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.