Comments on: The Big Give http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/the-big-give Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:45:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Jon Brooks http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/the-big-give#comment-3884 Jon Brooks Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:34:42 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/the-big-give#comment-3884 I would love to see more information (metrics) for donors, as long as it helps them make an informed decision. IntelligentGiving.com (which we link to from The Big Give) is a good example of measuring something discreet. Transparency of annual reports isn't everyone's deal breaker, but it's a useful piece of additional info when making that decision. I haven't heard of anything similar to The Big Give in the US, but if we can prove the concept here then it would be great to see it benefit donors in other countries. Jon Brooks The Big Give I would love to see more information (metrics) for donors, as long as it helps them make an informed decision. IntelligentGiving.com (which we link to from The Big Give) is a good example of measuring something discreet. Transparency of annual reports isn’t everyone’s deal breaker, but it’s a useful piece of additional info when making that decision.

I haven’t heard of anything similar to The Big Give in the US, but if we can prove the concept here then it would be great to see it benefit donors in other countries.

Jon Brooks
The Big Give

]]> By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/the-big-give#comment-3878 Sean Stannard-Stockton Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:29:58 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/the-big-give#comment-3878 I don't know anyone in the US who is doing something like this as well as The Big Give. You make some good points about complexity. One problem with these screens is that they are "dumb" in the sense that like any computer they will only give you as good info as you put into them. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. With philanthropic "metrics" so anemic at this point (or even counter productive), a reliance on screening might be dangerous. But I really like what The Big Give is doing. I hope they keep experimenting. Thanks for the comment Tish. It's nice to hear from you. I don’t know anyone in the US who is doing something like this as well as The Big Give. You make some good points about complexity. One problem with these screens is that they are “dumb” in the sense that like any computer they will only give you as good info as you put into them. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. With philanthropic “metrics” so anemic at this point (or even counter productive), a reliance on screening might be dangerous. But I really like what The Big Give is doing. I hope they keep experimenting.

Thanks for the comment Tish. It’s nice to hear from you.

]]> By: Tish Campbell http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/the-big-give#comment-3877 Tish Campbell Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:19:47 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/the-big-give#comment-3877 This Big Give Idea is brilliant! Searchable terms/filters would be a great time saver for foundations and a great boon for charities such as my own that have programs that are innovative, significantly more intricate than many, have a broad reach that would span many searchable terms, and take time to explain. What a relief this could be for everyone! If a foundation looking for innovative education programs found my program because they entered any ONE relevant term such as "art integration"they would then have the opportunity (on their own) to learn that the program covered other areas such as K-8 education, critical thinking, whole-school implementation, communication, language literacy, professional development for teachers, increased test scores, cultural equity, and closing the education gap for starters. I recently submitted a proposal to a foundation, followed their guidelines to the T, gave them only what they asked for in the very limited space they provided and was rejected. They said that they believed that my program did not fit into their funding priorities, but I know that it really did/does (don't worry, I'll continue to try to connect with them). There are several factors that contribute to this: 1.Not all charities have "quick-to-grasp" programs like buying coats for cold children. Some programs cannot be grasped that easily and require more explanation and investigation. These types of programs may get missed in first round reviews because they take time to fully understand and that is usually reserved for round two. While no two proposals requirements are the same, many foundations have length and enclosure restrictions. If I have a program that is more innovative and intricate than buying coats for cold children, how am I supposed to fit that into a restricted two page proposal when I also have to include all the other required information? 2.Proposals are abundant and time is limited. Foundations don't have the time to really investigate each proposal in the first round. 3.While making personal connections prior to proposal submission is best, many foundations do not accept unsolicited requests or phone calls. 4.Small charities often consist of staff members that wear many hats and have a finite amount of time (just as foundations)so we may lack time for proactive relationship building. These are only a few of the factors. Bravo Reed Foundation! I support any technological advancement that helps combat missed connections. Who is doing this in the US? This Big Give Idea is brilliant!

Searchable terms/filters would be a great time saver for foundations and a great boon for charities such as my own that have programs that are innovative, significantly more intricate than many, have a broad reach that would span many searchable terms, and take time to explain.
What a relief this could be for everyone! If a foundation looking for innovative education programs found my program because they entered any ONE relevant term such as “art integration”they would then have the opportunity (on their own) to learn that the program covered other areas such as K-8 education, critical thinking, whole-school implementation, communication, language literacy, professional development for teachers, increased test scores, cultural equity, and closing the education gap for starters.

I recently submitted a proposal to a foundation, followed their guidelines to the T, gave them only what they asked for in the very limited space they provided and was rejected. They said that they believed that my program did not fit into their funding priorities, but I know that it really did/does (don’t worry, I’ll continue to try to connect with them). There are several factors that contribute to this:

1.Not all charities have “quick-to-grasp” programs like buying coats for cold children. Some programs cannot be grasped that easily and require more explanation and investigation. These types of programs may get missed in first round reviews because they take time to fully understand and that is usually reserved for round two. While no two proposals requirements are the same, many foundations have length and enclosure restrictions. If I have a program that is more innovative and intricate than buying coats for cold children, how am I supposed to fit that into a restricted two page proposal when I also have to include all the other required information?

2.Proposals are abundant and time is limited. Foundations don’t have the time to really investigate each proposal in the first round.

3.While making personal connections prior to proposal submission is best, many foundations do not accept unsolicited requests or phone calls.

4.Small charities often consist of staff members that wear many hats and have a finite amount of time (just as foundations)so we may lack time for proactive relationship building.

These are only a few of the factors.

Bravo Reed Foundation! I support any technological advancement that helps combat missed connections.

Who is doing this in the US?

]]>