In a session last week at the 2011 GPF Conference, we turned our eyes southward to our nearest neighbors –Mexico, and the countries ofCentral America. Over the past decade, these societies have done many things right – they have built functional democracies, supported the emergence of a strong middle class, and implemented sound economic policies.  But, as Kevin Casas-Zamora of the Brookings Institution pointed out, staggering challenges remain.  “A drug-trafficking tsunami has befallen the region,” he said, resulting in widespread violence, regional instability, and enormous impediments to economic development. In 2010 alone, Mexicoexperienced more than 50,000 drug related murders, seven times the figure in 2006, and has also seen the expansion of other serious crimes including kidnapping, robbery, and extortion. 

Despite all of this, there is hope that we can reach a new moment in the region, and there is a role for philanthropy in getting there. Cristiana Falcone of the Inter-American Development Bank urged philanthropists to promote policies to protect citizen security, and to support the development of creative social justice programs focused on violence prevention for at-risk youth. Kevin also called for philanthropists to fund rigorous research into realistic options for dealing with the illicit narcotics trade – because there are options – and to then weigh these options dispassionately.  Our current approach, “the war on drugs”, has many flaws, but lacks clear alternatives.  Kevin also pointed to the need for more sophisticated use of information and communication technology in law enforcement.  The introduction of up-to-date interactive databases, GPS devices, and more would dramatically improve the ability of the security forces to maintain order and prosecute criminals.  Philanthropists should actively facilitate the adoption of this technology and technology training of police forces in Central America.

In a later session, we heard about the challenges of working post-conflict countries. Carne Ross, Founder and Director of the Independent Diplomat, spoke of the extraordinary rapidity of change in the level of influence of various players on the global stage.  It is no longer a chessboard where states move in predictable ways within clearly defined rules – it is now more of a Jackson Pollack painting, where billions of actors are interacting constantly and anyone can have an influence.  John Prendergast, Co-Founder of The Enough Project, shared examples of the ways in which philanthropists and activists have worked together to successfully implement agile advocacy campaigns that have helped to prevent or mitigate humanitarian atrocities.  In the case of South Sudan, the absence of  violence following the referendum points to the success of good old-fashioned diplomacy backed by new and dynamic advocacy.  As John said, “The fact that there was no smoking gun – THAT is the success.” 

Speaking specifically to philanthropists, Scott Gilmore, Executive Director of the Peace Dividend Trust, argued that, “whatever you’re doing now, you can do it in a conflict zone and have a bigger impact.” He pointed out the double dividends of working in conflict or post-conflict zones – that a job in a conflict zone pays twice: it not only feeds a family, but it also builds long-term stability. There is no doubt that we are at a turning point when it comes to philanthropy in areas of crisis. To be successful in these challenging parts of the world, we must be willing to take great risks. But with these risks, come great rewards.

The impact? Lives can be saved, societies can cohere and democratic states can govern.

More than 27 million people are enslaved across the globe in forced labor and the sex trade. Slavery is growing exponentially because it is lucrative, second in profitability only to drug trafficking among illicit enterprises. Rani Hong, co-founder of the Tronie Foundation and a survivor of child trafficking, shared her moving yet hopeful story. Sold into slavery at the age of seven, she was near death a year later—physically and emotionally destroyed. No longer able to contribute to the profitability of her owner’s business, she was sold to an international adoption agency. Today Rani is a tireless advocate on the issue of slavery, causing a global shift in consciousness by exposing the human cost of slavery and advancing a collective voice among survivors.

Kay Buck, Executive Director of the Coalition Against Slavery & Trafficking (CAST), described their important work on the issue of human trafficking. Victims have a long journey to recovery.  CAST’s comprehensive approach first provides the immediate case management and supportive services they need, including legal services and housing.  Survivors then participate in a one-of-a-kind leadership development program, forming a survivor’s caucus that supports advocacy efforts. The impact of their voices on policies and public awareness has led to the development of stronger protections for victims in bothCaliforniaand Federal anti-trafficking laws.

Efforts to raise awareness are bolstered by a range of communications efforts and the contributions of celebrity voices to the cause. Justin Dillon, director of The Fair Trade Fund, Inc., created a “rockumentary” titled CALL+RESPONSE that combines critically acclaimed artists such as Moby and Natasha Bedingfield with social luminaries such as Cornell West, Madeleine Albright and Nicholas Kristoff. In addition, the Fair Trade Fund, Inc. is currently working with the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking to create the first ever ‘Slavery Footprint’ online tool and mobile application. The tool challenges us to recognize our participation in the modern-day slavery as qualified by their consumption of items created by forced labor.

The consensus in the crowded room this morning is that this is a moment of opportunity to address the dark underside of globalization. Media attention is on the rise, political will is growing, and public awareness is increasing. Many capable organizations are ready to convert our indignation and outrage into compassionate action if they have the resources to do so. The conditions are ripe for building a social movement to end modern-day slavery and we must heed the call to action.

Jane

Jane Wales, President and Co-founder, Global Philanthropy Forum

With the tools we have at our disposal right now, high-quality healthcare for the poor is a realistic goal. And one that has a high return on investment.  Our inability to recognize this up until now points to one of Paul’s “five sins” in the public health debate: the untallied cost of inaction. Often we are plagued by health “sticker shock” – aversion to the costs required for implementation of health options for the poor. Yet we do not weigh these costs against the tremendous costs of inaction – the social costs of orphaning or lost income and of out-of-pocket health expenditures, among others.  These costs are significant and dramatically overshadow the costs of action.

Three speakers followed Paul, each speaking about progress in disease eradication, in the cases of polio, guinea worm, or meningitis. A common theme was the need for long-term commitment, and a willingness to look beyond returns on investment over one quarter, or one to two years.  Returns in health take time, but are worth the wait.  And in these three cases, eradication can be achieved with only an incremental expenditure.  

And so, we must usher in “long-term-ism” to replace our “short-term-ism.” Solving the problems of health and poverty, whether in Haiti or Boston, will require sustained and patient investment. A much-needed revolution in public health is happening right now – and, with Paul Farmer at the wheel, I think we are in good hands.

Jane

Jane Wales, President & Co-founder, Global Philanthropy Forum

Several diverse and engaging sessions over the past two days have explored this extended view of philanthropy, both in how the shift started and where it can take us.  In yesterday morning’s plenary, Antony Bugg-Levine, Managing Director at The Rockefeller Foundation, framed the inflection point at which we stand.  For decades, we’ve organized our view of philanthropy around two basic principles: one, that the only way to solve social problems is through charity or through government; and two, that the only way to create profit is through business.  But recently, these twin assumptions have begun to break down.  New philanthropists, many of them GPF members, are developing fresh approaches in response to changing philanthropic aspirations.

With these new methods, we have an opportunity to be intentional about creating an environment from which a true impact economy can emerge and thrive. It will require colleagues from whom to learn and with whom to collaborate, including members of the informal brain-trust that is the GPF. It will also require putting government policies and practices in place that welcome and encourage these innovations in philanthropy.  Sonal Shah, Director of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation at the White House, identified this as one of two roles for government in encouraging an impact economy: getting the policy environment right, and convening key players to promote cooperation and coordination across the worlds of business and philanthropy.

But beyond policies, we must also build a robust infrastructure for social investing including informed wealth advisors. In a breakout session yesterday evening, panelists considered microfinance, one of the earliest tools of the impact economy. Reeta Roy, President and CEO of The MasterCard Foundation, emphasized that philanthropy has a hugely valuable and honorable role to play in helping to build an ecosystem to support microfinance. Through the creation and support of technical assistance funds, partnerships with existing institutions, and capacity building, philanthropy can dramatically improve the environment in which impact economy projects take place.

Another key step in moving toward an impact economy relates back to yesterday’s conversation with Jeff Raikes of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: we must establish clear standards for success, so that we know it when we see it.  In an afternoon session, James Mwangi of Kenya’s Equity Bank, stood up to emphasize that evaluation depends on the lens through which we think about and assess our investments. He pointed out that microfinance is a response to a market failure to be inclusive – it is not a remedy for poverty.  “Microfinance will always fail if we measure it and evaluate it through a poverty perspective, not a financial one.”

In a session this morning on distributed innovation, panelists presented several remarkable and tangible examples of how to make smart capital investments for impact. Neil Gershenfeld, Director of the Center for Bits and Atoms at MIT, and his colleague Amy Sun, Founder and Director of Fab Lab in Afghanistan, spoke of a bold idea for providing inspiration, education, and livelihood to people around the world: physically putting the tools of innovation into the hands of those who can and will use them. “Innovators are strange people,” Gershenfeld said, “and we need more projects that find the strange people and give them the tools they need.” This is exactly what their project, Fab Labs, does.  Amy spoke of the lessons we as philanthropists can learn from pyramid schemes, applied to education – teaching a few, who will then teach others. Amy also made a pitch for the merits of an exit strategy.  Fab Labs sets up labs around the world, and then “abandons” them, so that they may learn and grow on their own.  Amy’s lab in Afghanistan has been completely self-sustained and funded for the past four years.

In the private sector, far-sighted CEOs are leading efforts to ensure that social good is intrinsic to the value chain of the companies that they lead.  Chuck Slaughter spoke about the Living Goods model, which supports and trains an Avon-like network of door-to-door saleswomen who sell a variety of needed health goods at affordable prices, earning a livelihood for themselves, and improving health in their community.  Aun Rahman, the Country Director of Acumen in Pakistan, described an ambulance chain in India that, thanks to changes in government policies, was able to attract a great deal of private capital and expand dramatically, to the benefit of the poor in the region.

Overall, the double bottom-line is this: to have a true impact economy, we need the policies that enable it, the shared standards that will govern and shape it, a cadre of professionals to nurture and manage it, and the social investors that will fuel it.  Each of us can help all four of these factors come into play.

Jane

Jane Wales, President & Co-Founder, The Global Philanthropy Forum

As a result, donors are working together to align their investments in new ways. On Thursday, Brizio Biondi-Morra, President of Fundación AVINA, and Sally Osberg, President and CEO of the Skoll Foundation, shared reflections on the robust partnership formed between their two organizations to address climate change. Together, they focus on deforestation of the Amazon. With this issue, as with so many, collaboration is necessary given the scale and complexity of the problem. Commonality of vision and values, complementarity in skills and expertise, and strong trust between partners can enable them to achieve dramatic results.

With so many institutions and actors comfortable with—and in many cases supportive of—the status quo in the Amazon, Brizio explained that the project felt insolvable. But to do nothing was unthinkable, as huge swaths of the Amazon rainforest are destroyed each day. The collaboration was an intelligent gamble and took advantage of the key strengths of both organizations, such as the Skoll Foundation’s ability to raise the visibility of the issue and Fundación AVINA’s deep local knowledge and networks inLatin America. The partnership between the two organizations took time to build—and even included a shared journey into the Amazon—but the benefits have been worth the time spent. Together they have shifted the conversation inBrazilabout the Amazon and ensured that the negative effects of deforestation are reflected in public discourse and in policy.

“Networked” giving approaches are another way that donors can amplify the impact of their investments. Philanthropists are joining forces with fellow donors and partnering across sectors to achieve greater impact. Work to empower women and girls across the developing world exemplifies this approach. An impressive and growing body of evidence on the subject indicates that such investments have a significant multiplier effect.  Here, there is a real opportunity for philanthropists to achieve impact. The Nike Foundation, for example, is engaged with the NoVo Foundation and the British aid agency, DFID, partnering across sectors and core competencies to empower women and girls.

Last, we were reminded by Ruth Levine, Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning at USAID that philanthropists can and should leverage each others’ resources through alignment on data and evaluation. When donors support the standardization of data, it permits analyses and comparisons across programs, people and geographies, which can foster learning and continuous improvement across the field. Ruth encouraged us to consider supporting adherence to existing data standards instead of developing them anew. This contributes to the common good and gives donors a “free ride” on the investments that supported the development of those standards.

As philanthropists, we must invest in becoming smart users of data that demonstrates program impact. Standardized, rigorous evaluation methods will enable comparisons of results across studies and promote greater confidence in the level of impact.

Over the last decade at GPF, we have built a community of donors that shares a vision and values and is committed to international causes. As we mark our 10^th anniversary, I am struck by the degree to which aligning for greater impact has become fundamental to the way GPF members pursue their mission.

Jane

Jane Wales

President & Co-founder, Global Philanthropy Forum

At Laurene’s prompting, Ben shared the history of his involvement in the region.  After being asked to lend his support for advocacy efforts regarding the crisis in Darfur, he sought to educate himself about the region. He was shocked by the tremendous level of human suffering in the eastern Congo, about which he had not known enough. He spent the next year making multiple trips to the conflict-torn republic learning all that he could about the issues and the actors involved. He jokingly reported that he set out to get a graduate degree in the region without having completed college.

Undaunted by the larger challenges of working in a failed state that have kept other donors away, Ben decided to make the DRC a focus of his philanthropy. He reached out to smart, seasoned philanthropists, such as Howard Buffet, Pam Omidyar, and Cindy McCain, to devise a strategy that combines advocacy with philanthropic investment. In March 2010, Ben founded the Eastern Congo Initiative (ECI), the first US-based advocacy and grant-making initiative wholly focused on working with and for the people of the eastern Congo. ECI grants directly support innovative Congolese-led community-based organizations that are working to create a vibrant, sustainable civil society in the long-troubled region.

A thoughtful, informed and committed philanthropist, Ben made a persuasive case. When asked how the lessons he has learned might inform the work of the many donors in the room, he spoke of the lack of shared learnings in philanthropy as one of its greatest failings. “It’s almost inexcusable,” he said. We must do better at transferring knowledge so that each does not have to reinvent the wheel. Convenings like the GPF and constant building of our learning networks are crucial for advancing philanthropic practice.

To conclude, Ben introduced the musical group Maisha Soul, four brothers from the DRC ranging in age 13 to 22. Prince, Eric, Achilles and Innocent chose music – a combination of R&B, blues, hip hop and traditional song – as their means of overcoming the pain in their lives. Their moving performance embodied the hope and promise of the youth of the DRC, and the future they will usher in for their country.

Jane

Jane Wales
President & Co-Founder, Global Philanthropy Forum

There are five billion mobile phones globally and approximately one billion are smart phones. Mobile telephony has become the primary means of communications in the developing world, providing an infrastructure to reach those who were previously invisible. With this connectivity we have a vast untapped platform for creating employment opportunities, advancing economic activity, and building wealth.

The adoption of mobile telephones is altering markets in unforeseen ways. Reuben Abraham, Executive Director of the Center for Emerging Market Solutions at the Indian School of Business shared with us how Indian fisherman are using cell phones to monitor prices across markets, make production decisions based on real time information, and manage their fishing practices to reduce time spent idle. As a result, high price dispersions have been reduced.

But Abraham cautioned that the majority of the benefits in this example are accruing not to the fishermen but to other supply chain actors—the boat owners and the commission agents. The technology also has enabled those at the top of the supply chain to coordinate attacks on the fishermen.

Leila Chirayath Janah, founder and CEO of Samasource, explained how connective technology is enabling her organization to bring dignified, digital employment to otherwise marginalized people around the world. Samasource disaggregates large contracts for content moderation and data entry into smaller tasks that can be executed by workers anywhere. Janah posits that micro-work is the reinvention of economic development and digital work centers are the factories of the future, enabling us to regard marginalized people as producers for the first time. To date Samasource has received contracts for more than $1.5 million in work from high profile companies, 85 percent of which goes to the workers themselves.

We also have seen the tremendous power of connective technology to provide a platform for the expression of popular discontent and political mobilization, unsettling and even helping to topple governments. Ken Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, noted that the use of technology in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere has enabled the modern human rights movement; access to information has been essential for advancing change. Facebook and Twitter made an enormous difference in these cases, permitting “leaderless” revolutions and creating the opportunity for people to stand up and be counted, but with a sense of safety in numbers.

But in the face of the challenge to authority this technology allows, some governments have sought to limit access to information.  The Libyan government closed access to the Internet, but soon discovered this thwarted communications among its own security forces.  The Syrian government welcomed Facebook to allow for a higher level of monitoring of individual and collective behavior. The Chinese government is cracking down on access to information in ways that have not been seen in over a decade and it is clear they have the resources to overwhelm any uprising.

Is access to information itself a right and what is our responsibility as the connective network grows ever stronger? Social norms have not kept pace with technology. As a result, the rights and expectations of users are unclear.

Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, cautioned that we are giving up more and more information about ourselves, whether through our mobile phones tracking our movements, voluntary “check-ins” via applications such as Foursquare, or an ever-expanding presence of surveillance cameras. He warns that technology is becoming ubiquitous and inescapable, and repressive regimes will use this information to their benefit.

Throughout these discussions at GPF 2011 we have seen that connective technology is both a goldmine of opportunity and a potentially powerful tool for harm. This is truly a turning point for philanthropy and the choices individuals make will dictate whether technology is a driving force for good or for ill.

Jane

Jane Wales
President & Co-Founder, Global Philanthropy Forum

Jeff brought up the example of Guinea Worm as a model for where we, as philanthropists, have been in global health, where we’re going, and what we need to get there. In just twenty-five years, the world has gone from 3.5 million cases of Guinea Worm to just 1,700 in 2010, in large measure because of the extraordinary work of The Carter Center. This is a tribute to hard and persistent work of many people, including some of the GPF’s members, but also an example of the profound impact that low-tech solutions can have.  The allure and excitement of high tech solutions often lead us to neglect the simple, cost-effective low-tech solution right in front of us.  The dramatic reduction in Guinea Worm has been largely achieved through the provision of public health solutions – safe drinking water provision and behavioral change interventions.

Jeff tells us that more than tracking the numbers, we need to think about what they mean. What does one case of guinea worm represent? What does it mean, day-to-day, for the life of the person affected? For that person’s family?  It’s not simply one life improved or saved. The data we collect can tell this larger story.

While the purpose of M&E is to improve performance and enhance impact, it is not meant to remove risk. But as philanthropists we have the unique privilege of being in a position to take the risks that government and the private sector cannot, or will not.  Failure as a philanthropist is not the failure of a grant or project. Rather, in Jeff’s words, “our failure will be if we don’t learn from those experiences.” THAT is failure. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is guided by this philosophy, as should we be, as engaged, agile, and committed philanthropists.

Jane

Jane Wales
President & Co-Founder, Global Philanthropy Forum

This year’s conference takes stock of what we have learned over the last ten years. We are exploring the new fundamentals that have enabled success. We are considering philanthropy’s turning points, and exploring the issues and actors that are at a moment of inflection.  We look to share our lessons with growing economies to accelerate possibilities for social change.

One of philanthropy’s most promising new fundamentals that we will explore over the next three days is the tremendous growth in collaboration seen in the past few years. Today’s philanthropists are ambitious in their social goals and are taking on very large problems. They are leveraging not only one another but also other sectors, joining forces and aligning for impact. What can we learn from “networked” giving approaches and can they be replicated elsewhere?

One turning point we will explore is the expansion of connective technology, which has enhanced communication within and among societies and empowered individuals previously isolated by geography, poverty, or politics. These technological innovations are providing a larger set of tools for the social change toolbox. How will they change the work of philanthropy in the years to come?

Another significant turning point is the expanded definition of philanthropy. Our members were bold enough to define philanthropy broadly to encompass all private means of financing positive social change, a definition that allowed them not only to explore but to expand the options and more fully align their assets with their intentions. We will explore the emerging impact economy, considering its first building block in microfinance to the requirements of an enabling environment for impact investing. How will the emergence of an impact economy amplify our ability to achieve social change?

We also will explore regions at a turning point. North Africa is experiencing sweeping change. Pakistan and Afghanistan are struggling under the weight of enormous political, economic and social challenges that can undermine social cohesion and state capacity. Mexico and Central America are threatened by organized criminal networks that are affecting both human security and state capacity, raising the prospect of a failed state on our border. While in Central Africa, conflict continues to rage in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Over the next three days we will discuss the challenges and opportunities in these regions and the ways philanthropy and civil society can help to address them.

Last, we will consider the globalization of philanthropy. GPF started with a core of American philanthropists, but we’re now increasingly international and extending our reach. How can we take the lessons learned from the last decade to “leap frog” traditional charity in two fast growing economies: China and India?

The agenda for the 2011 GPF is rich in content and features speakers at the cutting edge of social change.  I invite you to follow our GPF experience over the next three days through our webcasts, which can be viewed at http://www.livestream.com/gpf2011, via this blog, and on Twitter (@gpforg; #gpf2011).

Jane

Jane Wales
President & Co-Founder, Global Philanthropy Forum

One such experiment is Google’s philanthropy arm, Google.org, or DotOrg for short. Structured as part of the for-profit company, it reflects a fundamental shift in corporate philanthropy.  Whereas corporate foundations used grants and employee volunteer time as their only tools, increasingly corporate executives work to assure that social outcomes are intrinsic to their company’s value chain. Many believe that the right business decisions can unleash market forces that, in turn, can drive positive and sustainable social change.

What sets DotOrg apart is that it is embedded in a search giant in the Information Age, a time when decision-making and authority are decentralized, and the individual, for better or for ill, reigns supreme.

It may be that many of the world’s most daunting problems, as well as their solutions, will be the aggregate effect of millions of individual choices – whether they be to limit the water and energy we consume; to resist taking up arms; to engage in healthy practices; or to vote, and demand that that vote be counted.

Informing those choices can be the ultimate form of philanthropic leverage.

No one understands that better than the executives and employees of a company whose first maxim is “focus on the user and the rest will follow.”

And, so Google has blurred the lines between the company and the philanthropy, naming its brilliant VP for New Product Development as DotOrg’s leader, embedding DotOrg program staff in product teams, and fostering a smart and deep collaboration between Google’s public-spirited engineers and external experts in large problems like poverty or climate change. Their combined talent has produced such products as PowerMeter, which allows the user to track home energy consumption, and in the aggregate, to contribute to mitigating climate change. Google Earth Engine allows the user to monitor deforestation in real time, informing efforts to promote the responsible use of this vital natural resource. Google Crisis Response and Resource Finder enable individual and group relief efforts after natural and man-made disasters. By informing individual choice and action, DotOrg hopes that these products can help to advance the social good more broadly.

Critics argue that these innovations are important mainly in the rich world where computers are ubiquitous. That may be true today. But the introduction and rapidly spreading use of “smart” phones, which provide internet access, is changing that equation.  In the short term, Google has work-arounds like SpeaktoTweet, which shows that states cannot deny the oxygen of unfiltered information to a public yearning for a better life.

But, over the long term, the company’s most significant contribution will likely be its decision to translate the world’s knowledge into the languages of the developing world. Leveraging that innovation will be DotOrg’s largest opportunity to harness information technology to social change. The combination of automated translation and connective technologies can change our world.

The Times article is critical of DotOrg’s prior leadership for making similarly bold claims, thereby raising expectations to a level that could not be met in a period short enough to match our attention span. Fair enough. Perhaps it would have been wise to have been quieter during the philanthropy’s “quiet phase,” as DotOrg defined its goals and honed its method. New models take time to develop and prove their worth.

While that criticism may be fair, in the scheme of things, it seems unimportant.

Like the rest of us, Googlers could not and cannot foresee the full social, economic and political implications of providing the world’s knowledge to those who were previously isolated by poverty or politics. (Although Google Chairman Eric Schmidt co-authored a deeply thoughtful Foreign Affairs article on the subject.)

But Googlers do know one thing, and that is the level at which large decisions will be made– and that is at the level of the individual

Even for a giant like Google, with 31 billion searches each month, that knowledge alone is humbling – and hopeful.

Jane

Jane Wales
President & Co-Founder, Global Philanthropy Forum