I was recently fortunate to be on a RISE panel with a great mix of entrepreneurs and venture investors turned philanthropists, private foundation founders and social investors, all talking about investment in social enterprises.  The discussion emphasized the grant-making functions of the foundations represented on the panel and the exciting ventures that these grants were supporting. However, as often happens, there was no discussion about the potential for social impact investing by the investment functions of these organizations if they were to allocate a portion of their investment capital to activities that could produce both a financial return and a social impact.

I mentioned that this seemed to be a missed opportunity since the investment function of U.S. foundations manages about $550 billion whereas the grant-making function manages a much smaller amount: about $45 billion a year.  This would seem to imply that small program-related or mission-related investment allocations out of the $550 billion under management could represent much greater impact investing potential than would similar allocations of grant funds.  I also mentioned a cautionary tale as revealed in an LA Times article in 2007, where it was pointed out that the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest private foundation, was investing for a financial return in companies whose business practices were causing harm to individuals that were at the same time receiving benefits from NGOs supported by Gates Foundation grant funding.  Given that investment dollars comprise such a much larger sum, such returns-only investment practices could be undermining the value of grants, resulting in questionable net positive impact if viewed holistically.

What I failed to add to this conundrum is that the Gates Foundation has now recognized the opportunity to be a thought leader in making social enterprise investments out of their investment capital.  Below is an excerpt from the Gates Foundation website explaining features of their pilot $400 million PRI initiative.

Q. What is the [Gates] foundation’s new approach to Program-Related Investments?
A. We are working with a range of partners to use Program-Related Investments (PRIs) to deepen the impact of our work. We believe that investments are the right instruments to use in situations in which our program strategies are best served by partnering with revenue-generating enterprises, such as NGOs, financial institutions or companies. These entities may not be able to access investment capital from the private markets because the markets or entities that serve the poor may be perceived as too risky or costly to serve, or investors don’t have good information to assess the opportunities. By providing investment capital directly or by reducing risk to investors, we can help our partners access the capital they need to grow and demonstrate to the market that financially viable opportunities exist that serve the needs of poor or otherwise disadvantaged persons.  We know we can’t solve all problems with these types of investments – grant-making remains critical for those sectors that can never generate revenues or be addressed by market forces.

We have established a pilot program with an envelope of $400 million to invest in a range of investment opportunities. The capital for PRI investments or guarantees will be provided by this special $400M pool which will be managed by the CFO’s office of the foundation. Out of this pool, we will invest in PRIs that directly and meaningfully contribute to the achievement of the foundation’s charitable purposes.

Q. What types of investments will the foundation do?
A. We will evaluate a full range of investment opportunities that could include:

• Debt investments such as loans to NGOs, financial institutions or companies;
• Equity investments such as investments in venture capital funds or (less commonly) purchases of shares in companies;
• Guaranty investments such as bond back-stops, credit guarantees, or insurance.
• Any PRI opportunity must closely align with our program strategies, from increasing financing for agricultural smallholders in Africa, to supporting charter school facilities expansion, to increasing investment in global health technologies.

I spoke with a colleague who is close to Gates Foundation CFO Alex Friedman, who launched this PRI program, and he told me that a key part of the pilot launch was to organize a new group whose financial returns would not impact the performance objectives of the office of the CIO.  This was intended to free the new PRI group to focus more on social return than on financial return.

It is certainly exciting news that this $400 million, representing roughly 1% of the Gates Foundation’s capital under management, is now available for both financial and social return when invested in partnership with social entrepreneurs.  However, what may be even more exciting is that the intention of the move is to encourage other private foundations to do likewise and for Gates to thus be a catalyst for multiples of the $400 million to show up in the market as risk capital for social enterprises.  Could this be the beginning of large pools of capital available for direct impact investing, social venture funds and private equity funds, and the creation of a true continuum of capital availability in what is today a very nascent social capital market?

About the Author: Nell Edgington is President of Social Velocity (www.socialvelocity.net), a management consulting firm leading nonprofits to greater social impact and financial sustainability. In addition to leading Social Velocity's efforts to accelerate social innovation, she is a regular contributor to Change.org's Social Entrepreneurship blog and speaks at social innovation gatherings.

Related posts:

1. Can Slow Money Launch an Austin Social Capital Market?
2. The Social Capital Markets Conference 3.0
3. PRIs: Another Part of the Emerging Social Capital Market

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.

About the Author: Nell Edgington is President of Social Velocity (www.socialvelocity.net), a management consulting firm leading nonprofits to greater social impact and financial sustainability. In addition to leading Social Velocity's efforts to accelerate social innovation, she is a regular contributor to Change.org's Social Entrepreneurship blog and speaks at social innovation gatherings.

Related posts:

1. Foundations’ Role in a Tough Economy
2. Resetting Philanthropy
3. Data and the Future of Philanthropy: An Interview with Lucy Bernholz

Scott Collier, Managing Director of Triton Ventures, has thought a lot about mission-related investing, and I’ve asked him to do a guest blog on the topic.  Scott has been a venture capital investor since 1991. He has experience in all aspects of venture capital fund formation and management and the associated growth, financing and exit strategies for a diverse range of companies.  Scott serves on the board of the Entrepreneurs Foundation of Central Texas and is an active participant in microfinance and social enterprise initiatives, primarily focused on financing for social business. Here is his post:

From the largest foundation to the smallest donor-advised fund, the philanthropic world tends to manage assets in a way designed to preserve fund corpus while generating enough growth and/or income to achieve the 5% grant level necessary to maintain tax-free status. However, what has evolved from this mindset is a bifurcated structure where grant programs are expected to be the sole means of performing the mission while the asset management function focuses on optimizing returns.  In fact, people speak of a firewall between these two activities.  Unfortunately, this leaves much of the talent (and operating expense) dedicated to investment work that does nothing to further the organization’s mission.

More problematic, asset managers can and do end up making investments that generate a good rate of return but support companies that happen to work at cross purposes to the mission.  This sort of problem was brought to light a couple of years ago when the LA Times questioned why the Gates Foundation would invest hundreds of millions of dollars in companies generating toxic pollution blamed for sickening people living in communities receiving tens of millions in Gates-funded medical aid. Setting aside the moral implications of this situation, it’s irrational to allow the two parts of any organization to work at such obvious cross purposes.

What seems to make sense is a holistic view of foundation management that considers all investing to be mission related investing with the result that all cash outflows balance risk, return and mission impact. This approach implies five categories of investment along the continuum of philanthropy:

1. Program Grants: Currently maintained at a nominal 5% of total assets, these investments are absolutely certain to produce a negative 100% financial return.  So perhaps it would make sense to take this allocation to a lower percentage to make room for other investments that carry better returns (you can’t do any worse after all) and a different type of impact.  Perhaps even a more lasting and healthy impact.
2. Program Related Investments: Nell had an excellent post on this topic.  Deployed as loans at below-market yields, the risk-adjusted returns over time might be zero or negative but still better than the negative 100% generated by Program Grants.  Structured correctly, a PRI is counted by the IRS in the required 5% and if it were taken to a level of just 10 or 20 percent of the Program Grant spend it could transform the relationship that foundations have with their investees.  After all, in the right situation, a loan to support a move to self-sufficiency can be healthier for the recipient than a handout that creates a cycle of dependency.
3. Mission Related Investments: This category comprises mission-directed investments that fall outside the limits of what can be considered part of a foundation’s 5% qualifying distributions.  In aggregate these MRIs would target, on a risk-adjusted basis, just a return of capital or perhaps a small return beyond that, but still a below market return in exchange for driving a substantial mission impact.  Investments in this category could provide a tremendous boost to the nascent social business space.
4. Mission Aligned Investments: After evaluating for ROI potential, investments would get priority in this segment given the degree to which they enhance the mission.  A good corporate citizen in a country where the foundation does work might be enough to tip the balance in favor of investment.  Over time this could become a significant percentage of the income-producing portfolio and given the magnitude of dollars involved it could encourage corporate behavior to move in positive directions.
5. Mission Neutral Investments: The lowest social standard of the five, investments in this category would be held after ensuring that a reasonably sound “doing no harm” standard is upheld.  Verification of the standard would of course be subjective and based on limited insight into the business, but perhaps even such a sniff test is better than no test at all.

So consider a typical foundation that during the course of a year has 95% of its assets spread among the usual allocation of bonds, equities, and a smattering of alternative assets, leaving 5% to be distributed as grants.  If this allocation produced a 9% blended return on the investment portfolio, then net of Program Grants the overall annual rate of return would be 3.55%.

Now consider what happens if this foundation makes 2 small changes:

1. Program Grants are reduced to 4% with 1% going to PRIs that generate a negative 10% annual rate of return, and
2. 2% of the 95% portfolio goes into MRIs that only return capital.  The remaining 93% remains allocated in the same proportions as the 95% was before with the same 9% rate of return.  These changes produce a 4.27% rate of return: an overall improvement of about 70 basis points.

Starting with a $10 million foundation and compounding this difference over 10 years, this new allocation would mean the foundation would end up about $1 million larger than if it had stuck with the traditional 95/5 split.  More importantly, such a foundation would have been deploying 7% of its assets in mission-focused work instead of 5%, a $3 million aggregate difference over 10 years.  About 40% of that money would have been in the form of loans which, properly chosen and structured, enable local ownership and sustainable employment capable of going beyond where charity too often ends.  Replicated gradually across the trillions of dollars locked up in philanthropic corpus, such a rethinking of foundation asset management and mission investing could produce dramatic results.

About the Author: Nell Edgington is President of Social Velocity (www.socialvelocity.net), a management consulting firm leading nonprofits to greater social impact and financial sustainability. In addition to leading Social Velocity's efforts to accelerate social innovation, she is a regular contributor to Change.org's Social Entrepreneurship blog and speaks at social innovation gatherings.

Related posts:

1. A Watershed for the Social Capital Market?
2. Foundations Can Lead the Charge Toward a New Philanthropy
3. PRIs: Another Part of the Emerging Social Capital Market