Comments on: America Forward Responds http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2009/07/american-forward-responds Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:42:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2009/07/american-forward-responds/comment-page-1#comment-7263 Sean Stannard-Stockton Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:58:03 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2009/07/american-forward-responds#comment-7263 Great points Adin. I'll be addressing some of them in a post tomorrow. The power dynamic issue is a dramatic one. When you say that reporting will be a "shock to the system" I agree and it will be interesting how foundations respond since most of them are requiring the same sort of reporting from their own grantees. Great points Adin. I’ll be addressing some of them in a post tomorrow. The power dynamic issue is a dramatic one. When you say that reporting will be a “shock to the system” I agree and it will be interesting how foundations respond since most of them are requiring the same sort of reporting from their own grantees.

]]> By: Adin Miller http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2009/07/american-forward-responds/comment-page-1#comment-7242 Adin Miller Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:48:18 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2009/07/american-forward-responds#comment-7242 Sean, this is an importance conversation and one I was alluding to earlier this week. There seem to be several issues that need further clarification as the Social Innovation Fund and the Corporation for National and Community Service move ahead with this effort (assuming the funding comes through as Kelly Ward rightfully points out). 1. Will the reporting burdens Jeff Trexler alluded to (http://twitter.com/JeffTrexler; http://bit.ly/btxhr) present barriers to participation for grantmaking institutions that have never received federal funds before? Moving from simply providing audited statements to providing financial statements that comply with OMB Circular A-133 is big step. And as the Circular states, this responsibility will part be shared by subgrantees as well. The philanthropic field is trying to move toward less toward less reporting burdens (see http://www.projectstreamline.org). The additional reporting demands that the Corporation for National and Community Service would most likely require in order to track metrics and program outcomes might also be a shock to the system for some grantmakers. That burden would have to be shared with subgrantees as well, which may add a chilling factor to outreach efforts to potential grantees. I can also foresee instances where foundations would have to hire staff to specifically handle these responsibilities. 2. Will potential partner grantmakers shy away from participating in the effort due to an increase level of government scrutiny or issues around power dynamics? I’ll be provocative on this point: power dynamics are an ongoing issue within the philanthropic community. Many foundations are used to having the power based on their position of distributing funds. Receiving funds from the government would shift those dynamics and may be a reason for some to shy away from participating in the program. 3. How will the Social Innovation Fund and the Corporation for National and Community Service identify and fund an innovative idea that has not demonstrated results yet but has an innovative approach that might generate a better return than an existing proven approach? Sean, this is an importance conversation and one I was alluding to earlier this week. There seem to be several issues that need further clarification as the Social Innovation Fund and the Corporation for National and Community Service move ahead with this effort (assuming the funding comes through as Kelly Ward rightfully points out).

1. Will the reporting burdens Jeff Trexler alluded to (http://twitter.com/JeffTrexler; http://bit.ly/btxhr) present barriers to participation for grantmaking institutions that have never received federal funds before? Moving from simply providing audited statements to providing financial statements that comply with OMB Circular A-133 is big step. And as the Circular states, this responsibility will part be shared by subgrantees as well.

The philanthropic field is trying to move toward less toward less reporting burdens (see http://www.projectstreamline.org). The additional reporting demands that the Corporation for National and Community Service would most likely require in order to track metrics and program outcomes might also be a shock to the system for some grantmakers. That burden would have to be shared with subgrantees as well, which may add a chilling factor to outreach efforts to potential grantees. I can also foresee instances where foundations would have to hire staff to specifically handle these responsibilities.

2. Will potential partner grantmakers shy away from participating in the effort due to an increase level of government scrutiny or issues around power dynamics? I’ll be provocative on this point: power dynamics are an ongoing issue within the philanthropic community. Many foundations are used to having the power based on their position of distributing funds. Receiving funds from the government would shift those dynamics and may be a reason for some to shy away from participating in the program.

3. How will the Social Innovation Fund and the Corporation for National and Community Service identify and fund an innovative idea that has not demonstrated results yet but has an innovative approach that might generate a better return than an existing proven approach?

]]>