Foundation Leadership

Strategic Planning – Board Input Survey

2010-02-25T18:32:00.008-05:00

If any of you brave hearts are about to embark upon your next cycle of strategic planning, I share with you, below, a Board Input Survey we co-created with the help of our strategic planning consultant, Michela Perrone of MMP Associates. The survey worked extremely well and helped us all get clear, real, and focused on exactly what we need to do over the next 3 years.

Several features of the survey, and the process itself, contributed to some very honest feedback. It helped distill the ensuing discussion down to the very essence of our purpose and mission.

The Likert scale is unique and captures movement across all attributes of the organization. The open ended quesitons encouraged thoughtful feedback. The completed surveys were submitted directly to the consultant, Dr. Perrone, who prepared a general summary in her own words of the results, without individual attribution. And the outcome was a concise strategic plan across four distinct “Critical Areas of Engagement” that captured the very essense of our work.

Click “Read more” for the entire text of the Board Input Survey.
Board Input on the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia’s 2010-2013 Strategic Plan

Please use this 0-5 rating scale to evaluate the following attributes of the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia.

0 = Don’t know
1 = Nonexistent
2 = Deteriorating
3 = Static / Steady
4 = Improving
5 = Optimum

I. GENERAL ATTRIBUTES:

Board Development ______
Board Diversity ______
Board Functioning ______
Branding ______
Communications ______
Community Impact ______
Loudoun Outreach_____
Organizational Financial Stability _____
Philanthropic Leadership Development_____
Staff Development ______
Staff Diversity ______
Staff Functioning _____
Volunteer Engagement ______

II. FUNDRAISING and DEVELOPMENT ATTRIBUTES:

Unrestricted fund development, including Campaign ______
Donor advised fund development ______
Gala revenue growth (year over year)_____

III. PROGRAM ATTRIBUTES:

Unrestricted grant focus (key funding priorities) ______
Needs Assessments ______
Gala Program ______
Planned Giving Council Activities ______

1. What should the Community Foundation stop doing?

2. What should the Community Foundation start doing?

3. What should the Community Foundation do more of?

4. What should the Community Foundation do less of?

5. What is your future vision for the Community Foundation. In other words, what does success look like for the Community Foundation three years from now?

6. If you were running the Community Foundation, what would you do in the next 12 months to improve community impact?

7. Is there anything else you would like the Board to consider in the strategic planning process?

Design Thinking for Social Innovation - Post # 3

2010-02-18T11:32:00.000-05:00

This is the last post on an article entitled Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, which appears in the current (Winter 2010) issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review.

My primary take away from the article is this: Always prototype an initiative to solicit feedback from the constituents you seek to serve. Rely on local expertise to uncover local solutions that work, then help scale up the solutions. This bottom up design model insures that you are using your constituents’ very best ideas to help design a lasting solution to meet their actual (not perceived) needs.

As a foundation leader, I see opportunities for applying design thinking to strategic plan initiatives. The design thinking described in this article has been codified by IDEO, a global innovation and design firm, into the “Human Centered Design Toolkit.” It is available as a free download from www.hcdtoolkit.com.

Design Thinking for Social Innovation – Post # 2

2010-02-15T14:00:00.001-05:00

This is the second post on an article entitled Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, which appears in the current (Winter 2010) issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review.

In design thinking, inspiration is the first step of the process. It embraces the problem or opportunity that motivates people to take action. What struck me most about this phase of design thinking was the authors’ statement that focus groups and surveys rarely yield important insights because all they do is collect data on what people want. Rather, the authors suggest a better starting point – go out into the target area and observe the actual experiences of your constituents. Observe how they move through their day and improvise their lives. Get out there, do “homestays,” and shadow locals at their jobs and in their homes. By becoming embedded in the lives of the people for whom you are designing, you have a much better chance of success.

Ideation is step two. The authors suggest a process of idea development that discourages the “devil’s advocate” and encourages vocalization of many ideas, among which the best simply rise to the top. The authors quote Linus Pauling, a two time Nobel Prize winner, who said “To have a good idea you must first have lots of ideas.” With a diverse group of people with multidisciplinary training, a strong and varied base of ideas can emerge.

Finally, implementation can occur. At the core of implementation is prototyping your designed solution. Testing, iterating, and refining.

Design Thinking for Social Innovation - Post # 1

2010-02-11T13:46:00.003-05:00

This past year I read Daniel Pink’s book “A Whole New Mind.” Pink makes a very compelling argument that success in the coming decades depends on a work force that is trained in both left brain and right brain thinking. In particular, he highlights the need for design thinking. Jobs that can be reduced to a formula, mechanized, or shipped overseas are already gone from our economy. But design thinking will always be in demand, no matter what the business or industry. When I realized what he was saying, I immediately gave a copy of the book to my 17 year old daughter and 19 year old son, hoping it would sway them to incorporate some “design” elements in their college or post graduate education.

In the current issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, an article entitled Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt brings the very same “design thinking” approach to large and complex social problems.

The authors describe design thinking as an integration of both our (right brained) ability to be intuitive and to recognize patterns, and our (left brained) ability to be rational and analytical. It describes design thinking as a process that goes through three spaces, inspiration (the problem), ideation (the process of generating, developing and testing ideas), and implementation (the path that leads from the project stage into people’s lives). And movement through the three spaces is never linear. The build in feedback causes looping and reiteration. But the process, while chaotic, produces very effective results.

Community Foundation for Northern Virginia - Community Investment Grants

2010-01-31T15:59:00.006-05:00

The Community Foundation for Northern Virginia is pleased to announce the award of $221,815 in Community Investment Grants to 35 nonprofits meeting critical community needs in Northern Virginia. The grants were awarded in four categories:

Poverty Relief
Child and Youth Development
Health, Mental Health, and Aging
Education

Go to "Read More" below for the entire list.
Poverty Relief Grants

Alternative House-The Abused and Homeless Children's Refuge $7,500 To support the Homeless Youth Initiative which provides shelter to homeless youth living in poverty. These homeless young people are still attending high school, are between the ages of 16 and 21, and do not have the support of a parent or guardian. (Fairfax)
Arlington Food Assistance Center $7,500 AFAC will use a $7,500 grant to purchase milk or fresh foods for families referred to us. As of 9/15/09, AFAC is serving over $1,200 families per week. This grant allows AFAC to purchase milk for about 5.7 weeks. (Arlington)

Arlington Street People's Assistance Network, Inc. $7,500 For general support for programs that assist people who are homeless in Arlington County including the Homeless Bagged Meal Program, the Emergency Winter Shelter, the Permanent Supportive Housing Program, case management, employment counseling and medical referrals. (Arlington)

Assistance League of Northern VA $3,000 The funding from this grant expands our Weekend Food for Kids program to feed 75 children for 37 weekends during the school year. The children currently receive free of reduced meals in Title 1 schools. (Fairfax, Prince William)

Bethany House of Northern VA $7,500 For general support associated with serving 500 women and children and having 30 families enter our emergency shelters from Northern Virginia and the DC Metro area. (Fairfax & other)

Blue Ridge Area Food Bank Network $5,000 The Back Pack Program supplies nutritious foods to 1810 low-income children during the weekends and holidays. Grant funds will be used to purchase food supplies for BRAFB's Loudoun County program sites, which serve 125 children. (Loudoun)

Carpenter's Shelter $7,500 For general operating support for a family shelter. The shelter is at full capacity with many first-time homeless working families, and many formerly homeless families facing eviction due to job losses and reduced work hours. (Alexandria & other)

Doorways for Women and Families $7,500 Doorways seeks funding to sustain its 21-bed Family Home, a shelter for homeless women and families in Arlington. Counseling, substance abuse and vocational referrals, financial literacy, children's services, food, and shelter are provided to clients. (Arlington)

Fairfax Area Christian Emergency and Transitional Services (FACETS) $7,500 To implement regional Housing Opportunities Support Teams (HOST) that will enhance FACETS' initiative to work in a coordinated fashion with partners to strengthen collaborative public-private social services network for homeless singles/families. (Fairfax)

Food for Others, Inc. $7,500 Food for Others is the largest provider of free food directly to families in Northern VA. Distributions to families in need have increased 57% over the past year. This funding request is to purchase milk and eggs, essential staples provided to the growing number of families in emergency situations. (Fairfax)

Herndon-Reston FISH, Inc. $7,500 To help FISH's Family Assistance Program meet the emergency needs of the increasing number of families in Herndon and Reston. The funds will improve FISH's ability to help families avoid evictions and /or homelessness by helping with rent, utilities, medications and other emergency needs. (Fairfax)

Korean Community Service Center $6,000 To assist 30 low-income Korean American families and individuals in Northern VA who need intensive urgent crisis intervention/emergency assistance from unemployment, foreclosure, eviction and mental health outbreak. (Fairfax)

Lorton Community Action Center $7,500 For support of poverty relief programs, including assistance with food, clothing and furniture, emergency counseling and referral, rent and utility assistance, nutrition classes, ESL classes. (Fairfax)

Our Daily Bread $2,500 Funds will be used to build capacity for the Financial Literacy programs of Our Daily Bread and NOVACO, providing overall program support, staff training and capacity to pilot the Matched Savings for Financial Independence program. A shared staff person will pilot the matched savings program for low-income clients who need to establish responsible financial habits. (Fairfax)

New Hope Housing $7,500 To support the Education & Employment Resource Center (EERC) which addresses educational deficits that are significant contributing causes of homelessness. The EERC emphasizes entry into fields of work with potential for continued advancement, and strengthening knowledge and skills through education. (Fairfax)

Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) $7,500 To support a Housing Case Manager who assists men and women coming out of incarceration to make a successful transition back into the community. (Arlington)

Shelter House $7,500 Shelter House served more than twice as many homeless families in Fairfax County last year that we assisted just one year ago. General operating support will fill gaps within our direct service areas that have resulted due to this increased need. (Fairfax)

The Koinonia Foundation $7,500 To provide additional funding for Emergency Relief Services. This program provides emergency food, clothing, and financial assistance up to $200 per individual per year. (Fairfax)

United Community Ministries $7,500 UCM seeks a grant to support its Basic Needs Program, which provides emergency food, utilities cut-off prevention, eviction prevention, emergency prescription and dental assistance, and clothing to low income individuals in southeastern Fairfax County. In FY 09, Basic Needs served 10803 unduplicated individuals. (Fairfax)

Child and Youth Development Grants

ACCA Child Development Center $7,500 The ACCA Child Development Center provides high quality developmental child care and early education for children from low-income families. Grant funds would support a component of the Special Assistance Program which helps parents who don't qualify for government child care subsidies and cannot afford full tuition fees. (Fairfax)

Best Buddies Virginia $2,500 To provide volunteer training, management and on-going support for a Best Buddies chapter serving Sterling Middle School students with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their non-disabled peers through quality out-of-school time programs and activities. (Loudoun)

Community Residences $5,000 To increase peer counseling by 50% for our Arlington Transitional Youth program, serving 10 at-risk youth ages 18-24 who are challenged by mental illness and transitioning into more independent living arrangements, including an emergency fund for youth without other resources. (Arlington)

Greenbrier Learning Center $7,500 To support Learning ROCKS! and the new Learning Links Americorps program. These programs provide high-quality academic and social support to 60 low-income, refugee and immigrant children twice a week in school, every day after school. The program support the students' academic achievement as well as social development, working in collaboration with schools and parents. (Arlington)

Liberty's Promise $7,500 For our professional internship and civic education programs to increase our capacity to serve low-income, immigrant youth in Alexandria and Fairfax County. With NVCF support, Liberty's Promise will be able to serve as many as 100 low-income, immigrant youth during the grant period. (Alexandria, Fairfax)

Loudoun Youth $5,000 For the After Dark Gang Prevention program which provides at-risk teens in the Sterling area with education and positive adult connections in safe environment on Friday evenings. The goal is to reduce the potential for gang activity and prevent youth from joining gangs. (Loudoun)

Reston Interfaith $5,000 Laurel Learning Center provides child development and quality care for 135 infants, toddlers, preschool and school aged children, along with family services. A minimum of 75% of child care slots are for low-income working families who could not otherwise afford quality child care, and for socially and academically at risk children. (Fairfax, Loudoun)

The Art League, Inc. $2,500 For The Art League's "Space of Her Own" (SOHO) program. SOHO is a year-long, art-based one on one mentoring program serving at-risk low-income fifth grade Alexandria girls. Girls and mentors meet weekly to eat a healthful meal, learn life skills, and have professional artist-taught art classes. (Alexandria)

Health, Mental Health and Aging Grants

CrisisLink $7,500 To support overnight access to CrisisLink's Crisis & Suicide Prevention Hotline to ensure Northern Virginians have immediate access to mental health support between midnight and 8 a.m. (All)

Inova Kellar Center $5,000 To expand the reach of home-based services to children who are at risk for being removed from their home. Kellar's In-Home Services Program is the most intensive family therapy provided directly in the home and is focused on keeping families together. Therapists work on parenting skills, creating a safe home environment and improving communication. (Fairfax)

Northern Virginia Dental Clinic $7,500 Funding is requested to support general operating expenses. Specifically, funds will be used to purchase dental supplies and materials for use at our program's expansion site in Loudoun County. (Loudoun)

Rx Partnership $5,000 To support the coordination and delivery of free prescription medication from six pharmaceutical partners to low-income, uninsured residents of Northern Virginia through local free clinics including Arlington Free Clinic and NOVA Scripts Central. (All)

Education Grants

BEACON for Adult Literacy $7,500 To support the establishment of a case management component to be integrated into our core educational services. We do not have any means to support transitional goals upon program completion. This capability would enable us to assist students with job development/search and employment. (Prince William)

Computer CORE $5,000 CORE is requesting support to help launch the new classroom site in Fairfax County in 2010. In 2010 CORE will serve its largest number of clients ever, 144 students, at its three NVA locations with its intensive career development and computer training program. (Fairfax)

Loudoun Literacy Council $7,500 For general support of the Family and Adult Literacy programs. LLC assists low income, at-risk families by improving literacy skills that lead to increased independence, access to employment and integration into the community. (Loudoun)

Main Street Child Development Center $5,315 Main Street CDC serves low-income, working families of Fairfax City and Fairfax County by providing pre-school services as well as family literacy classes, screenings and a mental health provider to 72 children. (Fairfax)

Update on the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund at the Community Foundation

2010-01-21T14:41:00.004-05:00

In just four business days, the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia has raised $70,145 for our Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund.

Since the fall of 2005 when I first became President of the Community Foundation, we have never engaged in efforts to fundraise for a cause outside of Northern Virginia. Before we took this step, the thought certainly occurred to us that we were spending our precious donor relationship capital on a need unrelated to our service area. There was no asset development or financial gain in this for either the citizens of our region or for the Community Foundation, as we are donating every dollar we collect through the Fund to the American Red Cross for emergency relief efforts in Haiti.

So why did we do it? I think there are several good reasons:

• Because we are a center of philanthropy in Northern Virginia and are widely perceived as such.
• Because some donors are clearly moved to fund this need, now.
• Because when we asked some community leaders and faithful donors should we do this, they unanimously said yes.
• Because it just feels like the right thing to do, no matter what else is on our plate at the moment.

Just this once, for this special cause, we have vastly expanded the definition of “community” in “Community Foundation for Northern Virginia” to include the Haitian people who are suffering some of the worst deprivations and sorrows this human life can inflict.

As a community foundation leader, watching this unfold is inspiring and affirming. We feel so grateful for the response to the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund, so appreciative of the chance to help, and so eager to learn whatever lessons this effort will teach us about our role in Northern Virginia.

Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund at the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia

2010-01-19T11:38:00.002-05:00

The Community Foundation for Northern Virginia announced yesterday the creation of a Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund. To my knowledge, this is the first time in our organization’s 31 year history that we have actively engaged in fundraising for a cause that was not squarely centered on our region.

Like the rest of the world, we are horrified by the devastation in Haiti from the January 12 earthquake. Images pouring out of the region on Wednesday the 13th were heartbreaking and impossible to ignore. Those images raised some questions for us last week. As leaders of a local community foundation, what role could and should we play here? Should we attempt to fundraise for relief efforts? And if so, were there other leaders from the broader community who would want to help?

By close of business Thursday, January 14, staff had sent out targeted emails to Board members and certain donor advisors we believed might be open to providing a matching grant for victims of the earthquake. By noon on Friday, we had raised $12,000 in matching grant commitments. With these funds in hand, we then reached out to the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Virginia Technology Council, the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce, the Loudoun CEO Cabinet and others, asking if they would be willing to distribute notifications to their membership base advising them of the Fund and requesting contributions.

As I write this blog post, we have built the donation page for the new Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund on our website. All contributions, including the original $12,000 in seed matching grant funds, will be donated to the American Red Cross. Our donation page for the Fund went live Monday morning, January 18, at which point the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Virginia Technology Council, and hopefully others distributed the email, Facebook and Twitter announcements of the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund’s creation at the Community Foundation.

Haiti Earthquake Relief - How You Can Help

2010-01-13T21:58:00.004-05:00

A 7.0 magnitude earthquake has devastated Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince. As of 8:30 pm on January 13, 2010, CNN is reporting a death toll in excess of 100,000. Please consider making a donation to one of these organizations to help them provide disaster relief and follow up medical and basic needs assistance to the victims of the earthquake.

American Red Cross

You can text “

Haiti

” to 90999 and donate $10 to the American Red Cross. This organization is the nation's premier emergency response organization. They offer neutral humanitarian care to the victims of devastating natural disasters. As of Wednesday evening, January 13, their website is reporting this: “The Red Cross is contributing an initial $1 million from the International Response Fund to support the relief operation, and has opened its warehouse in Panama to provide tarps, mosquito nets and cooking sets for approximately 5,000 families. In addition to Red Cross staff already in Haiti, six disaster management specialists are being deployed to the disaster zone to help coordinate relief efforts. At this time, the American Red Cross is only deploying volunteers specially trained to manage international emergency operations.”

Oxfam America

Oxfam America is an international relief and development organization. It has long experience in Haiti. According to their website on the evening of January 13, Oxfam has 200 staff on-the-ground responding with public health, water, and sanitation services to prevent the spread of disease in the affected areas. Your support will help provide clean water, shelter, sanitation, and the longer term recovery.

Partners in Health
Partners in Health uses modern medical science to help alleviate the crushing economic and social burdens of poverty that exacerbate disease. It’s website reports as of 4:00 pm on January 13 the following: “At the moment, PIH’s Chief Medical Officer is on her way to Haiti, where she will meet with Zanmi Lasante leadership and head physicians, who are already working to ensure PIH’s coordinated relief efforts leveraging the skills of more than 120 doctors and nearly 500 nurses and nursing assistants who work at Zanmi Lasante’s sites.” You support will help procure emergency medical supplies, basic needs assistance, transportation and logistics for the victims of the quake who will be seeking aid at PIH’s mobile field hospitals in Port-au-Prince.

Doctors Without Borders

Doctors Without Borders is an international medical humanitarian organization providing aid in nearly 60 countries to people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe, primarily due to armed conflict, epidemics, malnutrition, exclusion from healthcare, or natural disasters. According to their website this evening, they are reporting this: "The situation is chaotic," said one senior staff. "I visited five medical centers, including a major hospital, and most of them were not functioning. Your support will provide emergency medical care for victims of the quake.

Philanthropy, 2020 - Post # 3

2010-01-13T14:24:00.006-05:00

As foundation leaders, what will be the greatest opportunities and the most daunting challenges in the decade ahead? The January 14, 2010 issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy decides to take an educated guess. This is the last post on the topic.

Increase in Charitable Business

For profit companies and nonprofit organizations currently occupy two ends of the spectrum. What about the middle? This article predicts that by 2020, many more hybrid entities like L3C's (low-income limited liabilty companies) will be the rule and not the exception. The millenials are already questioning the status quo. Will they succeed in driving corporate culture away from the single mindedness of shareholder value towards a lower-profit, more socially conscious model of operation? The authors of this article certainly think so. It is a simple matter of following the current trend lines.

In other words, some charities will become more business like, and some businesses will become more charity like. The lines between the two will blur. And the result for nonprofits? Despite their favorable tax status, they will no longer entirely own the charity space.

Philanthropy, 2020 - Post # 2

2010-01-12T20:41:00.007-05:00

Technology Gets More Interactive

What will be the impact of technology on the nonprofit sector in the next decade? This article in the January 14 issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy tries to envision this.

According to some United Nations research, 6.3 billion people, or a whopping 83% of earth’s population, will own a cell phone by 2014. This ever increasing connectivity and resulting networking and access to information will certainly modify the nonprofit world’s fundraising activities, communications with donors, and program evaluations. It will also enable donors to better understand how their dollars were spent.

Of course, there’s a predicted downside as well. There will be increased competition from other entities who will find it increasingly easy to attract resources to their causes.

I personally enjoy the challenge of staying on top of our technology communications game. But technology is just a tool. Like community foundations everywhere, the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia works hard to more deeply understand the needs of our community and focus philanthropy on them. It is our primary purpose. If we do that job well, then the technology tools we choose to communicate the resulting knowledge is just a question of organizational process.

Philanthropy, 2020

2010-01-11T16:37:00.006-05:00

As foundation leaders, what will be the greatest opportunities and the most daunting challenges in the decade ahead? The January 14, 2010 issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy takes an educated guess at this using known demographic data. This is the first of three posts on the topic.

The Graying of America

Today, 13% of our population is over 65. That percentage will rise to 16% by 2020. The graying of America will continue to present both opportunities and challenges.

First, the opportunities:
1. The over 65 population in the next decade is going to offer quite an impressive cache of skills and experience. The volunteer opportunities alone are significant, let alone the part time employment pool.
2. The “explosion” of philanthropic wealth is staggering. The article says that baby boomers will pass on $41 trillion to their heirs before all is said and done!

Next, the challenges:
1. Funding the increased demand for health care services will certainly be a huge challenge.
2. Growing philanthropy to help address multigenerational issues will also be a trend.

Promising Signs on 2010 Corporate Philanthropy

2010-01-08T13:22:00.004-05:00

According to an article in the Huffington Post yesterday, a survey of Chicago based businesses on corporate philanthropy found that a full 65% will maintain or increase their corporate philanthropy in 2010. Only 11% are planning on reducing their charitable donations this year. Most of that philanthropy will be in the areas of social services and education, with fewer dollars going to environmental and cultural causes.

Corporate givers are feeling optimistic! What great news for our sector.

Social Innovation Fund Grant Opportunity: Post # 2

2010-01-05T14:21:00.005-05:00

Under "Read More" below you will find a full copy of my comments to the Corporation for National and Community Service's request for comments on the Social Innovation Fund NOFA. Their NOFA was posted in late December 2009, and comments from the field are due January 15, 2010.

In addition to providing input on their specific questions around how to define "low income communities," how to evaluate the intermediary foundation grantees, and how to evaluate the nonprofit subgrantees, I also included a request that they drop the minimum grant level from $5 million to $1 million. Such a drop would enable community foundations like ours to apply as there is a 1- for - 1 dollar matching requirement imposed on community foundation (and other intermediary foundation) grant recipients.

It would be very disappointing if the mere level of potential SIF grants put us out of the running. I'm sure I'm not the only foundation leader in this boat. So if there is any chance you may be interested in trying for one of these amazing SIF grants, please send in your comments to the Corporation. The link to the Social Innovation Fund, above, takes you to a page from which you can submit comments. From that link, see the "Seeking Feedback on Draft Funding Notice" box to the right.

FEEDBACK IN RESPONSE TO THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE NOTICE OF FUNDS AVAILABLE (NOFA) FOR THE SOCIAL INNOVATION FUND AWARDS

January 4, 2010

I am the President of the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia and I submit this feedback in response to the Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for the Social Innovation Fund Awards.

COMMENT #1: Minimum SIF Grant Level Should be $1 Million

Our Community Foundation serves Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Arlington, and Alexandria. We have approximately $30 million in managed assets, 98% of which is donor advised funds and therefore not available for unrestricted grantmaking. We would therefore have to find the dollar for dollar match, from the ground up, for a Social Innovation Fund grant award.

The Corporation for National and Community Service initially advertised grant award levels between $1 million and $10 million. At $1 million, we could have raised the dollar for dollar match. It would not have been a small endeavor, but I am confident that we would have found the $1 million from our existing donor base with a concentrated focus and effort to that end. However, the increase in the minimum grant level from $1 million to $5 million now constitutes an insurmountable barrier for our SIF application.

I appreciate the need to quickly disburse these funds to strong and capable intermediary foundations and to see meaningful results as soon as possible. However, raising the minimum grant level to $5 million will prevent all but a tiny handful of very large foundations from applying.

I believe that the nonprofit programs for which our Community Foundation would seek funding are precisely what the SIF is looking to support. For example, one of our potential subgrantees is a long standing, excellent nonprofit that runs a job training program called “Training Futures” for low income and philanthropically underserved communities across all of Northern Virginia. The program therefore directly falls within the “Economic Opportunity” priority area for SIF grant awards. Training Futures has been in existence for 13 years with a proven track record of transformative results. In addition, that particular nonprofit has forged an utterly unique and innovative relationship with the Northern Virginia Community College that automatically provides college credit to Training Futures program participants, thus encouraging and enabling higher education degrees among graduates of the program. Training Futures has been evaluated and measured with rigorous data and evidence and is utterly poised for scaling to numerous other locations but for the lack of funding.

I therefore believe that our application for an SIF grant would be very strong indeed. Such impressive programs are the reason our Community Foundation would apply for SIF funding and go through the time, trouble and effort of securing matching funds in the first place.

So I ask that you please consider reinstituting the $1 million minimum grant level. One suggestion would be to limit the number of $1 million grants to only 5 (or even a smaller number). In this way you would still be promoting larger grants to very well healed foundations but also leave the door open for smaller, community based foundations to help scale truly impressive programs that are so very worthy of an SIF award.

COMMENT # 2: The Treatment of Low-Income, Rural, and Significantly Philanthropically Underserved Communities

“Low Income Community” Definition # 1: In our region, governmental and quasi-governmental agencies charged with defining “low-income” populations routinely use 200% of the applicable Federal poverty guideline. We therefore believe that 150% would be too low to capture the low income families and individuals in the pockets of poverty in our region. Applying the 150% standard to our population would exclude a very large number of poor families and individuals, particularly among the elderly. This, of course, is a function of the high cost of living in Northern Virginia, so many more people that have incomes above the FPL are, in fact, poor, primarily because of the cost of housing and transportation.

“Low Income Community Definition” # 2: Poverty exists in Northern Virginia and looks the same here as it does anywhere. Most of our low-income and poor populations live in “pockets of poverty” that are not neatly circumscribed by city or county borders. Therefore, we highly recommend not using the second definition of “low income community” in the draft NOFA that requires a clearly defined geographic area. For regions like ours where poverty does not neatly fit within a city or county border, it would be unusually difficult to determine, justify, and explain the particular geography we choose to serve with an SIF grant. But if forced to select a cut off “percentage” for the second definition, we suggest 30%, the logic being that the population captured at this threshold level would include all of those with incomes at the FPL in our region, plus approximately about two to three times that number of people with incomes between the FPL and 150% of the FPL.

COMMENT # 3: Assessing the Intermediary Foundations

First, it is important to be clear on the job description of an intermediary foundation before you devise the assessment tool. My personal view of the appropriate parameters of foundation work can be summarized as follows:

In a nutshell, foundations should understand community needs, select the best nonprofits who help meet those needs, support those nonprofits, and communicate our knowledge as broadly as possible in the hope of generating even more support for this important work. Foundations should avoid taking an authoritative role with their grantees. Rather, they should facilitate the work of the best nonprofits meeting the most critical community needs. No one is in a better position to meet community needs than the grass roots, on the ground, service providing nonprofits. Those nonprofits that can also devise successful programs to help meet community needs deserve our support, not our heavy handed second guessing.

The work of the intermediary foundation is therefore 4 fold:

 UNDERSTAND: Know what are the most critical community needs by connecting with knowledgeable leaders and assessing needs with data and research.

 SELECT: Select the most capable subgrantees with the most promising programs that truly help meet community needs.

 SUPPORT: Support the selected subgrantees and programs to the greatest extent possible. Communicate what we know and what we learn in the process to our entire constituent base in the hope of focusing even more philanthropic dollars on this critical work.

 COMMUNICATE: Foster open and unthreatening dialogue about program results with the subgrantees. Come to some consensus with them on what worked, what didn’t work, and how to improve things going forward.

Through this lens, the intermediary foundation does not run the program and should therefore not be assessed on how the program is run. Rather, we should be assessed on the behavior over which we do have control:

1. (UNDERSTAND) The process used to understand community needs. What has the intermediary foundation done, and what does it continue to do, to understand critical community needs? Has the foundation commissioned any needs assessments, and if so, what was the impact on their strategic plan and grant making behavior? Does the foundation meet with local leaders? Do they collaborate on local initiatives with other community partners to address pressing issues?

2. (SELECT) The process used in selecting the best, most capable subgrantees with the most promising programs for SIF awards. This is probably the most critical aspect of assessing the intermediary foundation. Ask: What was the subgrantee and program selection process? Was it fair and open? Was it informed by the foundation’s understanding of critical community needs? Why did the winners win?

3. (SUPPORT) The extent of the work that has been and will be done to find SIF matching funds. This is a direct reflection of the intermediary foundation’s commitment to community improvement and is a huge piece of the assessment puzzle. If a foundation does not need to look outside its own asset base for the SIF match, then good for them. But if a foundation must essentially run a mini fundraising campaign to find the SIF match, that is a direct reflection of the foundation’s commitment to improving community and the quality of life for its residents. Ask: Describe in detail the effort you needed to expend in order to find the SIF match.

4. (SUPPORT) The communication efforts used by the intermediary foundation to get the word out about the programs they fund with SIF dollars. The world should know, and the foundations should do the telling. This optimizes the chances of building a funding collaborative around the issues addressed, further focusing even more philanthropic dollars on the programs. Ask: How have you communicated with other potential donors in your community about the SIF grantee programs and your support of them? What has been the outcome of such communication? Have you attempted to forge partnerships and funding collaboratives around the issues addressed?

5. (COMMUNICATE) The schedule, extent and outcomes of the communications between the intermediary foundation and the subgrantees. The foundation should foster and nurture an open and unthreatening dialogue with the subgrantees about the results and impact of the SIF funding. The parties should schedule regular meetings to review the data and evidence and to discuss what worked, what didn’t work, and what could be modified going forward to optimize results. This creates a feed back loop based on data and hard evidence that sustains what works and fixes what is broken. The Corporation should therefore assess its intermediary foundations on the regularity and content of communications with their subgrantees. Ask: How often do you meet? What is the agenda for the meetings? What is discussed? What is the outcome of those meetings? What does the data show about the program’s impact, and what modifications to the program, if any, have resulted from this feedback and communication loop.

6. (REACT) The reaction of the foundation to subgrantee failure. If a selected subgrantee is not performing over the course of SIF funding, then some mechanism must be in place to pull the subgrantee funding going forward and redirect it to another promising subgrantee or program. No human organization gets everything right, all of the time. Sometimes nonprofits simply go out of business or stop running programs because of unforeseen events. If a subgrantee merely stumbles, then the foundation can still chose to fund it. But if the subgrantee fails, then the foundation, in the exercise of its best judgment, must have the latitude under the SIF grant program to stop funding the failing initiative and redirect the SIF funds. And we should be assessed on our reaction to a perceived failure.

COMMENT # 4: Assessing the Subgrantees

As discussed in Comment # 3 above, the subgrantees run the program. Therefore they should be held accountable for how the program is conducted and the results of the project.

Assessment is a continuous activity, at both the foundation and subgrantee levels. To assess the subgrantee programs, the usual evaluative measures that most foundations are familiar with can be employed here. Evaluations of individual subgrantees should include both process (or formative) evaluations which examine how a project was conducted, and outcome (or summative) evaluations which examine the results of a project.

Respectfully submitted January 4, 2010.

Eileen M. Ellsworth
President
Community Foundation for Northern Virginia
8283 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102
703-902-3159
ellsworth_eileen@ne.bah.com
http://www.novacf.org/

Fast Company Blog on Nonprofit Volunteers

2010-01-02T21:15:00.004-05:00

For foundation leaders, Alice Korngold’s nonprofit related blog posts on Fast Company are worth the read. On December 28, 2009 she published a post entitled “Why People Who Volunteer Are Value-Add Hires For Your Company.”

She thinks that nonprofit volunteers make excellent hires for a number of reasons, including:

A work ethic that can’t be beat
Leadership skills that are honed and developed through nonprofit volunteer experiences
A tendency to self reflection and thoughtfulness
Great community based networks of colleagues and friends
Knowledge of the community

How true, and how useful when we're composing job references for our volunteers to remember this handy list of attributes.

Social Innovation Fund Grant Opportunity: Post # 1

2009-12-31T13:52:00.001-05:00

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

2009-12-28T11:35:00.001-05:00

“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

2009-12-17T14:14:00.001-05:00

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

2009-12-16T08:55:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-15T17:52:00.005-05:00

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

2009-12-14T11:19:00.006-05:00

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

2009-12-11T14:19:00.001-05:00

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

2009-12-08T12:13:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-07T12:56:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-02T15:26:00.006-05:00

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)

2009-12-01T11:32:00.000-05:00

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

2009-11-25T13:38:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-11-24T09:40:00.004-05:00

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

2009-11-22T17:22:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-11-19T21:59:00.003-05:00

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)

2009-11-18T14:32:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-11-16T12:17:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-11-13T09:43:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-11-11T10:53:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-11-10T16:18:00.003-05:00

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)

2009-11-08T19:47:00.007-05:00

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)

2009-11-06T12:15:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-11-04T15:20:00.005-05:00

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)

2009-11-02T10:32:00.003-05:00

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?