Futurefactory

Funding Nonprofit Implementation

Here’s my response to Jack McCarthy‘s Why Philanthropy Often Funds Innovation—but Not Implementation post on LinkedIn. (More direct links in this version.)

From Jack’s post:

One of the paradoxes I’ve observed over many years working with philanthropies is this: Philanthropy is very good at funding innovation. It is much less consistent at funding implementation.

Jack, thanks for this perspective. Having watched from afar as you and your team scaled Every Child Ready and AppleTree, I know you’ve experienced this challenge deeply.

I’ve been thinking about this from the perspective of funding for core technology and operations (i.e., not program-related) and have a few thoughts based on my work both with funders and nonprofit orgs (and in public sector as well).

I agree with your statement “It’s partly a function of what philanthropy does best.” We need to accept that many funders will continue to fund innovation and not implementation. For every Blue Meridian Partners making large unrestricted multi-year grants and every MacArthur Foundation that has tied indirect reimbursement rates to financial realities, there are dozens of funders that provide program-only funding or limit indirect cost reimbursements.

What funders – even those who provide unrestricted funding and indirect cost support – could consider is partnering with organizations that do focus on implementation. Don’t try to develop the ability to fund implementation in-house; fund organizations already focused on implementation and connect grantees to them.