Site Visits

By: Jake Bartlett, Business Fellow 2017

Big things are happening this week as we begin our site visits!  The weeks following Pitch Day entailed a great deal of communication within our groups and with other groups along with many hard decisions but also a great deal of rewarding aspects.  The decision to move forward with a site visit for a given organization was determined, in its simplest form, on a percentage scale.  Looking at each organization individually, we had to ask ourselves, “Is the chance of us giving to this organization 50% or higher?” If the answer was yes then we moved forward and scheduled a site visit; however, if we felt that there was a smaller chance we would give to an organization then we decided to not move forward.  At this point, you might be asking yourself, “well, how did you decide if your chances were greater or less then 50%?”  and this was the exact same question we as a group had to ask ourselves on a frequent basis.

Our decisions were made after we outlined our goals and mission in giving to an organization as well as looking at the future goals of the individual organizations.  My group came to the consensus that we wanted to give to something that would generate growth in an organization and take them to the next level.  Deciding which organizations we would move forward with and which ones we would send letters of decline to was extremely difficult.  Throughout this process, I felt a sense of frustration but also excitement, a feeling of sadness when sending letters of decline but then an overwhelming feeling of warmth and joy when sending a letter to schedule a site visit.  In many cases, we were torn between groups and wished we could visit everyone we had previously met with; however, looking back at our goals and the growth we wanted to spur in an organization we were able to refine our number from eight organizations to four.

Tuesday, March 28th was our first day of site visits!  My group met with one out of four organizations at a local coffee shop, Common Grounds, as the organization is run out of one of its leader’s homes.  This organization is focused on helping women in homelessness to access feminine hygiene products, establishing relationships between these women and local churches. They distribute Love Totes, which are bags that include one month’s supply of various products.  Their proposal was for a trailer measuring around 7ft by 12ft to assist in the transport of the totes to various places of distribution.  During the visit, we asked further questions such as the cost of the trailers they were looking at, their means of transporting totes now without a trailer, and how a trailer would take them to the next level in reaching out to women in the community.  We also proposed the possibility of having the trailer wrapped with their logo as another means of reaching people and advertising their work.

Although our visit was an informational meeting, I didn’t feel as if it was business or solely informational; I got the sense of partners working together, exchanging ideas, collaborating and all working towards a common goal to enrich the lives of others and promote growth.

I look forward to meeting with the remaining organizations in the next few days as well as getting closer to making some very difficult but fulfilling decisions with my team members and possibly collaborating with other groups!

Building Anticipation

By: Kendall Wood, BBA, Psychology 2020

As a class, we are entering into one of the most thought-intensive portions of the semester. If I could liken this process to a train ride, what felt like a slow chug up the mountain of learning, peaking at Pitch Day, has turned into a nose-dive into the exciting but serious process of decision-making. With goals in mind and concrete options before us, we are more certain and yet uncertain than we have ever been, so team-cooperation is vital. This is site-visit time.  Next week, we will meet with the organizations with which we have chosen to move forward at their facility for about an hour each.

At this point, we have done a considerable amount of research on these nonprofits, so the purpose of these site visits is to dig deeper and gain better perspective as to what our grant would be funding and the impact it would make on the organizations’ efforts.  My team specifically hopes to receive tours of each organizations’ facilities because we believe there is a depth of understanding that comes from observing operations rather than just talking about them.

Dr. Hogue provided us with a couple of informative articles that would guide us in these meetings—the “Quick Guide to Conducting a Nonprofit Site Visit” and the “Guide to Interviewing a Nonprofit’s CEO,” both written by The Bridgespan Group.  Fortunately, much of the instruction given to us in the “CEO” article was already a part of our Pitch Day meetings, meaning we were able to ask the representatives in-depth questions about the organization on that day.  This has put us in a good place for these site visits because it allows us to go further in our discussions, taking advantage of each minute on-site.

The “Quick Guide to Conducting a Nonprofit Site Visit” gave us four important items to consider before we arrive to the site visit:

  • “Share your goals in advance”—We are accomplishing this by e-mailing each organization the topics we intend to discuss and what operations we hope to observe while on-site.
  • “Bring other decision-makers”—In a perfect world, this would be our professor Dr. Hogue, since he will be assisting us in our future decisions and we value his opinion. However, it is not feasible for him to attend each site visit, so we will rely on each other as a team to obtain all the necessary information and offer educated opinions in our post-meeting discussions.
  • “Be prepared”—This one may seem obvious, but it is too important not to mention. We will have our questions prepared in advance so that we can reach the core of every issue about which we want to know.  There may be aspects of the organization that we might not be exposed to or understand fully if they are not questioned.
  • “Know how close you are to a decision”—This is for the sake of the organization to understand our position. We will be prepared to answer questions regarding our own process of decision-making and where we find ourselves at the present time.  All of which will be done with both candidness and respect.

 

Overall, despite the decisiveness we have to exercise on a daily basis, we are excited by the intentionality with which we get to speak to these organizations.  The anticipation is building and the determination to make mindful, strategic grants is ever-rising!

High Risk, High Reward

By: Annie Armes, BBA ’18

My favorite part of the course thus far has been visiting the sites of the nonprofits we are considering giving a grant to. It was a unique opportunity as undergrad students to have an organization roll out the “red carpet” for us. We enjoyed learning about each organization and getting to see the tangible ways they are serving the Waco community.

After visiting the sites, my group discussed which organizations we believed were making the greatest impact on the Waco community and how our money could be best used. In order to make a decision, we considered the logic model of each project that we would be funding. Although every organization was qualified to receive funding, some stood out to us as unique and dynamic projects.

Narrowing down which grants to go through with was not an easy decision. Thinking through the inputs, short-term outputs, and long-term outcomes of each project helped us visualize the change that could be achieved. My group was lucky to have two fantastic options that we were passionate about and that added up to almost exactly $10,000. It was almost too perfect to turn down.

Interestingly, the two projects we chose are new. One is new in the sense that it is a brand new organization, founded this summer. The other is a well established organization, but our money will be funding a project that has never been tested before. We believe that because of the nature of these projects, our money has great potential to be even more effective. Yes, one might question if funding such a new idea could be risky. But after visiting with the directors, we believe they will use every penny to make a difference in the lives of children.

With these projects, there is an opportunity to transform the trajectory of these children’s lives. Giving even a small amount will serve as such a large reward for the future. My group believes in the organizations we have chosen to fund and trust them to use the money efficiently. In our opinion, the risk is well worth the opportunity of a high reward.

Mother knows best?

By Janessa Blythe, BA ’18

At some point, before we started visiting organizations, we had a conversation in class about the way grants are typically given. Grantors typically designate money for a particular purpose. This is useful and good, because organizations are often able to make convincing pitches for exact sums of money, and they are able to fund important projects. At the same time, this limits organizations because they are unable to direct money to where it is needed at the time. They may have a need come up that they cannot use the money they have in their bank account for. Before an organization can execute any sort of interesting project, they have to be able to keep the lights on.

As I’ve become more familiar with the philanthropic world, I’ve heard from numerous executive directors that what they need, more than funding for specific projects, is money that they can use where they need it when they need it. They cannot always predict what needs they are going to have a few months down the road at the time they apply for grants.

As grantors have been working on becoming more strategic in their giving, have they begun to limit the ability of organizations to be more strategic?

It has to be difficult to need money for something and not be able to utilize the funds in the bank account because they have been designated already for other projects.

On one of our site visits, we were given a list of possible projects to fund, but the person describing the projects exhibited very little excitement about the projects. I asked this person if there was anything else they needed. They looked at me, hesitated, and confessed what they really needed was money for their general budget.

We talked in class about a trend among grantors where they are starting to consider giving sums with to organizations they trust, and allowing them to decide where the money goes.

I’m not sure what the right answer is. I think there is room for granting for specific purposes and granting with trust for organizations in the philanthropic world, but I think we really need to consider that organizations have the right to be strategic for themselves.

At times it has to feel like your mother is making decisions for you again. Yes, you get to propose the possible things a grantor can fund, but what if the project that would help the most people doesn’t get funded? What if what your organization needs isn’t an attractive thing to fund? What if there is just low interest in the problem you are seeking to solve? Sometimes outsiders cannot really understand the need. Sometimes an organization needs the freedom to make decisions for themselves.

The Logical Model

By Ashley Alston, BBA 2018

It has been two weeks since “Pitch Day,” and the teams are finally making the difficult decision of which organizations to do site visits with.  My team, whose primary focus is on health, poverty, and nutrition education, has narrowed the search down to three organizations. During this process we took time to consider the vision of the organization and compare it to the goals we hope to accomplish by giving this grant.

In class this week, each team built a logical model for each non-profit they were considering.  We based this model off the ideas of Peter Frumkin, who described the model to be a formal explication of how a philanthropic intervention proposes to achieve its ends.  The model consists of the three theories: the theory of leverage, the theory of change, and the theory of scale.  These theories help paint a clear picture of what our goals and objectives are as donors. In class there was an emphasis placed on breaking down the theory of change. We learned that the theory of change is further broken down into three categories: activity, outputs and outcomes. The activity category breaks down what the organization plans to do if given the grant. The output category focuses on immediate results given the plan proposed during the activity category is successful. Lastly, the outcome category demonstrates the long term effects of goods and services being delivered and output being met.

After fully understanding each category, our groups went through every organization and discussed their main activity, what their immediate results would be, and the overall outcome they wish to achieve.  As we continued to narrow down organizations based off of their visions compared to our goals, we were able to use the logical model to help us decide which ones we wanted to further pursue. Each group focused on three or four organizations they wished to meet to explore further collaboration.  We are in the process of contacting the directors of each organization and setting up site visits. This will help us better understand each of our potential grant recipients vision. I am excited to continue learning about how to strategically give to others while also having the opportunity to make a significant impact on both an organization and those lives it touches.

The joy in doing good

By: Annie Kronlokken, BBA ’18

The philanthropic process involves tough decisions. We sort through proposals to decide which we can fund. After connecting with different organizations, it is hard to say no. Their staff have been generous in giving us their time and insight. We have called them, visited them, and emailed often. After just a few months, I feel a deep affection for the leaders of these organizations; they are doing so much good. Yet we can’t fund everyone. We have had to say no to some in order to say yes to others. But the process is still worthwhile. There is joy in doing good.

Two of the organizations my group worked with will soon be funded. We are offering grants to Texas Hunger Initiative and the Waco Civic Theatre.

Texas Hunger Initiative is a collaboration-based organization that seeks to end hunger through research-based methods. Their grant proposal is for grab-n-go breakfast carts. These carts will be strategically placed at Waco High, allowing students to have greater access to breakfast before class. The carts will serve to close the breakfast gap, which refers to the amount of students who qualify for free breakfast but do not eat it. As a part of our site visit, we were able to meet with Waco High administration staff and Waco ISD nutrition staff. We stood where the carts would soon be placed. We were eager and excited, brainstorming new ideas and discussing the impact of these carts. Once implemented, over 1,200 students will have easier access to breakfast each day. This will impact more than hunger; it can also increase achievement when students are more focused. The research on this– including THI’s research– is compelling.  There is joy in doing good.

The Waco Civic Theatre’s proposal is to fund a portion of a development-position salary. The addition of this position comes at a pivotal point in the theatre’s life. It is on an upward trajectory, and this position will allow the theatre to continue to grow.  Our small investment can help generate more sustainable and reliable revenue streams for the organization going forward. Our group was especially impressed with the executive director, Eric Shepard. He is passionate, intelligent, and innovative. He has expanded the theatre’s community engagement through the theatre’s philanthropic efforts and educational programming.  And he has earnest visions for the future. I’m excited to see how the arts continue to enrich Waco’s culture and development. There is joy in doing good.

As the class is soon finishing, I have been reflecting on what I have learned. Through the process of grant-making and grant-writing, I have gained insight into the process. But the most important thing I will take away from the course is that there is joy in doing good. Doing good doesn’t limit itself to this course, it is something that we carry and something that carries us.  It is something that involves more than grants; it involves service, vision, and joy.

About the Author: Annie Kronlokken is a sophomore from Minneapolis, MN. She is majoring in Business Fellows, Finance, and Math, while also studying Spanish and French. Annie aspires to work in the social sector in some capacity, she is particularly interested in international development. At Baylor, Annie is involved in Cru and Chi Omega.

 

Achieving Critical Mass

By: Danielle Cooper, BA 2016

“Asking the tough questions today,” my fellow Hunger & Homelessness Team member, Wes, nudges me after I pitched some of my peers a particularly difficult inquiry. I shrug, nodding.

Yesterday our class engaged in a formal Board Meeting, each program area explaining its recent site visits and which organizations we wish to move forward with. Our classroom constantly carries a convivial atmosphere, but today the group mentality seemed just a tinge more serious.

Each of us is well aware that not all of the proposals presented will end up getting funding. We have to remind ourselves that although we have specialized in different program areas, each of us is united in the same goal.

Ironically, the same can be said about the social sector organizations that we have come to know so well over the past few months. Just as all Waco food pantries share the common bond of wanting to eradicate hunger in our community, or every arts institution seeks to enrich the creative culture of our city, each group in our class is working exclusively while still functioning collectively to achieve our Board’s mission.

This microcosm of philanthropy at work plays out not only in the community at large or in our class in general but within the express interactions between my team itself. There are four of us devoted to the Hunger & Homelessness program area – Wes, Annie, Emily, and I.

Admittedly, group projects are usually one of the most dreaded experiences of my college career, but in this specific instance, I don’t think that we could have a better team. In our research, conference calls, and site visits, each of us brings something unique to the table.

At times we have a healthy amount of disagreement about the right course of action, but when it comes down to it, our commitment to the cause shines through all of our work. In any other case, I would not be happy about showing up 45 minutes before my morning classes today to rehearse our group’s presentation. But because I genuinely appreciate the spirit of my group, my own individual interests are replaced by a desire to advance our objectives.

The organizations that we have chosen to push forward also embody this cohesive structure. Impeccable leadership is the defining characteristic of all of the grant proposals that my team has pitched. The difficulty lies in the reality that many of the proposals in our room today may also be rooted in such leadership. And though I cannot see into the morning meetings of other program areas, I’m willing to bet that every person in my class is somehow having a similar experience with their groups. Connected through our class’s mission, we have every reason to be optimistic about our direction in this process. Still, our success will not be possible without incisive discernment.

This is why we have to ask the tough questions.

About the Author: Danielle Cooper is a senior University Scholar from Boerne, Texas concentrating in Political Science and Philosophy. She is involved with Student Senate, “It’s On Us,” American Enterprise Institute, and Kappa Alpha Theta at Baylor and plans to attend UT Law School in the fall.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions..

We are hard at work this week. Our program teams continue to visit numerous organizations across the city.  We have been told by Dr. Hogue and previous students in the class that weighing the different needs of the organizations is incredibly difficult. Our team can attest to this difficulty. All of the various nonprofits we visited have unique needs that are worthy of financial investment. However, we can only choose to fund some of these needs. I have come to the conclusion that one of the most vital skills learned in this class is difficult decisions making. While most all of the needs of these organizations are worthy of our support, some of the projects are more complete or sustainable and innovative than others. We are all anticipating with uncertainty the difficult decisions that we will have to make in the next few weeks. Malcolm Gladwell once said,

Truly successful decision-making relies on a balance between deliberate and instinctive thinking.”

We must be wise in thinking about the decisions we will make.

In attempting to begin making decisions, our groups created logic models, a tool used by grantmakers, funders, and managers to weigh the inputs, outputs and outcomes for a specific project. These logic models will help us assess the different projects proposed and weigh these projects strengths and weaknesses. We will use these to educate each other on the various projects we have vetted.

For now, we continue to meet incredible people who are instrumental in the fulfilling the call to “love your neighbor as yourselves.” These site visits have been formative to our greater understanding of how social sector organizations work. Seeing the inner-workings, facilities and management of these organizations has been helpful in understanding the effectiveness of the work that they are doing.  We are excited to continue our quest in deciphering the best projects to fund this semester.

 

Meet the Author: Lindy Reamer is a Senior Intensive International Studies major, with a minor in Spanish. She is active in her sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma. She is interested in domestic and international policy and reads legislation for fun. This semester, she is excited to engage with Waco- area organizations in the fight to enhance lives in the community.

Post-decision Making

By: Elijah Tanner, BA 2017

In the aftermath of our board meeting (in which we decided to move forward with only 25 organizations) there is a lot to reflect on. Since Tuesday I have found myself constantly returning to the image of one single person in desperate need, possibly a war veteran with a broken home, standing next to the city of Waco’s leaders. As I look at these people in two very different positions, I imagine myself handing the grant money that our class has been charged with stewarding to one or the other. On the one hand, there is potential for great change, on the other, there is great need. How can a person possibly decide in this situation? Does it show a lack of compassion to give the money to Waco’s leaders? Or a lack of vision and perseverance to give the money to the war veteran? Is the only solution to fall back on strategy? Or is that just the easy way out? Fortunately for our group, we were not faced with this decision. We were able to move on with organizations that accomplish both of these things. What we have encountered, however, is the chance to reaffirm the values we laid out at the start of this semester, and return with vigor to the job before us.

In class yesterday we did two things: the first was to meet and discuss the interests of an Aramark committee that is providing a portion of our funds, and the second was to plan site visits. While both of these seem rather technical and detached from the emotional turmoil of choosing organizations, they came at a time when they were greatly needed. My own group struggled with the push-back from organizations we did not go through with, and the temptation to dwell on our decisions and regret them was strong. These future-oriented, mission centered activities reminded me of the significance of our job. By the end of this semester we will undoubtedly have impacted Waco for the better, and that is something that we as a group cannot lose sight of. There is much to be learned from our first round of choices, but the role that our choice on Tuesday plays now is only as a reminder of the effects of the different strategies we implemented. We now have an experience of the results of choosing certain organizations to move forward with, and that will certainly apply to the next few weeks.

As we move forward, I will be focusing on Peter Drucker’s words, quoted by our guest Brent Christopher, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Drucker, and Christopher, both recognize the prevalence of the human spirit over the human mind in philanthropic affairs. This is not to say that decisions based on strategy in philanthropy are flawed. What it means is, as our reading from Understanding Philanthropy implies when it describes philanthropy’s role as being the moral imagination of a country, that we are not striving to follow any directions or to correct errors in a straightforward process, but we are struggling with the imperfection of human action, and therefore, our success is dependent upon our ability to reduce the ways that humans have forgotten their brothers and sisters.

Gearing Up for Big Decisions

By: Rachel Shriver, BBA 2016

This past week, we came together as a class and began to focus on preparation for board meeting two.

We took time to meet as focus area groups and critically examine our site visits to narrow in on the organizations that we want to move forward with. This process is more complex than it seems on the surface. While there are core characteristics that anyone would want to see in an organization such as passion of staff and volunteers, vision for where the organization is going, and efficiency and impact of the organization, there are also more specific characteristics that relate to our mission that we must consider. On top of all these considerations, we know that there is only a fixed amount of resources to distribute to these organizations, which is where the true difficultly comes in. Even though we may want and believe strongly in many organizations, only a few can be given grants. Determining the best way to distribute these funds brings together so many factors that making decisions is complicated.

We met as mixed focus area groups in which all different areas of philanthropic organizations were represented. We used this time to begin to learn more about the organizations that different groups have decided to move forward with and, more specifically, the grant ideas that they want us to fund. Learning about these organizations and their grants will cause us to be more prepared as we approach the board meeting this coming week.

While we have already shared about each organization’s purpose and their grant ideas, the board meeting next week will allow us to drive deeper into the details. This will be our opportunity to share with fellow class members the research we have gathered about each organization’s current effectiveness and the expected effectiveness of proposed grant ideas while further explaining each organization’s mission, structure, background, and anything we found striking from our site visits.

Personally, this class has really opened my eyes to all the good being done in Waco and has proved to me that all our efforts can make a big difference. We have gotten to learn about such a wide range of organizations in various stages of development. Honestly, some of the more newly formed organizations have impacted me more. In these cases, we were usually able to talk with the person that created the organization. I was struck by their boldness – their strong desire to help, passion for the people that they are serving, and realization that the effectiveness of their nonprofit will impact people’s lives and could change the path that those they serve are on. The stories I heard from both newly formed nonprofits and long standing nonprofits really showed me the transformational impact that their work is having on people’s lives.  It is incredible and moving.

About the Author: Rachel Shriver is a senior Business Fellow, Economics, and Mathematics major from Austin, TX. She hopes to use all that she learns about philanthropy to continue to search for causes she is passionate about and make a difference.