From 2017


December 28, 2017

Philanthropy Awards, 2017

IP Staff
Inside Philanthropy

Believe it or not, Inside Philanthropy has now been around for four years. It’s been a lot of fun. And there’s no part that’s more fun than looking back over the past year to take stock as we give out our annual IP Philanthropy Awards, or IPPYs. (See winners for 20162015, and 2014.)

There’s never been a more exciting time in U.S. philanthropy than right now, and 2017 has been another year of major developments, interesting moves by funders, and—occasionally—stuff that makes you want to scream. Enjoy our latest IPPYs! > read more


December 18, 2017

How Highly Rated Program Officers Earn Grantees’ Approval

Megan O’Neil
The Chronicle of Philanthropy

What makes philanthropy’s best grant-making officers so well regarded?

The Center for Effective Philanthropy recently released a report that zeroes in on key aspects of productive, positive relationships between grant-making institutions and nonprofit grantees.

At the top of the list are program officers who share the following qualities: an understanding of grantees’ work and the context within which they operate; a commitment to transparency about the grant-application process; and a disinclination to pressure nonprofits to alter approaches or proposals to win grants.

The report is based on survey data gathered over more than a decade from tens of thousands of nonprofit grantees; it builds on a study that the Center for Effective Philanthropy published in 2010 examining the traits of strong foundation-grantee relationships> read more

 


 December 6, 2017

Experts Say This Is The Most Fulfilling Way To Donate At The Holidays

Suzy Strutner
Huffington Post

Finding what you’re passionate about will make all the difference.

The final month of the year may be a time for getting, but it’s also a hugely popular time for giving, especially to charity. In 2015, for example, 30 percent of all donations that online donations platform Network For Good received came in December. Twenty percent of those donations came in on Dec. 31, the last day to donate in order to get tax breaks for the year.

When the holiday spirit moves you to donate ― or when you’re itching for a tax break ― it’s tempting to hit up that global mega-charity you’ve seen on TV and donate there in one click. And there’s nothing wrong with that, experts told HuffPost. But think deeper, and you may discover some more fulfilling places to send your money> read more

 


 November 27, 2017

Speaking Out When Our Values Are in Play

Grant Oliphant
Stanford Social Innovation Review

Five critical questions to guide the work of nonprofit communicators.

Social sector organizations cannot hide behind silence when so many of the values they stand for are being politicized. That was the challenge Grant Oliphant, president of the Heinz Endowments, put forth with urgency at the recent ComNet17 conference hosted by The Communications Network in Miami.

“I want to challenge you today because I don’t want you actually to leave here feeling satisfied with the progress that you’re making. I have never felt more urgently in my life that what you do is needed and you have to step up. We, all of us who care about the craft of communications and the practice of this work, have got to seriously step up our game.

The place I want to start is with Darren Walker from the Ford Foundation’s annual letter, and he expressed in this letter a very simple, but fairly damning indictment of foundations in a period of time when we are being called to express moral courage and falling short. His basic premise was, “Look, we’re afraid of sticking our necks out, and we’re afraid of what people might think, and we play it cautious. This is not a time to play it cautious.”> read transcript here

 


 November 27, 2017

How to Strengthen Funder-Grantee Relationships: New Report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy

Tere Figueras Negrete
Funders’ Network

A new report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy explores how funders can strengthen the all-important connections to grantees, and the key role program officers play.

Relationships Matter: Program Officers, Grantees, and the Keys to Success sheds light on what constitutes a strong funder–grantee relationship, as well as what nonprofits say it takes for funders to foster such relationships.

The newly released report includes interviews with 11 program officers who earned top marks, including Elizabeth Love of the Houston Endowment, who is also co-chair of the TFN 2018 Annual Conference in Houston.

“Her first year as an environmental program officer at the Houston Endowment was spent in the field with nonprofit leaders, public officials, and community members learning about the issues and the barriers to making change, as well as the players who might be positioned to move the needle, she said. It was a steep learning curve,” according to a story about the report in The Chronicle of Philanthropy > read more


November 14, 2017

New Report Zeros In on What Grantees Say Makes Program Officers Great

Megan O’Neil
The Chronicle of Philanthropy

Getting to know nonprofits and the context in which they operate. Understanding the needs of ultimate beneficiaries. Not pushing nonprofits to alter approaches or rejigger proposals just to secure financial support.

Those practices and behaviors by program officers are key predictors of a strong relationship between grant-making institutions and grantees, according to a new report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

Also topping the list: transparency.

“One example would be a nonprofit feeling that a foundation funder was clear with them about what the process is for applying for a grant so that they have that understanding of what they will need to go through,” said Ellie Buteau, vice president for research at the Center for Effective Philanthropy and an author of the report. She also stressed “clarity about the timing — how long it would take between submitting an application and grantees having a sense if they were going to receive a grant.” > read more


November 7, 2017

Have Donor-Advised Funds and Other Philanthropic Innovations Changed the Flow of Giving in the United States?

Patrick Rooney
Nonprofit Quarterly

Giving intermediaries are nothing new, and include a range of vehicles such as workplace campaigns (like the United Way and the Combined Federal Campaign) and community foundation general funds. Of late, such giving intermediaries have found their donors less willing to give into a general fund—where others make decisions about the final destinations of their gift—and more in favor of maintaining decision-making control in a donor-directed grant or donor-advised fund (DAF) within these intermediaries, and in the commercial charitable funds at financial institutions. This article addresses several concerns that have been raised about DAFs and other philanthropic intermediaries, and explores in particular how the growth of DAFs affects the flow of money to nonprofits. Accompanying sidebars explore in short form other influences on the flow and the accuracy of how charitable money is counted.

DAFs: For Better or for Worse?

Donor-advised funds are becoming more common and an important philanthropic tool by every measure. For example, as the table below shows, between 2014 and 2015 both the number of DAFs and the dollar value of DAFs grew faster than that of private foundations. Moreover, the DAF asset values more than doubled between 2010 ($33.6 billion) and 2015 ($78.6 billion).

Giving as a share of GDP has increased slowly over the last forty years. It was very steady from 1976 to 1996, ranging between 1.6 and 1.8 percent. During the last twenty years, it has bumped up by approximately 0.3 percentage points and has been steadily in the 1.9 to 2.1 percent range.6 This does not demonstrate that the rise of DAFs has increased giving as a share of GDP, but it suggests that DAFs have not caused total giving to decline in absolute or relative terms.> read more


November 7, 2017

Streamlining a Foundation Initiative’s Grant Practices

Daniel Stid and Jillian Mirack Galbete
Stanford Social Innovation Review

When we launched the Hewlett Foundation’s Madison Initiative in 2014, we were excited to support nonprofits, advocates, and researchers who shared our audacious goal of improving the US Congress’s effectiveness in a polarized age. But after experiencing some of the all-too-common pitfalls that foundations can stumble into with grantees, we soon decided that we had to reevaluate our grant practices.

Some of these challenges came with the territory: Funders in the democracy field have long emphasized short-term, project-based grants. Funding tends to ebb and flow over the recurring two-year political cycles.

Yet some challenges were self-inflicted. As we developed our initiative, we wanted to learn by making a range of smaller bets. So we asked grant-seekers to provide us with theories of change, performance indicators, hypotheses they were testing, key risks and mitigation strategies, and so on. When proposals came back with incomplete or misconstrued responses, we gave grant-seekers more specific instructions and elaborate tables to complete. However, the situation didn’t improve. We began hearing half-in-jest comments from applicants about the difficulties they had filling out what one referred to as “the infamous Hewlett grid.”> read more


October 30, 2017

Funders can set a powerful precedent by involving service users

Shona Curvers
Alliance Magazine

Meetings with snacks are a recent development in my working life.

This was prompted by my involvement in a user-led project working with young people who are, or who are at risk of becoming, disconnected from education, employment or training, and are living in the London borough of Camden.  NPC is working closely with Revolving Doors Agency to co-facilitate a series of workshops with young people, and to collaboratively develop user journeys to represent their experiences of local services.We’re doing this to identify opportunities for technology to improve the experiences of young people as they navigate services, and ultimately to create a fund to support those initiatives.

 

The involvement of users in shaping services is not a new phenomenon, but the narrative around ‘user voice’ continues to gain traction, particularly amongst charities. It has been broadly accepted by charities from across the sector that listening to users is not only the moral thing to do—as they solicit funding in their name—but it’s also the smart and logical thing to do> read more


October 17, 2017

Impact investment: Foundations go deeper

Helen Avery
EuroMoney

While foundations may be known for their giving, their investment portfolios lack creativity when it comes to solving environmental and social challenges. Some are taking their missions further.

According to the Foundation Center, at the last count there were 86,726 foundations in the US. Together they had more than $865 billion in assets. In Europe, there are some 130,000, according to Fondation de France, with a combined €22.5 billion. Whether in size of assets or in number, foundations are a large and powerful group of investors – because the majority of their money is indeed invested.European foundations allocate just 12% a year to their missions through grants and expenses, while US foundations allocate 7% on average.With social or environmental principles at the core of their existence, one might assume that these investments are subject to some sort of environmental, social and governance (ESG) screening or socially responsible investing (SRI) guidelines at a minimum – but that assumption would be wrong.

While data on foundations’ investments is patchy, the surveys of the community from the Commonfund, US SIF and The Center for Effective Philanthropy over the last five years reveal an interesting story. The percentage of foundations that engage in anything from SRI guidelines to full-blown impact investments never reaches more than 50%. In fact, the average is closer to 25%. That leaves around $615 billion of investments that could be managed in an impactful way that simply are not> read more


October 8, 2017

NPF TIG Week: Foundations Can (and Should) Learn from Grantees by Cheryl Milloy

Cheryl Milloy
AEA365

I’m Cheryl Milloy, Associate Director of Evaluation at Marguerite Casey Foundation in Seattle. We believe no family should live in poverty and that those who experience poverty know best what the solutions are. We provide consistent, significant, long-term general operating support grants to community-based organizations to work together across issues, regions, race and ethnicity, and egos to bring about long-term change that has a positive impact on the lives of families.

Foundations strive to be learning organizations, and one of their best sources of learning is the organizations they support.

Hot Tip: Ask. Listen. Act.”  This is our brand promise and our approach to learning. Grantees are our partners on the ground and we are committed to asking them and listening to them in order to learn before we act. We cannot completely eliminate the power imbalance between funder and grantee, but we can be conscious of it and mitigate this differential as much as possible. One important way Marguerite Casey Foundation does this is by providing grants almost exclusively as multiyear general operating support. This demonstrates trust in organizations and their “big ideas” and allows them to decide how to spend the funds. We encourage organizations to invest in their own infrastructure – leadership, staff, governance, evaluation and learning, technology, etc. – to build their capacity and effectiveness> read more


October 4, 2017

Put It Up to a Vote: Who Wins When All Foundation Staff Pick Grantees?

Alyssa Ochs
Inside Philanthropy

A recent study on program officers suggests that they have a lot of influence within foundations about where grant dollars go, even if trustees have the final say. The same can’t generally be said of the many other staff who often work at foundations—in administration, finance, communications, and other support functions. While these folks keep grantmaking institutions running smoothly, they’re almost never handed the checkbook to have a little fun.

There are exceptions, though. We’ve come across examples here and there of foundations letting all staff participate in select grantmaking decisions. It’s a nice thing, although still pretty rare.

One such example is the Boston Foundation’s Out of the Blue grants. This isn’t a new idea by any means; the program has been awarding annual grants to nonprofits since 2002. Potential recipients are nominated by a TBF staff member and put up to a vote by the TBF staff. This is separate from the funder’s usual grantmaking cycles> read more


September 4, 2017

In Troubled Times, Here Are Four Funders Standing With Vulnerable Communities

Tate Williams
Inside Philanthropy

The election of Donald Trump and the policies and rhetoric that followed have shaken up the philanthropic world, like much of America. Lower-income communities, people of color, immigrants, the LGBTQI community and many other populations philanthropy often supports are under attack with heightened intensity.

According to one survey, almost 30 percent of foundations said they are modifying their programmatic goals in some way in the Trump era. We’ve seen some funders increase their payout rates, and several have launched rapid-response funds to meet urgent needs. (See IP’s full coverage at the Trump Effect.)

But philanthropy doesn’t always shine when it comes to serving marginalized communities, whether because of rigid policies, paternalistic attitudes or lackluster commitments. Improving that performance is the mission of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and its Impact Awards seek to answer a question that’s sadly more relevant than ever: When it comes to empowering marginalized communities, who is getting it right? > read more

 


July 25,2017

Why Philanthropy Must Speak Out: An Interview with Grant Oliphant

Nell Edgington
Social Velocity

In today’s Social Velocity blog interview, I’m talking with Grant Oliphant, president of The Heinz Endowments (and frequent contributor to their excellent blog).

Prior to running The Heinz Endowments, Grant was president and chief executive officer of The Pittsburgh Foundation for six years. Before that, he served as press secretary to the late U.S. Sen. John Heinz from 1988 until the senator’s death in 1991.

Grant frequently leads community conversations around critical issues such as public school reform, civic design, the ongoing sustainability of anchor institutions, domestic violence, riverfront development and various socio-economic concerns. He also serves extensively on the boards of local nonprofit and national sector organizations, including the Center for Effective Philanthropy, which he chairs. He has also served on the boards of Grantmakers Evaluation Network, Pennsylvania Partnership for Children, and the National Children’s Book and Literacy Alliance.

You can read other conversations with social changemakers in the Social Velocity interview series here.

Nell: You have written on the Heinz blog and elsewhere about the importance of philanthropists speaking out against government policies or decisions that are at odds with their work. However, philanthropy is often hesitant, because of both real and perceived limitations, to become too political. What do you think philanthropists, and the nonprofits they fund, can and should do to speak out against political decisions that are at odds with their missions?

Grant: This question makes my brain hurt. I mean, seriously, we live in a time when everything is labeled as political—affirming the science of climate change, standing up for equity, denouncing racism, defending basic math, you name it. A cultural institution we support recently faced criticism from its own docents for posting an inclusion policy they condemned as “political” because it welcomed all visitors, including immigrants. When your core values are suddenly defined as political, what are you going to do—run from your ideals and hope they somehow survive in the shadows? Or are you going to step into the light and advocate for what you say you believe in?> read more

 


July 20, 2017

Want Better Advice for Donors? Build an Expert Marketplace for Philanthropy

Simone Friedman
Inside Philanthropy

A few years ago, when I took over responsibility for managing our family’s philanthropy full-time, the first thing I did was meet with program officers working at foundations in our areas of interest. As a former entrepreneur, I knew that it was good business to get advice from the smartest people I could, and foundation professionals were the ones who really understood the issues. They spend every day conducting due diligence, overseeing grant programs, and thinking about how to allocate funds to yield the greatest impact.

Individual philanthropists, although well-intentioned, frequently do not invest that much time or thought into giving away money. As the late Paul Connolly wrote in “Wanted: Better Advice for Wealthy Donors,” a column in The Chronicle’s January issue, “Foundations often devote more effort to giving away $10,000 than an individual does to giving $10 million.”

Mr. Connolly suggested that the solution is better coordination between wealthy individuals’ philanthropic advisers and their wealth managers and greater integration of philanthropy into wealth-management platforms — the suite of services that financial-advisory firms offer ultra-high-net-worth investors. While I agree that these solutions would help, I recommend a more radical idea: create an “expert marketplace” for philanthropy in which foundation professionals can sell their advice on an hourly basis to wealthy individuals seeking to optimize their giving.> read more

 


July 13, 2017

Harnessing the Power of Evidence

Anne Kazimirski
Stanford Social Innovation Review

Recently, we have been seeing widespread rejection of experts and evidence. From the election of the first president in US history to have neither government nor military experience to the rise of fake news, evidence and expertise are getting short shrift. This is a perilous trend, and we need to fight against it, both in general and in the social sector, where making better use of evidence and increasing its role in decision-making is crucial to achieving social change at scale.

Consider: social sector organizations everywhere are under increased pressure to maximize their resources, whilst funders and investors want to maximize the best usage of their money to best meet growing need. Efficiency is therefore key. But efficient operations need evidence to stay on track. Evidence can reveal why and how approaches have or haven’t worked. Good monitoring and/or evaluation can  thus inform program improvements and revisions, guide future activities and development, bolster efforts to raise awareness of an issue, educate the sector and those outside it, and influence funding decisions.

Ignore evidence, or keep lessons to ourselves, and we may find ourselves believing in false economies and then misallocating resources.  As a result, we may achieve less than we’re capable of, or even, in a worst-case scenario, harm the people or causes we intend to help.> read more

 


June 30, 2017

Inside the Mind of Your Program Officer

David Callahan
Inside Philanthropy

If you’re a grantee who’s been lucky enough to have program officers who feel like colleagues or even friends, you probably know a thing or two about the curious business of giving away money. Maybe you’ve heard about the internal haggling at foundations over funding priorities and how, exactly, portfolios of grant money are created and distributed. Surely, also, you’ve heard the old jokes about how new program officers suddenly discover that they’re funnier or more popular with long-lost friends once they’re wielding the checkbook.

Yet for many people hustling for grants, program officers can be hard to read, and the ways they operate can seem mysterious. In the worst cases, these empowered agents of institutional money can inspire feelings of anxiety and insecurity—or even dread and rage. Horror stories abound of program officers who’ve made grantees jump through inane hoops, wait months for meetings where nothing happens anyway, and live in suspense when it comes to renewal. But there are plenty of happy tales, too—of program officers who made critical introductions to other funders, or heroically shook the money tree inside their institutions with remarkable results.

So who, exactly, are these figures that loom so large in the lives—and even the dreams—of nonprofit executives? How do program officers think, and what do they want? And—for heaven’s sake—why won’t they dole out more multi-year general operating support?

Answers to some, but not all, of these questions can be found in a recent study by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, “Benchmarking Program Officers’ Roles and Responsibilities,” which is based on survey responses from 150 program officers at foundations that give away at least $5 million annually.> read more


June 22, 2017

Program Officers Value Strong Grantee Relationships, Survey Finds

Philanthropy News Digest

While most foundation program officers value having strong relationships with their grantees, only one in three lists it as one of the responsibilities they spend the most time on, a survey by the Center for Effective Philanthropy finds.

Based on survey responses from a hundred and fifty program officers at foundations with at least $5 million in annual grantmaking, the report, Benchmarking Program Officer Roles and Responsibilities, found that 98 percent of respondents saw having a strong relationship with their grantees as important for achieving the foundation’s goals, while 95 percent believed that learning from grantees was integral to their professional development. The report found, however, that while 53 percent of respondents listed developing and maintaining strong grantee relationships as one of the top three responsibilities to which they should devote more time in order to be effective, only 36 percent actually did so.> read more

 


June 20, 2017

Holding the Line vs. Piling On: A Surprising Look at the “Trump Effect” on Giving

Stewart Lawrence
Inside Philanthropy

How has Donald Trump’s unexpected ascendancy to the White House affected the world of giving? It’s still early, of course, to make definitive judgments. But in addition to anecdotal evidence that many funders have changed some of their priorities or practices in response to Trump—as we report regularly—more data has become available on the dimensions of what’s been called a “Trump effect” on philanthropy.

Earlier this spring, the Center for Effective Philanthropy published a report, Shifting Winds, based on a survey of 162 foundation CEOs, finding that almost three-quarters of foundations “are making, or planning to make, some change in their work as a result of the election of Donald J. Trump.”

Two surveys conducted by PMX Agency and National Research Group—one immediately after Trump’s inauguration, the other at the 100-day mark—also shed light on the extent of a “Trump effect” on giving—in this case, individual donors. The findings suggest a number of new patterns, and some of them are quite surprising.> read more

 


June 5, 2017

We Need a Science of Philanthropy

Caroline Fiennes
Nature

Philanthropists are flying blind because little is known about how to donate money well. Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg’s US$100-million gift to schools in Newark, New Jersey, reportedly achieved nothing. Some grants to academic scientists create so much administration that researchers are better off without them. And some funders’ decisions seem to be no better than if awardees were chosen at random, with the funded work achieving no more than the rejected.

The recipients of funds are increasingly scrutinized, but the effectiveness of donors is not. Funders are rarely punished for under-performing and usually don’t even know when they are: if the work that they fund helps one child but could have helped ten, that ‘opportunity cost’ is felt by the would-be beneficiaries, not by the funder. The same is probably true of agencies that fund research.

I founded an organization that promotes charitable giving based on sound evidence. I am acutely aware of how scant the evidence is about which ways of giving work best. The solution lies in more research on what makes for effective philanthropy. A ‘science of philanthropy’ could enable more to be achieved with the tens of billions given each year by foundations and other donors and funders.

Only a handful of studies have been done on donor effectiveness. The Center for Effective Philanthropy in Cambridge, Massachusetts, found that the time spent on proposals for, and the management of, ten grants of $10,000 takes nearly six times as long as the time spent on one grant of $100,000.> read more

 


May 26, 2017

Are Foundations Part Of The Resistance? Challenges To Elite Donors In A Neo-Populist Age

Kristin A. Goss and Jeffrey M. Berry
HistPhil

The neo-populist wave that swept Donald Trump to power poses at least three challenges to elite philanthropy, which we define as both wealthy individual donors and foundations.

The first challenge is that elite philanthropy owes its wealth to an economic system at the heart of the neo-populist critique – an economic system based on job-draining automation, on job-redistributing processes of globalization, and on neoliberal policies. Second, much elite philanthropy embraces strategies driven from the top down by donors and cosmopolitan technocrats, whom neo-populists view with suspicion or even disdain. The third challenge is that elite philanthropy tends to focus on public problems (e.g., climate change) and constituencies (e.g., poor people of color, feminists, environmentalists, immigrants) that many neo-populists view as opponents in a zero-sum contest for society’s benefits. These three factors – the indebtedness to neoliberalism, the prioritization of elite approaches, and the orientation toward post-materialist progressive causes – would seem to put much philanthropy at odds with the political zeitgeist.> read more

 


May 11, 2017

Why the Dell Foundation is Betting Big on Social Entrepreneurs

Ben Paynter
Fast Company

Experts within the philanthropy sector should consider funding fresh ideas from social entrepreneurs as much (if not more) than massive grants aimed at traditional programmatic solutions, many of which still struggle to make a huge impact on the world’s most challenging problems. That’s one key finding from a new report from the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, which was formed by Dell Technologies founder and CEO Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, and works in the U.S., India, and South Africa to improve the lives of children suffering from urban poverty. To that end, the Dell Foundation just committed another $1 billion to its endowment, in part, to fund just those types of ventures.

Since its inception in 1999, the Dell Foundation has spent freely, doling out a total of $1.3 billion in grants and loans, while countering the standard industry practice of just giving away the federally mandated minimum of 5%—a super-low threshold that many funders don’t exceed because they’re busily investing the rest of their endowment in the traditional market to recoup that expenditure. For many years, Dell has given far more than that—more like 15%—including impact investments in social entrepreneurs that, at least in the early stages, are the sort of allocations that can’t be expected to bring much return on their investment. In other words, the foundation has always been willing to make risky investments, giving away money that it may not be able to earn back, in order to incubate businesses and solutions that could save everyone in the space more money in the long term as they prove out or become sustainable.> read more

 


May 2, 2017

Philanthropy’s Response to Trump Misses Focus on the Most-Alienated Americans

Suzanne Garment and Leslie Lenkowsky
The Chronicle of Philanthropy

Now that the first 100 days of Trump administration have come and gone, it’s fair to say the philanthropic sky hasn’t fallen. Instead, the early confusion that marked the new administration has produced a highly assorted set of pluses and minuses for the nonprofit world.

The next question is whether charities and foundations will be able to look at the positives and see any way to work with the White House — or whether they will remain convinced the Trump presidency threatens virtually every goal they pursue and every value they represent.

The most recent evidence about how the grant-making world views the administration comes from the Center for Effective Philanthropy, which found in a recent survey that almost half of CEOs of large foundations believe Trump’s tenure will make it harder for them to reach their philanthropic goals. A third say they’re changing goals or strategies. Almost half plan to do more collaboration with other donors and more advocacy.

These responses don’t tell us much, however, because the survey’s assiduously unbiased questions are too abstract to elicit a lot of concrete information. So let’s review some objective facts about philanthropy’s current standing under the Trump regime.> read more

 


April 25, 2017

Majority of Foundations Say Trump Policies Are Prompting Grant-Making Changes

Alex Daniels
The Chronicle of Philanthropy

Foundations on both sides of the political spectrum are re-examining how they can best contribute to society as the Trump administration nears its 100-day mark, according to findings from two surveys released today. Nearly three-quarters of foundation leaders have already made, or plan to make, adjustments in reaction to the Trump White House, according to 162 grant makers surveyed by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, a nonprofit research group. The foundations represented in the survey are relatively large, with each making at least $5 million in grants annually.

“Foundations are not sitting on their hands now,” said Phil Buchanan, the center’s president. “They are actively considering how their approaches and practices need to change in light of the changed context. The overwhelming majority are shifting something.”> read more


April 25, 2017

Foundation CEOs Split on Impact of Trump

Andy Segedin
The Nonprofit Times

More than one-third (35 percent) of foundation CEOs anticipate making changes to their grant-making budgets in light of the election of President Donald J. Trump. Just one percent of them anticipate reducing grant-making, while 14 percent indicated that their grant-making budgets will increase. One-fifth (20 percent) of executives do not plan to change the amount in their grant-making budgets, but plan to allocate funds differently across program areas. Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) will not change their foundations’ grant-making budgets, while 27 percent stated that it is too early to tell what will be done.

“Shifting Winds: Foundations Respond to a New Political Context,” a report by The Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP), included survey results from 162 foundation CEOs whose organizations grant at least $5 million annually. The survey was conducted between Feb. 21 and March 10. Nearly half (48 percent) of foundation leaders believed that achieving organizational goals had gotten harder one month into Trump’s administration. By comparison, 3 percent reported that they expected a positive effect under Trump and 24 percent stated that they anticipated a mix of good and bad> read more

 


April 3, 2017

How the focus on overhead disenfranchises communities of color and fans the flames of injustice

Vu Le
Nonprofit with Balls

In this political climate, when so many of us nonprofits are rallying to put out one fire after another, many of the things we have been used to and have been putting up with no longer make sense. Many of us in the sector have been making the argument against restricted funding and for general operating for years. Here’s a report from GEO. Here’s one from CEP. Here’s a piece from my colleague Paul Shoemaker. And I’ve made impassioned pleas here, here, and here. But despite countless arguments by dozens of leaders, we still have foundations who restrict funds, who set arbitrary numbers for “indirect expenses” and “overhead.”

But there has been one argument that we have not stressed enough to funders and donors, but now it is urgent that we do so: The focus on overhead is no longer just annoying, it’s perpetuating inequity and injustice> read more

 


March 21, 2017

Why More And More Philanthropies Are Choosing To Put Themselves Out Of Business

Ben Paynter
Fast Company

The majority of America’s top foundation leaders recently admitted in a Center for Effective Philanthropy report that they don’t think their industry is doing such a great job at making a difference in the world. The list of causes focused largely on controllable hang-ups–everything from not listening to grantees, to not collaborating well with other organizations. What most didn’t complain about was their business model.

The irony is that by making a radical change to their business model that’s being embraced by more and more philanthropic organizations, many groups may give themselves far less to complain about: because they would be out of business, after making a huge impact. That’s the finding of a recent report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy, which interviewed the heads of 11 organizations that are limited life groups, meaning they plan to spend themselves out of existence within a certain timeframe, a model that proponents say gives them both more immediate funds to address the world’s most urgent problems and additional pressure to ensure investments are well spent.> read more


March 21, 2017

Foundations Find Different Paths to Closing Their Operations

Alex Daniels
The Chronicle of Philanthropy

Foundations that decide to spend all of their assets and close shop don’t follow uniform or precise formulas for how to tie up loose ends, according to a new report.

Published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, the study is based on conversations with 11 foundation leaders. It looked at various aspects of those organizations, including investment decisions, grantee relationships, performance evaluations, and staffing.

“We learned that there is no one way to spend down,” said Ellie Buteau, vice president at the Center for Effective Philanthropy and co-author of the report. “Our hope is that this research will help foundations that are spending down — or those considering spending down — explore a range of approaches.”> read more

 


February 13, 2017

Using Knowledge to Improve Funder Practice

Lindsay Louie & Fay Twersky
Stanford Social Innovation Review

Do funders use knowledge to inform and improve their work? If so, how do they use it? What role(s) does it play?

These were some of the questions we asked four years ago when we started working at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and inherited a longstanding strategy called “Knowledge for Better Philanthropy.” Through this strategy, we fund the independent creation and dissemination of knowledge about the practice of philanthropy, with the goal of informing and improving funders’ work. These grants support publications like SSIR and the Nonprofit Quarterly, as well as organizations such as The Bridgespan Group, FSG, the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, and The Philanthropy Roundtable> read more

 


February 7, 2017

Philanthropy’s deliberate leaders: the story of ClimateWorks Foundation

Gayle Peterson
Alliance Magazine

The Wall Street Journal described recently-elected Donald Trump’s leadership as ‘deliberate chaos’. We know chaos. We live it. A barrage of destructive tweets and policy bombs have resulted in widespread protests in the United States and globally. Bans on Muslims and refugees, erosion of human rights, denying climate change and disrespecting international relationships that have kept the world safe—all create risks to global business and civil society.

The chaos erodes public trust and is exacerbated by falsehoods, fake news, and threats to destroy independent media. While the world is pushing back with civil disobedience and legal action, we need more leaders committed to conducting themselves with honesty, trust, and transparency.

Philanthropy can lead by example

In these times of uncertainty and divisiveness, philanthropy can and must lead by example. Such leadership is characterized by taking risks and showing courage; by illustrating what collaboration based on inclusion and compassion looks like; by demonstrating a commitment to building solutions from the ground up; and by showing how learning and transparency ensure open societies and human rights> read more

Recent Blog Posts

Menu