Viagra next day delivery

A little over four years ago we started to ask people what some of the root causes were to better organizational effectiveness in the foundation and nonprofit sectors within the United States. We talked with personnel at large and small nonprofits, and program staff from small family foundations to large private ones . We also consulted the literature on organizational effectiveness in the nonprofit world. Over time we captured what we heard into a poster size (3 feet x 2 feet) root cause “map” with over 65 boxes containing discrete assertions about the challenges foundations and nonprofits face in attaining organizational effectiveness. The diagram also contains scores of arrows that conceptually connect the assertions.

Early versions of the map were shown to our initial interview respondents from the foundation and nonprofit world (and to just about anyone who would look at it!). Over time we confirmed, disconfirmed, and refuted many issues, ever refining the map. It’s not perfect, but it does reveal an honesty and candor that underscores the passion of the people working in the third sector.

Because the concepts are ever evolving, our aim is to make transparent what we've learned and start a conversation on

• where the most viable opportunities for improvement are, and
• what we should address as a field.

In a series of posts we’ll report on what we’ve learned and ask for your reaction. Part One is about foundations. In Part Two we'll look at nonprofit organizations. We'll also publish the map in an upcoming post so anyone can have a copy of it and see the ecology of effectiveness, as we've captured it, for the sector.

Part One: Foundation Effectiveness

We began this thought experiment with the following assertion:

“We, as a social change community, not as effective as we could be.”

We then asked stakeholders in the field why that’s the case, particularly in foundations.

Four major clusters of root causes evolved from the above assertion. One cluster of reasons focused on the way in which the input from consultants, on which many foundations rely, doesn’t always translate into better overall effectiveness. Another cluster focused on how proposal vetting is not as effective as it could be. A third looked at how program evaluation is not leveraged in the best ways possible. And the fourth cluster, which I’ll discuss more in depth below, notes that foundations are not as strategic as they could be.

Why Aren’t Foundations As Strategic As They Could Be?

Three major areas developed in our analysis as to why foundations are not as strategic as they could be.

The first is no surprise. It's hard to stick to a strategy.

• With the passage of time, leadership and staff attain new knowledge that influences how they view the future.
• The stakes for not sticking to a strategy are not readily evident in the day to day work of foundation staff.
• It's hard to make strategy visible and operational in every step of an organization's day.
• It's hard to deliberately re-focus a strategy.
• Board members may have personal interests that can influence grantmaking.
• The needs of a community change over time.

Another second reason why foundations are not as strategic as they could be is that program portfolios can become populated with projects that may not be mission-related. This can occur when foundations have vague, unattainable or unrealistic goals. There are several reasons why foundations would hold such goals:

• It can be more appealing for a foundation to make small contributions to a big problem rather than completely solving a delimited one
• Foundations and grantees are not necessarily centered on a culture of measurement. After all, with measurement comes responsibility; what one doesn't see one doesn't need to fix.
• Foundations want to leave their options open.
• A foundation's strategy may be illusive and confusing. The contributors to this include
  • An inherent ambivalence about power and control over grantees. Foundations can be reluctant to tell grantees what to do because
    
    • they wish to be detached and objective and not involved in funded projects
    • they don't have staff or resources to support funded projects
    • they have respect for the independence of grantees
  • A lack of a market that drives foundations to be more effective and outcome oriented.
  • A tendency to prefer being detached and objective and not involved in funded projects

A third area that contributes to foundations' difficulty in sticking to strategy is a lack of emphasis on results that lead to a change or impact. A reason offered for this is that the quality of grantee operations may be based on foundation's perception of a grantee's organizational efficiency rather than a grantee's social results.

Next Time: Evaluation, Proposal Vetting, and Consultants and Their Relationship to Foundation Effectiveness

In this inspiring talk, Katherine Fulton talks about the future of philanthropy – a future where innovation is a key to success. For Fulton, the democratization of philanthropy is allowing citizens to be more empowered than ever act as social innovators of change. She suggests that individuals and organizations can work across and through organizations adn disciplines to find solutions to challenges heretofore unsolved.  Through a democratization of philanthropy, it’s possible for social innovation to occur even when money is scarce.

Katherine’s presentation makes me think how new trends in philanthropy could affect the structure and methods of nonprofit organizations. If innovation increasingly becomes a necessary driver for impact, then nonprofits will need to continually test ideas with their communities in the mode of searcher, as William Easterly puts it.  Moving to searcher mode means that foundations and nonprofits alike will step away from inflexible, long term action plans that focus on outputs and move toward entrepreneurial testbeds that evolve, iterate, and scale. And I'd love to see that.

Clay Shirky, in the documentary Us Now, notes that social media “tools have lowered the cost of doing things for free to the point where our desire to engage with one another is enough to get things now to happen at a very large social scale, rather than just is a smaller family and friends scale.”  Innovation in philanthropy is beginning to mean that people, connected by a common cause, not a large fund, are getting together to create impact in ways never before possible.  Never before has the opportunity to break the silo mentality of philanthropy and nonprofits been greater.  

I believe Katherine is right about social innovation:  that new methods and tools to are needed to help us become more skilled at creating social change.

What are your thoughts and experiences regarding this? What kinds of collaborations should be forged within our sector to support this paradigm shift?

This book is a very interesting reflection on why so many well-intended aid efforts to do good still fall short. The author, William Easterly, is a development economist who has been involved in global poverty issues for his whole professional life. He is a professor of economics at New York University and amongst many positions around the world he has been a senior research economist at the World Bank for more than 16 years. The main question he raises (and tries to answer) is why, after more than fifty years and $2.3 trillion in aid to the "have nots", there is so shockingly little to show for it.
There are of course several explanations, but Easterly specifically points to one key reason. It is the simple difference between being a planner and a searcher. In brief, Easterly says that a planner thinks he already knows the answers; a planner thinks of poverty as a technical engineering problem that his answers will solve. A searcher admits he doesn’t know the answers in advance; he believes that poverty is a complicated tangle of political, social, historical, institutional and technological factors. A searcher hopes to find answers to individual problems only by trial and error experimentation.
This rhymes completely with our mission to provide mechanisms for reaching tangible outcomes in civil society and development efforts. The need for a new approach to solving poverty goes for most issues we address in development and philanthropic initiatives. To create any institutional or societal change we normally face a set of factors that are interrelated in such a way that is very unlikely to be successful with a one, or even two, effort hit. And even when one starts to finally understand some of the relations between inputs and outcomes, they often fluctuate and change over time. This begs the need for a strategic learning component – or trial and error experimentation as Easterly describes it. We usually say that to become the kind of searcher that Easterly would like to see more of, we need society developers, in both grantee and grant maker roles, to see themselves as innovators. We want to help society developers to become innovators and act accordingly: to set focus on the actual issue and not inputs, and learn more and more about that issue as milestones are gradually reached and tangible outcomes are achieved. This is not rocket science, but it does require a certain mindset and some simple, but powerful, tools.
If you are interested learning more about the quest for achieving tangible outcomes in complex global development initiatives, White Man's Burden is healthy, inspiring (and at times a bit grim) reading. It's helped our thinking on how to better support our partners.