RESEARCH REPORT 2017

Grantmaking and social innovation

The landscape looks different, but nothing has changed

CSI trends in 2016

Forecasts for 2017

Recommendations for 2018

2

Section A

CSI trends in 2016

Global shifts bring new awakenings and influences

___________________________________________

Section B

Forecasts and recommendations – 2017/8

Thinking forward & reaching upward to create impact

Next Generation works primarily with grantmakers and development agencies to achieve

high impact and returns on social investments. We provide advisory, research, benchmarking, impact assessment and training services.

If you have questions, comments, suggestions, feedback or input, please contact us

– our research is informed by people like you.

Reana Rossouw rrossouw@nextgeneration.co.za | +27 11 5932316 | www.nextgeneration.co.za

3

Section A

CSI trends in 2016

Global shifts bring new awakenings and influences

1. Introduction 4

2. Donor and NGO perspectives 4

3. A review of the corporate social investor situation 5

4. The good, the bad and the ugly 5

5. Where we missed the mark 6

6. Data quality issues 6

7. The rise of social media and the heropreneur 7

8. Change is not always good 7

9. The role of community foundations 8

10. New thinking – new M&E models 9

11. New directions 9

12. In closing 10

4

CSI trends in 2016

Global shifts bring new awakenings and influences

1 INTRODUCTION

Next Generation’s research report on 2016’s trends in the grantmaking sector shows that the impact of global events

has made its presence felt. Major political and socio-economic shifts, such as the US election, Brexit, the migration

crises in Europe and the financial shortfall to reach the sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030 will have a

marked effect around the globe. The grantmaking sector in particular will feel the secondary impact of a global

awakening to patriotism and localised development, and beneficiaries will need to compete against global issues for

foreign direct investment and development aid.

In Africa, changes in political influence followed by legislative influence over the development sector will

have a far-reaching impact. In some African countries, development stakeholders are more restricted than ever, as

the social sector is seen as a risk and threat to governments. In South Africa, the political, cultural and societal

landscapes are also changing: New social issues dominate headlines, the economic recession continues and there is

enough evidence that neither education nor health nor employment is addressed adequately.

2 DONOR AND NGO PERSPECTIVES

From a donor perspective, the biggest societal issues in 2016 were inequality and economic disparity. Donors' main

challenge was developing solutions and programmes and obtaining quality data to inform strategic direction.

Current constraints include inefficient organisational structures, complicated governance, compliance and

reporting systems, and ineffective data management. The future focus will likely be on making more impact with less

resources, finding more effective solutions to systemic issues and developing long-term, holistic programmes to

address systems change and achieve scale.

For NGOs, education, skills development, employment creation and youth unemployment were the most

important societal issues. Their biggest challenges remain finding new revenue sources, generating own income and

determining a future value proposition. Other important issues include innovation (new approaches and

programmes), better skills and infrastructure, compensation, managing growth and improved research and data

management.

5

Current constraints include existing funding models, increased competition, ineffective fundraising, imbalanced

power relationships and the need to earn own revenue with a lack of organisational capacity and resources (financial

and human). Future focus should be on becoming better at marketing and communication, and improving the ability

to collaborate with other NGOs.

3 A REVIEW OF THE CORPORATE SOCIAL INVESTOR SITUATION

Extensive research reveals that:

Less than 1% of corporate funders updated their websites last year.

Less than 2% of corporates can provide evidence of the social value that is added to the business through CSI.

Less than 3% of corporates are reporting according to the GRI guidelines.

Less than 4% of corporates have increased their budgets last year.

Less than 5% of corporates have formal monitoring, evaluation or impact processes, systems, frameworks or

guidelines.

Less than 6% of corporates pay all programme-related expenses, including operational expenses.

Less than 7% of corporates conduct annual stakeholder engagement.

Less than 8% of corporates use baseline studies, conduct social surveys or have clearly developed theories of

change and practice.

Less than 9% of corporates have formally engaged with their intermediaries or beneficiaries.

Less than 10% of corporates have conducted any external evaluation or impact assessments.

4 THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

In 2016, we witnessed a makeover of investment and development portfolios. Funders had to reduce budgets, and

therefore focus areas and programmes. They now group programmes together in a single portfolio, supposedly

according to outcomes and not stakeholders or investment themes.

Grantmakers were noticeably absent from social discourse, discussion, engagement and public debate,

notwithstanding increasing strikes, protests and general civil unrest. For instance, no funder publicly stepped up to

support or contribute to the #feesmustfall campaign.

6

5 WHERE WE MISSED THE MARK

While funders agreed on priority challenges (the demise of the education and health sectors), they preferred to

repeat past behaviour while expecting different results. Of concern is the failure of industry stakeholders to grasp

the complexities of interconnected systems. The cost of education, lacking resources, lower pass rates and high drop-

out rates continue to make this the most complex sector in which to prove impact.

High unemployment, increased social grant dependency, intensified activism among the youth and growing

inequality across society indicate a system that not only failed, but collapsed. The silo approach by social investors

and grantmakers, the limited impact of underfunded NPOs and NGOs, the underestimated value of social justice

organisations, the sector’s lack of political influence and active leadership to develop interventions that are aimed at

systems change are obvious through numerous misaligned strategies and interventions with little or no impact.

The sector is systematically failing society with little ability to anticipate, adapt or leverage the changing

environment, with ill-designed interventions and low-impact, short-term programmes. The lack of knowledge, expert

resources and experience as well as ignorance about real issues that communities must deal with contribute to

poverty and inequality. New networks, systems and organisations are required that should be adaptive, non-linear,

self-organising and as complex as the issues they deal with.

6 DATA QUALITY ISSUES

The increased pressure for credible and comparable data through monitoring and evaluation has led to poor quality

data. Outcome indicators do not match activities or output, resulting in an inability to show measurable progress,

even when it exists, as in the health sector.

While more data is collected, several issues impact on its usability:

The overemphasis on quantitative data leads to distorted reporting, with unrealistic solutions and strategies.

The lack of qualitative data leads to uninformed and misaligned programmes, with unrealistic expectations of

measurable change.

The lack of synthesised, analysed and meaningful data contributes to ill-designed and poorly executed

programmes.

The lack of experience/capacity and performance management skills are slowly killing the sector.

7

The practice of performance measurement is ill-understood and because of a lack of proper data analysis and action,

monitoring and evaluation have become meaningless. Results are measured over periods that are typically too short

(usually annually) because programmes are implemented and funded according to short-term cycles. There is little

evidence that data is used for learning or effective decision-making, so data collection only contributes to wasted

effort, time and resources.

7 THE RISE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE HEROPRENEUR

Social media is fast growing to be a critical part of effective social change efforts, locally as well as globally. Vehicles

such as crowdfunding, social causes and social platforms have all started to play roles in effecting social change.

Online giving platforms with opportunities for volunteerism, collective and individual giving have made every citizen

part of the development sector.

An interesting phenomenon was the rise of the individual social activist – heropreneurship. Entertainers,

creatives and social interest groups have played an increasing role in making people more aware of social issues. The

next generation of social activists can organise, mobilise and inspire around specific causes, and are generally

younger. They are fearless about exposing corporate as well as government failures and will do whatever it takes to

effect real change.

Yet, corporate grantmakers do not fund individuals, most likely because individuals are not necessarily

equipped to solve global challenges and individual projects could detract from larger systemic developmental issues.

Of course, it would be better to have someone fight for a cause than not knowing about it at all. These individuals

work outside organised structures and without dedicated funds, and are still able to organise, mobilise and effect

real change.

8 CHANGE IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD

New roles and responsibilities are not necessarily good. Government is increasingly looking to business to provide

solutions and take on traditional government functions, including education, health, transport and public safety.

Grantmaking businesses are leading in areas that are usually reserved for government, including providing education,

supporting basic infrastructure (like water, sanitation and transport) and economic development (job training and

skills development).

8

These new frontiers of public/private partnerships can be seen throughout communities in ways that are

exciting as well as tragic. For example, the failure of government to protect patients, declining health services and

the inability of the development sector collectively contributed to the death of more than 100 Life Esidemeni patients

early in 2017.

The lack of clarity about the boundaries of these new frontiers, combined with the speed of change, are

brewing a dangerous alchemy of role confusion, false expectations of capacity and the potential politicisation of

grantmaking. Many of the solutions we might identify require policymaking (particularly regarding education and

health), but these changes will be hard to achieve in today’s polarised political environment. Government leaders,

grantmakers and the development industry need to clarify their role in society – they either need to be engaged in

repairing ideological divides or find ways to change policies without the help of policymakers. Thoughtful

consideration and decisive action must be taken to address the critical needs communities face in a time of social

disruption, technology-accelerating change and political dysfunction.

9 THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS

The social investment sector has created an industry that focuses on singular issues. Additionally, the funding sector

contributed to a dependent industry with little or no capacity to grow. Through our funding models, we nurtured a

cadre of contracted, professionalised civil society organisations. They excel when it comes to accountability, but

perform less well concerning disruptive social change. Advocating human rights and sustainable social justice are an

awkward fit while most donors insist on short-term, measurable projects and outcomes. It is also leaving the

organisations that may be best positioned to fight back against closing civic space under-resourced, struggling for

survival or reliant on funding.

In contrast, community-based organisations (CBOs) are gaining favour, instead of place-based or sector-

focused NGOs. The reason seems to be that they focus on local resources, leadership, buy-in and ownership, so that

communities do not act as beneficiaries, but become participants in the development process. Community

foundations, women’s funds, environmental funds and grassroots organisations work holistically, responding to a

range of interconnected issues. But very few corporates fund co-ops or collective CBOs. Foundations are also not

geared to fund other foundations.

New thinking is required to capacitate and acknowledge the importance of these new stakeholders in the

development sector. It provides an ideal opportunity for local SMEs to become part of the grantmaking sector.

9

10 NEW THINKING – NEW M&E MODELS

We are entering an era where the SDGs, the fourth industrial revolution, the future of work, the digital economy and

the human economy intersect. This is starting to influence what and how we evaluate, and may be driven by the UN’s

focus on gender-biased and human rights-based evaluation approaches.

Some of the effects include:

An emphasis on monitoring (and a lack of focus on evaluation and impact assessment) as well as a lack of treating

social development as a complex adaptive system meant that evaluation in the MDG era was unde-utilised and

did not add the value that it should have.

There is still a worldwide fixation with monitoring quantitative indicators (numbers). Those who are more

advanced are realising the importance of evaluation in the knowledge generation process (qualitative indicators)

to make better funding and development decisions.

There is an increasing realisation that evaluation must go beyond programmes and projects, such as strategic

thematic evaluations (e.g. inequality or gender), country programmes, subject-specific or outcome-specific and

transboundary influences (e.g. global value chains and policies, climate change mitigation or food/water/energy

security).

It is inevitable that technology and big data will be increasingly influential in development as well as evaluation.

Evaluation practices now include topics such as unintended consequences or negative impacts, experimentation,

adaptive management, sustaining impact, inequality/empowerment, context and resilience.

The influence of systems thinking and complexity science on theories (of change and practice) and evaluation

methods will increase. The interconnected nature of the SDGs is opening space for new thinking and innovation.

11 NEW DIRECTIONS

Food security was a major focus area in 2016, from awareness, access and self-sufficiency to access to markets,

supply channels and supplier development. Loans, grants, equipment, seed, impact investment and capacity

development all received consideration in this portfolio of investment.

In contrast, employment and job creation lost attention as donors and social investors realised how much it

costs to create a job and how difficult it is to ensure jobs at the end of a skills development process.

10

The big development of 2016 was the growth of donor-advised funds (DAFs). This trend is linked to

cooperative and collective organisations and community foundations. These structures provide opportunities for

collective fundraising, shared services such as performance management and reporting, and coordination and

prioritisation of development issues. They also encourage the channelling of funding into specific development issues

and provide outsourced services to the funding sector, ensuring a more professional and organised approach to

programme development and management, programme sourcing and collaboration.

12 IN CLOSING

Turbulence was the theme of 2016 in the grantmaking sector. New global challenges, growing social consciousness

and activism combined with funding and quality management challenges to create a new funding landscape in which

organisations need to reassess their strategy and processes while building on the foundations of their previous

successes.

11

Section B

Forecasts and recommendations – 2017/8

Thinking forward & reaching upward to create impact 1. Introduction 12 2. The task at hand 12 3. Big decisions need to be made 13 4. Big investments are required 14 5. Big return on investment 14 6. The importance of big data 15 7. Big changes ahead 15 8. New career opportunities 16 9. New structures and operations 16 10. New competencies 17 11. New discussions 17 12. The petty cash fund 17 13. Evidence has become the most valuable currency 18 14. Aligning strategies to effect change 18 15. Future sweet spots 19 16. New finance models bring change 19 17. Demographic changes 20 18. Thinking forward, reaching upward 20 19. In closing 21

12

Forecasts and recommendations – 2017/8

Thinking forward & reaching upward to create impact

1 INTRODUCTION

Next Generation’s research report on forecasts for 2017 and recommendations for 2018 in the social innovation

sector provides valuable insights into the shifting landscape of the social investment and development sector. Recent

major political and socio-economic shifts will have a marked effect around the globe and on the grantmaking sector

in particular. Social investors will need to be aware of these socio-political and economic shifts and their impact to

ensure that their social development and investment strategies remain relevant.

Social investors, donors and grantmakers want to connect, share and learn from one another’s experience,

wisdom and especially data. If we want to influence and facilitate change, we need to create opportunities for this

kind of collaboration and find the junctures that can increase our collective impact. This can include impact investing,

supporting social enterprises, grassroots grantmaking and advocacy.

2 THE TASK AT HAND

A huge challenge for the development sector is how to best use scarce resources to create maximum impact. We

must constantly strive for the most efficient and effective grantmaking system, and collaborate to avoid duplicating

grantmaker and recipient resources. We must use rapidly developing technology and consider the possibilities of

available data, while exercising caution in using it. With dramatic changes in political arenas globally, a huge challenge

for the social investment community is to protect and provide for civil society.

The research highlights three crucial challenges to achieving this:

1. Limited resources and overwhelming need

2. Too many new entrants are reinventing the wheel

3. Economic uncertainty is leading to apathy, not measurable impact

13

There is a dire need for donor education, as many donors have an outdated view of grantmaking and how charities

should work. Full recovery of operating expenses underpins a charity’s success and few donors understand that to

help communities, there is a whole operation to pay for, and the best operation might not be the one with the lowest

operating costs. Community engagement, an appetite for risk and the strategic use of technology are crucial

ingredients for successful social investment and development.

Social investors need to be aware of the impact of climate change and technological change. We must ensure

that we fund programmes that will be relevant in ten years’ time by, for instance, developing an understanding where

future jobs will be. We must raise awareness of the importance of sustainable food systems and food security, we

need to consider issues like water and energy and the need for these in social projects.

The biggest challenge for social investors is to become more effective. It’s easy to ask the development sector

to merge, collaborate and measure, but the same issues of scale, scope, lack of mission clarity, lack of measurement

and capacity also limit the impact of the grantmaking sector. Much of grantmakers’ toolbox was designed in a

different time and does not readily embrace the scale and complexity of our time. We need to see more real

conversations about the type of society we want and what it will take to achieve that.

3 BIG DECISIONS NEED TO BE MADE

More focus on crowdfunding: Crowdfunding is a tool for raising funds, but not for ongoing revenue. Organisations

must be strategic when they use crowdfunding, but at the same time it has become very powerful.

Decreasing power of overheads: Funders should focus on outcomes rather than overheads. “Pay what it takes”

and “Pay for success” models are required, rather than “Pay to implement” models.

Importance of performance and evidence: More effective performance management systems must be developed

and we need to understand the relevance of various methods to measure impact (quantitatively and

qualitatively) and become better equipped to deal with big data.

Recognise the importance of funding advocacy: Grantmakers have become reluctant to fund advocacy and social

justice organisations. Yet, they have become critically important in defending the human rights of civil society,

tackling issues of democracy and focusing the attention of society on critical policy failures. More must be done

to support these organisations.

14

4 BIG INVESTMENTS ARE REQUIRED

There is a need for a shift from a portfolio and programme focus to a systems approach. To achieve this, the

following key elements should be noted:

Addressing inequality and unemployment is critical for a sustainable future for all.

Funders must become more adept at using data as a driver for change – money is spent on programmes to tackle

poverty, but it is not clear how many lives are transformed and what the outcomes of these programmes are.

Forget about input and output – focus on outcomes and impact.

Don’t focus on the intention to alleviate poverty – shed light on the results of systems change.

Data needs to be qualified, quantified and analysed to end poverty and inequality over the long term.

Share results and outcomes – everyone needs to benefit from information that could lead to systems change.

5 BIG RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Many funders have come to understand the importance of determining the impact of their interventions and are

now moving forward to understand the return on investment of their interventions and investment strategies.

These funders use their social investments to generate different forms of capital, most notably social,

relationship/network and intellectual capital. Capital creation is considered from a funder perspective as well as the

resources invested viewpoint. Return on investment can only be determined because they are clear on the difference

they want to make, via explicit theories of practice and change and which systems they want to influence, through

rigorous assessment of outcomes (evaluation) and impact assessment. They are also clear on which social issues they

want to address – through vigorous research. Their clear understanding of how their organisational sustainability is

linked to the sustainability of their social investments (return on investment) is key.

15

6 THE IMPORTANCE OF BIG DATA

Funders that influence systems change realise that they can only achieve that because they have effective

performance management systems. These systems allow them to generate data that lead to efficient decision-

making, coming from an adaptive learning approach. To learn, they need data from assessments – management,

organisational, portfolio, programme, grantee, stakeholder, perception, impact and return, impact and opportunity,

risk and governance/compliance, and due diligence assessments.

7 BIG CHANGES AHEAD

To avoid reputational risk, funders are placing a higher priority on due diligence and are becoming more sophisticated

in their approach. Various information management tools are used in the due diligence process, from sales-based to

customer relations management software. Unfortunately, there is reluctance to share due diligence procedures. Our

research indicated a focus on risk, specifically reputational, financial and contextual risks, as well as low-impact and

low-return risks.

In developing partnerships, funders are moving away from traditional partnership configurations that tended

to be donor-led, transactional and short-term. Organisations are investigating ways to propel existing collaborations

with business to a higher level, for example by moving from contractual assignments or co-funding projects to core

business collaborations.

There is a desire to go beyond 2-year to 5-year project timeframes and to develop longer relationships and a

wider spectrum of collaborations. This includes investing months or even years in preparatory discussions to build

relationships before forming partnerships.

Donors are also exploring new funding procedures and vehicles. A new trend is the use of innovation funds

(generally in the form of competitions) to support early-stage, high-risk ventures. New funding mechanisms tend to

be open to a variety of stakeholders and sectors, and offer different types of financial support, including non-grant

instruments that fuel different types of organisations and programmes.

16

8 NEW CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

Non-profits realise that they need to form new relationships and reconsider traditional roles and responsibilities. An

exciting development is the appointment of business development/relationship managers.

Previously, funders recruited from the NGO sector to bring in specific sector and subject expertise. Now NGOs

are recruiting and appointing staff with corporate/business experience to oversee private sector/funder

engagement.

These relationship managers are regular contact points for strategic and donor partners. Key benefits to this

approach include better knowledge retention about partners, formalising responsibilities to develop deeper and

longer-term relationships, and a lower bureaucratic burden for business partners. In addition to individual roles and

responsibilities, the structure and functions of units and teams also changed. Private sector engagement units or

competency centres have been created or expanded. There is also an increasing trend to work through cross-

functional teams, as different units become involved in business engagement and development.

9 NEW STRUCTURES AND OPERATIONS

To facilitate the execution of new roles, several organisations are building staff skills and experience, have brought

in new expertise and promoted buy-in into new ways of working.

Organisations have developed a variety of mechanisms to build staff skills and experience, e.g. staff training,

including specialised roles, such as M&E managers or subject experts regarding fields like education.

Several organisations have changed recruitment strategies to bring in external specialist expertise, also from

different sectors, and distinguish between leadership and technical roles. Beyond specific technical knowledge,

engagement requires people with critical thinking, the ability to network and communicate effectively, as well as the

willingness and flexibility to experiment with new approaches and to take calculated risks.

17

10 NEW COMPETENCIES

It is an increasing priority for organisations to invest in market analysis and research in the sectors and regions

where they work for the following reasons:

• Research skills and competencies will probably become the most sought-after skill for funders.

• Research as well as evaluation competency will prove to be a powerful combination.

11 NEW DISCUSSIONS

Discussions in the development sector used to be primarily about financial resources.

• For funders, particularly business and corporate investors, everything now starts with a high-level strategic

discussion around business objectives and strategy.

• For development agencies and intermediaries, the challenge is to present their organisations in a way that is

relevant to the funder’s business.

• For recipient communities, the challenge is to show support for the funder, highlighting the commitment, buy-

in and support for the specific development initiative. It is about commitment to take responsibility, ownership

and accountability for an intervention after a funder exits.

12 THE PETTY CASH FUND

Funders are starting to recognise that they need to plan for and fund their own operations and programme-related

expenses. Evidence related to this involves the percentage of fund allocations to M&E, research and development,

marketing and communication activities. Operating expenses now account for about 15% per annum of the total

budget. A trend towards flexible funding mechanisms can also be observed in NGOs. Several NGOs have used saved

investment funds to:

• Diversify own sources of finance, e.g. business development

• Develop new products and services, e.g. diversifying and outsourcing

• Attract new sources of funds, e.g. consulting, research, publications and fundraising

18

13 EVIDENCE HAS BECOME THE MOST VALUABLE CURRENCY

In a time of reduced budgets and increased demand for services, there is a growing need for an evidence-based

approach to policy development and practice. All actors in the development sector play a key role in delivering

services that meet the needs of vulnerable communities and can contribute to developing the evidence base about

what works, and how and why it works. It is vital that organisations have the knowledge, skills and resources they

need to generate useful evidence about their work and use this evidence to inform internal as well as external policy

and practice.

This evidence must:

• Be robust, relevant and solve a problem

• Use an appropriate balance of quantitative and qualitative data

• Draw from a wide range of available data and research methodologies

• Be up to date, timely and use current data

• Demonstrate the efficacy of development approaches

• Be clear, reasonable and shouldn’t overclaim

• Be honest about its limitations

14 ALIGNING STRATEGIES TO EFFECT CHANGE

Funders have big decisions to make about future strategies.

14.1 IMPACT-FOCUSED VERSUS MISSION-FOCUSED MODELS

Impact is the bottom line of the social sector. It answers the question “What difference are you making?” and focuses

squarely on the "why", while mission narrowly focuses on the "who". Mission, on the other hand, is more about the

individual organisation. Impact is realised by many and mission is achieved by one. While mission statements still

serve an important role, vision and impact statements zoom in on solving social problems collectively. The questions

organisations need to ask themselves are: What do you want to do? What difference do you want to make? Solve an

issue, change a system, or only focus on a cause?

19

14.2 RESULTS-DRIVEN VERSUS PROGRAMME-DRIVEN

In the 20th century, non-profits sold programmes to public and private funders. In the 21st century, funders want to

buy results and change. To move the poverty/inequality needle, the social sector should think beyond traditional

programmes towards addressing systemic issues and challenges. New approaches and models of development as

well as funding should be considered. The sector requires more layered approaches, such as socio-economic-

ecological models, as well as collaborative, collective and stakeholder-based models.

15 FUTURE SWEET SPOTS

For business funder, future social investment strategies should be integrated and aligned to business strategies.

There are four business overlaps to consider – business goals, community needs, employee interests and compliance

requirements. Successful integration of these four aspects into social investment strategies create shared and

blended value. When it comes to measuring the shared and blended value, different capitals are affected that can

be measured. These include economic, environmental/natural and social capital as well as political, cultural and

manufactured capital.

16 NEW FINANCE MODELS BRING CHANGE

16.1 INVESTOR VERSUS DONOR MODEL

Donors want a one-time, feel-good transaction, while investors want to play the long game with non-profits. Many

social sector organisations are now considering shifting to fully embracing relationship fundraising and social

entrepreneurship models.

16.2 SUSTAINABLE VERSUS BOOTSTRAPPED MODEL

For years, non-profits have been thrifty, to the detriment of their causes. Capital investments can make non-profits

stronger, more efficient and better able to attract and retain talent. The trend towards sustainable development,

which focuses on building well-run, well-equipped organisations (for-profits) that allocate resources to their most

efficient use must be rewarded and recognised.

20

16.3 ENTREPRENEURIAL VERSUS RISK-AVERSE MODEL

If the development sector fails, we also fail society, and communities carry the highest risk. In the social sector, we

often play it safe to avoid risk. There has been a shift led by social entrepreneurs to take on more risk and try bold,

innovative ideas through new funding models such as impact investing, crowdfunding, venture capital and social

impact bonds that reward success. Funders now have an opportunity to allocate more money toward risk capital for

game changing and innovative ideas.

17 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES

The changing demographic of society has had its own impact on our sector. Younger people are not just entering the

workspace – they have different ideas about social giving, development and impact.

• They want to be involved, and not just as volunteers.

• They want to see change and are aspirational and success-driven.

• They give differently, outside of the established sector through for-profit entities.

• It’s serious business – it’s a career.

• They are ambitious, expect a return on investment and big impact.

Bearing in mind that the average age of grantmakers/givers and employees in non-profits are 40+, it isn't hard to

understand the difference in ideas between these two groups.

18 THINKING FORWARD AND REACHING UPWARD

There is a dire need to collect new, better and more comparable data about our industry, and the time has come for

the academic industry to step up to the plate. We need more research about social investment and development as

an independent variable. There is rich and useful knowledge on the what and why of social development, describing

the complexities of the sector across cultures and moments of history, and that explores the intricacies of its

motivations and determinants.

21

As we advance in the social value chain, the processes in which social investment and development create

value become less clear, and the impact on other spheres of human activity is under-researched and controversial.

This opens opportunities for new agendas of critical scholarship on the effects of social investment and development

on policymaking, the economy and society, including the impact on beneficiaries and broader communities, which

will undoubtedly broaden the practical appeal and implications of the field.

Practitioners and policymakers want more and improved knowledge about social investment and

development. We need answers to questions like how to attract investment resources, how to better govern social

development institutions, how to manage development organisations more efficiently and effectively, which

advantages social investment offers relative to other paths towards achieving socially valued goals, or how social

investment and development influence the achievement of other economic, social or policy goals.

Answering these questions will require academia to carefully listen to real-world concerns, translate them

into viable research questions, address them rigorously and report back on the results in a way that will be

understood primarily by those who will use the answers to solve real problems.

19 IN CLOSING

At the end of an extensive research and engagement period, we realised that while it is easy and exciting to identify

new practices that could be interpreted as innovative, with the potential to move the development sector forward,

we also recognise that:

• We cannot move forward to exponential change and impact until we get the basics right. Whether you are a

funder or an NGO, everything starts with strategy, followed by process and supported by structure. We must

have resilient organisations to operate and function effectively.

• We may try new approaches, but very few are scalable or replicable enough and most are simply too big for any

one actor. We should focus on what we can achieve, with the resources (financial and human) at our disposal.

• If we can provide evidence of what we have achieved, shifts have indeed occurred.

• Going forward, may we have the right organisational structures and strategies, may we invest in the right

programmes and may we know at the end of the process that we have made a difference.