I recently had the pleasure of participating in a roundtable conversation with leaders from several Minnesota foundations about the Big Topic of general operating support. The meeting was convened by Minnesota Council on Foundations and published as the feature story in the new issue of Giving Forum. This issue includes the roundtable discussion as well as related stories about trends in types of support, current practices, and additional thoughts from other leading foundations.
I left the roundtable with a sense that this may be a good time to start moving on from this endless discussion/argument. As Juliet remarked, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.” Today’s version is “General operating support, by any other name would help as much.” It was notable that the participants didn’t have a “line in the sand” definition of general operating support. The distinction didn’t seem to be nearly as important as you might think with these foundations that understand that program grants have to include all the costs of the programs. The foundations were not very concerned with tossing out gen op requests. They were focused on working with nonprofits doing good work in the community that matched their foundation’s areas of interest, and providing support – program, project, organizational – to help them to do that work. We talked a lot about flexibility, long-term relationships, trust, and shared community goals.
What are the goals? Foundations want and need to understand how the funds they provide are helping to meet needs in the community that match their priorities and interests. Nonprofits want and need funds to support programs that further their mission with some flexibility to respond to the changes that might occur. Both foundations and nonprofits want to help the community. Both also want to have trusting, honest relationships. Too often, unfortunately, these priorities have led to battles in the general operating vs. program grant war. Are the goals really all that different? I suggest that we move the last goal into first position – both foundations and nonprofits want to have trusting, honest relationships. These relationships require clear information, reliable decisions (no surprises on either side), real numbers, and a good match in mission and community vision. I know that you might say that the particular foundations represented at the roundtable are some of the most committed to creating these relationships (and they are). Fortunately they are also leaders in the foundation community.
By the way, it’s interesting to read your own words in a transcript, as I got to do with this Giving Forum. I cringed a little when I read this verbatim excerpt: Barr, “I hear [nonprofits] say that general operating pays the rent and program support pays for the work; that’s the worst accounting I’ve ever heard.” Harsh – but I stand by it.
Continuing on this theme, how effective are nonprofits at making the case for unrestricted support? Rather than bemoaning the lack of unrestricted funds, what can we learn? An article in last Sunday’s New York Times, “Here’s My Check, Spend It All At Once”, connects the current financial challenges at the American Red Cross to their Donor Direct policy established in response to the fallout about the use of funds donated after the September 11 attacks. When the Red Cross commits to direct all of your donated funds wherever you choose, what donor wouldn’t take the opportunity to be the master of their own philanthropy? The long-term results, though, may be the kind of deficits that the American Red Cross is facing. Was the Donor Direct policy an extreme reaction – did the Red Cross go too far as a reaction to a communications and PR problem?Following the references in the Times article, I compared the online fundraising messages of the American Red Cross and of Doctors Without Borders. The choice of how to direct donations is the first question for a donor at the American Red Cross. While the option “Where the Need is Greatest” is the first choice offered, specific funds are immediately listed below. The FAQ section even offers more options:
I don’t see the fund that I wanted to donate to. What do I do?
Due to space limitations, we are limited in how many funds we can make available for online donations. If you would like to donate to a fund that is not listed, please contact Donor Services.
Contrast this with the Doctors Without Borders website, which provides a concise summary of how funding is used to carry out their programs. Note that the information doesn’t offer the donor a choice to designate their funds to a specific use. In the FAQ section, in fact, Doctors Without Borders makes the case for unrestricted gifts:
Can I earmark my donation for a certain area/project?
We appreciate your interest in supporting our programs. While it is possible to have your gift directed toward a specific program or country where we are currently working, we ask that you contribute unrestricted funding. By not restricting your contribution for a specific emergency or project, you will enable us to allocate our resources more efficiently and where the needs are greatest.
All of these appeals and messages rely on trust, of course, and donor trust is what the American Red Cross must rebuild. Every nonprofit should care about this, because the public’s perception and confidence in the Red Cross is a good indicator of confidence in all nonprofits.
I find it interesting that I’ve read and heard quite a lot lately about foundation leaders discussing the relative merits and challenges of moving some of their grantmaking from program and project grants to general operating support. The New York Times recently published a re-framing piece on this by Denise Caruso, “Can Foundations Take the Long View Again?” The members of GEO (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations) have been engaged in a long discussion and analysis on this topic. They have published several thoughtful guides (free registration is required to view them). What I don’t think I’ve heard is a comparable discussion from nonprofit leaders about how much impact and long-term value their clients and communities would gain from more general operating support. If you are the director of a nonprofit, you may think that is an obvious statement – but I don’t think that connection is made very well. There are several issues involved, including different terminology and understanding of budgets.
What is a general operating grant? Is it a grant to pay for overhead expenses, or is it funding to provide comprehensive support for the organization’s mission and activities? Too frequently, the term is used as in this excerpt from an article, “General operating money is certainly one of the more difficult categories of funding to secure, mostly because it’s a lot less appealing to the funder. Let’s face it, paying rent is not nearly as sexy as helping people fulfill their potential as human beings.” STOP saying that. This is the kind of thinking and woe-is-me mentality that can’t make the case for general operating support. There is an implicit choice in this article: We have $10,000. Should we spend it on rent, or should we spend it to help people fulfill their potential as human beings? How about this instead: Let’s spend it on rent, salaries, benefits, supplies, and phones to operate our effective, innovative programs that help people fulfill their potential.
Do we need some new terminology to cut through this mess?
- General Operating Grant: Apparently, this is a grant to pay for distracting, hard to justify, and uninteresting expenses (like rent and phones).
- Program Grant: A grant that is restricted for a defined set of activities and outcomes that fit with the organization’s mission. All expenses included in the program budget, including salaries, rent, and supplies, are needed to carry out the program’s goals.
- Core Mission Grant: A grant provided to an effective organization to use as their leaders direct in order to support and achieve their mission. Some of the funds may be spent on immediate program and organizational needs and some on long-term investments, such as program development, staff training, and technology.
According to Caruso’s article, “The majority of foundation leaders polled in the studies acknowledged that unrestricted operating funds were better and more effective for grantees. But they continue to focus their grantmaking on project support, they said, because they prefer its clear-cut results.” Flexibility is the key value of core, or operating, support. Think about how you can make the case that flexibility will enable your nonprofit to be more responsive to community, better prepared for the future, and more effective in all of your programs and activities - that’s results.
