Sei sulla pagina 1di 16

CASE: SI-80

DATE: 09/14/05 (REVD 02/13/07, 06/01/13)


Lecturer Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen and Victoria Chang prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather
than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. The Stanford Graduate School
of Business gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Giving 2.0 (giving2.com) in the development of this case.

Copyright 2013 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Publically available free
cases are distributed through ecch.com. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise without permission of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Every effort has been
made to respect copyright and to contact copyright holders as appropriate. If you are a copyright holder and have
concerns, please contact the Case Writing Office at cwo@gsb.stanford.edu or write to the Case Writing Office,
Stanford Graduate School of Business, Knight Management Center, 655 Knight Way, Stanford University, Stanford,
CA 94305-5015.

SV2: SILICON VALLEY SOCIAL VENTURE FUND


The essence of what SV2 does is building capacitywe build the organizational capacity
of our grantees, the philanthropic capacity of our partners, and the knowledge capacity
of our field. Philanthropy is not just about writing a check anymore; its about getting
out at the ground level, doing due diligence, and working directly with nonprofits in a
mutually accountable relationship.
Laura Arrillaga, Founder and Chairman SV2

In 1998, Laura Arrillaga launched the Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund (SV2) with two
objectives: (1) providing Silicon Valley donors with philanthropic experience and education that
would empower their personal giving, and (2) awarding local nonprofits with multi-year,
capacity building grants that would help them to strengthen their organizations and meet the
higher level of accountability associated with contemporary philanthropic investments. SV2
followed a venture philanthropy partnership model in which investors pooled their money to give
large, multi-year grants to nonprofits and also served in consulting and advisory roles to help
grantees meet their capacity building goals.

Arrillaga created SV2 in partnership with Community Foundation Silicon Valley (CFSV), a
nationally recognized public foundation that had experience working with individual donors, as
well as established credibility within the philanthropic field.
1
Under the leadership of President
Peter Hero, CFSV had become known for its strategy of engaging individuals through donor-

1
Community foundations are tax-exempt, publicly supported philanthropic institutions composed primarily of
permanent funds established by many separate donors for the long-term charitable benefit of the residents of a
specific geographic area. Typically, a community foundation serves an area no larger than a state and provides an
array of services and support to donors and nonprofits.

SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 2
advised funds that allowed donors to recommend grantees while CFSV managed all related
administrative processes. Arrillaga formed SV2 under CFSVs organizational umbrella to ensure
that CFSV staff would help guide SV2 partners in leveraging their expertise and funding to
select community organizations, thus generating the greatest social impact. With initial support
from CFSV secured, Arrillaga recruited a high-profile team as SV2s founding board membes.
These individuals included Kevin Fong, a fellow GSB alumnus and managing general partner at
the Mayfield Fund; Steve Kirsch, founder of Infoseek; Chris Alden, co-founder of the Red
Herring Magazine; and Lisa Sobrato Sonsini, president of the Sobrato Family Foundation.

By 2005, Arrillaga, along with CFSV staff had built a volunteer-driven organization composed
of 160 partners ranging in age from mid-20s to mid-60s. In total, SV2 had donated up to
$450,000 annually to support 13 local grantees!for an aggregate grantmaking total of $2
million.
2
Moreover, SV2 had implemented two professionally facilitated strategic planning
processes in its short history. In the future, Arrillaga and her team desired to continuously evolve
the organization; in particular, to improve SV2s partner consulting program to better leverage
partner expertise to benefit grantees. They also wondered how to more fully engage partners in
SV2s grantmaking and educational activities while increasing SV2s accountability to grantees,
partners, and the broader philanthropic community.
INITIAL ORGANIZATION, LEADERSHIP, AND GRANTMAKING MODELS
Since SV2s inception, its leaders had built the organization to mirror the high-tech sector in
Silicon Valley, with a flat organizational structure and collaborative decision-making processes.
The original governing body of SV2, the board of managers chaired by Arrillaga, embodied this
Silicon Valley spirit. In its first two years, the board of managers organized its efforts around
eight committees, including Grants; Membership; Inform, Communicate, and Educate; Impact;
and Finance. Committees typically established their own meeting schedules.

During its nascent years, grant committees were lead and driven by SV2 partners who shared
passion and interest around specific social issues. Committees would complete extensive sector
research, invite field experts to provide issue overviews, and visit multiple nonprofits to assess
grant opportunities. The Grants committee also convened for each grant cycle to review letters of
intent and applications from potential grantees, research applicants, conduct nonprofit site visits,
and continue ongoing grantee support.

SV2s other committees focused on similarly targeted activities. The Membership committee
directed all issues related to the recruitment and retention of SV2 partners. The Inform,
Communicate, and Educate team coordinated all of SV2s educational lectures, seminars, and
partner events. The Impact teams, consisting of three to five partners each, provided grantees
with expertise in organizational management, financial management, board leadership,
fund/revenue development, and marketing/communications. The Finance committee managed
SV2s finances, including the budget and investment management.


2
SV2 had also given several other smaller grants for one-time-only program support through its Community Grants
program.
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 3
The SV2 Board consisted of the chair or co-chair of each SV2 committee and a select number of
other SV2 partners. Despite the organizations spirit of collaboration, the initial start-up period
relied heavily on the founder and SV2s staff. Arrillaga served as SV2s executive director
4
and
board chairman, and she personally drove its vision, strategy, leadership, and implementation
during its first decade.
GRANTMAKING OVERVIEW AND EVOLUTION

Types of Grants

SV2s major grant program was called the STRENGTH grant program (Socially-minded Team
Responsible for Enabling Nonprofits to Grow and Thrive). SV2 STRENGTH grants were made
by invitation only (invitations were extended by both SV2 partners and the CFSV grantmaking
staff), and unsolicited proposals were not accepted. Typically, SV2 had two to four grant cycles
annually where each cycle had a specific focus area, determined by the partners through majority
vote. STRENGTH grants ranged from $120,000 to $225,000 and were paid incrementally over
three-year periods (sometimes exceptions were made if a grantee required more immediate
funding), provided that the organization met established benchmarks and was able to implement
changes.

STRENGTH grant recipients could only receive funding once, and they were required to provide
service in Santa Clara and/or Southern San Mateo counties. Grant recipients needed to address
the current SV2 focus areas, which changed annually, and apply their funding to grow
strategically and strengthen their operations in order to more significantly impact the community
and the clients they serve; address internal issues and make systemic changes[that would]
likely affect external activities, be willing to evaluate their programs and measure results; and
have strong leadership, visionary ideas and community impact.
5


More specifically, STRENGTH grants could be used for activities that changed and/or
strengthened the way nonprofits did business, such as creating new revenue streams, developing
different service delivery or community relations systems, engaging in collaborative work,
taking operations to a bigger scale, and/or overhauling internal operations. In addition, grants
could be used to improve organizational effectiveness through activities such as hiring
consultants, adding staff, implementing new technology, training board and staff, and strategic
planning. In terms of initial grant evaluation methods, CFSV conducted evaluations of SV2s
STRENGTH grantees on an annual basis and presented a report to SV2s partners. In addition,
grantees provided SV2 with an annual mid-year report.

In 2004, SV2 instituted $25,000 community grants, which were smaller grants that utilized
CFSVs existing grantmaking process and procedures. Because CFSV conducted extensive due
diligence on more potential grantees than they could fund, SV2 decided to consider CFSV grant
proposals for this new grantmaking round. CFSVs program staff reviewed the potential grantees
before presenting them to SV2 partners, facilitating a streamlined decision-making process and

4
Arrillaga did not receive compensation of any kind for her service, but rather donated her time and expertise to
SV2.
5
Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund, What We Do: Grant Guidelines, http://www.sv2.org/whatwedo/index.html
(August 16, 2006).
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 4
presenting partners with an opportunity to engage in a one-time only grantmaking commitment.
SV2s leadership created these smaller grants to supplement the two annual STRENGTH grants
and expand partner learning opportunities. These grants also enabled early stage nonprofits that
did not have the infrastructure to receive a larger grant to have exposure to and funding from
SV2 partners. These smaller community grants did not have SV2 liaisons (see below) and were
for periods of one year only (no renewal).
Partner Membership and Grantmaking
Investors joined SV2 after completing an interview and online application that demonstrated
their commitment to philanthropy and desire to make an impact on Silicon Valley. Once
potential investors were approved, they were required to donate a minimum of $2,500 annually
for two consecutive years as a Contributing Partner. Higher levels included a Growth
Partner who donated $5,000 annually for two consecutive years, a Sustaining Partner who
donated $12,500 annually for two consecutive years, and a Leading Partner who donated
$25,000 annually for two consecutive years. SV2s funds were invested in CFSVs money
market pool, which consisted of short-term liquid investment vehicles. This meant that SV2 did
not develop an endowment but rather adopted a pass-through fund model that enabled it to
grant all of the money raised each year. Arrillaga did ensure, however, that SV2 always had at
least one years operating expenses in its reserves, in case of an economic downtown or
organizational transition.

SV2 partners were expected to participate in monthly partner meetings and encouraged, but not
required, to join SV2s committees. SV2 also encouraged its partners to utilize their expertise to
work more closely with grantees. To facilitate such contributions, SV2 created a list of potential
areas where partners could provide assistance, including organizational management (e.g.,
strategic planning/business planning and corporate reorganization), financial management (e.g.,
funding strategy; grant applications; and budgeting, accounting and reporting), marketing and
public relations, technology, direct services (specific needs identified by grantee), and grant
effectiveness evaluation (e.g., to specify metrics and benchmarks and create reporting formats
and procedures).

In return for their financial investment and intellectual expertise, partners at all levels received
several benefits including educational seminars on philanthropy and community issues, hands-on
philanthropic learning opportunities for the entire family, pooled giving for greater grantee
impact, and networking with peers. In addition, Sustaining and Leading Partners had the
opportunity to attend exclusive dinners with notable philanthropists in the area. SV2 partners
could engage in whatever manner best matched their available capacity and comfort level.

In 2002, coinciding with the arrival of Bjorn Stromsness and Kelly Porter (the new board co-
chair), as well as SV2s first formal strategic planning exercise, SV2 decided to reassess its
partner engagement in grantmaking. We didnt have a high partner engagement structure
around our grantmaking, and we were not meeting our mission as successfully as we could,
noted Arrillaga. One of the key changes after this strategic planning exercise involved shifting
from smaller, irregular partner meetings organized around committees to a formalized monthly
calendar (second Tuesday of every month) in which all partners could participate. This model
engaged a much larger partner group, further democratizing the grantmaking process (i.e.,
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 5
partner involvement shifted from 12 people to 38 people in just one grant round). Partners were
not required to attend monthly meetings, but the regular formalized structure dramatically
increased partner engagement in writing guidelines, conducting due diligence, attending site
visits, and voting on grant proposals.

Additionally, SV2 implemented the liaison role for each grantee, assigning one or two partners
who acted as a connection between that grantee and SV2. A liaison worked with a particular
grantee for the term of the grant, typically three years, beginning with the development of grant
agreements/contracts based on grantee priorities and SV2 resources. The grant agreement
established expectations, goals, and benchmarks for both parties. During the life of the grant,
liaisons met with the executive director or the grant manager at the grantee organization at least
once a month either by phone or in person. Theoretically, liaisons also could be involved in the
process of generating grantee evaluation reports for the benefit of CFSV. As previously
mentioned, liaisons had their own support network called the Impact Committee, which met
several times per year to discuss issues with particular grantees and share lessons learned. The
Impact Committee was led by a chair (a SV2 board position) who checked in with liaisons
several times per quarter. The Impact Committee could recommend mid-course changes, but
only the board could terminate a grant.
Partner Engagement and Grantmaking Evolution
Since 2002, SV2 had utilized an annual survey for various internal evaluation purposes. Initially,
the survey was distributed to partners to determine the areas of grantmaking focus. However, in
2003, the survey expanded to include partner satisfaction questions, as well. In 2004, the survey
played an even broader role, coinciding with SV2s new governance and leadership model.

As of 2005, the process for selecting SV2s annual areas of focus consisted of two phases. An
initial survey identified two broad grantmaking areas, such as children and social safety net
services, which the partners wished to support during the annual grantmaking rounds. Following
an educational philanthropy forum, SV2 identified a grant-round leader, a partner who would
serve as a facilitator for meetings related to the upcoming grant round. Within a smaller meeting
outside of the greater philanthropy forum (open to all partners), program staff, the grant round
leader, and additional partners (approximately eight people) developed grantmaking guidelines
to narrow down the focus area (e.g., from environment to open space conversation or from
education to adult literacy).

Once the grantmaking guidelines were published to the entire SV2 partnership, partners could
identify potential grantees to be nominated for application. Partners generally provided five to
seven potential grantees, and CFSV provided another five to seven. All of the nominated
organizations were invited to a meeting to become better acquainted with the organization and
expectations associated with being an SV2 grantee. The grants committee specified up front that
the SV2 model entails a high-engagement, mutually accountable grantor-grantee relationship.
After the initial meeting, organizations that were still interested in not just receiving a check
developed their proposals, with the opportunity to consult SV2/CFSV staff with further questions
if needed.

SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 6
After proposals were submitted, another group of partners discussed the merits of the various
proposals and narrowed down the group of potential grantees to three finalists. The finalists were
then invited to present their proposals to the general partnership during a regular SV2-wide
Tuesday meeting. After the presentation, several partners conducted site visits with the three
finalists and prepared written one-page reports that were posted on SV2s Web site, along with
finalist applications. During the following regular Tuesday meeting, partners voted on the final
grant recipient after an open debate (majority ruled).
GOVERNANCE MODEL AND EVOLUTION
In January 2004 Arrillaga initiated a four-month governance overhaul by putting together an
ad-hoc leadership committee including several of SV2s most philanthropically experienced
partners. Although the strategic focus of SV2 remained unchanged, the team decided that the
organization needed a new leadership model that more effectively engaged board members.
Arrillaga commented, It took us nearly five years to establish our infrastructure. Initially, our
infrastructure and governance models were based on our strategic goals, but it wasnt until we
had our infrastructure and a set of organizational models, processes, and policies, that we could
revisit our governance model. We asked ourselves, How can we change our leadership structure
to better meet our own objectives, and how can we increase our own accountability? We
decided that we needed to expand and diversify our leadership and increase board
accountability.

Originally, SV2s board members were in charge of various committees. In 2004, SV2 revamped
its board structure to consist of a chairman (Arrillaga) with an executive committee consisting of
the chairman and four vice chairs (grantmaking; partnership; membership; and finance and
partner orientation) and also recruited a completely new board. The new board of directors had
15 members, including the executive committee (five people), each with specific areas of
functional responsibility. Functional areas included strategic planning implementation; impact
committee chair; new partner engagement; community grants; philanthropy education; annual
meeting; philanthropic strategies and partnerships; accountability; grant investment leverage; and
marketing and technology strategy.

Arrillaga commented on the governance shift: We went from the leadership of a few to the
leadership of many. Since that shift, our organizational evolution has been at the highest rate of
any point during SV2s history. The transition proved instrumental in bring new ideas,
innovation, and energy to SV2s leadership, while still preserving its mission and core culture.

The involvement and ownership of the partner consulting program by board member Nelson
Cheng provided one example of the impact the governance shift had on board member
engagement. As the new board member in charge of grant investment leverage (position
established in 2005), Cheng focused on improving SV2s value-add to grantees and leveraging
the skills of SV2s partners through grantee consulting. Cheng worked with the grantees to
identify needs and develop consulting opportunities that were both valuable to the grantee and of
interest to partners. Cheng served as a key connector between grantees and partners, a formal
high-engagement link that had not existed prior to 2005.

SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 7
Prior to this change, the liaisons were in charge of partner engagement for one specific grantee.
Prior to Chengs involvement, there were often disconnects between what grantees needed and
expected and what expertise partners wanted to share. By mid-2005, Cheng had met with each of
the executive directors of SV2s grantees to better understand grantee hopes and desires for
partner assistance. He was then able to better match partners intellectual and human capital with
grantees true needs, improving relationships and increasing impact among both SV2 grantees
and partners. Chengs leadership resulted in SV2s grantmaking meeting social sector market
needs much more effectively and efficiently.

Cheng reported to the vice chair of partnership, Chris Vargas (a new executive committee
position created in 2005). As one of his first steps, Vargas conducted focus groups and one-on-
one interviews with some of the key players within SV2. Arrillaga commented:

This new internal-looking position is not programmatic; it does not relate to
grantmaking. Rather, the position was created to determine how the partners felt
about their experience in SV2 and to assess how we can more effectively meet our
partners educational, networking, and philanthropic needs. We used the
information that our new vice chair of partnership collected to determine several
conclusions, which we then shared with the board. For example, partners
expressed the need to provide new members with a more extensive introduction to
the organization, which prompted the board to develop a more structured
approach to new partner orientations. This process was a great launching pad for
us to go into our 2005 strategic planning process because we use partner feedback
to determine where SV2 should go on a programmatic basis.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 2005
SV2 employed a three-year strategic planning schedule beginning formally in 2002 and
continuing into 2005. Once the strategic plan was developed, SV2 reassessed its
accomplishments against the original strategic plan on an annual basis. During the 2005 strategic
planning process, SV2 established a strategic planning committee composed mostly of board
members and a few other partners (the first strategic plan was completed by the founding board).
The board as a whole submitted one-year and three-year objectives and indicators as a starting
place for the strategic planning committee. The strategic planning committee conducted three
two-hour meetings, during which discussions centered on SV2s mission, vision, and values, as
well as higher-level goals and other strategic issues. SV2s 2005 strategic planning involved
applying learning and innovation to improve our internal and external programs, said Arrillaga.
We worked hard to increase our accountability not only to our grantees, but also to our partner-
investors. We developed rigorous performance metrics and annual benchmarks for every board
member to achieve, thus empowering us to walk our talk and measure our own progress just as
we request of our grantees.

Because SV2 valued its strategic planning process and implementation, Arrillaga assigned a
board member to oversee the entire strategic planning implementation (one of the functional
areas of responsibility for the board of directors). The strategic planning board member was
directly responsible for holding fellow board members accountable for their goals through
quarterly check-ins. This increased transparencycoupled with the fact that board members
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 8
created their own goals and metricsresulted in greater board involvement and, therefore,
organizational evolution, than SV2 had experienced to date. The board was then able to report to
the partnership how SV2 progressed against each institutional objective. These reports included
successes, challenges, course corrections and improvements.
Revised Mission, Vision, and Values
As part of the 2005 strategic planning process, SV2 re-evaluated its mission, vision, and values.
SV2 adjusted its original mission from: By activating new donors and creating philanthropic
leaders, SV2 is a network which leverages its collective intellectual, financial, and leadership
capital to make a positive, measurable, and strategic difference in the Silicon Valley community
to a 2005 mission: SV2 is a donor network that leverages its financial, intellectual, and human
capital to make a meaningful, measurable impact in Silicon Valley. SV2 does this by
strengthening the organizational capacity of its grantees and the philanthropic capacity of its
partners. Similarly, the vision and values were refined and made more specific.
Self-Assessment: One and Three-Year Objectives and Indicators
In addition to re-evaluating its mission, vision, and values, SV2 hoped to utilize the 2005
strategic plan as a way to lay the groundwork for ongoing self-assessment. As briefly indicated
above, for the first time in its history, SV2 developed one-year and three-year objectives and
indicators for each of its executive committee members and board members. One-year objectives
were clearly defined; for example, one of Nelson Chengs objectives for his role as vice chair of
grant investment leverage was to define and execute the partner consulting beta program.
Indicators specified ways to measure achievement against objectives, such as one or more
organization(s) in the beta program with project(s) in progress by end of February 2005. Three-
year objectives and indicators were longer-term. For example, Chengs three-year objective was
to grow and sustain the partner consulting program, and the indicator was that 80 percent of
grantees have had a project completed (with 100 percent aware of the program), 20 or more
partners have completed a project, and three or more case studies developed. Chengs
indicators provided benchmarks against which the ongoing progress of the partner consulting
program could be measured and its practices adjusted as needed.
Grantee Evaluations and New Accountability Board Position
Besides creating a formalized process for self-assessment, the 2005 strategic planning process
led to an increased focus on evaluating the impact of SV2s grantmaking. Even though
evaluations were something that SV2 had always recognized as important, issues pertaining to its
environmental sustainability grantee, Natural Step, contributed to SV2s new emphasis on
accountability. A reduction in external foundation support negatively affected the Natural Steps
ability to meet its fundraising goals and strategic objectives. However, the organization did not
make SV2 or other funders aware of their changed financial status until it had already ceased
operations. While the grant committee hoped that these were accounting or reporting errors, the
liaisons ultimately discovered these were significant organizational issues that did not circulate
back to CFSV or SV2.

SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 9
For the most part, SV2 developed successful relationships with grantees; however, in two other
instances, SV2 modified its relationships with grantees (Project Help, Partners in Reading). With
Project Help, misaligned expectations for progress toward grant objectives (as outlined in the
initial contract) resulted in the termination of funding at the close of the first year. The situation
highlighted the need for greater mutual accountability and a willingness on the part of both
grantees and SV2 to work toward common goals. Moving forward, SV2 renewed its
commitment to ongoing communication and collaboration with grantees, as well as its
willingness to adjust benchmarks, if needed. With Partners in Reading, for example, the
grantees main staff member developed breast cancer. With an already small staff of six
members, Partners in Reading was unable to fulfill its grant contract with SV2 and requested a
six-month extension, which SV2 honored. Both situations led to refinements and improvements
to the grantmaking and grant management processes.

Despite issues with three grantees, according to Arrillaga, by 2005 SV2 was at the apex of its
accountability to date. SV2 had invested significant time and energy developing grantmaking
screens, ongoing benchmark development, and reporting systems to ensure our partners and
grantees received the greatest bang for their philanthropic buck.

Initially CFSV conducted evaluations of SV2s grantees on an annual basis and presented them
in the annual report to SV2s partners. In addition, grantees provided SV2 with a mid-year report
each year. But SV2s board did not feel those processes would meets its heightened
accountability levels. Consequently, one of the adjustments to grant evaluations, developed
through the 2005 strategic planning process, was the creation of a new board position and area of
functional responsibility called Accountability where one board member focused specifically
on grantmaking accountability. That individuals role was to assist and strengthen the overall
evaluation efforts of SV2. The board member would work with and assist the evaluations officer
at CFSV to review interim and final reports submitted by SV2 grantees.

Prior to the role of an accountability-focused board member, the information loop could
potentially be closed within the liaison-grantee relationship. But with the new accountability
board position, SV2 hoped that information related to a grantee would have a formal mechanism
to filter back to the board to ensure that the grantee was fulfilling its grant contract and that SV2
was providing support that aligned with its grantees needs. Additionally, SV2 was in the process
of developing case studies (to be used for reporting, marketing, and historical recording) on all of
its existing and past grantees. Arrillaga funded SV2 to hire Stanford Fellows (all of which
were former students in her Stanford Graduate School of Business and University philanthropy
courses) to complete these studies annually, which increased SV2s transparency both internally
and externally.
THE FUTURE
By 2005, SV2 had surpassed its initial five-year start-up period and begun to gain momentum as
an established philanthropic institution. Arrillaga said, I dont think at this point there is a
shortfall or weakness that we arent proactively addressing. We have not solved every issue we
face, but we certainly are making a conscious effort to address whatever weaknesses there are in
our model. Arrillaga cited one of her priorities as continuing to develop SV2s capacity to
provide partner consulting to grantee organizations, while encouraging partners to increase their
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 10
financial and volunteer contributions to the organization and its grantees. Arrillaga also noted the
importance of measuring the impact of partner consulting and developing incentives to help get
more partners involved. Looking to the future, Arrillaga hoped to further share the knowledge
gained from SV2s ongoing strategic evolution with other grantmaking and nonprofit
organizations in order to positively impact the greater philanthropic field.
ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS
1. How should SV2 develop its partner consulting program to best leverage partners expertise
and meet grantee needs? What benchmarks should SV2 utilize to evaluate the partner
consulting programs effectiveness?

2. What effective fundraising practices or marketing and sales tactics could SV2 employ to
increase donors financial support for the organization?

3. What incentives could SV2 offer to increase partners contributions of time?

4. What steps should SV2 take to increase its impact on the greater philanthropic and nonprofit
community?

5. What lessons from SV2s own evolution could be particularly relevant to other
organizations growth?
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 11
Exhibit 1
Mission, Vision, and Values

Original Mission

By activating new donors and creating philanthropic leaders, SV2 is a network which leverages
its collective intellectual, financial, and leadership capital to make a positive, measurable, and
strategic difference in the Silicon Valley community.

New Mission

SV2 is a donor network that leverages its financial, intellectual, and human capital to make a
meaningful, measurable impact in Silicon Valley. SV2 does this by strengthening the
organizational capacity of its grantees and the philanthropic capacity of its partners.

Original Vision

SV2 is an ever-widening circle of activated, new and seasoned philanthropists. Every
Partner is a successful and generous leader in his/her own right whose experience in SV2
has allowed a difference to be made in our local community and beyond.
Every SV2 partner is well educated concerning the public benefit sector and is
participating financially as well as voluntarily with public benefit corporations on a deep,
focused, and impactful level.
An SV2 partner's experiences in giving through SV2 build individual commitment for
lifelong philanthropy and for connection with the Community Foundation Silicon Valley
and/or other similar groups.
Both partners and grantees reap great benefits from SV2. Partners have formed a close-
knit community with other developing philanthropists. Partners who joined early on are
fully active in their own philanthropy apart from SV2, and other partners are following
suit. We are fulfilling our spoken goals of producing "serial philanthropists."
The recipients of our SV2 grants have demonstrated growth and development. Among
Public Benefit Corporations, SV2 has a reputation for awarding great grants that really
help grow organizational capacity. Public Benefit Corporations are eager to receive SV2
grants and to work with us.
SV2 is the model for similar organizations across the country. We are recognized at the
local, state, and federal levels for our philanthropy and volunteerism. We have a well-
developed template that is replicated elsewhere.

New Vision

We envision a vital and vibrant Silicon Valley community that is innovative, inclusive,
and increasingly philanthropic.
We envision a nonprofit sector that is effective, accountable, and sustainable.
We envision a growing partnership that is engaged, collaborative, and committed to
continuous learning.
We envision SV2 partners who are creative, informed, and inspired.
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 12

Original Values

Community-focused: Always using the checkpoint of what we do against what is best for
the communities we represent.
Making an impact: Striving to make a positive, measurable difference in all we do and
touch individuals, groups, and communities as evidenced in the transfer of knowledge
and skills.
Personal responsibility to the greater community: Remembering in all we do that we each
have a deep responsibility to reach out and help others around us.
Open to the new and untried: Valuing the visions, thoughts, and directions which may at
first appear risky, unorthodox; really listening and considering all ideas.
Partnership: Believing strongly in collaborating and in the power of collective efforts.

New Values

In SV2s partnership with the greater philanthropic field, the Silicon Valley community, our
grantees, and our individual partners, we are deeply committed to the following core principles:

Building Knowledge
Taking Initiative
Celebrating Community
Ensuring Accountability
Fostering Respectfulness


Source: Information provided by SV2.
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 13
Exhibit 2
Select One-Year and Three-Year Objectives from 2005 Strategic Plan

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER EXAMPLE: VICE CHAIR OF PARTNERSHIP
Roles and Responsibilities

This executive committee member will oversee partner engagement within SV2 and hold
primary responsibility for non-partner development activities, SV2 events and activities, and
calendar planning. Liaison for grant investment leverage, annual meeting & Cantor events, and
donor education.
Year One Objectives & Indicators
Objective 1:
Develop a Partner Engagement Action Plan. This plan will identify distinct actions that will be
taken to increase partner engagement at all levels within SV2 and ensure SV2 meets/exceeds its
strategic goals related to partner engagement (see SV2 Strategic Goals). This plan will also
contribute to a 10% annual increase in partner participation across the organization. This plan
will be created through collaboration with other Vice-Chairs, including:
Vice Chair of Grantmaking
Vice Chair of Membership
Annual Meeting & Cantor Event Board Member
Partner Education Board Member
Grant Investment Leverage Board Member
Philanthropic Strategies & Partnerships Board Member
Community Grants Board Member
Marketing & Technology Strategy

Indicator 1:
Complete Engagement Planning meeting, complete Partner Engagement Action Plan, and define
distinct actions by October 1, 2005.

Objective 2:
Communicate regularly with all partners, to keep them informed of ways they can become
engaged in SV2 and its grantees.

Indicator 2:
Deliver content for the Chairmans Update message.

Objective 3:
Working with staff support, ensure the delivery of a partnership satisfaction survey as part of this
years annual partner survey.

SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 14
Indicator 3:
Establish a baseline for partner satisfaction with 80% of partners rating their satisfaction a 4 or 5
on a 5-point scale.

Objective 4:
Work with Vice-Chair of Membership, Chairman and other board members to decrease rate of
partner attrition.

Indicator 4:
Attrition rate for SV2 partners is no more than 10% through fiscal year 2005-2006.
Year Three Objectives & Indicators
Objective 1:
Continue annual Partner Engagement Action Planning with the relevant vice chairs and board
members. This annual meeting will refine and improve specific activities and efforts to increase
partner engagement and meet/exceed SV2 strategic goals.

Indicator 1:
Measure new partner satisfaction through annual survey questions.

Objective 2:
Deliver an annual partnership satisfaction survey. Use baseline results from year one to measure
improvements in subsequent years.

Indicator 2:
Completion of survey and presentation of results to the board and partners.

BOARD MEMBER EXAMPLE: ACCOUNTABILITY
Roles & Responsibilities

This board member will assist and strengthen the overall evaluation efforts of SV2. Working
with and assisting the Evaluations Officer at CFSV, this board member will review interim and
final reports submitted by SV2 grantees and will work with CFSV staff and the SV2 Chairman to
oversee the development of formal case studies to document success and challenges. This board
member will also review the SV2 Annual Report produced by CFSV staff each February.
EC Liaison: Vice-Chair of Grantmaking
One-Year Objectives and Indicators
Objective 1:
Working with the Stanford Fellow and Evaluations Officer, this board member will review all
final and interim grantee reports submitted to SV2.

SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 15
Indicator 1:
This board member will contribute a section on the reports to the SV2 Annual Report.

Objective 2:
This position will work with the Evaluations Officer and Stanford Fellow to oversee the creation
of formal case studies for all concluded grants.

Indicator 2:
Formal three-page case studies for the SV2 current grantee portfolio will be produced.
Three-Year Objectives and Indicators
Objective 1:
This board member will review SV2s information gathering activities to look for the base-line
information we should be collecting to increase our accountability.

Indicator 1:
New measures will be introduced into our information gathering process.

Objective 2:
Working with the Stanford Fellow and Evaluations Officer, this board member will continue to
review all final and interim grantee reports submitted to SV2.

Indicator 2:
This board member will contribute a section on these reports to the SV2 Annual Report.

Objective 3:
This position will work with the Evaluations Officer and Stanford Fellow to oversee the creation
of formal case studies for all concluded grants.

Indicator 3:
Each grant that is concluded will have a case study produced.

Objective 4:
Working with CFSV staff and any interns, this position will ensure that case studies are
completed for all organizations three years after the close of their SV2 grants.

Indicator 4:
Case studies are completed for each grantee that is three years out from the completion of their
SV2 grant.



Source: Information provided by SV2.
SV2: Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund SI-80

p. 16
Exhibit 3
Functional Areas of Responsibility for Board of Directors

Chairman The Chairman oversees the overall direction and operations of SV2. The Chairman also
chairs the Executive Committee and Board of Directors.

Vice Chair of Membership This executive committee member is tasked with ensuring that SV2
continues to bring new individuals into the partnership that are genuinely interested in the Mission,
Vision, and Values of SV2.

Vice Chair of Partnership This executive committee member is responsible for ensuring that the SV2
experience for partners is interesting, engaging, and educational.

Vice Chair of Grantmaking This executive committee member leads SV2s efforts to make impactful
investments in our community and ensures that the grantmaking process runs smoothly and is respectful
of all parties involved.

Vice Chair of Finance and New Partner Orientation This executive committee member reviews and
monitors the financial position of SV2 and helps to guarantee that each new SV2 partner is welcomed into
the organization and made aware of opportunities to fully engage in the partnership.

Strategic Planning Implementation This board member will participate on the Strategic Planning
Committee and lead the implementation of the plan in 2005. S/he will be the point of contact for the Vice
Chairs to monitor progress toward the implementation of the plan.

Impact Committee Chair This board member will act as Chair of the Impact Committee, consisting of
the Liaisons to SV2 grantees.

Community Grants This board member will facilitate both of the SV2 Community Grants meetings
annually.

Philanthropy Education This board member will keep the partnership appraised of educational
opportunities.

Annual Meeting/Cantor Event This board member will help coordinate and promote our two largest
events, the Cantor Event and the Annual Meeting.

Philanthropic Strategies and Partnerships This board member will look at strategic opportunities where
SV2 may be able to connect with other philanthropic institutions to further the field of philanthropy.

Accountability This board member will assist and strengthen the overall evaluation efforts of SV2.

Grant Investment Leverage This board member will work with SV2 Grantees and their Liaisons to
identify appropriate volunteer activities for SV2 partners and will help find partners willing to undertake
those volunteer projects.

Marketing and Technology Strategy This board member will oversee SV2s marketing and
communications efforts, including the SV2 Web site and any marketing materials produced by SV2.


Source: Information provided by SV2.