OPINION
What’s the Problem With Strategic Philanthropy?
By SUSAN BERRESFORD
STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY is a sound and valuable approach to giving, but many nonprofit leaders raise
questions about the idea in private.
Because so many seem reluctant to
voice their concerns about strategic
philanthropy, it’s time to consider the
kinds of worries one hears regularly
from grantees and even from a few donors. Here are some I have collected:
Grantee: “The work I am doing is
at a very early stage of innovation. Of
course, I will go through the motion of
repeatedly redrafting my proposal to
fit various donors’ strategic-planning
requirements. But honestly, the text is
pure speculation, and the multiple revisions are a waste of time for both of us.
The whole process makes me reluctant
to try what is not spelled out in the proposal for fear of igniting a new round of
strategic planning. It all has a deadening effect on how we work.”
Grantee: “The most useful money a foundation ever gave us came as
general support over a three-year period. It enabled me to start some new
lines of work that really put us on the
map. When I got the grant, I had only
the barest sense of these activities and
would not have been confident about
spelling them out for fear of not delivering. The foundation’s patience and trust
in us empowered the organization.”
Grantee: “I am not against having
a theory of change; developing one on
our own a few years back was very help-
ful and sharpened our thinking. But I
must say, in 12 years of raising mon-
ey, I have never once (well, maybe once)
had a program officer call after receiv-
ing a report of ours, dutifully submit-
ted, and ask a question about what we
were learning or investigate further
our practice. This even after multiple
rounds of proposal review and refine-
ment and strategic planning. I assume
they are just too busy.”
It is possible that the
quality of what passes
for “strategic planning”
in too many places
is just plain subpar.
tions] have become more focused on developing portfolios of projects, managing risks, and producing outcomes rather than on listening to communities,
healing deep inequalities, and supporting innovation. With their new strategies and new staff, foundations today
are increasingly treating organizations
like ours not as innovators but as contractors who are hired to deliver donors’
visions.”
Foundation program leader: “I
am trying to strengthen the field of
journalism that is so important to the
success of our democracy. When I report
that our grantees have fostered new
kinds of coverage of crucial topics and
reached wide audiences, my board says:
“So what? What of significance has re-
ally changed?” The board used to ask
us to have ambitious visions of change.
Now their demand for strategies with
near-term results is steering us away
from more ambitious aims.”
These are just a few comments I have
collected over the last year or so. Al-
most all are spoken with strong feel-
ing, laced with a fear that “the donor”
or trustee will hear what they say and
be displeased.
VINCENT STEHLE
Nonprofits Have a Stake in the Latest Debates About Keeping the Internet Open
“Don’t be evil.”
It may sound like the code of
conduct for the fledgling witch-
es and wizards arriving at Hog-
warts. But it is actually the un-
official code of a different clan
of young magicians—the staff
of Google.
The phrase “Don’t be evil” is
even enshrined in the founders’ letter to
Google’s initial public offering to encapsulate a cornerstone of its philosophy to
provide people with unbiased access to
information.
The best way to provide such access
over the Internet can be summarized in
two words—net neutrality.
The idea is that anybody who uses
the Internet will have equal access to
every piece of information available,
without special treatment or discrimination on the part of Internet service
providers, be they cable companies,
phone companies, or public utilities.
And it is a principle that is critical to
the success of nonprofits in the marketplace of ideas.
Net neutrality has been the default
law of the land since the Internet’s
founding more than 40 years
ago. It ensures that all kinds of
information and all people are
treated equally, without special pleading or payments. Advocates of net neutrality point
out that the free and open nature of the Internet has been a
font of innovation and the forge
from which our most dynamic new companies—companies like Google—have
been created.
But in recent years, a battle has
been raging between consumer groups
and telecommunications companies
over the fate of the Internet—whether
it will remain neutral in the way content is delivered or whether phone and
cable companies will be able to offer
special deals featuring their own content. And by comparison, will these
same companies be able to degrade the
experience of content that flows outside
of the entertainment channels they control.
From the start, Google has been
one of the most forceful advocates for
an open Internet. So it was with great
shock and disappointment—and per-
haps even a sense of betrayal among al-
lies and media policy activists—when
Google announced in August a joint
proposal with the phone giant Verizon
over new ways to manage network traf-
fic, one that in particular exempts the
rapidly expanding mobile Internet from
regulations governing network neutral-
ity.
Before the Internet, a nonprofit organization that wanted to make its case
would have had to attract the interest
of somebody in the news or entertainment media. It could attempt to generate a news story that might be covered
by a newspaper or broadcaster. It could
cut a public-service announcement that
might, with some luck, appear for 30 or
60 seconds, frequently at 2 a.m. in front
of an audience of slumbering “viewers”
who forgot to turn off their television
sets. In short, nonprofits were largely
invisible.
The advent of the Internet has resulted in an explosion of meaningful communications between nonprofit organizations and their supporters. Charities
and foundations are now able to tell
their stories without permission, without interpretation—and without the
snoring.
The capacity of nonprofits to communicate directly with their supporters
and constituents has expanded their
ability to generate financial support
and deliver programs that make a difference. And that capacity should not
Continued on Page 35
