Technology Grantmaking Toolkit: Practical tools for technology grantmaking in Canada's voluntary sector

2. What does strategic tech grantmaking look like?

Objective: Show how selected Canadian grantmakers have incorporated technology funding into their granting policies and the impact this has had on the voluntary sector.

While tapping the power of computers and the Internet within the voluntary sector certainly requires ideas and vision, it also requires money. The following case studies profile five Canadian grantmaking organizations that have a strong track record funding technology. All of these organizations understand both the importance of technology basics and the power of advanced strategic technology projects. They also understand that both culture and policy changes must often be made in order to ensure that technology can be effectively supported by funders.

The Muttart Foundation

The Muttart Foundation is focused on supporting social service organizations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, particularly those related to children and youth. In recent years, the Foundation has also been active in programs that increase the capacity of the charitable sector generally.

Muttart's focus is on holistic funding for the agencies it supports, looking at all aspects of capacity from program focus to organizational systems. “Our interest is in strong organizations, and we see technology as a part of this,” says Muttart Executive Director Bob Wyatt. Muttart has included provisions to support the purchase of hardware, software and technology services since 1992.

Muttart began to focus on supporting technology even more heavily in 1999. At that time, the Foundation began working with another funder to expand the pool of resources available to help organizations dealing with Y2K challenges and other upgrade issues. In addition, the Foundation added Chris Burcell – an 'e-rider' or roving tech support expert – to its staff. Chris' job was to help grantees make good technology decisions and, occasionally, to get his hands dirty and help with technology roll out. The combination of resources and expertise has led time and again to well-developed, lasting technology investments within the organizations that Muttart funds.

A case in point was Muttart's support of the Camrose Association for Community Living in 2001. With nine locations and over 50 employees, staff and volunteers at Camrose were running from computer to computer with floppy disks every time they wanted to update the client database. Realizing that this was costing money and standing in the way of service improvements, Muttart and Camrose came up with a 'technology transformation plan'. As a foundation, Camrose was given a grant of $200,000 for technology upgrades, as well as funding to upgrade hardware, software and other infrastructure. In addition, Chris at Muttart worked with Camrose's new IT person to network-enable the organization in the course of a single weekend. Chris showed up at 5pm one Friday afternoon and had the network in place and operating by 9 am Monday, staying around two extra days to trouble shoot.

This approach not only got Camrose networked quickly, it also contributed to lasting technology capacity. The new IT person learned a great deal from Chris and was able to maintain the network on his own. It is worth noting that 'technology sustainability' was a part of the bargain. Camrose was required to set up a technology reserve fund as a condition of their grant, with the intent that this would save them from coming back to Muttart looking for future upgrade funds. Three years later, the internal technology fund is in place and Camrose is using its own budget to cover the cost of the IT person it hired with the original grant.

Muttart's Wyatt feels that most voluntary organizations need to get to the level that Camrose is at. “Technology is now a must have. Voluntary organizations need to access and record information faster than ever. They also have funders insisting that they submit proposals electronically. In this environment, all funders have a responsibility to raise the bar in terms of technology capacity for the organizations they fund.”

United Way of Halifax Region

United Way of Halifax Region is one of the 125 members of United Way Canada-Centraide Canada across the country.

With a strong track record of funding technology, staff at the Halifax United Way understand that computers and Internet access are essential for most modern voluntary organizations. Director of Community Resources Peter Mortimer says: “These are tools that every organization needs to do its business these days. It is as simple as that.”

What's interesting is that the Halifax United Way hasn't always been so open minded about technology. In the early 1990s, it placed strict restrictions on purchases of capital equipment, which included computers. As a result, agencies were not able to use United Way funds to put computer infrastructure in place.

This changed in the mid-1990s as a part of an overall funding policy overhaul. At that time, the Halifax United Way moved towards a more flexible funding scheme that put more decision making into the hands of the agencies it funded. Funding was allocated to a particular program, with agencies having the option to spend the money on whatever was needed to make the program work, including technology. At the same time, the restriction on capital purchases like computers was removed.

Nowadays, the Halifax United Way regularly sees its funding applied to purchasing computers, Internet access and web site services. According to Mortimer, these investments have done more than just make organizations more efficient. “In some cases, we see technology changing the way that organizations work for the better. For example, one organization has increased its contact with the community it serves by opening up a public Internet access site. This has made their open door policy a reality.”

Mortimer believes that funders have a role to play as technology catalysts, showing the strategic potential of tools like the Internet in subtle ways. “Instead of photocopying research reports for our agencies, I send them the web site links. As a result, they end up stumbling across way more than just the material I sent them. This leads to new ideas and new ways of thinking.” If Mortimer is to be taken as an example, there is clearly more to technology funding than money.

The Maytree Foundation

The Maytree Foundation seeks to accomplish its objectives by identifying, supporting and funding ideas, leaders and leading organizations that have the capacity to make change and advance the common good. It provides capacity building grants to organizations, and will consider funding applications that include technology supports as part of the overall programming objectives.

Maytree is a committed supporter of capacity building and although resistant to funding capital components, will consider strategic investments in technology, as part of strengthening an agency's ability to:

• Further participation of refugees and immigrants in Canadian society
  
• Improve governance, provide more sustainable organizational management and increase community responsiveness

In partnership with two other funders (the United Way and the Ontario Trillium Foundation), Maytree has committed to a three-year collaboration to design a self-assessment tool for organizations that looks at best practices in program delivery. Part of that self-assessment will examine how organizations are using technology in support of their missions. Maytree's interest in this collaboration is in building stronger, more efficient organizations that integrate investments in technology (as well as other capital and professional development improvements) in their overall missions, becoming better positioned to make the policy changes they seek.

The George Cedric Metcalf Foundation

The George Cedric Metcalf Foundation has a long-standing interest in building the capacity of the not-for-profit sector, offering support for capacity building initiatives through each of its three programs. This includes capacity building at the individual, organizational and sector-wide levels. Recognizing the important role technology plays in building effective organizations and in helping to advance its overarching programmatic goals, the Metcalf Foundation is willing to, and interested in, supporting its grantees in technology investments.

In launching its Environment Program in 2002, Metcalf identified capacity building as a central component aiming to "assist environmental groups to increase the breadth and depth of their work." One of the elements of this program was a "small grants window to support small projects. This could include basic communications infrastructure such as fax machines and computers, specific training opportunities, or small-scale technical support such as web design." It was intended to provide quick turn-around on small grants, the amount of which would be specified by the applicant. Surprisingly, there was no uptake on this element of the overall Environment Program.

The Foundation could not identify one specific reason that the program was not embraced by grantees, although they did suggest some possible reasons: competing organizational priorities; the chance of securing larger grants by applying for a “bigger pot;” and/or lack of awareness of the small grants window. With this experience in hand, and through an overall reassessment of the Foundation's approach to all aspects of the capacity building program, this particular funding stream was eliminated as a stand-alone, and was instead integrated into the other program streams, namely Southern Landscapes and Northern Forests. The Foundation was then identifying technology and communications support as an approach to funding, or a lens through which they look at organizational support, as opposed to a separate program. The Foundation has taken a more strategic, and integrated approach to technology support, and understands that this element of capacity building fundamentally serves overall mission work of its grantees, and the Foundation itself.

As an example, from its current guidelines for the Southern Landscapes program, “the Foundation will also consider supporting a number of organizations for a three-year period, as they undertake strategic initiatives to increase the breadth and depth of their work in southern landscapes. This is neither operating nor project funding, as this concept is traditionally understood. This capacity building funding is intended to help organizations to either seize new opportunities, or address chronic problems or limitations in their efforts to maintain biodiversity along the country's southern border. It is the Foundation's intention that over three years, organizations will be able to implement a strategic course of action which would not be possible under normal budgetary circumstances.” Support for technology applications that will advance the strategic goals of grantees will be included in these three-year grants.

For instance, a recent grant to the Conservation Council of New Brunswick (CCNB) included a significant focus on technology. CCNB proposed a three-year campaign to significantly “broaden its overall support through building its membership base and to increase its public outreach efforts.” While key components of the proposed plan included enhanced communications, outreach and staff training, the organization understood from the outset that their success would also hinge on infrastructure support. “The chronic … limitation means that the Council has not been able to acquire or fully utilize the tools available for internal and external communications and for streamlining efficiency of the staff’s work.” Upon receiving the grant, CCNB hired an Information Technology Coordinator who purchased equipment, upgraded office technology, launched an EcoMail tool for communicating with members, developed data and inventory storage protocols, and provided informal training to staff and board members as well as volunteers. Future plans include website development, integrating GIS capacity, and additional staff and board technology-based training to mention just a few. This three-year capacity building grant “is required to … help ensure that Conservation Council staff and board members have the training, tools, experience and support to carry on and achieve the biodiversity policy change and education goals they are currently working towards.”

The Ontario Trillium Foundation

The Ontario Trillium Foundation, an agency of the Ministry of Culture, receives annually $100 million of government funding generated through Ontario’s charity casino initiative. As one of Canada's leading grantmaking foundations, the Ontario Trillium Foundation works with others to make strategic investments that build healthy, caring and economically strong communities in Ontario. It provides three types of grants:

• Operating Grants for ongoing program and administration costs over a limited period of time, up to five years
  
• Project Grants for an initiative that has a definite beginning and end, and that may be in addition to a group’s regular work
  
• Capital Grants for making repairs, renovations or improvements to lands and buildings, or for buying equipment that will have a direct effect on a group’s programs or activities.

All OTF granting has at its base this concern: strengthening the communities in which the program activities of the grantee organization take place. OTF supports funding applications that include the strategic use of technology to help build strong communities, and is willing to invest in capacity building across the sector. It is particularly interested in helping prospective grantees think about new ways to deliver services and in asking for OTF support for programs and ideas that haven't been funded before.

OTF will make grants for capital purchases, including technology, and will also consider technology purchases as part of operating and project grants. An example of innovative grantmaking of OTF is the Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and the Environment: OTF provided funding for the information-sharing network, the CPCHE portal, the Secretariat, a provincial workshop strategy, and, a communications and health promotion strategy.