New Open Road Philanthropic Project Takes On Nonprofit Project Derailments

Standard

January 13, 2017; New York Times

A new philanthropic project called the Open Road Alliance has been established to help grantees that hit snags in promised projects. It is intended both to help the grantees complete projects and educate funders about the need to be supportive when such snags appear.

The Haitian nonprofit organization SOIL provides toilets to the poor residents of Port-au-Prince. These toilets don’t just offer residents a measure of dignity and safety; they also lead to the production of fertilizer, fueling employment opportunities and environmental restoration. Working since 2006, the organization, with a budget of $1.3 million, has empowered some of the poorest communities in the world to restore their environment by transforming hazardous pollutants into precious resources.

Providing services in Haiti is fraught with challenges and risks. SOIL is increasing the probability of success by employing staff who speak the local language; putting local suppliers, including local residents, to use in decision-making; creating projects with an earned income stream; and valuing diverse educational experiences. Even with all of these measures, the project was on the edge of failure less than two years ago when the private company running the local landfill lost their contract. Afterward, the area became full of smoke as trash was burned to maintain access. Employees were only able to reach the site once every two weeks, and there was no contingency landfill in the area.

SOIL’s predicament is not unusual. According to two separate reports by the Clinton Global Initiative and the Open Road Alliance, about one in five projects face challenges that could “slow or derail” successful outcomes. The large number of projects facing adversity is due in part to the failure of nonprofits to discuss likely risks with donors and donors’ inability to identify potential complications. According to the Open Road Alliance’s report, 76 percent of donors don’t ask potential grantees about the risks they face, and 87 percent of nonprofits leaders state that grant applications do not ask about potential hurdles.

The Open Road Alliance is a funding initiative providing one-time grants and loans covering “contingency funding that nonprofits frequently encounter” across sectors worldwide. Its report is based on its survey of four hundred grantors and grantees. The findings were centered on a random sample of two hundred organizations designed to determine the frequency, donor response, current policies and procedures, and consequences of unfunded requests on the relationship between funder and recipient.

Surprisingly, the report found major differences between grantor and grantee perceptions:

  • Grantees believe that asking for additional funds negatively affects the likelihood of being awarded future grants, while the vast majority of Funders claim such requests have no effect on future decision-making.
  • Funders incorrectly believe that if they deny a request for contingency funds, Grantees will find an alternate source of funds.
  • Grantees report that when requests for contingency funds are denied, projects are much more likely to be delayed and somewhat more likely to be reduced in scope than Funders believe; Grantees report 16 percent of such projects are terminated, while Funders estimate 10 percent.
  • Funders believe that Grantees are more comfortable talking about these issues with them than Grantees report.

Due to these findings, Open Road Alliance teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and Arabella Advisors to assemble two dozen organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, and the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, to develop a toolkit to identify and assess project risks. The new resource is available to the community and is constructed to encourage donors to use it in whole or in part to better assess project success.

The kit is part of an increased need to apply business fundamentals to grant making and to encourage grant makers to strategically take on more risky projects. To be more strategic, grantors need more information. The kit includes seven items to help facilitate conversations between donors and potential grantees. Equally important, the developers acknowledge the power differential between grantor and grantee.

“Part of the reason we focused on donors is they have the money,” said Dr. Michaels, a clinical psychologist who is married to David Bonderman, a founder of the private equity firm TPG.

“There’s a power differential,” she added. “It’s hard for a nonprofit to come to a funder and say, ‘How are you going to insure us if something gets screwed up?’”

While funders are fond of touting the need for innovation, taking risks and being open about the inevitable complications that surface is still somewhat foreign to many nonprofit/funder conversations. The answer, according to Open Road Alliance, is less about being a helicopter funder and more about simply being available to face reality with resources. This culture change could not come soon enough for SOIL. As the landfill access challenges continued, the organization went back unsuccessfully to its project donor to ask for additional support. The donor suggested Open Road Alliance, who granted SOIL $100,000 for a new composting site.—Gayle Nelson

Original post: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/01/25/new-open-road-philanthropic-project-takes-nonprofit-project-derailments/

What Does It Take to Grow a Nonprofit? Teamwork and Capital

Standard

November 16, 2016; Stanford Social Innovation Review

Although not always an indicator of impact and sustainability, nonprofit growth is a constant focus of philanthropic leadership. A recent study of over 200 organizations found three common attributes among nonprofits that were able to efficiently make the leap from idea to $2 million budget: strong teamwork, effective outcome evaluation system, and access to capital.

The field-based study began in September of 2016 by Kathleen Kelly Janus, a lecturer at the Stanford Program on Social Entrepreneurship. The study’s team examined more than 200 organizations, distributed among those with budgets under $500,000, between $500,000 and $2 million, and over $2 million. The organizations’ missions were diverse; leaders were asked to describe their work by choosing from multiple categories (and could choose more than one). The top three were education, with 48 percent surveyed; 26 percent with youth-based focus; and 23 percent community development missions. (Thirty-one percent chose “other” as one of their tags.) On average, organizations reached the $500,000 milestone in ten months but needed an average of 16 months to double their budgets to $1 million. On average, organizational growth from $1 to $2 million took a similar trajectory.

Since many articles focus on the personality of an organization’s leader as a key element of organization growth, the study began by examining the CEO/Executive Director. It found a wide range of actual job descriptions, but a key responsibility for organizations of all sizes is fund development. Interestingly, as organizations grow, the amount of time leaders spend in fundraising tasks increased from an average of 26 percent for organizations under $500,000 to 30 percent with budgets over $2 million. Study authors also noted a shift from CEO focus on program development for organizations under $500,000 to people management for organizations over $2 million.

Instead, the first characteristic of organizations achieving substantial growth was having a strong team of leaders to support the CEO/Executive Director. An effective team allowed the CEO to focus on capital instead of program. Connected to creating the team was the talent to avoid “bad hires” and purge them quickly when mistakes are made. Often, a strong team was not only made up of staff but key board members. Overall, the study found that “the lack of a high-functioning team can pose significant risks” to organization growth.

The second essential element was a focus on outcome evaluation. The study found that organizations with robust outcome tracking systems could decrease the time to reach the $2 million mark by as much as five months. The study also made a connection between effective evaluation structure and the ability to obtain a large catalyzing grant quickly.

The final element, access to capital, was often linked to the other two elements. Organizations with board members with connections to foundations or individual wealth were able to use their access to facilitate growth. Additionally, organizations with effective evaluation programs were able to discuss their clear program outcomes with funders, leading to more attention by larger foundations donating significant catalyzing grants.

Antony Bugg-Levine from the Nonprofit Finance Fund described in 2012 a key difference in the distinct types of capital essential for organizational growth:

Pay attention to the difference between “buy” money that pays for services and “build” money that enables an organization to invest in its long-term sustainability. As with any business, organizations need to balance both, and this balance shifts as they scale. Funders need to know whether their grantees need build money or buy money and how to be effective buyers and builders.

Overall, organizations of all sizes struggled to raise essential funds and it remains the number one challenge of growth. This is true even for organizations with “a fair degree of earned income,” as the report claims.

At the end of the study, authors identified three opportunities for funders to help organizations scale: fund leadership coaching, aid in building evaluation programs, and refer grantees to other funders in your network.—Gayle Nelson

 

Original cite:  https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/11/29/take-grow-nonprofit-teamwork-capital/