Talking About Philanthropic Failure
In a new Communications Network diavlog (no, that isn't a misprint, it is an awkward attempt to combine dialog, video, and blog), Pittsburgh Foundation President Grant Oliphant talks about failure. It is good to see more attention to this topic. Paul Brest of the Hewlett Foundation and Jim Canales of the Irvine Foundation have been outspoken about the need to be more forthcoming about programs that don't work, and Robert Giloth and Susan Gewirtz from Annie E. Casey Foundation document the potential value of foundation mistakes in the Winter 2009 issue of Foundation Review. So the issue is beginning to get traction. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's recently released Anthology (Volume XIII) adds to the mix with four chapters on foundation failures.
In his remarks, Oliphant comments about good and bad reasons for talking about failure. Good reasons include not wanting to hurt grantees or the cause intended to be helped - i.e., do no harm. Bad reasons include foundation embarrassment.
I’d offer two more – one good reason to talk about failure and one bad reason. The bad reason is fear – fear of being held accountable for using tax-protected dollars in ways that don’t lead to results. That fear is understandable, but it undercuts the very role that foundations are in the best position to take: reasonable risks on potentially high-impact activities that are less likely to attract support in the business or public sector. The good reason starts with asking the question: why does the topic of failure even come up in the first place? After all, the performance of most organizations is the constant subject of many outside observers. But that is the point - foundations are not the subject of systemic observation, in part because they occupy a relatively powerful and independent status in our society. As I argue in the RWJF Anthology, it is this very independence that drives the need for foundations to themselves generate the honest, critical assessment of their performance that is so important to their missions. Finally, do you know of foundations that expect failure? RWJF's attention to failure is tied to different levels of risk intended to be taken by different grant portfolios in the Foundation. As my colleague Paul Tarini, Team Director of the Pioneer Portfolio, noted here, Pioneer expects more failure than other RWJF portfolios because it aims to support highly innovative, high-risk projects. If you are aware of other funding efforts designed to be high risk, and expect more failure, please let us know so we can learn from each other.