Be a Contributor, not a Barrier

Apr 02, 2024

As funders, our conversations revolve around the question of impact. But what do we mean by “impact?” And who gets to decide what is or isn’t “impactful?”

One of the tenets of donor-centered, strategic philanthropy is the fake rule that as donors we determine what is or isn’t impactful. We have the audacity to think this way because, from our perch, we create logic models and theories of change based on what we think is impactful.

And, we go further. We make bold (and likely unattainable) claims about our goals and impact. We say things like, we will “reduce carbon emissions across the globe,” “end food insecurity in California,” “revolutionize how we address poverty,” and so on. We used to have goals like these at the Stupski Foundation.

Some foundations stare out at the millions of variables that go into societal challenges that took centuries to develop, likely valued in the trillions of dollars to combat, and believe that the five-percent of their annual assets they invest in solutions will “curtail,” or “end” it.

And, it is with this grand perspective that most foundations show up for grantees, and expect grantees to show up for them. Impact for most foundations is how they see it and expect it. The drive for crazy impact is what leads to restricted grants, voluminous and expensive evaluations, and limited grant agreements. Foundations employ all of these tactics to ensure that the grantees are on the right track and following the foundation’s program, or else.

Measure Contributions, Not Attributions

The reality is that private foundations simply cannot know as much about impact than our grantees. Most grantees have spent years honing their knowledge of the problem, in many cases through direct experience with it. They know what works, what doesn’t work, and what we can expect.

grayscale photography of kids walking on road

And, grantees and other community-based organizations share with us that one of the primary barriers between them and impact is foundations. It’s foundations that take up their time with reports, meetings, convenings, calls, and highly onerous funding cycles. All practices that keep organizations on the sidelines, rather than in the field where their communities need them.

Ironically, in our quest for impact, we foundations end up stifling it. Take that in, there are a whole set of fake rules working in that concept.

But, there is a way out of all of this. I suggest that foundations put more onus on how they contribute to a grantee’s impact, rather than trying to attribute their funding to a programmatic goal.

We have an opportunity every day to stop feeding our need to know. We can end our thirst for data, our need to project our greatness, and our trustees’ desire to impress their friends. We can simply let go.

On the other hand, what we can measure is contribution. How do we show up for the communities and grantees we support? Have you asked them?

Try spending your time on being supportive to the communities about which you care, instead of being an impediment to the work they do everyday.

Steward funds with 100% mission in mind. Most foundations give the minimum five percent of their assets each year, and invest the remainder in funds and companies that run counter to their missions. It’s a glaring blind spot in our practice, and means that we are contributing to the problem, not advancing impact. We are making the work of our grantees more challenging. Is this supportive?

Act from a place of plenty, rather than deprivation. Giving the minimum five percent each year comes with another challenge. It is simply not enough to ensure that our partners are in position to address societal challenges. While philanthropic coffers are nearly $2 trillion in size, the social sector is starving for resources. What does this do for impact? Is this being a strong, supportive contributor?

Be responsive, not intensive. Most foundations put up numerous barriers to the work of the social sector including onerous application requirements, extensive assessments, and cumbersome reporting. It’s all very intense. Instead, you can move from being intensive to being responsive to the impact your grantee seeks and answer accordingly. For example, tie the foundation’s learning to what your grantees seek to learn, and then fund them. Don’t worry about failure - there isn’t any when you support learning.

At the Stupski foundation, we were caught in a cycle of attribution, but in recent years we have turned all of our attention to how we contribute in solidarity with the communities we support. I look forward to sharing more about how we are doing it.

Are you measuring how you contribute?

Who Gives?

Discussion about this post