基金会向风投学什么
Virtuous Capital：What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists¶
By Christine W. LettsWilliam P. RyanAllen S. Grossman in HBR.org
For decades, foundations have been making large grants to nonprofit organizations in the hope of meeting a wide range of society’s most pressing and vital needs. In 1995 alone, foundations invested more than $10 billion in programs dealing with, for example, poverty, homelessness, the environment, education, and the arts. Even as these large sums of money are put to work, however, many people in the nonprofit field are reporting a growing frustration that their programs’ goals, although valuable and praiseworthy, are not being achieved. Many social programs begin with high hopes and great promise, only to end up with limited impact and uncertain prospects.
Nonprofit programs begun with high hopes often end up with limited impact.
Forces beyond the control of either foundations or nonprofit organizations account for some of the problems. For one thing, the federal government has scaled back funding for social services, leaving the foundations and nonprofits without an ally they had come to rely on. Furthermore, many leaders of nonprofits are finding that, despite their best efforts, social problems persist and may even be worsening. But part of the difficulty needs to be traced back to the relationship between the foundations and the nonprofits.
Traditionally, foundations make grants based on their assessment of the potential efficacy of a program. Although that approach creates an incentive for nonprofits to devise innovative programs, it does not encourage them to spend time assessing the strengths, goals, and needs of their own organizations. Thus they often lack the organizational resources to carry out the programs they have so carefully designed and tested. Foundations need to find new ways to make grants that not only fund programs but also build up the organizational capabilities that nonprofit groups need for delivering and sustaining quality.
Many foundations are well aware of the problem and are trying new approaches. In particular, some foundations have been studying venture capital firms and their techniques for guiding their portfolio companies through the early stages of organizational development. The idea makes sense. Clearly, foundations and venture capitalists face similar challenges: selecting the most worthy recipients of funding, relying on young organizations to implement ideas, and being accountable to the third party whose funds they are investing.
To gain a better understanding of just which venture capital practices could be put to use in the nonprofit sector, we brought together a number of leaders of foundations, nonprofit groups, and venture capital firms. Their insights helped clarify for us what foundations can learn from venture capitalists. As Edward Skloot, executive director of New York’s Surdna Foundation, puts it, a closer study of venture capital practices can inspire foundations “to make a new set of rules to play by.”
The State of Foundation Funding¶
In the words of former Ford Foundation president Franklin Thomas, philanthropy has seen itself as “the research and development arm of society.” In the 1960s, for example, there was a tacit division of labor between foundations and the public sector. Foundations focused on research and development. If new ideas proved successful, the federal government would embrace them and assume responsibility for their widespread implementation through government agencies. Several of the signature programs of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, for example, were developed and tested in demonstrations funded by foundations.
To carry out their R&D role, foundations organize around program development. Grants are given primarily to develop and test new ideas. The grant funds the program demonstration, the evaluation of the early results, and, occasionally, the promotion of the findings to create interest in the program elsewhere. Although this R&D approach has been quite successful in stimulating innovative program ideas, it is clearly not suited to building the organizational strength necessary for the widespread and sustained implementation of those ideas. In the process of making a grant, foundations often overlook the organizational issues that could make or break the nonprofit. Instead, they fold organizational requirements into the category of routine overhead costs—costs that divert precious resources from the real work of delivering programs. Foundations’ attitudes have long encouraged nonprofit organizations to focus on mission and to regard organizational capacity as worthwhile in principle but a distracting burden in practice. Hence a serious problem for the nonprofit sector: no one is investing in nonprofit organizational capacity.
The lack of support has meant that a number of specific needs at the nonprofits are routinely under-funded. The urgent and neglected requisites of organization building include funds to track the needs of the nonprofits’ clients and how those needs are changing; time for nonprofit staff to plan new programs and processes; training and development for managers; and sound operating systems in the areas of finance, quality, and human resource development. Until those needs are addressed, the impact of programs will be limited.
Identifying Relevant Venture-Capital Practices¶
It is helpful to compare some of the differences in how venture capitalists interact with their start-up companies and how foundations work with nonprofit organizations. These differences can be the starting point for a process of reflection and change in the nonprofit sector.
Risk Management.¶
Perhaps the most striking difference between venture capital firms and foundations is in how they manage risk. Many venture-capital investors believe that out of a portfolio of ten investments, only two will be “moon rockets”—ventures that produce a big payoff with a successful initial public offering. The rest may be projects that have a chance of going public someday, projects that will survive but probably won’t issue stock, or projects that will fail outright. If a firm has too many project failures, future investors may be scared off and the venture capital fund itself may fail. It is in response to those risks that venture capital firms have developed many of their organization-building skills.
Foundations generally face little risk when making grants. Far from worrying about losing money, foundations are more likely to worry about not spending enough. (Failing to meet the IRS mandate that they pay out 5% of their assets annually means steep financial sanctions.) Because their funds are not at risk, foundations have not had to implement the kinds of controls that venture capitalists use. They rarely tie the compensation and career prospects of their program officers to the performance of grantees. Hence the program officers feel little pressure to learn and apply organizational lessons on the next round of grants. Unlike a venture capital firm, a foundation can prosper—and even bask in the glow of good works—with little risk of being tarnished by the weak performance of grantees.
Performance Measures.¶
The venture capital firm and the start-up begin building their relationship around financial and organizational projections, which then act as a set of performance measures. The measures, which can include cash flow, sales, profits, or market share, are continually updated to reflect the start-up company’s progress and the market conditions. Clear objectives give the investors and the start-up managers a focus for their working relationship.
Foundations focus on program efficacy; the long-term strength of their grantees takes a back seat.
Like venture capitalists and startups, foundations and nonprofits share a goal: theirs is to improve conditions in the social sectors in which they operate. Although it can be difficult to quantify such goals—for example, when the program is targeting inner-city development—the foundation and the nonprofit usually agree that the problem needs attention. However, foundations do not share one important goal of nonprofits. The nonprofit has a very explicit need to keep its organization healthy in terms of staff, revenue, and basic operating systems; the foundation, with its focus on program efficacy and its practice of making one-, two-, or three-year grants, does little to support those long-term goals. The sad irony is that although the nonprofit may serve its clients well in the short term, it may end up lacking the organizational strength it needs to continue its work.
Closeness of the Relationship.¶
To enhance the prospects for growth and sustainability, the venture capitalist offers a range of noncash, value-added assistance. For example, investors will often take one or more seats on the company’s board to help shape strategy. To supplement formal governance, the venture firm’s officers engage in extensive coaching and mentoring of the start-up’s senior managers. Furthermore, the venture capitalist gets involved in critical hiring decisions, such as the succession that takes place when some of the early founders are replaced with professional managers. The quality of the venture capitalist’s input can be critical to success: whose money the start-up gets can be as important as how much the company gets or how much it pays for that money.
The bulk of a foundation’s work comes even before a grant is made—in screening applications or seeking out new ideas. Once a grant has been made, the foundation assumes an oversight role to uncover poor management rather than a partnering role to develop capable management and adaptive strategies. Many program officers are reluctant to get involved with their grantees’ organizational problems. For example, foundations require periodic financial reports but are unlikely to contribute the services of an expert to work with the nonprofit on financial planning. Most foundations never take a seat on a nonprofit board or act as mentors or partners: in fact, they believe that such involvement would be intrusive.
Foundations assume an oversight role instead of a partnering role that would develop strong managers.
Even foundations that do commit to the capacity building of nonprofit organizations often do so at arm’s length. They hire third-party consultants who work on the nonprofit’s particular organizational needs, such as back-office systems or professional development. However, because of the foundation’s sensitivity about interference, the third-party consultant usually reports back only to the nonprofit. Hence the foundation loses the opportunity to learn about organizational needs or to respond effectively to them in the future. To be fair, the arm’s-length relationship between a foundation and a nonprofit is partly due to the large workloads carried by foundation officers. The typical foundation officer handles hundreds of grant requests and scores of actual grants each year, as opposed to the venture capitalist officer, who manages maybe five or six companies at a time. Clearly, this oversize load of grants is something that foundations need to attend to if good organization building is going to take place.
Amount of Funding.¶
As an industry, venture capitalist firms fund a very small percentage of the businesses that are started each year, but the impact that venture capitalists have on their start-up companies is quite significant. That is because the venture firm, once it has made the commitment, can help the start-up get the funding it needs to grow. Although the CEO is involved to a degree in fund-raising, he or she can count on venture investors to help raise money for the next stage of growth—and hence can concentrate on managing the growth.
Foundations, too, fund only a small percentage of the thousands of needy nonprofit organizations because there is only a limited amount of funding dollars. However, the common practice for foundations is to parcel out those limited dollars to a much higher number of recipients than a venture business would. The result is that a foundation grant covers only a small proportion of a nonprofit’s costs. One foundation officer we spoke with put it this way: “We undercapitalize virtually everything we do.” Even when a number of grants are combined, most nonprofit organizations are still starved for general operating support. Nonprofit executives, therefore, are forced to spend a large part of their time raising money year after year; some report spending more than half of their time on fund-raising. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that many nonprofits are not managed well or that good managers may not be attracted to or willing to stay in nonprofit organizations.
Length of the Relationship.¶
Venture capitalists usually are engaged with a start-up for five to seven years, and some relationships last even longer. That longevity gives them the time to become intimate with the start-up’s organizational needs and to find ways to fill them.
Foundations’ grant-making time horizons are much shorter and leave little time for nonprofits to develop products, processes, or marketing plans to exploit a new idea. Of the more than 35,000 grants made in 1995 in the five states with the highest number of foundations, only 5.2% were for more than one year. On average, the multiyear grants were only 2.5 years in length. Many foundations simply state that they will not fund any program for more than two or three years. Most of them believe that to offer support for a longer period would make the recipients overly dependent and that nonprofits should become self-sustaining in that time. That line of reasoning has led to foundations’ time horizons being out of sync with those of their grantees, which are trying to build organizations that can sustain programs.
The Exit.¶
Venture capitalists invest with the understanding that, ultimately, they will sell their stake to a takeout investor. The sale of the venture capitalist’s stake effectively ends the formal relationship; it also provides the start-up with an infusion of capital to continue its growth. And, of course, there can be no sale unless the start-up seems to have a strong organization and a viable future.
The nonprofit world has no such mechanism for passing the baton. Few national foundations want to be takeouts for their peers; because of their devotion to innovation, most want to be in on the ground floor. In some instances, foundations are able to structure a series of milestones to govern the release of installments over the life of a large grant. The nonprofit has to demonstrate a new level of performance—operating in a certain number of sites, for example, or serving a certain number of people. But there is often no logical process for one foundation to step back and the next one to step in.
In other instances, foundations will challenge nonprofit organizations to demonstrate that they can sustain a program after a grant terminates. But unlike businesses, nonprofits cannot expect to have investment bankers and their clients waiting to step in with another infusion of capital. Thus when the grant runs out, nonprofit organizations are left to mount a time-consuming search for funds to cover ongoing operation and expansion of programs.
The Next Step: Venture Capital Ideas at Work¶
Comparing venture capitalists and foundations can be a useful starting point for a reassessment of foundation practices. Such an assessment may yield a new set of practices that foundations can use to build stronger nonprofits. We would like to suggest preliminary queries for foundations and nonprofits to ponder.
Questions for Foundations.¶
Foundations can begin the self-assessment by answering the following:
Will our grants give nonprofits the organizational support necessary to achieve program goals?¶
If foundations and nonprofits agree in advance on organizational requirements in addition to desired program results, the grant has a much greater chance of having a sustained impact. Hopes for sweeping social change will need to be converted into a series of clear interim results that the grantee and the funder can work toward together.
The GE Fund’s College Bound initiative provides a good example. The GE Fund established a clear goal for its education improvement program: to double the number of college-bound students at selected public schools in towns with General Electric Company facilities. It indicated that it would be willing to support local schools over the long term—up to five years in one case—if the schools met certain milestones along the way. As long as the principal is leading the school in new efforts and there are signs of improvement, the GE Fund will stay with the school. GE employees are closely involved in mentoring of students and thus add additional value to the grant. Although the work takes longer and involves more foundation effort, the results have been gratifying, with one school boosting the percentage of college-bound students from 25% to 75%.
What internal capacity do we need to build organizational strength at the nonprofit?¶
Foundation managers and boards will need to reassess their own capacity for a hands-on, organization-centered approach. Many will need additional staff with more experience in organization building to ensure that intelligent bets are made and sound strategies are developed. Foundations can consider recruiting officers with varied backgrounds—in business, institution building, and consulting. The Robin Hood Foundation, for example, has included former management consultants on its staff to help make grants and to deliver management assistance.
In addition to developing in-house managerial expertise, foundations also can give their program officers the authority and the time to respond to the organizational needs of nonprofits. Currently, program officers’ workloads are driven by preparation for the next meeting of the board of directors; as a result, program officers have less time to respond to nonprofits. If program officers get more latitude, a closer and more productive bond can be forged between granter and grantee.
Is our grant portfolio too heavy on program innovation at the expense of organization building?¶
According to the Foundation Grants Index, general support grants, which can be used for organization building, represented only about 15% of total grants in 1993—down from nearly 25% in 1980. Program grants, meanwhile, grew from just over 30% of all grants made in 1980 to 45% in 1993. Foundations need to determine whether they are invested too heavily in program support to the detriment of organizational capacity.
A group of Philadelphia-based consultants to nonprofits, the Conservation Company, has recommended that funders begin making a new kind of grant—an organization grant. The grants would be something between totally unrestricted general support and highly targeted program funds. They could, for example, specify organizational growth targets, as venture capitalists do with private sector start-ups.
In Boston, several foundations have joined with the United Way of Massachusetts Bay and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to try a new approach to organization building. They have funded the Common Ground project—an intensive three-year program for 17 multiservice, community-based organizations. The funders consider these organizations essential to improving the prospects of several distressed neighborhoods and have therefore moved beyond the traditional quick fix of an organizational assessment and short consultation. Instead, Common Ground will offer the funded organizations ongoing training and professional development plus longer-term consulting resources to help them implement and sustain new approaches. The funders recognize that it is organizational strength that will ultimately determine how successful the programs are.
Foundations might also consider whether they are too wedded to early-stage funding of programs. Many could give support at later stages, when a program or organization is at a critical juncture and other foundations have already invested and left. Later-stage funding, combined with a focus on building organizational capacity, could help nonprofits sharpen their impact.
Are we close enough to nonprofits to help them build organizational strength?¶
Just as foundations’ program officers are working more closely with nonprofits on program design, so they should be getting closer to nonprofits on organizational issues. The more that funders understand the organizational complexity of nonprofits’ work—and shoulder some of the burden and risk—the better positioned they will be to enhance program impact. Hiring a third-party consultant is a step in the right direction but does not enable foundations to understand and fund the appropriate organizational enhancements.
One promising approach is for foundations to create a separate intermediary organization dedicated to specialized, long-term work with grantees. A good example is the New American Schools, based in Arlington, Virginia. NAS, which is funded with grants from corporations, foundations, and philanthropists, was established to give young school-reform programs what most foundations cannot: large grants over a long period in conjunction with formal and informal assistance to expand. Led by a former IBM executive and a board of corporate CEOs and leading educators, NAS staff members are close enough to their grantees to offer effective consulting support—such as developing a quality assurance program—and to define clear goals for which the grantees can be held accountable. The capacity building is explicitly understood as a powerful way to deliver and expand programs. The depth of the relationship (NAS works with only seven programs) enables NAS to act more like a venture capitalist than like a foundation.
Are there ways for us to experiment with some new types of grants?¶
Foundations can consider experimenting with alternative approaches to grant making by earmarking a share of their annual outlays for new approaches. For example, foundations could make an unusually long-term grant and see if it results in organizational enhancements and improved programs. Another approach would be to give a few program officers a radically lower caseload to see what they can accomplish with grantees who are eager for a real partnership. Third, foundations might consider partnering with third-party consultants, bringing their capability in-house, and delivering their services along with the grant money.
Questions for Nonprofit Organizations.¶
Like the foundations that support them, nonprofit organizations need to reconsider their approach to building capacity. Many have been conditioned by the existing grant-seeking process to camouflage their organizational expenses and needs. Nonprofits need to begin articulating compelling organizational strategies and asking foundations to invest in those strategies. Like the foundations, they need to ask themselves a few key questions.
Are we defining our organizational needs for funders?¶
To get more support for organizational needs, a nonprofit will have to articulate a disciplined plan for using the nonprogram money and show how that money will enhance the impact of programs. Instead of worrying about exposing their organizational weaknesses, nonprofits will have to “sell” those weaknesses by explaining that they know where to strengthen their organizations and how to deploy resources efficiently and strategically to get the job done.
When Family Service America, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit, mounted a fund-raising campaign to help the 250 nonprofits in its membership adopt new community-centered approaches, it didn’t pitch a new model program. Instead, it laid out an analysis of the members’ organizational needs—from training and change management to staff recruiting and benchmarking—and got foundations to invest in organization-strengthening programs as a way of driving program outcomes.
Are we selective about which foundations we want as partners?¶
Although the tendency in fund-raising is to go after any possible grant, getting into an intensive partnership with the wrong venture-type funder is likely to mean wasted effort and considerable angst. Even cash-starved business start-ups are selective about whose venture capital they seek. Nonprofits looking for value-added funding need to communicate clearly where they are trying to take the organization, establish expectations that the funder will share risk and burdens, and create a plan that demands value-added support from a funder. Nonprofits should be wary of foundations that have repositioned themselves under a venture capital banner but lack the capacity, willingness, and patience to do the gritty work.
Are we showing foundations a clear plan that justifies longer-term support?¶
In order to sustain organizational growth, nonprofits need to look beyond the current round of funding. They should propose that early funders stay with them until they are ready for the next stage of funding. One organization that used that approach is Cooperative Home Care Associates (CHCA), a worker-owned cooperative in the New York City borough of the Bronx that provides health care to the elderly in their homes. The cooperative has proved quite successful: it offers home health aides attractive pay, working hours, and benefits, and it offers the community high-quality services. Because of its success, CHCA wanted to expand its operations and launch a training institute to create new cooperatives. When it approached a previous funder—the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation in Flint, Michigan—CHCA presented a long-term plan for building self-sustaining cooperatives. The Mott Foundation subsequently made a series of renewable grants over a seven year period. Programs such as CHCA’s provide a clear incentive for funders to move away from traditional terms of one or two years toward the longer-term grants that can have sustained impact.
The venture capital model emerged from years of practice and competition. It is now a comprehensive investment approach that sets clear performance objectives, manages risk through close monitoring and frequent assistance, and plans the next stage of funding well in advance. Foundations, although they excel in supporting R&D, have yet to find ways to support their grantees in longer-term, sustainable ways. Because organizational underpinnings were not in place, many innovative programs have not lived up to their initial promise. The venture capital model can act as a starting point for foundations that want to help nonprofits develop the organizational capacity to sustain and expand successful programs.
The venture capital model can show foundations how to help nonprofits build strong organizations.
中文简述版¶
基金会可以向风险投资家学习什么？
出自《善与志》2017总第88期
1.风险管理¶
风险投资家一般都能够接受所有的投资对象中只有近十分之二可能会最终成功，如果投资的一家公司很多项目都失败就会导致投资人失败，因此投资人为了管理风险往往会开发很多组织能力建设的技术，以帮助投资对象能力获得发展，最终能够提高项目成功的概率。
而基金会在进行捐赠资助时往往面对很少的风险，基金会不担心会失去资金，恰恰相反，很多基金会担心钱花不出去（要满足法律规定的每年最低的捐赠支出比例）。基金会的资金没有亏损的压力，基金会项目官员的表现和晋升也很少与资助对象的绩效相关，这也导致基金会很少从过往的资助中总结经验教训提升后续的资助效果。这也是很多基金会的资助最终收效甚微的一个重要原因。
2.效果评估¶
风险投资人与投资对象的关系往往是基于对投资对象的发展前景进行绩效评价，具体包括其现金流、销售、利润、市场份额等能够反映投资对象发展状况和市场情况的指标。具体清晰的目标帮助双方能够聚焦关系的重心，不断为实现目标而努力，投资人也特别看重组织长远的发展，也会从多方面评估组织的健康状况。
与风险投资人和创业公司类似，基金会与NPO也有共同的目标：解决社会问题，满足社会需求，例如促进贫困农村社区发展。尽管这些目标很难进行量化，但是基金会和NPO往往都会认可这一问题值得关注。但是，在具体操作层面基金会和NPO的目标却并不一致。NPO希望能够组织健康发展，人员、收入和基本的运营体系等各方面获得提升。而基金会往往只关注具体项目的效率，关心他们一年、两年或三年的资助周期内组织取得的绩效，但是很少支持组织长远的目标。因此，往往具有讽刺意味的是一个组织能够在短期内很好地服务于受助对象，但是却因为缺乏组织层面的支持无法持续地开展项目。
3.紧密的关系¶
为了能够帮助投资对象获得市场成功和可持续发展，投资人会提供一系列的非资金支持。例如投资人往往会加入被投资公司的理事会，帮助其确定和调整战略方向。投资人的管理层往往会成为被投资公司的高层管理者的导师或教练，陪伴其成长。此外，投资人也会介入关键人物的招聘之中，例如当早期创始人退出管理层，招聘职业经理人进入时，投资人往往会参与决策。以至于在投资领域，大家都会认可这样一个观念：创业公司拿谁的钱比拿到多少钱要重要得多。
而对于基金会来说，他们的大量工作在于前期筛选项目和寻找新的想法。一旦资助确立，基金会就会让自己处于一个监管者的位置去发现组织的不足而不是作为合作者帮助受资助组织提升管能力和调整战略。很多项目官员都不愿意卷入受资助组织的问题之中。例如，多数基金会需要受资助组织定期提供财务报告，但是却很少为受资助的NPO提供专业的财务顾问来帮助他们改善财务制度和制定财务计划。大多数基金会不愿意参与NPO的理事会或者作为其导师和合作者，他们认为这样过多的参与是对NPO的干涉。
即使有一些基金会愿意为NPO提供能力建设，也主要是采用聘请第三方咨询机构的方式为NPO提供服务。而多数第三方也只是直接与NPO汇报具体问题，这也就令基金会失去进一步了解NPO存在问题和给予有效反馈的机会。当然，基金会与NPO直接保持一定距离的关系也与基金会项目官员本身繁重的工作有关，一个项目官员甚至要负责上百个项目，这也导致他们很少有时间和精力参与NPO组织的发展和能力建设（而风投机构的项目官员通常只负责对接5、6个被投机构）。
4.资助金额¶
风险投资家与基金会资助的另一个重要区别是对投资机构的资助金额。风险投资家每年只投资很少数量的创业机构，但是一旦获得投资，风险投资公司就会为被投机构提供可持续的发展资金。因此，创业机构的负责人就会较少的去投入大量时间去筹集资金，而是更多投入到组织管理和发展之中。
但是，对于基金会来说，虽然他们也是资助很少的NPO，但是其资助的金额往往非常有限。而且，多数基金会还倾向于用这些有限的资金尽可能资助更多的组织，这就导致基金会资助的资金只能覆盖组织运营的很小一部分成本，NPO的负责人需要投入大量时间精力不断去找钱。这样就导致NPO的组织管理存在很多问题，也导致优秀的管理者不愿意留在NPO。
5.资助周期¶
风险投资家一般对创业企业的投资和支持周期为5-7年，有一些投资关系甚至会更长。这样长期的投资关系能够让投资人能够深入了解创业机构的组织需求，并且尽可能通过各种方式满足其需求。
基金会的资助周期往往很短，这就导致被资助NPO缺少足够的时间完善其产品或服务，也很难探索和实践新想法。一般来说，基金会的资助周期为2.5年。很多基金会声明他们不会资助超过两年或三年的项目。因为基金会往往认为长期的资助会导致NPO的依赖，这些机构应该在两到三年内学会自己独立发展。这样的资助周期和策略与NPO自身组织的长远发展需要往往并不一致。
6.退出机制¶
风险投资家一般都会预期他们最终会出售持有的被投资机构股份以退出投资，并结束正式的投资关系，这也会为创业企业注入更多资金促进其继续发展。当然投资机构一般都是在创业公司发展到一定阶段，有比较强大的实力和可以预见的未来时才会退出。
在非营利领域没有这样的机制去传递手中的“接力棒”，让NPO能够从一个资助方转移到下一个资助方，并获得不同阶段的支持。一些基金会在进行大额资助时会设置分期付款机制，当NPO达到某一个发展阶段的目标之后，需要表明资金下一个阶段的发展目标，例如项目点的数量、服务人群的数量等，这样基金会再拨付下一个阶段的资金。但是，非营利领域还是没有一个合理的机制和逻辑程序让上一个基金会可以在某个时间退出资助、下一个基金会可以跟进。
总之，通过对风险投资家投资方式和基金会资助方式的比较，可以为基金会重新思考和评估自身的资助方式提供有益的借鉴，基金会通过学校风险投资家的一些做法可以帮助NPO更好的发展，最终达到解决社会问题的目的。
7.资助策略¶
7.1基金会的资助是否能够帮助NPO获得组织层面的成长，并最终实现项目目标？
NPO存在的最终目的是实现项目效果，解决社会问题，但项目的成功需要组织运营的支持，如果基金会的资助能够帮助NPO获得组织层面的成长，就更有可能获得可持续的社会影响。
7.2基金会需要不断反思自身需要具备哪些能力才能够帮助NPO提升组织能力？
基金会的管理者和理事会需要重新评估自身的能力是否能够开展这种组织为中心的资助方式。很多基金会需要更多具有组织建设和发展方面能力的人员去实现资助战略的转型。基金会需要考虑招募更多具有不同背景的员工，包括商业、组织建设、咨询等。
7.3基金会是否与NPO的关系足够紧密以帮助他们实现组织发展？
就如基金会的项目官员往往对NPO的项目非常了解，组织层面的支持战略需要基金会对NPO的整个组织方面的议题非常熟悉。资助人越对NPO组织管理的复杂性有所了解，并且帮助NPO分担压力和风险，就越能够更好的确定自身的角色定位，帮助NPO实现项目效果最大化。一个可行的办法是基金会设立一个专门的中介机构对受资助NPO进行长期、紧密地跟进。
7.4 基金会是否需要探索更多新型的资助方式？
基金会可以考虑尝试先拿出部分的公益资金探索新型的资助方式。例如基金会可以先开展一些长期资助，看其是否能够提升组织能力和改善项目效果。另一个方式是降低对项目官员资助的项目数量的要求，给项目官员机会去陪伴那些真正有发展潜力的项目和组织。第三个方法是可以考虑与第三方咨询机构合作，将咨询机构的能力叠加到资助过程中，为受资助组织提供咨询服务等。
而对于NPO来说，他们也需要重新思考自身提升组织能力的新方法。很多NPO都习惯原来的筹款方式和过程，也往往容易忽略组织层面的需求。NPO需要清晰的呈现自身的组织发展战略并且寻求基金会的支持。
8.NPO需要问自己¶
8.1 NPO是否清晰的向资助方定义和呈现了自己的需要？
NPO如果想得到组织发展层面的支持，就需要清晰的呈现一个使用非限定性、非项目资金的计划，向资助方呈现这些资金将会如何最终提升项目的影响力。NPO不要害怕暴露自身存在的问题，而是应该向资助方“出售”这些组织的问题和不足，与此同时告诉资助方他们知道如何加强自身能力，弥补不足，表明自己将如何更加高效的使用资助方的资金，并且有战略的完成这些计划。
8.2 NPO是否知道如何选择适合自己的资助方？
尽管由于现实中筹款的艰难，很多NPO还是倾向于寻求一切可能的资助，但是如果与一个不合适的资助人建立深度的合作关系将会浪费大量精力，甚至产生焦虑。正如商业领域的创业者会有选择的接受风投，NPO也需要对其资助方进行选择，找到真正适合自己的资助方。对于NPO来说，更有价值的资助是能够让资助人分担风险和压力，能够从资助方获得所需的非资金支持等。NPO需要鉴别那些打着风险投资的旗号却缺乏能力、意愿和耐心去真正践行风险投资理念的资助方。
8.3 NPO是否向资助方呈现了一个清晰的计划证明他们值得获得长期资助？
一般来说，NPO的发展首先是其项目模式基本成熟，在实践中初步获得检验，产生了较好的社会效果，进而开始寻求规模化和复制，这时才更容易获得资助方的长期资助。NPO需要向资助方清晰的呈现其发展规划，有比较可行的步骤和具体实施方案。
9. 最后¶
目前，在美国已经越来越多的基金会开始尝试这种风险投资的资助模式，这种模式关注清晰的资助效果和目标，通过紧密的监督和高频率的帮助来管理资助风险，并且提前设计好下一个阶段的资助计划。基金会可以以风险投资模式为起点帮助NPO获得组织层面的发展，最终实现项目的成功，产生更大的社会影响力。
国内也已经有一些基金会开始尝试用这样的方式进行资助，尤其是一些商业投资背景的基金会，例如险峰基金会、爱佑基金会等，他们选择公益领域内较有发展潜力的NPO进行非限定性资助，并且辅之以资源拓展、战略指导、组织管理、筹资、传播等非资金支持，一些机构的资助效果也已经初步显现。
不过，在具体操作过程中，值得基金会思考的是如何确定一个NPO具有投资的潜力？NPO最终还是以项目为核心，只有一个NPO具有真正能够解决社会问题的项目模式才是其核心的竞争力。而判断一个公益项目的模式是否完善要比商业领域的创业项目更为复杂，如果仅仅以其是否形成了标准化、规范化、制度化的项目执行流程为判断标准，很可能陷入对公益项目模式有效性的肤浅化理解。例如，一些教育类公益项目最终要实现的是人的改变或教育体制的改变，而如果仅仅以其是否形成完善的课程体系、执行体系、管理体系来判断其模式的成熟度可能会偏离其实质，完善的流程并不必然真正实现人的改变的效果，这其中还有非常复杂的专业性问题需要考量。而如果一个公益项目尚未解决其关键的技术性问题，基金会就开始通过风险投资的方式追求项目的规模化和可复制，可能会导致公益目标的偏离，甚至产生对公益资源的浪费或导致其他负面影响。
因此，当基金会在学习风险投资的方法开始新的资助模式时，也需要注公益项目、公益组织本身与商业项目、商业组织的区别，要尊重公益领域本身独特的专业性。