Lucy Bernholz and Tony Wang

BLUEPRINT RESEARCH + DESIGN, INC.

Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

2 0 1 0

This paper was published with the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

BLUEPRINT
research + design for philanthropy

r+d

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. helps grantmaking foundations, individual and family donors, and philanthropic networks achieve their missions. We offer services in strategy and program design, organizational learning, and evaluation, and we think and write about the industry of philanthropy. Since 2004, Blueprint has provided the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation with research, advice, and documentation of the Digital Media and Learning Initiative. That work includes the writing and distribution of five reports on field building, written for the public, as a means of informing the field of philanthropy and as a way to strengthen the emerging field of Digital Media and Learning.

The MacArthur Foundation’s Digital Media and Learning Initiative aims to determine how digital media are changing the way young people learn, play, socialize, and participate in civic life. Answers are critical to education and other social institutions that must meet the needs of this and future generations. Through November 2009, the foundation has awarded 106 grants for a total of $61.5 million to organizations and individuals in support of digital media and learning. The grants have supported research, development of innovative technologies, and new learning environments for youth — including a school based on game design principles.

Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

INTRODUCTION

Many of the largest private foundations, which were created by the vast wealth of individuals who founded private companies, are starting to shape and be shaped by the very same corporate institutions that brought them into existence. In the past few decades alone, we have seen an increase in the influence of private-sector management practices and investment models on the nonprofit sector. Along with this has come the rise of social enterprises that are commited to the ideals of profit plus social impact. As philanthropy continues to broaden its scope in a changing institutional landscape, there are many questions about how it can best use its resources to support a wider range of institutions. Foundations supporting sectors that are undergoing rapid change — from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation’s work in journalism to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s work on food systems — are now confronting the many challenges of moving “beyond nonprofit.” Instead of assuming the traditional roles of institution building or sustaining programs to help them grow until government adoption, funders are examining other strategies that may accelerate innovation, support sustainable companies, and protect the public interest by promoting private interests.

As Ralph Smith of the Annie E. Casey Foundation recently noted, “Foundation philanthropy is increasingly sector agnostic.” Smith suggests that foundation philanthropy is at its best when its resources are directed toward finding, “Foundation philanthropy is increasingly sector agnostic.” demonstrating, and proRalph Smith, Annie E. Casey Foundation moting solutions for the most pervasive and urgent social problems and that foundations can succeed only to the extent that they are willing to pursue solutions wherever they can be found. As a consequence, the timehonored relationship between foundations and nonprofits, while still dominant, is increasingly surrounded by philanthropic strategies that purposefully reach out to the commercial and public sectors.1 The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Digital Media and Learning (DM&L) initiative offers many opportunities to work with nonprofits, universities, commercial game makers, technology companies, and venture funds. Digital media and learning is a nascent field informed by and populated with academics, game designers, museum curators, teachers, media critics, youth organizers, video experts, engineers, entrepreneurs, and policy experts. Because of the multi-sector nature of DM&L, there are many chances to consider the choices of grants and

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 1

investments to support nonprofit and for-profit institutions as well as to promote collaboration among separate sectors. It is important to note that foundations have been funding and investing in commercial enterprises and public agencies for some time. What we see in the examples that follow is an evolutionary step forward from individual investments or grants to entire initiatives. In each of the highlighted examples, the funders recognized that their coordinated strategy rested on the combined contributions of public, private, and commercial partners. The strategic work of understanding existing needs and resources, assessing potential funding partners and sources, and considering the strengths and weaknesses of different organizations and sectors all factor into the process. Within these multi-sector frames, the foundations then seek appropriate partners and strive to use the right type of funding to achieve both an institutional goal and the broader social purpose. This paper focuses on three foundation initiatives (see sidebar on page 3) that work across sectors in order to advance a field. Each example provides a detailed illustration of how grantmakers, in order to address a complex and challenging issue, provided flexible funding as they applied the traditional philanthropic tools in unconventional ways. We consider the following questions in each of the case studies:

relationships among social-sector and privatesector participants?

What kind of financial resources did the foundation provide (grants, below-market-rate investments, market-rate investments) and why?

At the end of this report, we provide an overview of some of the common tools, techniques, and practices that enable multiple sectors to work together more effectively.

ACCELERATING STARTUPS: STARTL’S ROLE IN LEARNER-CENTERED EDUCATION

Why are philanthropic resources necessary to this work? How is the foundation helping to structure

In 2008, after years of funding different initiatives in open educational resources, digital media and learning, and high schools and postsecondary education, the Hewlett, MacArthur, Gates, Kellogg, and Lumina foundations started thinking about the potential of funding early-stage technology projects that could create positive change in the field of education. What the three foundations realized is that innovation doesn’t always have to come from large research institutions or established nonprofit organizations; it can also come from for-profit startups and young innovators. Startl, a nonprofit that seeks to accelerate the process of innovation and change the future of learning, was created to help eliminate the barriers that prevent entrepreneurs from distributing and sustaining needed educational products and services.

2 Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

Why are philanthropic resources necessary to this

EXAMPLES OF WORKING ACROSS SECTORS FOR FIELD BUILDING
This paper will draw primarily from the following three efforts to illustrate the different ways in which foundations have worked across sectors to advance a field:
• Startups in Education — Incorporated in

work?

2009, Startl is an education technology incubator supported by a group of foundations, including the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Lumina Foundation.
• Sustainable Seafood Certification —

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, through its Marine Fisheries program, supports environmental certification standards for sustainable fishing through its work with the Marine Stewardship Council and its investments with the Sea Change Investment Fund.
• Cystic Fibrosis Research — The Cystic

Fibrosis Foundation provides grant and investment funding for cystic fibrosis research in addition to funding and supporting care centers nationwide.

As in other fields, technological innovations in education experience a “valley of death” between the idea stage and the commercialization stage of a product’s life cycle. In the commercial sector, a venture-backed company will move along from one stage of financing to another — from angel investments to Series A to Series B and so forth — until the company files an initial public offering (IPO) or is acquired by a larger company. In this process, the commercially viable ideas move through the valley while less commercially viable ideas stop receiving funding along the way. In education, this valley of death is wide and deep because of the slow pace of school purchasing and because of the buying power of a few major industry leaders, among other reasons. Typical financing structures that exist for other technologies do not yet exist in the education field. Unlike other enterprises that rely on venture capital for innovation, such as Web 2.0 startups or medical device companies, the field of education lacks a robust community of angel investors and trade conferences that can provide valuable access to reources and networks in a startup’s formative years. In addition, much of the current education market focuses on products developed for schools, which often require significant capital investment and years of product development compared to their leaner Web 2.0 cousins. By themselves, for-profit incubators like Y Combinator and DreamIt Ventures wouldn’t select many education startups for their program, nor would they be able to provide the support that education entrepreneurs need to successfully

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 3

launch their endeavors. By applying philanthropic resources as well as public and private investments to support early-stage education entrepreneurs, Startl is attempting to build investment-ready organizations that can successfully move from idea to concept to sustainable social enterprise. Startl’s program support includes Design Boost, a five-day product design and development boot camp focused on digital learning innovations, and Accelerator, a three-month residency and immersion in design methods and business practices for early-stage learning enterprises.
How is the foundation helping to structure relationships among social-sector and private-sector participants?

(a design and innovation consulting company) and Berkery Noyes (a mergers and acquisitions advisory firm), the foundations can support the field’s overall needs rather than directly managing multiple small grants to various institutions.
What kind of financial resources did the foundation provide (grants, below-market-rate investments, market-rate investments) and why?

Although for-profit companies sometimes receive grants from foundations, they are not always the Not all for-profit organizations are ideal partner for philanaligned to foundations’ missions thropies. When a private and interests. foundation wants to provide a grant to an organization that is not a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) entity, it has to use an expenditure responsibility grant, which increases reporting requirements on the foundation and places additional burdens on grant recipients.2 Additionally, not all for-profit organizations are aligned to foundations’ missions and interests. Although a grant could have been made directly to DreamIt Ventures, a for-profit startup, to manage the Accelerator program, the company’s pursuit of profit and its specific program focus on finding and supporting the most profitable startups made it a poor fit. By supporting Startl (see sidebar on page 5) as a new organization that partners with DreamIt, as well as IDEO

Startl’s primary role is to provide programs and to forge partnerships in support of the field. Thus, it made the most sense for the foundations to structure Startl as a nonprofit that would receive grants from foundations without the expectation of a financial return on investment. Although the programs that Startl provides create tremendous value within the field, they would be difficult to monetize; like many other philanthropic efforts, Startl invests in creators of learning products whose social value is hard to fully capture in the marketplace. However, through its Accelerator program, Startl does receive some equity in the teams it supports in order to help offset its program costs. Similar in some respects to Compartamos NGO, a Mexican nonprofit microfinance institution that profited immensely from its investment in and creation of the for-profit Banco Compartamos, Startl takes a 3 percent equity interest in every company that participates in the Accelerator program and plans to use any windfall profits to reinvest in its own programs. After the seed stage, startups that complete the Accelerator program will need additional investment in order to further test, develop, and market their products. However, despite philanthropic involvement in the early stage, traditional market

4 Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

players may still not choose to meet the financing needs of promising startups. Venture funds seek to deliver a certain level of return in a specified amount of time to their institutional investors. This may cut them off from investments in which projected returns materialize over a longer time frame.Through an agreement that gives the foundations a guaranteed option of participating in the first round of investment, some foundation partners may use program-related investments to help support particularly promising ideas related to their interests, taking a subordinate or first-loss position relative to other investors if it is necessary to attract other funds.3

ABOUT STARTL

Startl is a new social enterprise dedicated
to supporting the innovation of effective, affordable, and accessible learning products. Startl’s focus is creating the conditions for success that let innovators create and capitalize products that truly help learners learn. Startl will:
• Establish vision. Define and diffuse

characteristics of effective, catalytic learner-centered products.
• Develop talent. Scout and support

CERTIFYING SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD: THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING MARINE FISHERIES

innovators creating or wanting to create learner-centered products.
• Accelerate products. Advance products

When you go to a supermarket to buy fresh salmon, eat at a sushi restaurant, or make shrimp scampi at home, the seafood you consume comes from a fishery, an entity that raises and/or harvests fish. Some of these seafood products come from fisheries that use good management practices and other techniques to ensure the sustainability of their fishing practices, as certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC); in the United States, you can buy MSC-certified seafood at national chains like Costco, Safeway, and Whole Foods.4 For nearly ten years, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation has been encouraging market interventions to promote sustainable fishing practices, supporting the work of the Marine Stewardship Council, and providing grants and investments for other organizations that work to

to sellable, scalable, and sustainable state for market.
• Position entities. Help connect startups

to resources, investors, and partners for product promotion and distribution to market.
• Evaluate performance. Evaluate the

contributions that Startl network products have on user-centered learning and will aggregate, analyze, and freely distribute research on user-centered learning back to the education market.5

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 5

increase the supply of and demand for sustainable seafood.
Why are philanthropic resources necessary to this work?

The end goal of any certification strategy that aims to achieve social or environmental objectives — whether it’s fair trade or the Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification scheme — is to increase supply and demand in certified products. In the example of fair trade, if more companies produce fair-trade products and more people consume them, more farmers and farmworkers can lift themselves and their families out of poverty. But despite the value created for producers, retailers, and consumers, certification systems are difficult to implement without philanthropic funding. Developing a common standard for certification, enlisting willing producers and retailers, and marketing the brand to consumers are all costly endeavors that may be difficult to offset completely with fees, especially in the early stages when the value of certification has yet to be proven. As the Bridgespan Group points out in an analysis of its work concerning the Forest Stewardship Council and the Marine Stewardship Council certification and eco-labeling programs, “Whether certification systems can ever be selfsupporting isn’t clear; what is clear is that this isn’t a plausible short- to medium-term goal.”6 While certification systems do charge companies to become certified,7 most continue to rely on philanthropic and public sources of funding to maintain and accelerate the adoption of their standards. In addition to the financial resources philanthropy

provides, certification benefits from philanthropy’s ability to coordinate efforts among different organizations in the pursuit of a common goal.The Packard Foundation, as part of its Marine Fisheries program strategy (Figure 1), funds not only the certification agency itself but programs that provide technical assistance and information to companies considering MSC certification, venture investments for distributors who buy sustainably caught fish from responsible fishermen, and grants to groups like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which publishes the popular Seafood Watch pocket guide of sustainable fish for consumers.
Fig. 1. Seafood Markets Strategy: Dynamic Models of Change8

6 Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

How is the foundation helping to structure relationships among social-sector and private-sector participants?

The Marine Stewardship Council is a nonprofit gateway between the large for-profit buyers of seafood and the fisheries that provide the catch. But the Packard Foundation supports organizations that work with multi-sector partners along the entire continuum from catch to consumer. EcoLogic, a nonprofit that provides affordable credit and financial training to groups (including fishing cooperatives), works with fishermen directly to provide loans that enable them to improve their engine efficiency and reduce their environmental impact. Further up the supply chain, the foundation engages major buyers like Walmart to help lead industry support for reform. As part of its broad platform for corporate engagement, the Packard Foundation supports the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions. In 2008, the alliance developed “A Common Vision for Environmentally Responsible Seafood” as a joint strategy to encourage companies to support meaningful change.9 While the foundation initially took the role of orchestrator, helping organizations to do what each does best and work together to achieve common ends, the Conservation Alliance is now taking the initiative. As a result of the alliance’s critical work, fourteen of the top twenty retailers in the United States and Canada now have direct partnerships with nonprofit organizations working on the sustainable seafood issue. On the consumption end, the Packard Foundation made early investments to support Greenpeace USA’s “Carting Away the Oceans” campaign and is now able to take advantage of the opportunities

SEA CHANGE INVESTMENT FUND — KEY FACTS
The Sea Change Investment Fund is distinctive because it:10
• Is an environmentally driven fund • Targets the middle of the seafood supply

chain
• Focuses solely on environmentally-

preferable seafood
• Uniquely blends philanthropic and

private capital The fund is governed by two advisory committees that include professionals in the conservation, seafood, finance, and investment communities. Sea Change Management, which created the fund, partners with its Conservation and Investment Committees to determine which opportunities will advance the fund’s dual conservation and financial goals. After working with entrepreneurs to structure financial terms and a path to improve environmental performance, both committees have to separately approve of the deal before an investment is made.11

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 7

for partnership that have grown out of that initiative. Greenpeace has motivated retailers to act by using a seafood sustainability scorecard developed during the campaign to evaluate supermarket chains.12 Simultaneously pressuring companies and partnering with them has required trust and coordination. Although such collaboration can be costly and is not always appropriate when groups lack strategic alignment, the Packard Foundation has found it to be valuable in promoting communication and coordination among nongovernmental organizations and corporations that may not have the resources, Internet bandwidth, and programmatic coverage to make an impact on their own. As a result of its efforts, the foundation is currently seeing an upward trend ofincrease in memorandums of understanding and other indicators that groups are working together and building stronger connections.
What kind of financial resources did the foundation provide (grants, below-market-rate investments, market-rate investments) and why?

This investment fund focuses on expanding the market for environmentally preferable seafood.13 Investments in Sea Change’s portfolio include Advanced BioNutrition, which has developed an algae replacement for fish-oil and fish-meal products, and Wild Planet Foods, which sells seafood products from environmentally preferable fisheries.14

ACCELERATING RESEARCH: THE CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetic chronic lung disease that causes mucus in the lungs and digestive tract to be thick and sticky, decreasing the average lifespan for individuals with the disease to approximately thirty-seven years.15 The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, which was established in 1955 by a small group of parents who had children with the disease in order to lengthen and improve the lives of people with CF,16 is the primary funding sponsor of CF research.
Why are philanthropic resources necessary to this work?

In order to promote the adoption of certified sustainable seafood, the Packard Foundation needed to support different types of institutions with different forms of capital. The foundation provides grants to nonprofits like the MSC and Monterey Bay Aquarium and uses program-related investments to give organizations the maximum financial support the foundation is willing to provide. The fisheries program makes loans to organizations that provide capital to enterprises that advance the sustainability agenda, such as EcoLogic and the Sea Change Investment Fund.

Biotech companies decide how to spend their resources for pharmaceutical research based on profitability projections for certain markets. In such calculations, diseases that affect a significant percentage of wealthier populations will usually take precedence over diseases that affect a small number of people or are only prevalent in developing countries. Although it is the most common chronic lung disease in children and young adults, cystic fibrosis affects only 30,000 people in the United States and 70,000 people worldwide.17 Medical disease foundations like the Cystic

8 Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

Fibrosis Foundation play a critical role in the market for research on drugs developed for the treatment of rare diseases, known in the industry as orphan drugs. These foundations provide the additional incentives necessary for companies to engage in medical research while also identifying opportunities to accelerate the research process through better coordination.
How is the foundation helping to structure relationships among social-sector and private-sector participants?

Academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies face a number of challenges in coordinating research and interacting with one another.18 For example, while a researcher at a university may learn that a particular compound is ineffective in treatment, other researchers in the same field may be left in the dark. Another common situation occurs when two researchers conducting
Fig. 2. Therapeutic Drug Discovery Pipeline19

the same tests in different institutions find out after the fact that they were engaged in similar efforts, wasting resources in unnecessary duplication. The problems of inadequate information sharing and collaboration among research scientists, which is exacerbated by incentive systems at universities that promote publication at the expense of collaboration, can be addressed by philanthropic support. To tackle this issue, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation established the Research Development Program, a network of research centers at different institutions that encourages collaboration by helping to identify research priorities for the field, forming science teams, and hosting conversations and panel discussions to share and disseminate new research. The foundation also helped create the CF patient registry as part of the common infrastructure that is used by both for-profit and nonprofit groups.

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 9

What kind of financial resources did the foundation provide (grants, below-market-rate investments, market-rate investments) and why?

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency of the U.S. government responsible for biomedical and health-related research and operates as a complement to private sources of funding. NIH funds what private markets will not, focusing on basic research for discoveries that are unpatentable (and therefore less likely to attract private funding) and applied research in medical products that affect a small number of Americans. Philanthropy plays a complementary role to industry and government efforts, avoiding areas that are already funded by public and private sources. One such area is “translational research,” which helps translate basic research to applied research (Figure 2). FasterCures, a nonprofit think tank that seeks to accelerate medical solutions, says that such philanthropic investment in medical research plays a unique, critical role by funding gaps in research, adding that “for some diseases, nonprofit funding models are virtually the only source for innovative research.”20 The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, through its Therapeutic Development Awards program, offers grants to companies that have a potential cystic fibrosis compound or drug and want to engage in preclinical work or pursue a clinical trial. When the foundation funds a clinical trial, the foundation receives royalty rights in exchange for its funding. This serves a dual purpose: First, the foundation avoids issues of private inurement by making sure the exchange is fair and hasn’t

excessively benefited the company conducting the clinical trial. Second, the foundation can sell royalty rights for drugs that are successful, allowing it to reinvest the income.

TOOLS, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES FOR WORKING ACROSS SECTORS

Each of the foundations in the previous examples engaged in strategies that involve understanding the philanthropic opportunity, building partnerships, and using all available resources. In this section, we reflect on some of the techniques and practices funders use to work across sectors.

SEEING THE WHOLE SYSTEM

To successfully work across sectors and fundamentally revise how various stakeholders within a field relate to one another, funders need to coordinate strategies and direct organizations toward the common goals of the field. In the Packard Foundation’s case, the strategy for sustainable seafood certification required consideration of various value chains and the supply chain from sea to table.

PRACTICING SECTOR AGNOSTICISM

The board of the Heron Foundation once famously asked whether the foundation should be more than a private investment company that uses its excess cash flow for charitable purposes.21 Since then, the practice of mission-related investing has grown significantly among private foundations, with several organizations advocating for specific allocations of foundation capital. The

10 Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy suggests that a grantmaker practicing what it calls “philanthropy at its best” would pay out at least 6 percent of its assets annually in grants and invest at least 25 percent of its assets in ways that support its mission.22 The More for Mission Campaign seeks to increase mission investment commitments by foundations to a total of 2 percent of foundation endowments, representing approximately $10 billion of capital.23 The reality, however, is that there is no hard-andfast rule about how much a foundation ought to allocate toward grants, program-related investments, and mission investments. While most foundations budget resources before identifying the needs of a field, practicing true sector agnosticism will require greater flexibility in allocating funding. Ideally, foundations should first identify the issues of a field, determine optimal strategies, and then use the resulting analysis to help inform a decision about whether spending down the endowment, putting all of the foundation’s resources into mission investing and programrelated investing, or some strategy between the two will generate the most impact.

and communities, these efforts emphasize standards, interoperability, and relevancy. Startl, as part of its mission to develop a knowledge base around learner-centered education, has been hosting a blog chronicling different organizations related to the field as a resource for potential applicants and entrepreneurs. The Packard Foundation, as part of its efforts to encourage companies to assess the costs and benefits of adopting certification standards, is working with a grantee to design a “web-based platform for sharing fishery-specific sustainability information, such as environmental assessments, scientific research, management reports, certification status, and alternative sources of product … (that will) add value to existing and new NGO-corporate partnerships by offering action-based, solutionoriented information upon which to make decisions.”24

CONCLUSION

SHARING INFORMATION DIGITALLY

The explosion of social media tools like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, YouTube, and other platforms have already made obvious the potential of sharing information digitally. Much of the nonprofit sector has already adopted these tools for fundraising, marketing, and communication. But their uses for working across sectors are different. Instead of focusing on page views, social networks,

Working across sectors requires clear understanding of why philanthropic resources are necessary, especially when private and government resources may be available. Strategies for reshaping relationships among different actors to promote collaboration can help funders and other stakeholders efficiently allocate the work that needs to be done in the sector. In all three initiatives discussed here, the foundations calibrated their roles based on analysis of funding alternatives and discussion with financing agents from the public sector and private commerce. In some cases, such as Startl, actual partnerships were formed. In others, such

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 11

as Packard’s work with the fisheries, the strategic placement of philanthropic funds was geared toward tipping market practice and creating incentives. These kinds of calculations require working knowledge of the priorities and motivations of both commercial and public-sector entities. Philanthropic funds are used not just to fill a gap in funding but to mitigate some of the risk at the development stage so that the market can carry forward successful innovations. This role as risk mediators is not entirely new for foundations; some foundations have provided loan guarantees and program-related investments in this way for decades. It does require a different type of decision making than most grantmaking processes, however, as well as access to commercial market research, private investor partners, and public-sector colleagues. The three initiatives described in this paper provide a glimpse of the evolution of these practices, the weaving of these new relationships, and, possibly, new philanthropic norms.

“MSC labeled seafood in shops and restaurants — United States,” Marine Stewardship Council website, http://www.msc.org/where-to-buy/msc-labelled-seafoodin-shops-and-restaurants/united-states.
5

4

“About Startl,” Startl website, http://startl.org/about.

Robert Searle, Susan Colby, and Katie Smith Milway, “Moving Eco-Certification Mainstream” (San Francisco: Bridgespan Group, July 2004), http://www.bridgespan.org/ WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&Item ID=1070. B Corporation charges member companies an annual fee based on annual sales, the Green Building Certification Institute charges a flat rate for each project registration, and TransFair charges an annual fee per pound of produce.
8 This figure appears in a draft of “Strategy for MarketIntervention Tools to Conserve Marine Fisheries,” (Los Altos: David and Lucile Packard Foundation, March 2007), 4, http://www.packard.org/assets/files/conservation%20and% 20science/marine_fisheries_strategy_041007_Web_site.pdf. 7

6

Notably, the “Common Vision” identifies the following six critical areas in which seafood companies can demonstrate environmental leadership: commitment, data collection, procurement, transparency, education, and reform. “Steps to Achieve a Common Vision for Environmentally Sustainable Seafood,” Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions website, http://www.solutionsforseafood.org/cv4.
10

9

“Funding Strategy,” Sea Change Management website, http://www.seachangemanagement.com/fund/strategy. “Portfolio,” Sea Change Management website, http://www.seachangemanagement.com/fund/portfolio. “Carting Away the Oceans,” Greenpeace USA website, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/ carting-away-the-oceans. “Sea Change Fund, “ Sea Change Management website, http://www.seachangemanagement.com/fund. “Decision Making,” Sea Change Management website, http://www.seachangemanagement.com/fund/ decisionmaking. “About Cystic Fibrosis,” Cystic Fibrosis Foundation website, http://www.cff.org/AboutCF.

NOTES
“Nonprofits and Philanthropy: Scenario II—An Interview with Ralph Smith,” Nonprofit Quarterly website, http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=1665:nonprofits-andphilanthropy-scenario-ii-an-interview-with-ralphsmith&catid=150:from-the-archives. “What is expenditure responsibility?” Council on Foundations website, http://classic.cof.org/FAQDetail.cfm? ItemNumber=681. “CGAP Reflections on the Compartamos Initial Public Offering: A Case Study on Microfinance Interest Rates and Profits,” CGAP website, http://www.cgap.org/gm/ document-1.9.2440/FN42.pdf.
3 2 1

11

12

13

14

15

12 Border Crossing: Working across sectors for social purpose

16

“Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Strategic Plan Report” (Bethesda, MD: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 2009), 7, http://www.cff.org/UploadedFiles/aboutCFFoundation/ Publications/StrategicReport/Strategic-Report-2009.pdf. “About Cystic Fibrosis,” Cystic Fibrosis Foundation website, http://www.cff.org/AboutCF. For a full list of key issues affecting progress in the traditional academic research system, see: “Entrepreneurs for Cures: The Critical Need for Innovative Approaches to Disease Research” (Washington, DC: FasterCures, May 2008), 6, http://fastercures.org/objects/pdfs/white_ papers/FastercuresWP_Innovation_052808.pdf.

17

18

“Entrepreneurs for Cures: The Critical Need for Innovative Approaches to Disease Research” (Washington, DC: Faster Cures, May 2008), 5, http://www.fastercures.org/objects/ pdfs/white_papers/FastercuresWP_Innovation_052808.pdf.
20 “Philanthropy Advisory Service—Meeting Market Needs,” FasterCures website, http://www.fastercures.org/ index.cfm/OurPrograms/Philanthropy_Advisory_Service. 21

19

“Expanding Philanthropy: Mission-Related Investing at the F. B. Heron Foundation,” (Manchester: Southern New Hampshire University School of Community Economic Development, 2007), 3, http://www.fbheron.org/documents /snhu_heron_casestudy.pdf. “Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best,” (Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2009), 82, http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/paib-fulldoc_ lowres.pdf. “About Us,” More for Mission Investing website, http://www.moreformission.org/page/15/about-us. “Strategy for Market-Intervention Tools to Conserve Marine Fisheries,” (Los Altos: David and Lucile Packard Foundation, March 2007), 6, http://www.packard.org/ assets/files/conservation%20and%20science/ marine_fisheries_strategy_041007_Web_site.pdf.

22

23

24

Blueprint Research + Design, Inc. 13

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful