Before I write about my overall learnings (and there were plenty!) I want first to discuss a great session on the final day of the Retreat regarding ‘Strong and Healthy Organisations’. The session was led by Laura Livoti from the French American Charitable Trust (FACT). FACT operate an organisational capacity building program that is considered by many the ‘gold standard’ of capacity building funding by philanthropy in the United States (you can learn more about FACT and their work at http://www.factservices.org). The discussion in this session centred on the value of investing, not in programs or projects, but in the development of organisations doing good work on the ground.

Philanthropy in Australia has not traditionally been comfortable with providing unrestricted funding to organisations or supporting ‘core’ initiatives such as infrastructure upgrades, staff training and development or fundraising capacity. Why not? In my experience, both here in Australia and in the UK, there has been a level of discomfort (not just at Board level) about funding what donors consider to be ‘core’ work. The question that usually follows is ‘shouldn’t organisations should be funding that themselves?’ But is this a fair analysis of capacity funding? Donor expectations are usually quite simple – funding should make a difference. A donor with an interest in supporting the marine environment may ask how supporting the building of fundraising capacity in an environment organisation actually helps protect the under protected marine environment. Let me address that question with another question – does improving the ability of good organisations to keep good staff, to attract more funding, to grow their programs and work more effectively improve their ability to be impactful? Of course it does, but it’s much harder to report upon.

One of the great models discussed in this session was to provide multi-year support to organisations that allowed them to access consultants to developing their capacity. By funding each group for 3 to 5 years (the example given was for $30K a year) the funder recognises that organisational need will change from year to year as the organisation grows and develops. In year 1 of their funding an organisation may want to engage a consultant to help develop a strategic plan, in year 2 the need may be development of staff induction or training programs, in year three a new CEO might be on board and will need intensive support to ensure that the organisation does not lose momentum in their work. Several similar models were discussed each having merit, although I must admit I am less enthusiastic about models that involve funders being directly involved in the delivery of programs as organisations are less likely to open up about their development needs (e.g. poor staff morale, or mediation requirements etc.).

The environment NGO sector in Australia would particularly benefit from increased funding towards capacity building. In an era of venture philanthropy we are increasingly expecting our grantees to deliver ‘results’ and yet we fail to resource them to do the basics. The obsession with project funding can lead to an unhealthy ‘donor addiction’ that leaves NGO’s at the mercy of funders. The risk with project funding is that we do more harm than good, this needs to be measured in our due diligence processes. There will always be a need for restricted funding to projects but for some organisations capacity funding would make a world of difference to their work on the ground.

I’d like to finish by saying that this is a much bigger discussion than what I have presented here. Having seen this debate up close I feel there would be real value in philanthropy in Australia throwing open this discussion further. Perhaps this is something for the AEGN to facilitate with our partners at Philanthropy Australia?

By Caitriona Fay, Program Manager, The Ian Potter Foundation

I have been taken by the strong emphasis on environmental justice and commitment to structural reform through legislative processes. It’s interesting to learn that NGOs can utilize 18% of their grants money towards advocacy while in Australia, it is only 10% and that many foundations in the US are still not aware of the legitimacy of advocacy as in Australia.

The importance and strength of coalition building to have maximum impact is a common theme in conversation as is the strength of affinity groups. These are important take home messages for us. It feels exciting and challenging to be part of the race against time and to learn our challenges are the same.

I will return to Oz with renewed vigour, some new terms like BINGOs and LINGOS and start our battle against coal. Thanks EGA for a great conference.

Jill Reichstein

Here are my thought on a few of the presentations I heard.

Food

The most expensive food is the cheap processed food without food value. The only sustainable way forward is for real food to be produced from a healthy environmental system at a cost which is reflects the real cost of production.

Coal

Coal is far and away the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. If coal were priced to reflect its true cost, including environmental and public health costs it would no longer be classified as a cheap fuel. There is a strong movement, by the Sierra and others to prevent any more coal fired power stations in the US—perhaps that is a project for AEGN members to consider.

Ocean

The ocean is the source of all life; we are treating it like a garbage dump, and have been for centuries. Without blue(healthy ocean) there can be no green(healthy land). This is especially true for Australia.

Water

Water is half the worlds wetlands were destroyed in the 20^th century (by man), having been there for millions of years.

Global water crisis is the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, by 2040 water use, in present trajectory, will exceed availability by 40%. There are really big social justice issues tied up with the problems of diminishing clean water. Dirty water is the biggest killer of children world-wide.

These issues could form basis of AEGN member funded projects.

Colin Brown

The real surprise packet for me today was the session following Sylvia on “How What We Eat Determines the World Around Us”. The audience was treated to challenging questions around food justice, food safety, health and sustainable farming. For me, the issue of food justice was an interesting one and it’s an area I can’t think of any funder working directly on in an Australian context. The linking of different areas of social and environmental justice makes sense with emerging community gardening, healthy food programs and social enterprises set up around food industry. This discussion was led primarily by Nikki Henderson from People’s Grocery in New York, and she touched on collaboration being about bringing together diverse partners working across policy, law, enterprise, community and environment rather than just linking likeminded groups. That’s a relatively new approach to funding collaboration in environment, in an Australian sense anyway.

I’ve walked away from today feeling like there is still a great deal we can learn in Australia around holistic funding models that connect communities with the resources and know-how required to see both environmental and social impacts. A latter session I attend on the economics of species protection added to this thinking, but I’ll write another blog on that tomorrow. All in all the first full day on the Retreat was really inspiring and informative. I’m looking forward to more tomorrow.

Caitriona Fay, The Ian Potter Foundation

In this case the reasons for failure were varied- unclear goals, organisational failure by grantees, poor staff hires, opposition to advocacy programs that couldn’t be or wasn’t planned for etc etc. The reasons for success more consistent- clear and achievable goals, good governance, realistic levels of funding, robust relationships between donor and grantee. Of note and impressive was the candour of many foundation leaders in talking about their personal mistakes. Also of note- that several people said that if less than 10-20% of their grants failed they would become concerned that they weren’t taking enough considered risks with their philanthropy.

Barry Traill

The discussions on successful projects had some recurring themes. The need for good governance was highlighted again and again. The governance of an individual recipient organization with regards to its management, strategic planning and capacity to deliver, is essential to gauge when considering funding a project. Likewise it was suggested that having clear goals that were shared amongst all stakeholders and where the goals were not significant altered over the course of a project, lead to more successful projects.

Finally a discussion took place around ‘how do people win failures?’. How do you highlight and build upon the small wins that happen even if the overall project fails or the key goal is not obtained? It was suggested that evaluation of the project has to start the moment a ‘failure’ is recognized, so that it is possible to identify what smaller successes did occur and to harness what momentum there is from these small victories to ensure that the most can be made from a ‘failed’ project.

Simon Herd, AEGN Board Member

I’ve also been very impressed with the work of community groups and funders on dealing with the coal industry in the US. There is considerable interest in building links to Australia and we hope that we might hold a forum on coal with US funders. This is the beginning of a long discussion.

The next session I’m off to is a “Town Hall” for the EGA. More later.

Amanda.

Firstly, I am the only member of this travelling troupe of Australians who works at a program management level. I am The Ian Potter Foundation’s Program Manager for Environment, Science, Education and a few other areas, making me a generalist, which is common in philanthropy in Australia. The remaining AEGN representatives are board members, private philanthropists or executives. What I offer at this Retreat will be different to my Australian colleagues and what I gain as a participant will be put to use in different ways. I hope to learn from other program officers here about what their experiences have been working directly with applicants and how they have bridged the gap between applicants and boards.

I also don’t want to let this chance pass without gaining a deeper insight into environmental grantmaking and how best we can all fund with the limited resources available. I am wary however of asking questions of my colleagues that will result in the same old answers. ‘Be a risk taker’, ‘collaborate with others’, ‘support innovation’. What do those things really mean when you are faced with an application form and competing interests? I was recently told that if you have only had successes in your grantmaking then you are a failure as a grantmaker. I like the sentiment, I profess to believe it wholeheartedly, but at the end of the day I can’t help but feel that the philanthropic sector in Australia needs less sentiment and more action, particularly around environment issues. I wonder whether this is the experience too for my colleagues in the United States.

So, I hope to ask some harder questions. I hope to gain some insight into working in one of the toughest areas of philanthropy and learn more about what works and what does not. But most of all I hope to learn more how we fund for long term change. I look forward to staying in touch via this blog and look forward to your feedback. For those of you on Twitter you can follow my updates via @cat_fay where I will using #EGARetreat hashtag.
Caitriona Fay, The Ian Potter Foundation