Category Archives: Grantmaking

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 (5)

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)

Following the Smart Money in Philanthropy

December 21, 2007 – 1:28 pm

I have hesitations about advising donors to “follow the smart money” by funding nonprofits because foundations or other “expert funders” have chosen them. That being said, I think that there are a lot of smart people out there who do know which nonprofits are doing a good job impacting their chosen cause (even if they can’t yet demonstrate it).

To that end, Tracy Gary’s Inspired Legacies has released a list of projects that they encourage others to support. You can find the list here. They cite the following criteria for inclusion:

  • Addresses needs as Inspired Legacies perceives them through wisdom of talking with thousands of nonprofits, donors, and advisors.
  • Lacks significant attention within targeted or broad community.
  • Provides donors with opportunity for significant impact.
  • Known for successful implementation personally or through trust network.

I hope we see more of this kind of thing in the future, although transparency and measurement metrics must grow along side this trend or we’ll simply end up following the funders who are most charismatic or the best at marketing.

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

Trent Stamp Retires

December 20, 2007 – 9:51 am

From Trent Stamp’s, the CEO of Charity Navigator, blog:

Shortly after the New Year, I am leaving Charity Navigator, my happy home for the last 7 years, to become the Executive Director of the Eisner Foundation in Los Angeles. It’s a wonderful opportunity for me and my family and a chance for me to spread my wings and try something new, to see if I know as much about giving money away as I have claimed over the last few years. But I do not depart without great sadness at what I leave behind.

You can read the whole thing here.

I’ve been hammering at what I view as the flawed rating system that Charity Navigator uses. But let me say this about Trent. He knows charities. He will likely make a great executive director. He won’t just use overhead expense ratios to make grant decisions for the Eisner Foundation. Charity Navigator themselves always warned donors that expense ratios alone are not enough.

Here’s a “what if” for you. What if Trent Stamp decides to share with everyone why his foundation funds the nonprofits they choose? What if he releases detailed explanations of the research conducted and the analysis done? What if he uses his extreme media savvy to shine a light on how a foundation can operate transparently and by doing so increase their own impact? The Eisner Foundation is the foundation of Michael Eisner, the former CEO of Disney. So Trent should have public visibility if he chooses to seek it.

I wish Trent the best. I’ll follow his work in his new job closely.

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

Why GiveWell Matters

December 20, 2007 – 8:37 am

GiveWell and its co-founders Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld are suddenly media darlings. Not many people are written up in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal on the same day.

Stephanie Strom at the New York Times writes up a great profile in “2 Young Hedge-Fund Veterans Stir Up the World of Philanthropy”:

Their efforts are shaking up the field of philanthropy, generating the kind of buzz more typically devoted to Bill Gates and Warren E. Buffett, as charities ponder what, if anything, their rigorous approach to evaluation means for the future…

Read the full article here.

Sally Beatty and Rachel Emma Silverman at the Wall Street Journal discuss GiveWell in their article, “Doing Due Diligence On Your Donations”:

Donors can readily compare charities from a financial perspective: how much an organization spends on administrative costs or fund raising, for instance. But givers, especially younger, business-minded ones, now tend to want more information on how successful a charity’s programs are in addressing the issues the charity sets out to resolve, from feeding the homeless to securing employment for the disabled. That’s especially important as the number of charities continues to grow, with about 1.4 million to choose from…

… And there are a growing number of groups whose aim is to make charity-effectiveness evaluations open to the public. GiveWell, for instance, was started this year by two former hedge-fund researchers who were frustrated by the lack of available information on charities’ results and impact. They research and grant money to organizations in specific topic areas that the group deems effective and post the results on their Web site. For example, when researching job-training charities in New York, GiveWell asked groups to provide data on how many people took advantage of the programs, what skills they were taught, what percentage of clients found jobs, what kind of jobs they found, and how long workers kept their jobs, says 26-year-old co-founder Elie Hassenfeld.

The article ends with this advice,

It’s also smart to see if the charity’s progress has ever been evaluated by a third party, rather than just the charity itself. Check the charity’s Web site or annual report for specific details on how it gauges its results. If the information isn’t there, call the charity and ask. Be wary about giving, however, if a charity doesn’t answer your questions or provide annual reports or other filings.

When the Wall Street Journal tells donors to be suspicious of nonprofits who won’t provide details of how they gauge their results, you know there’s a sea change coming.

When I first wrote about GiveWell in February and said, “Why are the young members of the GiveWell project doing more to improve our shared knowledge base than The Ford Foundation?” and when I wrote in April that, “Fringe players like Holden (Karnofsky) are actually the real change agents (in philanthropy).” I never thought that by the end of the year, the New York Times would be quoting a GiveWell team member saying:

“There are huge foundations out there whose job it is to find great organizations doing great things,” said Robert Elliott, a club member who is now the Clear Fund’s chairman, “but when you call them and say you’d like to leverage the information they’ve already collected to make a smart donation, it’s a closed book.”

The IRS is focusing more and more on accountability and efficiency in the philanthropic sector. But with GiveWell being featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chronicle of Philanthropy and Chicago Tribune in the last week, you have to start thinking about the cultural norms that these reports are creating.

When the LA Times wrote about the Gates Foundation investment policy earlier this year, the article created more movement on “aligned investing” in the foundation world than the IRS would ever accomplish through years of committee meetings.

Will the next LA Times exposé question why foundations are not sharing their philanthropic knowledge with the public and why two 26-year-olds with no philanthropic experience and a tiny budget seem to be doing the most to help donors?

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

Google Nonprofit Pages Feature Foundations

December 14, 2007 – 11:45 pm

The Google Nonprofit pages feature large private foundations as well as nonprofits. I can’t wait to see the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation discussion board explode once people wake up to this new service.

I thought I’d go ahead and post a question to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation discussion board. You can find the thread here. I’ve reprinted my question below. I look forward to their response.

To the Hewlett Staff,
I live in California and have a two year old son and a four year old
daughter. I’m very interested directing some of my philanthropic
resources to improve K-12 education in my state. I see from your
website that you have a program focus on Improving Public Education in
California. I’m particularly interested in the third “strand” of this
focus, which you describe as “supporting innovative approaches to
improving the quality of academic instruction in the state’s
demographically diverse public schools.”

I’m personally at a loss to identify how I might donate my money to a
nonprofit which is improving the quality of academic instruction in
the state. I realize that picking a four star nonprofit from Charity
Navigator doesn’t make any sense, since improving education likely
requires extensive program evaluation and educated staff (both
categorized as overhead).

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a few nonprofits that
your program staff believes are worthy of my donation? If you wouldn’t
mind linking to some of the research you’ve performed to come to your
conclusions, it would make me feel better to not just be following you
blindly.

I look forward to partnering with you in your efforts to support
education. While my donations might pale in comparison to your annual
grants, I know a ton of other parents who would be thrilled to donate
time and money to your grantees if they felt that doing so would
actually do something to improve education.

-Sean Stannard-Stockton
TacticalPhilanthropy.com

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Effective Giving, Foundations, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Transparency, nptech | Comments (1)

Lessons for New Philanthropists (and old ones)

December 11, 2007 – 3:59 pm

Paul Shoemaker of Social Venture Partners is publishing “Ten Things We’d Like to Tell Every New Philanthropist.” Paul notes in the intro: 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.

With Paul’s permission, I’m going to be republishing his ten lessons. Imagine if every funder with some experience under their belt published a similar list? Imagine the resources that could put to better use if new donors (or experienced, but ineffective ones) could learn from lots of experts like Paul.

Lesson #1 – “I want all of my contribution to go directly to the program and the kids being served and not have any wasted on overhead or administration” (comment frequently overheard from philanthropists)

This desire is well intentioned, but the consequences can oftentimes be detrimental.  How so? First of all, what is “overhead and administration?” For example, are staff overhead? Non-profit organizations are businesses just like any for-profit entity, but with a social mission. They have to invest not only in the “product,” but also in the systems, infrastructure and operations to support the end product. Let’s use an analogy here from the private sector: What if an investor in Intel was able to buy shares, but then instruct Intel Co. that they could only spend that money on engineers and chips? Who knows better how to ultimately, collectively invest its capital – an investor or the employees of that organization? Can you have a successful company without a sales, marketing, and finance infrastructure to support the product? A non-profit has to build a successful, holistic enterprise just like any other business.

This kind of “micro-targeting” of some philanthropic dollars can have other consequences: it can lead to under-funded organizational structure with a  demoralized staff and reduced internal capacity. It can force the non-profit to play a “shell game” with donors where it rearranges its numbers to create the appearance of 100% program spending, and it can lead to a non-profit executive having to make suboptimal spending tradeoffs. This is not to suggest that a donor shouldn’t  care about where their money goes and what the ultimate social benefit is. But the practice of over-controlling and directing a donation to a non-profit is like asking a non-profit to put together a 100-piece puzzle, but having duplicates of some pieces and none of others.  The puzzle will never be put together right.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Philanthropy, Venture Philanthropy | Comments (3)