1 of 61

Growing the SVP Cities Network Wisely

SVP Seattle

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

CONFIDENTIAL

Subcommittee meeting

May 24, 2001

This report is solely for the use of client personnel. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside the client organization without prior written approval from McKinsey & Company. This material was used by McKinsey & Company during an oral presentation; it is not a complete record of the discussion.

2 of 61

DRAFT AGENDA

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

1

This document covers the following:

    • Our workplan and progress to date
    • Rationale for change
    • Our findings re: SVP Cities collective goals and aspirations
      • Key success factors for local SVPs
      • SVP Cities' aspirations
      • Lessons learned from nonprofits' multi-local models
    • Recommendations and key decisions
    • Next steps

3 of 61

DEFINING SVP’S MODEL AND VISION – WORK PLAN

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

2

April 2-May 18

Evaluation/

data gathering

Synthesis and hypothesis generation

May 7-May 25

Test and refine

hypotheses

Build consensus around an answer

Decision making and next steps

May 14-June 1

May 28-June 8

June 10 🡪

    • Meet with SVP Seattle staff to understand SVP structure and function
    • Meet with board sub-ctte to understand and thoughts around SVP Cities
    • Define framework for NPO success
    • Interviews with SVP Cities regarding future vision, value of network organization, and need for governance
    • Talk with McKinsey organization, growth and nonprofit experts to develop framework for evaluation of organizational models
    • Profile NPOs and for-profits with relevant organization and governance structures
    • Generate hypotheses regarding level of connectedness of SVP network cities
      • Incorporate SVP Cities feedback and refine hypotheses
    • Draft SVP organizational model to support cities
      • Mission/aspiration/ guiding principles
      • Funding model
      • Organization/ governance/staffing
    • Refine hypotheses with key stakeholders (e.g., Paul Brainerd and Scott Oki)
    • Define goals for June meeting
    • Define organizational implications for SVP from case studies
    • Interviews with NPOs
    • Refine SVP vision with Seattle Board and subcommittee using dimensions of NPO framework
    • Help SVP Seattle define structure and processes for June meeting
    • Define McKinsey’s role in June meeting
    • Present draft document for June Partners meeting to SVP Seattle Board
    • Draft implementation road map with key milestones and checkpoints
    • Knowledge management research
    • Knowledge management discussion with SVP Seattle

Timing

Activities

Meetings

Team meeting April 17

Team meeting April 24

SVP Seattle Board meeting May 15

Board Subcommittee meeting TBD

SVP Seattle Board meeting June 7

Partners meeting

June 10-11

Team meeting TBD

Team meeting TBD

Current focus

4 of 61

DEFINING SVP’S MODEL AND VISION – WORK PLAN

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

3

    • Key take-aways from interviews in SVP Cities – distribute to EDs, Seattle Board and Subcommittee
    • Evaluation of SVP using framework for NPO success that includes 3 dimensions
      • Clear mission/ aspirations/guiding principles
      • Robust funding model
      • Appropriate organization/ governance and staffing
    • Framework for evaluation of organizational models
    • 4 case studies of NPOs evaluated along dimensions of organizational framework
    • Presentation to SVP Cities’ Partners Meeting
    • Implementation road map with key milestones and checkpoints

Deliverables

    • Document for Board and Subcommittee meeting with summary of current position, examples from relevant organizations, and options for SVP
    • Goals and agenda for June meeting
    • Plan for communication with SVP Cities
    • Draft document for June Partners meeting – visions for SVP including proposals for mission, organizational model, governance, funding, staffing, and infrastructure requirements
    • Communication back to SVP Cities in preparation for June meeting
    • Framework for decision making at June meeting
    • Definition of McKinsey’s role at June meeting
    • Work plan
    • SVP Cities Interview Guide
    • Template for case studies of NPOs and for-profits with relevant organization and governance models

Current focus

April 2-May 18

Evaluation/

data gathering

Synthesis and hypothesis generation

May 7-May 25

Test and refine

hypotheses

Build consensus around an answer

Decision making and next steps

May 14-June 1

May 28-June 8

June 10 🡪

Timing

5 of 61

INTERVIEWS COMPLETED

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

4

ED

Founding partner(s)

Key partners

Other staff

New York

√

Portland

√

Boulder

√

Denver

√*

Dallas

√*

Austin

√

Cleveland

√

Pittsburgh

–

Houston

√*

St. Louis

√*

Boston

√*

Vancouver

√

Calgary

√

Kansas City

√

San Francisco

√

San Diego

√

Phoenix

√*

1

2

1

4

2

–

2

–

–

–

1

–

–

3

3

–

2

–

3

2

4

2

3

1

1

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

3

–

2

1

2

1

–

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

–

–

–

2

Local stakeholders

SVPs

* ED is paid

6 of 61

ORGANIZATION CASE STUDIES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

5

Interviews conducted with

A Children's Circle of Care

Alcoholics Anonymous

Ashoka

Boys and Girls Clubs

CityCares

City Year

Community Foundations of America

Council on Foundations

Community Technology Institute

Strive

The Social Venture Network

The United Way

Great Harvest Bread Company

Nature Conservancy

Oxfam International

Planned Parenthood

Real Enterprises

Society for Organizational Learning

7 of 61

DRAFT STORYLINE

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

6

    • Significant challenges and opportunities indicate that now is the time for SVP to become more intentional in its approach to collaboration and governance
    • SVP could structure its collaborative efforts in a number of ways. The decision must reflect: 1) SVP's culture and aspirations; 2) the key success factors for local SVPs; and 3) lessons learned from other nonprofits' multi-local strategies
    • Consideration of these factors suggests that a "loose federation" with a staff of 2 to 3 (potentially called SVP Cities), is the best starting point for SVP as it best balances SVP's natural desire for autonomy with the potential benefits of strengthened affiliation
    • To flesh out the loose federation model, we have begun to describe the services, governance, staffing, funding model, and membership criteria that will enable effective collaboration. We want your feedback on that initial thinking today
    • Over time, SVP Cities will need to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its centralized functions and processes and revise its model as appropriate. Successful growth of the SVP Cities’ network may warrant a stronger federation model if the experience of similar organizations is indicative

8 of 61

SVP CITIES – ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH TRAJECTORY

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

7

?

SVP Cities is focused on increasing the effectiveness of its network in an effort to

    • Relieve Seattle of some of the pressure of supporting SVP Cities' growth
    • Drive increased impact in our local communities by capitalizing on lessons learned elsewhere
    • Increase efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging shared resources
    • Protect SVP Cities from unsound replication and the potential downside of negative publicity

Concept development

Spontaneous growth

Capturing the power of a network

Active replication and expansion

Number of engaged partners

9 of 61

FORCES FOR CHANGE – WHAT WE HEARD

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

8

Themes

Quotes

Relieve Seattle of some of the pressure of supporting SVP Cities growth

    • "I don't know how Paul and the rest of the gang in Seattle does it . . . we call them all the time. Us times 15 has to overwhelming"
    • "We love working with the other cities, but it is starting to detract from our work in Seattle"

Drive increased impact in our local communities by capitalizing on lessons learned elsewhere

    • "We need to support best practice transfer as best we can"
    • "This model is all about learning to have impact – we need to learn from other cities"

Protect SVP Cities from unsound replication and the potential downside of negative publicity

    • "The positive press to date in Fortune, etc. has been incredibly helpful for recruiting – it does make me nervous if we were to have negative press as a result of a bad apple"
    • "At this stage, one person embezzles funds and SVP could disintegrate. We should do what we can to protect ourselves"

Increase efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging shared resources

    • "There is no sense recreating the wheel on the basics – databases, back office, branding – when we can be having impact on social problems"

10 of 61

POTENTIAL TRAJECTORY FOR SVP

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

9

Imagine SVP in 5 years

    • 30 cities, 20 in start-up, 4 overseas
    • 5,000 partners worldwide
    • Annual conference with �>1,000 partners
    • 180 grants annually, $45 million total
    • SVP spurs philanthropic giving of >$500 million from partners
    • Actively investing in 900 nonprofits worldwide
    • Grant making in kids and education, health, environment
    • Average investee relationship 5 years
    • SVP considered "seal of approval" for nonprofits

Possible successes

    • Over 100 investees "graduated" and successfully growing
    • SVP-sponsored program on how to teach math implemented across U.S.
    • Working with SVP is "seal of approval" that leads to funding
    • SVP asked by Harvard’s Hauser Center to share expertise on capacity building and philanthropy education
    • “Buddy cities” successfully mentor SVPs through start-up

Possible challenges

    • SVP city ED embezzles funds and is indicted
    • Partner attrition in some cities rises to 40%
    • Some cities do not require engagement, volunteer participation <10%
    • One city supports an organization advocating pro-life options for teenage girls
    • A major newspaper uncovers that several cities failed to follow through on commitments to investees
    • Two SVPs arise in the same city and compete for partners

11 of 61

DETERMINING SVP CITIES COLLECTIVE OBJECTIVES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

10

Key success factors for local SVPs

SVP Cities' aspirations

    • Core principles
    • Mission
    • Value of affiliation
    • Facilitating mechanisms

Lessons learned from nonprofits' multi-local models

Critical inputs

SVP Cities' collective

goals and objectives

12 of 61

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR LOCAL SVPs

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

11

    • Qualified executive director and staff
    • Prominent group of founders who are business and community leaders
    • Volunteer team leader to manage volunteers and ensure follow through

Leadership

    • Lean, high quality staff to manage volunteer and education efforts
    • Efficient back office and technological infrastructure (e.g., databases, Web site)
    • Effective mechanisms to share best practices and assess impact

Low-cost, efficient infrastructure

    • Grant making process that selects high-quality investees
    • Volunteers with sufficient skills, training, interests, and time to meet investee needs
    • Long-term, outcome focused, relationship with investees with clear exit strategy

High-impact relationship with investees

    • Active partner recruitment and effective local press
    • Entrepreneurial and volunteer opportunities which are high impact, educational, and fun
    • Strong philanthropy education and engaged grant making process

Effective partner recruitment and engagement

    • Sufficient number of partners (>50)
    • Local foundation or corporate support (financial and/or in-kind)

Sufficient funding and/or scale

13 of 61

SVP CITIES ASPIRATIONS – RATIONALE FOR PARTNER INVOLVEMENT

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

12

Opportunity to give something back

    • "Utilize our talents, resources, and skills to give back to individuals and communities in need"

Entrepreneurial organization

    • "Be part of an entrepreneurial, nonhierarchical organization"
    • "Experience the excitement of a start-up"
    • "Develop relationships with 'likeminded' people"
    • "Combine and focus our resources to generate greater impact"

Collaborative approach to philanthropy

    • "Contribute in a manner that is intellectually challenging and hands-on"
    • "Know where and how my money is spent and drive social impact"
    • "Form meaningful, long-term relationships with nonprofits"

Engaged approach to working with nonprofits

SVP is an …

As SVP partners we can …

Educational process

    • "Opportunity to learn about philanthropy with others in a similar position"

14 of 61

SVP CITIES ASPIRATIONS – MISSION AND CORE PRINCIPLES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

13

Partners believe SVP's mission requires engaged hands-on work with nonprofits in addition to a financial contribution

    • "SVP provides the opportunity to engage at a meaningful level and leverage my skill set"
    • "It's all about giving time and money"
    • "Partners who don't have their skin in the game won't have the same level of commitment"

Themes

What we heard

Overall, the partners agree with the Core Principles . . .

    • "We like the Core Principles and buy into them."
    • "We'd be very concerned if anyone was going to significantly change the core principles"

However, a few partners expressed targeted concerns

    • "5,000 is more capital than people in our community will commit to this"
    • "7 years of investee involvement is too long. We're thinking 3 years and then we're out"

Partner education is considered a critical component of SVP's mission

    • "We want to educate people to be more effective philanthropists – it's the core of what we do"
    • "We're developing the next generation of philanthropists"

15 of 61

SVP CITIES ASPIRATIONS – VALUE OF AFFILIATION

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

14

Themes

Quotes

All partners felt there was value in sharing best practices and knowledge

    • "An annual conference is essential"
    • "Information about grant making and partner education will allow us to drive social impact"
    • "We should be able to scale up terrific ideas across SVPs"

Start-up

    • "Helping other SVPs to get started is part of our mission of creating social change and educating others"
    • "We would not be where we are today without Seattle"
    • "Part of being a member of a network is that you support fledgling efforts"

Most partners see value in having staff support new SVPs through start-up

Knowledge transfer

Branding and marketing

    • "Brand development is absolutely valuable"
    • "Brand is a benefit to us in terms of marketing – we can say this is a growing national organization with 15 chapters"

but . . .

    • "Local look and feel that is important"
    • "We've done work on brand locally and wouldn't want to undermine our partners' efforts"

Partners supported a strategic effort to strengthen the SVP brand although several cities did not want to give up tactical, local control

16 of 61

SVP CITIES ASPIRATIONS – VALUE OF AFFILIATION (CONTINUED)

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

15

Performance evaluation

    • "We should evaluate our performance and share the results externally. We need to practice what we preach"
    • "We need to define what success and failure is. Having someone to compare with will help us do that"
    • "We have a big enough challenge with start-up, we can't think about evaluation"
    • "I honestly don't think we can solve the evaluation question"

Technology

    • "We adapted Seattle's database and it's terrific – everyone should use it"
    • "The more we can capitalize on existing technology and not recreate the wheel, the more we can get into the field and have impact"
    • "A database (to track partner contributions and investees) would be a real source of value "
    • "Who is going to maintain a centralized database?"

The cities consider common technology infrastructure across the network to be a potential source of value, but are concerned about maintenance

Several partners saw value in common performance measurement and management norms, but some were overwhelmed with the task

Themes

Quotes

17 of 61

SVP CITIES ASPIRATIONS – FACILITATING MECHANISMS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

16

Themes

Quotes

Most partners do not want an organization that is top-down or bureaucratic

    • "[The joint organization] should not be competitive, managerial, or bureaucratic"
    • "I don't want a big bureaucracy with lots of layers"

Structure

While partners felt a representative body was needed; some had questions about representation

    • "I assume we would all have a vote"
    • "The tricky question is whether larger cities get more votes than smaller ones"

Governance

Most partners and staff recognized the need for paid staff and felt the leadership must be collaborative

    • "You need staff to move stuff along. A core group of paid people is critical"
    • "Paul has been ideal as our leader to date. He is selfless, passionate, and not an empire builder. We need to clone him"

Staffing and leadership

Some partners felt a distributed network or e-mail would be sufficient

    • "Can't we rotate responsibility through SVP Cities?"
    • “The existing model seems to be working"

18 of 61

SVP CITIES ASPIRATIONS – FACILITATING MECHANISMS (CONTINUED)

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

17

Themes

Quotes

Most partners agreed that a membership process with minimal criteria of agreeing to the core principles is appropriate

    • "At the very least, new cities have to agree with the core principles and meet some basic criteria"
    • "You wouldn't want new chapters coming in and drastically changing SVP . . . there should be a waiting period before they can vote . . . they would have to fulfill certain criteria"

Membership criteria

Funding

Most cities supported funding a centralized support function although many cities were concerned about cost

    • "It is hypocritical not to support building infrastructure given our capacity-building work with nonprofits"
    • "We need to do this, but I don't know where we can get the money to pay for it"
    • "One or two staff and a small advisory board is all I would support"

19 of 61

KEY TAKE-AWAYS – MULTI-LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

18

    • Successful multi-local models can achieve both local autonomy and affiliation
    • Choice of model is dependent on fit with organization's mission, key success factors, and culture
    • Web-based, network models are generally limited to knowledge exchange
    • Federated and corporate models are better suited for collaborative action and sharing of infrastructure, services, brand and knowledge

Models

    • Clear roles, responsibilities, and bylaws are required to ensure accountability, avoid redundancy, and preempt conflict
    • There is a clear trade-off between representation and efficiency
    • Member representation in governance bodies facilitates ownership

Governance

    • Careful management of growth is necessary to ensure viability of new members and quality of services delivered
    • Clear in/out criteria (e.g., funding, adherence to core principles) and structured screening process necessary to assess fit (e.g., Membership Committee)

Membership

Lessons learned

20 of 61

KEY TAKE-AWAYS – MULTI-LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS (CONTINUED)

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

19

    • Member-funded operations drive accountability, avoid fund-raising competition, and focus shared entity on value-add services
    • System-wide projects are more easily funded externally (e.g., performance evaluation)
    • Funding based on budget size is widely used and perceived as equitable
    • Transparency about use of membership dues is critical

Funding model

    • Early adoption of shared logo and marketing materials leverages brand and cost benefits which are difficult to achieve later on
    • Agreement on core set of principles, bylaws and/or operating standards is critical
    • Performance measurement increases system-wide impact (e.g., outcomes measurement, peer reviews)

Brand/quality assurance

    • Leadership with knowledge of and focus on local needs facilitates buy-in
    • Early tangible benefits build trust
    • Ongoing evaluation and refinement of model critical to health of organization

Implementation

Lessons learned

21 of 61

SPECTRUM OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

20

Loose web

Enabled

network

Loose

federation

Strong

federation

Franchise

Subsidiary

Need for

    • Tangible support (technical assistance, infrastructure, economies of scale)
    • Intangible support (brand best practices/ trends, community)

Affiliation

Low

High

Low

High

Autonomy

Need to

    • Support local service delivery
    • Build local profile for fund-raising and recruiting

Source: Grossman 2000; McKinsey analysis

22 of 61

DISTINCT ORGANIZATIONAL NEEDS ADDRESSED BY THE MODELS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

21

    • Independent organizations who want to exchange knowledge and communicate � but
      • Have no need to share resources
      • Do not necessarily have common goals
      • Want to maintain independence
    • Independent organizations with similar missions/goals interested in collaborating around specific resources to increase impact,� but
      • Have no intention to build shared infrastructure or a common brand and little concern about liability
    • Organizations with a shared mission and goals who want to
      • Share information and resources
      • Establish a shared brand
      • Ensure quality

but

      • Retain a high degree of local autonomy
      • Control costs
    • Organizations with same goals who want to
      • Build a strong national brand
      • Minimize liability
      • Exploit opportunities for national branding and fund-raising
      • Engage in joint strategy setting

but

      • Ensure local flexibility and ownership
      • Retain local control over governance
    • Central organization that wants to
      • Extend its scope
      • Retain control over operating standards � but
      • Requires localized approach in service delivery
    • Central organization that wants to
      • Extend its scope
      • Roll out standardized business model through subsidiaries
      • Control brand-specific functions

Loose

web

Enabled

network

Loose

federation

Strong

federation

Franchise

Subsidiaries

Network model

Federation model

Corporate model

Organizations with best fit

    • Alcoholics Anonymous
    • Society for Organizational Learning
    • Council on Foundations
    • City Cares
    • Oxfam International
    • Planned Parenthood
    • Boys & Girls Clubs
    • Nature Conservancy
    • United Way
    • Habitat for Humanity
    • CityYear
    • Ashoka

Example

23 of 61

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS – KEY CHARACTERISTICS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

22

Loose

web

Enabled

network

Loose

federation

Strong

federation

Franchise

Subsidiaries

Network model

Federation model

Corporate model

501(c) 3 status

    • Independent
    • Independent
    • Independent
    • Independent
    • Mix
    • Shared

Approval and exclusion process/criteria

    • N/A
    • Informal (buy-in to general purpose/ principles)
    • Previous with some operating information
    • Formal approval process with extensive criteria set by members
    • Rigorous franchiser initiated criteria
    • Internally controlled

Membership

Shared name/ logo/ quality control

    • No
    • No
    • Moderate
    • Strong
    • Very strong
    • Very strong

Branding

Role of national

    • N/A
    • Support knowledge transfer and annual conference
    • Previous plus basic governance (e.g., member approval) and quality control
    • Previous plus strategy setting, quality control, extended support functions (e.g., national fund-raising, branding)
    • Central decision-making for all matters beyond local scope and central provision of all key support functions
    • Fully centralized decision making and service provision

Governance

Minimum staff

    • 0
    • 1-2
    • 2-3
    • 3-5
    • 5-10
    • 10+

Cost level

    • N/A
    • ~$200,000
    • ~$300,000-400,000
    • ~$400,000-500,000
    • ~$600,000-900,000
    • Above $1 million

Funding model

    • N/A
    • Fee for service
    • Membership fees and/or national
    • Membership fees and/or national
    • Franchise fees
    • National

Resources

24 of 61

RATIONALE FOR A LOOSE FEDERATION

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

23

    • Increases local impact through best practice transfer
    • Supports partner recruitment and engagement
    • Enables cost savings through consolidated infrastructure and services
    • Reflects SVP's principle of collaboration for impact while retaining local autonomy
    • Offers some protection from unsound replication through clear membership criteria and approval
    • Reflects multi-local experience – shared governance is critical to support organizational growth
    • Is a flexible model open for movement over time

Builds on lessons learned from nonprofits' multi-local models

Supports key success factors for local SVPs

Fits with SVP cities' aspirations

Loose

federation

25 of 61

WHY NOT AN ENABLED NETWORK?

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

24

    • Requires smallest financial investment by SVP Cities
    • Captures many knowledge sharing benefits
    • Lacks shared governance and membership mechanisms to resolve inevitable disputes and to provide protection from potential liabilities
    • Inhibits development of a shared SVP brand (e.g., for partner recruitment, fund-raising)
    • Undermines organization’s collective ability to invest and improve performance

WHY NOT?

WHY?

26 of 61

WHY NOT A STRONG FEDERATION OR CORPORATE MODEL?

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

25

    • Broad replicability of model still being proven
    • Local autonomy essential at this stage of organization growth and culture
    • Higher cost
    • Most readily identifiable benefits for a national brand can be captured under a loose federation
    • Leadership for stronger federation doesn’t exist

WHY NOT?

WHY?

    • Potential to drive growth of model and enable more rapid replication of best ideas
    • Enables central fundraising

27 of 61

SVP CITIES – CRITICAL DESIGN ELEMENTS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

26

Draft recommendations

Mission

    • SVP Cities will promote the mission of SVP through 3 activities: supporting the work of local SVPs, developing the SVP brand, and fostering new SVPs

Services

    • SVP Cities will focus on start-up support, knowledge management and transfer, brand promotion, membership development, technology transfer and support, and possibly fundraising

Staffing

    • SVP Cities will be staffed by 1 person in Year 1 and 2 people starting in Year 2. Initially they will be co-located with SVP Seattle

Funding

    • SVP Cities will be funded through a combination of foundation and local SVP funding. Local funding will be 50% flat fee per city and 50% per partner fee

Governance

    • A board with 1 partner or executive director from each local SVP and a membership body with 3 representatives per city will govern SVP Cities

Membership criteria

    • Potential members must agree to SVP's mission, core principles and operating practices, attain 501(c)3 status, recruit 20 or more partners, be able to pay membership dues and meet with 2-3 SVP Cities as part of the membership process

Legal structure/band

    • All local SVPs will retain independent 501(c)3 status. SVP will establish a common brand (name and logo), that local SVPs can customize

28 of 61

DESIGN DECISIONS – SERVICES OFFERED BY SVP CITIES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

27

Stripped down

Start-up

    • SVP in a box (on-line only)
    • Staff phone and e-mail support
    • Free basic start-up support for first 12 months
    • Web site template
    • Document templates (e.g., rfp)
    • Legal structures
    • Database framework (no support)
    • Buddy city for new SVPs
    • Templates for grant making investee relations

Knowledge management

    • Manage list serv
    • Organize annual conference

Branding

    • Seek press in national publications (e.g., Wall Street Journal profile)
    • Establish central SVP Cities Web site with links to all Cities and minimal content

Membership

    • Oversee membership process
      • Establish commitment to SVP guiding principles
      • Link new SVP with buddy city
      • Review application and approve/decline membership

Administration

    • Prepare for Board/subcommittee meetings
    • Calculate SVP Cities dues and bill cities
    • Track SVP Cities statistics

Fundraising

    • None

New city recruitment

    • None

Staffing implications

    • 1 FTE

​

Cost implications

    • $__

29 of 61

DESIGN DECISIONS – SERVICES OFFERED BY SVP CITIES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

28

Moderate – Stripped down services and . . .

Start-up

    • New partner recruiting strategies and marketing materials
    • Speaker for new partner recruitment events (travel costs not covered)
    • Advice on seeking operating funding
    • Training days for multiple SVPs
    • Staff visits for first grant committee meeting, partner recruitment, launch

Knowledge management

    • Organize conference call with cities facing a similar issue, e.g., outcomes and evaluation
    • Collect best practices on recruitment, engagement, and investee relations, aggregate models and templates, synthesize and disseminate
    • Publish newsletter twice a year on events across SVP Cities
    • Establish on-line database of people and investees issues on which they have worked. SVPs can query for contact information (e.g., board development, technology needs of nonprofits)
    • Actively manage database of speakers and resources
    • Implement common database format to enable information sharing

Branding

    • Shared logo
    • Web site with more in-depth content about SVP

Staffing implications

    • 2 FTE

​

Cost implications

    • $__

Fundraising

    • Fundraising to cover SVP Cities operating costs
    • Fundraising for special projects (e.g., replication of successful programs)

New city recruitment

    • Send speakers to cities without an SVP to encourage engaged philanthropy and philanthropy education

Membership

    • See stripped down

Administration

    • See stripped down

30 of 61

DESIGN DECISIONS – SERVICES OFFERED BY SVP CITIES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

29

Enhanced

Start-up

    • Book to give to investees on how SVP works

Knowledge management

    • Aggregate communities of interest (e.g., women in philanthropy)
    • Publish in academic literature
    • Provide centralized training
    • Establish partnerships with other non-profits and research institutions
    • Aggregate outcomes data
    • Poll cities for programs they want to replicate for cities
    • Establish and oversee committees to pursue replication

Branding

    • Participate in national workshops, conferences, panels on philanthropy (e.g., President's commission in the nonprofit sector)

Membership

    • Periodic member reviews

Administration

    • Help to coordinate regional events (e.g., Bill Gates comes to speak to Midwest SVPs)

Fundraising

    • Raise fund to support operating costs for SVPs in start-up phase

New city recruitment

    • Send speakers to events (e.g., Council on Foundations annual conference, to talk about SVP and engaged philanthropy)

Staffing implications

    • 3 FTE

​

Cost implications

    • $__

31 of 61

FUNDING RECOMMENDATION

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

30

Sources of funding

    • Foundations
    • Local SVPs

Calculation of local SVP commitment

    • Hybrid model with 50% flat fee per city and 50% per partner fee

Funding implications

Total costs

$ Thousands

Stripped down

Moderate

Enhanced

SVP Cities' cost*

$ Thousands

Stripped down

Moderate

Enhanced

Year 1

153.9

165.7

209.2

13.9

25.7

69.2

Year 2

155.7

240.3

288.1

30.7

115.3

163.1

Year 3

166.8

248.8

338.1

66.8

148.8

238.1

Year 4**

177.7

264.4

359.2

177.7

264.4

359.2

* Total costs less current foundation funding

** Steady state

32 of 61

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL SVPs – MODERATE VERSION

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

31

Approximate

Funding requirements

U.S. Dollars

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Number of contributing partners year 1

Seattle

4,495

15,825

15,425

21,806

290

Phoenix

1,395

5,552

6,700

10,374

90

Austin

1,240

4,935

5,955

10,424

80

Denver

698

3,203

3,865

6,765

70

Dallas

1,163

4,626

5,583

9,772

75

San Francisco

853

3,393

4,094

7,166

55

Calgary

698

3,203

3,865

6,765

45

Pittsburgh

698

3,203

3,865

6,765

45

Boulder

388

1,779

2,478

4,337

25

Kansas City

248

1,518

2,114

4,270

16

Portland

279

1,708

2,379

4,163

18

San Diego

310

1,898

2,643

4,626

20

Boston**

–

949

1,762

3,558

10

New York**

–

949

1,762

3,558

–

Cleveland**

–

949

1,762

3,558

–

Houston**

–

949

1,762

3,558

–

Vancouver**

–

949

1,762

3,558

–

* Does not include 6 future cities joining in Years 3 and 4

** Not paying in Year 1 (<20 partners)

Cities*

Flat fee

1,071

3,200

3,400

5,500

–

Partner-based fee

33 of 61

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL SVPs – STRIPPED DOWN VERSION

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

32

Approximate

Funding requirements

U.S. Dollars

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Number of contributing partners year 1

Seattle

2,440

4,215

6,928

14,658

290

Phoenix

757

1,479

3,009

6,973

90

Austin

673

1,314

2,675

7,007

80

Denver

589

1,150

2,340

6,131

70

Dallas

631

1,232

2,508

6,569

75

San Francisco

463

904

1,839

4,817

55

Calgary

379

853

1,736

4,548

45

Pittsburgh

379

853

1,736

4,548

45

Boulder

210

474

1,113

2,915

25

Kansas City

135

404

950

2,870

16

Portland

151

455

1,068

2,799

18

San Diego

168

506

1,187

3,110

20

Boston**

–

253

791

2,392

10

New York**

–

253

791

2,392

–

Cleveland**

–

253

791

2,392

–

Houston**

–

253

791

2,392

–

Vancouver**

–

253

791

2,392

–

* Does not include 6 future cities joining in Years 3 and 4

** Not paying in Year 1 (<20 partners)

Cities*

Flat fee

580

850

1,500

3,700

–

Partner-based fee

34 of 61

DESIGN DECISIONS – FUNDING MODEL OPTIONS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

33

Option A

Option B

Option C

Description

    • Lump sum contribution per city
    • Lump sum contribution per partner
    • Hybrid model: �50% per city, 50% per partner

Pros

    • Encourages partner growth per city to broaden funding base
    • Simplest model
    • Creates disadvantage for smaller cities
    • Distributes cost throughout the entire partnership
    • Compromise between Option A and Option B
    • Creates heavy burden for largest cities
    • Value received by larger/more mature cities may not correlate with money invested
    • Does not incent partner growth

Options

Could include provision whereby emerging members do not pay dues

Cons

* Up to an agreed-upon minimum

Option D

    • Low flat fee (per city or per partner) plus additional fee for service
    • Keeps base fees lower
    • Ensures that value is delivered for money paid
    • Too much complexity
    • No predictability of financial inflows (required to pay staff)
    • Does not reinforce culture of mutual support and responsibility
    • Harder to implement than Option A or B

Recommended option

35 of 61

GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

34

* Ad hoc committees can be formed in addition to standing committees depending on need

Composition/ members

    • 1 partner or ED per city, selected by local Board
    • 3-year staggered terms, 1/3 of Board elected each year
    • 3 voting delegates per city (ED + 2 partners), selected by local partnership
    • 3 standing committees (Membership, Finance, Strategic Planning & Knowledge)
    • 4 members per committee, 2-year staggered terms, designated by Board

Responsibilities/ decision powers

    • Strategic direction setting
    • Approval of budget and annual plan
    • Decisions on membership
    • Operating standards/guidelines
    • Designation of subcommittees
    • Changes in bylaws
    • Federation-wide decisions (e.g., changes in core principles)
    • Launch of ad hoc committees for special projects
    • Membership committee
      • Guidelines, dues, and services
      • Oversight approval process and recommendations to Board
    • Finance committee
      • Annual plan and budget
      • Fundraising for special projects
    • Strategic Planning & Knowledge
      • Coordination of city initiatives
      • Planning of collective efforts

Meetings

    • Annual conference plus, 2 conference calls
    • Special meetings as needed
    • Annual conference
    • Annual conference
    • Calls as needed

Voting rules

    • 1 vote per Board member
    • 50% quorum necessary to vote
    • 2/3 majority for annual budget approval and new members
    • Simple majority for all other decisions
    • 3 votes per city
    • 2/3 majority for changes in bylaws
    • > 50% for all other decisions

Membership body

Board

Subcommittees*

36 of 61

GOVERNANCE – POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

35

Option A

    • Formation of Board Executive Committee
      • 4 designated Board members (2 EDs, 2 partners)
      • 2-year staggered term (2 new members designated each year)
    • Decisions on urgent matters, preparation of Board meetings, coordination of subcommittees
      • Monthly conference calls
      • Consensus voting

Option B

    • Freezing of Board size at 12 members: 50% partners, 50% EDs
    • Creation of a nominating committee to seek candidates from the cities, conduct pre-screening and present to membership body
    • Election of 1/3 of Board members each year at annual conference (3 votes per city)

Rationale

    • If number of cities grows to > 12 Board size becomes unwieldy
    • To increase efficiency, governance can be adjusted in two ways

37 of 61

DESIGN DECISIONS – GOVERNANCE OPTIONS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

36

Option C

Option B

    • Board consisting of locally elected partners r(1 per city) and chair of ED council responsible for
      • Broad strategic direction setting
      • Approval of new members, special projects, and guidelines
    • Board with 1 partner or �1 ED per city responsible for
      • Strategic direction setting
      • Approval of new members, special projects, and guidelines

Pros

    • High degree of representation for locals
    • Split between strategy and implementation
    • Smaller group that is able to be responsive and flexible

Cons

    • Potential for conflict between Board and ED council
    • Could be too many layers
    • No external input
    • Potentially too costly
    • Lack of representation of both partners and EDs
    • No external input
    • ED council consisting of all local EDs responsible for
      • Advisory role to Board
      • Execution of Board decisions
    • Full membership body responsible for
      • Changes in bylaws
      • Federation-wide decisions
    • Full membership body, responsible for
      • Changes in bylaws
      • Federation-wide decisions (e.g., changes in core principles)

All options can include standing subcommittees

Option A

    • 12-person Board (50% partners, 50% EDs) elected by membership body
      • Strategic direction setting
      • Approval of new members, special projects, and guidelines
    • Full membership body, responsible for
      • Election of Board
      • Changes in bylaws
      • Federation-wide decisions (e.g., changes in core principles)
    • TBD
    • TBD

Representative bodies

38 of 61

MEMBERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

37

Decentralized peer review and support process

    • Interested group contacts SVP Cities staff
    • Membership information and criteria shared
    • Group conducts self-assessment along membership criteria
    • Group applies for membership
      • Sign-on to mission and core principles
      • Proof of basic capacity measures
    • Emerging member is assigned a "buddy" city, which identifies needs and provides mentoring
    • Emerging members use SVP name, attend conferences, receive targeted start-up support pay dues, but have no formal voting power

Application

Emerging membership

Full membership

    • After 6-12 months buddy city conducts assessment and recommends full membership if appropriate
    • Membership committee and staff review buddy recommendation, and board makes final decision
    • If decision positive, new city becomes full member with associated rights and duties

Proposed process

    • Agreement to core principles and operating standards
    • 501(c) 3 status
    • >20 partners
    • Commitment to pay membership dues
    • Working board/executive committee
    • Sufficient operating funds
    • Partnership with community foundation or other relevant organization for back office
    • Site visits to other SVPs
    • Partner Training

Sample membership criteria

39 of 61

DESIGN DECISIONS – MEMBERSHIP OPTIONS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

38

Option A

Gentleman's agreement

Option B

Formal peer/staff review

Option C

Periodic peer/staff review of all members

    • Prospective members
      • Formally apply for membership
      • Conduct self-assessment based on membership criteria
      • Visit one other city
      • Agree to core principles
    • Membership based on prospective members' interest and self-assessment

One-time approval

    • Prospective members go through peer/staff due diligence process
    • Board decides on membership based on recommendations of review team
    • In addition to formal approval process, periodic formal review by staff/peers
    • Board can disaffiliate members if core criteria not met

Pros

    • Minimal administrative burden
    • Provides more objective view of readiness for membership than Option A
    • Can excuse cities which are a liability to the system as a whole
    • Can facilitate best practice and knowledge transfer

Cons

    • No rigorous assessment has potential downside of unsound replication
    • Potentially too rigid (one-time decision)
    • Requires significant resources and centralized control

Two-tier membership

    • Prospective members
      • Reach "emerging members" status after first round of due diligence by peers/staff (interviews, site visits, etc.)
      • Receive support for �12 months
      • Board decides on full-member status after second round of due diligence
    • Allows emerging members to systematically build requirements
    • Existing members have broader fact base on which to base decision
    • Requires additional time and resources

Recommended option

In all options governance body could reserve the right to revoke membership

40 of 61

The State of the Movement – SVP

SVP CITIES' MEETING

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

Draft document

June 10-11, 2001

CONFIDENTIAL

This report is solely for the use of client personnel. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside the client organization without prior written approval from McKinsey & Company. This material was used by McKinsey & Company during an oral presentation; it is not a complete record of the discussion.

41 of 61

SVP CITIES SNAPSHOT

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

40

Number partners

Percent of partners active

Launch date

Paid ED

Austin

##

##

Boston

0

Future

Boulder

##

##

Dallas

75

Jan 2000

Denver

##

##

Houston

##

##

New York

##

##

Seattle

290

–

San Diego

##

##

San Francisco

55

Jan 2001

Phoenix

90

May 1999

Pittsburgh

##

##

Kansas City

16

Oct 2000

Cleveland

9

Nov 2000

Portland

18

Future

Calgary

##

##

Vancouver

##

##

Yes

##

Yes

##

##

##

Yes

##

No

Yes

##

Yes

No

No

##

##

##

##

–

##

35

##

##

##

70

##

75

50-60

##

60

–

–

##

##

42 of 61

LOCAL SVP FUNDING

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

41

Partners

Foundation

Operating budget

Partners

Austin

##

Boston

–

Boulder

##

Dallas

124

Denver

##

Houston

##

New York

##

Seattle

–

San Diego

##

San Francisco

Phoenix

227

Pittsburgh

##

Kansas City

135

Cleveland

118 for 2002

Portland

14

Calgary

##

–

##

375

##

##

##

–

##

28

450

##

80

45

95

##

##

Vancouver

##

##

–

##

Ø

##

##

##

–

##

25

116

##

25

–

–

##

##

##

##

–

##

78

##

##

##

–

##

–

–

##

6.4

–

6

##

##

In kind

5

##

–

##

35

##

##

##

–

##

150

##

115

–

0.5

##

##

Investment funds

Operating funds

Foundation

–

##

–

##

##

##

##

–

##

195

##

14

–

–

##

##

$ Thousands

43 of 61

GRANT MAKING AND PARTNER EDUCATION

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

42

Number of grant cycles completed

Amount granted 2001

Dollars

Number of investees

V-teams

Austin

##

##

##

##

Boston

–

–

–

–

Boulder

##

##

##

##

Dallas

1

300,000

6

Forming

Denver

##

##

##

##

Houston

##

##

##

##

New York

##

##

##

##

Seattle

–

–

–

–

San Diego

##

##

##

##

San Francisco

–

Ø

Ø

–

Phoenix

2

550,000

10

Yes

Pittsburgh

##

##

##

##

Kansas City

–

–

–

–

Cleveland

–

–

–

–

Portland

–

–

–

–

Calgary

##

##

##

##

Vancouver

##

##

##

##

Partner education events

##

–

##

20

##

##

##

–

##

4 (plan 12)

18

##

8

–

–

##

##

44 of 61

PROJECTED PARTNER GROWTH

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

43

Austin

Boston

Boulder

Dallas

Denver

Houston

New York

Seattle

San Diego

San Francisco

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Kansas City

Cleveland

Portland

Calgary

Vancouver

2001

##

##

##

125

##

##

##

290

##

100

100

##

50

30

54

##

##

2002

##

##

##

275

##

##

##

##

185

130

##

100

60

109

##

##

2003

##

##

##

350

##

##

##

##

260

160

##

200

90

163

##

##

2004

##

##

##

–

##

##

##

##

–

200

##

–

120

300

##

##

End of year

45 of 61

SVP CITIES ASPIRATIONS – RATIONALE FOR PARTNER INVOLVEMENT

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

44

Opportunity to give something back

    • "Utilize our talents, resources, and skills to give back to individuals and communities in need"

Entrepreneurial organization

    • "Be part of an entrepreneurial, nonhierarchical organization"
    • "Experience the excitement of a start-up"
    • "Develop relationships with 'likeminded' people"
    • "Combine and focus our resources to generate greater impact"

Collaborative approach to philanthropy

    • "Contribute in a manner that is intellectually challenging and hands-on"
    • "Know where and how my money is spent and drive social impact"
    • "Form meaningful, long-term relationships with nonprofits"

Engaged approach to working with nonprofits

SVP is an …

As SVP partners we can …

Educational process

    • "Opportunity to learn about philanthropy with others in a similar position"

46 of 61

SVP HAS A STRONG VALUE PROPOSITION TO BOTH PARTNERS AND INVESTEES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

45

    • High impact, efficient philanthropic model
    • Community of likeminded individuals
    • Satisfying, high impact volunteer experience
    • Meaningful philanthropy education
    • Opportunity to improve their organizational capacity
    • Active volunteers with useful skills
    • Long-term funding relationship
    • Easier access to other funding sources

Partners

Investees

47 of 61

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FOR LOCAL SVPs

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

46

    • Qualified executive director and staff
    • Prominent group of founders who are business and community leaders
    • Volunteer team leader to manage volunteers and ensure follow through

Leadership

    • Lean, high quality staff to manage volunteer and education efforts
    • Efficient back office and technological infrastructure (e.g., databases, Web site)
    • Effective mechanisms to share best practices and assess impact

Low-cost, high quality infrastructure

    • Grant making process that selects high-quality investees
    • Volunteers with sufficient skills, training, interests, and time to meet investee needs
    • Long-term, outcome focused, relationship with investees with clear exit strategy

High-impact relationship with investees

    • Active partner recruitment and effective local press
    • High impact entrepreneurial and volunteer opportunities which are educational, engaging, and fun
    • Strong philanthropy education (experiential and didactic) and engaged grant making process

Effective partner recruitment and engagement

    • Sufficient number of partners (>50)
    • Local foundation or corporate support (financial and/or in-kind)

Sufficient funding and/or scale

48 of 61

LOCAL SVP EXPERIENCE

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

47

Leadership

Key success factor

Successes/Lessons learned

Challenges

    • "You need to have a core group of founders who are high profile business leaders to create a buzz around the organization"
    • "The lead partner is the critical role in the investee relationship"
    • "We were overwhelmed by the quality of applicants we had for our staff positions"
    • "The lead partner relationships have been amazing . . . they have really formed a bond with the EDs [of the nonprofit]"

​

    • "We've had a real challenge filling the ED role"
    • "Finding a Paul or an Erin is going to be tough“
    • “It is hard to get the funds to support high quality staff”
    • "A core group of leaders heading up the relationships committees and investees is critical"
    • "The model is not really partner-driven. The staff are what make things happen"

49 of 61

LOCAL SVP EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

48

    • "Partner recruitment is a major challenge"
    • "We haven't had time to focus on recruiting; we are doing our grant committees for the first time"
    • In two cities, 25% partners won't renew due to "lack of involvement," "being spread too thin," insufficient support," or "change in financial situation"
    • "Staff can't do recruiting. It has to be peer-to-peer“
    • “It is difficult to move beyond friends and family to a diverse group”
    • “The economic climate is going to make recruiting a lot harder than it has been over the last 2-3 years”

Effective partner recruitment

    • "We've had several partners who read about us in an in-flight magazine . . . they tend to be more engaged because they sought us out"
    • "Our staff person is tremendous at closing the deal with new partners“
    • “We’ve had great success with recruiting from our friends and workplace”
    • “Bringing in local nonprofit leaders for presentations has” been an effective recruiting tool”
    • “The database is critical to our success in partner recruitment”
    • “[Our ED] is always recruiting”

Key success factor

Successes/Lessons learned

Challenges

50 of 61

LOCAL SVP EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

49

    • "The key to effective partner management is interest assessment and matching"
    • "Our calendar is too full . . . we have entrepreneurs who are already working 60 hours a week and have 2 kids. We are going to make our offerings less frequent and more tailored"
    • "20% of people are doing 80% of the work"
    • "We need a system, database, and/or person to match the skills and interests of our partners with the needs of investees . . . thus far it has been ad hoc"
    • "As you grow, you can't keep track of it in your head"
    • "In our first partner survey, we didn't ask the right questions. What sort of role do they want to play? What existing skills do they have?“
    • “Our main issue is the availability of our partners…they are busy”

Effective partner engagement

    • “Active, engaged committee leaders are contagious – they make everyone want to participate”
    • “Regular [ED] contact and providing partners with options for how to participate have worked well for us, but they require a lot of time”
    • "We've had one investee that really needed more volunteer support . . . we held an on-site event at the investee and the response was fantastic . . . we had no problem recruiting the partners we needed to work on the project"
    • "If I call partners and ask them to do a particular task, they are usually pretty responsive“
    • “The key to SVP’s success is having fun”

Key success factor

Successes/Lessons learned

Challenges

51 of 61

LOCAL SVP EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

50

Sufficient funding and/or scale

    • "We need to hire someone, but we don't have the funds"
    • "We have expanded our infrastructure faster than our partner base"
    • "We don't have a sugar daddy and financial sustainability is a major issue for us"
    • "We need a larger partner base to cover our overhead"
    • Examples of cities who have obtained operating funds from foundations:
      • $300K over 3 years
      • $300K for year 1 (2 cities)
      • $150K over 2 years
      • $150K over 2 years
      • $50K for year 1
    • Foundations are providing office space or staff salaries for 7 cities
    • “The key to SVP’s growth is getting a sufficient number of partners. $5,000 is not much money – it was essential for us to get above 50 partners”

Key success factor

Successes/Lessons learned

Challenges

52 of 61

LOCAL SVP EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

51

Low cost, high quality infrastructure

    • "We have to do [capacity building] for ourselves as well as for the investees. We have no strategic plan for ourselves for the next 2-3 years, the same for technology and marketing. We need to apply business practices to get to the next level"
    • "Our database was such a mess, we were billing partners twice for their annual contribution“
    • “We desperately need a database. An email and phone list won’t work anymore”
    • "Having [a key staff person] has been fantastic because of the network of relationships and knowledge of the nonprofit community that he brings"
    • "One of the pluses of being affiliated with the community foundation is that we can use their infrastructure – that has been a huge benefit for us"
    • "One of the benefits of the similar backgrounds of our partners is that we work well together and are very well organized"
    • "We couldn't do this without e-mail . . . it makes things so much more efficient"

Key success factor

Successes/Lessons learned

Challenges

53 of 61

LOCAL SVP EXPERIENCE

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

52

High-impact relationship with investees

Key success factor

Successes/Lessons learned

Challenges

    • “We have created a process with key check points, goal setting and feedback sessions. This helps the investee and SVP to stay focused and on target”
    • "We are creating volunteer consulting teams for technology, finance, and marketing that will work with all the investees that need them"
    • "We are developing an advisor role – it is a person with specific skills who will brainstorm with the ED [of the nonprofit] on issues in their area of expertise"
    • "They just don't know how to manage their Board . . . we really helped [our investee] do that and are now going to leverage that learning to help our other grantees“
    • "Lots of partners were interested at the grant committee meeting, but they haven't followed up with commitments to the v- teams"
    • "We committed to more investees than our partner base can support"
    • "We need to better define expectations with the investees"
    • "We need a process to engage the investees"
    • "We could really use a manual to give to an investee at the beginning so they would understand how SVP works"

54 of 61

Appendix A – Proposed Agenda

SVP CITIES' MEETING

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

CONFIDENTIAL

Draft document

June 10-11, 2001

This report is solely for the use of client personnel. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside the client organization without prior written approval from McKinsey & Company. This material was used by McKinsey & Company during an oral presentation; it is not a complete record of the discussion.

55 of 61

PROPOSED AGENDA – JUNE 10

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

54

Time

Activity

Content

10:30-11:15

Setting the stage

    • Brief introduction of partners
    • Where we have come from, where we are now
    • Agenda

12:00-1:00

Lunch

1:45-3:00

Investee relationships

    • Case study presentation
    • Presentations by cities
      • Seattle
      • Phoenix
    • Open Q&A or small group discussion

3:30-6:00

Breakout sessions

    • See following page

7:00

Dinner

10:00-10:30

Arrive

    • Say hello

3:00-3:30

Break

11:15-12:00

Partner recruitment

    • Presentations by cities
      • Pittsburgh
      • Seattle
    • Open Q&A or small group discussion
      • Calgary

1:00-1:45

Partner engagement

    • Presentations by cities
      • Austin
      • Seattle
    • Open Q&A or small group discussion
      • Denver

56 of 61

SUNDAY, JUNE 10 – AFTERNOON BREAKOUT SESSIONS

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

55

Grant Committees – the basics

Partner recruitment and engagement

Leadership – ED, Staff, and Board

Outcomes and evaluation

Investee relations

Diversity

Funding operating costs

Branding

Technology –database

Core principles

Philanthropy education

Other – Please specify

3:30-4:45

4:45-6:30

57 of 61

PROPOSED AGENDA – MONDAY, JUNE 11

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

56

Time

Activity

Content

8:30-9:30

Mission, values, and principles

    • Interactive discussions

10:00-12:00

SVP Cities proposal and discussion

    • Findings and implications
    • Key recommendations and decisions
    • Proposed decision making process
    • Interim proposal for SVP Cities

1:00-2:00

Small group discussions

    • SVP Cities services, structure, governance staffing and funding

2:30-3:30

Feedback, discussion, and next steps

    • Brief presentations from breakout-groups
    • Group discussion
    • Next steps

9:30-10:00

Break

2:00-3:30

Break

12:00-1:00

Lunch

    • Presentation from SVP Bay Area re: logo

5:15-6:30

Reception

6:30

SVP partners meeting

3:30-4:30

Optional discussion groups

58 of 61

Appendix B – Proposed Mission, Core Principles, Operating Practices

SVP CITIES' MEETING

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

Draft document

June 10-11, 2001

CONFIDENTIAL

This report is solely for the use of client personnel. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside the client organization without prior written approval from McKinsey & Company. This material was used by McKinsey & Company during an oral presentation; it is not a complete record of the discussion.

59 of 61

SVP CITIES’ ASPIRATIONS – GUIDING PRINCIPLES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

58

Mission

Social Venture Partners seeks to effect positive social change by committing time, money, and expertise to nonprofits to collaboratively strengthen their organizations and by educating its partners to be well-informed, effective philanthropists

Operating practices

    • Partnership
    • Governance
    • Membership
    • Funding
    • Investee relations

Core principles/values

​

Engaged philanthropy

Partner education

Collective action and community

Respect

Entrepreneurial spirit

Accountability/Results

Independence

SVP Cities' mission

    • Build a federation of SVP communities who share the SVP mission
    • Support the work of local SVPs
    • Promote the SVP brand

60 of 61

SVP CORE PRINCIPLES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

59

Community and collective action

    • SVP is a community of individuals with shared values who collaborate to advance SVP’s mission
    • SVPs spring from their local communities
    • SVP Partners believe in the power of their collective effort, that their combined ideas, knowledge and resources can achieve more together than separately
    • SVP seeks to develop a partnership that is ethnically and professionally diverse

Entrepreneurial spirit

    • SVP partners set the direction for SVP’s work and every SVP partner has an equal voice
    • SVP is open to new ideas and risk-taking
    • SVP delegates decisions to those closest to the work

Accountability/ Results

    • SVP is accountable to its partnership and its investees
    • SVP seeks to achieve measurable results

Independence

    • SVP does not espouse a political or religious viewpoint
    • SVP will avoid activity that is perceived as partisan or religious

Respect

    • SVP respects the work and expertise of its community partners
    • Relationships with nonprofits are collaborative

Engaged philanthropy

    • SVP partners are engaged philanthropists who give time, money, and expertise to nonprofits
    • Partners actively participate in making grants and volunteer work
    • SVP seeks, where appropriate, to apply business practices to non-profits

Partner education

    • SVP partners want to jointly educate themselves to become more well-informed philanthropists
    • SVP hopes stimulates the individual philanthropy of its partners through hands-on and didactic education

61 of 61

SVP OPERATING PRACTICES

LAN010524312-17800-ZXF

60

Partnership

    • SVP is a partnership of individuals that agree to a shared mission and principles
    • Each SVP partner contributes $5,000 annually
    • Couples may join for one contribution of $5,000
    • Individuals, not corporations, are partners. A corporation may sponsor an individual
    • There are no age limits on membership

Governance

    • SVP Cities is a loose federation of local, separately incorporated SVPs
    • Each SVP determines its local governance
    • Each SVP has equal voting rights in the joint organization

Funding

    • SVP Cities is funded by annual dues from members and foundation grants
    • The SVP Cities budget is determined by the representative membership organization
    • Each city’s contribution is determined by a formula – half based on number of partners and half on a flat fee
    • Outside funding sources may not affect SVP’s mission

Investee relations

    • SVP is committed to working with investees to develop metrics to assess the effectiveness of both SVP's and the investee's work
    • Resources are focused on building the capacity of nonprofits to fulfill their missions
    • SVP’s goal is to help nonprofits be more effective, not to shift the mission of its investees

Membership

    • New SVPs and partners agree to adhere to the Guiding Principles
    • New SVPs have a 6-12 month period where they are emerging, non-voting members of SVP Cities.
    • After this period they attain full, voting membership, given sustained commitment to SVP’s mission and sufficient organizational capacity