Multi-year, Time-limited Grants and Other Takeaways from Philanthropy’s Early Adopters
I buy an item only if I'm thinking about it days later. The same goes for ideas. I consider the ones that flail around in my head most worthy of consideration.
As I head to this year’s Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), these are the major grant gems that I “bought” from that event last fall.
Multi-year and Time-limited?
Multi-year grants offer reason to celebrate, while time-limited ones bring frustration. The combination of the two might mean up to five years to maximize your partnership with a funder.
On a CGI panel entitled, “Philanthropy Meeting the Moment,” there was repeated talk about this phenomenon. The practice is not new for major grants. What is refreshing is that more funders are encouraging grantees to make the most of their finite grant periods.
James Bildner, CEO of the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, funds his “operating partners” only once and for a limited period of time. Why?
“So there’s no incentive for our grantees to try to re-audition for the next grant. We don’t get [a problem] late when we can’t do anything about it. We get it when we can do something about it.”
You can use these time-bound periods to request significant non-financial support. I have seen grantees ask for and receive introductions, expertise, time, and visibility.
Don’t be afraid to ask for what you need. Foundations want to see their prized grantees succeed long term.
Takeaway: A time-limited grant period creates urgency in nurturing a multi-faceted relationship with your funder.
Risk Adverse No More?
Philanthropies are still more risk averse than grant seekers would like, but many are becoming bolder. The sector relies on foundation executives to raise hard issues with their boards, staff, and grantees. Topics range from funding parameters to issues grantees don’t think much about, such as endowment investment policies.
The Mellon Foundation recently shifted from funding the most advantaged institutions to those that prioritize social justice. Staff severed years-long relationships with grantees that had written Mellon into their annual budgets.
Funders’ risks rarely seem as consequential as those their grantees take. Mellon is sitting on an $9 billion endowment, after all. But when foundations take bigger chances, they incubate cultures that empathize with risks their grantees take every day.
Consider letting your program officers know that you see the risks their institutions are taking and extend your appreciation. That might open the door for you to talk about the uncertainties in your own office. Or, it might invite your feedback on a funder’s emerging strategy. Either way, it engenders a deepened relationship.
Takeaway: When you see funders taking a risk, name it, and empathize.
Generous with Your Funder?
Yes, you hope a foundation’s staff and board contribute to your organization. Don’t let the giving end there.
Show your funders that you value social good beyond your organization alone.
In one example I heard at CGI, a chief development officer (CDO) introduced her peers—potential grantees—to her program officer. The latter rewarded those unselfish actions by introducing this CDO to the foundation’s network. The resulting exposure led to new grants and helped the fund raiser better understand her organization’s place in the philanthropy ecosystem.
Takeaway: Funders appreciate generosity nearly as much as their grantees.
A New Kind of Funder Conversation?
Foundations are hiring and promoting more women, more people of color, more people with differing lived experiences, and more people from outside academia. Their boards are changing, too, albeit slowly.
The philanthropic leaders I met at CGI had me reflecting on their collective diversity as compared to similar cohorts I met earlier in my career.
It’s worth studying your contacts’ bios, writings, online presentations, and what brought them to this work. If you can’t find the information in your research, spend time during meetings to get to know the people, not just the funding preferences.
Takeaway: There are increasing opportunities to align with foundation staff and board members around mutually understood experiences.
The Biggest Takeaway
Is institutional philanthropy bursting out of its stale past? Not quite.
Still, recent trends leave me hopeful. I hear about greater accessibility and empathy from funders and clients alike. Change won’t happen as fast or as fully as I’d like, but for the first time in my career, the progress is tangible.