Open hands

Financial Times writer Sean Stannard-Stockton offers a great service when introducing us to Tom David, a foundation consultant, who has made a pile of well thought-out resources available for sharing on his site. 

Sean states:

Tactical Philanthropy reader Tom David is a foundation consultant and emailed this week to share the fact that he has been making reports he has been commissioned by large foundations to create available on his website. They are free to the public. The reports cover subjects like The Craft of Grantmaking, Philanthropic Strategy and Evaluation. They were commissioned by foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Marguerite Casey Foundation and The California Wellness Foundation.

This is an example of the way that third parties will step forward to aggregate and present information in a user friendly way if foundations simply permit the release of internal information. This isn’t a perfect example because Tom of course is the author of the reports. But it is still a useful way for the public to benefit from the research paid for by foundations. Transparency is not about accountability, it is about increasing impact.

I’m looking forward to reading some of these docs.

Last week’s PIGS sessions were stimulating (see my first post here) and great networking moments for me.  One outcome has been a PIGS group form on Facebook which I am appreciating. 

Meeting people like Lee is helpful, and for the readers of this blog, let me introduce you.  He’s a Senior Program Officer for MacLellan Foundation.  With Chris over at Catalyst, that makes three PIGS bloggers at last count.  (Are there any others??)

Let’s encourage them to keep blogging.  We need philanthrobloggers.

Linda and I had a great conversation today about where we are at this year at Bridgeway.  Because of my role, so many people seek me out for an opinion or to build relationship.  (Let’s face it, people are doing their jobs by seeking me out to build relationship, because it may lead to financial success for their organizations.  It leads to at least one call per day.)  Many have asked me how do I do it faced with the ongoing onslaught.  And up to now, I have had a relatively open door to those who would seek my counsel regarding their charitable endeavours - and occasionally it has led to grants by Bridgeway.  This I have welcomed, and have been open to.

But this year isn’t about that as previously mentioned here.

We determined at the end of last year that 2008 would be more about determining where Bridgeway was headed rather than responding to the needs that are continually present.  And this week, I hit my limit.  Up to now, Linda has had control of my calendar, and she would slot in meetings with people who requested them.  But I told Linda that from henceforth this year, I would no longer have an open door to whomever wanted to meet.  It leads unfortunately to some who had read promising signals, but will be disappointed in how inaccessible I am becoming for a period.

I really need time this year to reflect, plan, and focus in on Bridgeway’s needs and priorities.  And that often will not include spending time with many who seek our advice in helping shape their charitable activities. 

We sense that we will be narrowing in our focus and limiting access in order to more fully define and seek out Bridgeway’s future role.  Selfish, perhaps.  But necessary.

This year, we aren’t open to being sought.  We are seekers.  We will be spending 2008 proactively looking to define where we are headed.  Because of that, I have filled my year with opportunities to receive, to be nurtured, to grow. 

Not to be sought after. 

Yesterday Brent and I spent the afternoon continuing our strategic planning process for the next phase of our evolution as a foundation.  One of our discussions centred around the idea of continuing to fund one-off projects. 

When we began to formalize our foundation operations seven years ago, we went from funding general operating support with a blank cheque approach to much greater definition and rigour around project-based funding.  This was a necessary step in our learning.   We needed to introduce accountability and precision to our granting.  We wanted to measure tangible results. 

But the pitfalls of this approach force charities to remain on a tight leash.  There are strings attached, and the basic assumption at work seems to be ‘we don’t trust you to get it right, so you have to do it our way’.  But I wonder if we foundations really are the experts, or just the ones with the money?  Should we not trust those closer to the grassroots?  As well, how well can we really measure social and spiritual transformation, which is our end game?

When I came home last night, an email awaited from my friend Donnie with a link to (yet another) NY Times article, this one entitled Can Foundations Take the Long View Again?  I almost wondered if Denise Caruso, the journalist, had some sort of listening device at our meeting today.  She writes:

“In the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a huge push for private philanthropy to be more accountable and to spend more time being goal-driven,” said Kathleen Enright, the executive director of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, a Washington-based coalition of foundations that promotes ways to improve nonprofit results.

Advisers and trustees compelled foundations to redirect their unrestricted grants to more discrete, short-term projects — for example, distributing mosquito nets in malaria regions — that would deliver a measurable bang for the buck.

“The reason the nonprofit sector exists at all is because it can fund and invest in social issues that the for-profit market can’t touch because they can’t be measured,” said Paul Shoemaker, a former Microsoft employee and entrepreneur who is now executive director of the Seattle affiliate of Social Venture Partners International, a philanthropic network. “The nonprofit ‘market’ is not designed to be efficient in that way. Yet we’re applying the same efficiency metrics to both sectors.”

As a consequence, when foundations switched to project-based accounting, they forced grantees to sacrifice long-term effectiveness for short-term efficiency, Ms. Enright said. Nonprofits could no longer afford to focus on important strategic activities like advocacy or working for social change, which require “deep resources and the ability to change tactics overnight if the situation demands it,” she said.

Bridgeway’s board met last week, and we made some tough decisions about the new year.  Follow this link for an announcement about granting in 2008.   

After 15 years of continuous grantmaking totalling over $26m including $3.5m in 2007 alone, Bridgeway’s board has recently made a decision to not award any new grants during 2008. This decision has been made based on a challenging year for our investment portfolio.  

As a result, in 2008 Bridgeway will not be granting new funds.  New applications for partnership will not be considered until 2009. 

This decision does not affect grants that have been previously scheduled.  Over $1m in pledges will continue to be paid out as planned during 2008. 

To be honest, I am relieved about this ‘pause’ in our funding cycle.  I have commented to others about how I have felt caught in the ‘vortex of grantmaking’ where every quarter we are considering new grant requests.   So I am pleased to take a break. 

I am calling it a fallow year.  It is a year to let the land lie without tilling or growing.  A year to rest the land.

The announcement continues:

This pause allows time and space to allow our portfolio to recover.  We believe, as well, that this space is a God-given fallow period, and is a gift which allows us to recalibrate and reimagine what strategic and effective philanthropy looks like.

As mentioned last week, we had our quarterly grantmaking meeting.  Just posted are details regarding Bridgeway’s just approved grants for Q4 2007.   

I dedicated today to finishing up Bridgeway’s dashboard indicators, next year’s budget and cash flow projections, and my narrative report to our board in preparation for our board meeting tomorrow.  Kind of late, I know, but I work best under the gun.

Next year will be a different kind of year for us, with lower levels of grantmaking than in previous years due to challenges facing our investments.  It forces us to get creative, and Brent and I have a few really great ideas up our sleeves.  But most of all, I am really ready for a break from what I call the grantmaking vortex.  So Christmas holidays, where are you??

I also added this story to the board package - just to keep us remembering why we do what we do.

Yesterday was a full day of grantmaking by our foundation’s committee of 5.  And this quarter we had more applications than is typical - guess the shaking of the bushes last few months has paid off.  As well, we included the majority of our Family Fund applications this quarter which gives us extra work.

In total we considered 38 applications of which four were declined, and one deferred to next year.  For the approved grants, for several we did not grant the requested amount but lowered it - one by a substantial amount. 

Foremost in our minds during the meeting was the challenge before us that next year promises to be a much more challenging environment with the result that our disbursements will be lower.  I’ll mention more on this in later postings.

We also put our heads together to select the top five innovative grants for 2007 - these I will comment on in later postings as well.  Four of them appeared in this quarter’s meeting, so all in all, it was an encouraging meeting with some strategic and thoughtful grantmaking occurring.

View our Just Approved Grants.