In early 2007, The CARLISLE Foundation contracted with Technical Development Corporation (TDC) of Boston, MA, to undertake a comprehensive study of our grant making activities and our overall philanthropic efforts.  Although not expected to be fully completed until the end of 2008, CARLISLE is committed to publish the results of this study as they are available.  The first of many documents is the following Executive Summary of our annual grantmaking program.  Additional documents will be posted as they become available.

RAG
1/1/2008

Retrospective Assessment of the
CARLISLE Foundation’s Responsive Grantmaking

Executive Summary

For twenty years, The CARLISLE Foundation (originally CARLISLE Services) has served as an instrument of change in New England's human services arena.  From its inception in 1988, CARLISLE ’s donors and Executive Director crafted an approach which has borrowed the best from both the business and human service worlds in determining how to stimulate and support new and effective approaches to human service delivery.  Drawing from Richard Goldblatt’s two decades of hands-on clinical and administrative human services experience and Grant Wilson’s venture capital and business acumen, the Foundation’s grant making approach has been modeled on the concept of providing “venture capital” for human service programs – taking risks on untested program ideas that foster some combination of innovation, creativity, collaboration, and entrepreneurialism. 

After two decades of grant making and approximately $30 million in investments, The CARLISLE Foundation is interested in capturing a retrospective view of what has been learned and accomplished.  To assist in this undertaking, CARLISLE engaged TDC, a nonprofit consulting and research group dedicated to providing the philanthropic and nonprofit sector with the business and management skills critical to operating effectively. 

The first phase of this retrospective review has focused on CARLISLE ’s “annual grants,” which have constituted the majority of CARLISLE ’s funding.  TDC worked with The CARLISLE Foundation’s Executive Director to review and analyze each of its annual grants. Working from the original grant files, TDC created a comprehensive data base including 425 CARLISLE Foundation grants, made to 353 distinct organizations.  Basic objective information such as the length and total dollar amount for each grant was captured from the files. Subjective information about grants, for example information on project leadership success or the entrepreneurial nature of a grant, was captured through interviews with CARLISLE ’s Executive Director, Richard Goldblatt. 

The key findings from this retrospective review are outlined below. 

• Geographic Focus: Seventy percent of CARLISLE grants were made in urban areas including Boston , Brockton , Cambridge , Framingham , Marlborough , and Providence Rhode Island . A sizable minority of grants were made to both suburban and rural areas.
  
  
• Grant Amount: In their first year, most CARLISLE grants fell into the $20,000 range. When organizations received more than one year of funding, CARLISLE would often decrease grant allotments after the first year to encourage organizations to seek other funding sources.
  
  
  • CARLISLE made twenty-nine challenge grants. Most challenge grants only lasted for one year and the average award was $20,000.
    
    
  • Only ten organizations returned CARLISLE grant money. This occurred when organizations could not raise matching funds for a challenge grant, if program start up dates were delayed, if the entire grant was not spent, or if a key staff member who was central to grant administration left the organization.
    
    
• Length: CARLISLE used an active grants management strategy allowing the Foundation to be proactive by extending grants that were highly successful, and adjusting original funding commitments if grants were unsuccessful. Thus, most CARLISLE grants were initially intended for only one year. In practice 65% of grants lasted only one year and 30% lasted two or more years.
  
  
• Organizational Size: One of the main tenants of the Foundation was to take risks on overlooked organizations rather than funding better-known entities. Therefore CARLISLE placed emphasis on directing grants towards small organizations. Many of the small organizations funded by CARLISLE were in their early years and grant money helped them grow to scale by transitioning from volunteer based organizations to ones with paid staff, or by offsetting staff salaries to allow resources to be directed elsewhere.
  
  
• Type of Grant: CARLISLE made programmatic, public policy, operational, and capital grants, although the vast majority, 90%, were programmatic in nature. These program grants allowed organizations to hire additional staff, fund staff salaries, expand programs, and to support new programs.
  
  
• Primary Focus: CARLISLE grants fell into six categories. Youth development grants comprised the greatest share of grants (33%), followed by homelessness initiatives (15%), domestic violence (12%), substance abuse (8%), and community development grants (3%). Additionally, (29%) of grants were unique in focus and did not fit into one of these categories. Over $3.5 million was directed towards youth development most of which focused on academic support, leadership training, self-esteem building, and programs for at-risk, disadvantaged, or troubled youth.
  
  
• Grant Target Audience: In line with CARLISLE ’s focus on youth development, 37% of grants were targeted at adolescents and youth. Thirty-two percent of CARLISLE grants were targeted at adults, 19% at families, and 10% at children.
  
  
• Entrepreneurial and Innovative Grants: CARLISLE sought to fund innovative programs, and as such over half, 66%, of grants are viewed to have been innovative.Only 12% of grants, however, were viewed to be entrepreneurial. In total, there were 51 grants viewed to be both entrepreneurial and innovative, and executive directors provided grant leadership on the majority of these grants.
  
  
• Project leadership: Executive Directors provided project leadership for the vast majority of grants, 79%. Staff members provided leadership on only 21% of grants. Overall project leadership, provided by both executive directors and staff members was viewed to be successful. As might be expected, executive directors provided project leadership on the majority of grants given to small organizations, whereas staff members provided leadership on grants to large organizations.
  
  
• Project Success: Three quarters of CARLISLE grants were determined to be either somewhat or very successful. Successful grants were generally the result of strong project leadership and communication with CARLISLE throughout the grant period.
  
  
• Project Continuation: Over half of projects continued after CARLISLE funding ran out. Of the 21% that did not, many ended because the programs were unsuccessful and failed or because CARLISLE was the only source of funding. Eighty-seven percent of organizations that CARLISLE funded are still in existence. Many of the organizations which are no longer in existence had trouble complying with CARLISLE reporting and some even dissolved during the time they were receiving CARLISLE grant money.

To enhance the picture summarized above, some additional steps are envisioned.  Profiles of some of the special initiatives as well as some of the exemplary grants will be developed through interviews with Richard Goldblatt, and added to the report to bring some of the key findings to life. 

With this project, TDC has now had the opportunity at three times during the CARLISLE Foundation’s evolution to look closely at its grantmaking.  This twenty year data base retrospective confirms what TDC has twice before found to be the case:  The Foundation has achieved its goal of being an innovative risk-taking entity promoting and disseminating new and in many cases successful approaches to human service dilemmas.