improving school attendance.
I do think that most of the 12 Promise Neighborhood Implementation grantees were able to make progress on the outcomes they identified as initial focus areas. However, the very nature of the work (creating community level change) doesn’t lend itself to the rapid accomplishment of multiple outcomes in a short period of time. Each of the Promise Neighborhoods had to prioritize certain outcomes for their respective communities, and only several years later are they able to claim success and begin to identify the next set of outcomes to be addressed. So while certain outcomes haven’t necessarily been replicated across all the Promise Neighborhoods, that is due to the differences in priorities and community conditions rather than any problem with the model itself.
Photo Credit: Venture Philanthropy Partners
I’m a little late on my 10 great reads list this month because the GEO conference kept me busy, but there was lots going on in April. From the most pressing issues facing foundation leaders, to what history can tell us about new philanthropy and combatting xenophobia, to how nonprofits create economic value, to Millennials and social change, to state lawmakers attacking nonprofits, it was not a slow month.
Below are my 10 favorite reads from the month of April.
- If you read only one thing on this list, let it be Ruth McCambridge’s fascinating interview with media theorist Douglas Rushkoff. He argues that a nonprofit (or benefit corporation) business model is far better at creating value than a corporate model that operates under a “scorched earth policy.” He argues that corporations transfer value only to their shareholders, instead of the economy as a whole. As he puts it:
“Unlike the for-profit sector, the nonprofit company can’t sell itself, and it doesn’t have shares that go up in value…the way you make money is not by making your share price more valuable and then selling those to other people…the investment that you put in the company stays in the company. You can’t extract that when you leave. So, it’s much more like a family business, and if you look at the data, family businesses do better than shareholder-owned businesses in pretty much every single metric, and they last a whole lot longer. You’re building a company not because you want to take value out of it and then use that money to bequeath an inheritance to your grandchildren, but rather you’re building a company that you hope will still be around when your grandchildren need a job, to circulate wealth when you die. That’s why I’m trying to convince Internet startups to be benefit corporations, multipurpose corporations, or best of all, nonprofits.”
- And if you only have time to read two things on this list, let the second thing be Phil Buchanan’s essay on the five most pressing issues facing foundation leaders, “Big Issues, Many Questions.” A thought-provoking read.
- Pew Research provides a cool interactive graphic of the ebbs and flows of political polarization over the last 20+ years.
- While we are talking about change over time, I have always thought there are great parallels to be drawn between the philanthropists born of today’s digital age and the Gilded Age philanthropists. Nellie Bowles writing in The Guardian seems to agree in her piece about the “Digital Gilded Age.”
- And speaking of the history of philanthropy, Alfred Perkins, writing on the HistPhil blog, sees parallels between our current xenophobic political environment and the anti-Japanese sentiment in World War Two. But back then Rockefeller Foundation philanthropist Edwin Embree fought it. And perhaps there is a lesson there for philanthropy today: “By moving boldly beyond the customary boundaries of organized philanthropy, Embree was able to challenge deeply-held prejudices, demand justice for a vulnerable minority, and extend the impact of the monies he disbursed. This pioneer of his profession would not have voiced the idea, but implicit in his words and actions is the notion that foundation executives might on occasion serve as the nation’s conscience. In these less stringent times, his example might provide useful lessons for his contemporary successors—to the benefit of the philanthropic enterprise, and the nation as a whole.”
- So what will the future of social change be? All eyes are on Millennials, from how they turn out to vote, to how they donate, to what they think of capitalism, to how they find housing.
- A recent conference focusing on “maintainers” rather than the overly popular “innovators” aimed to uncover how critical the role of those maintaining the world in which we live are. As one of the conference organizers, Lee Vinsel (assistant professor of science and technology at the Stevens Institute of Technology) put it, “The vast majority of technologies that surround us and underpin our lives are not innovations. And the vast majority of labor in our culture is not focused on introducing or adopting new things, but on keeping things going.”
- Nonprofits have been under fire lately by state lawmakers who are trying to make it even harder for nonprofits to do their work. Tim Delaney from the National Council of Nonprofits provides an overview on what’s happening and what we can do about it. And Erin Bradrick delves into a proposed California bill that didn’t make it out of committee but sets a dangerous precedent on legislating nonprofit overhead rate disclosure in fundraising.
- Particularly during an election cycle, the struggle of the modern news media becomes more evident. The Knight Foundation released a troubling report that the news media has grown less able to defend their First Amendment rights in court. And French economist Julia Cage argues in her new book that the news media should embrace a nonprofit business model in order to reflect better its social role of bolstering our democracy.
- Hanh Le from Exponent Philanthropy and Rusty Stahl from Talent Philanthropy make a very convincing case about why funders should invest in nonprofit talent. Let’s hope this helps turn the tide.
Photo Credit: Stepan Lianozyan via Wikimedia Commons
I am often asked by nonprofit leaders, “Where are the funders who understand what nonprofits really need?” Well, they were at the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations conference (#2016GEO) last week in Minneapolis.
After attending the conference and curating a great group of bloggers who recapped each day (you can read Phil Buchanan’s Day 1 post here, Trista Harris’ Day 2 post here, and Mae Hong’s Day 3 post here), I have lots of my own thoughts percolating and wanted to share my takeaways from a great conference.
GEO is made up of 500+ member foundations that strive to be better philanthropists. They are a thoughtful bunch who seek to invest better in the nonprofits leading social change. As Linda Baker from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation said in her session on Real Costs for Real Outcomes, “We want to have authentic, trusting relationships with our grantees. We want them to have the impact they want to have in the world because that’s the only way we will have impact. It’s critical to our success.”
And that, in essence, is what GEO and its member foundations are all about. They view themselves and their money in service to those nonprofits creating social change. It is a different model than the traditional philanthropic model of nonprofits in supplication to those who hold the purse strings.
And because GEO is on the cutting edge of where philanthropy is and should be going, the conference this week encouraged philanthropists to push their work in some exciting new directions.
Here is what I saw emerging at the conference:
Philanthropy Must Embrace the National Call for Equity
From the #BlackLivesMatter movement, to student protests on college campuses, there is a growing demand across the country for equity — a level playing field — for all. And philanthropy has to get better at responding to this in the moment. As Alicia Garza founder of the #BlackLivesMatter movement said in her session, “Philanthropy is missing the opportunity to support the very change they are set up to resource.”
And the plenary panelists Peggy Flanagan, Michael McAfee, Doug Stamm and Starsky Wilson would perhaps agree and take it even further, encouraging philanthropist to re-examine the institutional racism inherent in the system. As Michael McAfee said, “I am deeply frustrated at our leadership. At the moment where consciousness about equity is elevated, we shift our priorities, our initiative, we do something to avoid the real work for this moment. We could do something if we could be more courageous.” In this moment where our country is grappling with issues of equity, philanthropy must step up and invest in the hard work of change.
Philanthropy Must Invest in Stronger Organizations
GEO members have always been on the forefront of understanding that it takes strong organizations to create real outcomes, but this conference took that to another level. From a session on unrestricted operating support, to one on supporting fundraising capacity, to one on funding nonprofits’ real costs, GEO was pushing its members, and philanthropy as a whole, to recognize that real change will only come when we support organizations, not just programs.
As one attendee put it, “The project funding paradigm ignores the health of the nonprofit organization in which the project lives.” Yes, absolutely. GEO members are recognizing–and perhaps leading the rest of philanthropy to begin recognizing–that you cannot have effective programs, strong outcomes, and ultimately social change without strong, effective organizations behind them.
And that means that philanthropy can and should lead the way in funding the full costs, including program AND operating costs, along with working capital, fixed assets, reserves, and debt. And at the same time, philanthropy must be a partner with nonprofits in figuring out how to overcome their capacity constraints, like lack of fundraising expertise, lack of management knowledge, and lack of adequate systems and infrastructure.
Philanthropy Must Humble Itself
There is no doubt that GEO members are a humble bunch; they view their role as supportive to the real work of social change, which is different than traditional philanthropy that viewed itself as all knowing. But, perhaps there is still work to be done.
Vu Lee, blogger from Nonprofit With Balls and Executive Director of Rainier Valley Corps, spoke eloquently of philanthropy’s “trickle down” approach to working with communities of color and encouraged philanthropists to take a better approach: “We have to start changing philanthropy’s perception of what communities of color are. Instead of infantalizing communities of color, recognize that communities have the solution, they are the solution, they are the light.”
And Deepak Bhargava from Center for Community Change spoke of the typical grantor/grantee relationship being similar to a feudal relationship, where the philanthropist is the Lord and the nonprofit is the serf. Instead, he encouraged the social sector to move to a place of “public friendship” between grantor/grantee where both sides are:
- United by a vision of big change
- Accountable to each other
- Thinking of themselves as custodians of organizations leading to a better place
- Engaging in creative, generative conflict
He spoke of this ideal as something that we must “persuade a new generation of philanthropists is possible.”
And perhaps this new philanthropy is possible. GEO certainly seems to think so. So let’s hope that this new vision for philanthropy is embraced by the growing GEO membership and that that membership in turn leads philanthropy as a whole to a more effective way of investing in social change.
As Alicia Garza put it, “Effective grantmaking is moving resources to change agents AS change is happening and getting out of the way.” Amen!
Note: As I mentioned last week, I am at the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations conference this week curating a group of bloggers. The third blogger is Mae Hong, Vice President of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Her guest post is below. And for a full rundown on the conference check out #2016GEO.
I can’t get the Buffalo Springfield lyrics out of my head:
“There’s something happening here.
What it is ain’t exactly clear.
I think it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down.”
“Hey, What’s that sound?”
These were the sounds coming out of GEO’s 2016 National Conference in Minneapolis this week:
Philanthropy Embracing a New Lexicon
Values. Trust. Transparency. Reflection. Love. These are the words that were heard over and over in the plenaries, breakout sessions and hallways. I can remember a time when these words were considered squishy for our field. I would have been embarrassed to go to a workshop on these topics. But if this year’s conference brochure were a word cloud, these would leap out in 200+ point font. Noticeably scarce (though not entirely absent) were words like Measurement. Tools. Strategy. Systems. Performance. Our willingness to incorporate the former words is an acknowledgement that the latter are meaningless without them. Closing plenary speaker Heidi Brooks summed it up this way: “What you love is a big clue to how you can be most effective.”
Courageous Nonprofit Leaders Telling Us What They Really Think of Funders
GEO holds the voices and experiences of nonprofit practitioners in the highest regard, and nearly every session strived to incorporate a nonprofit perspective. Most nonprofit leaders, when invited to address a gathering of hundreds of funders, are predictably and understandably meek. I suspect it is a physiologically-based survival instinct not to provoke anyone with the power to harm. But speakers like Vu Le, Alicia Garza, Deepak Bhargava and Michael McAfee spoke in no uncertain terms about what we as a sector need to do differently: “Stop using communities of color.” “Rewrite the social contract between funders and grantees.” “Grantmakers need to get out of the way.” “Philanthropy doesn’t have room for my energy.” Their words demonstrated a conviction that they have a bigger stake in their work than whether any potential funders will be offended. Good for them. I wish every nonprofit leader were so confident, and that we as funders would help build that confidence in them.
Funders Sighing a Collective, “Finally . . . We’re Talking About Equity.”
GEO’s work for the last three years would inevitably lead here. Research, publications and conferences around stakeholder engagement, movements, and networks all pointed to one indisputable truth: philanthropy cannot be effective unless it confronts equity. No single topic at the conference had as much air time and real estate as this. Funders who had the prescience years ago to see that this would be the looming issue for our sector expressed relief and appreciation to have the space to unpack and understand equity, no matter how messy, uncomfortable, and unpredictable these conversations would inevitably get. The morning before the conference began, GEO held a meeting to kick-off a newly formed Advisory Group to help it think through its role on this topic. Chaired by Rev. Starsky Wilson (GEO board member and the moderator for Tuesday’s stunning plenary on the topic), this group will guide GEO in how to best support the field to embrace equity as an essential precursor to effectiveness.
So do these sounds mean that “There’s something happening here?” Can we sustain our conference-induced resolve to translate these ideas into lasting behavior change as a field? Or will this become, as my fellow GEO board member Peter Long, President of the Blue Shield of California Foundation, likes to say, “philanthropy’s latest belly button?”
To keep my optimism high, I am reminded of a scene from the 1996 movie, Jerry Maguire. Renee Zellweger’s character, Dorothy Boyd, after a successful date with Jerry Maguire (played by Tom Cruise) is gushing to her sister the following morning: “I love him for the man he wants to be. I love him for the man he almost is.”
Well, Philanthropy – here’s to finding love in who we want to be . . . who we almost are.
Note: As I mentioned last week, I am at the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations conference this week curating a group of bloggers. Next up is Trista Harris, President of the Minnesota Council on Foundations. Her guest post is below. And don’t forget you can also follow the conference from afar on Twitter #2016GEO.
Day two of the 2016 GEO National Conference was all about bringing equity to the forefront in Grantmaking. Two of the morning short talks really stood out for me:
- Isaiah Oliver, Vice President of Community Impact at the Community Foundation of Greater Flint, on the water crisis, and
- Alicia Garza, co-founder of #BlackLivesMatter and special projects director for the National Domestic Workers Alliance, about turning moments into movements.
Here’s some of what they covered.
Isaiah Oliver told a heartbreaking story about how the Flint water crisis is impacting his family directly. He said “I trusted those that said the water in Flint was safe, so I gave it to my babies. My little girls should not have to analyze public water. What if this was your child?” The EPA has said that 15 parts per billion is a safe level of lead in the water; two weeks ago there were houses in Flint that had 11,040 parts per billion. Isaiah said that “if a house is on fire, you need to get the people out and then worry about blame later.” We have not yet gotten all of the people out of the fire.
Alicia Garza said “Hashtags don’t start or sustain movements, people do.” Philanthropy is not prepared to support fast moving movements. Our structures and processes have created a situation where celebrities have given more to #BlackLivesMatter than philanthropy has. She made two critical suggestions to address this issue:
- Philanthropy should get money to change agents while change is happening. Fund movements to fail fast and learn quickly from those failures to innovate their strategies.
- Structural racism exists in philanthropy, and grantmakers should develop strategies to get out of the way of social movements.
Then there was a panel on Equity as an Effectiveness Imperative.
Michael McAfee, of Promise Neighborhoods Institute at PolicyLink, when given the chance for closing remarks at the Equity as an Effective Imperative plenary luncheon, said “I love all of you.” That may strike those not in attendance at the 2016 GEO conference as an odd thing for a speaker to declare to a room of 900 funders, grantmakers and organizational leaders, but in context it perfectly summed up the message of the collective speakers. For equity to truly be a part of the work in philanthropy there must be equal parts discomfort and love throughout all conversations and collaborations.
In addition to McAfee, the panel included: Minnesota State House Representative Peggy Flanagan, CEO of Meyer Memorial Trust Doug Stamm, and moderator Reverend Starsky Wilson of the Deaconess Foundation. Each of the four speakers brought a vulnerability to how they shared their personal and professional experiences with racial inequities in the philanthropic sector. And this created an open and connected space in the ballroom.
Wilson made it clear from his opening remarks that the plenary would focus on racial inequities and the uncomfortable work grantmakers face if meaningful change is to be made. Flanagan talked about her work as Executive Director at the Children’s Defense Fund-Minnesota and the impact there in creating people of color-centered and American Indian-centered spaces to talk about early childhood education. Stamm talked frankly about the heavy burden carried by the people of color at Meyer Memorial Trust as they’ve worked to make racial inequalities more than just a side conversation in their work but actually take action to make internal and external changes. And McAfee shared how sometimes talk about “equity” can be a way to avoid dealing with subtle or institutional racism.
There were powerful questions from attendees about the importance of what language is used and how it is used and how to decide when to educate a colleague about race and when to delegate that education to books or professional development. McAfee, Flanagan and Wilson shared stories of often feeling subtly or overtly ignored, othered or discounted while Stamm admitted his slow learning curve as a white person who hasn’t been forced to be aware of institutional racism.
Numerous attendees expressed on social media that this conversation resonated in ways few other conference sessions ever have. You can see the emotional and engaged responses to a moving and important conversation at #2016GEO.
Note: As I mentioned last week, I am at the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations conference this week curating a group of bloggers. First up is Phil Buchanan, President of the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP). His guest post is below. In full disclosure, some of the foundations he mentions below are clients or funders of CEP. Don’t forget you can also follow the conference from afar on Twitter #GEO2016 and #2016GEO
Culture was front and center on the first day of the 2016 GEO National Conference – the featured topic at the opening plenary. A conference for some 800 staff of grantmakers interested in maximizing their external impact started by looking inward, at what happens within the walls of staffed foundations.
As Kathleen Enright, GEO’s president & CEO, put it, “culture and effectiveness are inextricably linked” suggesting that companies have recognized this. She cited as an example her positive experience as a customer with the online shoe retailer Zappos, which has been held up as an exemplar in terms of its corporate culture and customer service. [Note: Zappos was acquired by Amazon in 2009 but has sought to maintain a distinct culture.]
Enright moderated the panel discussion, which included Jim Canales of the Barr Foundation, Carrie Pickett-Erway of the Kalamazoo Community Foundation, and Sylvia Yee of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund.
“Culture is all around us, it permeates everything we do, and yet we often don’t realize it,” said Canales.
It also emanates outward. Yee discussed program officers as the nexus where culture and values are “translated” from the inside to the outside. And her point is certainly supported by the data. The organization I lead, the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP), has surveyed staff at nearly 50 foundations over the past decade. We know from our analyses that what happens within a foundation’s walls doesn’t stay inside those walls – that staff perceptions and grantee perceptions of foundations are correlated on some key dimensions.
This data and the arguments of the panelists about the importance of culture also resonate with recent writing on the topic. Tom David and Enright’s essay, The Source Codes of Foundation Culture, argues that foundation culture is crucial but often under-appreciated. In a similar vein, Amy Celep, Sara Brenner, and Rachel Mosher-Williams of Community Wealth Partners suggest in a recent issue of Foundation Review that, “Foundations have a tremendous untapped opportunity to more intentionally build culture.”
But culture and results don’t always correlate perfectly, as Fay Twersky of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (and a member of the CEP Board) suggested during the Q&A in a friendly challenge to Enright on her Zappos example. Citing other companies without naming names, she observed – to knowing laughter from the crowd – that “sometimes unhealthy cultures seem to be associated with very fat profits.”
Enright allowed that this was certainly true, as it surely is. And, of course, Twersky wasn’t arguing that culture doesn’t matter. Indeed, in her excellent piece, Foundation Chief Executives as Artful Jugglers, she suggests that building a healthy culture is one of the essential responsibilities of effective foundation CEOs.
But the point is that culture alone is not the answer.
Related, and not mentioned during the session, is that, in the business world, there seems to be a bit of a backlash of late against the emphasis on corporate culture. This is manifested in rants against “forced fun” and other “culture-building” that, at their worst, can look like self-absorbed navel-gazing that is divorced from the imperatives of the work.
This skepticism is perhaps most prominently expressed on the April Harvard Business Review cover, which blares “You Can’t Fix Culture: Focus on Your Business and the Rest Will Follow.”
“When organizations get into big trouble, fixing the culture is usually the prescription,” write Harvard Business School Professor Jay Lorsch and his research assistant. “But the corporate leaders we have interviewed – current and former CEOs who have successfully led major transformations – say that culture isn’t something you ‘fix.’ Rather, in their experience, cultural change is what you get after you’ve put new processes or structures in place to tackle tough business challenges.”
Let’s set aside (if we can) the fact that, unbelievably, this conclusion appears to be drawn from a very (very) limited sample of four interviews with men (yes, all men) who run major corporations. Still, I think there is a healthy caution here: that the focus on culture should not be an end in itself. It’s about the work.
And, in fairness, Enright and the panelists certainly were making that argument, too. They discussed the relationship between culture, being transparent, continual learning and improvement, and getting and receiving feedback. Repeatedly, the discussion about culture became something much, much broader – a discussion about effectiveness.
“The closer we get to the community, to the people whose lives we are trying to improve, the more humble we will be,” said Pickett-Erway. “The more feedback that you can get the better.”
Yee, too, emphasized the link between “culture and organizational effectiveness.” She noted, for example, the importance to effectiveness of “hiring a diverse staff. We need people who can stand in somebody else’s shoes, who have experienced difference themselves.”
And Canales talked about moving from “transparency 1.0” to transparency that is about two-way exchanges.
We need, as the panelists did, to keep the focus on culture as a necessary element of effectiveness rather than promoting too much of an inward gaze among institutions that, in all honesty, are already often seen as isolated and insular. What I don’t want, and what I guess fear a little, is that some foundations will misread the encouragement to focus on culture as an invitation to spend endless hours on office space re-designs, staff personality tests, or trust-building exercises. These things all have their place (or at least the first two do) but in limited doses.
The culture conversation should be integrated with, not separate from, the conversation about goals, strategies, implementation, and performance indicators. My experience (for what it’s worth) suggests that what bonds a staff together best is a sense of shared purpose and alignment toward – and progress against – shared goals.
Put another way, culture is a crucial part of the effectiveness puzzle, but it isn’t a magic bullet.
I’m really excited to announce that I will be doing something a little different on the blog next week. I am attending the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) conference in Minneapolis May 2nd – 4th, and GEO has asked me to curate a set of bloggers to report on the conference.
I have rounded up a rockstar group of bloggers who will be sharing their insights from the conference with you here on the blog. And the blog series will be reposted to the Minnesota Council on Foundations blog, which is a co-host of the conference.
GEO is made up of 500 member grantmakers who are working to reshape the way philanthropy operates and promote strategies and practices that contribute to grantee success.
The GEO conference is held every other year and brings together philanthropic leaders from across the country who all share a common vision for advancing smarter grantmaking practices that enable nonprofits to grow stronger and more effective.
Some of the sessions in this year’s conference that I am particularly excited about include: “Can Foundations Help Grantees Build Fundraising Capacity?,” “Real Costs, Real Outcomes. What Funders Need to Know,” and “Supporting Leadership Development in Social Justice Organizations.” In addition, there will be some really interesting plenary sessions about things like culture in philanthropy and philanthropy’s role in overcoming inequity.
It promises to be a fascinating conference.
So, starting next Tuesday, May 3rd you’ll be hearing from this great group of guest bloggers:
Phil Buchanan, President of The Center for Effective Philanthropy
Phil is a passionate advocate for the importance of philanthropy and the nonprofit sector and deeply committed to the cause of helping foundations to maximize their impact. Hired in 2001 as CEP’s first chief executive, Phil has led the growth of CEP into the leading provider of data and insight on foundation effectiveness. CEP has been widely credited with bringing the voice of grantees and other stakeholders into the foundation boardroom and with contributing to an increased emphasis on clear goals, coherent strategies, disciplined implementation, and relevant performance indicators as the necessary ingredients to maximize foundation effectiveness and impact. Phil is no stranger to the Social Velocity blog — I interviewed him here, and he guest blogged last summer here.
Trista Harris, President of The Minnesota Council on Foundations
In her role at MCF, Trista helps award more than $1 billion annually. Prior to joining MCF in August 2013, she was executive director of the Headwaters Foundation for Justice in Minneapolis, and she previously served as program officer at Minnesota Philanthropy Partners. Trista earned her master’s of public policy degree from the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, and her bachelor of arts from Howard University, Washington, D.C. She is a passionate national advocate for the social sector using the tools of futurism to solve our communities’ most pressing challenges and is a member of the trends in family philanthropy task force for the National Committee for Family Philanthropy.
Mae Hong, Vice President of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Mae is responsible for building RPA’s presence in serving individual donors, foundations and corporations throughout the Midwest. Bringing 18 years of nonprofit and philanthropy experience to RPA, she previously served as Program Director at the Field Foundation of Illinois. Mae actively participates in local and national philanthropic associations and networks, serving in leadership roles on committees, engaging in public speaking opportunities, and facilitating planning and execution of philanthropic initiatives. She currently serves on the boards of GEO, the Illinois Humanities Council and the Daystar Center. She is a past chair of the board of Chicago Foundation for Women.
And once the conference is over, I will plan to do a wrap-up blog post on my thoughts and insights from the conference.
If you plan to be at the conference, please let me know, I’d love to see you there! And if you can’t make the conference but want to follow the content from afar, follow the Twitter feed at #2016GEO.
This week the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund released the second in their series of reports about fundraising. Their Fundraising Bright Spots report, by Kim Klein from Klein & Roth Consulting and Jeanne Bell from CompassPoint, joins their Beyond Fundraising report, released last month.
These two reports are part of the Haas, Jr. Fund’s larger “Resetting Development” effort “to ‘learn out loud’ about how to…help put the sector on a surer path to sustainability and long-term success.” Given my concerns about their Beyond Fundraising report, the Haas, Jr. Fund very graciously asked me to review this latest report.
This new report analyzes 16 social change organizations that have been successful at individual fundraising to determine what the sector can learn from them.
I am always a huge fan of case studies. I think there is much to be gained by looking at others who have done things well, so I applaud the Haas, Jr. Fund for moving from theory into practice to see what is working in individual fundraising.
But first, we have to understand this report for what it is. This report only looks at nonprofits that have been successful with individual donor fundraising, which is just one of several ways that nonprofits bring money in the door. And the report only looks at “progressive organizations with limited budgets and small staffs.” So I would argue that this report and the case studies contained within it will only be applicable to similar types of nonprofits that have individual fundraising as part of their financial model.
Nevertheless, the report finds four themes present in these 16 social change organizations, which are that fundraising:
- Is core to the organization’s identity
- Is distributed broadly across staff, board and volunteers
- Succeeds because of authentic relationships with donors
- Is characterized by persistence, discipline, and intentionality
Many, if not all, of these themes make up the “culture of philanthropy” that the Beyond Fundraising report described.
There were several things I liked about the Bright Spots report.
First, I love the report’s focus on making fundraising part of the job of an entire organization’s board and staff. Two case studies in particular, Jewish Voice for Peace and Mujeres Unidas y Activas, demonstrate how major donor fundraising should be shared among senior staff and board members. For example Jewish Voice for Peace “has 57 portfolio managers from across the staff, board, and volunteers who together manage 600 major donor relationships in addition to other roles they play within the organization.”
Indeed the report points out that in these 16 organizations the head fundraiser’s role is to marshal staff, board and other organization resources toward fundraising, which I love: “Time and again, we heard from the development directors at these organizations that their job is to coordinate, to teach, to coach, and to inspire. The individuals in this role are highly relational and they take deep satisfaction in enabling staff, board, volunteers, and members to be successful fundraisers.”
Second, I really appreciate the Breast Cancer Action case study, which emphasizes creating a give/get fundraising requirement for the entire board:
At Karuna [Jaggar]’s first in-person board meeting as the new executive director, she laid out her desire to establish a board give-and-get policy to her board members, each of whom had been told explicitly upon recruitment that they did not have to participate in fundraising…After an in-depth discussion, they set a give-and-get policy of $10,000 per board member. “Maybe we lost some potential board members who felt they couldn’t do it,” said [board chair] Tracy [Weitz], “but only in the first year. Now, our veteran board members can share their fundraising stories with prospective members and say, ‘I’ve been fine, and you’re going to be fine.’” It’s important to note that BCAction does not prioritize personal wealth now more than it did before this policy change, but rather invests the time to support board members’ success, regardless of personal financial capacity, in the fundraising program.”
Yes! That’s exactly the way to get every board member involved in fundraising, of which I am a huge proponent.
Third, the Bright Spots report points out the need to fully integrate marketing and fundraising in a nonprofit: “A critical aspect of building and refining an individual donor program is tending to the intersection of communications and fundraising…development and communications are inextricably linked and staff driving these efforts work extremely collaboratively.” Agreed, fundraising can not sit on the sidelines of anything an organization does, but must be fully integrated throughout the organization.
Now, let’s get to where I think the report falls short.
First, I would have liked to understand better how these 16 organizations were selected as “bright spots.” I think in holding up organizations as exemplars it is critical to understand in what ways they are exemplars. While the beginning of the report describes what these organizations have in common: “a deep commitment to and strong track record with raising money from individuals,” and “individual support is a consistent part of their overall revenue strategy,” and the report highlights some of their individual donor fundraising successes, it is unclear why these 16 organizations in particular are held out as bright spots.
In my mind, I would select case study organizations that achieved: individual giving growth year over year, and/or higher than average donor retention rates, and/or more profitable than average fundraising activities, and/or demonstrated long-term financial viability. While some of the 16 organizations had significant individual donor growth, not all of them did, so I’m not sure what selection metrics were used. I would like to understand how the Bright Spot organizations’ fundraising metrics compare to their most fundraising-successful peers.
It is particularly important to understand what makes these organizations bright spots when the report points out that some of the 16 social change organizations are struggling with scaling or making sustainable their individual fundraising efforts:
“We heard from the Bright Spot leaders who want to grow their organizations that they are grappling with how to scale this organizational highly relational approach to fundraising. And many of them acknowledge how dependent their success is on long-time leaders, despite their distributed approach to fundraising…Many of the Bright Spots will soon have to adapt to very long-time leaders moving on.”
Second, the report does not make a clear distinction between small donor fundraising (one-to-many cultivation and solicitation of donors) versus major donor fundraising (one-to-one cultivation and solicitation). I wonder if the four themes that the report uncovers differ, and if so how, between fundraising activities targeting many small donors versus fundraising activities targeting a few large donors.
Third, the report touches briefly on the 16 organizations’ fundraising systems and use of data and metrics, but not in a robust way. I would have loved to understand better the kinds of systems these bright spot organizations use and what metrics they are tracking and trends they are seeing. While I understand the report’s overall emphasis on some of the “soft” skills of fundraising (“authentic relationships with donors,” “culture of philanthropy”) I also think that understanding the “hard” skills (systems, metrics) is key to replicating fundraising success (and overall financial sustainability).
Fourth, just as the Beyond Fundraising report did, the Bright Spots report continues to leave the problems (and in this case, the successes) with fundraising largely in the hands of individual nonprofits and their leaders. I am still hungry for case studies and research about how nonprofits (and their funders) can overcome the more systemic financial flaws inherent in our social change sector.
In the end, I would say that the Bright Spots report gives us a glimpse into a piece of what works to bring money in the door. For social movement, individual donor fundraising at small nonprofits, the Bright Spots report provides some important and useful insights. But for more broadly understanding what contributes to overall financial sustainability in the nonprofit sector, this report falls short.
But as I have said before, I don’t fault the Haas, Jr. Fund for exploring these issues. Indeed, they are one of very few funders contributing to the knowledge base about what creates a more financially sustainable nonprofit sector. We just need more of them.
Photo Credit: Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund