Document Actions
Younger Donors and Traditional Foundations
by
afine
—
last modified
2007-01-16 11:14
Filed Under:
Change is already happening with younger donors. Our discussion of the Net-Gen in another chapter of my book describes how wary young people are of large institutions and the likelihood that they will be less institutionally loyal than their parents are.
These attributes are showing themselves in their philanthropy. For instance, DonorsChoose is a website that creates a marketplace for the specific project needs of teachers. A donor can choose a city or a grade level and a specific project and make a contribution to meet all or part of the project costs. Projects tend to be in the hundreds of dollars, not the thousands. Donors giving at least $100 receive a package of photos and thank you notes from the teacher and students.
We have seen that how we work, the process we use to get results, is just as important in the Connected Age as the results themselves. Foundations will find the Connected Age unfriendly to them unless their processes change to meet the expectations and opportunities of the times.
They need transparent decision making and short time frames. For instance, using letters of inquiry, as many foundations now do, is an efficient way to whittle potential grantees down to a manageable number for final decisions by trustees. If you can get your glasses fixed in an hour and send 100,000 protest e-mails to the governor by noon, then you do not want to wait six months for a foundation to make a funding decision.
Staffed foundations represent only a small fraction of the total number of foundations, but they control the lion’s share of philanthropic dollars. Increasing the number and size of staff discretionary grants will create a much more efficient and effective system than the present one. Program officers are on the ground and interacting with activists much more than trustees are, and presumably they have been hired in large part because of their good judgment.
Accountability still counts. If program officers are making ill-advised or disastrous grants with their discretionary funds, they will not be program officers for long.
These attributes are showing themselves in their philanthropy. For instance, DonorsChoose is a website that creates a marketplace for the specific project needs of teachers. A donor can choose a city or a grade level and a specific project and make a contribution to meet all or part of the project costs. Projects tend to be in the hundreds of dollars, not the thousands. Donors giving at least $100 receive a package of photos and thank you notes from the teacher and students.
We have seen that how we work, the process we use to get results, is just as important in the Connected Age as the results themselves. Foundations will find the Connected Age unfriendly to them unless their processes change to meet the expectations and opportunities of the times.
They need transparent decision making and short time frames. For instance, using letters of inquiry, as many foundations now do, is an efficient way to whittle potential grantees down to a manageable number for final decisions by trustees. If you can get your glasses fixed in an hour and send 100,000 protest e-mails to the governor by noon, then you do not want to wait six months for a foundation to make a funding decision.
Staffed foundations represent only a small fraction of the total number of foundations, but they control the lion’s share of philanthropic dollars. Increasing the number and size of staff discretionary grants will create a much more efficient and effective system than the present one. Program officers are on the ground and interacting with activists much more than trustees are, and presumably they have been hired in large part because of their good judgment.
Accountability still counts. If program officers are making ill-advised or disastrous grants with their discretionary funds, they will not be program officers for long.
Clarification
Hi Alison, You wrote, "Staffed foundations represent only a small fraction of the total number of foundations, but they control the lion’s share of philanthropic dollars." I assume you meant to say the lion’s share of foundation philanthropic dollars; individuals give far more than foundations do.
best Robert