Do Foundations Have Bad Habits?

James Canales, CEO of the James Irvine Foundation, has an opinion piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy on the bad habits of foundations (subscription required).

He cautions against “the occupational hazards of insularity, complacency, and arrogance,” noting that the best antidote “is to remain vigilant about how our behavior can be read and might even be misread. One cannot overstate the power of humility in this regard.”

I’ve often heard about these bad habits during my time in foundation work and afterward.  My mentors and the classic book Grantmaking Basics: A Field Guide for Funders (now an online resource) kept me aware of the problems in my early years as a foundation staffer.

I agree that these are bad habits.  What I don’t necessarily agree with is the perceived scale of the problem.  I’ve met far more grantmaking staff and donors who are truly conscientious about their work and humble in their interactions with nonprofits and communities.  

I’ve more often encountered an unintentional lack of clarity on how their foundations describe their hopes and priorities.  Sometimes this must appear to be insularity or arrogance to the community. 

It certainly isn’t necessary for grantmakers to create complex theories of change or prescriptive guidelines.  But I have seen that it is incredibly helpful to nonprofits (and the foundation staff and board members) when a grantmaker asks and publicly answers tough questions about what works and doesn’t work, at least in its view of the world.

Perhaps I’m just hoping for better understanding and patience from both grantmakers and nonprofits.  The process of clarifying philanthropic goals takes time, is always evolutionary, and sometimes messy.  But, in the best of worlds, it is a process that continually invites honest feedback from community stakeholders.

What do you think?  Are the bad habits more prevalent than I think?  

 

Philanthropy as Art and Science

Sean Stannard-Stockton, author of the always-thoughtful Tactical Philanthropy blog, makes a good case for music as an appropriate metaphor for philanthropy. He notes that music and philanthropy can both be practiced and enjoyed at a purely personal level or at a trained, professional level.  Ultimately, lasting music, and lasting philanthropy, require both art and science.  

Former foundation executive Tony Pipa also weighs in with an argument that medicine is a more appropriate metaphor.  

Great thinking and great exchange.  Does this mean that philanthropic advisors can now be called philanthropic bandleaders or conductors?

Measuring Resident Engagement

“How do you know resident engagement work is successful?”

This question gets posed to all grantmakers and community benefit organizations that support community building and citizen participation work. It’s a tough one to answer. And, I know from experience that sometimes staff want to say to the board or donors, “Well, if you’d just attended the community meeting with me last night, you’d have seen the answer for yourself and been inspired.”

If that answer won’t work (it didn’t for me), then you’ll want to read and steal (umm…replicate) answers from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s recent report, “Sustaining Neighborhood Change: The Power of Resident Leadership, Social Networks, and Community Mobilization.”aecf-guide-cover

The practical, 36-page guide makes the case for growing and tapping into Authentic Demand, “the individual and community capacity to define, articulate, and work for results.” The guide stresses that growing Authentic Demand requires supporting a blend of these approaches:
• Building leadership development skills, and expanding and diversifying the pool of leaders
• Building strong social networks
• Mobilizing community members toward action
• Increasing civic participation in local political and policymaking processes

The guide provides good examples, short case studies, and resource lists for growing these approaches based on the work of communities participating in the foundation’s Making Connections Initiative.

As importantly, the guide provides help in measuring Authentic Demand along a set of indicators for six outcomes for community members and community-based organizations: voice, accountability, identity, reciprocity, choice, and skills & capacity.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation presents the ideas within the context of their work to improve the lives of children and families living in tough neighborhoods. However, the ideas are easily translated to other organizations, whether your work is about resident engagement as an end unto itself, or as an important part of a strategy around health, arts, education, or other fields.

I found the guide an important addition to the growing set of ideas in the field on measuring community building and citizen participation work. It could also serve as a good overview reference for staff new to supporting and evaluating that work.

What other great guides have you seen? Would it be useful to have all of the ideas on indicators listed in one place?

In interest of transparency, one of my clients is the Annie E. Casey Foundation though the foundation did ask or pay me to write this post.  The post is cross-posted at Big Thinking on Small Grants, a great blog by Janis Foster, the executive director of Grassroots Grantmakers.

New Blog

I’ve just launched my consulting website and will try my hand at blogging about once a week.  I’ll be tracking news and resources in meaningful giving and achieving community results and likely reflecting on the work I’m doing.

I’d love to hear your feedback on things you agree or disagree with!