Walking the Talk

Posted on January 16, 2012 by

It’s a rare foundation that demonstrates the value of its grantmaking, its leadership role, and its values.

But that’s what the Duluth-Superior Area Community Foundation did.  Its motivation to make evident the benefits of its work lay in its own convictions:

  1. that discretionary grantmaking can be powerful, especially if pursued through five fields of interest in which the nonprofit communities themselves get to define and promote their own goals.
  2. that the CF’s  core values of Generosity, Inclusiveness and Engagement are excellent values to promote through the discretionary funds and leadership role of a regional community foundation.
  3. that development of more discretionary funds is in the community’s best interest and therefore a priority of the community foundation.

DSACF hired us, the Effective Communities Project, to address these evaluation opportunities, which we did through a series of focus groups to nominate the primary qualities of “benefit” experienced by recipient organizations, followed by an on-line survey of these recipients to estimate the extent of these particular benefits.

It worked out well.  Almost all recipients of grants from discretionary funds were included in the project.  They certainly got the message that the CF cares, that it listens, that it wants to learn, and that it sees itself as partner in the quest to legitimize and secure  discretionary funds that benefit the region.   Through this evaluation inquiry the CF could  show its colors and hear well-expressed views of what community benefit looks like in its region.   The focus groups in particular became a series of organizational learning events, with sharing across organizational boundaries, and highlighting themes around which the CF can communicate its value.

Another thing.  As DSACF’s vision statement makes clear, the values of Generosity, Inclusion and Engagement are important ones for the region.   Since we already had grantees’ attention, staff and board wanted us to check out how well these key values are playing out and being influential.  Here, too, it became clear that it was  beneficial simply having the discussion about what generosity, inclusion, and engagement even look like at a community or organizational level.  One could easily say these discussions themselves manifest generosity, inclusion, and engagement!

Several lessons for discretionary fund development became clear as well.  The stories of accomplishment told by focus group participants make very clear the value of discretionary grants.  From these stories Effective Communities Project could present specifics, themes, and numbers – which all make great talking points to any prospective donor.

In addition to these immediate benefits, which (BTW, for those evaluators present) flow directly from the process of this inquiry, came a number of suggestions for beefing up the CF’s grantmaking policies and practices. Completed in October, the report of findings and suggestions  are being studied and discussed by staff, and then committee, and then full board – and then a larger public.

* * *

Steven E. Mayer, Ph.D. / January 16, 2012

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can philanthropy create greater racial equity and social justice?

Posted on November 14, 2011 by

Good question.  And what do “success” and “progress” look like?   These are two questions we at Effective Communities pursued over five years, with support from the Ford Foundation.

Pathways to Progress: Focusing Philanthropy on Racial Equity and Social Justice (pdf) is the culmination of this work, drawing lessons from Ford’s portfolio of grants, “Community Philanthropy and Racial Equity in the American South.”

Formerly a website and now a downloadable document, “Pathways to Progress” presents broad strategies by which progress gets made in social change efforts using philanthropic resources.   We think it has application to addressing a variety of inequities, not only those framed in racial terms.

The analysis is based on reflective conversations conducted by our team (including Betty Emarita and Dr. Vanessa Stephens) with nearly 100 philanthropic organizations operating in both African American and White American settings.  We grounded our inquiry in the ultimate goal of closing “gaps” or “disparities”– those long-standing differences in group averages that indicate inequitable or unfair public systems and private market performance – and the challenge to philanthropy to help in that work.

What do philanthropic organizations do to close such gaps?  We present six pathways to progress that summarize how philanthropic resources are used with the intent, ultimately, of creating improvements to the benefits or outcomes along more equitable lines.   The six pathways:

  1. Preparing the organization to address tough issues like social justice and racial equity
  2. Building trust – talking safely and listening productively to difficulties and opportunities
  3. Advancing solutions that stand to close disparities
  4. Strengthening relationships, networks, and leadership
  5. Increasing resources that can be deployed to address disparities and gaps
  6. Combining the above to move the needles that measure system performance

The six pathways are not intended to be undertaken serially.  Rather, they represent interconnected strands that combine and recombine at different points, as with DNA, to produce a level of effort that moves those needles or metrics indicating the state of our systems.  If there’s not much interconnection of efforts, real change is unlikely to happen.

For each of the six pathways, we present a set of promising practices drawing on examples from the field as well as links to practitioner organizations.  We also include benchmarks by which initiatives to reduce inequity can be measured as well as links to short essays and tools allowing you to go deeper on key topics, including papers written by our team.

The answer to our opening question is “Yes, philanthropy can help.”  If only the piecemeal or independent efforts that currently dot the landscape could be strung together more intentionally to create more powerful efforts that create collective impact – impact that actually moves the needles indicating more equitable system and market performance –we’d see real progress, and much more effective use of philanthropic resources.

Using the Pathways as the backdrop or lens for creating meaningful strategy – making grants that collectively produce efforts with real power behind them — could make a big difference.    Some of this thinking is elaborated in Wanted: Better Evaluation Practices for Better Philanthropy.

More impactful philanthropy requires a style different from the prevailing one, which involves piecemeal, independent, and scattered efforts.   Our communities need sustained, change-focused efforts that engage a variety of essential players pushing together against the creaky mechanisms that maintain the status quo.  My hope is that foundations are open to inviting and receiving such proposals.

You can download “Pathways to Progress” here.

# # #

Steven E. Mayer / November 14, 2011

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evaluating “Occupy Wall Street”

Posted on October 27, 2011 by

Like many, I’m intrigued by this Occupy Wall Street movement.  And why not?  It purports to voice both the pain and the interests of the 99% of Americans who are harmed by the richest 1%.  Disclosure: I’m not one of the 1%.   Who are the 99%?  By definition, it includes almost all of us, so in this post I’ll be saying Us and We in addition to “the 99%,” just to honor their basic premise.  And OWS intends, it seems, to put pressure on those in positions of influence to fix the systems that have created these disparities that have damaged our society.

As this blog  is active at the confluence of philanthropy, justice, and evaluation, it would seem the OWS movement is fair game for discussion.  Though OWS has allegedly fuzzy goals and no apparent management structure as traditionally understood, does that mean it can’t be evaluated?   No.

In the spirit of advancing the state of the art of evaluating social change movements (a very undeveloped art at this point), I would put forward three criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of this particular movement at this particular point in time.  I base these solely on my own understanding of OWS as gleaned from the media and reading the signs, and not any insider knowledge.  

1) Growing recognition and ownership of OWS’ message.  Job One of OWS seems to be to help “the 99%” recognize the ways we’ve been abused by The System, and to be in touch with our outrage enough to demand changes in the ways The System works.  An evaluation question is, then, Is there growing recognition that the issues OWS is talking about relates to each of us, as members of the 99%?  Do I know the list of particular abuses OWS says we have experienced at the hands of the 1%?  Some, but not clearly.  And do I share in the feeling of unfairness that such abuse creates?  Yes, but I’m not sure I know how to express my outrage appropriately or productively.  So, OWS has some work to do, if my own data points are illustrative.  Carefully worded surveys and focus group discussions should provide evidence of how well OWS’ message has penetrated the hearts and minds of those it intends to speak for.

2) Growing support of the movement.   Support of the movement can be measured in many ways, not just the obvious one of crowd size (which may even be the least valid indicator of OWS success).  Evidence that could be gleaned from well-crafted surveys or polls: Numbers of people listening with an intent to understand; numbers of people identifying with intent of OWS, and cheering it on; numbers of people supporting participants with food, shelter, money, etc; numbers of people passing on the messages of OWS to others; growing access to media of various types and to people, institutions, or networks of influence.  Measuring a “groundswell of support” is an underdeveloped art, but we all know such a groundswell when we feel it.

3) Growing influence of the movement.  It may not be realistic to expect OWS, as a protest movement, to produce specific proposals or plans for fixing the systems.  Fixing the systems is more the job of people who own and keep the systems.  At this point, such people haven’t felt the desirability of moving ahead with such a change agenda.  OWS could be evaluated, then, on how well it makes its grievances known such that those with influence in policy setting circles take constructive action that closes the alleged systemic disparities at the heart of OWS’ message.  At this point, the media have provided a good deal of coverage of this movement.   Other signs of progress:  the conversation has changed, not just in the media but also at café gatherings, tailgating events, and cocktail parties.  As for influence that goes beyond talk into the realms where policy and practice can change, OWS hasn’t succeeded, to my knowledge,  much beyond head-scratching by those in charge, who ask themselves bemusedly, “What do these people want?”

In writing this blog, I find myself giving OWS passing grades so far, and recommending that greater effectiveness will come when OWS pushes out on the above three criteria.  The three sort of cascade, the first enabling the second, which enables the third.  The first is key, and so far underdeveloped, in my opinion.  Until there’s greater movement on all three fronts, OWS is little more than a consciousness-raising event.  Which isn’t all ineffectual…

# # #

Steven E. Mayer / Effective Communities Project / October 27, 2011

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment