PhilanTopic

Five Qs for...Douglas Bauer, Executive Director, Clark Foundation

(Founded in 1931, the Clark Foundation focuses on helping individuals lead independent and productive lives and supports nonprofits and programs in New York City and Cooperstown, New York. In addition to his duties running the foundation, Doug Bauer is board chair of Philanthropy New York and an adjunct faculty member in the Social Enterprise Program at Columbia Business School and the Urban Studies Program at the University of Pennsylvania. Laura Cronin is a regular contributor to PhilanTopic.)

Philanthropy News Digest: How tough is it out there for nonprofits? And what can the foundation community do to inform itself about the financial challenges confronting the sector?

Doug Bauer: We're entering what is now the fourth year of reduced funding for nonprofits, with continued cuts at the federal, state and city levels, and it is taking a toll on the sector, especially in human services and the arts. If there's any good news, it's that the state of New York is looking at a $2 billion gap in the coming fiscal year, not the $10 billion previously forecast. That's a better situation to be in than predicted, but it still means cuts are coming.

Another concern is that some of the performance-based contracts that are being issued, like the ones New York State has put in place, mean that, for example, a senior daycare program that was expecting $1 million for a certain number of slots will not be getting all its funding. They might get 93 percent and then the last 7 percent is a "private match." What we are seeing, in other words, is the emergence of an expectation -- implicit or explicit -- that private philanthropy is going to start filling some of these gaps. We all know, however, that the resources available to private philanthropy pale in comparison to what the public sector is able to do and it's not philanthropy's job to try to fill these gaps.

Also, If you are working on issues related to poverty, especially in the human services area, some of the change around contracts with private matches and no overhead are going to have a major impact on the financial condition of nonprofits that are working to address those issues. The financial condition of a good chunk of the nonprofits we work with continues to deteriorate. And, by the way, these are not low-performing nonprofits. All of which is to say, funders really have to pay attention.

PND: How can funders support nonprofit leaders -- especially leaders of mid-sized organizations -- as they deal with a "new normal" characterized by reduced revenue and growing need?

DB: Mid-sized groups are especially vulnerable in the current environment. If you're a high six- or low- to mid-seven-figure organization, it's really tough. For example, we supported a mid-sized organization in Brooklyn that had very good programs but ran into some financial difficulties. The board and staff could have tried to make it work, but a better solution for them was to be absorbed into a much larger organization. All the back-office administrative work was brought into the "mother ship," while the frontline programming at the neighborhood level remained the responsibility of staff at the smaller organization. Let's face it, a merger like this, where there's good alignment between organizations' respective missions and programs, is going to be a solution for some mid-sized groups, while other groups, if they want to remain independent, are going to have to be more nimble, efficient, and effective than they've ever been.

Of course, smaller groups tend to be at a fundraising disadvantage simply because they don't have the development capacity of larger institutions. As you track where public funding is going, and you think about how the social safety net is being restructured, I have to believe that larger nonprofits are going to be in a much better position to figure out what that restructuring ultimately looks like and how they fit in. I have great admiration for leaders of smaller nonprofits who are trying to make a go of it, and there are a lot out there. But it's going to be interesting to see whether we end up with a nonprofit sector version of -– the analogy isn't perfect -- "battleships" and "motorboats." Are we going to end up with two types of nonprofits -- large eight- and nine-figure organizations doing most of the work and a bunch of social entrepreneurs and social enterprises that focus on innovation and figuring out new ways to deliver services? And if that's our future, where does the mid-sized nonprofit that's kind of in between the start-up and the behemoth fit in? I'm honestly not sure.

PND: What should private foundations be doing to help their grantees in a time of growing need?

DB: The best dollars a foundation or corporate giving program can be providing right now to nonprofits, especially nonprofits in the human services and poverty-alleviation area, are general operating support dollars. Most of these groups are 80 percent to 90 percent government funded. And given what's been going on with government funding and the uncertain political environment, general operating support is the best way to ensure that nonprofits have the flexibility to adapt. The Clark Foundation has provided general operating support to its grantees for almost two decades now, and our board understands how important and necessary it is in this kind of environment. In fact, 80 percent of our grantmaking is awarded as general operating support. And the reason goes back to this question of government support. Those dollars are restricted to the programs that nonprofits are contracted to operate on behalf of government. Not only are the dollars restricted, but the payment cycles associated with government contracts, especially over the last three years, have been all over the map. What used to be a thirty-sixty-ninety-day cycle can now be a hundred-and-twenty-to-two-hundred-and-forty-day cycle, which of course wreaks havoc on your cash flow. So again, general operating support is critical, because those dollars are not allocated to anything but the ultimate success and sustainability of the organization.

PND: What else are you doing to help grantees survive and thrive in this uncertain environment?

DB: Based on some 2011 research conducted by Philanthropy New York, we learned that the Clark Foundation is one of the largest funders of nonprofit management training in New York City, at just over $2 million a year, and it's proven to be immensely beneficial to our grantees. We fund a number of organizations that are dedicated to helping nonprofits perform better, including the Support Center for Nonprofit Management, the Nonprofit Finance Fund, and the Rensselaerville Institute.

That said, we don't go in and say to a grantee "You need this." Instead, we try to pay close attention to the organization's existing needs and whether the advice, counsel, or consulting offered is practical, outcome-oriented, and will actually help them in the near term as well as in the long term.

Of course, when foundations suggest, or worse, force mergers or other changes on an organization, it can be problematic. A new initiative, the New York City Merger, Acquisition and Collaboration Fund, or NYMAC, has been launched by SeaChange Capital Partners and a group of foundations to advance management transitions while avoiding the whole problem of funders acting as unwelcome matchmakers on nonprofit mergers. Several foundations and, interestingly, several individual donors, pooled over $1 million to create the fund, and those funds will be used to help pay for and facilitate mergers, acquisitions, and collaborations in the nonprofit sector.

As you can tell, I don't necessarily believe that mergers are a panacea for the sector. We're all familiar with examples from the corporate world where mergers have not worked out or created additional value. That said, given the environment we're in, we have to look at the question of encouraging more mergers, acquisitions, and collaborations. And I'm excited about NYMAC because it puts money in place to, one, have that conversation on a case-by-case basis; two, to pay for legal, financial, programmatic due diligence if the conversation goes well; and, three, if the conversation goes really well, to eliminate any roadblocks or deal breakers that might derail a merger or collaboration. For example, an organization might say, "We can't do this deal unless we break our lease." If that organization needs to come up with, say, $50,000 to legally break the lease so that a merger can go through, NYMAC is in a position to provide those funds.

We're very excited about it, and I hope, if it proves to be a success, that we'll be able to replenish and maybe even grow the fund.

PND: The Clark Foundation is known for its collegial relationship with its grantees and its commitment to regular site visits. Have you been inviting conversations with your grantees about their financial health and sustainability? And what would you recommend to other funders about managing those kinds of conversations?

DB: First of all, a good look at an organization's grant proposal, Form 990, three years' worth of audits, and management letter will give you a pretty good sense of how it is doing. The importance of advance preparation cannot be overstated. We also make a real effort to talk to other funders. A lot of our grantees are receiving support from other funders, and so we try to get their perspectives as well. Again, we try to go into meetings with our grantees with as much information as possible.

But you know that we tend to provide consistent support to our grantees over long periods of time; we even have a few we've been funding since the 1960s. And we would hope that, over time, with all our grantees, especially these last three years, that finances and financial health are going to be part of the discussion. Not asking about an organization's finances in any kind of detail is poor due diligence on the part of a funder. It's a "must have" conversation. And it's a conversation that grantees should welcome.

That said, we hope, and usually request, that a board member or officer is present during our site visit. It makes for a far richer conversation. And I have to say, as I look at the hundred-plus grantees we work with, I've been impressed with how attuned board leadership is to these issues. They understand that it's a difficult environment and that one of their key responsibilities is fiduciary oversight of the organization. I know of board chairs of well-run nonprofits that, because government funding and payment cycles have become so erratic, are looking at cash flows on a weekly basis; it's the only way they can stay on top of what's going on.

Of course, the funder/grantee dynamic is always a factor. And we try to mitigate that power imbalance by being responsive, being attentive, and listening. Funders need to listen more than they do. And, you know, your parents were right: manners matter. You have to be present. You have to be open. And you have to be nice. If you take the time to really analyze what grantees are doing; if you make an effort to see them on their turf; and if you listen a lot, you are demonstrating, via your actions, that you care about the organization and its work and are a conscientious partner.

I'm always pleased when a grantee, at the end of site visit, says, "You came prepared." I've never had an executive director not enjoy a robust conversation about what their organization is doing. They're always eager and willing to defend, debate, or support their programs. I always enjoy, for example, my conversations with a particular ED. He's not a wallflower, and more importantly, he really does want to have a good discussion about what his organization is doing because he's interested in continuous improvement and he sees us as a partner in that process. Yes, there are some longtime EDs -- and I get that the ED role is tough -- who are a little cynical about funders and funder behavior. Believe me, I know there's a lot that funders do to encourage that kind of cynicism. But I think, especially in this environment, that the funder-grantee relationship has to be a partnership, and a free flow of information is critical if the partnership is to be successful.

-- Laura Cronin

Three Essentials for Accelerating Funder Collaboration

(Lisa Philp is vice president for strategic philanthropy and director of GrantCraft at the Foundation Center. A version of this post appeared on Philanthropy New York's Smart Assets blog.)

Funder collaboration. Like Mom and apple pie, it's something we can all rally around. But anyone who has worked as a grantmaker knows that it's harder than it sounds. We all work within different contexts and constraints. In a diverse and decentralized field, it's hard to stay on top of who is doing what. We all have our own ideas about what strategies have the most impact and which groups are most worthy. And true collaboration is so much more than convincing others to support your initiatives.

From my former vantage point as a program officer for a variety of foundations and a donor advisor to ultra-high net worth individuals, I think it all begins with learning networks. Through regional associations like Philanthropy New York and affinity groups like Grantmakers for Children, Youth & Families, funders come together to build relationships of trust, compare notes, and discover co-funding opportunities. Dedicated donor advisors scan the field on behalf of their clients, connect the dots, and serve as vital bridges between "emerging" and "organized" philanthropy.

But if we are to accelerate the pace of funder collaboration, our field needs "how-to" frameworks, case studies, and time-saving technology tools that foster, deepen, and connect these learning networks.

Frameworks: First, we need to define what we mean by collaboration. Several frameworks have been created to help grantmakers match collaborative approaches with needs. One typology -- articulated in Moving Ideas and Money (28 pages, PDF), a report from the Funders' Network -- includes information exchange, co-learning, strategic alignment (informal and formal), pooled funds, and joint ventures. The framework included as part of a recent GrantCraft guide on funder collaboratives is meant to spark ideas, stimulate discussion, and suggest possibilities.

Case studies: When I was at J.P. Morgan Private Bank, we created a pooled fund that raised over $5 million from individual donors and family foundations to leverage innovative models of public education reform supported by the U.S. Department of Education and national and local foundations. A detailed case study on this Education Collaboration Fund (ECF) was recently published by The Foundation Review. Case studies like this one illuminate the roles that can be played by donor advisors, provide a blueprint for replication, and offer up an honest assessment of opportunities and challenges.

Technology tools: Key to the success of the ECF was the creation of an online funder collaboration tool by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Foundation Registry i3 provided a hub for nonprofits to post their applications and a password-protected area for funders to quickly and easily compare notes on proposals under consideration for matching funds.

In a related development, the Foundation Center increasingly is being asked to mine its data on foundation giving, philanthropy news, and foundation-supported research to create technology tools that advance funder learning and collaboration. For example, WASHfunders.org -- commissioned by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation on behalf of a group of foundations and corporations that fund water access, sanitation, and hygiene issues globally -- creates a dashboard for WASH funders with interactive maps of their grants featuring overlays of international aid, case studies, outcome tools, recommended readings, news streams, and social media feeds.

Several other custom Web portals across an array of issues and geographies are in the works at the Foundation Center, but what unifies these projects is a desire to leverage technology to understand the state of funding in a field, enable more coordination among funders, and provide easy entry points for new donors. These online tools are "fed" a steady stream of content -- frameworks, case studies, timely data -- that enable learning networks to stay informed of the work of their peers and make the most of their face-to-face time together.

To work at scale in their communities and on their issues, funders must work through networks to collaborate with other foundations, donors, government, the private sector, and nonprofits. Creative frameworks, case studies of successes and failures, and knowledge management tools can go a long way toward accelerating that process.

-- Lisa Philp

3 Ways Your 'T-Shape' Helps You Collaborate

(Thaler Pekar recently collaborated with Jay Rhoderick of BizProv to deliver the opening plenary at the 2011 New Jersey Non-Profit Conference. This is an excerpt from that plenary, "Productive Partnerships: Building Trust and Creating Collaborations." In her last post, Thaler offered seven tips for sharing stories in your organization.)

The metaphor of the "T-shaped person" is often used by human resource professionals to describe people who possess both deep expertise and broad knowledge of other disciplines.

Tim Brown, CEO and president of Ideo, explains how his product design firm applies the concept when hiring:

"We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they're willing to try to do what you do. We call them 'T-shaped'. They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T.... But they are so empathetic they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well [the horizontal line]. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need."

Let's consider the metaphor in more detail, focusing on how important your T-shape is to your ability to collaborate....

1. Think of the vertical part of the "T" as your core talent and the horizontal line as reflecting your interests and your curiosity in involving diverse partners. As a leader, you consistently follow your passion and talent and work to broaden your interests and knowledge. Give yourself credit for the expertise you have acquired and stand strong knowing you have a solid backbone of knowledge. This enables you to function at the heart of the T -- the sweet spot, the common ground of shared interest between you and your collaborators.

Understanding and appreciating your T-shape means no apologies for knowing more than someone else -- and no fears about someone knowing more than you do about a given topic!

2. Just as you generously share your expertise, be sure to open your arms and embrace the talent that others share with you. There is a Buddhist instruction to maintain a strong back and open heart while meditating. Appreciating your T-shape is the physical embodiment of this wisdom. Don't withdraw, hunker down, or try to exert control when a collaborator is willing to share his or her talent and experience. Let your own talent (the strong vertical leg of your T) serve as an anchor, and indulge your curiosity (the horizontal line) so that you remain open and flexible. With such a firm grounding, you're in a better position to take risks and embrace a willingness to fail.

3. Valuing your T also will keep you from spending 20 percent of your time striving for perfection and will help you focus on the 80 percent that is "good enough." Allison Fine and Beth Kanter, co-authors of The Networked Nonprofit, recommend that nonprofit organizations "Do what you do best, and network the rest."

Think of the vertical leg of your T, your backbone of expertise, as comprising 80 percent of the talent and leadership you bring to a collaboration. The knowledge and talent you figuratively embrace comprise the other 20 percent. Why stress about achieving perfection as a soloist when you're engaged in a group process? Respect your team's creativity and contributions, and contribute to the shared goal with generosity.

And, yes, with everyone contributing his or her 80 percent, the whole will be far greater than sum of the parts. The T-shape metaphor can help you see (and accept) that not everyone in a collaboration has to contribute equally at all times. Rather, the goal is to achieve a dynamic balance in terms of expertise and sharing.

So stand up, spread your arms, and open yourself to possibility! Only then will you reap the benefits of collaboration.

-- Thaler Pekar

2011 Year in Review: Foundations Bet Big on New Initiatives

Global, public-private, collaboration, thinking big -- these were some of the themes in play as foundations sought to boost their impact while addressing some of the most pressing challenges at home and abroad in 2011.

In the field of international development, the Chevron-sponsored Niger Delta Partnership Initiative Foundation and USAID pledged $50 million in February to support programs that promote economic development, improve the capacity of government and civil society institutions, and help reduce conflict in the oil-rich Niger Delta region. A month later, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation announced a five-year, $50 million commitment to help improve water conditions for more than one million people in sub-Saharan Africa and areas of India and Mexico -- a commitment that included a grant to the Foundation Center to build an online portal to serve as a central hub for information about water-related issues. In July, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation stepped up its own commitment to WASH issues by awarding grants totaling $41 million in support of efforts to increase access to affordable long-term sanitation solutions for millions of people in the developing world. And in October, George Soros and the Open Society Foundations pledged $27.4 million to the Millennium Villages Project to boost development in villages across rural sub-Saharan Africa.

Closer to home, a number of foundations announced major initiatives benefitting underserved communities and vulnerable populations. In April, the Home Depot Foundation launched a three-year, $30 million initiative to address veterans' housing issues; in May, the New York City-based NoVo Foundation announced a ten-year, $80 million initiative to strengthen the movement to end violence against women and girls; and in July, the California Endowment announced the creation of a $200 million public-private loan fund, the California FreshWorks Fund, to support efforts to increase access to healthy and affordable food in underserved communities.

Filmmakers and performing artists also were beneficiaries of bold thinking on the part of foundations in 2011. In January, the New York City-based Ford Foundation committed $50 million over five years to help identify and support a new generation of documentary filmmakers; in February, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland, announced a $60 million documentary film initiative of its own; and in October, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation announced a ten-year, $50 million commitment to support more than two hundred individual artists in the field of jazz, theater, and contemporary dance.

Finally, in the area of health and health care, in September the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest healthcare philanthropy, announced the launch of a three-year, $100 million "impact" fund to help its grantees leverage additional funding from multiple sources and share solutions that actually improve health and health care for all Americans. As part of the effort, RWJF awarded $10 million to NCB Capital Impact, a national Community Development Finance Institution (and the program administrator for the California Endowment's FreshWorks Fund), to create a low-interest credit facility that will support the development of Green House nursing homes over the next ten years.

"Our goal with this initiative is to go beyond traditional grantmaking, to drive social change, achieve measurable impact, and collaborate with partners who can help us achieve our mission," said RWJF president and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey. "This commitment allows us to better leverage our funding and spread innovative models, like the Green House Project."

Related Links

Ford Foundation Announces $50 Million for Documentary Film Initiative (1/19/11)

HHMI Launches Documentary Film Unit (2/08/11)

Chevron, USAID Pledge $50 Million to Improve Living Standards in Nigeria (2/21/11)

Hilton Foundation Commits $50 Million to Help Improve Global Water Conditions (3/23/11)

Home Depot Foundation Launches $30 Million Initiative to Address Veterans' Housing Issues (4/14/11)

NoVo Foundation Establishes $80 Million Initiative to End Violence Against Women and Girls (5/20/11)

Latin American Water Funds Launched With $27 Million in Funding (6/15/11)

Gates Foundation Announces $42 Million to Address Global Sanitation Issues (7/20/11)

California Endowment Announces $200 Million Public-Private Loan Fund (7/22/11)

Rockefeller Foundation, Partners Launch Initiative on Role of Philanthropy in International Development (8/10/11)

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Establishes $100 Million Impact Capital Fund (9/12/11)

Soros Pledges $27.4 Million to Aid Development in Rural Africa (10/04/11)

Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Commits $50 Million to Support Individual Artists (10/21/11)

2011 Year in Review: A Tale of Two Economies

It was a year of bruising budget battles and unnerving debt crises, of economic recovery and retreat, of the 99% and the 1%. For many, it was simply the "new normal."

After three years of economic hardship, stress, and uncertainty, the year opened on an optimistic note, with a handful of announcements and surveys seeming to find many Americans feeling better about their prospects.

In January, the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, the nation's largest donor-advised fund program, reported it had received more than $1.6 billion in contributions in 2010, a 42 percent increase over the previous year, and had authorized more than $1 billion in grants for the fourth consecutive year. That same month, the annual Dunham+Company New Year's Survey found that the number of households planning to boost their charitable giving in the coming year had jumped nearly 30 percent, while the number that planned to cut back on giving was down nearly 50 percent. And the Minnesota Council on Foundations' 2011 Outlook Report found that 35 percent of the foundations surveyed expected to boost their giving in 2011, while only 10 percent expected to give less.

The somewhat more constructive tone did little, however, to change the fact that millions of Americans were struggling to keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, and/or secure gainful employment -- or that nonprofits, as a survey conducted by the Nonprofit Finance Fund found, expected to see increased demand for their services. Further clouding the picture for nonprofits, especially so-called "lifeline" organizations, was the highly partisan debate in Washington over the 2012 federal budget -- and the likely impact of funding cuts on an already frayed social safety net.

As spring turned to summer, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and the possibility of the first-ever downgrade of long-term U.S. debt sent markets tumbling, threatening the fragile economic recovery at home and causing many charities and fundraisers to brace for the worst. But a last-minute (if temporary) debt-ceiling deal in Congress, collective (if halting) action by European countries and the ECB to stem the crisis in the eurozone, and steady (if modest) improvement in the U.S. economy helped to forestall the dreaded double-dip scenario -- for the time being.

As a result, by December many Americans were again feeling better about the future. Indeed, with the new year right around the corner, a Chronicle of Philanthropy survey found that donation income at more than half the charities it polled was running ahead of last year's holiday season total -- and that donations at one in five organizations were up by more than 20 percent compared to the same period in 2010.

At the same time, a distressing number of charities continued to report that income remained below pre-recession levels and that demand for assistance was rising faster than giving, while more than a few were looking to collaborations, mergers, and joint ventures to meet that demand.

"A much larger percentage of nonprofits were seeing significantly higher fundraising results before the recession," said Andrew Watt, president and CEO of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, in September. "[And] with many economists predicting a flat economy for several more years, charities face a very challenging environment in the near future….This is the reality charities will have to address."

Related Links:

Minnesota Grantmakers Optimistic About 2011, Report Finds (1/13/11)

Contributions to Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund Surpassed $1.6 Billion in 2010 (1/17/11)

Americans More Optimistic About Giving in 2011, Survey Finds (1/19/11)

President's Budget Calls for Cuts in Support for Nonprofits (2/15/11)

Kresge Foundation Awards $6 Million to Safety-Net Initiative Recipients (2/22/11)

As Economy Improves, Giving By Ohio Foundations Beginning to Recover (2/26/11)

Nonprofits Expect Increased Demand for Their Services in 2011, Survey Finds (3/22/11)

Foundation Giving Held Steady in 2010, Study Finds (4/08/11)

Dayton Nonprofits Pool Resources to Stay in Business (4/08/11)

Cleveland-Area Nonprofits Merge to Reduce Costs (4/19/11)

Marin Community Foundation Awards $2 Million to Bolster Healthcare Safety Net (4/30/11)

Foundation, Operating Charities Report Investment Returns of 12 Percent (5/25/11)

Charitable Giving Up Modestly in 2010, 'Giving USA' Finds (6/21/11)

Pittsburgh-Area Nonprofits in 'Merger Mode' (7/08/11)

Charities, Fundraisers Consider Possibility of Double-Dip Recession (8/09/11)

Foundations Concerned About Possible Double-Dip Recession (8/11/11)

Charity Fundraising Saw No Change During First Half of 2011, Report Finds (9/29/11)

Donations to Largest Charities Still Below Pre-Recession Levels (10/18/11)

Donations Are Up for 2011 Giving Season, Survey Finds (12/25/11)

A Q&A With Michael Edwards, Author, 'Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World' (Part 1)

Over the past decade, philanthropy has been invigorated by the arrival on the scene of some very large and innovative foundations, many of them established by hugely successful individuals from the worlds of business and technology. In 2009, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green brilliantly captured the spirit of the decade in their book Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World. But while the book was well received within the sector, not everyone was ready to jump on the bandwagon.

Last month, Philanthropy News Digest spoke with Michael Edwards, author of the 2010 book Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the World, which offered a sharp critique of the philanthrocapitalist worldview. During our conversation, Edwards criticized the growing tendency to adopt a "one size fits all" approach to philanthropy and suggested that, in order to solve complex problems, we need a large dose of humility and a wide range of tools and techniques. Edwards also spoke about the impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement and shared his take on the recently established Bellagio Initiative, which seeks to establish "a new framework for philanthropic and international development collaboration in pursuit of human well-being in the twenty-first century."

A leading expert on civil society, philanthropy, and democracy, Edwards has worked for the World Bank, Oxfam, Save the Children, and other NGOs in Washington, D.C., London, Colombia, Zambia, Malawi, and India. From 1999 to 2008 he was the director of the Ford Foundation's Governance and Civil Society Program, and he currently serves as a distinguished senior fellow at Demos, a progressive think tank in New York City, and as a senior visiting fellow at the Brooks World Poverty Institute at the University of Manchester.

The first part of our conversation with Edwards follows; part two will be posted tomorrow.

Philanthropy News Digest: You've been a vocal critic of the philanthrocapitalism approach popularized by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green in their book of the same name. Given that philanthrocapitalism is a somewhat nebulous set of ideas with no universally accepted definition, is there any aspect of the concept you find value in or agree with?

Michael Edwards: Sure. Let's go back three years in time when I wrote that little pamphlet, Just Another Emperor?, which was the first shot across the philanthrocapitalists' bow. Back then, philanthrocapitalism was all the rage: "Oh yeah, you know, I'm a philanthrocapitalist and I'm going to save the world." The aim of the pamphlet was simply to start a debate about what philanthrocapitalism was, to cause people to stop and think, because people were believing in something without actually knowing what it was. And to do that, it had to be fairly polemical or oppositional, which it was, as was my book Small Change: Why Business Won’t Save the World, which is based on the pamphlet. In both, I was saying, "Don't buy this stuff, it often doesn't work, and here are the reasons." It was a tactic. But what really matters is delving into the details of who is doing what on the ground, regardless of the labels they use to describe it. So to answer your question, there are lots of ways in which people can use the market to drive change, ways that are socially and environmentally beneficial; but I wouldn't confuse them with what I would call philanthropy.

In fact, for me there's a major conceptual and practical difference between philanthropy, which I see as funding for activities that do not generate short-term returns and results, and social investment, which does. It's simply a case of helping people figure out which tool to use. You wouldn't use a hammer to write a book. You wouldn't use a typewriter to plough a field. You have to select your tools carefully and systematically if you hope to achieve the results you want. And what pleases me now is that we seem to be moving into a different phase of the debate: instead of arguing about who is or isn't a philanthrocapitalist, we're talking about how we can use the different tools in the tool kit to make progress. In some areas, venture philanthropy, business techniques, and technology can be very useful in pursuing social change. In other areas, they're not and can actually be damaging. As long as people get that, they can describe it any way they want and I won't care because they'll be using the right tool for the right purpose.

PND: Matthew Bishop, Michael Green, and other proponents of the philanthrocapitalist approach would argue that more competition in the nonprofit sector is bound to help reduce and eliminate inefficiencies, which would mean more resources being allocated to the problems we all want to see solved. Do you agree with that perspective?

ME: No, that's nonsense. It's nonsense because we are talking about completely different worlds that operate on very different principles. Philosophers would say the philanthrocapitalists are committing a category error, which is when you take one set of ideas and principles that works in a particular setting and you transport those ideas and principles into a very different setting while expecting the same results. That's the definition of insanity. None of the great social movements of the past have been based on competition. They've been built on solidarity, cooperation, bridge building, and networking.

That's not to say there isn't room for some competition in the nonprofit sector; of course there is, because there are never enough resources to go around. But there's a difference -- a huge difference -- between recognizing that people need resources to do their work and believing that classical market principles like competition apply in the world of social change. What happens when you apply formal market principles to civil society -- and we see this already -- is that lots of very important organizations will be eliminated. Big ones will tend to get bigger, and small ones will tend to get smaller. A lot of organizations doing easier work will attract more resources, while many doing the more difficult work will lose out. Sometimes, though, they're the most important of all. No one would suggest, for example, that we force local volunteer fire departments to compete with each other in the interest of making them more efficient, because they play a role in their communities which can't be analyzed in terms of profit and loss. It's a rather ridiculous application of something that works in economic theory but not in social practice, and it can actually be very damaging when applied inappropriately.

PND: Do you think foundations, individual donors and nonprofits, working together, can solve huge, seemingly intractable problems such as poverty, our broken public education system, and climate change? Is that where nonprofits and philanthropy should be focusing their efforts and energies?

ME: Well, they should be playing a part in focusing everyone's efforts and energies on those problems. But the idea that philanthropies and nonprofits by themselves could address any of them successfully is, again, nonsensical. They are far too small, and the levers they have over change are far too weak to be able to effect that kind of change. What you need to effect that kind of change is, obviously, strong government intervention. You also need a thriving market economy that creates wealth which can be used for socially useful purposes. Instead of holding themselves responsible for solving climate change or poverty, philanthropy and the nonprofit sector should be constantly nudging, pressuring, and filling in gaps so that other, larger institutions do their jobs properly.

I think that's where my critique of venture philanthropy -- my fear that we will use scarce philanthropic dollars to tackle problems that are important but which should be dealt with by other parts of society -- is particularly relevant. There's an issue here of how we make sure we remain focused on the fundamental transformation of society and don't get locked into simply being social businesses, which are important but not particularly consequential in the deeper areas of social change.

PND: Impact assessment and performance measurement have become hot-button issues in philanthropy. Are the people promoting those disciplines missing something? Is there a better way to promote effectiveness in philanthropic work?

ME: It depends entirely on what you mean by effectiveness and how rigid you want to be in terms of using only certain techniques and methodologies of impact assessment, like randomized control trials, as opposed to qualitative research. We often see a stereotyping of traditional nonprofits and philanthropy as being backward in the way they look at impact assessment, but I've never found that to be the case. It's simply that we use a different set of quite defensible measures and methodologies. I would put far more trust in mixed methodologies which involve ethnography, qualitative assessment, quantitative research, and traditional social science than I would in a methodology that solely focused on randomized controlled trials or things of that ilk.

Look, I welcome a focus on impact. Everyone does. But it's a complete falsehood to say we've never been interested in impact, that we're not interested in impact, and that being interested in impact is somehow the exclusive property or characteristic of the so-called new philanthropy. The real issue is how we view impact. What kinds of change do we value? What measures do we use? How do we configure an impact assessment tool kit that will produce the most useful and accurate results without submerging the people who are doing the work in so much data they don't have time to do what they should be doing in the first place? One has to think about impact assessment in the context of the work that people do, what their objectives are, and over what time period, and then see how it can help them do their work more effectively. That requires us to be really imaginative about what we're doing and why we're doing it, rather than simply saying: "I have a magic methodology -- all you need to do is follow it."

PND: How is the new generation of tech philanthropists -- people like Bill Gates, Steve Case, and Pierre Omidyar -- changing philanthropy? And what, if anything, can they learn from old-line foundations such as Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie?

ME: Well, they are definitely a force for change. They have high profiles, they're ambitious, and they're aggressive, at least in some ways. Many of them want to spend down, either in their lifetimes or in a relatively short period of time after they die, and they are not shy about taking on very large problems. There is an attractiveness about that energy and about the grasp of new opportunities they have which I quite like. It's definitely not the stodgy, bureaucratic world that perhaps those more traditional foundations are accused of inhabiting. But at the same time, one has to recognize that social change is complicated, messy, politicized, and a long-term phenomenon. There are no simple answers. Just because you have wealth and technology doesn't grant you a special wisdom. And I think what some of the new philanthropists can learn from people who have been doing this kind of work for a long time -- and I actually hear new philanthropists say this quite a lot -- is that things are more difficult and more complicated than they thought they were when they started down this path, and that maybe if they had talked to more people who'd been doing this work for decades, they might have learned some things early on that they could use.

I'm a big fan of people who borrow elements from the old and the new, who don't get trapped just working with traditional methods, or just seizing opportunities in technology or the marketplace. That's where the real impact is going to come, from people who have the humility and the flexibility to say, "I have to be in learning mode constantly, and I can and should borrow from all over the place to do my work most effectively." You can learn as much from the civil rights movement of the 1960s as from new tech-based networking organizations like Avaaz. To me, there's still too much hype around the new and not enough respect for the old, and that means we're not learning as much as we could be. So, yes, I welcome the energy and forcefulness of the new philanthropists, but I want that energy and forcefulness to be balanced by a greater respect for tradition and the idea that we can learn from the past.

PND: Do you share the concerns of some that the Gates Foundation, because of its enormous size, has too much influence over agendas and policy in areas where it is active? And what can the Gates Foundation do to allay those fears?

ME: I don't think it's a question of size per se. We've had very large foundations in the past. Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie -- all of them, when they were first established, were large. It's more a question of how we use private resources in a way that serves the public interest, as opposed to private interest or a single individual's own interpretation of what they think the public interest is. Education reform is a classic example. The problems come when significant private resources controlled by organizations with weak accountability mechanisms are aligned with a targeted, rigid approach to a controversial issue such as school reform. It's a recipe for problems, not least because the impression is that here is this hundred-pound gorilla with no discernable democratic accountability structure barreling into something that belongs to all of us, and that's not acceptable. I don't want my kids' education to be decided by Bill and Melinda Gates, thank you very much. Not because I don't like them. It's just not the way we do things in a democracy.

Instead, why don't we ask Bill and Melinda to put half their funding for education into a national education innovation fund which is governed by a cross section of society -- teachers, teachers' union officials, principals, parents' representatives, and academics who've studied the field? That's one way of mitigating the dangers that come with highly concentrated funding. Another way, obviously, would be to change the composition of the Gates Foundation's board so that it's more diverse. But that doesn't seem to be an option which has any resonance with Bill and Melinda.

Let's talk about another example. Look at what's happening in Newark at the moment with the hundred million dollars that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg pledged to the city for school reform. Originally it was promised that there would be democratic structures attached to the gift so that residents of the community, people who send their kids to Newark schools, felt they had a stake in how the money was spent. But as we see so often, that's exactly what's not happening; instead, most of the decisions are being left to a small group of powerful rich people. Of course, residents of the community are pushing back against that, as common sense suggests they would. I think it's an important test case, actually, for philanthropy in America, and it's important we get it right. We need to find a way to use the huge private resources of a Bill Gates or a Mark Zuckerberg for the benefit of society, but to do so in a way that the rest of us can share in and feel a part of. If we don't do that, there could be trouble down the road....

Click here for part two of the interview.

The Foundation Center Turns 55!

(The following post was written by Inés Sucre, reference/outreach librarian at the Foundation Center-New York.)

Five years ago, when the Foundation Center celebrated its 50th anniversary, we published a nifty timeline that looked at the history of the center side by side with milestones in U.S. and world history. Take a look -- it's quite wonderful!

The idea of change can sometimes be over-hyped. Even so, the last five years do seem to have brought rapid shifts in the way the Foundation Center serves its mission. Maybe I'm wrong, but consider that…

Back then, in 2006, we didn't have any blogs, not one. Now look at us! The Foundation Center communicates through eight blogs, including the Nonprofit Literature Blog, the first of our blogs to launch; PhilanTopic, a blog of opinion and commentary that draws contributors from all over the country; and our field office/library blogs.

Back then, we didn't tweet -- no one did. But today we're tweeting from our offices in San Francisco and New York -- and lots of places in between, too, like Cleveland, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C. And our main Twitter feed (@fdncenter) has more than 15,000 followers, from all over the world!

Of course, foundations are tweeting and blogging as well. So Foundation Directory Online Professional now has a Social Media tab for feeds and links to all this great content.

Back then, we had one Web site -- foundationcenter.org, which I've always loved (even before I worked here). Now, in GrantSpace, we have a new site dedicated to nonprofit grantseekers, to forging an online community, and to offering a "a robust, accessible knowledge bank for the sector."

Back then, we did very little training online. Now, our full curriculum of free classes is available in the form of webinars, with classes conducted by the same wonderful instructors who lead classes in our five learning centers.

Back then, we didn't have a standalone Web site to promote greater transparency in philanthropy. Today, Glasspockets opens the world of foundations and philanthropy to all.

Back then, although we focused our training and reference work on the topic of collaboration, we didn't have an online portal dedeicated to it. Now, thanks to our partnership with the Lodestar Foundation, we maintain the Nonprofit Collaboration Database. Check it out!

Back then, we had about 230 Cooperating Collections in our Cooperating Collections network. Today, we have over 450 and have even opened Cooperating Collections in nine countries. This network of libraries, service organizations, and community foundations provides funding information and training -- as well as access to the center's databases and core publications -- to nonprofits across the U.S. and in an ever-growing number of countries.

Back then, we didn't have the highlighted text below as part of our mission statement:

To strengthen the social sector by advancing knowledge about philanthropy in the U.S. and around the world.

Now, we do, and our data collection and dissemination efforts are being expanded and becoming more international in scope. This not only serves to broaden the audience for our servces and publications, it also helps to inspire an open flow of information about global philanthropy and global needs. Our data is also being put to greater use in our new mapping tool, Philanthropy In/Sight®, which maps the impact of (and shows the need for) philanthropy around the world.

On December 10, 1956, the Foundation Library Center, as we were known then, opened its doors with the goal of collecting, organizing, and making available to the public "reports and information" about foundations. An article in the New York Times heralded that beginning as "an important event in the history of American philanthropy … it can and should do a great deal to forward the cause of 'full disclosure' in a field where it is needed" (New York TImes, 12/11/1956).

As Foundation Center president Brad Smith wrote in announcing Foundation Center 2020, our new strategic plan, "If you believe, as we do, that philanthropy is an engine for positive social change, then please join us in our effort to nurture it, to support and advance the work of those around the world who transform lives and make the world a better place."

Happy fifty-fifth anniversary, Foundation Center!

-- Inés Sucre

A Bifocal Lens: The Value of Investing in Both Networks and Organizations

(Paul Connolly is chief client services officer at the TCC Group, a consulting firm that provides strategy, evaluation, and capacity-building services to foundations, nonprofit organizations, and corporate community involvement programs. A version of this post originally appeared on the Foundation Center's Transparency Talk blog.)

What do the Arab Spring uprisings, the Tea Party, al-Qaeda, and Occupy Wall Street have in common? They all stem from flexible networks of people and groups rather than just a single organization. And they all have powerfully influenced society lately. As technology has enabled more connection and coordination, networks are playing a greater role in tackling social and environmental problems, galvanizing change, and enhancing civil society. At the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations conference "Growing Social Impact in a Networked World" a few weeks ago, funders discussed how they are changing their perspectives and practices to support and participate in networks.

One foundation leader remarked that observing a network is like looking at a Monet painting: up close, the brushstrokes can be blurry and seem disconnected, but when you stand back the power of the full picture becomes clear. Another speaker advised that funders need to view networks with a different type of lens than what they use for organizations. Networks tend to have more distributed ownership and expertise, less linear decision-making processes, more fluid boundaries, and results that are harder to measure. Funders therefore need to tailor how they assist networks -- for example, by investing at multiple levels, providing for additional improvisation, relinquishing some control, and focusing less on causal attribution of outcomes.

Along these lines, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has provided funding to foster a network of activists across the nation working to reduce childhood obesity by improving eating habits and increasing physical activity. In doing so, the foundation has learned that shifting from a mostly one-way broadcast mode to a more robust and interactive dialogue with constituents who are connected to the coalition has required more effort, openness, and trust. At the same time, foundation staff members have strived to listen actively to network participants and create authentic feedback loops -- both online and in-person -- to help advance the effort.

Similarly, the San Francisco-based Jim Joseph Foundation has nurtured Reboot, a network of thought leaders and culturally influential Jewish people working to engage a younger generation in "rebooting" Jewish culture, rituals, and traditions. The foundation's strategy was to get the right mix of people in the right space and then allow for serendipity. With a bold overarching goal, the foundation backs the network's process and does not try to micromanage the specific means chosen by members or the content they produce.

The Packard Foundation studied their existing portfolio of grantees and realized they already had a broad spectrum of models, about a third being networks for wide-ranging causes with varying types of needs. As Packard program director Stephanie McAuliffe noted, "Our grantee the Ocean Conservancy did not want to strengthen their organization's brand, but the ocean's brand." The foundation has improved its own network approach through an online wiki, transparently sharing data about certain programs and engaging others in their strategy development and evaluation work. [Ed note: You can learn more about the Packard wiki at the Transparency Talk blog.]

Although networks have many distinctive features, they also share many of the same characteristics as organizations. In fact, many networks are actually collections of organizations, or at least are comprised of individuals who see their participation through a specific organizational perspective. So networks can be both capable in their own right, as well as reflect the performance of the particular organizations involved. TCC Group's research on nonprofits and coalitions have found that the highest-performing ones share such central characteristics as distributed leadership, inclusive mindsets and practices, cross-fertilized programs, learning cultures, and adaptability.

Specifically, we found that the strongest nonprofit organizations:

• have a clear vision;
• understand community needs and services well;
• are deeply engaged and forge alliances with external stakeholders;
• encourage reflective inquiry; and
• amplify their impact by not only expanding their own programs, but also disseminating replicable practices and models and by influencing policies and systems.

Our study of coalitions for the California Endowment determined that the most successful ones:

• have a lucid mutual purpose and value proposition;
• collaborate and manage conflict well;
• conduct ongoing assessment;
• have transparent decision-making processes; and
• are action-oriented.

Far-sighted grantmakers see that scaling social impact will not happen just by growing high-performing nonprofit organizations one at a time. Increasingly, strong networks will be needed, and their respective efforts will have to intersect more and more. Meanwhile, nonprofit organizations are still the predominant vehicle for achieving philanthropic support, and many networks involve sets of them. To see organizations and networks -- the individual brushstrokes as well as the full painting -- clearly rather than through two different sets of optics, funders need better bifocal lenses. Without them, they'll be hampered by fuzzy vision and blind spots, reducing their potential to magnify positive change.

There's much yet to discover about harnessing the combined potential of organizations and networks. What tools, frameworks, and training are needed to sharpen our collective bifocal vision? How can we learn more about organizational and network effectiveness and the places where they intersect -- and do a better job of applying what we already know? How can grantmakers support networks' efforts to build superior shared learning systems and performance measurement within particular fields? Share you thoughts and suggestions in the comments section below.

-- Paul Connolly

[Video] Funder Collaboratives: A Conversation With Mai Kiang, Director of Programs, Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice

(Susan Herr, a longtime advocate for social change, founded PhilanthroMedia, Inc. in 2007 to "celebrate the end of philanthropy as usual and advance the perspectives of those leading the charge." This is the last in a series of four interviews she conducted for PhilanTopic on the topic of funder collaboration. Click here to view the first, with Patricia Swann, a senior program officer at the New York Community Trust; here for Susan's conversation with Tade Aina, who directs the Higher Education and Libraries program at the Carnegie Corporation of New York; and here for her conversation with Terry Mazany, president and CEO of the Chicago Community Trust.)

An old Kenyan proverb says "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." That sentiment has anchored each of the four interviews I conducted for PND on the art of funder collaboration.

For Mai Kiang, director of programs at the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, it's not about "having the victory by myself. It's a victory of the whole society." That doesn't mean that competitive pressures, like those cited by Chicago Community Trust CEO Terry Mazany (see link above), are unimportant or to be ignored. Like CCT, Astraea also must fundraise in addition to making grants. But Kiang sees collaboration as an "exchange of ideas and collective effort" that further enhances the capacity of her partners in every way.

If you're a Type A personality, you'll appreciate Mai's concluding remarks about the importance of both setting and celebrating milestones that have been achieved. Many of us forego the recognition process because we always feel as if there's more to be done. But for Kiang, celebrating one's wins, however small, isn't an option; it is a critical step on the road to building a sense of community and the trust that is so essential to going farther.

(If you're reading this in an e-mail, click here.)

 

(Running Time: 5 minutes, 7 seconds)

What do you think? Is Mai right about the importance of celebrating one's victories? And how do you it so that it's not just a pro forma exercise?

Of course, identifying the elements of a successful funder collaborative is a subject big enough for a book -- one I hope to write someday! In the meantime, I hope you enjoyed our little series on the topic, and I encourage you to weigh in below in with your own advice, wisdom, and/or examples of what works and what doesn't.

-- Susan Herr

[Video] Funder Collaboratives: A Conversation With Terry Mazany, President/CEO, Chicago Community Trust

(Susan Herr, a longtime advocate for social change, founded PhilanthroMedia, Inc. in 2007 to "celebrate the end of philanthropy as usual and advance the perspectives of those leading the charge." This is the third of four interviews she conducted for PhilanTopic on the topic of funder collaboration. Click here to view the first, with Patricia Swann, a senior program officer at the New York Community Trust, and here for Susan's conversation with Tade Aina, who directs the Higher Education and Libraries program at the Carnegie Corporation of New York.)

Terry Mazany is that rare breed of program officer who rises through the ranks of an organization all the way to the corner office. After a distinguished career as a public school administrator, Mazany joined the trust as a program officer in its Education Initiative, where he led the design and implementation of a $50 million, five-year commitment to improve Chicago schools. He later served as the trust's chief operating officer, before being appointed, in 2004, as the fifth chief executive in the trust's history.

He's also the kind of foundation president who relishes a challenge -- which is why Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley selected him in November 2010 to serve as interim chief of Chicago Public Schools, a district with 400,000 students, more than 650 schools, and a budget of $6 billion -- even as he remained in his "day" job at the trust.

When I spoke with Mazany in September about the benefits and challenges of funder collaboratives, he chose to focus on what he called the "disposition to collaborate." Foundations that have the most success, he noted with a wry grin, tend to be mission-driven and "humble."

For foundations that have strategic reasons for standing out from the crowd, that can be a challenge. This is especially true for public charities and community foundations, which have to both raise funds and disperse them. Having spent five years as managing director at the Community Foundations of America, I agree with Manzany's assessment that a community foundation's dual mandate does not preclude it from participating in collaborative efforts. Community foundations around the country are, in fact, widely recognized for their ability to serve as local and regional convenors.

As Mazany says in the video below, the best community foundations recognize that "collaboration gives us a greater stature and standing in communities. Donors, in particular, see that it's not all about us but that it is about...the larger interests of the community." I couldn't agree more.

(If you're reading this in an e-mail, click here.)

 

(Running time: 3 minutes, 34 seconds)

In a tough economy marked by volatile markets and a competitive fundraising environment, nonprofits must wrestle with many of the same issues. Where do their own needs end and those of the community or cause begin? Is collaboration the secret to going farther, or are there times when can going it alone makes more sense? Maybe the answer depends on the situation. Still, as Mazany makes clear, collaboration can be an important and valuable strategy for those who are able to "check their egos at the door."

-- Susan Herr

[Video] Funder Collaboratives: A Conversation With Tade Akin Aina, Program Director, Carnegie Corporation of New York

(Susan Herr, a longtime advocate for social change, founded PhilanthroMedia, Inc. in 2007 to "celebrate the end of philanthropy as usual and advance the perspectives of those leading the charge." This is the second of four interviews she conducted for PhilanTopic on the topic of funder collaboration. Click here to view the first, with Patricia Swann, a senior program officer at the New York Community Trust. And be sure to check back next week for the other two chats in the series -- with Terry Mazany of the Chicago Community Trust and Mai Kiang of the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice.)

As Pat Swann noted in the first of our conversations with veteran grantmakers on the art of funder collaboratives, collaboration is a valuable and important strategy for grantmakers looking to leverage their resources and maximize their impact.

And as Tade Aina, director of the Higher Education and Libraries program at the Carnegie Corporation of New York, makes clear below, funders who come to complex social challenges with predetermined answers would probably do well to go it alone.

Maybe I'm a sucker for a good metaphor, but I was moved by Tade's grasp of the "zenlike" approach that foundation program officers need to adopt when trying to advance a collaborative effort. For Tade, grantmakers shouldn't be gatekeepers; they should be "platforms" for the sharing and dissemination of knowledge, ideas, and values. Inherent in that assessment is a profound respect for differences in organizational culture and a frank acknowledgment of the deeply entrenched nature of so many of the social challenges that confront us today.

Tade has led collaborative efforts at both Carnegie and the Ford Foundation, and for him the most effective program officers are those who either know or can find the most knowledgeable experts about a given problem. The job of the program officer, in effect, is to gather the right pieces and set them in motion within a clear framework.

No one is born knowing how to do that; it comes through hard-won experience. But in our increasingly networked world, voices like Tade's remind us that individual differences still matter and, when harmonized in service of a larger collective goal, can be the difference between success and failure.

(If you're reading this in an e-mail, click here.)

(Running time: 8 minutes, 39 seconds)

What would you add to Tade's observations? Do you have an example of a collaboration that succeeded because of the differences that various partners brought to the table? And what's the most important thing you've learned about collaboration in the nonprofit sector? Use the comments section below....

-- Susan Herr

[Video]: Funder Collaboratives: A Conversation With Patricia Swann, Senior Program Officer, New York Community Trust

(Susan Herr, a longtime advocate for social change, founded PhilanthroMedia, Inc. in 2007 to "celebrate the end of philanthropy as usual and advance the perspectives of those leading the charge." This is the first of four interviews she conducted for PhilanTopic on the topic of collaboration. We'll be posting the other chats in the series -- with Omotade Akin Aina of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Terry Mazany of the Chicago Community Trust, and Mai Kiang of the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice -- over the next week.)

Funder collaboration isn't new. Having spent the past twenty years on both sides of the giving equation, I've watched the approach ebb and flow in popularity. Theoretically, it makes perfect sense. Convene a bunch of like-minded foundations that, together, can bring more dollars and resources to bear on a problem than each could alone. Identify grantees whose cumulative experience broadens the scope of possibilities and improves the chances of success. Build shared vision, execute passionately, and presto: life is better for everyone.

Of course, if you've ever been part of a funder collaborative, you know the reality is far more complicated. From 1996-2000, I directed the final four years of the Children, Youth and Families Initiative, a ten-year, $30 million effort spearheaded by the Chicago Community Trust to improve outcomes in seven low-income Chicago neighborhoods. The need was great, the vision ambitious. But as Patricia Swann, senior program officer at the New York Community Trust, ruefully told me when I spoke to her in August, "Sometimes it's hard working with people."

While I came away from my experience in Chicago with a more realistic sense of the challenges of collaboration, I also came away very much in agreement with Swann's assessment that collaboration, when done well, offers all partners the opportunity to "magnify and amplify the impact of their work."

Swann, a veteran of the nonprofit sector, has provided leadership on a wide range of issues in New York City. In the video chat below, she offers her perspective on the hallmarks, challenges, and rewards of collaboration, as well as often-overlooked elements of the "process" needed to advance a truly shared vision.

(If you're reading this in an e-mail, click here.)

 

(Running time: 4 minutes, 37 seconds)

If you're a grantee currently engaged in a funder collaborative, feel free to share this post with the powers that be. And if you're a funder, take heed. Collaboration is the road less traveled for a reason. But as the veteran grantmakers we'll be featuring in this series make clear, it is a path that often leads to truly meaningful social change.

What would you add to Swann's caveats? What's the most important thing you've learned about collaboration in the nonprofit sector? Use the comments section below....

-- Susan Herr