By Dien Yuen, Give2Asia

Kudos to Rob Buchanan and his team this year at COF’s 60^th Annual Conference for presenting an extensive list of sessions devoted to international grant-making and international issues. This move may have been encouraged by the increasing demand from members for more resources and the fact that international giving has spiked in the past few years. According to the Foundation Center’s Highlights of Foundation Giving Trends (Feb 2009), a pamphlet which I had picked up during a break at Resource Central, overall funding for international activities by 1,300 of the largest private and community foundations reached a record 23.4% of grant dollars in 2007.

The first session in the international track I attended was the update on the centralized repository initiative provided by COF and their platform partner, TechSoup Global. The purpose of the initiative was to create a database of international organizations that were vetted and were determined to be equivalent to U.S. charitable organizations. I have been following their work and was most interested in the cost of the service and the feedback from the audience. There are basically two fees, a membership fee and a per organization fee to be listed. Some folks in the audience said the $1,950 fee per organization was too expensive while others said it was much cheaper than what they were paying their legal counsel. According to the Initiative’s study, funders would increase their international grant-making by 16% if the platform was in place. This is a fairly remarkable increase if the respondents to the survey followed through and used the platform after it is built.

I left the session feeling a little blue because it reminded me what I had known all along. The platform certainly benefited the funder community here in the U.S. and the larger NGOs around the world, but the smaller, grassroots groups working to affect change in their local communities would not be able to benefit from the platform. They could still not bring their work to the attention of funders. But this was not the purpose of the platform from the beginning and so I appease myself with the thought that if platforms make it administratively easier and more efficient for funders then maybe one day, they will also create a platform for small, indigenous groups to showcase their work too.

Two things then happened that made me grin from ear to ear. I found out that Rory Stewart, author of The Places in Between and The Prince of the Marshes was at the Conference. He was available to sign books during the international reception and was the keynote speaker at the dinner. I am a big fan of Rory Stewart’s. He was born in Hong Kong and grew up in Malaysia and briefly served in the British Army. In 2000, Rory took two years off and began walking from Turkey to Bangladesh. This journey is told in The Places in Between. Rory lived in Kabul and became the CEO of Turquoise Mountain Foundation, which is investing in the regeneration of the historic center of Kabul. The Foundation provides services to save historic buildings and preserve and promote traditional crafts. I now have an autographed copy of his book and had a chance to shake his hand during the dinner. What is amazing is that he is only 36!

Dien S. Yuen is the director of philanthropy at Give2Asia. Disclosure: Give2Asia is the fiscal sponsor of Turquoise Mountain Foundation in the U.S. However, I have never met Rory before and I did not even know he was going to be at the conference.

By Paul Connolly, TCC Group

While talking and listening to a bunch of funders and experts at the Council on Foundations conference this week, I have been thinking a lot about how the means for keeping foundations accountable are rapidly expanding. Over the past century, lawmakers and regulators have been the major forces that have monitored foundation activity. The Foundation Center was founded in the 1950′s by philanthropies to increase transparency about foundation activities — to create "glass pockets." In the 1970′s, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy emerged to act as a watchdog for the field. More recently, the Center for Effective Philanthropy has provided helpful tools that have enabled foundations to do a better job assessing and reporting on their own work.

Lately, more grantmakers have, appropriately, become interested in scrutinizing the performance of their nonprofit grantees. A few have even hired independent journalists to objectively report on the effectiveness of certain nonprofit organizations. Yet fewer funders are comfortable evaluating their own capacity, behavior, and impact. How many philanthropic leaders would provide funding to enable an investigative journalist to examine the performance of their own foundation and have an unsanitized version of the report disseminated widely? Very few, I would guess.

New social media technologies will heighten the scrutiny of foundations by a broader range of engaged constituents. Online resources have emerged for rating nonprofit organizations, using the same bottom-up approach that has allowed customers to voice their opinions online about businesses on Yelp, Zagat, and Angie’s List. One of these sites, GreatNonprofits, enables donors and other stakeholders to review nonprofit groups, including ones that are great … and not-so-great. But there are no reviews of nonprofit grantmaking foundations on this site — yet. Online rating systems for foundations are bound to arrive soon. And public officials and critics will pay attention to them. With more and more people twittering on handheld devices these days, the amount of decentralized, real-time feedback for funders will inevitably grow. The power imbalance between funders and grantees will probably always exist, but dynamic technological tools will close the gap at least a little. Look out foundations, as Internet guru Clay Shirky says, here comes everybody.

Paul Connolly is Senior Vice President of TCC Group, a 30 year-old management consulting firm that provides planning, evaluation, grants management, and capacity building services to funders.

Katy Moore, Washington Grantmakers

The challenges of “telling philanthropy’s story” are not new. From the basic (and often dreaded) question “so, what do you do?” to organizational and field-wide messages, we struggle with communicating about who we are, what we do and why anyone should care. At yesterday’s “Telling Your Story: Letting People Know How You’re Changing the World,” we got a glimpse into a few foundations and organizations that are telling their stories from a different perspective.

David Isay, founder of StoryCorps (25,000 personal stories and growing) shared a few of his favorites as an illustration of the power that one authentic, personal account can have. According to Isay, “across history, personal stories have been how we have digested and understood huge issues… Telling an individual’s story is ‘history from the bottom up.’”

Dave Beckwith, Executive Director of The Needmor Fund shared the family foundation’s anniversary publication, “50 Years, 50 Stories,” published to widen the circle of colleagues who fund in community organizing. (I really loved her quote: “Social engagement begins when we share our stories…Social change happens when we agree together to change the ending.”)

Dianna O’Neill, Manager of Interactive Communications at the FedEx Foundation showed a short video which took top honors at the first annual Corporate Citizenship Film Festival earlier this year. The  film tells the foundation’s story using only the voices of employees, grantees and people served (not a single chart or graph – not even a narrator!). O’Neill emphasized that “the small details and human anecdotes tell the full story of the foundation’s work much better than top-down data.”

I think O’Neill is right on the money–and, strangely enough, the perspective that’s most often missing in our stories may be that of the grantmaker employees. Is it possible that no one understands philanthropy’s role because we only talk about our grantees? Yes, many of our stories are the same—we are all working to improve our communities—but we do philanthropy no favors by glossing over our own chapters.

In a time of increased scrutiny and oversight, it’s crucial that foundations get better at communicating their worth. Along with hard data we’ll need great stories, which will benefit immensely from new and unexpected points of view—and that includes yours.

Katy Moore is director of member services at Washington Grantmakers.

By Trista Harris, Headwaters Foundation for Justice & New Voices in Philanthropy

I had the pleasure of attending the Next Gen party last night at the COF Conference. It is always a great opportunity to catch up with colleagues, eat some great food, and pick up Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy S.W.A.G. This year the party was hosted by COF as part of their work with the Next Generation Task Force to institutionalize the Council’s commitment to next gen issues. I applaud the Council on their efforts to move this work from the sidelines to the core but a small piece of me misses being the outsider. In previous years, EPIP especially, made an effort to bring young people together in an authentic way. Connections were made and support was offered. The EPIP Next Generations parties had titles like “An Intergenerational Transfer of…Fun” and more “emerged” foundations leaders would attend the events as a show of support for the next generation of foundation leadership. It always felt like a young people’s revolution to get a place at the table.

This year was a little different because we have a place at the table. The Next Generation Task Force is a long term commitment that extends outside of getting more young people to the annual conference and more and more young people are on regular Council committees. I ask that all of the groups that have been working on this issue for so long like EPIP, Resource Generation and 21/64 take some time to appreciate all that they have done to get the field to this point but I ask all of us to not get too comfortable with progress. There is still more work to be done to have authentic leadership from young people in the field and a fun party with fake bouncers to reinforce the “hip jazz club” vibe is just one step in many.

Trista Harris is executive director of Headwaters Foundation for Justice and blogs at New Voices in Philanthropy.

By Catherine England, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

I’ve been to a wide variety of conferences in all sorts of places during my career.  I’d like to take a moment to commend the Council on Foundations for incorporating local site visits into the agenda for those who are interested. Not only does it give local organizations an opportunity to showcase their good work, it also gives conference attendees the chance to get out and see something of the host city aside from the airport and the hotel. I’ve never attended another professional conference that does this and think it’s a brilliant idea.

Today I was able to tag along on the visit to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic District. It was an educational and inspirational afternoon. No trip to Atlanta is complete without a visit to the community that produced one of our nation’s greatest leaders.

The historic district runs along Auburn Avenue and includes the Ebenezer Baptist Church where both  MLK Jr. and his father served as  ministers. The family lived just down the street and the family home sat with traditional “shot gun” homes just across the street while next door and up the street were mostly larger homes of the more well-to-do families. On the other side of MLK Jr.’s childhood home was a fire department. Since the fire department would only hire white fire fighters at the time, it wasn’t uncommon for the King children to play basketball with the white firemen next door. The family house seemed to have been at a crossroads of economic and racial diversity – yet the neighborhood was peaceful and thriving.

Martin Luther King, Jr. often referred to the “beloved community” in his writings. King’s vision of a “beloved community” is a completely integrated community where love, justice and brotherhood are demonstrated in all aspects of social life. It sounds like, for at least a brief time, his childhood neighborhood personified the “beloved community.”

The King family and other organizations are working to preserve one of our true national treasures. If you missed the tour today, I hope you’ll have time to squeeze in a visit before leaving town.

Catherine England is the communications officer at The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

By Bob Ottenhoff, GuideStar

It seems that most of our discussions about measuring impact are theoretical and academic. And then sometimes impact smacks us between the eyes.

If you care about philanthropy, public policy and the role of government you need to see the film “Trouble the Water” by Tia Lessin and Carl Deal. Yesterday I had a chance to see the film and hear Tia Lessin speak here at the COF. Later in the day, the film was awarded the Henry Hampton Award (to go along with its Academy Award nomination).

The film gives a dramatic eyewitness account of living through Katrina and the absolute bungling, incompetence and outrageous insensitivity of numerous government officials. Here’s what the COF program guide says about it: “This film features a young African American couple who record the flooding of New Orleans in a chilling video diary which threads through the film. It’s a story about a young couple living on the margins who are surviving not only deadly flood waters, armed soldiers, and bungling bureaucrats, but also a social system that has failed them.”

I asked the filmmaker how she funded it and she said “mainly through personal credit cards, small donations and the kindness of friends.” That’s not unusual for an independent producer; the hardest money to raise is before you begin rolling film. Most of the foundation funding the project has received came after the film was made and is going to support an impressive outreach campaign that includes a web site, screenings with community organizations, classroom curriculums and an upcoming screening on HBO.

I can say without hesitation that the foundations that supported this film will create greater impact on social policy than anything else they fund this year. And the impact will extend to thousands of viewers and students as well. This film will change lives. And it will make you mad.

At lunchtime, we heard a presentation by Melody Barnes, Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. One point she made in particular caught my attention: “President Obama believes we all deserve to have a government that works. But we will need all hands on deck: foundations, citizens and government workers to make it happen.”

Bob Ottenhoff is CEO of GuideStar.

By Kathleen Enright, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations

In my last post I articulated a framing question for my experience at the conference: What needs to change for philanthropy to contribute powerfully in the new context?

One of the major topics at the conference has been the opportunity presented by the economic stimulus package.

The benefits are obvious. More dollars on the ground in the hands of people and institutions who understand community need, have learned some things about what works and are ready to dig in and do the hard work necessary to make a difference.

But in talking with Alicia Philipp of the Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta she wondered out loud whether the stimulus package represents a huge opportunity for the communities and organizations we care about or whether it may serve to distract and even possibly weaken some of those efforts.

Recognizing that there are structural problems in the way nonprofits are funded as well as capacity gaps in some of their financial management structures, this new money may compound those problems.

Gayle Williams of the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation touched on this point in the session Helping Nonprofits in Tough Economic Times in describing a situation with a grantee. Babcock Foundation serves low wealth communities in the rural Southeast. One grantee with a budget of $250,000 is preparing to receive a $2 million influx in stimulus money. Yet they currently lack the financial structures to handle it. Gayle says that a big role they are playing now is to help prepare organizations to prudently and effectively handle these resources.

Then there’s the issue of full cost recovery. As Dione Alexander from Nonprofit Finance Fund points out, most government contracts reimburse only 60 or 70 cents on the dollar. Somewhat like a naive entrepreneur’s belief that although he loses a dollar on every widget, he’ll make it up on volume, some nonprofits believe that stimulus package money will relieve their financial woes.

They are in for a surprise. In fact, it might just exacerbate them.

As funders, the issue of full cost recovery should be high on our radar. Both ensuring that nonprofits have the financial savvy to know the true costs of their services and that funders are willing to pay the full costs in program grants or contracts.

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations released a short piece at the conference “Smarter Grantmaking in Tough Economic Times” that addresses some of these questions. And we are beginning to look at some work on full cost recovery drawing on some lessons and experiences in the UK.

But a question that it would be great for all of us to ask is: What can philanthropy do to help high performing nonprofits make the most of the stimulus package and emerge from this crisis more relevant and structurally sound?

Kathleen Enright is CEO of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.

By Trista Harris, Headwaters Foundation for Justice & New Voices in Philanthropy

Throughout the COF Conference there has been two competing themes. One theme sounds a little bit like this “it will take most foundations until 2017 to get to 2007 asset levels, assuming a healthy (and unlikely) 10% return.” The room groans and starts scribbling down numbers. People compare their investment strategies and then remind each other that foundations have a lot more to give than silly things like money. We convene and train and release reports and are a lot of fun to have around at a dinner party. “We can still be relevant”, we cry. We commit to making a 6% payout, forgetting to mention to ourselves and to grantees that 6% this year is still, much, much less in actual grant dollars than 5% last year. We return to our hotel rooms disheartened and call our CFO to figure out how much we can cut from our budget, so that perpetuity doesn’t actually mean, when the money runs out in 2015.

The second theme of the conference is change. There is excitement in the air that some amazing changes are happening politically, socially, and economically. We have a federal administration that is asking the philanthropic sector to offer solutions to our country’s most pressing needs. Stimulus dollars are coming to our communities and foundations across the country are coming to the table to make sure that the new dollars don’t exacerbate current inequalities, foundations’  traditional Lone Ranger approach to grantmaking has been replaced with a renewed spirit of collaboration and an honest look at the root causes of systemic issues, and economic challenges have made all of us look for new ways to streamline and improve our business model. Each of these changes will improve the way that our institutions interact with our grantees, our government, and our communities.

Now isn’t the time to cry over what we were, it is the time to rise up to the potential of what we can become.

Trista Harris is executive director of Headwaters Foundation for Justice and blogs at New Voices in Philanthropy.

By Kathleen Enright, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations

When you come to a conference like the Council on Foundations’ conference, you show up with your our own set of expectations.

As I was considering what value I hope to glean from the conference, I was struck by the fact that it occurs not in the context of a changing world but a changed world. Given that Grantmakers for Effective Organizations’ exists to help grantmakers work smarter so that nonprofits are stronger and can ultimately deliver better results on the ground, my goal for the meeting is to gain insight into what needs to change for philanthropy to contribute powerfully in this new context.

Chatting with Brad Smith of Foundation Center he observed that “Philanthropy needs to get better at getting to scale at speed.”

At Monday’s lunchtime plenary, Ed DeSeve spoke about the pace at which they’re organizing the delivery of the Recovery Act funds. Mind-blowing.

And Dr. Besser from the CDC talked about the reaction time required to seize the one chance they had to get out in front of the H1N1 virus.

This theme of speed and urgency reminded me of an observation that Ami Dar made when he spoke at the GEO/NFF Money Matters conference. He observed that whenever he’s in foundation offices, he never sees anyone walking quickly. The comment drew laughter from the crowd, but the point is an important one.

I can’t imagine there’s a single office in the Obama administration where the same observation could be made.

It struck me that the current pace of philanthropy is completely out of sync in our changed world.

We need to start asking ourselves what it will take to infuse the kind of urgency in our own work. As it stands, our current modes of operating may get in the way of our ability to play an important role in solving our most pressing problems.

Kathleen Enright is CEO of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.

By Natasha Desterro, Pacific Foundation Services

It bugs me to see a table during plenary sessions with a 100% old white male crowd. For three plenary sessions in a row, I’ve seen the same group of white men sitting together. Out of the 1,156 conference participants this year, I find it difficult to believe that there were no seats available at a more diverse table.

Last year, we got a better (live and self-reported) demographics on the participants at the conference. This year, we got a much shorter and less interesting demographic summary in our registrations bags:

• 1,156 conference participants
• 651 organizations represented
• 636 registrants from member organizations
• 296 member organizations represented
• 101 first time conference attendees
• 17 international countries represented
• 42 international registrants

We also got a break down by position type (Category “Other” ranking the highest with 363 people, followed by CEO/ED/President with 258 people, and Program Staff with 208 people.) We also got a breakdown by asset size (by number of organizations and by number of participants), annual giving level (by number of organizations and by number of participants), and representation by geographic area. I was trying to find the link at the COF website, but the site is down. But what about gender? And age? And years in the field? And portfolio area?

This conference is based on “what matters?” and one of the eight codes to categorize the sessions is “IN” for “Inclusion Matters”. With so much “talk” on diversity I would have liked to see more action starting with a more complete set of demographics of speakers and conference attendees in our packets.

And if you’re white and male in this field, you should get an extra packet of information on why diversity matters.

Natasha Desterro is a program officer at Pacific Foundation Services.

By Bob Ottenhoff, GuideStar

I arrived at the conference hotel in Atlanta just in time to see the last bus roar off to the reception. ( I was late since I spent the day presenting at two sessions at the Accelerating Social Entrepreneurship conference in Washington DC). I wandered the desolated halls looking for a conference schedule, but everything was locked up tight and the bored security guard was no help. But fortune was with me: I discovered the conference hotel has a decent sports bar and my beloved Washington Capitals were about to begin game two against their rivals, the Pittsburgh Penguins. After one period of great hockey, I was one of only a few patrons. But I was a happy camper: the score was tied and the Carolina-style barbequed pulled pork was decent (with a suspiciously out of a bottle-tasting sauce on top). By the end of the second period, the Caps were leading and I was surrounded by cheering Caps fans. The bar was full, almost all of them I suspect COF conference attendees.

Architecture and room lay-out play a big role in a successful conference. People say they go to conferences to attend the sessions – and undoubtedly, they benefit from some of them. But the real value comes from “bumping into” people in the halls, setting up one-on-one meetings, and hanging out. This year the conference is in a hotel with a majestic, soaring atrium and several comfortable bars. All of the conference meeting rooms appear to be on one floor and conveniently connected, thereby avoiding that “lost” feeling one has all too often at a conference. This is all in comparison to last year’s conference which was held in the partially-completed National Harbor complex in suburban Washington. The plenary sessions were held in an over-sized cavernous meeting hall. Worse, the meetings were held on multiple floors, with multiple escalators and I never got over that “lost” feeling and the hanging out spots were hard to find. This year looks much better.

Organizing conferences is an art, however, and I offer my best wishes and condolences to those responsible for this one. For many years, I was responsible for organizing the annual PBS conference for the 350 public television stations. My first year, I vowed to ban all 7:30 AM sessions and schedule more free time. I lost. Too many constituencies in the kitchen I learned.

Now it’s on to my first day at the conference. Meanwhile, the Caps are packing for their next game in Pittsburgh, holding a commanding 2-0 lead.

Bob Ottenhoff is CEO of GuideStar.

By Natasha Desterro, Pacific Foundations Services

During this session, four panelists discussed how philanthropy is seen in Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC). These countries represent the largest emerging economies in the world, yet, according to the panel’s expertise they are still taking baby steps towards an active civil society. As expected, a lot of a country’s philanthropic mindset is based on cultural, historical, and religious principles. It seems that linguistic principles also play a role in how a society sees its own role in philanthropy. For example, the word “charity” in the Soviet Russian dictionary meant something along the lines of “cynical capitalist practice in disguise” says Olga Alexeeva, one of the panelists.

Olga explained that there are two types of philanthropy in Russia today. One is the “elitist giving.” Those who became wealthy in the 90s now support more programs and organizations that are associated with success (read “universities”), but will not fund programs that support elementary school education, for example. The second type is “pop philanthropy” where middle and upper class will help people (“read surgeries for children”), but not organizations. Olga reminded the audience that giving to individual treatments doesn’t help changing the failing health care system and it doesn’t move the needle in health care reform. Olga also mentioned that politics and policy are the same word in Russian, so Russians tend to stay away from “policy” because they don’t want to be involved with “politics”. The consequence? Philanthropic money bypasses the professional sector altogether. Olga mentioned that in a recent study, 51% of Russians said they would not give to a nonprofit because they tend to place them in the same category as the government. Nonetheless, the sector has grown tremendously since the 90s, from one single private foundation in 1999 distributing about one million dollars, to about 60 foundations today distributing $70 million dollars.

Similarly, China has seen an increase in philanthropic activity. As contrary to what some may think, Nicholas Young detailed how China has a long tradition of philanthropy, perhaps not in the same way as the West sees it, but that there is a divine moral imperative, especially for leaders, to take care of the less fortunate. Over the last 20 years, Nicholas has seen that individuals in China see themselves as having an increased role in civil society. In 1998 there were about 50 individuals with a net worth of $50 million, in 2007, there were 2,000 individuals with a net worth of more than $200 million.

Fernando Rosetti enlightened the audience on Brazil’s philanthropy. For starters, Brazilians don’t use that word (“philanthropy”) as it is associated with tax loopholes and corruption. (Side note: now I understand why my extended family in Brazil makes funny faces when I update them on my career.) The politically-correct term is “private social investment.” Brazil’s philanthropic sector is young and also grew tremendously in the 90s, when Brazil’s dictatorship was phased out and a democratic government was put in place. The country opened itself up to foreign investments (and foreign aid), yet Brazilians individual charitable giving didn’t change much as there’s a cultural expectation of a “top down” problem solving model in society. Fernando said that the majority of Brazil’s giving happens through corporate philanthropy, and for the most part, controversial issues like human rights, race or gender relations, or land ownership are not funded.

India’s philanthropic overview was guided by Ingrid Maryann Srinath. As opposed to Brazilian philanthropy, India’s philanthropy is 80% based in individuals, giving between $20 and $50 a year. Ingrid mentioned that religions have played an important role in philanthropy as there is a “competition” between all religious groups as to what groups build more schools or supports more hospitals, but that the downside is the byproduct of violence that comes with that mindset. Also, Indians prefer that money is used “honestly” rather than “effectively.”

This session was a fascinating conversation about the nuances of the philanthropic sector in each of these countries and the different forces that drive society to become engaged. I learned that one must add “linguistics” as another variable when looking at philanthropy abroad. I’m certainly better prepared next time I catch up with the family back home.

Natasha Desterro is a program officer at Pacific Foundation Services.

Katy Moore, Washington Grantmakers

COF’s 60th Annual Conference is taking place in a different world than last year’s conference. On Day 1, traditional conversations have given way to more urgent discussions about how we can collaborate, support each other (and our grantees),  and make strategic decisions about the short-term crisis while also setting the stage for longer-term solutions.

I was just involved in one such conversation, as representatives from the various “philanthropic infrastructure” organizations (regional associations, affinity groups, COF, ASF, etc) gathered to explore how to work together to reduce duplication, support one another and move our field forward in a more strategic way. As one participant put it, “we can use this economic downturn as an opportunity to be proactive about working together or we can wait until our hand is forced by our members and funders.”

Themes of the conversation included:

1) The potential for program and content collaboration is great.There’s no reason for us ALL to design a program on X. It is neither cost effective nor field-building. Reinventing the wheel is wasteful and working in isolation, inevitably, results in the creation of a cadre of mediocre programs.

2) The current revenue model in place at many philanthropic support organizations (i.e. membership dues + grant dollars) does not foster collaboration. Rather, the current model  (especially when coupled with the economic downturn) increases competition and territory. The suggestion was made to conduct a financial feasibility study of deep organizational collaborations, curriculum sharing and even, potentially, joint memberships.

3)  If field-wide collaboration is to be a reality, we will need some pretty strong “glue” to keep the work moving forward. Proposed solutions included a commitment from session participants to meet at least annually face-to-face, creating a steering committee to ensure the conversation continues in a meaningful way, and using social network to keep folks tied together over time and distance.

I don’t know how this important conversation will play out, but, one thing’s for sure…we’re not in Kansas anymore! If you have suggestions or comments on how your infrastructure organizations can work together, please let me know! Post back here or contact me directly at moore@washingtongrantmakers.org.

Katy Moore is director of member services at Washington Grantmakers.

By Paul Connolly, TCC Group

How many consultants does it take to screw in a light bulb?  The members of the National Network of Consultants to Grantmakers unfortunately did not address that pressing question when it convened on May 3rd at the Council on Foundations conference in Atlanta.  However, they did discuss how foundations are reacting to the recent economic decline.  As advisors to and change agents for a range of funders, consultants have a unique perspective on this topic.  Their collective wisdom is summed up below.

Some foundations are being nimble during this tumultuous period.  They are increasing their pay-out levels, directing funding to "safety net" providers, increasing investments in policy advocacy efforts, awarding more unrestricted general operating support, and building the capacity of grantees to be more financially sustainable.  As they face shrunken endowments, certain family foundation boards are having difficult — and healthy — discussions about the possibility of spending down and closing.

Yet many foundations still seem stuck in fear, uncertain about the future and unwilling to change much.  Now is the time for foundations to take on a greater leadership role and consider new models for philanthropy.  Today, there are many opportunities for funders to take bold action in such critical fields as education, energy, and health.  Moreover, foundations need to be more willing to collaborate, especially to leverage some of the federal government’s new investments.  And learning and evaluation activities are more important than ever, to help determine what works (and what doesn’t work) and inform decisions about how to allocate limited resources.

While many foundation endowments are now two-thirds the size of what they were a year ago, foundations can not afford to be only two-thirds as effective as they once were.  As Rahm Emmanuel observed recently, "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste."  During these challenging times, foundations have a great opportunity to step up, exercise leadership, and embrace new approaches to achieve their missions.

Paul Connolly is Senior Vice President of TCC Group, a 30 year-old management consulting firm that provides planning, evaluation, grants management, and capacity building services to funders.

By Catherine England, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

This is my first year at the Council on Foundations Conference.  I’m pretty green to the Foundation world in general.  I’ve been serving as the Communications Officer at the Packard Foundation now for just six weeks.  I spent the last ten years serving as a corporate spokesperson and Public Relations generalist at a variety of companies in Silicon Valley – mostly recently eBay and before that Netflix.  So admittedly, I probably have more to learn than anyone out there about the practice of communications in Foundations.

There seems to be a big focus on new media as a communications issue in the Foundation world and I sometimes find myself thinking, “Really? Again?  Are we really having another conversation about when to use social media tools and why?”

In my mind (and perhaps this truly is in my mind only), we are asking the wrong questions.  The focus shouldn’t be on when and why to use social media tools but rather – WHAT are we trying to communicate? And with WHOM are we trying to communicate or engage? Once we’ve got a clear message developed, the focus is on finding your audience – if your audience happens to be online – then chances are you should look for online ways to deliver your message.  If the people you are trying to reach aren’t big online users, chances are more traditional communication tools may serve your organization better.  In most cases, an organization needs of mix of traditional and new media vehicles to effectively reach their target audiences.   

As they say, fish where the fish are swimming…

Maybe I’m over simplifying matters. I’ve thought about how we practiced communications at Netflix, eBay, PayPal and Skype.  What all of these companies had in common was an almost obsessive focus on knowing their audience.  Netflix was incredibly disciplined about understanding who their customer was and what exactly it took for an individual to take action and try their service.  Early on in the business, their primary target audience was the “early adopter” – you know, that geeky guy who always has to have the latest gadget.  But constant research showed that, over time, their audience became more mainstream (think soccer moms).  As a result, they modified their messages and where they placed those messages to reach a more mainstream audience.  If Netflix had conducted research just once and left it at that, they would have wasted a lot of time talking to the wrong people in the wrong way and wouldn’t be as successful as they are today.  The same holds true at eBay, PayPal and Skype.  These companies are religious about understanding exactly who uses their services and why. It’s a culture of constant research and dialogue.

Does your organization know who it wants to engage? Is it young people who are willing to advocate around an issue to raise awareness? Or, if the audience is more general, do you understand the triggers for your audience? What moves people to take action? Is it an emotional appeal or educating them about how their action, or inaction, impacts the world around them?

I know most Foundations don’t have the resources or desire to develop an obsessive need for constant audience research.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution but I’m guessing most Foundations could be well served by a strategic communications plan that is based on some research to gain a deep understanding about WHO their audiences really are. Then,  the right mix of both traditional and new media vehicles to address HOW to engage and move their audience to action will likely become more clear.  Understanding how best to engage with the world around us to more effectively impact the big issues Foundations are focused on addressing seems worthwhile to me. But alas, I  know budgets are tight everywhere these days and making the case for communications research is usually an uphill battle – even when budgets are healthy.

Over time, I hope to figure out how some corporate best practices can be realistically applied to Foundations — though I clearly still have much to learn. I am extremely excited to be a part of the Foundation community and hope I can contribute as much as I’ve already received.  My thanks to all of the folks who are participating on panels and leading discussions at the conference!

Catherine England is the communications officer at The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.