What If Grants Were Given for Social Change Ideas?

Social entrepreneurs forge an aliance to ask Washington to adopt their kind of model in social programs and funding.

Written Mar 22, 2008, read 601 times since then.

The time has come. The Jeff Skolls, Larry Brilliants and Melinda and Bill Gates of the social entrepreneur movement feel they’ve reached the tipping point. Sidestepping traditional charity, business or government “models” they’ve crafted systems for doing good that are data-driven and replicable – so they can scale, to use the geek term for “keep growing.”

Now they are determined to re-write Uncle Sam’s role and think Americans are ready for change. They formed an alliance, dubbed it America Forward and went to Washington, to ask for fresh, more accountable social and education programs.

As New York Times columnist, David Brooks describes it, “to expand national service (to produce more social entrepreneurs) and to create a network of semipublic social investment funds. These funds would be administered locally to invest in community-run programs that produce proven results. The government would not operate these social welfare programs, but it would, in essence, create a network of semipublic Gates Foundations that would pick winners based on stiff competition.”

As Bill Drayton famously said, “Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish, or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry.

By now we know that money alone doesn’t lead to fundamental social change. I especially like their underlying approach of offering incentives for proposing new approaches and for meeting goals. For example, former advisor to Reagan and Clinton, David Gergen suggested a grant system for social change ideas.

What do you think? Is this a SmartPartnership for the federal government, local not-for-profits, social entrepreneurial agencies and American citizens who may to start or work in such organizations? Is it a smarter way to invest our government and “charity” funds? Or will such an alliance get bogged down by government bureaucracy? Brooks seems more hopeful than not.

Americans have been creating fresh ways to do good, without government involvement.

Like to repair a vandalized public garden in your neighborhood? Want to reduce trans fats from Doritos? Yes, you are a caring citizen, an ardent backer of certain causes. But you are tired of wasting your time and donations on campaigns that die for lack of sufficient backing. They don’t reach the tipping point to succeed.

That’s literally “The Point” of a website that officially launched yesterday.

On this social media site, you can pledge to take a specific action (donate, boycott, volunteer, etc) for a particular cause, project or campaign. The twist?

You take that action only when you are notified that enough people have offered to do the same thing. The founders hope that The Point becomes, “a community where people can come together to solve the problems that are too big or time-consuming to solve alone.”

As such, you can create a campaign for which you seek others’ support too. As you attract a crowd to your cause, you’ll draw more interest and momentum may build – and reach the critical mass for those who’ve pledge to take action. Now this could get heated (and educational) because you can launch a counter-campaign on the site too.

Also, this approach can help overcome the phenomena called “Prisoner’s Dilemma. That’s where, for example, football players would not wear safety helmets for fear of appearing cowardly until helmets were mandated. Then all players were safer as they were all required to wear helmets. Similarly, The Point enables individuals to act anonymously on behalf of the greater interest of the group by making their support anonymous until the tipping point (the pre-set “target”) of like-minded people is reached on the cause. Only then are the names of anonymous supporters announced.

A side benefit of The Point may be in finding the collective wisdom to turn to one another and becoming more connected

Here in California the recent rash of fires provided a fresh window in ways people connect quickly online to help out. See more here:

http://www.movingfrommetowe.com/2008/03/21/what-if-grants-were-given-for-social-change-ideas/#more-561

http://www.movingfrommetowe.com/2007/11/13/fresh-way-to-attract-support-for-a-cause-or-project/

Learn more about the author, Kare Anderson.

Comment on this article

Posted by Judy Dunn, Seattle & Renton, Washington | Mar 25, 2008

What a thought-provoking article, Kare. Having come from the a global nonprofit background, and having spent another 15 years as a grants/development consultant, I take exception to "data-driven and replicable" as being Bill Gates/America Forward concepts, though. I have had experience with both U.S. government funders and private funders, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and they both require grantees to operate projects that are research-based, measurable in terms of results, replicable and sustainable. So that doesn't seem new to me.

Tell me, is the goal of the America Forward initiative to take the decisions on funding away from the government and let our taxpayer dollars be appropriated basically by business folks? (Not sure what "semipublic social investment funds" means.) I understand many of us are not thrilled with the way Uncle Sam spends our money, but that idea scares me a little.

The idea behind The Point, I think, is very intriguing. How many people don't participate or give because they doubt that their small contribution will make an impact? (When I worked for World Vision, their tagline was, "One child at a time," but there is real empowerment going on when people can commit but not be required to pony up until that "tipping point" has been reached.) A very interesting idea.

I checked out your web site (movingfrommetowe) and was impressed. Thanks for an article that really made me think.
Posted by Kare Anderson, Sausalito, California | Mar 26, 2008

Rather than "take the decisions on funding away from the government" it appears that their goal is to make the process transparent, accountable and innovate - not an easy path, as you've indicated. Having just heard today how little of the aid money the U.S has pledged to Afghanistan via aid groups has actually trickled down in that war-torn world I know that the kind of concerns you have articulated will continue to spark vigorous debate among people of good will. Sounds like you've done some close-up work in this area so i do appreciate your thoughts..
Posted by Judy Dunn, Seattle & Renton, Washington | Mar 26, 2008

Good point, Kare. In the instance of Afghanistan, I think that the relief efforts are always more challenging in countries in the midst of war and social turmoil. When I was at World Vision in the 80s, it was the famine in Ethiopia and the warlords who would hijack the shipments of grain and oral rehydration supplies before they had a chance to get to the starving children and families. It's very sad.

I just hope that this move toward "accountability" will still allow the nonprofits that have such a breadth of knowledge and experience in international development to do the work they are so good at doing.
Posted by Molly Gordon, Suquamish, Washington | Mar 26, 2008

Thank you for a marvelous article, Kare.

I've been fascinated by social entrepreneuring since the 90s, yet have remained on the sidelines. One of the benefits of The Point may be the conversations that are started when folks get down to work.

I was very involved on social change in the late 70s and very early 70s. It was a short, passionate, and - in some ways - disillusioning experience. I am tired of being jaded, yet wary of starry eyed idealism.

Social entrepreneuring seems like an alternative to both.

Creative, fun, easy self-promotion
Posted by Marty Grogan, Federal Way, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

Kate, please add The Novum Institute to your list. Charles Francis Bacon started this organization to assemble innovation thought leaders focused on solving the human condition.
Posted by SUZANNA -, Seattle, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

Kare, thank you so much for sharing these concepts on Biznik. Now I'm engaged:) I'll get right to The Point.

I have a pretty sinister view right now on federally allocated funding: -social/economic development funding overseas routinely ends up in the bank accounts of a handful of very data driven US consulting firms that are contracted for the work -social/economic development funding domestically is heavily absorbed by state and local agencies administering the funds and attending to regulations tied to it, such that a fraction of it ends reaching the intended communities

So I guess, for lack of a better solution, I'd prefer the source of more funding opportunities come from socially compassionate high net worth individuals (or groups of them). I'll resist the temptation to name names. Although they often lack the insider's experience and knowledge of best practices in the areas they fund, I feel they're truly invested in making their dollars go where they're intended to go as efficiently and effectively as possible.

And now for my two bits on "data driven results"...This craze has been around for at least the past 8 years (as long as I've been training and working in this field). It's amazing how data can be used to mask and impress, just like any statistic. Although I'm completely in favor of trying to measure whatever is measurable, I've found that forcing nonprofits and other grantees to compete on that basis leaves many high impact social initiatives out in the cold. There are so many valuable quality-of-life outcomes that cannot be measured quantitatively.

...OK, now I'll shut up and go peruse The Point (as if I have spare time).
Posted by Judy Dunn, Seattle & Renton, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

What a great discussion. Suzanna, you made some very good points. I agree with you on the issue of the federal dollars going to companies "rebuilding" overseas, particularly on reconstruction in Iraq. That's not always grant funds, but, still, it's the taxpayers' dollars. I don't want to go there because it's political and we won't all agree on the solution.

I am with you on the manipulation of "data driven." ("There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.") As a grant writer, I usually found it easy to find a statistic, research study, or piece of data to validate most any project strategy or approach I was proposing. Of course in measurement, it's fairly easy to create indicators for quantity (number of people served, number of students with x % increase in reading scores, etc.), but harder to measure the other valuable stuff (changes in attitudes, thinking, etc.).

Some of the smaller nonprofits who are doing really important work but don't have the tools to measure it or are working with "non-quantifiable" things can be left out of the funding stream.

I think one of the important points Kare was making in her article was that we have a chance now as individuals to make a difference, outside of the "government-sanctioned" arena. Gives me hope!
Posted by Marty Grogan, Federal Way, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

Just a minute you cynics!

A typical project requires sourcing and distribution of funds from many governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s.) Fund distribution organizations must not only respond to requests for funding from service providers, they must also report to funding organizations about where money goes. This “many-to-many” relationship presents an accounting nightmare.

Every organization regulates these expenditures to reduce fraud and criminal activity not to mention detecting support for terrorism. Subsequent funding requests must cite previous accomplishments to gain renewal. Grants range in size from a few hundred dollars to thousands or millions of dollars. Some organizations operate on letters of credit or other authorization instruments that provide access to funds.

Ok, so an African village chief requests support to dig a new well. He goes to the local consulate (you bet) representative who contacts an NGO that operates in the area. The NGO identifies a source for funds and requests authorization. The authorization then identifies the cash account for a wire transfer. The other end of the wire transfer probably will be a local bank account for the NGO office. The chief introduces the NGO office to the person who will dig the well. The well must meet the NGO’s standards for wells and put into service. Compensation for the well might be partially up front and partially upon completion (Let’s hope that the digger completes the well without getting killed or sick from the unsanitary conditions that led to the request in the first place) and the village has convenient access to potable water.

Now to complete the cycle, the local NGO office reports completion of the well and the associated costs. (Yes, the NGO staff does get a portion of the funds and as we know, they are all overpaid and live in the lap of luxury.) The NGO’s regional office reports to the central office about completion of the project along with dozens or maybe hundreds of others.

These reports from all of the regional offices provide data that must be sliced and diced for the funding source organizations to justify expenditures and account for taxes, etc. A good NGO staffer will also send a note to the consulate thanking them for putting them in contact with the village.

The above scenario, while fictitious, represents reality that repeats many times throughout the world for numerous governments and organizations. Before you criticize too loudly, walk a mile or two (in bare feet through mud and snow) for your morning latté.
Posted by Tony Funderburk, Lakewood, Colorado | Mar 27, 2008

Very interesting reading...

Unfortunately our country has gone so far down the road of government involvement in social issues we can't see the tree for the forest.

What I mean is: government is not supposed to be a funding source for social, economic, and other arbitrary and capricious issues. Government should be and was designed for the protection and justice of its citizens.

Any time you take from (tax) some people and "give" to other people, organizations, or "causes", it's stealing. Just because it's done by an act of the government and therefore "legal" doesn't make it right.

Before anyone jumps to a conclusion about my point...I'm not against taxation. Taxation with the purpose of providing for the defense and justice of the citizens as well as the infrastructure of the country is certainly valid and necessary. Taxation to provide someone with groceries isn't. Taxation to provide someone with the funds to create a work of art isn't. I could go on, but you get the idea.

So, will a so-called "private" group come in and make this better? Or hold the government more accountable? No. If you think I'm wrong, I predict that ten years from now (and you can insert any number of years you want) our taxes will be higher, government will be less efficient, and even more people will be "involved". Feel free to throw it back at me, if time proves me wrong.

When you (the individual who thinks and cares for his/her fellow human being) begins to actually get your hands dirty and pick up your neighbor when he or she is down... When you personally give your time, effort, and assets to a worthy cause; not just donating to it, not just standing in a crowd shouting "amen"... When you, yourself, take the time to listen more than you talk, smile more than you yell, and endeavor to learn the meaning of truth and justice... Then you'll achieve a much higher goal, a much more genuine sense of purpose, and a better understanding of the human condition.

But it has to be individuals; not giant committees. Because the larger the committee, the less likely anything truly noble will be accomplished.

Don't just read about and/or join the people who have a cause... Be an author for truth, justice, and life.
Posted by SUZANNA -, Seattle, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

Marty, I'm thrilled with the way you've explained the chain of events on international development, and I hope many others read it, as I think it offers rare insight.

However, I take great exception to the implication that I haven't 'walked a mile...for my latte.' Ah those assumptions.
Posted by Judy Dunn, Seattle & Renton, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

Hey Marty,

Thanks for weighing in. Certainly 98.9% of the nonprofits out there are doing wonderfully in the area of project implementation. I've been to sub-Sahara Africa to observe and evaluate projects in health, agriculture, water development and literacy. While there, I saw other great work (Doctors Without Borders, Mercy Corps, and other NGOs). I've also done a lot of reporting on outcomes.

The point I was agreeing with on Suzanna's post (maybe I wasn't clear) was that in the federal grant application phase, it's pretty easy to use data to justify practically any solid approach you want to propose because there is so much research out there (often conflicting). So "data-driven" can be quite subjective.

I do think that the money is going where it is supposed to be going, and there is accountability, generally, except, perhaps, when a shipment of food gets hijacked by armed warlords. Now, the federal contracts to Halliburton and other companies? I have my doubts.

I think this post has wandered from Kare's original article (but then, maybe not). In any case, I love these kinds of vigorous discussions!
Posted by SUZANNA -, Seattle, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

Tony, Amen brother!
Posted by Joshua Lind, Seattle, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

This reminds me of a company that created a solar generator about 8 years ago. They realized that their device would allow homes to become power autonomous and could then sell the extra electricity to "the grid." However, a business like that couldn't compete in marketing and would get squashed out of the gate. They chose to create a pledge program, people willing to pay the few hundred dollars once they had 1/2 million people. Any given market is not capable of accepting radical change, that goes for consumer habits and competing businesses. Only slightly better mouse traps allowed.

The same logic applies to social charge. There's a reason for the ol' Bell curve.
Posted by Marty Grogan, Federal Way, Washington | Mar 27, 2008

Ah, Change. The very word strikes terror in the heart. The original topic for this discussion "What If Grants Were Given for Social Change Ideas?" questions how funding strategies might support social innovation. The Wisdom Activation Calculus(TM) provides a framework for specific discussion and negotiation toward a plan of action. Anyone interested? Possible local event?
Posted by Kare Anderson, Sausalito, California | Mar 27, 2008

Suzanna, I agree with 95% of what you say, truly... and still tilt towards trying this "not new" approach. Like democracy, in general, it would be a precarious experiment (if it ever gets backing) yet it make create more checks and balances. I want to meet you commenters in person - you are all so articulate.. and I know you all are very busy too, and get commenting here when you have a looong to do list.

Josh, the key may be in the quantity, Several "social edge (Jeff Skoll-backed) ventures are having some success that way. Yep, agree re bell curve.

And Tony, I would personally give to an org. that got a local grant... accountability is bringing out a whole new crew of 20-30 year-olds to join boomers when they see scalability and (as so many here have said here in various ways - for and against this initiative) transparency and efficiency.

Marty I am going to look up that fascinating-sounding tool - thanks