The Chronicle of Philanthropy is seeking pitches from experienced magazine and features journalists for a specific type of deeply reported feature for our Results section.
What these stories are:
These pieces examine what actually happens after major philanthropic dollars are spent — the messy, complicated reality of whether major grants and donations are making a difference. These are long form, in-depth features that take the time to understand the motivations of donors and grant makers, how a nonprofit works, and how it has evolved over time through successes, failures, and growth. They look at how groups are bringing whatever lessons they have learned to current challenges and what leaders from other groups might learn from those experiences. A piece might profile a single nonprofit with enough of a track record that evidence, positive or negative, has had time to accumulate. It might scrutinize a grantmaking program, or investigate a major donor's "big bet” and how their approach has evolved.
In every case, the story should interrogate the evidence, not just take the funder's word for it. Strong pieces will draw on a mix of sources: academic studies or program evaluations, people whose lives were directly affected, nonprofit leaders and frontline staff, independent researchers, and the grantmakers themselves. The best stories find tension — between what was promised and what was delivered, or between competing theories of how change happens — and use that tension to surface lessons that nonprofit leaders or donors working in any field can apply, not just those in the specific issue area covered. The pitch needs to provide a sense of what those lessons or takeaways are and why they matter now.
Pitch me directly at [click apply]
Examples of the kind of work we’re looking for: