It’s clear that the net will be a major channel for individuals who want to contribute to causes, not just financially, but also with personal skills and time.

I was reading with interest (actually more akin to
delight) your view on Hewlett’s philanthropy program. I have some ideas
that you might be interested in relation to how IT could be used to improve philanthropy, its provision, gaps and practice.

Think my assessment is similar to yours but I do feel that one ’social marketplace’ architecture
needs to be created (and, in its early stages,) disseminated from the top
down. Also believe that we have yet to think about the huge potential for
analysing the data that will flow from such an environment and how
advertising revenue from the environment’s brand could itself be used as social capital.

So for your interest and that of other readers:

The problem

At the moment NGOs, charities, universities and even some Foundation/grant
givers (in terms of their overall knowledge base) use static
software/databases, limited and clustered human memory and even old paper lists when they set about trying to decide who they should work with and
why. Yes there is ‘fundraising software’ but these are not really any
different from the static sources or techniques.

Non profits don’t strive for a complete and accurate sense of the real time
objectives or activities of potential partners or how to marry them to
benefit respective missions. Nothing can ever beat face to face human
interactions or receiving a great application. However, both funder and
grant seeker need to establish the right knowledge and their now exists
technology that could create efficient systems for realising opportunities
by intelligent interaction with missions, activity and organisational
identities.

The idea

A dynamic user led and focused software platform/environment for grant
givers and grant seekers to interact and compete could be developed whereby
their real time objectives and organisational identities interact and
compete for the best ideas and resources. A second generation internet
platform whereby a Foundation’s (for example) publicly available governance
and philanthropic objectives are matched (automatically) with various
university (for example) academic objectives, personnel and events both
proactively and reactively.

Impact

Philanthropy is pretty much in the business of working with poor and
vulnerable people and more and more poor and vulnerable people are becoming
empowered with the ability to develop and manage their own philanthropic
relationships. An efficient system and real time knowledge base would be
immensely helpful and efficient in terms of time and money - not to mention
getting down to business and making the best possible relationships work.

Why now

As can be seen from the social networks, eBay, Wikipedia, Amazon, Google - the same real time user focused technology exists now and can be used for this purpose. also, more and more people are becoming involved in
philanthropy and more and more people see a need for improvements in
accountability, focus and efficiency. The wonderful thing about philanthropy
as opposed to business - is that all information is open and free, it just
needs to flow better and better for everyone.

This platform could be up and running in 3 years when the majority of groups
(from the very small to the very large, form the local, national to the
international) could be interacting and benefiting.

The vast data of such a third sector (virtual and open) environment could be
analysed by civil society social scientists - providing new (and first time) knowledge on a global multi $billion philanthropic ‘industry’ - which would perhaps have very real implications for policy analysis and social change in terms of public, private and governmental policy, its gaps and possible prediction of future areas of need.

Re-inventing the wheel is a big problem in philanthropy, but not in this case. Many people in the field think that Charity Navigator is not just not good enough, but that it is actually promoting a concept that is detrimental to the field.

I wrote a column in the Financial Times specifically about Charity Navigator’s faults that you can find here. Take a look and tell me what you think.

Being extremely interested in creating a competitive information marketplace rating non-profit organizations, I would love to see an organization take the role of a Moody’s or Standard & Poors and give us a better approximation of the effectiveness of the causes we give to.

So, I went on a quest to find just that. I ended up on the other side of the table with Trent Stamp, executive director of Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org), who, in addition to his blog (trentstampstake.org), runs the only independent, effective non-profit rating organization out there. (and it also happens to be a darn good website)

I am currently at the Yale School of Management and I understand the behavioral implications of human decision-making - ie illogical as often as logical. But for those who are out there who want a quant-based approach to seeing how our charities stack up, Charity Navigator does the job.

I just hope McKinsey & Co can do the simple websearch it took me to find Charity Navigator. And I hope they recommend helping CN reach new heights instead of reinventing the wheel and creating yet another non-profit doing the same thing: something we do not need.

But better, more available information (both data and qualitative information contained in the “conversation” I discuss) helps people make the best decision possible. They won’t always be correct. Imagine I showed you 3 cards in a deck and then asked you to guess the next one. If instead I showed you 45 of the cards, your guess would be better. If I also explained probability theory to you, you’d do even better.

Or think in qualitative terms. Imagine you had to pick your spouse after one date. If instead you spent a couple years getting to know them, you’d make a better decision. But you still might end up divorced.

I like your last line. Information does not provide answers, it helps you ask better questions.

It is hard enough keeping up with all of these good Tactical Philanthropy posts!

Gobs of research suggest that the patterns of decision-making in the financial markets, for example, are hardly objective.

My financial planner and for that matter my doctor, my lawyer, my Senator, my Governor, and my 6 year old, often pull decisions directly out of their keisters.

We all know how decisions in business, government, sports, law, science, are finessed with data but can be as wacky as a hat on a church lady.

Canned data is seductive but it often leads to bad decisions.

I don’t expect a better information marketplace to provide much in the way of answers — I look forward to how it can raise good questions.