The Give and Take of Philanthropy: Investing in Planning              

There is a great disparity between the nonprofit organizations that provide services ranging from hunger relief to the arts, and the traditionally slower-to-act philanthropic foundations that fund them. During my time in the nonprofit world, I have grown to appreciate that both sectors have valid reasons for operating at the pace at which they are comfortable. As a ubiquitous example, disease and famine plague populations indigenous to third world countries. The longer we delay sending resources, the more suffering will occur. While on its surface this example seems to be an argument for the “hare” approach—the fastest acting organizations deliver resources immediately to those in need—it also makes a case for the “tortoise” approach, which includes more diligent planning towards long-term solutions.

To be clear, I realize that neither foundations nor nonprofit organizations are monolithic. Some foundations of course act quickly, while some nonprofit organizations are slower moving operations. But, with this broad framework in mind, I think that organizations would benefit by slowing down their rush to the finish, and, conversely, that foundations might consider speeding up in order to “meet” the nonprofit organizations midway. There are real challenges to these adjustments, but, as part of my continued learning as Director of Grants Management and Administration at the Jim Joseph Foundation, I have identified certain strategies that could help to overcome them.

Perhaps one method to achieve a more coordinated approach is to incorporate greater planning into grant making. Typically, a grant seeker will present a fully fleshed out idea to a grantmaker’s Board of Directors, such that the grantmaker becomes involved  only when funding is needed to support the venture. Accordingly, the grantmaker’s extensive due diligence in order to determine viability, feasibility, and necessity of the undertaking often prolongs implementation of the project.

What if, rather than waiting to receive a completed grant proposal, the grantmaker and the grant seeker came together at the idea phase, subsequently developing a grant that incorporated both a planning and implementation phase? This would require several factors not always characteristic of traditional grantmaking:

1. Longer-term investment – This requires patience from the grantmaker since the grant may not yield many concrete results after a single year spent mostly planning. Timing is, of course, relative, but a long-term commitment can help create a more open and fruitful funder-grantee relationship. Of note, the Jim Joseph Foundation Board of Directors awards grants that are often of four to five years.
2. Larger dollar amount – This will account for the support necessary for proper planning, implementation, and assessment all encompassed in one grant.  The Jim Joseph Foundation’s philanthropic strategy includes assessment or evaluation on the formative level so that there can be a continuous effort towards improvement.
3. Flexibility – In this type of model, flexibility is relevant specifically around programmatic objectives.  If a donor is funding towards goals not yet achieved, it helps to have a shared understanding that program-related objectives and measures of success may change over the course of the planning year.

On the other side of the equation, a coordinated approach with an emphasis on planning may also require several factors not always characteristic of grant seekers, including:

1. Inclusion – This pertains to the inclusion of the grantmaker in the decision-making process, rather than waiting for the idea to be brought to fruition.  It involves requesting a strategic investment rather than just a tactical donation. And it requires confidence and trust in allowing a grantmaker to see how “the sausage is made”—or at least planned.
2. Time – In my various professional capacities, including working on behalf of a grant seeker, I came to understand that speed does not mean efficiency. Rather than a race to the finish that yields immediate results, this style of collaborative work requires more grantee patience, both by staff and board members. Perhaps more time than before would also be invested in brainstorming and assessment than in the overall implementation.
3. Adjusted Outcomes – With more time dedicated to planning, the outputs and outcomes may need to be adjusted because of a greater overall focus on strategy.  There has to be an appetite for this if one is to engage in an extensive planning process.

An example of this type of investment came in the early years of Jim Joseph Foundation grantmaking.  In July 2007, the Foundation for Jewish Camp launched the Teen Camper Incentive Initiative (later known as JWest Campership), a subsidy program for first time participants in Jewish overnight summer camps to attend one of 23 camps in 13 states in the western U.S.  The theory was that western camps receive less attention and support than their east coast peers. JWest Campership, therefore, would be an opportunity to bring 3,000 new participants into Jewish overnight summer camps and provide requisite training and enhancement for seasonal staffs at those institutions. The sole investor in this undertaking was the Jim Joseph Foundation through a four-year grant of up to $11.2 million. While the initiative included startup time, it was not truly dedicated to planning. The time was more geared towards building the infrastructure of the initiative.

That said, if JWest Campership had been a one-year grant, it most likely would have been deemed a failure by the funder and the grantee. Why? In 2008, 720 new campers were enrolled and incentivized in JWest Camps, as opposed to 1,000 set forth as the goal.  In 2009, 626 first time campers enrolled, 43% less than the 1,100 camper goal.  The retention rate of 1^st year campers was 58% versus a goal of 80%.

An independent evaluation revealed that three obstacles stood in the way of a successful future for these investments, some of which may have been discovered with even greater time dedicated to planning.  One obstacle was that the requirements dictated that eligible overnight camps be at least three weeks long. While this is a common camp session length in the east and Midwest, this requirement does not account for differences in school schedules in the west making three week sessions an unlikely option for many campers, excluding a large portion of the eligible pool.  A second obstacle was the duration of time for incentives.  They were offered in decreasing amounts for two years, although parents found it more compelling if the same amount of money was spread over three years.  Finally, the goals for retention were taken from similar programs elsewhere in the country, not taking into account income levels and accessibility for west coast families. All of these changes were accounted for in a revised award letter in July 2009, which also included a no-cost extension of two additional years.

The end result of the grant, among other measured outputs and outcomes, was 3,342 first time campers who received JWest incentives (as opposed to a goal of 3,000) and 60% of Jewish campers who self-reported an increase in Jewish involvement in their personal lives.  A key learning from this investment is that even when adapting an existing program, a period of planning should be included.  Thankfully, the openness of both the Jim Joseph Foundation and the Foundation for Jewish Camp allowed for the critical mid-course corrections.

But the key lesson is that these corrections might not have been necessary if appropriate time and resources had been dedicated to planning.  Perhaps this lesson can be the impetus for both grantmakers and grantseekers to work more closely together for extended periods of time. Both parties—and their grant beneficiaries—will be better positioned for success and long-term, positive outcomes.