Innovation Fund Round 2 April 22, 2013 informational call webinar.

1. Innova&on
Fund
Alliance
for
Global
Good
Round
Two
Request
for
Proposals
Ques9ons
and
Answers

2. Innova&on
Fund
leadership
on
this
call
• David
Brand:
Chief
Execu9ve
Officer,
AFGG
35
year
business
experience;
AFGG
start-­‐up
co-­‐founder.
• Jerry
Chasen,
Esq.:
Chief
Opera9ng
Officer,
AFGG
LL.M.
in
Estate
Planning;
Philanthropic
advisor
and
counselor;
Founder
of
the
Advisors
Project;
Chair
Community
Projects
Fund
Distribu9on
CommiOee,
Miami
Founda9on
• Rodney
W.
Nichols:
Senior
Advisor
to
AFGG
Past
President,
New
York
Academy
of
Sciences,
and
past
VP
and
Execu9ve
VP
of
Rockefeller
University
• Susan
Raymond,
Ph.D.:
Execu9ve
Vice
President,
Changing
Our
World,
Inc.,
Founding
Director
of
the
Innova9on
Fund
Experience
at
USAID
and
World
Bank
in
program/loan
design
and
execu9on;
extensively
published
on
philanthropic
strategy
2

3. Purpose
of
Innova&on
Fund
AFGG
created
the
Innova9on
Fund
to
provide
Venture
Philanthropy
to
medium-­‐sized
U.S.-­‐based
nonprofits
engaged
in
global
issues
of
health,
educa9on,
environment,
poverty,
and
world
rela9ons
to
implement
mission-­‐relevant
social
finance
mechanisms
that
contribute
to
the
nonprofit’s
sustainability,
and
are
part
of
the
problem-­‐solving
programs
of
the
nonprofit.
3

4. Process
for
Round
Two
• RFP
Available
April
1
• Submission
of
Proposal
May
31
• Concept
Review
Complete
July
15
• No9fica9on
of
Finalists
By
August
1
• Addi9onal
Material
due
August
30
• Pitch
Presenta9ons
October
1
• Grant
Announcements
By
October
15
4

5. Structure
of
Webinar
• Revenue
and
Eligibility
Criteria
• Program
Content
and
Geography
• Applica9on
Process
• Grant
Award
• Other
5

6. Revenue
and
Eligibility
Criteria

7. Ques&on
1
Could
you
clarify
the
maximum
revenue
size
of
eligible
nonprofits?
The
Innova9on
Fund
seeks
to
strengthen
nonprofits
that,
on
average
for
the
last
five
years,
have
had
annual
revenue
below
$20
million
and
have
been
revenue
stable.
We
understand
that
there
are
differences
across
years
and
understand
that
there
may
be
a
10%
divergence
above
that
$20
million
level
(e.g.,
$2
million
higher),
but
that
is
our
target
range.
7

8. Ques&on
2
Is
there
a
minimum
revenue
size?
The
posted
minimum
annual
revenue
is
$5,000,000.
That
said,
we
care
deeply
about
big
ideas,
even
if
the
organiza9on
is
small,
so
applica9ons
from
organiza9ons
that
don’t
meet
the
minimum
posted
revenue
will
be
considered.
Review
in
any
case
will
carefully
examine
evidence
of
an
applicant’s
viability
and
capacity
to
execute
the
proposal,
and
this
will
be
par9cularly
true
of
organiza9ons
with
annual
revenue
less
than
$5,000,000.
8

9. Ques&on
3
Can
an
Ins<tute
of
a
University
apply
if
its
revenue
is
within
the
acceptable
range
although
the
University
is
not,
and
if
the
Ins<tute
is
not
a
separate
501(c)3?
Yes.
However,
we
would
want
to
see
that
the
Ins9tute
is
operated,
in
effect,
as
a
wholly
owned
subsidiary
with
programma9c
independence.
This
also
applies
to
very
large
nonprofits
which
have
internal
subsidiaries
or
members
that
are,
in
effect,
independent,
even
if
they
do
not
hold
a
separate
501(c)3
status.
9

10. Ques&on
4
Are
there
categories
of
revenue
that
can
be
deducted
from
the
total
revenue
size,
e.g.,
revenue
that
is
passed
through
for
rebates
or
the
mone<zed
value
of
in-­‐kind
dona<ons?
The
Fund
agrees
that
two
categories
of
revenue
can
be
subtracted
from
total
revenue
in
determining
eligibility:
• the
mone9zed
value
of
in-­‐kind
contribu9ons
• contribu9ons
to
dedicated
scholarship
funds
Earned
revenue
is
to
be
included
in
determining
annual
revenue.
Other
financial
structure
excep9ons
will
be
dealt
with
on
a
case-­‐by-­‐case
basis
via
email
inquiry
un9l
May
29.
Answers
will
be
posted
on
the
AFGG
website.
10

11. Ques&on
5
Why
do
you
ask
about
“organiza<onal
stability”?
The
Innova9on
Fund
targets
proven,
stable
organiza9ons,
and
not
startups.
Evidence
of
stability:
longevity,
cumula9ve
impact,
donor
testamonials,
etc.
All
applicants
must
demonstrate
five
years
of
stable
revenue.
11

12. Ques&on
6
Can
an
applicant
be
a
non-­‐US
NGO?
All
applicants
must
themselves
be
a
U.S.
501(c)(3)
tax-­‐
exempt
organiza9on
Proposals
on
behalf
of
non-­‐US
NGO’s
may
be
made
by
a
U.S.
501(c)(3)
tax
exempt
organiza9on:
– ac9ng
as
a
fiscal
agent,
or
– Which
is
a
“friends
of”
organiza9on.
In
these
cases,
size
and
stability
criteria
are
applied
to
the
Implemen<ng
organiza9on
and
not
the
represen9ng
organiza9on.
12

13. Program
Content
and
Geography

14. Ques&on
7
What
do
you
mean
by
“global”?
Are
there
geographic
areas
outside
the
United
States
that
will
not
be
considered?
Are
there
preferred
sites?
We
will
not
fund
any
ac9vity
that
is
in
a
na9on
on
the
U.S.
Treasury
boycoO
list
as
of
May
31,
2013.
There
are
no
other
geographic
preferences.
14

15. Ques&on
8
Can
proposals
be
for
programs
within
the
United
States?
No.
The
program
ac9ons
and
effects
must
be
abroad.
However,
program
management
and
administra9on
can,
but
does
not
have
to,
be
in
the
United
States.
Moreover,
a
partnership
of
a
U.S.
nonprofit
with
domes9c
programs
and
a
U.S.
nonprofit
with
interna9onal
programs
for
an
overseas
ini9a9ve
using
the
capaci9es
of
both
is
well
within
the
intent
of
the
Fund.
15

16. Ques&on
9
Must
the
program
be
within
just
one
of
the
AFGG
program
areas,
or
can
it
be
across
areas?
The
Innova9on
Fund
looks
extremely
favorably
on
programs
and
strategies
that
are
purposefully
and
deeply
inter-­‐sectoral.
16

17. Ques&on
10
Is
the
poverty
category
only
focused
on
small/
micro
enterprises-­‐-­‐or
is
it
open
to
skill
building
that
leads
to
improved
income??
Specifically
with
regard
to
this
ques9on,
the
RFP
states
that
it
seeks
innova9ons
in
increasing
family
incomes.
17

18. Ques&on
11
Please
discuss
more
fully
how
advanced
an
ini<a<ve
must
be
to
qualify
for
the
compe<<on.
The
RFP
refers
repeatedly
to
a
business
plan
A
proposal
should
reflect
the
nature
and
extent
of
thought
and
prepara9on
that
would
be
present
in
a
well
drawn
business
plan.
that
should
include:
–
Revenue
genera9ng
plan,
including
an9cipated
financial
structure
and
revenue
projec9ons;
–
Market
analysis;
–
Strategy
for
implementa9on;
–
Support
and
documenta9on
demonstra9ng
competence
and
viablity
18

19. Ques&on
12
How
imminent
must
implementa<on
be
to
qualify
for
the
compe<<on?
We
are
looking
for
“market
ready”
proposals.
The
proposal
should
indicate
the
expected
9me
frame
for
implementa9on
of
the
proposal.
Ideally,
the
Fund
would
an9cipate
the
innova9on
would
be
implemented
within
6
–
12
months
of
the
grantee’s
receipt
of
funds.
19

20. Ques&on
13
Can
funds
be
used
to
establish
a
legal
en<ty?
Other
than
restric9ons
on
salary
alloca9ons
stated
in
the
RFP,
funds
may
be
used
for
any
purpose
legal
under
U.S.
law.
20

21. Ques&on
14
Are
alloca<ons
for
overhead
prohibited—for
the
implemen<ng
organiza<on,
the
fiscal
agent
or
a
“friends
of”?
We
take
no
posi9on
on
overhead.
We
ask
for
a
detailed
and
transparent
budget
on
these
maOers,
and
reviewers
will
apply
a
principle
of
reasonableness
to
the
total
indirect
cost
weight
on
the
value
of
the
result.
21

22. Ques&on
15
Can
the
innova<on
be
focused
on
programs
or
policies,
rather
than
on
finance
or
revenue?
No.
The
focus
is
on
revenue
diversifica9on
and
stabiliza9on
through
strategies
that
are
outside
of
tradi9onal
charitable
philanthropy.
Thus,
among
other
things,
applica9ons
to
fund
website
development
and/or
personnel
for
purposes
of
growing
charitable
dona9ons
will
not
be
considered.
22

23. Ques&on
16
What
are
the
repor<ng
requirements
and
<meframes?
Brief
leOer
reports
will
be
due
on
a
quarterly
basis.
However,
the
Fund
expects
to
be
in
regular
contact
with
its
grantees
to
learn
from,
and
disseminate,
what
works
and
what
doesn’t.
23

24. Ques&on
17
How
specific
does
the
quan<ta<ve
measure
of
impact
have
to
be?
We
look
to
the
applicants
to
suggest
meaningful
measures.
However,
assessment
of
proposals
will
consider
both
how
an
organiza9on
defines
“results”
and
the
quality
of
that
data.
Reviewers
will
expect
quan9ta9ve
measures
of
results,
both
in
terms
of
revenue
genera9on
and
in
terms
of
service/program
enhancement.
24

25. Applica9on
Process

26. Ques&on
18
Must
the
proposal
be
submiYed
through
the
web-­‐
based
system?
Yes.
26

27. Ques&on
19
How
much
detail
is
required
rela<ve
to
past
studies
of
innova<on
market
and
viability?
Should
studies
be
aYached?
For
the
ini9al
proposal,
studies
can
be
summarized
and
should
include
sufficient
detail
such
that
the
reviewers
can
assess
the
merits
of
the
proposed
ini9a9ve.
If
an
applicant
is
invited
to
the
pitch
session,
addi9onal
detail
and
focus
on
past
studies
is
likely.
27

28. Ques&on
20
Is
the
oral
pitch
required?
Yes.
It
must
be
aOended
by
senior
execu9ves
as
described
in
the
RFP.
Travel
expenses
will
not
be
defrayed
by
the
Fund.
If
long
distances
for
primary
execu9ves
are
an
impediment,
the
Fund
will
discuss
alterna9ves
(e.g.,
skype),
but
demonstra9on
of
the
commitment
of
execu9ves
and
boards
is
required.
28

29. Grant
Award

30. Ques&on
21
What
is
the
minimum
and
maximum
grant
size?
There
is
no
minimum.
The
maximum
grant
for
Round
Two
is
$90,000.
30

31. Ques&on
22
How
many
organiza<ons
do
you
expect
will
submit
funding
requests
and
how
many
grants
will
be
awarded?
From
this
Round
Two
cycle,
no
fewer
than
3
grants
will
be
made.
In
Round
One,
we
received
over
40
applica9ons,
although
some
were
immediately
eliminated
for
failing
to
meet
the
requirements
of
an
“Eligible
Organiza9on”,
as
that
term
is
used
in
the
RFP.
31

32. Ques&on
23
What
is
the
<meline
for
grant
disbursement?
A
proposal
should
outline
the
applicant’s
op9mum
9meline
for
receipt
of
funds.
We
are
prepared
to
provide
three
quarters
of
the
amount
funded
when
the
grant
is
made.
The
final
quarter
of
funding
will
be
available
at
the
start
of
the
sixth
month
aqer
the
grant
award,
but
shall
be
9ed
to
the
organiza9on’s
receipt
of
its
matching
funds.
32

33. Ques&on
24
Describe
the
matching
requirement.
Our
purpose
in
requiring
a
match
is
to
provide
applicants
with
an
opportunity
to
enroll
new
or
exis9ng
donors
in
the
establishment
of
an
important
new
funding
stream.
Some
specifics
about
the
match:
– Fund
grants
can
comprise
no
more
than
66%
of
the
total
cost
to
implement
the
proposed
ac9vity.
– Balance
to
be
funded
by
matching
dona9on(s).
– Government
is
not
an
acceptable
source
of
matching
dona9on.
– If
acceptable
to
government
funders,
Fund
grants
(once
actually
made)
may
be
considered
for
purposes
of
private
matching
of
government
grants.
33

34. Other

35. Ques&on
25
Are
there
restric<ons
on
partnerships
with
for-­‐
profit
organiza<ons?
With
other
non-­‐profit
organiza<ons?
– No.
In
fact,
we
would
favor
those
in
which
the
Fund
is
leveraged
by
financial
par9cipa9on
by
such
a
partner.
– Similarly
we
are
interested
in
proposals
reflec9ng
a
collabora9ve
ini9a9ve,
so
long
as
one
organiza9on
is
the
lead
contact
and
responsible
for
the
grant,
and
meets
the
RFP
requirements
of
an
“eligible
organiza9on.”
35

36. Ques&on
26
What
is
the
<me
commitment
for
the
mentoring
network?
This
has
not
been
specified.
Round
Two
awardees
would
not
be
asked
to
be
mentors
un9l
Round
Four.
We
would
seek
the
guidance
of
Rounds
One
and
Two
awardees
on
the
design
of
the
program.
36

37. Thank
You
for
Par&cipa&ng!
Ques9ons
and
answers
reviewed
on
today’s
call
will
be
posted
on
the
website.
Addi9onal
ques9ons
can
be
submiOed
by
email
through
5
pm
(ET)
Wednesday
May
29
.
37