A new blog at the Chronicle of Philanthropy site launched this week that I’m pretty excited about. Written by Clara Miller and others at the Nonprofit Finance Fund, the Money and Mission blog will help nonprofits “understand and skillfully wield money as a tool.” What a revolutionary idea.
As Clara writes in the inaugural post:
Great ideas, deep caring for those in need, creativity, resourcefulness, a service ethic, and an expansive vision for the future are abundant in the nonprofit world. But we lack the financial capacity to meet these ideals, and our financial habits undermine efforts to build it. We need to think of finance as more than a muddle of fund raising, budget monitoring, and compliance with overhead rules. The current, tough economic environment is spurring needed change. Now, understanding money concepts like risk, leverage, and accounting, seems to be a moral imperative.
Indeed, the nonprofit sector has for too long been burdened by a lack of financial literacy and thus an inability to use money effectively. Sure there isn’t enough money in the sector, but if nonprofit leaders better understood the financial tools available to them and how to use them to their advantage, the results could be revolutionary. This is the argument in our Financing not Fundraising series.
Capital campaigns provide a great example of this. Nonprofits have used capital campaigns for years to raise money for a new building or, less often, an endowment. Capital campaign money is raised and used in a very different way from how general operating money is raised and used. A capital campaigns USES money raised to buy a building. An annual fundraising campaign USES money raised to buy additional services that the nonprofit provides (food for a food bank, mentors for kids). An annual fundraising campaign often RAISES money by cobbling together various activities (events, grant writing, some direct mail appeals) hoping that the sum will equal the expenses needed for the year. A capital campaign, however, RAISES money by conducting a feasibility study to determine how much they can likely raise, then creates a plan, budget, and case for support. Then potential donors are cultivated and solicited in a systematic way. This is a deliberate, strategic way to bring capital campaign investors in the door.
However, capital campaigns are often misguided attempts to grow the impact of an organization. A nonprofit thinks that in order to be taken seriously in the community and attract larger donors they need to build a new building. Enormous amounts of time, energy and money are spent to create a building they don’t need, burn out their development staff, and eventually shoulder new building maintenance fees for years to come.
What if nonprofits could pour those same desires–to do more, to make a bigger impact, to attract more resources, to build deeper networks–and that same time, effort and resources into a campaign that will actually help them build a more effective, more sustainable organization that delivers more impact? What if the methods of a capital campaign were instead employed to raise growth or capacity capital that allows the organization to provide more, better services to the community? That would be huge. Enormous.
The Nonprofit Finance Fund turned capital campaigns on their head with their SEGUE (Sustainable Enhancement Grant) program. It is essentially a capital campaign, but instead of buying a building, the nonprofit raises growth capital to scale the organization for greater social impact. NFF takes a concept nonprofits understand and are comfortable with, a capital campaign, and transforms it into a way to raise organization building money, a completely new idea. I’d love to see more nonprofits using financial tools already available to them to accelerate their ability to create social impact.
Like it or not, money is an incredible tool. If nonprofit leaders could better understand it, stop fearing it, and learn how to wield it effectively, the results could be transformative.
Photo Credit: piermario
Last month we kicked off a new, monthly Social Velocity blog interview series where I interview leading thinkers and doers in the social innovation space. Our inaugural interview was with Kevin Jones co-founder of both Good Capital, one of the first venture capital funds that invests in social enterprises, and the Social Capital Markets Conference (SoCap) which marks its third year with the upcoming October event.
This month’s Social Velocity interview is with Clara Miller, President, CEO and founder of the Nonprofit Finance Fund, a national leader in nonprofit, philanthropic and social enterprise finance. Directly and with others, NFF has leveraged $1 billion of capital investment into nonprofits, and provided over $200 million in direct loans. Clara Miller was named among The NonProfit Times “Power and Influence Top 50″ four years in a row and is a board member of GuideStar and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.
Nell: You and the Nonprofit Finance Fund have initiated this idea of equity capital for nonprofits, or money to “build” organizations rather than the tradition funding to “buy” services. Do you think the idea of equity capital for nonprofits is catching on?
Clara: First of all, I should say that many people have contributed to the idea of a nonprofit version of equity over the years. My NFF colleague George Overholser has been a field leader. He focuses almost exclusively on the version we call “growth” capital, which is used to rapidly build organizations, changing what they do through major investment undertaken around a single set of metrics, business plan, and ideally, with all funders acting in concert.
And yes, I do think the broader notion of “equity”—and for that matter, the importance of the balance sheet in its entirety—is catching on, especially among major foundations, capital campaign veterans and those familiar with these concepts in the for-profit world. The broader concepts of “building” organizations and “buying” services, and how financial roles differ, are resonating strongly with both organizations and funders. We have a foundation partner that has simply put the question, “is this a “buy” grant or a “build” grant?” on the program officers’ intake checklist.
Nell: How do traditional nonprofit capital campaigns, which are predominantly focused on raising money for new buildings, fit into all of this?
Clara: We think these “growth capital” and “equity” principles comprise an ideal way to think about (and operate) a successful capital campaign. Our early work in the 1980s (when we were Nonprofit Facilities Fund, and exclusively financed “community facilities” with loans) revealed that a rash of problems would almost invariably follow capital campaigns for facilities: cash crises, burnout, funder fatigue, “night of the living dead” program operations, the need to lease excess space at below-cost rent…you get the idea. It was a real eye opener. We learned a lot about the need for truly unrestricted “growth capital,” in addition to funds focused (and often restricted) to build and fit out the facility. Among the NFF-documented lessons: that facilities projects typically need 3 to 4 times the bricks and mortar cost for working capital to cover program and administrative growth needs; that the building frequently changed the business model radically, but planning never covered the whole enterprise; and that putting large amounts of cash into an illiquid asset while expanding operations was problematic on a number of levels. Also, many of these building projects came with opportunity costs: organizations weren’t investing in new technology, upgrading skill sets, or replenishing cash reserves.
Beyond facilities projects, capital campaigns frequently focus on other (typically illiquid) parts of the balance sheet: building an endowment, or on the acquisition of, for example, a program asset (such as a painting or piece of medical equipment). Thinking holistically about improving or acquiring illiquid assets, via a campaign for growth capital, can better the situation.
Nell: The for-profit sector currently enjoys a broader and deeper array of financial vehicles than does the nonprofit sector (seed funding, angel investors, growth capital, stacked deals, etc.) do you anticipate that the capital market for nonprofit organizations will become more robust and what will it take for that to happen?
Clara: I’ll push back a little and say that the vast majority of both nonprofits and for-profits (that are small, with less than $200K in revenue) have approximately the same level of access to similar financing vehicles: sweat equity, seed/angel funders/investors (friends and family, the first foundation grants, etc.), credit card debt, bank loans, retained earnings, etc. Then there is “growth capital” or “capital grants,” which a very small proportion can access in either sector. And while large for-profits are much, much larger than large nonprofits, large nonprofits have reliable access to some highly sophisticated funding and financing vehicles that for-profits don’t (and vice versa). Some very large nonprofits have access to for-profit subsidiary ventures and investments—and some are highly sophisticated (universities investing in development of intellectual property and associated products, CDFIs with venture funds, public media with development and sales of program assets, and others). And on the debt side, much of nonprofits’ “capital market” is for-profit-run (bank debt, investments, tax-exempt bonds, etc.)
The most important barrier to enterprise scale (for either sector) is not so much lack of access to capital as it is a scalable, focused business model with reliable net revenue. Once you have those—or evidence that they are possible—capital will flow.
But that said, we’re talking about a couple of “market wide” dysfunctions. The first is that despite highly resourceful managers, sophisticated board members and billions of dollars of revenue and capital funds, there is no tradition of “enterprise finance” in the sector. “Pretty bad ‘best practices’” designed to make nonprofits more efficient and fiscally prudent cost the sector dearly. Confusion about the direct funding of programs (it’s not possible, most of the time you need to fund an enterprise to deliver programs) means capital is mixed up with revenue, growth with regular operations, and “build” grants with “buy” grants (and a variety of hybrids!). This wreaks financial havoc in growing organizations. Missions—along with the public—suffer.
The second problem is that there’s no really reliable signaling mechanism for organizations to fold their tents, pass their programs to another organization, and go out of business. In the for-profit world, that would be financial failure; in our world, that’s not so straightforward: so we hang in there, meaning resources that might go to a stronger program remain tied up. It also means that the biggest and richest players have (and, largely, keep) the vast lion’s share of resources (even more pronounced than in the for-profit world).
Finally, there is a problem with access to charitable revenue. Promising, mid-sized organizations—especially those serving low-income people (and therefore lacking access to the traditional source of capital in the sector, individual donors) have a difficult time building the operation they need to grow. Foundations are the logical path here, and having foundations embrace “enterprise friendly” practices—including growth capital and build-buy understanding—can go a long way toward changing that dynamic. Establishing a field-wide understanding of basic enterprise finance principles will help insure that growth capital campaigns become true innovation with long-term staying power, rather than a short-term novelty.
Nell: Growth capital for nonprofits is mostly only available to larger nonprofits that have the capacity to prove the results of their model. Do you think growth capital will increasingly become available to the bottom 80% of nonprofits (those with a budget less than $1 million), and how and when do you see that happening?
Clara: Our goal is not that all organizations of every size and business model have access to growth capital and pursue aggressive growth goals ASAP. That’s neither possible nor desirable in either the for-profit or the nonprofit worlds. In both sectors, some business models may not be scalable, and that’s ok—in fact, it’s good. Nobody wants their favorite neighborhood clam shack or Italian restaurant to go public or become a Pizza Hut. Diversity is good; and most people like things about both large and small enterprises. This is true in any sector, where economies of scale and preservation of quality are frequently subject to the laws of diminishing returns. Growth capital is not for everyone, and it is only one tool in the enterprise tool box.
The more important revolution is to make broadly accessible the tools and principles of enterprise finance—with a clear understanding of the realities of the commercial proposition of the sector (i.e., there’s a reason we have a nonprofit sector). There are well-managed and poorly managed (and capitalized) enterprises of all sizes and tax statuses, and there are scalable and non-scalable ones as well. Most critical on the scaling front is that our sector embraces and deploys the broad set of principles that make enterprises of any size or shape effective in reliably achieving great results. Trouble arises when a specific social benefit or innovation is so compelling that we all want the maximum number of people to benefit from it: Our failure to use the principles of growth capital and proper scaling techniques to assure results while growth proceeds is (and has been) tragic for the social sector, and a change in practice can help.
Nell: How do you think the Social Innovation Fund will change the capital landscape for nonprofits?
Clara: I think the SIF already has raised the profile of the ideas around growth capital and scaling discussed here. And it certainly has the attention of a group of large foundations, a significant number of whom are applying as intermediaries. I think it took courage for them to apply, and courage for the SIF to get developed. At the beginning there will be some fits and starts, and government procurement can be dicey (especially when it’s trying to be capital rather than revenue), and foundations are trying to make it work in this way for the first time. That said, it’s very exciting for us to see “growth capital,” which is the core concept, being given a whirl by both the White House and the Foundation world.
Nell: Venture philanthropy funds (that provide growth capital to nonprofits) and social venture capital funds (that provide capital to double bottom-line businesses) currently don’t interact very much in the marketplace. Do you see an opportunity for greater integration of nonprofit and for profit social investing? And if so, what will it take to get there?
Clara: I think there is increasingly frequent interaction between for-profit and non-profit business models (and entrepreneurs) on the conceptual level, and that’s being translated into some compelling platform-agnostic enterprise structures to accomplish social ends in many sectors—health care, research, arts and culture, media, housing—are all examples. And interactions may not be best between two enterprises that are both at the “venture” or “start up” stage. A start-up nonprofit may want to partner with a fully-scaled for-profits (and this is common), while a fully-scaled nonprofit may want to create (or house) a venture for-profit to help reach certain social goals.
On the “deal” level, I think there’s a reason to maintain a bright line between the nonprofit and for-profit tax status. I favor crisply defined hybrids (of which there are a variety) over mushiness (we’re a for-profit but we are good people doing socially beneficial work) because they are more likely to stand the test of time and skepticism, and since ownership and tax structures have bright-line legal and moral duties attached to them.
A few months ago I argued that nonprofits need to stop fundraising and start financing for social impact. As I wrote:
Fundraising in its current form just doesn’t work anymore. Indeed, traditional fundraising is holding the sector back by keeping nonprofits in the starvation cycle of trying to do more and more with less and less. Really, what the sector needs is a financing strategy, not a fundraising strategy. By that I mean that nonprofits have to break out of the narrow view that traditional FUNDRAISING (individual donor appeals, events, foundation grants) will completely fund all of their activities. Instead, nonprofits must work to create a broader approach to securing the overall FINANCING necessary to create social change.
The idea is that nonprofits can no longer work towards social impact on one side and throw a gala event (or send out a direct mail appeal or write a grant) on the other side and think that this disjointed, haphazard way of funding their work is sustainable. To truly achieve social impact, nonprofits need to take a huge step back and figure out how to employ all of the financial tools available to them in an effective, integrated way. This is how you finance, rather than fundraise for, social impact.
Over the next few months, in an occasional series titled Financing Not Fundraising, I will elaborate on this argument and demonstrate what financing, as opposed to fundraising, for social impact looks like.
Today I will launch the series with the core element of the idea, which is a financial plan. In essence, a financial plan is a key element of, not separate from, a nonprofit’s strategic plan. That means that the goals of the strategic plan are created with the full knowledge of 1) what it will cost to reach those goals and 2) how the money to cover those costs will be secured.
A financial plan differs from a fundraising plan in a number of ways. A financial plan, unlike a fundraising plan:
- Includes ALL activities that bring money in the door (individual donors, foundation grants, earned income, corporate sponsorships, government contracts, loans, etc.) and fully integrates them into an overall strategy and execution plan.
- Supports the short AND long term goals of the organization
- Funds the programs AND infrastructure of the organization. It recognizes the necessity of and supports not only the nonprofit’s direct service activities, but also, the infrastructure, systems, planning and other organization building that will ensure that those services thrive and grow
- Understands the characteristics and uses of different kinds of money (i.e. revenue versus growth capital, loans versus grants) and employs each available financial vehicle in the most effective way
- Employs money-securing activities that are in line with, not opposed to, the core competencies of the organization
If you are interested in having Social Velocity help you create such a plan, check out our Financing Plan consulting service, or if you’d rather create it on your own with our tool, check out our Financing Plan Step-by-Step Guide.
What I am suggesting is that nonprofits stop exhausting their boards, staffs, donors, friends, and clients with a series of disjointed activities that are meant to raise money, but actually just end up making poor use of a nonprofit’s already limited resources. Instead, nonprofits need an integrated, thoughtful, strategic financing plan that makes social impact a reality.
If you want to learn more about applying the concepts of Financing Not Fundraising to your nonprofit, check out our Financing Not Fundraising Webinar Series, or download the 27-page Financing Not Fundraising e-book.
Photo Credit: Steve Wampler
My post argued that the $50 million federal Social Innovation Fund is only one small piece of the capital the nonprofit sector needs. The fund will help the top nonprofit organizations, but will not remedy the lack of capital available to the smaller, less sophisticated nonprofits that make up the majority (80%) of the sector. Sean rightly pointed out that like the business sector, the vast majority of nonprofits are small, and as we have done with businesses, we need to create different expectations for different kinds of nonprofits. I would take Sean’s comments even further and argue that we actually need to create a similar ecosystem of funding and expertise for the nonprofit sector, as we have done for businesses.
One thing I think that people need to keep in mind when they point to how many nonprofits are small is that the same is true in business. While good revenue numbers are hard to find, did you know that 73% of for-profits have less than 10 employees and 54% have less than 4 employees? It seems to me that as a field we need to do a better job of segmenting the nonprofit market and having very different expectations for nonprofits which are “small businesses” vs those that are “public companies.”
Sean makes a critical point. The vast nonprofit sector is often lumped together as one. When in reality, the sector is incredibly diverse. And although over the past 10 years there have been some innovative strides made in providing capital, expertise, and other resources to the top 20% of the nonprofit sector (such as venture philanthropy funds like New Profit and Venture Philanthropy Partners and management expertise from consulting companies like Monitor and Bridgespan) the fact remains that the “bottom” 80% of the nonprofit sector is still very much alone.
This is one of the reasons I started Social Velocity. I saw a real hole in the marketplace in terms of capital and management expertise to the bottom 80% of the nonprofit market. A $500,000 nonprofit organization can’t engage a Monitor or Bridgespan group, and a venture philanthropy fund wouldn’t be interested in scaling them since no one will fund evaluation to prove their results. These organizations are stuck within the vicious starvation cycle and cannot get out.
We need to do a better job, as Sean says, of segmenting the nonprofit sector and creating appropriate expectations for those different segments, but we need to go much further. We have to create an ecosystem of expertise and funding for the smaller, less sophisticated segments of the sector, which includes:
- Educating smaller, less sophisticated philanthropists that creating solutions requires funding for less sexy things like capacity, organization building, evaluation
- Providing significant capacity capital to build out revenue functions, attract and retain top talent, articulate a value add, message effectively
- Supplying growth capital to nonprofits who have a great solution and the desire to scale
- Creating realistic and cost-effective evaluation tools so that smaller organizations can prove their impact along with the big guys
- Securing management expertise to help smaller nonprofits create strategic and growth plans, articulate their impact and value add to potential investors, develop comprehensive financial strategies, etc.
I think it’s fabulous that there is a growing understanding that nonprofits can’t do it alone anymore. And I’m so pleased to see new funding vehicles like the Social Innovation Fund that are helping to take social innovation to the next level. But let’s not forget that there are many other innovative nonprofit organizations that will never catch the eye of the Social Innovation Fund, or their funding and consulting counterparts.
Over the past 200+ years America has established a fairly advanced ecosystem that supports (albeit not perfectly) the growth and success of entrepreneurs at every stage of the game. We are starting to recognize the need for a similar ecosystem in the nonprofit sector. But there is still much work to be done. Let’s not forget the smaller, less sophisticated nonprofits that may have tremendous solutions to contribute, but who just can’t get past the many hurdles in their way.
The financial market collapse of the last year has given the emerging social capital markets, where social impact and money converge, a voice and credibility. Indeed some social investments, like those in the microfinance arena, have actually far outperformed the financial returns of the traditional capital markets in the past year.
Will it last? And will money begin to flow more readily to organizations and projects that promise a social return? Will, as some at SoCap forecasted (or perhaps hoped), impact investing become a significant part of a normal investor portfolio in the next five years? Will social impact become a necessary and prevalent part of the traditional capital marketplace? Who knows. This whole space is evolving, and it is much too soon to understand how it will all play out.
One thing, however, that was lacking in last week’s conversations, and is worth a larger discussion, is how nonprofits, those organizations that have been creating “social impact” since before it was cool, fit into this emerging market. As I mentioned in earlier post, attendees to the session I moderated, “Growth Capital for Nonprofit Social Entrepreneurs,” appeared hungry for information, tools, advice, insight about how their organizations could play in this emerging space.
If you think of the overall market as a continuum with traditional charities on one end and traditional businesses on the other, the social capital marketplace, then, is everything in between. It most certainly includes social businesses–businesses that not only make a profit, but also contribute some sort of social impact (like wind farms or organic groceries). And there are emerging investment vehicles that can provide investors a financial return (sometimes equivalent to a traditional market rate return) in addition to a social impact return.
But the social capital market must also include new financial vehicles for nonprofit organizations. In order to effectively provide the public goods that for profit businesses (both traditional and social businesses) can’t or won’t provide, nonprofit organizations require seed funding, growth capital, capacity capital, loans, equity, grants, operating revenue and so on.
Although there was some discussion of these financial needs, the nonprofit side of the social capital market discussion was not as prevalent last week. And indeed some at the conference, including conference co-f0under, Kevin Jones, refer to nonprofits as “our cousins” in this space. Indeed, the keynoter at the first SoCap conference last year encouraged the audience to “set aside” nonprofit organizations because they were not what that conference was about. And I have had a few conversations with leaders in the social business space who have told me: “Innovation will never come from the nonprofit side. It must come from the social business side.”
But nonprofit organizations are very much part of this conversation and this emerging market. Social impact is not a new thing. As much as those of us assembled at SoCap last week would like to believe that we are pioneers in all things, we are not. Many of the financial vehicles emerging in this new space are exciting and new. But creating social impact through entrepreneurial efforts is not new.
Nonprofit organizations have been around for a long time. And their reason for being has always been to create some sort of public good that was not addressed by the market. That is not to say that it has been done right. Many would agree that the nonprofit sector and the philanthropy that funds it are dysfunctional, even broken. And I think most of us would agree the government sector is fairly broken as well.
But we cannot discount and dismiss either sector. In the true spirit of the social innovation space, we must recycle and reuse the nonprofit and government sectors, just as we are refashioning the private sector. We must reconfigure the assets of all three sectors to turn them into more effective, more productive, higher functioning sectors that can work with, not separate from, each other to create solutions.
What does that look like? It means that venture philanthropy funds are sharing investor prospects with social venture funds and vice versa. It means that investors interested in a social return have portfolios that include not only social businesses, but also nonprofit deals. It means that foundations are investing in both for profit and nonprofit social impact organizations. It means that the SoCap conference list of attendees and speakers come equally from all three sectors (public, private, nonprofit). It means that the majority of nonprofit organizations that have an interest in and capacity for growth have access to growth capital and management expertise to scale. It means that a nonprofit that is solving social problems is just as sexy and gets just as many resources, respect and mind-share as a social business that is doing the same. It means that those working on changing laws to help social entrepreneurs look at both for profit and nonprofit structures, incentives and restrictions.
The creation of the social capital market is a bold, chaotic, possibly insane, but potentially game-changing endeavor that has the power to completely rework how money flows through the market to shape society. Let’s not get bogged down in dichotomies and factions, rather let’s take a bigger picture view of the essence of what we are attempting to do. And that is to completely reconfigure, and create a productive convergence among, the three sectors. Now that would be innovative.
It occurred to me in two conversations I had this morning that small change can create large change, but how exactly does that happen?
My first conversation was a phone call with George Overholser, from the Nonprofit Finance Fund and a leading thinker around new kinds of capital for nonprofit organizations. I was getting some background from him on the whole movement to make growth capital (money necessary to build organizations rather than simply buy services) a reality for nonprofit organizations in preparation for my session later this week at the Social Capital Markets conference.
At the Nonprofit Finance Fund they have launched several exciting programs to help nonprofits secure the money necessary to scale great programs, such as the SEGUE program that takes the traditional nonprofit capital campaign approach and turns it on its head raising money not for a building, but rather for the patient capital required to pay the bills while a nonprofit figures out how to grow and make sustainable their business model.
My big question to George, however, was: How do we get these great new ideas, like patient capital (which is normal and accepted in the for profit world) prevalent and accepted in the nonprofit and philanthropic worlds? The number of nonprofits and donors currently participating in growth capital deals is very small.
George’s response was that these new ideas don’t have to be widely accepted or embraced. The end game is not to get all of the “mom and pop” nonprofits and donors to embrace these concepts. Rather, he looks forward to the day when there are ten $20 million growth capital deals out in the marketplace, that that alone will create tremendous change. He gave the example of Teach for America. If they can grow their successful program throughout the country, there would be tremendous change in the education landscape as a result . The end goal is to secure capital for a select few nonprofits that are uniquely poised to grow. He compared it to Apple, which is a company that makes billions of dollars, but has grown to that stage with only a few tens of millions, say $50 million, in growth capital. And Apple has transformed not only its industry, but really, how we all communicate, interact with data and live. That’s a pretty impressive impact for a $50 million investment in growth capital. He argues that the same is possible in the nonprofit world. We could have a handful of nonprofit growth capital deals and transform not only the nonprofit sector, but some enormous social problems.
An interesting hypothesis, but I don’t know if I buy it. Which brings me to my second conversation of the morning, with Sean Stannard-Stockton of the Tactical Philanthropy blog. Sean has been known for the past three years as a leading-edge thinker about how to make philanthropy more effective at delivering social impact. He announced this morning that he is launching a new philanthropic advisory fund called Tactical Philanthropy Advisors. The firm will advise high-net worth philanthropists (accounts of $1 million or more) on “the social impact of their financial investments, and work with their investment advisors to align their financial portfolios with their philanthropic goals.”
They are seeking to elevate philanthropic advising to the respect, time and resources that overall financial advising has enjoyed. In this new firm, philanthropic advising is no longer an add-on service that a wealth management company offers its clients. And their fee structure has them paid by a percentage of the overall portfolio an investor holds with them. So, in essence, they are paid as a traditional financial advisor is paid, based on the performance of the overall portfolio, but in this case the portfolio return is a social, not a financial one. They are also interesting because they are a for-profit company, with a social purpose and are applying to become a B Corp. So the firm is and of itself a social business; they are social entrepreneurs charting this new landscape along with the rest of us.
You only need to read a few entries in Sean’s 3-year old Tactical Philanthropy blog to understand how this new firm could revolutionize how the philanthropic sector, and thus the nonprofit sector, operates. Sean understands and believes in philanthropic equity, mission-related investing, scaling nonprofits, organization-building, and so on. He understands these new ideas that George and others promote and could be a critical partner in helping philanthropists understand how to use their money more effectively to drive change in a sector that is undercapitalized and dysfunctional.
However, Sean and his firm will probably only work with a small group of the countless philanthropists out there, so again, what change does this signify? And how do we bring along other philanthropists who cannot or will not be touched by Tactical Philanthropy Advisors?
It all comes down to the single question: How does change happen?
I would argue that it is not enough to have single examples in the largest nonprofits or among the largest philanthropists. The Nonprofit Finance Fund, Teach for America, Sea Change Capital, Tactical Philanthropy Advisors and all the other cutting-edge thinkers and examples of how we can do things better are great and absolutely necessary. Without innovation we have nothing.
But let’s not forget stage two, whenever it may come, that involves making these great examples the norm. The day when all, or most, nonprofits understand and have access to the power of patient capital and capacity capital, when all or most philanthropists understand the power of investments rather than gifts and how to truly support social change. Ten deals are great, but they are just a start. True change must be systemic, must be ingrained, must become the norm. It can’t exist just on the East and West coasts. It can’t just be in the understanding and practice of the largest, most resourced organizations. That’s why I started Social Velocity; I wanted to bring these cutting-edge ideas and practices to places, organizations and philanthropists that weren’t in the top 10, but were still instrumental to creating social change. To really be transformative, these new ideas have to become common practice. As David Bornstein has put it:
An important social change frequently begins with a single entrepreneurial author: one obsessive individual who sees a problem and envisions a new solution, who takes the initiative to act on that vision, who gathers resources and builds organizations to protect and market that vision, who provides the energy and sustained focus to overcome the inevitable resistance, and who- decade after decade- keeps improving, strengthening, and broadening that vision until what was once a marginal idea has become a new norm.
I applaud people like Sean and George and the countless others who are working to change mindsets, organizations, systems and structures. Let’s build on the innovation they have started and make those powerful ideas and examples the new norm.
The news in the philanthropy world this week is not good. It seems that our fears about the effect of the economic downturn on philanthropy are being confirmed in spades. The Ford Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, two of the largest in the country, are both reducing their staffs by 30%+ and making other cuts in expenses in order to maintain previous years’ giving levels. The report on 2008 charitable giving released by Giving USA last week shows the largest percentage decline on record, although as Sean Stannard-Stockton of the Tactical Philanthropy blog wisely points out:
Charitable giving behaved more or less as it normally does when the economy sours. This is, by most measures, the worst recession in a very long time and so we’re seeing charitable giving get hit. But it is only declining in line with the way it normally behaves. Things are tough, but there was no apocalypse.
Still, the news is troubling.
Although foundation giving makes up only 13% of the charitable giving pie, their reaction to an economic crisis can have a dramatic impact on charitable giving overall. Foundations are in some ways viewed as the philanthropic experts and can set trends that can transform the impact of philanthropy. Take the Gates Foundation for example. Last year they received $10.4 million in unsolicited donations simply because other philanthropists think that Gates is a philanthropic leader.
So now is the time for foundations to lead the way towards more effective philanthropy–philanthropy that builds and scales organizations rather than buys services, as Michael Selzer, writer, educator, nonprofit leader and PhilanTopic contributor, points out in his recent post. Michael argues that the economic crisis provides a natural impetus to foundations to become builders of organizations rather than buyers of services, and in fact he poses a provocative question:
A growing number of foundations are beginning to think of themselves as “builders” rather than “buyers”…buyers award grants with an eye to achieving specific programmatic outcomes, while builders, always mindful of outcomes, seek to help grantees strengthen their organizational capacity so as to achieve greater impact in the future. To the extent that “buying” is limited to a relatively short-term transaction rather than a longer-term interest in the organizational well-being of the grantee, it is not an especially productive activity. Which leads me to ask: What foundation would want to be a buyer rather than a builder in today’s environment?
Michael goes on to somewhat equate “building” funds with general operating support, pointing out that only 20% of all grants go to operating, whereas 50% of all grants go to specific programs or projects. He offers a list of ways for foundations to increase their “builder” funding while still supporting specific programs. His list includes giving grantees the latitude to adequately account for indirect costs, expediting grant approval processes, expanding grant periods to more than a year, and sharing responsibility with grantees for securing remaining program costs if the foundation is only funding part of the program. Michael calls these “extraordinary measures” for “building the capacity of the nonprofit sector for the long haul.”
I disagree. Nothing in his list seems extraordinary to me. The economic crisis and the resulting effects on philanthropy and the nonprofit sector does call for extraordinary measures, a resetting of both realms: the nonprofits and the philanthropists who fund them. And because foundations lead the charge in the philanthropic realm they have an obligation to take a hard look at how they do things and try some truly extraordinary measures. A list of truly extraordinary measures that foundations could take includes:
- Increasing the use of program-related investments (PRIs) to include capacity building projects like upgraded nonprofit fundraising functions.
- Exploring mission-related investing, investing part of a foundation’s corpus in social businesses that meet the foundation’s mission, to a much larger extent as a way to expand the reach and impact of the foundation.
- Increasing the percentage of capacity building and unrestricted grants that the foundation makes. Instead of 20%, let’s bump that number up to 40%.
- Exploring becoming a spend-down foundation that doesn’t exist in perpetuity, but rather spends their corpus in order to have a larger impact on social problems in this generation.
- Increasing growth capital investments–large ($500K+), 3-5 year investments that pay for the infrastructure required for a proven nonprofit to scale.
- Reducing the strings and reporting requirements placed on nonprofit grantees.
- Decreasing the push towards funding of new programs and investing more money and time in the infrastructure of proven programs that could grow to serve more people.
That’s not to say that there aren’t foundations out there that are doing these things. There absolutely are, but they are in the minority. Foundations as a group could help transform philanthropy by becoming builders more often than buyers. These are challenging, demanding, restructuring times. They call for bold, risky, extraordinary action. Foundations can lead that charge.
RISE finished up late last week. It was great to see all of the energy and excitement around social entrepreneurship. Indeed it seems that Austin has caught the tide of interest in social entrepreneurship that is sweeping the nation in the wake of the economic meltdown. Even the New York Times got on board last week with an article about how social entrepreneurship might be the best business model for some market opportunities.
In all of the interest in social entrepreneurship, one serious hurdle (among others, surely) is investment capital. Good Capital is planning their second annual Social Capital Markets Conference for this coming September. This is an opportunity for venture capitalists, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs and others to get together to talk about how we create a marketplace for capital interested in social impact. SoCap is a great thing, and I’m really hoping it will continue to expand the conversation and get people thinking, talking and experimenting with investing in these new entrepreneurs.
But a social capital marketplace hasn’t hit Austin yet. I do think, however, that there is tremendous potential for some of the wealth we have here to be turned into investment capital for social entrepreneurs. With that in mind I hosted a session at RISE on Wednesday about finding Growth Capital for Social Entrepreneurs. The session discussed two kinds of investment capital for social entrepreneurs: growth capital that helps an organization grow to scale (however they define scale), and capacity capital that helps an organization increase their capacity and sustainability. Both types of investment capital BUILD organizations instead of BUYING services. And both kinds of capital are difficult for social entrepreneurs to find, particularly in Austin. However, I laid out a plan for social entrepreneurs that takes them to their boards, major donors and friends to secure capital, much like a traditional business secures investment capital from angels and VCs. I think there is a lot of potential in this model, which even suggests PRIs (Program-Related Investments) as a vehicle to use to increase the capacity (particularly the fundraising function) of an organization.
The session ended with a comparison of Austin’s versus the rest of the nation in the social innovation movement.:
As you can see, when compared to similar cities, Austin’s use of these new tools is low. There is tremendous room for Austin to embrace social innovation. And I think the excitement around social entrepreneurship evident last week at RISE is a great place to start.
- Download a free Financing
Not Fundraising e-book
when you sign up for email
updates from Social Velocity.
Sign Up Here