Tuesday, February 4, 2014

WHATS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER

MARILYN STRUTHERS, JOHN C. EATON CHAIR IN SOCIAL INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, LOOKS AT THREE AREAS WHERE GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC FUNDERS WOULD DO WELL TO EMULATE THE PRACTICES OF THE NON-PROFITS THEY INVEST IN

MARILYN STRUTHERS John C. Eaton Chair in Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Faculty of Community Service at Ryerson University

aybe it is the memory of Christmas feasting with family that brings my moms phrase to mind as I blog on one of the most intransigent issues in public administration the reform of public funding practice. Mom was always talking about fairness one set of standards for behaviour regardless of who you are. For more than a decade and a half, Canadian governments have been engaged in an uneasy detente with the sector on the practices of public funders. Starting with the Voluntary Sector Initiative in 2000 and most recently Ontarios Open for Business process to remove barriers to non-profit sector operations, funding practice improvement discussions have struggled to get down to the heart of the matter good process design that delivers the dollars efficiently to organizations with the most promise of outcome achievement. Its not that we dont know what the goals of reform are. The sector and governments have produced a stack of literature critiquing practices. The goals of reform are clear: increased flexibility; minimal red tape; transparent and predictable decisionmaking processes and better relationships. Why is it that all this learning and thought has produced more of a tinkering with process than a comprehensive approach to the design of good programs of public funding? When governments fund non-profit organizations, it is because they share a desire for a social outcome. The organization or program is worth the investment so to speak. Well-designed funding programs are less costly for both sides and saving money on disbursement process is an obvious way to shore up precious granting funds in times of restraint. Sometimes when we have trouble doing the things that seem obvious, we are held back by double standards places where the rules for the goose and the gander seem like they should be different. And that brings us to values. Lets look at three. A professional field of practice helps us to recognize good practice There are three resourcing fields of practice in the non-profit sector: managing volunteers, fundraising and grant-making. When Mom ran her first NPO, managing volunteers was an ad hoc process and the qualification for a good fundraiser was the gift of the gab or a substantial high-society address book. To work in either field now requires training and certification and membership in a professional association. Not so for grant-makers. In Canada we still have no little red school house for public funders, no professional association to develop a theory of good practice and often little common language between types of non-profit funders that would enable learning and exchange. We should account for the cost of doing our work with public funds Administrative burden is a hot topic for non-profits and their funders. How much administration is too much, how little risks erosion in reporting and accountability? Over the last couple of decades, nonprofits have been urged to report on the percentage of their operation devoted to administration usually 10-15%. Most can tell you how much of your donation or grant it takes to deliver the goods on social impact: funders... not so much. Cost-to-disbursement ratios are the standard measure of funding programs administration how much it costs to get a dollar out the door. It is the measure of efficient practice. Not all granting programs are the same some should have a higher or lower administrative cost. But the point is if funders dont measure, report and compare 1 the cost, their processes can grow like topsy.

WE STILL HAVE NO LITTLE RED SCHOOL HOUSE FOR PUBLIC FUNDERS

Continued...

WHATS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER

The results of public funding count and we should know how to measure them We are all preoccupied with learning to measure the results of public investment just now. Did we achieve what we set out to do? Did it have impact in the world? Non-profits are working through programs like Innoweave and others to develop the capacity to articulate social impact and then align operation to impact. While funders too need to articulate the impact of their investments, the operational role of a funder is not to achieve outcome directly but to enable achievement through granting an intermediary role. Achieving outcome for funders means that their practices give their grantees the best shot at success. In other words, good funding practice improves the chances of social outcome achievement and poor practices can hamstring the work. Sometimes double standards lie well buried mired in a long history of relationship rooted in the values of days past. We have history, in the sometimes messy relationships between public funders and their grantees. Getting to the bottom of reform reticence means turning over the rocks together and getting clear on the values that underpin practice. What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander or we risk the reach for social impact.

Sourcing bright ideas, fresh perspec tives and personal opinions on transformational change from Ontario and around the world

www.otf.ca/sic
2