Issue Brief #6:

Match Funder Participation in 

the Social Innovation Fund

A product of the National Assessment of 

the Social Innovation Fund (SIF)

September 2016
Issue Brief #6: 

Match Funder Participation in the Social Innovation Fund 

September 2016 

Authors 

Janet Pershing, Ph.D. 

Johanna Barrero, M.I.A., M.A. 

Submitted To 

Lily Zandniapour, Ph.D. 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

For inquiries, please contact evaluation@cns.gov

Acknowledgements 

Janet Griffith, Ph.D. and Xiaodong Zhang, Ph.D., of ICF International, provided review and insights that 

informed the development of this product. 

About This Document 

This document was produced pursuant to a contract between the Corporation for National and 

Community Service and ICF International (Contract Number: GS-23F-8182H; CNSHQ13F0091). 

ICF International | 9300 Lee Highway | Fairfax, VA 22031-1207 | www.icfi.com

This document was commissioned as an independent study by the Corporation for National and 

Community Service. Views expressed in the document do not necessarily reflect the official viewpoints of 

the agency or its staff. This document is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or 

in part is granted. This document has been formatted to be readable by assistive technologies, in 

accordance with Section 508 regulations. 

Recommended Citation 

Pershing, J. & Barrero, J. (2016). Issue Brief #6: Match Funder Participation in the Social Innovation Fund. 

(Prepared for the Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Evaluation). 

Fairfax, VA: ICF International. 

About CNCS 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is a federal agency that improves lives, 

strengthens communities, and fosters civic engagement through service and volunteering. Each year, 

CNCS engages five million Americans of all ages and backgrounds through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, 

the Social Innovation Fund, the Volunteer Generation Fund, and other programs, and leads the 

President's national call to service initiative, United We Serve. For more information, visit 

NationalService.gov.
nationalservice.gov/research i 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i

1. Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

2. SIF Match Funding ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

2.1 Overview of SIF Match Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1

2.2 The Co-Investor Model ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

3. Funder Motivation and Concerns --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

3.1 Leveraging Federal Resources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

3.2 Benefitting from the Structure of the SIF Process ---------------------------------------------------- 4

3.3 Collaborating for Broader Impact ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5

4. Role of Funders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.1 Helping Grantees Obtain Financial Resources -------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.2 Helping Grantees Forge Community Connections -------------------------------------------------- 7

4.3 Promoting Systems Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

4.4 Building Capacity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

5. Sustaining Funder Involvement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

5.1 Learning from evidence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9

5.2 Building Communities with a Shared Purpose ----------------------------------------------------- 10

6. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

About This Issue Brief -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

About The Social Innovation Fund ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
nationalservice.gov/research 1 

1. Introduction

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) leverages public and private resources to grow community solutions 

based on evidence of results. The National Assessment of the SIF seeks to document and capture the 

impact of the SIF on key program stakeholders. Findings from this multi-component independent 

assessment will tell the story of the SIF and identify lessons learned. 

The SIF makes grants to experienced grant-making organizations, which identify promising programs 

within communities through an open and competitive process and distribute funds to high-performing 

nonprofit organizations that implement them, and match the federal funds dollar-for-dollar. SIF 

subgrantees also match the funding they receive dollar-for-dollar. All SIF-funded interventions are 

required to undergo rigorous, independent evaluations to advance the base of evidence for the funded 

intervention. 

This issue brief explores the relationships between SIF Classic1 grantees and subgrantees and their match 

funders. It also provides action-oriented recommendations for current and prospective SIF grantees, 

subgrantees, and match funders; other grantmakers and grantee partners considering a SIF-type model; 

nonprofit organizations; and policy makers. This brief is informed by interviews with three SIF grantee 

organizations (also referred to as intermediaries), three subgrantees, and five match funders. 

Given the small purposive sample, this issue brief is intended to illustrate rather than generalize about 

the range of experiences that SIF grantees, subgrantees, and their match funders have had in working 

together on a SIF-funded project. The brief begins by describing the key SIF matching requirements and 

the co-investor model that supported two of the grantees featured in this issue brief. It then looks at what 

motivates match funders to invest and engage in SIF projects. Next, it discusses the range of roles that 

funders play in SIF partnerships. It concludes with a brief discussion of strategies for sustaining funder 

engagement during and beyond the SIF project. 

2. SIF Match Funding

The SIF program’s match requirements are stringent and include features that differ somewhat from 

other federal match programs (e.g., cash match only). This section briefly recaps the SIF Classic program’s 

match requirement and the concept of a co-investor model. 

2.1 Overview of SIF Match Requirements 

The SIF requires that each SIF Classic dollar awarded to a grantee be matched one-to-one with cash from 

private and other non-federal sources, such as state or local governments, philanthropies, or individuals.2

Grantee subawards to subgrantees also must be matched on a one-to-one basis. Only non-federal cash 

sources may be used as the match.3 Grantees must demonstrate the ability to meet 50 percent of their first 

year cash match requirement at application, and subgrantees must document compliance with the match 

1

 The SIF has two grant programs: Classic and Pay for Success (PFS). The Classic program unites public and private resources to 

evaluate and grow innovative community-based solutions that have evidence of results in low-income communities. PFS is an 

innovative contracting and financing model that leverages philanthropic and private dollars to fund services up front, with the 

government or other entity paying after they generate results. This issue brief focuses on SIF Classic only. 

2 Section 198K (i), National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, Public Law 101-610, from 

http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1990_serviceact_as%20amended%20through%20pl%

20111-13.pdf 3 Section 198K (i), National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, Public Law 101-610, from 

http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1990_serviceact_as%20amended%20through%20pl%20111-13.pdf
nationalservice.gov/research 2 

requirement annually. Match funds take on the identity of federal funds so any rules and regulations that 

apply to federal funds also apply to the match funds (e.g., eligible expenses, documentation 

requirements). 

This two-tiered matching requirement results in up to three-to-one leveraging of federal funds, but poses 

a significant challenge for at least some grantees and subgrantees responsible for raising these 

considerable sums each year. Match funders have not typically committed funding for the full term of the 

SIF grant, resulting in ongoing fund-raising responsibilities for grantees/subgrantees. Grantees and 

subgrantees have expressed concern about the burden of continually raising substantial match sums, 

especially because federal regulations prevent them from using SIF funds for fundraising4. A few 

grantees and subgrantees have dropped out of the SIF program in part because the challenge of raising 

the match proved too difficult in their communities. In addition to these challenges, grantees and 

subgrantees, particularly in smaller communities, often compete for match funding from the same 

supporters. 

Many SIF grantees and subgrantees have simply persevered in making one-on-one contacts with possible 

match funders and have successfully met their match requirements. But some of the organizations 

interviewed for this issue brief have pioneered another approach: co-investing. 

2.2 The Co-Investor Model 

Some SIF funders are collaborating through co-investor groups to tackle large-scale and high-cost 

interventions. The main features of the co-investor model involve centralized coordination of grant funds, 

and consolidated application and reporting requirements. In most cases, the coordinating agency absorbs 

the cost associated with grantee due diligence, managing the grantee portfolio, coordinating and hosting 

regular meetings, and reporting back to co-investors. In some cases, the co-investors simply provide 

unrestricted funds for inclusion in a single funding pool. But in other cases, a co-investor, although part 

of the larger group, may limit the uses of its funds by designating a particular subgrantee, community, or 

use of funds, for example. The main advantages of the co-investor model are the efficiencies associated 

with the centralized administration of funds and the reduced burden on applicants/grantees through 

consolidated application and reporting processes. 

According to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF), a SIF grantee that pioneered this funding 

approach through its True North Fund, funders have different motivations for joining such a group. For 

some, the centralized management of funds is attractive because it relieves the co-investor of the day-today management of grantees. Others prefer a more hands-on role with grantees, which a co-investor 

model can also accommodate. Co-investor models offer a range of other benefits, including building 

relationships with other funders, creating or expanding communities of practice, supporting a specific 

issue or geographic area, benefiting from the group’s collective knowledge, and reducing each investor’s 

risk. Although these models may differ in application, both funders and grantees view the overall 

approach and benefits as generally successful. 

From a grantee/subgrantee perspective, two advantages of the co-investor model are its access to diverse 

funding sources and increased visibility in the community. A third is the single, streamlined process that 

results in less time and energy devoted to raising match funds. A co-investor model also has significant 

4

 According to federal regulation the cost of raising funds in order to meet the matching funds requirement is not an allowable cost 

under the Uniform Cost Principles (2 CFR Subpart E). 2 CFR § 200.442. However, grantees may charge to their grant the cost of 

assisting subgrantees with raising match, with prior written approval. 
nationalservice.gov/research 3 

appeal because it enables funders to channel resources strategically toward larger-scale projects in a 

defined priority area to achieve maximum impact. However, particularly in small communities with 

limited philanthropic resources, the model can increase competition for funds and eliminate 

opportunities for worthwhile projects that are not within the co-investor’s primary focus area. In 

addition, funders may find it challenging to relinquish control over the allocation of funds. Another 

challenge is the extent of the leadership, time, and financial resources required to ensure donor 

engagement and alignment. Despite the challenges, however, funders have found value in the co-investor 

model, and grantees/subgrantees benefit when this model successfully engages and informs co-investors. 

Recommendations for promoting and supporting a co-investor model: 

 Plan to invest time and resources in partnership building. 

 Identify a champion from the lead organization with the leadership skills to effectively assemble and 

coordinate the group. 

 Provide learning opportunities through regular meetings and other venues to build the group’s 

knowledge and capacity. 

 Establish clear expectations for the group and allow participants different levels and types of 

involvement. 

3. Funder Motivation and Concerns 

Match funders appreciated the opportunity to leverage federal funds to support projects in their priority 

focus areas and/or their local communities, but this was by no means the only motivation for most. Those 

interviewed for this issue brief cited a range of other factors that influenced their decisions to participate 

as a match funder. The structure of the SIF program offered some advantages for match funders, such as 

its rigorous application process and evaluation requirements, but brought some drawbacks as well—

primarily the federal restrictions to which match funds are subject. Finally, an added incentive for 

participating was the opportunity to collaborate with others in their communities to achieve greater 

impact on the issues they care about. 

3.1 Leveraging Federal Resources 

Grantees/subgrantees and match funders emphasized the value that SIF-style private/public partnerships 

contribute by channeling funds to the match funder’s priority areas and building sustained community 

support. Match funder Saint Joseph Mercy Health System, which supported Avalon Housing, concurred 

strongly about the value of leveraging federal resources, noting that resources for addressing its priorities 

are limited, and that by partnering with other entities that share these concerns—whether private, 

federal, state, or local—Saint Joseph’s can augment both the attention and the resources available for its 

cause. United Way of Greenville County emphasized that involving multiple funders to match federal 

resources, although challenging, builds a community's capacity to sustain initiatives after the federal 

funding ends. The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) concurred, noting that, although initially it 

seemed daunting to raise millions of match dollars, over time the SIF matching requirement led to 

stronger relationships with match funders. 

Another perspective on the value of leveraging federal funds came from the Melville Charitable Trust, a 

match funder for CSH: for social problems of the scale SIF addresses, philanthropy simply does not have 
nationalservice.gov/research 4 

adequate resources; sustained federal involvement is essential. To Melville Charitable Trust, engaging 

federal partners in the learning process from the outset was crucial to increasing the likelihood of 

ultimately integrating the new interventions into long-term federal practices. 

The match funder for WINGS for Kids, the Wallace Foundation, emphasized that although the 

Foundation valued the opportunity to leverage federal funding through the SIF, doing so also reflected 

the Foundation’s own priorities and interest in funder collaboration. Leveraging only makes sense when 

aligned with the funder’s priorities and strategies. 

Although match funders generally were quite 

motivated to leverage federal funds in order to 

support their communities and causes, federal 

regulations and legal requirements placed on match 

funds—accounting requirements, background check 

compliance, and so on—were important factors to 

consider. Some match funders have extensive 

experience working with programs subject to the 

restrictions that accompany federal funding and 

noted that, while demanding, complying with the SIF’s requirements was not a surprise. But for others, 

this was a new and burdensome challenge. 

3.2 Benefitting from the Structure of the SIF Process 

Match funders found several aspects of the SIF program attractive, including the vetting process grantees 

undergo prior to receiving a SIF grant, the requirement for and support of rigorous evaluation, and the 

intermediary model that coordinates and supports subgrantees.

Grantees that receive SIF funding have, by definition, gone through a rigorous federal review process. 

The representative of Greenville Partnership for Philanthropy (GPP), a co-investor group that supported 

the United Way of Greenville County, noted that receipt of a SIF grant gives match funders confidence 

that SIF projects are sound and well-conceived with initial evidence of effectiveness and a high degree of 

promise. Supporting an organization that received a SIF grant, in the face of rigorous standards and stiff 

competition, also generated a sense of pride in belonging to a group making a successful contribution to 

issues that matter. From the grantee perspective, the rigorous SIF process mean that receiving SIF 

funding elevates the credibility and public recognition of grantees, serving as a door opener and sparking 

the interest of other supporters. 

The SIF program’s emphasis on rigorous evaluation also was attractive to match funders. They noted that 

by requiring rigorous evaluation, and providing support to help grantees/subgrantees conduct rigorous 

evaluation, the SIF program provided value beyond the actual services it provided. The Melville 

Charitable Trust, which supported CSH, recognized the challenges that grantees/subgrantees faced in 

conducting rigorous evaluation. However, the Melville Trust representative and others interviewed 

concurred that the SIF’s requirement for generating objective evidence is a compelling feature of the 

program for match funders interested in producing evidence of effectiveness. 

“It was certainly our first experience taking and regranting public money, including from the federal 

government. It was a real learning curve for us... the 

SIF funds were restricted in certain ways, which is 

actually absolutely counter to the way we like to invest 

in nonprofits.”

–Chuck Harris, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
nationalservice.gov/research 5 

Additionally, the SIF’s reliance on an intermediary 

model was cited as an attractive feature. Under the 

SIF, grantees serve as intermediaries, identifying 

strong local projects to fund, overseeing the efforts of 

their subgrantees, and ensuring compliance with 

federal requirements. In the view of the Melville 

Charitable Trust, the intermediary’s role—supporting 

work across multiple subgrantee sites and 

coordinating efforts across sites—assures match 

funders that the projects they fund will receive appropriate oversight and support. 

3.3 Collaborating for Broader Impact 

According to interview respondents, the SIF program’s contributions go beyond providing funding and 

technical assistance, to serving as a catalyst to bring nonprofit agencies and funders together to tackle 

social problems. SIF grantees typically assembled match funding from multiple funders. Creating this 

type of public/private partnership involving federal funds and multiple private sector supporters allowed 

smaller funders to invest in projects that would have been too expensive for them to support alone. 

Aggregating sources also had the benefit of sharing the risk of investing in a particular project, as well as 

creating the potential for larger impact in a priority area or community. 

Several match funders emphasized the importance of 

collaboration to address problems at scale. 

Hollingsworth Funds, Inc., match funder for 

subgrantee Communities in Schools of Greenville 

County (CIS of Greenville County), noted that no 

single organization can solve serious social problems 

and bring about complex social change; making a real 

difference requires a collective impact strategy. SIF 

pushed local investors to think more deeply and 

strategically about how to address their community’s 

problems at scale, and funder commitment to the SIF 

grantees helped keep funders working together. Match funders did note two drawbacks to collaboration: 

the time and energy required to ensure success and the potential loss of name recognition for individual 

organizations. 

One additional effect of collaboration among funders was the impact of shared commitment on risk 

taking. Match funders noted that sharing the risk with like-minded funders was reassuring and 

empowered them to take more risk than they otherwise might have in making funding decisions. 

Recommendations for motivating match funder participation in the SIF program: 

 Communicate to match funders how participation in the SIF can leverage federal funds for the 

projects they care about. Note especially how developing an evidence base can help successful 

projects scale and expand to new communities with federal support once they are shown to be 

effective. 

 Highlight the value and credibility that the SIF’s rigorous selection process conveys. 

“We're strong believers in having and supporting 

groups who are going to do that multi-site work or the 

collaborative coordination, because it's fundamental in 

getting things off the ground. If the intermediary is 

good, it provides a sense of assurance and makes it 

easier for us to invest.”

–Janice Elliot, Melville Charitable Trust

“We didn't all go to school to learn how to sit around 

the table with multiple stakeholders and keep 

ourselves at the table and work through... very 

different views of how we reach certain goals... The

SIF grant provided us a platform for putting that issue 

on the table [to] peel back the onion and ask ourselves 

questions around how we partner together more 

collectively with our various stakeholders.”

–Gage Weekes, Hollingsworth Funds, Inc.
nationalservice.gov/research 6 

 Emphasize that by working with a SIF grantee/subgrantee, match funders have an extra level of 

assurance about the quality of the projects. 

 Underscore the benefits of connecting with other funders and grantee organizations that share similar 

concerns to strive for broader collective impact. The investments of time and energy these 

relationships require are well worth the effort. 

4. Role of Funders 

Match funders, by definition, play an important financial role in supporting SIF projects. Some 

intentionally take a hands-off approach to their funding, however. For example, the Saint Joseph Mercy 

Health System noted that their organization had an established relationship with Avalon Housing, a 

subgrantee to CSH, and a high level of trust in Avalon’s ability to deliver. Based on that history, they took 

a fairly hands-off approach, trusting Avalon to do what they do best. Some of EMCF’s philanthropic 

partners also preferred to serve strictly as funding sources, without taking part in day-to-day oversight. 

These funders appreciated the co-investor model in which EMCF’s grants management role ensured 

quality subgrantee projects without the need for them to invest their staff time and resources. 

But an emerging trend noted was for funders to take a 

much more active role. Greenville Partnership for 

Philanthropy, which coordinated co-investor efforts 

that supported grantee United Way of Greenville 

County, noted a shift from funders who traditionally 

provided financing and stepped back, to an evolving 

funding community where different partners bring a 

variety of strengths to a broader community 

partnership. Interviews for this issue brief revealed 

that match funders who choose to engage beyond financial contributions most often play roles in forging 

community connections, inspiring policy changes, building grantee capacity, and helping grantees 

generate additional financial resources 

4.1 Helping Grantees Obtain Financial Resources 

For SIF grantees/subgrantees, fund-raising is an on-going responsibility. Grantees/subgrantees were 

expected to make significant efforts to identify additional match funding from new sources to cover their 

match costs in later years of the program, as well as to develop a sustainable funding stream to carry the 

work beyond the end of the SIF funding period. When subgrantees struggled to raise these funds, some 

grantees and match funders took responsibility for helping the subgrantees meet their match 

requirements. For example, the Hollingsworth Fund, as part of the co-investor group that supported 

subgrantee CIS of Greenville County, decided during the SIF application process to commit the match 

money up front, even before the final partners were selected, to ensure that the need to locate match 

funding would not be an issue. 

The Wallace Foundation, which supported EMCF’s subgrantee WINGS for Kids, believes philanthropies 

should invest additional funds to support crucial activities that cannot be paid for with public funding or 

match dollars. EMCF concurred, noting that an effective project may require significant funding for 

activities such as advocacy and fundraising that federal guidelines restrict. To address this gap, EMCF 

contributed unrestricted funds to many of its subgrantees outside of the federal award. 

“If you want it to be successful... the money is almost 

the last thing on the list that you need to be prepared 

to invest... To make it really be all it can be, it's got to 

be your time, your thought, your passion, your 

communication, your other networks that you can 

leverage.” 

–Katy Smith, Greenville Partnership for Philanthropy
nationalservice.gov/research 7 

As grantees/subgrantees reach the end of their SIF funding, pressure mounts to replace the SIF portion of 

the budget to keep the project operational, and some match funders have helped underwrite this 

transition from the initial SIF funding. Grantees/ subgrantees noted that their partners opened doors, 

introducing them to potential funders and vouching for the quality of their projects. This support enabled 

them to become acquainted with funders with whom they otherwise might never have connected or 

secured a meeting. 

Funders used various strategies to link their grantees/subgrantees to new funding sources. One-on-one 

introductions helped, but funders also organized stakeholder meetings and other learning opportunities, 

offering a space for grantees/subgrantees to exchange ideas and experiences with funders. Subgrantee 

CIS of Greenville County, for example, reported that their match funder opened doors by creating 

opportunities (such as convenings) in which CIS of Greenville County had the opportunity to present 

their work to new philanthropic organizations. This type of access-generation was magnified as coinvestors made connections beyond the circle of contacts available to the original match funders. 

Greenville co-investor group GPP provided subgrantees with business technical assistance and brought 

media attention to the project, which helped open doors to other potential funding sources. Similarly, in a 

health and homelessness project, grantee CSH worked to secure endorsements from well-known funders, 

which helped raise the profile of the grantee/subgrantee initiatives and gave them a valuable stamp of 

approval. 

4.2 Helping Grantees Forge Community Connections 

In addition to financial connections, match funders can sometimes forge community connections that 

make an enormous difference to the impact of grantee projects. Match funder roles may include 

introducing grantees/subgrantees to key contacts or participating in stakeholder groups to collaborate on 

the problem at hand. 

One example of a funder helping forge community connections involved SIF subgrantee WINGS for 

Kids, which provides a social and emotional learning curriculum for economically disadvantaged 

students in elementary school aftercare settings. Knowing that introducing the curriculum to a new town 

where WINGS was an unknown entity could be 

challenging, the organization turned to one of their 

match funders, the Rainwater Charitable Foundation. 

The Rainwater Charitable Foundation initiated a 

conversation with the school superintendent, helping 

WINGS establish a solid relationship with the school 

district from the outset. They brokered an agreement 

to allow WINGS to offer the curriculum in one of the district’s schools and secured a financial 

commitment from the district. 

EMCF realized a similar outcome when a co-funder supported scale-up in a new community. According 

to EMCF, the funder served as a connector to help the subgrantee Center for Employment Opportunities 

put down roots in the new community, and facilitated connections with the governor, head of 

corrections, school superintendent, mayor, business community, and other large funders. 

Match funders also can help grantees/subgrantees by playing a role in communities of practice or 

advisory committees that bring together the expertise of strategic partners. Grantee CSH works with an 

advisory committee of funders, partners from housing and homelessness agencies, and healthcare 

“They might not be adding dollars necessarily, but they 

might be leveraging influence to make things happen 

that we don't have when we stand alone.”

–Susi Smith, Communities in Schools 

of Greenville County
nationalservice.gov/research 8 

organizations. CSH reports that with all the partners and stakeholders at the table, they have achieved a 

great deal in terms of enhancing mutual understanding and identifying different ways to spin off new 

opportunities to work together—a process that would not be taking place without the active engagement 

of the match partners. The Hollingsworth Funds, Inc., a match funder, also highlighted the importance of 

funder engagement in these joint efforts and noted that the SIF grant has become a platform for placing 

an issue on the table and involving stakeholders in tackling the question of how to address it. 

4.3 Promoting Systems Change 

Some grantees have established relationships with their funders that transcend the scope of the SIF 

project, and count on those funders to speak to the broader community about the benefits of systems 

changes. CSH reported seeking to strike a balance between realizing on-the-ground change in the lives of 

their clients and building evidence to support systems change and policy reforms. They noted that when 

match funders speak out about the value of the CSH model, independent of the SIF project, they can 

attract support among audiences CSH is typically unable to reach. 

The Hollingsworth Funds, Inc. also emphasized the 

importance of connecting individual SIF program 

efforts to a broader conversation about systems 

change, noting that, despite the expertise that SIF 

grantees bring to implementing their projects, at the 

end of the day only government agencies have the 

resources to achieve a fundamental impact on 

broader community outcomes. Match partners have helped showcase the work of SIF grantees beyond 

the SIF project and generate interest in their interventions. 

4.4 Building Capacity 

In addition to helping grantees/subgrantees obtain financial resources and forge community connections, 

some match funders played an active role in building grantee/subgrantee capacity. For example, when 

WINGS for Kids encountered issues analyzing power in a randomized control trial, their match funders 

stepped in to provide the necessary analytic support. Wallace Foundation also provided feedback to

WINGS on ways to communicate results and disseminate learnings. Subgrantee CIS of Greenville County 

noted that although grantees “wear the boots on the ground,” often their match funders help find ways to 

address issues such as a need for volunteers or more media attention. Similarly, if they see grantees 

facing challenges, SIF grantee and match funder EMCF steps in with support such as executive coaching, 

executive search capabilities, development consulting, or business planning consulting. 

Another role that funders have played in SIF projects is to offer their expertise, leadership, and guidance. 

Co-investor organization GPP, for example, found that the SIF offered a platform from which to consider 

how best to build the capacity of local organizations, translating national trends and best practices into 

concrete tools to develop the capacity of subgrantees and the philanthropic community at large. CSH also 

benefitted from thoughtful contributions from match funders as CSH sought to translate their customary 

housing stability measures into measures that fit the health care sector with which they were partnering. 

Match funders also can step back and offer a broader perspective to subgrantees. CIS of Greenville 

County, for example, found that match funders helped guide their vision by providing a business 

“Match funders... don't want to just invest in something 

for five years. They want to have this five-year 

investment make lasting systems change. That's what 

we're able to do together.”

–Sarah Gallagher, Corporation for Supportive Housing
nationalservice.gov/research 9 

perspective on what the project could look like in 10 years. Securing funder engagement in planning 

ways to keep the project operating has been a valuable assist in developing a sustainability strategy. 

Recommendations for match funder roles: 

 Open doors to help grantees/subgrantees connect with other funders interested in their project’s 

mission and values. 

 Provide additional and separate unrestricted resources to organizations receiving SIF grants to 

address gaps or specific needs that SIF grants cannot. 

 Serve as a connector within the community, applying the influence of the philanthropic sector to 

convene the various parties whose support and involvement will be essential for the project’s success.

 Exercise the voice of the philanthropic sector to champion policy changes based on the evidence the 

SIF program generates. 

 Help grantees recognize areas of weakness and offer non-financial capacity building as needed in 

skills ranging from evaluation, to media relations, to executive development. 

5. Sustaining Funder Involvement 

New SIF projects can provide exciting opportunities for funders because they are novel, have promising 

evidence of effectiveness, and leverage substantial federal resources. Over the years, however, the 

novelty may wear off, and even with evidence of effectiveness, SIF grantees often find it harder to obtain 

the required match funding during the later stages of the project. Even more challenging: at the end of the 

SIF grant—sometimes referred to as “The SIF Cliff”—grantees face the daunting task of replacing the SIF 

funding to keep the project operating. 

Grantees observed that sustaining funder involvement cannot be a cookie-cutter process. Each funder is 

unique, with its own preferences and priorities. For example, the interests and priorities of national 

funders may center on addressing systemic social problems, but smaller, local foundations may prefer to 

keep their philanthropic funds in a specific community. Those interviewed pointed out that engaging 

funders around the issues that matter most to them is critical to sustaining their involvement. 

Grantees/subgrantees and funders offered a range of ideas for engaging funders in ways that sustain their 

interest and commitment over the longer term. These included learning together from evidence, and 

building communities that link funders and grantees through a common purpose. 

5.1 Learning from evidence 

One effective tool for engaging funders was to involve 

them in the evaluation component of the SIF. 

Grantees/subgrantees noted that not all evaluation 

results show glowing progress. Grantees and funders 

with strong, established relationships have found it 

possible to work through those situations. CIS of 

Greenville County, for example, acknowledged that if 

evaluation results suggested that the project was not 

functioning as anticipated, the funder would take notice. But what matters, they argue, is to ensure the 

“There sometimes is that jump to that thumbs upthumbs down conclusion on evaluation. These folks 

just didn't do that at all. They really looked at it as, 

"Well, what can we learn from this and make 

improvements for the kids?" 

–Teresa Power, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation 
nationalservice.gov/research 10

funder knows that the project is monitoring what is happening and implementing mid-course 

corrections. In fact, disclosing less-than-stellar results and proposed improvements enhances grantee 

credibility, giving the funder confidence in the grantee’s transparency and commitment to continuous 

improvement. 

Other funders echoed these sentiments. Melville Charitable Trust noted that that it is okay to fail, so long 

as everyone is willing to step back to analyze the correlation between the failure, the project, and its 

contexts, and determine what to do going forward. In the same vein, EMCF pointed out that evaluation is 

a tool, not an end, and findings less glowing than the grantee had hoped for yield vital information 

leading to adjustments. For example, when EMCF grantee BELL (Building Educated Leaders for Life) 

extended a project from elementary to middle school, early results were less successful than they were 

when the project focused on the lower grades. This finding triggered a constructive, sustained 

partnership, in which the subgrantee, EMCF, the match funders, and the evaluator all worked together to 

assess the situation. This cooperative process led to significant learning about differences between middle 

school and elementary school populations and ways to reconfigure the middle school project.

5.2 Building Communities with a Shared Purpose 

As noted in section 3.3, some funders were initially motivated to support a SIF grantee/subgrantee 

because of the perceived benefits of collaborating with others concerned about the same issues. However, 

community building was also identified as an important tool for sustaining the link between funders and 

grantees/subgrantees over time. For many funders, the only required interactions between funder and 

grantee are periodic written activity reports. Grantees/subgrantees found, however, that more active 

engagement helped sustain funder interest, and the match funders interviewed for this issue brief 

appreciated grantee efforts to keep them connected with the project. Although specific engagement 

strategies are developed on a case-by-case basis, the goals of these interactions are to update funders on 

progress, invite them to participate in events that build pride in the project’s accomplishments, and 

communicate information about ways the project is achieving the funder’s goals.

One key to effectively engaging funders, according to the United Way of Greenville County, is to avoid 

the temptation to narrowly emphasize what the grantee/subgrantee wants the funder to know. Instead, it 

is more valuable to devote time to understanding the funder, their main concerns, their view of 

community needs, and their funding priorities. 

Most often, the community building process involved regular meetings to facilitate the exchange of ideas, 

whether through co-investor meetings, advisory groups, or convenings. Grantee CSH, for example, used 

its advisory group as a place to discuss challenges and successes and learn from group members with 

different experiences and perspectives. The advisory group helped amplify CSH’s message among other 

funders and partners. In addition to initiating meetings, CSH kept the group informed of progress 

through regular communication and updates by email, telephone calls, invitations to grantee convenings, 

and personal, individual contacts. 

Subgrantee WINGS for Kids engaged more traditionally hands-off donors by establishing bi-weekly 

check-in calls, inviting them to quarterly sessions with a group of national funders, and encouraging 

them to participate in evaluation advisory meetings. These steps gave the funders avenues to offer their 

ideas and insights, deepen their ties with other funders, and better understand how nonprofits can 

effectively undertake and learn from evaluations. Similarly, EMCF brought co-investors and subgrantees 
nationalservice.gov/research 11

together for a retreat. They found the more relaxed, extended time frame a worthwhile opportunity for 

group members to get to know each other. 

Grantee CSH engaged and informed funders through activities such as a forum, a site visit for a firsthand view of operations, and a celebration and convening featuring the Governor of Connecticut. CSH 

found that these efforts paid off in terms of donor commitment, securing other collaborating 

organizations, and advancing a policy agenda that will support CSH’s efforts.

Some of those interviewed noted that belonging to a select group working toward a common goal was a 

source of pride for funders and grantees alike, and that funders like to do things with colleagues whom 

they know and respect. The accountability that comes with belonging to a group also pressures group 

members to look at their roles more critically, take more risks in their funding decisions, and come up 

with creative ways to meet the needs and priorities of their communities. Finally, funders pointed out one 

additional important ingredient: the meetings were fun, allowing participants to interact with colleagues, 

impart ideas, and strategize about priorities in meaningful and supportive ways. 

Recommendations to increase and maintain funder engagement: 

 Look for opportunities to share evidence and collaborate with funders to assess its significance for 

expanding and/or improving the project. 

 Identify opportunities to share successes with funders and other stakeholders, providing meaningful 

and actionable information. 

 Catalyze efforts to bring funders, grantees/subgrantees, and community leaders and organizations 

together to create learning communities that support a common mission. 

6. Conclusion 

The match funders interviewed for this issue brief were excited about the contributions that their funds 

were making possible under the SIF, as their grantees and subgrantees executed and evaluated projects in 

fields that advanced the missions of the match funders. They also valued what their organizations were 

gaining from the experience, not only in terms of learning what works in the field, but also in forming 

connections with colleagues who had similar missions and partnering for greater impact. Grantees and 

subgrantees depended on funders as the source of their required match contributions, but those 

interviewed also indicated that cultivating a strong relationship with match funders brought support in a 

variety of other ways that advanced the project, the organization, and the mission. Those interviewed 

concluded that the investment of time and energy to build and sustain relationships—across the 

philanthropic community and between staff and their match funders—was well worth the effort. 
nationalservice.gov/research 12

About This Issue Brief 

The National Assessment is sponsored by the Corporation for National and Community Service’s Office 

of Research and Evaluation and conducted by ICF International. This issue brief was informed by 

conversations with representatives of three SIF Classic grantees, their subgrantees, and five match 

funders: 

 Sarah Gallagher, Corporation for Supportive Housing (2011 grantee); Janice Elliott, Melville 

Charitable Trust (grantee match funder); Carole McCabe, Avalon Housing (subgrantee); and Michael 

Miller, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System (subgrantee match funder) 

 Chuck Harris and Teresa Power, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (2010 grantee, self-funded match 

funder); Bridget Laird, WINGS for Kids (subgrantee); and Claudia DeMegret, Wallace Foundation 

(subgrantee match funder) 

 Tobi Kinsell, United Way of Greenville County (2014 grantee); Katy Smith, Greenville Partnership for 

Philanthropy (grantee match funder); Susi Smith, Communities in Schools of Greenville County 

(subgrantee); and Gage Weekes, Hollingsworth Funds, Inc. (subgrantee match funder) 

About The Social Innovation Fund 

The Social Innovation Fund, an initiative of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) 

under the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, is a new approach by the federal government to 

address urgent national challenges. The fund mobilizes public and private resources to grow the impact 

of promising, innovative community-based solutions that have evidence of compelling results in three 

areas of priority need: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development. 

The operating model of the SIF is distinguished by the following six elements: 

Innovation │ Evidence │ Scale │ Grantmakers │ Match │ Knowledge Sharing
Corporation for National and Community Service 

1201 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20525

TEL: (202) 606-5000 

TTY: (202) 606-3472 

NationalService.gov