SOCAP10: Preview of Ideas and Issues – Part I

Yesterday’s post began a summary of a preview session of the discussions that will take place at SOCAP10. Hosted at the Commonwealth Club of California, the program featured many of the key people behind this year’s program. The panel used the recent “Money for Good” report (PDF)issued by Hope Consultingto frame specific issues related to the session tracks at SOCAP10. My post yesterday summarized Hope Neighbor’s presentation of the report.

After Hope spoke, the panel began a conversation that will hopefully continue throughout SOCAP10. It focused on both how organizations can address the report’s findings and some of the challenges moving ahead in this direction.

The SOCAP10 conference agenda (PDF) keeps growing; the latest is the addition of FAILFaire to discuss projects using mobiles and ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) in international development that have failed spectacularly. Embracing failure with the intention of learning why an approach did not succeed is not only appropriate and logical; it’s a necessary step in developing projects that will ultimately succeed.

Sadly, open discussions by philanthropic institutions and nonprofits about failures (and yes, it happens) remain infrequent, which leads me to the Decriminalizing Fundraising session at SOCAP10. This session for the Tactical Philanthropy track will feature George Overholser of Nonprofit Finance Fund Capital Partners and Dan Pallotta of Springboard. Sean Stannard-Stockton provides a good overview of the session and a little bit on what to anticipate.

The Challenge of Moving Beyond Metrics – Part I

In my first post on moving beyond metrics, I reflected on the challenge of moving beyond the fixation of assessing nonprofits based on their overhead ratios and executive compensation. New assessment frameworks, championed by organizations such as Charity Navigator, GuideStar, GiveWell, GreatNonprofits, and Philanthropedia, will promote and embrace new ways to evaluate nonprofits and identify nonprofits. 

These new assessment frameworks will be discussed and used at a SOCAP10 session led by Ken Berger of Charity Navigator, Andrew Wolk of Root Cause, and Elie Hassenfeld of GiveWell. That session will review three analytical approaches to assessing DC Central Kitchen (per this post by Sean Stannard-Stockton). In Ken’s case, for example, the session will allow him to clarify the new approach to rate a nonprofit on its financial strength, accountability, and effectiveness.

The attention lavished on the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) this week has been far from positive. Building on posts by the Nonprofit Quarterly and Paul Light, Stephanie Strom’s New York Times article in today’s edition cites possible conflicts of interest by SIF Director Paul Carttar and Corporation for National and Community Service CEO Patrick Corvington and calls into question whether these pre-existing relationships affected the selection process.

In actuality, I believe that these possible conflict of interest issues are matters of perception instead of reality. As noted by Marta Urquilla, a senior adviser for the SIF, in the New York Times article, these conflicts of interests were anticipated and addressed in advance. For example, Steve Goldberg well-researched letter to the Nonprofit Quarterly, meticulously documents how the Corporation made sure to avoid any conflicts of interest. I can understand why people are fixated on these conflict of interest possibilities, but I think that's somewhat misguided and potentially harmful.

On December 1, 2009, a major shift in assessing nonprofits was announced by Charity Navigator, GuideStar, GiveWell, GreatNonprofits, and Philanthropedia. The announcement (PDF) aimed to repudiate the myopic focus on nonprofit overhead ratios and executive compensation as metrics to measure their effectiveness. The five oversight organizations also set out a course to establish and embrace new ways to evaluate nonprofits and identify nonprofits.