You are on page 1of 13


DATE: 06/01/13

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

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.

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

Web. September/October 1983. What are the potential issues Susan Ford faces in her desire to measure the Teen Success Program? a. b.” The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Evaluate Kramer’s evaluation methodology. Pablo. Wilhelm. Fay. May 2.. with 5-8 minutes allocated to each of the two questions posed above. “We’ve Got Relationship Problems: How Can We Improve Grantee/Grantor Relations?” Foundation News & Commentary.” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter 2004). Supplementary Questions: 5. Pablo. 3 Eisenberg. Web. Kramer. Twersky. 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. As Williams looks to the future. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. Judith and Nancy MacPherson.Web. “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. Timing for Class: 10-15 minutes for class discussion. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. . “Leading Boldly. Kania and Mark R. Assignment Questions Primary Questions: 1. Assess Ford’s approach to initiating the Teen Success Program’s evaluation. Web. 40. “Philanthropic Ethics from a Donee Perspective. 2010. Web.4. Heifetz. 4.” Foundation News & Commentary. How could Ford use the lessons learned from the Teen Success Program evaluation to inform her future grantmaking related to teen pregnancy prevention? a. Eisenberg. “Shared Outcomes. “Report Cites Grant-Making Officers Who Forge Strong Relationships with Grantees.” Chronicle of Philanthropy. Ian. results and recommendations. Web. Rodin. 6. Ronald A.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion and brainstorming. Timing for Class: 10 minutes for class discussion. 2. 2011. July/August 1999. John V. November 13.” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Summer 2012).

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

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

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

However. The true dropout rate due to pregnancy is likely to be somewhere between 12% and 30%.” • Implication for future grantmaking: o When conducting and releasing a philanthropic program evaluation. 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. For example. The Teen Success Program may aim to reduce this rate by a certain percentage and in the very least. According to the evaluation. graduation rates and participant satisfaction. 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. Record keeping is critical to evaluate program impact and identify its strengths and weaknesses. 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. providing an adequate sample size to test hypotheses and gain accurate results. Record keeping also enables program staff and funders to identify divergences from anticipated results. For example. • Lesson from evaluation: PPMM maintained poor records on teens that dropped out of the program. this data was essential to determining how program strategy could be adapted to retain more program participants. o It is important to gather benchmarks. …The retention of teens appears to be strong. 3. according to PPMM (and publically-available data). the number of graduates is impressive and the teens appear to be extremely satisfied with the program. the rate of second pregnancy is lower. • Implication for future grantmaking: o Whether initiating a new program or funding an existing one. uncover problems and adapt program design to better meet expectations. it is important to allocate funds for proper and thorough record keeping. to find out if the funded intervention is actually improving conditions or resulting in the same situation that would have occurred without the intervention. 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. demonstrate that among mothers participating in the Teen Success Programs. where available. “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. PPMM’s estimates are lower than this (approximately 4% or approximately five of 124 teens). o It is also important to fund an evaluation at a level that enables the data collection to be sufficiently robust. 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 . 33% of the general population of teen mothers had a second pregnancy within two years of giving birth to their first.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p.

Program facilitators could receive more guidance and training about consistent program design in the future. data collection could be more consistent and complete than if everyone independently gathers data according to their own criteria. 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. all staff members could be educated about the importance of evaluation and knowledge management. these programs could harness the network of similar organizations to learn about ideas that have been tested and best practices that have emerged.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. it is imperative that one person has oversight responsibility for collecting. it is important that everyone receives the same baseline training and works toward the same data collection goals. Consistency in training and goal setting across groups is critical for implementing effective. • Implication for future grantmaking: o When operating a program that involves multiple facilitators. • Lesson from evaluation: Too many different people conducted data collection. consistency and quality. This cost could be highlighted in the overall program budget so that other donors that support and replicate the program fully fund this expense. However. As the most important goal for the Teen Success Program is preventing a second pregnancy. one staff member could be assigned to oversee all data collection and aggregation. 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. • Lesson from evaluation: Facilitators’ curricula and expectations for program implementation and performance varied across sites. • Implication for future grantmaking: o Because of the importance of collecting thorough and reliable data. . rather than having all facilitators track assessment metrics. Ford could provide the funding (or partial funding) for a centralized staff member to collect and analyze data across the program. 8 its goals. Instead. 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). 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. managing and analyzing data. focusing particularly on teens that get pregnant while in the program and/or pre-maturely dropout of the program. high-quality programs and ensuring that outcome data can be compared across groups. • 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. With this structure. Nonetheless. o For future grantmaking. This would improve evaluation clarity. • Lesson from evaluation: Programs like PPMM could use self-assessment to evaluate their impact and evolve programming to meet their desired outcomes.

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

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

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

• Lack of clear metrics measuring performance. potentially increasing their donations. 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 session could also be a time to solicit donors’ thoughts on future program opportunities and strategic evolution. which can be time consuming and costly. In the for-profit world. In the nonprofit world. In the for-profit sector. investors and stockholders demand results and an understanding of how resources invested in a company are delivering value. including: o Nonprofit management as an academic field is growing at the graduate level. • Lack of business expertise in nonprofit leadership. Due to limited financial rewards and often demanding working conditions. Such relationships can easily fall to the wayside during busy times. 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. This is for a variety of reasons. as Williams openly admits had happened recently. • Nonprofit accountability and measurement is now becoming a high-priority in nonprofit management. nonprofits have found it difficult to attract experienced leaders and employees with solid business acumen. 12 formal relationships with important donors such as Ford. Discuss the general challenges that nonprofits have faced and still face in accountability and measurement. In the nonprofit sector. With so many different global social issues. 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. Additionally. This . no such single measure of value exists. a company’s value and performance are ultimately measured by a single consistent metric – the dollar. donors often do not demand proof of their donations’ results and are satisfied merely with feeling good about giving to a worthy cause. metrics can demonstrate achievement of social impact in infinite ways. influenced by myriad internal and external factors. Such action would give PPMM a competitive advantage since so few nonprofits currently take such action. • Data sharing could improve and streamline donor reporting. accountability is largely self-imposed. In the absence of accepted standard metrics. As a result.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p. 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 will inevitably be impressed by PPMM’s initiative and vision. the majority of nonprofit leaders and donors independently define the metrics that are most likely to measure a nonprofit program’s social value. Lack of business expertise in the nonprofit sector has meant that critical areas such as accountability and measurement have often been overlooked. 9. As mentioned previously. PPMM needs to institutionalize reporting for major program funders. 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.

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. 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. nonprofits could publicly share the metrics they use to track program success on their websites or in relevant publications. teaching notes.Teaching Note for Sand Hill Foundation SI-56 p.0 website (giving2. Teaching Approach The Sand Hill Foundation case study is appropriate for a 45-minute teaching module including both a lecture and a discussion. These actions would also provide greater transparency to donors and build donor confidence in the nonprofit’s commitment to continuous improvement and accountability. Donors’ increasing demand for nonprofit transparency could shift both donors’ and nonprofits’ expectations. more donors are expecting nonprofits to readily provide feedback on social impact. This may result in more frequent and open discussions of how philanthropic dollars are being used and what impact they are making. o A new generation of wealthy donors who built their fortunes through competitive business practices are demanding and expecting high levels of accountability. reporting and results from the organizations to which they donate. As growing numbers of nonprofits do this. . • Nonprofits can improve their donor relationship management to promote a culture of accountability and measurable impact. creative and forthright manner) sharing the latest impact to date (including outputs and outcomes achieved. 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. o Technology now enables nonprofits to track their impact and report results to donors more easily. frameworks and learning resources that she has created since for Stanford Graduate School of Business Lecturer Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen’s complete portfolio of philanthropy Stanford Graduate School of Business case studies. 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. This would invite others to further discuss and develop these metrics and share best practices across the industry. Key themes for discussion include: • Evaluation • Measuring impact • Grantor-grantee relationships • Mutual accountability • Professionalization of the philanthropic sector Please see the Giving 2.