Your Mission is Creepy
I attended an event yesterday at the Home Depot headquarters in Atlanta. I appeared on a panel discussing "Corporate Strategic Philanthropy", which as far as I can tell, is when "corporations"are "strategic" in their "philanthropy" and don't just throw their money out the window to anyone who asks, but as funders, have very specific goals and objectives, and demand a high-level of accountability, benchmarking, and transparency from their potential funders. You know, the Charity Navigator way.
Anyhow, just to let you peek behind the curtain a tad, one of the things the funders were really worried about is "mission creep", where charities aren't a great match for the specific nature of the corporation's giving priorities, but rather than acknowledge that, and seek elsewhere for funding, they stretch what they do to try and get the grant. As a result, you get an organization that doesn't excel at delivering a particular program attempting to deliver the program, rather than playing to its strengths, and you end up with a nation of multipurpose non-profits that do everything, and none of it well.
On the flip side, I did hear a corporate giving officer, very candidly, admit that some of this is their fault. Not only have they narrowed their giving focus to a laser-like precision, so that most groups will never qualify, but once they build a good reputation with a trustworthy non-profit, they're more likely to ask that organization if they'd be willing to stretch, than bother to try and find a new charity that they haven't vetted thoroughly, and therefore carries more risk. And I don't think it's much of a corporate secret to acknowledge that large corporations hate risk, especially in their philanthropic endeavors.
Anyhow, just to let you peek behind the curtain a tad, one of the things the funders were really worried about is "mission creep", where charities aren't a great match for the specific nature of the corporation's giving priorities, but rather than acknowledge that, and seek elsewhere for funding, they stretch what they do to try and get the grant. As a result, you get an organization that doesn't excel at delivering a particular program attempting to deliver the program, rather than playing to its strengths, and you end up with a nation of multipurpose non-profits that do everything, and none of it well.
On the flip side, I did hear a corporate giving officer, very candidly, admit that some of this is their fault. Not only have they narrowed their giving focus to a laser-like precision, so that most groups will never qualify, but once they build a good reputation with a trustworthy non-profit, they're more likely to ask that organization if they'd be willing to stretch, than bother to try and find a new charity that they haven't vetted thoroughly, and therefore carries more risk. And I don't think it's much of a corporate secret to acknowledge that large corporations hate risk, especially in their philanthropic endeavors.
posted by Trent Stamp at 8:03 AM
2 Comments:
I think it is necessary to match a donor to a charity that shares it's goals. Giving for the sake of giving is always good but it's better if a company has a plan or goal they are trying to accomplish. Thanks Trent.
Thanks for acknowledging the narrowing focus of some corporate contributors. I think that numerous foundations and charitable trusts share the blame for "mission creep" when they will only fund "new" programming. This may stem from a valid plan to fund only innovative or pilot programs, but it often leaves solid and reliable charitable agencies without a "new" programmatic match to the funder. Thanks for this posting, Trent!
Post a Comment
<< Home