PF Whiteboard

We just offered to make intros/recommendations to 7 different funders/supporters on behalf of one of our SE partners. This doesn’t happen every day, so how did it occur?

It was check in time for one of our Global Partners this week. They sent us over internal materials (already prepared, not specific for us) for review before the call. One of the documents was an asset map -a full list of all the potential and current asset providers on the org’s radar. Sending this was a very smart move.

It’s only the second time we’ve had a SE send us their asset map in full -often times partners highlight a few key relationships they are focusing on building, or give us a verbal run down of the funders they are preparing proposals for. A full asset map lays it all out there: Organisation, Primary contact, Deadline, Current status, Funds expected, Likelihood for success, etc. It included both current and potential supporters, financial and non financial supporters. We had a complete picture of who this organisation had talked to, who they decided it was not worth talking to, and who they were currently talking with. We also saw who they had approached but had not been a fit.

As a funder who adamantly believes in the missions of the organisations they support, wants to be supportive beyond simply cutting a cheque, and is operating with a lean team, this information is huge. We looked down the list and immediately saw a bunch of people in the ‘high likelihood’ category, with whom the Peery Foundation has strong enough relationships with that we’d be happy to make a recommendation. Some of those people are folks that the SE did not know we knew -they would never have known to specifically ask us for a connection to them. Sharing everything helped us see what was most needed (that we might not previously have been aware of) and thus where we could really help.

It’s also impressive from a funder perspective. We have a greater belief in this SE’s self-awareness, level of strategic thinking and relationship savvy.

I’m trying to think of situations where you wouldn’t want to share this info… but if you have funders that you trust and who trust you then it might be worth sharing your full asset map with them. You never know what networks they’ll be able to open up for you.

Earlier this month Kevin Starr of the Mulago Foundation hypothetically asked, what if foundation heads and program officers got fired for lack of impact? It was an interesting question to ask and a provocative way to think about keeping ourselves accountable to what should be our ultimate goal: impact. Though, obviously, easier said than done. But this got me thinking, what else should I get fired for? Or what else would/should our partners/grantees fire us or other funders for if they could…? Probably the litany of bad philanthropic practises out there.

Confession time… Over the past few months I made some classic mistakes: Over communicated enthusiasm, jumped the gun in suggesting a meeting, and confused someone over our investment criteria. This past week I made a different one: Under communicated on a no (almost unavoidably, because sometimes it’s a million tiny things rather than 3 distinct reasons you can put in a bulleted list).

I think with this latter mistake I perhaps compensated slightly by a offering a follow up call which they took me up on -but you’d probably have to ask them if that helped or not.

And on the other stuff… It is really hard not to communicate personal enthusiasm for an idea when you think it’s the best thing since sliced bread, but your not sure if it’s not a fit for the fdn. And really hard to communicate a ‘no’. And really hard to be crystal clear about a criteria when you’re actually still developing it.

These are not excuses to hide behind. I suppose my point is to simply say, it can be tricky. And we take those tricky things seriously and take time to try our best to get them as right as we know how. There are absolutely some things we can learn from advice/research/peers. Yet, with many of the really important lessons, I’m not sure how a young foundation can figure these things out unless we are trying, sometimes failing, and hopefully quickly iterating to find a good solution. The ideal being: ‘Only make new mistakes’.

We’re still learning. There are still a lot of perhaps unavoidable mistakes that are new for me/us. And so I’m still getting some things wrong. I apologise if you’re ever on the receiving end of a ‘learning moment’. Kevin Starr, please don’t fire me yet…

When the Indian Ocean earthquake struck in December of 2004, killing almost 200,000 people, my sister felt lucky that her trip to the Tamil Nadu coast of India wasn’t for a couple more days.  At the same time, continuing with the trip meant a different set of experiences than she’d planned for.  Since that time, multiple natural disasters have taken place, and each time we are faced with the decision of how, whether, or when to respond.  There seems to be more disasters populating the headlines than we can even keep up with, and it’s easy to feel powerless to do anything.  I’ll just summarize a few takeaways and insights we’ve gained over the past few years.

Find the right people:  As always, we look to invest in those who are closest to the population we hope to serve, and who can channel resources to the right places.  In 2004, my sister had the luxury of being on the ground in India and was able to evaluate much of the need as she saw it.  More importantly, she was being accompanied by an incredible woman, Padma Venkataraman, who has worked to build livelihoods for those living in abject poverty for many years.  She was a trusted resource, and someone whose work wouldn’t likely benefit from the tsunami fundraising campaigns run by large NGOs.  Along the Tamil Nadu coast, various organizations filled storage spaces and trucks with clothing and blankets that went undistributed, and was of little use to the population in that area.  From conversations among the coastal fishing villages, it was clear that fishermen were anxious to regain their livelihoods, and needed capital to replace their boats and fishing nets which had been destroyed (see photos above).  We helped Padma put together the financing for these fishermen to begin building their lives as quickly as possible. 

Use “stringers”:  With every disaster that has followed, we haven’t been able to respond to such clear and tangible opportunities, but using “stringers” might be one way of doing this.  Bill Somerville of the Philanthropic Ventures Foundation has used news reporters to help him identify philanthropic opportunities in the community.  These stringers are charged with the task of finding stories and writing about them or pitching them to other journalists.  They are a wealth of local knowledge.  Last year when the monsoon rains in Pakistan caused incredible flooding, affecting millions of people, I followed the blogging of TED’s Chris Anderson and wife, Jacqueline Novogratz of Acumen Fund, as they traveled throughout the devastated regions of Pakistan.  We live in extraordinary times when we can follow the tweeting and blogging of those who are closest to the devastation, and who can provide recommendations for appropriate response or placement of funds.

Find the right organizations:  After the earthquake in Haiti, I can’t tell you how many people I knew were carrying out, or contributing to, well-intentioned relief efforts by groups who had no history working in Haiti.  If your goal is to simply fund a solid organization delivering appropriate and effective relief, you’d better fund someone who’s been working there for years and knows their way around.  In Haiti, Partners in Health has been doing work there for decades and was in a very strategic position to respond.  Another approach for us has been through our church.  Our family’s church has a highly organized global congregation, with extensive resources dedicated to the welfare and self-reliance of the members, as well as the populations in which they live.  We’ve often given through our church’s humanitarian relief fund, as they have a track record of effective collaboration and volunteer manpower in just about every relief effort.

Figure out the timing and duration of your response:  Any donor should seriously consider whether they will give now or later, and whether it will be a one-time response or a long-term effort.  Generally, people feel moved to respond in the immediate wake of disaster and do so with a one time donation.  While resources are needed immediately, why not wait until the disaster has disappeared from the headlines and the public’s consciousness?  Waiting six months could provide some real opportunities to place dollars in ways that will likely go further, and with better execution.  Thinking long-term, I would be willing to bet that every place that has experienced a catastrophic natural disaster in recent memory is still in need of funds and continuous rebuilding and healing.  I really admire people that approach disaster response with a long-term perspective.  My friend Karan Ansara and her husband Jim responded to the earthquake in Haiti by setting up the Haiti Fund at the Boston Foundation.  They’ve managed to raise over $2 million (and rising) to be spent down over 5 years.  Their strategy is to spend 25% toward direct relief work, and the rest on long term efforts such as building local capacity, infrastructure, and livelihoods.

Finally, what I think we all find frustrating is that in every occurrence of such events, we all know immediate response efforts are not being coordinated properly, funds are often mismanaged, duplication takes place, and much worse.  The recent article on Collective Impact in the Stanford Social Innovation Review advocates for coordinated efforts from various actors to produce impact around shared objectives.  While cross-sector collaboration is necessary to drive change, the approach they describe calls for an independent group which helps coordinate all parties in order to ensure the proper flow of resources and balance of efforts. This is what we need for disaster response.  Is anyone doing this?  I’m sure something is out there, but I’m unaware of it. 

The capacity of all donors is limited and there is only so much one can do. However we decide to respond to the ever-increasing catastrophes of mother nature, may we do it more thoughtfully.