“Hi. I’m Ashley, Head of Failure here at Engineers Without Borders Canada and I’d love to hear from you!” Not your typical opening line, but an intriguing one from a Canadian NGO web site which shares and collects failures: admitting failure – Ashley introduces herself under “Contact”.

Similarly, Paul Iske of the School of Business and Economics in Maastricht founded a few years back the Institute of Brilliant Failures, but the Institute’s web site does not seem to inspire a high volume of activity.  Maybe being completely open about failure is not always an option. When you have access to large numbers of examples, you can also share the mistakes anonymously in the form of a digest, as the World Bank did in a blog Worst Practices in ICT and Education.

Why are failures important? Many foundations aspire to solve quite complex problems. For such problems, clear-cut, tested solutions seem to be in short supply. Probes, experiments as well as trial and error are an essential part of a foundation’s contribution towards solutions of complex problems.  And if foundations were to share their failures, they could build on the attempts of others when designing novel experiments.

So how open are foundations about failure? Last year GrantCraft did a survey on taking risks.  It showed that being open about failure was considered “very risky” or “somewhat risky” by 64% of the 254 respondents to the GrantCraft survey. Fortunately, some 36% of the respondents actually felt that being open about failure was “not very risky”.  It was notable that the respondents who considered that being open about failure was “very risky” also attributed a high level of risk to “working on publicly contested issues” and “working in politically volatile environments.”   How to interpret this is difficult because we do not know if this correlation is based on actual experience with working on these issues, or has to do with risk-averse attitudes.

Along the lines of the Institute of Brilliant Failures, some argue failure is an essential ingredient to be able to innovate and advance.  A blogger at the Stanford Social Innovation Review eloquently argues why philanthropists cannot do without failure and another commentary highlights the importance of the role of Boards and Trustees in creating space for risks and failure.

Sharing failure needs courage at the same time, a safe space helps. Sharing failure face-to-face with someone you know and trust may be the safest but how many peers would you reach this way. On the other hand, putting it out publicly on the web like Engineers Without Borders may not suit all foundations.  GrantCraft aims to provide a safe, anonymous opportunity to share experiences – including the not so successful. Indeed, both your successes and failures are welcome at GrantCraft.

Meanwhile, considering we are in February and it is time to reflect on our good intentions for the year. What about asking yourself some of the questions included in Iske’s “Brilliant Failure Culture Check”? In your foundation, does your leadership control or navigate?  Is it really safe to fail?  And is learning from failures really valued?   If not, would it be time to recruit a Head of Failure?

Last week I had the pleasure of spending time across the Atlantic with Rosien Herweijer and her colleagues at the European Foundation Centre… and eating way too much sugar.

We timed my visit around a working group meeting in Amsterdam for a new GrantCraft publication on investing in women and girls by European foundations. Created in collaboration with and support from Mama Cash, the oldest international women’s fund, this guide will build upon a landmark study released in the May 2011. Untapped Potential examined the scope and distribution of European-based funding for women and girls and noted the gap that exists between European foundations’ stated interests and their actual engagement.

Untapped Potential found that while 90 percent of surveyed European foundations expressed an interest in issues related to women and girls, just 37 percent of these funders actively supported programs benefiting this population. The new GrantCraft report, to be launched in Belfast at the EFC’s Annual General Assembly in June 2012, will address the lack of peer-to-peer “how-to” guidance for European foundations on expanding and deepening investments in women and girls. In addition to interviews, Rosien will draw upon stories shared by European foundations of new initiatives or adjustments that include a more intentional focus on women and girls.

Nicky McIntyre and Esther Lever at Mama Cash provided everything we needed for a great meeting: strategy, substance, and stroopwafels! At the train station after our work was done, I loaded my bag with souvenir packages of these most delicious caramel-filled crusty layers of baked dough.

Back in Brussels, home of the EFC and Godiva, my somewhat risky gift of craft chocolate from Brooklyn with embedded treats like serrano peppers and Stumptown coffee beans, was a hit. Jacked up on sugar, Rosien and I covered a lot of ground on the day-to-day work of GrantCraft: everything from objectives, target audiences, and stakeholders to new content, translations, and fundraising to analytics, inventory management, and a web site refresh.

As individuals with deep experience working with collaboratives, we know that collaboration can be hampered by issues that remain unspoken. Face-to-face meetings allow for frank conversations that are difficult to carry out via phone or email.

After several days of big picture yet detailed work – punctuated by laughter, shared personal stories, and spikes in our blood glucose levels – viewpoints that were a bit mysterious became clear. We’re starting to understand how the other thinks and the context in which we work, and we’re excited about our joint plans for 2012.

Happy holidays from both us!

These days, many foundations in Europe and the United States struggle to prevent erosion of the value of their endowments.  But some people say philanthropists should rethink grant-making, operating and investment policies altogether.

Between 16 and 17 November, I was in Turin at the annual conference of the European Venture Philanthropy Association.  For me, venture philanthropy (VP) is uncharted territory.  It brings the spirit and the modi  operandi of venture capitalism to the world of philanthropy.  VP invests in emerging social businesses to take them to scale and, as an investor, the venture philanthropist is often directly involved in that business to coach and manage the risks involved in the enterprise.

Dealing with the jargon in Turin was an issue. Traditional philanthropists make grants, and can also be involved in what in the US would be called Programme Related Investment, or PRI.  And obviously endowed foundations invest their assets, sometimes ethically or in a socially responsible way.

Venture philanthropists always invest. They invest their time and expertise, give grants and invest through other financial instruments (very much like the ones that you would use for PRI in the US).   Some venture philanthropists seek funds from third parties to invest. Most use the proceeds of past or current commercial activities of their founders.  Some actually pursue their mission solely through the way they manage their portfolio of investments –  a branch of VP that seems to be called ‘impact investing’ – as was illustrated at the Turin conference by the founder of KL Felicitas.

It seems different, but it’s not. While negotiating the jargon, I think it was interesting to see how in venture philanthropy instruments are easily blended.  In many traditional foundations grant-making and managing endowments are strictly separated with their own language, policies and people. But in venture philanthropy everybody does and speaks “investment”.

Traditional philanthropy has also moved beyond grants.  Earlier GrantCraft developed guides on and Providing for the Long Term (2004) and on Programme Related Investment (2006).  In Europe in 2011 Mistra, an EFC member, published 360-Degrees for Mission – How Leading European Foundations Use Their Invested Endowments to Support the Greater Good, which includes eight case studies that illustrate how foundations used  a variety of instruments  to align their investments and investment policies with their mission.

The key recommendation of the Mistra report is that everything starts with a well-thought out investment policy.  And many European foundations are looking at their investment policies these days.  What seemed to be safe and high yielding investments may not be considered as such any longer,  and, for example, some more ethically driven banks, as opposed to financially driven,  seem to be doing surprisingly well despite the crisis.

So, besides experiencing a comprehensive introduction to venture philanthropy, what did I learn in Turin? That it will be a challenge to update the GrantCraft materials on management of endowments and investment strategies in such a way that are low on (country specific) jargon and at the same time high on practical insights.  If you feel you can contribute, we need your experience (and glossaries) from around the globe.

As a guest blogger for the Council on Foundations’ RE: Philanthropy, Lisa Philp shares knowledge tools to help global grantmakers. Here is an excerpt:

Four years ago, when I was a philanthropic adviser at a private bank, I spoke to The New York Times for an article on global giving. In my work with wealthy families in the United States and around the world, I was seeing a growing trend of cross-border giving. Part of this was related to the globalization of businesses that generated wealth, coupled with greater exposure to widespread need. Some was a result of diaspora giving as immigrant entrepreneurs funded projects in their countries of origin. Another factor was an increasing recognition that grants of all sizes could stretch further in the developing world.

Read the complete blog post»

When I started in philanthropy many years ago, one of my tasks at my regional association job was to create educational programming for grantmakers. In the late 1990s, staff began to feel like they were on a programming treadmill — creating one session after another — since our members had no shortage of good ideas.

In a quest to balance essential building blocks with emerging trends, we decided to focus our professional development work in two areas: a skill-building track and content-rich sessions. Staff worked with a program committee of grantmakers to develop a “hard skills” curriculum of workshops spread out over 18 months. Meanwhile, to address more timely issues, any three regional association members could co-sponsor a briefing on an area of mutual concern. Being closer to the action, they would structure the content and secure the speakers with support from regional staff.

This flashback is on my mind as I embark on my new role at the Foundation Center. GrantCraft is largely known as a series of publications that give funders a chance to sit at a virtual roundtable with experienced peers from different types of foundations. These guides offer up “shop talk” – the hallway conversations that get squeezed in between formal meetings and the practical wisdom that’s too often hidden from view.

Given the changing landscape and growing globalization of the donor community, how can GrantCraft best serve an increasingly diverse constituency? How can GrantCraft complement and enhance what is offered by regional associations, affinity groups, and other philanthropy networks? With the addition of new organizational players in the field and rapid changes in technology, how might GrantCraft best serve your needs? Rosien and I welcome your thoughts.

As a guest blogger for Alliance Magazine, Rosien Herweijer shared different voices in the debate on the choice between giving in perpetuity and spending out. Here is an excerpt:

As director of GrantCraft in Europe, I always have my ear to the ground so as to pick up on the impulses and trends that are driving the foundation sector which can later serve as the substance of new GrantCraft guidance tools and materials. My ear was therefore finely tuned to a lively debate that unfolded on the choice between giving in perpetuity and spending out during the first-ever Autumn Assembly on 7 November 2011 in Brussels. Organised by the European Foundation Centre (EFC) and Donors and Foundations’ Networks in Europe (DAFNE), participants were polled on why they would prefer giving in perpetuity, the approach favoured by most. Approximately 65% of the audience considered that giving in perpetuity would allow for more long-term impacts. This was challenged in the debate and someone observed that the time-horizons of foundations are getting systematically shorter, irrespective of their spending pattern.

Read the complete blog post»

I spent my first day on the job at the Foundation Center in Los Angeles at the Grantmakers for Education (GFE) annual meeting. Two weeks ago, GrantCraft hosted its first webinar — on funder collaboratives for international projects. And last week, I was in Chicago for the Independent Sector (IS) conference.

In L.A. and Chicago, I felt that familiar rush from being in a room with passionate leaders in our sector and exploring the ideas of thoughtful colleagues. Despite tight travel budgets and time being short, there will always be a need for face-to-face events. Planned meetings, fortuitous encounters, and the camaraderie of peers can all help improve practice. At these conferences and so many others, networking can be invaluable along with the zeitgeist of what’s being discussed in the field.

But technology opens up many additional opportunities for learning.

GrantCraft’s recent webinar allowed us to share insights from five grantmakers who dialed in from New York, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Washington, DC. Actually, that is where their foundations are based. They, like our global webinar audience, could have been signing in from anywhere in the world. A recording of this conversation is available for a listen at any time.

I live tweeted and tagged my posts #GFE11 and #ISconf from our @grantcraft and my personal @howtogive Twitter accounts, and provided my take on the GFE and IS conferences for those who couldn’t attend. My Twitter dialogue and retweets at these events also led me to seek out those I wouldn’t have otherwise met and fostered new relationships.

In its first decade, GrantCraft provided web-based materials for use alone, in self-directed groups, and in workshops with philanthropy partners like regional associations. We’re eager to build on this in ways most helpful to the donor community. For GrantCraft’s next phase, what’s the best mix of in-person, online, and social media tools? Rosien and I welcome your thoughts.

What three things should the GrantCraft community know about you?

I’ve served as a program officer in many different settings: private foundations, family foundations, a corporate foundation, and a public foundation. Over the course of my career, I’ve also hired and trained about a dozen program officer colleagues. I loved being a program officer, but I also understand that grantmaking can be complicated and messy. Having access to “practical wisdom” from colleagues in the field goes a long way toward increasing impact and effectiveness.

Secondly, I’m a big believer in professional development and peer-to-peer exchange. My first two jobs after college were focused on support for local government managers—to encourage them to share best practices across communities and learn from each other. I moved to New York 20 years ago to join the staff of what is now called Philanthropy New York and focused on communications and government relations. Through these experiences early in my career, I saw the power of targeted professional development to enhance the skills of government and foundation colleagues.

Lastly, I’d say that a constant across my career has been collaboration: incubating public-private partnerships; participating in funder collaboratives in issues such as child welfare, education reform, immigration, and workforce development; and creating a pooled fund for major donors and family foundations. I very much look forward to a collaborative approach with the GrantCraft community.

What perspectives, tools, and experiences from your professional background will help you strengthen GrantCraft?

For the past 13 years, I worked as a philanthropic advisor for wealthy donors and as a grantmaker for dozens of private and family foundations. This role at a big financial services firm gave me a fascinating vantage point on the field through exposure to emerging philanthropists, engagement with family foundations, and participation in the world of donor advisors and intermediaries. As we created tailored services for clients, my team also served as a bridge between individual and institutional philanthropy.

I’ve also benefitted over the years from participation in several affinity groups. My association with Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy dates back to the early 1990s, and I served as chair of the national board in the mid-2000s. I’m a former board member of Grantmakers for Children, Youth & Families, and have participated in the Women’s Funding Network via board leadership with the New York Women’s Foundation. More recently, I’ve been participating in the Impact Working Group of the Association of Small Foundations.

As an unabashed “philanthropoid” yet one who managed a business for many years, I bring a combination of inside and outside perspectives to this role. I look forward to applying this dual lens and a broad set of relationships to my work with GrantCraft.

What goals do you have for GrantCraft in the next year?

I anticipate entering this role in listening mode. GrantCraft has a large constituency of contributors and users who have a stake in what’s next. I plan to listen and learn from those who have benefitted from what GrantCraft has accomplished thus far.

Secondly, I think there is a real opportunity to extend the work of GrantCraft beyond the long-form publication model. Over the past few years, the Foundation Center has made great strides in custom web portals, data visualization, and other knowledge tools. I’m excited by the idea of combining technological resources with GrantCraft content to be even more useful to the field.

Lastly, I envision new and renewed partnerships in GrantCraft’s future. GrantCraft is now a joint program of the Foundation Center and the European Foundation Centre, and I was pleased to have a chance to meet my Brussels-based colleague Rosien Herweijer over the summer. The two of us look forward to expanding our collaboration to include strategic partnerships with regional associations of grantmakers, affinity groups, philanthropy support organizations, donor advisors, and intermediaries.

Let me know what’s on your mind by posting a comment or sending me an email at llp@foundationcenter.org.

You may be surprised to discover what you’d hear in a joint meeting of people involved in European foundations, depending on who is speaking and where they are from. In Italy, for example, nonsense, bragging, rubbish, baloney or other inflated boasting is referred to with an expression that translates as “fried air.” In the Netherlands, we would refer to it as “baked air.” And elsewhere, you may hear “hot air” instead. Fried, baked, hot…  Isn’t it interesting that we have similar but different expressions?  And how many useful things you can pick-up in the EFC lunchroom!

When we collaborate in Europe, we tend to use English as a working language. But sometimes we forget it is actually Euringlish. It sounds like English but it isn’t. That is a major risk factor and occasionally a source of frustration in working together. There are three main risks involved with collaboration among people with different mother tongues and with the use of Euringlish: one is that people are hesitant to speak up because they lack confidence in their English.  A second risk is that people actually do not understand what is said because their English is not good enough or they do not know the words that are being used. And third, people make up words — creating confusion and talking nonsense (fried or baked).

Both native English speakers and non-native speakers have a role to play. Key steps in managing the issue and reducing confusion are to be aware of these risks, avoid jargon and fancy words when you speak, and ask for explanations or clarification if you do not understand what is being said.  True, communicating will take more time, but there is just no other way. Some of the events Grantcraft is involved in and tools we are developing can be of help.

• On 5 October at the Grantmakers East Forum Annual Meeting in Riga, Estonia, panelists Juliet Prager, Jotham Sietsma, Olha Kotska, and Michael Fembak presented a variety of experiences about collaboration among European foundations. Here is an interview with two of the panelists.

• On 27 October from 2:00-3:30 EST, the Foundation Center will host a webinar on “Joining Forces: Funder Collaboratives for International Projects.” RSVP to secure your spot on this free call, which will explore how funder collaboratives help grantmakers aim for larger goals, distribute risks, learn together, and achieve greater impact.

• Around the same time at EFC, we are starting to develop a companion guide to the 2009 GrantCraft guide on “Funder Collaboratives — Why and How Funders Work Together.”  We will look at how the lessons from the original guide apply to European collaboration efforts and we will identify additional challenges (and benefits) that are related to the huge amount of diversity in Europe.  Between October and December 2011 we will be collecting experiences and interviewing practitioners.

GrantCraft guides draw on your practice. If you have had experience with European funder collaboratives — good or bad, as a funder or otherwise — please share your thoughts with us. You can post them publicly as a comment on this blog or directly via e-mail to rherweijer@efc.be.  GrantCraft guides always quote contributors anonymously.

The European Foundation Centre and the Foundation Center are committed to making GrantCraft “go global.” But how does this commitment translate to strategy and action? This summer, the cross-Atlantic GrantCraft team met face to face to begin hammering out some of the nitty-gritty of what this global GrantCraft truly looks like.

What’s the current status? GrantCraft has always had users based in countries outside the U.S. and Canada. This year we shipped materials to Denmark and Belgium. Our web site had visitors from 175 countries in 2011. And in 147 countries, we had more than one visitor (yes, GrantCraft users in Togo, Laos, and Uzbekistan: you are not alone!).  But over the last three years, users outside the U.S. and Canada never represented more than 30 percent of our total web site visitors.

What lies ahead? In our recent meetings, we discussed the challenges and practicalities involved in reaching out to global audiences beyond North America and plan to focus on three key strategies:

1. Develop new resources that consciously target either global or regional audiences
2. Contextualize existing resources to suit GrantCraft’s new, broader audiences
3. Continue to promote and translate existing materials

Our vision is to have a diverse community of grantmakers that draws on the practical wisdom embodied in diverse, global experiences. But catering to a diverse audience of practitioners has its challenges. Practices from diverse realities may inspire but they can also confuse. Where does global learning stop making sense and where is specificity required?  Is it fundamentally different for a program officer at a Russian foundation to say “no” to a local grantee, compared to how staff at a foundation in Baltimore rejects an application from a community organization, or can they draw on similar wisdom? Are insights based on the experience with collaboration with the private sector in Germany and the UK — undoubtedly different among them — relevant and stimulating for foundations in Italy? And, while philanthropy in China and Egypt may be profoundly different compared to the Netherlands, are not the basic aspects of a project assessment pretty much the same in both countries?

And what about the guides themselves? Will existing GrantCraft materials fit the needs of these audiences? Can you actually make a GrantCraft guide for a global audience? We think our GrantCraft guides will go a long way because they are not prescriptive. But in some cases we will need to add (different) context, and some guides may require an addendum or new examples. All the same, there will be guides that can be used and translated as they are.

In Brussels,  we’ll initially look to add more European context to  guides such as those on Funder Collaboratives, Effective Exits, and Funding Advocacy.

The opportunity — and the imperative — to increase and globalize our audience is significant.  To do so we need to look at what works, which is why we are asking for your help! Wherever you are, let us know what you like about GrantCraft (and areas for improvement), and how you think these resources can be best made useful to colleagues in your country.