Foundation 2.0: Are Networks the Future of Philanthropy?

A recent conversation with Brook Manville reminded me of a question that has been puzzling me for a while: Why don't philanthropic foundations think more about networks?

The traditional philanthropic model revolves around money. Foundations have it, and nonprofits need it. So the foundations give it to the nonprofits in the form of a grant. There's a lot more to it, of course, but that's the basic idea.

Money is important, but it's not everything. When I talk to friends and colleagues in the nonprofit sector, what I hear again and again is a desire for knowledge. A charter school in Oakland wants to know whether a particular after-school program is a good use of their limited funding. A clinic in Tanzania wants to know how to increase compliance with a malaria treatment regimen. A music school in Philadelphia wants to know whether it should invest in commercial software to manage its box office.

There are a lot of reasons why nonprofit executives are hungry for knowledge. They work on particularly stubborn problems. The sector is highly fragmented and specialized. The absence of a strong market mechanism and regulating institutions allow bad management practices to endure. But in the end, nonprofit executives are doing what executives in every industry do: trying to learn from the experiences of others to improve their own performance.

If there is one thing that we've learned from the Web 2.0 phenomenon, it's that interpersonal networks are extremely effective in addressing these kinds of knowledge needs. Nonprofit practitioners benefit enormously when they connect with other nonprofit practitioners doing the same type of work. If I'm trying to increase compliance with a particular drug regimen in Tanzania, it is incredibly useful for me to connect with other practitioners who have done (or at least tried to do) the same thing in other parts of Tanzania, sub-Saharan Africa, or the South Side of Chicago. I can learn from their successes and their mistakes, and dramatically accelerate my own learning.

This knowledge transfer is already happening, but not effectively. Face-to-face conferences are expensive and often logistically impossible. In the absence of good public sources of knowledge, personal networks are even more important than in the for-profit sector. But like all personal networks, they don't scale efficiently.

It's not hard to imagine a better way. I'm envisioning an online knowledge networking tool for nonprofits. Nonprofit executives could go there to join discussions, share and access documents, describe case studies, find experts, create affinity groups, etc. Think of it as a standing online industry conference for nonprofit executives. And you don't even have to get on a plane.

Somebody needs to host this party, and philanthropic foundations are the natural hosts. In the near-term, each foundation would create a site exclusive to its funded organizations. Being supported by a particular foundation would not simply be a matter of receiving funding. It would also include an invitation (and a corresponding obligation) to become an active participant in a network of practitioners. The more wisely a foundation invests, the more powerful its proprietary network would become. I could even imagine a time when grant renewal decisions were determined by the quality of a fundee's participation in the network, and when inclusion in a foundation's proprietary network became more important to nonprofits than the accompanying financial support.

Bill and Melinda, are you listening?

Comments

[Todd]

Michael,
A friend sent me your post. Spot on mate!
We are trying to affect the sector in the UK in this very way. Suspicion, provincial thinking (my problem is not the same as yours), and ownership (homegrown, recreation of the wheel proves I am a stalwart) issues pervade.

However, we represent a new era of social enterprise and we are trying to connect the dots to private enterprises with a social bent. A slog to be sure, but we think its the injection of resources (in much the way you are describing) that is the key.

I would be interested in figuring out how we could get such a network off the ground. Some fraction of this does exist (www.xigi.net for money networks), but it is more push than collaboration. Also, Skoll Foundation has a network of sorts, but I have not come across a purpose built portal.

Are you going to take this forward? If so, give me a bell as I would be interested in starting it up in the UK.

Kind Regards,
Todd

[@harrylyme]

Head's Up! You are getting blasted on Twitter by someone who filters all the time :) http://tinyurl.com/5jso5d

[Michael Idinopulos]

Jean, thanks for your post. I had mistakenly flagged it as spam. No censorship intended. It is hereby restored, with my apologies. It's great to hear there are nonprofit communities like the ones I imagine already in existence. Your list also reinforces the fact that this is still a relatively new and fringy phenomenon. Where are the major foundations in all of this?
harrylyme, thanks for the heads-up.

Best,
Michael

[Niki Buchen]

Knowledge is might and only people who know something will come ahead. More then ever it is important to learn something and to be good in this. It doesnot matter if it tis an profit orangization or a non profit one. Greetings, Niki

[Jean Russell]

Thanks Michael. Glad you got it. Meyer Memorial Trust is the largest family foundation in Oregon, I believe. But as far as I know, theirs is the only one going beyond silos of brand.

Ashoka is working at Changemakers.net to help connect the public and their fellows, but technology is not their strong suit. Skoll Foundation with Social Edge is interesting, but I rarely go there. Check with someone like Jessica Margolin in the Bay Area for more info on them. Do you know her? I would love to see Omidyar Network working on something like this, but they might be too burned on the online community they had for several years. You can check with Thomas at Omidyar Network on their efforts to go beyond silo thinking.

I am not aware of what Gates, MacArthur, and others are doing in this line. If anyone does know, I would love to learn about it. Large foundations are usually slow to take up technology solutions without proven success pilots. In fact, all too often foundations conflate solutions that use technology for technology itself. Many orgs I consult with have pushed against this for years. This helps explain why the foundations embracing technology-based solutions are from the wealth in the technology sector itself.