Stanford Social Innovation Review

If Paul Brest has a blog, I’ll definitely read it, and I may even comment.  He runs the Hewlett Foundation after all.  But he is not the only person who works there.  There is a lot of other interesting people at Hewlett whose opinions I’d be equally interested in.  As a former foundation officer and as someone who works with foundations, I think that a big challenge to have a “foundation blog” is that any communication that comes out of a foundation has to represent the foundation’s view, and that inherently takes time, internal discussions and reviews, a process that does not go well with the dynamism and frequent update of a blog.  And in that process, what a given program officer thinks may get lost anyway.

Here’s my suggestion: let’s not get stuck on the tool (blog) and focus on the goal: to have more conversations about philanthropy where funders are involved, be it through a blog, an online event or other ways.  For instance, Social Edge does a very good job at online events.  Maybe this is a more feasible and manageable way for foundations to get started having conversations with the rest of us?

»» Posted by: Edith Asibey on October 16, 2007 03:46 PM

Thanks for the comment Edith. I’d argue that it would be best if many employees of Hewlett and other foundations participated in the online conversation. This does not require having your own blog, it may simple entail leaving regular comments and otherwise making your voice heard. These employees need to be sensitive to their voice being assumed to be one in the same as Hewlett’s (the institution), and yet any sane person is going to recognize that every person in an organization does not have the same opinions. That’s OK.

I agree with you that blogs are not important unto themselves, but they are an important tool for creating the online conversation that must emerge for the “online information marketplace for giving” to be successful.

Regarding your point that foundation blogs cannot be updated frequently because it takes time for their internal discussions to play out. The assumption you are making is that foundation blog posts must represent the final viewpoint of the foundation. This is not how conversations work. Imagine having a conversation with a group of people where each person huddled with their people and then issued a statement. In real conversations, people understand that what is being said is off the cuff and that thoughts and beliefs will evolve and change as the conversation proceeds. A good foundation blog would share the “internal discussions and reviews” that a foundation was having. Their thought process would help other funders think through similar issues that they have and help advance the field as a whole.

»» Posted by: Sean Stannard-Stockton on October 17, 2007 07:13 AM

I completely agree with your premise, and hope more foundations heed your call. It will be to the sector’s detriment if it does not embrace the new models the Internet now provides for communicating and engaging with the public openly. Foundations will benefit by fostering a more dynamic and productive relationship by sharing their work in an ongoing, public conversation. Likewise, while there are some great resources for finding information about grant-making and foundation expenditures, I’d like to see new tools that embrace the Web 2.0 model of providing such data in user-friendly, open format methods. A PDF of a 990 form, even if posted on an online database is not Web 2.0. However, a search engine of data from 990 forms that is easily searchable and even downloadable so others can mashup that information with other data sources is.

As you have pointed out, we have seen some encouraging developments that hint at the creativity and potential for greater transparency in the sector. Beyond seeing a few foundations enter the blogosphere, I was excited to see the MacArthur Foundation engaging in an online conversation (in avatar form, even!) in the virtual world of Second Life and the Case Foundation’s invitation to let the public help it decide its grant-making through its “Make it Your Own Awards” program. I’m looking forward to seeing more participate in such ventures.

At the Sunlight Foundation, we advocate for increased transparency of Congress to improve the relationship between citizens and their elected officials, and to make Congress more accountable. As part of our work, we fund and create new Web tools to digitize and make information about Congress and the federal government more accessible to the American people. Just as greater transparency will help Congress restore public trust in this vital institution, it will also improve public understanding of philanthropy’s positive and important role in society. The more we share our work openly, the less we’ll be perceived by the public as fat cats in dark board rooms living lavishly without having to pay taxes.

»» Posted by: Gabriela Schneider on October 25, 2007 09:50 AM

Gabriela,
Many people who talk about foundation transparency look at the issue as one of public accountability. I believe that transparency should be seen as an issue of philanthropic effectiveness. In other words, transparency should be pursued not an an obligation to the public, but as a strategy for creating philanthropic impact.

Imagine if rather than searchable PDFs of 990s, foundations offered rss feeds that showed their grants in real time. A central website could collect these feeds and display it in different ways via mashups with other maps and data. You would then be able to see philanthropic money flow and track it across sectors and geography. This would then allow for analysis to identify underfunded opportunities, the directional flow of “smart money” (users could select the foundations that they thought the most highly of and see where they were giving), and sector allocation of various funder types.

This information would be valuable to the strategic foundation AND would allow individual donors to piggyback on foundation research and help support the nonprofits that foundations had identified as being worthy of funding.

»» Posted by: Sean Stannard-Stockton on October 25, 2007 01:33 PM

Dear Sean,

Thank you so much for your insightful comments; we are just on the cusp of a revolution of how to use the Web *more personally.* After 10 years of being on a social entrepreneur on the Web, having cofounded VolunteerMatch in 1996 and founded UniversalGiving (http://www.universalgiving.org) in 2002, I’ve seen some significant trends.

The first is a move towards quality on the Web. Less is more. Donors don’t need to see 10,000 projects; they need to see enough which fit their interests. Then, once interested, they have to know they can trust the project or organization through some type of vetting. Finally, we’re going to be putting forth a beta model in 2008 about user feedback regarding their experiences. So the donor experience is both trust, quality; and, community/interaction.

Pamela

»» Posted by: Pamela Hawley on October 27, 2007 12:12 AM

Pamela,
Quality over quantity. I agree. Robert Egger recently said on my blog that, “if there were 25% fewer nonprofits, we’d be a MUCH more vital, productive and focused sector”. I think that new tools being developed to connect donors with nonprofits (ie. philanthropic capital market tools) would do best trying to identify a smaller group of high impact nonprofits rather than trying to map the entire sector. Note that the relatively advanced for-profit capital markets serve only a small subset of companies. Most, especially smaller, companies have only limited access to capital markets.

»» Posted by: Sean Stannard-Stockton on October 29, 2007 09:33 AM

I definitely agree on your comments surrounding blogs as a vehicle for effective communication in the new age.

“Blogs are one vehicle for facilitating that conversation and currently the best. But it is the two-way flow of information that blogs encourage that is important, not blogs themselves. For instance, blogs that are one-way mechanisms to pump information out, but not let any in, are not part of the conversation. The only way to learn is to listen and the only way to improve is to learn.”

As a Grad student at USF pursuing my MNA, I constantly debate the need for Foundations and NGOs to utilize the web in 2.0 standards to reach their goals and adapt to our changing society.  NGOs and Foundations must apply the rule like any other private organization “change or die” to survive in today’s world. Some of my classmates (and professor) beg to differ, I see the value and upside (of blogs, SEO, social networks, etc) – and make sure to raise my hand when the topic arises.  Why would you not want to reach a broader audience when communicating your message? 

Also, I’m glad to see Pamela Hawley talk about the holistic way a marketplace needs to work. I’ve given on UniversalGiving and they have a unique Quality Model which makes me feel safe re: where my dollars are going.  They take so many measures to ensure international giving gets done right.  Safety is one of those basic needs according to Maslow…

»» Posted by: Jennifer Bennett on October 30, 2007 01:42 PM

Jennifer,
I’m glad to have an advocate for these ideas inside the USF program! However, I would note that foundations really do not need to adopt web 2.0 tools. They won’t die if they don’t. But I do think that adopting them will help them thrive.

»» Posted by: Sean Stannard-Stockton on November 5, 2007 12:28 PM

Sean,
I agree with your premise about the need to engage our colleagues in the philanthropic sector in blogging.  I have been watching a discussion about web technology in the academic circles called: Fear 2.0. http://www.teachinglearningresources.com/fear.html Fear 2.0 is a backlash from these tools which encourage openness, dissemination of information and creating networks.  There is a fear of misspeaking for the institution you represent.  The fear that your institution might have of information “getting out there” that should be controlled.  The fear of speaking out and possibly losing your job.  When you open up discussion, you invite the mulitheaded hydra and it could get ugly especially in a wider public sphere.  There are levels of discourse that probably need to be discussed among colleagues in the philanthropic arena before encouraging people to “blog.”
I am astonished by the lack of interest on the part of my colleagues in the use of these technologies.  For too many people, the computer is that thing on which you read your e-mail and browse websites for information.  It is a very passive environment.  We started a blog site for philanthropy in Ohio to share knowledge about investments in K-12 education.  One other person prevented this from becoming a soliloquy.  When I asked people why they did not contribute, the issues of fear about how what is said would be perceived by colleagues was one, but related to that was the notion of time.  It is one thing to write spontaneously as if one is having a “conversation” it is quite another if one feels compelled to edit and reedit a thought before it is posted.
I would encourage a wider discussion about Fear 2.0 in our field.

»» Posted by: John Mullaney on February 16, 2008 09:54 AM

Sean, I appreciate your comment back about Quality over Quantity.  This is so challenging as the heart would want to provide opportunities for all NGOs.  And, as NGOs attain increased coverage and press, then Jim Collins’ Flywheel Effect takes place: the water which has been building up on the wheel, all the effort—then comes cascading down freely as the water rushes down after all the built up, hard earned effort.

We should also measure strategic philanthropy in the corporate world, again for strategic impact that you state. I don’t think it is bad at all that companies receive positive PR; increased brand; and increased employee morale and retention.  But equally important, strategic philanthropy should take place and be accounted for.  As we work with companies abroad we are definitely encouraging less is more approach: Have high impact and accountability before expanding to further employee destinations.

»» Posted by: Pamela Hawley on February 21, 2008 05:19 PM

I will engage my friends on philanthropic sector in blogging. For the sake of other peoples that they get benefit. Because it is the field which require lots of focus.
zinadin

MINUTETRADERS | Buy/Sell AZ & Direct Termination Routes,Wholesale,TDM,VoIP

»» Posted by: zinadin on August 2, 2008 11:43 PM