1. small year over year gifts are very important long term, so it's ok to set aside an allowance to recognize that fact and give 5 years of broad sustaining support ~$2-5k/year.
2. equally important to consider independent media abroad, which is experiencing a drop in international giving. Investigative reporting in places like Slovenia, Georgia, Czech Republic and media in exile from Russia, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Myanmar too.
This is great and a fun thought exercise. I especially love the idea of not just two or three year grants but five; I know not every bit of funding can be structured that way but if even 20 percent could be, it would really help slow down the ever-ratcheting-up pace of the treadmill.
Hi - as you probably know, I give a 👍to (nearly) all of this. Bravo for specifically calling out the endless and self-centered “strategy refresh” process that keeps the field on hold while program officers craft yet more PowerPoints (and then, often, don’t even hew to the new flow charts and “theories of change”). I would also add that one reason many grants are bad grants even when they sound good (after all, how can any grant be bad, right?) is that there has not been a good look under the hood at the organizational strengths and weaknesses - and an honest conversation about it - and unfortunately, general support doesn’t always address the organizational needs because not all leadership chooses to spend the dough on the unsexy but absolutely necessary stuff. Sometimes, good grant making is working with the organization to recognize the capacity/sustainability issues, and then funding the solutions. I am pleased to say that more than one grantee my foundation currently supports has expressed gratitude for this approach and in a few cases, this has also helped to change the way the organization governs itself and how it raises money. Sorry such a long comment!!
re. Journalism funding, I would add: earmark no less than 30% of your donation to business model and product innovation. Donating simply to fund reporting is noble, but the money quickly runs out. If you want to help journalism, help make it far less dependent on the largesse of billionaires.
Warren, Thanks for this. Certainly agree on the need to encourage business model and product innovation. But I continue to think that identifying orgs that seem to be doing this and offering them general support may be a more effective route.
The alternative assumes that the funder is a better judge of what's likely to work than the operators in the field, which I think is both arrogant and unlikely to be true.
And I think the history of the country's greatest and most enduring cultural nonprofits belies the thought that the money necessarily runs out. If you maintain quality and remain nimble, it need not.
Thank you for this. Totally agree with you on general support grants and vertical areas - two pain points for us at Geneva Health Files (also on Substack).
Sharing my observations on media funding after Perugia this year.
Dick, what's your thought about the recently announced $100M (possibly) AP community journalism initiative? To me the skeptic, it looks to be almost as much about recycling money, and cycling work, back through AP, and also, as such, theoretically not available to non-daily (especially pre-COVID non-daily) papers not AP members.
Thanks for this. I’m honestly clearer on why institutional funders would want to support AP— great reach and solid content— than I am on how AP will deploy the cash to benefit anyone other than themselves. Or, conversely, with whom they will now be competing for funding.
I'd also add:
1. small year over year gifts are very important long term, so it's ok to set aside an allowance to recognize that fact and give 5 years of broad sustaining support ~$2-5k/year.
2. equally important to consider independent media abroad, which is experiencing a drop in international giving. Investigative reporting in places like Slovenia, Georgia, Czech Republic and media in exile from Russia, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Myanmar too.
This is great and a fun thought exercise. I especially love the idea of not just two or three year grants but five; I know not every bit of funding can be structured that way but if even 20 percent could be, it would really help slow down the ever-ratcheting-up pace of the treadmill.
Hi - as you probably know, I give a 👍to (nearly) all of this. Bravo for specifically calling out the endless and self-centered “strategy refresh” process that keeps the field on hold while program officers craft yet more PowerPoints (and then, often, don’t even hew to the new flow charts and “theories of change”). I would also add that one reason many grants are bad grants even when they sound good (after all, how can any grant be bad, right?) is that there has not been a good look under the hood at the organizational strengths and weaknesses - and an honest conversation about it - and unfortunately, general support doesn’t always address the organizational needs because not all leadership chooses to spend the dough on the unsexy but absolutely necessary stuff. Sometimes, good grant making is working with the organization to recognize the capacity/sustainability issues, and then funding the solutions. I am pleased to say that more than one grantee my foundation currently supports has expressed gratitude for this approach and in a few cases, this has also helped to change the way the organization governs itself and how it raises money. Sorry such a long comment!!
re. Journalism funding, I would add: earmark no less than 30% of your donation to business model and product innovation. Donating simply to fund reporting is noble, but the money quickly runs out. If you want to help journalism, help make it far less dependent on the largesse of billionaires.
Warren, Thanks for this. Certainly agree on the need to encourage business model and product innovation. But I continue to think that identifying orgs that seem to be doing this and offering them general support may be a more effective route.
The alternative assumes that the funder is a better judge of what's likely to work than the operators in the field, which I think is both arrogant and unlikely to be true.
And I think the history of the country's greatest and most enduring cultural nonprofits belies the thought that the money necessarily runs out. If you maintain quality and remain nimble, it need not.
Thank you for this. Totally agree with you on general support grants and vertical areas - two pain points for us at Geneva Health Files (also on Substack).
Sharing my observations on media funding after Perugia this year.
https://substack.com/@genevahealthfiles/note/c-59237895
Priti
Excellent points but I still like spreading it around which smaller grants do.
Dick, what's your thought about the recently announced $100M (possibly) AP community journalism initiative? To me the skeptic, it looks to be almost as much about recycling money, and cycling work, back through AP, and also, as such, theoretically not available to non-daily (especially pre-COVID non-daily) papers not AP members.
Thanks for this. I’m honestly clearer on why institutional funders would want to support AP— great reach and solid content— than I am on how AP will deploy the cash to benefit anyone other than themselves. Or, conversely, with whom they will now be competing for funding.
Agreed on the competition, too. But, since AP is getting ever deeper in bed with Taboola, maybe there's a bank shot there?
It’s a fun fantasy to have …