How philanthropy can move from quick wins to long-term impact

Many philanthropists don’t want to wait to see the results of the project they fund. This funnels money into projects with immediate, observable, measurable results. Meanwhile, initiatives to scale up what is already working, or tackle complex problems that require cross-sector collaboration and longer timelines, often struggle to secure philanthropic support. At Devex World, Cecilia Conrad, CEO of Lever for Change, and Rakesh Rajani, president of JustSystems, outlined how philanthropy can overcome its narrow focus on easily measurable outcomes and collaborate with others to tackle more systemic issues. Expanding the lens from projects to systems To move from short-term wins to long-term gains, funders need to adjust how they work, from the way they write requests for proposals to the metrics they use to evaluate success to how they engage with partners. Conrad shared insights from the MacArthur Foundation’s 100&Change, a $100 million grant competition now in its third round. In the first round, 100&Change selected Sesame Workshop and the International Rescue Committee’s Ahlan Simsim initiative, which brings early education programming to refugee and host community children, for the $100 million prize. But Conrad said the MacArthur Foundation used traditional philanthropic metrics in defining how “meaningful” or “durable” the programs were, asking, for example, “how many targeted beneficiaries will be impacted.” So the MacArthur Foundation made adjustments to that language. In the second round, Community Solutions, an effort to end homelessness in 75 communities across the United States within five years, won the $100 million prize. The MacArthur Foundation has yet to announce the winner of the third round. “What we found is that some of the projects that were much more oriented towards creating the infrastructure necessary to make change happen scored much more highly,” Conrad said. Philanthropy and government: A partnership for scale Compared to government budgets, philanthropy represents just a small fraction of global resources, Rajani said. But funders can play a meaningful role, as long as they recognize the unique leverage they have to, for example, pilot bold innovations, test what works, and build the evidence base and partnerships to bring ideas to scale, Rajani explained. “‘Projects’ is a bad word in my lexicon, right? Because when you do projects, you're saying, ‘I don't care about understanding the big system. I'm going to do my beautiful little thing.’ And however beautiful it is, it's not going to reach the scale that it needs to, and it's not going to last over time,” Rajani said. “If you can shift how government does things by even 10%, that's going to be a much bigger impact than 100 beautiful projects put together.” The challenges that stand in the way of change While Conrad and Rajani have taken different paths in the field of philanthropy, they’ve run into some of the same hurdles that prevent philanthropists from rethinking their strategies. For many funders, giving money away is overwhelming, Conrad said. “These are people who, by and large, are used to being in control,” she explained. Giving money away, especially for interventions that are not easily measurable, requires being comfortable with a certain amount of ambiguity, she said. “I think funders are so anxious, understandably so perhaps,” Rajani added. “But what that does then is pulls out all the wrong instincts.” Funders want to maintain control, do things short term, and maintain a tight leash — all tendencies that stand in the way of real systems change. But the work Conrad and Rajani have done shows how philanthropists can leverage their resources not as an end, but as a means to enable organizations, communities, and governments to make a lasting impact.