We recently launched a new GrantCraft guide, Scanning the Landscape 2.0, at an event with our friends and building-mates, Philanthropy New York. A lively mix of funders joined Brad Smith and me, including long-time supporters and others who were learning about GrantCraft for the first time.

Several colleagues who were interviewed for this report – Patricia Eng, Vice President, Grants and Capacity Building, Ms. Foundation for Women; Andrés Henríquez, Program Officer and Project Manager for Literacy and Standards, Carnegie Corporation of New York; and Nicholas Turner, Managing Director, The Rockefeller Foundation – came to share their lessons learned. These “guest scanners” and the full group spent time discussing a set of questions that attendees could take back to their foundations for self- or small-group reflection.

Pat described insight gained from a recent strategic planning process that went well beyond current supporters and allies. By talking to people that her foundation hadn’t contacted before, including those working with perpetrators of crimes, faith-based communities, and individual victim advocates, she found new insight on policy issues related to women’s safety that changed their guidelines.

As participants discussed the challenges of information overload, Nick mentioned the risk of being pulled down many “rabbit holes” without a clear ability to find a way through a flood of data. But he also spoke of the positive side of scanning in a digital age. Information can be captured and used in many useful forms. For his work on transportation policy, he has set up automated email updates from specialized databases, news digests, and listservs to help him stay abreast of what’s going on.

Several years ago, Andrés began experimenting with Twitter before Carnegie released a major report on adolescent literacy as a strategy to help push out this study. What he hadn’t anticipated was how invaluable social media would be as a way of instantly gathering information that in the past was almost impossible to find. By following a wide range of voices – teachers, principals, parents, advocates, journalists, researchers, bloggers, and so on – he has a steady stream of insight about how education reform issues are playing out on the ground.

What techniques have you developed for scanning? For making the most of digital tools? Download Scanning the Landscape 2.0 for more ideas from your peers, and let us know your thoughts.

Ambassador. Facilitator. Strategist. What do these words have in common? They are among the many roles played by family foundation CEOs during their day-to-day work as funders. At the recent Council on Foundations’ Family Foundations Conference in Miami Beach, the National Center for Family Philanthropy used GrantCraft’s Roles@Work deck to kick off their CEO retreat. These roles and others – disturbance generator, idea mover – had been identified by family foundation CEOs as the ones they play most frequently and those they wanted to improve.

As family foundation leaders arrived at the retreat, they were instructed to pick a role out of a fishbowl. Four other participants also randomly plucked out that role, and their opening task was to circulate around the room in a meet-and-greet fashion to find their “role-mates.”

Once they found the others, a set of discussion questions were posed for each of 13 role groups:

• What do you find enjoyable about this role? What’s challenging?

• How important is this role to what you do?

• Who are your audiences for this role?

• How has this role played out well and not well in specific situations?

• Has this role conflicted with other roles you play at work? How?

The roles discussed drew from the retreat participants’ own experiences and Ginny Esposito’s research in The Family Foundation CEO: Crafting Consensus Out of Complexity. Family foundation CEOs (and all funders) wear many different hats, but rarely have an opportunity to think explicitly about these roles. Used as a substantive ice breaker, this Roles@Work exercise set a tone for participants to reflect on personal strategy and effectiveness at the front end of a content-rich couple of days.

During the report-out, insights were shared with the full group. In the ambassador discussion, an executive director said, “I operate in a small town and serve as the ambassador for the family. The danger is if the community comes to see this as my foundation. It’s fatal to go around saying ‘my foundation’ when you’re not family.” Those who picked the facilitator role articulated the vital but frequently underappreciated effort required. One participant noted, “When I picked facilitator, I immediately thought of what it takes to make our board meetings work – how to make sure it’s a smooth, four-hour meeting – so that we really get stuff done across three generations.” The five foundation CEOs who drew the strategist nametags clearly relished the role. One explained, “The upside of the strategist role is creativity, using your mind, and having resources to focus on systems, planning, and programming. The challenge comes in selling it to a board that may or may not be interested.”

In the groups with more creatively named roles, participants took time to define what they meant and how they played out on the ground. “My background is as a consultant,” said a foundation president, “so I tend to reframe the disturbance generator role as ‘constructive provocation.’ You have to ask the right questions. A good answer to the wrong question isn’t useful.” In the idea mover group, a CEO spoke of being comfortable with the role in one direction, but less so the other way. “I do my due diligence on ideas that I bring back to the foundation and use them motivate my team, but I have some trouble being able to move the foundation’s ideas externally.”

Like other GrantCraft tools, the role cards are based on stories from funders from all kinds of foundations and are meant to spark discussion and share practical wisdom. Colleagues have used them in conference settings, with small networks of peers from other foundations, and at staff or staff/board gatherings within one foundation.

In his recent blog post from the NCFP retreat, Tony Macklin pointed out a role that’s missing from the Roles@Work deck: community builder. From my previous life as funder, three additions come to mind: dream encourager, reality checker, and sense maker. Do any of these four roles resonate with you? What else is missing? Let us know what roles you would add.

“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.