Until then, thank you all for the treat of my coming back and finding this rich discussion here. Can’t wait to see what twists and turns it has taken by the time I return!
Hildy

Because of David’s help and work, we are on track to achieve our very serious outcomes. Thanks David for directly impacting our organization.

Did all of you see the article about Robert Wood Johnson, Duke University and Growth Philanthropy Network creating the Social Impact Exchange http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=270900004 ? How does that tie in with the discussion we are having about the goal of creating lasting change and the means to get there?

OPP has worked with David Hunter, both as an evaluator and consultant since 2005, and strongly supports his thoughts on Social Investing and the importance of Performance Management.

Performance Management:
We hold ourselves accountable by having specific roles for Board members, giving them a better focus and ability to lead.(ALL Participate in org. based Sub Committees) We have a performance management system in place to track our progress giving us the ability to use the data to improve, and share that information with other CBO’s and the City of Hartford Office of Youth Services. This allows us to communicate effectively with other agencies to improve the lives of all young people in our city. Based on our success, there are numerous community service networks across the country working to duplicate this model.

Building a culture of performance management such as the one implemented in Hartford will certainly be beneficial as agencies work with others to improve services to their clients. Organizations with strong performance management systems in place can show true results and deserve investment. At OPP, we are seeing results with thousands of young people already on track to reach their long-term goals.

Interconnecting:
Forming Concepts based on OPP’s Data and Community need, the leader of our organization Our Piece of the Pie®, and Capital Workforce Partners with additional funding support from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation and Connecticut Office of Workforce Competitiveness together commissioned a report on The Economic, Social, Civic and Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out of High School: Findings for Connecticut Adults in the 21st Century. The research was done by Andrew Sum Center for Labor Market Studies Northeastern University and presented at the Governor’s Drop Out Prevention Summit.

I intended to provide some examples of how our non profit has and continues to do the hard work. I venture to say if we were not managing performance we could not say with certainty the programs and outcomes which we are really great at providing and attaining, and those which could use improvement. Because we have a performance management system, now we can say it with certainty and demonstrate it too. If we can do it anyone can do it.

We agree that if social investors would invest both in high performing organizations and in helping organizations to become high performing (such investment is not always easy to come by), it would be significant.

And since David Hunter works to help organizations become high performing, I’m sure this is indeed common ground. Our common interest is in program effectiveness and life improvements for the people served.

It seems that Nancy and others are right to point out that the differences may lie more in how to get there than the end point. Hopefully, that important conversation can continue.

I for one agree in principle with David Hunter’s point that funders need to be a part of the equation. To paraphrase and to be more specific, for funders and corporate philanthropists for that matter to engage together in a cooperative and collaborative fashion (i.e. through the community engagement process and together with those on the front lines) to make change through the way we are doing business.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that funders make NPO’s what they are as Nancy mentions; because I believe that even within a system that may or may not be perceived as being as life-giving as it could be, we still at our core, have a choice as to how we participate in that system.

Nor do I believe that any one movement or model is an answer to our prayers. And for us to judge each other’s passion and efforts whether directly or implied, does not serve any of us. Again, it is not about the movement or the model, of which community engagement is neither… it is about the principles and process – the thought and beliefs which undergird the models and tools we use.

May I suggest then, that the elbow grease that Renata so eloquently wrote of is as personal as it is professional?

For all of us as leaders to engage in and take action from a place of our own personal presence and belief systems in tandem with crafting a larger “foundational” (no pun intended) organizational or corporate presence?

…A larger presence which, as Jane pointed out, works interdependently in a synergy of the principled shared use of resources instead of independently?

RKT and Kris have good points. Revealing the imbalance in our tendencies to bring focus to what others are, or are not doing, is invaluable. And it’s how we do it… that is what is coming up at issue here. I don’t believe this is a conversation about anyone being right or wrong in their perception. Perception is simply that, perception, and a choice.

What I do believe is that how we are “being” in the sector, in the way we do business – as Hildy has asked us … to engage in wholesale reconsideration of the entire service delivery / social change system – and in fact how we are being in our lives, is what is truly at the heart of all that we dream, flourishing.

Nancy is right (if in fact I believe in a right or a wrong…). This Blog provides a wonderful opening for these kinds of discussions. And I am equally grateful to Ingvild for initiating this one.

May I ask of all of us then, including myself, to give attention to and be aware of the implied judgement we are using in our language by default? Maybe then, our sectors leaders, and those who share our vision, can enter into the larger conversation vs. a debate, from a place of “modeling the building” vs. “building another model”.

Respectfully In Spirit,
Tracey L. Sisson
Animateur
Belief Re-patterning™ Practitioner and Facilitator
Community Engagement Coach

About David’s article, I think your focus on David’s opinion regarding the production of social value is the wrong one. David’s article offers some solid advice about how we may be able to improve the flow of funds that come into the sector – which is currently flawed. Today, most private funding comes from individuals and the information that these donations are based on is not indicative of an orgs ability to perform or of the level of risk associated. David’s suggestions for how this can be improved seem to be sensible and realistic.

I know that Charity Navigator (CN claims to influence $10 billion in funding annually) is looking at implementing some of David’s concepts in the next iteration of their rating system. This would put more emphasis on an organizations ability to manage their performance – understanding which of their efforts are working and which are not and then making appropriate changes to continuously improve. It’s only with this knowledge that an organization can intentionally reach their goals. Otherwise you are working blind and just hoping for the best.

I agree with Jane that Ingvild, Hildy and David, probably have more common ground than not. I see shared goals of wanting to create true change in communities and hold organizations and communities responsible for that change. Social investing (as I read in the article) starts from the premise that funders make NPO’s what they are. My understanding of Hildy’s philosophy is that lasting change results from a vision of what communities can be and their interdependence in creating that reality. The differences I see between Hildy and David then lie more in the best way to accomplish what is possible in creating stronger, healthier and more vibrant communities.

These discussions also mirror many I’ve seen recently on Twitter, various blogs and LinkedIn discussion groups regarding how organizations are evaluated by funders and watchdog groups. These are sensitive and sometimes contentious subjects as ultimately they will affect the survival of many organizations.

I believe Hildy hoped that this blog would provide an opening for exactly the kind of discussion we are now having. These are discussions our sector needs to continue to have even when the answers are not simple or there is disagreement in the approach.

If we start with the premise that we all are committed to creating true change that will result in healthier, stronger communities (states, nations or world for those who think on a large scale), then the next steps are less about pointing fingers and more about how we come together.

What would happen if Hildy and David had a direct conversation about their vision, ideas and where their commonalities are? I for one would love to see what might be accomplished

I am delighted to read that David recognizes how poorly many funders have allocated resources in the past, and is encouraging them to focus on real outcomes. Such enlightened funders are also critical. I was not familiar with his work until I read the article Hildy linked to.

Social enterprizes and social investment have a place in making our communities much better places to live, but as a part of a greater movement led by the community. That’s what I see happening in my community, where the social innovation/enterprise people are heavily involved in many community initiatives.

Hildy encourages all funders to model the collaborative approach they often say they want in their fundees, rather than continue to force a competitive approach. Some are changing. As true partners, funders must recognize that their money is fully balanced by local knowledge and sweat equity (such thinking has already transformed the international development community; it’s time it was applied locally too).

I’ve been a funder; the best ideas come from the community and community benefit organizations, not the funders. And many funders want to measure and evaluate the wrong things; we are supporters of good evaluation. Communities are complex and it is critical to use measures that deal with complexity, not ones that deal with the sort of complicated issues that most businesses face (along with The Pollyanna Principles, I also always recommend Getting To Maybe: How the World is Changed, a wonderful book on understanding complexity).

Ingvild, I encourage you to watch the videos on Hildy’s web site to get a better understanding of the principles behind our work. I suspect you and Hildy (and perhaps David) would find lots of common ground.

Do you refute the need to invest in organizations that are or plan to become high performing, and by implication accept that organizations that are not and will never be accountable for improving lives continue to be funded? David Hunter has proposed a clear strategy to push accountability and thereby improve lives. Since you don’t think it will work, can you explain your alternative approach?

I am a bit puzzled by the opposition to the expression of opinion by a man who is a consultant like you, works with nonprofits like you, and has a wealth of experience to build on. Instead of suggesting that he should not contribute to the debate about how to improve the nonprofit sector, like you do, let’s make this a conversation about substance. I look forward to learning more about your views on how to improve the sector.