Returning from two weeks in India - with my mind full of thoughts, I came across Hans Rosling’s video from Ted India.  I adore how excited Rosling is about statistics (b/c I’m not), and think GapMinder is quite clever (b/c helps people like me to “get it”).

Since my mind tends probe the non-Western experience, I was interested to hear him speak about the future of China and India.  Watching his graph show the economic growth and life expectancy of these countries in the next 40 years had me asking the question - with new wealth, how does philanthropy evolve?

History and culture affect how philanthropy is done and conceived of in different countries.  What is interesting is watching the rise of social enterprise in areas where western philanthropy isn’t already entrenched.  Like the leapfrog of mobile phone technology over dial-up, we are starting to see how new social innovation practices leapfrog over traditional philanthropy in developing countries.

One perspective is that the lack of regulation in developing countries actually gives an advantage to starting social good enterprises.  Whereas in the West existing structures and entrenched interests make it difficult to change the way we envision delivering social good.  That’s a broad stroke - of course, there are nuances that challenge that perspective.

Rosling’s presentation asked a question that I enjoy mulling over - will the West let Asia rise?  I would apply that same question to philanthropy and social innovation.  I can imagine that between now and 2048, we’ll have plenty of conversations around tradition vs. innovation.

All for multi-tasking and passing the boredom of standing in the grocery line, this new application from The Extraordinaries has gotten me excited about the new possibilities of volunteering.

Smartphone software that allows someone to use micro amounts of spare time for social good. We deliver volunteer tasks on-demand directly to the phone like a stream of new adventures, that people complete on the phone in a few minutes, while riding the bus or waiting in line. It’s information age volunteerism, enabling doctors, scientists, organizations, and more to harness the power of the crowd.

While my quality of life is enhanced by learning the latest gossip in the tabloids and in the lives of celebrities, the possibilities of micro-volunteerism may be equally as thrilling (and certainly more useful).  I’m hesitant to love the new jargony term, but I love how the term makes volunteering more accessible and more dispersed.  Less about a central system and more about doing a little for a lot of different organizations/causes/etc.

I’m not alone in the excitement over The Extraordinaries - they’ve just won $25,000 through the We Media Pitch It! Awards.  The global is now very local. 

I’ve enjoyed the philanthropy chatter of the past two weeks, the year-end reviews and the predictions for 2009.  While nodding along with the jargon we’d like to see banished, contemplating pitfalls of new philanthropists, and musing on how Madoff worked out his whole scheme - I found myself focusing intently on two topics, scale and support. 

What follows is neither a review or a prediction, but rather two topics that I hope we keep talking about this year.

“Going to Scale” - Can we readjust our eagerness for BIG?

For-profit franchises standardize their programs and operations so they can expand to new markets - just like Starbucks, McDonalds, and every box store in a suburb near you. 

Non-profit programs have also been embracing this notion of “going to scale” by seeing what elements of their programs (and their operations) can be standardized and replicated.  Habitat for Humanity and CityYear both expanded from their original demographics with success. 

And because some organizations have reached beyond their original boundaries, donors have learned to view the replication of programs as evidence of a successful investment.  But rarely is replication simply the end, even if donors see it as the goal.  Even in business, replication and scaling up is not always successful - in the last year, we watched as Starbucks tried to undo its scale and get back in line with its original intent. 

Similarly, not every non-profit program should be pushing for a bigger scale - whether that be in domestic or international contexts.  If we continue to allow donors to define ”achieving scale” as a successful programmatic investment, organizations will continue to find themselves pushing to expand programs that aren't ready or don't need it.

Instead, what if we toned down our obsession with bigness and achieving scale - and focused on an organization's potential to do well right where it is, as it is?  Rather than focusing on the BIG, we emphasis the local, the small, the immediate - and pay attention to the resources needed to strengthen the whole.  (Sounds very climate change debate-ish, right?) 

Support - Look beyond the program?

In the past few months, it has been uplifting to listen to the many voices advocating for the maintenance (and increase) of operating support for non-profit organizations.  While donors have traditionally shunned administrative costs in their philanthropic giving, often equating lower costs with greater success, many are now learning that the strength of an organization is just as, if not more, important than the programs it runs. 

Support - for staff, for development, for electricity, for culture, for paper, for salaries, for health care and on and on - is rarely questioned in the business world.  Yet, we ask our non-profit counterparts to rely on “their passion” as an excuse to undercut all of these necessary elements of support.

A strong organization is more than its star program and is more than its bright leader - and now, we have this opportunity, this economic downturn, to examine how we have been treating scale and support within the non-profit sector.  Perhaps we will find that small is not bad and that strong organizations are good. 

2009 is the right time to reflect on the philanthropic excitement of the past few years to ensure that we are still enjoying what we have created - and to improve the arguments we have been making, no matter how big or small. 

A few interesting bits from this past week: 

The Global Perspectives on Major Donor Fundraising conference took place in London in November.  The December issue of Alliance includes a thoughtful summary of some of its biggest topics - including whether we should take a more donor-centered view towards fundraising and if the idea of major gifts works in other countries.  Some questions to consider - Who's life “enhancement” should be first priority to fundraisers, the donor or the recipient?  Major gifts do not play a huge role in some countries - does this change the dynamics of fundraising and operations entirely?

Pulling from Alliance once again and tying to some of my explorations on Venture Philanthropy, Ravinol Chambers also explores the ups and downs of the VP model.  One way to look at it is, aside from all of the hype, VP is one tool in the toolbox.  It's new and innovative - and that is exciting for the sector, but its not a silver bullet.

Much of what folks in the VP world do like is information and the sector absolutely needs to continuous improvement here.  The Hewlett Foundation and McKinsey have teamed up in their Nonprofit Marketplace to answer two questions:  1.) How can we help donors make smart philanthropic decisions?   2.)How can we ensure that the strongest, most effective nonprofits get the resources they need?  The innovative part - is they want to hear from you.

Finally, and courtesy of my inbox, Chronicle of Philanthropy looks at Humanity United - an organization started by Pam Omidyar (wife of Pierre Omidyar, again speaking of VP) to combat mass violence and modern-day slavery, two topics that are rarely touched within philanthropy.  The structure has two arms - one with a charity status and one that focuses on advocacy for the issues at hand, and similar to the Omidyar Network, HU makes grants, loans, and looks to support socially driving businesses.  An interesting bit is that the organization generally provides operating support - beliving that unrestricted funds are the best way for charities to grow and advance their goals.  The article needs a paid subscription to view, but if you are interested, I may be able to forward along.

If your weekend includes -30 C like mine does … Stay Warm!

Having read Michael Edward's “Just Another Emperor? The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism” earlier this year, I thought I would balance the perspective with a read of Matthew Bishop/Michael Green's “Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World”.  If you’re looking for a book club discussion, this is definitely a good pair.

Two chapters into Philanthrocapitalism, we are greeted by the notion we are now enjoying the Fifth Golden Age of philanthropy - great amounts of wealth being put to use against global inequities by business folks who know how to achieve results.  What was remarkable to notice, on page 28 of 298, was that the financial and political situations have changed/are changing in such way that this “new” Golden Age may already be on its way out. 

Bishop writes, “Each of the past philanthropic golden ages ended with the state ratcheting up its role in society, crowding out some the philanthropists.  In part, it is the recent attempt in many countries to roll back the borders of the state through privatization, deregulation, tax cutting, and attrition that has made space for the philanthrocapitalists of the fifth golden age.”  If these actions helped to create a new Golden Age, what are we to make of the recent financial bailouts, government buying stock in banks, moves to re-nationalize public service and upcoming tax increases for the wealthy?  If Golden Ages are relatively short and fleeting moments in time - is the newest on its way out?  And then what?

Recent market conditions and political actions show how quickly the world can change.  The Chronicle of Philanthropy published this article by Jeff Trexler musing on the same topic.  With so much hype over the past few years regarding philanthrocapitalism and its cousins, have we just been perpetuating a short-lived fad or will we take some useful nuggets away from this Golden Age?

The convergence of business and the non profit sectors in recent years has sparked an interesting conversation around the use of business lingo and methods in the social sector.   Regardless of your preferred term - venture philanthropy, philanthrocapitalism, social entrepreneurship - the involvement of business in the social sector has prompted good debate on 1) how to quantify the impact of programs and 2) determine the quality of social organizations.

GuideStar has been at the forefront of this endeavour - offering IRS 990 reports on public charities, for free and on-line.  Among many in the sector, it is one of the first places to go to gain insight on an organization's current finances.  However, the service is limited to the financial elements of an organization - which doesn't always speak to whether a particular program is producing desired results.

Steve Butz and a newly formed Alliance for Effective Social Investing (which includes a few of my favorite personalities from the world of philanthropy) are working on a social investment rating tool that will help non profits to better monitor their own progress and that will give donors a more holistic picture organizations they are supporting.

There are many questions to be answered on the usefulness of the tool - will this add burden to already understaffed non profits, how will social programs be trained in evaluation they may not be use to, what will be done with all of the collected information, what are ‘best case’ results, what if many organizations are failing, then what?   These questions are exactly why the Alliance was formed - to determine the best use of the tool and evaluate its own potential rate of success.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall during the Alliance's meetings. 

The jury is still out on the overall effects of the business world in the social sector, however if the tool allows programs to become more efficient, impact more transparent, and organizations more accountable - then perhaps the sector will have just taught business a thing or two.

I’ll be away for a while - collecting my thoughts in the Pacific - but wanted to leave the blog on a happier note than the economy and financial markets.

Social Edge (a program of the Skoll Foundation - and one of my favorite emails to receive) has added four brief case studies from Tactics of Hope, a new book by Wilford Welch and David Hopkins highlighting the work of folks “transforming personal concerns into meaningful actions”. 

I haven't yet read the book; it's on the list.  But these short case studies pay tribute to ”the possibilities” of action - perhaps a nice mental vacation from crisis and panic.