The greatest generation were output generalists;
baby boomers changed the game.
PLUS, those darn ‘baby boomers’ were maturing and becoming community leaders and successful in business. They were driving a significant change in the manner of giving, through “social entrepreneurship” and investing in “social venture capital”. The Baby Boomers generation was only 44% of the nation’s population, but they personally held 70% of the US disposable income.
baby boomers changed the game.
There are some really good reasons why I emphasize key indicators, outcomes, quantifiable results, measurable impact, and return-on-investment in grant writing. And why grant funding requests should always “begin with the end in mind”; supported by meaningful statistics describing the magnitude of need. But also why research-based documentation that supports your “dosage” is the appropriate evidence to address the problems of your primary customers. Ultimately a request for someone else's money should offer proof that "if"you do this, then "that" will result. As close to "cause and effect" as you can get.
Blame the Baby Boomer generation!
Blame the Baby Boomer generation!
Interestingly, the focus on “outcomes” within the health and human services sector is relatively new; the funder community took first real notice when emphasized by the United Way in the 1990s. This followed a long stretch of Performance Management as the evaluation tool, which seemed to focus more on process and outputs rather than solutions. It’s not that having significant results from donor investment wasn't always important, but before 'outcomes' it seemed that just doing something was accepted as sufficient, rather than actually proving the "something" did any good!
Thus the environment changed. And although gifts and grants were increasing substantially back then, so were the number and type of organizations asking for those funds. The volume of nonprofits nationally was rising at a phenomenal rate, up nearly 1,000,000 organizations just between 1990 and 2010 and it is continuing to grow, by a LOT!
PLUS, those darn ‘baby boomers’ were maturing and becoming community leaders and successful in business. They were driving a significant change in the manner of giving, through “social entrepreneurship” and investing in “social venture capital”. The Baby Boomers generation was only 44% of the nation’s population, but they personally held 70% of the US disposable income.
This was much different than the “greatest generation” before them, who donated through annual funds and unrestricted gifts; and who watched government and philanthropy spend money any way they wanted (way back when).
It’s the reverse now since more restricted giving has required a "business-like" return-on-investment approach. One that expects nonprofit programs and services to prove that it works. This is the current driving force of most of our nation’s philanthropic, corporate, and government grant-makers.
It’s the reverse now since more restricted giving has required a "business-like" return-on-investment approach. One that expects nonprofit programs and services to prove that it works. This is the current driving force of most of our nation’s philanthropic, corporate, and government grant-makers.
So here we are today facing many challenges within the health and human services sectors, often trying desperately just to attract funding for continuing operations, let alone new or enhanced ones.
At the government level, we are still suffering from significant cutbacks in discretionary funding due to the last economic downturns and more conservative budget approaches. In the private sector, although there is more charitable money to spend (due in a large part to a massive generational transfer of wealth populating philanthropies nationwide). The focus of giving is narrowed to those that can first prove a significant need, and then provide evidence that leads to solving the problem as soon as possible.
Combining all of this with intense competition within the not-for-profit sectors, it’s no wonder both public grants and private philanthropy priorities focus primarily on a research-based cause and effect approach when deciding on grants and major gifts.
At the government level, we are still suffering from significant cutbacks in discretionary funding due to the last economic downturns and more conservative budget approaches. In the private sector, although there is more charitable money to spend (due in a large part to a massive generational transfer of wealth populating philanthropies nationwide). The focus of giving is narrowed to those that can first prove a significant need, and then provide evidence that leads to solving the problem as soon as possible.
Combining all of this with intense competition within the not-for-profit sectors, it’s no wonder both public grants and private philanthropy priorities focus primarily on a research-based cause and effect approach when deciding on grants and major gifts.
