There is an interesting report out today on the effectiveness of the Social Innovation Fund (SIF). Authored by the Social Innovation Research Center (SIRC), a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, the new report details what has worked and what hasn’t in the six year history of the SIF.
Launched by the Obama administration in 2009, the SIF — a program within the Corporation for National and Community Service — provides significant funding to foundations that follow a venture philanthropy model by regranting that growth capital, along with technical assistance, to evidence-based nonprofits in “youth development, economic opportunity, and healthy futures” areas. In 2014, SIF expanded its efforts to include a portfolio of Pay for Success (social impact bond) grantees.
Now, 6 years on it is interesting to take a look back to understand what, if any, effect SIF has had on the nonprofit sector. The effect of the SIF is also critical given that, as of right now, the House and Senate have both defunded SIF in their respective funding bills.
To date, the SIF portfolio is made up of $241 million of federal investments and $516 million in private matching funds, which was invested in 35 intermediary grantees and 189 subgrantee nonprofits working in 37 states and D.C.
The SIRC report focuses on the current progress of SIF grants made during the first three years of the program (2010-2012). The report finds two clear positive results for the SIF so far. The SIF has:
- Added to the nonprofit sector’s evidence base about which programs work, and
- Built the capacity of nonprofit subgrantees, especially in the areas of “performance management systems, evaluations, financial management, regulatory compliance systems, and experience with replicating evidence-based models.”
On the negative side, however, the report finds that the SIF put real burdens on funders and nonprofits with its fundraising match requirements and the federal regulatory requirements. The report also finds that the SIF has had little effect on the sector as a whole because the SIF has not very broadly communicated their learnings so far.
To me, of course, most interesting are the report’s finding about capacity building at nonprofit subgrantees. There is such a need for nonprofit capacity building in the sector, and this was a clear goal of the SIF.
The SIF is one of few funders that do more than pay lip service to performance management by actually investing in building the capacity of nonprofits to do it. However, the SIF has been criticized for mostly selecting nonprofits that already had strong capacity. And indeed, the SIRC report finds that the SIF was most successful among those nonprofits that already had high capacity (in performance management, fundraising function, etc.) prior to SIF funding. Indeed, the report found that “poorly-resourced intermediaries working with less well-resourced community based organizations have been at a disadvantage.”
One SIF grantee in particular, The Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, really struggled to build the capacity of their subgrantees whose starting capacity was so low. As they put it:
During the course of participation, it became clear that…[SIF] was really better suited for replicating existing programs or, at a minimum, investing in well-established programs that had some level of sophistication around organization systems and evaluation.
This mirrors earlier criticism of the SIF that it was set up to grow only those nonprofits that were already doing well, while those nonprofits that struggled with basic capacity issues were left out. The SIF has struggled to determine whether it is funding innovation (new solutions with limited capacity), or proven solutions (with a long track record and the corresponding capacity). It seems the two are mutually exclusive.
What the SIF is trying to do is such tricky business. To identify, fund and and scale solutions that work is really the holy grail in the social change sector. Certainly there are hurdles and missteps, but I think it’s exciting when government gets in the social change game in a big way. Six years is really too soon to tell. So I hope that this brief SIF experiment is allowed to continue, and we can see what a social change public/private partnership of this scale can really do.
To read the full SIRC report go here.
Photo Credit: Obama signs the Serve America Act in 2009, Corporation for National and Community Service
In the nonprofit world there is often a disconnect between funders of nonprofits and their understanding of the fundraising activity necessary to secure their gifts. Funders (and board members) rarely understand how critical fundraising is, how it works, and what’s required to do it well.
But in the hope that greater understanding leads to better actions, I’d like to offer 7 of the most important things funders (and really the sector as a whole) should understand about fundraising:
- Nonprofits Must Fundraise or Perish
It seems so obvious, but so many in the nonprofit sector act as if fundraising can be ignored or shuffled to the side. Board members hate to do it, and foundations refuse to fund it. But let’s be clear. Without a strategic, sophisticated mechanism for bringing regular revenue in the door there is no organization and certainly no social change. Fundraising must happen, and it must happen effectively in order for a nonprofit to survive and thrive. So funders (and board members) do not have the luxury of saying they don’t want to talk about, think about, or fund fundraising efforts.
- There is a Sector-wide Lack of Fundraising Knowledge
Because fundraising has for so long been ignored or sidelined, most nonprofit leaders and their board members don’t have sufficient fundraising experience or training. And neither do funders. There hasn’t been enough research into the fundraising discipline broadly and little investment in educating nonprofit leaders about how to do it well. The end result is that few people know how to crack the fundraising nut.
- Every Nonprofit Has Two Customers
Part of the solution to cracking that nut is understanding that unlike for-profit entities, nonprofits have two (not just one) set of customers. Nonprofits provide products and/or services to the first customer (“Clients”), but “sell” those services to the second customer (“Funders”). Therefore “sales” in the nonprofit world is much more complex than it is in the for-profit world. Yet for-profit businesses can spend much more money on their sales and marketing staff, training, systems and materials than a nonprofit is allowed to spend on fundraising.
- It Takes Money to Make Money
So in order to do fundraising well nonprofits must invest in their fundraising function (planning, staff, training, systems, materials). Those nonprofits that develop a strategic financial model that is fully integrated with their mission and core competencies will be more sustainable and more effective at creating social change. So nonprofit leaders must start asking for the money necessary to build effective financial models.
- Sustainability is a Funder’s Problem Too
And funders must start providing it. Funders often want a nonprofit to demonstrate financial sustainability, but those same funders won’t invest in the capacity necessary to create that sustainability. Instead of just pointing out the sustainability problem, funders must become part of the solution. Funders should step up to the plate to help nonprofits create a capacity building plan and then provide capacity capital (along with other fellow funders) to build a more sustainable organization that will survive once a funder is gone.
- Earned Income is Not a Solution
But a more sustainable organization does not mean one based on earned income, or selling a product or service. Nonprofits will always be subsidized, at least in part, by private and/or public contributions. By definition, nonprofits exist to address a failing in the market economy (i.e. not enough food or jobs). Thus, those failings will never be overcome purely by market forces. So while earned income is something every nonprofit should explore, it is not right for every organization and will never become 100% of a nonprofit’s revenue model. So don’t confuse sustainability, which means a longterm financial model, with earned income.
- Nonprofit Leaders Fear Funders
Let’s just be honest. A funder is providing much needed resources to a nonprofit and that automatically creates a power imbalance. Until we figure out a way around that inherent dynamic, funders must limit the hurdles they put in the way of nonprofit leaders and instead give them the financial runway to make their social change vision happen.
Let’s face it, without money there is no social change. But the knowledge, experience and infrastructure necessary to generate enough money is woefully short in the nonprofit sector. That could change if funders lead the way toward more investment in strategic, sustainable financial models.
Photo Credit: 401K Calculator
There are many things that hold the nonprofit sector back, not the least of which is a lack of money. But perhaps a bigger impediment is the scarcity thinking that may actually contribute to that lack of money.
Most nonprofit leaders, their staffs, board members, and even funders automatically think that resources will always be scarce. It is such a profound psychological impediment because if your assumption is constant deficiency, then you will never try for more.
But shifting this nonprofit mindset from never having enough (scarcity), to endless potential (abundance) could transform the sector.
Scarcity thinking is dangerous because it demonstrates a destructive fixed mindset. Carol Dweck’s pivotal 2006 book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, describes two ways that people view their abilities, a fixed and a growth mindset, and I think her approach holds great insight for the nonprofit sector.
A person with a fixed mindset believes “that your qualities are carved in stone,” whereas a person with a growth mindset believes “that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts.”
Dweck describes the benefits of the growth mindset:
[In the growth mindset your] traits are not simply a hand you’re dealt and have to live with…In [the growth] mindset, the hand you’re dealt is just the starting point for development…People in a growth mindset don’t just seek challenge, they thrive in it. The bigger the challenge, the more they stretch…Sometimes people with the growth mindset stretch themselves so far that they do the impossible.
Isn’t that exactly what we need more of in the nonprofit sector, more seeing the hand you’re dealt as just a starting point, more doing of the impossible?
The growth mindset ultimately leads to “an ever-higher sense of achievement” and “a greater sense of free will.” Wouldn’t that improved sense of achievement and greater sense of free will be transformative to the nonprofit sector?
Nonprofit leaders can drive this shift by moving their organizations and supporters from a fixed to a growth mindset, in several areas:
- From Charity to Social Change
Instead of operating from the fixed charity mindset of “good work” that is tangential to and less valuable than the “business” of the world, move to a growth mindset that offers board members, funders, volunteers, advocates an opportunity to create meaningful, lasting social change.
- From Fundraising to Financing
Instead of focusing on a fixed ceiling of money you think you can raise, figure out what your nonprofit ultimately exists to accomplish and create a financial growth plan to realize that.
- From a Disengaged to a Productive Board
Instead of bemoaning an unproductive board, seize the opportunity to grow the skills, experience and networks you need on your board to accomplish your goals and build it.
- From a Burned-Out to an Energized Staff
Instead of only paying what you think you can afford for a skeleton staff, figure out what it would cost to hire enough and the best staff you need, then grow your financial model to reach that.
- From Constricting to Allied Funders
Instead of complaining about funders who make restrictive demands, enlist them as partners in the social change you seek, educate them about your true costs, invest them in your theory of change, and then work with them to build the resources you need to get there.
And the list goes on. The point is that there is tremendous opportunity in the simple act of shifting your thinking. By removing the shackles of a fixed mindset you can set your nonprofit, your board, your staff, your funders and ultimately your social change goals on a path toward what you once thought was impossible. That’s powerful.
Photo Credit: astridle
My hope in creating the growing library of Social Velocity videos is that nonprofit leaders will use the topics as a jumping off point for honest discussions with boards and donors. It can often be intimidating for a nonprofit leader to raise a controversial question like:
- “Should all board members be required to fundraise?”
- “Should we stop worrying about program vs. overhead expenses?”
- “How do we get our board more engaged?“
A nonprofit leader could set aside 30 minutes in a board meeting agenda for a discussion kicked off by a 2-minute video. Play a video, and then simply ask “What do you think?” Or you could show a video to a donor when you meet and ask for their opinion.
Some will disagree vehemently with what I have to say, but others might agree, or at least be open to thinking in new ways. An interesting, thought-provoking conversation might ensue. From that discussion you might start to plant seeds for change.
So to add to the library of conversation starters, today I offer this video on What Nonprofits Really Need From Their Donors. And if you want to see other videos in the series go to the Social Velocity YouTube channel. Good luck!
Something pretty exciting is going on. Perhaps I’m an eternal optimist, or I’m suffering from confirmation bias, but it seems to me that more funders are starting to talk about investing in the capacity of nonprofits, particularly around nonprofit leadership development.
The Stanford Social Innovation Review kicked off a new blog series this month focused on the topic. Over the next three months, six foundation leaders will blog about why they have made investments in the leadership development of their nonprofit grantees and what the return on investment has been.
This is phenomenal because the more we talk about and demonstrate the return on investment of nonprofit leadership development, and really of any capacity investments, the more likely we will be to see other funders follow suit.
As Ira Hirschfield, president of the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, points out in the inaugural post in the new SSIR series, less than 1 percent of overall foundation giving went to leadership development between 1992 and 2011, while the private sector allocates billions of dollars to it.
Why are we not investing in our nonprofit leaders? If we truly want to create change to some of our most pressing social issues don’t we need the strongest, most effective leaders possible?
As Hirschfield puts it so well:
Foundations ask a great deal of the organizations we support…in short, we hope grantees will deliver transformational results for the people and places they serve. So it’s striking how seldom we back that up with funds to help organizations develop and strengthen the ability of their leaders to meet those high expectations. People are not born with everything it takes to manage and motivate a team, build coalitions, and lead change…Leaders who have the opportunity to reflect on their strategies and hone their skills make better choices, develop innovative solutions and forge stronger collaborations. This is what leadership development is about—and to the extent that foundations decide it is important and fund it, then we and our grantees will be better positioned to achieve our goals for impact.
In other words, foundation funding will go further if funders also invest in the leaders of those organizations they fund.
It seems like a no-brainer. And it is a no-brainer in the for-profit world. But as we so often do in the nonprofit sector, we are selling the sector, and its leaders short.
But it is not enough (nor are we anywhere near it anyway) for funders to understand the need for investing in nonprofit leaders. Nonprofit leaders themselves need to stop apologizing and start demanding (in a nice way!) investment in their own capacity. And leadership development is only one of the many areas in which nonprofits need capacity investment. Nonprofits also require fundraising expertise and staffing, program evaluation, technology and systems, and the list goes on.
So if we are to have any hope of moving this topic beyond the blogroll, nonprofit leaders and funders need to start having better conversations about what it will really take to accomplish their joint impact goals. Because if, at the end of the day, we are all looking to achieve more impact, then capacity to deliver on that impact must be part of the conversation.
If you want to learn more about capacity investments from both the nonprofit and funder sides, download the Power of Capacity Capital book, and if you want to learn more about nonprofit leadership, download the Reinventing the Nonprofit Leader book.
Photo Credit: Clinton and Charles Robertson
Note: Fifth and last in my list of guest bloggers this summer is Laura Tomasko. Laura is a network developer at the Council on Foundations, where she follows trends related to private capital for social good. Here is her guest post:
Perhaps like some of you, I dedicate a good portion of my internet reading to blogs like Social Velocity, Re: Philanthropy, and Philanthropy 2173. When I am browsing a blog unrelated to nonprofits, philanthropy, and impact investing, I do a double take when I come across a topic from my professional sphere.
One of those non-work related blogs that I read is Popville, which chronicles activities in Washington, DC neighborhoods. This July and last, two local businesses sought financing through crowdfunding platforms, and reached out to Popville readers for support. Both cited the community focus of their enterprises as reasons to financially support their efforts. What ensued in the comment thread of both posts provides a snapshot into how those outside of the philanthropy and impact investing field understand and discuss crowdfunding, charitable giving, and investing with the intention to generate social and financial returns.
Last year, a local business named Pulp posted to Popville to request “donations” to improve the store and website, including repairs to fixtures, new paint, windows, and other related costs. Even though they said they wanted donations, Pulp actually sought no-interest loans, a distinction clear on their Clovest crowdfunding page but not on Popville. Confusion and opinions swarmed the comments section as people tried to figure out whether Pulp wanted a donation or a loan, and shared their musings on the whole situation.
This July, another local business, Three Little Pigs (TLP), used Popville to promote their Kickstarter campaign, accurately requesting donations for infrastructure improvements to enhance the business that will allow them to build a community space on their third floor. In exchange for donations, TLP offers gifts, like a pound of maple-cured bacon, to donors.
The comments to both posts provide insight into how local residents react to financial requests from community-focused small businesses. Such requests may increase given the passage of the JOBS Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rules that allow non-accredited investors to get an equity stake in a local business through crowdfunding platforms.
Here are common themes about local businesses raising money on crowdfunding platforms raised by commenters:
- Is This Charity?
While both businesses used words associated with philanthropy to appeal to the charitable sense of local residents, neither provides a charitable tax benefit to the readers. This created confusion and commenters wrote in to ask whether the business would provide a tax benefit or repay the money. One Pulp commenter asked, “Does anyone know what the tax implications are to this approach? I doubt they realize the tax-exemption you typically see with donations to non-profits. Or do they? Could this be an interest free loan as well as a tax-free donation?”Questions such as this one suggest that those using crowdfunding platforms to raise money need to clearly state what they ask of their potential supporters and what they will get in return. For example, they should distinguish between how the funding will benefit the community and whether it is a charitable donation, a donation without a tax benefit, or loan.
- Should You Donate to a For-Profit?
Many commenters bemoan the idea of a for-profit business asking for donations instead of raising the necessary capital through the sale of goods and services. There seems to be an expectation that the business should either flourish or fail based on the value of the good or service, and donations should not supplement either course. While some were happy with the idea of donating to a for-profit, most did not support the concept.
- What About Traditional Financing?
Several wondered why the businesses did not get loans through banks or pay for these expenses using a credit card. Others supported crowdfunding as a way to get around the hurdles of traditional financing. While one TLP commenter in support of traditional financing noted, “There are plenty small business loans and lines of credit they can apply for at the mentioned banks,” one in favor of crowdfunding stated, “If you can’t meet every requirement, the major banks will usually turn you down due to high risk.”
The confusion and concern that arose from these two crowdfunding experiences suggest that language matters and concepts like crowdfunding and impact investing are still new to people accustomed to distinguishing charity, which generates social benefit, from business and investing, which seek to generate financial revenue.
In addition to local businesses on crowdfunding platforms, mainstream media use language associated with charity to describe impact investing activities. An interesting example is coverage of the bridge loan that Laura and John Arnold made to the National Head Start Association during the 2013 government shutdown. Covering the story, the New York Times uses the headline, “$10 Million Gift to Help Head Start Through Shutdown” and Politico writes, “Philanthropists pledge $10 million to restore 7,000 Head Start seats.”
Tucked within both articles, after terms like “donation” and “gift,” are brief mentions that the money might be paid back as a no-interest loan if government restores funding after the shutdown. However, to those scanning headlines and not reading the entire article, it is not clear that the Arnolds have made an impact investment in the form of a bridge loan to the Association.
With increased interest in social entrepreneurship and impact investing, many use charitable language to describe financial transactions ranging from donations to impact investments. Until the concept of impact investing becomes as mainstream as charitable giving, taking the time to distinguish between the two could increase awareness, and eventually adoption, of both traditional and untraditional forms of financing for social good.
Language matters and those raising capital from local residents, as well as those in the media writing about these transactions, should differentiate between the desired financial transaction and its charitably-minded purpose. Crowdfunding may bring impact investing to new audiences, and let’s make sure that the message gets there clearly and accurately.
Photo Credit: zeh fernando
Note: Second in my list of esteemed guest bloggers this summer is Adin Miller. Adin is Senior Director of Community Impact and Innovations at the Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund, but his post is his personal viewpoint, not necessarily that of his employer. Here is his guest post:
Readers of the Social Velocity blog know of Nell’s clarion call for nonprofit financing not fundraising and her conviction that the current mode of nonprofit growth through fundraising is bankrupt. Today I want to examine another area I consider broken, namely the ineffective way in which philanthropy identifies and grows emerging organizations and projects – the domain of scaling innovation. I’ll focus on the Jewish federation system, in which I currently work, and then pull back out to the larger philanthropic sector.
To begin, let’s define innovation funding as the practice of funding an innovative venture – a new emerging organization or an iteration of an existing program within an established organization – that does not yet have evidence-based documentation of its approach but that points to the potential to generate significant social benefit. In my work, I also focus on the stages of funding an innovative venture goes through as it morphs into a scaled up nonprofit. Funding is generally aligned with the following stages:
- Pre-proof of concept
- Proof of concept
- Pilot stage funding
- Early stage funding
- Second stage funding, and
- Mezzanine stage funding.
By the time the organization has approached mezzanine funding, its annual budget will be growing from the $1 – 5 million level per year to the $10 – 50 million level per year.
The Jewish federation system represents one of the oldest philanthropic engines in the United States and Canada, tracing its history back to 1895. The system includes 153 Jewish Federations (local independent fundraising and grantmaking nonprofits) and over 300 Network communities (volunteer driven federations), which raise funds and distribute resources among programs serving the Jewish community. Per the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), each year the federation system raises and distributes “more than $3 billion annually for social welfare, social services and educational needs,” placing it among “the top 10 charities on the continent” in terms of grantmaking.
One would think that as units in an overarching system that the local federations would share a common agenda. And that’s true to a large extent – there is commonality of purpose (funding Jewish overnight camps, for instance), ongoing support for local Jewish organizations, and consistent funding support in Israel and other global Jewish communities. However, where the system fails to deliver is in scaling up innovative ventures.
Much of that failure in funding innovation is attributable to a confluence of factors such as limited geographic scope and funding periods. With the exception of international funding, for instance, each local federation fences its funding to the geographic area in which it operates. As such, a local federation won’t fund an emerging innovative venture unless it has a presence within the funder’s geographic area. That holds true even if the innovative venture has developed the best new approach to addressing a critical area of need because it operates on the other side of the figurative (and in some cases literal) river.
Additionally, many federations provide limited funding windows lasting between three to five years. The funding period is usually sufficient to help an innovative venture establish some basis to prove its concept. But it also forces these innovative ventures to focus on sustainability instead of continued growth, a syndrome similar to the starvation cycle experienced by more established organizations. This failure by the funders to adopt a long-term strategy to not only fund but also finance the continued growth of a successful innovative venture tends to prematurely end its ability to scale efforts and generate more impact.
The situation for the innovative venture is further exasperated if it concludes that continued growth can only be achieved through expansion to new locations. By virtue of each federation working independently, without an intentional approach to working collaboratively to scale an innovative venture, the “system” establishes unique markets. And each unique local market forces the innovative venture to reestablish its market opportunity. That involves seeking independent funding for each location, repetitive due diligence scrutiny (because, as we know, funders don’t proactively share due diligence data amongst themselves), and a faint hope that sustained funding or financing will materialize after the initial funding period ends.
In short, this is not an efficient method for scaling innovative ventures. It has generated pockets of nonprofit incubators in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and others. And any number of innovative ventures emerge each year – there’s even a handy guidebook to track some of the most promising ones. But there is no methodology or intentional effort on a national scale to support these innovative ventures at all stages of their potential development (from pre-proof of concept to mezzanine funding). In some sense, growth is based on a hope and prayer that another funder will step in and continue to fund the innovation venture as it looks to scale.
You can take my above critique and substitute the words “community foundations” for “federations” and you will see the same issues in the larger philanthropic sector. Just as the federation system does not effectively scale innovative ventures, neither do community, local family, and private foundations.
The absence of a coordinated national strategy to support the ongoing growth and potential impact of innovative ventures highlights the inherent inefficiencies of the philanthropic sector. The Social Innovation Fund was one potential hope that could address this challenge. But its focus remains centered on those ideas that have already generated evidence-based results. The newly announced White House initiative on impact investing with pooled resources of $1.5B might also point to a new opportunity, but it’s too early to tell.
So, what’s the potential solution to supporting scaled growth of innovative ventures?
One idea, which I first came across in the energy technology sector through a blog post published in 2011 by the Breakthrough Institute, would involve establishing an independent nonprofit investment bank to offer a range of financial tools (grants, loans, etc.) to help not only fund but also finance the growth of an innovative venture. If the federation system could pool 1% of its annual grantmaking budgets into this bank, that would create a $30 million annual fund. And if community foundations could do the same, we’d have an almost $50 million annual fund (this week’s Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that community foundations’ assets now total $66 billion and giving is nearly at $5 billion per year).
A second idea would involve creating a framework by which funders would actually work together to lower the structural and financial barriers limiting the continued growth and impact of innovative ventures.
Both ideas require more thinking and a willingness by philanthropic communities to come together to explore possible solutions. The investment bank would certainly require local funders to give up some autonomy of decision-making and local application of funding in order to provide resources for greater social benefit. The second idea would require a national or prominent organization to take the lead in organizing a coalition and developing the framework.
And if all else fails, perhaps we should consider a petition to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share its resources in more unique ways (this coming on the day the foundation received $2.1 billion from Warren Buffett).
At the end of the day, we should allow innovative ventures to succeed and fail on their own merits, instead of as result of a broken funding model.
Photo Credit: 401k2012
In today’s Social Velocity interview, I’m talking with Kathy Reich, Director of Organizational Effectiveness Grantmaking at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Kathy leads a cross-cutting program to help grantees around the world improve their strategy, leadership, and impact. Her team makes grants on a broad range of organizational development issues, from business planning to social media strategy to network effectiveness.
She also manages the Packard Foundation’s grantmaking to support the philanthropic sector. She has been with the Foundation since 2001, and previously held positions in the Organizational Effectiveness and Children, Families, and Communities programs. Prior to joining the Foundation, she worked in a non-profit, on Capitol Hill, and in state and local government in California.
You can read other interviews in the Social Velocity Interview Series here.
Nell: There is often a chicken or the egg scenario in the nonprofit sector where nonprofit leaders are hesitant to tell funders their real struggles and needs for fear of appearing unworthy of investment, and philanthropists are hesitant to stick their noses in the business of the nonprofits they fund, so organizational capacity needs are not openly discussed or addressed. How does the Packard Foundation uncover the organizational needs of your grantees and what would you advise other funders to do in order to have more open and transformative discussions with their grantees?
Kathy: Well, I try not to tell other people—funders or nonprofit leaders—what to do! But I can tell you what works for us at the Packard Foundation. First, we encourage each of our program officers to learn about the organizational strengths and challenges of their grantees, and to weave capacity building into grantmaking strategies. That’s a big part of the work of the Organizational Effectiveness team here at the Packard Foundation.
But we also have a separate Organizational Effectiveness (OE) program, staffed by its own program officers and with its own budget, to help grantee partners strengthen their fundamentals so they can focus on achieving their missions. Once a non-profit gets a grant from any Packard Foundation program, they’re also eligible to apply for an OE grant. We support a wide range of projects to promote individual and team leadership, organizational planning and development, and the development of healthy networks.
The application process is pretty simple and straightforward. It starts with a letter of inquiry where our grantee partners have to answer just a handful of questions: What are the objectives of your project and what do you expect to accomplish? How will this project support your organization in meeting its goals, and over the long term, enhancing its effectiveness? What special challenges or changes have caused your organization or network to focus on management and organizational issues at this time? How do you propose to use Foundation funds? Who from your organization’s staff and board has made the commitment to lead the project?
Here’s the most important part of our approach: We work very hard to be responsive to the needs of our partners. We never say, “We think you need a strategic plan, and that’s the only thing we’re going to fund.” We listen to the grantee’s assessment of their strengths and challenges, and serve in a coaching role to help them develop the OE project that best meets their needs.
Nell: Leadership development is something that is fairly prevalent in the for-profit sector – it’s understood that good leaders need coaching and support along the way – but leadership development is rarely supported in the nonprofit sector. Why do you think there is that disparity and what do we do to change it?
Kathy: I think you’re right — the lack of investment in leadership development and talent management in the nonprofit sector is a significant issue. We don’t have any shortage of talented, passionate people entering this sector. But I believe that we lose too many of them before they rise to senior-level leadership positions.
Some of that brain drain happens for financial reasons: people are staggering under the weight of educational debt, or they’re lured away by more lucrative career prospects in the private sector. But much of the loss of talent is preventable. People leave because they feel burnt out and undervalued. They can’t forge career pathways and can’t access meaningful professional development. They sometimes have lousy managers. Their jobs don’t offer opportunities for promotion, or sufficient work/life/family balance.
That is all stuff that the nonprofit sector can fix. As a sector, we can even tackle some of the thornier issues around compensation and educational debt. And funders can lead the way. But philanthropy is not doing that. Rusty Stahl at the Talent Philanthropy Project, a Packard Foundation grantee partner, points out that between 1992 and 2011 foundations spent, on average, about 1% of grant dollars on nonprofit talent development. I’m not sure why there’s been a lack of investment in leadership development in the nonprofit sector over time — especially when virtually everyone seems to agree that effective leadership is one of the keys to lasting social change.
I do see some glimmers of hope. In the OE program last year, 21 of the 86 grants we awarded focused on leadership development, including projects that invested in interventions like executive coaching, board development, succession planning, and executive transition at key grantee organizations. And a number of efforts are underway throughout the Foundation to support existing and/or emerging leaders in the issue areas where we work. Clearly, though, much more is needed.
Nell: There has been a concerted effort in the past year to overcome the “Overhead Myth,” the idea that nonprofits should spend as little as possible on “overhead” (administrative and fundraising) expenses. But there is still much work to do before that idea becomes mainstream in the philanthropic sector. How do we change funder (and nonprofit leader) thinking about overhead?
Kathy: I’m a fan of so many leaders and organizations who have spoken out on this issue, including Packard Foundation grantee partners like Guidestar, California Association of Nonprofits, and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. They’ve done a great job of making a research-based case that arbitrary, low overhead rates don’t capture the true cost of delivering non-profit programs and services. I think that there are a couple of common-sense things that funders and nonprofit leaders can do to keep this debate at the forefront of people’s minds.
First, prepare real budgets. If the funder tells you, “You can only have $25,000 for this project,” that’s fine. That’s their budget. But submit a budget for the full cost of the project, including your personnel, facilities, and other costs of doing business. Let them see what their funding covers, and what it does not. Be honest if you do not know where the rest of the money will come from. At least it will spark a good conversation with your funder about the gap, and about your real costs. Most funders do not penalize honesty. If the funder does penalize honesty, their money probably is not worth your trouble.
Second, define what goes into your overhead rate, and stick with it. Many funders have a “rule” about acceptable overhead; 15 percent, 10 percent, even 5 percent. But most do not have a standard definition for what’s included in that rate. You should have one. Define it, calculate it, and then defend it.
Nell: Philanthropy is a very personal and values-driven thing, but at the same time we need to funnel more philanthropic money towards the most effective solutions. Do you think it’s possible to get more philanthropists to give based on results rather than interests and values, or can we somehow better combine the two drives?
Kathy: I think combining values and a focus on results is not just desirable — it’s essential. None of us goes into social change work with a completely cool, dispassionate lens. We go in with passion. We want to make a difference. We bring our whole selves to this work. That’s what makes it wonderful, and that’s why we stay in it.
At the same time, resources are limited — money, people, time — and we have to be sure they’re being well-spent. Ideally, we want to make sure those resources are being better-spent than they could be on other endeavors.
At the Packard Foundation, we try to craft a balance. Our mission—to improve the lives of children, families, and communities, and to restore and protect our planet—derives directly from the values and beliefs of our founders. The way we go about that work is deeply rooted in five core values, which also come from our founding family — integrity, respect for all people, belief in individual leadership, commitment to effectiveness, and the capacity to think big. But we also are committed to scientific rigor, evaluation, and most importantly, learning. We care not only about what grant funds accomplish, but also about how we do that grantmaking, engage with grantees and improve over time. You can read about some of what we’ve accomplished over the years on our new digital timeline.
Photo Credit: Packard Foundation