Grace Nicolette of the Center for Effective Philanthropy Unpacks the $17 Billion Bombshell – MacKenzie Scott’s Philanthropy Revolution – Transcript

Kirk: [00:00:00] Welcome

Eric: to, let’s Hear

Kirk: It.

Eric: Let’s Hear. It is a podcast for and about the field of foundation and nonprofit communications produced by its two Co-hosts, Eric Brown and Kirk Brown. No relation

Kirk: who well said Eric. And I’m Kirk.

Eric: And I’m Eric. The podcast is sponsored by the College Futures Foundation, which envisions a California where post-secondary education advances equity and unlocks upward mobility now and for generations to come to learn more.

Visit college futures.org. You can

Kirk: find, let’s hear it on any

Eric: podcast subscription

Kirk: platform.

Eric: You can find us online at, let’s hear@cast.com. You can find us on LinkedIn and yes,

Kirk: even on Instagram. And if you like the show, please, please, please rate us on Apple Podcasts so that more people can find us. So let’s get onto the

Eric: show.

Kirk: And we’re back. Welcome in. It’s, let’s hear it. We’re back in a better schedule. We took some time off. Now we’re back in the saddle. It’s fall [00:01:00] school’s in session here. I don’t know what’s going on in your part of the world, but, uh, nothing. There’s a lot happening. There’s a lot happening. I’m just sitting here.

Yeah.

Eric: Yes. You know, Kirk, I realize that you will always welcome people in, but you never welcome them out.

Kirk: What do you mean? We say we see you next time we see that, we’ll see you next time. Let’s hear it. We say something like that. Oh, okay. Hey, come on. We’re all exhausted. Different kinda luck. By the time we set this up, we get your interview because you know you’re doing most of the interviews.

In fact, you’re doing all the interviews. That’s fair. And then, uh, that’s a good point. We do our, our debrief after. I think people are ready to go. We’re ready to go. We’re ready to say, Hey. You’re right. Thanks. Thanks for being, thanks for spending some time with us. We appreciate seeing you.

Eric: I stand corrected.

But you are of course extremely cordial. So there’s that. We should be inviting. So, man

Kirk: alive. Man alive, man alive. There’s a lot to talk about here. Can we just talk about giving done right briefly? Can we say that right up front? Yeah. Like, like. Put this pod, just throw your head, just throw this thing down.

Throw throw this away.

Eric: Put it in your queue when Go straight to getting

Kirk: done. Right.

Eric: To hear some [00:02:00] really when you’re at the gym or taking the dog for a walk or we’re just sitting there listening to the Melo tones of Phil Buchanan and Grace. Wow. The co-hosts of Giving Done Right Podcast, which launched last week.

If this thing goes out when I think it will. Okay. You should For their season four. They’re terrific and the work is great and people should listen. That’s all I have to say. And you know what? You don’t have to listen to this one, just listen to that. Just go straight to the source better. But, um, but

Kirk: we’ve

Eric: got a lot here I’m gonna mess around

Kirk: with.

Let’s hear it. Why,

Eric: why would you bother?

Kirk: We’ve got a lot to talk about. Set this up. This is a great conversation. Very gracious for the Center for for Effective Philanthropy to be to once again, grace. Let’s hear it. But let’s, um, let’s set this up. ’cause there’s, there’s much to discuss when we come back.

Eric: I spoke with Grace Nicolette, the Vice President for Programming and External Relations at the Center for Effective Philanthropy, which is now an August organization.

It used to be an upstart, but now it’s an August organization, which is, they do [00:03:00] lots of research around philanthropy and a million things, including the grantee perception report, which many folks may be familiar with. But they also, over the last three years, and this is, they’re in the third year, they’re gathering information the third year, but the, the first, last two years, they’ve done reports about the giving of Mackenzie Scott.

Mm-Hmm. Uh, and if you’ve been living under a, I don’t know what a, a moss covered stone, you, uh, know if you haven’t been, uh, you know that Mackenzie’s got, of course, the ex-spouse of Jeff Bezos in inherit, uh, she ended up with a fair amount of money in that, uh. Situation and has been giving it away to beat the band, like billions and billions of, I don’t know the numbers exactly, but many tens of billions of dollars is out the door to organizations who receive a phone call like Ed McMahon on the Publisher’s Clearing House, that they won the money, like they got money and the Center for Effective Philby was one [00:04:00] such recipient of this.

They received $10 million, completely unsolicited. You know, I’m waiting, by the way, Kirk, maybe we should wait for the, save this for the second half the thing I’m waiting for. But anyway, so I spoke to Grace. She’s fabulous. Yeah, so she does comms, but she’s also really into the research. Uh, it was a terrific conversation.

Kirk: Yes, this is super interesting. So this is Grace Nicolette, the Vice President for Programming and External Relations at the Center for Effective Philanthropy. And as we get into it, I just wanna shout out the podcast Giving Done Right. Um, two really interesting reports and you can find a lot of great stuff on this Center for Electric, uh, effective Philanthropy website.

But, um, their analysis on climate related giving. Uh, titled Much Alarm Less Giving. So, so check that out.

Eric: So they have a sense of humor too.

Kirk: And then there are two, they’re, they’re, they’ve done two of what will be a three year study on the McKenzie Scott Giving, and that’s titled, emerging Impacts the Effects of McKenzie [00:05:00] Scott’s Large Unrestricted Gifts.

And you talk about it during your interview and then we’ll have a lot to talk about when we come back. This is very interesting stuff. So let’s listen. This is a Grace Nicolette on. Let’s hear it.

Eric: Welcome to, let’s Hear It. My guest today is Grace Nicolette, the Vice President for Programming and External Relations at the Center for Effective Philanthropy, which is an organization that is near and dear to my heart.

I have known and, uh, adored and worshiped CEP for many, many years, too many years to remember. Grace is also the co-host with Phil Buchanan of the Giving Done Right Podcast, which has just kicked off its fourth season. Just, just last week. Uh, and it is a fabulous show. Grace, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Thanks so much for having me. It is so exciting for me to be here. Ah, well, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll see what we can do about that. Alright, so first I just wanna just dive right in. Yeah. Let’s start with the podcast. Now, to my mind, this [00:06:00] is honestly is one of the very best, best podcasts about philanthropy. And I’m happy to say by the way, that we’re starting to see some good ones.

So this is, you know, this is a terrific show among some really good competition, if you wanna call it that. Mm-Hmm. Uh, can you just talk a little

Grace: bit about the show? Sure. Thanks so much. Yeah. You know, we started the show in 2020 as sort of an experiment when the covid lockdown happened as just a different way to be reaching our audience.

And so, um, the show is really geared towards givers of all sizes who want to be more effective in their giving. So, you know, there’s a lot of advice out there on like. The structuring of giving, like the values behind giving. We do touch on some of the values a little bit, but it’s really about how does one become a smarter giver over time And we thought that was our lane and what we’d wanna bring inspiration and data to.

Eric: Well, it’s, I mean, it is really, really well done and you and Phil are terrific and you have incredible guests. I would say if anybody cares about [00:07:00] philanthropy or about giving, you should absolutely add it to your cue and and listen to giving done. Right. It’s really good. And I’m excited about this season.

I’m really excited about Darren Walker. ’cause he is, yes. Always that guy gives good quote and I’m, oh my goodness. The best. He is the best. He is so amazing. It’s so great. This and lovely and wonderful. And as he’s retiring, I can’t wait to hear what he has to say about his time at Ford and what he’s seen in philanthropy.

And I know that you guys will do a great interview. So I would say everybody put that on your list. Thank

Grace: you.

Eric: All right. Now I wanna get a little into, a little bit into your work at CEP Mm-Hmm. For one thing, you’ve been there for what? A decade? Uh, and it’s,

Grace: uh, yeah. I’m actually almost at 13 years. And actually right after this podcast comes out, it’ll be 13 years.

Eric: Whoa. And I also notice that a lot of people have a tendency to stay there. I know Kevin Baldock has been there since, uh, you know, Noah was banging on the yard. Uh, what is it about that place that retains people that you [00:08:00] wanna stay at? Why are, how, why are you there so long? What’s going on? Oh my

Grace: gosh.

Well, it is definitely the best place I’ve ever worked, and I think a lot of people would say that, right? And I worked a lot of places. Um, you know, it’s just like this really awesome culture that, um, Phil and the leadership team we’ve built together. And, um, you know, the work continues to grow and like it’s super interesting, like it doesn’t stay static.

Um, so there’s continued growth opportunity even though, you know, I’m still in the same role. And so. And then finally, especially the people. The people are just awesome. Like the people we get to work with and then my colleagues. So yeah, it is, we, there’s a whole bunch of us who’ve been there a, a ridiculous amount of time, including Phil, who’s been there from the beginning.

Eric: That guy,

Grace: I don’t know.

Eric: No, no ambition. That’s what it’s, no. And, and I’ve been a, I, I feel like I was kinda a friendly burr under the saddle of seeing me for a long time when I was at Hewlett. ’cause I was always pushing back about the Phil, [00:09:00] the grantee perception report, and let’s ask this question a little differently.

And that question doesn’t answer the question. And like, I, I’m sure you people are like, oh my God, this guy just go away. But I, but it was always, but you always responded like, oh, that’s interesting. Let’s think about that. Yes, great idea. You know, like, you never got to think it even though I was being a complete idiot.

Grace: So I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that history with the gpr. I, that’s very interesting. Yeah. We are always asking how we could do things differently and better. Yeah. No, no. And you

Eric: actually mean it, which is. Rare and wonderful. So congratulations on that. Mm-Hmm. Alright. Now I wanna talk also a little bit about, so you’ve been running programming and external relations at cep Yes.

For, uh, almost a decade or at least, you know, 13 years. Mm-Hmm. Or so, uh, which seems to me like a huge job. ’cause and in a sense you’re in shipping and receiving, so you’re like trying to raise money. Mm-Hmm. And so there’s a lot of fundraising involved in that, but you’re also trying to move ideas and shape the field of philanthropy.

How do you think about communications in that con context?

Grace: Boy, that’s a big question. I mean, we right [00:10:00] this team. We wear a lot of hats. So we are both the traditional marketing communications, we are the creatives, we are the fundraising, we are the public speaking and then, uh, partnerships. And then on top of that, we actually plan our huge, uh, every other year conference for senior philanthropy leaders too.

So, um, we’re kind of really good generalists, I would say for all of those things. Um, the way that we approach comms, I think, boy, it’s hard to like sum it up into a nutshell, but because we’re all about data and evidence. I think that, um, when I entered this role, a big challenge is, you know, there are definitely folks out there who are really good at talking a good game, but then the substance isn’t quite matching.

We have the exact opposite where we have so much substance. You could open any of our research reports, the methodologies in the back, it’s like there are P values in there and it’s like, you wanna know how we did this? We will show you like why we think this evidence is important. [00:11:00] And so then the challenge is how do we translate that in a way that is digestible and especially in an environment where there’s just so much content out there now.

And so that has been like a journey for us, right? Like we used to put out these like huge beautifully, you know, produced, printed reports and now we put out. PDFs, but also like these little snapshots where you can actually, you know, digest through a website what the key findings are, like really fast. And so I would say that it’s been a real lesson, like along the way for us of like, how does our audience, um, take in information and how do we get it out there in a way that really fits their needs?

And you know, if a tree falls in the forest and no one lists hears it, it’s like it does, it kinda doesn’t matter if like, we put out this great report and no one reads it. Right. And so I think that’s been, um, some of the driving questions behind some of our comms work, around our research in particular.

Eric: Has there [00:12:00] been one thing that really landed that taught you something special about how to do the communications or how to frame your work?

Grace: Yeah, I mean. So it’s so fascinating. A few years ago, this is before Covid, one of our board members, Sam Priti, gangly, uh, who’s at Arabella, came and did like a speech to our staff and she challenged us with the question around like, are we in the era of the death of the PDF?

Right? Um, and because we were putting out these like very long reports, and I think that that really, that was like a seed that started this whole process of like thinking through. Like, what would we do differently if we didn’t do, if we put the PDF aside, but did other things as well. And so the first report that we put out more in a bite-sized way was this report on climate change, like what foundations are doing around climate change.

And um, that was two summers ago. And yeah, like the engagement was totally different, right? We had a lot of people download the PDF, but we also had, [00:13:00] um, a lot of people just engaged with the interactive website that we built. And so I think that that was like a very different way for us to approach the work and also to track kind of what success means.

And that report continues to be cited like everywhere, like in the media. ’cause it really, it showed that. The foundation foundations are really not giving very much to climate change as much as they think that it’s a really big issue that people should care about. Speaking of reports,

Eric: this

Grace: is

Eric: my, my ham handed attempt at a segue.

You did a report last year about Mackenzie Scott’s giving two years in a row. Now we’re, yeah. And two years in a Mm-Hmm. And I believe you’re gathering data for a third, right? Is that correct’s right? Yep. Very excited about this. So needless to say, uh, and I wanna talk about, I basically, I wanna use the bulk of the show to talk about this.

Sure. Before, and what you’re learning and Mackenzie, Scott, and all of this thing that everyone is asking every water cooler. If there’re, if there are water coolers left, they stand around, they’re going, what is going on with Mackenzie Scott? So. [00:14:00] It’s like the world of philanthropy. They’re like kremlinologists.

Yes. They’re trying to divine the mysteries of this fortress, of this thing that is now called yield giving. Mm-Hmm. And you did this report and you’re, I, I believe you’re beginning to gather some ideas and form some conclusions Mm-Hmm. About this crazy shockwave that she has sent through the field of philanthropy.

Yeah. Uh, a is that, is this a correct premise? Has she sent a shockwave through the field of philanthropy, or am I just being, you know, my typical hyperbolic self?

Grace: No, I mean, I think that’s absolutely true. Um, you know, Phil Buchanan has described it as like the biggest natural experiment in philanthropy that he’s seen.

So, and again, you know, the, the research was actually specifically prey giving. So it’s, it’s about the like Right. Surprise. Big gifts. Um, and, and you know, I think it dovetailed a lot with the pandemic too. So there was a, you know, it was kind of just a weird time for the world. And then people were [00:15:00] receiving these huge gifts.

We received a surprise gift from Mackenzie Scott, which really blew our minds. And so I think that there was really a sense of like, we should really study this because someone needs to be tracking like the impact of this kind of giving, because it is in some ways exactly the kind of ways that many people, including us at times have been pushing like, oh, you know, philanthropy needs to be thinking about giving in these ways.

And then you had someone who actually did adopt a lot of those practices. And so, yeah, it’s been a tremendous, it’s a three year study at, like you said. Two years, um, are already out. It’s all on our website. And then year three is coming out early next year.

Eric: People of a certain age, they may remember Ed McMahon, who used to give away money through the publisher’s Clearing house sweepstakes.

Mm-Hmm. I remember those. And, and he would just, apparently he would just show up at your front door with a check and it Yes. This, this sort of feels like that. So when you got a gift. Was that like, was it like the Nobel [00:16:00] Committee calling you at four o’clock in the morning in, in a Swedish accent telling you that you, uh, got the Nobel Prize for something?

How did you get this gift? What was the, what was the process of that, whatever?

Grace: Yeah, so Phil got an email from someone and you know, the, the initial email, he forwarded it to Kevin and I, and, um, you know, it, it seemed like it could be a scam kind of thing. Um, but then ke Kevin did some, uh, quick sleuthing on the internet and was like, I think you should respond like this.

This is, this is actually a real person. And, um, and then he wrote back and, you know, lo and behold, there was a call, and then the next week the money was in the bank. And it was just, I think at one point Phil was in tears and we were all just like walking around stunned because we weren’t, we weren’t able to tell anyone.

And so it was just us on the senior team and then our board that knew until she made the announcement. And so it just was this like. Incredible time of excitement and also nervousness, like, are we gonna be able to [00:17:00] steward this well? And so yeah, it was really unforgettable. And

Eric: I know, I, I believe you’ve kind of issued all the relevant disclaimers about having been a recipient and now, uh, yes.

Whatever, and the observer of this experience, but it’s weird, I imagine, to be Mm-Hmm. A it’s like being a researcher and you’re studying your own self as part of the research project, but yeah. So you get what, $10 million? We got $10 million. Um, yeah. Unbelievable. And. So what did, what did you do with the $10 million?

Or what are you doing with it? Or what, like, how do you think about that? Which is

Grace: a lot. Totally. And I mean, to your point, so like, right, we knew that this is it. Like we’re not gonna get another gift from her. So we’re not doing this to curry favor with her and who better than us, right? Like, this is kind of what we do.

And so, um, we have not gotten any more funding from her to do these, nor are we coordinating with them, anything like that. [00:18:00] Um, so yeah, I mean we, we started this and I think a lot of the nonprofits we’ve studied have, um, you know, mirrored this as well as like, we went through this big conversation about like, okay, well what do we do?

Because this is a tremendous opportunity. We wanna steward it well, and we gotta be really judicious about how it’s spent because we don’t want there to be like a fiscal cliff, right? Like, you could staff up, you could do all these fun things and then when the money runs out, you have to let the people go.

I mean, that’s not right. Right? So, um. For us, what we did was we did set aside some funding to spend at the time on like really strategic projects that we thought would be, you know, really important for us. And then we actually created a strategic opportunities fund that’s, um, like a board approved fund, uh, for the remaining of the funding.

So, um, when there are things that are like really strategic that are, you know, over and above what a normal budget would be able to carry, we go to the board and say, Hey, could, could we tap the strategic opportunities fund from the Scott money for [00:19:00] that? And, uh, it’s been, it’s been really great. Like people have been able to really think big sky about some things and we have grown tremendously from that time.

Like, our staff is much larger, like, so I, I really think that it was very catalytic for us. And of course in the study. We see that it was also very transformative for other nonprofits as well. And,

Eric: and is your sense that the organizations now I, our My pal, our our Pal Glen Gallic. Mm-Hmm. Osky Foundation talks.

He like, he, I love, I love him and I love his, actually I love his podcast as well. Mm-Hmm. And he, he rails about this notion of absorptive capacity that foundations was like, oh no, no, no. We can’t give him that money ’cause they can’t absorb it. Yes. I was like, that’s baloney. And sometimes he uses different, uh, vocabulary, but like, that’s baloney.

Why don’t we just give the money and, and let them prove that they can or whatever it is. Just like they know better than we do it. Was it your experience that the organiza or your experience personally and then in your [00:20:00] research and examination of these other organizations, that they were able to absorb all of this?

Like most of these gifts were many exes Yes. More greater than anything they had ever gotten before? Yes. How, how were they able to manage that? Amount of money and keep it from scaring off other donors and things like that.

Grace: Totally. I mean, so you bring this up and this was such a central focus of the, the study like all three years.

So you, you can read about kind of the findings from the first two years, but I’ll describe it here. So other funders, right, have said to us exactly what you just said. It’s like, this is not gonna work. And like small funders, you’re just gonna tank them with all the funding. You’re gonna create all these externalities.

Like you, you gotta be really careful. And so we set out to study, is that actually true? Like if you ask the nonprofit, did it have any negative intended consequences, um, what would they say? And then now actually in year three, in addition to [00:21:00] the self-reporting from nonprofits, we’re actually gonna look at nine 90 data for, for the financial position of nonprofits too, to kind of have another perspective of like, what was the financial trajectory?

Um. Of course, it’s only three years, uh, out total in total for the longest grants. But, um, but I think that there are ways in which we didn’t see that at all, right? Like nonprofits were saying, no, actually we’re fine on the spending. Like we were able to figure out, we expanded our programs, we were able to invest in staff, um, really build capacity with staff, like bring salaries a little bit closer to market, for instance.

Um, and, and it’s actually been really healthy for our organization. So we did not see, um, large numbers by any means of nonprofits saying, oh, we couldn’t handle this. And, and I don’t think that was just like them giving the right answer either, right? Like, I think, um, I think these nonprofits know what they’re doing and, and they were vetted, right?

In most cases. And so I think that. [00:22:00] I don’t think anyone’s saying you shouldn’t vet nonprofits before giving them billions of dollars. Um, they were vetted and, and they’ve said that they’ve used the funds. Well, we’re gonna take a

Eric: very short break. We’ll be back with Grace Nicoletta Center for Effective Philanthropy.

Right after this. You are listening to, let’s Hear It, a podcast about foundation and nonprofit communications hosted by Eric Brown and Kirk Brown. If you’re enjoying this episode, you may just be a rule breaker. Tune in to break Fake Rules, a new limited series podcast with Glen Gallic, CEO of the St.

Stusy Foundation. Hear from leaders in philanthropy, nonprofits, government media, and more to learn about challenges they’ve overcome by breaking fake rules and which rules we should commit to breaking together. We are also sponsored by the Conrad Previs Foundation. Check out their amazingly good podcast, and we’re not just saying that.

Stop and talk, hosted by Previs Foundation, CEO, grant Oliphant. You can find them at stop and talk podcast.com. And now back to the [00:23:00] show. Welcome back. I’m speaking with Grace Nicolette of the Center for Effective Philanthropy. We’re talking about Mackenzie Scott and the depth of charge that she placed into the world of philanthropy.

And by the way, I’ve been going around and kind of crowdsourcing questions to ask you. Oh boy. And, uh, one, and one of the, well, I mean, just everybody wants to know and wants to learn from this because there are Mm-Hmm. Clearly lessons to be drawn from it. Uh, and one of the questions. Uh, that always comes up is mm-Hmm.

Alright. Is this a repudiation of, so-called strategic philanthropy. Mm. In which a foundation has an idea of what it wants to achieve, an organization that it thinks, or organizations that it thinks will help carry this out, and then you give them money with some very clearly articulated goals and strategies involved and that, you know, maybe that happens.

Do you think that this is, this may, it feels to me like the antithesis of that, but what is your take or what has the research shown you about this form of [00:24:00] giving and its relationship to strategic philanthropy?

Grace: Yeah. Well, as you know, I mean, I don’t even know that I know the definition of strategic philanthropy anymore, right?

Like the way that it’s been used and, and the challenge with Mackenzie Scott is like, we can’t ask her like what her strategy was. Right? But I think we can, we can deduce, I mean, I think. What we found in our research is that equity was a really big focus of hers, right? So she was giving to groups that were, um, on the front lines of equity and, and then the funding actually really moved the needle on equity for a lot of these nonprofits.

That’s what the leaders said. And so I would say, you know, the large, unrestricted, no strings attached kind of giving it really hit its mark in terms of like her intended impact. Um, is my sense. Right? Again, without asking her, what was your intended impact, um, it seems like it has been really transformational.

And, you know, the thing that I keep. Thinking about with this is that like the, particularly [00:25:00] like leaders of color of nonprofits said like, you know, nobody’s believed in me this way before and you really believed in me, and therefore it actually made me bolder in the way that I fundraise. And I just, I love that.

I feel like, um, whether that was intentional, like a strategy or a, um, like a byproduct of the intention, I think that’s fabulous. Right? So there really hasn’t been, um, like a widespread retrenchment of like, well you got a Scott fund, so therefore we’re not gonna give you any more money. I mean, obviously there’s been some of that, but like it is not a widespread things so far.

Um, so I don’t know, like it really depends on how we define strategy, right? But I think that it’s a result that I think is worthy of examining by folks who do think that strategy is really important.

Eric: Another question that I’ve gotten from. A question from one of the smartest people I know, uh, my wife who’s, who’s a fundraiser.

Like, her question is, do, do we have any sense [00:26:00] about what she and whatever the folks around her, the Bridge spanners and others are, are learning from their own grant making? Given that it is, I mean, a, there’s just so much volume out there. Yes. But b is that most of these gifts are one-time gifts, here’s the money, do it what you want from it, and like what do they learn about how to do it next time or better, or Yeah.

What works in philanthropy? Any sense of the learning piece?

Grace: You know, I don’t, I really, I don’t have a sense of that. And I think that, um, you know, our hope was to have these reports to help the field to kind of learn and, and may maybe it’s helpful to her and her team as well. And I, my guess is that with the yield giving folks, now that they are also doing the data collection, I.

Um, for her, and again, that seems like the yield giving attempt or like the whole, um, not attempt, but the whole process seems like, um, being responsive to some of the critiques, right, of the, like the prior, the right [00:27:00] first three years that we studied. So there’s more of a process now. There might be an application, like that kind of thing.

And so, um, I mean, that’s the one critique that some folks have had, right? Where there isn’t a relationship with the funder where there can be like a dialogue around lessons learned or, you know, for folks who didn’t get a grant, like what was the process here? And like how do I explain to my board that I, I didn’t get a grant?

You know, like, and so there are certainly some downsides to the approach. Um, but you know, it’s just interesting to see how it kind of have, has all fit together though, right? Like the downsides plus the, the large and unrestricted giving.

Eric: Are you seeing foundations changing at all based on this, that they’re learning from this experience or experiment or whatever, whatever you wanna call it.

Grace: Yeah. That’s actually one of the questions we hope to answer in year three actually, is we actually are serving funders more broadly about their attitudes towards her giving and whether it’s [00:28:00] impacted the way they approach their work. And so we hope to have more data on that, uh, when the report comes out.

I mean, certainly she has created a conversation and a model, right? Like when I saw Melinda French Gates come out, um, to talk about her new philanthropy, you know, I saw some echoes, right? Like she talks about how she and Mackenzie Scott are good friends and they really exchange notes when it comes to giving.

And the fact that Melinda French Gates did that thing where she chose, um, the women who, to regrant kind of gave them each a large chunk of funds to regrant into their communities like. I, I just see echoes of Mackenzie Scott in that as well. So she really has started a very large conversation in the field, and I do think there is an impact, and I’m excited that we’ll be bringing a little bit more data to bear on, like how much impact there

Eric: is.

Well, I’m, I’m curious about this, this third wave of research that you’re doing. Y so you, you mentioned the, you’re trying to figure out what other foundations are learning. What [00:29:00] are some of the other big questions that you’re asking?

Grace: You know, we, we’ve been following up with some of the same nonprofits since the beginning, so some of the earliest recipients, um, the ones who receive grants later, we’re also following up with them.

Again, none of the yield giving folks. And so the folks that we’ve been following for a while, it’s like, okay, what does year three actually look like? Like, have you run into anything, like knowing that there’s a really long time horizon for the impact of these things? Like we wanna continue to ask the same questions.

And on top of that, like I mentioned, we’re also looking at nine 90 data just to see like independently. What is the financial trajectory like for these nonprofits? So that’ll be really interesting, serving the funders. Um, and then just like any other themes that have come out, right? So like I mentioned, you know, nonprofits were using the funding to expand their programs and also really invest more in their staff capacity.

How’s that going? Have they run into any road bumps? Like, and, and again, like echoes of the absorbative capacity question. Are [00:30:00] we seeing anything like, again? ’cause I know that it is on everyone’s mind. Um, so that, yeah, those would be the questions that we hope to answer in year three. I

Eric: wanna go back to other foundations.

Mm-Hmm. Because a lot of folks have kind of taken it personally, like, oh, I, I have a staff of 150 to give away 100th of the amount of money that you give. Like, I, I kind of take that personally. Are are you, are you seeing however that, what other effects, I guess Yeah. Are you seeing in philanthropy of this approach?

Grace: Yeah. I think that it really ties into this really big debate about, is there really a tension between quote unquote trust-based philanthropy and rigorous evaluation and like stewardship, right? Because it feels like on the surface there’s a really 10 big tension there, right? It feels like, oh wait, you don’t want grantees to write a report?

Like, how do I then make sure that I’m stewarding these funds? Which is a great question, right? Like [00:31:00] we do want really good stewardship. But you know, I think we at CEP and, and many others, I think we don’t think that there’s an actual tension there, that trust itself can be a strategy, and no one’s saying like, you should just throw out everything, right?

Like. Oftentimes the, the conversation we have around the grantee perception report and finding out how much time grantees are spending on a funder’s processes is like, what is the process doing for you and for the grantee, right? Like, it has to be useful. And oftentimes grantees will say, actually, really found the reporting useful to me.

Like, I really appreciated going through that. And then we also know of cases where they say, yeah, no one’s gonna read that report and I know it. Right? And so, right. I think that that’s like a really valid tension for foundations to wrestle with. It’s like, okay, we have these processes and we also have these values.

Where do the two meet? Right? And, um, what can we do with, and what can we do without in terms of making sure that we’re, um, doing the best we can to [00:32:00] serve communities and, and our grantees? And I think that’s such a great conversation to have. And Scott’s giving has really brought that to the fore.

Eric: And has there been a, a really light bulb moment from.

Looking at all this research and talking to all these people for you, a really important lesson that we haven’t talked about so far that you really, that you think that the world of philanthropy, just that one is really important to understand.

Grace: Yeah, I mean, I think, I just wanna underscore again, the, the thing that struck me the most is leaders of color, of nonprofits who were believed in and seen by her giving.

It was really transformational for them. It was the, the trust. It was the large gift. It was the margin to breathe and to dream. I don’t know that that just really sticks with me, and I think that. I know that many foundations really care about racial equity and um, also kind of want to provide that kind of margin for leaders that they [00:33:00] support.

So yeah, that, that’s what I keep going back to in my mind of just like, oh, I, I wonder whether she actually knew that that was like an intended consequence or actually, like, it’s just a really beautiful consequence of like the way that she approached it.

Eric: I was just thinking that your podcast giving done Right is targeted towards donors.

Mm-Hmm. Now this can include individual donors who just make annual gifts by sitting down at the kitchen table to write their checks all the way up to, you know, big foundations. Do you think that what we’re learning from this has benefits even for small donors like

Grace: you or me? I definitely think so. Like, I think that her approach to equity, like she, she obviously had folks do the homework for her, but like, I.

Understanding kind of what you’re giving to and why. Um, and obviously like nobody is going to give at the quantities that she is giving, but I think hearing the voice of like the nonprofits that receive the gift of just how the bigger gifts really did make a difference. Like [00:34:00] when people ask me now, oh, should I spread my gifts around to many nonprofits or should I actually consolidate?

My answer is a little bit more on the consolidation side now than it was before. I have to say like, let’s be really clear on what your philanthropic goals and strategies are. Really try to be as generous as possible to those groups. Yeah, that’s a really

Eric: good point. Two more questions. Mm-Hmm. So one is, are you gonna make, is CP just gonna make a cottage industry out of McKenzie Scott and just continue to do this long term research so we get a better sense, kind of a longitudinal study of these organizations?

Yeah. Because the research seems like that could produce a lot of useful information over a long period of time. Is that what your plans are, give or take?

Grace: Um, so we would love to, I mean, it’s interesting, right? I mean, you, you know, this, it’s like the McKinsey Scott research is just one fraction of the research that we produce.

Like we have a piece out on intermediaries coming this month and state of nonprofits every year, all of that. [00:35:00] So, uh, but the answer is yes. Like we would love to, I mean, it’s not for us, right? It’s really for the field. Like someone. Needs to be studying the longitudinal effects of her giving. And, um, if it’s us, great.

If folks are interested, please do reach out in supporting that work. Um, but you know, whether us or someone, I think that the insights that people gather are just really helpful for nonprofits, for other donors, um, as we all figure out like what, you know, what works and what’s effective and what’s impact, um, look like.

And so, yeah. So we would love to be a part of that. And also would love if others, um, wanna join us.

Eric: All right. Now I’m gonna put you on the hot seat. Mm-Hmm. I hope you don’t mind, but I’m sure you, I’m sure you’ll nail this question. Alright. Say Mackenzie Scott is just sitting here next to me. Uhhuh. What, what question would you ask her?

Grace: I would ask her, I think that your question of like, I. What have you learned? Like I would [00:36:00] actually be really curious, like what her key takeaways are. Right? Again, we can’t ask her that question, and like, there’s all this data out there, so presumably she’s reading it, she’s getting good insights from the folks that support her.

But, um, at some point, I mean, it’s interesting, right? Like she’s not talking to anyone now, but I think that that may not always be the case. That’s my hope, because I, I do feel like we would have a lot to learn from her if she did share, right? So maybe my question is like, what have you learned? And also would you be willing to share, because I really think that we all wanna hear from you, Mackenzie.

Um, that would be what I would say to her. Well, then luck,

Eric: she’s listening to this podcast. So there, she’ll call, she’ll call, she’ll call and answer that. Not be surprised. She’ll call and answer the question, but until then she remains the Wizard of Oz. And it has been really interesting, exciting. I thank you very much for the research that you’re doing, and thank you for your podcast.

Thank you for your [00:37:00] work. Grace Nicolette, vice President programming and external relations at the Center for Effective Philanthropy. Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Grace: Thanks for having me.

Kirk: And we’re back. Okay, so before we get into the big stuff around this wow. Mackenzie Scott, uh, grant making, I do wanna talk about the Center for Effective Philanthropies Report Writing Function.

And actually I wanna talk about the grantee. Perception report, which is a seminal Publica, a seminal bit of research that the Center for Effective Philanthropy has been running for years. And I liked your little acknowledgement into having been a little bit of a th what, what did you say? A stone in the shoe or a thorn in the saddle Fur.

Under the saddle. Under the

Eric: saddle. So fly in the ointments and, and I wanna banner in the works. There are many metaphors for the pain in the ass. I can be,

Kirk: well, it, it’s so kind. The Center for Effective Philanthropy, they put, they put their response on mute to start, they [00:38:00] wrote the first email and they deleted it.

And then, and then the next email will come back. Wow. What interesting ideas. Let’s explore that. So this idea now go away. No, no, no. They were

Eric: always really responsive, gracious. And I was one of the, we were. Early, early supporters at the Gila Foundation of Center for Effective Philanthropy. And we were early users of the grantee perception report.

And the one, I’d say the, if I, if there was one thing that I could be proud of in communications, in philanthropy, it was being part of the work that was publishing the findings of our grantee perception report on the Hewlett website early, early on, before anybody else had done it. So we were one of the first, but that was really because Paul Breast, our, our president was fearless, heated.

He’s like, Ooh, this is really interesting. We should just put on the website. Like, yeah, that’s a great idea. And people would say, what was the incredible process that you had to go through? Do what are the hoops you had to do? Like, yeah, no hoops, right? So, but we had post, but I think that was really [00:39:00] meaningful for CEP because of a great big foundation like Helo was willing to share their findings publicly.

It endorsed the process. It helped show people what you could learn. It was, it was Paul’s idea and it was a great idea. It, I think was very valuable for the field

Kirk: and perceived at the time to be very risky. And I think actually that’s what’s cool about this. There’s a thread that connects that work all the way to what Mackenzie Scott’s doing.

I think because this notion that a major foundation would say, Hey, let’s be somewhat transparent about the feedback we’re receiving. And even this notion of let’s ask our grantees in this anonymous forum that hopefully gives them more permission to be frank and forthcoming about their experiences with us.

But to actually, uh, look and examine what we’re hearing from our grantees and then see how that might change our practice. So now I’m gonna put, now I’m gonna put you on the spot ’cause this is a Oh good. This is an outcomes oriented conversation. So did that report, did that, you don’t have to say specifically why or how, but did that report shape practice?

[00:40:00] Within the foundation in your recollection? Or was it just as much important was just the, the, the, the process of going out and asking questions and all that kind of stuff. But, but how did the foundation relate to that report? ’cause that’s always the, the vague part. If you’re a grantee, you’re, you’re, you’re responding to this survey, it’s a little bit risky.

’cause you never know, you always feel like somebody’s actually looking over your shoulder when you’re doing the responses. But how did that, how did it land as a foundation receiving that? How did you guys use it? Oh, we

Eric: absolutely, it absolutely affected our practice. Mm. And it was quite interesting ’cause the different programs, they, they could bunch these, this feedback by program.

Mm-Hmm. So the environment program is like, Ooh, we didn’t do good at this thing. So let’s, as a program figure out how to improve upon it. And we would put all sorts of processes into place to do better on certain questions like. My one question would be, my funder understands my strategy. Mm-Hmm. And the other question would be, I understand the funder strategy.

Mm-Hmm. And if either of those things [00:41:00] came up bad, the foundation is kind of, they really didn’t like that. Yeah. You wanted to be on the same page with your grantees about the strategy. And so that was one of those things in particular that we felt that the programs could be more transparent with the grantees by, here’s what our strategy is, here’s where you fit into it.

Here’s how we work together. Here’s what the future looks like. Here’s how we support that kind of stuff. I do think that that’s how you build trust with a grantee. And it’s how you help better shape a strategy, which, and I’m a segue, segue on you here, Kurt. There you go. Always take us away. You can always pull me back if you need to take us away.

But I think this is the big question around the Mackenzie Scott funding, because I did ask the question, I, uh, a question on behalf of my wife, which is, what is Mackenzie Scott learning about this process? And Grace said, we actually don’t know. But you would think that to really go deep and to make sure that this money is used as well as it possibly can, that kind of shared understanding and learning is really [00:42:00] important.

And maybe it’s just that the scale is too great, like Mackenzie’s got, and Bridgespan and all the folks who are presumably working very hard to get this money out the door. They just don’t have time to learn that much. And that may just be the price of doing business, but it would be quite interesting to know how a funder can learn about what these big transformative gifts can do for a grantee, other than the fact that, oh yeah, it was really great.

It was transformative.

Kirk: Yeah. The, so let’s jump the, the, the pitch I’d make the connection between the grantee perception report and then the McKenzie Scott giving is this notion of partnership around change and how the parties come to each other. Increasingly as equals. And that was the, I think the incredible thing about the Hewlett Foundation back in the day saying, and, and this is the thing I think you and I both loved about Paul.

Paul breast, by the way, is like his willingness to really stick his neck out as a, as a seminal foundation leader. And he did that so graciously and so gracefully and so often that it starts being taken for [00:43:00] granted how unique it was to, for, you know, ’cause back in the day, the Hewlett Foundation was kind of a, it was like, it really was the 800 pound gorilla in the room in a sense, right?

Like, it was one of the largest foundations of its kind. It was the sort of early face standup of the early tech, you know, like, which is now so, so generationally old. It’s almost like, you know, a dinosaur philanthropy in a way. But, but the Healt Foundation was willing to say, Hey, we, we actually care about this feedback.

We’re gonna onboard it, we’re gonna take it in that. Jumping to the McKenzie Scott stuff, man, this is interesting. The, the one thing I would say in terms of a assessment and trying to understand impact, I mean this, this feels a little bit like. Um, watching a Python consume a cow. If you, if you think about,

Eric: think, wait, who’s the python and who’s the cow?

Now think about, so, so

Kirk: here, here is, this is from the latest analysis.

Eric: Wait, by the way, I’ve never seen a python. Consume a cow. Google

Kirk: it. Look it up. It takes a while. You’re from

Eric: the mid, you’re from the [00:44:00] Midwest. It takes some time. I have all those things. It takes some sideshow, right?

Kirk: Some, but the, uh, interstate, the, the median grants being received relative to the operating budget prior to the grant from the latest CEP assessment on this.

So the median, there’s, there’s way smaller, and then there’s much, much larger, but the median is six and a half million dollars was the operating budget before the grant, and the median amount of gift receiving is $5.7 million. So you’re basically a year’s

Eric: worth of Yeah.

Kirk: Yeah. You’re basically saying if you wanted to consume this in a year, you’d double all your operations, which of course, you know, Nicolette already said nobody’s gonna do that.

Bad idea. Super irresponsible. But so, and also the process through which these dollars are, are delivered is literally a phone call that brings people to tears.

Eric: Right?

Kirk: How profound is that, right.

Eric: Ed McMahon, there’s your ed, your house,

Kirk: here’s your check. So, you know, arguably I think you could make the case to say, you know, if, if anybody knows [00:45:00] anything about any of this this soon, it’s just premature because can you imagine?

Sure. Any organization sitting there, and I do think this whole notion about what absorptive capacity, I know it’s such a funny oh

Eric: man thing. And then Glenn Gall, he, you can see his head, his face gets red. And his, and his head starts to, to separate from his neck when he hears that one.

Kirk: How much, how much money did it take to come up with a phrase absorptive capacity?

Eric: You know, it was, it was, I’m sure it was an a, a messaging firm that had a lot of absorptive capacity. Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. Observed a lot of money.

Kirk: But can you imagine the catcher’s, MIT, of using a baseball analogy, given you love of the sport, but could you imagine having a, a capture’s mi that’s twice the size of your current annual operating budget, like you’re doubling overnight.

You, you just know what to do with that and you can turn that, you can turn that in a dime. No, it’s gonna take you months. Even. This is just a metaphor machine. This, this is what it is. I, I, well, and so this is, I’m very abreast, but, and I feel [00:46:00] passionately about this because I have been the recipient. Of some of these checks, not at this scale, but I’ve, I’ve, I’ve been in a moment where I literally received a hard check with the words, $1 million handwritten on the check in, then hand side, the order of

Eric: cash,

Kirk: right?

You a billion dollars and you receive this check. You don’t even know how to process it. ’cause of the world that we’ve lived in and, and, and have been around, and that million dollars is transformative in terms of this, this, the scale and the scope of the operation you’re running. But it always struck me the notion of handing an organization an amount of money like that and saying, spend this in 12 months was almost.

It was almost, um, irresponsible because it’s almost like you need, you need a quarter or two to just ramp up to how to spend it because you’re, you need to hire staff, you need to have programs. Like even if you have a fully baked program strategy, when people hand you seven figures or more dollars, you’ve gotta hire, you’ve gotta onboard, like it takes you, if you [00:47:00] go at the speed of light, it’s gonna take you a quarter to get all the people in place.

Then it’s gonna take you another quarter to get them trained and oriented. So now you’re, you’re six or nine months down the pike and you’ve got a year to show impact. So, so I love this

Eric: question. That’s the difference. Yeah. That’s the difference here. Use the money how you want and you know what your impact is.

You don’t have to write me a big report. Right. That’s, I think the difference here, obviously. ’cause if you’re telling somebody they need to spend a million dollars in a year. Seems kind of, oh, and show me all the fabulous things that you’re gonna do. Right. You know, the outcomes in a year’s, like that’s not how the world works.

Kirk: Right. But the multi-year, you know, occasionally that funding comes as part of a multi-year tranche, that helps. But, right. So this whole notion of like, how long is it gonna take to digest? So can I just run some numbers by you?

Eric: Yes. So first I was thinking about the Python. Does the Python swallow the catchers MIT, or, or, or does the, or is the catchers MIT made out of the cow?

Is that where we’re going with that? Hey, this is

Kirk: a vegan podcast. How dare you. So I think the Python consumes the catcher’s mi uses that to catch [00:48:00] the cow and then spends six months just sleeping it off. I think that’s how it works. Absorbing the capacity. Exactly. So, okay. Now run some numbers by me. So I wanted to look some stuff up ’cause I was like, wow, this is, this is really astonishing.

So first of all, and this is from Forbes, well, who knows how accurate any of these numbers are, but Mackenzie Scott, current net worth of $37 billion. Is $2 billion more than it was when she first, um, received this resource as a result of, of no longer being with Ezzo. So even with all the giving that she’s doing, her net worth grows and this is up, this is this thing about dollars.

That scale. That’s so interesting. I it, part of me just wonders, like when you’re working with philanthropy at any level, and this is, I’d love to hear you talk about this. Does it just feel like you’re throwing stones into an ocean? You know, it doesn’t matter how big the stone is, it just goes and it gets consumed by the scale because, so as of April, 2024, this is from AP [00:49:00] Mackenzie.

Scott is delivered $17.3 billion to 2300 nonprofits, $17.3 billion. And while those of us in our field know this is happening and think this is so transformative, part of me is wondering how are there any problems left to solve? You know, I mean, I mean 17, right? But right. So the $17 billion, it feels so big and it’s so small.

So can I give you one, uh, one data point to hold it in contrast just to think about this and I wonder Sure. Although I was

Eric: told there’d be no math. But go ahead.

Kirk: So an estimate, and you can’t, you won’t know ever precisely, but an estimate of the total spending that’s gonna happen this year on this political cycle, the estimates range between 12 and $17 billion total.

So, so, so I just took my brother away, Mackenzie. Scott’s giving matches the amount of all the money that’s being spent in the silly season. And that’s not just for the [00:50:00] presidential, that’s all. That’s all. So part of me. So back to this question of like strategy, what you’ve learned about also, what is your approach?

Part of me is like. Mackenzie, so this is awesome. And we’ve, and and this is right by the way, I, let me just say, come down. Clearly what she’s doing is right, and I, and we will talk about more, but, but Mackenzie could have just said, you know what, I’m gonna buy every single ounce of airspace anywhere this election cycle, and I’m gonna, and I’m gonna own the airwaves.

And, uh, and, and that’s how I’m gonna spend my $17 million. And depending on the outcome of this presidential, that may or may not be that all of the 17 billion that’s been put in nonprofits may or may not be worth what we think it could be worth if we don’t have democracy in America. But, but what do you think about this?

’cause these are all the choices we end up seeing, right? When you, when you’re think, when you’re thinking about, uh, philanthropy at this kinda scale,

Eric: you know, Kirk, um, most of the time when we have these kinds of conversations, you launch some sort of crazy Octa nut burger idea that I always like roll my eyes and all that, [00:51:00] but I have to tell you.

I was thinking almost exactly the same thing. Isn’t it interesting

Kirk: I was,

Eric: I, you and I for once have come up with the same idea and my version of it Yeah. Is a little less, a little less curian. And that is, it’s a little more rational and a little less nutty. But what I would say is I would spend the money, I would spend a, a large amount of money, uh, just making sure that the interstate electoral college Yeah.

Compact or whatever it’s called, gets passed so that we elect our presidents based on the, um, the popular vote. Mm-Hmm. And I think if you had, we had done that in two out of the last six elections. The person who lost the election got the White House. Mm-Hmm. And look what happened. So in that sense, I think you’re right that that is an investment in all of the organizations that benefit from democracy.

And that might be an efficient way to go about it. I mean, I think you could probably get that done with a couple of billion dollars, but it, you know, there’s [00:52:00] some smart political operatives out there who get that passed. Those legislatures in the states that, you know, they already have 17 or 18 states and they only need six or seven more to tip the balance.

That’d be, that’d be great. I would do that. That’s what I would do If, if I had a couple of spare billions of dollars lying around. Is it? But I get your point. You gotta get the democracy first and the stuff that sits under it. Otherwise, the stuff, stuff that sits under it is, is less material, not immaterial, of course, but.

You know, less, less potent.

Kirk: But isn’t it interesting how creative and clever we get about spending other people’s money? Is it

Eric: how we all have, oh, oh, I’ve got the great idea. Hey, look man, you’ve gotten really clever about spending other people’s time like mine, right? So I, I think you have no problem spending other people’s money while you’re at it.

Kirk: So let me make the case for why I think Mackenzie Scott is, is so dead on precise in what is happening here, that it’s an absolute bullseye, which is so, Mackenzie Scott is demonstrating, I think one of the greatest, uh, traits you [00:53:00] can have in philanthropy, which is humility. Yep. So Mackenzie Scott is not the story here, right?

All of the analysis work is being done on the front end, which means that Mackenzie Scott is paying for all of the work it takes to figure out if you’re, if you’re worth a worthwhile recipient of a grant. And I think this is the thing that, um, foundations often don’t understand is even as we have these conversations about admin rates, you have no idea how much time people take prepping for even a single meeting with the big ticket foundation.

You just have no idea what goes into that. And so Mackenzie Scott saying, look, I’m gonna pay for the cost of all that. We’re gonna figure out whether or not you’re, you’re a good, you’re, you have the capacity to be a good steward for these resources. We’re gonna do that in, in totally in the dark and not gonna bother you at all.

And that this entire transaction for you is gonna be to answer the phone, tell us where to send the check, and we’re gonna say it’s gonna one time, don’t count on anything after, which means she’s not changing you forever. By the way, she’s not, she’s not making you addicted to this resource. She’s saying it’s a one, one time thing.

You figure out how to internalize this and then they move on. And, [00:54:00] you know, and honestly, like, like hearing you talk about this, and I think we should talk about the Center for Phil Philanthropy and, and what, you know, grace talked about how they were responding to this, but this just felt like such a breath of fresh air.

But how does it feel to you, having been around this and having been in rooms where. Hundreds of millions of dollars and billions of dollars we’re moving philanthropically. How does it feel to you? Because it just, it feels just great to me. Honestly. It just feels great.

Eric: Yes. Oh, and by the way, it’s, it’s so clear to me that you’re trying to curry favor with Mackenzie Scott, so that, you know, let’s hear It can get properly funded

Kirk: now.

You can’t contact us. We do have a website there, an email, there’s a Twitter page so obvious, so

Eric: transparent and, and boldly, um, baggy of you. But that’s, that’s okay. That’s fine. What I would, what I would say is this is a good strategy. It is by no means the only strategy. Right. And I think that if. This type of funding can support organizations that are [00:55:00] doing great work, and then other funders can come in and say, okay, what is your strategy?

How do we support you over time? How do we learn from what you’re doing? How do we teach you what we’re learning in a way that’s collegial and non domineering and doesn’t mess up the power dynamic too much? Then that is kind of a good, whatever, Texas two step mm-Hmm. I don’t know, coming up with some other metaphor, but the idea is that I, I wouldn’t.

I think that this should not be the only way someone goes about funding, but it’s obviously having a benefit for many of these organizations. I mean, just ask the Center for Effective Philanthropy, whether this gift was transformative or not, and it, whether it gave them space to do the sorts of things that they might not otherwise do.

And they will also tell you that it didn’t affect it everyone, their funders didn’t just kind of dry up because they had this money.

Kirk: Right?

Eric: They get it that this is a, this is part of a, a, a broader strategy, a, whatever you wanna call it, a portfolio strategy, if you will. So I think in that sense, it’s really great.

It’s very smart, really [00:56:00] interesting. I wanna know more about what they’re learning about how this is working and how it might not be working so that other people can take the best of it and run with that too. That’s my. 10 cents.

Kirk: Yeah. And, and you know, and so I think we can both agree that abortive capacity, we’re not really, that organizations have needs.

They can figure out ways to scale. They can, but it did strike me that, um, to your point about there are different ways of supporting organizations and it’s the sum of all of it that maybe is the greatest thing we should be thinking about. In a way, you could argue that McKenzie Scott is kind of surfing a wave, that more rigorous philanthropy is maybe created.

For her, because you know, this, this part where you have to rigorously assess whether or not organizations are creating outcomes. Are they fiscally responsible? Are they good stewards? Do they have a good practice top to bottom? How about board management? You know, big foundations for years have been investing in that sort of organizational capacity building because they wanted organizations that were good partners for this very rigorous grant [00:57:00] seeking that most foundations put you through, you know, which is like you.

And so, so in a sense it’s all that work of like kind of wrestling things through, and you can call it strategic philanthropy or trust based or just philanthropy, whatever you’re gonna call it. But that, but that rigor that organizations have had to kind of gear themselves to, to confront. And I’m just talking about the, the.

Apart from foundations. I’m not talking about the federal oversight, the state oversight, that’s come as, as we’ve wanted more transparency around how foundation, how nonprofits are spending their dollars. But, but it could be that McKenzie Scott’s actually riding the wave created by that then, because now, now there’s a whole field of organizations out there that can meet that kind of rigor that McKenzie’s doing before you even hear from them.

And then they can, they have a better way, a better channel for targeting their dollars. I mean, and actually, could you argue the Center for Effective Philanthropy is an example of this, right? So they receive a call, here’s $10 million. Can you imagine? And, and, and, and listen to the conversation that happens internally and the way that Grace talks about how that they approach this.

I mean, how [00:58:00] smart is this to be like, yeah, actually we have some, uh, we know there’s some things we can do right away. Let’s have a strategic opportunity fund. Let’s think about how we can actually Oh, raise staff salaries to make these jobs more sustainable. I mean, this is exactly what we’ve known has needed to happen in the non-profit world for years, right?

Eric: Yeah, yeah. No, I think I, I, you’re right now raising staff salaries. Now they’re gonna have the, a higher floor, so they’re gonna have to raise more money. It’s gonna change their budget, and that’s that. But you work it out, you know, that’s, it’s easy now, maybe harder later, but if that’s what has to happen, then it’s what has to happen.

You figure it out.

Kirk: Well, and I loved how, um, grace was talking about. The way that the Center for Reflective Philanthropy has learned to speak differently about its work to different audiences. And I feel like there’s a through line here around this McKenzie Scott work that comes forward when Grace talks about the impact for [00:59:00] nonprofit leaders of color for receiving these calls.

Eric: Yeah, for sure.

Kirk: And that piece around, we were seen, we were valued. We were trusted. And there is a thing around trust. Can you really trust people to follow through? And for McKinsey’s got to be like, yes, I trust you. It’s that being seen part and there. So that could be almost the most powerful part of this in a way, because there is that just power dynamic.

There’s that kind of archetype who see me, who’s getting me think, and there’s, there’s no more powerful way to do that. And, and we only know that story is even out there because of the work that the Center for Effective Philanthropy is doing to actually surface that, that information.

Eric: Yeah. Which again, too, my point, I’d like to know more

Kirk: Yeah.

Eric: About what they’re learning. I think that would be helpful for us. Look, she could tell, talk or not talk. It’s up to her, to her money, her thing doesn’t matter. But I think that there’s value to be had from it.

Kirk: So why do, why do people like Grace stay at CEP for 13 years and say it’s the best place they’ve ever worked?

When everything that they do [01:00:00] sounds really hard to me. You’re doing this analysis, you’re producing these reports, you’re trying to mobilize excitement. You’re actually working in this, I don’t know, man, philanthropy. Is it fair to say it’s a cutthroat field? I think in some respects, oh, I think in some respects it is.

I wouldn’t say

Eric: that, oh, come on, they,

Kirk: you’re talking about people’s desperate clambering for dollars and you’re figuring out ways to get people to collaborate together. I, I think that’s hard. I think that’s hard.

Eric: I don’t know. It’s if it’s cuts or they’re using butter, knives, I dunno. It’s, it’s a fairly polite.

Little world and in a good way. Yeah. I mean it’s, anyway, but, but, uh, why would Grace stay at a long at an organization that’s doing great work for a long time? That’s hard but valuable, I don’t know. Seems like a good thing to me. Uh, and it’s everyone there, everyone I know works there is really nice. Yeah, maybe they just like each other and they realize that they’re doing good work and why Mess with success?

So it doesn’t surprise me in the least. And it’s delightful. I, I’ve always really had a [01:01:00] ton of respect and people can go back and listen to the Phil episode from a couple of years ago when his book came out, uh, for, if you wanna get a little broader sense of Center for Effective Philanthropy. And there, Phil Buchanan, who helped start the, still helped start the thing in the early two thousands.

It’s just a great organization and it was delightful to have this conversation. And, um, uh, it’s the one I’ve been waiting, you know, trying to figure out when do we have the Mackenzie Scott conversation? Like, ha, I figured it out. This is what we’ll do, have grace on it. We’ll talk about it. ’cause they have all this great information about it and they’re fun to talk to.

So it was, it was great. Well, and, and, uh, just so delightful

Kirk: and Grace is clearly demonstrating the capacity to the stretch across all the different ways that they are working, both with their report. Um, compilation work and assessment work, but also how they’re pushing it out. And I will say, um, they’ve made the McKenzie Scott report analysis so easy to access, um, folks should absolutely go check out the much alarm, less giving interactive site.

That, and, and I and Eric, man, I [01:02:00] wanna make a pitch. I would love to do this episode just on that. Report and its findings. Ooh. Because it’s, it’s, it’s so interesting that, uh, in theory, this is such a, I’ve heard, I, I’ve had major foundations say to me before that they don’t even think about giving in climate change because it’s kind of covered.

There’s so much, you know, so, and clearly

Eric: they solved the problem. So, you know. Good. Right. Let’s move on.

Kirk: So Grace and your team, you’re just doing such phenomenal work in getting all of this delivered and packaged in such compelling ways. And then to add on top of that, the Giving Done Right podcast, which, um, which is terrific that you’re doing that and putting the effort into that, and you are much better at this than we are, and we’re happy, oh my God.

Eric: Such better RA radio voice. I know they do. It’s just better in every respect. It’s just better in every respect.

Kirk: Well, Eric, that that was anything else we should cover? ’cause that that was really, that was a lot. That was a PhD level conversation about how to change, create change at scale in the United States of America.

Eric: I don’t know, Kirk, this conversation was energizing and exhausting at the same time. And I think that’s just [01:03:00] exactly how you want.

Kirk: That’s exactly how I wanna leave it. Well, grace, thank you so much. Center for Elected, uh, center for Effective Philanthropy. Thank you so much for all your work and um, my gosh, Eric, another great conversation.

Thanks for, uh, thanks for doing that.

Eric: Alright, well you can welcome people out of, out of your little story. We’ll see

Kirk: you next time on. Let’s hear it. We’ll see you next time. Bye everybody. Okay, everybody. That’s it for this episode. Please let us know if you have any thoughts about what you heard today or people we should have on this show, and that definitely includes yourself.

And we’d like to thank

Eric: our indefatigable producer, Harper Brown,

Kirk: John Ali, the tuneful and inspiring composer of our theme music, our sponsor, the Lumina Foundation, and please check out Lumina’s terrific podcast, today’s students tomorrow’s talent. And you can find that@luminafoundation.org.

Eric: We certainly thank today’s guest, and of course, all of you,

Kirk: and most importantly, thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Eric: Oh, no, no, no, no. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Kirk: Okay, everybody, till next [01:04:00] time.