[ ] part of my responsibility is to be an ambassador for giving Report on Philanthropy Development Outcomes

Transcription

1 [ ] part of my responsibility is to be an ambassador for giving Report on Philanthropy Development Outcomes Prepared by Katalin Marky April 2014

2 Introduction Social Venture Partners (SVP) is a global network of local partners aligning passion and purpose. SVP helps individuals amplify their giving, funds and strengthens nonprofits and equips our communities to tackle our greatest social challenges together. The SVP network 1 is the largest network of engaged donors in the world. More than 3,000 SVP partners in 36 cities in Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan and the U.S. have contributed more than $50 million (USD) and hundreds of thousands of hours of business expertise to 600+ nonprofit organizations to date. Learn more about Social Venture Partners here. The SVP Network Office, located in Seattle, WA, assists each member in the SVP network to achieve deeper local impact in their communities while also propelling the entire network to broader impact worldwide. The Network Office provides innovative tools, extensive resources, outcomes data, opportunities for engagement and learning all with an eye to unleashing the philanthropic potential of individuals, communities and the broader philanthropic sector. The Network Office guides existing members in the network to new levels of growth while championing new members, so all have deeper, more sustained impact together. Learn more about the SVP Network Office programs and services here. The 2013 Philanthropy Development Outcomes Report is produced by the SVP Network Office. SVPs programs have focused on creating impact in two distinct areas: Philanthropy Development: SVPs create communities of lifelong, informed and inspired philanthropists. SVP Partners are high-achieving individuals who make strategic and substantial contributions to nonprofit organizations through their professional expertise, their time, and their financial contributions. Capacity Building: SVP nonprofit investees are nonprofit organizations that seek new resources and innovative approaches for addressing a variety of issues. Capacity building investments focus on increasing the ability of each nonprofit investee to fulfill its mission and make a deeper impact in their community. They include cash grants, highly-skilled volunteers, professional consultants, leadership development and management training opportunities. The SVP Network Office first set out to evaluate SVP s impact in They convened a team of Partners and staff, led by Blueprint Research and Design (now Arabella Advisors), to identify key outcomes in both philanthropy development and nonprofit capacity building. The project was funded by the Hewlett Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Lodestar Foundation, and Surdna Foundation. The SVP Network Office now conducts this research bi-annually. 1 The SVP network is comprised of both Social Venture Partners organizations as well as strategic partner organizations that are members in the network but have different names. For simplicity s sake, in this report we refer all members of the network as SVP. 1

3 Methodology A quantitative survey was designed to measure SVP s effectiveness in developing its partners philanthropy, capturing data focused on three outcomes: Changes in how much partners give, Changes in how partners give, Changes in partners involvement in their communities. The survey is one of several tools developed by the SVP Network Office to identify priority outcomes and help SVPs demonstrate their impact. In , three SVPs Seattle, San Diego and Arizona worked with the Network Office to develop and pilot the original survey. The survey is administered on a biennial basis. After the initial pilot, 494 partners from twelve SVPs (Arizona, Boston, Boulder County, Calgary, Cleveland, Denver, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Diego and Seattle) participated in In 2009, 605 partners from eighteen SVPs (Arizona, Boulder County, British Columbia, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Delaware, Denver, Greater Tucson, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Portland, Rhode Island, San Diego, Seattle, Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund 2, and Toronto) participated. Between April and July of 2011, SVPs in twenty communities administered the survey to their partners: Arizona, Boulder County, Calgary, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Greater Tucson, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Seattle, Silicon Valley and Toronto. 627 partners participated. Between April and October of 2013, seventeen SVP Network member organizations distributed the survey to their partners in Arizona, Boulder County, Calgary, Charleston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Seattle, Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SV2, Tokyo, Tucson, Vancouver, and Waterloo Region. 564 partners participated. This report offers a longitudinal view of the changes among Partners. The information captured in the survey is self-reported by the SVP partners. 2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SV2 is a strategic partner in the SVP Network. 2

4 Key Findings Partners giving increases because of SVP. 72% of respondents indicated that their giving has increased since joining SVP, and 82% credit SVP with at least some impact on their giving. cited involvement with SVP as the leading factor. Partners give more strategically because of SVP. Respondents use of each of ten giving practices has increased anywhere between 63% and 175% since joining SVP. 96% of them cite SVP as impacting the way they give, with 48% citing it as the leading factor. Partners are more involved in their communities because of SVP. Respondents report increases in all nine defined areas of community involvement, including a 66% increase in volunteering. 91% credit SVP in increasing their community involvement, with 37% citing SVP as the leading factor in influencing the change. The longer a partner is involved in SVP, the greater the changes in all three outcomes. 77% of long-term partners report an increase in their giving: the rate for new partners is 66%. Nearly one in four long-term partners (24%) has increased his or her giving by more than 10. Also, longterm partners use five of the ten giving practices at a higher rate. Similarly, long-term partners report larger increases in eight of the nine areas of community involvement, particularly volunteering (77%), leveraging resources (7) and awareness of community affairs (7). Survey participants Length of partnership with SVP The survey captured responses from partners at all stages of involvement, from new partners, 0-2 years (41%), to long-term (5+ years) partners (28%). 0-1 year 24.3% 3-4 years 9% 1-2 years 16.3% 4-5 years 8% 2-3 years 15% More than 5 years 28% SVP activities in which survey respondents have participated Monetary contribution only 12% Social Innovation Fast Pitch 12% Collective Action Team 14% Serving on an internal working group Serving on a grant committee 49% Volunteering with an SVP investee 53% Attending at least one educational event 56% 3

5 The vast majority (88%) indicated that they had participated beyond their annual financial contribution to SVP. In most activities, these numbers have grown over time. Please note that since we are separating two new activities in the survey this year (Social Innovation Fast Pitch and Collective Action Team), other types of involvement (e.g. internal working group or grant committee) may seem to be underrepresented in comparison to previous years. Types of involvement in SVP % 43% 53% 55% 51% 48% 53% 55% 55% 51% 49% 66% 62% 61% 56% % 13% 12% 14% 12% Monetary contribution only Serving on internal working group Volunteering with an SVP investee Serving on a grant committee Attending at least one educational event Collective Action Team Social Innovation Fast Pitch 4

6 Involvement in other forms of organized philanthropy 3 To better understand the scope of respondents philanthropic activities, the survey included a question about partners involvement in additional forms of organized philanthropy. 45% 35% 3 25% 15% 5% Involvement in Organized Philanthropy SVP Only 23% Family Foundation Donor Advised Fund 14% 15% 17% 13% Charitable Gift Fund Giving Circle Other n=564 The data suggests that the longer a partner is involved in SVP, the more likely he/she is to be involved in other forms of organized philanthropy as well. While 56% of respondents with less than two years tenure indicated that they are involved in at least one other form of organized philanthropy, the number increases to 68% of respondents who have been a partner for more than five years. Annual contribution amount The data suggest that more than six out of ten partners (62%) donate at least $10,000 to nonprofits each year. 62% of respondents indicated that their contribution to SVP is less than half of their annual charitable giving; the typical annual gift to SVP from a partner is approximately $5,000. Partner longevity seems to influence this finding as well: the data indicates that the longer a partner participates in SVP, the more his or her giving increases. Among respondents who have been partners less than two years, 53% indicated that his or her contribution to SVP is less than half his or her annual giving. That number rose to 61% among partners who have participated for 2 5 years, and to 76% among respondents who have been partners for more than 5 years. 3 Other responses (23%) consisted largely of volunteering, contributions to other nonprofit organizations, church involvement and serving on nonprofit boards. 5

7 SVP s impact on giving amounts [SVP] has made us more aware of how much and to whom we are giving our money, and because of this we have increased the amount of money we are giving Survey Respondent Changes in amount of giving The first of the three philanthropy development outcomes that are measured by the survey is change in the amount of giving among partners since joining SVP, and the role that SVP played in that change. In 2013, 72% of partners reported that their giving had increased since joining SVP. 28% reported an increase of 5 or more. 35% 3 33% 27% 31% % Change in giving levels 25% 24% 22% 15% 5% 7% 7% 6% 3% 16% 12% 12% 13% 12% 9% 9% 16% 15% 14% 12% Decreased Stayed the Same Increased 0-25% Increased 25-5 Increased Increased >10 n=506 SVP has opened my eyes to the extent of giving that is being done, and it has pushed me to do more Survey Respondent 6

8 When changes in giving are broken out by partner tenure, the results are dramatic: while 66% of 0-2 year partners report an increase, 7 of 2-5 year partners and 82% of 5+ year partners do the same Change in giving levels by partner tenure 66% 7 82% % 0-2 years 2-5 years 5+ years 5% 6% 7% 11% Decreased Stayed the same Increased n=506 Four out of ten 5+ year partners report an annual giving increase of more than 5. 35% 32% 35% Giving increase by partner tenure 3 25% 27% 24% 15% 5% 16% 14% 13% 12% 11% 12% 12% 9% 0-2 years 2-5 years 5+ years Increased 0-25% Increased 25-5 Increased Increased >10 n=506 7

9 SVP s role in giving changes When asked to what extent their involvement in SVP has affected the change in their amount of giving, 82% of respondents indicated that it was a factor, with indicating that it had significant or primary impact. SVP's impact on giving levels 18% 17% Primary Factor 23% Significant impact Some impact 42% No impact n=506 Factors that influence changes in giving levels Among factors that influence changes in giving levels, SVP was cited by 41% of respondents as the first factor, with 66% of total respondents rating it in the top two. Changes in personal income or monetary assets and other forms of organized philanthropy were also cited frequently. 7 6 Greatest influences on increases in giving 5 26% 3 32% 19% Second 41% First 21% Involvement Involvement in SVP in the community outside of SVP 25% Change in income and/or assets 11% 5% 6% Major life transitions 3% 2% Other forms Issues with of organized wills or philanthropy bequests n=411 8

10 Component of SVP with the most impact on changes in giving levels [SVP] has increased my awareness of the importance of significant and sustained gifts to impact in nonprofits Survey Respondent Meeting other partners was the component most frequently cited as influencing partners giving level (26%). Volunteering with an investee () and serving on a grant committee (17%) were also influential. SVP components' impact on giving levels Volunteering with investees Meeting other partners 9% 11% 2% 2% Serving on a grant committee 14% 17% 26% Attending education events Serving on an internal working group Other Serving on a collective action team n=411 Participating w/the Social Innovation Fast Pitch 9

11 Strategic philanthropy practices I think SVP allows me to get a global perspective on the community so it satisfies my appetite to not just focus on one specific sector. It also allows for me to engage my mind in a partnership with my dollars. Something that I've found few organizations do effectively Survey Respondent The second outcome of SVP s philanthropy development programs relates to changes in how partners give. As a result of their involvement with SVP, many partners are much more thoughtful and deliberate in their approach to giving. In developing its outcomes measurement tools, SVP scanned the philanthropy development field and identified ten practices for strategic giving: Proactive/mission-driven Uses formal processes Research based Collaborative Funds nonprofit infrastructure Outcomes based Systemic/policy impact Long-term Makes fewer, larger donations Understand power dynamics Complete definitions of each practice are available in Appendix A. Respondents indicated which strategies they had used prior to joining SVP, and which they have used since joining % 95% 77% 83% Strategic giving practices 74% 75% 74% 71% 67% 61% 6 44% 46% 45% 38% 31% 29% 24% 23% Prior to joining SVP Since joining SVP n=503 10

12 Each of the ten practices is used by more than 5 of respondents. Significant increases were reported in all ten practices, with some dramatic results: 175% increase in making fewer but larger donations; 164% increase in using formal processes; 139% increase in collaborative practices. The use of each of the ten practices trends upward in each subsequent survey, except for one decrease in the use of Outcomes Based Funding Decisions in Since 2007 there s been more than a 5 increase in the number of partners who report using the following practices: Proactive/Mission-Driven, Research Based, Collaborative, and Systemic/Policy Impact Strategic giving practices over time 95% 91% 85% 83% 79% 77% 77% 74% 74% 75% 7 69% 71% 66% 67% 68% 65% 67% 67% 62% 64% 58% 57% 59% 6 61% 6 57% 52% 54% 56% 55% 52% 47% 49% 51% 52% 42% 44% 41% This is also an outcome in which partners tenure appears to play a role. For five of ten strategies, partners who have participated in SVP for more than five years reported a higher rate of using strategic giving practices. 4 For a complete definition of the strategic giving indicators, see Appendix A. 11

13 Strategic giving practices by partner tenure 95% 93% 97% 94% 83% 82% 84% 81% 81% 73% 75% 78% 79% 74% 71% 72% 72% 68% 68% 68% 7 76% 66% 66% 6 59% 59% 65% 63% 55% 0-2 years 2-5 years 5+ years n=503 SVP s role in changes in strategic giving [SVP]'s process became a model that I brought to other institutions and to my own family Survey Respondent 96% of respondents indicated that SVP had at least some impact on the way they give, with almost half reporting that SVP had significant impact or was the primary factor. SVP's impact on giving strategies 4% 16% 48% 32% Primary Factor Significant impact Some impact No impact n=519 12

14 Factors that influence changes in strategic giving Among factors that influence changes in giving strategies, SVP was cited by 61% of respondents as the first factor, with 82% of total respondents rating it in the top two % 61% Involvement in SVP Greatest influences on giving strategies 36% 19% Involvement in the community outside of SVP 16% 12% 11% 3% 7% 7% 4% 2% Change in income and/or assets Other forms of organized philanthropy Major life transitions Issues with wills or bequests Second First n=434 13

15 Component of SVP with the most impact on changes in strategic giving Meeting other partners (23%) and serving on a grant committee (23%) were the components most frequently cited as influencing partners strategic giving. Serving on a grant committee was by far the most influential component (3) to those who have been partners for more than five years. SVP components' influence on giving strategies Meeting other partners 8% 7% 3% 2% 23% Serving on a grant committee Volunteering with investees 14% Attending education events 23% Serving on an internal working group Other Serving on a collective action team Participating w/the Social Innovation Fast Pitch n=434 Serving on internal committees was valuable from a "hands on learning" experience, but more valuable was the stream of curated s on issues / trends in the philanthropic world (all the strategic issues mentioned in previous set of questions) Survey Participant 14

16 Community involvement [SVP] has helped me go from unconnected to the [local] community and its challenges to [being] very connected. I especially have grown from how you have leveraged my skills and expertise for the greater group. Bravo!! 2013 Survey Participant The final outcome assessed by the survey is related to partners involvement in the community. Changes in community involvement Nine practices of community involvement were identified by SVP after reviewing literature in the field: Community problem solving Leadership in local organizations Volunteering Leveraging resources Group memberships Attending public meetings Contacting media or public officials Awareness of community affairs Legislative advocacy In four of the nine practices, at least half of the partners surveyed indicated that their involvement had increased. Volunteering (64%) and Awareness of Community Affairs (63%) saw the greatest increase. Changes in community involvement % 37% 18% 45% 17% 39% 19% 33% 18% 8% 27% 27% 6% 22% 5% 6% 15% 11% Significant increase Some increase n=453 15

17 Community involvement over time % 61% 49% 46% 8 77% 71% 63% 45% 42% 38% 35% 29% 29% 29% 21% 25% 25% 25% 15% 62% 6 59% 47% 65% 69% 7 65% 35% 34% 31% 26% 7 69% 7 66% Partner tenure also influences increased community involvement. Eight of nine practices show a continuous increase as partner longevity increases % 52% 64% Community involvement by partner tenure 76% 68% 49% 48% 32% 27% 31% 26% 18% 12% 13% 15% 74% 58% 56% 45% 43% 35% 34% 26% 25% 7 62% 59% 0-2 years 2-5 years 5+ years n=453 16

18 SVP s role in changes in community involvement SVP has influenced my giving by giving me insight into what the community needs, who is delivering best on those needs, and introducing me to organizations I might not have known about otherwise Survey Participant 91% of respondents indicated that SVP had at least some impact on their involvement in the community, with over one third reporting that SVP had significant impact or was the primary factor. SVP's impact on community involvement 9% 27% 55% Primary Factor Significant impact Some impact No impact n=485 17

19 Factors that influence changes in community involvement When asked about the top two factors influencing change in community involvement, 76% of partners indicated that SVP was among them, a 1% increase from the survey results in 2011, and a 16% increase from the 2007 results % Greatest influences on community involvement 37% 5 51% 3 31% Second First Involvement ininvolvement in SVP the community outside of SVP 14% Major life transitions 9% 14% 3% 4% Change in Other forms of income and/or organized assets philanthropy 2% Issues with wills or bequests n=406 18

20 SVP factor with the most impact on community involvement 36% of respondents indicated that meeting other partners had the most impact on their level of community involvement. Volunteering with an investee (21%) was also significant. SVP components' influence on community involvement Meeting other partners Volunteering with investees 11% 9% 14% 5% 3% 2% 21% 36% Serving on a grant committee Serving on an internal working group Attending education events Other n=404 It is the familiarity with strategic issues gained through work in internal committees, which created the substance and confidence to engage my community in an outcome targeted way (and therefore more satisfying way) Survey Participant Conclusion I've been more able to connect the dots between my thoughts, my desires from a community perspective and then to engage in the initiatives that support my views along with the individual organizations who are moving in that direction. I've simply become more aware which I believe has moved me towards being a more thoughtful donor 2013 Survey Participant Social Venture Partners will turn 17 years old this year, and it is clear that its influence on the Partners and Investees involved continues. We re witnessing what happens when committed, passionate people are connected with the issues they care about and given the tools, engage: the impact is seen on both the issues and the individuals. SVP partners give more in a more strategic fashion and feel deeply satisfied about it. They dive deeper into leadership roles and service opportunities helping their communities reach their potential. 19

21 Appendix A: Definitions for Strategic Giving The strategic giving practices listed below are drawn from best practices research in the field including the following resources: New Visions Philanthropic Research and Development: Philanthropy s Forgotten Resource? Engaging the Individual Donor: The State of Donor Education Today & A Leadership Agenda for The Road Ahead By Dan Siegel and Jenny Yancey Tracy Gary and Melissa Kohner in Inspired Philanthropy: Creating a Giving Plan New Ventures in Philanthropy, Donor Education Knowledge Lab, Aspen Wye River, MD, November 15-17, 2004 Venture Philanthropy Partners High-Engagement Philanthropy: A Bridge to a More Effective Social Sector The Rockefeller Foundation s The Philanthropy Workshop Strategic Giving Practices Proactive/mission-driven: Partner has a vision for change and contributes to nonprofits based on advancing his or her overall giving goals and/or strategies. Uses formal processes: Partner uses established, documented practices for grant or donation assessment, conducts due diligence (such as site visits or interviews), has a plan for assessing whether a gift met its goals. Research-based: Partner uses issue analysis and research to inform decisions about which organizations he or she wants to fund. Collaborates with others: Partner solicits input from and collaborates with other funders, donors and/or community members to understand community needs, make informed grant decisions, and have greater impact. Funds nonprofit infrastructure: Partner supports more than nonprofit programs, but also invests in the organizational capacity (staff and systems) of the groups he or she supports. Outcomes-based: Partner seeks information about nonprofit performance and uses outcomes data to inform funding decisions. Focus on systemic/policy impact: Partner includes funding for efforts that address systemic change (e.g. advocacy, organizing activities). Long-term approach: Partner makes multi-year gifts, maintains contact with nonprofit after grant is made. Writes fewer, larger checks: Partner makes fewer gifts each year, but the average value of each is significantly higher. Understands power dynamics: Partner considers how issues of power and cultural differences (language, values, communication styles etc.) can impact the effectiveness of his/her philanthropy. 20

22 Appendix B: Definition for Community Involvement The community involvement practices listed below are drawn from best practices research in the field including the following resources: Civic Engagement Index (developed in 2003 by researchers at George Mason University, Rutgers and DePaul and funded by Pew Charitable Trusts) Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (developed in 2000 by the Saguaro Seminar at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and funded by three dozen community foundations) Leadership Development Survey (part of 10-year Violence Prevention Initiative completed by The California Wellness Foundation) Community Involvement Practices Community Problem Solving: Partner has worked with a person or group to solve a problem in the community where he or she lives. Volunteering: Partner has volunteered within or outside SVP. Group Membership: Partner has joined groups, either locally, nationally, or internationally and participated as an active member (PTSA, labor, rotary, community group, etc.) Contacting media or public officials: Partner has written a letter to the editor or contacted the media and/or public officials on behalf on an organization or issue. Legislative Advocacy: Partner has started or joined a legislative advocacy effort on behalf of an organization or issue. Leadership in local organizations: Partner has held a leadership role (such as a board member, officer, or committee chair) of a local organization or community group. Leverages resources: Partner has recruited new volunteers and/or financial resources on behalf of an organization or community group. Participates in Public Meetings: Partner has attended and/or spoken at public meetings in which there was a discussion about community affairs. Awareness of Community Affairs: Partner knows what is going on and talks about community affairs. 21