Chapter Fourteen

Initiative-Based Grantmaking

One of the traits of organized philanthropy that is endearing or infuriating (depending on one's point of view) is its tendency to live focused on the future and in ignorance of the past. This tendency is good, of course, in that philanthropy should be confronting the human ills that loom ahead. It is bad, however, in that grantmakers are often clueless—or at least poorly informed—about their own history. A perfect example of this situation is found in the way in which each succeeding generation of program officers “invents” initiative-based grantmaking. And they do invent it, in the same way in which Columbus “discovered” America—and the twenty million people who were already living there.

Initiative-based grantmaking can be defined as a prescriptive, integrated blend of planning; grantmaking; formative, cluster, and summative evaluation; extensive strategic communications; and social marketing—all with an explicit systems change objective or policy change objective (or both) and a defined exit strategy. Its successive waves of “inventors” continually advance it as a more sophisticated, higher-impact method of grantmaking than “traditional” cluster or passive grantmaking styles. In contrast to individual grants that can dry up and blow away for want of follow-up support, the initiative “stays longer and funds stronger.” It stakes out its territory, funds intensively within that territory, provides TA and other supports, and keeps at it until demonstrable impact occurs. This “novel” approach, its advocates believe, will transform philanthropy into a more significant social force.

With all due respect to generations of earnest reformers, anyone who has ever read Robert H. Bremner's classic history, American Philanthropy ([1960] 1987), knows that initiative-based grantmaking is fine old wine in spiffy new bottles. As Bremner points out, after the Civil War the old religious underpinnings of charity and benevolence were overthrown in favor of “the development of a more scientific spirit and method in philanthropy.” As time went by, the “charity organization” movement sought to enhance impact by increasing the efficiency and cooperation of various philanthropic institutions. Andrew Carnegie, as previously mentioned, concentrated his giving on libraries, museums, and educational institutions such as the Cooper Union and the Pratt Institute, which he collectively called “ladders upon which the aspiring can rise” (Carnegie, [1889] 1992b); John D. Rockefeller supported the establishment of the University of Chicago for much the same reason. Rockefeller's General Education Board, as previously discussed, launched an initiative in 1902 to improve agricultural production and secondary education in the American South, with a special focus on improving the lives of African Americans and on improving and reforming higher education and medical education throughout the nation. The General Education Board was a model of longevity (it was not liquidated until the early 1960s) and impact. Initiative-based grantmaking, in short, has been with us since even before the modern foundation appeared in the United States.