Do the Word

Thanks to Sean Stannard-Stockton for the key to unlock an article or two for free from the subscription-only Alliance Magazine vault. Even if I had had to pay $35 to read the free Regranting: smart humility? article by Jacob Harold, I would have gotten a better deal than poor 7-year old Olivia.

Olivia, as Harold describes (and Stannard-Stockton corroborates in a parallel piece), gave her “life savings” to the Gates Foundation, which, apparently after no small amount of internal discussion and debate, graciously condescended to accept the gift. According to Patty Stonesifer, who was serving as Gates Foundation CEO at the time that Olivia’s gift arrived,

Do you say no to a 7-year-old girl, but yes to Warren Buffett? One way or another, she did convince us to do some deep thinking.

Deep thinking, indeed.

Harold (who, it is worth noting, is a Philanthropy Program Officer at the Hewlett Foundation) describes the pros and cons of “regranting”–donors like Olivia giving foundations like Gates their money based on the conviction that a foundation is going to do a better job of determining to whom the money should be given.

Writes Harold:

In the US alone, there are over 97,000 foundations and grantmaking public charities. About 5,000 of them have paid staff. Like all institutions, they vary in effectiveness. But in that group are some superb professionals – people with decades of experience on the world’s most complex social issues, who are plugged into vast networks that include the best of the old and the new, the North and the South. They are not necessarily smarter, but they are better positioned to make philanthropic decisions than an average donor – no matter how brilliant that donor may be in her day job as a teacher or doctor or cabinetmaker.

My my my…

I know, I know: I’ll sound paranoid if I protest that it is unfair that the criteria of judging who is more effective in tackling the world’s most complex social issues, teachers/doctors/cabinetmakers or superb granting professionals, is determined by the super granting professionals themselves.

And I’ll sound simply ignorant if I contend that these superb granting professionals’ vast networks featuring the best of the old and the new can be aced out by a motivated chap sitting at a computer and utilizing the vastly more vast informal networks available to motivated chaps sitting at computers these days.

And I’d sound downright Luddite if I suggested that professionals in established foundations may be at a disadvantage compared to small, lithe, barely legitimate local organizations and networks, once one thinks about overhead, paperwork, and the ability we have to convince ourselves of just how effective we are at darn near anything when money’s involved. (Have you ever, for example, seen even a single foundation declare defeat on a major social issue after they’ve made it their granting focus for three years? How can that be? Doesn’t that make you just a little suspicious?)

But let me be as gracious in conceding each of the above points as the Gates folks were in agreeing to receive the contents of dear Olivia’s piggy bank.

Instead, let me focus on just one issue:

Why would a foundation that receives donations from individuals not measure whether donating to the foundation made the donor wiser and better equipped to tackle the world’s most complex social problems than they were before they made the donation to the foundation?

In other words, I grant that most foundations don’t place the same value as I and Mission Increase Foundation do on the impact giving has on the giver.

But ought it not to matter at all?

Fans of regranting would contend that Warren Buffet and seven-year old Olivia exercised “smart humility” in giving their charitable dollars to the Gates Foundation to dole out. They would contend further that because the Gates Foundation knows better how to spend those dollars, the world will be a better place than if Buffet or Olivia spent those dollars themselves.

But do you really believe that?

What might have happened if Buffet attempted to give his billions to Gates, and Gates rejected them, saying, “Warren, there’s one thing that could impact the world more profoundly than you giving me $40 billion to give away. And that’s you learning to become a philanthropist capable of effectively giving away that $40 billion yourself.”

Heck, what might have happened if Gates rejected Olivia’s life savings as well?

What if he had said, “Olivia, let our superb professionals train you not only how to give away that $35 yourself but also how to give away more than money so that your hand (which always ought to come attached to any money you give away) can ever more skillfully and personally make an impact on the most complex social issues facing your generation.”

As it is, what has Olivia learned?

Before you answer, it might be good for you to have a close look at the strict guidelines under which the Gates Foundation is willing to accept donations from individuals.

• Will Olivia be able to direct her $35 to a particular cause of interest to her that Gates is tackling? Nope–gifts cannot be designated.
• Will Olivia find out where her $35 went? Negatory–gifts go to the general fund, and reporting about individual donations is “not tracked”.
• Can Olivia be sure that her $35 will be spent before she dies? Er, no–the foundation does not make a commitment to spend monies in the same year they’re received. It may take them quite a while to get to spending that there $35.

So what has Olivia learned?

That changing the world is best left in the hands of the pros. Along with your check, of course.

Shame on you, Gates Foundation.

And better luck with your next $35, Olivia.

There is, of course, that old joke about the flea who rode on the elephant’s back across the bridge. On the other side, the flea shouts, “Wow, we really shook that bridge!”

The Millenial Generation is about to cross the bridge. Technology permits them to choose whether they will be the flea or the elephant.

Meet the (very endearing) flea:

Sites like wearewhatwedo.org and movements like slacktivism claim that (in the words of the We Are What We Do folks):

Small actions x Lots of people = Big change

For slacktivists, “click actions”–signing or forwarding an e-petition, for example, or become a fan of a charitable cause via Facebook–are the small actions of choice. In the words of The Extraordinaries‘ Jacob Colker:

[Millennials] are used to text messaging, MySpace, Facebook, get-in, get-out, instant gratification. For them, going out and cleaning up a park — that’s not necessarily attractive to them…

If you’ve hung with this blog for a while, you know that I am about as big a fan of participation projects as they come. In fact, they’re absolutely foundational to Transformational Giving, and no small amount of our Coach Your Champions book is dedicated to the topic. If it’s short-term, high-touch, high-yield, and understandable without external reference, chances are I’m all over it…

…Almost.

Here’s the rub:

We are on the verge of forgetting the most important characteristic of a great participation project, namely:

The project must never enable participants to find fulfillment within its boundaries but must instead open our eyes to something far grander that, once we see it, we find ourselves completely swept into it.

There must, in other words, be an E (engagement, comprehensively, with the broader cause) in your P (participation project) in order for small actions x lots of people = big change.

To stick with the math theme, P + P + P + P + P just don’t equal E.

In English, that means that lots of people participating in small actions doesn’t equal lots of people comprehensively engaged with the cause on a level capable of generating substantive change. You can text WESHALLOVERCUM to 82232 on your Verizon Wireless cell phone all day long and you’ll still never get a Selma to Montgomery march with police dogs, firehoses, and a whole country rethinking its social compact.

This is apparent on the We Are What We Do site itself, where three columns purport to show the direct relationship between small actions (left column), lots of people (middle column), and big change (right column):

• In the left hand column on the page, Small Actions, you’ll see directives like “Make someone smile”, “Make coffee for someone busier than you”, and “Don’t job someone by the job you do”.
• In the middle column on the page, Lots of People, you’ll actually see the number of people who have done each of the directives. Can’t get any more quantified than that!
• Where the problem comes is the right hand column, Big Change. Even though the left hand column says “Bake something for a friend“, and even though the middle column might note that the action has been completed 21,818 times, the right hand column can’t quite figure out the Big Change that derived from all that baking. Instead the right hand column lists job openings, media coverage of the site, and book releases. That’s because P + P + P + P may result in an awful lot of gingerbread entering our friends’ larders, but it falls well short of reducing lawsuits, curbing world hunger, increasing social capital, or effecting Big Change.

Millenials have latched on to something truly insightful: Participation projects–even “click actions”–can draw new legions into involvement with major social problems for the first time.

But we should never lose sight of the reality that even the best participation projects are fleas riding on the backs of causal elephants. The problem with becoming a Facebook fan or a slacktivist or an Extraordinary is that too often these actions sate our appetites to go deeper, rather than intensifying them.

Sadly, I scored 100% on Charity Navigator’s Back To School Quiz, posted today on the nonprofit watchdog’s website.  Today’s post is my repentance.

Now, let me be clear. I like Charity Navigator in general and the premise of the quiz in particular:

As the new school year gets underway, the first item on every teacher’s agenda is to determine what knowledge his/her students have retained over the summer. This inspired our staff to create a short, 12 question quiz to assess your nonprofit aptitude. Our nonprofit test will reveal whether you’re ready to move to the front of the class or if you could use a refresher course.

The quiz is nicely designed. After you answer each question, you get a little lecture explaining why you were right or wrong. And if you’ve been reading the blog for a while, you know that CN’s biases not infrequently match my own, and I typically defend them against most comers (e.g., see here and here).

My problem came on Question 5 of the Back To School Quiz.

I knew what answer Charity Navigator wanted. And I knew that I could not in good conscience give that answer.

As you might expect, my convictions caved like a tower of Jell-O in the face of my desire just to ace the test.

Ergo, this repentant blog.

Question 5 asks, innocently enough:

The best way to help after a major disaster (like Hurricane Katrina or the Myanmar Cyclone), when people desperately require the basic necessities such as food, water, and clothing is to:

____donate money to a vetted charity

____box up and send your old clothing

____purchase and send nonperishable items like bottled water

The answer Charity Navigator wants you to pick, of course, is the first option: donate money to a vetted charity. And because I have no cajones and still maintain my schoolboy competitiveness, I selected that option and was rewarded with the happy green checkmark and the following explanation:

Correct.

After a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, tornado, and other natural disasters, we’re often bombarded with images of people in dire need of food and water. [Snide editor’s note: It is of course the vetted charities that bombard us with those images. But I digress. I have no moral standing to make this snide observation, since I cast my principles to the wind and opted for the green checkmark and the ten points.] It is hard to fault anyone who wants to send such items to the afflicted region. But this simple type of philanthropy is not practical or efficient. Right after a disaster, there is no one to receive these goods, much less organize them and distribute them to the victims. Furthermore, charities are often able to partner with companies to acquire in-kind donations such as bottled water and new clothing.

So, instead of  buying things like canned food and diapers, the best way to help is by simply donating money to a highly-rated relief charity. Instead of boxing up and sending your old clothing, have a garage sale and turn your used goods into cash and donate that to a worthy charity. And if possible, make your contribution online so that the charities quickly receive and put your donation to good use.

Oh dear.

In Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is A Better Way For Africa, Dambisa Moyo notes:

(N)ine months after the 2004 Asian tsunami, for whatever the reason (bureaucracy, institutional inefficiencies or the absence of suitable organizations on the ground to disburse the monies), the charity World Vision had spent less than a quarter of the US $100 million it had raised.

As regards charities partnering with companies to acquire in-kind donations such as bottled water and new clothing, the phrase reminded me of a great dinner conversation I had a few weeks back with a couple of colleagues who had operated a key warehouse for one of the highly-regarded (vetted) disaster relief charities in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They told funny-if-they-weren’t-so-sad stories about the literal truckloads of Spanish language romance novels and truck-size pairs of Dickies jeans that came as in-kind donations from corporate partners.

Oops.

So what’s the answer? Boxing up old clothes? Purchasing and mailing bottled water?

According to a report issued last month on the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the answer is a surprising and direct refutation to the Charity Navigator notion that “(r)ight after a disaster, there is no one to receive these goods, much less organize them and distribute them to the victims.”

The conclusion of this year’s Disaster Accountability Project report is that the US remains “dangerously unprepared” for the next catastrophic storm–and not because donors aren’t channeling enough money to highly-regarded, worthy, vetted charities.

Instead, a key reason why is that a major element of disaster response capacity is overlooked; namely, the small, local volunteer-based organizations, from churches to food pantries to community centers to homeless shelters, already on the ground and ready to receive, organize, and distribute–knowledgeably–critical relief supplies to the areas they’ve already been serving for years.

The critical role of local organizations and their ability to reach community members in need cannot be ignored. While these small nonprofits and faith-based organizations do not have the resources for national public service announcements and billion dollar fundraising campaigns, they need access to some of the donated dollars that flow into the coffers of larger organizations able to broadcast commercials across the country. FEMA might consider exploring ways that donated dollars can be split proportionally or that even a small percentage (5-10%) can be used to support the important work of local organizations.

The correct answer to Question 5, in other words, has been crowded off the screen  in exactly the same way the correct answer is crowded out of the disaster relief solution by all the worthy, highly-regarded, vetted relief orgs.

The correct answer is that the future belongs to small, dare I say even unincorporated, ministries sprawling with volunteers connecting with individuals and other small, unincorporated ministries, all discipled to serve in their sphere of influence before, during, and after whatever hurricanes come their way.