Category Archives: Grantmaking

The Commodity Nonprofit

May 13, 2008 – 9:46 am

Yesterday I asked whether nonprofits delivered a commodity of a premium product/service. I want to reiterate that I did not use “commodity” to mean “inferior to a premium product.” I meant commodity to refer to homogeneous products that consumers general choose between based solely on price. Examples: milk, gasoline, printer paper, computer storage devices, generic pharmaceuticals. For-profit organizations can make a TON of money selling commodities (see oil & gas companies during the past few years), so I am not suggesting that selling premium products is somehow superior to selling a commodity.

Let’s think about the nonprofit space. If Organization A can deliver vaccines in Africa for $5 per shot and Organization B can deliver it for $10 a shot, a rational donor would likely fund Organization A. The assumption behind that decision rests on the idea that the product being delivered (a vaccination) is identical and so the most important thing to consider is cost. But what if we look at pre-school education? I don’t care how many teacher-hours are delivered per dollar. I care about the quality of the teaching (because the teaching is not an end to itself, it is the education of the child that we care about). In this environment, we have a premium product market where a rational donor will judge cost in relation to value. However cost still matters. A Lexus might be worth twice as much as a Ford, but even though it is a better car it would not be rational to pay 100 times the cost of a Ford.

When I think back on the discussions we’ve had about overhead expense ratios and the fallacy of quantitatively evaluating nonprofits, I realize that the commodity/premium product dichotomy can help us understand when to look at cost and when cost can be misleading.

There are a lot of nonprofits that deliver commodity-like products and that’s OK. Those organizations should be judged based on cost of delivery. But many, many nonprofits deliver a premium product that is better (or worse) than similar products offered by competing nonprofits (and for-profits). These organizations should be judged on the quality of their product and the cost of delivery in relation to the level of quality.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Impact Measurement, Philanthropy | Comments (1)

Conversations with a New Donor

April 17, 2008 – 8:46 am

I had a fascinating conversation over lunch at the Global Philanthropy Forum with a young philanthropist. He was in his 20’s and along with his uncle had started a pretty large family foundation. He described the difficulty they had just trying to figure out how to get things started and how now after 18 months they were ready to really work on developing programs.

I mentioned in my last post on GBF how the intention of this conference is to bring together family foundations who can learn from each other and influence each others grant making. What I found interesting was this young philanthropist’s comment that many of the sessions seemed to focus on big policy issues. While clearly important, these issues did not help my lunch partner figure out how to create his programs. This gap, the gap in information available to individual philanthropists, is the information gap I’m focused on. A small segment of this gap is what I’ve designed Ensemble Capital to fill (the gap that led to the young philanthropists 18 month journey of simply getting his foundation up and running). But program development, either official foundation programs, or just strategic family giving, is a another huge gap. I suggested the book Inspired Philanthropy to him and told him about a program consultant I could introduce him to. But that’s not enough.

I think that supply begets demand as well as responding to demand. It is interest from donors that has led to the creation of Charity Navigator, the increasing level of philanthropy coverage in the mass media, the new philanthropy TV shows and Ensemble Capital. But on the other hand, I’ve found that most people who come to my firm for assistance don’t know what they don’t know. As they become educated about the possibilities, their interest and engagement in philanthropy grows.

Who is going to tell people the great story that is philanthropy? Who is going to weave the true story of the Second Great Wave of Philanthropy. Who is going to educate donors about the possibilities of philanthropy?

When an intelligent, young philanthropists like the one I had lunch with today has a hard time finding information about how to achieve impact (even after catching a long plane flight to one of the premier philanthropy conferences) how is it possible to make the argument that donors have always been focused on impact? To believe that donors have always wanted something and yet the market simply has not delivered it to them, is to believe in a massive market failure. The supply of impact-oriented philanthropy information does not exist because the demand is very new. The demand is small because the supply does not exist. I believe deeply that we are seeing the very early signs of supply coming to this market. I think the latent demand is massive. As the demand materializes in response to the coming supply, a feedback loop will develop and a Second Great Wave of Philanthropy will begin to crest.

What will these individuals fund? How will they conduct themselves? I met Case Foundation CEO Ben Binswanger at the conference. Have you seen the Case Foundation Make It Your Own program? Ben is one person who is already positioning his foundation to figure out how to leverage this Second Great Wave. Are you ready?

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Foundations, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (1)

Donors Want Impact?

April 9, 2008 – 9:43 am

In response to my recent Financial Times column about new approaches to funding growing nonprofits, the following letter to the editor appeared in the April 5 edition of the FT.

Sir, Sean Stannard-Stockton (“Non-profits look to invest in themselves”, March 29) errs when he concludes his interesting column by saying that “while yesterday’s donors were content to give to a non-profit based on emotional appeal, today’s donors want to know their money is really going to have an impact”.Since the late Renaissance and the Reformation era when the conceptual and applied shift towards “modern philanthropy” with its pursuit of rationalised solutions to systemic problems occurred, donors have sought to optimise the outcome of their investments. Today’s “venture philanthropists” promise greater results and more accountability by borrowing from the practices of venture capital, just as “scientific philanthropists” of the late 19th century did by adopting the principles of the reigning intellectual framework of science.

In order to grapple honestly with the strengths and weaknesses of beneficence, it is important to recognise that new and better practices are often old methods that have been revived - because the problem of an unequal distribution of resources endures - and that perpetual frustration with the limits of philanthropy is a prime reason for the continual reworking of ideas.

Amanda B. Moniz,
Department of History,
University of Michigan

Michael Edwards of the Ford Foundation responded to the same sentence in my column saying, “[you] assume that impact considerations are new, when in fact they have been around for fifty years or more - just not expressed in the ways you
think are satisfactory.”

I agree that the concept of impact (attempting to give in ways that can do the most good for your dollar) is not new within institutional philanthropy. Because a lot of my readers work at institutional foundations, consult for these foundations, or work at nonprofits that receive grants from these foundations, I often address issues of institutional philanthropy. But I’m not an expert in institutional philanthropy. My firm, Ensemble Capital, serves individual philanthropists. When I talk about The Second Great Wave of Philanthropy, I’m talking about major shifts going on with individual donors. When I write for the mass audience of the Financial Times, I’m writing for individual donors. But given how my writing on this blog veers into issues of institutional philanthropy on a regular basis, I can see how it is my fault if people perceive that I’m declaring “impact” as a new concept to foundations. It is not.

Individual donors have always been aware of the idea that their donations could do more or less good depending on which nonprofits they funded. While they might not often use the word “impact”, the concept makes sense if it is explained to them. But I reject the idea put forth by Moniz and Edwards that “donors” (and that was the word I used, not “foundations”) have embraced impact considerations for half a century.

If in fact donors understood impact, which at its core assumes that some donations do more than others, than you would assume that these donors would strive to achieve higher levels of impact. Yet there are almost no mass market books that discuss this issue, almost no articles in print or online, almost no organizations that help donors achieve impact.

Now before you send me emails pointing to Inspired Philanthropy or Don’t Just Give It Away, before you point out that I’m writing a mass market column on these very issues at the Financial Times, before you tell me about excellent consultants like The Philanthropic Initiative, Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors, or my own firm Ensemble Capital, let me just say that all of that adds up to just a bit more than zero.

Individual donors have access to almost nothing compared to individual investors. Every bookstore in the country has a whole section devoted to personal finance (books on which generally ignore charitable giving while lavishing pages of copy on other obscure financial issues). Every daily newspaper devotes space to advising individual investors and we have many mass market publications targeted directly to the individual investor. Investors issue with investment advisors is not so much finding one (believe me, there are thousands of advisors trying to find you right now), but picking from amongst the many qualified professionals.

Most individual donors don’t even know the difference between a nonprofit and a foundation. Institutional philanthropy actual is making a effort to let people know what they do since most Americans cannot even name a single large foundation. Individual donors with a portfolio of appreciated assets still mostly write checks to charity instead of transfering assets or setting up a philanthropic account (this is similar to saving for retirement in a checking account because an investor had never heard of a 401k).

I could go on and on.

I actual have my own criticism of the sentence in my column that Edwards and Moniz call out. When I wrote “while yesterday’s donors were content to give to a non-profit based on
emotional appeal, today’s donors want to know their money is really
going to have an impact,” I actually overstated the case in the opposite direction of the way they saw it. Edwards and Moniz argued that the statement was false because they believe yesterday’s donors were focused on impact. I would say that my statement was flawed because in fact, not even “today’s donor” knows what impact is. “Tomorrow’s donor” will be the ones deeply concerned with impact. But at least today we have real movement in that direction.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Foundations, Impact Measurement, Media, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (12)

Short-term vs. Long-term Focus in Philanthropy

April 4, 2008 – 8:03 am

In the Summer 2007 edition of the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Charles Conn, a senior advisor to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and a high tech executive, wrote about the short-term focus of most foundations in an article titled Robbing the Grandchildren:

If future generations could vote on how foundations invest their money today, would they choose the current allocation? Byron Swift, chair and executive director of the World Land Trust, suggested this thought experiment to me, and I am disturbed to find that my answer is no……U.S. charitable foundations are better positioned than companies, governments, and universities to address these long-term, potentially catastrophic problems. One of the few sources of long-term risk capital, they control more than $500 billion in assets, generating funding that with other charitable giving totals almost 2 percent of GDP. With Warren Buffett’s gift, the Gates Foundation alone will control more than $60 billion in assets and $3 billion to $5 billion in annual spending. Other foundations closely associated with the digital revolution (such as Dell, Ellison, Packard, Hewlett, Moore, Omidyar, Page and Brin, Yang) could account for at least $50 billion to $70 billion more.

Perversely, though, many of these new tech entrepreneurs are worsening foundations’ shortsightedness by implementing businesslike metrics and controls in a way that reinforces short-term thinking and behavior. Other questionable management practices, such as low payout rates and lack of coordination with other organizations, further aggravate foundations’ myopia…

…A recent movement, sometimes called philanthrocapitalism or venture philanthropy, seeks to avoid complacency and lack of focus in foundation management by introducing rigorous success metrics and accountability practices. Many of these new-style foundations limit their scope to a few problem areas and, like corporations, intensely monitor outcome metrics, often with tight windows for review. To those of us who came to foundation work after a career in business, this sounds eminently sensible; after all, the foundation world is littered with fragmented, unfocused, and failed programs…

This short-term, metric-focused approach likewise hampers grantees. Foundations take the passionate and committed people in these institutions and harness them to near-term indices of progress. Grantees, in turn, stop playing the long-term game in order to keep the money flowing. They aim lower, too.

I agree completely with Conn’s thesis, but I want to elaborate because Conn fuses “short-term”, “metric-focus” and “businesslike” as if they automatically go hand in hand.

In the stock market, most people have become more and more short-term oriented. In the 1950’s, investors held stocks for an average of 7 years. Today the average is 11 months. Investors have gained access to vast amounts of information they never use to see and yet in many cases have used this information to change their mind more frequently rather than to gain more conviction in their decisions.

Almost all great investors make financial decisions based on a long-term outlook, not a prediction of what will happen in the next three months. At my firm Ensemble Capital Management, we talk about “arbitraging other investors’ time horizons”. In other words, we try to identify situations where short-term bad news about a company causes other investors to sell the stock so that we can buy it at lower prices. We use short-term good news that causes a stock to move higher to sell stock in companies whose longer-term outlook we think is deteriorating. Warren Buffett or most any great investor will tell you that Wall Street’s obsession with quarterly earnings reports is misplaced. Some companies (such as Coca-Cola, a company Buffett has owned a long time) have stopped issuing guidance to investors regarding what their next quarterly earnings might be.

It is human nature to want results as quickly as possible. But to achieve success, we must match our investment decisions to our time horizon. If we want to fix a local school because our child will be attending starting next year, then it might make sense to focus on short-term solutions. But most donors fund issues because they want to have a sustained impact on a situation. The techniques that might reduce crime in a bad neighborhood the most over the next month are unlikely to be the techniques that will have the largest, permanent impact on reducing crime rates over the next couple of decades.

Financial market participants are often short-term focused. They often focus on metrics which describe short-term conditions, but do little to illuminate long-term trends. But great investors and great philanthropists must focus on the information that matters to the long-term success of their projects.

Disclosure: Nothing in this post should be considered investment advice.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Evaluation, Impact Measurement, Philanthropic Capital Markets | Comments (0)

Sustainable Nonprofit Operating Models

April 2, 2008 – 2:47 pm

In my recent Financial Times column on VolunteerMatch’s “growth capital offering”, I state that the organization’s prospectus says that the new capital will fund a plan to make VolunteerMatch self-sustaining and generating an operating surplus by 2012. Reader Jeremy Gregg, who writes the blog The Raiser’s Razor, leaves a comment asking about this claim:

I would be very interested to know how a non-profit can design a plan that meets these standards: we are so used to annual operations plans and short-term proposals that it is hard to envision such a concept. Are they tied to social enterprise and earned income strategies that can make the organization self-sustaining?

The VolunteerMatch prospectus does a good job laying out their self-sustaining operating model. Before I proceed, I should note that other than reading the prospectus and speaking with their president as well as some other related parties, I am not intimately familiar with VolunteerMatch. So please take my comments as my own personal opinion and realize that I am not speaking on behalf of VolunteerMatch in any way.

The VolunteerMatch proposal does not suggest that their model will earn a profit. There are three core areas where they will receive support, 1) payments from corporations that use their corporate volunteer program services, 2) payments from nonprofits who pay for premium access, and 3) reliable ongoing contributions from volunteers who use the network. This is not a “profitable” model, but it is a sustainable model. VolunteerMatch should be able to track what level of donations they can expect from the users of their service (the volunteers) and then count on that fundraising as they bring more users to the network.

A sustainable nonprofit operating model does not mean that the organization must charge for their services. I do not agree with the idea that nonprofits should seek to build models that earn income unless that model is the most effective way to further the nonprofit’s mission. Fundraising can and should be part of a sustainable operating model. Unfortunately, I too often hear of a nonprofit who will generate a loss (as is expected) and then “make up the difference with fundraising”. That is not sustainable. A sustainable fundraising plan should be built into the operating model. Note that VolunteerMatch does not just say that they will raise money; they relate their goals to their experience with their actual user base and then make projections based on certain growth plans.

Fundraising is something that organizations can invest in. The growth capital that VolunteerMatch is looking for is not sustainable funding. It is a onetime investment that will be used in part to build a sustainable stream of fees and donations.

A sustainable operating model that relies on fundraising (as most all nonprofits must, otherwise they should ask why they are not a for-profit), must be able to budget on certain fundraising goals. Not a fundraising budget that is whatever size fills the gap between expenses and revenue, but a budget that is based on reliable projections.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Fundraising, New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Capital Markets, Philanthropy | Comments (5)

Investors vs Donors III

February 29, 2008 – 9:41 am

To recap, my questions from my earlier post were:

  1. Why do investors take credit for picking great investments (”look how smart I am, I bought XYZ stock!”), while philanthropists, especially foundations, claim that the credit goes to the nonprofits they fund (”the grantee did all the work”).

  2. Why is it acceptable for investors to talk about investments they think are bad (”Don’t buy ABC stock, their management is terrible!”), while philanthropists never badmouth nonprofits, even if they think they are ineffective?

  3. Related to #2: Why do public companies generally ignore all the talking heads who say negative things about them, while nonprofits find it intolerable to have a prominent person speak negatively about them in public?

The responses from readers can be found here.

The primary response to Question 2 was that funders/donors do say negative things about nonprofits behind closed doors and within private circles. But that they do not do the same publicly for fear of damaging their relationship with grantees. The point was made that funders (unlike investors in public companies), must maintain a healthy relationship with grantees to do their job well. Most readers seemed to appreciate the positive long term impact on the sector of public criticism and general truth telling, but worried that in the short term it would be a large negative.

I think this is an entirely solid argument. Philanthropy is currently much more like venture capital than investing in the stock market (it is no coincidence that venture philanthropy approaches have gained a lot of credence in recent years). Venture capitalists invest in private companies where funding comes primarily from a small set of large funders. They also have an active role and continuing relationship with the companies they fund. This is different from stock market investing where most investors are passive holders of stock and do not interact with the company at all.

Within the context of philanthropy as a private marketplace, I think the arguments for why public criticism does not work are valid.

I don’t think philanthropy is going to be a private marketplace for much longer.

Individuals already give seven times the amount that foundations give each year. Combining the Fidelity and Schwab donor advised funds (representing organized individual giving) gives you an annual grantmaker that rivals the Gates Foundation. Most high net worth individuals are only in the early stages of realizing that giving is something they can approach with a strategy that maximizes impact and tactics that make the most of what they have.

Public criticism of publicly traded companies is no big deal because the shareholder base is so broad. But a venture capitalist going on TV and knocking a private startup might cause it to go bankrupt as funding dried up.

Philanthropy is not yet a public market. The arguments presented against public criticism are all valid and correct today. We need to be preparing for tomorrow.

Venture Capitalists do talk about startups that they think are great. So do some foundations. Note the constant promotion of Nurse-Family Partnership by the venture philanthropy focused Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. You can read a great article about their approach here (note the reporter labels it as “controversial”). Maybe this positive commentary is a bridge to future criticism. Reader “young staffer” writes:

Foundations and donors actually don’t do enough to tout their successes and to make a strong, public case championing the relative effectiveness and strength of their best grantees. It’s not just that the grantees did all the work; it’s that we talk only about how our grantees do good things and yours do too. I think it would be way easier to get the ball rolling towards more criticism if it started from a place of making a case for the best social investments rather than highlighting the worst.

So why then don’t more “expert grantmakers” (mainly large foundations) publicly promote their knowledge? Reader Renata Rafferty writes:

Philanthropy in our society is frowned upon if it is considered self-serving. Therefore, to boast about one’s wise philanthropic investment “picks” would be, well, boastful and self-serving.

Look, if you have a billion dollar endowment and 30 employees working on a focused set of issues, it is not “boastful and self-serving” to talk about your “wise philanthropic investment picks”. If you are not making wise philanthropic investment picks there is something seriously wrong. I assume that large foundations are smart grantmakers. I’m not suggesting that they shout from the rooftops how great they are in an attempt to convince people. I just want there to be a public conversation about social investing the way we have a public conversation about the stock market.

Don’t forget that we’re talking about all of this within the context of a country where most people think nonprofits waste donations. It is hard to imagine that criticism could be all that damaging. You can’t fall very far once you’re already laying on the floor. Maybe Americans would have a better view of nonprofits if they heard experts talk negatively about some of them and positively about others. Realize that the underlying assumption that donors who want low “overhead expenses” from nonprofits is that the nonprofits are a value destroying entity that just gets in the way of the money going to the actual cause.

When a hedge fund manager goes on CNBC and talks about her favorite stocks, it is not “boastful and self-serving”. She is an acknowledged expert and the public appreciates (whether they agree or disagree with her picks) the opportunity to hear her thoughts.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Media, New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Capital Markets, Philanthropy, Transparency | Comments (13)

Investors vs. Donors

February 27, 2008 – 8:30 am

I have some questions and would love your feedback.

  1. Why do investors take credit for picking great investments (”look how smart I am, I bought XYZ stock!”), while philanthropists, especially foundations, claim that the credit goes to the nonprofits they fund (”the grantee did all the work”).
  2. Why is it acceptable for investors to talk about investments they think are bad (”Don’t buy ABC stock, their management is terrible!”), while philanthropists never badmouth nonprofits, even if they think they are ineffective?
  3. Related to #2: Why do public companies generally ignore all the talking heads who say negative things about them, while nonprofits find it intolerable to have a prominent person speak negatively about them in public?

If you’ve read this blog for awhile, you probably think these are leading questions and that I have a firm bias about which approach is better. But I’m truly asking these questions with an open mind. Recently I met with the director of philanthropy-focused grantmaking at a large foundation. I brought up the idea that publicly talking negatively about ineffective nonprofits (especially those that the foundation thought were not “fixable”, say because management was incompetent) would produce a positive social impact by directing other donors’ funds away from the bad nonprofit and towards more effective competitors. She told me that it was a primary value of the foundation to not harm grantees.

I think that is a very compelling counter argument and I’m interested in how readers view my three questions above and the idea that not harming grantees means never saying anything negative about a nonprofit.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Evaluation, Foundations, Philanthropic Capital Markets, Philanthropy | Comments (9)

Do Nonprofits Trust People?

February 11, 2008 – 8:00 am

A new blog I’ve been following, LifeYears, asks an interesting question today:

Non-profits seem sceptical towards outcome-based indicators of how effective different initiatives and projects are. Is this because they are afraid of what “ordinary people” would think and do if they had this information? And if so, could such a worry be rational?

The author, Ole Rogeberg, poses the question very seriously without passing judgment:

Personally, I hope (and want to believe) that outcome-based indicators would make the connection between giving and accomplishing stronger, that people would not just give in order to “do a good deed” but also start giving to “have an impact on malnutrition” or “reduce malaria” etc. But other people might believe that the consequences would be different. But other people might believe that the consequences would be different. Two possible worries that immediately come to mind:
  • Myopic funding: The more concrete, short-term and certain a program was according to its outcome indicator, the more funding it might receive. This might make it easy to get funding for vaccines and malaria nets, but hard to get funding for investments and development in health infrastructure, education, human rights work with women, etc.
  • Over-focused funding: Some measures may catch the public’s interest far more than others (”go viral”), and this might lead to large shares of funds going to these areas - not because the need is the largest or the impact the greatest, but simply because the indicator is catchy in some way.

Ole ends:

Even if you personally don’t see the problem - how can we answer this fear and develop indicators that don’t have excessive (largely unintended) negative consequences?

Important questions. Change is difficult and often has unintended consequences. Many, many people are resistant to my calls for more measurement and analysis of nonprofit outcomes. How can we handle their concerns? Or might their concerns be right?

Powered by ScribeFire.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Evaluation, Impact Measurement, Philanthropy, Transparency | Comments (1)

Efficient Markets in Philanthropy

January 24, 2008 – 9:25 am

In response to my post yesterday in which I discussed the value of information to philanthropy and why donors should desire efficient philanthropic markets, Phil Cubeta writes:

The logic here can become relentless and destructive. What this tends towards a lists, like league tables in a sport, with the best at the top. It leads then to managing a nonprofit by the numbers, to get the rating, and it leads to shutting down those that don’t rank high. We then have the tyranny of the metrics, however much arbitrariness is built into them…

The world you want - are you sitting in corner office reading a spreadsheet?

So are the philanthropic capital markets I envision boring and lifeless with endless spreadsheets and numbers to crunch? Not in the least.

Economics is often called the “dismal science”. I know that many people think that finance is boring. But the vision of financial markets as nothing but numbers and spreadsheets does not capture the reality. Do investors buy stock in Apple because they spent hours and hours processing spreadsheet calculations? No. While at the end of the day, buyers of Apple stock believe that the return on capital being generated by the company will make for a profitable investment, the information they use to determine that are not just numbers. The way in which Apple has captured the imagination of the consumer, (an intangible piece of data that cannot be added to a spreadsheet) is by far the most valuable asset that Apple has and it is a major reason why investors have flocked to the stock.

Have you ever watched CNBC, the news channel of the financial markets? It is far from some kind of spreadsheet crunching lecture. Every day, investors or all types come on the show and make passionate arguments for why certain companies are good investments. While numbers and calculations underlie much of their thinking, it is the story, the human story of the companies they discuss that take center stage.

Warren Buffet is widely considered the best for-profit investor of his generation. Does he sit in a corner office reading a spreadsheet the way that Phil suggests? The quote below is from noted investor Whitney Tilson (Tilson is a huge fan of Buffet and a fellow columnist of mine at the Financial Times):

If the future were predictable with any degree of precision, then valuation would be easy. But the future is inherently unpredictable, so valuation is hard — and it’s ambiguous. Good thinking about valuation is less about plugging numbers into a spreadsheet than weighing many competing factors and determining probabilities. It’s neither art nor science — it’s roughly equal amounts of both.

The lack of precision around valuation makes a lot of people uncomfortable. To deal with this discomfort, some people wrap themselves in the security blanket of complex discounted cash flow analyses. My view of these things is best summarized by this brief exchange at the 1996 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting:

Charlie Munger (Berkshire Hathaway’s vice chairman) said, “Warren talks about these discounted cash flows. I’ve never seen him do one.”

“It’s true,” replied Buffett. “If (the value of a company) doesn’t just scream out at you, it’s too close.”

Taking liberties with Tilson’s quote, I would argue that donors should not “wrap themselves in the security blanket of metrics” because “the lack of precision around measuring the impact that nonprofits achieve makes them uncomfortable.”

World-class investors do not sit in their office crunching spreadsheets all day. Neither should world-class donors. But the underlying logic of both should be that of achieving the highest return on investment.

Recently Phil commented to Perla Ni regarding her site Great Nonprofits (which offers reviews of nonprofits written by volunteers, donors and the people served by the nonprofit):

Thank you so much, Perla, for setting the record straight. In fact, your site is the exact opposite of a metrics driven exercise. You are bringing together the voices of those who have been touched by a nonprofit. I finally “got” what you are doing.

An efficient philanthropic capital market does not only view numbers as valuable inputs to the decision making process. Sites like Great Nonprofits offer extremely valuable information to donors. This sort of qualitative information is critical to both donors and for-profit investors. Great Nonprofits is not the opposite of a metrics driven exercise. They are both part of the same process of determining where donors and investors should direct their capital.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this blog should be construed as investment, tax or legal advice. This blog is for informational use only.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Evaluation, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Capital Markets, Philanthropy, Transparency | Comments (7)

Information Sharing in Philanthropy

January 23, 2008 – 11:45 am

I wrote a post a while ago called Paul Brest Needs a Blog (Paul is the head of the Hewlett Foundation). I’ve been an advocate for more people in philanthropy to start blogging in general. In the above mentioned post I wrote:

So why should foundations blog? It seems to me that the imperative is not for them to embrace technology so much as it is for foundations to join and begin to drive the online philanthropy conversation. [But] it is the two-way flow of information that blogs encourage that is important, not blogs themselves.

Even so I’ve noted recently that some people feel that I’ve pushed blogging rather than information sharing. As the conversation we’re all having unfolds I think it is important to take a step back and make sure we haven’t missed the forest for the trees. I wish I had expressed my thoughts with more clarity.
When Phil Cubeta recently asked why nonprofits should blog, astute reader Michele Moon asked:

I’m not entirely sure why it’s blogging, in particular, that’s the focus of discussion, especially because it’s now considered a little bit old-hat, Web 1.5. What is it about the format that makes it so essential to transparency and its tyrant? Is it actually blogging you want to see - personal, real-time updates and editorials, followed (if you’re lucky) by people who read, comment, and sometimes stick around to converse?… Why should it be blogging that we aim to do, or is that shorthand for more complicated online interactivity?

I’m guilty of using “blogging” as short hand for information sharing. I’ll stop making that mistake.

When economists speak about efficient markets they are talking about a situation where money flows to the organizations that can put it to the best use. Widely available, robust information is a critical factor for a functioning efficient market. Recently, in a conversation with Phil Buchanan and other readers on this issue I wrote the following (you can find the full thread here. The Chronicle of Philanthropy recently highlighted the conversation):

In an efficient market, investing is a zero sum game. Maximum returns are generated globally so the only question is matching an investor’s risk/return preferences. In inefficient markets, higher returns accrue to more “effective/smarter” investors. In a public benefit market, since all returns accrue to everyone, investors should desire an efficient market within which they could align their social investments with their personal values/goals.

The philanthropic capital markets are highly inefficient. Far more inefficient than any for-profit marketplace.

Therefore, it seems to me that making the philanthropic capital markets more efficient should be the number one priority of large funders who desire to be effective…

I’m not arguing that the public will make better decisions than the “experts”. I’m saying that efficient markets will produce better outcomes than inefficient markets. In the for-profit world, inefficient markets are great for “expert” investors because they can exploit superior information to generate outperformance of investment returns. But these inefficient markets reduce the total returns in the market by preventing capital from flowing to the best performing investments.

What I’m saying is that unlike in the for-profit market, “expert” philanthropist enjoy no advantage from superior information. The returns they generate accrue to the public, and so no “outperformance” is possible. Instead, they should be interested in the total market functioning at a higher level, since that is the only way to increase the social return on investment that accrues to everyone.

This is the challenge we face as a field. How can we ensure that the $300 billion that is given to charity each year is flowing to the organizations that can put the money to its best use? The key will be our ability to supply market participants with widely available, robust information. Blogs are one tool in this work. There are many others.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Evaluation, Foundations, Giving Blogs, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Open Source Philanthropy, Philanthropic Capital Markets, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, Transparency | Comments (18)

Should Foundations Fund Philanthropic Information?

January 16, 2008 – 1:49 pm

An interesting conversation is beginning to unfold in the comments to Phil Buchanan’s podcast. The point I’m making is not that foundations have some sort of obligation to fund nonprofit information for public use, but that doing so is in their best interest. This conversation ties in directly to the conversation we’ve been having about Google Finance and Google.org.

If a foundation can give $1 that creates $2 of social benefit, or give $1 that spurs the public to give $10, which creates $20 of social benefit, which one should they choose? This ability to give $1 and get $10 of social benefit instead of $2 is the “leverage” that so many philanthropist and foundations say they want to employ.

Here’s the big leverage opportunity of this decade: Provide the individual donors (who every year give seven times more than all the foundations in the country combined) the information they need to make better donation decisions.

Join the conversation with Phil Buchanan and let’s work this problem out!

PS: As background it might be useful for readers to note the essay by Paul Brest, the president of the Hewlett Foundation, in which he discusses “the advantages of good information” in philanthropy. In the essay he mentions Great Nonprofits, whose founder Perla Ni is participating in the conversation with Phil Buchanan. Hewlett is, to my knowledge, the most forward thinking foundation on these issues. Hewlett is also considering funding GiveWell.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Evaluation, Foundations, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Capital Markets, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, Transparency, nptech | Comments (0)

Rebooting Nonprofit Evaluation Debate

January 7, 2008 – 9:46 am

A lively debate about nonprofit evaluation and metrics has been raging in response to my request for input on my meeting later this week with Google.org. However, the conversation has splintered into a debate over whether a systematic, “metric” driven process of scientific measurement is needed, or whether the frame of scientific measurement is “an epistemologically impoverished frame” through which to understand nonprofit evaluation.

I personally believe evaluating nonprofits is mostly about evaluating their output (the social good they produce). Since it is difficult (impossible?) to quantify this output, I think the focus on metrics as a framework for evaluation is misplaced. Metrics can be used, but they should be designed on a case-by-case basis for each situation. That being said, I think the conversation has fallen into the trap of being constrained by historical frames of reference.

I want to have a different conversation.

I’m interested in what information is available to donors who want to evaluate a nonprofit and which of this information is useful. Google.com is mostly a resource that points to information; they don’t tend to create a lot of their own content. So if we imagine a future version of the nonprofit data inside of Google Finance, I don’t imagine it will be some new metric that we design. Instead, it will point to existing information on the web. When I first wrote about nonprofit info in Google Finance, I said I hoped they would not display Charity Navigator ratings (although I would support them noting if a nonprofit had a zero or one star rating since I do believe that a Charity Navigator rating at this level is a significant red flag)

So the conversation I want to have is what information do readers think that donors should consider when evaluating a nonprofit? Then secondly, where or how can this information be captured online so that it can be displayed in Google Finance?

Open Invitation to Foundation Employees

I realize that if you work at a foundation, you may not want to jump into a conversation that involves telling another foundation what to do. However, the conversation we’re having here is really important and would not be complete without the input of the army of program officers (ie. Nonprofit evaluators) that read this blog. So please consider commenting anonymously (just let us know you’re a program officer) or comment publicly and realize that we’re having a broad conversation about nonprofit evaluation that goes beyond Google.org and Google Finance

Open Invitation to Nonprofit Employees

A conversation about nonprofit evaluation would not be complete without the input of the nonprofits being evaluated. What information do you, as nonprofits, what donors looking at when they evaluate you? It could be that someday the Google Finance website about your organization becomes the top ranked search result on google for your nonprofit. What do you want on that page?

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Social Media, Transparency, nonprofits, nptech | Comments (70)

Philanthropy Conversation Wants You!

January 4, 2008 – 9:09 am

Rather than post today, I’m going to point you back to this post and encourage you to join the growing conversation in the comments section. I think the topic of this conversation is the most important issue facing philanthropy today. The fact that this conversation is centered around Google adds time sensitive relevance to the subject, but the subject matter at hand is far bigger than Google. The issue is how can we improve the available information about nonprofits so that the $300 billion+ donated to charity each year can flow to the best nonprofits. Improving the flow of philanthropic capital will completely transform the nonprofit sector and you won’t believe what we as a sector will be able to accomplish.

So click here and add your voice to the mix. Philanthropy needs you.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Social Media, Transparency, nptech | Comments (2)

What to Measure and Why in Philanthropy

January 3, 2008 – 12:24 pm

I’m meeting with someone from Google.org next week to talk about what kind of information I think they should make available about nonprofits in Google Finance and other ways that Google.com’s mission statement to “organizing the world’s information” can be directed at the Third Sector.

In preparation, I’d like to spend some time speaking as a community about this issue. I encourage you to leave comments or email me your thoughts.

In response to the thread I started on the Google Finance Red Cross board about how effective they are, I got a comment from Leyla Farah of Cause + Effect public relations:

One item I’d offer: a measurement of “average cost of impact” - in other words, the organization’s total budget divided by the total number of people (or animals, or acres of land) it’s benefited within a specific time period. That metric would (1) force each organization to provide a definition of how it helps people (etc.) - and (2) force it to account for all the costs associated with providing that help.

While Phil Cubeta of Gift Hub scolded me for focusing on metrics:

Paradise Lost versus Gone with the Wind. What metrics do we use to determine which is better? Some subject matter requires judgment, taste, discernment, even wisdom. We have movie critics, book critics, educators to help us make more discriminating judgments. Before we cry ourselves hoarse over metrics, we have to ask whether philanthropy is more like art or more like business. The call for metrics can be a bullying move by the half educated to impose their MBA logic on a sector whose reason for being is that it stands in contrast to both government and business. As the old saying goes, “Do not attempt to cure what you do not understand.” Stressing metrics, Sean, is in terrible taste. You paint yourself as Barbarian.

Personally, I’d like to state that I don’t intend to stress metrics as being valuable unto themselves. However, I do think that all things in life can be judged, at least in each person’s personal view, as being bad, good, better and best (I’m sure there are some exceptions, but you get the point). I think it is critical that we find ways to judge nonprofits so that philanthropic dollars can flow to the organizations that do the most good in the world. To me, funding the best of what is available is far more important than trying to invent the next big thing. I think that information about nonprofits is what is needed and this is why I care about nonprofits being in the Google Finance portal.

As a professional investor in for-profit companies, I can tell you that there are very few (none) golden metrics that allow you to comprehensively judge one for-profit against others. Even very widely used metrics like “price to earnings ratios”, “dividend yields”, “profit margins”, and “earning growth rates”, have been show in practice to be very useful, but not in any way adequate to judging the superiority of one investment choice vs. another on their own.

In my Philanthropy Predictions for 2008 that I wrote for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, I made one reference to measurement:

A United Way-authored outcome-measurement template will be adopted by the sector as the standard format for nonprofit organizations to report on their effectiveness. The narrative-driven form will soon be available for download from the home pages of many nonprofits.

Note that I suggest a “narrative-driven form”. If you read analyst reports on for-profit investments, you’ll see a lot of numbers and metrics, but the heart of the report is a narrative about the company.

This brings me to an excellent comment from the thread mentioned above from an anonymous “young staffer”:

If I may carry the Paradise Lost vs. Gone with the Wind analogy a little further, I think it raises some interesting points.

The first is that there are plenty of potentially relevant metrics with which one could back up one’s a claim for each work’s superiority: their longevity in years, the number of universities that include them in introductory freshmen humanities courses (as a proxy measure of their centrality to our cultural canon), a RottenTomatoes.com-style survey of critics. I can even imagine poor grad students counting allusions to them in last year’s bestsellers.

Relying solely on any one of these potentially valid measures, however, would obviously leave you wide open to criticism for the flaws of your methodology and the limits of the analysis. To construct a strong argument for your preferred choice, one could use both the metrics and qualitative measures. Same goes for nonprofits - the measures are neither perfect nor complete, but that is not the same as nonexistent.

I think the other point is the difficulty of comparing apples and oranges. Let me reframe the question as “Paradise Lost” work of literature vs. “Gone with the Wind” work of film. Both are widely-considered seminal works in their mediums. It’s not hard to imagine metrics, like those above, that could easily distinguish each as a leader within its respective medium. It is much harder, however, to compare them very convincingly across mediums. An author and a film buff might reach very different conclusions about which one matters more in today’s culture. Their distinctive values and tastes will influence that decision.

The same, I think, is true for nonprofits. Too universal a measure like “average cost of impact” might not be helpful for identifying whether a great afterschool program in New York or a great community health program in Uganda is better. The costs and the measures of impact are on different scales. But metrics certainly might help you identify each within its field as the seminal nonprofit. From there, one’s values and tastes might be expected to guide your choice.

So there you have it, a good beginning to an important conversation. If there was a single webpage, like this one for the Red Cross, or this one for Cisco Systems, that contained all the information you would like to see when you wanted to examine a nonprofit for the first time and decide if you might want to support them, what information would you like there to be on the site?

Google.org owes me nothing and anything I tell them might be ignored. But on the other hand, I will deliver the message that we co-create over the next week in this discussion. Someone from one of the largest (and oldest) foundations has already asked me to pass on their offer of help to Google.org after reading my posts on the subject. I do think that any effort that you the reader put into this discussion will be heard by the powers that be at Google.org, even if they do not take action.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, Social Media, Transparency, nonprofits, nptech | Comments (37)

Lessons for Philanthropists

December 27, 2007 – 9:30 am

Social Venture Partners has been publishing a list of 10 Things We’d Like to Tell Every New Philanthropist on the SVP Blog. With permission from Paul Shoemaker, I’m republishing the lessons here. I think there is a lot of philanthropic knowledge currently concentrated in the hands of institutional funders. SVP is setting a great example by sharing what they know with the general public.

SVP makes the following note about the lessons: “This is written in the spirit of sharing knowledge and helping philanthropists be more effective. Every mistake articulated here has been made by all of us. The intent is not to preach a one-size-fits-all formula or to be arrogant in our viewpoints. Our sincere hope is that it will encourage reflection and stimulate lots of feedback, criticism, and conversation.”

Each lessons opens with a title that paraphrases a common misperception or mistake (you can find lesson #1 here).

Lesson #2 – “It is clear this non-profit needs my support more than the other. This non-profit might not survive without my contribution and that other non-profit has plenty of money.”

There are certainly times where urgent financial need is the right criteria for making a grant decision. But just as often it is not. When presented with this scenario, consider some questions – why are they in such dire need? Why are they so low on cash? Should I fund organizations based on financial urgency or on positive impact? Sometimes a non-profit might be in that circumstance because of poor cash planning, questionable program effectiveness, or ineffective fund development. The point is not to categorically reject or approve giving to an organization in need, but to take a little time to understand why that is the case.

On the flip side, philanthropists will sometimes shy away from funding successful non-profits with a strong financial position because they don’t “need” it as much. But why would we punish successful organizations? Isn’t that what we want? Organizations doing great work, with effective programs, and that have the ability to sustain and maintain funding over time.

Lastly, there can be a tendency for philanthropists to fund need instead of impact because one organization’s mission is more compelling than another’s. We all want to give to what we care deeply about and there is nothing wrong with that. While difficult to measure, at the end of the day the reason to contribute to a non-profit is to get improved academic outcomes, fewer teen pregnancies, a cleaner environment, and other positive changes in our world.

Lesson #3 - “I need to be careful to not let the non-profit get too dependent on my contributions”

Logically, how does discontinuing funding to a non-profit make them more “independent” or “less dependent”? There is a reality for most non-profits – they depend on funders (corporate, individual, public) for some or much of their revenue. To the degree that they have fee-for-service, or earned income revenue streams, they can become less dependent on philanthropic sources of funding. But discontinuing their funding is not an action that prevents or reduces their dependency per se. If a funder wants to improve a non-profit’s independence and long-term sustainability, they can focus on capacity building, longer-term and bigger grants, investing in outcomes systems, etc.

On a related topic – sometimes funders / philanthropists will be less likely to give to a non-profit with a strong net asset position, because “they are already financially strong enough and some other org needs my money more.” Yes, there is such a thing as too cash rich (e.g. more than 1-2 year’s annual budget amount held in Net Assets), but a non-profit’s net assets are its working capital, its investment capital, its buffer against the ups and downs of running any organization. It’s not money “just sitting around, doing nothing.”

Lesson #4: “The non-profit needs to be run more like a business and set specific goals …”

Like a lot of things in life, it depends on what you mean by the words “run like a business.” Sometimes the expression is used inappropriately and ignorant of the unique issues a non-profit faces. Three simple examples: 1) in most situations in the non-profit world, the “end customer” does not buy the product or service, 2) the usual economies of scale are often not present for non-profit direct service organizations, and 3) there is no clear “market signal” like earnings per share to guide and optimize where capital flows; in fact sometimes money can run away from successful non-profits because they don’t “need” it as much. Non-profits don’t need to be “run like a business” when it comes to mission, effectiveness and resource allocation, etc.

But when it comes to efficiency, operational processes, measurement, etc., non-profit organizations can learn important lessons from private sector business (and some certainly have). No matter how fuzzy or grey the social outcomes are, measurement is important.  How else do you know if you are realizing your mission? Areas like how to…do strategic planning, build financial / cash planning scenarios and tools, hire and retain quality staff…are all examples of domains where running a non-profit more like a business does make sense. In the end, the only reason to do so is to help the non-profit increase its capacity to be effective at achieving its mission.

P.S. By the way, private sector businesses could learn a lot from non-profits as well, but that’s another future topic altogether.

Lesson #5 — “I think philanthropists that are public and visible are just showing off with their money”

There are cases where that is true and certainly it’s a personal decision about how public or private to be about one’s philanthropy. More often than not, someone being more public or visible about their philanthropy is done for a reason, i.e. to show leadership and commitment to a particular cause. And to do so as a means to an end, to help raise more philanthropic capital. This is true especially for newer organizations and causes.

Like most things in this world in we each invest, we want to know who we are investing in (not just what). And knowing who the other “investors” are is an important signal that may guide our own decisions. Visible philanthropy might occasionally be motivated by arrogance, but more often it’s a signal of public leadership and commitment.

Paul S.

P.S. A lot of those people that are the most visible in their philanthropy in one realm are also very private or anonymous in other areas of their giving.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Philanthropy, Transparency | Comments (0)