“If you want an answer, ask everyone”: The Rise of Crowd-source Grantmaking

Crowd-sourcing is No. 1 in Mashable.com’s “5 Trends Shaping the Future of Social Good”. And one prominent nonprofit author/blogger calls it the No. 1 benefit for foundations in making more use of social media.

Have you engaged crowds yet in your grantmaking?

Several foundations are experimenting with crowd-sourcing, which nonprofit technology experts and bloggers Beth Kanter and Allison Fine define as “the process of organizing many people to participate in a joint project, often in small ways, producing results that are greater than an individual or organization could have accomplished alone.” In their recent book on the rise of more open and transparent nonprofit organizations, The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with Social Media to Drive Change, Kanter and Fine write that crowd-sourcing is a powerful way to build relationships with people outside an organization, helping them flex their own creativity and talents.  At the time of the book’s release during the summer, Fine told the Philanthropy Journal that crowd-sourcing is “the No. 1 benefit” for foundations in using social media. Specifically, she said it can help foundations uncover ideas to fund, learning about opportunities they otherwise wouldn’t have heard about.

The Center for Effective Philanthropy is developing a crowd-sourcing approach modeled after its groundbreaking Grantee Perception Reports. As Phil Buchanan describes in recent posts to the Center’s blog, the Beneficiary Perception Reports seek ideas and feedback from beneficiaries, or those whose lives funders seek to improve, offering a critical perspective often left out of the process. The Center is currently experimenting with the approach in its Gates-funded YouthTruth initiative, in which it is surveying students at high schools where foundation-funded reform is underway.

Then there is the Case Foundation, which promotes the use of prizes and open grantmaking to leverage philanthropy and improve government by tapping into knowledge beyond one organization’s walls. Last spring, Case co-hosted a conference on the subject with the White House, reported upon in Promoting Innovation: Prizes, Challenges and Open Grantmaking. And, the foundation just released a new report analyzing the results of its Make It Your Own Award program, an open-grantmaking effort—a variant of what it calls “participatory philanthropy”—that sought to increase civic engagement in locations throughout the country by involving the public in the decision-making process. The public helped determine the grant guidelines and judging criteria, helped review the applications and helped vote on the winners, explains Citizen-Centered Solutions: Lessons in Leveraging Public Participation from the Make It Your Own Awards. As a result of the work, for example, residents in several Florida neighborhoods are working together to identify and take action in addressing environmental problems. And a youth-led initiative in Philadelphia is helping young people in the juvenile justice and foster care systems to reintegrate into their communities. Another result: In a majority of the efforts, participants expect to increase their civic engagement in the future.

The Rockefeller Foundation is experimenting with crowd-sourcing through several programs, part of a broader effort to support cutting-edge innovative practices for solving social problems identified and developed by the ultimate users of the innovations. For example, in an interview last winter with the Philanthropy News Digest, the foundation’s Antony Bugg-Levine discussed a program with Global Giving and Innocentive to crowd-source solutions to five key challenges, which were themselves identified through crowd-sourcing. The foundation will offer cash rewards to those who propose the most promising solutions, and those solutions will then benefit from additional crowd-sourced funds. The essential core of the work is, as president Judith Rodin put it in a discussion at the Council on Foundations conference earlier this year, “If you want an answer, ask everyone.”

In their book, Kanter and Fine stress that “social media are not a fad or a trend.” Instead, their use will continue to grow and become ingrained in everyday life. It’s not clear that new techniques that thrive on social media, such as crowd-sourcing, will have the same longevity. But they certainly also have the potential to open a process to new ideas.

—Jane Wales

Read Full Post »

COF 2010: An Inconvenient Inheritance

Now is our time.”

—Vice President Al Gore

“This is our moment.”

—Geoffrey Canada

These quotations are from former Vice President Al Gore and Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone, each of whom spoke at the Council on Foundations annual conference. (Partial videos have been posted on the conference’s wrap-up page.) They argue that the next generation will tackle the problems that Baby Boomers have bequeathed to them. But Gore worries about the enormity and irreversibility of some of those problems. And Canada wonders whether our education system will prepare them.

Gore described younger generations as truly committed to improving and safeguarding the environment. But he notes that the rest of us may not “find the moral courage” to tackle the huge climate challenges and plant the necessary seeds of renewal for future generations. The youth cannot solve these problems alone—we must stand with them.

Canada previewed the documentary Waiting for Superman, due for release this fall, the thesis of which is that the key to success in American public education is luck. It is little more than a lottery system. The film, from the same producers as An Inconvenient Truth, may trigger action by everyday citizens in ways similar to what Gore’s film has done for the environment and climate change. Canada says that he has observed a rising level of “deep engagement” in America along the lines of ‘60s-era social activism, and he called on philanthropists to help leverage that momentum.

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen expressed optimism about new leaders, heaping praise on Millennials, suggesting that today’s youngest generation of adults are showing a level of commitment to service and are giving back in a way that American society has not seen in a long time.

As optimistic as much of the discussion was, plenty of concern remains about the future of America’s youth. Patrick Corvington of the Corporation for National and Community Service referred to a report by Mission: Readiness, which notes that 75 percent of the country’s young citizens are unable to serve in the military because they dropped out of high school, have a criminal past or are physically or mentally unfit.

Will we invest today in equipping tomorrow’s leaders? That is the challenge to us all.

—Jane Wales

Read Full Post »

COF 2010: Foundations Need to Step up Advocacy in Congress

Foundation leaders can no longer assume that policymakers share their view of the sector’s role—it is up to these leaders to tell philanthropy’s story in a way that can be appreciated and understood. This was among the conclusions of the members of the Aspen Philanthropy Group in their inaugural meeting last July. It was a key theme that emerged in a concurrent nonprofit sector-wide strategy session led by the Independent Sector in Colorado Springs. And it was a refrain at this year’s Council on Foundations’ Annual Conference.

At a time when state legislators are seeking to shift responsibility for financing social services from the public to the philanthropic sector, the Council legal team called attention instead to the US Congress, where some members have questioned the tax exemptions that foundations enjoy. The team reports that this Congressional sentiment is only shared by a few Members and that calls for change are at a “low simmer.” Nonetheless, according to the Council’s Kelly Shippe Simone and Chatrane Birbal, Congress is expected to consider tax reform measures, including tax exemption, next year.

While that gives nonprofit advocates time to make their case, APG would argue that the issue is not a matter of fending off legislation or of defensive moves more generally. Rather it is a matter of efficacy. Those who seek to advance the public good need to partner and to leverage one another so as to enhance their collective impact. Doing so first requires an understanding of their respective roles. Arguments between the public and philanthropic sectors are an indulgence we cannot afford, not at a time when the resources of both are reduced and public needs have expanded.

—Jane Wales

Read Full Post »

COF 2010: Networks, Not Ideas, Drive Innovation

Despite popular perception, it’s not one single product, epiphany or “a-ha” moment that drives innovation. From Thomas Edison’s light bulb to Apple’s multi-functional personal devices, innovation happens when a network adapts and executes using a new approach or technology.

Those were key lessons imparted by Andrew Hargadon of the University of California-Davis, speaking on April 25 at a mini-plenary session on social innovation and philanthropy at the start of the Council on Foundations’ 2010 Annual Conference. This was the kickoff to the conference’s social innovation track, which also included sessions with Chip Heath, co-author of the book Switch, and Gabriel Kasper of the Monitor Institute.

Also at the conference Kasper, co-author of the 2008 Kellogg Foundation report Intentional Innovation: How Getting More Systematic about Innovation Could Improve Philanthropy and Increase Social Impact, noted that there are five steps to getting to innovation: from establishing a culture that embraces it, to identifying opportunities for focus, to diffusing and sharing with others in the field. Both Hargadon and Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation shared specific ideas for and examples of foundations advancing innovation. So did one audience member, who volunteered that philanthropy can be the driver to lead innovations in fields struggling to adapt to a rapidly changing world, most notably K-12 education and print journalism.

More generally, though, Hargadon said foundations should take advantage of their already established networks and connections to look for and advance innovations. They should also invest in individuals and organizations with the potential to build or expand a network around new ideas, helping them to take root.

Rodin said that philanthropy, long a field focused on innovation, needs to re-imagine its approach in the 21st Century, focusing as much on innovations in organizations, markets and processes as on ideas or individuals. In this century, innovators don’t need a laboratory, according to Rodin: Everywhere is and can be a laboratory for innovation. She also noted that the best innovative ideas are to be found as a result of collaboration and partnership— in other words, networks of foundations, as well as partners in other sectors, working together.

—Jane Wales

Read Full Post »

Who’s In Charge Here? Retaining the Next Generation in Philanthropy

Baby boomers are hanging on, and next generation leaders are waiting—and waiting—their turn.

According to Trading Power, produced in partnership with the Council on Foundations, Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies’ 21/64, Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy and Resource Generation, this is the first time in history that society is experiencing a delay in leadership transition, as people live longer and retire later. The economic recession has further delayed retirement plans, leaving baby boomers in positions that even they expected to have left by now. And some seasoned leaders are turning to a model of “leadership expansion” rather than “leadership transfer,” sharing leadership duties with younger employees. Some retain an executive emeritus role. Others take a sabbatical while potential successors serve in “acting” capacities.

In each instance the elder leader needs to respect new ideas coming from his or her younger partner, according to the report. If the philanthropic sector fails to tap the next generation’s skills and knowledge, the emerging leaders will simply move on to sectors that will.

But would younger workers stay put, even if they had a clear path toward a leadership position? The Pew Research Center’s ongoing study, The Millennials, contrasts the attitudes of Generation Xers and Millennials with that of aging Boomers. Pew finds that expectations about career advancement differ between younger and older workers; Millennials in particular are accustomed to the idea that they will – indeed, must – find their own path of career advancement. In other words, they may jump among organizations, and sectors, in any case.

And it turns out that the same demographic trends that are driving later retirement within the nonprofit sector are affecting movement of Boomers across sectors. On Friday, The New York Times ran a story that explores what boomers are doing with the “bonus decade or three added to the average life span.” The article quotes Stanford professor Laura Carstensen: “The culture hasn’t had time to catch up. All the added years of life have been put into leisure, and that’s crazy.” The Times story details an organization called Civic Ventures that is placing longtime managers and professionals from the for-profit world in nonprofit positions uniquely suited to their skills. Opportunities like this point to the positive effects that this “bonus decade or three” from Boomers could have on the nonprofit sector.

But to the extent that the nonprofit world is characterized by more leaders than leadership positions, the notion of offering sabbaticals for executives has gained salience. According to a recent report by Deborah S. Linnell of Third Sector New England and Tim Wolfred of CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, sabbaticals allow the next rung of leaders to learn new skills and take on new responsibilities during the director’s absence. And they often continue to have enhanced responsibility and authority upon the director’s return, sharing leadership tasks. A sabbatical can serve as a dry run for a future transition, according to this report, Creative Disruption.

Jossey-Bass has also published a volume on the subject of nonprofit leadership, collecting previously published articles, research studies and essays from experts in the field—including Bridgespan’s study on the sector’s pending “leadership deficit”. Edited by Indiana University’s James L. Perry, The Jossey-Bass Reader on Nonprofit and Public Leadership stresses the importance of cultivating, sharing and delegating leadership throughout nonprofit organizations.

This is probably true now more than ever as the nonprofit sector grows bigger in size and importance. Part of increasing the sector’s impact has to include more investment in the development of its employees.

So, if you find yourself waiting, and waiting, apparently you are not alone. The question is, are the career development opportunities enriching your lives, and readying you for the moment when it finally comes.

—Jane Wales

Read Full Post »

Haiti Inspires New Givers—Will those in Philanthropy’s “Long Tail” Have Long Memories?

Americans have been donating in record numbers through new means—from phone texting to social media links—to provide relief to the victims of Haiti’s earthquake. The outpouring has been impressive, as revealed by the combination of on-line giving, the response to George Clooney’s global telethon (including iTunes sales) and the Council on Foundations’ list of its members’ grants.

Ultimately, Haiti’s recovery will be enabled by a similar mobilization of dollars and talent on behalf of Haiti’s long-term needs, for this is a country that has suffered from generations of mismanagement, endemic poverty, political instability, a weak civil society and autocratic governance. Its citizens deserve a better future. Perhaps new donors, inspired by this tragedy, will not only represent the “long tail” of philanthropy’s graph, but will have long memories as well and will be there ten years hence.

Our own country’s stance toward the small nation, which in 1804 produced the world’s first successful slave rebellion, has been wary and ineffectual, according to Mark Danner in a January 21 op-ed in The New York Times. A very different future for Haiti requires not only strategic philanthropy, but also sound U.S. policy, including the opening of our markets to Haitian agricultural produce and manufactured goods, and aid that translates into jobs for the Haitian people rather than patronage for its government.

Private philanthropy can complement good policy if the initial outpouring of support for relief efforts is matched by a longer-term commitment to sustainable development, a need most recently identified by Haiti’s Prime Minister. But re-imagining Haiti is more easily said than done. The U.S. is engaged in state-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. Each offers its own opportunities for public-private partnerships. And each offers is own best practices, and discouraging lessons. Philanthropists point to remarkable and courageous social entrepreneurs, especially among women, such as Afghanistan’s Dr. Sakena Yacoobi, who secretly taught girls throughout the Taliban’s rule. But the enterprise of poppy growing continues to outpace that of schooling young girls. Corruption not only precedes crises. It often follows as well.

How to pivot from immediate disaster relief to a long-term plan for what Secretary of State Clinton refers to as a Haiti that has come back “stronger and better” than before will be on the minds of “new philanthropists” as they gather for their ninth annual Global Philanthropy Forum from April 19-21 in Silicon Valley. This year’s focus on global health, food security and access to safe drinking water and sanitation seems especially apt in the wake of the earthquake’s shocks. Each represents a particularly crying need in Haiti. The philanthropists’ focus on results will likely make them sympathetic in the near-term to the argument made in a post to the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy blog, which called for support of organizations offering impact, rather than low overhead, as their metric for success. As for the medium-term, the recommendations in Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors’ Haiti Emergency Update, stressing the importance of the later stages of disaster recovery may resonate. And the Inter-American Development Bank’s President, Luis Alberto Moreno, will surely make the case for investing in Haiti’s water and sanitation infrastructure, education system, housing and building stock, access to healthcare and other needs identified by the Bank over the years. Former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour of the Crisis Group, will speak to the linkages between civil conflict on the one hand, and state failure on the other. Peter Gleick will shed light on the role that water management or mismanagement can play. Actor Jim Carrey will speak to breakthroughs in sustainable agriculture. David Aylward of mHealth Alliance will speak to new ways to deliver heath care in stressful conditions where infrastructure is lacking. And former Ghanaian President, John Kufuor, will speak to the responsibility of neighbors and regional organizations to strengthen societies before crises occur, so that those societies are able to prepare for or rebound from inevitable shocks.

As they consider the opportunities available to them, the gathering’s new philanthropists and political office holders will consider ways to partner with more recent entrants into the world of giving—the on-line donors, cell phone texters, twitter followers, iTunes purchasers—who are now part of the world of philanthropy. If those who represent the long tail of the giving graph also have long memories, then the tragic past of Haiti, and countries that are similarly weak, need not be their future for generations to come. Instead they can be among those societies that have the resilience to absorb and overcome the shocks that nature has to offer.

—Jane Wales

Read Full Post »