Social Innovation Fund Grant Opportunity: Post # 1

During the last half of 2009, the Corporation for National and Community Service advertised on its website that the Social Innovation Fund grant application, or NOFA, would be posted in mid-December.  They have finally posted a draft NOFA but are first seeking feedback from the foundation field on three aspects of the draft:  How they should define "low-income communities", how they should assess the intermediary foundations, and how they should assess the subgrantee nonprofits. 

While the Corporation initially stated that grants to intermediary foundations, such as community foundations like ours, would be between $1 million and $10 million, they have now increased the minimum grant level to $5 million.  Because an SIF grant award requires a dollar for dollar match by the intermediary foundation, this increase in the minimum grant level to $5 million creates an insurmountable barrier for many of us.  In my comments to the draft NOFA, I will be asking the Corporation to consider reducing the minimum grant level back down to $1 million, thereby enabling community foundations like ours to apply. 

If you are even remotely interested in applying for an SIF grant, please lend your voice to the dialogue and take some time to provide feedback to the Corporation on these issues.  It is not too late to influence their decisions on many things, including the minimum grant levels.  Comments are due January 15, 2010.

Stanford Social Innovation Review - Winter 2010 Issue - Post # 1

“The Wrong Risks” by Sheela Patel.

For those of us who run foundations, it is uncommon to hear experienced based and uncensored criticism from the nonprofit grantee world. But a great example of just that is found in "The Wrong Risks," an article by Sheela Patel in the most recent issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review. Sheela worked in a community service center in Mumbai, looking for answers to the entrenched poverty of the “pavement dwellers,” the poorest of the poor in the region. Through years of trial and error, social activism, provocation and dedication, her organization - the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers (SPARC) - found real answers and actually moved the needle for her clients and constituents.

However, were she to start SPARC today, she believes she would never find the funding to run it. Why? Because in the intervening 20 years, foundations have become risk adverse, preferring to protect themselves rather than to take the risks inherent in confronting unjust social structures. And because foundations have become arrogant, perceiving themselves as experts in the field and therefore authoritative, rather than facilitative, partners with their grantees. She says “…foundations today are increasingly treating organizations like ours not as innovators, but as contractors who are hired to deliver their visions.”

Nonprofits are afraid to tell this truth because they need foundation grants. The power imbalance in the relationship between foundations and their grantees weighs in favor of the grant maker and tends to stifle open dialogue.  So I can't help but feel that this article is a gift and presents an opportunity. The new season and new year is a good time to ask: Are we being risk adverse? Are we being arrogant? What is the highest and best use of this Community Foundation? 

Just asking the question opens up a space between thinking and organizational behavior.

Dorothy Reynolds at the Council on Foundations

Dorothy Reynolds spoke at the Council on Foundations on Tuesday December 15. We were a small group of community foundation leaders discussing opportunities and challenges around the community leadership role. Dottie is a reflective nonprofit leader who has run community foundations and consulted with such organizations all over the world.  Currently she is a consultant with the Mott Foundation. 

My primary take away from the session:  Look for leadership opportunities and pursue the ones in which you can make a difference, but never, never, never take your eye off the unrestricted fundraising ball!

Chronicle of Philanthropy - December 10 Article - Charities Trying to Spark Year-End Gifts

The December 10 issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy includes this article about year end giving in 2009 – with the bright spot being found in a study by Convio, a fund-raising software company, that found donors will give $4 billion online this holiday season!

The Chronicle of Philanthropy - December 10, 2009 Issue

Charities Look for Ways to Unlock the Benefits of Social-Media Tools, by Caroline Preston

This article in the December 10 issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy takes a look at the growing skepticism at online social networking as a fund raising tool. By one estimate given in Philanthropy Action, an online journal for donors, 74% of midsize charities surveyed raised less than $100 using social network sites. A general consensus exists that social networking may be good for raising small donations over a brief period of time and spreading the word about the organization.

Having started a Facebook page for the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia and this blog about foundation leadership, I think it is good for all community foundations to be in the game of social networking, even if its entire potential has not yet been discovered or unleashed.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy - December 10, 2009 Issue

10 Emerging Forces:  What the Nonprofit World will Face in a New Year

This special report from the December 10 issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy presents a daunting list of challenges facing the nonprofit world in 2010. The authors go so far as to say that “By every measure, 2010 could be far more painful for charities and the people they serve than any other they have known.” Highlights:

1. Government in Crisis. The spending/budget cuts and the end to Stimulus money is terrible news for nonprofits that rely heavily on government grants and contracts.

2. Strains in the Safety Net. This refers to the time that occurs in recovery from a recession and the strain that places on the lives of the unemployed, new poor, and the nonprofits that serve them.

3. Full Court Press for Modest Gifts. We will work twice as hard for half the contributions.

4. Grim Grants Outlook. Endowments have been hit hard, and most foundations will give less away in 2010 than they did in 2009 because of the 3 year rolling average many use to calculate their grant budgets.

5. Rising Donor-Charity Tensions. Donors want to direct their gifts and obtain good feedback on their impact.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy - December 10, 2009 Issue

Foundations Need to Take Greater Chances in Hiring Leaders, by Pablo Eisenberg

In the December 10 issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Pablo Eisenberg, a Senior Fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute and a fascinating foundation world pundit, writes an insightful article about the current thinking and process of hiring foundation leaders.  He cites the increasing reliance on professional recruiters to fill the top slots from external candidate pools, a practice that is pervasive today.

Eisenberg argues that problems exist with this process.  First, executive recruiters normally would not promote a candidate that is “edgy” or a risk taker. And by weeding out such candidates, the executive recruiter basically substitutes its judgment for that of the Board. Mr. Eisenberg blames this practice for “the selection of so many mediocre, lackluster people in the nonprofit world.” Second, the process ignores the well qualified talent within, such as successful program officers who already have great relationships with donors and grantees.

The Balancing Act - Community Foundations as Community Leaders, by Dorothy Reynolds

This is the third and last monogram in the series written by Dorothy Reynolds and published by the Mott Foundation last year, currently available on their website. Highlighting the uniquely broad perspective of community foundations and their resultant ability to take the long view, the author argues that we are well positioned for a “community leader” role, a name that implies active participation. She described the role as identifying an issue, having a general sense of the desired outcome, and conducting a process that includes many stakeholders. Can we remain independent and still advocate for the best possible community outcome? Ms. Reynolds thinks so. Appropriateness for leadership on a particular issue and organizational capacity for leadership are factors to consider. But dealing with the consequences of leadership can be the most difficult aspect of the role when the issue is controversial or divisive among board members and donors.

The Balancing Act - Community Foundation as a Vehicle for Philanthropy, by Dorothy Reynolds

This is the second monogram in the series written by Dorothy Reynolds and published by the Mott Foundation last year - available on their website.

Here Ms. Reynolds highlights the benefits of having both donor advised funds and permanently endowed unrestricted assets and the synergy that can occur between them.  In recent years, the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia has experienced just such a synergy, especially when we share our grant applications for which we have insufficient discretionary funds with our donor advisors. More and more of our advisors are responding to our requests for help, thus growing our impact on community needs.

I especially appreciated this one comment: “If professional advisers understand the flexibility and stewardship of a community foundation, if they understand that the foundation is not just another charity to give to, but rather to give through, they will be comfortable discussing it with clients.”

The Balancing Act - Community Foundation as a Grantmaker, by Dorothy Reynolds

This monogram, which was published by the Mott Foundation last year and is available through their website, argues that good grant making is a good asset development tool.  One feeds the other.  As community foundations grow and mature, they must address the work of assessing community needs, deciding what they care about, and setting grant making priorities. While awarding grants is so much more pleasant than fundraising, unrestricted asset development is KEY to the future growth of the community foundation. The author makes a great point that grant making should never distract the foundation from its unrestricted fundraising activities.

Dorothy Reynolds encourages us not to fret about the size of our assets or reduced endowment values, but to primarily focus on what is possible. What niche can we fill with the assets we already have. 

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #3)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the LAST of three posts on the article.

Third: How can we improve our results over time? (Getting better)

Improving results and getting better takes the development of a culture of continual improvement and strong leadership. To improve outcomes, foundations must get constant feedback from the field and measure their results, something that we often demand of our grantees but do precious little of ourselves.

Once again, the authors suggest two traps to avoid:  First, failing to solicit outside perspectives. Genuine feedback mechanisms create a learning loop that foundations need to up their game. Second, underestimating the power of nonfinancial assets. Some examples of nonfinancial assets that funders can bring to the table are long-term commitments and help with strategic planning.

In summary: Devise an ambitions and realistic strategy for social change, put it front and center, and demand a stronger performance from ourselves.

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #3)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the LAST of three posts on the article.

Third:  How can we improve our results over time? (Getting better)

Improving results and getting better takes the development of a culture of continual improvement and strong leadership. To improve outcomes, foundations must get constant feedback from the field and measure their results, something that we often demand of our grantees but do precious little of ourselves.

Once again, the authors suggest two traps to avoid: First, failing to solicit outside perspectives. Genuine feedback mechanisms create a learning loop that foundations need to up their game. Second, underestimating the power of nonfinancial assets. Some examples of nonfinancial assets that funders can bring to the table are long-term commitments and help with strategic planning.

In summary: Devise an ambitions and realistic strategy for social change, put it front and center, and demand a stronger performance from ourselves.

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #2)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the SECOND of three posts on the article.

Second: What will it take to make change happen? (Getting real)

Conventional philanthropy, or the process of funding individual grantees to support great initiatives, may be just what a foundation should be doing. Or, grant making funds could be dedicated to helping a multi-pronged solution to a complex problem that the entire community is working to fix. Or, investment in innovative ideas may the answer for the foundation. Whatever the decision on how to give away philanthropic dollars, the authors of “Galvanizing Philanthropy” suggest collecting candid feedback from the community to help evaluate the chosen direction. Moving the needle on a complex social problem is not easy and requires a reality check from time to time.

Most foundations are not realistic about what it takes to make real change happen. The authors suggest two traps to avoid here: First, don’t be too optimistic about what limited resources can do, and second, don’t hire people and create processes that don’t fit your chosen strategy.

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #1)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the FIRST of three posts on the article.

What is the lasting effect of any philanthropic investment? Often it’s hard to tell. This is a stunning and discouraging fact, especially after years of experience with social investment and countless billions of philanthropic dollars spent nationally.  The authors of "Galvanizing Philanthropy" in this month's Harvard Business Review suggest an approach that could strengthen the foundation world’s impact.  They recommend an iterative process that gauges the impact of philanthropic investments.  It starts by asking three questions that help the organization get clear, get real, and get better.

First: How do we define success? (Getting clear)

Use your strategic planning process to define a few “strategic anchors,” namely, what are the people, problems, places, and philosophies that we care about as a foundation. Once the organization is clear on its strategic anchors, the programs, initiatives, and identity of the grantees naturally follow.

The article encourages taking a look at both hard evidence and data (what we know), and then applying the organization’s values to that data (what we care about).  Even at the foundation level, philanthropy is values-driven.

Some useful questions to ask in this process are provided in the article: “How do we believe change happens? What role to we want to play in tackling this issue? Do we prefer market-based approaches, policy-based approaches, or neither?  Do we favor a vibrant field of volunteer led organizations or a few larger, professionally managed ones?”

Needs data first.  Applied organizational values second.  And only then are decisions on grant making clearer. 

What's Wrong With Charitable Giving - And How to Fix It (Post #3)

In the November 9th issue of the Wall Street Journal, Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow in the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., wrote an article entitled “What's Wrong With Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It.” This is the LAST post about that article.

Eisenberg’s final three recommended changes for donors and foundations in order to fix what’s wrong with charitable giving are:

7. Simplify Application and Reporting Procedures

Foundations need to use common grant applications and simplify both the grant application process and follow up financial reporting process.

8. Improve Public Accountability

Who holds the nonprofit sector accountable? Not government so much any more. Not independent investigative journalism which is disappearing. One idea: Eisenberg recommends converting failing or at-risk newspapers into nonprofits that could, among other things, perform this function.

9. Fund the Watchdogs

A dearth of funding for advocacy and watchdog organizations exists, and foundations are reluctant to subject themselves to criticism. Needless to say, this is probably the biggest challenge facing the sector.

In summary, Eisenberg is calling for a complete overhaul in the way foundations think about and do philanthropy. More funding, flexible capital, grassroots outreach, true understanding of critical community needs, public accountability. Less bureaucracy.

Sounds about right.

What's Wrong With Charitable Giving - And How To Fix It (Post #2)

In the November 9th issue of the Wall Street Journal, Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow in the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., wrote an article entitled “What's Wrong With Charitable Giving—and How to Fix It.” This is the SECOND in a series of posts about that article.

Eisenberg’s next three suggestions for fixing charitable giving are as follows:

4. Adopt Rolling Grant Making

In other words, don’t make the nonprofits bend to fit the annual or biannual grants cycle of foundations. Rather, delegate ongoing grant making authority to a Board Level grants committee so nonprofits may apply for and receive necessary funding at any time during their fiscal year.

5. Allocate More Funds to the Truly Needy

Nationally, only 3% to 5% of foundation funding goes directly to nonprofits serving those in the greatest need. Rather, the overwhelming bulk of foundation funding goes to higher education and larger health and arts organizations. Eisenberg recommends a rebalancing of this.

6. Reach Out to Local Groups And Underserved Regions

Foundations should do more to stay in touch with local nonprofits who have their finger on the pulse of critical local needs. More local action, interpersonal contact, and understanding is in order.

What's Wrong With Charitable Giving - And How To Fix It (Post #1)

In the November 9th issue of the Wall Street Journal, Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow in the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership at Georgetown Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., wrote an article entitled “What's Wrong With Charitable Giving—And How To Fix It.” This is the FIRST in a series of posts about that article.

The foundation world is being asked to take a hard look at its grant making policies and practices. Are we giving nonprofits enough, and are we funding the most critical needs of the region? In this recent WSJ article, Eisenberg answers both questions with a resounding NO. Caught in the squeeze between reduced funding and increased demand for services, nonprofits are being forced to cut essential health and social services.

Eisenberg therefore lists 9 changes donors and foundations could do to fix this problem.  Here are the first three.

1. Increase the Distribution Percentage

Even when foundation endowments were increasingover the last 20 years, the minimum required payout rate for foundation net assets stayed at 5%. Eisenberg advocates an increase in the payout rate to 6%. He estimates that one additional percentage point would add approximately $10 billion to total annual nonprofit grant making.

2. Increase General Operating Support

Like Rick Cohen, Eisenberg advocates flexible capital for nonprofits, recommending that at least 50% of our grants be unrestricted. Give nonprofits the “lifeblood” they needs to hire and maintain staff so they can build internal capacity and improve community impact.

3. Increase Multiyear Funding

As any nonprofit executive will tell you, planning is virtually impossible without multiyear commitments from funders. Fund the best nonprofits out there, and let them achieve long term success that only multiyear funding can promote.

Philanthropy for the Future (Post #4)

This week I’ll be discussing an article that was published on “Dialogues on Civic Philanthropy”, http://www.civicphilanthropy.net/. Rick Cohen, the former Executive Director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, posted an opinion piece on that website entitled What Can and Should Philanthropy Do in the Future?  This is the LAST post in the series.

Foundations Should Provide Flexible Capital to Nonprofits

Rick Cohen frames this issue very clearly. He believes that foundations must increase grants for core operating support of nonprofits, and I couldn’t agree more. General operating grants provide the kind of funding that is critical for the effective functioning and survival of nonprofits. Period. It isn’t glamorous, cutting edge, or sexy. It’s just necessary, in the truest sense of that word.

The safety net nonprofits literally hold up the sky for our neediest neighbors. We can’t forsake them for the latest and greatest “social entrepreneurship” endeavor that comes along.  Community foundations are well positioned to support the existing, long standing, well managed safety net nonprofits.  Indeed, there probably isn't a better way to deploy the majority of available unrestricted grant dollars in 2010.

His message is clear:  Foundations need to refocus on critical community needs.  Fund the safety net nonprofits and provide them with general operating support whenever possible.

Philanthropy for the Future (Post #3)

This week I’ll be discussing an article that was published on “Dialogues on Civic Philanthropy”, http://www.civicphilanthropy.net/. Rick Cohen, the former Executive Director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, posted an opinion piece on that website entitled What Can and Should Philanthropy Do in the Future? This is the THIRD in a series of posts on Cohen’s article.

Foundations Should Listen to Those Most Affected by the Challenges of our Society and Let Them Weigh In on the Solutions.

What Cohen is really advocating is the democratization of foundation philanthropy. He is urging foundations to stay open, above all to listen, to the nonprofits at the forefront of the biggest societal problems in the service area. This can’t help but grow the foundation’s understanding of critical community needs and inform it’s grant making accordingly.

Funding grassroots organizations gives voice and power to our diverse community. Without community input on community problems, donors to foundations will have turned over responsibility for helping to meet community needs to what Cohen calls the “philanthropic philosopher kings and queens” of the foundation world.

In this segment of his opinion piece, Cohen is focusing on the question of who. Who is most knowledgeable of critical community needs? It is of course the people most challenged by them and the grassroots nonprofits that help address them.

Philanthropy for the Future (Post #2)

This week I’ll be discussing an article that was published on “Dialogues on Civic Philanthropy”, http://www.civicphilanthropy.net/.  Rick Cohen, the former Executive Director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, posted an opinion piece on that website entitled What Can and Should Philanthropy Do in the Future? This is the SECOND in a series of posts on Cohen’s article.

Foundations Should Focus Philanthropy on Grassroots Nonprofits.

Rick Cohen believes that fundamental survival issues surface at the grassroots level of a community. Foundations must therefore listen to and support the nonprofits working at the grassroots level. When foundation executives, Board members, and program officers substitute their own judgment for that of the community’s, a “top-down arrogance” takes hold of the grant making, which is always the wrong way to go.

Grassroots nonprofits are community based and constituency led. So it is a terrible idea for the funder to do the thinking for the community or to pretend to know the answers better than the community itself.

Humility is information. It is information about yourself. It’s knowledge about what you know and what you don’t know. Without ever using that word in his opinion piece, Cohen is recommending a healthy dose of humility in foundation philanthropy. He wants us to get out there, listen, learn, and only then, give.

Philanthropy for the Future (Post #1)

This week I’ll be discussing an article that was published on “Dialogues on Civic Philanthropy”, www.civicphilanthropy.net. Rick Cohen, the former Executive Director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, posted an opinion piece on that website entitled What Can and Should Philanthropy Do in the Future?  This is the FIRST in a series of posts on Cohen’s article.

Foundations Should Focus Philanthropy on the Most Critical Community Needs.

Rick Cohen states, first and foremost, that foundation philanthropy should be focused on the most critical needs of the service area. The core of any foundation’s work, therefore, is to deeply understand these needs and then consistently focus the foundation’s unrestricted philanthropy on them.

As a strategic framework for foundation grant making, priority attention given to priority issues seems obvious enough. But it takes considerable time, effort, focus, relationships, curiosity, and data to truly understand the most critical needs of a community. While some needs are visible and therefore obvious, others may only be uncovered with the kind of hard research that a community indicators project reveals.

In 2008, the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia undertook just such a research study. We commissioned the Northern Virginia Health Systems Agency to do a Child and Youth Needs Assessment across our entire service area. We later partnered with Voices for Virginia’s Children on the assessment, which will be published before the end of calendar 2009. What I like most about our project is that we did it for the primary purpose of informing our own unrestricted grant making in the areas of children and youth, education, and family health.

Cohen directly ties the responsibility that comes with foundation philanthropy to the public trust. Whether or not our grant making meets critical community needs is therefore a litmus test of our relevance. We must always check in with our selves – our Board of Directors and grant making staff – and consciously understand at all times exactly what we are doing and why we are doing it.

"Catalytic Philanthropy" by Mark Kramer (Post #3)

This week I’ll be reviewing an article from the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Mark R. Kramer entitled “Catalytic Philanthropy.” It is an inspiring look at donor commitment to a cause and the difference this can make. This is the THIRD in a series of posts.

Kramer draws some very bright and useful lines between conventional philanthropy, venture philanthropy, and catalytic philanthropy. Whereas conventional and venture philanthropy both invest in nonprofits and leave the problem solving to them, catalytic philanthropy is taken on by the funder, who assumes ultimate responsibility for the outcome.

As Kramer defines it, catalytic philanthropy is really social campaigning for a desired outcome. It includes funding to grease the skids of change, but that funding does not always go to traditional nonprofits and is therefore not “philanthropy” in any common understanding of the word. Rather, the funding for “catalytic philanthropy” fuels the campaign, keeps it going, motivates participants and attracts new ones, all towards the goal of addressing a societal problem.

Kramer provides a very thought provoking look at the process of mobilizing and sustaining a campaign for social change. It takes building coalitions, reaching out to all stakeholders and securing their participation, and funding unconventional methods and techniques to keep the whole thing moving. In summary, it takes patience, persistence and passion. It takes someone who is, or can grow to become, a true champion for a cause.

Margaret Mead once said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Catalytic philanthropy is a new spin on this not so new piece of wisdom.

And it all starts by asking “What do I care about, and who else in the room cares about that too?”

"Catalytic Philanthropy" by Mark Kramer (Post #2)

This week I’ll be reviewing an article from the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Mark R. Kramer entitled “Catalytic Philanthropy.” It is an inspiring look at donor commitment to a cause and the difference this can make. This is the SECOND in a series of posts.

Mark Kramer urges the funders themselves to get into the game of problem solving. They must personally become deeply engaged, identify the real issue, analyze its root cause, expand the toolkit to approach the issue in new and innovative ways, and form coalitions of like minded people across all sectors to collaborate and brainstorm with them. And only then will some real answers emerge.

What can catalytic funders do that nonprofits can’t? Among other things, they can leverage professional and personal relationships, build coalitions, start public-private partnerships, influence government. In summary, they can coordinate and engage stakeholders like a single nonprofit can not do.

What makes such funders “exceptional” is not their generosity, as many donors are generous. Rather, it is their willingness to take on responsibility themselves for improving social conditions, and not leave it solely with the nonprofits they fund. Because of this, catalytic philanthropy goes many steps beyond conventional philanthropy, and even beyond the current model for venture philanthropy.

"Catalytic Philanthropy" by Mark Kramer (Post #1)

This week I’ll be reviewing an article from the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Mark R. Kramer entitled “Catalytic Philanthropy.” It is an inspiring look at donor commitment to a cause and the difference this can make. This is the FIRST in a series of posts.

All philanthropists want their giving to have real impact. But according to Mark Kramer, it takes more than simply making a donation, however substantial, to a nonprofit. A lot more.

A recent article entitled “Catalytic Philanthropy” by Mark Kramer in the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review provides an optimum model for engineering social change with donor engagement, persistence and philanthropy.

Kramer believes that most philanthropists only achieve “modest and often indiscernible results, whether individually or collectively.” While acknowledging social conditions would be worse without philanthropy, he argues that today’s conventional philanthropy rarely delivers true social impact and systemic change. Most donors give only money, delegating the work, service provision, and ultimate problem solving to the nonprofit. Kramer states, however, that there is little reason to assume that the nonprofits have the internal skill set and bandwidth to solve such huge societal problems.

Tony Roberts once said, “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.” To make a real impact, something in philanthropy has to change. And that, according to Kramer, is the actual behavior of donors. Picking great nonprofits to financially support is just not enough, because that leaves the entire responsibility for improving conditions solely with the nonprofits.

What Kramer is really pushing on is this: Who takes responsibility for the issue?