Change Takes Time - And The Philanthropy World Needs To Keep Up!

By Leslie Weber for The Opportunity Agenda

Many years ago, I attended a presentation by a foundation that supported the non-profit I was working for at the time. They had developed a new strategy for ensuring effective grantmaking and were rolling it out. It seemed benign at first – after all, who could argue with a commitment to spending money wisely?

The gist of the meeting was an explanation of the kinds of “impact” the foundation was hoping to make, suggestions for how grantees might go about measuring such impact, and the requirements they would henceforth be including for future grantmaking.

To be clear, this foundation’s grants were typically only in the $25,000 to $50,000 range, and multi-year commitments were exceedingly rare.

A lone voice of dissent, and, frankly, irritation, I raised my hand. “This seems like a great idea,” I started, and then continued, “So is the foundation going to provide additional funds to pay for the evaluations you now require?”

You can guess the answer.

Twenty years later, I am stilled barraged on a daily basis with offers to help measure and prove impact, with titles like Outcome Metrics: Measuring What Matters in the Non-profit World.

Not only does this sort of requirement often place undue burden and unreasonable expectations on grantees. It doesn’t even work very well.

In their Stanford Social Innovation Review article, “Ten Reasons Not to Measure Impact—and What to Do Instead,” Mary Kay Gugety and Dean Karlin point out that “[s]ocial impact bonds and pay-for-success programs seek to fund effective initiatives by tying financing to proven results,” and has led to a proliferation of sub-par efforts to measure impact in order to secure funding.

This problem is especially challenging for think tanks and other organizations whose purpose is to provide thought leadership, develop new ideas, or, like my organization, The Opportunity Agenda, shift narratives. Our report, “Shifting the Narrative: 6 Case Studies,” illustrates how long it can take for new ideas to take hold broadly enough to effect tangible, sustainable change. On issues as diverse as the death penalty, animal rights, and poverty, substantive changes in attitudes and policies have taken place over periods as long as 60 years.

Conservative funders, as has been widely reported, have long been aware of this, setting their sights on 20, 30, and 50-year time horizons. And the successes of their approach cannot be denied.

Inside Philanthropy recently reported on this phenomenon, and the contrast with progressive funders, in Celia Wexler’s “Think Tank Leaders Don't Lack for Ideas, But Fundraising Can Still Be Brutal” just last month.

Conservative think tanks, though, have done us the favor of proving a theory of change focused on incubating ideas, and on shifting narratives to change perceptions, attitudes, and policies. Furthermore, non-profit leaders and scholars in the center and on the left of the political spectrum have long been calling for such a vision in progressive philanthropy, one that would lead to unrestricted support over a period of decades, not years.

So why has change been so slow? Why do so many progressive donors and funders continue to believe that their support must be justified with immediate gratification? How can we dismantle the defensive stance, the pervasive belief that progressive non-profits must be closely monitored and prove their impact in order to earn support? It’s a view that leads to a narrow focus on immediate, “measurable outcomes,” time limited, project-based support, and constant surveillance of “overhead” percentages.

Even MacKenzie Scott, who has single handedly transformed the progressive philanthropic landscape, has given large, but one-time grants to hundreds of organizations. And, while these contributions are largely unrestricted, they do not, in most cases, address the challenge of long-term sustainability.

In order to succeed, non-profits like mine need to keep salaries competitive, our staff at the forefront of their respective fields, and our communications capacity at maximum effectiveness. These are perhaps the most important of the myriad ongoing costs necessary to function at the highest possible level, year after year after year, regardless of programmatic focus. It is a reality that can’t be ignored.

So what could bigger investments in idea generation and long-term goals actually look like?

For example, what if consortiums and alliances of wealthy progressive donors could tamp down their understandable anxiety about short term gains and losses in the political sphere and take a chance on doing what the other side has been doing for decades: create a 30-year plan that calls on their members to make substantial, unrestricted, long-term investments in research, thought leadership, and outstanding messaging?

What if donors could support thought leadership organizations of various stripes with ample, stable resources, and stay the course for the long haul? What if they could trust us to do our jobs, fund the longitudinal evaluation necessary to gain meaningful information, and forego requirements for short term measurements?

What if instead of asking us to prove our value every year or two, donors honored their own commitments to change, and the non-profits they support, with their trust?

Imagine the impact we might have on changing hearts and minds in ways that could strengthen democracy, transform immigration policy, or increase equity and opportunity across sectors if we could count on this kind of support. It would be a win for us all.

We can change our world for the better by working together, into the future.

Leslie Weber is the Vice President of Institutional Advancement at The Opportunity Agenda where she brings a broad range of non-profit executive and development experience.