Shelly KesslerAshley Snowdon

Historically, philanthropic foundations have rarely had to justifythe use of their funds as long as they were being directed to thepublic good. Recently, however, public and private funders havebeen held to a higher standard of impact, both by regulators andthe general public. In response, funders are increasinglyattempting to demonstrate the impact of their grantmaking.

Summative evaluations are helpful in showing what happenedas a result of grantmaking, but all too often the findings do notinfluence future funding—the program is over, and the donor hasmoved on to new issues or strategies. The most significant wayto increase the effectiveness of a foundation's grantmaking is tofocus on the first steps in the process: grants program design.

briefingpaper

strategies to achieve social impact

A Shift TowardStrategicGrantmaking» ppage 22

The Six Stepsof the ProgramDesign Process» ppage 331) Identify the Issue

2) ArticulateAssumptions

3) Scan the Field

4) Take Stock of YourInternal Capacity

5) Validate Your Assumptions

6) Implement, Evaluate,and Plan Again

Methods forScanning » ppage 88

A Final Word» ppage 111

Inside:

Funding for Impact:How to Design StrategicGrantmaking Programs

tcc group

Though most funders spend considerable timethinking about the issues they hope toaddress, they spend inadequate time up frontthinking through the impact they would like tohave with their grantmaking and how to allo-cate their resources to achieve their goals.

Starting a new philanthropic program is bothexciting and daunting. There are so manysocial problems to be addressed, and so manypossible ways of addressing them, that thestrategic choices can be overwhelming. Forfunders reviewing and revising existing pro-grams, there are generally more parametersand more knowledge about what has—andwhat hasn't—worked well. Whether reshapingan existing program or developing a new pro-gram, funders are faced with a similar set ofquestions, including: What criteria can beused to determine which issue is most press-ing? How can you know which grantmakingapproach best lends itself to a particularissue? How do you find those elusive "lever-age points" funders always seem to be talkingabout?

Building on TCC Group's twenty-six years ofexperience in strategic philanthropy, this brief-ing paper is intended to assist grantmakersdesigning new grants programs, as well asthose rethinking existing programs, as theydevelop a focused funding strategy. The paperprovides a logical process to help guide youthrough the many questions raised when

designing grant programs. To be clear, design-ing a grant program is undeniably complex andrequires time and thoughtfulness; there is nosingle "right way" to develop a strong pro-gram. However, by following a series ofthoughtful steps, covering the critical ques-tions and including the appropriate people, youincrease the likelihood that you will develop aneffective program.

Several key trends have greatly influenced thefield of philanthropy in the past decade. First,the huge growth in the philanthropic sectorhas made it a more significant part of theeconomy. In 2004, the roughly 66,000 grantmak-ing foundations in the U.S. gave a record $32.4billion, reversing several years of philanthropicdecline. As such, the sector is increasinglybeing held to higher standards of effective-ness. Second, as Enron and other accountingscandals in the early half of this decade shookthe public's confidence in the private sector,they also brought increased scrutiny of thephilanthropic arena. Allegations of dispropor-tionate administrative costs being counted aspart of a foundation's annual payout, alongwith excessive compensation for executives atsome foundations, created a public outcry forgreater accountability for the charitable dol-lars entrusted to foundation officers. A thirdmajor influence on philanthropy is the increas-ingly difficult funding environment in whichnonprofits are operating. Declines in govern-ment support of nonprofit organizations, cou-pled with an increase in the number of non-profits, have led to increasing competition forprivate dollars. Faced with a constant demandfor their support, many funders are trying to bemore strategic with how they use theirresources and are paying more attention toperformance outcomes of their grantees. As aresult of these trends, many grantmakers feelthey must demonstrate that their programsare producing valuable results and that theyare getting the "bang for the buck" out of theirinvestments.

2 briefing paper

A SShift TToward SStrategic GGrantmaking

Though most fundersspend considerabletime thinking aboutthe issues they hopeto address, theyspend inadequatetime up frontthinking through theimpact they wouldlike to have withtheir grantmakingand how to allocatetheir resources toachieve their goals.

Another outcome of these developments isthat we are seeing more grantmakers engag-ing in increasingly complex funding initiativesand developing programs with broad social-change objectives. These initiatives often arefunded collaboratively, spread across multiplesites, involve many grantees, and last for longperiods of time, thus making it more difficultto identify results. Most important, they areaimed at achieving long-term change ratherthan immediate results, making it even moredifficult to assess the impact of an initiative.

With the growing expectations for perfor-mance and the complexity of grantmaking ini-tiatives, funders are paying more attention tothe development of their grantmaking pro-grams. More and more, funders have come torealize that it is difficult to evaluate the impactof their philanthropic efforts if they have notclearly articulated their funding strategy andgoals at the outset. A rigorous program designprocess enables funders to achieve the mostimpact with their limited resources. Evaluationcan then inform them of the efficacy of theirapproach by feeding back into the planningprocess and helping funders understand whathas worked and what hasn't, so that they canapply that knowledge as they refine grant-making programs.

A quick review of the literature shows thatthere are a number of "models" for designinggrantmaking programs. We analyzed a num-ber of these models and found that, for themost part, they shared some common ele-ments or steps that seem to define effectivegrantmaking, as shown in the exhibit to theright. The steps are as follows:

11.. IIddeennttiiffyy tthhee iissssuuee22.. AArrttiiccuullaattee aassssuummppttiioonnss33.. SSccaann tthhee ffiieelldd44.. TTaakkee ssttoocckk ooff yyoouurr iinntteerrnnaall ccaappaacciittyy55.. VVaalliiddaattee yyoouurr aassssuummppttiioonnss66.. IImmpplleemmeenntt,, eevvaalluuaattee,, aanndd ppllaann aaggaaiinn

This sixth step is not part of the designprocess but completes the feedback loop thatallows grantmakers to constantly improvetheir work.

These steps probably appear quite intuitiveand simple. Indeed, you probably engage in atleast some of them already. You may scan thefield informally on an ongoing basis, conductan internal review as part of the strategicplanning process, or just intuitively factorlessons learned from previous experiencesinto your funding strategy.

From our experience, however, many fundersdo not approach program planning holistically.Rather, they ask a few select questions to vali-date their hypotheses, but do not sufficientlyassess the complexities of the issue they areaddressing.

By conducting these activities as part of amore structured process, you will develop astronger grants program that is more reflec-tive of the needs of your constituents, bestpractices in the field, your internal values andcapacities, and the external environment.

3

The PProgram DDesign PProcess

More and more,funders have come to realize thatit is difficult to evaluate the impactof their philanthropicefforts if they havenot clearly articulatedtheir funding strategyand goals at the outset.

The first step to designing a program is toidentify the problem you are attempting tosolve. Often, the issue you choose to focus onis based on internal criteria. These may includea founding philanthropist's stated legacy at aprivate foundation; a corporate philosophy andalignment with business goals at a corporatefoundation; a public mandate; an existinggrants program; or the shared values of foun-dation managers. These parameters may rangefrom the broad outlines of intent to a specificidentification of a subject area. For example,after witnessing underemployment and lan-guage barriers facing Asian newcomers intheir home state of Vermont, the FFrreeeemmaannFFoouunnddaattiioonn trustees were specific in their inter-est in creating economic opportunities nation-ally for Asian refugees and immigrants. Thefoundation’s task was to determine how bestto create those opportunities. For the trusteesof the WWaacchhoovviiaa FFoouunnddaattiioonn, whose broad mis-sion is to "build strong and vibrant communi-ties, improve the quality of life, and make apositive difference where we work and live,"identifying the programmatic issues on whichto focus in order to achieve that goal was amore significant challenge. Is improving thequality of life best achieved through medical

research or cultural participation efforts, education, or land conservation? Based on itsprevious grantmaking experience and generalknowledge of the education field, the founda-tion had some preliminary ideas about whatworked and was interested in the idea ofincreasing student achievement by improvingteachers' performance. Within that broadframework, the foundation asked us, as consultants, to help it develop a more focusedgrants program.

Initially, you may articulate your foundation'sinterests broadly, such as an interest in home-lessness or land conservation, or your founda-tion may be very specific about its focus. Ineither case, you can then use the programdesign process described below to furtherrefine the parameters, understand potentialoutcomes, and set goals.

The second step is to articulate your assump-tions about how the problem can be addressedwith available resources. Using existing knowl-edge of the issue, the activities of others in thefield, previous grantmaking experience, and asense of your own capabilities, you can develop

a rough idea of howyour support canaddress the problemand achieve desiredresults.

One of the mosteffective ways ofexpressing theseconcepts is to createa logic model depict-ing connectionsbetween strategiesand anticipated out-comes. In very basicterms, logic modelsspecify the desiredoutcomes of a pro-gram, the steps in

4 briefing paper

Step 1:Identify theIssue

Step 2:ArticulateAssumptions

5

One of the mosteffective ways ofexpressing these concepts is to createa logic model depicting connectionsbetween strategiesand anticipated outcomes.

the process necessary to achieve the out-comes, and the resources necessary to imple-ment those steps successfully. Though manyorganizations have created different modelsand use different terminology, the essentialstructure of all logic models is the same.

The use of logic models for evaluating grantprograms has become pervasive in philan-thropy, and funders are increasingly requiringgrantees to articulate their work in a logic-model format. However, using logic models toguide the design of a grants program is farless common. By articulating the assumedcausal connections as part of the programdesign process—before you allocateresources—you can use the information gath-ered during the design process to validateyour assumptions and adjust the modelaccordingly. Thus, the logic model is trans-formed from a purely evaluative tool into aplanning tool as well.

In the case of the Wachovia Foundation, weconducted an in-depth scan of the educationfield by conducting extensive secondaryresearch, interviewing key external stakehold-ers and experts in the education field, holdingdiscussions with education funders, and con-ducting a study of similarly focused corporatefunders. We analyzed programs and strategiesthat had been successful, as well as thosethat hadn’t; looked for gaps in the field, where

few public or private dollars seemed to besupporting promising practices; and examinedpossible opportunities for partnerships andcollaborations. We also analyzed the internalcapacity of the foundation to determine whathuman, financial, and capital resources wereavailable. We then engaged internal stakehold-ers in the process of refining the initial logicmodel to reflect our evolving understanding ofthe field.

Based on what we had learned in the internaland external assessments, we developed twologic models depicting two different scenariosthat WWaacchhoovviiaa could employ to achieve its aim:"To increase student achievement in pre-K–12public education by building and supportingteachers and the teaching profession." Thefirst scenario focused on comprehensive systemic change at the school, school district,and community levels and necessitated a narrower geographic focus. The second scenario emphasized increasing academicachievement by improving the performanceand capacities of teachers within the class-room. After discussing these scenarios, thefoundation decided that it preferred the broad-er geographic reach, increased flexibility, moreimmediate impact, and the more individualfocus of the second scenario. It also thought itwould be more feasible and manageable givenits capacity and resources. From there, wecreated a more focused logic model.

NOTE: TCC completed the iterative process of developing a logic model with further research defining the details of the model. In July 2005, TCC completed the pilotyear evaluation of the Wachovia Teachers and Teaching Initiative (TTI). As a result of the pilot year evaluation findings, TCC has further refined the model to nowassess the three-year TTI grantmaking cycle (2005-2008).

A critical step in the process is a comprehen-sive scan of the environment to assess needsand identify gaps. Whether designing a newgrantmaking program or refocusing an exist-ing program, one of the most importantaspects of program planning is to take stockof the social, political, and economic context—where it is currently, as well as where it maybe heading. The goal of the scan is to identifyareas or strategies where your additionalresources can have significant impact. Thismay mean identifying an issue or region thatis currently receiving inadequate philanthropicsupport, or it may mean discovering possiblepartners. It could also mean recognizingpromising emergent strategies, as well aslearning about those that have been less suc-cessful in the past.

Scanning enables you to better understandthe underlying causes of a particular issue,how change occurs in a particular environ-ment, and what solutions may be appropriatefor a specific context. Grants are never madein a vacuum; the funding environment, be it alocal neighborhood or the national arena, is inconstant flux. In any given field, there arenumerous players who influence how an issueis defined and addressed, including non-governmental organizations, policymakers,advocates, funders, business leaders, govern-ment agencies, scholars, and the people ulti-mately affected by the issue. The effective-ness of any one funder depends on how theseother elements are performing. Often, you canhave a significant impact if you influence oneor two key players. Scanning helps you deter-mine where these pressure points are and howyou can affect them. Scanning also allows youto test your assumptions and to discoveropportunities and successful strategies youmay not have anticipated.

Methods for Scanning

Secondary RResearch Review academic literature, journal and newspaper articles, andresearch produced by other grantmakers and grantseekers. If theissue is highly localized, local or community papers and newslettersfrom local community organizations are often informative. TheInternet is also a rich source of secondary information.

Discussions In addition to speaking with grantees and other grantmakers, you may want to talk to academic experts, community leaders, advocates,policy-makers and other government officials to get a broader per-spective on the issue and what's being done to address it. Talking to adiverse range of stakeholders may also provide new ideas for partner-ships and collaborations.

Gathering aand CConveningConferences and professional meetings on the issue are often a goodsource of information about current trends in the field. Communitymeetings or public events or actions offer an opportunity to hear howthose most affected perceive the issues.

Surveys A written or oral survey can be an efficient way to gather informationfrom a range of sources. Standardized surveys also allow you to compare answers from different respondents, which may illuminatedifferent problem definitions and strategic responses.

Network MMapping Network mapping is a tool to measure the strength of networks ofindividuals and institutions. By asking key individuals about their relationships with others, you can develop a visual map detailing thestrength and direction of these connections. By clarifying the natureof the relationships, you can target resources to "pressure points"—the most influential organizations or individuals.

Source: Grantcraft. "Scanning the Landscape." The Ford Foundation, 2002.

6 briefing paper

Step 3: Scanthe Field

There are a number of topics funders oftenaddress during a scan. These include:

PPooppuullaattiioonnWho are you most concerned with, and whatare the characteristics of that population?

CCoommmmuunniittyy nneeeeddssWhat are the most pressing needs of the con-stituents you are concerned about? Is yourproblem/issue the most relevant? Are thereother higher priority needs that are going unmet?

CCoonntteexxttWhat are current political, social, and eco-nomic trends and how are they impacting theissue/community? And, if so, how? Are theylikely to change in the near future?

KKeeyy ppllaayyeerrssWho are the key organizations and individualsin the field? What are their relationships toone another?

SSttrraatteeggiieessWhat strategies have been tried to addressthe problem? Which have worked, which havebeen less successful, and why? Who arethe players?

Scans also take into account the philanthropiclandscape, such as:

OOtthheerr ffuunnddeerrss iinn tthhee ffiieellddWho else is funding in your field of interest?What are they funding, and what are theirfunding strategies? Are there potential partners?

SSuucccceessssffuull ssttrraatteeggiieessWhat funding approaches in this field seem tobe most or least successful, and why? Whatmodels might be good ones for replication?

GGaappssWhat issues or strategies seem to be receiv-ing less philanthropic support, and why? Whatimpact might supporting these issues have onthe field?

Scanning can be as time- and labor-intensiveas you want; as with any assessment, you

have to determine the degree of rigor appropriate to your needs. On one end of thespectrum, you can engage in a few conversa-tions with grantees and other funders. At theother end, you can fund extensive research todetermine how political, social, demographic,or economic trends will affect an issue. The case of the FFrreeeemmaann FFoouunnddaattiioonn''ss AAssiiaannIImmmmiiggrraanntt aanndd RReeffuuggeeee EEccoonnoommiicc aanndd EEdduuccaattiioonnOOppppoorrttuunniittyy PPrrooggrraamm is a good example of a funder using an analysis of social and demo-graphic trends to inform its grantmaking pro-gram. The Freeman Foundation retained TCCGroup in 1998 to help design a philanthropicprogram to provide economic opportunities forAsian immigrants and refugees. Our first stepwas to prepare an assessment of the needs ofrecent Asian immigrants and refugees in theUnited States. We conducted over 60 inter-views with private and government funders,representatives from national voluntaryrefugee resettlement agencies, and staff atservice organizations. We combined this withcensus and other data to chart trends inarrivals among Asian ethnic groups, the typesof existing government support available tohelp them on their arrival, and the gaps inthese services.

With a clearer sense of the obstacles to eco-nomic security for recent Asian immigrantsand refugees and the gaps in available ser-vices, the foundation decided to expand itssupport beyond the English instruction it hadbeen providing to include other forms ofemployment training and social services. Toidentify communities where these comprehen-sive programs would be viable and wherethere was great need, we conducted a secondround of research. We created community profiles documenting immigration trends, economic challenges, and service providernetworks. The foundation then identified fourcommunities for a pilot program.

During the course of the program, the founda-tion continued to scan the field. As the foun-dation learned more about the population and successful models through its grantmak-ing and ongoing research, it expanded the program to additional sites. By 2002, the

7

Scanning enables youto better understandthe underlying causesof a particular issue,how change occurs in a particular envi-ronment, and whatsolutions may beappropriate for a specific context.

program included 21 grantees at locales rang-ing from Seattle, Washington, to LaCrosse,Wisconsin. In 2004, due to the decline inrefugee arrivals, the foundation decided not tosupport any new grantees; the program cur-rently includes 12 grantees, some completingtheir sixth year of project operations.

While the process for developing the programwas not highly formalized, the foundationentered into planning with a clear idea of what it wanted to do and where to do it.External analysis was essential in developingthe initial program and then refining it overtime; as the needs of the population changed,the foundation's grantmaking was able torespond, first by expanding the program andthen by contracting it.

This case demonstrates that close attentionto external factors greatly increases the likeli-hood that the issue you've identified is rele-vant to your target population and that thesolutions and strategies selected are appropri-ate to the current context.

The fourth step of the program designprocess is a frank and thorough internalassessment. An external scan can identify theresources necessary to achieve a desired outcome; an internal assessment tells youwhether those resources are at your disposal.Depending on the resources available to you,you can then determine your appropriate rolein addressing the issue: whether you will be amore passive funder or more involved withyour grantees; whether you want to partnerwith other public or private funders; andwhether you can be a leader and advocateamong peers and policymakers on the issue.You need a clear understanding of your owncapabilities so that you can align what isneeded with what you can realistically con-tribute—in finances, human capital, in-kinddonations, intellectual capital, and influence.

Among the questions that funders shouldaddress during internal assessments are the following:

FFiinnaanncciiaallWhat percentage of your budget are you will-ing and able to put toward this program? Isthis amount sufficient to address the need?

HHuummaann aasssseettssWhat are the strengths of key personnel, andhow might they be used to address this issue?How much human capital (vs. financial capi-tal) can you spend?

IInntteelllleeccttuuaall ccaappiittaallHow much intellectual capital—experience inthe field, access to experts, etc.—do you bringto this issue?

SSoocciiaall ccaappiittaallHow are you perceived by others in the field?What networks and relationships do you havethat may be relevant to addressing this issue?

CCoommppaarraattiivvee aaddvvaannttaaggeeWhat are your "competitive advantages" whenit comes to addressing this issue? Given infor-mation gathered from the scan, what aresome unique strengths that you can bring tothe issue?

8 briefing paper

Step 4: Take Stockof Your InternalCapacity

Throughout the internal and external assess-ments, the initial logic model should bereviewed and amended based on your deepen-ing understanding of the issue and appropriatesolutions. Once you are satisfied that the logicmodel reflects the internal and external situa-tions, the final step is a "quality review" toensure that the logic is sound, assumptionsare accurate, and relevant influential factorsare accounted for.

This typically involves bringing other stake-holders into the process. These stakeholderscould be other funders, outside experts, com-munity members, and grantseekers. Havingpeople with varied perspectives review thetheory behind the proposed grants programincreases the likelihood that your resourcesare directed toward a pressing communityneed. It also builds credibility for funders inthe communities in which they operate, lead-ing to improved access to information andpotential partnerships for the foundation.In the Wachovia case discussed above, we

shared the logic model with a panel of educa-tion experts in order to substantiate it.Through these additional interviews with funders and education professionals, we wereable to further hone the strategy and suggesta more targeted screening process for poten-tial grantees. The validation process alsounearthed ways for Wachovia to add value tothe process, such as convening grantees.

Program planning and evaluation are part ofan iterative process. Careful program planningnot only increases the likelihood that yourgrantmaking will be effective, it also makes iteasier to evaluate impact by providing a con-ceptual framework against which to evaluate.Conversely, understanding the impact of previ-ous grantmaking can strengthen your currentprogram-planning efforts.

Typically, developing a logic model is the firststage of the evaluation process. However,when a model has already been developed,evaluators can simply build on it when design-ing their evaluation plan. Providing a cleardepiction of the incremental steps towardlonger-term programmatic goals allows you todevelop an action plan detailing the resources,activities, and outputs required to achieveyour desired outcomes. Funders then rely onthese outputs and outcomes to identify appro-priate indicators for measuring the program'sprogress. In the Wachovia example mentionedabove, the logic model developed during theprogram planning served as the basis for theprogram's evaluation. Wachovia monitorsgrantee progress toward significant bench-marks identified in the program developmentprocess, such as teacher retention and place-ment. It also engages in ongoing learning tokeep track of changes in the field and modifiesits grantmaking as necessary.

9

Step 6: Implement,Evaluate, and Plan Again

Understanding theimpact of previousgrantmaking canstrengthen your current program-planning efforts.

Step 5: ValidateYour Assumptions

10 briefing paper

Doris DDuke CCharitable FFoundation SStrategic GGrantmaking

11

TThhee DDoorriiss DDuukkee CChhaarriittaabbllee FFoouunnddaattiioonn isanother example of the integral connectionbetween program planning and evaluation.Established in 1993, the foundation has fourfunding areas: the performing arts, the envi-ronment and wildlife conservation, child-abuseprevention, and medical research. The founda-tion utilizes a program-planning and strategy-review process based on three interconnectedevaluation processes. At the broadest level,the foundation hires outside experts to con-duct a field overview every five to seven yearsin which it examines the external environmentaffecting each of its four funding areas. Everythree to five years it uses outside consultantsto conduct strategic evaluations, where itexamines the specific funding strategies ineach issue to determine how effective thosestrategies are in achieving its desired out-comes. Finally, foundation staff monitors grantoutputs and outcomes on an ongoing basis toensure that they are achieving their objectives. As can be seen in the diagram on the nextpage, the evaluation of strategies helps thefoundation determine whether refinement inthe program design is needed, whether thestrategies appear to be achieving the desiredgoals, and whether continued funding is mer-ited. The field analysis is both the startingpoint in the creation of new programs and amethod to assess the overall value of the foun-dation's involvement in a particular field. Thefoundation then incorporates the findings inthe redesign (or elimination) of programs andcontinues the planning-evaluation cycle.

As any funder can tell you, philanthropy is nota science. Grants are not made in controlledenvironments, and even the best-designed ini-tiatives may become ineffective in the face ofexternal changes. However, committing suffi-cient time and attention to the planningprocess increases the chances that your program will achieve your desired impact.You'll catch flaws in your logic before grantsare made by articulating your assumptions

and then running them by other stakeholders.You'll be able to detect external changes thatcould affect your grantmaking and be betterprepared to respond to them. You'll ensure thatyou are not biting off more than you can chewby aligning your internal capacities with yourgrantmaking strategies. Finally, you'll be bet-ter able to measure the impact of your effortsbecause you clearly stated your grantmakinggoals and assumptions at the outset. This learning can then feed into the revision and refinement of your program going for-ward, ultimately helping you to increase theimpact of your work.

Published November 2005.

Shelly Kessler is a vice president at TCCGroup and leads the firm's NonprofitPractice. Ashley Snowdon is a consultant atthe firm.

Special thanks to Richard Mittenthal, PaulConnolly, Peter York, Cara Cipollone and AnaRamos-Hernandez for their contributions tothis paper.

(Portions of this paper appear in RethinkingPhilanthropic Effectiveness: Lessons from anInternational Network of Foundation Experts, published by Verlag Bertlesmann Stiftung andedited by Dirk Eilinghoff in 2005.)

A FFinal WWord

Committing sufficienttime and attention tothe planning processincreases the chancesthat your programwill achieve yourdesired impact.

12

TCC Group

About TCC Group

For over 26 years, TCC has provided strategicplanning, program development, evaluation, andmanagement consulting services to nonprofitorganizations, foundations, corporate communityinvolvement programs, and government agen-cies. During this time, the firm has developedsubstantive knowledge and expertise in fields asdiverse as community and economic develop-ment, human services, children and familyissues, education, health care, the environment,and the arts.

From offices in New York, Philadelphia, andChicago, the firm works with clients nationallyand, increasingly, globally. Our services includestrategic planning, organizational assessmentand development, feasibility studies, programevaluation and development, governanceplanning, restructuring and repositioning, as wellas grant program design, evaluation, andfacilitation.

Grantmaking Services Include:

Assessing Needs Regardless of the field, the pace of change in the external environment has become more rapid and funders need to evaluate how theirneeds are shifting to ensure that their grantshave the maximum possible impact. TCC helpsgrantmakers assess the needs in their interestareas by examining the state of the field, deter-mining where the needs are greatest, and identifying gaps that are not being filled by other philanthropies.

Devising Grantmaking StrategiesBased on an assessment of needs and consider-ation of the grantmaker’s goals and resources,TCC will help to develop creative and results-oriented strategies and plans for awardinggrants. We enable funders to make the best use of available resources by adopting a morestrategic approach to grantmaking. We helpgrantmakers set goals, select areas of concen-tration, determine the types of potential grantrecipients, and create budgets for operationalcosts and grant allocations. In addition, we helpfunders enhance their impact through the use of various tools such as capacity-building andcommunications.

Soliciting, Reviewing, and Recommending ProposalsTCC Group often helps write a Request forProposals (RFP), which lays out the goals for agrantmaking initiative and the kinds of organiza-

tions most suitable for funding. The RFP usuallyincludes a potential proposal outline and applica-tion form. We talk with knowledgeable peopleabout appropriate possible funding recipients,compile mailing lists, and distribute the RFP.Once proposals are submitted, TCC reviewsthem, makes a first cut, checks references, andperforms all the necessary “due diligence”before making recommendations for funding.

Managing, Monitoring, and Evaluating GrantsAfter the funder has awarded the grants, we helpmanage the grants by creating grant agree-ments, reviewing progress reports, meeting withgrant recipients, and monitoring their activities.During or after a grant period, we can evaluatefunded projects and programs on behalf of a funder in order to assess the process, identifyoutcomes, and determine lessons that can bene-fit the field and be applied to future grantmaking.

Grants ManagementTCC Group handles all administrative, program-matic, and financial work for foundations. Thisincludes outreach to grantees and potentialapplicants, maintaining all permanent records,reviewing proposals and preparing summarywrite-ups for the Board, managing the grant- anddecline-process, handling day-to-day inquiries tothe foundation, developing and maintaining pro-posal/grants databases with historical records,bookkeeping, attending Board meetings andpreparing dockets and minutes. The firm alsoserves as a liaison with each foundation’saccountant, investment manager, lawyer, andother outside professionals as necessary.

Our Clients

We have provided consulting services to a broadrange of organizations in many fields, from thearts and community development to educationand medical research.

Among our grantmaker clients are such leadingfoundations as The Ford Foundation, theRockefeller Foundation, the John S. and James L.Knight Foundation, the David and Lucile PackardFoundation, the Freeman Foundation, and theWilliam Penn Foundation. Yet we also haveserved smaller foundations such as theBrandywine Foundation in Philadelphia and theMary J. Hutchins Foundation and Keefe,Bruyette & Woods, Inc. Family Fund in New YorkCity. Corporate grantmaker clients includeGoldman Sachs, Altria, Kraft Foods, Pfizer, andUBS PaineWebber.

New York50 East 42nd Street19th FloorNew York, NY 10017phone: 212.949.0990fax: 212.949.1672

PhiladelphiaOne Penn CenterSuite 1550Philadelphia, PA 19103phone: 215.568.0399fax: 215.568.2619

Chicago875 North Michigan Ave.31st FloorChicago, IL 60611phone: 312.794.7780fax: 312.794.7781

Websitehttp://www.tccgrp.com

Emailinfo@tccgrp.com

Contact TCC Group