Agenda

Moderated Dinner Discussion
Aspen Meadows Reception Center, Bernhard Room

What does Success Look Like? Sharing Stories, Seeking Guidance.

Foundation CEOs will reflect on examples of successful strategies they have undertaken or observed. What were the elements of success? At what point were outcomes apparent? And is the full impact yet known? These APG members are encouraged to ground their examples in issue areas of continued interest to them – and to use this opportunity to identify a decision they face for which they seek their colleagues’ insights or advice. At dinner, and throughout the Aspen Philanthropy Group meeting, Chatham House rules will be observed, and “open” case studies are welcomed.

Breakfast
Breakfast is available at your leisure in the Aspen Meadows Restaurant from 7:00am to 8:00am.

Aligning Strategies with 21st Century Opportunities

Last night, APG members reflected on examples of successful strategies they have undertaken or observed. The conversation will now turn to consideration of the ways in which a changed philanthropic landscape might yield new opportunities for effecting, measuring and scaling positive social change. Again, APG members will be encouraged to ground their examples in issue areas of continued interest to them.

An Overview of 21st Century Models and Tools; Opportunities for Scale—Jackie Khor

• Pursuing an Integrated Strategy: One Foundation’s Response—Sally Osberg
• Preserving enduring strategies—investing in people, ideas—Vartan Gregorian

Aligning Outcome Measures
Grant-makers and grant-seekers have often gathered and analyzed as much data as possible to track progress, assess outcomes and find evidence of impact. This approach can lead to expensive evaluations, which place a heavy burden on the grantees. Moreover, the resulting reports often fail to supply decision-makers with the information they need in the timeframe that is required. And so it goes unused. There is an emerging consensus for “decision-based” or “actionable” evaluation systems, which are designed collaboratively by grant-makers and grant-seekers and are characterized by:

• A shared purpose among grantors and grantees of (a) informing decision-making and (b) enabling continuous learning.
• A shared expectation that data will be gathered in a timely fashion and in a manner that does not place undue burdens on the grantee.
• A shared commitment to transparency, including a willingness to place data gathered in the public domain so as to advance field-wide learning

What has been learned?

• The “Last Mile” Workshops
• MacArthur Foundation Review of Assessment Practices—Bob Gallucci, Sean Knierim
  • Building a Consensus within a Foundation
  • Findings of MacArthur Foundation Reviews
• Advancing “Actionable” measurement—Michael Deich
• Introducing real-time “Learning-focused” practice—Carol Larson
• Moving up the “developmental” ladder—Paul Brest

Aligning Outcome Measures: Special Cases

• Special cases—Paul Brest
  • Research grants
  • Policy advocacy grants
  • General operating support grants
• The case of social investments—Chris West

Aligning Outcome Measures: Sharing Knowledge; Leveraging Resources

In 2009, APG members pointed to a lack of alignment among grant-makers and between grant-makers and grantseekers when it comes to measuring success. As the conversation thus far illustrates, since that time there has been growing attention to outcome measurement within large staffed foundations. And, although their systems may not be identical, they are increasingly aligned. How might their learnings contribute to efforts by grantee organizations and unstaffed family foundations to establish and align their systems of measurement and evaluation? Might there be broad principles and best practices to share? Can those principles inform and be informed by bottom-up consensus building efforts around issues and theories of change? Are there new opportunities to share data and employ on-line resources? And might a network of existing, trusted advisors help “new philanthropists” to apply these learnings to their circumstances?

•  
  • Scaling grass-roots consensus-building efforts among grantors and grantees
  • Distilling “principles and practices” to be disseminated in an edited e-volume
  • Activating Networks; Leveraging Resources and Relationships of Trust
  • Sharing data and employing web-based tools

Dinner (optional) – Reservations will be made for “Dutch Treat” dinners on shared goals and independent actions: Making it all “Add Up”

• Defining and Advancing the “Impact Economy”
• Reducing the Nuclear Danger
• Tools for Peripheral Vision, Learning and Action (e.g. Systems mapping, web-based platforms for co- funding and sharing data)

Aligning Goals, Strategies and Independent Actions: Making it all “Add Up”

Having discussed ways to define and measure success, APG members will be asked to consider what works and what does not in issue areas of interest to them and their foundations. Bearing in mind a recent Monitor Report admonition that “Funders don’t need to make decisions together, but they need to have their efforts add up,” APG members will discuss their approaches to shared philanthropic objectives, so as to learn from one another and identify synergies. Their discussion may include:

• Goals, Strategy and Theory of Change
• Complementary Strategies: what works, what doesn’t
• Future Directions and Potential Synergies

Identifying Issues for Consideration in the year ahead—Group Discussion

The APG is a group of leaders in philanthropy at the cutting edge of change. They come together to learn from one another, to identify issues of sector-wide concern, and to provide a forum for their consideration. In the process they foster knowledge sharing between large and small foundations, and among foundations and both private and public sector actors seeking to advance the public good. During this segment, APG members will be invited to put forth issues for consideration in the year ahead.