I appreciate your comment and the added ways of understanding what contributes to dysfunctionality in funder-grantee relationsips. I also want to say that your book “The Nonprofit Outcomes Toolbox” is a very useful contribution to the field.

David Hunter

Thanks for your comment. You raise several issues that by themselves merit extensive consideration. I’ll say a few things about each, and probably will blog about them in the future – going more in depth.

The first issue has to do with programs that, when evaluated rigorously, are shown to be ineffective. The question is: Why does this happen so often? I think there are several reasons, which I’ll tick off here as they come to mind.
First, many programs are designed with little reference to existing knowledge of what works and doesn’t work. Sometimes this is done by poorly informed direct service agencies, other times by funders with ideas they take to be innovative and inherently worthy. There is enormous opportunity cost to this.
Secondly, even when programs are well designed and evidence-grounded, the organizations that implement them often have not built the necessary capacities and competencies to do so reliably, sustainably, at high levels of quality, nor effectively. So in fact if implemented well, some percentage of programs that evaluations show don’t work could well be effective if they were offered by organizations that can deliver them well. Both direct service agencies and funders often miss this point. And it is worth pointing out that this has two opportunity costs: to itended benefiaaries who get little or nothing from the services intended to help them; and to the social sector at large, which has lost an oportunity to learn more about what works because it is the program that is identified as not working rather than the organizaiton that is not delivering it as well as is required to get good results.
Thirdly (and related to the second point), many evaluations are undertaken prematurely, often due to funder pressures on direct service agencies to provide proof of results. While I certainly want to see agencies provide such proof, it is destructive to demand this before the agency has built up its operational capacities, with enough organizational depth to manage both implementation and ongoing service delivery well.

On your second point: no we are not doomed. But we are running out of time. The US has the lowest rate of people escaping from poverty among western industrial (and post-industrial) democracies. Contrary to the glib assertions of American “exceptionalism,” we not only have an entrenched class system, it is virtually a caste system. This is not sustainable…nor should it be. How do we get out of this situation? By making wise social investments in the future of our country and its people.

David Hunter

I finally got to read your inaugural blog posts. Needless to say, I agree with everything you wrote.

What you call the “minuet of madness” I – in an interesting example of how certain minds think along similar lines – have several times in the past termed the “dance of deceit,” likening it to the old Soviet era workers’ joke: We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”

While the list of reasons explaining this situation you offered is extensive, it is not exhaustive; and to it I would add four mindsets that continue their grip on both funders and practitioners in spite of ample evidence of their inherent bankruptcy:
1. A historical “certainty” going back at least one hundred years to the effect that, armed with a thorough understanding of social problems, professionals would have no trouble changing these conditions through proper social policies, social action, and direct intervention;
2. An accent on “making services available” –evinced by the overly used term “the underserved community”- rather than making sure that those “services” actually did or resulted in some measurable good;
3. An “activity mindset,” an emotional satisfaction, resulting from the two factors listed above, that seems to come to some from simply “doing the work,” and being, one supposes, on the side of the angels.
4. A tendency in the sector to focus attention on and celebrate the isolated success stories virtually every program can boast, rather than on the larger number of situations where the intervention failed, made no difference, or simply did not have its desired impact.

We operate in a field that, of necessity, relies upon the emotional commitment of individuals to take on the work from which most people simply turn away: working with the poor, the addicted, and the lost; addressing issues ranging from homeless pets to environmental degradation. This is work that should be lauded; and its practitioners are to be honored for often fulfilling the role of society’s conscience by trying to make sure that these issues are not entirely forgotten by a culture more interested in acquiring Ipads and keeping up with the Kardashians. That said, however, if we are brutally honest we must accept the premise that emotional satisfaction is a poor substitute for actual effectiveness; and feeling good about one’s efforts –whether as a practitioner toiling in the fields or as a donor/funder writing a check to support those efforts- in the end cannot be accepted in lieu of significant, measurable, and sustainable progress in changing the negative situations that continue to bedevil our society.

Bob

What do you think can be done to remedy this situation? Are we doomed?

How refreshing (if disquieting!) to see that you are blogging. I am sorry to have missed the last Alliance meeting and hope to see you at the next one. It is amazing to read what transpired there! I just got off the phone with an impressive major foundation in Israel, who is focused on their responsibility, given their privileged position. I stated that “the effectiveness question is paramount to succeed as an investor, since it is clear that philanthropy is only as good as the results of its investments”. They agreed. I could have quoted Christine DeVita, former President, Wallace Foundation just as easily: “Because foundations like ours can only achieve their missions through the work of others, it is important that we have strong and effective partnerships with all our grantees…”

The question of accountability and further legal parameters as the purpose of driving effectiveness is too big for me to tackle. But, the necessity of effective philanthropy for the purpose of doing the right thing, is a topic I am quite passionate about!

I welcome foundation leaders, CSR executives, and other private, corporate or community foundations to engage in the discussion about why they should do anything more than “grant-making”. Let me assist: Clinton’s website clearly states: “The success of our work is measured by a single question: Are people better off now than when we started?” This is an expectation; foundations need to be able to answer “Yes” or have a plan to get to “yes” through their investments.

This is quite different from a focus on efficient philanthropy, where funders are satisfied to be smart money managers to maximize endowments and push minimum amounts of money out the door.

Without the focus on results, stemming from grantee results, we have to question what business half the philanthropic coin is really in.

Thanks David!
Debra