In today’s Social Velocity interview, I’m talking with Katherine Lorenz, president of the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation. In late 2012, Forbes Magazine named Katherine “One to Watch” as an up-and-coming face in philanthropy. She also serves on the board of directors of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Institute for Philanthropy, Puente a la Salud Comunitaria, and the Association of Small Foundations.
Nell: There is a lot of interest in the next generation of philanthropists—Millennials who stand to inherit the largest wealth transfer in history. How do you think this next generation of philanthropists will be different than their predecessors and why?
Katherine: I do believe this next generation of philanthropists will be different than their predecessors. People tend to become interested in a specific issue or cause based on a personal experience—something that impacts their lives profoundly. It is only natural that this next generation of philanthropists will do their philanthropy differently; they grew up in a world that looked very different than the world their parents and grandparents grew up in. Things like 9/11 and social media were formative experiences for Millennials, so it should not be surprising that they will think differently than previous generations—just as the Great Depression had such an impact on the way their grandparents lived their lives and did their philanthropy.
A recent study by 21/64 and the Johnson Center on Philanthropy about next gen donors showed that this generation is more clearly driven by impact and effectiveness in their philanthropy than generations before them. They also want to be more hands-on in their engagement with an issue or an organization—they want to serve on boards or get involved in a more concrete way than just writing a check. They look at financial resources as only one tool in the toolbox, and seek to bring many other resources at their disposal to create change in the world.
Nell: Do you believe that next gen donors will actually divert more money to organizations that can prove they’ve created social change? Are we going to see the needle move in terms of funneling more money to proven social change efforts under their watch?
Katherine: I am not sure if we will actually see Millennial donors divert more resources to organizations that can prove they are creating social change. While I do believe this generation will ask for more metrics, and want to know the impact they are having more than previous generations, I think this group will also be open to taking more risks as they search for innovative solutions. In taking more risks, there will be more failure but also potential for more significant social change if the risk pays off. In sum, I think next gen donors will risk more and fail more than previous generations, although this should create more innovative methods that address the issues they care about.
Nell: What is your view on how family philanthropy evolves over time? For example, your grandparents’ generation’s understanding of and opinions about climate change are quite different than views about climate change now. How do changing views affect a philanthropic approach over time?
Katherine: I think that family foundations evolve with generational changes more in how they address issues than in what they address. Often a family holds very strong beliefs and values, and those are passed down from generation to generation. For example, my grandfather funded sustainability issues for more than 40 years, primarily funding large institutions or creating new institutions, and trying to bring businesses into the conversation. While climate change was an issue he cared about, the larger picture of how the earth will sustain a growing population with finite resources drove him. Those values and interests are acutely present in his children and grandchildren, although how we do philanthropy to address these issues is slightly different.
With more science available, it is clear that climate change is very clearly the biggest threat to a sustainable planet, and we are using different tools than my grandfather did to address the issue—more grassroots organizations, more policy and advocacy work, and less of a focus on big institutions. Our values around this topic very much came from my grandfather’s passion, but our approach in addressing the issue is quite different. I think a difference in generational approach is common in family foundations.
Nell: How do you think philanthropy could be more effective and better help nonprofits create change? What shifts in the philanthropic landscape are you particularly excited about seeing?
Katherine: I think one of the biggest problems in the non-profit sector stems from the relationship between the donors and their grantees. Donors often ask grantees to do special reporting or won’t pay for overhead expenses or ask them to do something outside of their current strategy. Grantees are often compelled to do these things in order to obtain funding, although sometimes they spend more time trying to please donors than doing the work at hand. Donors have unrealistic expectations of grantees, and non-profit leaders usually spend more time fundraising than working on the issue they were funded to address.
I would really like to see donors and grantees operate more like partners, and less like one is doing a favor for the other in exchange for funding. I would like to see donors fundamentally shift the conversation from a focus on lowering overhead costs to a focus on maximizing social benefit. Who cares if overhead is high if the organization is actually making a dent in the issue they’re trying to solve?
One shift I see in the philanthropy world that excites me is the growing number of groups that exist to help donors be more effective. Donor education is growing in popularity. Inheritors are realizing that doing philanthropy well is a serious job and requires training. As the field of donor education grows and formalizes, I think we will see donors doing a better job of allocating resources for social benefit.
Photo Credit: Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation
Since I was out of the office for part of July and checked out of social media (which I highly recommend!), the below list is in no way comprehensive. But it is what caught my eye in the world of social innovation in July (when I was paying attention). More than ever, please add what I missed in the comments below.
You can see the 10 Great Reads lists from past months here.
- In a highly provocative op-ed, Peter Buffett, son of Warren Buffett, wrote a pretty scathing rant against today’s philanthropy, calling it “conscience laundering — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.” Needless to say, much argument followed, including Howard Husock’s post arguing that Buffett is “far too pessimistic about what philanthropy, well-conceived, can accomplish.”
- Dan Cardinali, CEO of Communities in Schools and an emerging voice on the importance of measuring nonprofit outcomes, wrote a third piece in his series on redefining the nonprofit sector. This one explores the need for nonprofits to “hold ourselves accountable to objective measures and quantifiable outcomes.”
- And another nonprofit leader trying to shake things up, Bill Shore of Share Our Strength, offers the provocative “We Just Don’t Have the Money, and Other Fibs We Tell Ourselves“.
- Antony Bugg-Levine from the Nonprofit Finance Fund provides additional fodder to the conversation with his post “Navigating Tough Trade-offs in the Era of Scarcity.”
- Lucy Bernholz, philanthropy truth teller and future seer, offers three ways we can reinvent philanthropy in this great, short video brain dump.
- Kathleen Enright, CEO of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, talks with Paul Carttar, former Director of the Social Innovation Fund, about what he learned there. It remains to be seen what impact the Social Innovation Fund will have, but as Paul says, government can and must play a role in social innovation, “The challenge for everybody — for government and for philanthropy — is to understand what each has to offer.”
- The New York Times uses Think Impact (which encourages entrepreneurship in third world communities) to provide an interesting case study of the dilemma of deciding whether to be a for-profit or nonprofit social change organization.
- Ever provocative, Phil Buchanan from the Center for Effective Philanthropy argues that the approach MBA programs take in teaching philanthropy “denies the reality that nonprofits and philanthropy work to address the problems that have defied markets…and, in many cases, are a result of market failure.”
- Writing on the Pioneers Post blog, Jeremy Nicholls takes issue with the word “impact” and encourages us to think about “value” instead.
- The National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy found that in 2011 American foundations increased unrestricted giving by 50% (from 16% of all grant dollars going to support general operating in 2010 to 24% in 2011). Now that’s an exciting trend!
Photo Credit: josue64
Note: I was asked by Markets for Good to write a post as part of their ongoing online conversation about improving how money flows to social change. Markets for Good is an effort by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the financial firm Liquidnet to improve the system for generating, sharing, and acting upon data and information in the social sector.
Over the past several years, Markets for Good has been a forum for discussion and collaboration among online giving platforms, nonprofit information providers, nonprofit evaluators, philanthropic advisors, and other entities working to improve the global philanthropic system and social sector. Below is the post I wrote. You can see this post and the others in their series and contribute to the ongoing conversation at the Markets for Good blog.
As we talk about creating a space “where capital flows efficiently to the organizations that are having the greatest impact” we must address the elephant in the room: how nonprofits are funded.
Currently that’s a pretty broken model. And if we are ever to direct more money to more social change, we must fix it.
In an ideal world, a social change organization would create a potential solution to a social problem, prove that the solution actual resulted in change, and then attract sustainable funding to grow that solution.
But that’s not currently happening because the way nonprofits are funded is broken in three key ways:
Nonprofits don’t articulate a theory of change. 10 years ago it was enough for “charities” to “do good work.” In an ever-increasing drumbeat nonprofits are being asked to demonstrate outcomes and impact. And for good reason. If we are truly interested in social change then we must understand which organizations are actually creating it and thus deserve our investment.
But you cannot demonstrate outcomes and impact if you have not first articulated what outcomes and impact you think your solution provides. Those nonprofits that truly want to solve a social problem (as opposed to simply provide social services) must articulate a theory of change. A theory of change is an argument for how a nonprofit turns community resources (money, volunteers, clients, staff) into positive change to a social problem. It seems simple, yet most nonprofits working toward social change have not done this.
We need to change that. This simple argument is the first step in creating real, lasting social change and attracting money to be able to do it in a financially sustainable way.
Nonprofits struggle to prove impact. Once a theory of change is in place, nonprofits need to prove whether that theory is actually becoming a reality. Nonprofits have struggled for years to figure out how to measure whether they are actually achieving results. But they cannot figure it out on their own.
Philanthropy needs to step up to help fund the work, or on a much larger scale, social science could prove the impact of overall interventions that nonprofits can then implement.
Either way, the burden of proof can no longer rest solely on the shoulders of individual nonprofits.
Fundraising isn’t sustainable. Once social change is actually happening, we want to grow that effective solution in a sustainable way. But that necessitates a real financial model.
Most nonprofits chase low-return fundraising efforts that lock them into a band-aid approach that is far from financial sustainability. Few nonprofits create and execute on an overall strategic financial model that aligns with the impact they want to achieve and their organizational assets.
We have to stop the madness.
We must help nonprofits create an overall financial engine that strategically and effectively supports the social change they are working toward.
Philanthropists must provide nonprofits the runway necessary to find the right financial model for their organizations. Capacity capital funding could do this, allowing nonprofits the space to analyze their current money-raising activities and create and execute on a plan for transforming those into a sustainable financial model. The end result would be nonprofits with a great solution to offer suddenly have the ability to grow the solution in a sustainable way.
If we are really serious about directing more money to more social change, we need to reinvent how money flows to nonprofits. Instead of relying on a broken fundraising model, we need to take a big step back and get strategic. With articulated theories of change, systems for effectively proving impact and the runway to create real financial models, nonprofits will be able to bring social change to sustainable fruition.
Photo Credit: Markets for Good
There is a missing link, I think, in how many nonprofit fundraisers approach their work. And that missing link is effective messaging. Fundraising often uses the messaging of need. “We need $100 to provide our programs.” “We need $1,000 to meet our goals.” And many who counsel fundraisers continue to stress the messaging of need, for example Mal Warwick’s most recent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Mal encourages fundraisers to strengthen their case for giving, but, for Mal, this case for giving is about the organization’s need: “be certain your donors understand both the more urgent need for your services during tough times and the many concrete steps you’re taking to increase your efficiency and effectiveness.”
That’s not how to raise money effectively. To raise significant money you need to focus on impact. The messaging of impact is very different from the messaging of organizational need. The messaging of need gets you donations. The messaging of impact gets you investments. And the two are very different:
- Focus on organizational needs
- Tend to be smaller in size and shorter in length
- Are a response to an apologetic ask (the “tin cup” mentality)
- Focus on the impact (the change in outcomes) that an organization makes in the community
- Tend to be larger and longer
- Are presented as an opportunity
To raise significant, sustainable revenue, nonprofits have to move towards developing investors. Here is how raising investments differs from raising donations:
A successful fundraiser looks for investors who share the organization’s values and theory of change, and then demonstrates to them how the nonprofit creates that change in the community. The organization is merely a conduit for investing in change in the community. For example, an afterschool program for at-risk children is translating dollars into positive outcomes for the children in their charge (increased student achievement, fewer high-school drop outs, lower crime rates, etc.). If the organization were to fundraise around the organization’s needs, “Help us reach our goal of raising $100,000 for our program,” they would raise far less than if they were to fundraise around impact, “Invest in our organization so that we can improve opportunities for children, which creates fewer burdens on our community, more contributing members, and a healthier overall community.” The first message is about strengthening an organization, the second message is about strengthening a community. Which is more compelling? Which would make someone give more and continue to give if the promised impact is actually delivered?
The recession is, no doubt, a difficult time to raise money. But within this structural constraint there lies an opportunity. By moving an organization’s messaging from need to impact, from donation to investment, there is the opportunity to raise much more money and in so doing, to deliver much more impact.
- Download a free Financing
Not Fundraising e-book
when you sign up for email
updates from Social Velocity.
Sign Up Here