Introduction, Essays on High-Engagement Grantmaking - Venture ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Essays</strong> to connect the dots between ongoing efforts that, but for the research and insight identified by the donor’s interest, might have continued to operate in ignorance of or independent from each other. The insight resulting from the research might facilitate new ways of leveraging existing resources. In such a case, the connections may be as important as the funding. Donors clearly have more than money to give, and when and where possible they should be urged to do so. The wise donor, however, should first and foremost be a listener. Understanding and being responsive to the real organizational needs is essential if the funding process is to have true value. While ideas and shared experiences are often enormously helpful and illuminating, the execution of a good idea is not the same thing as having had it. I have always maintained in all the grantmaking we have been involved with that we support people, not programs. At the end of the day, the best ideas and concepts are simply ideas unless they also have good leadership and capable people to turn the idea into reality. Here’s where we come to the doers. Whether managing the execution of their own ideas and responses to various social issues or serving as the current stewards for a concept, organization, or vision developed by someone else, it is the human capital applied to the work that merits the philanthropic investment. Leadership counts for a considerable amount, but beyond leadership, as any successful businessperson knows, an organization’s human capital is its most important resource. The ability to attract and retain quality personnel is critical. While mission and charismatic leadership may attract people, reasonable compensation and decent working conditions make it possible to continue to do the work over the long haul. It’s clear from the number of existing organizations that there are lots of doers. They may not all be effective, but those that are should be recognized, respected, and supported. And so I return to the issue of operating support. Equity investments in corporations are not restricted to particular aspects of a company’s business. A successful equity investor assesses the capabilities of the management, the company’s position within its market, the environment in which it operates, and its strategy for accomplishing its objectives before making an investment. Once the investment is made, however, management decides how to allocate the capital. Donors need to remember this when making funding determinations. A funder may well want an organization to create a new program, take on a new initiative, or expand geographically, and the organization may be willing to do so in the hopes of securing support. Restricting funding without adequately providing for the ongoing costs of this additional work and without acknowledging the overall impact it has on the organization ignores the reality of what a program really costs in financial and human terms. It should come as no surprise that organizations fail to acknowledge fully these costs for fear of increasing budgets and alienating donors. Regrettably, donors often don’t ask about these costs since funding programs seems so much more engaging than making sure the organization can pay its rent, upgrade its computers, or provide reasonable wages and benefits to staff. The professional grantmaking field exacerbates this problem. Foundation staff often find it more interesting to be part of creating something new than simply to recommend those same old boring grants year after year. Program staff who are perceived as creative or engaged in innovative grantmaking are recognized by their peers in many ways. I’ve yet to see an award for the funder providing the most sustained operating support. Yet, ask organizations what they most need, and operating support will top the list. If we hope to ensure the long-term viability of our nonprofit beneficiaries, we need to speak openly of their ongoing financial needs, not in the context of one-, two-, or threeyear grants, but over many years. Chasing dollars through new programs when the old ones aren’t adequately funded makes no sense for an organization. Core infrastructure 20 Venture Philanthropy 2002
Hildy J. Simmons support—allowing for the planning, thinking, ongoing maintenance, and staff development necessary to operate an efficient, effective organization—is simply essential. Limited, restricted financial commitments combined with the failure to recognize the true costs associated with the work to be done inevitably leads to less than successful enterprises and funder frustration. The challenge, whether one is primarily funder, thinker, or doer, is to engage in an honest conversation. Many approaches and strategies can improve outcomes and practices, but we ought not ignore the fundamental reality of the need for sustained, flexible capital. Here’s to all who acknowledge and act on this. It may not be the most glamorous form of funding, but glamour, like beauty, is only skin deep. 21
Page 1 and 2: Venture Philanthropy 2002 Advancing
Page 3 and 4: Contents Contents 1. Introd
Page 5 and 6: Introduction <stro
Page 7 and 8: Perspective Three Yards and a Cloud
Page 9 and 10: Perspective was fate and that fate
Page 11 and 12: Essays on High-Eng
Page 13 and 14: Julie L. Rogers The Eugene and Agne
Page 15 and 16: Eric Schwarz Venture Philanthropy:
Page 17 and 18: Paul Shoemaker Evolving Venture Phi
Page 19: Hildy J. Simmons Funders, Thinkers,
Page 23 and 24: Jeffrey Swartz That is not to say t
Page 25 and 26: Melinda Tuan REDF: Reflections on F
Page 27 and 28: Melinda Tuan sage. In doing this wo

Introduction, Essays on High-Engagement Grantmaking - Venture ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?