In financial markets, there is a supposed “curve” that describes the risk/return trade off available to investors. I think that in philanthropy, that curve would be a multi dimensional curve and that currently most people have no idea where on the various axes they want to be located or even that the curve exists.

We all need help figuring out where we want to go in addition to how to get there.

Also, let me offer giving circles as a good example of this idea of information being used effectively (and collectively) to define the public good AND to then determine the efficient ways to advance that good. Giving circles (we all know the model, like Social Venture Partners or SV2 or others) seek out information on community needs and appropriate goals for their giving (their definition of the good), as well as information on which approaches to addressing needs or meeting goals are the best (most efficient) investments.

Let me offer one tweak to your conversation with young staffer. You said a few times above that individuals need to decide what “good” is for them, and then pursue that good through informed action. But I’d suggest that one role of involvement in philanthropic action (in particular the civic engagement side of it) is to help us figure out what “good” is, by talking to others about their/our visions of the good, and of course, by seeking information that helps us define the good.

So I guess what I’m saying is that information is not just useful once we have decided what the “public good” (this is how I prefer to talk about it) is that we want to pursue with our philanthropy. Information is useful in helping us define our vision of the public good - something we often do collectively, not just individually.

What I tried to put forward in this debate is that I don’t see Phil on the other side of the table in this debate. I think he sees it that way, but to my way of thinking, efficient information in philanthropy would lead to flourishing community involvement. I think people naturally want to be involved in their community and making it easier to follow their passion (by making information more available) would foster more community involvement.

I don’t want to get stuck within the frame of “business metrics guy”. That’s an old frame. The business frame of looking at philanthropy is useful, but it is incomplete.

My point was that an organization that seeks to end poverty or cure a disease ideally wants to be put out of business, right? If we end find a cure for AIDS, there will be a whole group of organizations that would not need to exist anymore. And that’d be a good thing. While I agree that a comparison between the early 20th century and current definitions of efficiency does more harm than good, I do think there is a shared desire to seek solutions, not just exist forever to provide charity.

At the other end of the spectrum, are the bowling leagues, debate societies, community theater, and the Friends of the Library which will NEVER succeed by being put out of business. These to me are the organizations that jump to mind when talking about nonprofits as democratic instituions that we hope proliferate endlessly.

What I think my final sentences tried (but apparently failed to convey) is that I think we fail when we try to see social problems as “solvable” in anyway without building up society and community. Experiences in community development and research on social capital (a la Putnam) provide ample evidence that good community outcomes are tied-up with stong communities. So success in nonprofits and philanthropy will have to be both.