Letter to the Editor of Foundation News & Commentary - September/October 1999
Dulling a Double-Edged Sword
I enjoyed Martin Schneiderman’s recent article on grant management software immensely (“What Choice Do You Really Have?,” May/June).
The industry overview and its evolution was thoughtful and enlightening. Very few options exist for foundations for managing large portfolios of grants and understandably, many vendors do focus more on the fundraising aspects. Foundations are difficult clients because the costs of the software reduces the amount available for their philanthropic mission and all too often, foundations neglect their infrastructure, such as grant management software, which supports and promotes their philanthropic mission. This is our double-edged sword.
The item omitted from the article is the recent and creative approach some of the large family foundations have developed. In 1992, frustrated by the lack of available choices, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Lilly Endowment jointly developed their own grant management software. In 1997, this consortium of foundations gave the software to the Rockefeller Foundation, and since then, they have also given this software to the Carnegie Corporation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Open Society Institute.
At all of these foundations, we work collaboratively—sharing ideas, resources and documentation, as well as sharing and promoting best practices in philanthropy. This collaboration is a form of “co-opetition,” otherwise unavailable or unheard of in the private sector and is another trend in the evolution of grant management software.
Mai-Anh Tran
Project Leader
Rockefeller Foundation
New York City, NY
[via e-mail]
Author's note: The stated focus of this article was on commercial grants management software that was developed and supported by established vendors. The custom, joint development approach discussed here is reportedly serving these very large foundations well, but it is not considered a cost-effective or viable option for most other members of the philanthropic community.