Category Archives: Philanthropic Technology

Social Entrepreneur API

The Social Entrepreneur API from Social Actions launched at the SoCap Conference. The Social Entrepreneur API (Application Programming Interface) is the first open database of information about social entrepreneurs who have won fellowships and awards from social enterprise funders. The current API includes awards made by Civic Ventures, The Draper Richards Foundation, ideablob, PopTech, The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, and The Skoll Foundation.

We live in a world with literally millions of nonprofits and many, many individuals working on social benefit projects that are not registered nonprofits. Shifting through these organizations is a daunting task for any donor. But luckily, there are thousands of foundations and other grantmaking entities with paid staff doing just this work. Unlike in for-profit markets where possession of important information helps secure profits, in philanthropy, sharing important information increases a grantmaker’s impact.

What’s interesting about the Social Entrepreneur API, as I’ve written before, is the way it allows for anyone to access a stream of vetted social entrepreneurs and mash the data up however they like. For instance, Tactical Philanthropy Advisors could build a web interface that displayed vetted grantmaking opportunities that took the API data and then limited the data to projects in need of at least $25,000 so that our high net worth clients would be delivered a pool of eligible, vetted social entrepreneurs that we could then help them look into more deeply.

Knowing that the Draper Richards Foundation or Skoll has funded someone does not automatically make them a good grantee. But it certainly helps to search for organizations within a universe of groups that have already been vetted by well resourced, smart funders.

How else might Tactical Philanthropy Advisors or other organizations use the Social Entrepreneur API?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Learning From Foundation Tweets

Beth Kanter (currently a visiting scholar at the Packard Foundation), recently analyzed the list of “foundations that tweet” on the Philanthropy411 blog. Beth gives a really interesting breakdown of the various ways the foundations are using Twitter as well as takes a look at the “profiles” the use.

She breaks the profiles into four types:

  1. Pure Foundation Brand
  2. Foundation with Personality
  3. Employee with Foundation Association
  4. Pure Personal Account

Personally, I generally think options 1 and 4 are boring. Profile 1 types tend to be versions of press release distributors. Profile 4 types tend to tweet about their cats, what happen on a TV show last night and other personal conversation that doesn’t interest me (I’m not referring to the profiles that Beth uses as examples, just making a generalization).

But Profile 2 and 3 types are really interesting. These are either foundation branded Twitter profiles that clearly are authored by a real person writing like a normal human does or individual branded Twitter profiles where the person’s connection to a foundation is clearly noted.

I think the lesson to be drawn here is that in the search for how best to share knowledge, the key thing is to put humans at the center. Knowledge is not some sort of physical element that we can stack in a room somewhere and index easily. Knowledge is a concept that is rooted in the very fact that we are human.

Information we can stick into databases and take humans out of the equation. Knowledge on the other hand (or dare we say wisdom?) cannot be separated from the human element in which it is rooted.

As we strive to build a more effective philanthropy, to share knowledge and support what works, let’s not become disconnected from the human element that drives philanthropy. Any hope we have to build a philanthropic field that is high performing and high impact must be built on a framework that embraces our humanity rather than tries to overcome it.

It is a messy world out there. But humans are uniquely good at organizing, contextualizing and identifying patterns in messy information landscapes.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

International Grantmaking Repository

Philanthropy In/Sight shows how raw data, when intelligently sorted and engagingly displayed, can enhance understanding, lead to insights and result in better philanthropy. With that sort of project in mind I’d like to point your attention to the Repository Project.

The Repository is a project of Council on Foundations, InterAction, Foundation Center and Independent Sector with the aim of making international grantmaking more streamlined. Private foundations and public charities are allowed to make international grants. However, for international “NGOs” (non governmental organizations) that do not hold 501c3 (nonprofit) status in the United States, grantmakers must document their grantmaking at a higher level than when making grants in the US. They must complete an “equivalency determination” that shows that the international NGO is “equivalent” to a US based 501c3. That is that the organization would qualify as a 501c3 if it were conducting operations in the US. Or the grantmaker must engage in “expenditure responsibility”. This simply means that the foundation is responsible for documenting that the grant it made was indeed spent by the NGO on qualifying activities.

While this process makes sense, it requires that many grantmakers repeat the same process over and over again. The Repository Project, being designed by TechSoup Global, is an attempt to fix this problem by working with the IRS to create an approved database where once a grantmaker completed an equivalency determination, other funders could depend on their finding and avoiding duplicating the process.

At first glance I thought that this all sounded sensible and practical, but mostly just a streamlining of administrative duties. Nothing to get too excited about. But recently it has been brought to my attention that there’s actually a lot more going on behind the scenes. While the direct goal of The Repository Project is as I outlined above, the inevitable side effect will be the creation of a dynamic database of international grantees that are eligible for US grantmaker funding.

Whenever you hear a call for more nonprofit reporting on their activities and impact, you hear the response that this reporting is costly and will be a burden to nonprofits. But in the case of international NGOs, they are already required to report on grants they receive from US based funders. The Repository Project will simultaneously decrease the reporting burden on NGOs, while making the reporting universally accessible.

Now lets be clear here. The Repository Project is under no requirement to make all NGO reporting and funder grantmaking information public. But it will be collecting this data and doing so in a way that brings cost savings to the participants rather than increasing reporting costs.

More importantly, I would point out that TechSoup Global was selected to host the repository. TechSoup is the group behind NetSquared and one of the most socially media savvy nonprofits around. TechSoup is committed to concepts like transparency and knowledge sharing. It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point we see a sort of Repository 2.0 that builds on the administrative efficiencies of Repository 1.0 to help make international grantmaking more effective.

One of the underlying assumptions I made in my post about the value of Philanthropy In/Sight was that it would be valuable for individual donors to “follow the smart money” of foundation funders as a way to identify high impact giving opportunities. I would suggest that the value of this practice in the international space is exponentially higher because of even further lack of transparency compared to the US. As more and more donors become interested in supporting causes in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, the ability to find out where large, well resourced foundations are sending their grants and being able to piggy back on a reporting system becomes invaluable.

The Googlization of Philanthropy marches on…

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Knowledge Sharing & Ambient Intimacy

Philanthropy has for some time been enamored with the idea that the internet will allow us to create a huge database of philanthropic knowledge that will be universally available to everyone. My own posts on the subject of the Googlization of Philanthropy could certainly be read this way. But I’d like to propose that the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 (the shift from automating transactions to enabling collaboration and participation) means that knowledge sharing projects should focus on leveraging human relationships rather than aggregating data.

Earlier this week when I was in DC, I had a limited amount of time to meet with people. So I used LinkedIn to identify who I knew in the DC area and on Monday night ended up having cocktails with people from Guidestar, the Gates Foundation, Network for Good, Association of Small Foundations, Independent Sector, Hudson Institute, DC Central Kitchen and a few other organizations. What was intriguing to me about the meeting was that I used web technology to facilitate offline engagement.

One of the ways writing this blog is useful to me is that it regularly facilitates offline interactions with people whose knowledge is beneficial to me. When people who do not understand the value of the web express why they don’t think it is important, they generally point to the sometimes superficial commentary that is common online (Twitter in particular is open to this criticism with its 140 character limit to comments). But the web allows for loose ties to form and be maintained more easily. Since humans can only successfully manage strong relationships with 150 people, managing loose ties is important to allowing us to benefit from the larger collective wisdom.

Picture 885

Credit: Logic + Emotion

The chart and quote above make the point well. Pre-Web 2.0, “well connected” people where those who had strong ties with all the right people. Today, “well connected” people are those who have extensive loose ties with all the right people. The power of social media is that it allows us to break Dunbar’s 150 relationship limit and enter the green section in the chart above. It allows us to maintain loose ties at strong enough levels that we’re able to call up those connections and deepen them when needed.

The web is not impersonal, it is not superficial. At its best it creates ambient intimacy that allows us to greatly expand our access to collective human wisdom.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Philanthropy In/Sight Special Free Trial

Unsurprisingly, the Foundation Center rather liked my review of their new Philanthropy In/Sight mapping tool. I just got this comment from them:

Sean,
Thanks so much for your comments on our new mapping tool, Philanthropy In/Sight. We are thrilled that you like it! And we’re hoping that the rest of the field agrees. We encourage your readers to take the guided tour at philanthropyinsight.org.

We’d also like to extend a special three-day free trial offer to Tactical Philanthropy readers! Just e-mail me at dlc@foundationcenter.org and I’ll respond with an activation code that will get you set up to test drive Philanthropy In/Sight. Our regular free trial is only 24 hours, so to take advantage of this extended period, please contact me!

Meanwhile, I want to add that we are especially interested in getting feedback on the application. We’re hoping to add new features, data sets, and more to Philanthropy In/Sight over the next few months so any suggestions on how to improve it would be very valuable to us. Thanks again!

Dave Clark
Product Manager
The Foundation Center

Via Twitter, @btazzi suggested to me that he wished Philanthropy In/Sight had ways to distinguish between the geographic location of a grantee’s offices and the area it served. Without this distinction, the mapping tool reveals where foundations are providing funding rather than where they are achieving impact. This seems to me to be a difficult, but doable, challenge for Philanthropy In/Sight to overcome in later versions. How else might they improve the tool?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Your Free Ticket to NetSquared

Two months ago I wrote about how excited I was to attend the fourth annual NetSquared Conference in San Jose, CA on May 26 & 27.

I wrote:

Longtime readers of Tactical Philanthropy know that I’ve always been a fan of the NetSquared conference. From N2Y1, where I heard about some site called Facebook for the first time and was taught how to launch a blog. To N2Y2, a nonprofit “investment fair,” where the seemingly uncontroversial comment “some nonprofits just suck” by a venture philanthropists lead to a heated public debate between participants with the board members of NetSquared sponsor TechSoup Globaltaking opposite sides. To N2Y3, where philanthropy “mashups” won cash and Peter Deitz’ Social Actions took home a prize.

But now I’m disappointed to say that something has come up and I will be travelling next week and unable to attend the conference.

Well, my loss is your gain because now I’m going to give away my $300 ticket to the two day event.

Here’s the summary of the conference:

The NetSquared Global Conference, held in San Jose California, is a two-day meeting that brings together the minds of unlikely allies from different professional fields including: leaders in philanthropy, corporate philanthropy, engineering, media and world-class innovators driving the development, distribution and use of social technologies for progressive change.

The conference provides participants an opportunity to attend interactive sessions facilitated by leaders working at the cross-roads of technology and social change; create new collaborations, and participate in a uniquely democratic approach to funding innovation through the Project voting process.

All conference attendees have an opportunity to share their perspective and insights from the field with competing Projects, and vote to fund N2Y4 Mobile Challenge winning Projects competing for $50k in cash-prizes and in-kind resources.

So here’s the game: To win the ticket you must:

  1. Promise that you will use it.
  2. Explain in 500 words or less (as a comment on this post) why you think mobile technology can lead to better philanthropy.
  3. Submit your entry by midnight (pacific time) on Thursday May 21 (tomorrow).

Ready… Set… Go!

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Smart Money & the Social Entrepreneur API

In financial markets there is “smart money” and “dumb money”. These rather crude phrases refer to the fact that certain types of investors tend to make good decisions and others tend to make bad decisions. The “smart money” usually goes against the crowd and makes investments in things that the “crowd” currently dislikes. “Dumb money” investors tend to be trend followers and pile into the hottest fade of the moment. When someone says “follow the smart money”, they are urging you to invest in the things that the “smart money” investors are currently buying.

Today, Social Actions, in partnership with The Skoll Foundation, PopTech, ideablob, and Civic Ventures, announced a new resource that will let people interested in social entrepreneurs “follow the smart money.” The resource is called the Social Entrepreneur API:

From the Social Actions press release:

The Social Entrepreneur API (Application Programming Interface) will be the first open database of information about social entrepreneurs who have won fellowships and awards from social enterprise funders.

The tool will allow philanthropists, investors, press, and fellow entrepreneurs to find social entrepreneurs based on keyword, location, cause area, population served, and a variety of other factors.

"The Social Entrepreneur API will provide an easier way for people to find, invest in, and support social entrepreneurs, as well as serve as a resource for social entrepreneurs to connect with each other and partner for greater impact," says Jill Finlayson, Marketing Manager for Social Edge.

Lucy Bernholz offered her take on Philanthropy 2173:

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.

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…

This also happens to be an excellent example of the Googlization of Philanthropy.

I’d love to see a similar database for foundation grantees (Grantfire has been working on this for sometime). One way to think about how this might look is by checking out Stockpickr.com. This site makes it easy for investors to search a database of professional investors’ stock picks (professional investors are required to disclose their investment positions once every quarter in the form 13F, much as foundations disclose grantees in their Form 990PF once a year).

Stockpickr.com lets you enter the name of a company you are interested in and pull up a list of the professional investors that currently hold the stock. It also displays a list of other companies that people own who own the stock you are interested in. This is similar to Amazon’s “people who like book X, also enjoy book Y”.

Facing more than a million nonprofits and a vast field of social entrepreneurs, we need smart ways to create filters so that the great opportunities do not get lost in the fire hose of information.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

More Googlization

My recent Chronicle of Philanthropy column was about the Googlization of Philanthropy and the ways in which third party web applications can effectively organize philanthropic data so long as social sector players digitize their knowledge and make it accessible. I specifically was not making the point that Google the company should dominate this process. But of course they are the heavy hitter in this area.

So it was with interest that I read today about Google’s new efforts to aggregate and organize public data. The initial launch makes unemployment and population data on a county by county basis available in chart form that can be manipulated by the user. You can try it out by googling “unemployment rate” or “population” and the state or county you are interested in. The charting feature makes it easy to put the data in context both across time and in comparison to other areas.

From the Google Blog:

The data we’re including in this first launch represents just a small fraction of all the interesting public data available on the web. There are statistics for prices of cookies, CO2 emissions, asthma frequency, high school graduation rates, bakers’ salaries, number of wildfires, and the list goes on. Reliable information about these kinds of things exists thanks to the hard work of data collectors gathering countless survey forms, and of careful statisticians estimating meaningful indicators that make hidden patterns of the world visible to the eye. All the data we’ve used in this first launch are produced and published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Division. They did the hard work! We just made the data a bit easier to find and use.

Since Google’s acquisition of Trendalyzer two years ago, we have been working on creating a new service that make lots of data instantly available for intuitive, visual exploration. Today’s launch is a first step in that direction. We hope people will find this search feature helpful, whether it’s used in the classroom, the boardroom or around the kitchen table. We also hope that this will pave the way for public data to take a more central role in informed public conversations.

This is just the beginning. Stay tuned for more.

Google admits that “the hard work” is the data collection. Their job is to make the data “easier to find and use”. As this process plays out in philanthropy, individual donors are going to find that they can begin to act on the information that informs the grantmaking of large institutional funders. Since individual donors give vastly more to charity than foundations do each year, helping their donations flow based on better knowledge of what works will have a transformative effect.

You can see a quick video demo of the new Google product here.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Googlification of Philanthropy

In early 2007, Carla Dearing, then the CEO of Community Foundations of America, wrote an op-ed in Worth magazine titled, “The Schwabification of Philanthropy.”

Carla wrote:

Today, donors bring increasing expectations to their philanthropy, including the need for complete information, varied opportunities for involvement and full accounting of outcomes. As a result, a new philanthropic strategy is emerging. In a nutshell, it concerns itself with the question: What does it take to leverage limited charitable resources in ways that address the overwhelming needs we face as a global community? For many individual donors, it includes the question: How do I apply the same level of savvy that enabled me to amass wealth in the first place to my charitable giving?

In theory, foundations should be obvious allies for donors who want to develop their own philanthropic strategies… This group has honed approaches to address diverse challenges and communities over many decades. While foundations have undoubtedly produced great triumphs, they have also produced mistakes that neophytes could avoid. Unfortunately, even the best foundations tend to operate in tightly closed systems where such comprehensive information sharing is not valued.

The “Schwabification” of Philanthropy: It is only a matter of time before some entrepreneur or institution takes a page from Charles Schwab and empowers people with information in the philanthropic marketplace. While the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and its imitators are making donor-advised funds cheaper, the next round goes to the company whose infrastructure delivers real value to philanthropic strategists. Schwab revolutionized the financial market by disintermediating stockbrokers, who had been able to charge high prices by hoarding information. Look for the same principles to apply, especially within public charities.

Yesterday I suggested that packaging and distributing this “value added information” would be a highly leveraged, high impact, philanthropic activity. Today, Tony Wang, an employee at Blueprint Research & Design who helped Paul Brest write part of the book Money Well Spent, absolutely knocked my socks off with his follow-up blog post. What Tony is talking about is The Googlification of Philanthropy.

Tony writes (you should really read the whole post):

Google revolutionized how we find and access information – but that’s only half the story. Google also revolutionized how we create and share information. As the dominance of Google increased, so did the number of people who tailored their search results for Google’s search engine (what industry people call “search engine optimization”). Google didn’t think, “Let’s try and contact everyone to give us their documents and we’ll reorganize the information” but instead thought of a way to provide a tool that takes unorganized data and makes it more relevant to the person looking for information – with the consequence of people making their information more organized and relevant.

But the most interesting effect of Google and its relation to philanthropy is its effect on the evolution of conversation. For the most part, people read blogs only if they’re relevant and blogs only become relevant if they produce highly useful information. Thus, blogs like Tactical Philanthropy and Philanthropy 2173 have come to dominate the philanthropy blogosphere arguably because of their relevance – but more importantly, they illustrate how people now have an incentive to produce highly useful information as competition for attention increases. The more useful the information you produce, the more likely people are to listen to you – and in theory, the greater your impact.

I’m hoping that philanthropy recognizes the importance of its knowledge assets in addition to its other assets as an institution and as a grantmaker. And I think one way foundations can use their knowledge assets better is by creating a more efficient marketplace of information that provides the right incentives for people to provide highly useful information. And I think that search can be part of the answer.

But Tony’s no armchair theorist. Tony’s gone ahead and started building a tool that helps move the needle. Using Google’s Custom Search tool, which allows individuals to create a version of Google that search a defined set of resources, Tony has built Philanthropy Search. Currently the site indexes 114 websites including top philanthropy media outlets, university philanthropy research groups and the websites of the top 100 foundations. You can see the full list of indexed websites here and you can test drive Philanthropy Search here. Tony is actively soliciting feedback on additional sites that should be added or suggestions for improvement.

Quickly testing the search term “global warming” shows that using regular Google, you get almost exclusively links to government agencies and mainstream press reports whereas using Tony’s Google-powered Philanthropy Search you get links to philanthropic research on global warming and philanthropic media reports of global warming related grants and programs.

The Schwabification of Philanthropy was about lowering the costs of administering philanthropy and thereby giving tools to individuals who want to take control of their giving. The Googlification of Philanthropy is about organizing philanthropic knowledge to allow for smarter giving. Most importantly, the Googlification of Philanthropy means that organizing the information will not be done by the information creators, but by third parties and – excitingly – the users of the information themselves.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Google.org & Superior Knowledge

About a month ago, Larry Brilliant announced the next chapter in the evolution of Google.org. My sister, Jessica Stannard-Friel, covered the announcement on her blog Reimagining CSR. The New York Times also covered the story (although Jessica thought they misinterpreted the context of the changes).

Today I want to look at the decisions that Google made and how they fit into the framework I’ve been laying out where “superior knowledge” is the “real currency”
of philanthropy.

In a nutshell, Google said that after a review of the past three years, they had determined that they had been most effective when they had gone after problems in ways that made the most of Google’s strengths in technology and information. In other words, they had had the most impact when they leveraged their superior knowledge.

Writing on her blog The Philanthropic Family, Sharon Schneider discussed the Google.org announcement:

In essence, Dr. Brilliant is saying that Google.org is going to focus on projects where it’s unique strengths put Google.org in a position to bring value and add insight to solving social problems.  And if you think about it, the lesson there is both obvious and yet profound. 

Lots of philanthropists have money to spend on solving social problems–that certainly isn’t a unique strength.  And lots of philanthropists big, tiny and everywhere in between have spent that money, many of them always feeling like they weren’t being as effective as they would like to be, but unsure of what to do differently.  Google.org has come up with an answer: it’s not our money that makes us effective, it’s our know-how.  They plan to focus on problems where information aggregation and innovative technology can bring key insights and move us toward new solutions.

And for those of us without a billion dollars to spend on our philanthropy, the same lesson holds true: It’s not the amount of our money that makes us effective philanthropists, it’s the strength of our other resources that help us decide where to donate that money.

In some ways all of this is obvious. Very few people in philanthropy think that just throwing money at a problem will fix it. Focusing on your unique strength is pretty run of the mill advice. My point isn’t just to point out the obvious fact that knowing a lot about your focus area helps.

My point is that sharing this superior knowledge is a high leverage, underutilized strategy that should be a core value in philanthropy.

Here’s what’s interesting, Google’s corporate mission statement is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Clearly Google has put valuable information at the finger tips of billions of people. But note that they don’t just offer a mass library of information. Their genius has been in organizing the information, making it accessible and useful.

Philanthropy as a field is only beginning to view sharing information as an important and valuable activity. While some readers have suggested that it is more common than I suggest, it is rare enough that the New York Times found it newsworthy when the Hewlett and Irvine Foundations released reports on some of their ineffective programs in 2007. But all of this is only the first step.

When I wrote yesterday about Carnegie’s analysis of a failed grant, New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom (the author of the Times article on Hewlett and Irvine) messaged me via Twitter:

The question is, how many donors will ever know about the lessons of Susan’s [Carnegie’s] report?

Good point. When philanthropists “share” information, that doesn’t mean it will be acted on. Just as important is that the information be organized, accessible and useful. Again via twitter, Mitch Nauffts of the PND Blog asked how this sort of aggregation could ever be paid for?

Guess what, Carnegie gives $120 million a year. That seems like a pretty good (huge!) budget for an effort to organize the world of philanthropy’s information. And while I’m sure Carnegie has other priorities, it is interesting to note that a single foundation could single handedly revolutionize the way knowledge is organized in philanthropy.

So who’s going to be the Google of philanthropy?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post