los angeles foundation leadership group

LOS ANGELES FOUNDATION

LEADERSHIP GROUP

List of Background Readings and

Full Reports

November 13, 2013

Background Readings November 13, 2013

Strategic Philanthropy

An Exchange on Strategic Philanthropy from the Nonprofit Quarterly

“The Problem of Strategic Philanthropy” Bill Schambra, Nonprofit Quarterly August 12, 2013 “Bill Schambra’s Problem with Evidence-Based Philanthropy” Paul Brest, Nonprofit Quarterly August 14, 2013 “It’s Not Herbal Tea: The Hewlett Foundation’s Balanced Approach to Strategic

Philanthropy” Larry Kramer, Nonprofit Quarterly August 14, 2013

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s Youth Development Fund: The Results and Lessons from the First 10 Years William P. Ryan and Barbara E. Taylor September 2013 Foundation/Grantee Relationship Working Well with Grantees: A Guide for Foundation Program Staff Center for Effective Philanthropy August 2013 Nonprofit Challenges: What Foundations Can Do Center for Effective Philanthropy September 2013

Foundation Strategies and Practices

Cracking the Network Code: Four Principles for Grantmakers Jane Wei-Skillern, Nora Silver and Eric Heitz Grantmakers for Effective Organizations July 2013 Gather: The Art and Science of Effective Convening The Monitor Institute, Monitor Deloitte and the Rockefeller Foundation June 2013 Why Contests Improve Philanthropy: Six lessons on designing public prizes for impact Mayur Patel, The Knight Foundation May 2013 Federal Policy on Charitable Giving and Tax-Exempt Organizations “Tax-Exempt Organizations and Charitable Giving” Senate Finance Committee Staff Tax Reform Options for Discussion June 13, 2013

Cracking the Network CodeFour Principles for GrantmakersBy Jane Wei-Skillern, Nora Silver and Eric Heitz

Grantmakers for Eff ective Organizations is a community of more than 410 grantmakers who are challenging the status quo in their fi eld to help grantees achieve more. Understanding that grantmakers are successful only to the extent that their grantees achieve meaningful results, GEO promotes strategies and practices that contribute to grantee success. More information about GEO and resources for grantmakers are available at www.geofunders.org.

Launched in 2010, Scaling What Works is a multiyear learning initiative of GEO to expand the number of grantmakers and public sector funders that are working together to broaden the impact of high-performing nonprofi ts. Th rough the initiative, GEO off ers trainings, networking opportunities and a host of tools and resources to better equip grantmakers to help the nonprofi t organizations they support to plan, adapt and grow their impact in creating sustainable benefi ts for people, their communities and our planet.

1725 DeSales Street NWSuite 404Washington, DC 20036

T: 202.898.1840F: [email protected]

Th is work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available by contacting 202.898.1840 or [email protected]. Th is publication is available in electronic format at www.geofunders.org.

Contents

1Introduction

9Principle 1:Mission, Not Organization

13Principle 2:Trust, Not Control

8Inside the Network Code: Four Principles of the Network Mindset

3Inside Networks

Cracking the Network CodeFour Principles for Grantmakers

Over the past four decades, the nonprofi t sector has matured into a major social force with a well-developed professional class, often delivering excellent results. We know much more about the practices of effective nonprofi t organizations. The list of successes is long, and it’s a safe bet that today’s nonprofi t and philanthropic organizations are, on average, better managed than ever. Yet many social and environmental problems have seen only limited improvements, or in some cases they have worsened.

We know that we need a different mindset to tackle complex, systemic challenges. The sector has been experimenting with new ways to solve intractable problems; coalition and community building, collaboration, collective impact and networks have risen as waves of experimentation that are gradually yielding success. The leaders in these actions — actually, groups of leaders — are fi guring it out. They are working together so that hard-won gains take root. These leaders succeed by adopting a “network mindset” that enables profound change. This publication sets out to crack the code behind that mindset, empowering grantmakers and other leaders to succeed at building networks for social change.

Typically, the leaders who get involved in networks did not set out to create a network. They set out to solve a problem that other attempts had failed to solve. In the words of one grantmaker, “Even though every year our spending was increasing, we became convinced that grantmaking organization by organization was not making real change.” This particular foundation was driven toward transformative change, and it set about to make that happen by fostering several state wide networks to tackle a range of issues. Others interviewed described the alchemy that occurs when passion for change mixes with total frustration with the status quo. The network mindset ensues as a sort of chemical reaction. Frustration and vision push leaders toward an approach that is more likely to deliver results at the massive scale they seek.

Catalyzing Networks for Social Change, published by GEO and the Monitor Institute in 2011, provided an orientation for grantmakers to understand networks for social change and the potential impact of embracing networked ways of working. In February 2013, GEO and four partners published Pathways to Grow Impact, which noted that grantmaker support for networks is useful no matter what strategy organizations are using to grow their impact. In this publication, we will dig deeper into the mindset shifts necessary to be an effective network participant and offer practical recommendations for how grantmakers can support networks.

Introduction

18Principle 3:Humility, Not Brand

21Principle 4:Node, Not Hub

24Conclusion

25Acknowledgments

2 | GRANTMAKERS FOR EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS

The four principles that constitute the network code run counter to many management principles taken for granted among social sector professionals. They include:1

1. MISSION, NOT ORGANIZATION. The network mindset is about advancing the mission even before advancing the organization. Leaders adopt strategies and tactics to achieve the mission, not necessarily to stimulate organizational growth.

2. TRUST, NOT CONTROL. In the network mindset, trust and shared values are far more important than formal control mechanisms such as contracts or accountability systems.

3. HUMILITY, NOT BRAND. Conventional wisdom has organizations promoting their program models, building their brands and striving to be the leaders in their fi eld. In the network mindset, organizations work alongside their peers as equals and willingly take a backseat when their partners are in a better position to lead.

4. NODE, NOT HUB. Those who embrace the network mindset see their organizations as one part of a larger web of activity directed toward a cause, not as the hub of the action.

To be sure, networks include many organizations that have excellent management, good accountability systems, strong brands and market positions, and hub-like statuses. While leaders of such organizations recognize the necessity of these practices, they also remain mindful that embracing collective action (and its accompanying fl uid, dynamic processes) is the best way to achieve results.

The principles identifi ed in this publication enable such organizations to band together to accomplish far more than an equal number of top-notch organizations could by working in isolation. We also explore the implications of these principles for funders — whether they are supporting or working in networks themselves. Understanding the principles can enable grantmakers to achieve the benefi ts and avoid common pitfalls of working through networks.

The fi rst part of this publication, Inside Networks, details several successful networks that are accomplishing goals far in excess of their size and recaps some of the important benefi ts of networks. The second part, Inside the Network Code, describes the counterintuitive principles that constitute the network mindset. Following each principle, readers will fi nd recommendations and examples for grantmakers.

1 The core principles that serve as the basis of this publication were identifi ed in four bedrock case studies on networks from Harvard Business School; author Jane Wei-Skillern was a lead author on each of those papers. They are “Guide Dogs for the Blind Association” (2003), “Habitat for Humanity — Egypt” (2006), “The Energy Foundation” (2008) and “World Wildlife Fund U.S.” (2008).

CRACKING THE NETWORK CODE | 3

The Energy Foundation has been fi ghting for a sustainable energy future for America since the early 1990s. While it operates with a substantial budget of $100 million annually, its resources are dwarfed by the scale of the challenge of global warming.

Yet the impacts of the Energy Foundation’s grantee networks are truly global. Among them are:

• Stimulating a Renewable Energy Economy. Twenty-eight states have adopted renewable energy standards requiring that a specifi c percentage of electricity come from renewable sources. These policy changes will stimulate an $80 billion renewable energy market over the next 15 years.2

• Spurring Dramatic Fuel Savings. Despite major political and industry resistance, the Energy Foundation’s grantee network’s long-term advocacy helped secure the new federal fuel-economy standards that will eliminate more than 680 million tons of carbon dioxide by 2030. The fuel savings of nearly 4 million barrels a day is equivalent to a year’s worth of Persian Gulf oil imports.3

• Creating a Model for Global Change. The Energy Foundation has helped to support the development of allied organizations in Europe, Latin America and India. In China, Energy Foundation grants to think tanks, international nongovernmental organizations and researchers helped Chinese leaders adopt new fuel economy standards and new effi ciency standards for air conditioners and refrigerators. These two policies are projected to save nearly 150 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.4

The Energy Foundation has not achieved these outcomes on its own. In fact, it has been a behind-the-scenes player in most of these efforts, investing in networks to deliver on its mission rather than attempting to go it alone. It regrants its funds to a number of organizations in climate change and clean energy networks, and it seeks to leverage its own resources by mobilizing additional philanthropic dollars that do not fl ow through its organization. With the goal of creating large impact rather than large infrastructure, the Energy Foundation supports and aligns with other funders and grantee organizations at local, regional and national levels.

2 The Energy Foundation, “Annual Report,” 2010. 3 Ibid. 4 Jane Wei-Skillern and Alison Berkley Wagonfeld, “The Energy Foundation,” Harvard Business School Case Study

9-308-078, 2008.

Inside Networks


Despite being a leading funder in the sector, the Energy Foundation may be the largest foundation that most people have never heard of. That is entirely by design. To advance its networks, the organization routinely engages in activities that build the fi eld of energy philanthropy, not just the Energy Foundation as an institution. Its behind-the-scenes status is intentional.

The network approach adopted by the Energy Foundation is shared by many other grantmakers and nonprofi ts who have come to realize that the scale of their visions — relative to their own resources — makes going it alone a futile proposition.

Davids Versus GoliathsThe Energy Foundation and the grantees with which it networks are like the biblical fi gure David challenging the giant Goliath; like David, they use unconventional means. Despite their own strengths, they acknowledge their position of weakness in the face of monumental challenges. Some combination of vision, imagination and dissatisfaction with a future of small-scale improvements compels these organizations to actively engage others in pursuit of their missions.

The David-versus-Goliath, resources-versus-vision problem is a reality for many social sector organizations. This is because the scale of our problems, as in the case of global warming, is vast when compared with our individual resources. These long odds push organizations like the Energy Foundation to bet on networks.

Half a world away from the Energy Foundation, another David is facing down a Goliath housing crisis. Habitat for Humanity Egypt (HFHE) innovated upon the tradition of Habitat for Humanity International by pursuing a creative network approach. Typically, Habitat for Humanity International establishes programs by building new affi liates from the ground up. This slow, arduous process often generates only 30 or 40 houses per year over several years before more signifi cant progress is made. HFHE’s National Director, Yousry Makar, was determined to directly serve 10 percent of the 20 million Egyptians livingin poverty in the next 25 years and to do so in such a way that local capacity could eventually serve the remaining 90 percent in need. His organization had capital and housing program expertise but lacked a number of resources that its peers, indigenous community development organizations, had, such as legal registration to operate independently, staff capacity and deep community relationships. Makar began to weave a network of local community organizations with complementary resources to deliver housing.

Functioning much like an operating foundation, HFHE invested in the local organizations’ capacity to deliver housing programs. This support developed into a loose network of nearly 30 local community development organizations. Within a few years, HFHE went from building 30 houses per year to more than 2,000 annually. Other notable accomplishments include:


• It became a top fi ve performer by cumulative house numbers among Habitat for Humanity International’s nearly 100 country programs.

• It achieved the highest loan repayment rates, averaging more than 99 percent, as compared with an average 75 percent rate for comparable Habitat settings.5

• It achieved a 700 percent production increase with a mere tripling of its annual budget (from $250,000 to $800,000).

Even more remarkably, HFHE’s grants to its network partners enabled some to build suffi cient capacity to attract their own funding and run their programs without support from HFHE. This enabled these partners to exit the partnership, allowing HFHE to reallocate its resources to unserved communities.

As former regional director for Habitat for Humanity International in the Middle East and East Africa, David Haskell oversaw HFHE’s meteoric rise in impact. In that role and his current role as Executive Director of Dreams InDeed International, he has observed many networks functioning in distressed communities. Haskell noted that networking to accomplish goals is the norm among people in poverty. “You have to make ends meet, so you are always fi nding solutions in suboptimal conditions. But beauty comes out of this. Imagine that you were tiling a fl oor. You could use uniform tiles that all fi t together nicely but are rather expensive. Or, if you cannot afford those tiles, you can make a mosaic of discarded tile shards. It winds up far more beautiful and functional than the fi ne tiles. That’s the picture of how you do this networked approach,” he said. “You look around, take stock of the broken and missing pieces, fi gure out how you can support each other, develop trusting relationships so everyone will work together and hang in there, and you fi nally create a multiparty collaborative effort that produces better results than a simple grantor-grantee relationship will ever achieve.” Since any given situation will present a different collection of tile pieces, every network is unique.

The mosaics built by the Energy Foundation, Habitat for Humanity Egypt and other networked organizations are all complex, unique creations, and they arrive at their solutions by very different means. However, networks have a shared approach, captured in the following defi nition:

Networking is the pursuit of mission impact through mobilizing, engaging and supporting trusted, values-aligned peers.

From an operational perspective, networks can enable participants to deliver greater mission impact more effi ciently and effectively without a dramatic expansion of internal organizational capacity and resources.

5 Karan Kennedy, “Poor Repayment Woes,” International Affi liate Update Volume 12 No. 4 (2005): 1–2. Available at http://www.habitat.org/lc/theforum/english/pdf/Volume_12_4.pdf.


Effi ciencyMost nonprofi ts are small, local organizations without access to economies of scale. The network approach opens up some of the benefi ts of scale without necessarily increasing an organization’s size. Habitat for Humanity Egypt is an excellent example, having increased output by 700 percent while growing its budget and staff at a smaller scale.

A second type of effi ciency occurs as network members reduce program redundancies. Most social sector players put client service at the center of their work. This reality of nonprofi t life can be lost on management professionals from other sectors: Programs exist to help clients, so program cuts, even when strategic, are viewed as a loss to clients, a reduction in mission impact and something to undertake only in the most dire circumstances. In networks, participants work alongside their peers and support one another as needed to jointly shoulder the burdens of addressing multiple facets of a problem. Each organization can focus on its core strengths, secure that the cumulative efforts of the full network are meeting clients’ needs.

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (GDBA) provides a prime example of strategically streamlining an organization’s own offerings while at the same time building the capacity of partner organizations to deliver needed programs. The organization is a large service provider for visually impaired people in the United Kingdom. Established initially to provide guide dogs, GDBA had expanded into a range of ancillary programs, including a travel agency and hotels for the visually impaired. The services benefi ted clients, but the programs were outside of GDBA’s core mission to provide mobility services. Moreover, GDBA was not particularly good at running them, and they operated at a continual loss. GDBA realized that peer nonprofi ts, and former competitors in this program area, were better equipped to provide these services and also more committed to them. GDBA gave operating control and all potential profi ts of its travel and hotel programs to organizations that held a shared vision and core programmatic focus in these areas. Furthermore, GDBA invested more than $15 million of its own funds in its partners’ operations to improve program quality and ensure sustainability. It set stipulations regarding program quality to ensure that clients would continue to receive excellent service, but otherwise it shifted full program control without any expectation of return (except, of course, that the losses were stopped and these services complemented its own mobility services). GDBA and its network partners focused on their respective core competencies while ensuring superior mission delivery on behalf of clients. Collectively, they reduced redundancies and unproductive competition in the system while increasing service quantity, quality and sustainability.6

6 Allen Grossman, Jane Wei-Skillern and Kristin Lieb, “Guide Dogs for the Blind Association,” Harvard Business School Case Study 9-303-006, 2003.


Effectiveness

In a network, control is dispersed throughout, and mutual accountability can replace costly bureaucratic enforcement systems typical of large organizations. Habitat for Humanity Egypt achieved its industry-leading loan repayment rate by relying on network members with deep local knowledge and connections. Local community organizations select trustworthy, eligible homeowners, engage them, and adapt training and support to their needs. Community members hold each other accountable for repayment to a far greater degree than HFHE ever could. In one case, a prospective homeowner was denied a loan because his neighbors had not made their payments on time, locking up the loan pool. At Friday prayers, he publicly announced the names of those who had not paid. The loans were repaid the next day. Imagine the delays if HFHE had relied on contracts and slow-moving legal methods to enforce accountability on its own. HFHE achieved phenomenal loan repayment rates by yielding control of program operations to community partners throughout the network.

Another feature of network effectiveness is the rapid development and dissemination of innovations, accomplished because the small-scale participants are close to their clients, which often encourages innovation. At the same time, network members communicate with each other frequently about what’s working in their programs. The result is that innovations emerge and spread rapidly. With their focus on impact rather than compliance with a top-down strategy, networks that from the outside appear chaotic achieve surprisingly powerful results.

Women’s World Banking, the world’s largest global network of microfi nance institutions and banks in terms of number of clients, provides an excellent example of innovation dissemination in a network. The network advocates for better microfi nance policies and teaches affi liates best practices. Much of the network’s strength lies in the support that its members give to each other. WWB network members share product and process innovations, provide technical services, evaluate each other and hold each other accountable for results. For example, in 1997, WWB hosted regional meetings to establish minimum and annual incremental performance standards that would be required of all network members by 2000. Through a consensus-building process, the network members themselves agreed to such high standards — even higher than WWB itself would have dared recommend — that one-third of its own members would struggle to meet them. According to former President Nancy Barry, “To create real networks, you have to believe that the center of an operation does not have a monopoly on truth. You need to trust the people, trust the process.”7

7 James Austin and Susan Harmeling, “Women’s World Banking: Catalytic Change Through Networks,” Harvard Business School Case Study 9-300-050, 1999.

“To create real networks, you have to believe that the center of an operation does not have a monopoly on truth. You need to trust the people, trust the process.”

- Nancy Barry, former president of Women's World Banking


Based on decades of collective experience and research, we have identifi ed four principles that are essential to operating within successful networks. Surprisingly, these principles run contrary to common practice in the philanthropic sector. Conventional wisdom tells us that building strong, well-managed organizations is the most direct path to achieving greater mission impact, and of course effective organizations are necessary. However, larger scale does not always translate directly into comparable gains in impact. Networked organizations focus much more on building relationships among organizations to achieve network-level impacts, rather than on increasing the size of their organizations. Careful consideration of these principles can help grantmakers better support grantees that are involved in networks and engage in networks more effectively themselves.

How do these principles differ from common practice?

1. MISSION, NOT ORGANIZATION. Nonprofi t leaders often focus on their own organizations as the primary vehicles for achieving mission impact. In contrast, network-focused leaders primarily pursue leveraged impact via other organizations rather than through their own organizations’ growth. They routinely invest in others without expectation of direct institutional gain.

2. TRUST, NOT CONTROL. Trust is the currency of networks. Network members recognize mutual dependence, foster emergent solutions as the network learns, invest their respective resources to achieve the shared vision and hold each other mutually accountable for results.

3. HUMILITY, NOT BRAND. The pursuit of impact and recognition often leads to a strong focus on an organization’s brand. To be sure, a strong brand expresses marketplace position, facilitates fundraising and attracts allies. However, in a network, leaders are open to learning, defer to peers when appropriate and focus less on promoting their particular approach and building their own organizations’ brands. When network goals are achieved, participants share credit generously. They intentionally push attention to points in the network that derive the most benefi t from the recognition. They focus more on contribution than attribution.

4. NODE, NOT HUB. Network members think of themselves as nodes in an interconnected network rather than as hubs surrounded by spokes. While each member brings signifi cant resources, all are cognizant of the fact that the contributions of their peers are essential to their own success, and so their choices focus on connecting, aligning and partnering with other actors to contribute to a cause.

Inside the Network Code Four Principles of the Network Mindset


Our culture rewards leaders at the helms of growing organizations. Understandably, increases in funding, staff size, volunteers, programs and other organizational metrics have become a proxy for mission success. Boards, often populated with leaders from the corporate sector, where growth is the key indicator of business success, naturally apply this perspective in their work in the nonprofi t sector. Social sector leaders respond to these cultural expectations by focusing on internal, organization-level activities such as program expansion, revenue growth and replication.

As one leader of a prominent nonprofi t stated, “Mastering collaboration is the most important opportunity to close the gap between achieving pretty good performance and full potential.” While organizational growth certainly can and does contribute to mission impact, signifi cant, sustained impact cannot be achieved through growth alone. Furthermore, growth strains organizational capacity, and funding for sustained growth is notoriously diffi cult to obtain. Even if signifi cant growth is achieved, managing multisite organizations challenges the capacity to coordinate headquarters with branch sites, the dissemination of knowledge and innovation, and collaboration among affi liates.

In contrast, the culture of networks rewards organizations that focus outward, favoring network wide mission results over organization development. It’s not an either-or proposition. “Recognition, resources, and control matter, just not more than impact,” said Mark Burget, executive vice president of The Nature Conservancy. “Impact is more meaningful. Working with others is the right thing to deliver greater impact. Money tends to fl ow when you are collaborative. My experience is that being gracious, respectful and understanding has resulted in more funding. But, as organizations try to differentiate themselves in the marketplace, that differentiation runs counter to the sense of ‘we’re all in this together.’ This is a tension that gets in the way of leaders being fully collaborative.”

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRANTMAKERSMost informants for this publication did not start by overtly trying to use a network approach. Rather, they were passionate about a vision and mission that called for profound change, and their passion opened their eyes to networks as the best option. “Our job is not to perpetuate ourselves but to get the things done,” said Steve McCormick, president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. “Philanthropists must be willing to fi nd, or be found by, the right partners to make meaningful progress on big issues. This may mean working with a range of actors across multiple sectors. In some cases, this may even require funders to follow, rather than lead.” The following recommendations will help grantmakers embrace the principle of mission, not organization.

“Mastering collaboration is the most important opportunity to close the gap between achieving pretty good performance and

full potential.”

- A nonprofi t leader

PRINCIPLE 1 Mission, Not Organization


Give the Network Your Unwavering CommitmentNetwork relationships require signifi cant investment and time to develop, and though the potential impacts are signifi cant, achieving them may take a long time. As a result, grantmakers need to make long-term commitments to the network. This may mean years of investment and behind-the-scenes support. For example, the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund has put 14 years of investment into networks to advance early childhood education in Connecticut, developing deep roots in the community. A decade after the foundation began seeding networks among families, schools and communities throughout the state, it achieved a major policy milestone — an executive order in 2011 from the governor that requires the creation of a coordinated system of early care, education and child development.

Ensure That Boards and Grantmaking Staff Embrace the Network MindsetA commitment to mission over organization may require retraining staff, or recruiting staff who understand and apply the four network principles. One informant mentioned common refrains from potential funders who are interested in networks, but reluctant to take the plunge: “I just don’t think I could sell this to our board. Why does the network have to be so complex? Why do there have to be so many people involved?” The network approach is a fundamentally different way of working, and it may take grantmakers out of their comfort zones. Key decision makers must be equally committed to the vision, the relationships and the operating values of a networked approach.

Funders can train current staff and hire new staff members who have deep experience in networks or whose work history refl ects the four principles, and then give them latitude to pursue the vision. For example, at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, staff members are selected in part on their ability to network effectively, not just on their philanthropic credentials. Steve Downs, chief technology and information offi cer, said, “Professional philanthropic credentials are not weighted the most heavily in hiring program staff. Increasingly, we’re looking at the ability to develop and work within networks as an important skill.” When staff members have experience working in networks, they are skilled at selecting and empowering grantees. These staff members trust that their counterparts in the fi eld are often in a better position to make key decisions that advance the shared vision.

Victoria Hale, CEO of Medicines360, a nonprofi t pharmaceutical company that uses network processes, advised, “Find people who are frustrated with the status quo, so you can steer their passion to the right direction. Build a community of nonprofi t, foundation, government, business and academic leaders, and release the players to do what they do.”


Fund Network-Level CostsOne network funder explained that it pays many of the administrative costs of collaboration and its management, as well as other costs associated with the network’s infrastructure — such as facilitation, meetings and evaluation. The funder is investing in the strategic interests of the network rather than funding to implement its own agenda. Helping a network succeed can mean investing in activities that are essential but decidedly low profi le. This foundation (which asked to remain anonymous) has been a steadfast supporter of these types of costs even when other funders of the network weren’t willing to support them. Because this foundation has been a consistent source of funding, the program offi cer reports that “many local organizations will run long distances with us.” Participants themselves are willing to invest their own resources to advance the network’s impact when they see that they can achieve leverage on their efforts through network members’ mutual commitments to support the network.

Build On Existing Networks and RelationshipsWhen grantmakers have determined that their mission can be served by a network approach, it pays to seek and nurture existing networks. When the Henry P. Kendall Foundation decided to launch a new grantmaking program to focus on the issue of creating a resilient food system in New England, Senior Program Offi cer Courtney Bourns started by learning what was already happening and what was most needed to advance progress in the fi eld. During this process, she came across a regional group of academics and practitioners at the University of New Hampshire who were already imagining how they would build a network to advance an ambitious vision and collaboration toward a healthy, regional food system. Recognizing the importance of such a network, the Kendall Foundation made a grant to the university to kick-start the developing network, rather than building something new. The foundation also pointed the network leaders to other resources they sought, such as facilitation, process design and potential network contacts. In addition, the Kendall Foundation helped to mobilize more funding for the network by inviting other foundation peers to join the network design team and provide funding for needed elements of the new network, such as evaluation. Bourns observed, “A network is more spacious; it allows for unexpected things to happen. Some of the outcomes you get might not be intended, and it’s good to leave room for that.”

Adapt Evaluation Approaches to Network ProcessesWith mission impact as the overarching goal, grantmakers need ways to assess just what impact their support is delivering.8 Network funders we interviewed offered two important cautions regarding the measurement of impacts in a network. First, network impacts are realized over the long term and are rarely, if ever, attributable to one organization. Second, the measurement of outcomes creates incentives and disincentives for the organizations being measured, and funders should therefore be cautious that evaluation doesn’t thwart network building. Measurements of impact often need to include qualitative approaches. For example, asked how network funders can gauge whether a grantee is on the right track, Medicines360’s Victoria

8 GEO’s publication Catalyzing Networks for Social Change (2011, 22–25), co-published with Monitor Institute, includes a set of recommendations for assessing impact and learning across a network. It is available at www.geofunders.org.

“A network is more spacious; it allows for unexpected things to happen. Some of the outcomes you get might not be intended, and it’s good to leave room for that.”

- Courtney Bourns, Henry P. Kendall Foundation


Hale suggested that funders seek answers directly from members of the network. “Look for signs of learning in the grantee. Grantees normally would not tell you that their plans have changed, because they are worried you might not fund them. You want grantees that are not afraid to say, ‘If I had to do it again, this is what I’d do.’ New learning comes from making mistakes without fear of consequences.”

When funders require direct attribution of grant impacts, network members are rewarded for claiming outcomes and credit rather than sharing them, which undermines trust in the network.

An alternative approach is to measure impacts across a community or system, such as reducing rates of poverty or raising high school graduation rates in a particular community. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation tracks macro-level indicators to evaluate its own performance rather than requiring each grantee to report on individual impacts. The foundation uses relatively long, seven- to 10-year timelines to track goals such as a decrease in the prevalence of childhood obesity.

For short-term measures of progress, funders can survey members of the network to learn how well grantees are collectively exhibiting attributes of the four network principles. Those closest to the work are often in a better position to gauge the degree to which members are building bridges and making investments toward the shared vision. Peer review may be less costly and more informative than traditional performance measurement systems. Every situation will be unique and complex, so assessments need to be fl exible. Funders should watch for signs of relationship building, organic partnerships and learning among their grantees as indicators of network health. David Nee of the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund noted his own concern that “the fi eld has gotten so focused on rigor that it is not paying enough attention to relationships.”

QUESTIONS FOR GRANTMAKERSPrinciple 1: Mission, Not OrganizationGive the network your unwavering commitment. • Are we prepared to invest for the long haul and continue our support?

Ensure that boards and grantmaking staff embrace the network mindset.• Who on our current staff already displays the network mindset?• What training can we provide to support staff? • What should we look for in new staff?

Fund network-level costs.

• What types of facilitation, information infrastructure, administration or other needs does the network have, and how can we support them?

• What do the network members themselves say they need?

Build on existing networks and relationships. • Are there existing or emerging networks that our assistance might help? • Who else is working in the fi eld? • What additional resources can we mobilize to support the network?

Adapt evaluation approaches to network processes. • What short-term indicators will reveal network development? • What measures will we use at the network or systems level? • What steps can we take to ensure that measurement doesn’t disrupt the network?


- Chris van Bergeijk, Hawai'i Community Foundation

PRINCIPLE 2

Trust, Not Control Strong relationships, not process, form the foundation for high-functioning networks. Habitat for Humanity Egypt’s staff invests a lot of time in building relationships with community members and community partners. The staff is trained to listen carefully to community members to understand their needs, problems and complaints. While HFHE and its partners have negotiated formal contracts, as required by Habitat for Humanity International in the U.S., mutual trust between parties holds far greater sway than even the most rigorous of contracts.

Though contracts and memoranda of understanding can be quite useful in networks, interpersonal and interorganizational relationships are the strands from which a network is woven. The fundamental driver is a basis of shared values and mutual trust. Even before committing to working together, potential partners explore whether there is a fi t in values (as demonstrated by current and past behavior) and then work to develop trust over time. As the parties in a network see that their peers are acting according to shared values and delivering on their commitments, the trust that binds the relationship strengthens, superseding formal control mechanisms.

Funders often struggle when they try to orchestrate networks and collaborations among grantees. These funder-driven relationships may lack the trust and goodwill among partners that helps collaborations succeed. Many well-intentioned joint initiatives have failed because partners have been selected by others (rather than coalescing via self-selection) and because a key motivation to come to the table is the potential for funding. Partner selection is of the utmost importance in successful networks, and trustworthiness is a key selection variable.

Chris van Bergeijk, vice president and chief operating offi cer of the Hawai‘i Community Foundation, described the challenges of fostering more collaboration among grantees. To identify potential network participants, Hawai‘i Community Foundation’s process involves many informal conversations with leaders in the fi eld. Since many of them know each other well, they are able to identify those with a reputation for working well with others. “You have to make sure you have the right people in the room — not by virtue of who they represent or their formal titles, but people who are good thinkers, who have comfort with collaborative processes and who pay attention to building relationships with others. You have to invest time into building relationships. As much as the nonprofi t sector loves to use the term collaboration, there’s an element of competing for resources. It’s hard to expect nonprofi ts to set aside their loyalty to looking out for what’s best for their organizations.” Funders can play a role in supporting strong relationships by allowing time for them to develop and making sure that the funders’ own policies and practices do not heighten feelings of comparison or competitiveness among potential partners.

“You have to invest time into building relationships. As much as the nonprofi t sector loves to use the term collaboration, there’s an element of competing for resources.”


Successful nonprofi t networks have invested heavily in the initial due diligence process to select partners with whom they can build long-term partnerships. They select partners who share values about approaches used and impact sought. As the network develops, these shared values guide partners’ decisions and build in accountability to the shared vision. Participants are thus freed from trying to micromanage for every contingency and enjoy greater fl exibility to respond to changing circumstances and strategic imperatives. Ongoing investment in the relationships by all parties, such as providing resources and support, relinquishing control or sharing recognition generously, further engenders trust among network participants.

In networks, no single participant drives the agenda, desired impacts are mutually determined, strategy is continually refi ned based on learning throughout the network, and accountability and attribution are dispersed. Grantmakers wishing to engage in networks will need to view the development of mutual trust as part of the “work” of the network, and fund accordingly. As the network develops, standard contracts and other control methods will need to be modifi ed or replaced with network-specifi c approaches congruent with the network culture.

The Energy Foundation’s management relies on a “positive reinforcing cycle of proof” as the mechanism that replaces standard controls. The foundation has learned that in its initial investments, network members may not believe that the foundation is truly investing in the network. The Energy Foundation starts the cycle of proof by bringing in other donors or galvanizing other groups, which builds trust that the grantmaker is fully committed to the needs of the network. The Energy Foundation demonstrates its commitment to the cause by playing a supporting role to grantees. It also works to attract more donors and resources to the fi eld to benefi t grantees, even if there is no direct institutional benefi t to the foundation itself, though one can hardly discount the value of leveraged impact. The network members (in this case, grantees) reciprocate with results.

Network trust is strengthened as members share resources to get things done. Darell Hammond, CEO and founder of KaBOOM!, is well known as a network builder. He described a few examples of resource sharing among organizations allied in the mission to give all children the active play they need to become healthy and successful adults. In one, KaBOOM! worked behind the scenes to redirect donors to fund a different organization perceived by others in the fi eld as a direct competitor to KaBOOM!. In another, his organization provided a grant to keep an organization afl oat after it had lost a major donor. The decision to share resources this way is not purely altruistic; network members understand that all the nodes within the network contribute to the impact of the whole, and so it is in everyone’s interest to see others succeed. The loss of an ally would have meant a loss to the whole. KaBOOM! gained value as a reliable ally within the network, even though it did not realize immediate material benefi ts. Meanwhile, its partners accomplished goals, and the network as a whole increased its output.


James Siegal, executive vice president and chief operating offi cer at KaBOOM!, added, “Trust is a personal thing, even when you are representing institutional interests. In grantmaking, you can get bogged down in a process that breeds distrust. If you [as a nonprofi t] have built a relationship with a funder, and then they put you through the wringer on the minutiae of your budget, it calls into question the trust that has been built. Funders need to look at the things they do to oversee their grant portfolios and how those are perceived by grantees.”

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRANTMAKERSBuilding trust within a network means identifying grantees aligned with your goals and values, infusing support and pushing power out to the actors in the fi eld. Barr Foundation’s Pat Brandes noted, “Part of working with a network is giving up centrality and control, and being clear about what you are creating, what the mission is. Most funder initiatives have a life dependent on funding, but networks should be able to go on organically.” The recommendations that follow will support efforts to build trust and support accountability without controlling the network.

Vet Potential PartnersInformants advised that funders seek and build relationships with grantees that are already in networks or that display the leadership capabilities to work effectively through networks (that is, grantees whose actions are congruent with the four principles of the network mindset). One foundation executive said, “We want a broader cross section of people [nonprofi ts, government], but we also know we have to make sure it’s the right people, not the ones who will say no to change.” Another funder did not select network participants on its own but rather allowed current network participants to decide whom to include. In conducting due diligence on a new potential grantee, the funder sent the grantee out to meet with established practitioners, academics and opinion leaders in the fi eld who were already working through an established network. The funder relied on feedback from leaders in the fi eld who had already been working successfully through networks to determine whether this new leader would be a good team player and a valuable contributor to the network’s ongoing work.

Test Relationships With a Pilot ProjectSome funders might opt to start with a few pilot projects with potential network partners before committing to them for the long term, or they may choose to fund in phases as a stronger basis of trust develops among participants. Starting small and allowing space for the network to develop and change organically helps to plant the seeds for long-term success.

- Pat Brandes, Barr Foundation

“Part of working with a network is giving up centrality and control, and being clear about what you are creating, what the mission is.”


Expect Networks to Grow OrganicallyNetworks need not be fully mapped out at the outset and do not necessarily require large up-front commitments of resources. They often emerge through a series of bilateral or multilateral partnerships that gradually multiply as funders and participants develop trust and begin to see the benefi ts and impacts of their collective action. For example, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association started with a series of bilateral partnerships. After witnessing the impact of the networks seeded by GDBA, the British government established a £125 million fund in 2002 to invest in similar types of nonprofi t networks.9

Demonstrate Your Trustworthiness by Being Flexible and TransparentThe William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund demonstrates its trustworthiness as a partner by absorbing administrative costs, funding a collaboration support team and by being fl exible in its own funding to enable grantees to satisfy state procurement requirements. David Nee stated only half-jokingly that the foundation might be “one of the easiest places in the world to get a funding extension.” To illustrate, if a key leadership change occurs in a community network, such as turnover of a school superintendent, the grantee may need a hiatus to fi ll the void and develop new relationships. The fund would encourage the grantee to fi rst use state funds that have a set expiration date, offering a funding extension to fi ll in when needed. It also looks carefully at policies and practices that may interfere with the creation of trust in the network. For example, when making grants, fund staff members examine how the grant will affect dynamics in the community. According to Angela Frusciante, knowledge development offi cer, the fund makes a conscious effort to avoid creating competitive situations and comparing grantees. If grantees and others in the network are treated as equal partners, they are more likely to be eager to contribute wholeheartedly to advance the network.

Let the Network Make Decisions for Itself, but Offer Support When NeededNetworks need fi nancial resources, but funders must keep in mind that money can skew behavior; organizations may participate in return for the promise of funding rather than out of a genuine commitment to network impact. Funders succeed with networks by providing suffi cient resources to support the network without overpowering it. Some funders deliberately stay behind the scenes after investing in the network so that they don’t interfere with the trust building and relationship dynamics in the network. They let go of control by allowing the network members latitude to make decisions and manage operations for themselves. For example, the Energy Foundation funded an independent consultant to help with its Western Power Campaign, a project that connected and funded groups across the American West that were fi ghting coal plants and advocating for clean energy. The consultant helped network members refi ne their scope of work, see how they fi t into the broad strategy, make connections, communicate and coordinate messages to policy makers. The consultant noted, “Because I was aware of the full breadth of activities

9 Allen Grossman, Jane Wei-Skillern and Kristin Lieb, “Guide Dogs for the Blind Association,” Harvard Business School Case Study 9-303-006, 2003.


in the region, I could help the groups coordinate their messages to policy makers. One grantee might be trying to stop a new conventional coal plant while another grantee was helping stimulate development of new markets for wind power. I helped the groups integrate their messages to combine coal plant opposition with a clean energy solution. Without the support of a coordinator, the grantees would likely have continued with one-to-one communications. Coordination enabled multiparty discussions, a coordinated voice and a more effective campaign.”10

QUESTIONS FOR GRANTMAKERSPrinciple 2: Trust, Not Control

Vet potential partners. • What kinds of information will help us determine that our values and mission align with those of

potential network participants? • Do partners that look good on paper have a track record that demonstrates their commitment to

working alongside others?

Test relationships with a pilot project. • What kinds of small-scale projects can we collaborate on while testing a new relationship?• What terms will enable a mutually satisfactory decision to deepen the relationship as part of a network

— or will enable us both to withdraw amicably?

Expect networks to grow organically. • Which of our grantee, funder or other relationships are already fl ourishing and show readiness to adopt

a network mindset? • From the perspective of participants, what actions and resources might facilitate the development of a

network?

Demonstrate your trustworthiness by being fl exible and transparent. • In what ways do we demonstrate that our foundation is a trustworthy partner? • Do any of our practices send a message that we don’t fully trust our partners and grantees? • Are any of our accountability measures disincentives for network development? • How will our processes affect the dynamics of the network?

Let the network make decisions for itself, but offer support when needed. • How can we push power and control out? • How can we lend support without overpowering the network? • How do we balance our goals and accountability requirements with the fl uidity of the network process?

10 Jane Wei-Skillern and Alison Berkely Wagonfeld, “The Energy Foundation,” Harvard Business School Case Study 9-308-078, 2008.


PRINCIPLE 3

Humility, Not Brand

The David-versus-Goliath situation that most social sector organizations face naturally inspires humility. In networks, humility is expressed through offering patience, expertise, connections or other resources without expectation of recognition or payback. It is expressed through mutual understanding that there is no hierarchy in the resources that various participants bring to the network. Network members treat each other as equal peers, regardless of organization size, status or funding capacity. Humility is oxygen to a network.

Humility prepares leaders and organizations to work with and learn from others whom they may not have considered as partners. For example, nonprofi ts in environmental conservation increasingly look to engage members of the business sector as partners in fi nding solutions, rather than as enemies. In describing choices The Nature Conservancy has made, Burget said, “Some of the best learning comes from working with people you don’t share goals with.” This humility has led the organization to explore ways it can work with others whom its peers might see as poor allies. “This takes us into uncomfortable terrain, but it opens up new opportunities. Maybe there is room to collaborate with people who we once thought of as ‘doing bad.’” Of course, potential partners must still be values-aligned and able to demonstrate their commitment to the network’s vision through action, not just words.

The practice of sharing (or even redirecting) credit is an aspect of humility and is commonplace in successful networks. Dreams InDeed’s Haskell warned, “Ego is toxic in networks. If people pick up that you are in it for yourself rather than the common good, the network will marginalize you. The network unravels when people start scrambling for credit.” Since most networks are working on systemic problems in which public policy plays a role, media and political attention are often important to the mission. In this context, network actors, including funders, learn that highlighting a peer organization’s success can be the best way to get the network’s overarching goals established. For example, the Energy Foundation’s grantees make headway in infl uencing policy by being in the press and public forums. The foundation’s role does not require a high public profi le, so it directs those opportunities to network peers that can most benefi t from the recognition and potential resources that fl ow from them.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRANTMAKERSOur deeds give truth or lie to our words. For us as organizations, it can be diffi cult to know whether our professed openness to other approaches, new ideas, sharing, collaboration, community wisdom and so forth actually matches our behaviors. Fortunately, networks provide an excellent (if unforgiving) mirror. Networks empower those organizations that exhibit true humility while marginalizing those that seek


“Ego is toxic in networks. If people pick up that you are in it for yourself rather than the common good, the network will marginalize you.” - David Haskell, Dreams InDeed International

power for themselves. However, because the signifi cant fi nancial resources held by grantmakers often can create a power imbalance, it’s especially important for funders to practice humility in networks. The recommendations that follow can help guide grantmakers to lead with humility.

Cultivate Empathy, Curiosity and CommitmentThe Nature Conservancy’s Burget described three characteristics that help funders become better network participants: “First, they have empathy — they understand the perspective of the other grantees or funders. Second, they have curiosity — they are committed to learning. If you have that, you are automatically reaching out to others. Third, they show perseverance and commitment to the relationship way of working. If you try to see things from someone else’s perspective and learn and grow, and if you are not going to give up when it gets diffi cult, then you will gain the knowledge and commitment of other funders and grantees.” Burget compared an organization that has these characteristics with its opposite, “someone who says, ‘I know what’s right; I don’t care about your perspective. I know what needs to be done. I’m going to do my own thing.’”

Direct Recognition to the Parts of the Network That Can Best Benefi tBy virtue of scale of impact and community reputation, grantmakers are often highlighted in the media. When operating as part of a network, grantmakers can send media opportunities toward those who can best apply them. As noted, when appropriate, the Energy Foundation directs news opportunities to other network members who can better use them to attract attention to campaigns. Similarly, when Yousry Makar, director of Habitat for Humanity Egypt, was invited to speak onstage in front of government offi cials, nongovernmental organization leaders and other potential donors at a celebration for building 6,000 houses through HFHE, he simply stated, “It’s not Habitat. The community is doing it. We’re only providing support.” He then proceeded to invite his network partners onstage to join him.11

Be Open With Your Resources and ExpertiseA powerful way to increase impact is to let go of control and let others run with your ideas. Humility enables network leaders to acknowledge that their approach is not necessarily the only way nor the best way to achieve impact. Sharing resources and expertise openly with network peers can speed dissemination, improve mutual learning and strengthen ties among network members. For example, KaBOOM! shares its core program expertise by giving away its playground building kit, technical assistance and a support community to local neighborhood leaders interested in building a playground without direct partnership with KaBOOM!. Additionally, it provides a range of resources and tools to enable community members to achieve their goal. Rather than trying to

11 Jane Wei-Skillern and Kerry Herman, “Habitat for Humanity — Egypt,” Harvard Business School Case Study 9-308-035, 2006, 14.


serve the tremendous need for playgrounds on its own, KaBOOM! is building community capacity to serve the mission. While the phenomenon of sharing knowledge and expertise freely with the fi eld is not new in philanthropy, what is different is that this dissemination approach and community-building strategy is core to the work of KaBOOM!. KaBOOM! has calculated that a dollar spent by the organization on online tools in 2009 helped to improve 10 times as many neighborhoods as a dollar spent more directly on playground equipment.12 Although it doesn’t gain the media recognition or the potential funding that typically comes with direct playground builds, KaBOOM! plays a support role to these community leaders because these network participants are fundamental to meeting its own mission.

QUESTIONS FOR GRANTMAKERSPrinciple 3: Humility, Not Brand

Cultivate empathy, curiosity and commitment. • Do we seek to understand the perspectives of grantees and other funders? • Do we reach out to others to learn? • Do we persevere in our attempts to understand and learn from the network? • Are we willing to let go of long-held beliefs and activities in response to learning from peers?

Direct recognition to the parts of the network that can best benefi t.

• What media relations policies need to change within the foundation to refl ect the network code? • How can we know which parts of the network are best able to benefi t at any given time? • Do we need to be in the limelight to be effective or is a behind-the-scenes role more productive?

Be open with your resources and expertise.

• What resources and expertise do we have that could be helpful to others? • How might our mission be advanced by becoming an “open source” organization, releasing control

of ideas and processes, and supporting communities to generate the impact? • Where do our resources have the most impact? • How might we need to realign current activities and programs to maximize that impact?

12 Heather McLeod Grant, “Breaking New Ground,” Monitor Institute, 2010. Available at http://kaboom.org/sites/default/fi les/Monitor_Institute_KaBOOM_Study_SM.pdf.


PRINCIPLE 4

Node, Not HubIf you ask leaders in the nonprofi t sector to draw a picture of their organization relative to the rest of the world, they typically put their organization at the center as a hub connected to other constituencies. People in networked organizations, in contrast, put the issue at the center and work intentionally to see their own organization as one node in a network of interconnected actors and activities. When perspective shifts from hub to node, goals migrate toward mobilizing other critical network members and resources beyond the organization’s own boundaries, enabling leveraged impact.

“Node thinking” succeeds because resources of all types — leadership, money, talent — have dramatically more impact when leveraged across organizations, fi elds and sectors. This approach saves each organization from trying to do everything on its own, generates powerful synergies and promotes the mutual allocation of resources toward where they can make the most impact. If another organization is better able to take on a task, then it makes sense to invest in that effort rather than reinvent the wheel in one’s own organization. Indeed, this is the approach the Energy Foundation takes.

The Energy Foundation has no endowment; it must raise funds annually for the grants it makes and the operations it carries out. One would expect that the organization would therefore cling tenaciously to any donor that comes its way. But this is decidedly not the case. The Energy Foundation routinely directs donors to other network members when their strengths and goals are a better fi t for the donors’ interests and resources. This is how an organization behaves when it sees itself as a node. Other node actions of the Energy Foundation include

Organization as a NodeOrganization as a Hub


allowing its grantees to regrant to other members of a coalition and hiring coordinators to facilitate the work of many organizations involved in specifi c campaigns. The role of the Energy Foundation in its networks is to facilitate processes rather than be the central conduit through which all things happen.

KaBOOM! CEO Darell Hammond indicated that there is strategic value in thinking as a node rather than a hub. In the late 1990s, KaBOOM! made a choice to go from “one to many” by training others to use its model of developing play spaces. Today it is seeking networks that can meet the major challenge of its vision to create a great place to play within walking distance of every child in America. “We could go from 200 playgrounds to 600 playgrounds, and it would still be a drop in the bucket — and there aren’t even the resources to support that. But if the same resources could go into cities’ opportunities to open upproperty, schools and other spaces to create more play access, we’d come closer to our vision.”

Funders are in a diffi cult spot with this principle; money carries clout, and it’s hard to avoid becoming a hub when you wield such a powerful resource. The Barr Foundation’s Pat Brandes described the importance of a funder declaring itself as a node, not a hub: “In healthy networks, the funder is not at the center. In the networks we have supported we have been conscious to move ourselves out of the core. Healthy networks need multiple hubs.” Brandes also described the careful role funders can play in facilitating the development of networks while avoiding the role of hub: “It is better if the network arises organically, but sometimes the funder sees the need for a network and one isn’t there. In these instances, the funder has to be very careful not to create dependence on the funder. The most scaled networks are not hub and spokes but clusters with multiple hubs. You get more scale as you get more hubs.”

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRANTMAKERS“Node thinking” may be a challenge for grantmakers, who are accustomed to being a hub among grantees. However, with network thinking, funders seek to develop a deeper understanding of the role that they might play in helping a network achieve a shared vision. They take stock of the community of nonprofi ts, foundations, government agencies, businesses and community members that are involved in reaching the vision. The following recommendations can help grantmakers take on a role as a node rather than a hub.

Understand the Ecosystem of the NetworkNetworks regularly interact with others in their ecosystem — including nonprofi ts, government agencies, private sector organizations and community members.13 To see themselves as nodes, grantmakers need to understand the ecosystem of the network. They must learn what others are doing in the fi eld and understand how they might relate to one another. They must also identify the other network players’ strengths and their own strengths relative to those of others, and engage these actors toward their shared goals.

13 Paul Bloom and J. Gregory Dees, “Cultivate Your Ecosystem,” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter 2008): 46–53.


Get Multiple Boats in the WaterNetworks grow more resilient as they accumulate contributing members. KaBOOM! CEO Darell Hammond suggested, “Convince complementary organizations to grow with you — you need more ‘boats in the fl eet,’ not to be the biggest boat in the fl eet. It’s a long-term play.” Hammond suggested that philanthropists “bet across an industry,” thinking in terms of increasing overall impact.

Manage Your FootprintFoundations seeking to fund networks should be aware of the clout they carry and the role that they want to play in encouraging the development of the network. Funders can often achieve more by doing less: listening and learning to what network participants want and need, and allowing others to take the lead rather than playing a heavy-handed role in shaping the network. Chris van Bergeijk of the Hawai‘i Community Foundation said the organization wrestled with the question, “‘How big of a footprint do we want?’ You really have to think about it. We’ve played strong forward roles and then gradually stepped back. Don’t just jump in and assume you have to run everything. Don’t assume you have to be at every meeting.” Members of a network need to know they have the grantmaker’s support, but members also need to be in charge of the direction of the network itself. Fostering an arm’s-length relationship, such as hiring independent network facilitators, is one approach that allows the funder to continue learning through the network and supporting it, but also helps to ensure it does not devolve into a typical funder-grantee relationship.

QUESTIONS FOR GRANTMAKERSPrinciple 4: Node, Not Hub

Understand the ecosystem of the network. • Who else is addressing the systemic challenge we are concerned with, and how do the other

players fi t together? • What are their strengths and weaknesses? • Similarly, what are our strengths and weaknesses? • How might linkages be made with others in the system to leverage strengths and shore up

weaknesses?

Get multiple boats in the water. • How can we support peer groups involved in the network? • How can we ensure not only our success but that of other essential actors? • What other funders might be interested in collaborating and co-investing?

Manage your footprint.• How big of a footprint do we want? • Instead of trying to address all aspects of the network’s development, how can we listen and learn

from participants to identify where the gaps are? • Who else might be able to fi ll those gaps? • Even when we are able to address an issue in the network’s development, how can we make space

for others to take the lead? • How can we lend our resources and support without overwhelming the activities of the network?


The four principles that constitute the network code are clearly interrelated. Behaving as a node rather than a hub aligns organizations as shared contributors in a constellation of bright stars; it is an awareness of the successes of the whole as well as the parts. Acting with humility enables recognition to fl ow to the places where it can do the most good, speeds innovation and its dissemination, and demonstrates devotion to the cause. As organizations share credit and work, and as they repeatedly act in ways that support the broader vision, they build trust in each other. This mutual trust ensures accountability; network members know that failure to deliver on promises ruptures trust, so they follow through on commitments. Finally, embracing mission over organization sets leaders on the path to seeking impact through and alongside others rather than alone. These four principles are the cement that binds together the “beautiful mosaic” described by David Haskell. The organizations themselves — whether large or small, sophisticated or simple, well fi nanced or struggling to raise the next dollar — are the tiles from which the mosaic is assembled.

Grantmakers who focus on systemic problems, who are dissatisfi ed with incremental improvements, who are willing to be patient investors, and who are comfortable with fl uidity and uncertainty are ready to consider network opportunities. By adopting a network mindset, grantmakers can discover countless opportunities to work with other leaders across the nonprofi t, public and private sectors in ways heretofore unimagined. While every network is unique and can’t be scripted from the outset, the essential operating code in successful networks is the same: mission, not organization; trust, not control; humility, not brand; and node, not hub.

A networked approach may at times seem uncertain — ceding control to others without a guarantee of success is risky. But to paraphrase one grantmaker, the risk of not using the network approach is that grantmakers continue to invest in incremental improvements that fall short of expectations. The urgency and scale of social problems, coupled with the limited results to date, cry out for new approaches. Networks hold the potential for generating impact at a scale exponentially greater than the sum of their individual parts. Armed with the network code, social sector leaders have the power to unleash the potential of their networks to generate solutions that will change the world.

AUTHORSJane Wei-Skillern, Adjunct Associate Professor, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business; Lecturer, Stanford Graduate School of Business

Nora Silver, Adjunct Professor and Director of the Center for Nonprofi t and Public Leadership, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business

Eric Heitz, President, Energy Foundation

Writing services by Vincent Hyman

Conclusion


GEO would like to thank the nonprofi ts and grantmakers mentioned in this publication, as well as the following people, for their contributions to and feedback on this work:

Chris van Bergeijk, Hawai‘i Community Foundation Courtney Bourns, Henry P. Kendall FoundationPat Brandes, Barr FoundationMark Burget, The Nature Conservancy Roberto Cremonini, Cremonini Consulting Network Steve Downs, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Angela Frusciante, William Caspar Graustein Memorial FundVictoria Hale, Medicines360Darell Hammond, KaBOOM! David Haskell, Dreams InDeed International Yousry Makar, Habitat for Humanity Egypt Steve McCormick, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation David Nee, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund Yossi Prager, The AVI CHAI FoundationDiana Scearce, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Marc Schindler, Venture Philanthropy Partners Paul Shoemaker, Social Venture Partners SeattleJames Siegal, KaBOOM! Melinda Tuan, The Center for High Impact PhilanthropyKate Wing, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

GEO also thanks the 22 supporters of the Scaling What Works initiative:

The Annie E. Casey FoundationThe Atlantic PhilanthropiesThe Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc.Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationBlue Ridge Foundation New YorkCarnegie Corporation of New YorkCharles Stewart Mott FoundationThe David and Lucile Packard FoundationThe Duke EndowmentThe Edna McConnell Clark FoundationFord FoundationGeorge Kaiser Family FoundationJohn S. and James L. Knight FoundationThe Joyce FoundationThe Kresge FoundationLumina Foundation for Education, Inc.New Profi t Inc.Open Society FoundationsRobert Wood Johnson FoundationSeaChange Capital PartnersSurdna FoundationW.K. Kellogg Foundation

Acknowledgments

1725 DeSales Street NWSuite 404Washington, DC 20036T 202.898.1840F 202.898.0318www.geofunders.org

1

[to convene]

a

GATHERthe art & science of effective convening

C R E AT E D BY M O N I TO R I N ST I T U T E

MONITOR INSTITUTE is a social change

consultancy that works with innovative

leaders at nonprofits and foundations

to advance social impact across a

diverse range of issues. Monitor

Institute strives to be a scout for social

innovation, bringing new approaches

to clients and contributing to the public

debate on leading-edge topics such as

impact investing, strategic philanthropy,

and networked collaboration. As a

for-profit/for-benefit hybrid, Monitor

Institute pursues social impact while

operating as a fully integrated unit of

Deloitte Consulting LLP.

THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

supports work that expands opportuni-

ty and strengthens resilience to social,

economic, health, and environmental

challenges—affirming its pioneering

philanthropic mission since 1913 to

promote the well-being of humanity.

The Foundation operates both within

the United States and around the world.

The Foundation’s efforts are overseen

by an independent Board of Trustees

and managed by its president through a

leadership team drawn from scholarly,

scientific, and professional disciplines.

MONITOR DELOITTE provides strat-

egy consulting services to the world’s

leading corporations and social sector

organizations, combining a rich heri-

tage of leading-edge strategic thinking

and innovation with deep experience in

operations and implementation. Monitor

Deloitte brings leading capabilities and

high-quality service to clients, providing

the insights they need to address their

most complex business challenges in

the areas of Corporate and Business

Unit Strategy, Customer and Marketing

Strategy, Digital Strategy, Innovation,

Pricing and Profitability Management,

Social Impact Strategy, and Strategic

Capabilities and Implementation.

You may copy or distribute this publication but only for personal, non-commercial, educational or public policy use, distributed free of charge, provided that you include the following copyright notice on all copies: “Copyright © 2013 Deloitte Development LLC. This publication may not be modified or altered in any way.” See the back cover for full coypright details.

MODUS OPERANDI DESIGN (ModusOp.net) designed and produced this

guidebook. Modus Operandi Design is a full-service design studio specializing

in media branding and is based in New England.

This guidebook was completed in June 2013 by Noah Rimland Flower and Anna Muoio at Monitor Institute with input from Rob Garris and his colleagues at the Rockefeller Foundation.

It expands on an earlier edition created for the Foundation’s internal use by a Monitor Institute team led by Diana Scearce that included Lindsay Bellows, Stuart Burden, and Noah Rimland Flower.

PLEASE DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS TO:

Noah Rimland [email protected]

Anna Muoio [email protected]

Rob Garris [email protected]

1

THE GUIDEBOOKWhat’s in It and How to Use It

THIS GUIDEBOOK IS FOR people who want to

change the world. It’s for social change leaders

who understand the power of convening the right

group of people, and who believe that collec-

tive intelligence trumps individual smarts when it

comes to solving shared problems. It’s for those

who know that there is an art and a science to

convening and want to get better at both. Ulti-

mately, this guidebook is a practical toolkit to help

a world-changer who is taking on the role of lead

convening designer.

Who the guidebook is for

THIS GUIDEBOOK IS ORGANIZED around the most

common building blocks of constructing any con-

vening: deciding whether to convene, clarifying a

“north star” purpose, and making a bevy of design

choices that flow from that purpose. If offers a set

of design principles, key questions, and critical

issues to be considered and customized for your

situation.

What you’ll find in the guidebook

PREFACEGATHERPAGE 1

A NOTE FROM THE AUTHORS AT MONITOR INSTITUTE

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT a compendium of all the

available material on convenings, or a guide to the

broader body of material on facilitation, meeting

production, collaboration, innovation, multi-

stakeholder negotiation, and conflict resolution,

though we refer you to external resources. It is

also not a step-by-step manual, as every conven-

ing is a custom design. Instead, it offers starting

points, questions, frameworks, and worksheets

to guide you through the design process.

What the guidebook is not


PREFACEGATHERPAGE 2

JUST STARTING TO PLAN A CONVENING? Start

at the beginning, working from Choosing to

Convene through Assembling Participants.

When you reach a point where you need to do

more work before you can proceed, read ahead

to see what you’re in for and then return when

you’re ready.

Already in the planning stages? Even if you’re

close to execution, it won’t hurt to review the

basics and make sure you’re clear on why conven-

ing is the right tool for your purpose. Unless your

convening is in a few days, you’ll probably find it

valuable to read Structuring the Work and Execut-

ing the Event.

Tips on navigating through the guidebook

CONVENING HAS BEEN A CRITICAL TOOL for the

Rockefeller Foundation’s century of successful

philanthropy. The Green Revolution’s improve-

ments to food security, the emergence of impact

investing to combine financial, social, and en-

vironmental benefits from investments; a new

global alliance for life-saving vaccinations (GAVI),

the recovery of post-Katrina New Orleans, and

many more remarkable advances were acceler-

ated through Rockefeller-led convenings. And yet,

as of a few years ago, we had not formalized our

skills and training in this core competency. Given

the increasing complexity of the world, the emer-

gence of diverse and disparate new global play-

ers, and the general tendency of organizations

to specialize, it was clear that convening would

continue to play an important role in the Foun-

dation’s work. In 2011 we launched an internal

project to document and then strengthen our own

convening skills, working not only with our imme-

diate colleagues but also with our grantees. Then,

as we considered how to make our next 100 years

as successful as the first, we saw the value of

collaboratively developing a convening guide that

could be shared widely with our colleagues, part-

ners, and grantees. The result is the guide you are

reading. We hope it strengthens your capacity to

create change through effective convenings.

A NOTE FROM ROB GARRIS, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

Why the guidebook was created


PREFACEGATHERPAGE 3

WHATIs a “Convening”?CONVENINGS ARE…

Composed of diverse stakeholders

who represent a range of perspec-

tives on a topic, often from different

organizations

For accomplishing a clear purpose

(e.g., drive toward decision-making

or alignment) and intended out-

comes

Designed to draw on all partici-

pants to generate insight and action

beyond what any single actor could

achieve on his or her own

Regular, internal meetings

Focused on administrative,

process-related topics

Solely for delivering information or a

single point of view (e.g., a training or

a media event)

The term “convening” can refer to meetings, conferences,workshops, symposia, and many other events. We use it to mean a gathering that is different from these common formats in one important way: for the duration, the attendees are participants in a collective effort that serves a specific shared purpose.

As a result, they are typically in-person gatherings of 10 to 80 participants that last from a half-day to as long as a week.

CONVENINGS ARE NOT…

PREFACEGATHERPAGE 4

5

BUILDINGBLOCKS

The of Effective Convening

G . T Y I N G I T A L L T O G E T H E R

To convene or not to convene?DECIDE whether a

convening is the right

tool for your situation

and at this point in

time.

What’s the point? IDENTIFY your

convening’s “north

star” purpose, and

how co-creative or

traditional a design

you want.

Who’s your team?UNDERSTAND how

the work of conven-

ing design is typically

divided, and choose

a team structure that

fits the job.

Who do you invite?CONSIDER who will be

interested, decide who

to invite, and convince

them to come.

What will they do together?DEVELOP a set of

activities that will help

the group achieve the

intended purpose.

What will you carry forward?ASSESS how well the

convening went and

take action on any

important next steps.

What is the complete vision?TRANSLATE the general principles into a

specific experience and a plan to create it.

B .D E F I N I N G YO U R P U R P O S E

A .C H O O S I N G T O C O N V E N E

C .F O R M I N G YO U R T E A M

D .A S S E M B L I N GPA R T I C I PA N T S

E .S T R U C T U R I N G T H E W O R K

F .P L A N N I N G T H E F O L LO W -T H R O U G H

PREFACEGATHERPAGE 5

PAGE 7 PAGE 14 PAGE 19 PAGE 30 PAGE 46 PAGE 62

PAGE 68

6

[to convene]

CHOOSING TOCONVENE

ATHE ART AND SCIENCE OF EFFECTIVE CONVENINGGATHER

7

RAPID GLOBALIZATION has given new wings to

many things. Our jobs, goods, money, and ideas

can come from and go to nearly anywhere in the

world, making our present location matter less

and the state of things far away matter more. And

yet, the same technology that enables us to con-

nect with ease also allows us to fragment into tiny

silos filled with people and information that reflect

our own narrow interests.

THE CASE for Convening

1 We have become at once more connected and more fragmented.

FEW OF TODAY’S SOCIAL CHALLENGES are entirely

new in kind. There is nothing new about poverty,

lack of education, inequitable access to health-

care, or environmental degradation. What is new

is our ability to see and understand how problems

connect. We have become more sophisticated in

our use of data and better at tackling problems

holistically and systemically. And we are becom-

ing more capable of using our problem-solving

“technologies” (our solutions and ways of organiz-

ing) to adapt to new changes in social challenges

as they emerge.

2 Yet the new social challenges we face are larger and more interconnected.

A | CHOOSING TO CONVENEGATHERPAGE 7


THE CASE

OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, many social

entrepreneurs have built organizations that

scale new ideas to tackle old problems. Yet

there will always be limits to what an organiza-

tion working in isolation can accomplish. Scaling

up a new idea can take many years. And, if an

organization’s work remains isolated, the impact

it makes can erode if progress is not also being

made on other facets of the problem. CONVENINGS ARE GAINING MOMENTUM as a means

of tapping collective intelligence and enabling

change. They combine different perspectives,

enabling us to clearly perceive trends and identify

promising new ideas. They can reshape how we

see a problem, deeply influencing our perspec-

tives on what levers are most effective for creat-

ing change. They can help us find new ways to join

forces, committing to new levels of strategic and

operational alignment across our organizations.

Convenings have long been at the heart of efforts

to achieve social progress, but their power has

grown dramatically over the past two decades.

They are now potent tools in an

organization’s social change toolkit.

But in many organizations this “convening power”

is still not tapped to its fullest potential. Build-

ing your convening muscles can enable you to

bring collective effort to bear in powerful new

ways and make the headway we all need against

today’s increasingly complex challenges.

3 We need to build social solutions that are larger than single organizations.

4 We need convenings that are designed to enable collective action.

for Convening

You’re honored to be invited and ex-cited when you realize that the topic is a social challenge that’s significant

to your work. You read on but soon realize that you’re not

sure what the real pur-pose of the convening

is after all—or how it will be different from

all the other conferences on the topic you’ve at-

tended. Suddenly you think, oh, not another meeting. The invite claims that “leading social changemakers” and “inspiring thought leaders” will be coming, but details are vague. Still,

you decide to go, figuring that this foundation’s name will attract a good crowd.

The gathering place is hard to find and you’re given poor directions. You arrive late, take a random seat, and begin listening to the first of a series of lengthy presentations. The speakers are all well known, but the lectures are a disjointed collection of individual points of view. Worse: you’ve heard two of the speakers give the same talk at other conferences. So you do what others are doing: use the time to catch up on email. You

hope to make some new connections during the breaks but get frustrated when these are shortened after the keynotes run long.

There are a few breakout sessions during the day. Here you’re able to get a clearer sense of the crowd: a mix of the usual suspects from both the funding and nonprofit communities, along with quite a few people whose backgrounds seem only tangentially related to the topic. You join one breakout on a topic that sounds promising, where honest exchange between the funder and nonprofit camps would help break a long-standing logjam, but the discussion devolves into grandstanding. Plus, more than 30 people crowd the room, making quality conversation difficult.

There’s a palpable power imbalance between the two groups, and you can tell in a second that the facilitator is way out of his league.

You’re both exhausted and bored by the end of the day. At dinner you end up talking with several others who are deeply committed to this issue. The consensus: another well-intentioned conference that missed the opportu-nity to catalyze the conversation.

TRAGEDYA Convening

I M A G I N E T H I S …


You open your inbox and find an invitation to a convening sponsored by an influential foundation.

It’s on a cutting-edge approach in your field that you believe has

tremendous potential but has yet to be widely

adopted. “We hope you can join us,

but come prepared, because we’ll be doing

real work together,” writes the organizer. And she has a

particular role in mind for you, as the facilitator of a table conversa-tion where your background will be particularly relevant. You immedi-ately reply with a yes and block the two full days on your calendar.

A few weeks before the event you

start wondering what it will be like. Another email from the organizer arrives that afternoon: travel, lodg-ing, food, and other details are all included, and you’re particularly interested to see the agenda and bios of the other participants. There will be only 32 people, and it’s a high-caliber group filled with people doing such fascinating work that you start picturing how to make a good impression.

The opening dinner gives you the opportunity to meet several of them. It’s immediately clear that these are fellow travelers in your world, knowledgeable and capable

people with a visible passion for problem-solving. The organizer closes the evening with a short but inspiring speech about the opportu-nity she sees for advancing the field and the importance of overcoming present obstacles.

Over the next day and a half, you spend most of your time in group discussion and small breakouts, scheduled at what feel like natural intervals, with short presentations and relaxed meals. You begin feel-ing a growing sense of kinship and shared purpose with this group, and use the unstructured time to dig deeper on topics raised in the group discussion. Many of these one-on-one conversations give you a sense of how you might collaborate in the future, and one leads to the core concept of what could be a promis-ing new initiative.

You’re particularly struck by how the organizer facilitates the con-versation, providing direction and structure but constantly adapting to the energy of the group, even re-arranging the agenda at one point when the value of digging deeper on the current topic becomes clear. As the time draws to a close, the group has arrived at a new level of shared understanding and alignment around a strategy to pursue, and you happily put your name down to join a follow-up conversation in two months.

As you leave, you wonder why it felt so easy to work with so many people you’d never met. You won-der: what would it take to create such a powerful gathering yourself?

TRIUMPHN OW I M AG I N E T H I S I N ST E A D …


A ConveningYou get an email from someone you’ve worked with in the past inviting you to participate in a convening. As you read it, your excitement builds.

11

TOOLfor YourWork?

CONVENING PLACES SIGNIFICANT DEMANDS on

people’s time and resources, so it’s important to

make informed decisions about when and how to

bring a group together.

As a first step, review your theory of change. Ask

whether a convening is the best tool for what

you’re trying to achieve. Use the following set of

considerations to determine if bringing together

a diverse group of stakeholders for an in-person

gathering of at least a half day is the best path

forward.

CONSIDERATIONS ALTERNATIVES

Can the purpose/opportunity be clearly

articulated?

Is the issue ripe for meaningful progress? Is

there sufficient energy around the issue to

“tip” to a new level of insight or action?

Can the critical stakeholders be

assembled?

When the purpose is not clear, focus first on

deeper research and framing. Be careful not

to develop a too-rigid point of view. Leave

space for learning from diverse perspectives

in the future.

When the issue is nascent, ill-defined, and/

or lacking critical mass, focus on mapping the

system and connecting players with shared

interests.

If not, consider lower-commitment modes of

engagement that make it possible for key stake-

holders to take part, such as short consulta-

tions, interviews, surveys, forums, wikis, or

convening virtually.

NO

NO

NO


Is Conveningthe Right

CONTINUED

CONSIDERATIONS ALTERNATIVES

Does the purpose/opportunity call for col-

lective intelligence?

Is an extended block of time essential to

doing the work?

Do you have the necessary resources: 1)

ample time to dedicate to the convening

design and production process; 2) con-

vening facilitation, design, and production

support?

Do you need to be the primary

convener?

When the issue you’re working on can just as

easily be addressed by individual actors, focus

on building their capacity or make progress

through 1-on-1 interactions.

If the work is better suited to shorter blocks of

time (less than two hours), consider convening

virtually and/or adding a short, focused meeting

to other events where key players will already

come together.

If not, hold off until you’ve secured ample leader-

ship capacity and design/production team mem-

bers, and consider less support-intensive alterna-

tives for connecting the group such as conference

calls, webinars, surveys, forums, or wikis.

If other actors would be better positioned to take

the lead role—or are already holding a related

convening—explore partnerships.

NO

NO

NO

NO


TOOLfor YourWork?

Is Conveningthe Right

13

[to convene]

DEFINING YOURPURPOSE

BTHE ART AND SCIENCE OF EFFECTIVE CONVENINGGATHER

B | DEFINING YOUR PURPOSEGATHERPAGE 14

Purpose: the north star of a convening’s designIF YOU’RE LIKE many people who take on the

role of designing a convening, you may be mull-

ing over the many practical choices ahead: Who

should I invite? Who can facilitate? What venue

can we reserve? Those decisions and many oth-

ers are important. But if you’re hoping to make

your convening a catalyst for significant social

impact, you’ll first need to get specific about

exactly what it is you’re trying to achieve.

Any conference design needs to achieve at least

the goals of building networks and sharing learn-

ing. Those are a good fit when your aim is to give

participants a resource-rich environment for

advancing their own agendas. But if you want

to achieve more than that, you’ll need the group

to work together. There are four broad types of

purposes the group can achieve: you can help

them to influence, to innovate, to develop fore-

sight, or to align and act.

Crafting a purpose for your convening might

sound like a check-the-box exercise. Yet it actu-

ally serves the very functional role of providing

you with a north star to guide you through the

many practical choices that follow. A conven-

ing that enables participants to innovate will

not need the same design as one designed for

participants to develop foresight. Even two con-

venings that enable innovation will have distinct

purposes. And while it may feel tempting to write

a purpose that spans two or even three of the

four types, a purpose that is clear, focused,

and specific gives you the rudder you need to

make each of the practical choices in a way that

serves exactly the goal you have in mind.

The purpose should drive your choices, but it

should also be shaped by new realizations. The

remainder of this guidebook shares a set of

general principles that apply across all four types

of purposes. Once you have a first draft of your

purpose, keep it handy as you work through the

remaining stages of the design process, and use

it as a lens for interpreting those principles for

your particular situation. Then look for the set of

principles specific to your type of purpose in the

final chapter, Tying it All Together. As you make

your design decisions throughout the process,

keep testing them against your purpose. If it fails

to help you arrive at a clear answer, or when the

answer it points to doesn’t feel right, turn back to

the purpose and try to sharpen it—or revise it.

PURPOSEDefining Your

DEFINING


Your Purpose

First, cover the fundamentals

ENABLE PARTICIPANTS to exchange in-

formation, expertise, and points of view

in a form that benefits their individual

and collective practice.

ENGAGE A DIVERSE range of partici-

pants, reflective of different facets of

the problem. Help them connect with

one another, build trusting relation-

ships, and discover shared areas of

commonality.

B U I L DN E T W O R K S

S H A R EL E A R N I N G

I N F LU E N C E

I N N O VAT E

D E V E LO PF O R E S I G H T

A L I G N & A C T

MOBILIZE STAKEHOLDERS in different parts of a system to act in

concert. Help build a shared understanding of the system and the

problem, develop consensus around a common vision, align strate-

gies around it, and support one another in the execution.

ANTICIPATE POTENTIAL CHALLENGES and identify new opportuni-

ties for intervention, by collecting indicators of how the world is

evolving today and diverse perspectives about the directions that it

could take in the future.

EXPLORE NEW APPROACHES and enable creative disruption by

reframing, reimagining, or recombining different elements and per-

spectives. Use these inputs to prototype transformational new pro-

cesses or services and develop ideas for their adoption and scale.

SHAPE THE ATTITUDES of key stakeholders and the public by invit-

ing thought leaders and decision makers to discuss your initial pro-

posals, use their perspectives to sharpen the ideas, and then use

the resulting product to promote broader conversation and action.

Then, choose a primary purpose

WORKSHEETA simple wayto clarify your purpose is to answer these five questions. You may want to start with general answers, and then return later to make them more specific, as you make additional choices about your design.

“ In order to create change, this convening will help participants…

…BUILD NETWORKS by:

…and SHARE LEARNING by:

“Beyond that, it’s PRIMARY PURPOSE is to…

❑ INNOVATE ❑ INFLUENCE ❑ DEVELOP FORESIGHT ❑ ALIGN AND ACT ❑ OTHER

…which it WILL DO by:

Its purpose WILL NOT include:

”

”

”


“DESIGNSTANCE”

Defining Your NOW THAT YOU’VE DETERMINED your purpose,

you need to figure out how to achieve it. This is

your “design stance.” A traditional stance, for

example, tends to be a good fit for convenings that

only touch lightly on a purpose beyond the two

fundamentals of building

networks and sharing learning, and results in a

format closer to a standard conference. A co-cre-

ative stance tends to be more effective at achiev-

ing shared goals but will require more thoughtful

design and preparation. Use these spectrums to

sketch out your stance:

TR ADITIONAL CO-CREATIVE

C O N V E Y I N S I G H T

D E S I G N E D BY A L E A D E R

I N S T R U C T I O N A L

D E L I V E R E D BY A L E A D E R O R L E A D E R S

A C H I E V E A S P E C I F I C G O A L

E N G A G E T H E M I N D A LO N E

I N C LU D E H O M O G E N E O U SP E R S P E C T I V E S

U S E E X P E R T K N O W L E D G E

D I S C O V E R I N S I G H T

C O - D E S I G N E D BY PA R T I C I PA N T S

PA R T I C I PAT O RY

C O - D E L I V E R E D BY PA R T I C I PA N T S

H AV E A N O P E N - E N D E D O U T C O M E

E N G A G E T H E F U L L S E L F

I N C LU D E D I V E R S E P E R S P E C T I V E S

U S E C O L L E C T I V E PAT T E R N R E C O G N I T I O N

U S E T H E S E S P E C T R U M S T O T H I N K T H R O U G H T H E T Y P E

O F E X P E R I E N C E T H AT YO U W O U L D L I K E T O C R E AT E


18

[to convene]THE ART AND SCIENCE OF EFFECTIVE CONVENINGGATHER

FORMING YOUR TEAM

C

TEAMWho You Need on Your

CAN DELEGATETO …

T H E L E A D D E S I G N E R( YO U )

A S S I S TA N T D E S I G N E R FA C I L I TAT O R M E E T I N G P L A N N E R P R O J E C T M A N A G E R

C | FORMING YOUR TEAMGATHERPAGE 19

T H E S P O N S O R( YO U R B O S S )

The lead designer develops the sponsor’s general idea into a specific concept and manages the project’s many details. The lead designer’s work falls into four categories:

CONTENT: Defining what issues need to be addressed, choosing who should be part of the conversation, and developing the materials they will need to have a productive exchange.

PROCESS: Creating a series of activities in the room that will guide the assembled group toward its goals in the time that it has together.

LOGISTICS: Arranging the many practical conditions that will enable the gathering such as the timing, venue, travel, meals, materials, and technology. (If possible, this is the most important to delegate.)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Tracking and moving forward the workstreams, deadlines, decision rights, and other elements of the effort.

The sponsor calls for the convening, defines its purpose, sets the overall vision and outline of the design, and oversees the process at a high level.

At a nonprofit this is often a senior executive, and at a foundation it is often the program director or program officer. When a convening is high stakes for the orga-nization, many others may ask for sponsor-level input, in which case it is important to set clear expectations about how their input will be incorporated.

Helps the designer research participants, develop pre-reading, create presentation materials, and synthesize the convening’s outputs. (This work can range from junior-level assistance to peer-level thought partnership.)

Advises the designer on the process design and facilitates the conversation during the course of the event. (In many cases, the most appropriate facilitator will be the designer or sponsor.)

Advises the designer on logistical deci-sions, carries out the logistical planning, and manages logistics during the event. (This person may also be participating or facilitating, but with reduced bandwidth.)

Works closely with the designer to map all of the elements of the work, including their overlapping dependencies, and makes sure that they are all completed on time.

CLEAR ROLES

Establish

in the Design Process

The work of convening design is best managed by a lead designer and a small team, but it’s not uncommon for convenings to have a high enough profile that many others in your orga-nization will want to get involved or at least have a say. This was exactly the situation at the venture philanthropy New Profit Inc. as the organization contemplated how to convene the board chairs, chief development of-ficers, and social entrepreneurs from each of the social enterprises in its portfolio. New Profit had gathered each of these groups independently for a number of years, with great success, and was attempting for the first time to bring all three stake-holder groups together on the topic of what it takes to achieve long-term financial sustainability.

The task of designing the conven-ing fell to Kevin Greer, head of the Portfolio Learning Initiative, and Katie Pakenham, the Director of Network Management. They could see im-mediately that the stakes were high; not only was success important for the portfolio organizations, but many of the board chairs were also among New Profit’s current and potential supporters. They could also see that the work would require coordinating input from many directions. Not only would each member of the senior management have a desire to play the role of the “sponsor,” but nearly every one of their fellow managers would have good reason to be con-cerned about the outcome—and have an opinion about the design. What’s more, it was clear that the design of

the day would not be a simple task, since there were delicate power dynamics to negotiate between each organization’s trio of leaders.

Greer and Pakenham used two tools to address this situation. First, they shared a short “proposal” for the con-vening’s purpose with the rest of the New Profit leadership. This two-page document contained three explicit goals, three implicit (unstated) goals, three topical themes, topics that were off the table, the most important quali-ties of the experience, and a list of po-tential speakers. This clear statement of intention provided a starting point for getting input from others, while still leaving substantial white space in the details of how the time would be structured. Getting early buy-in with this document bounded the debate and focused it in a productive direction.

Next, they thought through the specific types of input that they would need, and gave input rights to various inter-nal stakeholders for different facets of the work: strategy, speakers, content, design, attendees, branding, and expe-rience. Integrating that input and acting on it was the responsibility of the core operating team (Greer, Pakenham, and two others), and final authority rested with Lisa Jackson, one of New Profit’s managing partners. This created explicit channels for input, giving them the benefit of their colleagues’ ideas and suggestions while maintaining the ability to move to a decision when the time came. The result: while they spent substantially more time than usual on input and coordination, all of their internal stakeholders stayed aligned throughout the design process and the design was improved by many hands along the way.

New Profit bridges its grantees’ three key leadership roles


WORKSTREAMSThe Three CoreCREATING A CONVENING is a constant dance

between three practical demands: creating the

agenda and content, managing engagement and

communications with participants, and arranging

all of the underlying logistics. Doing each of these

well is the science of convening design; doing

them as an extension of your purpose is the art.

The details of your work will differ depending on

how much of a challenge you’ve taken on in each of

those regards, but the following sample set of

workstreams is a general illustration of the tasks

that you and your team will need to accomplish.

n Assemble the team, find partners, and run RFP process if necessary, ensuring that all parties understand the purpose

n Define the objectives

n Brainstorm design ideas

n Draft and circulate a high-level design, focusing on the purpose

n Begin research for presentations and pre-reads

n Map stakeholders and plan levels of engagement, including social media and other communications

n Identify core invitees (including potential presenters if needed)

n Interview core invitees (about their interests, availability to participate, and who else to engage), clearly communicating the convening’s purpose

n Issue core invites

n Identify second-wave invitees

n Choose the date and location

n Contract with a local partner (if necessary)

n Issue RFP to hotels, if necessary

n Process travel visas

n Choose a hotel

n Choose venue (if not a hotel)

n Research dinner and outing prospects

n Contract with a graphic designer

START OF PLANNING

A G E N D A & C O N T E N T E N G A G E M E N T & C O M M U N I C AT I O N S LO G I S I T I C S


n Gather and respond to design input

n Continue research for presentations and pre-reads

n Refine the design

n Continue research for presentations and pre-reads

n Role-play the event to anticipate how participants will engage, then refine the design

n Create first draft of presentations and pre-reads

n Iron out “micro design” (e.g., facilitation guidelines), ensuring that facilitation supports the purpose

n Refine presentations and pre-reads

n Create templates and supporting materials

n Finalize presentations and pre-reads

n Issue second-wave invites (including presenters)

n Identify backup invitees and presenters

n Request bios and special needs

n Issue backup participant and presenter invites (if necessary)

n Communicate important info regarding travel reser-vations

n Request remaining bios and special needs

n Finalize bio-book design (if formal bio book is needed)

n Request remaining bios (if necessary)

n Produce bio book content (if necessary)

n Recruit participants to blog and tweet during or after the event

n Communicate important travel, logistical, and prep information

n Initiate any shared online space where participants can connect during or after the event

n Make dinner reservations

n Draft agenda for any outings

n Contract for A/V services

n Finalize agenda for any outings; begin arranging details

n Purchase air and ground transport, if necessary

n Finalize outing details

n Print complex paper products (e.g., bio book)

n Work with venue on logistics, setup, and catering

n Print and ship simple paper products (signs, flip-charts, handouts, name tags)

n Assemble and ship table supplies

A G E N D A & C O N T E N T E N G A G E M E N T & C O M M U N I C AT I O N S LO G I S I T I C S

YOUR CONVENING


FACILITATORChoosing a

n As early as you can in the design process,

either choose to fill the role of facilitator

yourself or identify someone else for the role,

based on three core considerations:

n RELATIONSHIP TO THE GROUP AND THE TOPIC—For the topics being discussed, who will have strong rapport with the group, enough sub-ject-matter depth to guide the conversation, and the ability to maintain neutrality even in heated moments? (In many cases, this will be the designer or sponsor, but power dynamics are a common reason for that person not to be at the front of the room.)

n FACILITATION EXPERTISE—Of these people, who has the front-of-room skill and experience necessary to guide the group through this conversation? (See the next page for a list of qualities.)

n AVAILABILITY—Of these people, who has the time available for both facilitating on the day of and working with you ahead of time? If they’re external, who fits your budget?

n If you are not facilitating the event yourself, you will need high confidence in the person you choose. Whether you are looking internally or externally, you’ll be best served by recommen-dations from trusted colleagues, or by having personally seen that person in action.

n The facilitator needs to know the purpose, the specific process you’ve designed, who the participants are, their respective personali-ties and underlying agendas, and any history of events that this conversation is meant to build on. Hold nothing back—facilitation is an impro-visational art, so the more that a facilitator is prepared, the better he or she can perform.

n A good facilitator can also help you a great deal in vetting your design ideas, based on his or her experience with many other events. It’s ideal to share your design ideas as soon as you have a solid first draft of your concept, and to use your facilitator as a thought-partner from that point

forward.

THE CONVENING FACILITATOR plays a critical

role in ensuring that the group can achieve its full

potential. Having the right facilitator can

be crucial to reaching your goals.

General guidelines

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

FACILITATORS PROVIDES A DIRECTORY

OF CERTIFIED FACILITATORS AT

HTTP://WWW.IAF-WORLD.COM/. HOWEVER,

THIS AND ANY OTHER DIRECTORY SHOULD

BE USED AS A LAST RESORT OR A SUPPLEMENT

TO TRUSTED RECOMMENDATIONS.


QUALITIES

In choosing a facilitator, or considering whether you are well positioned to play the role yourself, the following skills and competencies are worth seeking:

n Process experience and capabilities that specifically fit your convening’s purpose. For example, experience with futures thinking tools may be important when your purpose is developing foresight.

n Emotionally centered, confident, and humble, sure to recognize and acknowledge the needs of the group.

n Conversant in the language and issues cen-tral to the convening topic, but without being wedded to a strong position on the issues being discussed.

n Flexible enough to adjust during the convening.

n Puts the group first, especially in challenging moments.

n Neutral in engaging diverse perspectives on the topic; has excellent listening skills and won’t push his/her own agenda.

n Balances control and emergence, and there-fore able to facilitate focused dialogue and work while giving the group ample space to take the conversation where they want to.

n Attuned to participants’ diverse cultural out-looks and perspectives.

n Capable of probing gently to encourage full participation, draw out underlying beliefs, and promote mutual understanding.

n A capable user of a wide range of process tools, both in the advance design and in the moment.

n Skilled at storytelling and real-time synthesis.

n Good at preparing the group for the upcom-ing stages of work so that they know what to expect.

of a Good Facilitator

W O R K S H E E T

“ A FA C I L I TAT O R S H O U L D H AV E A F E R O C I O U S C O N C E N T R AT I O N O N T H E Q U A L I T Y O F T H E H U M A N E X P E R I E N C E , O N C L A R I F Y I N G A N D A L I G N I N G A R O U N D T H E P U R P O S E , A N D M A K I N G T H AT A S PA R T I C I PAT I V E A P R O C E S S A S I T C A N B E . ”

“ N O M AT T E R H OW M U C H P R E P YO U D O , A N D H OW M U C H YO U T H I N K YO U K N OW T H E G R O U P, G R O U P S R E AC T I N U N P R E D I C TA B L E WAYS . A FAC I L I TAT O R W H O CA N C H A N G E E V E RY T H I N G O N

T H E F LY, W I T H O U T M A K I N G I T S E E M C H AO T I C A N D D I S O R G A N I Z E D , H A S R E A L S K I L L . ”


LIST ADAPTED FROM THE CHANGE HANDBOOK BY PEGGY HOLMAN, TOM DEVANE, AND STEVEN CADY, 2006, PAGE 38.

—CONVENING DESIGNER


ALL QUOTES WERE TAKEN FROM IN-PERSON

INTERVIEWS WITH THE EXPERT CONTRIBUTORS

LISTED IN THE APPENDIX.

FUNDAMENTALSFacilitation THERE ARE TIMES when you as the lead designer

will be the best positioned to lead the conversation,

or must lead it if you lack the resources to bring

in an outside facilitator. If you’re not completely

comfortable wearing that hat, here are a few tips

to get you started.

START WITH GOALS AND GROUND RULES.

Working in a collaborative group setting is very

different from other modes of interaction, so it

always helps to remind people why they’re there

and how to engage productively. Get agreement

at the very beginning about the goal of the gather-

ing, share the agenda, clarify roles such as your

own as the facilitator, explain how decisions will

be made (if relevant), and request that they follow

certain ground rules such as reserving judgment

and speaking openly.

BUILD AGREEMENT ALONG THE WAY. Getting

the group to stand behind the process is the foun-

dation for strong participation. You can gather

ideas by proposing, listing, brainstorming, or

clarifying what’s been said. You can then combine

any duplicates, prioritize the list, and ask for ad-

vocates. Then, to get agreement, you can ask for

a show of hands, or give each person a certain

number of votes to cast among the options.

GUIDE EACH DISCUSSION THROUGH AN

ARC. Every discussion has a natural arc from

opening, to narrowing, and finally to closing. Use

your wording and questions to help the group stay

aware of where they are, so that each segment of

time can be used effectively.

LISTEN AS AN ALLY. One of the hardest things

to do as a facilitator is to set aside your own opin-

ions for the sake of helping the group as a whole.

When you feel the need to advocate, set aside

that need and focus on your curiosity about the

speaker’s point of view. You might paraphrase the

speaker’s words to confirm the meaning of what

you heard, ask open-ended questions to probe for

more information, or use your body language to

show that you are at ease rather than in a con-

frontation.


USE CONFLICT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO

EXPOSE UNDERLYING BELIEFS. When people

express conflicting views, compromise is rarely

found without establishing mutual understanding.

One of the best ways to get there is to ask the

people in conflict to explain why they believe what

they do. What data, observations, or chain of

reasoning led them to their perspective? In doing

so you will often find the seeds of compromise.

STEP IN WHEN THE GROUP NEEDS HELP.

Your goal as a facilitator is usually to melt into the

background, keeping the focus on the group. But

be alert to when the group needs help, and step

in as necessary. Make process suggestions about

how to proceed, educate the group about what

steps you’ll be asking them to take, ask open-

ended questions to encourage participation, and

enforce agreements about what process should

be followed.

GATHER ANY INFORMATION YOU CAN

ABOUT HOW PARTICIPANTS ARE LIKELY

TO ENGAGE. What are their learning styles,

personalities, and cultural backgrounds? Try to

find out what attitudes they are likely to share

with others, where they are likely to diverge, and

any points of existing tension. If you’re concerned

about encountering a challenging situation, role-

play different ways that the conversation could

unfold and plan how to respond.

EXPECT A WIDE RANGE OF ATTITUDES.

Participants will each have their own default

habits in group discussion. For some, that will be

creative contribution; for others, it might be play-

ing devil’s advocate, being the pragmatist, or even

trying to assert control. They may also arrive feel-

ing anywhere from fresh and energetic to bone-

tired and disengaged. Watch for these patterns in

their behavior, adjust your approach if necessary,

and work with them to drive the conversation in a

productive direction.

FUNDAMENTALSFacilitation


In 2011, the international NGO Hu-man Rights First set out to convene a group of retired generals, admirals, and other security officials from around the world to meet at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Center. The purpose was to hear their views on the delicate topic of torture: whether it was useful, and whether they would help other na-tions end the practice. It was im-portant that the conversation be off the record, for the group to be small (at 22 participants), and for it to be diverse in both the countries and the skill sets represented (such as com-bat, logistics, and law). But beyond the format, the leaders of Human

Rights First knew that choosing the right facilitator for the meeting would be crucial for helping participants open up and develop a sense of shared mission.

This would be the second time that Human Rights First had hosted such a conversation. In 2005, it had convened a coalition of retired U.S. generals and admirals to oppose the torture policies of the George W. Bush Administration, following the scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guan-tánamo. That first group had been highly effective in shaping domestic policy, working with Senator McCain to prohibit torture by the U.S. armed

forces. Later, members of the coali-tion stood behind President Obama on his second day in office when he signed executive orders banning torture by the CIA and closing the agency’s secret interrogation sites. Building on the success of that first initiative, Human Rights First wanted to use a similar approach for advo-cating abroad.

Human Rights First chose Richard Danzig as the facilitator for this second convening. Danzig is widely respected on military, foreign policy, and international matters, having served as the Secretary of the Navy under President Bill Clinton. The leaders of Human Rights First be-lieved his abilities to bridge civilian and uniformed leaders on interna-tional issues would ensure a robust,

candid, and productive conversation. And Danzig’s involvement did play a large part in making the gathering a success. The group began working with Human Rights First soon after, and continues to this day to advocate for respecting the Geneva Conven-tions worldwide.

Speaking military to military on the use of torture

CHOOSINGthe Right Facilitator


28


ASSEMBLING THE PARTICIPANTS

D

IN LARGE PART, the success of a convening rests on

whether the group of people you assemble is the right

mix. This is an important part of the art of convening.

It’s easy to start this process by scanning your own or

your organization’s contact list and filling the room that

way. This may work fine, but it’s worth taking the time

to step back and establish a clear rationale for who

needs to take part in your convening.

Start by mapping your stakeholders. This means

thinking not just about the people who will be in the

room but everyone who will be interested in knowing

that this gathering is happening.

Two criteria are helpful for developing a rationale for

your invitee list:

n HOW RELEVANT THEY ARE TO ACHIEVING

YOUR PURPOSE—In other words, how much

will their presence contribute to achieving your

convening goal?

n HOW INTERESTED THEY ARE LIKELY TO BE

IN PARTICIPATING—Take into account their inter-

est in the topic, their ability to commit their time, and

their relationship with you.

You can use these two criteria as a way to chart your

“landscape” of stakeholders.R E L E VA N C E T O YO U R G O A L

ST

RE

NG

TH

OF

IN

TE

RE

ST

LOW

ME

DIU

MH

IGH

LO W M E D I U M H I G H

P E R S O N 1

P E R S O N 2

P E R S O N 3

P E R S O N 4 P E R S O N 5 P E R S O N 6

MAPPINGyour Stakeholders

D | ASSEMBLING PARTICIPANTSGATHERPAGE 29

ONCE YOU’VE CREATED a draft list, consider how you want to “segment” your

stakeholders according to how you will engage them and the type of role

you envision for each. Choose one of four options for each person: whether

to consult them on aspects of the design, include them on the invitation list,

involve them in a lower-touch way, simply inform them—or not include them

at all:

CONSULT: This is the highest level of inclu-sion you can give a participant, giving him or her partial decision rights on the purpose, process, outputs, or any other element of the event. Weigh this decision carefully: it is an opportunity to create powerful buy-in and gain valuable input, but could also complicate and slow down your planning process.

INVOLVE: There are ways to include stake-holders without giving them the substantial decision rights you would grant to someone who you plan to “consult.” For example, you could ask for their suggestions on what ques-tions to address or tasks to accomplish; ask them to share brief statements of their point of view or provide reactions to what is cre-ated; or encourage them to help distribute the outputs.

SEGMENTINGyour Stakeholders


R E L E VA N C E T O YO U R G O A L

STR

ENG

TH O

F IN

TER

ES

T


STR

ENG

TH O

F IN

TER

ES

T


STR

ENG

TH O

F IN

TER

ES

T


STR

ENG

TH O

F IN

TER

ES

T

INCLUDE: These are people you want to have participate in your event but don’t need to involve in the design.

INFORM: Some stakeholders should hear about the results of the work rather than be involved in the event. This segment could include people you are trying to educate or influence, funders who want to hear about the results of what they supported, or even academics who would be interested in learn-ing about the conclusions.

n CHOOSE PEOPLE because they have inter-

est, passion, or expertise in the topic you’re

discussing and for their ability to influence the

field, not solely because of their title or organi-

zation.

n INCLUDE AS MUCH DIVERSITY as you can,

especially in the qualities that directly relate

to the topic. Consider diversity of constituen-

cies (e.g., nationality, profession, organizational

type, or field) and perspectives (e.g., political

stance, upbringing, training, or worldview), and

avoid creating a group that will likely be seen as

the “usual suspects.” Including deeply different

mindsets and identities in the conversation does

make it more challenging to create a sense of

community, but provided that everyone shares

an interest in the outcome, it is also

the surest path to high-quality

new ideas.

n SEEK PARTICIPANTS who have something

valuable to offer, are curious to learn new infor-

mation, are committed to creating new ideas,

and are capable of engaging in dialogue with

minimal ego. If it is essential to include one or

more participants who may have trouble engag-

ing collaboratively, plan to spend time with them

ahead of the event to discuss what the work will

be and the role you’d like them to play.

n LOOK FOR any substantial differences in either

perspective or relative status/power. If they ex-

ist, make a choice: would it serve your purpose

for the gathering to grapple with them directly,

or could it be more productive to acknowledge

these tensions but focus the conversation else-

where? The latter may be more appealing, but it

requires finding a way for these tensions to be a

part of the discussion rather than the proverbial

elephant in the room.

GENERALConsiderations

“ I T H I N K O F C O N V E N I N G A S A K I N D O F 2 1 S T - C E N T U RY C O M M U N I T Y O R G A N I Z I N G . ”



ONE OF THE MORE ARTFUL ASPECTS of choosing

who to invite is composing a group that will be

well positioned to create new knowledge to-

gether. Doing this well can be a decisive factor in

achieving the kinds of collective intelligence that

only a convening can generate.

TO GET STARTED, ASK YOURSELF what

common ground this group already shares, and

how you can expand it by the time they need to

work together. If you’re lucky, the purpose you

have in mind is one that your group is already

primed to work on when they gather. But some of

the most powerful convenings are designed to be

a bridging moment for a group of deeply diverse

actors who may share little common understand-

ing beyond their passion for the purpose. This is

especially true for those focused on innovation

and creating foresight, which often involve bring-

ing together people with deep vertical expertise in

different disciplines.

KNOWLEDGEHow to Builda Shared Base

n COULD THEY LEARN what they need ahead

of time—from materials that you or other partici-

pants provide? Note that in most cases, at least

a third of participants will skim or ignore the

pre-reading, and the rest will dedicate only a

small amount of time to it. So be conservative in

the amount of material you provide and choose

pieces that they will be motivated to study.

n COULD THEY LEARN what they need in the

opening stages of the event—from other par-

ticipants, from a speaker, or from you? This

information will certainly be heard but costs

precious time and can leave action-oriented

participants feeling impatient.

n WHAT INFORMATION or perspectives can

you provide that will provoke discussion,

whether because they are new or because they

are controversial? And, as above, do you want

to provide these perspectives ahead or time or

at the event itself?

IF THAT TYPE OF BRIDGING is necessary with

your group, ask yourself:

n WHAT INFORMATION related to the topic will

everyone in this group already understand?

What perspectives will they already agree on?

Use this foundation as a starting place.

n WHAT BASIC INFORMATION will everyone in

the group need to understand in order to work

collaboratively toward the goal? Think through

each participant, or type of participant, and

look for gaps between what they will need to

know and the starting point. Find ways to bridge

these gaps, which could be as small as an

understanding of the other participants’ back-

grounds and recent work, or as large as having

a deep understanding of the current state of

play in an emerging field.

Questions to ask


n INTERVIEW knowledgeable participants

beforehand and share their perspectives as a

pre-read to help get the group up to speed.

n RESEARCH and share background information

on unresolved questions if participants would

not know the full picture themselves, or when

there is not time to construct the picture col-

lectively.

n BEFORE THE EVENT, ask participants to

share experiences or information related to the

topic, and then play those back through a pre-

read, in opening remarks, or on a wall poster.

n DURING THE EVENT, divide participants into

groups for more intimate discussion and learn-

ing or have them participate in team activities

that tap into their respective areas of expertise.

n ENGAGE in collective history-telling and

landscape-mapping at the start of the day to

give each participant the chance to have their

point of view heard and establish a shared un-

derstanding of the issue’s background.

n CREATE “playing cards” for key information

or ideas and design breakout group activities

that let participants absorb that information

and respond to it.

KNOWLEDGEHow to Build a Shared

Base

Ideas to try


When program officers at the Rock-efeller Foundation set out in 2010 to accelerate the field of “impact sourcing” in Africa, they knew that a convening of the key actors (and principal competitors) would be a powerful tool. They believed in the core promise: that businesses could achieve a win-win by outsourcing their business processes to ven-dors in Africa who drew their labor force from poor and disadvantaged communities. But the field was at such an early stage in its develop-ment that they were concerned that the conversation would get bogged down in debating basic matters of fact rather than bigger questions about the field’s boundaries, direc-tion, and potential for growth. To make the most of the group’s time

together, they worked with Moni-tor Inclusive Markets to produce a whitepaper documenting the current state of play: whether there was a field, how large it was, and what needed to be done for the field to grow.

All of the convening’s participants got a copy of the whitepaper three weeks in advance, and the gathering began with an opportunity to respond with comments. This enabled the group to then move into a conversation about the future of the field with a deep agreement on the facts of what was currently happening.

One of the most important points established by the whitepaper was that the field could be expected to

grow as large as $20 billion by 2015, employing 780,000 workers, which gave participants a sense that they were part of a fast-growing pie with room for each of them to have a slice. The result was a productive, focused, forward-looking dialogue that created a sense of common purpose around supporting the rapid growth that they all believed was possible.

After the convening, the whitepaper was expanded to become a public statement of participants’ shared vision, a far stronger statement than the foundation or any other single actor could have made on its own. To see the results, read “Job Creation Through Building the Field of Impact Sourcing” at http://j.mp/10YnxOo.

EXAMPLEof Building a Strong Shared Knowledge Base


Defining the field of “impact sourcing”

DEPENDING ON YOUR PURPOSE, you may want to

cap the size of the group at a certain level in order

to avoid group dynamics that run at odds with

the work to be done. While some expert con-

vening designers are able to create large-scale

gatherings for a wide range of purposes, com-

plexity increases dramatically as the size of the

group increases. If you need to work with more

people than can be productive to engage at once,

consider running multiple gatherings that each

provide input into the broader work. Below are

some rough guidelines for what to expect at three

common group sizes.

Generally the largest size that suits intimate dialogue among participants where they can build trust and achieve breakthroughs in how they relate.

NOTE: THIS IS OFTEN A GOOD SIZE IF YOUR PURPOSE IS

TO INFLUENCE OR ALIGN AND ACT, AND ONLY A SMALL

GROUP OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS NEED TO PARTICIPATE.

Generally the largest size that suits generative ideation where participants all have the chance to build on one another’s concepts.

NOTE: THIS IS A GOOD ALL-PURPOSE SIZE RANGE

WHETHER YOUR AIM IS TO INFLUENCE, INNOVATE, DE-

VELOP FORESIGHT, OR ALIGN AND ACT.

Generally the largest size at which there can be meaningful exchange in plenary, the group can contribute to a shared task, and most participants will have a chance to meet one another.

NOTE: THIS IS A GOOD SIZE IF YOUR PURPOSE IS TO

INFLUENCE, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR GOAL IS MORE TO

INFORM THAN TO SWAY. IT CAN ALSO BE USEFUL IF YOUR

AIM IS TO DEVELOP FORESIGHT AND THE CONVENING

IS USED TO DRAW INPUT FROM A LARGE GROUP.

SMALLTEENS TO LOW TWENTIES

MEDIUMLOW THIRTIES TO HIGH FORTIES

LARGEFIFTY TO EIGHTY

TARGETINGa Size for the Group


In 2007 the Rockefeller Foundation heard from many health practitioners that the world’s weakest health sys-tems were at a crucial tipping point: with the right investment, “eHealth” technology could help these systems achieve great gains in both quality and efficiency. Rockefeller’s leaders decided to convene the key players in this emerging field to consider what shape it could and should take.

Two galvanizing purposes were at the core of this effort. Primarily, the Rockefeller Foundation hoped these convenings would help to “align and act,” both by building partnerships among players and by creating com-mon IT operating standards. Second-

arily, they hoped the sessions would influence the field, both by creating healthcare policy recommendations for national governments and by inspiring donors to give more private funding.

With a clear sense of the key issues and key players in the eHealth space, the designers steered away from creating one large convening, which would be at odds with their two purposes. Instead, they organized a series of separate convenings to address the eight most important questions: two week-long convenings of 25 to 30 participants happening in parallel each week for four weeks. The topics of each week’s two con-

venings were closely related, so that interesting conversations could be sparked between the two participant groups during shared dinners and activities. Industry, donors, govern-ments, researchers, and civil society were all represented. These eight events proved valuable networking opportunities for a range of diverse participants and also cre-ated a substantial body of persuasive material for governments and donors. Even better, the convenings launched a set of robust activities: the cre-ation of the mHealth Alliance, a new approach to open source electronic health records, a new national health network in Rwanda, and notice-ably greater momentum for eHealth throughout the Global South.

EXAMPLEof Using Small Conveningsin Combination


Eight convenings add up to accelerated growth in eHealth

AN INVITATION attracts participants to come—but it also sets the tone for what they expect of the

convening more broadly. Below are some general guidelines for creating an effective invitation.

INVITATIONSSending

Tailor the communication based on the cogni-tive and emotional impact you want to make on that individual, e.g., giving them hope for the outcome, offering a chance to make a difference, or giving them exposure to an elite group.

Consider how much convincing this person will require that your gathering is worth their time. If you don’t have an established reputation, make sure to have a strong pitch.

To lay the groundwork for a collaborative atmosphere, ask people to come because of their background, capabilities, and interests as individuals—not because of their position or be-cause they represent a particular organization.

When inviting speakers, make it clear up front that you have a specific role in mind for them (even if you haven’t decided exactly what), so they don’t expect to simply deliver their usual spiel. (Ideally they should be invited to partici-pate as well.)

G E N E R A L A P P R O A C H

Use language that is personal, direct, warm, and speaks to the person as an important relationship, whether existing or new.

Make the convening’s purpose clear and posi-tion it as part of the larger goals that it serves.

Word the topic as one or more questions rath-er than general issues, topics, or problems, to suggest there will be something to develop and explore.

Trust that people will want to contribute: em-phasize not what the person will gain but what they have to offer to the work.

Include at least the city where you plan to hold the event, the date(s), and the amount of time you are asking for, even if you haven’t yet settled on a specific venue.

C O M P O S I T I O N

Convey the invitation through existing relation-ships wherever possible, since a personal appeal will be considerably more effective.

Use a combination of in-person, phone, email, and hard-copy invitations. One type can be used to follow up on the other.

Give the invite an eye-catching design that connects to the topic and is part of the style for the rest of the materials.

D E L I V E RY

“ N O M AT T E R W H AT T H E F O R M , A N E F F E C T I V E I N V I TAT I O N I S E X T E N D E D W I T H G E N U I N E H O S P I TA L I T Y, G E N E R O S I T Y, A N D C O N V I C T I O N . ”



Enabling authentic conversation that includes both funders and nonprofitsWHEN FUNDERS AND NONPROFIT LEADERS are in

the same room, there is often an elephant some-

where nearby. It’s the inevitable power dynamic

that often exists between those with funds and

those seeking funding. If your purpose is served

by having both in the room—and it is increasingly

important to do so—here are some suggestions on

how to maintain an open and honest exchange:

n PRIORITIZE EQUITY in every aspect of the

gathering. Start by have funders take a back

seat in the design and facilitation, so that the

event is clearly and visibly created to serve the

field rather than a funder’s agenda.

n CREATE A PROCESS for the group that

involves funders principally for their knowledge

of the content, the actors, and the current state

of play.

n DESIGN THE CONVERSATION to steer clear

of topics that compel nonprofits to demonstrate

their expertise in front of funders; the need to

grandstand can easily degrade the quality of the

conversation.

n ENCOURAGE FUNDERS to be fully transpar-

ent about their motivations, goals, and

perspectives, and the role they intend to play.

n HEAVILY DISCOURAGE funders from observ-

ing without participating, which will leave the

other wondering about their opinions.

n IF IT IS ESSENTIAL for grantmaking conver-

sations to occur, be open about how they will fit

in, but keep them separate from the rest of the

convening so as not to distract from the work.

CONSIDERATIONSAdditional

“ P O W E R DY N A M I C S A R E I N C R E D I B LY I M P O R TA N T. T H E C H A L L E N G I N G M E E T I N G S T H AT I C O N S I D E R T O H AV E G O N E W E L L A L L I N V O LV E D F R U I T F U L LY H A N D L I N G P O W E R D I F F E R E N C E S . ”



HOW YOU INCLUDE SPEAKERS and other experts

in your convening is an important part of taking

a co-creative stance, because the emphasis on

participation opens up many more options beyond

asking them to deliver their standard presenta-

tion. Here are some ways to think of engaging

speakers beyond the usual keynote address or

seminar talk:

n PRE-READING CONTRIBUTOR—If she or he

has written material that is useful background

for the conversation, you may want to include it

in the pre-reading.

n PEER PARTICIPANT—There may be no need

for experts to engage in a different way than

other participants.

n SCENE-SETTER—She or he can open the

conversation by sharing a general point of view

about the task or topic at hand, such as an

update on the state of the field or a vision for

how it might develop. This might be a 45-minute

keynote or a punchy 15-minute briefing. Either

way, the fewer slides they use, the better.

n BREAKOUT FACILITATOR—She or he can lead

a small group conversation focused on a topic

of expertise, at once guiding and informing the

discussion, if she or he is skilled at both.

n INTERVIEWEE OR PANEL MEMBER—You

can have a conversation with a speaker on

stage, either one-on-one or on a small panel.

This provides greater flexibility, allowing you to

ask questions on the fly based on the group’s

previous discussion. Panels can also be used

to respond to the outputs that breakout groups

create.

n CLOSER—She or he can speak at the end to

respond to what was said and share thoughts

about implications and future possibilities.

EXPERTSWorking with Speakers and Other

“ C O N V E N I N G I S A B O U T C R E AT I N G S A F E S PA C E F O R P E O P L E T O T E L L T H E I R T R U T H . ”



• Invite participants to post photos using a tag on Flickr or an event-specific page on Facebook.

• Share cleaned-up photos of any graphic recordings, ideally printed and in color. (For more on graphic recording, see the end of the chapter on “Structuring the Work.”)

• Share minutes of key discussions, augmented by the accompanying flipchart notes.

• Ask participants to share written reflections of the experience and what they took away.

• Record audio or video of key sessions to provide for download.

• Publish any tangible output of the work, whether that is a set of scenarios, innovation proposals, new directions for a field, policy goals, or another product of the group’s effort.

P O S T - E V E N T K N O W L E D G E S H A R I N G A N D C O N V E R S AT I O N

IF THERE ARE STAKEHOLDERS who you would like to inform about the event without having them in

the room participating, there are now many options for those not present to provide input, hear

what was said, and see what was produced.

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

OU

TS

IDE

AU

DIE

NC

ES

INFORMINGStakeholders Through Capture and Sharing

• Live-tweet memorable quotes; encourage the group to use a shared hashtag in their tweets.

• Live-blog the event as it occurs. Recruit a team of volunteer bloggers among participants, encouraging them to share their reflections in writing.

• Conduct and post impromptu video interviews (sometimes termed “flip chats”) to capture reactions, learning, and other thoughts from participants.

• Live-stream parts or all of the event as audio or video.

R E A L- T I M E C A P T U R E

Take audience questions for speakers through online formats for real-time engagement such as webinars, videoconferencing, live polling, and tweeting.

R E A L- T I M E I N P U T


THE LOCATION AND SURROUNDINGS of a conven-

ing have far more effect on the group’s produc-

tivity than most people realize. The qualities of a

space determine the options you have for what

activities you can create for the group. Here is a

checklist of qualities you may want to consider

beyond the usual basics of location, size, and

cost:

A LWAY S VA LU A B L En EASE OF TRAVEL—Whether centrally locat-

ed or remote, so participants have a smooth,

non-stressful arrival and departure

n NATURAL LIGHT—To provide physical and

mental energy

n GOOD SIZE AND ACOUSTICS—To promote

sound projection so that everyone can be

heard given the size of the group

C A N O P E N U P M O R E O P T I O N S F O R YO U R D E S I G Nn MULTIPLE ROOMS—For breakout groups or

parallel sessions

n MOVABLE CHAIRS AND TABLES—For easy

setting and resetting of the space, such as

from a single circle to small groups

n MULTIPLE SEATING OPTIONS—To promote

an informal and open group conversation (e.g.,

sofas, high chairs, or café tables)

n THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LEISURE—Walks,

entertainment, and other outings can promote

connection within the group

n SUBSTANTIAL FLAT WALL SPACE—For

graphic recording and working with flipcharts.

(Alternatively, use a pair of easels and large

foamcore as a surface.)

N I C E T O H AV En ACCESS TO THE OUTSIDE—To provide the

opportunity for more refreshing breaks

n OFF-SITE AND PERHAPS FAR AWAY—To

maintain focus, separate participants from

everyday concerns, and allow for deep con-

versation

n OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY—To aid

in inspiration, relaxation, and reflection

n THEMATIC CONNECTION TO THE

PURPOSE—Such as being in the home coun-

try of key participants, or the topic’s global

hotspot

n UNIQUENESS—To help the experience stand

out in a way participants will appreciate, in

the moment and in recollection

W O R K S H E E T

“ M E E T I N G S AT C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R S A N D H O T E LS S E E M E A S I E R T O P L A N A N D G E T T O B U T M A K E I T H A R D E R T O S Q U E E Z E S O M E T H I N G G O O D O U T O F T H E G AT H E R I N G . ”

VENUEFinding the Right



CONDITIONS

VIRTUAL MEETING SPACES are very flexible and

are naturally suited for speeches, seminars,

training courses, or meetings of far-flung teams

and already established networks. But while

online gatherings may sound like an easier way to

achieve the same goals as an in-person gathering,

the lack of in-person connection makes it quite

difficult to achieve a visceral sense of community

and a high level of interactivity, both of which are

crucial to a group becoming greater than the sum

of its parts. Yet there are many situations when

a virtual convening is a good choice. Below are

some guidelines for how to use virtual space well.

IF...

… Participants have at least moderate com-fort with socializing online

… And they all have sufficient connectivity for easy participation

… And there are too many people to gather in person

… And the urgency is high enough that orga-nizing an in-person meeting would take too long

… And there are participant availability issues, they lack resources, or there are some other hard constraints that prevent meeting in person

ONLINEWhen to meetInstead of in Person

A VIRTUAL CONVENING is a one-time gathering for

a specific purpose, whereas a virtual community

is an ongoing meeting-place where a group can

meet repeatedly and for a variety of purposes.

One example of virtual convening would be if a

group of 30 content experts provided input into a

scenario planning exercise through a time-bound

conversation on a mailing list, led by a strong

facilitator.

By contrast, an example of a virtual community is

PreventObesity.net, a site hosted by the Ameri-

can Heart Association where local leaders of

the movement to reverse the childhood obesity

epidemic can meet, discuss approaches, and find

advocacy efforts within their communities.

Virtual convenings vs. virtual communities

“ I F YO U ’ R E T RY I N G T O B U I L D T R U S T, I D O N ’ T K N O W H O W YO U G E T A R O U N D B E I N G T H E R E I N P E R S O N . ”

for Convening Virtually



When the leaders of Case Foundation wanted to highlight the latest trends in giving and engagement by the Mil-lennial generation, they considered both in-person and virtual options for bringing together about 1,000 execu-tives across business, government, and nonprofits. Both formats would have served their goal of broaden-ing the dialogue around the second annual Millennial Donor Survey, but they felt it was especially important to engage individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and industries who might not usually join.

What they chose to create was a highly interactive format for conven-

ing online. Just like at a standard in-person conference, the “event” was divided into a series of plenary sessions (webinars) and breakouts (chat rooms). Participants could listen to speakers and ask questions in the plenaries, join a facilitated breakout conversation in one of the public “lounges,” or strike up private conversations with one another in a chat session. Vendors could share materials and be available for con-versation in an “exhibit hall,” and conference materials were pro-vided for download in a “briefcase.” Meanwhile, many participants shared their reflections live on Twitter and in blogs. The combination of formats

achieved a familiar conference-style atmosphere and added a few bo-nuses: the ability to find anyone at any time, have side conversations without interrupting the speaker, and join for only as much of the time as was relevant.

The result was a gathering that the Case Foundation’s leaders felt was quite successful, with low barriers to entry and widespread participation, and requiring the same level of effort to organize as an in-person gathering but at a lower cost. The main chal-lenge they reported: keeping partici-pants’ attention with a format that makes multitasking so easy. To learn more, read the Case Foundation’s reflections at http://bit.ly/tQAZC9.

EXAMPLEof an Entirely Virtual Convening


The Case Foundation’s Millennial Donor Summit

44


STRUCTURINGTHE WORK

E

CREATINGa Designer’s AgendaNOW THAT YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED the purpose

of your convening, the group of people you hope

will attend, and how long you will spend together,

you should now be well positioned to work out the

highest and best use of that precious time.

We’re all used to creating simple hour-by-hour

meeting agendas, but that won’t do the trick for

a convening, where you need to put far more

thought into the flow of the conversation. You’ll

need to organize your ideas in a format that can

capture the current state of your thinking, convey

it to your team, and accomodate easy changes as

the details evolve.

A typical solution is to create a “designer’s

agenda” that describes how you will use the time

from beginning to end. It is usually a good idea to

describe each block of time in terms of its length,

the goals you are trying to achieve in that time,

and the specific methods (or activities) that you

will use to achieve them.

It can be helpful to start drafting a designer’s

agenda as soon as you begin developing ideas

for how to use the time, creating simple outlines

that are easy to rearrange. As you home in on a

structure that you trust, you can then add greater

detail. The designer’s agenda should cover every

detail you decide about the sequence of activities.

Don’t be surprised, or alarmed, if it becomes as

long and specific as the script for a movie or play.

While you won’t be able to (and shouldn’t) speak

every word as it’s written, writing down what you

plan to say can be a helpful forcing mechanism.

And when you’re wrapped up in delivering the

event, having all of the process instructions writ-

ten out in advance will keep you on track and your

team coordinated in real time.

E | STRUCTURING THE WORKGATHERPAGE 45

CREATINGa Designer’s Agenda

Experienced designers create a process they

believe in but then treat it as simply a strong

hypothesis, remaining open to adapting it in real

time if the needs of the group develop in

unexpected directions.

Follow this format to begin creating your own

designer’s agenda:

SEGMENT LENGTH

GOAL(S)

How many minutes the

segment will take, and/

or what time it will start

and end

METHODS

In one brief sentence, explain

how the methods you describe

(on the right) serve your con-

vening’s purpose.

Name each action you’ll take during this segment, describe what you plan to say or include the

exact talking points, and include any hand-offs if there are multiple people speaking.

List any physical materials you’ll need and any changes to the arrangement of the room.


Next duration… Next set of goals… Next segment’s methods...

PRINCIPLESfor an Effective Agenda DEVELOPING AND REFINING your designer’s agenda

will always be more art than science, as you work

toward a series of activities that will serve your

purpose with the people, place, time, and budget

that you have available. As you go through that

inherently iterative process with your team, there

are a wide range of best practices that can help

ensure that you end up with a truly co-creative

gathering.

n FACILITATE PARTICIPANT OWNERSHIP of

the convening. Plan for how each participant

can make a meaningful contribution, and design

opportunities for them to start contributing

early—including by providing input to the agen-

da.

n SERVE MULTIPLE LEARNING STYLES by

mixing up the modes of interaction to include

variation between textual and visual, analytical

and emotional, creating and reflecting.

n ENGAGE PARTICIPANTS’ WHOLE SELVES

by breaking up work that is mental and

analytical with activities that are creative and

intuitive such as storytelling, collage, or

contemplation.

n STEER CLEAR of standard meeting formats

(e.g. rows of tables, PowerPoint from a

podium, everyone seated but the presenter) by

using alternatives such as frequent breakouts,

movement around multiple stations, working on

flipcharts, speaking without slides, and graphic

recording.

n PLAN TO IMPROVISE. Have a strong script

but expect that it will need to be adjusted in

real-time in order to meet the group’s needs.

Outline fall-back plans, especially where there

is uncertainty about how the group will react.

n DESIGN FOR INTROVERTS, so that every-

one has a comfortable way to contribute. Give

participants a chance to contribute in advance,

provide time to think and write after new ideas

are shared, design interactions around groups

of three to six, and avoid cold-calling.

Keep participants at the center

“ YO U WA N T C L A R I T Y O F P U R P O S E , B U T A LS O T O E M P O W E R T H E C O M M U N I T Y T O A M E N D , A D A P T, A N D C O - C R E AT E I T S O W N S E N S E O F P U R P O S E . ”



PRINCIPLESfor an Effective Agenda

n CREATE EXPERIENCES that encourage new

relationships to be born. For example, think

carefully about who to seat together at

dinner or who to place on a team. Default to

diversity: only group participants with others

from their organization, sector, or perspec-

tive when necessary. And encourage

personal connection, such as by kicking off

the first meal by having everyone turn to a

neighbor and talk about a recent book they

read or film they saw.

n WHEN WORKING on sensitive topics, invest

extra time in establishing connection and trust

among participants, so that there is a safe

“container” for the exchange of emotionally or

politically charged perspectives.

n PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES and information

that enable participants to connect in advance

of the convening.

Create connections

Pay attention to flow of the agendan BALANCE structured and unstructured time.

A more co-creative design stance will require

more unstructured time for one-on-one con-

nection. You may want to leave as much as

40 percent of the time unstructured if building

person-to-person relationships is a high prior-

ity and participants will be able to put it to good

use.

n BALANCE serious contribution with playful-

ness, fun, and creativity.

n REMEMBER the importance of openings, clos-

ings, and transitions from one activity to the

next. For example, when you return to plenary

after a breakout, you might skip the often-

monotonous round robin of report-outs and do

something quicker such as asking for volunteers

to share brief highlights from their conversa-

tions, or holding a fast-paced competition for

the most convincing proposal.

n WORK WITH natural biorhythms: expect low

energy first thing in the morning, after lunch,

and at the end of the day. At those times, try to

avoid long speeches and focus instead on in-

teractive activities—the more talking and move-

ment, the better.


Establish ground rulesn DISCUSS PRINCIPLES at the start for how

the group wants to interact. For example, if part

of your goal is for people to step out of their

organizational roles, you could state explicitly

that you would like people to speak from their

personal perspective. Or, if part of your goal is

open brainstorming, you might propose a ban on

saying “that’s impossible!”

n ESTABLISH how the conversation will be cap-

tured and communicated beyond the room. That

begins with an agreement of how participants

will share what is said, whether in real-time,

via social media, or afterwards. It should also

include a discussion of any organized method of

capturing and harvesting the group’s insights. If

the conversation is sensitive, you may want to

adopt the Chatham House Rule (nothing said can

be attributed without permission) or declare

certain segments of the agenda to be off the

record.

n SET NORMS with participants about when

and where to use computers and mobile phones

during the convening. Make sure to provide

adequate breaks for people to make phone calls

and catch up on email.

“ YO U H AV E T O PAY AT T E N T I O N T O T H E FA C T T H AT YO U ’ R E I N I T I AT I N G P E O P L E I N T O A N E W B E LO N G I N G , A N D M A K I N G T H AT B E LO N G I N G F E E L G O O D . ”

PRINCIPLESfor an Effective Agenda



STRUCTURINGthe Flow of Activities

“A C O N V E N I N G I S A D A N C E B E T W E E N J O I N I N G A N D D I F F E R E N T I AT I O N . P E O P L E C A N O N LY H AV E A J O I N I N G E X P E R I E N C E F O R S O LO N G B E F O R E T H E Y N E E D T O D I F F E R E N T I AT E . A N D , F O R T H E G R O U P T O K E E P D O I N G I T S W O R K , T H AT D I F F E R E N T I AT I O N C A N O N LY H A P P E N F O R S O LO N G B E F O R E T H E R E N E E D S T O B E S O M E J O I N I N G . ”

Six commonly used stagesTHERE ARE NO HARD AND FAST RULES for how

to structure the blank slate of your designer’s

agenda. But most well-designed gatherings are

structured around a particular series of stages.*

The event begins with connection, establishes

a shared language, and then presents a diver-

gent set of views on the topic. Depending on the

convening’s purpose, that divergence may be

followed by the co-creation of new ideas, con-

vergence on a certain set of answers, or even

commitment to take action.

* The concept that participation leads to divergence, and that divergence can be used productively to arrive at shared understanding, was established by Sam Kaner et al. in the Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (2007). The open-to-close framework above is based on their work.

DIVERGENCE

CONNECTION

SHARED LANGUAGE

CO-CREATION

CONVERGENCE

COMMITMENT



STRUCTURINGthe Flow of Activities

ConnectionWHAT TO DO: Welcome participants, give them the opportunity to connect with one another on a

personal level, and help them establish a sense of group identity.

WHEN IT’S IMPORTANT: Important at every convening. Spend more time here if the group has never

met, there is opposition within the group, or building networks is the primary purpose.

DIVERGENCE

CONNECTION

SHARED LANGUAGE

CO-CREATION

CONVERGENCE

COMMITMENT

S A M P L E A C T I V I T I E SSTRUCTURED GO-AROUND: Participants take turns sharing introductions (clockwise around a circle, tossing a beanbag, or popcorn-style).1

GROUP TIMELINE: Participants place them-selves on a visual timeline of the group’s previous work.2

NETWORK-MAPPING: Visually map the relation-ship connections among participants.3

STAND UP, SIT DOWN: Have participants stand or sit in response to questions about their back-ground.4

HUMAN SPECTOGRAM: Describe two oppos-ing perspectives that form a spectrum, and ask participants to line up along it to show where they stand.5

ASSET MAPPING: Participants from an exist-ing community build mutual understanding of one another’s capabilities and needs to find ways to support one another.6

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY: Participants inter-view one another about the strengths of the com-munity or field.7

WORLD CAFÉ: Participants rotate among small groups to discuss the topic, building on the previous conversation and sharing the results in plenary.8

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT EACH ACTIVITY, SEE THE LIST OF RESOURCES LISTED AT THE END OF THE SECTION.


STRUCTURINGShared languageWHAT TO DO: Orient the group to the substance of the conversation—the state of play, relevant his-

tory, important facts, and other shared understanding that is foundational to the work.

WHEN IT’S IMPORTANT: Important at every convening. Spend more time here if participants under-

stand the topic from very different angles, if they need to be caught up on recent changes, or if sharing

learning is the primary purpose.

DIVERGENCE

CONNECTION

SHARED LANGUAGE

CO-CREATION

CONVERGENCE

COMMITMENT

S A M P L E A C T I V I T I E S ASSET MAPPING: (see “connection”)

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY: (see “connection”)

WORLD CAFÉ: (see “connection”)

FACTS AND OPINIONS: Create a separate list of facts and opinions about the issue in order to get information on the table quickly.9

JIGSAW: Participants self-segregate into groups to discuss key themes, then re-form groups that contain at least one person from each inter-est group to report and reflect on their group’s ideas.10

TRADE-SHOW PRESENTATIONS: Participants split into several groups and rotate through mul-tiple speakers.11

FISHBOWL: A small group sits in a circle and converses about the topic while participants lis-ten—or join in by moving their chair to the middle.12

SYSTEMS MAPPING: Gather insights on the workings of a large social system, diagram them visually, and identify key levers for creating change.13

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT EACH ACTIVITY, SEE THE LIST OF RESOURCES LISTED AT THE END OF THE SECTION.


the Flow of Activities

STRUCTURINGDivergenceWHAT TO DO: Give participants the space to spell out their perspectives and identify similarities and

differences among them. Also, create opportunities for participants to brainstorm expansively about

the topic at hand.

WHEN IT’S IMPORTANT: Important at every convening. Spend more time here if it is important for

participants to understand one another’s perspectives in detail, or if sharing learning is the primary

purpose.

DIVERGENCE

CONNECTION

SHARED LANGUAGE

CO-CREATION

CONVERGENCE

COMMITMENT

S A M P L E A C T I V I T I E S HUMAN SPECTROGRAM: (see “connection”)

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY: (see “connection”)

WORLD CAFÉ: (see “connection”)

FACTS AND OPINIONS: (see “shared language”)

JIGSAW: (see “shared language”)

TRADE-SHOW PRESENTATIONS: (see “shared language”)

FISHBOWL: (see “shared language”)

SYSTEMS MAPPING: (see “shared language”)

OPEN SPACE: Participants volunteer to lead a discussion on a topic; others join the sessions they find most interesting.14

BREAKOUT GROUPS: Divide participants into small groups either to work on parts of a large task or to work in parallel on the same task.15

RAPID PROTOTYPING: Identify pain points, generate potential solutions, and flesh them out into plans for a testable prototype.16

SCENARIO PLANNING: Participants contribute a range of perspectives about how the issue could evolve in the future in unexpected ways and con-struct narratives of the divergent possibilities.17

BRAINSTORMING: Generate ideas by speaking off the cuff and treating all ideas as valid, using flipcharts and post-its in various combinations.18

ROLEPLAYING: Some participants take on the role of key outside stakeholders and either brain-storm or provide reactions in that role.19

POPCORN REACTIONS: Ask the group for quick, informal reactions to something they’ve just heard or done, to move the conversation forward without taking the time for a longer conversation.TO LEARN MORE ABOUT EACH ACTIVITY, SEE THE LIST OF RESOURCES LISTED AT THE END OF THE SECTION.



STRUCTURINGCo-creationWHAT TO DO: Using the group’s shared language and divergent views as raw material, participants

work together on one or more new outputs such as options, designs, prototypes, solutions, paths,

plans, or principles.

WHEN IT’S IMPORTANT: Important at most but not all convenings, when there is a collective task

for the group to accomplish. This is typically true when the primary purpose is to innovate, develop

foresight, or align and act—but often not when it is to influence.

DIVERGENCE

CONNECTION

SHARED LANGUAGE

CO-CREATION

CONVERGENCE

COMMITMENT

S A M P L E A C T I V I T I E S BREAKOUT GROUPS: (see “divergence”)

RAPID PROTOTYPING: (see “divergence”)

SCENARIO PLANNING: (see “divergence”)

DYNAMIC PLANNING: Participants from mul-tiple stakeholder groups provide input into a collaborative “charrette” that develops a variety of options and refines them into to one that is mutually agreeable.20


OPEN SPACE: (see “divergence”)

JIGSAW: (see “shared language”)

POPCORN REACTIONS: (see “divergence”)TO LEARN MORE ABOUT EACH ACTIVITY, SEE THE LIST OF RESOURCES LISTED AT THE END OF THE SECTION.



STRUCTURINGConvergenceWHAT TO DO: Prioritize and refine what has been created and note areas of remaining divergence.

Build toward a shared overall understanding of the issue and develop specific options for action.

WHEN IT’S IMPORTANT: Important at some convenings, when there is need for participants to come

away with some greater degree of shared perspective. This is typically true when the primary purpose

is to influence or align and act.

DIVERGENCE

CONNECTION

SHARED LANGUAGE

CO-CREATION

CONVERGENCE

COMMITMENT

S A M P L E A C T I V I T I E S WORLD CAFÉ: (see “connection”)


ROLEPLAYING: (see “divergence”)

BRAINSTORMING: (see “divergence”)

THREE HORIZONS: Generate or evaluate pro-posals under the headings of basic hygiene, new ideas for focused exploration, and novel experi-ments.21

BREAKOUT GROUPS: (see “divergence”)

RAPID PROTOTYPING: (see “divergence”)

POPCORN REACTIONS: (see “divergence”)TO LEARN MORE ABOUT EACH ACTIVITY, SEE THE LIST OF RESOURCES LISTED AT THE END OF THE SECTION.



STRUCTURINGCommitmentWHAT TO DO: Refine and finalize the options, come to the appropriate degree of alignment and clo-

sure on the issue, define next steps for participants, and choose a method of staying accountable to

these goals.

WHEN IT’S IMPORTANT: Important only for convenings that require follow-up action, typically when

the primary purpose is to influence or align and act.

DIVERGENCE

CONNECTION

SHARED LANGUAGE

CO-CREATION

CONVERGENCE

COMMITMENT

S A M P L E A C T I V I T I E S DYNAMIC PLANNING: (see “co-creation”)

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION ON NEXT STEPS: Participants work independently to list ideas, cre-ate a first draft of the output, or reflect on their personal next steps.22

THE GRADIENTS OF AGREEMENT: Give participants a numerical scale for indicating their level of agreement and use it to measure support for each idea.23

DEFINING GOALS AND MILESTONES: Place the goal and three to five milestones on a long sheet of butcher paper, then break into groups to list the steps required for each one.24

SYSTEMS MAPPING: (see “shared language”)TO LEARN MORE ABOUT EACH ACTIVITY, SEE THE LIST OF RESOURCES LISTED AT THE END OF THE SECTION.



1 Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Book by Sam Kaner et al., 2007, pp. 101, 146-7.

2 Visual Teams: Graphic Tools for Commitment, Innovation, and High Performance. Book by David Sibbet, October 2011, pp. 101-102.

3 “How Networked Nonprofits Visualize Their Networks.” Beth’s Blog, January 25th 2011. http://www.bethkanter.org/network-mapping/.

4 “Stand Up Sit Down.” Teampedia. Available at http://bit.ly/rHkUQf.

5 “Human Spectogram.” The Knowledge Sharing Toolkit. Available at http://bit.ly/rFkmYM.

6 “Community Summits.” The Change Handbook. Book by Peggy Holman et al., 2006, pp. 365. For the original theory, see Building Communities from the Inside Out, by John Kretzmann and John McKnight, 1993.

7 Ibid, pp. 73.

8 For a summary, see p. 179 of The Change Handbook, a book by by Peggy Holman et al., 2006. For the original book, see The World Café, a book by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs, 2005.

9 Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, pp. 210.

10 Ibid, pp. 95, 113, 149.

11 Ibid, pp. 95, 109.

12 Ibid, pp. 95, 111, 149.

13 A video introduction to systems mapping from Innate Strategies is available at http://bit.ly/sO25EF.

14 Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide. Book by Harrison Owen, 2008. For a sum-mary, see page 135 of The Change Handbook, a book by Peggy Holman et al., 2006.

15 Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, pp. 104-5, 115, 164, 174, 178.

16 Monitor Institute’s innovation toolkit for philanthropy is available at http://bit.ly/w4Guww.

17 What If? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits. Book by Diana Scearce, Kath-erine Fulton, and the Global Business Network Community, 2004. Complete book available for download at: http://bit.ly/rDRiGz.

18 Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, pp. 98, 120-2, 154, 209, 214, 229.

19 Ibid, pp. 95, 110, 215.

20 The Change Handbook, p. 300.

21 “Enduring Ideas: The Three Horizons of Growth.” Article in McKinsey Quarterly, December 2009. Available at http://bit.ly/tMDmcT.

22 Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, pp. 95, 106, 178, 219, 228.

23 Ibid, pp. 278.

24 Visual Teams, pp. 101-102.

STRUCTURING


the Flow of ActivitiesS A M P L E A C T I V I T I E S : R E S O U R C E S F O R F U R T H E R R E A D I N G

and smaller group work. These stock designs are a good place to start, but it’s easy to move beyond them and develop your own custom approach. The basic tool to master is the template—a piece of printed material with instructions for the breakout group to follow and a place for them to capture what they produce. It is often possible to give breakout groups detailed enough instructions that they can self-facilitate, with the facilitator floating between groups to answer ques-tions as needed. One of the most common formats for a template is a flipchart-sized sheet, that can be easily taped up over a flipchart pad sitting on an easel next to the table.

S TA R T I N G P O I N T Sn BREAK DOWN THE PROCESS into

simple steps that the group can understand, discuss, and com-plete with minimal help.

n BE REALISTIC about the amount of time it will take the group to complete each step.

n END THE STEPS with clear in-structions on how to report out quickly, or how to create any oth-er form of output that you expect the group to produce. When the report-outs begin, be explicit and firm about the need for brevity.

•

n FOR WORK IN SMALL GROUPS,

consider two template sizes: a flipchart template (approximately 25x30” placed on a flipchart that is mounted on an easel) or a tabletop template (placed on the table and sized to fit). Letter-sized templates can also be useful for individual activities.

n LARGER TEMPLATES on banner or bond paper can be useful for extended work or to capture a substantial output. These can be mounted on 4’x8’ foamcore, held up with a pair of easels, or taped to the wall if one is available.

n SIZE THE FONT to be legible from the distance at which the tem-plate will be viewed, and leave space for large handwriting.

n HIGH-RESOLUTION PHOTOS are an easy way to capture the content of a filled-out flipchart.

n TEMPLATES can easily be com-bined with large sticky notes that capture multiple answers to a question, as can be seen at the top of the example to the right.

TEMPLATESUsing to Guide Custom Breakout Activities

Many of the activities described above involve moving back and forth between plenary conversation


RECORDINGUsing

to Capture and Augment Conversation

Why to use it

GRAPHIC


“Graphic recording” is the real-time creation of illustrated high-level notes, capturing what is being said in a group so that it can be seen by everyone. Participants can better understand and retain what they hear if it is rein-forced by what they can see. Some graphic recorders are also able to guide the conversation at the same time, a practice often called “visual facilita-tion.” Graphic recording can enrich a speech or conversation by capturing

the progression of key concepts and show it as a trail that is easy to take in at a glance. Because graphic recording can be used in many different ways, give thought to what you want it to accomplish, and work with your graphic recorder in advance to make sure he or she is set up for success.

Graphic recording can fuel and amplify par-ticipants’ engagement when you want to:

n Show participants that their input was heard in real-time

n Help participants track a complicated conversa-tion

n Maintain agreement about what was said

n Clarify a set of options or any other conceptual content in real-time

n Bridge language barriers

n Present ideas as flexible and open for discus-sion

n Encourage creative and systemic thinking over linear analysis

n Share with others both the key points and the emotional affect of the experience

Graphic recording is most often useful for:

n Speakers who use few slides or whose slides have very little detail

n Panel discussions or interviews

n Q&A following a speech

n Report-outs when the group representatives will be speaking for at least a few minutes and won’t have their own visuals

n Group conversations on a certain topic, particu-larly with many points of view

Graphic recording is usually not useful for:

n Speakers using content-rich slides that contain most of their message

n The facilitator’s explanations of the process

n Report-outs that are rapid-fire or where groups already have their own material to share on a flipchart

n Unstructured group conversations that jump from topic to topic

When to use it When to avoid it


[Using

to Capture and Augment Conversation]GRAPHIC RECORDING

ONCE YOU’VE ESTABLISHED the value that you want your graphic recorder to provide, the following lo-gistics are helpful in setting up her or him to deliver it effectively:

n Place the recorder “in the center of the action,” typically at the front of the room to one side of the speaker/facilitator and viewable by partici-pants.

n Prepare the facilitator to engage with the graphic recorder in real-time so that the capture can ac-curately represent the most important concepts.

n Provide at least a 4’x8’ area of smooth wall space for the recorder to work, either on a wall of the room or a portable wall (e.g., a pair of easels and a 4’x8’ sheet of foamcore board).

n Ensure that the recorder has ample light (ideally natural light), especially if the room is dimmed to show slides.

n Choose a venue with space to hang the record-ings afterwards, ideally where people can con-gregate around them at breaks.

n Ask the recorder to take high-resolution photos of the recordings afterwards and send you a cleaned-up set to share with the group as part of the follow-up.

How to set up your graphic recorder for success

61

[to convene]THE ART AND SCIENCE OF EFFECTIVE CONVENINGGATHERPAGE 61

FOLLOWINGTHROUGH

F

ASSESSMENTDesigning a Convening MANY CONVENINGS are part of larger efforts to

change complex systems. Assessing that work is

challenging because causality is hard to assign

and the time horizons required for change are

long. Assessing the impact of an isolated conven-

ing within a broader systems change effort is a

similarly difficult proposition. Below are some

guidelines for how to evaluate the effectiveness of

your convening.

n DRAFT the assessment plan at the start of

the work, in tandem with defining the convening

purpose and intended outputs.

n IDENTIFY where the convening fits within a

broader theory of change and plan for action.

n ASSESS at intervals—e.g. immediately after

a convening, at two to three months, and at six

months.

P EMPHASIZE learning, action, and lasting change over simply the transfer of information, since convenings often plant seeds for the future.

P FOCUS ON meaningful contribution toward impact, rather than attribution.

n CAPTURE AND SHARE what is learned, adding

to institutional knowledge about holding effective

convenings, as well as programmatic learning.

Long-term assessment

n SURVEY PARTICIPANTS at or immediately

after the event, asking questions that dig into

the quality of their experience. Be as com-

prehensive as you can without demanding too

much of their time. If the event is part of a

series, keep questions constant for longitudinal

comparison.

n DEBRIEF THE PROCESS with all the orga-

nizers in a way that is open and honest, and

capture detailed notes on how to improve the

process in the future, for this specific group or

for convening in general.

n FOLLOW UP PERSONALLY with participants

and key stakeholders after enough time has

passed that they can see what value the con-

vening produced for them (often two to three

months after the event). A phone call will likely

yield a more thoughtful response than an email.

n PLAY BACK WHAT YOU HEAR about the

event’s effectiveness, so that participants can

see that you’re paying close attention and learn

what value it provided to others. If you’re track-

ing longer-term indicators with a formal assess-

ment, you may want to provide further updates

as you gather more evidence of impact.

Short-term follow-up

F | FOLLOWING THROUGHGATHERPAGE 62

INDICATORSDIFFERENT ASPECTS of a convening’s impact can

be measured at different intervals after the event.

Every convening serves a different contextual

purpose, so there can be no single standard, but

the list below is a starting place for what indica-

tors are often relevant.

Prior to the convening, be sure to gather data on

participant expectations—what they say they want

to get out of the gathering—and integrate this into

your indicators of impact.

Level of participant engagement

Strength of community (e.g., new connections established, level of trust)

Extent to which participants are energized and motivated to act (e.g., commitment or demon-strated willingness to take part in follow-on activities)

Level of knowledge retained from what was com-municated and discussed during the convening

Tangibility and usefulness of outputs (e.g., a new prototype or protocol) and concreteness of next steps

Levels of ongoing communication and other in-formation flow among participants (e.g., listserv activity)

Level of knowledge applied that was developed during the convening

Progress made on next steps articulated at convening

Continued work on the outputs

Extent to which participants initiate new projects or activities inspired by convening

Emergence of new collaborations among partici-pants who connected at the convening

Same as two to three months after, plus…

Whether the convening is viewed as making an important contribution to:

Shifts in the public discourse

New tools or services being developed

Stronger performance by organizations and groups working in the system

Progress on desired field-level outcomes

D U R I N G & I M M E D I AT E LY A F T E R 2 - 3 M O N T H S 6 + M O N T H S

Common of ConveningC

ON

VE

NIN

G


FOLLOWING UP on the ConveningFOLLOW-THROUGH can take a number of forms

depending on the convening’s purpose. For

example, if the purpose is influence there will be

more focus on spreading ideas from the gathering

and broadening the conversation. If the purpose

is action-oriented, make sure the infrastructure is

in place to enable next steps.

n MAKE SMALL SEED GRANTS quickly avail-

able for developing ideas that emerged (if you

have the ability or can secure the funds).

n PUT DEDICATED RESOURCES in place for

post-convening communication and coordina-

tion (such as part-time staff to steward an ac-

tion plan) and check up on participants’ prog-

ress against any commitments they made.

n IF THE CONVENING CONCLUDES with a set

of action-oriented goals, schedule a check-in

after an appropriate period of time, to provide

accountability and continued support.

n ENGAGE CONVENING PARTICIPANTS in

follow-on discussions of implementation and

planning.

Enabling action

n FOLLOW UP INDIVIDUALLY with particularly

valuable participants to thank them and discuss

whether they would be interested in other

opportunities to engage in convenings that fit

their capabilities. Maintain a database of these

individuals that is shared across the organiza-

tion.

n IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC conversation that at

least a portion of the group would like to con-

tinue, a strong moderator can sustain it on an

email list, bulletin board, or Facebook/LinkedIn

group.

n MANY CONVENINGS are held in series, to

engage different groups or address different

aspects of an issue. If that is the case, give par-

ticipants the option to stay up to date on what

happens at later gatherings.

Maintaining engagement


FOLLOWING UP on the Convening

n IDENTIFY already-scheduled gatherings relat-

ed to the convening topic and introduce relevant

ideas and actions from the convening into those

conversations.

n HOLD BRIEFINGS for stakeholders who

weren’t able to attend, such as through a webi-

nar that communicates the event’s key ideas.

n SHARE IDEAS from the convening online and

invite public comments, whether in the informal

format of a blog post, a public op-ed sharing

a perspective, or a longer report that builds

on what was shared at the event with deeper

research.

Broadening the conversation


Famine was threatening developing countries in 1969, with the output of their traditional farming systems predicted to fall short of the needs of their rising populations within six years. Many observers believed the situation was dire and that food aid from governments and existing insti-tutions could not fill the gap.

The leaders of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation saw the potential for a solution in the recent advances made by their four recently created international agricultural research centers. These centers focused on improving meth-ods for cultivating staple crops and

had found ways to increase farm-ers’ yields. The foundations’ leaders invited the heads of 15 aid agencies to convene at the Rockefeller Foun-dation’s Bellagio conference center, along with the head of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organi-zation, and asked for their support in continuing the work.

The response was more than the two foundations had bargained for. Impressed by the research centers’ achievements and galvanized by the specter of famine, the agency heads decided not only to support the existing centers but to use them as a model for establishing new centers

that could broaden the search for ways to increase developing-world farm yields.

Acting on that decision required a series of follow-on gatherings. Rockefeller and Ford held a second convening of agricultural experts to develop ideas for what the new centers could study. The donors met at a third convening to settle on the final research agenda, and then a fourth gathering established the formal structure of the new network of organizations.

These conversations led to establishing a new organization,

the Consultative Group on Interna-tional Agricultural Research (CGIAR), whose research in the following years played a central role in the “Green Revolution.” While many have criticized the shortcoming of their methods, CGIAR and other actors in the Green Revolution continue to be widely credited with averting famine. The results of their work can be seen in the approximately 250 percent rise in global grain production from 1950 to 1984.

EXAMPLEof Following Through


Rallying international donors to prevent widespread famine in the Global South

67

CHOOSING[to convene]

a

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF EFFECTIVE CONVENINGGATHER

TYING IT ALLTOGETHER

G

THE COMPLETE VISIONYOU’VE EXPLORED the various building blocks of

convening design. And if you’ve been working

along with each step, you should have a fairly

clear idea of what you want to accomplish. Now

it’s time to step back and think about how it all fits

into an integrated whole.

This is the most artful of all the steps: putting it all

together. You have to build a vision for the experi-

ence you want participants to have, what they will

produce together, and what activities will enable

them to reach that goal. No matter how objective-

ly important your purpose or analytical the nature

of the work, the power of a convening is giving

participants an emotional setting where they will

be inspired to contribute their best thinking.

It helps to create a list of qualities that you are

aiming for in participants’ overall experience.

What words do you hope participants will use

when they talk about the event to their friends

and colleagues? Try to pick three that are the

highest priority, using the following as a starting

point:

WHAT WILL IT MEAN TO ACHIEVE THESE? There is

no worksheet or simple series of instructions that

can make this final step easy. Your initial deci-

sions about your purpose and design stance will

establish the outlines of a vision but will not fill in

the details. And your designer’s agenda can be the

container for expressing that vision, but will be

disjointed without it.

Two tools can help. A purpose-specific lens will

help you reflect on how the broad guidelines

above might apply in your particular situation,

and a purpose-specific sample outline will paint

a picture in broad brushstrokes of one way that

you might choose to organize the group’s time

together.

••CREATIVE

••EXCITING

••INFORMATIVE

••THOUGHT-PROVOKING

••RELAXING

••COLLABORATIVE

••IMPORTANT

••DEMANDING

••INNOVATIVE

••ENLIGHTENING

••GROUNDBREAKING

••MOTIVATING

••MEANINGFUL

••PRODUCTIVE

••DIVERSE

••UNUSUAL

••CUTTING-EDGE

••PROVOCATIVE

••INSPIRING

••ENGAGING

G | TYING IT ALL TOGETHERGATHERPAGE 68

I N F LU E N C E P.6 9

I N N O VAT EP. 7 1

D E V E LO P F O R E S I G H T P. 7 3

A L I G N A N D A C TP. 7 5

F L I P T O T H E F O L LOW I N G PA G E F O R YO U R P U R P O S E - S P E C I F I C D E S I G N L E N S A N D O U T L I N E :

INFLUENCE


Purpose:

IF YOUR PURPOSE IS TO INFLUENCE, you may

want to consider the following additions to the

general guidance we’ve given in the sections

above.

Forming your team n THE FACILITATOR and speakers must have

strong credibility on the topic in the eyes of

participants.

n IF YOU ARE PRODUCING RESEARCH or

point-of-view material to share, you will need

assistant designers or another appropriate

team to support that work.

Building the groupn THE MOST IMPORTANT participants to

recruit should naturally be the people whose

points of view you are trying to shape. But

also consider whether there are broader

groups whose views you are trying to inform,

and include people whose points of view are

respected in those communities.

n THE CHALLENGE IS TO DESIGN an

experience that influences but still remains

exploratory and collaborative. Choose

participants who are already interested in

learning more about the topic and are open

to forming new views, rather than those who

are already deeply committed to their per-

spective.

n USE SPEAKERS to inspire and inform, not

to make direct advocacy.

n YOUR PLANNING TEAM will easily think of

hundreds of potential participants who might

make valuable contributions, but ideally no

convening should be larger than 80 people,

so that everyone has a chance to meet and

the group can hold a single conversation in

plenary.

n IF YOU’RE PROVIDING MATERIALS

ahead of time, use them as inputs into

a conversation that will inform participants

and raise questions on the topic without

answering them, leaving space for

meaningful conversation.

Let’s imagine that your purpose is to influence, and that you are gathering a group of 70 participants from a wide variety of backgrounds for one full day, to learn and share ideas about promising new approaches for addressing a social challenge of shared interest. The outline of your activities could look something like this:

CONNECTION••Have participants create a group timeline of when

they started working on the issue, then flesh it out by adding recent key events.

DIVERGENCE AND SHARED LANGUAGE••Have four participants each give a 10-minute talk

to share a range of differing perspectives on the nature of the challenge.

n Divide participants into groups of five to share reactions to the talks and develop questions for speakers to address.

n Come back to plenary, have a panel of speakers address the groups’ questions, then take follow-up questions.

CONNECTIONn Let participants connect over a long lunch, allowing

them to test their perspectives on the problem with people from different backgrounds.

CONTINUED CONTINUED

D E S I G N L E N S S A M P L E O U T L I N E

INFLUENCEPurpose:


Structuring the workn LET PARTICIPANTS INFLUENCE one

another by designing in both structured and

unstructured time for them to hear different

perspectives and form new relationships.

n SET CLEAR NORMS for what is to be

shared from the conversation. Don’t invite

media if open and honest dialogue is the goal,

particularly if you’re asking any participants

to consider perspectives that are at odds

with what they or their organization would

currently state in public. Or, invite media

but use the Chatham House Rule so that

comments cannot be attributed in public.

If you plan to share output from the event,

be explicit about what will be included and

excluded.

Following throughn EVEN IF YOUR PURPOSE is not to influ-

ence action, you can still assess what people

learned immediately afterwards and whether

they found it useful after a period of time.

n IN ADDITION TO NAMING what you hope

to shape about participants’ own understand-

ing and views, also map out any others who

you hope they will influence in turn.

n TO THE EXTENT that the discussion in-

volved exploring a topic and building a point

of view, make a clear promise about how that

input will be used, and follow up with any

updated materials that reflect it.

DIVERGENCE AND SHARED LANGUAGEn Repeat the morning’s format for a second round,

with a second small group of speakers who share promising new approaches to addressing the problem.

CONVERGENCEn Break into small groups to allocate fictional “ven-

ture capital” to the ideas that were shared or other ideas that haven’t been mentioned, and then return to plenary for each group to share the rationale for its priorities.

COMMITMENT(not necessary)

D E S I G N L E N S ( C O N T I N U E D ) S A M P L E O U T L I N E ( C O N T I N U E D )

INNOVATEPurpose:

IF YOUR PURPOSE IS TO INNOVATE, you may



above.

Building the groupn SPEAKERS CAN INSPIRE the group about

the potential for making advances on the

issue, by sharing provocative new points of

view or promising recent advances in the

field.

n NEW IDEAS and approaches are often found

by applying a concept from one specialty to

an issue found in another, so participants

should represent a wide range of functional

expertise related to the topic.

n THE SIZE should be at most in the high for-

ties, which is the largest ideal size for gener-

ative ideation where participants all have the

chance to build on one another’s concepts.

n FIND A VENUE that can be easily trans-

formed into a hands-on workspace. Wall

space, whiteboards, or at least space for

flipcharts and easel-mounted foamcore are

worth having, as is space for multiple break-

outs.

n A VENUE that is in a beautiful setting and is

far away from participants’ offices is pre-

ferred, to inspire them and help them sepa-

rate completely from their daily work.

Structuring the workn GIVE PEOPLE PERMISSION to brainstorm

by setting the bar for sharing a new idea to

just above the floor and the bar for criticism

to almost as high as you can reach.

n NON-STANDARD FORMATS are a must to

shake people out of their daily work rhythms

and encourage them to think creatively.

Let’s imagine that your purpose is to innovate, and you are gathering a group of 50 participants who are all part of an industry association. This group of people all serve similar functions in their respective organizations. They structure their work in a way that has long been com-monplace across the industry, and the association has long provided a way for them to trade information and advice. The group’s aim is to develop improvements that would not only work well within their own organizations but also be attractive to others across the industry, ideally worldwide. If the event produces ideas that the association’s president considers promising, she has promised to dedicate resources to creating a pilot.

C O N N E C T I O Nn Have participants do stand-up/sit-downs around what

they did before joining their current organization and the nature of their current role, then form a human spectogram based on how long they’ve been working in this function.

S H A R E D L A N G U A G En Introduce the idea of innovation as a deliberate pro-

cess, and explain what it takes for new ideas to spread from one organization to another.

n Share a simplified map of the commonplace workflow, created ahead of time, and check with participants for any important corrections. Then ask them to dot-vote on the stages where they see the most need for im-provement. Where there are clusters, ask for volun-teers to share their perspectives with the group.



CONTINUED CONTINUED

n LEAVE TIME UNSTRUCTURED for a

substantial portion of the gathering, so that

participants can develop ideas by working

directly with one another.

n FEW PEOPLE WILL BE CAUGHT up on

promising new developments across all of the

areas of practice relevant to the topic. It can

be helpful to provide a landscape scan ahead

of the conversation—or to generate it in the

room.

Following throughn EVEN THE BEST new ideas are easily

ignored, or forgotten, so support for their

further development is critical to include in

your plans. Even if you are not in a position to

provide seed funding, at least consider facili-

tating further connection among participants

who developed a new concept, and share

the results of any new development with the

other participants.

n THE MOST IMPORTANT measure of suc-

cess should be the quality of the new ideas

created, as judged by your team and partici-

pants, and secondarily the extent to which

participants develop them further.

INNOVATEPurpose:



D I V E R G E N C E A N D C O - C R E AT I O Nn Ask participants to form teams of up to eight people

around the areas where they would like to innovate and feel they have something to offer, encouraging them to join groups with people they haven’t worked with before. Give each group a prepared template that guides them through the process of zeroing in on the problem, generating potential solutions, fleshing out those ideas, and prioritizing the ones with the most promise.

C O N V E R G E N C En Returning to plenary, share the ideas that each group

developed, and ask participants to re-form into groups around the ideas that they consider promising enough to prototype. Using another template, guide those groups through the process of developing the idea from a concept into a comprehensive project plan. Ask them to address details such as what re-sources it will require, who the end users will be, how it will overcome any barriers to adoption, and how long it will take to create.

C O M M I T M E N Tn Have each group make a case for their prototype and

make a public statement about whether they would be willing and able to push it forward if it is approved for support by the president.

IF YOUR PURPOSE IS TO DEVELOP FORESIGHT,

you may want to consider the following addi-

tions to the general guidance we’ve given in the

sections above.

Building the groupn FOR THE CONVERSATION to break out of

the conventional wisdom, participants need

to represent the full range of perspectives

that exist on the topic, with higher represen-

tation of unorthodox views that challenge the

mainstream. Think broadly when looking for

these people, as they often hold their views

because they work outside of the organiza-

tions and specialties that are most commonly

considered relevant. It is by including them

that you can provoke discussion about what

unlikely but plausible outcomes are important

to consider.

n A GOOD SIZE range is the low thirties to high

forties, so that there are enough people to rep-

resent a diversity of views but a small enough

group that there can still be productive plenary

discussion.

Structuring the workn CREATE a safe space for open conversation

by setting a norm that what is said at the event

is not to be shared, especially if you’re asking

any participants to consider perspectives that

are at odds with what they or their organiza-

tion would currently state in public. If you plan

to share output from the event, be explicit

about what will be included and excluded.

n SINCE THE FUTURE can never be known

with certainty, keep the conversation play-

ful and creative, such as through the use of

storytelling about future possibilities. Graphic

recording can be especially valuable for cap-

turing these stories visually.

DEVELOP FORESIGHTPurpose:



CONTINUED CONTINUED

Let’s imagine that your purpose is to develop foresight on what social challenges could emerge for a major met-ropolitan area over the coming 15 years, with the aim of informing the actions of both governmental and social-sector actors. You are gathering a group of 60 partici-pants to spend two full days developing scenarios. They represent government, nonprofits, funders, business, and other key constituencies within the city.

C O N N E C T I O N A N D S H A R E D L A N G U A G En In groups of five, ask participants to share what

brought them to the city and what keeps them there. Re-forming into new groups, ask them to take 10 minutes to list as many things as they can about what makes the city strong. Re-forming into new groups, again, ask them to list what makes the city vulnerable.

D I V E R G E N C E n Ask one participant from each type of stakeholder

to give a short presentation about their view of what this moment means for the city, focusing on what is changing and what remains the same. Provide ample time after each for the group to react and dig deeper.

C O - C R E AT I O Nn Split participants into groups of six to eight to gener-

ate lists of what may change over the coming 15 years and what is nearly certain to remain the same.

n OFFER A PRE-READING summarizing the

recent trends and the current state of play in

the spaces that are relevant to the topic, to

provide a common starting point for

participants joining the conversation from

very different backgrounds. The conversation

about the current situation can then be much

shorter when the group comes together.

Following throughn STRUCTURE YOUR ASSESSMENT around

the audience you hope to influence, whether

this is the leadership within an organization,

leaders across a certain field, or a broader

constituency.

n THE ARBITER OF SUCCESS for fore-

sight work should not be its precision at

pinpointing future occurrences, but rather

its ability to productively inform the choices

of your target audience, even if specific de-

tails turn out differently. The highest value

that foresight can provide is not prediction

but the surfacing of important new possi-

bilities to consider.

n IN THE NEAR TERM, ask the target audi-

ence whether they found the foresight work

informative and relevant for their work. Then,

after half of the timeframe for the foresight

has passed, check back and see whether the

audience still feels the same.

DEVELOP FORESIGHTPurpose:



Give each group a set of cards with previously re-searched suggestions for each category, and ask them to use them as a starting place for creating a priori-tized list of the most important items of each type.

n Coming back to plenary, compare lists, combine dupli-cates, and dot-vote to arrive at a final list of the most important things that may change or stay the same.

C O N V E R G E N C En Provide ample time for the group to digest this in

person-to-person conversations, then come back to create scenarios. Ask for volunteers to propose dif-ferent visions for the future of the city that they would like to develop, and have participants join the team that interests them most. Have each team develop a story about what could happen to the city over 15 years, in-corporating the key variables that the group identified, and share that story with the full group.

n Splitting back into groups around the new scenarios, with each person working on a different scenario than they created, have participants develop a set of implications for the different stakeholder groups. Ask each group to arrive at a clear list of recommendations for each stake-holder group, and then re-form the groups a second time to allow participants to work on one additional scenario.

C O M M I T M E N Tn Ask each of the people in positions of substantial power or

influence to share their reactions to the scenarios, and (if they’re comfortable) to outline how the work has changed their view of where to focus their organization’s efforts.

IF YOUR PURPOSE IS TO ALIGN AND ACT, you may



above.

Forming your teamn IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, the facilitator should

be a person who participants already respect

as a leader within the group, and who has

a history with the group that puts them in a

strong position to call for collaborative effort.

Building the groupn SINCE THE GOAL is to have this group

agree to take some degree of action together,

it will need to include people who are already

close to that point. This means avoiding any

divisions around relative status or perspec-

tives on the topic that are too deep to resolve

in the course of the gathering.

n IN MOST CASES there is a specific group

that needs to take collective action. Decide

who those key participants are and stick

to that list. If you can’t get the right group

together, don’t substitute others who are less

relevant for the sake of having the event.

n MAKE SURE that the people who come are

in a position to take the kind of action you’re

hoping for, not deputies who will have to

convince their bosses.

n THE MORE OF A STRETCH it will be for

participants to take action, the smaller the

group should be. If your goal is for the group

to take a significant new step together, your

total number should probably be in the teens

to low twenties.

Structuring the workn INVEST IN CREATING a sense of ownership

over the process among participants, making

it clear that they are being treated as equals.

ALIGNAND ACT

Purpose:

•



CONTINUED CONTINUED

Let’s imagine that your purpose is to gather a group of 25 director-level organizational leaders, each of whom is doing very similar work but on different issues, to spend a day exploring whether they have enough in common to spend time sharing information and (over time) align their strategies. You’ve selected the group carefully to include people who are likely to respect one another’s work and inclined to collaborate well in a group setting. Many in the group know each other by reputation but not personally. To kick-start the networking process, you take the time to interview each of them about their point of view and compile a briefing book that includes those interviews alongside their bios and a description of their current work.

C O N N E C T I O Nn Provide the briefing book a week in advance, and

bring participants together for a group dinner the night before.

S H A R E D L A N G U A G En After briefly introducing to the reason for the gather-

ing, interview a speaker who you’ve selected for her prominence in doing the same type of work as other participants. Guide the speaker through a set of top-ics that you selected based on what you know about participants’ interests from the interviews, drawing out what problems she has solved and the tools that she used.

S A M P L E O U T L I N E ( C O N T I N U E D )D E S I G N L E N S ( C O N T I N U E D )

n SET ASIDE substantial unstructured time for

participants to discover and discuss ways

of working together one on one, which will

build their readiness to join a collective ef-

fort.

n KEEP THE DESIGNER’S AGENDA loose,

have several backup plans, and make sure

the facilitator (if it is not yourself) is ready

to reshape the activities in order to help the

group make progress.

n PUT THE PROBLEM “IN THE CENTER”

by focusing the conversation on the nature

of the issue at stake, so that participants

build a shared perspective on the struc-

ture of the problem that they can then use

as the foundation for finding a new set of

solutions. This process can begin ahead of

time through interviews, surveys, and even

systems mapping.

Following throughn STRUCTURE YOUR FOLLOW-UP work

to support whatever specific action partici-

pants have agreed to take at the close of the

event. You can usually anticipate the range

of outcomes but not the exact landing point.

n WHILE IT IS TEMPTING, avoid placing

yourself in an enforcer-like role for partici-

pants’ commitments—instead, hold them ac-

countable to one another by creating forums

where progress and setbacks are visible.

n TO THE EXTENT that participants have

agreed to any continued engagement as a

group, show immediate support for moving

the work forward—by acting as (or provid-

ing) the technical backbone, hosting future

gatherings, or providing a network weaver.

ALIGNAND ACT

Purpose:

D I V E R G E N C E A N D C O - C R E AT I O Nn Split participants into two to three groups around

topics that you know from the interviews are on their minds, allowing them to choose the one that interests them most. Lead one discussion yourself and use co-facilitators to lead the others, encourag-ing the speakers to join the tables and take an ac-tive role. Let participants drive the conversations, encouraging them to share what they find challeng-ing about that facet of their work and what tools or approaches they’ve found particularly powerful.

n Use a similar format for a second round: do a sec-ond speaker interview over lunch, then hold an open space, asking participants to propose discussions they would like to lead and breaking into groups ac-cording to interest.

C O N V E R G E N C En Close with a final interview and then a simple plus/

delta about the day, providing space for any energy for further collaboration to emerge but not demand-ing it if it does not.

C O M M I T M E N Tn In a survey after the event, ask participants whether

they would be interested in another gathering, and in how much time.


77THE ART AND SCIENCE OF EFFECTIVE CONVENINGGATHER

APPENDIX

GLOSSARYCO-CREATION: Creating something collab-oratively as a group, often the central work of a convening.

CONVENING: A gathering that brings together a diverse group of participants for a clear purpose and generates insights or action beyond what any single participant could achieve on his/her own.

CONVERGENCE: Moving from many ideas toward greater alignment of perspectives on the issues being discussed.

DIVERGENCE: Putting multiple ideas, possibili-ties, and questions on the table as input to par-ticipants’ dialogue and co-creative work.

FACILITATOR: The person who guides partici-pants through a set of interactions that will help them achieve their shared goals.

GRAPHIC RECORDING: Capturing the critical concepts and remarks from a dialogue in real-time using an artful combination of images and words.

HASHTAG: A short word inserted into a tweet that starts with a pound sign, such as “#rock-found,” used to identify that tweet as being related to a certain topic, organization, or event.

LIVE-BLOG: Covering an event in real-time using short blog posts that describe what happened and offer play-by-play commentary.

LIVE-TWEET: Covering an event in real-time using tweets that capture key quotes, ideas, and reflections from the dialogue.

LIVE-STREAM: Broadcasting live audio and/or video of an event over the web to either the public or a selected audience.

NETWORK MINDSET: Exercising leadership in a way that prioritizes openness, transparency, making connections, and sharing control.

STAKEHOLDER: In the context of a choice being made, a person, group, or institution that could be affected and whose interests should therefore be considered.

TEMPLATE: A big piece of paper (often the size of a table top) that serves as a worksheet for guiding conversation in small breakout groups and capturing their output.

APPENDIXGATHERPAGE 78

The Art of Convening.

Book by Craig and Patricia Neal, February 2011. Provides in-depth guidance to the convener on how to attend to the overall emotional and psy-chological subtleties of participants’ experience—before, during, and after the event.

The Back of the Napkin.

Book by Dan Roam, March 2008. How to think and problem-solve using simple sketches.

Building Communities from the Inside Out.

Book by John Kretzmann and John McKnight, 1993. Explains the theory of asset-based commu-nity development: that convening and other forms of network-weaving can help communities sup-port themselves through mutual aid.

Catalyzing Networks for Social Change:

A Funder’s Guide.

Report by Monitor Institute and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, October 2011. Describes the work that funders are doing to catalyze net-works and to create new opportunities for har-nessing network potential, in which convenings play an integral part.

The Change Handbook.

Book by Peggy Holman et al., 2006. More than 60 tools for facilitating group process for a wide range of goals, many of which span a full conven-ing. Includes the key methods of appreciative inquiry, community summits, dynamic planning, open space, scenario planning, and world café.

The Graphic Facilitator’s Guide.

Book by Brandy Agerbeck, 2012. A set of 25 guid-ing principles for becoming a more visual facilita-tor.

The Handbook of Large Group Methods.

Book by Barbara Bunker and Benedict Alban, June 2006. Methods for facilitating interactive conversation in groups of hundreds or thousands, illustrated with in-depth case studies.

Interaction Associates.

Instructors in facilitation tradecraft, who offer both public seminars and private training ses-sions. Website: http://www.interactionassociates.com.

International Association of Facilitators.

The IAF offers a public Methods Database at http://www.iaf-methods.org/methods, which contains more than 500 user-contributed group

process methods. It also offers a limited directory of facilitators who hold IAF certification at http://bit.ly/vAeAob. However, note that this and any other directory should be used as a supple-ment to trusted recommendations.

International Forum of Visual Practitioners.

A global community of graphic recorders and other types of visual practitioners, including a directory for finding one nearby. Website: http://ifvp.org/.

Kantor Institute.

Trainers and consultants in a unique and power-ful method for overcoming the most challenging group dynamics. Website: http://www.kantorinstitute.com.

Power and Love: A Theory and Practice of

Social Change.

Book by Adam Kahane, January 2010. Reflections from a veteran practitioner of multi-stakeholder dialogue, arguing that achieving change requires harnessing and balancing the positive sides of two drives: the drive for power (progress) and the drive for love (unity).

RESOURCESAn Annotated BibliographyG E N E R A L R E S O U R C E S


RESOURCESAn Annotated Bibliography

Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of

the Future.

Book by Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers, 2004. A phi-losophy and methodology for (re)connecting any shared project to its deeper underlying role in social progress, and for mapping the areas where progress is most needed.

Visual Teams: Graphic Tools for

Commitment, Innovation, and High

Performance.

Book by David Sibbet, October 2011. Instructions on the use of graphic recording and visual facilita-tion for high-productivity teamwork, written by the field’s pioneer.

A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey

Toward an Undivided Life.

Book by Parker Palmer, June 2009. Describes the

use of “circles of trust” where open sharing in an

uncritical setting is used to lay the foundation for

finding the way forward in difficult situations.

Enduring Ideas: The Three Horizons

of Growth.

Article in McKinsey Quarterly, December 2009. Available at http://bit.ly/tMDmcT. Describes the concept of separating a group’s proposals between current work, emerging possibilities, and white-space experiments, so that each can be handled accordingly.

Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory

Decision-Making.

Book by Sam Kaner et al., 2007. Describes the overall process stages from divergence to con-vergence, with specific process tools and facilita-tion tips for guiding each stage, along with addi-tional guidance on the craft of facilitation.

How Networked Nonprofits Visualize

Their Networks.

Blog post on Beth’s Blog, January 25th 2011. Available at http://bit.ly/u3oM0i. Provides a basic introduction to the tools and process of network mapping, both inside and outside of a convening.

Human Spectogram.

Page from The Knowledge Sharing Toolkit. Avail-able at http://bit.ly/rFkmYM. Instructions on how to use this opening exercise.

Introduction to Systems Mapping.

Video by Innate Strategies. Available at http://bit.ly/sO25EF. A brief step-by-step over-

view of what systems mapping is, the process it requires, and the ways it can be used.

Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide.

Book by Harrison Owen, 2008. A complete guide to how open space can be used as a process tool in convening.

Rapid Prototyping in Philanthropy.

Part of the Monitor Institute innovation toolkit for creating new solutions in a foundation context, available at http://bit.ly/w4Guww. Contains process instructions, templates, and examples for stimulating conversation.

Stand Up Sit Down.

Article in Teampedia, available at http://bit.ly/rHkUQf. Instructions on how to use this opening exercise.

What If? The Art of Scenario

Thinking for Nonprofits.

Book by Diana Scearce, Katherine Fulton, and the Global Business Network Community, 2004. Available for download at: http://bit.ly/rDRiGz. A guide to the use of scenario planning for creating strategy in social-sector organizations.

The World Café.

Book by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs, 2005. Details on how to use the World Café as a facilitation tool for a wide range of purposes in a convening.

P R O C E S S T O O LS


Lori Bartczak (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations)

Sarah Borgman (Skoll Foundation)

Courtney Bourns (Kendall Foundation)

Bethany Martin Breen (Rockefeller Foundation)

Juanita Brown (The World Café)

Karl Brown (Rockefeller Foundation)

Donna Broughan (independent event producer)

Antony Bugg-Levine (Rockefeller Foundation)

Bob Byskofsky (Rockefeller Foundation)

Carlin Carr (Intellecap)

Lynn Carruthers (Monitor Deloitte)Hilary Castillo (Rockefeller Foundation)

Jody Cornish (New Profit, Inc.)

Victor D’Allant (Skoll Social Edge)

Ashvin Dayal (Rockefeller Foundation)

Anne Dalton (Association of Junior Leagues International)

Benjamin De La Peña (Rockefeller Foundation)

Chris Ertel (Monitor Deloitte)

Aidan Eyakuze (Serengeti Advisors)

Pam Foster (Rockefeller Foundation)

Katherine Fulton (Monitor Institute)

Melvin Galloway (formerly at Rockefeller Foundation)

Brinda Ganguly (Rockefeller Foundation)

Rob Garris (Rockefeller Foundation)

Heather Grady (Rockefeller Foundation)

Kevin Greer (New Profit, Inc.)

Jill Hannon (Rockefeller Foundation)

Peter Helm (Rockefeller Foundation)

Rona Henry (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)

Claudia Horowitz (The Stone House)

Gabriel Kasper (Monitor Institute)

Kippy Joseph (Rockefeller Foundation)

Sam Kaner (Community At Work)

Eamonn Kelly (Monitor Deloitte)

Zia Khan (Rockefeller Foundation)

Steve Killian (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)

Mike Kubzansky (Monitor Inclusive Markets)

Richenda van Leeuwen (U.N. Energy Access Practitioners Network)Andy Maas (Teneo Strategy)

Justin Marcoux (Monitor Institute)

Nancy McPherson (Rockefeller Foundation)

CONTRIBUTORS


Evan Michelson (Rockefeller Foundation)Nancy Murphy (Worldview at Stanford)

Michael Myers (Rockefeller Foundation)

Mark Nicolson (Ventana Group)

James Nyoro (Rockefeller Foundation)

Catherine O’Keefe (Chatham House)

Dixon Osburn (Human Rights First)

Parker Palmer (Center for Courage and Renewal)

Tikki Elka Pangestu (Singapore National University)

Aneri Patel (U.N. Energy Access Practitioners Network)

Jeff Perlstein (ZeroDivide)

Chris Riley (studioriley)

Cristina Rumbaitis Del Rio (Rockefeller Foundation)

Jonathan Scherr (Blueprint Schools Network)

Diana Scearce (David and Lucile Packard Foundation)

Jamie Schiffman (Hillel)

Tish Seng (W.K. Kellogg Foundation)

Ritu Shroff (independent facilitator and consultant)

David Sibbet (The Grove)

Abby Sigal (Enterprise Community Partners)

Angelique Skoulas (independent facilitator and trainer)

Lisa Kay Solomon(Innovation Studio / Business Models Inc.)

Jonathan Star (Monitor Deloitte)

Wendy Tan (Local Marine Management Area Network)

Ellen Taus (Rockefeller Foundation)

Gary Toenniessen (Rockefeller Foundation)

Edwin Torres (Rockefeller Foundation)

Darren Walker (Ford Foundation)

Nancy White (author and facilitator)

Andrew Zolli (PopTech)

Jen Zwilling (Hillel)

CONTRIBUTORS


RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CONTENT; COPYRIGHT: YOU MAY COPY OR DISTRIBUTE THIS PUBLI-CATION BUT ONLY FOR PERSONAL, NON-COMMERCIAL, EDUCATIONAL OR PUBLIC POLICY USE, DISTRIBUTED FREE OF CHARGE, PROVIDED THAT YOU INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING COPYRIGHT NOTICE ON ALL COPIES: “COPYRIGHT © 2013 DELOITTE DEVELOPMENT LLC. THIS PUBLICATION MAY NOT BE MODIFIED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY.”

AS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT, “MONITOR DELOITTE” MEANS THE STRATEGY PRACTICE OF DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, A SUBSIDIARY OF

DELOITTE LLP. PLEASE SEE WWW.DELOITTE.COM/US/ABOUT FOR A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OF DELOITTE

LLP AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES. CERTAIN SERVICES MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE TO ATTEST CLIENTS UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING.

THIS PUBLICATION CONTAINS GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND IS BASED ON THE EXPERIENCES AND RESEARCH OF DELOITTE

PRACTITIONERS. DELOITTE IS NOT, BY MEANS OF THIS PUBLICATION, RENDERING BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, INVESTMENT, OR OTHER

PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OR SERVICES. THIS PUBLICATION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR SUCH PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OR SERVICES, NOR

SHOULD IT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR ANY DECISION OR ACTION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS. BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISION

OR TAKING ANY ACTION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS, YOU SHOULD CONSULT A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR. DELOITTE,

ITS AFFILIATES, AND RELATED ENTITIES SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS SUSTAINED BY ANY PERSON WHO RELIES ON

THIS PUBLICATION.

COPYRIGHT © 2013 DELOITTE DEVELOPMENT LLC

Why Contests Improve Philanthropy

Written byMayur Patel, July 2013

Six leSSonS on deSigning public prizeS for impact

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 License

Why Contests Improve phIlanthropy knIghtfoundatIon.org #openContests 2

A 2009 McKinsey & Company Report, “and

the winner is…,” put it this way: “Every leading

philanthropist should consider the opportunity

to use prizes to help achieve their mission,

and to accept the challenge of fully exploiting

this powerful tool.” But of America’s more

than 76,000 grant-making foundations, only a

handful, maybe 100 at most, have embraced the

use of contests. That means 99.9 percent do not.

Sharing these lessons here is an invitation

to others to consider how contests, when

appropriate, might widen their networks,

deepen the work they already do, and broaden

their definition of philanthropic giving.

Before you launch and manage your own

contests, you might want to consider the six

major lessons we’ve learned about how

contests improved our philanthropy.

Since 2007, Knight foundation has run or

funded nearly a dozen open contests,

many over multiple years, choosing some 400

winners from almost 25,000 entries, and granting

more than $75 million to individuals, businesses,

schools and nonprofits. The winners believe, as

we do, that democracy thrives when people and

communities are informed and engaged.

The contests reflect the full diversity of our

program areas: journalism and media innovation,

engaging communities and fostering the arts.

Over the past seven years, we have learned a

lot about how good contests work, what they

can do, and what the challenges are. Though

contests represent less than 20 percent of

our grant-making, they have improved our

traditional programs in myriad ways.

In kenya, a group of technologists had a vision: use citizens texting on cell phones to help map post-election

violence. today, their Ushahidi crowd-sourcing platform operates in 132 countries. people have used it to map

crime in panama, track the gulf of mexico oil spill, even help rescue efforts after the earthquake in haiti.

In macon, georgia, a professor afraid to walk her dog at night had a bright idea: get neighbors to keep their porch

lights on. today, porches in her College Hill neighborhood use fluorescent bulbs with photo cells that turn on

at dusk. residents can walk the well-lit streets with confidence.

In miami, a lone drummer had a brainstorm: to bring the world of rhythm and percussion to local youth

who had little or no knowledge of music. today, the troupe of drummers draws sold-out concert crowds.

large visions. Bright ambitions. homespun dreams. What do they have in common? each was a project

the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation never would have supported were it not for contests.

Knight artS challenge detroit: Sphinx organization

The Sphinx Organization, one of the winners of the Detroit Arts

Challenge, uses Knight funding to develop young musicians of

color through its annual Sphinx Competition.


Knight Arts Challenge

Investing in artistic excellence, funding

arts projects that engage the Knight

resident communities in collective

cultural experiences. Contest started

in Miami and has since been replicated

in Philadelphia (since 2011) and Detroit

(since 2012). Across these cities, $26.8M

provided to 257 winners selected from

over 13,300 applicants.

Knight Community

Information Challenge

Helping to fill community information

needs, fostering community engagement

and helping residents participate in the

creation and sharing of news and infor-

mation. $39M provided to 104 winners

selected from over 650 applicants.

2008–PRESENT

Knight News Challenge

Accelerating media

innovation by funding

experiments in the delivery

of news and information.

$32.5M provided to 97

winners selected from

over 12,400 applicants.

Community Arts

Journalism Challenge

A partnership with the

National Endowment for the

Arts to support new models

to strengthen local arts

journalism coverage. $57,500

awarded to three winners

selected from 230 applicants.

PitchIt Challenge

Hosted by We Media

conference, to provide

seed-stage investments

to help launch innova-

tive new media ventures.

$225,000 provided to

fund four winners.

SXSW Accelerator

Competition: News-related

technology track

Run by South by Southwest

Interactive to support news

and information applications

and technologies. Two winners


Knight Neighborhood

Challenge

Run by Community Foundation

of Central Georgia to improve

the safety, physical vitality and

social fabric of the College

Hill neighborhood in Macon,

Georgia. $1.5M awarded to date

to 88 winners selected from

over 190 applicants.

Apps for Communities

Challenge

Run by the Federal

Communications Commission

to develop apps that make

local public information more

personalized, actionable and

usable. $100,000 awarded to

three winners chosen selected

from over 70 applicants.

TEDxCity2.0

Run by TED to identify and

support innovative citizen

engagement programs in

cities and distribute these

models to other cities

around the world.

$10,000 awarded to

fund 10 ideas to date.

Civic Data Challenge

Run by National Conference

on Citizenship to support

projects that turn raw data

on “civic health” into useful

applications and visualizations

for communities. $25,000

provided to support winners

from over 60 applicants.

Contests for innovation go back hundreds of years— many have even changed history. Learning

from the best, Knight has supported a wide range of contests— from media innovation challenges

to idea mining on ways to improve neighborhoods. Here’s a brief look at some contest milestones.

2007–PRESENT 2008–PRESENT

2009–PRESENT 2011

2012–2013

Black Male

Engagement Challenge

Celebrating and socially reinforcing

the positive role of black males, and

supporting their efforts to strengthen

their communities. The initiative was

launched in Philadelphia and Detroit. In

2012, $443,000 awarded to 20 winners


2012–PRESENT2010–2013 2011–2012

20122012

The British Parliament held a contest for a

solution to figuring out the longitude of a ship

at sea, resulting in the marine chronometer.

Napoleon Bonaparte mounted a contest

for the best idea in food preservation. The

winning idea was to seal food in airtight jars.

The first plastic was invented in a contest to

find a replacement for ivory in billiard balls.1714 1795 1813

WHy Contests Improve pHILantHropy KnIgHtfoundatIon.org #openContests 4

OVER

24,000 APPLICANTS

OVER

1080 WINNERS

OVER

$112,000,000 AWARDED

Knight Community Information Challenge

$39 million awarded to 104 winners from over 650 applicants

Knight Neighborhood Challenge

$1.5 million Awarded to date to 88 winners from over 190 applicants

Civic Data Challenge

60 applicants $25,000 awarded

Community Arts Journalism Challenge

230 applicants $57,500 awarded to three winners

TEDxCity2.0

$10,000 to fund 10 ideas to date

PitchIt Challenge

$225,000 to four winners

Black Male Engagement Challenge

150 applicants $443,000 awarded to 20 winners

OV

ER

Knight Arts Challenge

13,300 applicants $26.8 million awarded to 257 winners

OV

ER

Knight News Challenge

12,400 applicants $32.5 million awarded to 97 winners

OV

ER

SXSW Accelerator Competition – News-related technology track

700 applicants OV

ER

Two winners

Apps for Communities Challenge

$100,000 Awarded to three winners from over 70 applicants


564

321 Contests Bring new blood and new ideas page 6

Contests Create value beyond the winners page 9

Contests help you Spot emerging trends page 11

Contests help you Change your routine page 13

Contests Go hand-in-glove with existing strategies page 15

Contests should Thoughtfully engage the community page 17

on designing public prizes for impact


Contests

bring in new blood, new ideas leSSon


A key part of a foundation’s role is looking for new

people and good ideas: but how? Contests open

up unique avenues for meeting people you would

otherwise not know. This, in turn, expands and

refreshes the networks working on the causes a

foundation cares about.

In our journalism work, for example, our traditional

grantees had been blue-chip journalism educators

and top-notch newsrooms. Yet the digital age

turned communications on its head. So we used

the contest as a means of disrupting and enriching

that traditional network by attracting new people

from new disciplines. the Knight news challenge–

our first competition, launched in 2007—put us

at the hub of an energetic community of media

innovators, including software engineers, designers

and entrepreneurs.

a case in point: In New York, three tech-savvy

journalists had a dream of creating a place in the

cloud where primary source documents could

be stored, annotated and read. Today, their free,

open-source document cloud hosts more than

5.5 million pages. Reporters used it to expose the

hijacking of millions of dollars in public money by

the now-deposed city leaders of Bell, California.

As with many others, this new digital tool, now

used by hundreds of newsrooms, was not created

by journalists alone. They needed the help of

open-source data software jockeys.

We still partner with organizations like columbia

university’s graduate School of Journalism, but its

digital media research is now informed by a winner

of the news challenge, the mit media lab, where

engineering students are designing and deploying

new civic media tools and practices.

Tapping the wisdom of the crowd with a contest

means opening a foundation up to new kinds of

applicants. The Knight arts challenge exposed

Knight Foundation to a host of new talent and

creativity. For example, nearly half of the contest

entries in the first four years were, surprisingly,

not 501c(3) nonprofits. They were individual artists

(30 percent), even businesses (10 percent). Many

said they would not have applied for a traditional

grant because they didn’t think they would be

welcome. The openness and simplicity of the

contest format changed that.

a case in point: Miami artist-writer Gean Moreno

said he never would have applied for a traditional

grant. But through the arts challenge, he launched

a not-for-profit press (Miami’s first) to give local

artists an outlet for showcasing their ideas. Similarly,

in our Macon, Ga., Knight neighborhood challenge,

roughly 25 percent of the entrants surveyed

indicated they had never before applied for

regular foundation grants.

Knight community information challenge: hiKi no

HiKi No, a Knight Community Information Challenge winner, aims

to link more than 60 middle and high schools across the islands of

Hawaii to produce weekly newscasts for PBS Hawaii stations.

ContestsBring in new blood, new ideas

leSSon

Tapping the wisdom of the crowd with a contest means opening a foundation up to new kinds of applicants.


leSSon

USEfUl TIPS:

Keep the entry process simple so people not schooled in how foundations work can apply.

In our arts challenge, we ask for only an initial

150 word description of the project on a simple

form on the web. As finalists advance, we ask for

a short formal proposal with a few questions and

a budget.

Invest in marketing to help you reach out widely to your target community.

In the Miami Arts Challenge, we marketed the

contest and accepted applications in multiple

languages (English, Spanish and Haitian Creole).

In the News Challenge, we looked for partners to

help us reach sub-communities where we initially

didn’t have strong contacts, such as Bay Area

entrepreneurs, software developers and startups.

Remember that when it comes to innovation, faster is better.

In the early years of the news challenge, there was

an eight-month cycle between the receipt of entries

and the announcement of winners. We learned that

this lag was inconsistent with the rapid pace of

innovation in media. In 2012 we reduced the cycle

to 14 weeks to help applicants better respond to

market opportunities.

neWS challenge: public laboratory for open technology

“Grassroots mappers” engage in Public Lab’s balloon mapping, a new

way to take aerial images from the ground to add to a repository of

open data maps. Public Lab was a 2011 News Challenge winner.

ContestsBring in new blood, new ideas


Contests create

Value beyond the winners leSSon


Knight news Challenge: textizenMichelle Lee (left) and Serena Wales (right) with Textizen, which aims to expand the collection of citizen input by placing survey questions around cities. The project was a Knight News Challenge winner. Photo by Molly J. Smith.

In the Knight Arts Challenge, more than 40 percent of the non-winning entrants surveyed said just the process of applying was beneficial.

leSSon

Depending upon the competition, the odds of

winning one of Knight’s contests are, at their lowest,

one in six, and at their highest, more than one in

100. But if you think of your contest only as a funnel

spitting out a handful of winning ideas, you overlook

what’s really happening. A good contest is more a

megaphone for a cause.

We started the arts challenge to find new ways

to build on the momentum of an already thriving

creative community in Miami. In that competition,

more than 40 percent of the non-winning entrants

surveyed said just the process of applying was

beneficial. Often, just putting the ideas down in

writing helped refine them. At the same time, the

contest helped applicants find new partners. They

got more organized. Half said they were still pursuing

their ideas in some way despite not receiving funding.

To get the best “halo effect”, you need to build a

contest’s imprimatur, so people associated with

the brand benefit whether they win or not.

Contests createValue beyond the winners

USEfUl TIPS:

Promote contest finalists.

In many of our contests, we profile finalists on our

website. We blog and tweet about them. This brings a

meaningful bump in credibility and attention for these

applicants. (Finalists often tout their status on their

organizational websites and personal resumes.)

Think of marketing as more than just a way to attract new entrants.

It is a way to build a brand whose cachet spills over

to all involved, not just those who win.

Include other funders in your reviewer pool.

You can share contest knowledge with them.

They may fund ideas you don’t.


Contests

Help you spot emerging trends

leSSon


leSSon

Though both approaches have merit, our contests

are generally based on broad topic areas rather than

on solving a very narrow question or problem. In our

Arts Challenge, for example, we require only three

rules: that the entries are about the arts; the project

takes place in the community where the challenge is

based; and that they come up with matching funding

from the community. When you receive more than a

thousand applications from a community in an open

contest, you can get a good sense of what people are

thinking about, what’s going on beneath the surface.

In Miami, a review of the arts contest applicants

confirmed some things we already knew. The city

is strong in visual arts. But when we looked closer,

we saw a growing performance dance scene,

independent filmmaking and live music in corners

we wouldn’t have suspected. We are now watching

those trends in our regular arts program. As one of

our grantees, Sweat records, said: “The underground

doesn’t stay underground forever.”

Our news challenge applicant pool has helped us

identify trends in the news community. We were

early in funding emerging trends like data journalism

and mobile apps. In the early years of the contest we

noticed a number of new digital nonprofits trying to fill

the void left by shrinking local newspapers. We ended

up taking a closer look at this trend, and supported

various fledgling digital journalism groups such as the

minnpost and the Voice of San diego, through our

regular journalism grant programs. If we had looked

only at the Knight News Challenge finalists, we would

have missed this issue.

Knight artS challenge miami: SWeat recordS

Miami’s Sweat Records Store Day and 7th anniversary celebration.

Sweat Records was a Miami Arts Challenge Winner.

Photo by Teajayphoto.

USEfUl TIPS:

Make it one of your judging panel’s jobs to identify patterns in the applicant pool.

What surprised them about the entrants? Are there

any issues they think the foundation should be paying

attention to?

look for trends in the entries at large as well as in the finalists.

When you’re running an open contest, your applicant

pool generates a lot of useful data that should be

mined. It tells you who you’re reaching? What their

concerns are? What organizations they hope

to partner with?

Treat your applicants as problem identifiers not just solution providers.

Even entries that don’t offer a feasible project idea

still provide you with useful feedback on the issues

that need fixing.

ContestsHelp you spot emerging trends

“ The underground doesn’t stay underground forever.”— sweat records


leSSonContests

Will change your routine


Contests are almost certain to cause you to change

entrenched foundation behaviors. This may sound

internally focused, but it isn’t. If your traditional

funding changes, that’s a bigger pot of money than

the contest pool.

Before contests, we rarely funded individuals directly.

Most of our funding had gone to nonprofits or

established institutions. In the first two years of our

news challenge alone, we funded 14 individuals.

The excitement of seeing good ideas from individuals,

as well as from businesses, caused us to set up new

ways to fund them. As a result of the contests, we

began to make different types of grants, taking on

expenditure responsibility grants, and we now serve

individuals and for-profit startups as part of our

regular grant-making work.

As a result of our contest work, we also shortened

application forms for all grants and changed our due

diligence requests. We found the shorter contest

forms were giving us all we really needed. We also

moved some applicants out of contests when they

weren’t the right fit, funding them instead in our

traditional program areas. And we’ve given contest

winners follow-up funding outside of the contest.

We’ve rearranged staff so that we can manage external

reviewers and an aggressive marketing campaign.

Finally, contests help create a “safe zone” for

risk-taking and experimentation in a foundation –

supporting new ideas and trying out creative ways of

funding that, if successful, might spill over into your

regular grant-making practices.

Knight artS challenge miami Winner

Sheila Womble of ‘Arts for Learning/Miami’ gets

a look through her award.

USEfUl TIPS:

Embrace a contest’s signaling effect.

The marketing and outreach that goes into a contest

make it a powerful mechanism to broadcast changes

in a foundation’s approach and focus.

Experiment with an open brand.

A contest’s effectiveness often derives from its

accessibility and ability to use the web and social

media to draw in diverse groups and unusual ideas.

Contests offer foundations an opportunity to rethink

the openness of their grantmaking practices and how

they respond and interact with what people share and

post online about the contest and its applicants.

Review your contests frequently.

By monitoring what works well in a contest and what

doesn’t, you can see how you might layer some of

the most successful innovations and approaches into

your traditional program.

ContestsWill change your routine

leSSon


Contests

Go hand in glove with existing program strategies

leSSon


lesson

Foundations shouldn’t undertake a contest as a

lark or a just-for-the-heck-of-it enterprise. The

most successful are embedded in existing program

strategies. They are simply a different way to tackle a

foundation’s key areas of focus.

In Macon, Ga., for example, Knight has funded major

projects to revitalize the College Hill Corridor,

the historic and downtown districts seen as keys to

citywide renewal. In tandem with those projects,

we started the Macon Knight neighborhood

Challenge, a five-year, $3 million contest inviting

residents to submit novel ideas for improving life

in their neighborhood. We focused the challenge

around residents’ own ideas for making College Hill

a clean, safe and thriving place – issues they had

identified at an initial community planning meeting

for the revitalization project. We received a host of

improvements that otherwise may not have seen the

light of day. Projects, most under $15,000, include

restorations and small graffiti clean-ups, a community

garden and composting workshop, even local music

festivals. These modest projects are all taking place

in and around the larger community renewal effort,

enhancing local development with creative input

from residents.

On their own, contests are not the answer. But if

tactically linked to existing program strategies

they can deepen a foundation’s core mission in

surprising ways.

KnigHt neigHborHood CHallenge: College Hill Corridor

Mercer Village in the Macon, Ga. College Hill Corridor.

Local organizations were awarded grants as part of the Knight

Neighborhood Challenge, which focused on revitalizing the city.

UsefUl Tips:

piggyback where appropriate on community priorities.

Building on the issues that individuals

themselves have expressed an interest in or

need for broadens the appeal of a contest

and strengthens potential participation.

identify market areas within your portfolio that have stalled.

Contests can be a useful way to kick start action

and garner attention for specific issues.

spotlight leading practices.

While the application period is open, highlight

exemplar ideas or valuable practices to help

motivate and influence potential entrants.

Contests gohand in glove with existing program strategies


Contests should

Thoughtfully engage the communityleSSon


To get the most out of competitions, you need new

judging systems. If a foundation puts new ideas through

the old selection mill, nothing really new will emerge.

But if people in the community can comment on or

even help choose the winners, they feel engaged,

which further promotes the contest. But tapping into

the wisdom of the crowd can be a tricky proposition.

You must guard against lesser ideas winning just

because they come from the most popular sources.

In the Knight news challenge, all applicants are

strongly encouraged to post their entries on the

web. Anyone can post a remark. This provides

valuable feedback to the applicants, even if they

don’t win. More importantly, the open system makes

everyone feel welcome. In 2013, we took community

participation a step further. We partnered with design

firm IDEO and used their open innovation platform for

crowdsourcing ideas (open ideo) to support a news

challenge contest on open government. The platform

allowed applicants to easily share their ideas and to

solicit feedback from the community. Nearly 5,500

people signed up as ‘followers’ to monitor and engage

with the projects submitted through the challenge.

In our arts challenge, a recent evaluation suggested

we go even further in calling on community input in

the contest. So we added to the contest a “people’s

choice” award. We choose a short list of smaller arts

organization finalists of similar sizes; and the people

selected the winner by SMS text voting for their

favorite. We didn’t use this method to judge institutional

applications; it would be unfair for a small art collective,

for example, to compete for public votes against an

established opera or ballet with vast email databases.

Knight neWS challenge Judging panel

An external review panel made up of journalists, engineers and

entrepreneurs put their heads together to pick the 2010 Knight

News Challenge winners.

USEfUl TIPS:

Set clear expectations

for what it means to vote on or comment on, so

there’s no confusion in community participation.

In particular, articulate how community input

will relate to the final judging decisions.

Use external review panels.

Those might include members of the community

you’re trying to reach, as well as former winners.

Make it the default option that applicants post their entries publicly.

In the news challenge applicants can opt to submit

their entries privately, but generally over 90% of all

submissions are posted publicly. Why? Because

applicants see the benefits of attracting attention

to their ideas and generating support.

Contests shouldThoughtfully engage the community

leSSon


In the wider world, contests are fairly common. even napoleon had one, a prize of 12,000 francs for

a new method to preserve food for soldiers on the front, which led to canning. today, a number of

corporations and government agencies are running them—Netflix, IDEO, Google and even NASA.

many in the nonprofit world see contests as a passing fad, the philanthropic flavor of the month. We

think they are here to stay. the mckinsey report “And the Winner is…” suggest they are catching on.

the total value of nonprofit contest-prize growth over the past decade, the report says, has been 18

percent per year compared to 2.5 percent for general charitable giving.

some foundations are doing stellar work in the field of contests. those include the X-Prize

Foundation, Case Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, McArthur Foundation, the Robert

Wood Johnson Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, to name a few. But the vast majority

of grantmaking foundations are not. Why? Is it inertia? do they feel they don’t have the bandwidth?

the expertise? do they think their particular topic or issue just won’t work? do they fear opening

the flood gates?

In the end, contests, like everything else, can be as simple or as complex as you make them.

heather Bowman Cutway launched macon’s “We’ll Leave the Lights On!” with just $2,150 from the

community challenge. It was the contest format that made it easy for people like her to step forward

with new ideas, which, Cutway says, “like light bulbs” can mean “big dividends.”

John S. and James l. Knight foundation

Suite 3300 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL. 33131-2349

(305) 908-2600

knightfoundation.org

deSign: Ultravirgo Creative

1

TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND CHARITABLE GIVING

Senate Finance Committee Staff Tax Reform Options for Discussion

June 13, 2013

This document is the ninth in a series of papers compiling tax reform options that Finance

Committee members may wish to consider as they work towards reforming our nation’s tax

system. This compilation is a joint product of the majority and minority staffs of the Finance

Committee with input from Committee members’ staffs. The options described below represent

a non-exhaustive list of prominent tax reform options suggested by witnesses at the

Committee’s 30 hearings on tax reform to date, bipartisan commissions, tax policy experts, and

members of Congress. For the sake of brevity, the list does not include options that retain

current law. The options listed are not necessarily endorsed by either the Chairman or Ranking

Member.

Members of the Committee have different views about how much revenue the tax system

should raise and how tax burdens should be distributed. In particular, Committee members

differ on the question of whether any revenues raised by tax reform should be used to lower tax

rates, reduce deficits, or some combination of the two. In an effort to facilitate discussion, this

document sets this question aside.

CURRENT CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL GOALS FOR REFORM

Under current law, certain organizations that serve public interests are eligible for two main tax

benefits: an exemption for their earnings from the income tax and, for a sub-set of such

organizations, a deduction for donations to the organization.

Tax-exempt organizations must meet certain requirements to achieve and maintain their tax-

exempt status. For example, tax-exempt organizations must be nonprofits, cannot have

shareholders or owners, and generally cannot use the organization’s assets to provide a benefit

to a person or entity that is closely related to the organization. Most tax-exempt organizations

are subject to a tax on unrelated business income for earnings not linked to their charitable

mission.

2

The deduction for contributions is limited to donations to certain categories of organizations,

such as those directed towards charitable, religious, scientific, literary or educational purposes.

Organizations eligible to receive deductible contributions are sometimes referred to as

“charitable” organizations, although many other types of entities, such as governmental

entities and private foundations, are also eligible recipients.

Tax reform provides an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of charitable giving incentives

and the tax benefits for organizations serving public interests. Following are several potential

goals that could serve as guidelines for the Committee when reviewing the tax rules for exempt

organizations and charitable contributions:

Maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of any incentives for charitable giving that are

retained or reformed

Consider whether the availability of tax incentives for charitable giving should be

broadened to more taxpayers

More tightly align tax-exempt status with providing sufficient charitable benefits

Closely examine the relationship between political activity and tax-exempt status

Reconsider the extent to which tax-exempt organizations should be allowed to engage

in commercial activity

Improve the accountability and oversight of tax-exempt organizations

Some specific concerns related to the tax rules associated with tax-exempt organizations

include the following:

Fairness: The charitable deduction is an itemized deduction. Therefore, it is only

available to the roughly one-third of taxpayers who itemize, although the standard

deduction is supposed to take into account a certain amount of itemized deductions.

Among taxpayers who itemize, the value of the charitable deduction is proportional to

the taxpayer’s income tax bracket. Because the income tax brackets are progressive, this

means that higher-income individuals get a larger benefit for a contribution of the same

amount. According to CBO, the charitable deduction represents 0.7% of after-tax

income for the highest quintile, but only 0.1% of after-tax income for the middle

quintile. Some argue that allowing taxpayers to deduct charitable giving is appropriate

because the donor is giving away the entire contribution without receiving anything

tangible in return. Others argue that charitable giving incentives should be the same for

all taxpayers.

3

Low bang-for-the-buck: Tax incentives in this area could potentially achieve more at a

lower cost. For example, according to CBO, providing an above-the-line deduction or

refundable credit for charitable contributions above a certain percentage of the donor’s

income could lead to greater total charitable contributions at a lower cost. Some

research also suggests that “matching” a taxpayer’s charitable contributions by directing

the tax incentive to the charity, rather than the donor, could increase total charitable

giving at less cost. But some argue that governmental gift matching programs do not

work well in practice. There also are questions as to its constitutionality with respect to

religious organizations. In addition, other research suggests that simply cutting the

charitable deduction without other reforms would reduce charitable giving.

Political activity: Some tax-exempt organizations are allowed to engage in political

activities. Some argue that tax-exempt organizations should not be allowed to engage

in political activities, especially campaigning for or against a particular candidate, or that

they should have to disclose their donors if they do so. Others argue that tax-exempt

organizations should be allowed to engage in these activities with fewer or no

restrictions and should not be required to disclose their donors.

Sufficient charitable benefit of tax-exempt organizations: Theoretically, nonprofit

organizations are granted tax-exempt status because they provide a benefit to the

public, particularly to the poor and underserved. However, organizations that do not

serve the needy can often claim tax-exempt status, and some tax-exempt organizations

appear to serve private interests in the same way as for-profit corporations.

Commercial activity: Some tax-exempt organizations engage in commercial activities,

either as part of their tax-exempt purpose or through activities unrelated to their tax-

exempt purpose which are then subject to the unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”).

Some are concerned that this results in unfair competition with for-profit businesses,

erosion of the corporate tax base, or managers focusing too little on the tax-exempt

purpose of the organization.

Accountability and oversight: There are approximately 1.5 million tax-exempt

organizations with $2.7 trillion in assets, and 29 different types of tax-exempt

organizations. As with any large sector of the economy, there are instances of waste,

fraud, and abuse. Some think more should be done to monitor charities, for example to

ensure that they are not spending a large share of their donations on fundraising and

large salaries for their founders.

4

REFORM OPTIONS

I. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION

Under current law, individuals and corporations may deduct contributions to charitable and

certain other organizations for income tax purposes. Individual taxpayers may only deduct

charitable contributions if they itemize rather than claiming the standard deduction. Charitable

contributions are not, however, disallowed for purposes of the alternative minimum tax. In

2009, 27% of all taxpayers itemized and claimed the charitable deduction. Corporate and

individual charitable giving totaled almost $300 billion in 2011.

In addition, there are limits on how much charitable contributions taxpayers may deduct as a

share of their income. As illustrated in the following table, individuals may only deduct up to

50% of their adjusted gross income (AGI) for most charitable contributions, and only up to 30%

of their AGI for charitable contributions of capital gain property. For private foundations and

certain other organizations, individuals may only deduct up to 30% of their AGI for most

contributions and up to 20% of their AGI for contributions of capital gain property.

C corporations may only deduct up to 10% of their taxable income, inclusive of all types of

contributions.

General Limits on Charitable Deductions for Individuals as a Share of Their Adjusted Gross Income

Gift to Public Charity Gift to Private Foundation

Cash 50% 30%

Ordinary Income Property 50% 30%

Capital Gain Property 30% 20%

When contributing appreciated property, taxpayers are not required to pay capital gains tax on

the gain on the property. Taxpayers generally may deduct the full fair market value of donated

property. However, in certain cases, taxpayers can only deduct the lesser of the fair market

value of the property and their “basis” in the property (which is typically how much they paid

for it). For example, taxpayers may only deduct their basis in the property if the gain would be

taxed at ordinary income rates, or if the property is not related to the charitable organization’s

exempt purpose.

Taxpayers can only deduct contributions to a subset of tax-exempt organizations in the tax

code. For example, they may deduct contributions to governmental entities, religious

organizations, educational institutions, museums, and many others. They cannot deduct

contributions to foreign organizations, most social welfare (501(c)(4)) organizations, labor

5

organizations (501(c)(5)), and chambers of commerce (501)(c)6)). According to the Joint

Committee on Taxation, there are about 1.5 million tax-exempt organizations and about 1.1

million organizations eligible to receive deductible contributions (501(c)(3)). About 300,000 of

these organizations are religious organizations. Some charities rely on contributions more than

others. Health care and education charities rely relatively less on private giving and relatively

more on fees for services, whereas religious, environmental, animal, and arts charities are

relatively dependent on contributions. Others rely more on government grants for funding.

1. Repeal the charitable contribution deduction (Mitchell, “Should We End the Tax

Deduction for Charitable Contributions?,” Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2012)

2. Fundamentally reform the charitable contribution deduction

a. Convert the deduction to a refundable or nonrefundable credit (Joint Committee

on Taxation, “Present Law and Background Relating to the Federal Tax

Treatment of Charitable Contributions,” February 2013)

i. Create a flat non-refundable credit of, for example, 12% of charitable

contributions (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,

“The Moment of Truth,” 2010)

ii. Replace the deduction with a refundable tax credit of, for example, 25%

for all taxpayers (Thiess and Fieldhouse, Our Fiscal Security, “Investing in

America’s Economy,” 2010)

b. Structure any charitable incentive as a “match” that is paid directly to the charity

i. Repeal the deduction and provide charities with a matching grant in the

form of a refundable credit equal to, for example, 15% of the donor’s

contribution (Bipartisan Policy Center, “Restoring America’s Future,”

November 2010; Scharf and Smith, “The Price Elasticity of Charitable

Giving: Does the Form of Tax Relief Matter?” Economic & Social Research

Council, 2010)

ii. This option could also be coupled with the existing deduction, although

that would entail more administrative complexity (similar to the law in

the U.K.)

c. Cap the amount or value of the charitable deduction

i. Limit the value of the deduction to, for example, 28% per dollar deducted

(FY14 Administration Budget Proposal; Congressional Budget Office,

“Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,” March 2011)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324469304578143351470610998.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#U90207703721TWE

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324469304578143351470610998.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#U90207703721TWE

https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4506



http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf


http://www.ourfiscalsecurity.org/storage/Blueprint_OFS.pdf

http://www.ourfiscalsecurity.org/storage/Blueprint_OFS.pdf

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20FINAL%20REPORT%20FOR%20PRINTER%2002%2028%2011.pdf

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20FINAL%20REPORT%20FOR%20PRINTER%2002%2028%2011.pdf

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2010/wp247.pdf



http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/General-Explanations-FY2014.pdf



6

1. This would also be the result if the top rate were lowered

(H.R.3838 (99th Congress), The Tax Reform Act of 1986, sponsored

by Rep. Rostenkowski)

ii. Implement a maximum dollar cap on all itemized deductions, including

the charitable deduction, of, for example $50,000 cap on itemized

deductions (Sen. Corker, Summary of the Fiscal Reform Act of 2012)

d. Allow non-itemizers to claim the charitable contribution deduction (Testimony of

Dr. Eugene Steuerle before the Committee on Ways and Means, February 14,

2013; President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, 2005)

e. Focus the deduction on “traditional” charities, such as churches and homeless

shelters, that support the needy (Reich, “A Failure of Philanthropy,” Stanford

Social Innovation Review, 2005)

3. Attempt to increase the effect of charitable incentives on charitable giving

a. Only provide tax incentives for charitable giving for contributions in excess of a

certain percentage of the taxpayer’s income

i. Only allow the deduction for charitable contributions in excess of, for

example, 2% of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (Congressional

Budget Office, “Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,”

March 2011; estimated in 2011 to raise $219 billion over 10 years)

ii. This option could be combined with proposals to convert the deduction

to a credit (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,

“The Moment of Truth,” 2010)

4. Incrementally reform the charitable contribution deduction

a. Simplify the deduction

i. Repeal the limits on how much taxpayers may deduct as a share of their

income (H.R.2903 (103rd Congress), To… provide that the percentage

limitations on the charitable deduction shall not apply to contributions

for… disaster relief, and for other purposes, sponsored by Rep. Talent)

ii. Streamline the statutory language, clarify definitions, and remove

deductions for contributions prone to abuse (Halperin, “The Charitable

Deduction Section 170 Reorganized,” Urban Institute, 2012)

1. For example, include all special valuation or measurement rules in

section 170(a), and repeal deduction for donations of taxidermy

and certain types of inventory

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR03838:@@@D&summ2=m&

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR03838:@@@D&summ2=m&

http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/5eb76323-b7c2-4405-822b-e68890ca3593/Fiscal_Reform_Act_of_2012_Summary.pdf

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/final-report/TaxPanel_5-7.pdf

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/a_failure_of_philanthropy

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/a_failure_of_philanthropy

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12085/03-10-reducingthedeficit.pdf





http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.2903:



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412771-The-Charitable-Contribution-Deduction.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412771-The-Charitable-Contribution-Deduction.pdf

7

2. Consolidate the limits on how much taxpayers may deduct as a

share of their income for contributions of appreciated property to

charities and private foundations

iii. Carve out the charitable deduction from the Pease limitation (H.R.1479

(113th Congress), To… remove the deduction for charitable contributions

from the overall limitation on itemized deductions, sponsored by Rep.

Sensenbrenner)

iv. Allow taxpayers to deduct charitable contributions for the previous tax

year until April 15 of the following year, in order to coincide with tax filing

deadlines (Testimony of Dr. Eugene Steuerle before the Committee on

Ways and Means, February 14, 2013)

b. Limit deductions for non-cash contributions

i. Limit the deduction for all contributions of property to the lesser of the

donor’s basis in the property or the fair market value (Joint Committee

on Taxation, “Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax

Expenditures,” January 2005)

ii. Allow unlimited deductions for the fair market value of all contributions

of appreciated property, but require taxpayers to pay any applicable

capital gains tax on the gain at the time of the contribution (Halperin, “A

Charitable Contribution of Appreciated Property and the Realization of

Built-In Gains,” Tax Law Review, 2002)

iii. Disallow the contribution of property unless it is of direct benefit to the

charity (Colinvaux, “Charitable Contributions of Property: A Broken

System Reimagined,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, 2013)

iv. Limit the deduction for clothing and household items to, for example,

$500 (Joint Committee on Taxation, “Options to Improve Tax Compliance

and Reform Tax Expenditures,” January 2005)

v. Modify the rules regarding contributions of fractional interests in tangible

personal property, including art (Association of Art Museum Directors,

Submission to Ways and Means Charitable/Exempt Organization Working

Groups, 2013)

vi. Allow enhanced deductions for inventory property only in response to

specific requests (Kim and Hjorth, “Does Charity Begin at Home for

Pharmaceutical Companies?” Tax Notes, October 2011)

c. Expand deductions for non-cash contributions

i. Allow taxpayers to sell appreciated property without recognizing gain and

receive a full charitable deduction if the entire sales proceeds are





http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/steuerletestimony02.14.2013fc.pdf

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/steuerletestimony02.14.2013fc.pdf

http://www.jct.gov/s-2-05.pdf




https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=56+Tax+L.+Rev.+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=ed2df225e77d1110c2d1e7150f3e8124



http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2274825




http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/association_of_art_museum_directors.pdf



http://www.taxanalysts.com/


8

donated to a charity within 60 days of the sale (President’s Advisory

Panel on Federal Tax Reform, 2005)

ii. Make permanent the enhanced deduction for food inventory for all types

of business entities, not just C corporations (Feeding America comments

to Committee on Ways and Means working group on Charitable/Exempt

organizations, submitted April 15, 2013)

iii. Increase the standard mileage rate for individual automobile use by

volunteers (S.3246 (110th Congress) Fair Deal for Volunteers Act of 2008,

sponsored by Sen. Grassley; S.243 (111th Congress) GIVE Act of 2009,

sponsored by Sen. Cardin)

d. Disallow the charitable deduction for contributions made to support specific

commercial activities

i. Disallow the deduction for charitable contributions that are a

prerequisite for purchasing tickets to sporting events (Clotfelter, “Stop

the Tax Deduction for Major College Sports Programs,” Washington Post,

December 31, 2010)

ii. Disallow the charitable deduction for contributions to support collegiate

sports teams (Congressional Budget Office, “Tax Preferences for

Collegiate Sports,” 2009)

iii. As discussed in Part II, disallow the charitable deduction as part of

limiting tax-exempt status for organizations engaged in large amounts of

commercial activity

e. Modify the deduction for contributions of conservation easements

i. Repeal the deduction (Halperin, “A Better Way to Encourage Gifts of

Conservation Easements,” Tax Notes, July 2012)

ii. Make permanent the expanded deduction for contributions of

conservation easements (S.526 (113th Congress), The Rural Heritage

Conservation Extension Act of 2013, sponsored by Sens. Baucus, Hatch,

Stabenow, and others)

iii. Replace the deduction with a refundable tax credit, capped at an overall

dollar amount (Halperin, “A Better Way to Encourage Gifts of

Conservation Easements,” Tax Notes, July 2012)

1. Could require a public agency, for example, the Bureau of Land

Management, to allocate credits based on conservation value of

the donated property

iv. Eliminate the deduction for:



http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/feeding_america.pdf



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.3246:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S.243:@@@D&summ2=m&

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S.243:@@@D&summ2=m&

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.1212:/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123003252.html



http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41172









9

1. Personal residences (Joint Committee on Taxation, “Options to

Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditures,” January

2005)

2. Forgone upward development of a historic building (FY14

Administration Budget Proposal; estimated in 2013 to raise less

than $1 billion over ten years)

3. Partial interests in property to be used as a golf course (FY14

Administration Budget Proposal; estimated in 2013 to raise $1

billion over ten years; S.526 (113th Congress), The Rural Heritage

Conservation Extension Act of 2013, sponsored by Sens. Baucus,

Hatch, Stabenow, and others)

v. Strengthen qualification requirements for organizations receiving

donated conservation easements

1. Require that the organization be certified by a public agency, for

example the IRS, to receive conservation easements (Halperin, “A

Better Way to Encourage Gifts of Conservation Easements,” Tax

Notes, July 16, 2012)

2. Suspend a land trust’s ability to accept new donations if an audit

reveals repeated failures to enforce easements or an

unsustainable ratio of easements held to available resources

(Colinvaux, “The Conservation Easement Tax Expenditure: In

Search of Conservation Value,” Columbia Journal of

Environmental Law, 2012)

f. Make permanent or expand tax-free distributions from individual retirement

accounts (IRAs) for charitable purposes (S.557 (112th Congress), Public Good IRA

Rollover Act of 2011, sponsored by Sen. Schumer)

g. Reform reporting and valuation rules

i. Require charities to report to the IRS gifts above, for example, $600 to

improve compliance (President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform,

2005)

ii. Increase the threshold at which taxpayers are required to obtain qualified

appraisals for non-cash contributions from $5,000 to, for example,

$10,000 (GAO, “Burdens on Taxpayers Could Be Reduced and Selected

Practices Improved,” 2012)

iii. Increase reporting requirements for enhanced deductions for inventory

property (Colinvaux, “Enforcing the Enhanced Charitable Deduction,”

Urban Institute, 2012)



















http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.557.IS:/




http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591383.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591383.pdf

http://www.urban.org/taxandcharities/upload/Enforcing-the-Enhanced-Charitable-Deduction.pdf

http://www.urban.org/taxandcharities/upload/Enforcing-the-Enhanced-Charitable-Deduction.pdf

10

II. TAXATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF NONPROFITS

Generally, tax-exempt organizations, including charities, must be organized for a tax-exempt

purpose. As a result, these organizations are allowed to participate in other activities only to a

limited extent.

Charitable and tax-exempt organizations that engage in commercial activities may be subject to

tax on the income from some portion of those activities. Trade or business income that is

related to exempt activities (e.g., fee-for-service revenue) is generally tax-exempt, while trade

or business income that is not related to the exempt purpose is generally taxable. Most tax-

exempt organizations can operate an unrelated trade or business, so long as operating the

trade or business is not the organization’s primary activity or a substantial part of the

organization’s activities. For certain types of tax-exempt organizations, investment income is

also taxable. In practice, some tax-exempt organizations create complex structures to

coordinate and operate trade or business activities, including but not limited to for-profit

subsidiaries and joint-venture partnerships.

When a tax-exempt organization regularly carries on trade or business activities that are

unrelated to its exempt purpose, the income from those activities is generally subject to the

unrelated business income tax (UBIT). There are some exceptions, however. For example,

dividends, interest, rents and royalties (unless derived from debt-financed property) are

generally exempt from UBIT. Special rules exist for income paid to a tax-exempt organization

from a controlled for-profit business.

1. Tax all commercial activities of tax-exempt organizations (Testimony of John D.

Colombo before the Committee on Ways and Means, July 25, 2012)

2. Revise the requirements for tax-exempt status for organizations engaged in

commercial activity

a. Disallow tax-exempt status for certain organizations engaged in business

activities, such as credit unions, nonprofit hospitals or certain types of insurance

firms (Hodge, Tax Foundation, “Raising Revenue: The Least Worst Options,”

2012)

b. In the case of fee-for-service nonprofits or charities, such as nonprofit hospitals

and credit counseling organizations (Colinvaux, “Charity in the 21st Century:

Trending Toward Decay,” Florida Tax Review, 2011):

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/colombo_testimony_7.25.pdf


http://taxfoundation.org/article/raising-revenue-least-worst-options#_ftn1

http://taxfoundation.org/article/raising-revenue-least-worst-options#_ftn1



11

i. Impose an affirmative requirement to provide service irrespective of

ability to pay,

ii. Require a “reasonable” fee, and

iii. Require an independent governing body

c. Provide charities conducting commercial activity with more certainty of tax-

exempt status

i. Clarify that commercial activities related to a tax-exempt purpose do not

jeopardize tax-exempt status (Testimony of John D. Colombo before the

Committee on Ways and Means, July 25, 2012)

ii. Clarify that charities receiving a majority of their gross income from

activities related to their mission are not at risk of losing tax-exempt

status (Pena and Reid, “A Call for Reform of the Operational Test for

Unrelated Commercial Activity in Charities,” NYU Law Review, 2001)

d. Reform hospital requirements for tax-exemption

i. Require tax-exempt hospitals to provide a certain amount of charity care,

for example 5% of operating expenses (Sen. Grassley, Tax-Exempt

Hospitals: Discussion Draft, 2007)

ii. Require joint-venture, for-profit hospitals to adopt charity care

requirements (Sen. Grassley, Tax-Exempt Hospitals: Discussion Draft,

2007)

e. Reassess the treatment of tax-exempt organizations providing insurance

i. Require that a fraternal beneficiary society, order, or association is

exempt from tax only if no substantial part of its activities consists of

providing commercial-type insurance (Joint Committee on Taxation,

“Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditures,”

January 2005)

3. Revise the UBIT rules for organizations engaged in commercial activity

a. Classify certain activities as unrelated to any charitable mission and therefore

subject to UBIT

i. Subject the income of university athletic programs to the UBIT

(Congressional Budget Office, “Tax Preferences for Collegiate Sports,”

2009)



http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-76-6-Pena-Reid.pdf

http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-76-6-Pena-Reid.pdf

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/releases/2007/07182007.pdf









12

b. Expand exemptions from UBIT

i. Permanently extend the exemption from UBIT for exempt organizations

receiving investment income from a controlling organization if such

investment income is no more than the fair market value (National

Automobile Dealers Association comments to Committee on Ways and

Means working group on Charitable/Exempt organizations, submitted

April 15, 2013)

ii. Exempt “traditional” charities (i.e. those who mission is exclusively to

serve the poor) from UBIT rules so long as all income is being used to

fund the primary purpose (Kelley, “Rediscovering Vulgar Charity: A

Historical Analysis of America’s Tangled Nonprofit Law,” Fordham Law

Review, 2005)

c. Modify the UBIT treatment of income from debt-financed activities

i. Exempt some established employee-funded pensions (H.R.6056 (111th

Congress), A bill...to treat certain employee-funded pensions...in the

same manner as qualified trusts,.., sponsored by Rep. Neal)

ii. Allow tax-exempt organizations to directly invest in debt-financed

securities and commodities (including certain hedge funds and other

investment funds) without incurring UBIT (H.R. 3970 (110th Congress), Tax

Reduction and Reform Act of 2007, sponsored by Rep. Rangel)

iii. Establish a “look-through” rule to address the use of foreign “blocker”

corporations to avoid the rules regarding debt-financed investment

income (Miller, “How US Tax Law Encourages Investment Through Tax

Havens,” Tax Notes, 2011)

4. Tighten rules on conversion from tax-exempt to for-profit status

Under current law, charities are allowed to reorganize as for-profit entities, when doing

so may avoid federal income tax on assets that are unrelated to their charitable mission.

a. Tighten rules on conversion from tax-exempt to for-profit status, for example, by

imposing a termination tax on the conversion of assets (Joint Committee on

Taxation, “Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditures,”

January 2005)

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/national_automobile_dealers_association.pdf

















13

5. General reforms to tax-exempt entities

a. Eliminate tax-exempt status of professional sports leagues under business

leagues definition (S.A.750, offered by Sen. Coburn, to S.743 (113th Congress),

Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, sponsored by Sen. Enzi)

b. Allow mutual ditch and irrigation companies to receive a larger percentage of

their income from leases and sales of certain real property without jeopardizing

their tax-exempt status (S.3650 (112th Congress), Ditch and Irrigation Company

Tax Reform Act, sponsored by Sen. Udall)

III. POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND LOBBYING OF TAX-EXEMPTS

Some types of tax-exempt organizations may engage in lobbying or political activities. Lobbying

involves attempting to influence Members of Congress, legislative staff or senior executive

staff. Political activity involves participating in or intervening in political campaigns.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are not allowed to participate in any political activities. In

addition, “no substantial part” of their activities can involve lobbying. While the definition of

“no substantial part” is not entirely clear, many believe that no more than approximately 5% to

10% of a 501(c)(3)’s activities may be comprised of lobbying. There is, however, a safe harbor

where such organizations are allowed to spend up to $1 million on lobbying activities. Section

501(c)(3) organizations are required to apply for exempt status. Donors to section 501(c)(3)

public charities are not made public.

Section 501(c)(4) organizations (social welfare), (c)(5) organizations (labor unions) and (c)(6)

organizations (trade associations) may participate in some political activity as long as that

activity is not the organization’s primary activity. These groups can engage in unlimited

lobbying activities as long as they relate to the organization’s tax-exempt purpose. These

organizations may, but are not required to, apply for exempt status, and donors to these

organizations are not made public.

Section 527 organizations are political organizations and may engage in unlimited political

activities. At formation, these groups must give notice to the IRS within 24 hours. These

organizations are required to make public donors making contributions of more than $200 per

person, per calendar year.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c8f61876-840e-498d-86c0-e40d4f884743

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c8f61876-840e-498d-86c0-e40d4f884743



14

1. Limit political activity of 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations

a. Limit the amount of political election activity that such organizations may engage

in to, for example, 10% of expenditures (Congressional Letter to the

Commissioner of the IRS, sent by Sen. Schumer and others, March 2012; Colvin,

“Political Tax Law After Citizens United: A Time For Reform,” Tax Analysts, 2010)

b. Require that such organizations disclose the amount and percentage of their

total annual expenditures that go to influencing federal, state and local elections

(Congressional Letter to the Commissioner of the IRS, sent by Sen. Schumer and

others, March 2012; New York Office of the Attorney General, “A.G.

Schneiderman Adopts New Disclosure Requirements For Nonprofits That Engage

In Electioneering,” June 2013)

2. Change the categories of tax-exempt organizations that may engage in political

activities

a. Create a new category for tax-exempt organizations engaged primarily in

political activities (Aprill, “Regulating the Political Speech of Non Charitable

Exempt Organizations After Citizens United,” Election Law Journal, 2011)

i. Add new requirements for 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations

regarding lobbying and political activity and clarify existing rules through

statute

ii. Require 501c(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations to file a notice of

application for exemption within a specified period

iii. Increase public disclosure of contributors to 501c(4), (c)(5), (c)(6)

organizations and the new category of politically active tax-exempt

organizations

iv. Tax political activities of 501c(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations and the

new category of politically active tax-exempt organizations, regardless of

whether the organization has investment income

b. Eliminate 501(c)(4) organizations, but allow them to reapply for tax-exempt

status under another existing category (Colombo, “Do Away With Them,” New

York Times, May 15, 2013)

c. Require an organization involved in any political campaigning to be a 527

organization (Aprill, “Create a New Category,” New York Times, May 15, 2013)

d. Deny tax-exempt status to section 501(c)(5) labor unions if members’ dues are

used by a union in political campaign (S.A.416, offered by Sen. Bob Dole to

H.R.13270, The Tax Reform Act of 1969)

http://www.adlercolvin.com/attorneys/documents/sugarman.pdf


http://www.schumer.senate.gov/Newsroom/record.cfm?id=336270



http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-adopts-new-disclosure-requirements-nonprofits-engage-electioneering







http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated/the-irs-should-eliminate-501c4-organizations

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated/the-irs-should-eliminate-501c4-organizations

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated/create-a-new-exemption-category-to-distinguish-between-lobbying-and-electioneering

15

3. Reform reporting and disclosure rules

a. Require certain reporting by tax-exempt organizations involved in Federal

election-related activity (S.791 (113th Congress), The Follow the Money Act of

2013, sponsored by Sens. Wyden and Murkowski)

i. Impose an excise tax on tax-exempt organizations for failing to report to

the Federal Election Commission certain contributions or expenditures

1. Would apply to contributions or expenditures used to influence a

nomination or election of an individual to any federal office

2. Alternatively, revoke tax-exempt status for tax-exempt

organizations failing to report such contributions and

expenditures

ii. Require 527 organizations to file with the Federal Election Commission

iii. Deny business expense deductions for election-related activity

expenditures by businesses that fail to report such expenditures to the

Federal Election Commission

b. Ensure that members of tax-exempt organizations, including 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5),

and 501(c)(6) organizations, are notified of the portion of their dues used for

political and lobbying activities (S.65 (105th Congress), A bill to… ensure that

members of tax-exempt organizations are notified of the portion of their dues

used for political and lobbying activities, sponsored by Sen. Hatch)

c. Require any tax-exempt organization supporting political activity to disclose

donors (Mayer, ”Require Disclosure of Their Donors,” New York Times, May 15,

2013)

d. Increase thresholds for reporting requirements for section 527 organizations

(Fei, “Less is More: A Proposal For Tax Simplification for Exempt Organizations’

Political and Lobbying Activities,” Nonprofit Law Matters, May 2013)

e. Tighten the rules relating to 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations

(Mancino,“Don’t Eliminate Them,” New York Times, May 15, 2013)

i. Require such organizations to apply for tax-exempt status

ii. Require such organizations to disclose all donors, similar to private

foundations who are required to make public donors

iii. Apply the gift tax to donations given to such organizations

4. Clarify that payments to 501(c)(4) organizations are excluded from the gift tax (Fei,

“Less is More: A Proposal For Tax Simplification for Exempt Organizations’ Political and

Lobbying Activities,” Nonprofit Law Matters, May 2013)






http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated/the-irs-fiasco-has-much-to-do-with-disclosure-requirements

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated/the-irs-fiasco-has-much-to-do-with-disclosure-requirements

http://www.nonprofitlawmatters.com/2013/05/31/less-is-more-a-proposal-for-tax-simplification-for-exempt-organizations-political-and-lobbying-activities/


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated/dont-eliminate-501c4-exemption




16

5. Expand the prohibition on 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in lobbying from receiving

any federal funds to include contracts (S.A.1842, offered by Sen. Craig to S.1060 (104th

Congress), The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, sponsored by Sen. Levin)

IV. BROAD TAX-EXEMPT ISSUES

Tax-exempt organizations must meet certain standards to maintain exempt status. Most tax-

exempts are required to file annual information returns reporting gross income, disbursements

and other information.

Generally, these organizations are subject to prohibitions against private inurement and private

benefit. Under the private inurement prohibition, organizations are not allowed to use the

organization’s assets for the benefit of a person or entity with a close relationship to the

organization. In addition, 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from serving private interests

unless the private benefit is extremely small. For 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations, an excise

tax is imposed when the organization provides a closely related party with an “excess benefit”.

Certain rules apply based on the type of charity. Charities (i.e., organizations eligible to receive

deductible contributions) are broken down into two categories: public charities and private

foundations. An organization is treated as a private foundation unless it meets one of several

tests for the more favorable public charity status. To be a public charity, an organization must

either be: (1) a certain kind of organization, such as a church, hospital, or governmental unit, (2)

broadly supported by the public, (3) a supporting organization, or (4) a public safety

organization. An organization is broadly supported by the public if at least one-third of its

funding comes from the public or governmental, or from the public and revenue from activities

related to the charitable purpose. Private foundations generally have one donor or a small

group of donors.

Private foundations are subject to several requirements and operational restrictions that do not

apply to public charities. For example, private foundations must distribute 5% of their assets

each year. They also must pay a 2% tax on their net investment income each year. This tax is

lowered to 1% if the foundation meets distribution requirements. In addition, the IRS and the

private foundation must make public the foundation’s donors.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:S24JY5-784:/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:S24JY5-784:/

17

1. Reform the taxation of private foundations

a. Replace the two rates of net investment income excise tax on private

foundations with a single tax rate of, for example, 1.40% (FY14 Administration

Budget Proposal; estimated in 2013 to cost $54 million over 10 years; S.593

(112th Congress), To amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify the tax rate for

excise tax on investment income of private foundations, sponsored by Sen.

Schumer)

b. Relax the rule prohibiting private foundations from owning more than 20% of a

for-profit corporation if the foundation acquires the business through gift or

bequest, the foundation is independent of the donor’s family, and the for-profit

corporation distributes all of its net profits to the foundation (S.3377 (112th

Congress), Philanthropic Enterprise Act of 2012, sponsored by Sens. Lieberman

and Snowe)

2. Reform the taxation of endowments

a. Require tax-exempt organizations with endowments to spend an amount equal

to at least their ten-year average compounded rate of return on their

endowment minus the inflation rate minus 1 percentage point (Vedder, Center

for College Affordability and Productivity, “Federal Tax Policy Regarding

Universities: Endowments and Beyond,” 2008)

b. Require tax-exempt organizations with endowments to distribute at least, for

example, 5% of the endowment’s value each year (Testimony of Lynne Munson

before the Finance Committee, July 25, 2012)

3. Ensure that donor-advised funds and supporting organizations are directing resources

for charitable purposes in a timely fashion

Under current law, donor advised funds (DAFs) and supporting organizations are public

charities that often have some donor involvement similar to private foundations. An

individual may make an irrevocable gift to a DAF and receive the charitable contribution

deduction. The fund then makes grants to charities on the advice of the individual

donor. Supporting organizations are charities that support other exempt organizations,

usually other public charities.

a. Impose a minimum payout requirement of, for example, 5% (Finance Committee

discussion draft on proposals for reforms and best practices in the area of tax-



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.593.IS:







http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Endowment_Report.pdf



http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/072412%20Munson%20Testimony.pdf

http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/072412%20Munson%20Testimony.pdf

http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/062204stfdis.pdf


18

exempt organizations, 2004; Hussey, “Avoiding Misuse of Donor Advised Funds,”

Cleveland State Law Review, 2010)

b. Require that all assets be distributed within a specified time frame of, for

example, seven years (Madoff, “Tax Write-Off Now, Charity Later,” New York

Times, November 21, 2011)

4. Limit executive compensation by tax-exempt organizations

a. Further define what constitutes a private benefit as a result of charitable

activities by, for example, tightening rules for revenue generated in coordination

with for-profit partnerships (Testimony of John D. Colombo before the

Committee on Ways and Means, July 25, 2012)

b. Modify the standard under the section 4958 excess benefit provision to apply a

“reason to know” standard and replace the rebuttable presumption rule with a

minimum due diligence requirement. Apply an excise tax at the entity level.

Require disclosure of compensation studies. (Sen. Grassley, “Grassley Releases

Review of Tax Issues Raised by Media-Based Ministries,” 2011; Sen. Grassley,

Amendment #F-8 to the American Healthy Futures Act, during mark-up of what

would become the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)

5. Reform reporting requirements

Under current law, most tax-exempt organizations are required to make public their

annual information reporting document on the Form 990. Tax-exempts are not required

to make public the form where they disclose information about their commercial

business unrelated to their mission, which is called the Form 990-T.

a. Require tax-exempt organizations to make public their Form 990-Ts (Joint

Committee on Taxation, “Options to Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax

Expenditures,” January 2005)

b. Require electronic filing for all 990 forms (Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy

(and others), “Statement submitted to the Committee on Ways and Means,” July

25, 2012)

c. Allow charities with up to $1 million in gross receipts to file a simpler form than

the Form 990 (Testimony of Eve Borenstein before the Committee on Ways and

Means, July 25, 2012)


http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=clevstlrev

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=clevstlrev

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/tax-write-off-now-charity-later.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/tax-write-off-now-charity-later.html?_r=0



http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=5fa343ed-87eb-49b0-82b9-28a9502910f7

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=5fa343ed-87eb-49b0-82b9-28a9502910f7

http://www.finance.senate.gov/legislation/download/?id=ebb3e23f-78da-481f-9ae7-62ea17935ad5






http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901523-Hearing-on-Public-Charity-Organization-Issues.pdf



http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/borenstein_testimony_7.25.pdf

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/borenstein_testimony_7.25.pdf

19

d. Require an abbreviated IRS reporting requirement or a requirement to alert the

IRS of an organization’s intent to claim church status (Finance Committee staff

memorandum to Sen. Grassley, “Review of Media-Based Ministries,” January

2011)

6. Develop enforcement methods other than revocation of tax-exempt status as the only

penalty for noncompliance (Finance Committee staff memorandum to Sen. Grassley,

“Review of Media-Based Ministries,” January 2011)

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/download/?id=1f92d378-baa2-440d-9fbd-333cdc5d85fc



