Stanford Social Innovation Review

Peter,
Welcome to the SSIR blogger community. Great column. I wonder though about your comment that Kiva might make top-down organizations obsolete. I see Kiva and others on your list as great additions to the field, but I fail to see how they make “top-down organizations” obsolete. Aren’t both needed?

»» Posted by: Sean Stannard-Stockton on May 1, 2008 10:35 PM

Hi Sean, I guess the important question is “What do we mean by ‘top-down organizations?’”

I would define a top-down organization as one that does not incorporate constituent feedback and participation into strategy formulation, grant-making, and program work.  I’m not suggesting that all organizations will switch to a bottom-up model in which the edges of a network inform all of the decisions made by the center.  Rather, the impact of platforms like Kiva, DonorsChoose, Facebook Causes, and others will be to encourage traditional organizations to transition to hybrid models of organizational structure, models that depend to varying degrees on both bottom-up and top-down decision-making and action.  The top-down organization would be rendered obsolete to the extent that board members, executive directors, and management no longer see value in exclusively ‘plan, execute’ models of going about their work. 

I really like where Ben Rattray of Change.org is going with his thinking on this issue.  Have a look at slide 18 of his NTEN presentation in March.  The diagram on the right of this slide represents the hybrid model I describe above:

http://www.slideshare.net/peterdeitz/group-fundraising-how-does-it-work-and-whats-out-there

Looking forward to my participation in the CoF blogging team.  all the best, Peter

»» Posted by: Peter Deitz on May 2, 2008 09:45 AM

Hi Peter,

I’ll admit I was very skeptical of micro-philanthropy at first (especially Facebook, the one I see most often).  I saw it as more a benefit to the donor than the recipient; the donor gets a nice fuzzy feeling by giving conveniently, often without researching the merits of the organization.  Rather than sending money into a black hole with good intentions, I like your idea of feedback mechanisms that show the desired effects of philanthropy.  Negative feedback would prevent wasted money, while positive feedback loops could increase support exponentially.

All of your ideas sound promising, but my one question lies in accountability.  Especially in the suggestion about tax-deductible donations to individuals, how does the government prevent abuse of this privilege?  Do we simply rely on the honor system that all money is going to the prescribed cause?  I guess the more micro we go, the more personal relationships will provide accountability.  Community members will know if their neighbor is not using their money for the intended purpose.

Mike

»» Posted by: Mike Heiss on May 5, 2008 10:48 PM

Hi Mike, In the short term, the concerns you raise are extremely warranted.  Without the technical infrastructure and third sector readiness, micro-philanthropy will remain susceptible to criticisms that it facilitates fraud and fleeting citizen engagement.  The gap between what’s possible with today’s technology and what’s actually happening is wider than the Mississippi Delta.  We need risk-friendly leadership in this space.  We also need to raise the bar in what institutions expect of citizen dogooders, not to mention what citizen dogooders expect of themselves.  A group of us are deeply involved in the process of thinking through the potential of micro-philanthropy.  If you would like more information, don’t hesitate to get in touch.  All the best, Peter

»» Posted by: Peter Deitz on May 8, 2008 11:57 AM

Hi there,

As a founder of a platform that facilitates online donations and charitable giving; via traditional NGO models or grass roots social cause endeavors, I would like to add my thoughts on the idea of accountability.

It is about transparency; and it doesn’t only pertain to individual donors funding/supporting a grass roots cause.  There has traditionally been skepticism in not for profit accountability, be it from a corporate donor supporting a foundation for political gain, or brand camping on a not for profit for image sake. 

It comes down to individuals, be it those who desire to support a campaign or those of us who have created social change platforms.  I, as a founder of a platform, have to have ‘do diligence’.  It is a part of our process prior to approving any none registered campaign.  And there have been campaigns we have not been able to qualify through either banking references or legal references, that we have had to, as an organization conscious of transparency, had to decline.

We as a society of change, of wanting social action solutions have a responsibility to our own causes, to our own pocket book and to the individuals who do and can benefit from our passions, our generosity and our support…

Call it responsible philanthropy; you aren’t going to write a cheque to whomever knocks on your door and portrays to be a charity without identification, surely you are not going to do the same thing simply because it is the internet?  In fact, do diligence plays an even more crucial role…

Do diligence and the strength of transparency can only leverage the use of online solutions for social change. 

My two cents…

Beverley Claire Pomeroy
Pincgiving

»» Posted by: Beverley Claire Pomeroy on May 8, 2008 02:54 PM

Interesting ideas, but I don’t quite see how the four specific examples necessarily lead to addressing “root causes.” All of them would seem to be as appropriate to efforts to ameliorate symptoms as to addressing on root causes.  Feedback mechanisms, for example, would be as useful to a soup kitchen as to an effort to change food security policy-- perhaps even more so.

What am I missing?

Ben

»» Posted by: Ben Shute on May 15, 2008 12:28 PM

Peter -

Micro-Philanthropy is no different to the origins of the March of Dimes, i.e. small contributions aggregating to substantial results - but with a self-organising principle.

The experience of the Omidyar Network is instructive when filtered through Bollier’s “The Rise of Collective Intelligence”.

BTW – Peter … good see your contribution here.

»» Posted by: Peter Rees on May 15, 2008 08:40 PM

Hi Ben Shute,

Let me attempt to respond to your question, ‘how do the examples in the above blog entry address root causes?’

Any conversation about ‘root causes’ will quickly reveal the subjective nature of lifting the relevance of one contributing factor over another.  IMHO (In my humble opinion), many of the problems that nonprofits and foundations attempt to address are perpetuated by the structure of the independent sector to begin with.  Nonprofits and foundations are going to have a hard time stamping out a problem as long as their own survival as organizations depends on the perpetuation of the problem. 

By drawing attention to the examples of distributed feedback, informal coalitions of citizen philanthropists, open market places for funding individuals, and greater collaboration among nonprofits, I am describing initiatives that would alter the structure of how social change is conceived and administered.  For me, that’s a root cause that needs attention. 

Social Action platforms like the ones I have described above are in a unique position to reform the way in which nonprofits and foundations go about their work.  They could help transition the independent sector to a more “citizen-centered” model. 

See papers by Cynthia Gibson and Allison Fine on the subject:
http://blog.socialactions.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2062983:BlogPost:1441

But instead of rising to this challenge, a platform like Facebook Causes simply creates more effective ways to maintain the status quo.  Rather than involve citizen philanthropists in the formulation and evaluation of a nonprofit initiative, Facebook Causes simply makes it easier to do the equivalent of writing a check to the general fund of a nonprofit. 

Their application on Facebook encourages citizen participation in a very low impact form.  Not surprisingly, the superficiality of this participation is analogous to the fleeting interaction among friends that Facebook as a whole facilitates.

»» Posted by: Peter Deitz on May 16, 2008 07:47 AM

Interesting idea.

I think that there are ways in which social media tools can be used for many other purposes than just socializing or fund raising. For example, the New Tactics in Human Rights project is looking into using twitter, and other social media tools that utilize mobile phones, to connect human rights activists around the world, to each other through our website. By using Twitter, these activists can communicate through their mobile phones, as they often don’t have regular access to internet. Furthermore, the New Tactics online community will be able to support the activist in the field by communicating with them through the website (and Twitter) and the messages will be received through their mobile phone.

There is so much room for innovation when it comes to using social media for social good!

»» Posted by: Kristin Antin on May 16, 2008 01:38 PM

Great column Peter. I think, if anything, this is even more the case in the UK at the moment. I love web 2.0 as much as the next man, but with all the various social media tools, it’s so important to remember that the new technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I’ve posted on the School for Social Entrepreneurs blog in the past about the rise of slacktivism and hands-free philanthropy (see http://socialentrepreneurs.typepad.com/the_school_for_social_ent/2008/03/unltd-world-voy.html for example). Whilst there is a huge amount of possibility in using social media for social good, the question “if we’d spent those resources in work on the ground would the impact be greater?” should be lurking in the back of people’s minds.

I’m not a luddite by any means: SSE has a blog, a Facebook page/group, a MySpace page, an Amazon bookstore, del.icio.us bookmarks and so on. These are useful in furthering our goals in a range of ways. But without individuals and organisations leading and driving change in the real, offline world, none of these new tools would mean anything. And if the next generation think that change is (only) made in front of a computer screen, I’d say we have a problem.

»» Posted by: Nick Temple on May 21, 2008 03:41 AM