The Foundation has the potential to broaden its focus and reorient its work for a more lasting impact. But while making a decision may be relatively easy, the process of actually implementing change is much more difficult.
Here are four lessons based on our experience that apply to funders and philanthropists interested in expanding their mission.
1. Establish a new connection. Most foundations are risk-averse, and when they find an organization that does a great job, they choose it for the long term rather than looking for new partners. However, foundations that choose to change their mission often need to start over.
Deny funding to long-term grantees that no longer align with our goals, even if those grantees are doing well. This can sometimes be heartbreaking. We engage in dialogue with all grantees and strive to maintain flexible relationships with organizations interested in pursuing or deepening intergenerational working methods.
But in some cases, we need to part ways with regret but amicably. On the positive side, changing our focus and goals has allowed us to discover and invest in some amazing new teams in our own back-up.
For example, we learned that the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Los Angeles Harbor is bringing in retired volunteers to work with the young people they serve with incredible results. Since then, the club has become a close partner and continues to integrate new intergenerational activities into its operation.
2. Research, then study more. Becoming a subject matter expert is essential for funders looking to take an expanded, multi-issue-oriented approach. Often, there are no guidelines on how to effectively fund new areas of innovation. Funders must define paths for themselves and know what they are doing. It takes a lot of research.
Let's start by asking ourselves: What is the latest innovation in a certain programme area? What does the study show? What are the demographic trends supporting our efforts? Which items work and which don't? We read extensively and met with all the people we could identify as knowledgeable about intergenerational planning. Not only does this give us the opportunity to disburse useful grants, but it also earns trust in this small but growing community.
We spoke with researchers at Stanford University and the University of Southern California who understand how the longevity problem is headed. We spoke with nonprofit leaders like Naila Bolus, head of the Jumpstart project, who runs a children's organization but tries to include seniors in her work. We spoke to experts like Donna Butts of the Generations United Project and Nancy Henkin at Temple University who have long worked in the cross-generational field but have not entered the philanthropic world.
As a result, we became experts in this field, which would not have been possible if we had taken a general approach to funding. In particular, we learned that to be successful, intergenerational programs must consciously bring together older and younger participants. A project can't simply put them in a room and wait for meaningful connections to happen on their own. The project also needed to treat both groups as resources and measure their mutual impact. Without extensive discussion by experts in the field, we would not have gained the depth of knowledge needed to effectively support and promote intergenerational action.
3. Rethink the basic principles. Foundations that make a major mission shift need to rethink many aspects of how they operate and what they need to do to achieve new goals. In other words, they need to move away from the "we've always been the same" management mindset and look at everything from a new perspective.
At the Eisner Foundation, we have redesigned our website, social media pages, and logo to reflect our new intergenerational mission. We also adjusted the application materials, the councils we served, and who we hired and what positions we held. At the same time, starting over with mostly new recipients gives us the freedom to take more risks and choose who and what money to fund. For the first time, we funded advocacy, we invested in research, and we launched a grant program for small nonprofits that don't have the track record of success we typically demand when facing more established partners. We can be who we want to be.
Of course, like any "new" organization, we made some newbie mistakes. The organizations we fund without proven success sometimes fail to deliver, and one even goes out of business when we give six-figure grants and support their work. We invest in research projects that sound promising for us to advance the intergenerational field, but ultimately have little value for the public. Even so, our council is confident that, as employees, we know where we are going and that we have chosen the right path. The Council stood by our side, and even though we stumbled a little, it helped us find a more reliable footing.
4. Consider changing the amount of grants. Foundations with a new blank directory may also consider changing the size of the grants they offer, including grants that may offer fewer but higher amounts. Before shifting our focus to intergenerational projects, we provided general operating grants of approximately $100,000 per year primarily to grantees. Once we started working with them, we were less willing to turn them down unless they had a leadership change or a noticeable performance decline. This practice solidifies the amount of our grants. With relatively small grants and low "stakes," we are unlikely to insist on a seat at the table. We don't feel we have the right to come up with or recommend new ideas. We are "giving" rather than "investing". But when there was new freedom, we decided to provide more money to fewer organizations. We've even provided several seven-figure funding.
Larger funding volumes give our grantees the flexibility, security, and courage to pursue innovative and entrepreneurial approaches. It also encourages us to have the courage to share our views with organizations when offered to sit us down at the negotiating table and to help them avoid potential difficulties. We became partners, not just donors. For example, at the Motion Picture and Television Fund, an organization that supports members of the entertainment industry, staff are developing an innovative new software program to better support an outreach community service program that examines the health of seniors. We gave a large donation early on, allowing us to participate in the planning process, brainstorm ideas about its potential future applications, and connect other grantees with projects it scales.
In addition, we are calling and visiting the organizations we fund more frequently and are interested in developing partnerships through a trust-based approach. We have fewer recipients, but they are committed to our dedication and dedication. Many have even asked us to participate in their strategic planning process, giving us the opportunity to envision their long-term future together.
Reprinted from Stanford Social Innovation Review
Hanzheng Family Office, focusing on family inheritance, foundations and trusts! For more information, please search [Hanzheng Family Office] to the official website