The Roles of Advocates and Consultants in Social Change

How do I provide a brief description of the social issue inclusion for individuals with developmental disabilities? Then, explain the roles that advocates and consultants will play in the community needs assessment that you are planning for your Final Project.  Think about how advocates and consultants can offer unique insights about why the problem exists, propose alternatives for how the problem can be solved, help people align their thinking, and establish common ground. Be sure to include how these roles are similar to and different from each other and how they help to address the social problem.  

PLEASE USE THE REFERENCES IN THE WRITING (ARTICLES ATTACHED) to write 300 words:

Alliance for Justice. (n.d.).

What is advocacy? Definitions and examples.Links to an external site.

https://mffh.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AFJ_what-is-advocacy

McGill, L. T., Henry-Sanchez, B. L., Wolcheck, D., & Reibstein, S. (2015).

Use of consultants by U.S. foundations: Results of a foundation center survey.Links to an external site.

Foundation Review, 7(1), 6–18. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1231

Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking for social change: A practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Human services

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations:
Results of a Foundation Center Survey
Lawrence T. McGill, Ph.D., Brenda L. Henry-Sanchez, Ph.D., David Wolcheck, B.A., and
Sarah Reibstein, B.A., Foundation Center

Keywords: Philanthropy consulting, survey

6 THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1

R
E

S
U

LT
S

Key Points

· This article presents the results of a survey
launched in January 2014 by Foundation
Center, in collaboration with the National
Network of Consultants to Grantmakers,
examining use of consultants by community,
corporate, and independent foundations whose
annual giving totals at least $100,000.

· The survey asked funders to report whether they
used consultants in the past two years and, if so,
how frequently and for what purposes; they were
also asked to report their level of satisfaction with
consultants’ work. Funders that did not engage
consultants in the last two years were asked
why not. The survey also sought open-ended
responses about working with consultants.

· The survey found widespread use of consultants
among foundations. While the results of this
study tend to emphasize the benefits – taking
advantage of external expertise, allowing
staff to stay focused on what they do best,
bringing fresh or neutral perspectives to the
work – respondents were also clear that
working with consultants has its challenges.

Introduction
To what extent do foundations use consultants to
support their work? The recent rise of “strategic
philanthropy” and its talk of theories of change,
logic models, and the like may seem to explain
why foundations would engage consultants.
While we have known for years that foundations
use consultants to support various aspects of their

work, we’ve never had a quantitative picture of
how many, how often, and for what purposes.

This article presents the results of a survey
conducted January to March 2014 by Foundation
Center, in collaboration with the National
Network of Consultants to Grantmakers
(NNCG), examining use of consultants by
community, corporate, and independent
(including private and family) foundations.

The survey asked funders to report whether they
used consultants in the past two years and, if
so, how frequently and for what purposes. We
focused exclusively on consulting for purposes
of governance, program development, and
management, and excluded legal, accounting,
and financial/investment services and technical
assistance provided by consultants directly to
grantees. Funders were also asked to report their
level of satisfaction with consultants’ work across
multiple dimensions, including cost, quality of
work, and ability to communicate findings and
recommendations.

For those funders that did not engage consultants
in the last two years, the survey asked them to
indicate why not. Last, we solicited open-ended
responses regarding the benefits and challenges of
working with consultants.

Methodology
Data on consultant use by foundations were
collected as a supplement to Foundation

doi: 10.9707/1944-5660.1231

THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1 7

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations

R
E

S
U

LT
S

59,395

21,566

4,617 358

109

467

< $100,000 $100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million $10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

Total = 86,045

Center’s annual giving forecast survey. The
primary purposes of the forecast survey are to
obtain information on giving and assets for the
most recent year of giving, and to forecast for
Foundation Center’s annual report on growth
and how giving might change in the coming year.
The survey is also used to understand various
developments in the field. Past topics have
included diversity, equity, and inclusion practices
of foundations and foundation engagement in
mission- and program-related investments. The
survey has a maximum of 20 questions; the
consultant questions were developed and vetted in
partnership with NNCG. (See Appendix.)

The majority of U.S. foundations – 69 percent
– are very small, with annual giving of less
than $100,000. (See Figure 1.) Most of these are
unstaffed and reliable contact information is hard
to come by, making it difficult to include them in
surveys of the field. Hence, these foundations are
not included in this analysis. We focus on the 31
percent of U.S. foundations (N = 26,650) whose
annual giving totals at least $100,000. Although
the excluded foundations represent more than
two-thirds of the foundation community, they
comprised less than four percent of total giving
in 2012 awarded by community, corporate, and
independent foundations. The foundations invited
to respond to the survey represented more than
74 percent of total giving by those types of
foundations in 2012.

The survey was sent to the primary contact
for all community, corporate, and independent
foundations that reported giving of $100,000 or
more in 2012 for which Foundation Center had
contact information (N = 4,517) at the end of
December 2013. The primary contact was the
individual who completed the survey the previous
year; if a primary contact was not available, the
survey was sent to the president or chief executive
officer of the foundation.

Even among foundations with total annual giving
of at least $100,000, most are unstaffed. The total
number of staffed foundations in the United
States is not known, but most estimates suggest
that it is less than 10 percent of all foundations,
or between 5,000 and 10,000. Virtually all the
foundations surveyed for this study are staffed.

The survey was administered electronically
(web-based) and on paper, and was open through
March 2014. Follow-up calls were made to the
larger foundations to encourage participation.
Twenty-three percent of contacted foundations
completed the survey (N = 1,031). Among
foundations with total annual giving of at least
$50 million, the response rate was 56 percent (55
of 99 foundations), more than two times the rate
for smaller foundations. Community foundations
had the largest response rate by foundation type,
at 36 percent; the response rate was 14 percent
for corporate foundations and 22 percent for
independent foundations. (See Figure 2.)

Response Rates by Total Giving & Foundation Type

5

6%

26% 23%

2

0%

36%

1

4%

22%

2

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 1 Number of U.S. Grantmaking Foundations by
Total Giving (2012)

FIGURE 2 Response Rates by Total Giving and Foundation
Type (N = 4,517)

McGill, Henry-Sanchez, Wolcheck, and Reibstein

8 THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1

R
E

S
U

LT
S

By design, the surveyed foundations did not
mirror the distribution of foundations in
the United States. (See Figure 3.) To ensure
subsamples large enough to permit meaningful
analyses, we oversampled larger foundations (by
total giving) as well as community and corporate
foundations. We then weighted the data by
foundation size and type to mirror the distribution
of foundations in the United States, and
adjusted the weights to account for differential
response rates. While we weighted the data to
be more reflective of the overall distribution of
foundations by size and type, we do not know the
extent to which the foundations that responded
to the survey represent the broader foundation
community and, therefore, we caution against
generalizing to the broader group.

We received responses from 757 independent
foundations, 194 community foundations, and 80
corporate foundations. Grouped by total giving,
the sample included 55 foundations with annual
giving of $50 million or more, 119 with annual
giving of $10 million to $50 million, 481 with
annual giving of $1 million to $10 million, and
376 with annual giving of less than $1 million.
The foundations that responded to the survey
represented 33 percent of total giving in 2012.

Findings
We found evidence of widespread consultant
use by U.S. foundations. Among foundations
with annual giving of at least $100,000, one-third
reported using one or more consultants in the
past two years. However, this figure obscures
a wide variation in the use of consultants by
foundations of different sizes and types. Larger
foundations and community foundations were
significantly more likely than their counterparts
to have engaged consultants in the past two years.
(See Figure 4.)

FIGURE 3 Sample Distribution

Sample Distribution

NUMBER OF
FOUNDATIONS

Independent
Foundations*

Community
Foundations

Corporate
Foundations TOTALS

Annual Giving
> $50 million 35 (3%) 15 (1%) 5 (0%) 55 (5%)

$10 million –
$49.9 million 81 (8%) 26 (3%) 12 (1%) 119 (12%)

$1 million –
$9.9 million 355 (34%) 79 (8%) 47 (5%) 481 (47%)

$100,000 –
$999,999 286 (28%) 74 (7%) 16 (2%) 376 (36%)

TOTALS 757 (73%) 194 (19%) 80 (8%) 1,031

* Includes private and family foundations

Consultant Usage by Total Giving
& Foundation Type (N=1,031)

8

1%

74%

5

5%

2

8%

75%

26%

33%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 4 Consultant Usage by Total Giving and Foundation
Type (N = 1,031)

THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1 9

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations

R
E

S
U

LT
S

Community foundations were more than twice
as likely as independent foundations to engage
consultants, 75 percent compared to 33 percent,
and almost three times as likely as corporate
foundations (at 26 percent) to do so.

Consultant use is particularly widespread among
foundations with total giving of $1 million or
more, of which there are nearly 5,100 in the
United States. According to our survey, 55 percent
of foundations with giving between $1 million
and $9.9 million have used consultants at least
once in the past two years. Among foundations
with total giving of more than $10 million this
figure rises to 74 percent, and for foundations
giving $50 million or more, it is more than 80
percent. Simply stated, consultant usage is the
norm among large U.S. foundations.

Frequency of Consultant Use
Of those foundations that reported using
consultants (33 percent), more than two-thirds (68
percent) used them one to three times in the past
two years. The other one-third used consultants
four or more times. (See Figure 5.)

Just as the overall use of consultants increases as
foundation size increases, so does the frequency
with which they are engaged. Among the smallest
foundations (those with total giving of less than
$1 million), 28 percent of which reported using
consultants, the most common response on
frequency was once in the past two years. Among
slightly larger foundations (those with total giving
of $1 million to $9.9 million), f requency of use

rises to two to three times in the past two years.
(See Figure 6.)

Among the largest foundations (those with total
giving of at least $50 million), consultant use is
nearly ubiquitous: 81 percent of these foundations
reported using consultants in the past two years;
of those, 63 percent used them 11 or more times.

The frequency of consultant use did not vary
greatly by foundation type. Among community,
corporate, and independent foundations that used
consultants, the median was two to three times in
the past two years.

What Are Consultants Used For?
We asked foundations that used consultants in
the past two years to tell us, f rom a list of 12
categories, the areas of expertise where they
sought advice. Consultants were most commonly
called upon by foundations to provide expertise
in technology/information management/IT (40
percent), communications and marketing (28
percent), and evaluation (21 percent). (See Figure
7.)

With the exception of the smallest foundations,
those areas of consultant engagement were the
top three among foundations. Among those with
annual giving of between $100,000 and $1 million,
facilitation replaced evaluation as the third most
frequent area for consultant engagement.

The largest foundations made extensive use of
consultants across multiple areas. Of those that

Frequency of Consultant Use (N=555)

3

2%

36%

13%

10%

9%

1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 10 >10

FIGURE 5 Frequency of Consultant Use (N = 555)

Frequency of Consultant Use
by Total Giving (N=555)

3

7%

22%

0% 0%

35%

39%

36%

7%

12%

17%

13% 13%

8%
12%

16% 17%

7%

10%

27%

63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

$100K to $1 M $1 M to $9.9 M $10 M to $49.9 M $50 M+

1 time 2 to 3 times 4 to 5 times 6 to 10 times > 10 times

FIGURE 6 Frequency of Consultant Use by Total Giving
(N = 555)

McGill, Henry-Sanchez, Wolcheck, and Reibstein

10 THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1

R
E

S
U

LT
S

used consultants in the past two years, more
than half used them for communications and
marketing (83 percent), evaluation (81 percent),
technology/information management/IT (76
percent), human resources and/or executive
search (64 percent), facilitation (56 percent),
and training (51 percent). For the majority of
categories, consultant use increases as foundations
increase in size. (See Figure 8a and Figure 8b.)
Foundation management is the only category
where use decreases as foundation size increases.
In addition, the use of consultants to support
work related to grants management fluctuates by
size.

Consultant use also varies by foundation type.
Independent foundations most often use them
for technology/information management/
IT (41 percent). For community and corporate
foundations, consultants are most often used for
communications and marketing (47 percent and
33 percent, respectively). (See Figure 9a and Figure
9b.) As noted earlier, community foundations are
more likely than other types to engage consultants
in general. Likewise, they tend to use consultants
more frequently than other types of foundations
in most areas, but not by especially large margins.
Areas where community foundations are not
the greatest users of consultants are evaluation,
grants management, foundation management,
and program development. In most of these
areas, independent foundations are slightly more
likely than other types of foundations to use
consultants. Foundation management is the only

area in which corporate foundations are more
likely than other types of foundations to engage
consultants.

Why Use Consultants Instead of Staff?
Not surprisingly, most foundations use
consultants because their knowledge needs exceed
their internal resources – 78 percent said that
the “need for outside knowledge, expertise, or
networks” led them to engage consultants. (See
Figure 10.) This was true regardless of size and
type, although the need for outside expertise
seems to be most common among the largest
foundations and community foundations. The
largest foundations were significantly more likely
than their smaller counterparts, 69 percent to
10 percent, to cite staff capacity as a reason for
engaging a consultant. (See Figure 11.)

Consulting Services Used by Foundations
(by Total Giving) (N=555)

51%

47%

20%

64%

23%

4%

24%

25%

14%

35%

17%

12%

8%

12%

15%

19%

19%

12%

2%

4%

9%

6%

13%

17%

Training

Executive coaching

Governance

Human resources/executive search

Grants management

Foundation management

$100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million
$10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

FIGURE 8b Consulting Services Used by Foundations (by
Total Giving) (N = 555)

FIGURE 7 Consulting Services Used by Foundations (N = 555)

Consulting Services Used by Foundations (N=555)

5%
7%

10%

11%

15%
15%

16%

20%

21%

21%

28%
40%

Training
Executive coaching

Governance
Human resources/executive search

Grants management
Foundation management

Program development

Strategic planning

Facilitation

Evaluation

Communications/marketing

Technology/information management

Consulting Services Used by Foundations
(by Total Giving) (N=555)

41%

34%

56%

81%

83%

76%

32%

27%

34%

45%

67%

51%

21%

25%

19%

27%

38%

43%

13%

18%

21%

18%

22%

39%

Program development

Strategic planning

Facilitation

Evaluation

Communications/marketing

Technology/information management

$100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million
$10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

FIGURE 8a Consulting Services Used by Foundations (by
Total Giving) (N = 555)

THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1 11

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations

R
E

S
U

LT
S

While the need for outside expertise is the
primary driver for consultant use across all types
of foundations, there are differences regarding
secondary drivers. Community foundations are
more likely than other types to hire consultants
for reasons having to do with neutrality and
external credibility; corporate foundations are
most likely to hire consultants because of staff-
capacity constraints and to avoid hiring additional
staff. (See Figure 12.)

How Foundations Find Consultants
The best predictor of whether a foundation
may hire a particular consultant is whether that
consultant has worked for the foundation before.
More than half of the foundations surveyed – 56
percent – said they had rehired consultants. (See
Figure 13.)

One-quarter of foundations hired consultants
who had been referred to them by other
grantmakers and one in five (19 percent)
hired consultants referred to them by board
members. Only six percent of foundations said
they found consultants through a request for
proposals. Online searches (four percent) and
consultant directories (one percent) are rarely
used to identify potential consultants. More than
one-fifth of foundations cited other means of
identifying consultants. Among those providing
a write-in response, regional associations were
most frequently cited as a means of finding a
consultant.

There is a strong relationship between foundation
size and use of referrals from other foundations
and RFPs to find consultants. Prior use of a
consultant is also positively correlated with

Consulting Services Used by Foundations
(by Foundation Type) (N=555)

12%

35%

26%

15%

47%

45%

14%

21%

17%

13%

33%

31%

16%

20%

21%

22%

27%

41%

Program development

Strategic planning

Facilitation

Evaluation

Communications/marketing

Technology/information management

Independent* Corporate Community

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 9a Consulting Services Used by Foundations (by
Foundation Type) (N = 555)

Consulting Services Used by Foundations
(by Foundation Type) (N=555)

15%

13%

16%

25%

19%

11%

4%

1%

10%

6%

1%

13%

22%

5%

6%

10%

11%

15%

15%

Fund development (community foundations)

Training

Executive coaching

Governance

Human resources/executive search

Grants management

Foundation management

Independent* Corporate Community

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 9b Consulting Services Used by Foundations (by
Foundation Type) (N = 555)

Why Foundations Use Consultants
(by Total Giving) (N=555)

21%

35%

69%

52%

94%

10%

35%

36%

39%

86%

7%

20%

22%

31%

84%

3%

17%

10%

29%

75%

Outside credibility needed

Avoid hiring additional staff

Time frame exceeds staff capacity

Need for neutral perspective

Need for outside expertise

$100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million
$10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

FIGURE 11 Why Foundations Use Consultants (by Total
Giving) (N = 555)

Why Foundations Use Consultants
(N=555)

6%

10%

23%

25%

34%

78%

Other

Outside credibility needed to sway foundation
colleagues/board or external stakeholders

Desire to avoid hiring additional permanent
staff/prefer to outsource responsibilities

Time frame for assignment(s) exceeded
foundation staff capacity

Need for neutral perspective or assistance to
achieve results

Need for outside expertise, knowledge, or
networks

FIGURE 10 Why Foundations Use Consultants (N = 555)

McGill, Henry-Sanchez, Wolcheck, and Reibstein

12 THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1

R
E

S
U

LT
S

foundation size – nearly all the largest foundations
(95 percent) said they had hired consultants who
had previously worked for them, compared with
54 percent of the smallest foundations. (See
Figure 14.)

Community foundations used all these methods
to find consultants with greater frequency than
other types of foundations, although their use
of RFPs was two times more frequent than
corporate foundations and almost four times
more frequent than independent foundations.
(See Figure 15.)

Satisfaction With Consultants
Respondents were asked to indicate their level
of satisfaction with their most recent consulting
experience with respect to aspects of the work
(e.g., quality, impact, level of engagement).
Satisfaction was high overall: On a four-point scale

of very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied,
and very dissatisfied, levels of dissatisfaction
never exceeded 6 percent. (See Figure 16.)
But satisfaction with consultants decreased as
foundation size increased. Larger foundations
consistently expressed lower levels of satisfaction
with consultant work than did smaller ones,
although satisfaction never dipped below 80
percent. (See Figure 17a and Figure 17b.)

The widest difference in satisfaction levels
concerned cost. While 95 percent of the smallest
foundations said they were satisfied with the costs
involved in their most recent experience with
consultants, 80 percent of the largest foundations
expressed a similar level of satisfaction.

Satisfaction levels by foundation type varied
very little, although corporate foundations were
almost unanimously satisfied with their

Why Foundations Use Consultants
(by Foundation Type) (N=555)

16%

19%

23%

33%

87%

7%

27%

31%

11%

68%

4%

18%

13%

31%

78%

Outside credibility needed

Avoid hiring additional staff

Time frame exceeds staff capacity

Need for neutral perspective

Need for outside expertise

Independent* Corporate Community

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 12 Why Foundations Use Consultants (by Foundation
Type) (N = 555)

How Foundations Find Consultants
(N=555)

22%

1%

4%

6%

10%

19%

25%

56%

Other

Directory of foundation consultants

Online search

Request for proposals

Referral from a grantmaker network(s)

Referral from board member

Referral from another grantmaker(s)

Prior use of consultant(s)

FIGURE 13 How Foundations Find Consultants (N = 555)

How Foundations Find Consultants
(by Foundation Type) (N=555)

19%

11%

31%

30%

66%

10%

0%

3%

15%

63%

5%

10%

19%

26%

55%

Request for proposals

Referral from a grantmaker network(s)

Referral from board member

Referral from another grantmaker(s)

Prior use of consultant(s)

Independent* Corporate Community

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 15 How Foundations Find Consultants (by Foundation
Type) (N = 555)

49%

10%

21%

68%

95%

24%

7%

15%

50%

74%

13%

11%

20%

34%

59%

2%

10%

18%

21%

54%

Request for proposals

Referral from a grantmaker network(s)

Referral from board member

Referral from another grantmaker(s)

Prior use of consultant(s)

$100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million
$10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

Figure 14: How Foundations Find Consultants
(by Total Giving) (N=555)

FIGURE 14 How Foundations Find Consultants (by Total
Giving) (N = 555)

THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1 13

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations

R
E

S
U

LT
S

consultants’ quality of work and responsiveness
to feedback. Community foundations were less
satisfied by costs and timeliness of deliverables.
(See Figure 18a and Figure 18b.)

Why Foundations Do Not Use Consultants
Foundations that had not used consultants
typically said that they had “no need for outside
technical support or expertise” in the past two
years. This reason was given far more often –
79 percent of the time – than others, such as
“foundation policy or practice does not support
hiring consultants” (12 percent) and “cost of
consulting services” (nine percent). (See Figure
19.)

These results did not differ much by foundation
size. (See Figure 20.) However, community
foundations did seem to be more vulnerable than
other types of foundations to sticker shock – 38
percent of community foundations cited cost as a
reason for not using consultants, compared with
10 percent of corporate foundations and eight
percent of independent foundations. They also

Satisfaction With Consultants
(N=555)

49%

51%

56%

56%

57%

57%

58%

59%

45%

41%

38%

36%

39%

36%

35%

35%

Cost

Impact of work

Responsiveness to feedback

Compatibility with foundation values

Ability to communicate findings

Timeliness of deliverables

Level of engagement

Quality of work

Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied No opinion

4%

5%

2%

3%

5%

4%

6%

5%

3%

3%

2%

5%

4%

2%

2%

2%

FIGURE 16 Satisfaction With Consultants (N = 555)

Satisfaction with Consultants
(by Total Giving) (N=555)

80%

82%

87%

85%

87%

93%

87%

91%

90%

93%

92%

93%

95%

94%

95%

96%

Cost

Responsiveness to feedback

Quality of work

Ability to communicate findings

$100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million
$10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

FIGURE 17a Satisfaction With Consultants (by Total Giving)
(N = 555)

Satisfaction with Consultants
(by Total Giving) (N=555)

82%

82%

87%

82%

89%

94%

88%

91%

92%

92%

93%

91%

92%

92%

92%

93%

Impact of work

Compatibility with foundation values

Level of engagement

Timeliness of deliverables

$100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million
$10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

FIGURE 17b Satisfaction With Consultants (by Total Giving)
(N = 555)

Satisfaction with Consultants
(by Foundation Type) (N=555)

87%

91%

94%

95%

93%

99%

99%

96%

93%

93%

93%

95%

Cost

Responsiveness to feedback

Quality of work

Ability to communicate findings

Independent* Corporate Community

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 18a Satisfaction With Consultants (by Foundation
Type) (N = 555)

Satisfaction with Consultants
(by Foundation Type) (N=555)

87%

91%

94%

95%

93%

99%

99%

96%

93%

93%

93%

95%

Cost

Responsiveness to feedback

Quality of work

Ability to communicate findings

Independent* Corporate Community

* Includes private and family foundations

FIGURE 18b Satisfaction With Consultants (by Foundation
Type) (N = 555)

McGill, Henry-Sanchez, Wolcheck, and Reibstein

14 THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1

R
E

S
U

LT
S

Why Foundations Don’t Use Consultants
(by Foundation Type) (N=476)

16%

2%

1%

12%

38%

56%

11%

1%

3%

10%

10%

77%

5%

1%

1%

8%

12%

79%

Other

Negative experience with a consultant

Challenge of finding a reputable consultant
with the skills we need

Time needed to recruit, vet, and engage a
consultant

Cost of consulting services

Foundation policy and/or practice does not
support hiring consultants

No need for outside technical support

Independent* Corporate Community

0%
0%

0%

* Includes private and family foundations

cited time as an obstacle more frequently than the
others. (See Figure 21.)

Qualitative Findings
The following section highlights general themes
and findings from open-ended responses to a
question asking foundations to describe the
benefits of and/or challenges in working with
consultants over the past two years. Of the 555
foundations that reported using a consultant in
the past two years, 282 (51 percent) provided an
open-ended response.

Benefits of Using Consultants
These competencies help respondents address the
complex, multifaceted needs of the foundations’
target populations:

• External expertise. As noted earlier, 78 percent
of foundations that employed consultants said
they needed expertise beyond staff capabilities.
When asked to reflect on the benefits of
consultants, respondents reaffirmed this
basic value proposition time and again, and
mentioned how helpful they can be in areas that
foundations do not consider specialties, such
as evaluation, communications, information
technology, and knowledge management.
Facilitating important internal conversations is
another important role: “The consultant’s skills
were useful in aiding the flow and direction
of discussion, providing useful activities to
allow for the free flow of ideas, and providing
a detailed summary of the discussion.” As

foundation work becomes increasingly complex
and specialized, the need for subject-matter
expertise also grows. As one respondent
noted, “[It’s] nice to work with someone so
knowledgeable in a specialized field.”

• Best use of staff. Many foundations, especially
smaller ones, noted that they try to do a lot
with limited staff and that there is little or no
in-house capacity for additional responsibilities.
Moreover, it may not be the best use of
staff time to take on work best addressed by
consultants. As one respondent put it, hiring
consultants “allowed our staff to continue
their primary functions and not engage in
something outside their areas of expertise.”
For some foundations, consultants allow
them to “stay lean”; they engage them to help
streamline internal processes and free staff

Why Foundations Don’t Use Consultants
(N=476)

6%

0%

1%

2%

9%

12%

79%

Other

Negative experience with a consultant

Challenge of finding a reputable consultant
with the skills we need

Time needed to recruit, vet, and engage a
consultant

Cost of consulting services

Foundation policy and/or practice does not
support hiring consultants

No need for outside technical support

FIGURE 19 Why Foundations Do Not Use Consultants
(N = 476)

FIGURE 21 Why Foundations Do Not Use Consultants (by
Foundation Type) (N = 476)

Why Foundations Don’t Use Consultants
(by Total Giving) (N=476)

8%

8%

76%

8%

4%

1%

10%

17%

55%

4%

2%

3%

7%

10%

79%

6%

1%

1%

9%

12%

79%

Other

Challenge of finding a reputable consultant
with the skills we need

Time needed to recruit, vet, and engage a
consultant

Cost of consulting services

Foundation policy and/or practice does not
support hiring consultants

No need for outside technical support

$100,000 to $1 million $1 million to $9.9 million
$10 million to $49.9 million $50 million +

0%

0%

FIGURE 20 Why Foundations Do Not Use Consultants (by
Total Giving) (N = 476)

THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1 15

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations

R
E

S
U

LT
S

time for other things. A couple of foundations
noted that consultants were helpful during the
organization’s startup: “We remain a relatively
new organization with a small but expanding
staff,” one reported. “Outside consultants
have been highly supportive with respect to a
number of programmatic, organizational, and
strategic initiatives.”

• Fresh/neutral perspectives. A downside of having
a small staff is that it limits the range of ideas
that can be generated within an organization,
and several foundations noted the importance
of bringing in external perspectives from time
to time to stimulate fresh thinking. This can
be particularly important during strategic
planning. One foundation reported that “[our]
most valued consultants provide us with
self-introspection to add important details to
strategic-planning efforts, the wisdom to be
impactful externally, and the vision to convey
our message in a meaningful way.” Another
respondent said consultants were able to
represent the perspectives of important external
audiences “without the biases developed from
working within the organization.” Another
described a consultant who in communicating
with grantees “was experienced, knew how
to ask questions, and was able, we presume,
to get honest answers not tailored to what
the foundation staff and board wanted to
hear.” Experienced consultants can also bring
knowledge to the foundation of what has
worked in other circumstances. “Because
of their experience,” a respondent said, the
consultants could “communicate what had been
successful elsewhere (process and end result)
and … assess the current conditions in our
community. It was a tremendous benefit to have
outside perspectives and voices … perceived as
‘neutral’ by our community members.”

Challenges of Using Consultants
• Getting consultants up to speed. The challenge

most frequently brought up by respondents
was how hard it can be to provide consultants
with the context necessary for them to work
effectively:

“The amount of time it takes to bring a
consultant up to speed can be a significant
undertaking, and often it is questionable whether
the output, especially with the cost, is worthwhile.
On the other hand, some of the consultants
we have worked with have been a tremendous
resource and have improved our work.”

“Consultants have been an excellent way to
add capacity and expertise for specific projects.
[The] challenge is in communicating foundation
values, history, and needs to someone who hasn’t
experienced these, and finding a consultant who is
as invested in the project as staff and board.”

For smaller foundations, the task can be
especially daunting: “Consultants have expertise
in their area and are great ‘teachers,’ but
explaining the complexity of a community
foundation can be difficulty …. We are very
small, so we can’t always give the time they
need.”

• Finding the right consultant. More than merely
matching expertise with need, finding the right
consultant can also depend on the qualities of
the foundation. A respondent from a family
foundation acknowledged the organization’s
“many personalities” and noted that “no one
consultant is able to navigate all of those
personalities well.” It can also be difficult to
find consultants who are sufficiently proactive:
“Finding folks with the ability to be creative
[and] innovative and [able to] iterate – not just
be told what we need them to do – has been a
bit challenging.” In some cases, local expertise
may be the best fit for a foundation’s needs:
“If we compared our overall satisfaction with
local consultants versus national consultants,”
a respondent said, “the rating would be higher
for local consultants and a great deal lower for
those more on a national scale.”

• Ensuring sufficient engagement. Consultants, by
definition, work with multiple clients, often
simultaneously. This can create a number of
challenges, especially for smaller foundations.
Several smaller respondents said they did not
feel they were being treated as “important”

McGill, Henry-Sanchez, Wolcheck, and Reibstein

16 THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1

R
E

S
U

LT
S

clients; some noted that they could not get
sufficient time and attention from senior people
at the consulting firm. Others said they needed
more support than they actually received. Some
foundations chalked up what they perceived
as consultant indifference to a relative lack of
“passion for the foundation.” Another common
complaint was an apparent haste to offer
ill-fitting, off-the-shelf solutions to problems
consultants were hired to address: “There
[was] some sense on [our] team that some
consultants rely heavily on ‘canned’ approaches
and we spent a fair amount of energy and time
encouraging a more tailored approach.”

• Knowing what you are getting into. Beyond
getting them up to speed, working successfully
with consultants often requires a great deal
more time and close supervision than many
foundations are prepared to provide. As one
foundation put it, “We would have preferred
more structure [to the process], but [in
retrospect] I don’t think we were ready for
what we asked for.” Said another, “You have to
pay attention to make sure you get a valuable
product.” Another pointed out, “It is a skill to
work effectively with consultants and get the
work product you want.” One prerequisite
is to go in with realistic expectations about
the level of effort that will be involved: “Be
clear about your objectives and the amount of
management time needed to effectively manage
the consultants. Alignment with values, style,
and direction require a big investment in staff
time.” Foundations also offered examples of
things that add time and effort to working
with consultants: coordinating meetings with
busy people, timing work so stakeholders are
engaged at the right times and in the right ways,
and building in adequate time to effectively
supervise the work. Managing sometimes
unrealistic expectations of board members may
also factor into the mix.

Challenges remain even when the consulting work
per se has ended. Sometimes the biggest lesson
learned from the process is that there are no
quick fixes. Moreover, the task of implementing
recommendations is in many respects more
difficult than identifying potential solutions.

Conclusion
It is clear from this study that consultant use is
an established practice among U.S. foundations,
especially those with annual giving of at least $1
million. Among foundations with annual giving of
between $100,000 and $1 million, consultant use
is still evident but not as widespread. Community
foundations are more than twice as likely as
corporate or independent foundations to employ
consultants. While frequency of consultant use
rises dramatically as foundation size increases,
there are no major differences in frequency by
foundation type.

Consultants are most commonly used in three
areas: technology/information management/IT,
communications and marketing, and evaluation.
Larger foundations also frequently engage
consultants in human resources/executive search,
training, executive coaching, and facilitation.
Community foundations were also more likely to
engage consultants across areas of support, but
corporate foundations were most likely to engage
them for foundation management.

The main reason for using consultants,
overwhelmingly, was the “need for outside
knowledge, expertise, or networks.” Likewise, for
those foundations that did not use consultants in
the past two years, the main reason was that they
had “no need for outside technical support or
expertise” during that time.

Foundations generally expressed high levels
of satisfaction with consultants. Fewer than
six percent of respondents expressed outright
“dissatisfaction” with the consultants they most
recently engaged, although satisfaction levels did
decrease as foundation size increased.

While the results of this study tend to emphasize
the benefits to foundations of using consultants –
taking advantage of external expertise, allowing
staff to stay focused on what they do best,
bringing fresh or neutral perspectives to the
work – respondents were also clear that working
with consultants has its challenges. In particular,
they noted that “getting consultants up to speed”
in the early stages of the work was no easy task,
especially for smaller foundations. Finding the

THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1 17

Use of Consultants by U.S. Foundations

R
E

S
U

LT
S

“right” person to work with and securing a
sufficient level of commitment from consultants
once hired also posed challenges. Perhaps the
most important piece of advice from respondents
to foundations that are thinking of using
consultants is to be realistic about how much
effort will actually be required. The amount of
time and supervision it takes to work successfully
with a consultant is often underestimated.

One of the foundations surveyed for this
project made the following provocative, though
somewhat cryptic, comment about the value of
engaging consultants:

“Consultants extend the capacity of our small
staff in essential ways, and many understand the
foundation’s mission and strategies; without
consultants we would only be grantmakers. With
consultants, we’re able to achieve much greater
goals. We’ve been lucky to find (through some trial
and error, admittedly) some terrific consultants, in
whom we now have high degrees of trust so [we] can
let them take the work and run with it with limited
oversight on our part.”

What it actually means to be “more than
grantmakers” is open to interpretation. But
this thought expresses in an intriguing way the
kinds of aspirations that many foundations may
entertain when choosing to engage consultants.

Whether to advance aspirations or support day-
to-day functions, it is clear that foundations are
using consultants at varying levels for a variety of
functions to advance their work, finally providing
an answer to the question: “To what extent do
foundations use consultants in their work?”

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank NNCG for being
wonderful partners. Without their inquiry on
opportunities to collaborate and collect data on
consulting practice, this article would not have
been possible. The authors would also like to
thank two anonymous reviewers for providing
thoughtful and thorough feedback, which allowed
us to make significant improvements to this
article.

Brenda L. Henry-Sanchez, Ph.D., is director of research
for special projects at Foundation Center. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Brenda L.
Henry-Sanchez, Foundation Center, 79 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10003 (email: bhs@foundationcenter.org).

Lawrence T. McGill, Ph.D., is vice president for research at
Foundation Center.

David Wolcheck, B.A., is a research associate with
Foundation Center.

Sarah Reibstein, B.A., is a research assistant with
Foundation Center.

McGill, Henry-Sanchez, Wolcheck, and Reibstein

18 THE FoundationReview 2015 Vol 7:1

R
E

S
U

LT
S

APPENDIX Philanthropy Consulting Survey Questions

II. PERSPECTIVES ON GRANTMAKER PRACTICE
Foundation Consultants

The Foundation Center is partnering with the National
Network of Consultants to Grantmakers (NNCG) to
better understand the scale of foundation engagement
with consultants, the role of consultants in helping
foundations achieve their goals, and how consultants
can better serve the needs of foundations. For the
purpose of this research, we are focusing on
grantmakers’ use of consultants for purposes such as
governance, program development, and management
and excluding activities such as legal, accounting, and
financial/investment services and providing technical
assistance directly to your grantees.

9. In the past two years, did your foundation use a
consultant(s) for any of the following purposes?
(Please check all that apply)

 Communications and marketing
 Evaluation
 Executive coaching
 Facilitation
 Foundation management
 Fund development (for community foundations)
 Governance and board member engagement
 Grants management
 Human resources and/or executive search
 Program development
 Strategic planning and establishing priorities for

new foundations
 Technology/information management/IT
 Training
 Other (please specify): ____________________

________________________________________
 No (Please proceed to Question 15)

10. In the past two years, approximately how many times
has your foundation engaged a consultant or consulting
firm?

 1 time
 2 to 3 times
 4 to 5 times
 6 to 10 times
 More than 10 times

11. What is the reason(s) your foundation employed a
consultant(s) in the past two years?
(Please check all that apply)

 Desire to avoid hiring additional permanent
staff/prefer to outsource responsibilities

 Need for neutral perspective or assistance to
achieve results

 Need for outside expertise, knowledge, or
networks

 Outside credibility needed to sway foundation
colleagues/board or external stakeholders

 Time frame for assignment(s) exceeded
foundation staff capacity

 Other (please specify): ____________________

12. How did you identify the consultant(s) you used in the
past two years? (Please check all that apply)

 Directory of foundation consultants
 Online search
 Prior use of consultant(s)
 Referral from board member
 Referral from another grantmaker(s)
 Referral from a grantmaker network(s) (please

specify): _______________________________
 Request for proposals
 Other (please specify): ____________________

13. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the
consultant(s) you used most recently?

14. Please describe the benefits and/or challenges your
foundation experienced in working with a consultant(s) over
the past two years: _______________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Please proceed to Question 16.

15. What is the reason(s) your foundation has not used a
consultant in the past two years?
(Please check all that apply)

 Challenge of finding a reputable consultant with
 the skills we need
 Cost of consulting services
 Foundation policy and/or practice does not
 support hiring consultants
 Time needed to recruit, vet, and engage a
 consultant
 Negative prior experience with a consultant
 No need for outside technical support/expertise
 Other (please specify):_____________________

16. Would you be willing to speak with a Foundation Center
staff member about your responses as part of this research
project?

 Yes
 No

Copyright of Foundation Review is the property of Grand Valley State University on Behalf
of the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

What is Advocacy?
Definitions and Examples

Advocacy is defined as any action that speaks in favor of, recommends, argues for a cause, supports or
defends, or pleads on behalf of others. This fact sheet offers a look at how advocacy is defined, what kinds of
activities comprise advocacy work, and what kinds of advocacy projects several tax-exempt groups are
currently leading.

How is advocacy different from lobbying?
Lobbying is only one kind of advocacy. Not all advocacy is lobbying but all lobbying is advocacy.

What kind of activities comprise advocacy work?
The following list of advocacy activities is not exhaustive. Each activity includes an example of a recent,
concrete action on the part of active nonprofit groups around the country. The list and examples can serve to
motivate others and suggest ideas for future advocacy on all fronts and in all kinds of struggles.

• Organizing: Build power at the base. Center for Intercultural Organizing in Portland, OR organizes
the immigrant and refugee communities in their area. These meetings enable immigrant leaders to
mobilize their constituencies and build power in their communities.

• Educate Legislators: Provide information on issues. NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin offers fact

sheets on its Web site for distribution to state legislators so that they will be aware of issues facing
women who seek abortion.

• Educating the Public about the Legislative Process: Introduce communities and constituencies

to the legislators whose represent them. Utah Issues: Center for Poverty Research and Action
sponsors an annual Citizens Day during which the organization’s members and other Utah residents
come to the state capitol to meet their legislators and learn about the legislative process. When
communities have the opportunity to meet legislators face to face and discuss the issues that affect
their everyday lives, not only do legislators receive the tools they need to represent their communities,
but those communities are empowered to invest more heavily in the outcomes of policy debates, giving
them a stronger hand in their own future.

• Research: Produce relevant resources that reflect the real story of your community. California

Immigrant Policy Center released the report “Immigrants and the U.S. Healthcare System” to dispel
myths and present realities in the state of California.

• Organizing a rally: Mobilize for your cause. The Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), a

coalition of pro-immigrant organizations, rallied in Washington, D.C. in June 2007 to raise awareness of
the need for comprehensive immigration reform and an end to immigration raids.

• Regulatory efforts: Take action at the agencies. CASA of Maryland, Inc. has pushed for the state

Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) to comply with existing laws and to stop discriminating against
drivers license applicants on the basis of ability to prove legal residency.

• Public education: Educate the community on the issues. Rights for All People in Denver, CO

periodically holds community forums on state and federal immigration issues.

• Nonpartisan voter education: Inform the electorate on the issues. CARECEN of Los Angeles, CA
encourages civic participation in the Latino and immigrant community, and educates the public about
how to participate more fully in elections and civic life.

• Nonpartisan voter mobilization: Encourage citizens to vote. In 2004, the Illinois Coalition for
Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) began an ambitious campaign to register and mobilize tens of
thousands of new immigrant voters in the suburban counties surrounding Chicago.

• Educational conferences: Gather, network, share information, and plan for the future. National

Council of La Raza (NCLR) holds an annual conference where NCLR’s affiliate organization and other
groups convene to discuss issues and strategies affecting the Latino community in the U.S.

• Training: The United States Student Association (USSA) holds Grassroots Organizing Weekends

(GROW) training sessions that teach successful strategies and skills for direct action organizing on
issues related to students.

• Litigation: Win in court for your cause or your community. El Centro Humanitario para los

Trabajadores in Denver, CO operates a legal program that assists workers in the recovery of thousands
of dollars in unpaid wages each year.

• Lobbying: Advocate for or against specific legislation. All nonprofits are permitted to lobby.

501(c)(3) public charities can engage in a generous but limited amount of lobbying. The Florida
Immigrant Coalition (FLIC) works at the state level to pass a bill allowing undocumented high school
graduates in Florida to pay in-state tuition rates.

How can your organization get more involved in advocacy?
Educate. Inform your organization about the current policies and problems affecting your community.

Evaluate. Evaluate your organization’s mission and goals, and examine whether current programs involve
advocacy as a means to address problems or grievances in the community. If not, how could advocacy play a
larger role in your organization’s programs?

Collaborate. Work in coalitions with groups whose philosophy and goals resonate with yours. Together,
pooling staff and resources, all parties involved in the coalition should be better equipped to take on campaigns
and work for change.

The staff of Alliance for Justice’s Nonprofit Advocacy Project (NAP) offers many tools for tax-exempt groups.
Please see our Web site, http://www.afj.org, for more details.

Good Luck!

The information contained in this fact sheet and any attachments is being provided for informational purposes only and not as part of an
attorney-client relationship. The information is not a substitute for expert legal, tax, or other professional advice tailored to your specific
circumstances, and may not be relied upon for the purposes of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue
Code. Alliance for Justice publishes plain-language guides on nonprofit advocacy topics, offers educational workshops on the laws
governing the advocacy of nonprofits, and provides technical assistance for nonprofits engaging in advocacy. For additional
information, please feel free to contact Alliance for Justice.

11 Dupont Circle, N.W., 2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-822-6070
Fax: 202-822-6068

www.allianceforjustice.org

advocacy@afj.org
866-NPLOBBY

1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1006
Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: 510-444-6070
Fax: 510-444-6078