You are on page 1of 13

TEACHING NOTE: SI-56 TN

DATE: 06/01/13

TEACHING NOTE FOR
SAND HILL FOUNDATION
Susan Ford served as the president and cofounder of the Sand Hill Foundation, a family
foundation that made grants to organizations that benefited people on the San Francisco
Peninsula. Tom and Susan Ford established the foundation in 1995, reflecting from the Fords’
shared passion for giving and community development. The foundation focused on the
environment, education, preservation of open space, youth development and job training.

The Fords were among the original donors of the Teen Success Program, a support group for
teen mothers launched in 1990 by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (PPMM). The program
encouraged teens not to have a second child and to stay in school, in exchange for $10 per week
and $100 for every 25 weeks of attendance. Facilitator-led Teen Success groups of up to 12 teen
mothers met weekly. Childcare was provided during meetings, and participants could remain in
the groups until they turned 18 or completed high school.

After investing more than $200,000 in the initiative, Susan Ford decided to measure the
effectiveness of the Teen Success Program. Her intention was to validate the program’s results
and identify its strengths and improvement opportunities to help it grow. Yet, even though Ford
had developed a positive relationship with Linda Williams, the head of PPMM, she worried that
Williams might feel threatened by her proposal for an assessment of the program’s impact. The
evaluation process resulted in tensions that caused both Ford and Williams to reflect upon the
dynamics of the grantor-grantee relationship, as well as the role of evaluation in their future
work.

By 2002, the Teen Success program was operating in over 20 communities in California and
Nevada and had served 625 teen mothers. That year, PPMM won the Planned Parenthood
Affiliate Excellence Award for services to teens. In mid-2002, PPMM was seeking funding for
another comprehensive Teen Success Program evaluation so that other Planned Parenthood
chapters could potentially replicate the initiative. Looking forward, Williams and Ford hoped to
capitalize on their learning to more constructively engage all stakeholders in the evaluation
process, effectively monitor the program’s impact and take action on evaluation results.
Copyright © 2013 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. This note was prepared by
Lecturer Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen with assistance from Lauren Wechsler for the sole purpose of aiding
classroom instructors in the use of Sand Hill Foundation, GSB No. SI-56. It provides analysis and questions that are
intended to present alternative approaches to deepening students’ comprehension of the business issues presented in
the case and to energize classroom discussion.

Gilroy and Hollister. Myrna Oliver. open space preservation. Kramer determined that the true dropout rate due to pregnancy was likely to be somewhere between 12% and 30%. Web. • Teen Success Program Evaluation: According to PPMM. . Case No. SI-75. 2 Key Facts • Mission: The Sand Hill Foundation’s mission was to make grants to organizations that benefited people on the San Francisco Peninsula. youth development and job training. compared to the average of 50% of pregnant teens in the general population. Sunnyvale. Position in Course This case is intended for use in a course on philanthropic grantmaking or foundation strategy.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. located in Eastside (two groups). According to Kramer’s evaluation. compared to 33% of the general population of teen mothers. • Grantmaking Focus: The foundation focused on the environment. By 2002. Laura. Case Study. “Mutual Accountability and the Wisdom of Frank Capra. (2007). By 1995. the program was serving 46 teens at five sites. Mach/April 2001: 42-46 pp. director of Teen Services at PPMM. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. only 4% of Teen Success participants had become pregnant again. The teaching objective is to explore how to manage donor-donee relationships and to develop effective program measurement strategies. At least 80% of Teen Success graduates had completed high school or received a GED. and Jane Kramer. The case highlights the Sand Hill Foundation’s efforts to measure the effectiveness of the Teen Success Program run by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (PPMM). Web. processes and implementation plans. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (PPMM) director. approximately one-third of Teen Success participants may have left the program because of a pregnancy. • Key Players: Susan Ford. Stanford Graduate School of Business. Linda Williams. the Teen Success program had served 625 teen mothers. More than one in four Teen Success participants had continued her education beyond high school. Emerson. • Teen Success Program: The Teen Success Program was a support group for teen mothers launched in 1990 by PPMM. Teen Success evaluator.” Foundation News & Commentary. Supplementary Readings Arrillaga-Andreessen.000 in PPMM’s Teen Success Program between 1990 and 1995. Mountain View. sponsored 24 support groups of 12 teen mothers per group per year and operated in 20 communities. education. Jed. Sand Hill Foundation president and cofounder. particularly in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Sand Hill Foundation invested more than $200.

Kania and Mark R.” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Summer 2012). “Report Cites Grant-Making Officers Who Forge Strong Relationships with Grantees. 40. .Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. 3 Eisenberg. 2. 2010. “Philanthropic Ethics from a Donee Perspective. Evaluate Kramer’s evaluation methodology. Twersky.” Chronicle of Philanthropy. Wilhelm. Pablo. 6.” The Chronicle of Philanthropy. “Foundations Can Learn a Lot From the People They Want to Help. What steps could Ford and Williams have taken to improve Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and the Sand Hill Foundation’s mutual learning? a.” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter 2004). July/August 1999. As Williams looks to the future. Eisenberg. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. Web. Fay. Rodin. Web. Assess Ford’s approach to initiating the Teen Success Program’s evaluation. Assignment Questions Primary Questions: 1.” Foundation News & Commentary. Pablo. results and recommendations. Web. May 2. November 13. Heifetz. Timing for Class: 10-15 minutes for class discussion. 4. how could Planned Parenthood Mar Monte improve its capacity to monitor the Teen Success Program’s impact? How could the Sand Hill Foundation support the program’s ability to measure and communicate results? a. Judith and Nancy MacPherson. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. Ronald A. How could Ford use the lessons learned from the Teen Success Program evaluation to inform her future grantmaking related to teen pregnancy prevention? a. John V. Supplementary Questions: 5.. September/October 1983. with 5-8 minutes allocated to each of the two questions posed above. 2011.4. Ian.Web. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion and brainstorming. “We’ve Got Relationship Problems: How Can We Improve Grantee/Grantor Relations?” Foundation News & Commentary. Web. “Shared Outcomes. b. What are the potential issues Susan Ford faces in her desire to measure the Teen Success Program? a. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. Web. Kramer. “Leading Boldly.

Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. e. • Have open conversations about evaluation purposes to create a collaborative culture. Introduce the possibility of an evaluation during the proposal process rather than surprising the grantee with it partway through the funding cycle. consistent relationship could create a communication channel through which both parties could address concerns regarding evaluation and thus improve the mutual learning that results. Assess Ford’s approach to initiating the Teen Success Program’s evaluation. Timing for Class: 7-10 minutes for class discussion. Discuss the general challenges that nonprofits have faced and still face in accountability and measurement. Both parties could invest their energy in creating a culture of open. The grantor can share examples of other evaluations that it has conducted with grantees. they could take a number of steps to improve their mutual learning: • Agree on evaluation in the initial grant contract. 9. both parties expect the evaluation from the beginning and can determine how to maximize mutual learning. Cultivating an ongoing. Ford indicated that the extent to which she fostered a relationship with grantees depended on “if we know the director and trust them. Evaluate PPMM’s and Williams’ management of the evaluation process and results.” Williams noted that while she and Ford had been in periodic communication. c. d. they had not engaged in direct discussion about the evaluation. How has the landscape changed in the last five to seven years? How might nonprofits improve their management of donor relationships? f. • Focus on building a strong grantor-grantee relationship with open communication. Timing for Class: 10-15 minutes for class discussion and brainstorming. Analysis for Primary Questions 1. What steps could Ford and Williams have taken to improve Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and the Sand Hill Foundation’s mutual learning? If Ford and Williams were to approach the evaluation process over again. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. Evaluate PPMM’s management of donor relationships. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. highlighting examples where the initial results might have been indicative of failure but where the foundation and grantees continued their funding relationships and worked together to learn from the assessment. allocating approximately 5 minutes to each of the three questions posed above. 8. This would help build trust in the relationship so that the grantee will not assume that . Evaluate Ford’s management of the evaluation process. 4 7. honest communication that values evaluation’s potential to further continuous improvement. Another way that the grantor can foster open communication and trust is to suggest that both sides discuss past evaluation experiences. 10. This way.

this financial commitment would show how seriously the foundation believes in both the assessment and the grantee’s continued work toward achieving their shared goals. depending on what the evaluation determines. However. Some foundations may be willing to leave this amount open. it could consider providing the financial and intellectual capital necessary to implement at least some of the evaluation recommendations.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. defining the evaluation methodology and identifying what issues or challenges may arise during the evaluation. Additionally. Either way. As a starting point. PPMM needs to determine what information . the teens themselves could be more proactively involved in explaining and defining what success looks like for the program. By fostering a transparent relationship that includes conversations about lessons learned from past evaluation. they could be more actively involved in shaping the evaluation as well as helping to evaluate the program’s impact. Finally. The grantor may involve the grantee in as many decisions related to the evaluation as possible. Ford did her best to convey that the evaluation outcome would not prevent future Sand Hill Foundation funding. Group facilitators could visit each other’s sessions to help learn from one another. • Further integrate the perspectives of the end recipients and the program operators into the evaluation design and implementation. it will help the grantees to understand the grantor’s perspective on the importance of evaluation in informing future decision-making and program strategy. if the foundation truly envisions the purpose of the evaluation to help grantees better achieve their objectives. 2. the grantee will have the opportunity to share concerns stemming from past experiences or the current situation. the grantee is more likely to “buy-in” to evaluation results rather than approach them defensively or dismiss them as inaccurate. Others might stipulate from the onset that they will provide a set amount of money. Grantees could provide input on selecting the external evaluator. • Commit foundation funding to implement at least some of the evaluation results. which was how Williams and her staff initially reacted to the evaluation that Ford commissioned. evaluate session practices and work together to develop a consistent model based on best practices. • Discuss the grantee’s past evaluation experiences. As Williams looks to the future. As the group facilitators are the leaders working directly with the teens and have the most direct program knowledge. Ford commented that in retrospect she would have given Williams a greater voice in the process. without a more developed dialogue. By approaching the evaluation collaboratively. 5 continued funding depends on a “perfect” assessment. Williams did not seem to fully believe or internalize Ford’s view. • Make as many decisions about the evaluation together as reasonably possible. inquiring about the benefits that PPMM hoped to gain from the evaluation and any top priority questions the organization wished to include. Additionally. how could Planned Parenthood Mar Monte improve its capacity to monitor the Teen Success Program’s impact? • Determine key metrics.

emails. or provide PPMM with the resources to do so itself. The organization needs to allocate part of a staff member’s time to oversee the collection and analysis of consistent and reliable data. • Designate one staff member to oversee all data collection. The . evaluation and evolution. PPMM staff indicated that they were “so busy” implementing the program that they did not have time to think about evaluating their impact. there is too much risk that the data collected will be inconsistent. Coordinating and streamlining reporting to different funders could free up staff time to focus on data collection and program evaluation. • Create and support better systems for data collection. • Sand Hill Foundation support for PPMM’s communication of results. the Sand Hill Foundation could provide financial capital to hire and/or train the data collection staff member. This would minimize time spent on reporting and enable staff members to focus on consistent program evaluation and strategy improvements. If PPMM still feels that it needs additional staff dedicated to data collection and program evaluation. The Sand Hill Foundation could support PPMM’s ability to measure and communicate results by advocating for the organization’s proposed single “dashboard” of data reporting. the Sand Hill Foundation could write articles about PPMM’s strategy. In order to collect and assess data. Additionally. PPMM could improve its capacity to monitor the Teen Success Program’s impact by designating one staff member to oversee data collection and management. As the evaluation indicated. The evaluation indicated particular data that PPMM could capture. Such an IT system could aggregate participant data and enable PPMM senior managers to readily access this data and analyze programs. the foundation could seek out venues for PPMM to meet with other funders and nonprofits working on teen pregnancy issues in order to advance field-wide learning. If multiple people are monitoring the teens and their groups. namely detailed reasons and outcomes for teens that leave the program. online responses and even text messages (since teens may be more likely to have a cell phone and use text messages to communicate rather than emails). facilitator observations. In the business case. If PPMM identified an essential data set to measure program success. One way to do this would be to create an evaluation dashboard highlighting progress along key outcome indicators. To help PPMM communicate results to other funders and teen pregnancy-related organizations. PPMM could install and leverage an IT system that integrates participant questionnaires. it could share this information with all funders and recommend a common reporting system. monitor participant needs and generate relevant and accurate program statistics. 6 it will consistently collect and determine efficient and effective methods to aggregate data across teen groups. How could the Sand Hill Foundation support the program’s ability to measure and communicate results? • Sand Hill Foundation support for PPMM’s data collection. • Streamline and simplify data reporting to funders.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. let alone communicating their results.

How could Ford use the lessons learned from the Teen Success Program evaluation to inform her future grantmaking related to teen pregnancy prevention? • Lesson from evaluation: Key program strengths were retention. 3. …The retention of teens appears to be strong.” • Implication for future grantmaking: o When conducting and releasing a philanthropic program evaluation. The Teen Success Program may aim to reduce this rate by a certain percentage and in the very least. o It is also critical to identify upfront the metrics that will be most important to track in order to demonstrate whether or not a philanthropic program is achieving . For example. For example. it is important to identify and highlight program strengths in order to motivate program staff and determine what program elements will be maintained in the future. According to the evaluation. it is important to allocate funds for proper and thorough record keeping. However. this data was essential to determining how program strategy could be adapted to retain more program participants. • Lesson from evaluation: PPMM maintained poor records on teens that dropped out of the program. Record keeping also enables program staff and funders to identify divergences from anticipated results. graduation rates and participant satisfaction. PPMM’s estimates are lower than this (approximately 4% or approximately five of 124 teens). • Implication for future grantmaking: o Whether initiating a new program or funding an existing one. the rate of second pregnancy is lower. o It is important to gather benchmarks. 33% of the general population of teen mothers had a second pregnancy within two years of giving birth to their first. to find out if the funded intervention is actually improving conditions or resulting in the same situation that would have occurred without the intervention. demonstrate that among mothers participating in the Teen Success Programs. uncover problems and adapt program design to better meet expectations. o It is also important to fund an evaluation at a level that enables the data collection to be sufficiently robust. according to PPMM (and publically-available data). the number of graduates is impressive and the teens appear to be extremely satisfied with the program. providing an adequate sample size to test hypotheses and gain accurate results. where available.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. Record keeping is critical to evaluate program impact and identify its strengths and weaknesses. “Calculations based on 25 teens that were reached for follow-up interviews indicate that approximately one-third may leave the program because of a pregnancy. The true dropout rate due to pregnancy is likely to be somewhere between 12% and 30%. a sample set of 25 teens may not be a large enough percentage of the overall population (of hundreds of teens) to constitute a sample that can represent Teen Success Program results. 7 foundation could help by identifying appropriate communication forums such as field publications and conferences and providing the financial and intellectual capital to ensure that PPMM is represented.

8 its goals. Nonetheless. one staff member could be assigned to oversee all data collection and aggregation. • Implication for future grantmaking: o Because of the importance of collecting thorough and reliable data. • Implication for future grantmaking: o When operating a program that involves multiple facilitators. However. o Future grant-funded programs could consider developing a program guide for all staff members that outlines clear expectations and best practices for the program. managing and analyzing data.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. This cost could be highlighted in the overall program budget so that other donors that support and replicate the program fully fund this expense. • Lesson from evaluation: Too many different people conducted data collection. it is important that everyone receives the same baseline training and works toward the same data collection goals. Program facilitators could receive more guidance and training about consistent program design in the future. these programs could harness the network of similar organizations to learn about ideas that have been tested and best practices that have emerged. . • Lesson from evaluation: Programs like PPMM could use self-assessment to evaluate their impact and evolve programming to meet their desired outcomes. rather than having all facilitators track assessment metrics. all staff members could be educated about the importance of evaluation and knowledge management. This would improve evaluation clarity. consistency and quality. Ongoing stakeholder feedback will help verify that the nonprofit’s programs are functioning as intended and will help determine whether current strategies effectively achieve program goals. • Implication for future grantmaking: o Teen pregnancy prevention programs could share their best practices and work continuously to improve their offerings so that teens stay in their programs. it is imperative that one person has oversight responsibility for collecting. high-quality programs and ensuring that outcome data can be compared across groups. Consistency in training and goal setting across groups is critical for implementing effective. it is critical to understand why a teen might drop out of the program (and determine whether or not this was due to a second pregnancy). o For future grantmaking. Instead. • Lesson from evaluation: Facilitators’ curricula and expectations for program implementation and performance varied across sites. With this structure. It is not realistic for every teen pregnancy prevention program to conduct its own research. This would also help to establish benchmarks that PPMM can use in evaluating its program’s success and making strategic updates. Ford could provide the funding (or partial funding) for a centralized staff member to collect and analyze data across the program. focusing particularly on teens that get pregnant while in the program and/or pre-maturely dropout of the program. data collection could be more consistent and complete than if everyone independently gathers data according to their own criteria. As the most important goal for the Teen Success Program is preventing a second pregnancy.

the program had not adequately collected data. At the time of the case. Evaluate Kramer’s evaluation methodology.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. which made it difficult for the program to measure its success and identify potential areas for improvement. as the program had remained unchanged for five years despite uncertainty as to whether it was achieving its goals. Kramer was correct in suggesting a reassessment of the Teen Success Program’s vision and goals. Kramer’s evaluation was successful in that it challenged PPMM’s assumptions. thus biasing process and results. Kramer used typical evaluation methods that combined both qualitative and quantitative research. Up until that point. 9 • Lesson from evaluation: PPMM needs to determine if the program effectively prevents teen pregnancy. teen pregnancy prevention programs may rigorously evaluate themselves to determine if their current programs are effective. • PPMM resource constraints—evaluation taking up too much time and human resources. Kramer correctly pointed to data collection as a serious problem with the Teen Success Program. Analysis for Supplementary Questions 4. She didn’t necessarily disagree with the support group method but did suggest additional ways to engage participants. The questionnaires sent to both existing Teen Success participants and those who had left the program contained targeted and relevant questions. facilitator training and data collection. • Measurement cost issues. results and recommendations. 5. the program’s impact was unclear. Kramer focused on the support groups’ content. In order to achieve successful outcomes.Evaluation Methodology: Kramer could have visited the . • Defining inputs. • Strengths: Overall. • Williams’ desire to be heavily involved in designing the evaluation. • Williams feeling threatened that Ford might become too involved in PPMM and the program. • Difficulty in tracking teens and gathering relevant data. Finally. What are the potential issues Susan Ford faces in her desire to measure the Teen Success Program? • Resistance from Williams due to fear of losing funds. Appropriately. Every teen pregnancy prevention program could aim to have a clear understanding of the extent (if and how much) to which it is preventing teen pregnancy. it is important for every teen pregnancy prevention program to establish clear metrics for success and collect data accordingly. • Opportunities for Improvement . • Implication for future grantmaking: o Ultimately. outputs and outcomes to better understand the dependencies created by the program design and assess the program’s overall impact. • Challenges in designing a long-term measurement program that transcends one-time use. • Internal versus external evaluation.

6. After having engaged in the evaluation. Evaluate Ford’s management of the evaluation process. This template could include basic information such as the number of Teen Success support groups. program improvements. • Including more specific goals in the evaluation design. Examples include regular face-to-face donor-grantee meetings. 10 support groups over a longer period of time to gauge changes in the teen’s attitudes and to experience a greater variety of program curricula. joint strategy sessions to solicit feedback and new program ideas and donor events with Teen Success participants and alumnae to celebrate program success. updates on program strategy and vision. Kramer could have provided a “non-letter” template for all of PPMM’s donors. Kramer could have included additional recommendations on data types to share regularly with PPMM’s donors and advice for managing donor relationships. Kramer could have also surveyed the teens at the beginning of the support groups and at a later date to measure changes in teen attitudes over time. as Oliver had suggested. Kramer could have also provided recommendations on how PPMM could better manage its donor relationships. she probably would have benefited from soliciting Williams’ opinion and input from the start. Ford also could have structured the . solicited Williams’ thoughts on evaluation methods and potential evaluators. participant pregnancy rate. • Opportunities for Improvement – Recommendations for Improved Donor Relations: Collecting data was critical for donor development and internal organizational development and growth. In the end. If Ford had included Williams in the process earlier on. Although Ford’s desire to collect unbiased results was good. she may have selected Kramer to conduct the evaluation. Ford could have stated in the original grant agreement both the type of reporting the Sand Hill Foundation required and the frequency with which grantees would report. even if the results were less than satisfactory. Suggestions could focus on institutionalizing relationships to transcend a natural tendency for ad-hoc relationships. She managed the process well but she could also make future improvements in a few areas. • Including grantee perspective in the evaluation design and implementation. It was important that Ford made an effort to measure the effectiveness of the Teen Success Program. Williams may have trusted Ford when Ford emphasized that she and the Sand Hill Foundation would not pull funds.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. Room for Improvement • Including evaluation and reporting requirements in the original grant agreement. percentage of participants currently enrolled in school. Ford could have also taken the opportunity to require regular evaluations of the program. growth since the last report. Williams’ involvement would have also demonstrated to PPMM that Ford genuinely believed that the program’s success relied on being a joint donor-donee effort. Ford rightfully admits that she could have. future support groups and target expansion regions. number of total participants. at a minimum. Specifically. but Williams and PPMM may not have felt as defensive.

which in fact provided PPMM with reasonable suggestions for improvement. the data collection and analysis process. • Defensive behavior limited the opportunity for learning. 8. as well as the overall impact assessment was not as clear or effective. In terms of evaluation reporting. instead of the periodic letter with random information. However. selecting one of the following: goals-based evaluation— focused on the program’s ability to achieve its predetermined objectives. Kramer’s evaluation was not as specific about its goals and as a result. To show its initiative and its desire to continuously improve the Teen Success Program. • Program measurement and evaluation could be more institutionalized. process-based evaluation—understanding how the program really works and its strengths and weaknesses or outcomes-based evaluation—identifying client benefits). inconsistent data and anecdotes about successful teens. PPMM could have initially been more open to the results and less defensive. However. help PPMM make more informed decisions and communicate the program’s value to current and potential donors. More information on such topics can be found through the “Basic Guide to Program Evaluation (Including Outcomes Evaluation)” developed by Dr. They felt threatened by the evaluator and openly disagreed with the evaluation results. Authenticity Consulting LLC: http://www.org/library/evaluatn/fnl_eval. She served as a sounding board for both the evaluator and PPMM. Williams and PPMM managed the evaluation process in a manner indicative of a threatened organization. PPMM could institute formal program evaluations on a consistent basis. 11 evaluation more specifically (i.e. 7. Eventually. Evaluate PPMM’s management of donor relationships. Many organizations believe that an evaluation is about proving a program’s success or failure. • Using evaluation as a means for program improvement. Ford successfully managed the process. PPMM could develop more . Carter McNamara. PPMM could also provide regular progress reports offering updated data on retention and dropout rates for teens in the program. they overreacted to the study’s results. As program and impact assessment is a key part of any successful fundraising strategy. Williams and Oliver could develop an internal reporting system that would expand the organization’s knowledge base.htm#anchor1581634 Successful Management • Listening and learning. She also took the opportunity to provide her own suggestions to Williams on how to improve the Teen Success Program. Evaluate PPMM’s and Williams’ management of the evaluation process and results.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. She listened to PPMM’s issues with the evaluation and remained calm in a potentially relationship- damaging situation. Donors such as Susan Ford trusted Williams and enjoyed working with her. • More formalized and consistent interactions could improve grantee-grantor relationships. Williams and PPMM saw the value of the evaluation and instituted change within the program.mapnp. as it subsequently admitted. Williams often left a very positive impression on donors.

no such single measure of value exists. In the for-profit world. PPMM needs to institutionalize reporting for major program funders. In the nonprofit sector. As mentioned previously. 9. which can be time consuming and costly. 12 formal relationships with important donors such as Ford. including: o Nonprofit management as an academic field is growing at the graduate level. As a result. How has the landscape changed in the past five to seven years? How might nonprofits improve their management of donor relationships? • In the nonprofit world. Such action would give PPMM a competitive advantage since so few nonprofits currently take such action. In the for-profit sector. • Nonprofit accountability and measurement is now becoming a high-priority in nonprofit management. as Williams openly admits had happened recently. a company’s value and performance are ultimately measured by a single consistent metric – the dollar. Due to limited financial rewards and often demanding working conditions. This is for a variety of reasons. Additionally. The organization needs to take the initiative and establish a template that includes all relevant information to preempt each donor from asking for different information. donors rarely conduct enough research on organizations before making a gift and few even know what might indicate whether or not a nonprofit is a high performer. In the absence of accepted standard metrics. donors will inevitably be impressed by PPMM’s initiative and vision. Lack of business expertise in the nonprofit sector has meant that critical areas such as accountability and measurement have often been overlooked. • Lack of business expertise in nonprofit leadership. accountability is largely self-imposed. metrics can demonstrate achievement of social impact in infinite ways.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. With so many different global social issues. influenced by myriad internal and external factors. nonprofits have found it difficult to attract experienced leaders and employees with solid business acumen. the majority of nonprofit leaders and donors independently define the metrics that are most likely to measure a nonprofit program’s social value. potentially increasing their donations. investors and stockholders demand results and an understanding of how resources invested in a company are delivering value. Such relationships can easily fall to the wayside during busy times. This session could also be a time to solicit donors’ thoughts on future program opportunities and strategic evolution. donors often do not demand proof of their donations’ results and are satisfied merely with feeling good about giving to a worthy cause. In the nonprofit world. • Data sharing could improve and streamline donor reporting. Williams could take the initiative and set up semi-annual or annual meetings between PPMM team members and major donors at which PPMM could discuss the Teen Success Program’s progress and future goals. No market-driven mechanisms exist to force nonprofits to demonstrate that the resources they manage and the strategies they employ are in fact achieving established goals. This . • Lack of clear metrics measuring performance. Discuss the general challenges that nonprofits have faced and still face in accountability and measurement.

These actions would also provide greater transparency to donors and build donor confidence in the nonprofit’s commitment to continuous improvement and accountability. . o A new generation of wealthy donors who built their fortunes through competitive business practices are demanding and expecting high levels of accountability. Teaching Approach The Sand Hill Foundation case study is appropriate for a 45-minute teaching module including both a lecture and a discussion.com) for Stanford Graduate School of Business Lecturer Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen’s complete portfolio of philanthropy Stanford Graduate School of Business case studies.0 website (giving2. creative and forthright manner) sharing the latest impact to date (including outputs and outcomes achieved. This may result in more frequent and open discussions of how philanthropic dollars are being used and what impact they are making. Key themes for discussion include: • Evaluation • Measuring impact • Grantor-grantee relationships • Mutual accountability • Professionalization of the philanthropic sector Please see the Giving 2. This would invite others to further discuss and develop these metrics and share best practices across the industry. • Nonprofits can improve their donor relationship management to promote a culture of accountability and measurable impact. more donors are expecting nonprofits to readily provide feedback on social impact. o Sending out quarterly or biannual updates via email. o While the entire sector continues to struggle to find good ways to measure social impact. Examples include: o Dynamically (in a timely. reporting and results from the organizations to which they donate. 13 presence in academia has challenged the status quo and has brought forth a wealth of new nonprofit strategies and processes for accountability and measurement.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. frameworks and learning resources that she has created since 2000. o Technology now enables nonprofits to track their impact and report results to donors more easily. nonprofits could publicly share the metrics they use to track program success on their websites or in relevant publications. as well as money raised and invested in critical programs and operations) on the nonprofit websites so that donors and prospective donors can see the progress achieved at any point in time. As growing numbers of nonprofits do this. teaching notes. Donors’ increasing demand for nonprofit transparency could shift both donors’ and nonprofits’ expectations. mobile message or mail to proactively let donors know of the current impact created through their collective donations as well as share lessons learned and future priorities.