An Independent Philanthropic Trust Helen’s Legacy to Victoria, Australia.
-
Upload
marjorie-warner -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of An Independent Philanthropic Trust Helen’s Legacy to Victoria, Australia.
An Independent Philanthropic Trust
Helen’s Legacy to Victoria, Australia
TRUSTTRUST
Established in 1951
Initial corpus of £275,000 – current value $100 million
Grants of between $5-$7 million per year
Total grants to date of over $65 million
Support Victorian Charitable Institutions
Web address: www.hmstrust.org.au
TRUSTTRUST
PRIORITY AREAS
Aged Persons Care and Support
Arts, Culture and Heritage
Community Support
Disabled Care and Support
Employment and Vocational Training
Environment
Health and Medical Research
TRUSTTRUST
APPROACH TO GRANTMAKING
3 Levels of Support:
Respond to each formal application
Strategic applications
Proactive grants
TRUSTTRUST
GIFT RELATIONSHIP
Relationship along a continuum
ResponsiveStrategic
CHARITYCREATIVE
Manage EngageCollaborate
TRUSTTRUST
CATEGORIES OF FUNDING(Grantmaking Tango: Julie Unwin, Baring Foundation)
Meeting immediate need – gift giving
Fostering innovation and new approaches – shopping mode
Supporting organisational development
Working towards systemic change
Type of project informs what type of evaluation should be used
HMS Trust
Works across spectrum
Level of Trust involvement proportional to type of project
Gift-givingSystemic Change
LOWHIGH Portfolio of Grants – balance across the spectrum
Currently: 20% gift giving / charitable; 50% shopping mode / engaged; 30% systemic change/collaborations
Challenge for the Trust
Developing an evidence based approach to funding –
what works and how do you know?
Evaluation – for what purpose?
Trust perspective:
Trust: Mission and Purpose Sourcing and creating knowledge Building networks Making a difference
Grantee perspective:
Delivering service or program Developing internal knowledge Contributing to external knowledge and understanding Engaged in systemic change
What is an evidence based approach
to funding?
Internal Evaluations
Acquittal Reports
Site Visits
External Evaluations
External validation of project or program
Huge amount of literature and resources available
Trust’s responsibility:
Ask for, suggest, find most appropriate methodology Depends on type, scale and cost of project Used when
• Seeking support beyond the pilot
• Transferable – usefulness to others
• Build understanding about an issue – both Trust’s and Grantee’s
• Creating a coalition of interest
Model: Innovate – Evaluate – Disseminate
Innovate Fund innovation and new thinking Directly helping few – indirectly helping the many Replication Importance of shared knowledge, best practice etc
Evaluate Outcome focused Process Focused
Disseminate Example – Telstra Foundation
The Ian Potter Foundation – Australian (Professor Dorothy Scott, Chair, Child Protection, University of South Australia. Previously Executive Officer, Ian Potter Foundation)
PEW Charitable Trust – United States
Founded 1948 $3.8B US Assets $166M US Grantmaking budget 130 staff – 9 in planning and evaluation
Internal Planning and Evaluation Unit
Evaluations funded though grant budget Evaluation: management tool Evaluation: planning tool for Trust staff Evaluation: accountability tool for PEW Board
PEW Charitable Trust – United States
Benefits
Rigorous planning = tighter strategies with more feasible goals
Creation of ‘data rich’ culture = learning from work and improving
More effective investment = understand progress and make mid-course corrections
Bottom Line: Can’t know of impact if don’t evaluate
PEW Charitable Trust – United States
Approach
Integration of planning and evaluation
Culture of evidence-based decision making – evaluate to inform decisions
Strong leadership – CEO Board Support
Saying no is hard but necessary – evidence assists in this process
Annual planning cycle – creates need for data, culture where evidence matters
PEW Charitable Trust – United States
Questions to ask during planning
Does the strategy address the root causes of a well-defined
problem?
Is the goal clear, feasible and measurable?
Is the underlying logic sound?
Are the key assumptions and risks identified and addressed?
Are there reasonable milestones?
Are the scope and scale reasonable and commensurate with
resources?
Helen Macpherson Smith Trust
Evaluating Applications Use PEW planning questions - focus on Context
Context Importance of policy environment Multiple audiences
Resource it – the more $’s the better the evaluation
HMS Trust Tailor $’s to Trust’s strategic interest and investment in the
project Typically for larger projects Expensive – usually start at $25,000 Time consuming
Organisational Development
New and emerging area of support
Evaluation - tailor to meet grant expectations
Evaluation can be difficult
Organisational Development (cont’d)
Social Ventures Australia
Developed SVA Social Return Toolset Help non-profits and investors maximise, measure and
communicate social returns they generate Purpose: Tools:
• Triple P Framework
• Organisational Capacity Diagnostic
• Social Return on Investment Tool
www.socialventures.com.au
Working towards Systemic Change
What is the Theory of Social Change?
Who or what has to change to make a difference? How are these people and institutions reached?
Social change
Complex Involves working on several fronts to build constituencies and
pressures for change Embedding systemic reform very challenging Lisbeth Schorr’s book ‘Common Purpose: Strengthening
Families and Neighbourhoods to Rebuild America’
Working towards Systemic Change
Lisbeth Schorr ?’s
Why have so many positively evaluated programs funded by philanthropy never been replicated?
Concludes: failure to bring about reform within the institutions and systems within which programs operate
“… history of efforts to replicate, sustain, and scale up…is dismal. The single most important reason…is the failure to understand the environment within which these programs operate…..the problems arise when the successful pilot program is to expand and thereby threatens the basic political and bureaucratic arrangements that he held sway over decades.”
Working towards Systemic Change
Theory of Innovation – combination of characteristics (Creative Philanthropy, Helmut Anheier and Diana Leat)
Degree of uncertainty Knowledge Intensive Controversial Reaches over established boundaries Innovation and adoption of innovative ideas and practice
happens at the margins and not at the centre Innovation encouraged in situations and networks that
involve significant overlap among groups, cultures and perspectives
Working towards Systemic Change
Fostering innovation of itself not sufficient
Ideas often fail to become accepted and implemented – failure of pilots
Foundations often fail to build on creativity to achieve innovations
Foundations need to address the how and the what Compounded by:
• Failure to understand the importance of a dissemination and marketing in getting new approaches adopted and embedded (promotions)
• Undervalue importance of relating to policy and policy-shapers and makers (influence)
Working towards Systemic Change
Creative Philanthropy
“Creativity is making new combinations, seeing new links between existing elements, making up new mixes…”
“Foundations are critical boundary-spanners in modern society, sitting on the edge of an array of institutions, disciplines and professions”.
“Organisations exist in complex and constantly changing social, political, economic, legal and organisational environments that impinge on, constrain, subvert and support courses of action. Certainty is in short supply and workable social plans are usually those that provide a basis for departure rather than a blue print for action.”
Working towards Systemic Change
Creative Philanthropy (cont’d)
Creative philanthropy/Social Change – involves using an array of grantmaking techniques
Change often occurs at a ‘tipping point’
Criteria for impact crosses all funding styles and intents
• Responding to grant applications
• Commissioning specific pieces of work
• Having a long term interest in the issue
Not-for-profit Government
Corporates
COLLABORATION – STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPCOLLABORATION – STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
Community
Working towards Systemic Change
Case Study: Supported Housing
Access to affordable and appropriate housing for disabled people is currently under threat from:
Issues
Previous grants – Supported Housing:
HMS Trust response
How we would be evaluate this response?
Working towards Systemic Change
Evaluation
Measuring impact derived from approach to management that equates management with measurement ie; organisations that are not capable of measuring their achievements are not managing resources carefully
Based on set of managerialist or rationalist assumptions – which may or may not work for business
Ill suited to real world complexity of social change – “Where qualities such as flexibility, serendipity, opportunism and compromise all play a part”
Working towards Systemic Change
Bruce Sievers – Stanford Innovation Review – from Creative Philanthropy
“Measurable outcomes” seem to have become the new mantra in the non-profit world. …. The assumption seems to be that, if only we could get a stronger numerical hold on what happens as a result of non-profit activity….... we could do much better at solving some of the great social problems upon which we are so diligently working.
Let me suggest a heretical view: the fundamental business analogy is flawed…..In addition to the daunting (and ultimately unsolvable) complexities of scale, multi-variables, and causal chains, there is the underlying conceptual problem of imposing reductionist interpretations on social reality. If we look very hard, we soon see that the numbers aren’t wearing any clothes.”
Working towards Systemic Change
Danger: New approach to identifying impact fetters the ability of grantmaking trusts to take risks and explore new ways of working
Who owns the evaluation?
Working towards Systemic Change
Evaluation:
Descriptions of Success (Grantmaking Tango)
Evaluation – (Creative Philanthropy)
Things to Look Out For
Changemakers Australia
Project: Evaluating Social Change
Developing an approach to evaluating social change
projects
Project being undertaken by Associate Professor Patricia
Rogers, CIRCLE (Collaborative Institute for Research
Consulting and Learning in Evaluation) at RMIT and Leslie
Falkiner-Rose as part of a Masters project
www.changemakers.org.au
Foundation Performance
Centre for Effective Philanthropy – www.effectivephilanthropy.org
How well is the Trust or Foundation performing?
No universal measures of return for Foundations (unlike business)
Foundation impact can not reduced to a single number because of problems
Casuality Aggregation Timelines
Need to develop common ‘language of assessment’
Foundation Performance (cont’d)
CEP: focused on developing ‘Indicators of Effectiveness’
Tools include:
• Grantee Perception Report
• Comparative Board Report
• Staff Perception Report
• Operational Benchmarking Report
Foundation Performance (cont’d)
Foundation Effectiveness
(Phil Buchanon: CEP Executive Director – 5 Year Anniversary Celebration)
1. Specific Goals
2. A Strategy
3. Measurable Indicators of Effectiveness
4. Leadership
5. Engagement of Boards