Poking Sticks at the Big Foundations

Earlier this week in DC, I had the pleasure of hearing the very provocative William Schambra chairing a panel for his Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at the Hudson Institute on the topic of “Searchers v Planners in International Development Aid.” Here’s a portion of how Bill set the stage:

One of the central convictions of the Bradley Center is that American philanthropy is too much infatuated with the “big plan”, the grand offensive against social problems organized around the latest social theory about how best to manipulate human behavior to desirable ends backed by millions of foundation dollars gathered in what they always describe as a comprehensive collaborative consortium. Typically after five years of lavish spending on outside consultants, carefully selected, readily pliable community specialists and, of course, a neighborhood office cheerily decorated with children’s art from the nearby elementary school, the big plan finally closes its doors and files its final report filled with inspiring statistics about progress made, utterly undaunted by the fact that the initiative has obviously has made not the slightest dent against the problem. Because the big plan is obviously a collaborative project, however, everyone is readily complicit in preserving a polite if not slightly embarrassed silence about the chasm between the planned and end result.

Schambra then went on to talk about, by comparison, the small and all but invisible enterprises in these same neighborhoods led by trusted leaders who are making slow but steady progress against the goals articulated by the “big plan.” This framework of “planners v. searchers” was then applied to the world of global development illustrated by William Easterly's controversial new book , The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (The Penguin Press, 2006). Easterly couldn't be bothered to stay off of his Blackberry while the panelists critiqued his book so I can't be bothered to write about what he said.
As for Mr. Schambra and his contention that big foundations have it all wrong and the emerging army of mega-philanthropists are poised for mad success? Sounds like a perspective Philanthromedia will be bringing you more of in the new year.
Stream the audio from your desktop.

Susan Herr

Comments

My hope is that via the Internet we can connect new and old, and big and small philanthropy, along with those doing social work and those needing extra help in an on-line learning network that leads to better collaboration, better understanding, better distribution of resources, and better outcomes.

Some organizations are beginning to aggregate information about specic social issues, and use visual technolgies, like Geographic Information Systems, to create map that show the areas in a city where help is needed, and what charities already operate in these areas.

If the big dollar folks would use maps to guide their plan, and their partnership-building and their distribution of results, it's possible that resources will go to the repetition of actions over many years, and in many places, that lead to good outcomes.

In the Program Locator section of http://www.tutormentorconnection.org we demonstrate an application of GIS to support volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs in Chicago

At http://www.agishost.com/givingmap/ another organization demonstrates how GIS can be used to draw donations to charities in upstate New York.

If we can get new or old philanthropists to look at maps like these as they make giving decisions, we can create a better distribution of resources and more consistent support for non profits doing important work.

Maybe this will also lead to greater support for a project, so that when one funding pool dries up, several others are already in place.

Hmmm. I think you really drank the Koolaid this time, Susan. Ask yourself why the director of the very conservative Bradley Center, former chief of staff for Ed Meese, is so concerned about "big plans" in philanthropy. Why would this be a central concern of a very conservative think tank that spends half its budget commissioning anti-liberal pabulum?

I'm pretty sure I know why, and I don't think it has anything to do with an abiding concern for the small and all but invisible enterprises.