Posts Tagged by grants
For Everyone On A Deadline…
| March 1, 2012 | Posted by M. P. under NRM |
Comments off
|
Study Indicates Slowdown in Social Justice Philanthropy
| February 15, 2012 | Posted by M. P. under Management, Philanthropy |
Comments off
|
A new report on grantmaking and the recession, The Impact of the 2008 Financial Crisis on the Field of Social Justice Philanthropy, by Sara K. Gould, an Atlantic Philanthropies Senior Fellow at the Foundation Center, warns of increasingly difficulty in securing funding for social justice causes and organizations.
The researchers examined giving data from foundations across the United States with histories of philanthropy in the area of social justice; the sample represented over $760 million in giving, or 25 percent of all social justice philanthropy in 2009. Highlights of the study include:
- The majority of foundations responded that they faced the economic downtown with plans to maintain their levels of grantmaking, even in the face of shrinking assets. Still, in 2009, grantmaking decreased to below 2007 levels, with small foundations experiencing the largest drop.
- Foundations with less than $50 million in assets have been the most seriously depleted by the downturn and will continue to struggle for the next few years. Nonprofits that may rely heavily on these smaller, local funders for support may be greatly affected by this development.
- Barring high performance in investment returns, social justice grants and funding will likely not return to 2008 levels before (or by) 2015.
This report is full of valuable information on social justice giving trends and the strategic maneuverings of foundations as the recession hit, and is available for download at the Foundation Center website.
What Do We Really Know About Rural Nonprofits?
| September 30, 2011 | Posted by M. P. under Management, Philanthropy, Research |
Comments off
|
According to Census 2010 data, over a ¼ of the population of Pennsylvania (27 percent) is located in rural areas, and a considerable amount of our region of western Pennsylvania is considered rural. Yet in my admittedly anecdotal experience, it seems that much of the mainstream discussion in the sector focuses on urban organizations. The challenging issues faced by rural nonprofits, accessibility (a dispersed population), transportation (rarely any of a public sort), technology (reliable connections and coverage) and needs specific to non-metropolitan areas may be a bit of a mystery (hopefully not an afterthought) to the thinkers and influencers in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors.
A report from The Bridgespan Group, Small but Tough: Nonprofits in Rural America by Alex Neuhoff and Andrew Dunckleman, turns the lens on rural nonprofits in the United States to examine what these organizations look like, identify their most pressing challenges and determine how they differ from their urban peers. Some highlights of the study:
- Rural nonprofits are funded at a lower rate per capita than their urban counterparts. Rural areas make up 18 percent of the total population of the United States, have a higher rate of poverty overall (22 percent of the country’s poor reside in rural areas) but represent 8 percent of the total spending in the nonprofit sector (including human services).
- In spite of the above, overall, rural nonprofits appear to be in a better fiscal state than urban nonprofits and are less likely to run an operating deficit.
- Data suggest that rural nonprofits have learned to be both nimble and aggressive, prioritizing and pursuing strategies perhaps different from those of urban nonprofits used to the close proximity of both clients and funders. The authors point out that rural organizations collaborated, merged and otherwise partnered with each other or a larger network, had strategic approaches to grants (private and public) and emphasized relationship-building outside of their communities.
- A major obstacle faced by rural nonprofits is leadership recruitment and retention, an issue Pennsylvania grapples with per a recent study on the challenges associated with rural leadership development.
The study (available for download at The Bridgespan Group website) provides an excellent initial picture of rural nonprofits, including a comparative case study of similar programs operating in two very different locations. I hope this type of organizational research continues, as there may be much to learn from the nonprofits operating 60 miles outside of Pittsburgh, but seemingly a world away.
Lessons Learned from the Front Lines of Evaluation Capacity Building
| July 7, 2011 | Posted by M. P. under Evaluation, Management, Philanthropy |
Comments off
|
A new paper from the Innovation Network discussing strategies in building evaluation capacity should be on the reading list of program evaluators, trainers, foundations and nonprofit leaders alike. The brief, Evaluation Capacity Building: Funder Initiatives to Strengthen Grantee Evaluation Capacity and Practice by Myia Welsh and Johanna Morariu, examines the process of engaging nonprofits in evaluation capacity building (ECB) to support their programs and operations.
The authors present case studies of evaluation capacity building activities with grantee organizations on behalf of and in collaboration with funders. Some of their lessons learned include,
- Ensure organizations begin the evaluation capacity building process with a clear grasp of what evaluation is (and isn’t) and how it may best be used within their organizations.
- Make evaluation a required element of grant reporting.
- Make capacity building services the default offering – do not make grantee agencies have to self-select into the process.
- Capacity building goes beyond the executive leadership. All staff matter in good evaluation practices and should be represented in ECB activities.
Has your organization participated in some kind of evaluation capacity building training? How did it impact your evaluation practices?
Series Provides Issue Analysis, Resources for Grantmakers
| May 8, 2011 | Posted by M. P. under Management, Philanthropy |
Comments off
|
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) and the Association of Small Foundations (ASF) have partnered to create and distribute a series of tear-sheets on timely issues related to grantmaking such as organizational learning and new ways to use evaluation.
Currently, two tear sheets are available: Using Evaluation to Become an Effective Learning Organization, and Engaging Stakeholders for More Effective Grantmaking. These briefs provide useful information on critical issues, terminology, core questions and action items as well as suggest additional resources for further research.
The tear sheet series is available to members on the ASF website and in PDF format on the GEO site.
Social Value: What Are We Trying to Measure Anyway?
| March 1, 2011 | Posted by M. P. under Management, Philanthropy, Policy, Program Model, Research |
Comments off
|
Foundations, policy analysts and grant-seeking organizations have long attempted to capture the meaning of social value in both conceptual and concrete form. The article Measuring Social Value by Geoff Mulgan, published last summer in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, suggests that setting aside separate methodologies and sitting down at the same table may the first step in finding the answer.
Geoff Mulgan, director of the Young Foundation in the United Kingdom, points out two major flaws in current approaches to measuring the value of social programs:
1) the assumption that value is objective (let us not forget the element of “social values” when measuring social value), and 2) incorrectly equating and combining multiple reporting purposes. Rather, Mulgan suggests using a framework of sorts to present pertinent information around fit, expected outcomes and costs both from and to various stakeholders (the grant makers, policy analysts and agency administration), as did his team in a project with the UK’s National Health Service. The process begins with everyone on the same page contextually and can continue from there.
The notion of a shared framework is not meant to replace, but rather summarize, individual measures in a context appropriate to the project/field at hand and lead to more accurate assessments of need, markets and resources. Hopefully, Mulgan’s insights will help to nudge the debate around the metrics of social value into a place of real collaboration.
How does your organization measure the value of social programs?
Recent Comments