Building for the future: Best practices and lessons learned from community foundations in establishing, managing, and cultivating donor support for an endowment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the recent recession, many foundations and charities are struggling. Interest payments from investments are at an all-time low. Donors are wary of their contributions sitting in unsuccessful funds for the future, when they could be put to work through grants today. These factors lend urgency to the ever-present issue of sustainability among Third Sector organizations around the world. In this paper, Francesca Aguiar Carson investigates current trends, best practices and lessons learned from community foundations and diaspora giving organizations in establishing, managing, and cultivating donor support for an endowment within today's philanthropic and economic climate. Ms. Carson is tasked with developing recommendations for a suitable endowment strategy for BrazilFoundation, a grant-making and fundraising public charity with a young donor base which generates resources to support community-based projects across Brazil. The Foundation has invested more than $18 million over the past 12 years, mostly in comparatively small one-year grants, supporting the work of more than 300 social projects in Brazil. Ms. Carson draws on lessons from community foundations in order to gain perspective on how a public diaspora foundation like BrazilFoundation might best organize an endowment campaign. Ever aware of balancing the demands of short-term need and long-term planning, and drawing on lessons learned from community foundations in the U.S., Canada, and Kenya, Ms. Carson concludes that BrazilFoundation is an example of an organization that could benefit from developing and introducing a "soft" (or incremental) endowment strategy. The author emphasizes the importance of analyzing an organization's current capacity together with other factors that might influence an endowment campaign -- including knowledge about the age and cultural practices of a foundation's potential donor base. In her recommendations she also points out that long-term sustainability may be achieved through means other than endowment building, including social enterprise and annual fundraising campaigns for pass-through funding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".