Building Impact Partners

In an era marked by shifting generations, donor priorities. and technological advancements, Chad Paris of Parisleaf writes in this Giving USA Foundation piece that nonprofit leaders have to adapt. He shares seven insights gleaned over the past year on leading practices for successful fundraising and leadership in today’s dynamic environment. This short piece is definitely worth a read. 

In this article for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Allison Fine writes that nonprofits should make it a top priority to increase their trustworthiness in the eyes of the public and donors. “Groups that rely on donations and volunteers to meet their missions must gain the highest level of trust from supporters,” she said. Fine argues that when nonprofits focus more on transactions with supporters than relationship building, it gets some money in the door, but the money comes at a huge cost. “The heavy solicitation contributes to the ‘leaky bucket’ problem. Organizations often spend big on donor-acquisition efforts to fill their ‘buckets’ of supporters, assuming that new donors will give for years. In reality, fewer than a quarter of first-time donors to a nonprofit give a second time. A doom cycle sets in within organizations, as they grow increasingly panicked about revenue and tell fundraisers to increase the number of asks,” she said. She shares three strategies that nonprofits can execute to bolster trust, build relationships with supporters and show that their organizations are worthy of backing. You can read about the strategies by clicking on the link below.

Melinda French Gates, who alongside her ex-husband, co-founded the world’s largest private charitable organization, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, recently sat for a wide ranging interview with The New York Times. French Gates was asked about her approach to philanthropy, the debate over strategic vs. trust-based philanthropy, trends on how women give, among other questions. On where her philanthropy lies between data-driven strategic philanthropy on the one hand, and trust-based philanthropy which gives money to organizations closest to the issues without attaching any strings on the other hand, French Gates said: “I’m probably somewhere a little bit more in the middle of that, still leaning toward data-driven but certainly a little bit more in trust-based model, because I don’t intend to build up a large organization and I do believe that there are many, many partners on the ground who do incredible work but often don’t get funded. And I feel like this work when done closer to the ground, sometimes can have an even larger lasting impact.” She was also asked about her preference between two other types of giving – the type that is contingent on having her name “emblazoned on the side of a building which can help bring awareness to causes and help increase trust because you know who the person is behind the organization” versus anonymous or low-profile giving that keeps the focus on the work. “For me personally, I don’t need my name on the side of a building in perpetuity. That’s not what I’m about,” she said. “I’m about: How do I move society forward for the betterment of everybody and so that my grandchildren and my grandchildren’s grandchildren get to live in an even better world than I do now? But it doesn’t take my name on a building to change society, nor do I actually think it’s helpful.” You can read the entire interview below. 

To foster meaningful and “messy” relationships, we need to closely examine how we are defining community within philanthropy, argues Kathleen Boyle Dalen and Tracy McFerrin in an article for Stanford Social Innovation Review. The authors state that the choice to tend to some relationships while ignoring others can literally catalyze or thwart impact and long-term solutions in the sector. “Philanthropy can close a gap here by demonstrating leadership that centers relationships without backing away from the inherent messiness of diverse points of view. Instead of trying to design disagreement out of meetings and convenings, philanthropy can choose to actively bring swaths of community to the table to work side-by-side and persevere through conflict to build stronger relationships where we solve problems together instead of working around each other…” “Relational philanthropy applied with an expansive definition of community can help us engage all of a community’s resources and optimize chances for success. We urge those embarking on new approaches to philanthropy to bring forward all aspects of a community that bear on an issue at hand, as seen through a wider, less hierarchical lens. We will catalyze meaningful and sustainable solutions when we develop disciplined habits of broadening who is at the table and connecting those individuals and groups to each other. This is brave leadership.”

The partnership between funders and grantees is crucial for meaningful social impact. In a blog published by Center for Effective Philanthropy, the CEO of Code2College, Matt Stephenson, outlines how funders can take advantage of the four T’s (time, talent, treasure and testimony) to stretch their  impact with grantees while addressing some of the core challenges that those organizations face. “In reducing funding timelines, accelerating the trust-building process, and facilitating the overall fundraising activities of a nonprofit leader, funders can significantly reduce the stress and pressure faced by these leaders. “In offering support through time, talent, and testimony, funders can significantly amplify the benefits that their ‘treasure’ bestows on their grantees. Further, the deeper the engagement with a grantee the more the balance shifts towards transformational, rather than transactional, partnerships.”

For this Inside Philanthropy piece, our president and founder, Alex Johnston, offers his perspective on this very important question: “Why don’t the wealthy give more?” He delves into some of the factors responsible for the billions of dollars that remain on the sidelines - from the sector’s intense focus on impact to the fear of a high-profile failure, among other practical issues. The article is under a paywall but it is definitely worth a read. “Johnston laid out a number of factors that can create barriers to giving, even for those with extraordinary resources. One is the philanthrosphere’s intense focus on impact. ‘The celebration of impact above everything else leads people to believe that's the only legitimate thing to focus on in their giving,’ Johnston said. ‘On one level, of course, the whole point of philanthropy is that we're supposed to be making the world a better place. But if donors don't also pay attention to a broader set of human interests and relationships in the way they give, then giving can become a chore. On the flip side, we're seeing that many of the donors who are really leaning in to gear up their giving are not only focused on channeling their resources to achieve significant impact — they are also finding ways to do so that align with their own sense of personal fulfillment and even joy.’ In the meantime, Johnston thinks there is a lot more that can be done to loosen up some of the money sitting on the sidelines. “As a field, we need to open up more creative space around the ‘how’ in giving, not just the ‘what,’” he said. “We need to better understand what it is that makes giving a fulfilling and rewarding and positive thing in peoples’ lives instead of a duty or chore. Otherwise, it ends up being something they put off, like a kitchen renovation project they plan to get to someday. They're like, ‘yeah, I should do this. But I got a lot of other stuff going on.’” PS: A lot of Alex’s insights are contained in his 2023 book “Money with Meaning: How to Create Joy and Impact through Philanthropy.” https://lnkd.in/eAXxhFAq

Collaborative funding can be foundational to high-impact grantmaking initiatives, and the start of Indy Summer Learning Labs was no different! In Indiana, we supported multiple funders coming together to support this program that now supports the summer learning and enrichment of over 10k+ students. Since then, we've taken the learnings from ISLL and have supported other major funders looking to impact students in New York, Southeast Michigan, San Antonio, and more. Where should we go next? "[A] key reason for forming funder collaboratives is impact. By pooling resources, funders are able to put larger amounts of money behind impactful ideas. Organisations can also take a wider view of an issue, and take bigger risks. . . According to social sector insiders, funder collaboratives can get more money into a space, rather than just being the sum of philanthropic donations that would have otherwise gone to the same issue."

"At Building Impact Partners, I’ve had the opportunity to get to know a side of philanthropy that is rooted in impact, partnership, and feedback. For four summers, I’ve supported our work with funders who want to close learning opportunity gaps and catalyze learning recovery during summer break to address the learning loss nearly all students experienced during COVID. We moved at an incredible pace over only a few months to get the first large summer program up and running to serve thousands of students. . . It’s complex, messy, hard, and uncertain, AND we can move our way to a bold future together. Philanthropy must hold onto openness, humility, love, and accountability; without it, it is unlikely that we will meet the full intentions for our work. We maintain our forward momentum in alignment with our mission, and, if we hear that we’ve messed up or could do better, we make the time to listen and use that feedback to adjust course. When designing and implementing on a tight timeline, prioritizing partnership is key to deliver on philanthropy’s crucial role in systems change; it simply makes every gift worth even more." Take a read to hear more from our own (just promoted!) Tanis Klingler in her post on the Building Impact Partners blog about how philanthropic partnerships made our summer work a success.

As #Pride month comes to a close, this blog post from Center for Effective Philanthropy written by Kevin Bolduc and Elizabeth Kelley Sohn highlights the experiences of LGBTQ+ grantees and how funders can commit to implementing safe approaches that invite LGBTQ+ grantees to be visible, to understanding their needs, and to closing the gap in their experiences as grantees. "Part protest, part commemoration, and part celebration, Pride Month joyfully invites us all to see the rich and diverse lives of queer folks — and to recognize that as far as we’ve come (at least here in the U.S.), we still have a long way to go to achieve a world in which LGBTQ+ people are fully seen, safe, loved, and liberated.1 Philanthropy has a role in achieving that goal, but it, too, has a long way to go in better supporting LGBTQ+ communities. Right now, most funders don’t consider themselves to be LGBTQ+ focused funders. That might be because, according to the most recent tracking report from Funders for LGBTQ Issues, LGBTQ+ communities and issues are specifically targeted for only a small fraction of philanthropic giving. The reality, however, is that nearly every funder is building relationships with queer grantees and often supporting organizations led by LGBTQ+ people, whether they know it or not. And, for any funder that focuses on historically marginalized populations or has intentionally centered equity as a value in their grantmaking, the experiences of queer populations should be part of the conversation. Each aspect of our identities affects our experience, and often the challenges facing marginalized groups can compound one another. So, every funder should be concerned that LGBTQ+ identified grant recipients have significantly less positive experiences with and perceptions of their funders than their straight peers do — at least as measured through response to CEP’s Grantee Perception Report (GPR) surveys."

In an article for Stanford Social Innovation Review, Valerie Conn and Sofia Michelakis, discuss a trend they’ve noticed of funders fundraising as a way to collectively address large social problems and solving for some of the frustration with the fragmentation of philanthropic giving. “In the past couple of decades, many funders have shifted their attention away from single-issue areas to solving one or more complex societal problems, often using a combination of philanthropy and investment capital. In the process, they’ve recognized that problems like climate change and racial justice are too big to solve alone. A sense of urgency to address large social problems—and frustration with the fragmentation of philanthropic giving broadly—has pushed many of these funders to explore new ways of validating and amplifying their giving strategy. Common approaches include funders focusing on their own grantmaking, believing that good work speaks for itself and others may follow (role model); encouraging public awareness, policy changes, and/or new government funding for causes or grantees they care about (advocate); and joining a collaborative effort with a group of donor peers and a co-developed action plan where they all share outcome goals (collaborate). However, actively getting resources from peer funders to augment one’s own theory of change and grantee portfolio (fundraise) is relatively new. This fundraising approach differs from donor collaboratives in several respects. For one, it starts with one funder’s theory of change, and that funder makes the decisions, staffs the fundraising activities, and bears the risks of the effort not succeeding. Another important difference is that peer funders don’t have input on sourcing, diligence, or selecting grantees.”