Foundations – get the widget

Last week I pointed out that the entire ecosystem of information on nonprofits in the USA is changing. Just as the 1990s was a decade of innovation in philanthropic financial products, the 00s have been, so far, a decade of innovation around information. You can read the full post either here or on SSIR.

Here’s one more sign of these changes – the Foundation Center, which has a database of more than 1.6 million grants from funders going back some 40+ years, is now offering up widgets. You can load the Foundation Finder widget or the 990 Finder widget onto your website and let donors or nonprofits find the info they’re looking for. The data come from the Foundation Center. Your website is the place that helped the user find what the information she needed.

This represents many of the key trends I’ve been writing about – including the seven I discussed last week at the DonorEdge Conference. The slides from that presentation are here. Here’s an abbreviated list of the seven trends that matter in philanthropy today, remembering that it is all about the data:

  • Demographics matter
  • Groups matter
  • Ownership matters
  • Mobility matters
  • Forms matter
  • Markets matter
  • Alignment matters

Personally, I don’t think slides without voice are very helpful so you might also be interested in the podcast of the speech and the discussion that followed, which will be live on the DonorEdge Community site soon.

More thoughts on what is next

[Cross posted from SSIR]

“Green Shoots” for New Philanthropic Forms

I’ve been writing about information as the currency of change for a long time. Everything I have seen in philanthropic innovation in the last two decades is predicated on this simple observation—there are two kinds of philanthropy products: financial products and information products. They used to be bundled together, in the form of foundation staff, personal advisors, or community foundation program officers. In these forms a donor got both services—a place to manage the financial assets that fueled their philanthropy and professional advice on strategy, grants, and outcomes.

In the early 1990s the advent of national donor advised funds showed that a huge market existed for unbundled products—donors would eagerly purchase the financial product by itself. Several billions of dollars in charitable assets were soon being managed through Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard and others who provide best-in-class financial accountability, responsiveness, and transaction processing, with no promises of strategic advice, support or other types of information products. The market worked—we’ve had two decades of new innovations, new customers, and new financial products for donors.

Nowadays, some of the same technological advances that led to scalable efficiencies in transaction processing are beginning to shape the landscape for information products and service providers. First, the broad and deep adoption of broadband access and a decade plus of online banking, travel booking, emailing and searching have changed our collective expectations about where information lives, how to get it, and whom to trust. Second, the massive storage and searching capacities that underlie systems like GuideStar now make it a commonplace assumption that basic information on nonprofit organizations should be only a “click away.”

From these “expectational starting points” new behaviors begin to sprout, leading to the possibility of new products. If financial information is a click away, why not more nuanced information? This leads to systems like DonorEdge or Blackbaud’s Nonprofit Central. If there is “professional vetted information available,” why not the insights of customers or volunteers, leading to innovations such as GreatNonprofits or Keystone’s constituent response work. And if I can get information on one nonprofit, why can’t I find lots of options for action in one place (SocialActions.org) or compare the work of multiple efforts (New Philanthropy Capital’s reports or Acumen’s Pulse system)?

These are exciting developments. And they are built around data—data that can be found, compared, searched, mashed up, re-purposed, questioned, and applied. The data are the currency of change.

And rest assured, today’s data systems and information products are just the beginning. How we use these products, build off these services, interact with them as individual donors or change makers, or iterate entire new organizational forms on top of them is what the future holds. The information products for better giving are not as good as they will be, we have not yet seen all of the forms they will take, nor are they widely deployed or integrated into other financial management tools. Yet.

But we’re getting there. In which case the landscape for philanthropic giving—the structures and tools that donors use to organize, aggregate, learn, give, and bank (literally) their philanthropic financial resources will change yet again. This might explain why we’ve seen a notable rise in independent philanthropic advisory firms (SeaChange Capital Partners, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors) in the last five years, why online giving markets (such as GlobalGiving and Kiva) have taken off, or why the never-ending stream of new social media tools are all quickly unleashed for giving-related purposes (Facebook Causes, Twitter fundraising, and blog/badge challenges). And it might be inciting new forms from familiar ones—new roles for community foundations or new services from donor advised fund vendors.

We should also plan on this changing landscape of information being full of the seeds of new forms. If you imagine that any donor, anywhere, has quick, easy access to meaningful, comparable, useful data on organizations they could support and issues they care about, what kind of philanthropic entity, service provider, financial tool, public/private partnership, broker, deal platform or relationship builder would you build? That is the question we all need to ask, no matter where we work in philanthropy now, because that is the well-seeded field on which all existing philanthropic enterprises are now playing. And that is the question that some innovator, somewhere, is working on, right now, in the proverbial garage.

What kind of philanthropic organization would you build?


(Creative Commons Photo By: Ambuj Saxena)

…Imagine a future in which high quality, informed, diverse, and meaningful data on nonprofits and change organizations, the work they do, and the impact they have is widely available, free or low cost, and comparable.

What kind of community philanthropy organizations, or philanthropic organizations, or donor services, or giving circles, or prize competitions, or public problem solving strategies, tools and activities would you create on top of those data sources?

Data are commodities. Huge investments in cleaning them, making them accurate, gathering 360 degree feedback, and making them comparable are beginning to pay off. As this happens with useful real-time data about nonprofits and social change the above question now faces all existing philanthropic organizations – community foundations, private foundations, national donor advised funds, public grantmaking charities, etc. The data are there. What will you do with them? What do you have to add?

Serialized thinking


I have been writing this blog since 2002. There are 000s of posts here. I’m looking for the right editor and publisher to work with me to turn some of this content into serialized pamphlets – separate book chapters if you will. I envision a series of short pieces* – each no longer than 20-25 pages – that would focus on and refine each of the themes I’ve been writing about: innovation in philanthropy, the role of information and data, new structures for giving, technology and philanthropy, indicators and measures of change, and meaningful trends in public problem solving.

The site, Beyond Good Intentions, is the moving picture equivalent of what I have in mind. It hosts a series of short films, each one a standalone piece on some type of international aid. Taken together, they are “film chapters” of a “film book” that offers insights on microfinance, social enterprise, disaster relief, research and other related topics. Check it out. BeyondGoodIntentions shows a great understanding of social media as tools for conversation – you can watch the videos on the site, leave comments about them, link to Facebook, MySpace, or YouTube, link to the episodes, meet the filmmaker in a nationwide tour – in other words engage in a number of ways, when and where you want.

These are precisely the characteristics of Internet based social media that make them so valuable – multiple formats, give the user control over time and space, allow people to add their own ideas, share when and what they want.

Of course, there are still some “old fashioned” kinds of social media sharing – such as conversations. Allison Fine has a great post on the value of unthinkable ideas, those thoughts and visions that push on “sacred cows.” These are as likely to arise in good old fashioned face to face conversations as they are in the potential anonymity of chat rooms and comment boards. I’d argue that the conversations that push on “sacred cows” and that might actually turn into joint action need the kind of trust, relationships, and time that can be facilitated by online tools but still need some sort of personal connections.

It is my belief that the conversations we find most challenging need to be had both online and off, with those we know well and to whom we have joint obligations and responsibilities (think of your fellow board member, for example), as well as those we know best by their twitter picture. This is why I’m planning the pamphlet series – to provide hard copy, engaging, short and provocative pieces that board members can share with each other, staff colleagues might pass around, donors would bring to their advisers and vice-versa when they are ready to slow down, think about, talk about, and (I hope) act on new philanthropic structures, trends in giving, social innovation, and measures that matter.

The final word on embedded giving

Ah, yes, embedded giving. It may just be the buzzword with the greatest traction of all time. And widespread discussion of it is back, this time in a series on the concept sponsored by Telecom for Charity – you may have seen posts on Causewired, TacticalPhilanthropy, SocialEntrepreneurship on Change.org, SocialCitizens, ThePhilanthropicFamily, or GiveWell.

These fine bloggers have asked all the right questions – does it matter, does it add up, is the right metric awareness, not dollars? So what do I have to add to this? Here are a few thoughts on wither it all:

  1. Embedded giving is here to stay* – as long it keeps working for the merchants. It is not inherently new (we’ve been rounding up our phone bills for decades now), it won’t disappear without either a massive scandal or regulatory prohibition, and it will get more technologically “embedded” – witness search engines for good, telecom for good, etc..
  2. Embedded giving has grown so much that it now comes in different stripes – (a) The first kind is really about building a brand around a cause and using commerce to raise funds. I’d put Product RED in this category and note that it is its own brand. It is one massive awareness raising and fundraising campaign that can (sort of) report out on products sold, dollars raised and donated. (b) At the other end of the spectrum are campaigns that are much more about adding a little “feel good” to expected purchases – these are the campaigns where a merchant asks you to add $1 to fight childhood diabetes, MS, or breast cancer. You either give or not, take your groceries, and that is pretty much the end of it in terms of your awareness, the merchant’s reporting, and so on.
  3. Embedded giving is just one more example of the blurring of sectors and roles between commerce, philanthropy, and public good.

Looked at this way, embedded giving is one of those data points that may mark an important generational turn. Maybe today’s teens and kids who have seen so much embedded giving will grow up to expect that every product and every service comes with a charitable affiliation. If this is true they may run their nonprofits differently, run their marketing campaigns as Fortune 500 CEO’s differently, and have fundamentally different expectations and beliefs about the relationships between commerce and charity, corporations and social responsibility. CSR won’t be a “new concept” for them, it will be basic management practice.

This would be one more ripple in the shifting expectations of sectors. Almost twenty percent of the 2009 Harvard Business School graduating class signed a voluntary ethics pledge that touches on corporate responsibility. This is the age of social enterprise, of American youth and teens with a heightened volunteer and service ethic, of the National Service Act, AmericaForward, Office of Social Innovation and predictions that “recession era” teens will focus their careers on public service jobs. If this is where we’re headed, embedded giving is not the story, or even the end in and of itself, it is simply one more way in which we can see the world shift around us.

*There is at least one looming irony about embedded giving. As it becomes more embedded it may become less of a distinguishing factor for a merchant – at which point type 2(B) above may lose its point and cease to be everywhere. Remember, embedded giving is as much (if not more) of a merchandising tactic as a fund/awareness raising tactic. In this case, embedded giving could die out from its own “success.”

**Links to organizations, companies or legislation in this post do not indicate endorsement.

This blog post is part of the Embedded Philanthropy Blog Series, sponsored by Telecom for Charity. The blog series was launched in May 2009 to highlight expert thinking and encourage discussions on the state of embedded philanthropy in today’s economy.

55 Ideas on Ideas

This is a wonderful set of quotes about ideas. Made me feel that I should work harder to come up with something.

Virtual world philanthropy

(photo from http://spotlight.macfound.org/main/entry/ondrejka_fanton_macarthur_island/)

Newspapers are getting hammered. With the possible exceptions of neighborhood and ethnic papers their business model has been unable to keep up with the Internet. This is common knowledge and the quest to find new business models for quality journalism and investigative reporting is of such import that the U.S. Senate has held hearings on it, major investors are convening roundtables, and the Internet itself is practically aglow with blogs and tweets and alternative proposals.

None of that is news. But what is interesting is that the first thing the Internet did to newspapers, in theory, was remove two of their biggest costs – paper and delivery. Had papers looked at it this way way back when – “hey, this new technology will allow us to reduce our two largest cost centers to close to zero, lets run with it!” – I wonder if we’d be in a different situation today?

With this bit of 20-20 hindsight, shouldn’t “the rest of us” be asking ourselves how our organizations/businesses could look ” if our costs went way down, our ability to reach globally went way up, we could be far more inclusive of outsiders’s ideas, and so on and so on…?”

I have no idea if that is what is behind the MacArthur Foundation’s forays into Second Life but I can dream, can’t I? Who knows what may come from Monday’s “in world” discussion between Cory Ondrejka and Jonathan Fanton, President of MacArthur, but at least it shows a high willingness to experiment with global-reaching, low cost alternatives to the typical foundation press conference or in-house meeting. The discussion will be held in ways that people with lots of different types of internet access can participate – here are the details:

“For the URLs and login details for the webcast and the island, check this same page the morning of May 18, 2009. The hour-long event, scheduled to begin at 2pmPT/5pmET, will include Q&A in both Second Life and from the web using Treet.tv, and for those in Second Life, a 30-minute reception will follow.”

Now Ondrejka, an early staff person at Linden Lab, the company that created Second Life and now an executive at EMI Music, has clearly considered the ways entire industries can be disrupted by technology. His blog is called “collapsing geography” – kind of a clue to what he sees technology doing, eh? Perhaps the MacArthur Foundation is asking these same questions about philanthropy. Tune in on Monday and maybe we’ll find out a bit more.

*Full disclosure: My company works with the MacArthur Foundation, but we have not been involved with planning this meeting.

Social Entrepreneurs – anywhere, everywhere


(Photo by Elsie Esq, Creative Commons Attribution, Flickr)

Social entrepreneurs are hot. Whether they’re building new ways to get water to rural farmers, developing LED light sources for those who live too far from the grid, training inner city residents for jobs in sustainable energy, or organizing groups of young people from different faiths, these people seek big solutions to big problems.

And there are big networks behind them. Ashoka. Skoll. Avina. Echoing Green. PopTech. TED. Civic Ventures. While we tend to associate entrepreneurism with individuals, it turns out the networks are great at finding, supporting, scaling and mentoring them.

Now some of those networks – The Skoll Foundation, PopTech, ideablob, and Civic Ventures – are coming together, through the wonders of technology and with the support of the folks at SocialActions. This group has just announced the Social Entrepreneurs API – which is essentially an open database of social entrepreneurs that will open in July.

An API is tech talk for a little piece of code* that allows data on these fellows and fellowship programs to be pulled together into one place. This makes it easier for funders to find entrepreneurs. For entrepreneurs to find other entrepreneurs. For aspiring entrepreneurs to find mentors. For networks to bridge networks. For potential partnerships to be formed or common problems to be worked on collectively. For researchers to look for patterns or entrepreneurs to look for gaps in service or systems thinkers to consider the kind of networks and infrastructure that supports (or doesn’t) these people.

The API takes the kind of small scale cross network promotion that Ashoka did with some of the Goldman Prize winners and makes it big. It’s nothing short of putting philanthropic data in the cloud – which leaves it to all of us to figure out what cool things to do with it….Go ahead, think about it? What would you do with these data? SocialEdge is going to use it for a search engine. Dowser is going to use it to provide deeper information on social entrepreneurs. This kind of sharing is very cool – once you put all these data together the possibilities for seeing new patterns, finding new partners, and identifying new opportunities grows exponentially. How will you use tools like this?

*I’m told that techies call it “plumbing”

Philanthropy in the Cloud

I’m working on making more and more content available – so here is my presentation from the NTEN Conference. I was on a panel on philanthropy in the cloud convened by Steve Wright of The SalesForce.Com Foundation and with Lalitha Vaidyanathan of FSG-Social Impact Advisors.

Here is the description of the session from the #09NTC conference site.

“Cloud Computing: More than just IT plumbing in the sky

Cloud computing reduces IT infrastructure, reduces time spent on IT management and increases your return on investment for IT expenditures. This is nice. However, the cloud can also enable the social sector to collaborate in ways that have not been possible before. We are not corporations. While we are subject to a competitive funding marketplace, we are also participants in a more collaborative marketplace where we are working to drive social change. This session will discuss how the cloud can enable greater collaboration and, hopefully, increase our capacity to solve problems.

Takeaways:

1. Open Data: What is it, why do you want it and what are the implications for the social sector?
2. Philanthropic / Donation Marketplaces: What they are and what could they be?
3. Social Impact Metrics: How greater transparency and collaboration can help us move the needle?
4. Fancy pants are critical to a great presentation.”


Now, loyal readers (both of you) now that I am no techie. So in preparation for the session I had to go figure out what the cloud was. The historian in me was immediately smitten by the analog I found in Nicholas Carr’s book, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison To Google. Carr details the development of electricity and the electrical grid from Edison’s time (in which every business ran its own power plant) to the creation of the now-near-ubiquitous electricity grid (U.S. perspective). Nowadays, we flip a switch, the lights go on, we go about our business. Electrical power is something we pay for as we need it. Most of us today, however, still run computing power – managed on desktops and company-servers – in the equivalent manner to running our own power plants. The “cloud” – be it Google Apps, Amazon servers, or SalesForce solutions, allows us to “flip on” computing power – applications and our data – when we need it. In the same way that the creation of an electrical power grid pretty much “developed” the 20th century economy and social structures, some are positing that this “flip on computing power” may change the 21st.

Now, not being a techie, I don’t know the details of how the cloud works. I do know something about how people and organizations work. One of the barriers to migrating lots of companies and data to the cloud has been concern about the safety and security of the data once it’s up there. It is interesting that this is essentially the same concern that early electrical grid pioneers also faced – since business had always controlled their own source of power (be it a waterwheel, horses, serfs or what have you) it was a huge leap of faith to get companies to “outsource” their own power.* It doesn’t seem far fetched to me to see data and applications as the “power source” of 21st century organizations. The rapidly accelerating success of cloud-based offerings show that this concern is being addressed – organizations are beginning to trust that their information will be reliably available, secure, and maintained, at lower cost and with fewer “off core competency” staff people needed in-house

If history is any guide, we may not be far from the day when managing your foundation’s own data center, IT department, and desktop computers seems as quaint as having your own electrical supply. Online grants management, remote access to secure servers, easier team collaboration – seems to me that foundations and nonprofits that care about spending on mission and cutting administrative costs – might benefit from many of these possibilities.

Why might this matter to philanthropy? Perhaps only in that these tools might allow less money to be spent on managing IT departments and more to spent on mission. Or maybe there is more – sharing information – even something as simple as posting this presentation on SlideShare – matters to how we do things, where and when we do them, and with whom we do them. We can expand our imagination and our work commitment past the idea of giving a speech once or writing a paper for one-time use: they can live on, be amended, copied, re-used, packaged for sale, even serialized. Or not.

Things that are available from the cloud can be shared more easily – one organization or public agency can create a set of data collection tools and all their partners can use them, with the aggregation of data (to a funder, for example) becoming much simpler, cheaper, and automatic. Control over who can access the information remains in the hands of the creators or owners and can be shared widely or controlled tightly. The presence of all kinds of data also allows us to ask questions we’d never ask before (simply because we couldn’t fathom answering them). Sites such as Gapminder show how disparate data sources, pulled together and made visually appealing and intuitive, allow us to ask questions like “How does South Africa’s mortality rate compare to China’s over the last 30 years and what might explain the differences?”

Now, a caveat is in order. We can’t assume that putting information in the cloud equals easier, wider access. The very fact that concerns about control and security are so critical to developing the cloud-based business model should be enough to remind us that control matters, and the default position may not necessarily be “open.” Data sharing, re-use, open access – these are no longer technological challenges as much as human and organizational culture challenges. That said, the technology is there and – again, with history as our guide – we are already seeing its availability change our expectations.

The power of data – readily accessible, easily seen, queried, and shared – is shaping everything around us. Essentially, it is this development that drives new social movements calling for open government and accountability from elected officials, the creation of news sites like TPM Muckraker, the full page ad on A9 of the national edition of today’s New York Times which was paid for by “94,966 web users … on the Korean web portal Daum,” the changed business models of newspapers, recorded music, video games, and telephone companies, and the calls for a Truth Commission on torture under the Bush Administration.

Here’s what I realized in preparing for and talking at the NTEN session – There is an important and interesting confluence of factors underway:

  1. Data and applications in the cloud +
  2. Efforts to really share public data and publicly funded research +
  3. New partnerships between the public and philanthropic sectors, e.g. the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the U.S. State Department’s Global Partnership Initiative.

What does all this bode for philanthropic open-ness? Stay tuned for an upcoming post, in which I revisit an idea I often used to provoke discussion in the 1990s – The Freedom of Foundation Information Act.

*Of course, there is a beautiful irony in the patterns of history. Just as it hard to believe anyone would want to have to run their own power plant we see an increasing interest in solar energy and taking our homes and businesses “off the grid.” Perhaps the adoption cycles of independent/shared electricity systems and those for data will not be completely analogous, but there are still some wonderful parallels worth considering.

Institutional isomorphism


(Photo: 416Style, Creative Commons, Flickr)

It is always nice when ideas from this blog get picked up elsewhere. My last two posts, on breaking new boxes and considering alternatives, came from my reflections as I begin research on the possibility that technology has led to fundamental changes in philanthropic behavior. They are my attempts to ask “why do we do the things we do?” The post, “Consider the alternatives” got picked up and picked apart, and that’s a nice thing. It is sometimes a bit surprising to me which posts get picked up and discussed. But what was not surprising to me was that perpetuity, one of about 50 ideas floated in the piece, is the one that seemed to get the most traction in terms of discussion. It got twittered, and blogged, and re-blogged and all of that is good. Perpetuity and payout – folks love to talk about those two pieces of the puzzle.

But perpetuity is only part of the picture. Really, why do foundations do any of the things they do? Why do foundations in 2009 – all 70-odd-thousand of them – look so much alike structurally? Yes, I know the old trope, “You’ve seen one foundation and you’ve seen one foundation.” That may be true at some level, but it is also true that if you’ve seen one foundation you’ve probably seen 1/3 – 1/4 of the prevalent models. The differences will all be in the trimmings, not in the underlying structures, norms, practices, or expectations.

Even more puzzling, why do those structures all look so much like the original model, 1913 Rockefeller Foundation? Why do they have endowments, grant departments, finance functionaries, proprietary software, offices, and various levels of management? Why do board-run foundations, or those with no staff members, operate so much like their 55,000 peers – with deadlines or quarterly meetings or 5% payout limits? And foundations with staff, why are the departmental lines so similar and the job titles and descriptions so interchangeable (regardless of foundation interests, size, or location)?

Given how much everyone – inside foundations and outside – complains about how slow they are, or how unwieldy their processes, or how unwelcoming their applications, or duplicative their due diligence, or blah blah blah – why do they do these things? It doesn’t seem possible that these practices survive because they work well, please the customers, or even please the board and staff who choose them and re-create them. Institutional isomorphism is one of those graduate school concepts that is not only fun to say, but true to life – organizations mimic like organizations, even when it doesn’t necessarily serve their purposes.

Now, I don’t intend to take the easy road here. It is not enough for me to just criticize, I want to point to real change and use the examples I can find to spark iterative, and perhaps, eventually, rapid and widespread change (one can hope). So please don’t read this post or the previous two as just jabs to the gut of foundations. I’m posting my real-time reflections from my daily work and from a research project I’m working on looking for real transformations in how philanthropy functions now compared to in the past, and where it might go in the future.

I spend a lot of time writing about the changes all around foundations – in the philanthropic marketplace, the social sector, the financial systems, global information sharing, etc. etc. And I do have examples of philanthropic foundations that are different (and new practices that matter) which I will include in the article. But as I do the research it is the isolated nature of these “change cases” that stares back at me. Sure, I can find examples, but why are they still just examples?

Why hasn’t something done to foundations what Craigslist did for job hunters, GE did to individual power plants, eBay did for garage sales, the Internet and bad management are doing to newspapers, iTunes did to the music business, water treatment systems did for public health, Obama did to political fundraising, telephones did to the telegraph, cool new laptops did to secretarial pools, television did to the drive-in, the PDF did for document sharing, or Alice Waters did for sustainable agriculture? That is, why hasn’t something either inside or outside organized philanthropy fundamentally altered recognizably and admittedly bad institutional practices and replaced them with something better?

It has been almost 100 years since the modern foundation was born. We’ve seen every one of the changes listed above in that century, plus literally countless others (space exploration, the end of Apartheid, satellite TV, charter schools, the creation of the EU, streaming video, etc. etc.) Quite a few things have changed in that time. What is amazing to me, truly amazing, is how little foundations have changed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.