Grantmakers for Effective Organizations Theory of Change
September 18, 2003
Consulting support by Steven LaFrance and Rick Green
Table of Contents I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 II. Background.............................................................................................................................1 GEO’s Growth and the Growth of a Concept...........................................................................1 Process for Developing the Theory of Change .........................................................................2 III. Assumptions and Core Beliefs..............................................................................................2 Nonprofit and Funder Effectiveness .........................................................................................2 The Role of Capacity Building in Effective Grantmaking ..........................................................3 Incremental Change and Systems Change ...............................................................................3 Motivating Change in People ...................................................................................................3 Motivating Change in Organizations ........................................................................................4 IV. GEO’s Theory of Change......................................................................................................4 Three Spheres of Influence, Three Areas of Activity.................................................................4 GEO’s Spheres of Influence ......................................................................................................5 Membership ..............................................................................................................................7 Activities GEO Will Undertake to Achieve Outcomes ...............................................................7 All Grantmaking Organizations .................................................................................................7 A Developing Framework of Effective Philanthropy .................................................................7 Outcome Objectives for All Grantmaking Organizations ..........................................................8 Activities GEO Will Undertake to Achieve Outcomes ...............................................................8 Philanthropy as a System...........................................................................................................9 Defining Success .....................................................................................................................9 Outcome Objectives for Philanthropy as a System ....................................................................9 Activities GEO Will Undertake to Achieve Outcomes .............................................................10 V. Evaluation and Measurement ..............................................................................................10 Evaluation Principles and Measurement Focus.......................................................................10 VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................11
I. Introduction Insiders to philanthropy and outsiders alike are calling for reform in the sector. You need look no farther than nonprofit trade publications to find pleas for a greater sense of accountability to the public, more transparency, better coordination of financial and intellectual resources and the adoption of practices that are broadly supportive of rather than inadvertently damaging to nonprofits. Despite the valiant efforts of a few, efforts in philanthropy remain diffuse and uncoordinated, and rarely do people or institutions look beyond their organizational walls to the broader system of which they are a part. The ranks of those in organized philanthropy calling for change have grown stronger in recent years, forming what some have termed the effectiveness movement. Many of the strongest voices for reform have been instrumental in creating and nurturing Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. Our challenge at this point in the movement and in our history is to determine the role we are best positioned to play in elevating the performance of philanthropy and the nonprofit sector as a whole. This paper articulates a bold vision for GEO, both as an organization and as a community of grantmakers working to achieve a broader impact. Our theory of change builds on our history and clearly articulates the role grantmakers play in both their and their grantees’ effectiveness. Fundamental to success is our resolute commitment to working with likeminded colleagues who are engaged in different but equally important approaches to grantmaker effectiveness. We invite you to help shape our work in the coming years.
II. Background GEO’s Growth and the Growth of a Concept Initially GEO was conceived as a venue for funders to exchange ideas that would help them support their grantees’ effectiveness. Almost immediately, however, members of the GEO community began to raise the mirror to their own institutions, recognizing that funders will also benefit from sounder management and governance, more attention to learning and evaluation and every other hallmark of an effective organization. Besides, members argued, focusing attention on one’s own organizational effectiveness enhances a funder’s credibility when asking grantees to do the same. While the commitment to supporting greater effectiveness among nonprofits remained strong, there was a growing consensus that GEO’s real leverage would come from improving the effectiveness of grantmakers. Not only do the practices of individual grantmakers have the potential to affect the operations of multiple nonprofits, more importantly, in order to act as careful stewards, grantmakers must focus on accountability and a commitment to achieving results The crucial role that evaluation plays in the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations made Grantmakers Evaluation Network and GEO natural allies. In late 2002, GEO and GEN formally merged into a single organization. With the infusion of energy and ideas, GEO’s aspirations continue to grow. Not satisfied only to conduct work organization by organization, we have developed an ambitious agenda that will also tackle
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
1
the effectiveness of philanthropy as a system. Exactly what role we will assume remains to be seen, though a vision is described later in this paper.
Process for Developing the Theory of Change As the movement grew, both in terms of members and ambition, it became clear that we needed to develop a theory of change that would guide the organization and clearly articulate our purpose to the field. Shortly after the GEO/GEN merger, GEO established a working group of the board that included representatives from the former GEN steering committee. The team’s primary charge was to lead the development of GEO’s theory of change and to inform subsequent evaluation activities. The team developed this theory of change through a process that included a series of face-to-face meetings and conference calls. In between meetings, team members and other board members provided input on important questions through written reflections. Once a draft was constructed, the full board met to discuss the theory of change and make suggestions. Since then drafts have been shared with many colleagues whose comments have been incorporated.
III. Assumptions and Core Beliefs Our understanding of the meaning of “effectiveness” is dynamic and evolving. GEO’s working definition of organizational effectiveness is the ability of an organization to fulfill its mission by measurably achieving its objectives through a blend of sound management, strong governance and a persistent rededication to assessing and achieving results. While GEO’s leadership has made remarkable progress toward clarifying our theory of change, this work is by no means complete: As thinking in the field continues to evolve, so too will our theory of change. The following section captures assumptions and core beliefs inherent to this theory of change.
Nonprofit and Funder Effectiveness As discussed earlier, GEO’s agenda consists of nonprofit organizational effectiveness as well as funder effectiveness, which includes the effectiveness of philanthropy as a system. The importance of this dual focus can be articulated in a number of ways, the most prevalent of which is that funders need to “walk the talk” in order to be credible. Beyond increased credibility, funders and nonprofits are part of a single system. Ineffective philanthropy distorts nonprofits’ budgets and timelines. Effective philanthropy supports good nonprofit management, growth and planning. Inherent in this perspective is that funders enhance nonprofit effectiveness through changes in their own behavior. Addressing the effectiveness of only one part of the system would never result in the magnitude of change for which we strive. Further supporting this position is data from the 2003 GEO member survey indicating that a majority of GEO members are equally interested in both nonprofit and funder effectiveness.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
2
GEO sees our role as endeavoring to improve the effectiveness of the nonprofit sector through a focus on effective philanthropy. A corollary to this point is that attention to the organizational effectiveness of nonprofits is an essential component of effective philanthropy.
The Role of Capacity Building in Effective Grantmaking Closely related to the question of our focus is the role of capacity building in effectiveness. Support for nonprofit capacity building occupies a privileged place in GEO’s theory of change. There are many ways funders support nonprofit capacity. Grants awarded specifically to support capacity building are only one of many strategies. Other strategies include providing general operating support, offering formal and informal technical assistance and brokering relationships between grantees and more sophisticated nonprofits or technical assistance providers. Every funder must pay attention to grantee strength and performance if it is to be effective. Funders may choose to be involved in capacity building in different ways. However, the most effective funders will take an active interest in the capacity of their grantees and work with them to secure appropriate capacity-building support.
Incremental Change and Systems Change Philanthropy’s most constraining challenge is the fragmentation of the field. The lack of systems for coordination, collective action, learning and knowledge management leads to duplication of effort, and philanthropy’s potential is never realized. We are convinced that we should focus on systems change as a means of meaningfully improving the performance of the sector. The clear challenge to GEO is to position ourselves to provide leadership that looks beyond individual institutions to the field as a whole. Therefore, GEO will work on both fronts. Certain activities will target change within organizations and other activities will target change within the broader field of philanthropy.
Motivating Change in People Whether in systems or within individual organizations, we must create change. How can GEO inspire grantmakers — institutions that currently have no external incentive to improve their internal effectiveness — to adopt effective philanthropic practices? We believe that increasing knowledge and awareness of effective funder practices is a necessary but insufficient approach to changing behaviors within funders toward increasing effectiveness. Beyond knowledge and awareness, behavior change is motivated by Attitudes, norms and intentions; Opportunities to feel a sense of belonging or worth and access to new and diverse information; Appropriate timing and approach for unveiling an innovative concept; and Powerful messaging to “sell” the behavior, including a marketing plan, clear message, use of mass media and consensus building. Acknowledging that additional actions beyond increasing knowledge are necessary for changing behavior, GEO will engage in a range of activities that target organizations at different stages of awareness of, and readiness to adopt, effective practices.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
3
Motivating Change in Organizations Transformational change in organizations is perilous business. Organizations that do not manage change effectively risk growing less relevant and effective. Success depends on an understanding of social contexts, various tested and untested solutions to complex social issues and the competencies of a range of potential actors. Mistrust, resentment and fear within an organization will hamper the free-flow of knowledge that is essential to knowledge-based fields such as philanthropy. The good news, however, is that understanding where resistance comes from and how it disrupts change efforts suggests strategies for overcoming it. Those strategies can be loosely organized into four areas: vision, communication, engagement and fair process.
Vision. Effective visions inspire people by suggesting new possibilities and better ways of achieving important goals. Communication. A vision is only useful for countering resistance when it is effectively communicated. Clear and consistent communication is imperative during the entire change process. Engagement. Leaders must go beyond communication and open their process to include stakeholders in a meaningful way. Authentically soliciting input from stakeholders requires that leaders be willing to revise their visions when presented with new ideas and information. Fair Process. Closely related to themes of communication and engagement is fair process. In knowledge-based organizations, the importance of fair process is even greater because value creation depends increasingly on ideas and innovations.
IV. GEO’s Theory of Change Three Spheres of Influence, Three Areas of Activity GEO’s theory of change is organized around three distinct spheres of influence: GEO members, all grantmaking organizations and philanthropy as a system. GEO strives to create change simultaneously within multiple spheres of influence. This multi-tiered strategy allows GEO to provide a vision around which members of the organizational effectiveness movement can galvanize while maintaining focus on incremental and therefore measurable objectives aligned with that broad vision. There are four distinct roles GEO will play to create change within each sphere of influence: 1. Convener: Bringing together peers, leaders and allies to discuss issues related to effective organizations and effective philanthropy will nurture the development of norms, peer-to-peer networks and collective action. 2. Synthesizer: GEO can add value by identifying the best information and knowledge available and synthesizing it to make it broadly accessible. 3. Originator: Through strategic partnerships, GEO can develop knowledge and services that fill identified needs. 4. Activist/Advocate: Through various forums, GEO leaders and members can advocate for increased attention and resources for improving the effectiveness of grantmaking and nonprofit organizations.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
4
GEO is but one actor among a large and diverse set working to reform philanthropy. GEO models a systems-level approach by recognizing our own strengths as well as those of colleague organizations and by constantly looking for opportunities to collaborate with the best thinkers in the field.
GEO’s Spheres of Influence As we undertake this multi-tiered agenda, we’re first getting clear about where we have direct influence as well as where the most strategic opportunities exist. The following diagram represents the degrees of connection GEO has to the organizations and sectors it seeks to influence. Depicted on the following page, these spheres of influence include the following, progressing from the core to the outer rim: 1. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations is an organization that supports a community of individual grantmakers and grantmaking institutions. The distributed nature of the organization is important. 2. GEO’s most direct influence is on its members. Members attend GEO’s conference, participate in an online discussion list and have access to in-depth information through GEO’s Web site. 3. GEO reaches the field of philanthropy as a whole through activities designed to advocate for capacity building and organizational effectiveness practices. 4. Ultimately, through their work as grantmakers, GEO members and others seek to enhance the capacity and effectiveness of organizations in the nonprofit sector. In the coming years, GEO will develop a range of programs and services that meet the needs of grantmakers regardless of where they are with respect to their own organizational effectiveness practices. GEO programming and evaluation efforts will differ for those that are highly engaged in effective practices (“Ring 2a”) as compared to those who are in the process of understanding and changing organizational behavior to become more effective (“Ring 2b”). Sample indicators of motivation include: 1) assessment of own impact; 2) assessment of grantee impact; 3) approach to building capacity and supporting organizational effectiveness; and 4) length of time involved in organizational effectiveness work. One way in which the graphic depiction appears misleading is in depicting increasing involvement with GEO as being equal to or synonymous with becoming more effective. Of course this is not a real equation. The intent is for grantmakers to become increasingly involved in organizational effectiveness exploration whether or not it is through the GEO community.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
5
Spheres of GEO’s Organizational Influence (1) Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) is a community of individual and organizational grantmakers.
4 The Nonprofit Sector
(2) GEO’s closest relationship and most direct influence is on its members. Members attend and contribute to GEO’s conferences, participate in listserv and share and have access to reports and tools through GEO’s Web site.
3 The Field of Philanthropy
2b GEO Members Becoming Engaged
Communities
Communities
2a Highly Engaged GEO Members All Grantmakers, GEO Outcome Objective: Move grantmakers from Ring 3 to 2b and from 2b to 2a
Foundations and Other Funders
1 GEO
Individual Grantmakers
All Grantmakers and the networks that support them
Grantees
(3) GEO reaches the field of philanthropy as a whole through some of its activities — particularly when we serve as an advocate for reform or work to increase the coordination among funder networks.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
Other Nonprofit Organizations
(4) By focusing on improving their own practice, GEO members and others enhance the effectiveness of organizations in the nonprofit sector.
NOTE: GEO programming and evaluation efforts will differ for members that are highly engaged with effective practices (“Ring 2a”) as compared to those who are in the process of understanding and changing organizational behavior to become more effective (“Ring 2b”).
6
Membership GEO’s credibility is directly tied to its success as a coalition of grantmakers committed to the effectiveness of the sector. For any movement to be successful, it must continually prove to its constituents that it is relevant and provides value. Success in this sphere of influence is defined by the presence of active and enduring membership and the strength of GEO as an organization.
Membership Vision As a funder network working to reform philanthropy, GEO will model effective practice and attract an active and enduring membership committed to continual improvement.
Understanding success within the membership sphere is straightforward. The three short-term outcomes that lead to an active and enduring membership are: 1. GEO members are satisfied; 2. Strong participation in each GEO activity; and 3. GEO is seen as a model of effective practice. Activities GEO Will Undertake to Achieve Outcomes The most important and effective strategy for achieving the desired outcomes in this sphere is for GEO to do all of its other work well. Successful programs and services will satisfy existing members and draw new members to the movement. That said, there are two broad areas for GEO to focus on to achieve success within the membership sphere. Raising Visibility for Organizational Effectiveness Issues Very much related to other communications efforts, GEO will need to ensure that it has a strong, visible presence in the field in order to draw attention to the importance of organizational effectiveness issues. Having a clear and consistent message about organizational effectiveness issues and even a “brand” for GEO organizational effectiveness products are particularly important. Aligning Programs and Services with Members’ Needs and Interests While GEO strives to be a leadership organization with a bold agenda, we cannot lose touch with what members want. It is imperative that we continually seek input and involvement from members to guide the development of programs and services that are responsive to members’ needs and interests. Vision for Grantmaking All Grantmaking Organizations Organizations For all grantmaking organizations, regardless of membership status, GEO’s efforts target behavior and practice. ln this sphere, success is GEO will encourage and assist defined by an increase in the number of effective grantmaking grantmakers as they adopt and maintain practices that increase their organizational organizations. Effectiveness is a relative term, and all organizations effectiveness and enhance their ability to fall somewhere along a continuum that ranges from ineffective to achieve their goals and mission. highly effective. GEO is concerned both with the overall number of organizations that achieve a high standard of effectiveness and the degree to which organizations increase their effectiveness, regardless of where along the continuum they fall.
A Developing Framework of Effective Philanthropy Defining “organizational effectiveness” is, of course, a complex matter. For grantmaking organizations, effectiveness is inexorably linked to the effectiveness of grantee organizations. Some practices, such as capacity building, have a direct link to improving the organizational effectiveness of grantees. Whatever the particular practice, its success ultimately must be judged by how well it assists nonprofits to achieve their missions.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
7
To clarify its own understanding of organizational effectiveness, GEO is in the process of developing a working framework for defining the concept. Other organizations and collaboratives are currently working on frameworks of effective philanthropy. To avoid duplication of effort and contribute to consistency within the field, GEO will collaborate with the organizations already engaged in this pursuit. Extensive testing and vetting with as many stakeholders as possible will be important before any framework is adopted. Outcome Objectives for All Grantmaking Organizations For GEO to achieve success within the sphere of all grantmaking organizations, members and other organizations need to adopt and maintain specific practices and values. GEO will have achieved success when members and other organizations improve their organizational effectiveness. Because GEO does not have direct influence over other institutions, it must identify and accomplish short-term outcomes that support and motivate positive behavior change in other institutions. GEO is focused on achieving five short-term outcomes that will influence grantmaking organizations to adopt improved philanthropic practices and achieve greater organizational effectiveness. 1. Grantmakers have a clear understanding of core competencies of effective philanthropy and increased knowledge of organizational effectiveness issues. Before grantmakers can be expected to improve their practices, they must first have a solid understanding of what effective philanthropy is, why it is important and how it can be achieved. 2. Grantmakers are aware of and have access to effective tools and strategies that support effective philanthropy. Grantmakers are more likely to change their behavior if they have access to effective tools and strategies that support good philanthropic practices. 3. Grantmakers support nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Effective grantmaking organizations take into account the capacity of their nonprofit partners and provide support to enhance their effectiveness. One important way funders can support nonprofit effectiveness is to evaluate their own practices and requirements through the lens of how they impact grantees. 4. Grantmaking organizations demonstrate their commitment to foundation effectiveness. An effective grantmaking organization not only considers the capacity and effectiveness of grantees but also examines and improves internal capacity and practices. 5. There exists a thriving community of practice that supports organizational effectiveness. As important as knowledge, tools and strategies are, it is the development of new norms among grantmakers that represent GEO’s most powerful lever for influencing behavior. Activities GEO Will Undertake to Achieve Outcomes Almost all of GEO’s activities have a strong educational component and therefore support greater understanding of core competencies and increased knowledge of organizational effectiveness issues. Many of these same educational activities highlight specific tools and strategies, therefore supporting the achievement of the second outcome. Developing a thriving community of practice — arguably the most important of these outcomes because of its ability to affect norms and create social ties — is also the most difficult to achieve. GEO’s well-attended and highly regarded conference is the most relevant of GEO’s activities for supporting this outcome. Other activities that provide opportunities for members to connect and stay connected, such as the electronic newsletters and online discussion lists, are also useful for achieving this outcome. As mentioned earlier, GEO can target different activities to grantmakers that are at different stages of readiness for behavior change. Activities that would support the achievement of these outcomes include:
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
8
Highlight experiences in pursuing excellence in philanthropic effectiveness through the presentation of case studies. GEO has already experimented with this strategy by focusing on the effective use of evaluation. Exploring both success and frustration can teach grantmakers many lessons, creating greater awareness of the core competencies of effective philanthropy and providing fodder for new strategies.
Recognize excellence in philanthropy through an awards program or other type of incentive. This would raise awareness of organizational effectiveness issues and also help to create a community of practice by providing an event that could bring people together and help shape norms. Coupled with a public media component, it would provide an incentive for grantmakers to strive for excellence.
Match a team of experts in the field with organizations interested in enhancing their effectiveness and that of their grantees through peer review or mentoring programs.
Convene foundation CEOs, matching those that are interested in substantially reforming their practice and their institutions with those that have successfully done so.
Philanthropy as a System GEO’s Vision for Philanthropy as a System Defining Success For philanthropy as a system, GEO will work to develop greater GEO will be a leader in moving the field of philanthropy toward greater strategic coherence. Making improvements in the way individual grantmaking cooperation among grantmaking organizations operate is important to improving the effectiveness of organizations and a more deliberate system philanthropy. But for philanthropy to see real gains in effectiveness, of funder networks and collaboratives to achieve the greatest social good. those institutions with shared missions and common goals need to increase their level and quality of coordination and cooperation. Improvements in this area include greater sharing of information, coordinated funding decisions and a general reduction of fragmentation of the field. Thus, success is defined by growth in practice of strategic cooperation and collaboration among grantmaking organizations with complementary missions to leverage change for the greatest social good.1 A more rational and coordinated system will directly impact the effectiveness of the nonprofits that grantmakers support. By facilitating the sharing of information around a particular topic and creating venues where funders can come together to find common ground, the very existence of networks, such as GEO, is a strategy for improving effectiveness of the system. New approaches to public problem solving are emerging as the government, business, nonprofit, and philanthropic sectors work together. While GEO does not hold itself accountable for creating change in the public or commercial sectors, it does believe that improvements in philanthropy as a system will help position philanthropy to play a more effective role in cross sector efforts to solve problems. Outcome Objectives for Philanthropy as a System GEO’s short- and long-term outcome objectives for activities targeting philanthropy as a system include Long-Term Outcome:
1
Grantmaking organizations with complementary missions will act together and with their grantees to leverage change for the greatest social good.
One challenge that GEO must consider in pursuing activities related to the systems-level goal is that grantmaking organizations can have opposing views of what constitutes “social good.” For example, a grantmaking organization supporting “right to life” groups will not coordinate activities in a constructive and aligned way with a grantmaking organization supporting pro-choice groups.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
9
Short-Term Outcome:
Growth in practice of strategic cooperation and collaboration among grantmaking organizations with complementary missions, as indicated by Increased quality and impact of funder networks; Increased pooled grantmaking for organizational effectiveness; Increased collaborative planning; and Increased knowledge sharing and the development of coordinated systems for knowledge management.
Increased cooperation is complex and comes with potential downsides including the potential for funders to develop a “herd mentality,” where due diligence and strategy are entirely abdicated to the network. Similarly, cooperative grantmaking may make it more difficult for new nonprofits to get a foothold. When working collaboratively it is important that grantmakers remain accountable for the quality and impact of their work and be willing to take risks. Coordination should never come at the expense of innovation. Activities GEO Will Undertake to Achieve Outcomes Undoubtedly, achieving impact within the system presents GEO with the most significant challenges given the number of external factors that can interfere. In its work on the system of philanthropy, it is GEO’s intent to promote the importance of strategic cooperation — in both grantmaking and knowledge creation — and to develop programs and services that create opportunities for members and others to join forces.
V. Evaluation and Measurement GEO’s evaluation plan establishes a process and measurement system for tracking the effectiveness of our activities in order to include the voice of GEO members and others in providing continual feedback to the organization, maintain a profile of individual and organizational members, provide data for the day-to-day management of the organization, assess progress towards desired objectives and outcomes, and inform program development and strategic direction.
Evaluation Principles and Measurement Focus GEO’s evaluation plan is grounded in the following principles that inform the focus of measurement activities: Evaluation is the use of information for reflection and planning. While in recent years evaluation has taken on significant weight and meaning in the sector, GEO believes that in its purest form evaluation is integral to information-based decision making and planning. Program evaluation and organizational performance assessment are both important. By conducting ongoing program evaluation across nearly all service offerings, GEO will be able to gauge effectiveness in terms of the roles it plays — convener, synthesizer, originator and advocate. In addition GEO will engage in periodic — perhaps every three to five years — organizational performance and capacity assessment, building on existing program and performance assessment evaluation activities.
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
10
Process evaluation and outcomes evaluation are both important. Our evaluation plan includes both process and outcomes evaluation, providing indicators and a measurement plan for collecting both types of information. Evaluation activities should be scaled to fit staff capacity and resource availability. While we strive to hold ourselves accountable to all our desired outcomes, we can only conduct as much evaluation research as is possible with current funding and capacity. Evaluation planning is a living process. As the organization evolves over time, new activities and outcomes may emerge. We will update the evaluation plan to remain consistent with the program and organizational plan. Furthermore, as our evaluation data grows, we will use it to reassess benchmarks and make adjustments so that objectives remain ambitious yet attainable.
GEO’s evaluation plan contains the following components: Summary of Existing GEO Evaluation Activities — an overview of the evaluation activities that GEO has undertaken to date; GEO’s Logic Model At a Glance — a graphic depiction, based on the theory of change, of the relationship between GEO’s activities and anticipated short- and long-term outcomes; Key Process Indicators — a brief summary of the key data elements that GEO will track on a regular basis to have access to up-to-date information about services provided and participants in programs and services; Outcomes Measurement Plan — a matrix of GEO activities with recommended evaluation methods associated with each; Next Steps in GEO’s Evaluation Planning Process — a list of action steps for GEO to take to continue advancing the organization’s evaluation capacity and readiness; and Summary of Available Baseline Evaluation Data — a synthesis of baseline results from GEO’s inaugural member survey, conducted in June 2003. A full copy of GEO’s evaluation plan is available upon request.
VI. Conclusion In a time characterized by growing social needs, economic instability and increased scrutiny, maintaining the status quo is no longer an option for funders. Recognizing the need for a better future for philanthropy, GEO’s board of directors undertook a process to better understand and articulate the role we are positioned to play in improving the funders’ impact. Although admittedly ambitious, our theory of change relies on the investment and participation of the hundreds of organizations already engaged in this work. It is our hope that by working together, GEO, its member organizations and the rest of the philanthropic sector can move the field toward greater strategic collaboration and expanded impact to achieve the greatest social good.
Grantmakers for Effective Organizations is a community of grantmakers dedicated to building strong and effective organizations. Through research, its Web site, publications and other activities, GEO highlights knowledge and practices in the field that advance the organizational effectiveness movement. More information about GEO and a host of resources and links for funders is available at www.geofunders.org. Contact GEO at
[email protected].
GEO Theory of Change © 2003
11
