LearnPhilanthropy.net

In the LearnPhilanthropy Symposium agenda, we dared to write part of the ending script:

75 committed players came together in Chicago to engage in field-wide innovation… and to build a vision of a collaborative learning network that could deliver the knowledge, skills and connections to re-shape the future of philanthropy”.

And all of those who were there together did that — and more.

We established critical mass and momentum.

  Moved past organizational silos and agendas.
  Engaged in innovative, participant-driven co-creation.
  Developed pilot ideas.
  Gathered intelligence and got a mandate to expand our market research and engagement.

We created a community of believers motivated to do more.

  Expanded the network of people and organizations working together to build the system.

We defined a plausible path and series of next action steps for achieving this vision.

In other words, we established a community of practitioners from across philanthropy committed to LearnPhilanthropy.

What’s next?

Symposium participants should look for an assessment survey on Monday. We’ll post a copy of the terrific visuals here by the end of the week…and a report within two weeks.

In the meantime, your continued engagement and participation, wisdom, and networks are essential to moving forward. So we invite you to expand the community: tell your friends and colleagues to visit www.LearnPhilanthropy.net for updates.

We are also working on launching the LinkedIn group shortly, so expect an invitation to join this group. And if you haven’t already created a LinkedIn profile, you might want to set one up now: www.LinkedIn.com.

Thanks for all — together we are going up that mountain.

The LearnPhilanthropy team

The LearnPhilanthropy Symposium will be taking place in Chicago on July 28-29. Participants represent a real cross-section of organizations including foundations, affinity groups, regional associations, universities, advisory and consulting firms. Many play a direct role in learning and education for philanthropy. And they overwhelmingly believe that:

• Ongoing learning (developing skills, sharing knowledge) is a key driver of organizational effectiveness in philanthropy: 95% agree/strongly agree
• It’s important to keep skills current and sharp in order to deliver on mission: 95% agree/strongly agree
• The time is right for a collaborative effort to address learning in the field: 80% agree/strongly agree
• There will be increasing emphasis on organizational learning and building organizational capabilities, not just individual capabilities, within and across foundations in the next few years: 78% agree/strongly agree

You can also review the complete results of our pre-Symposium participant survey.

As participants prepare to join us for the Symposium in Chicago, we’re distributing a Reading Package that includes answers to frequently asked questions, summaries of the findings from the working groups, and the Symposium agenda.

Have a look and let us know what you think!

From a small survey of education content and program creators and providers, we learned that providers (at least our sample) are – at least in theory – interested in being part of a system or network that helps grantmakers access their content and materials. It may not surprise you to learn that they are much less interested in paying a subscription fee for the service.

So, how might a LearnPhilanthropy system be sustained?

Because it’s challenging to talk about financing for a system that hasn’t been designed, we will look instead at the likely cost centers for this system or network and a handful of viable ways to pay for it.

I. What are the likely cost centers?

Here’s a starter list – not exhaustive – of some of the big ones.

• Design: like the process we are going through now, the continued design of this system or network could be costly, especially if it continues along this a participatory, inclusive track.
• Build a web-based system: the basic assumption that this system will be web-based (in part) hasn’t wavered. If we assume that the website will be built using open source software, this cost might be reasonable – say under $100K, according to one reputable source.
• Community manager: many scenarios require a full-time (or nearly full time) person who coordinates the network, makes connections between those with knowledge and those with questions, responds to inquiries, communicates about what’s new and exciting, and manages a process of data mining.
• Sustain website: Ongoing costs to manage and keep the website up-to-date
• Promote LearnPhilanthropy to users: We may be able to use highly viral ways to spread the word, but some kind of outreach is likely to be necessary

II. What are possible revenue sources?

It’s useful to distinguish between start-up capital, which is likely to come from foundation grants and ongoing support, which should probably not rely on this source.

• Grant funded or sponsored – Grant funding is a likely source of capital for the development of this system and then perhaps to give it a slight operating cushion. But we make the assumption that we’ll have a stronger, more sustainable system if we have alternate strategies for funding its day-to-day work.
• Fee for users – Grantmakers pay to use the system on top of paying to access programming from content providers. Although grantmakers may be willing to pay for premium content, it may not make sense to create another barrier to access and use of this system
• Fee for providers to list – Providers pay a membership fee for the opportunity to list offerings or access the system’s information and data. Given the findings of the provider survey, this seems a hard sell, unless the system connected providers to significantly more grantmakers or provided them with valuable information that they can’t get otherwise.
• Fee as a percentage of transactional business – Providers pay depending on how much they sell. Although difficult to track, this might be a more appealing system and would provide a bottom-line incentive for the system to create value for its users on both ends. Etsy which connects small sellers of homemade crafts and goods with customers uses this business model. It charges small listing fees (20 cents/item/four month period) and a commission (3.5%) of each sale.
• Advertising sales – Content providers could pay to list their work in prominent ways or other non-education-related, philanthropy-serving organizations could pay to advertise their products and services. Would the for-profit entities in our sector see this as worth paying for? They pay for booth space at conferences, but this is an untested domain.
• Open Source – In an open source business model, the idea is to generate revenue from the ‘Product Halo,’ or ancillary services. For example, LP.Net could generate revenue by selling data that we collect and mine (data on user behavior, data on available content, etc.). We might also consider a consultancy around LearnPhilanthropy.Net that would generate revenue – working with individual foundations to assess learning needs and develop learning programs, consulting with content providers around material and program development and dissemination, etc. SERMO.com, an online community for medical doctors, is an example of a site that is free to users but generates income by selling access to anonymous community data.

III. Here’s what we want to know from you:

We’d like to know what you think of all this! Do you think that we’ve made a realistic assessment of costs and potential revenue streams?

What other cost centers should we consider?

Are there other sources of revenue that we should explore?

The Business Modeling Working Group has been responsible for investigating the marketplace for grantmaker education and learning and beginning to think about a sustainable business model for a grantmaker education/learning system.

In preparation for the Learn Philanthropy Symposium at the end of July, we want to share some key impressions of how the current system works from the perspective of providers of educational content, programming, and resources.

I. Who are we talking about?

We segmented provider stakeholders into five overlapping categories.

Content Creators…Producers & Presenters…Content Curators…Content Syndicators…Learning Facilitators…

1. Content creators: These organizations promote and sell specialized content, including materials, research services and reports, internal learning processes, and experiences to colleagues who then disseminate it and/or directly to grantmakers.
2. Content producers & providers: Some organizations both create their own content and disseminate or host content from others. Like a regional national public radio station, these organizations produce and adapt unique content that is mainly of interest to their region or interest audience. They may produce content that would have a wider – national or international – audience¹. And they also purchase content from colleague organizations across philanthropy and beyond.
3. Content Curators: Organizations that select and purchase content from other organizations and package it for their members or constituents. These organizations may customize the content for their particular audience or region.
4. Content syndicators: Organizations that identify and acquire content from other organizations and distribute it widely, providing an organizing and synthesizing function. Although we haven’t actually come across any pure syndicators in philanthropy, we imagine they exist.
5. Learning facilitators: Content providers in all categories may also facilitate philanthropy learning by providing spaces for grantmakers, donors, and others to share and gain tacit knowledge. These spaces can take the form of informal networking opportunities at conferences, workshops, list-serves, peer learning networks, and communities of practice. Because so much about the practice of philanthropy and governing/managing a philanthropic organization remains un-codified – and because humans simply learn best this way – this peer-to-peer learning is probably where some of the most meaningful learning happens².

II. What do we know about the current system for grantmaker learning?

Based on a small survey of philanthropy content creators and providers (29 distinct philanthropy support organizations responded) we have some early data about how the system works now. Here are three key points:

1. The current “system” of grantmaker education is characterized by individually priced and offered content and experiences, developed based largely on each provider’s individual understanding of the interests and needs of its constituents. Of the survey respondents, 70% expressed that “ear to the ground” or informal conversations with members or constituents was a primary mechanism for deciding what to produce or offer in any given year. In contrast, only 20% said that they analyzed what was available from other content providers when deciding what to create or offer next and only 10% responded that a codified framework of any sort factored into their decision-making process.



2. Philanthropy support groups cover their costs for content creation and dissemination in a variety of ways, relying heavily on member dues and supplemental grant funding. Many membership organizations build some or all of the costs for programming into their membership dues structures or pull from general operating funds and charge nothing or very little. A few develop pricing structures that cover all or some of the true costs of developing and disseminating knowledge. Between these extremes are the many organizations that offset content creation and/or dissemination through a combination of membership dues, program-specific sponsorships and restricted grants, and fees that cover some portion of additional expenses. Most funding for the research and development of new programs and materials comes from only a handful of large foundations.
3. Most organizations surveyed seek to defray some costs through fees, but don’t cover their costs this way. Content providers generally assume that their members and constituents are highly sensitive to price. As a result, most (70%) charge fees that don’t cover their costs. 15% of those surveyed cover their costs and break even, and 15% said that their fees generate revenue above and beyond costs.

A quick scan of pricing for an identical offering, such as the “Essential Skills and Strategies” program offered by the Council on Foundations and regional associations reveals a range of pricing for this two-day course, from $250 to $495. This disparity speaks to regional differences, variations between grantmaker types, and the different desirability of content, but it may also speak to the particular cultures that have grown up among different groups of grantmaking organizations.

III. What would providers like to see in a coordinated system for grantmaker learning?

1. Access to everything that’s available – whether free or not – from others in the field (colleague organizations and grantmakers).
2. Real-time data on educational offerings, pricing, content gaps, and user behavior.
3. A core set of materials and programming as a standard for all grantmakers to have in common.
4. A central portal through which all content providers could advertise and sell content
5. A consistent framework for learning that describes skills and competencies

Summary of Provider Comments about System Attributes

IV. Here’s what we want to know from you:

Does this data resonate with your own experience providing (or purchasing) philanthropy educational programming or materials?

What other observations do you have about the way that providers of grantmaker learning operate?

In our next post, we’ll explore the costs and potential revenue sources for a more coordinated system of grantmaker learning. Stay tuned for more fun on the Supply Side!

¹Like Fresh Air from WHYY in Philadelphia, for example.

²There’s a reason why many of us go to philanthropy conferences mainly for the hallway conversations and side meetings.

The following is a distillation of the work of the Knowledge and Content Working Group, in preparation for the LearnPhilanthropy Symposium in Chicago at the end of July.

We believe the field is at an inflection point.  Today, as a field of practice philanthropy seems to have developed a new state of readiness to collaboratively identify, manage and leverage critical learning opportunities in order to achieve mission-driven results.

Who are the Learners in Philanthropy?

We believe this system can and should provide pathways to entry for all grantmakers including:

• current providers of formal learning and education programs for grantmakers
• staff and trustees of the 4,600 foundations that employ staff
• donors and trustees of unstaffed foundations that are current members of one or more infrastructure organizations in philanthropy
• participants in giving circles, social investors, and trustees managing multiple trusts.

With the understanding that grantmakers often self-select along the following dimensions:

• Role and responsibilities within the foundation or grantmaking organization;
• Mission, goals, culture including: issue focus; geography; overall strategic approach; strategy components;
• Organization type and asset size;
• Level of experience within and outside of the philanthropic context.

While individual-level learning is important, successful action often springs from awareness and understanding at the organizational and field levels.  We therefore believe it is important to structure specific, focused learning opportunities that relate to individual needs but are organized around collaborative problem solving at three levels:

In short, we recommend that a grantmaker education system meet practitioners where they are, is focused on the desired result and enables the learner to self-select according to need and priority. Bringing greater awareness, coordination and coherence to the first, individual level will in itself represent a significant achievement.  Developing more focused organizational- and field-level learning opportunities may unlock as yet unidentified transformative potential.

What Knowledge and Content Do They Need?

Grantmakers at all levels of experience draw on two kinds of knowledge – tacit and explicit – that are in constant interaction and continually replenished through action-oriented, reflective practice.

• Explicit knowledge.  Understanding essential practices: codified tools, products. Profession.
• Tacit knowledge.   Learning by doing: intelligent experimentation, insights, experiences. Craft.
• Generative knowledge.  Transforming internally: Adapt, refine, innovate. Reflective practice.

We believe that the diffusion of knowledge and translating knowledge into action requires reflective practice, and therefore recommend that the system focus on building generative knowledge.

Specific knowledge and content needs vary according to grantmakers’ mission, goals, structure and context and, ultimately, individual roles and competencies. We’ve scanned the sector for existing, high-quality examples of frameworks that illustrate a range of perspectives on roles and competencies in a variety of operating contexts, with the understanding that most grantmakers work within multiple frameworks; they include a mix of knowledge (what grantmakers should know) and competencies (what grantmakers should be expected to do).

What frameworks do you draw on?  What do you wish you had, but don’t?

Optimal Learning Processes

As a field, philanthropy has reached an important juncture: a critical mass of core offerings is now enabling grantmakers and providers of all kinds to more readily see where they “fit” in relation to current learning and peer practices. Designing the system as an open, collaborative network will encourage users to identify their priority needs and providers to innovate around program development and delivery.

We think there are opportunities to:

• Offer a comprehensive range of information and instructional methods, with an emphasis on action/peer learning;
• Prioritize in-person engagement and embrace technology and on-line learning environments;
• Facilitate the development of tools that enable learners to set, chart and share their learning paths to foster continuous learning (including those with line responsibility for staff development/organizational learning).
• Ensure assessment practices are embedded in its infrastructure to validate the quality of the system and track its relationship to practice effectiveness over time;
• Go beyond “grantmaker education” to coordinate learning among providers, academic researchers, other practitioners and grantees;
• Utilize information analytics to develop and inform a research agenda focused on field-level learning.

Please tell us about your best – and worst – learning engagement in philanthropy:  why did it work?  Or not?  How can we learn from your experience?

Over the last several months, a core group of consultants and volunteers from the world of Philanthropy have been exploring ideas about a field-wide system for learning and development.  As with many explorations, we thought having some maps might be helpful guides.  One map that seemed crucial was to understand what the people who might use the system would need for the initiative to be successful.  Though by no means exhaustive, the Learn Philanthropy Initiative core team engaged in several surveys to create the user needs map. We reached out to members of the evolving LearnPhilanthropy.net community and received nearly 300 responses from the user survey that is still posted there gathering additional data.  We also used an independent polling organization called Hart Research in Washington, D.C. to run a longer and more detailed survey for us and we asked participants in the Council on Foundations Annual Conference in Denver to complete a survey in their information packets.

Listed below are some information nuggets culled from the responses we received.  Those of us helping facilitate the Learn Philanthropy Initiative are interested in your reactions to the data.  Do you think it passes the “gut test” where your gut says, “Yes, that represents the field.”  Does any of the data surprise you or make you think?  Do you see anything on the list that we should pay particular attention to as we begin to solicit ideas about how to create the field-wide system that so many grantmakers want and need?

• Respondents want a multi-focused system:  field-wide catalog (67%); education and training outlines relative to common career paths (59%); and providing education or materials in addition to what currently exists in the field (58%). [HART]
• Respondents expect to pay ala carte for each offering (73%) but also expect membership fees (54%), and grants (50%) to support a field-wide system. [HART]
• Most organizations (56%) do not have someone formally tasked with training and learning. In organizations with 10 or fewer staff, the Executive Director/President is mentioned as the most frequent decision maker (40%).  In organizations with 11 or greater paid staff, supervisors are cited by 25% of the respondents as the decision maker. [HART]
• Learning that includes networking seems most popular. In the last two years, professional development for respondents has included: Conferences (89%) and Informal Networking (82%).  Online webinars and workshops (81%) are also preferred.  Face-to-face instruction (61%); blogs & publications (51%) and tools or kits (28%) were mentioned less often. [HART]
• Networking (20%) and General management/leadership skills (20%) were also considered the most beneficial kind of development with other topics ranging from 10-15%. [HART]
• Leading and Managing is of greatest interest to respondents with more than 10 years experience in philanthropy (52%). Those with less than 10 years experience also rate leading and managing high (50%), but they seek opportunities to learn grantmaking (57%) most of all. [HART]
• Less than 50% of all respondents say they have access to quality learning opportunities with the exception of those with more than 10 years experience who say they do have access to quality grantmaking learning opportunities (53%).  For the same subject, only 32% of those with less than 10 years experience can say the same. [HART]
• In both surveys, respondents rely on “self-directed” to guide their development and training activities (75/72%).  Affinity Groups (54/54%); National Associations (53/50%); Regional (49/37%) and Local Associations (48/33%) were also mentioned.
• The top preference for a field-wide grantmaker education system is that it include a digital library of downloadable tools and documents specific to learning needs (69%).  A central catalog/list of online and offline offerings from multiple providers is the second most popular feature (65%). [HART]
• Less experienced staff are more interested in having a place to post questions and share information (53%).  They also prefer 48% to 36% having a jobs board and a system for matching mentors and mentees (48% to 33%) compared to more experienced staff.  [HART]
• Independent (32%) and Family (26%) make up half the respondents. Community (14%), Public (12%), Corporate (6%), Private (2%) make up the other half. [HART]. We had somewhat greater participation from Corporate (11% vs. 6%) and Community Foundations (17% vs. 11%) in the LearnPhilanthropy.net survey vs. the HART survey.  95% of those responding to HART and 93% to LP.net are paid staff.
• In the HART survey 53% of the respondents come from foundations with assets of less than $100 million vs. LP.net at 57%.  In the HART survey 54% come from organizations with fewer than 11 paid staff and on LP.net it was similar with 55%.
• 44% of respondents are in grants management/administration roles and 39% are program officers or other program professionals. The next highest response came from CEOs (17%). [HART]
• 57% of those responding to the HART survey belong to an Affinity Group; 47% to COF; 47% to the Grant Managers Network; 38% to Regional Association of Grantmakers.

We also invite other data – if your organization has some information or a perspective to share with this burgeoning community of practice, contact me (userneeds@learnphilanthropy.net) and I’ll incorporate the information into the other user needs mapping materials. Tell us your thoughts in the comments here on LearnPhilanthropy.net, we’re interested in having a robust discussion about grantmaker education and the how to build the network of knowledge that supports the work of philanthropy.

By Marie Colombo

Foundations enjoy a unique and privileged status by virtue of their guaranteed assets coupled  with a special tax status that requires them to exist for the public good, while allowing great flexibility in their activities. This privilege demands that foundations use their resources well. This includes a commitment to excellence  through learning and knowledge generation. Today every foundation, the unstaffed to the behemoth, can access unprecedented amounts of practice and content information. The challenge is to recognize that knowledge is important philanthropic currency and to develop the culture, habits, practice and unflagging commitment to learning to improve, for the individual, the organization and the field.

This is not news; there is much talk and activity in philanthropy about learning, evaluation and knowledge management in the service of effectiveness and impact. My own foundation provides an example of a medium-size organization with a knowledge management position.

The Skillman Foundation made the explicit commitment in 2006 to more purposeful learning as it embarked on an ambitious, ten year comprehensive community change initiative. As we prepared for the complex multi-site, multi-partner work we drew from existing knowledge in the field. But that was just the first step; Foundation leadership recognized that the practice of continuous learning by doing would be critical to success.

The challenge of keeping everyone moving forward together with discipline requires an adaptive stance that incorporates new knowledge generated by ongoing action while staying focused on intended results. Recognizing the importance and challenges of creating a learning culture, Foundation leadership developed a learning and evaluation team that is deeply engaged in the work and focused on advancing success. The learning team worked intensively with staff and partners to develop an evaluation framework including interim benchmarks and long term goals. Linking staff work plans, professional development opportunities and performance appraisals to the framework helps staff develop their personal learning agenda while focusing on highest priority activities. While continuous internal organizational learning is essential, learning in partnership with grantees and residents and across other grant making organizations is also critical to success. Foundation activities such as monthly information and data-sharing Learning Partnership meetings; quarterly neighborhood Lunch and Learns; and topical Learning Circles are important venues for collaboration with stakeholders. Foundation staff also regularly participates in a variety of informal and formal learning opportunities with grant makers and others through working groups, webinars and professional conferences.

However, even with the explicit commitment and practices around learning, urgency and opportunity often trump execution. The challenge is making the time and space and having the right tools for rapidly assessing, distilling, reflecting and generating the knowledge that can accelerate impact.

What kinds of commitments are you or your organization making to learn better, and do better?

What’s working…. and what’s not?

Marie Colombo is Senior Program Officer, Knowledge Management at The Skillman Foundation in Detroit, Michigan.

(Image “Macro Photography-Colour Pencils” by Flickr user tasumi1968 licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic.)

“We never charge our members anything for programs – those costs are built into membership dues.”

“We price things to cover the full costs, direct and indirect… grantmakers will pay for quality programming.”

“Our grantmakers would never pay those prices. We just charge a nominal fee to cover food and materials. Sponsorships cover the rest.”

Are grantmakers willing to pay full price for educational programs and materials? A quick scan of the field would tell you… “No.” Or… “Yes, but only in the Pacific Northwest.” Or… “Maybe sometimes for programs from Harvard.” Or… “Full price – what’s that?”

Cast your eye across the educational calendars of philanthropy associations and support organizations and you’ll see a broad range of pricing strategies ranging from free to costly. Sometimes, in fact, the same program will be priced quite differently by different organizations.

So how do we account for such a wide range of pricing strategies?

LearnPhilanthropy.Net has just launched a survey to learn more about how education providers in the philanthropic sector think about pricing and cost recovery.  While we wait for some data, we’ve been percolating some ideas.

One argument: there are deep cultural differences by region, interest area, or funder type. Funders in X simply won’t pay what funders in Y will pay. Is it possible that philanthropy infrastructure organizations have created these cultural differences by consistently failing to acknowledge – let alone make transparent – the true costs of developing high quality educational programming?

Another argument: philanthropy support organizations are afraid to charge real prices, because they fear that doing so would cause them to lose the grantmaker audience for their programs. And experience – at least in the short term – has borne that out. Most philanthropy support organizations can’t risk their budgets and reputations long enough to see whether their members and constituents would eventually come around to higher (and more real) prices.

Often, we just want grantmakers to attend our programs. The important thing, we tell ourselves, is that grantmakers come and learn – even if we can’t cover our costs. This model has been sustained thanks to subsidies for experimentation and new program development. And now? Not so much.

What do you think? Will grantmakers pay true costs for high quality educational programming?

We think the answer is: yes.
And we think learning is what enables individuals to adjust their thinking and improve over time.  As a field, we think it IS possible to identify what is most critical to learn and do in order to achieve the results we seek.  Which just may mean the difference between good and great.

We represent the Knowledge & Content Working Group, which is gathering resources on the knowledge and practices that are most essential for grantmakers of all kinds to not just excel in their roles.
  
The following description of effective philanthropy is guiding our thinking:  “Effective philanthropy is philanthropy that has impact. It is philanthropy that succeeds at amassing, managing, then allocating financial and human resources in ways that have the greatest positive impact in the sectors that foundations choose to fund” (Mary Ellen Capek and Molly Mead, in Effective Philanthropy: Organizational Success through Deep Diversity and Gender Equality. Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press, September 2007).
  
Does this description of effectiveness resonate with you?
  
Is there a difference between good and great philanthropy?

What knowledge and practices do YOU think are essential to get us there?

- Vicki Rosenberg and Dara Major