posted on: Friday, October 02, 2009

By Niki Jagpal

A few days ago, we received a thoughtful response from Michaelon Wright regarding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. He raised some really important issues,

“I read your publication and the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Philanthropy at its Best is delivering sustainable, desirable outcomes, replicatable outcomes. Using methods for measuring an organizations (non-profits) effectiveness in delivering the outcome. Holding the non-profit accountable for how funds are spent, keeping overhead in check and delivering services effectively and efficiently. We as a philanthropic community have been literally throwing our money away on organizations that enable behavior contrary to becomming a responsible, productive member of society and organizations that are overhead intensive and employ staff not sufficiently trained or motivated to deliver results. The problem has not been not enough money thrown at societies ills, it is that there has been little to no accountability for results. Continous funding of an organization for a period of years does not necessarily make that organization more effective. Funding needs to be strictly based on results achieved. Frankly I do not think any of your criteria will improve the ability of Philanthropy to make a difference in the communities they serve. The focus for too long has been on increasing giving and unfortunately not on attaining the desired results.”

I very much appreciated his feedback. Different perspectives and opinions that lead to constructive and informed debates are an important way for us to find common ground and work together to strengthen our sector as a whole. It’s exactly this kind of discussion we all need at this critical time. As Gara LaMarche, president and CEO of the Atlantic Philanthropies and one of our board members said when we released the book:

“What [Criteria] does, in my view, very usefully, is engage in a debate that's been going on in philanthropy for the last several years-that is a debate about philanthropic impact and effectiveness. And that debate, in my view, has for the most part been somewhat sterile and technocratic. ... What it needs to do is have more content, which connects the question of effectiveness to the change you are trying to make in the world. I think [Criteria] makes an enormous contribution to that. ...”

I don’t disagree with Michaelon that grantee organizations ought to be evaluated based on outcomes. But I think it’s equally important that grantmakers be held to the same accountability measures – an emphasis on the outcomes and impact that an institution has on the issues related to its mission and donor intent. As we note in Criteria, just as profit is the bottom line for gauging impact in the private sector, impact is the best measure for our sector’s effectiveness.

When foundations provide core support and multi-year grants, nonprofits are better able to focus on outcomes and results achieved than when they have grants that restrict them to specific programmatic activities. We believe that grantmakers can provide these types of grants and hold their nonprofit grantees responsible, and we provided examples of funders in the book who’ve seen real impact by partnering with grantees in this way.

He’s right that multi-year funding doesn’t guarantee effectiveness. But effectiveness is influenced by a grantees’ ability to respond to the communities it serves. And often, one can’t predetermine what the results of a given intervention will be, nor if other more urgent issues or opportunities to achieve results that benefit our communities might arise. Would you agree that the impact on communities is the best measure of how effective grantee and grantmaking institutions are?

For far too long, most members of our sector have worked in silos, with many notable exceptions. Now’s the time for us to move beyond that approach, to see each others as partners in pursuit of the common good and to truly rethink the grantee-funder relationship.

I’d like to thank Michaelon for sharing his thoughts and invite others to join in this conversation so we can continue this long-overdue discussion about what really matters to make the civic sector the best complement to public and private sectors’ work for the betterment of our society.

PS – I encourage everyone to review this page on Criteria where we address many misperceptions of this book and its intent.

Niki Jagpal is research & policy director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Wednesday, September 23, 2009

by Aaron Dorfman

Sometimes a watchdog wags its tail.

People are used to NCRP barking at foundations in our role as watchdog. But today, I want to point out some promising developments that caught my attention the past couple of weeks. The Boston Foundation and the Pittsburgh Foundation both completed new strategic plans recently that merit praise.

The Boston Foundation’s press release about their plan states that the foundation will provide significantly more general operating support in the coming years, rather than favoring restricted project grants. They also intend to provide larger grants over longer periods of time. I can almost hear the nonprofits in Greater Boston shouting, “Hallelujah!”

Previous research by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) and NCRP has shown that long-term general operating support contributes to nonprofit effectiveness and is the kind of support nonprofits value most. GEO’s just-released report, On the Money, once again makes a compelling case for why grantmakers should leave the restrictions behind if they hope to boost nonprofit performance. The Boston Foundation is not the first community foundation to make this shift, and I hope they won’t be the last. Paul Grogan, president and CEO of the foundation, is to be commended for this move.

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, “The Pittsburgh Foundation is broadening its grantmaking — delving into the environment and advocacy — so it can become more of a community leader.” This, too, is a welcome shift. Foundation support for policy engagement is desperately needed at this time. NCRP’s Grantmaking for Community Impact Project has been documenting the incredible impact of foundation funding for advocacy and community organizing, and we’ll be releasing the third report in the series next week in Minneapolis. I applaud the leadership of Grant Oliphant, the foundation’s president and CEO, for embracing this important role.

Of course, announcing good intentions in a strategic plan is only one step. Nonprofits and community residents in Pittsburgh and Boston are counting on their community foundations to live up to the ideals represented in these plans and to implement them well.

Aaron Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Friday, June 05, 2009

By Kevin Laskowski

This post is part of a series that takes a deeper look at the myths surrounding Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. View other posts in the series.

You don’t have to give up your commitment to a cause or community to follow NCRP’s Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. On the contrary, pursuing the Criteria’s benchmarks increases your chances of being more effective.

Criteria was not designed to undermine donor intent but to minimize the harmful unintended consequences of thousands of grantmakers pursuing their private visions of the public good. Currently, donors are free to pursue their unique visions of the public good and enshrine their values in trusts and foundations. That’s largely a good thing, but NCRP and others have noted the problems that can arise.

For instance, the desire of large foundations to be more strategic has led to the funding of program grants and a proliferation of reporting requirements. There’s nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves. Such things can aid effectiveness and accountability. The problems arise when nonprofits confront an array of idiosyncratic requirements that result in sector-wide duplicated and wasted efforts for grants that leave them cash-poor when rent and payroll are due. It’s for these reasons, among others, that Criteria encourages reporting requirements commensurate with grant size and multi-year and general operating support grants.

Furthermore, despite foundations engaging in activities that conceivably benefit everyone, we find that marginalized groups - low-income persons, racial and ethnic minorities, women and girls, people with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, senior citizens, immigrants and refugees, victims of crime and abuse, offenders and ex-offenders, single parents, and LGBTQ citizens - are consistently left behind in philanthropy. In fact, only 1 in 3 grant dollars are intended for the benefit of these communities. Even as we spend millions to improve health care and outcomes for children and families in this country, Native American women experience infant mortality rates 20 percent higher than those of other races in the U.S., and children of color living in just 10 New York neighborhoods experience 90 percent of all lead poisoning in the city. These are just a sample of the statistics the report cites in its review of how inequity affects philanthropic activity. Disparities of all kinds are widening, and the refusal to pay attention to them limits foundation effectiveness.

That’s why Criteria suggests that at least 50 percent of a foundation’s grant dollars benefit marginalized communities. If you’re concerned about health, education, the environment, or the arts, it would be wise to be aware that different communities tend to benefit disproportionately from the fruits of philanthropy. Social disparities tend to reproduce themselves in philanthropic programming. NCRP does not suggest that you should stop caring about, say, neuroscience or classical music. We simply suggest that we in the sector consider how to broaden the beneficiaries of our grantmaking. Let’s ask ourselves: "Whatever public benefit I hope to create, how can I ensure that those on the margins are not left out?"

If you’re an arts funder, you might ask how low-income people or those with disabilities get access to the concerts, exhibits, or shows you help create. If you’re an education funder, you might ask about the racial diversity of the schools that receive your funds to guarantee that you are making opportunities available to all who want to succeed. If you fund the environment, you might ask if everyone’s air, soil, and water are clean. You might be surprised to find that low-income people and minorities bear the brunt of pollution and impacts of climate change.

Think of it this way: if you fund the core institutions of a community, those on the periphery may benefit, but if you make sure the benefit reaches the periphery, the condition of everyone in the community is improved.

It’s about impact — as Peter and Jennifer Buffett's recent announcement to "empower women and girls worldwide" demonstrates:

'The Buffetts say they believe focusing on helping women and girls seems like the way to make the greatest difference in the world.

"It just was logical for us after we really thought about it," Jennifer Buffett said. "If you empower adolescent girls who are the mother of every child yet to be born - if they have more resources, better health, more empowerment, more of a role in their communities, decision making, they can delay marriage and become better educated - they have so much more to offer their sons, their daughters in that next generation."'

As the Buffetts seem to believe, when grants are targeted based on these systemic issues — in their case, the role women can and do play in their communities — the benefits can bubble up and out for generations to come.

As Janine Lee, CEO of the Southern Partners Fund, wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “We shouldn’t invest in marginalized communities because it’s politically correct or because public subsidies obligate us to do so. We should invest in disadvantaged communities because it has the greatest impact on the things we care about.”

Critics like to pretend that donor intent is at odds with Criteria. On the contrary, they’re among a donor’s best shots at ensuring that their good intentions will lead to real improvements for the causes and communities we all care about.

Kevin Laskowski is field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Monday, March 09, 2009

NCRP’s new Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best has sparked lively (and sometimes heated) discussions in philanthropic circles since we released it last week.

Criteria is a set of guidelines for grantmakers so they can operate more ethically and increase their impact on the world today.

According to Criteria, a foundation serves the public good by …

Criterion 1: Values
… contributing to a strong, participatory democracy that engages all communities.

a. Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups

b. Provides at least 25 percent of its grant dollars to advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society

Criterion 2: Effectiveness
… investing in the health, growth and effectiveness of its nonprofits.

a. Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars for general operating support

b. Provides at least 50 percent of its grant dollars as multi-year grants

c. Ensures that the time to apply for and report on the grant is commensurate with grant size

Criterion 3: Ethics
… demonstrating accountability and transparency to the public, its grantees and constituents.

a. Maintains an engaged board of at least five people who include among them a diversity of perspectives—including the communities it serves—and who serves without compensation

b. Maintains policies and practices that support ethical behavior

c. Discloses information freely

Criterion 4: Commitment
… engaging a substantial portion of its financial assets in support of its mission.

a. Pays out at last 6 percent of its assets annually in all grants

b. Invests at least 25 percent of its assets in ways that support its mission

You can view the full report, individual chapters, and executive summary for free at http://www.ncrp.org/paib.

Join the conversation—we’d love to hear from you! Tell us what you think about Criteria.

posted on: Monday, November 03, 2008

By Niki Jagpal

On October 10th, the Council on Foundations posted an open letter to its members outlining three recommendations for grantmakers impacted by the global “challenges of our times.” Authored by Ralph Smith, Chair of the Board, and Steve Gunderson, the Council’s President and CEO, the letter acknowledges that “even if fully implemented, these three recommendations do not constitute a sufficient response.” The Nonprofit Quarterly offers excellent insight into the deficiencies of the recommendations and suggests an alternative approach that would help foundations take the right steps towards making their response more sufficient.

Nonprofit Quarterly speaks to many of NCRP’s longstanding core beliefs and underscores the vital role that civil society in the United States must play in supplementing government efforts to address the current global economic crisis. Now is not the time for foundations to pull back funds. Instead, it’s time for them to maximize the impact of their payout requirements, which economic turmoil isn’t going to exempt them from. The nonprofit sector must continue to receive foundation funds if grantmakers want to keep their tax-exempt status.

As noted by the Quarterly, now is the time for increase in overall grantmaking, core support grants, program-related and mission-related investments, support for nonprofit advocacy, and commitment to the nonprofit sector. Now is the time for foundations to acknowledge their reliance on their grantees to carry out their charitable purpose and help the U.S. and the world recover from this global crisis. The Quarterly wants to hear from us all – take a minute to read their excellent letter and join the discussion.

Share your ideas on how foundations can be more responsive to the needs of lower-income and other marginalized communities through support of those nonprofits that serve these groups, especially in tough economic times.

Niki Jagpal is research director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

posted on: Tuesday, October 28, 2008

by Pete Manzo

How foundations should adapt their grantmaking to help nonprofits in this environment has been a hot topic in the philanthropic world in recent weeks, and going as far back as last spring.

Foundation funding won't drop as sharply as the Dow, thankfully. Overall, foundation giving is likely to stay flat or decline slightly, as the Foundation Center’s review of giving through several past downturns indicates. Of course, for some subset of foundations, grantmaking may decline considerably.

Far more importantly for human services nonprofits, however, government funding is almost certain to fall sharply over the next year or two. At the same time, service providers are likely to see demand for their services rise at the same time their resources fall.

There have been many suggestions among the philanthropy commentariat of different things foundations can do to help nonprofits get through the hard times. I’ve tried to read as many of them as I could, and no doubt I’ve missed many. Here are a few samples:

• Chronicle of Philanthropy listing of articles on nonprofits and economic pressures
• COF open letter on how foundations can respond to the financial crisis
• COF survey report on foundation responses to downturn (May 2008)

One suggestion I haven’t seen, though, is a call to release restrictions on grants, and proactively contact grantees and invite them to reprogram the use of restricted grant funds. This might be the quickest, most powerful way for foundations to help their grantees.

The for-profit financial world, ironically, began doing this nearly a year ago, as the dimensions of the subprime mortgage crisis became more clear. Countrywide, for example, began contacting mortgagee’s last fall and offering to modify their loans, to reduce the risk of default from adjustable rate mortgages. They are now on their second or third round of doing so, a massive undertaking described in this Los Angeles Times article.

Taking this strategy would pay more than just financial dividends. The added flexibility may be critically important to enabling grantees to weather the storm. Speed is also an important virtue here – existing grant funds can be reprogrammed much faster than new funds can be sought, or disbursed.

Perhaps just as important, the work involved in contacting grantees and offering to modify grant terms would promote a number of important goals, including:

• Increasing a foundation's understanding of the impact on their grantees, and providing grantees information about how the foundation is being affected and reacting at its end, which will help both parties plan for the future;
• Sharing information about options and opportunities that may be helpful to the foundation, the grantee and their respective partners and allies; and
• Strengthening relationships between a foundation and its grantees.
  

It also could lay the groundwork for increased trust and openness between foundations and nonprofits in the future. During the 2002 downturn, I participated in several panels on how nonprofits could deal with the economic slump, and I gave similar advice – that they should take stock of the alignment between what they thought they did best, what they thought their clients needed, what would best help the organization address those two factors, and what their funding allowed, and then they should go to their funders and make a pitch for reprogramming the funding they already had in hand. It was unrealistic, though, to expect many nonprofits to actually try this tack, both because of the power differential between nonprofits and their funders, and because of the uncomfortable “Sophie’s Choice” position it might put nonprofits in – they might not want to go on record with outsiders saying they think one of their programs is more important, or more effective, than others. Reaching out to grantees and offering to release restrictions can reduce those barriers and create a different dynamic for future conversations.

Is this a crazy idea? Just impractical? Other suggestions?

Pete Manzo is director of strategic initiatives at the Advancement Project.

posted on: Thursday, July 03, 2008

By Niki Jagpal

The issue of appropriate levels of compensation for nonprofit executives and CEOs is making headlines once again after investigative reports by WCNC-TV and The Charlotte Observer. The United Way of Central Carolinas’ (UWCC) president and CEO Gloria Pace King will receive more than $1.2 million, following the addition of $822,507 to her retirement plan. As the two media outlets have noted, the increase in Pace King’s benefits package places her level of compensation above that of many other United Way executives in different parts of the country.

UWCC board chair Graham Denton defended Ms. Pace King’s compensation, saying she deserved the package given to her.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s 2007 survey of executive compensation, however, shows that among the various chapters of the United Way, Pace King’s compensation relative to her organization’s fundraising is significantly higher than that of her counterparts in similar-sized United Way chapters. The Charlotte Observer provides the following examples of other United Way CEO salaries compared to their annual fundraising in FY 2007:

• UWCC raised a record $44 million and Pace King’s salary was $365,000 (excluding benefits).
• In metropolitan Atlanta, the United Way chapter raised nearly $79 million; their outgoing CEO was paid a lump sum of nearly $1.6 million when he retired, on top of a salary of $352,611.[1]
• The United Way of Greater St. Louis raised close to $69 million; the CEO was paid $254,487.

The Observer also highlights a 2002 study it conducted in which the newspaper’s investigations revealed that Pace King was the fifth-highest paid executive of the 50 chapters they analyzed. Her current compensation package places her third among the nation’s 42 United Way chapters as noted by WCNC. These figures raise many questions, including to what extent should the level of fundraising be tied to CEO compensation? And if Denton defends Pace King’s salary on the basis of her fundraising, why is there no consistency in the pay rates of other UW CEOs who out-fundraised her?

So, what are the appropriate ratios to determine a ‘fair’ level of compensation for nonprofit executives? NCRP received a note defending UWCC, highlighting the small percentage of the UWCC budget that comprises Pace King’s compensation. Based on the organization’s 2006 990 form, according to the note, Pace King’s salary was 1.25 percent of her organization’s total operating budget. The writer compared this figure to NCRP’s 2006 990, which showed its executive director’s salary at 15.47 percent.

S/he raised a valid point for consideration in the discussion of what constitutes an appropriate level of compensation and what factors are considered to determine it. For example, while a CEO’s salary may only account for a fraction of an organization’s total budget, is there an absolute figure after which this statistic becomes irrelevant? What of the nonprofit operating with a very small budget that employs only one person who has the title of ‘CEO’? Surely this person’s compensation would comprise a significant proportion of her or his budget, perhaps even 50 percent, give the “multiple hats” the CEO wears in this scenario. In short, is the CEO’s salary as a percentage of the overall budget a valid measure to determine appropriate levels of compensation?

The author of the comment also pointed out that NCRP’s overhead costs in 2006 (17.1 percent) were higher than UWCC’s (13.6 percent). The rate and what constitutes overhead or administrative costs[2] that keep an organization functional vary from organization to organization. It can cover not just staff salaries and benefits but also other costs that enable an organization to work and thrive, such as rent, technology infrastructure, staff training and unplanned program expenses. Moreover, the transaction costs of conducting business in different parts of the country make the local context far too important to ignore. Keeping a small nonprofit in the greater DC metropolitan area functional, paying employees competitive wages based on the local market and cost of living will affect a nonprofit’s overhead.

Finally, the comparison of NCRP with the UWCC assumes that a nonprofit that depends largely on foundation grants should have the same metrics for reasonable compensation as an organization that receives majority of its income from individual donors through workplace giving programs. If this is the case, then what about private foundations, which receive minimal, if any, contributions from individuals?

So how do we select the criteria that ought to determine appropriate levels of executive compensation? Is it realistic to expect foundations to account for local and regional variability in the costs of living when determining how much money to allocate for compensation? Is it fair for a nonprofit executive of an organization funded largely by individual as opposed to institutional grantmakers to disclose how much of the public’s contribution will go toward compensation versus the actual business of the nonprofit? The answers to all the above questions will certainly vary by organization, mission, strategy and personal values. If nothing else, the UWCC case highlights the need to discuss these difficult issues to ensure philanthropy serves the public good and not private interests.

[1] The salary figure was taken from the Chronicle of Philanthropy's 2007 survey.
[2] NCRP recognizes the importance of providing nonprofits with adequate general operating dollars to be truly effective in achieving their organizational missions. It has been urging foundations to increase funding general operations and provide more funding for administrative overhead costs in programmatic grants.

Niki Jagpal is research director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

posted on: Monday, March 31, 2008

By Yna Moore

Does contemporary philanthropy benefit the needy? An increasing number from within the sector and the public don’t think so, and that’s problematic, said Susan Raymond in her speech during the 5th annual summit of OnPhilanthropy.

She implored the philanthropic community to take to heart the growing number of voices that have accused the sector of abandoning the needy, because the distrust and skepticism call into question the sector’s role in society:

“Those asking the questions are not the hairdressers of Hopkinsville or the
good old boys of the Koffee Klatch Kafe. The questions are not being asked
out of ignorance. They are being asked out of observation. … It is a
painful accusation but it is a fair question, because we hold the public trust;
we are the stewards of the societal commons. … It is a question that lies at the
heart of the reason for our very existence, the reason the people shoulder our
tax burdens. It is the essence of our compact with the American people,
the central core of their trust in us.”

NCRP has been one of the leading voices calling for change in foundation grantmaking practices for over 30 years, and it’s heartening to hear a well-regarded leader from the sector acknowledge the need to take the criticism seriously.

Her suggested rebuttal to these criticisms seems reasonable. Indeed, the concept of poverty and need has been a source of philosophical debate that predates philanthropy. There is no arguing that just as many around the world and in this country are in dire need of food for the body, there is also a human need for food for the mind and soul through the arts, religion and sciences. And it is also true that change—real systemic change—takes time, and the cause and effect of circumstances leading to change are not necessarily linear. In addition, the solutions to the problems our society faces today—such as poverty, lack of access to basic services, unemployment and environmental degradation—are as complex as the problems themselves. Consequently, there is no magic pill, no magic formula.

As Dr. Raymond dissected the arguments of critics, her rebuttal implicitly supports many of the ideas that critics have suggested to correct the philanthropic sector’s shortcomings in responding to the needy. Foundations should be more strategic in their grantmaking by using a variety of tools that more effectively respond to the needs of marginalized groups. This means that funding policy advocacy and grassroots organizing is just as important as funding direct services to address both the sources and symptoms of poverty and injustice. This means providing more flexible, multi-year support to nonprofits, not just program-specific grants for nonprofits serving the disengaged.

Finally, funding the arts and sciences is not bad at all. In fact, these are essential for people and civilizations to thrive. Although there is considerable wealth tied to philanthropic institutions, these resources are, nevertheless, scarce and limited compared to the tremendous needs in our society. As stewards of these resources, foundations must use their philanthropic dollars wisely and responsibly because at the end of the day, this all boils down to priorities.

These priorities will reflect the values of our society. What should we, as a sector, prioritize? Should people that make our work possible, i.e. the tax paying public that subsidize our sector, have a right to question how their tax dollars are being put to use? Absolutely!

If foundations don’t question their own priorities and don’t start doing more to benefit those with the least wealth and opportunity, not only will the critics grow in number, but their elected representatives might decide it’s time for the government to step in.

Anna Kristina ("Yna") Moore is communications director at NCRP.

posted on: Thursday, September 20, 2007

By Pete Manzo

One of the best reasons for core operating support has nothing to do with grantees. Instead, it has to do with liberating foundation program staff. This is one of the most frequently overlooked, and oddly compelling arguments for foundations shifting more of their funding and operating support. We’ll get to the virtues of this rationale shortly, but before we do, let’s review the contours of the debate over general operating support.

General support funding has been a very hot topic recently, to tell from online discussions among philanthropoids. Recently, Paul Shoemaker of Social Venture Partners kicked off a hearty back and forth in the Stanford Social Innovation Review online, and Sean Stannard-Stockton provoked three waves of vigorous comments. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) members apparently have spent a great deal of time on the topic this past few months, through their listserv and at meetings, and GEO recently published a General Operating Support Action Guide for grantmakers.

Many reasons are given both in support of and in opposition to giving general operating grants. In Not All Grants Are Created Equal, based on numerous interviews with foundation and nonprofit representatives, NCRP summarized the following reasons funders commonly give for preferring restricted grants: the need for evaluation, avoiding having nonprofits become dependent on their support, promoting competition among nonprofits for grant funds, and seeking to promote innovation. Nonprofit advocates have good responses to all those concerns, and in addition, make powerful arguments about how restricted grant funding hampers their ability to build their organizational capacity, exercise their best judgment about community needs, adapt to changing circumstances, and recover the true costs of their activities.

But even assuming nonprofit advocates have the better arguments about the virtues of general operating support, there are two key factors we should consider. First, in some sense it’s pointless to debate which is the better approach, project grants or core support. Both tools are needed and appropriate in different circumstances.

Second, and perhaps most important for NCRP and others who want to see foundations give more core support grants, rather than hashing out all the benefits of core support to grantees, the focus instead should be on what will lead foundations to change their behavior. I want to suggest two important factors. First, foundations are much more likely to give weight to the experience and arguments of other foundations, their peers, than those of outsiders, as I’ve argued previously. That’s why the thought leadership of funders like The California Wellness Foundation and F.B. Heron Foundation, both of which have described how expanding general operating support has improved their results, have been more valuable than any reports, books, rants and manifestos from outsiders could be.

And what about the changes that core support can make on the culture, the quality of work life and the overall effectiveness of foundations? This second factor gets back to the issue of liberating foundation staff. Motivating foundation leaders and their organizations to change their practices won’t often come about simply because it is the right thing to do. It seems much more likely that kind of change will require that they see compelling benefits to themselves in making those changes. John Stuart Mill pointed out this dynamic in his tract On the Subjugation of Women, and his arguments about why liberating women would make men better were among his most compelling points. I’m not at all comparing the plight of nonprofit grantseekers to the struggles of women or minorities for equal justice, of course. But one lesson among many of the women’s suffrage and civil rights movements is that appeals to the highest sense of self of the opponents can be more influential than abstract appeals to the right thing. This isn't because they're bad or uncaring people, but people need to want to change, and that desire usually needs to come from how they want to be.

So maybe increased attention to improving the influence of program officers, their agency within foundations, would be a good thing for both foundation and nonprofit leaders to consider. My younger nonprofit self would have dismissed this argument with an “oh, cry me a river, those poor foundation program officers, with their good salaries, nice offices, expense accounts, legions of support staff . . .” But at least from the outside, it certainly does look like being a grantmaker can be an isolating and disempowering experience, to tell from the aversion to risk, complaints about demanding boards and very heightened concern about process and documentation that we see. To give just one example, I watched with some amazement a few years ago as a program officer I consider a friend and colleague suffered through months of internal program meetings at several executive levels and wrote as many as 50 pages advocating funding of a grant for which the proposal was only five (5) pages. A fundraising consultant I know once described grantwriting as “like writing group term papers for a living,” and it seems program officers have to both read them and write them. I’m sure many of us have other stories to tell that could add pieces to the puzzle.

In the business world, giving more control to frontline workers has attracted champions as established as Toyota and Starbucks and as “insurgent” as FastCompany. Many foundations are now exhorting their program officers to think of themselves as changemakers rather than grantmakers. Against this backdrop, exploring the links between general operating support and possible changes in how program staff do their work certainly seems worth serious attention. Confident nonprofits want to have closer, more candid relationships with their funders, they want to be treated more like partners than vendors, they want to spend more time discussing how to meet their ultimate ends and less time jumping through process hoops. Their program officers may well have similar wants, and changing how program officers work may benefit workers and organizations on both sides of the foundation-nonprofit divide. And once movement in this direction starts, nonprofits may find more allies behind foundation walls.

Peter Manzo is an NCRP board member and the Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Advancement Project, a civil rights advocacy organization based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.