What Impact Should Philanthropy Measure in 2021 — And How? (1 of 2)

2020 sucks.

Good foundations were flexible with grantee reporting and the use of funds this year.

Great foundations recognized they had to throw out intricately designed impact goals and strategies. Instead, they threw out a life preserver to grantees and met their stakeholders where they were — funding basic needs in many cases. In the second week of March, as the Chief Program Officer of the Stupski Foundation, I remember getting on the phone with the mayor of a large Bay Area city and hearing how weary the executive was already. I knew immediately we were going to be in a pandemic for a long while. That afternoon, Governor Newsom shut down the state. The Stupski Foundation pushed out $1.5M in the first week to intermediaries who could meet community needs.

For many foundations, 2020 has been a pinball of trying to serve stakeholder needs. First, communities of color faced inequitable health outcomes, then the pain of ongoing racial injustice, then inequitable economic outcomes, then inequitable health outcomes again, and so on. Let’s face it; impact funders faced Sophie’s choice — trying to allocate infinitesimally small resources compared to the tremendous need. Philanthropy is trying to do the job that the federal government has abdicated responsibility for this fall in failing to pass a further stimulus measure.

As I write this, the 2020 Presidential Election is underway. We know the outcome both at the executive and legislative will have impacts far beyond the next four years. And foundations will now face a multitude of considerations in grantmaking for impact:

1. We are in the midst of a third wave of increasing COVID cases. Responsive grantmaking is as vital as ever. Do foundations continue to be responsive?
2. Foundations know better in terms of equity considerations and have to do better. How does this show up in grantmaking in 2021?
3. It may be uncomfortable for governing bodies of foundations to eschew following a true north of meeting long term impact goals. But how does one pursue these without being tone-deaf and given the ground lost in many issue areas from education to economic well being to health outcomes for marginalized communities?
4. The elephant in the room: the next federal administration and how much they are enabled, or not, by the US Senate and House, will have tremendous implications for the kind of stimulus we can expect to see. As flawed as it was, the first stimulus package helped stave off mass hunger and economic insecurity. State budgets and municipal budgets will be significantly affected by what comes next.

How does a foundation simultaneously respond to community challenges right now and long-term strategic goals?

By pursuing a path of strategy and equity simultaneously. More on that in my next post.