Tell them what they want, what they really, really want.
Recently, I’ve come up against a thorny issue again and again, where it feels like project teams are chasing after their funder. This often manifests as some version of the project or development staff basically asking the funder, “What do you WANT to see out of this program?”
The results of such an inquiry are, frequently, awful. They may name slightly bonkers, definitely illogical, and missing-the-point outcomes that you already know from years of doing this are just not going to happen.
It’s not because your funder is bonkers or illogical. Far from it. It’s because they’re not down in the weeds with you.
This is why it can be really valuable for program and development staff to work together to lead the funder to connect their values to your specific outcomes. So that everyone wins.
Leading, Instead of Following
Let's get something clear up-front: I am by no means telling you to boss your funder around!
The first step in leading the funder is listening to the funder.
Any funder comes to your work with a point of view, values, and priorities that matter to their organization. That should be your starting point. Whether it's public health, art-science integration, or (that old chestnut) STEM workforce, that should guide your program design.
These priorities tell us only that they want to see outcomes in a general Zone of Good. But they very likely do not know specifically what “good” looks like in your work.
When you ask a funder to tell you specific outcomes they think they want, there's a good chance you'd have to respond with, "Yeah, we can't achieve that."
At which, your Development person dies a little inside.
Instead, when you lead the funder, you make clear statements about relevant and specific outcomes you can achieve. That can leave them feeling, "Ooh! I never thought about it that way, but that sounds great."
Don’t set yourself up to talk about what you can’t realistically do. Focus on what you do exceptionally well.
Why Leading Benefits Everyone
As I've observed the shift from federal to private funding, I've also noticed that philanthropic funders are playing in new spaces in the informal learning landscape.
This is great! We need all the diverse support we can get, and I'm thrilled to welcome more people into the playground.
But it means that many funders are just discovering what it means to engage visitors in museums. Or afterschool. Or libraries. Or STEM. Or the arts. Or whatever zone is new to them.
They may have a general notion of what that learning environment is like, but that notion is riddled with assumptions. And they do not know it the way you know it.
So, I tell you to “lead the funder” because they are coming on a journey into a new space with your program. You need to reach out a more experienced hand and help them understand how your work aligns with their vision.
I see new partnerships as an opportunity for funders to learn about the special qualities of our learning spaces. And that will open all of our eyes to new ways that we can promote more good from our strengths.
Define (and Measure) the Actual Good
That's where you come in. You're the expert. You know what your program can do exceptionally well. So, when it comes time to define your outcomes and what you will measure: Lead the Funder.
Describe what you do, how you do it, and the immediate good it creates -- while connecting the dots to the big-picture values your funder cares about.
Instead of parroting buzzwords that are way too big to be realistic, you tell a compelling story with specific outcomes that clearly support their bigger vision.
This is where your evaluation comes in, as well. When you measure outcomes you can achieve, you will be able to show specific, meaningful, realistic, and timely (you know, SMRT) results that anyone can see are valuable contributions toward education around ________.
Those data can knock a funder's socks off because it's authentic to what you do. They never would have thought to ask for that outcome, but now that they see and hear what it looks like, they're thrilled.
And you led them there.
Real World Example:
A very cool program that we've had the pleasure of working with for several years is the Aquarium of the Pacific's CELP Scholars program.
When they started their evaluation journey, they routinely felt pressure to measure outcomes they were “supposed to” achieve. The message they heard was "We want Marine Science PhDs."
That causes me to enter my angst spiral:
- OK, that can happen… eventually. But you need outcomes now.
- What we can measure right now (intent or interest) is unimpressive. And, let's be frank, is easy for kids to BS.
- And, by the way, a PhD is not everyone’s eventual outcome.
- And, frankly, there aren’t enough good-paying jobs that “Marine Science PhD Mill” is a productive outcome for everyone anyway.
- And you are totally missing the transformative changes we see every day!
- And, argh! That’s not how any of this works!!
Their mindset shift came when I told them:
Acknowledge the underlying desire of the funder. They want more and more diverse young people to persist in marine science career paths.
Great. Now stop asking.
It's your turn: What are the transformations you see happening now? Why do those matter to pre-professionals? How does it matter to their future career paths?
When they followed their expertise, the team identified a wide range of skills, awareness, and critical support systems that routinely develop for Scholars. And it was clear how those outcomes lead to the aptitudes and confidence anyone needs to persist in STEM pathways.
In fact, they wrote a CELP Scholars theory of change that could fit on the back of a napkin:
Community
+ Career Awareness
+ Self-Confidence
→ Persistence in the Field
Now we had a buffet of outcomes to measure that were very specific. The change in each area was through the roof -- because it spoke to the reality of the program.
And knitted together, it tells a story that organization leaders, funders, and other stakeholders can understand and get excited about.
So much better than some lame, "75% say they want to pursue a PhD."
What's the most bonkers outcome a funder or stakeholder has suggested for your program? (Names redacted, of course.) Reply and make me feel better about my day.