This is an amazing turn around from how the typical foundation is run. It reminds me of the book The Medici Effect where you take a given truth and then turn it around to its opposites; typically, ventures seek funding from foundations but this foundation seeks to fund the right ventures. It’s very refreshing and a definite thought process change. I hope they are able to find great success so that this method of funding will become more popular.
My congratulations to the Mulago Foundation. You and your readers might want to investigate the work of The California Wellness Foundation if you’d like to see how a large foundation has been operating on very similar principles for many years now…. http://www.tcwf.org
Nonprofits could plan core operations better and just focus on reviewing annual metrics, outcomes and overall plans which nps should have vs creating proposals and plans for each unique fdn
Quite good and practical. Liked the analogy with Warren Buffet. When I moved very recently to the social sector from the corporate world, what baffled me are the extensive and voluminous project proposals, reports and pages and pages of mea…surement approaches. It sounded like a wrong investment of time if I were running a profit oriented business. Agility is highly needed in the Social Business World too, and that will have high priority in the new foundation we are starting, called the PrismTree Foundation. This article from Stanford Center was a good validation that our thinking was indeed in the right direction.
Sean,
I have an even wilder dream of a foundation that would let the community they are trying to help decide what deserves funding. So beyond a team scouting for good projects, which is very nice but does not scale, we are talking of a model where investments decisions are being made by peers. The beauty of such a model is that it shifts the dynamics from a system where one group feeds the other to a system were the community is responsible for its own destiny.
Hopefully this type of foundation will emerge from the current trend that you are seeing. This is a model that Entrepreneur Commons is pushing within its own realm, and we are gaining momentum, so there are good reasons to be optimistic.
At least one community in Chicago is trying something like the above suggestion. The 49th Ward is successfully allotting some funds to Participatory Budgeting is being practiced. See Alderman Joe Moore’s site http://www.ward49.com/participatory-budgeting/
Finally! Get this on the agenda when and where funders meet.
I haven’t checked their website yet but would be very interested and seeing the multi-year results of their strategy compared to other funders. And I do mean “results,” not just how many nonprofits were “helped” but did the nonprofits’ clients benefit as proposed.
I am glad to come to your programme.Your approach can help strengthen those who see it hard to parthner with others due to some limitations.
I am based in Kenya and I am trained as a GHG Accountant to assist emitters address issues of Global warming.This work is new in Africa.I need to increase Climate Change Literacy Level then for them to understand why they should participate in corporate Social Responsibility work.My major difficulties is that ,Who can Just Fund my work to talk to CEO,Directors and Shareholders to be aware and take action to reduce emissions from their entrepreneurship activities?As an expert, using GHG Accounting Technical Skills can indeed help.I want Facilitation for 3 people of my team .Who can collaborate with me?
Otherwise thank you for your initiative.
YES!
2 big lessons here -
1) Good ideas don’t need a big bureaucracy behind them to function effectively
2) Impact is where all the money should be going. You ask the questions before hand and then let people do their job.
I wonder, though, how a small NGO with say, 3 staff members, catches the eye of the Mulago Foundation if no proposals are ever made? How will Mulago measure their own impact, as compared to more “traditional” funding methods? http://searchingforacause.wordpress.com
Here in Palestine, the first community foundation, Dalia Association, facilitates only unrestricted grants and only through community-controlled grantmaking. They work from a belief that when donors give funds they are giving to the Palestinian people, not to the Association. So the Association’s role is not as a donor but as a trustee of funds and a facilitator of fair and transparent processes that are aimed at community priorities. In this way, local community groups will be more accountable to the local community (since they make the grant decisions) and local people will gain trust in their own institutions. This is the basis for healthy local philanthropy and development based not on a focus on outputs, but processes that respect Palestinians’ rights.
We at the Marguerite Casey Foundation (MCF) applaud the efforts of the Mulago Foundation because we know from experience that providing unrestricted, long-term grants is a direct and efficient way to affect change at the grassroots level. Since its inception, MCF has provided long-term general support grants to community organizations in 14 states, and we do this by not broadly soliciting proposals, but by relying on community members to point us toward specific groups already successfully engaging low-income families in policy solutions. We believe that unless poor families are leading the change they want to see – their issues will never be addressed. After nearly 10 years, the results are in: Our grantmaking approach, known as Equal Voice, has created networks of low-income communities that rolled back payday loans in New Mexico, for example; provided improved support for ex-felons reentering society in Illinois and in 2010, increased voter participation by 246 percent in two of the poorest precincts in south Texas. Hundreds of thousands of community leaders, both youth and adults, have been developed through the work of our grantees. Overall, this new approach to philanthropy is creating stronger organizations on the ground, engaged and informed families who can advocate in their own behalf, and a network of organizations working across issues, regions and ethnicities to bring about change – in public policy, attitudes and practices – to ensure the well-being of America’s families.
and clearly ‘outcomes’ focussed which is what is lacking in so many grant processes. The process has become the focus rather than the outcome. Let’s hope more foundations follow the extremely successful Mulago Foundation example.
It is terrific seeing others start to buy in to the 4 principles outlined in the article and practiced by the Mulago Foundation.
Our foundation was organized on exactly the same terms 5 years ago. Strive for Change is a non-profit organization committed to supporting innovative local programs that help the working poor in the East Bay achieve economic self-sufficiency.
The EDs of the programs we support are thrilled with idea that they can use our grant as they think best serves their mission. We build a close working relationship for our mutual benefit, but we do not 2nd guess their program. They also know we are with them for the long haul.
Mr. Stannard-Stockton spoke of having more fun. There is nothing like the warm and fuzzy feeling our Grant Committee Chair gets when out-of-the-blue he makes the first call to a prospective grantee and asks if we can come by for a visit. Programs just do not have people come to their door to offer a grant.
Les Ellis, Founder
Excellent article. Thank you for exposing such great opportunities for foundations to rethink their approach to philanthropy.
I spent about a decade in the corporate world and about a decade in the nonprofit world working mostly in and with foundations. I took my first Executive Director position last May and it has transformed my perspective on philanthropy.
My perspective “on the ground” is that nonprofit sector funding mechanisms support fragmentation, mediocrity and unproductive competition. Foundation dollars are spread too thin and in too small of chunks to give the sector the secure footing it needs. Short grant periods foster an environment of short-term thinking and investing in a sector where incredibly complex problems require long-term solutions. And while foundations rightly want to support collaborations and networks the funding mechanisms actually work against those types of organizational structures.
Capacity building also needs to be rethought all together. Funding an upgrade to IT systems in a mediocre nonprofit simply makes that nonprofit more efficiently mediocre. I am convinced that capacity building needs to be a multi-year effort that incorporates several key components of an organization - not just the silos particular funders are interested in funding. It is also must be a well planned, long-term effort. A funding climate that is focused on 1-year grant cycles while sometimes requiring breaks in between cycles is also not a climate that can support truly building the capacity of organizations. Some level of dependency between a nonprofit and a funder is good - it means there is a long-term, reliable, and secure relationship in place to build something from.
Lastly, I will say size does matter. The digital world requires a certain level of technological investment and capacity that a two-person $200,000 organization would find difficult to support. There of course are applications for such small organizations but in general the sector needs to merge its way to fewer extremely small nonprofits and increase the number of organizations in the $1-$5 million range. Economies of scale do, I think, play a role in helping the sector have more impact.
Thanks again for a great article. Keep them coming!
You well doing great work but there still more peoples around the world that were not yet be part of your benefit your organisation has to touch more needed person ok bravo good job.
COMMENTS
BY sgchamby
ON December 1, 2010 11:31 PM
This is an amazing turn around from how the typical foundation is run. It reminds me of the book The Medici Effect where you take a given truth and then turn it around to its opposites; typically, ventures seek funding from foundations but this foundation seeks to fund the right ventures. It’s very refreshing and a definite thought process change. I hope they are able to find great success so that this method of funding will become more popular.
BY Tom David
ON December 2, 2010 03:32 PM
My congratulations to the Mulago Foundation. You and your readers might want to investigate the work of The California Wellness Foundation if you’d like to see how a large foundation has been operating on very similar principles for many years now…. http://www.tcwf.org
BY Cindy via SSIR Facebook
ON December 2, 2010 03:56 PM
Nonprofits could plan core operations better and just focus on reviewing annual metrics, outcomes and overall plans which nps should have vs creating proposals and plans for each unique fdn
BY Jacob via SSIR Facebook
ON December 2, 2010 03:57 PM
Quite good and practical. Liked the analogy with Warren Buffet. When I moved very recently to the social sector from the corporate world, what baffled me are the extensive and voluminous project proposals, reports and pages and pages of mea…surement approaches. It sounded like a wrong investment of time if I were running a profit oriented business. Agility is highly needed in the Social Business World too, and that will have high priority in the new foundation we are starting, called the PrismTree Foundation. This article from Stanford Center was a good validation that our thinking was indeed in the right direction.
BY Marc Dangeard
ON December 2, 2010 04:47 PM
Sean,
I have an even wilder dream of a foundation that would let the community they are trying to help decide what deserves funding. So beyond a team scouting for good projects, which is very nice but does not scale, we are talking of a model where investments decisions are being made by peers. The beauty of such a model is that it shifts the dynamics from a system where one group feeds the other to a system were the community is responsible for its own destiny.
Hopefully this type of foundation will emerge from the current trend that you are seeing. This is a model that Entrepreneur Commons is pushing within its own realm, and we are gaining momentum, so there are good reasons to be optimistic.
BY Nancy Nicholson
ON December 2, 2010 05:00 PM
At least one community in Chicago is trying something like the above suggestion. The 49th Ward is successfully allotting some funds to Participatory Budgeting is being practiced. See Alderman Joe Moore’s site http://www.ward49.com/participatory-budgeting/
BY Virginia Ikkanda-Suddith
ON December 2, 2010 07:35 PM
Finally! Get this on the agenda when and where funders meet.
I haven’t checked their website yet but would be very interested and seeing the multi-year results of their strategy compared to other funders. And I do mean “results,” not just how many nonprofits were “helped” but did the nonprofits’ clients benefit as proposed.
BY Samuel Otenyo
ON December 5, 2010 04:48 AM
I am glad to come to your programme.Your approach can help strengthen those who see it hard to parthner with others due to some limitations.
I am based in Kenya and I am trained as a GHG Accountant to assist emitters address issues of Global warming.This work is new in Africa.I need to increase Climate Change Literacy Level then for them to understand why they should participate in corporate Social Responsibility work.My major difficulties is that ,Who can Just Fund my work to talk to CEO,Directors and Shareholders to be aware and take action to reduce emissions from their entrepreneurship activities?As an expert, using GHG Accounting Technical Skills can indeed help.I want Facilitation for 3 people of my team .Who can collaborate with me?
Otherwise thank you for your initiative.
BY Cause Searching
ON December 5, 2010 05:33 AM
YES!
2 big lessons here -
1) Good ideas don’t need a big bureaucracy behind them to function effectively
2) Impact is where all the money should be going. You ask the questions before hand and then let people do their job.
I wonder, though, how a small NGO with say, 3 staff members, catches the eye of the Mulago Foundation if no proposals are ever made? How will Mulago measure their own impact, as compared to more “traditional” funding methods?
http://searchingforacause.wordpress.com
BY Nora Lester Murad
ON December 12, 2010 03:01 AM
Here in Palestine, the first community foundation, Dalia Association, facilitates only unrestricted grants and only through community-controlled grantmaking. They work from a belief that when donors give funds they are giving to the Palestinian people, not to the Association. So the Association’s role is not as a donor but as a trustee of funds and a facilitator of fair and transparent processes that are aimed at community priorities. In this way, local community groups will be more accountable to the local community (since they make the grant decisions) and local people will gain trust in their own institutions. This is the basis for healthy local philanthropy and development based not on a focus on outputs, but processes that respect Palestinians’ rights.
BY Kathleen Baca
ON December 15, 2010 01:00 PM
We at the Marguerite Casey Foundation (MCF) applaud the efforts of the Mulago Foundation because we know from experience that providing unrestricted, long-term grants is a direct and efficient way to affect change at the grassroots level. Since its inception, MCF has provided long-term general support grants to community organizations in 14 states, and we do this by not broadly soliciting proposals, but by relying on community members to point us toward specific groups already successfully engaging low-income families in policy solutions. We believe that unless poor families are leading the change they want to see – their issues will never be addressed. After nearly 10 years, the results are in: Our grantmaking approach, known as Equal Voice, has created networks of low-income communities that rolled back payday loans in New Mexico, for example; provided improved support for ex-felons reentering society in Illinois and in 2010, increased voter participation by 246 percent in two of the poorest precincts in south Texas. Hundreds of thousands of community leaders, both youth and adults, have been developed through the work of our grantees. Overall, this new approach to philanthropy is creating stronger organizations on the ground, engaged and informed families who can advocate in their own behalf, and a network of organizations working across issues, regions and ethnicities to bring about change – in public policy, attitudes and practices – to ensure the well-being of America’s families.
BY Samantha Morshed
ON January 13, 2011 10:19 PM
and clearly ‘outcomes’ focussed which is what is lacking in so many grant processes. The process has become the focus rather than the outcome. Let’s hope more foundations follow the extremely successful Mulago Foundation example.
BY LESTER ELLIS
ON January 14, 2011 11:57 AM
It is terrific seeing others start to buy in to the 4 principles outlined in the article and practiced by the Mulago Foundation.
Our foundation was organized on exactly the same terms 5 years ago. Strive for Change is a non-profit organization committed to supporting innovative local programs that help the working poor in the East Bay achieve economic self-sufficiency.
The EDs of the programs we support are thrilled with idea that they can use our grant as they think best serves their mission. We build a close working relationship for our mutual benefit, but we do not 2nd guess their program. They also know we are with them for the long haul.
Mr. Stannard-Stockton spoke of having more fun. There is nothing like the warm and fuzzy feeling our Grant Committee Chair gets when out-of-the-blue he makes the first call to a prospective grantee and asks if we can come by for a visit. Programs just do not have people come to their door to offer a grant.
Les Ellis, Founder
BY Neal Myrick
ON January 14, 2011 05:23 PM
Excellent article. Thank you for exposing such great opportunities for foundations to rethink their approach to philanthropy.
I spent about a decade in the corporate world and about a decade in the nonprofit world working mostly in and with foundations. I took my first Executive Director position last May and it has transformed my perspective on philanthropy.
My perspective “on the ground” is that nonprofit sector funding mechanisms support fragmentation, mediocrity and unproductive competition. Foundation dollars are spread too thin and in too small of chunks to give the sector the secure footing it needs. Short grant periods foster an environment of short-term thinking and investing in a sector where incredibly complex problems require long-term solutions. And while foundations rightly want to support collaborations and networks the funding mechanisms actually work against those types of organizational structures.
Capacity building also needs to be rethought all together. Funding an upgrade to IT systems in a mediocre nonprofit simply makes that nonprofit more efficiently mediocre. I am convinced that capacity building needs to be a multi-year effort that incorporates several key components of an organization - not just the silos particular funders are interested in funding. It is also must be a well planned, long-term effort. A funding climate that is focused on 1-year grant cycles while sometimes requiring breaks in between cycles is also not a climate that can support truly building the capacity of organizations. Some level of dependency between a nonprofit and a funder is good - it means there is a long-term, reliable, and secure relationship in place to build something from.
Lastly, I will say size does matter. The digital world requires a certain level of technological investment and capacity that a two-person $200,000 organization would find difficult to support. There of course are applications for such small organizations but in general the sector needs to merge its way to fewer extremely small nonprofits and increase the number of organizations in the $1-$5 million range. Economies of scale do, I think, play a role in helping the sector have more impact.
Thanks again for a great article. Keep them coming!
BY stephen olaoye
ON June 5, 2011 09:21 AM
You well doing great work but there still more peoples around the world that were not yet be part of your benefit your organisation has to touch more needed person ok bravo good job.