Philanthropic support takes many forms. It can fund nonprofit programs that provide services directly to those in need; increase the capacity of systems so that multiple programs and organizations are more effective and efficient; support policy & advocacy initiatives that change the environment in which nonprofits work; and fund research & innovation with the potential for game-changing progress.
Across the many social impact areas our team has analyzed, philanthropic support typically falls into one or more of these four categories. Like financial investment asset classes, these categories often reflect different levels of risk, timeframes for results, and social impact returns.
To illustrate each philanthropic play, we provide examples of each. As part of our toolkit process, the following examples have undergone extensive evaluation and due diligence to ensure each solution promises real and measurable progress to accelerate social change.
Direct Services
Approximate timeframe for results
0-5 years
Risk/reward considerations
Strengths: Lower risk since generally less complex; often addresses immediate need; specific client/beneficiary outcomes are relatively easier to measure
Limitations: Doesn’t change underlying conditions or causes
Example:
Funding food pantries, homeless shelters, after school programs
System Capacity Building
Approximate timeframe for results
5+ years
Risk/reward considerations
Strengths: Potential for more sustainable change
Limitations: Higher investment risk/uncertainty of results due to greater complexity (e.g., more players with potentially competing interests and incentives); progress can be harder to measure and attribute to any one funder’s work
Examples:
Investing resources to help pediatricians address mental health among young people, providing teachers and principals with best practices in teaching literacy and materials and guidance on how to bring children up to grade level
Policy/Advocacy
Approximate timeframe for results
1-10+ years
Risk/reward considerations
Strengths: Can leverage resources of other stakeholders (e.g., government and business) in ways that lead to more widespread and sustainable change
Limitations: Higher investment risk/uncertainty of results including potential reputational/political risk; progress harder to measure
Examples:
Working to reform the criminal legal system, change clean energy policies, redesign the electoral college
Research/Innovation
Approximate timeframe for results
5-10+ years
Risk/reward considerations
Strengths: Breakthrough could lead to widespread change over the long term
Limitations: Higher investment risk/uncertainty (i.e., money and time may be spent learning only what doesn’t work)
Examples:
Fund medical research, invest in development of new technologies
Philanthropic Plays at a Glance
Entry Point
Approximate Time Frame for Results
Risk/Reward Considerations
Direct Services
0-5 years
Strengths: Lower risk since generally less complex; often addresses immediate need; specific client/beneficiary outcomes are relatively easier to measure
Limitations: Doesn’t change underlying conditions or causes
System Capacity Building
5+ years
Strengths: Potential for more sustainable change
Limitations: Higher investment/risk uncertainty of results due to greater complexity (e.g., more players with potentially competing (e.g., more player with potentially competing interests and incentives); progress can be harder to measure and attribute to any one funder’s work
Policy/Advocacy
1-10+ years
Strengths: Can leverage resources of other stakeholders (e.g., government and business) in ways that lead to more widespread and sustainable change
Limitations: Higher investment risk/uncertainty of results including potential reputational/political risk; progress harder to measure
Research/Innovation
5-10+ years
Strengths: Breakthrough could lead to widespread change over the long term
Limitations: Higher investment/risk uncertainty (i.e., money and time spent learning only what doesn’t work)