Document Actions
Conclusions
Filed Under:
Engagement is a critical part of the style defined by a donor. It has implications not only for the overall fit and alignment of the giving strategy, but it also has very clear implications of the nonprofit organizations that are on the other side of the table.
Finding a level of engagement that both satisfies the donor and that adds value to the recipient organization is not always easy. Sometimes there will be a misalignment between a donor that wants a lot of publicity and a cause or organization that simply cannot mobilize the attention that is sought. Other times, donors will want a relatively low level of engagement, but end up funding an organization that continuously seeks to draw the donor into the organization’s governance.
Engagement levels are thus like many other elements of the strategic puzzle in philanthropy: They are variable and contextually defined by the interplay of public purposes and private values.
Engagement is something that must neither be declared by donor fiat, nor postulated by a recipient. Instead, engagement needs to emerge from communication between the two parties and should aim toward finding a level of fit and alignment that will satisfy both sides of the philanthropic exchange.
Notes:
Christine W. Letts and William P. Ryan (2003: 26) focus on high engagement philanthropy, which they define as “a performance-centered strategy where alignment, reliable money and strategy coaching are used together to convert a grant-making relationship into an accountability relationship that uses power to improve performance.”
On the trend toward disintermediation in philanthropy and higher donor engagement, see Frumkin (2000).
Careful selection of grantees can reduce the need for heavy engagement later on. For a short list of what grantmakers need to consider before making a grant, see Lurie (1988).
Reading and interpreting financial statements requires practice and skill. For an introductory guide, see Stevens (1989).
For a landscape of philanthropic support of the arts, see Wyszomirski (1999).
Engagement is often constrained by institutional identity. A discussion of the way leaders and boards negotiate roles can be found in Center for Effective Philanthropy (2004). See also McFarlan (1999).
Finding a level of engagement that both satisfies the donor and that adds value to the recipient organization is not always easy. Sometimes there will be a misalignment between a donor that wants a lot of publicity and a cause or organization that simply cannot mobilize the attention that is sought. Other times, donors will want a relatively low level of engagement, but end up funding an organization that continuously seeks to draw the donor into the organization’s governance.
Engagement levels are thus like many other elements of the strategic puzzle in philanthropy: They are variable and contextually defined by the interplay of public purposes and private values.
Engagement is something that must neither be declared by donor fiat, nor postulated by a recipient. Instead, engagement needs to emerge from communication between the two parties and should aim toward finding a level of fit and alignment that will satisfy both sides of the philanthropic exchange.
Notes:
Christine W. Letts and William P. Ryan (2003: 26) focus on high engagement philanthropy, which they define as “a performance-centered strategy where alignment, reliable money and strategy coaching are used together to convert a grant-making relationship into an accountability relationship that uses power to improve performance.”
On the trend toward disintermediation in philanthropy and higher donor engagement, see Frumkin (2000).
Careful selection of grantees can reduce the need for heavy engagement later on. For a short list of what grantmakers need to consider before making a grant, see Lurie (1988).
Reading and interpreting financial statements requires practice and skill. For an introductory guide, see Stevens (1989).
For a landscape of philanthropic support of the arts, see Wyszomirski (1999).
Engagement is often constrained by institutional identity. A discussion of the way leaders and boards negotiate roles can be found in Center for Effective Philanthropy (2004). See also McFarlan (1999).
