Accountability is a loaded word. It has been tarnished by those in positions of authority with intentions to micromanage, or worse, justify punishment.

But at its root, it simply means an ability to be accounted, which in turns means having the capability to be explained.

Call it what you will, being able to explain your organization’s intended outcomes and progress towards those outcomes is what I am talking about.

So I am going to use the word explanation a lot, and frame Daffodil’s approach to accountability.

Explain yourself.

A mission statement offers an emotional vision for your organization’s potential. Strategic giving comes with an expectation of explanation, to understand progress and the ongoing impact of the gift. And this expectation is becoming more prevalent across all levels of giving as newer generations begin their philanthropy journeys:

and

An explanation can be provided qualitatively or quantitatively. Kevin Starr of the Mulago Foundation makes an excellent case for being able to explain progress towards outcomes by the numbers in his essay: In Numbers We Trust, Because trust-based philanthropy shouldn’t mean blind faith. (SSIR, March 2024). I re-read this article every few months; it’s great. I love a good hot take.

Accountability is a luxury

I’ve heard from many, often smaller grassroot nonprofits, that they just don’t have the capacity for ongoing reporting, evaluation, or program metrics A few of these organizations are leaning into the Trust-based Philanthropy concept as a shield from learning and prioritizing accountability activities (data capture, reporting, storytelling, etc). This behavior is also noted in Starr’s article, above.

This may seem misguided, but given the current state of grant applications, required reporting, punitive repercussion potential, training costs, etc, it’s hardly a surprising reaction for organizations where too few administrators work too many hours. And with different stakeholders all requesting different reporting - in formats designed for their ease, not the nonprofits - it’s compelling to opt out entirely.

What about technology?

I do not believe in the Common Grant App, nor do I believe in a Standardized Nonprofit Impact Framework.

I mean.. yes I’ve seen them, I believe they exist. But I don’t believe they will ever have the scale and complete acceptance to fully replace legacy systems. That’s because they’re fighting against too many disincentives - at the behavioral and economic level - to ever reach scale and succeed in the paradigm shifting rebalancing of power they set out to do.

Foundations that accept the Common Grant still require organizations to “apply” using it rather than sourcing applications from an open marketplace of submitted grants; most grant makers just aren’t rushing to find a better way to solicit RFPs. It’s not ill intended, it’s just that the existing ways of doing things are not painful enough to the people who can make the change.

Some grant makers have streamlined their grant application processes as a result of COVID-19 constraints - as described in How Trust-Based Philanthropy Removes Barriers Around Grant Applications (Sam Caplan, Feb 2024). This is an example where funder pain was real; mostly those who still had offline workflows, and bringing digital processes online was the primary activity.

So, what then?

The best explanations are curated by those who perform the work, for those who want the explanation - in their language, curated to their personal expectation framework. This is anything but one-size-fits-all.

So how can any organization explain themselves, continuously, to an endless rotation of varied listeners, at scale?

Daffodil’s approach

1. 📈 Zero-burden impact capture & reporting. First, don’t do double data entry. There is a lot of publicly available information - IRS data, Candid and Charity Navigator profiles, social media, newsletters, annual reports, news coverage. A bit of research can tell you a LOT about an organization without them needing to lift a finger. We have systems that do this for us so nonprofits on Daffodil begin with a fully built-out profile. We are free for nonprofits, so there is no barrier to participate on Daffodil.

2. 🔎 Discoverability & matchmaking. Donors and advisors who work with us or create a giving plan on Daffodil Compass are matched with organizations across many characteristics, intelligently, and automatically. This is a powerful form of discovery. Discovery is key for newer donors who are beginning their philanthropy journey or those who want to give towards causes and proven impact, not favored organizations (see the anecdote cited in the Lilly School study above).

Earn the right to steward; embrace accountability

There’a prevalent misunderstanding at nonprofits that donor-advised funds are always anonymous; the truth is that about 5% of DAF donations are fully anonymous, and most have at least some information about the fund or donor.

Not having full access to contact information frustrates development staff because without these details, they can’t thank or steward the donor for future gifts.

This is by design; you can’t change it. Luckily, there is a new way of thinking about stewardship.

Embrace accountability, publicly. Find a way to do it easily. Be discoverable. Claim your profile on Daffodil. Let your work speak for itself and philanthropists seeking outcomes will find you.

🧭 For philanthropists and families looking to put a little bit more strategy, discovery, and impact visibility behind their giving, create a free Compass giving plan today (no admin fees, no minimums).

🚀 For advisors who want to support next-gen clients focused on impact and outcomes, reach out to us.

🔌 For platforms looking to integrate impact intelligence, matchmaking, discoverability, or charitable money movement (yes, we do this too) into their experiences, reach out to us.