Investment Support

Funders consider their decisions on money spent to be the high point of their work. Many then turn agreements over to contract monitors to insure compliance with all terms of conditions, which typically do not include fulfillment on results! Investors know that the initial decision is the starting line, not the ending point. They consider their relationship with implementers to be on-going. They want periodic reports on achievement and want to know when they can be helpful in any way. Much of this contact is by short but highly structured telephone calls. In this and other areas, we offer tools for how investors can control time, especially in terms of minutes spent with grantees.

With larger grants, mid-year check in is highly advisable. We have a protocol for such sessions that includes a focus on progress against milestones, learnings (defined as actual course corrections) and new strategies needed. Another tool is the implementor affinity group, which brings together those with similar projects to explicitly develop and share best practices and learnings. This often leads to various forms of strategic alliance that increase gain or decrease costs.

Investment support often raises the question of organizational structure and roles, which we are pleased to engage. The traditional distinction between programs and contracts staff in government, for example, is useful to question, as is the best staffing pattern for project tracking and helping. Efficiencies in investor overhead (eg. staff size) are often achieved at a great cost in effectiveness—returns from the much greater sums expended in grants.