Looking Back, Looking Forward

Two years ago next month, I was able to cast my first vote in a presidential election, for Barack Obama. I was a college senior at the time and in the months leading up to the election, my college campus was full of the hope and change that the Obama campaign was spreading around the country. I went to a extremely liberal school and Obama buttons and stickers could be seen attached to every backpack outside the dining hall and on the door of most professors' offices. Topics of conversation didn't stray much from the idiocy of Sarah Palin, the fall of John McCain from his pre-2007 persona and the most recent stats on the Democrats' assured takeover from FiveThirtyEight.com. Our older professors told us this is what it felt like when Robert Kennedy was running for president. I don't know if that was true, but I've never felt such a collective sense of joy and hope for the future from my peers.

I was an aspiring journalist at the time, and being the downer that I am, I decided it would be a good idea to go around and interview people about what they thought would happen if Obama lost. I had memories of the tears on my high school classmates' faces the day after Kerry lost in 2004 and I couldn't bear the thought of my generation having to go through another loss like that. I wanted to be prepared for the inevitable and I considered it my civic duty to go around and bring everyone down a notch, just to make sure things didn't get out of control. Because you never know.

The response was encouraging. There was no doubt that if Obama lost, things would not be good, and on my college campus especially--we were so liberal we considered Tom Friedman a war criminal. In the course of my interviews, I was able to talk with the then-Vice President of the College Democrats of America, who happened to be my classmate. He said that the enthusiasm surrounding the election and the political activism that had arisen from it was not contingent on Obama alone. With or without him, the sense of hope and the drive for change would stick with this generation for life.

Two years later, I think he's right. Things have not dissipated since the Obama administration has come into office and my peers seem to still be fighting for change. There's talk about youth voter turnout (and general turnout) being lower this year, but there is so much evidence to suggest that my generation is much more engaged--politically and socially--than the previous. (You would like to see some of that evidence? Well, here's a few nice anecdotes I feel justify that previous statement completely: Young lawyers are deciding to work in nonprofits, Americorps' applicants are sky-rocketing, as are TFA's.) The decision of many of my peers to flock to the nonprofit sector is probably partially due to the crappy economy, but I have a feeling we might stick around for a while.

And this engagement stretches to younger members of my generation too: USA Today recently ran a fascinating article about tweens who volunteer regularly and even start their own nonprofits. For some  anecdotal evidence on this, I just wrote a profile (shameless self-promotion alert!) on a young woman who has already founded a nonprofit at the age of 18. It's clear that even if my peers don't stick around to push for social change, our younger siblings will.

Thankfully, for many reasons, Barack Obama did win the election on that cold November night. (Best Tuesday night party ever.) I am very proud that my first vote for president was for the first black President of the United States, and for one who (I think) will have the most social impact on our country in my lifetime. If I am wrong and Obama's reforms do not pan out to be what he claims nor what we all hope (or his efforts are derailed after the mid-terms), I'm not worried. I know my friends and I will still be around, picking up the slack to drive the country in the right direction.

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Shameless Self Promotion: October Edition

It's that time of month again! VPPNews came out last week. Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

Highlights:

• VPP Chairman Mario Morino's column about transparency. Very powerful piece that gets to the heart of the issue: "Transparency is about our value set and how we act on it—not about checking a set of boxes or posting a set of documents on a website. It is about the honesty, openness, and integrity we live by in governing and running our organizations and doing our jobs"
•  An article on Adri Smith, founder of the nonprofit YouReach. At 18, she is already well on her way to making a big difference in the world.
•  A profile of the two leaders of KIPP DC. With all the buzz surrounding "Waiting for 'Superman'", it's nice to hear the stories of people working on these issues on the ground.

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Doin Good

Since I choose to work in the nonprofit sector, I've been told that I'm  "doing good work" or "doing good" many times through my life. This never sat well with me. I never seem to feel good about doing good and tend to have a visceral reaction to hearing those words. When I try to explain this feeling to people, it mostly comes out as a spewing tirade against the traditional do-gooder, activist model of change. This explanation also never sat well with me and I don't think I even convinced myself.

Related, I've also struggled with people who say they give donations or volunteer or work on a cause to "feel good." I'm beginning to understand these motivations a little better, but I still think "doing good" and "feeling good" are non-starters when it comes to creating change. I do feel good about my donations and I do think I am doing good work at my job, but that really isn't my motivation. I'm motivated by what I think is right and what I think is the most effective way to create change. It's great that you may think I'm doing good, but that's a bonus. I don't prescribe any moral judgments to what I'm doing.

I consider myself in the Jon Stewart camp of sanity, so I try to keep these feelings mostly to myself and not convert others to my side, except for the occasional spewing (I am a blogger, after all). But then, in a black-hole of blog surfing a few weeks ago, I came across this article, "Leverage Points--Places to Intervene in a System," written by Donella Meadows, the systems analyst, in 1999. She outlines 12 "places to intervene in a system" to create change, in increasing order of effectiveness. They range from "Constants, parameters, numbers" (least effective) to "the power to transcend paradigms" (most effective). I'm sure you can tell by those snippets alone that this is some pretty heavy stuff. It completely blew my mind.

I won't go into what exactly the different "places" to create change are or what they mean, because Meadows does that quite effectively and succinctly. But I will focus in on second most effective place to intervene and create change on the list (which was originally #1): "The mindset or paradigm out of which the system--its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters--arises."

When I read this, something clicked. I realized that "doing good" is the mindset the entire nonprofit sector has arisen from. All of the nonprofit sectors' structures, rules and goals have arisen from this notion of "good", as have all of its subsequent problems--inefficient capital markets, low pay for nonprofit employees, a hesitancy to blend for-profit/nonprofit ventures, etc. I think I fundamentally disagree with this mindset and have begun to recognize the problems that it creates. Meadows' list showed me that changing this mindset is actually one of the most effective ways to fix these problems on a large scale. (For more on this check out Uncharitable by Dan Pallotta, where he traces this moral framework all the way back to the Puritans.)

Now, I think the label of "doing good" is less of a pet peeve and more of a cause for action for me. (I think I should have realized this sooner because a synonym for "doing good" is charity and I did name my blog "Change Charity.") Being able to shift something as fundamental to a sector as the "mindset or paradigm out of which the system...arises" is pretty powerful. I'm not sure how we can make this shift, but I know there's a lot of people working on it. If anything speaks to that, it's the recent Social Capital Markets Conference.

But until that shift, if we ever meet, please make sure to refrain from telling me how great I am for working at a nonprofit. I don't care, and you don't want to hear me spew.


                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Will It Blend?

I'm not a big fan of YouTube videos. Normally I can't be bothered by the most-recent two-minute fad and I prefer to consume music through the vinyl medium, which leaves me little use for it. But there is one* series I couldn't stop watching once it went viral on my college campus a few years ago.

"Will It Blend?" is the brilliant marketing campaign by Blendtec that puts its blenders up against anything viewers would like: marbles, change, golf balls, cellphones, and, in an attempt to either completely reject or completely embrace consumer culture, a brand-new iPad.

These videos and their catchphrase, Will It Blend?, have resurfaced in my subconscious recently. I find myself asking that question internally whenever something new is put out into the ether to be critiqued and cut apart by the masses. I imagine the new development--be it an idea to donate shirts abroad, directing growth capital to small nonprofits or some sort of Rally to Restore Sanity--being thrown into one of Blendtec's blenders to see if it makes it through the blades, or if it ends up being no different than your everyday hockey pucks. (That one is pretty cool.) In my mind, those that make it through the blades mean something and go on to create real change, and those that don't end up being white noise that blends back into the normal fabric of society. 

I think, especially in the blogosphere, we can sometimes focus too much critique on the things that surround an idea (or an organization or an initiative), but not on the effectiveness of the idea itself. We can get caught up in a narrative rather than the substance of a movement (Tea Party, Liberals) or focus in on representatives of two camps sparring off (Jeff Sachs vs. William Easterly or, if you want something a little more humorous, Jon Stewart vs. Bill O'Reilly). Instead, we should be asking ourselves this question: Will it blend? Or will it work?

The most obvious example of effectiveness being lost through debate is the health care reform bill, which has many proposed changes going into effect today. Democrats defend it as sweeping social legislation and Republicans condemn it as ignoring middle class needs. Both of these stances reinforce political narratives and further political causes, but don't look at the efficacy of the proposed solutions behind the debate.

Developments within the nonprofit sector can be given many different labels--new, innovative, entrepreneurial. While those labels hold value, they do not answer that ultimate question. To determine if something works, we need testing, evaluation, planning and, above everything else, failure. Only through vigorous self-awareness and time can it be determined if something has made it out of the blender.

Of course, those parts of the debate that surround the issue of effectiveness still inform overall results. If a new program isn't actually new, but an old idea that didn't work the first time, it probably won't work this time. Trying to stop someone from going ahead with an objective bad idea is a good thing, like what happened in the 1 Million Shirts debacle. Someone wanted to give away t-shirts to poor countries, and aid workers who had seen this kind of program fail before put a stop to it. The debate became petty and personal, but ultimately the campaign was halted. There are limited resources in this world, so we cannot afford to have every idea or program tried and tested.

If you are thinking about doing something, whatever it is, the bottom line must always be: Will it work? Will it create meaningful, sustained change? Not: Is it new? Has it been done before? Will people like me if I do this? Those questions can inform the answer to the blender question, but they aren't the ultimate answer that can guide you.

So, if you are trying something new, always remember the sound of that blender. I hope you remain intact once it's been shut off.


*Well, actually, there's another YouTube video that I couldn't stop watching, but that's mostly due to my afore-mentioned vinyl interest.

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Listen to Your Neighbors

During my recent job search, I had to make the hard (but privileged) decision on where to focus my scope of work: domestically or internationally. Two years ago, this wouldn't have been hard. I grew up fascinated and horrified by the stories of need abroad and always felt drawn to help those living on less than a dollar a day. In college, I studied global development and was introduced to Muhammad Yunus and his concept of microfinance as poverty alleviation. Setting out into the "real world," my goal was to do my part to end global poverty.

Instead, for a variety of reasons, my first job out of school was at a community health center with a hyper-local focus. I also ended up living only two blocks from where I worked. For the first time in my life, I was living and working within a community. When it was time for me to move on from the community health center, I again started to look into global development work, but kept in mind what I could do on a local level. I saw myself going down two paths, not knowing which one was right for me.

My reasoning for focusing on global poverty has always been that internationally, there is more absolute need than on any domestic cause. Income levels and standards of living are so low that, fiscally, it does not make sense to use resources for social good elsewhere. Lives can literally be saved for a few hundred dollars (as many international charities remind you in their advertisements.)

However, as I looked into the international development field, I learned that many problems arise when foreigners attempt to help the less fortunate abroad. Little to no awareness of local cultures, lack of understanding of local needs, hidden domestic interests and slow responsiveness to unsuccessful projects can cause more harm than good at worst and perpetuate the status quo at best. These problems have become (or always have been) so rampant that some have dedicated their careers to fixing the international aid system.

As you can see from my bio, I ended up choosing to continue to work on the local level, but it was not because of these intellectual and academic arguments. I'll deal with accountability issues with any sort of philanthropic work, regardless of location. What instead pushed me to consider focusing my time back home (besides my aversion to frequent trips abroad--I don't do airports well), was the feeling of connection I get from knowing that the time I spend at work effects the people I live near and the places I go to when I'm not in the office.

On my last day at the community health center, which served Latino immigrants, I was given a beautiful poster that read: "Ser revolucionario: Hablar con sus vecinos," which translates to "Be revolutionary: Talk with your neighbors." It is a quote from the 1968 Paris uprising. I've always associated the summer of '68 with an international push for peace/love/harmony and that quote--imploring the young, radical minds to learn what's going on right next to them--seemed out of place. But now, through my community work, I realize that any local initiative can be radical. A global push to eliminate poverty is revolutionary, but so is listening to your neighbors to see what they need. In either case, you are doing something, you are trying to change something for the better.

Ultimately, my decision wasn't based on where I was needed, but where I belong and what I understand. If you need someone to listen to you, you want to talk to your neighbors, not a foreigner. I feel that I am better equipped to listen to the people around me than someone in Botswana, as I am sure a woman in Botswana is better equipped to listen to the people around her than I am.

So, for now, while I live in DC, I will learn and do what I can to make it a better place. If I can one day get over my repulsion to airline food and jetlag, maybe I'll end up as a foreigner living in a foreign land, listening over there.

Thanks to Saundra at Good Intentions Are Not Enough for talking through this with me. (And apologies to all my global development professors in school.)

                                                                                                   
Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Venture Philanthropy Partners

Election Day!

If you live in the District, get out and vote today! It's an important primary for many different races, not just the hotly-contested mayor's race. There's same day registration if you are new to the area, you just need proof of residency. You can find your polling place here and the polls are open from 7 am to 8 pm.

I know the last few posts have been meager content; there will be more soon, I promise.

Shameless Self Promotion: September Edition

One of my primary responsibilities at Venture Philanthropy Partners is to produce and edit VPPNews, its monthly newsletter. The September edition came out today and you should check it out to see what I've been doing for the past month. I'd love to hear any thoughts on it.

VPPNews is generally made up of a feature story, updates from the nonprofits we invest in and an in-depth column from either VPP's President, Carol Thompson Cole, or its Chairman, Mario Morino. This month, Carol's column discusses the Social Innovation Fund and the need for a collaborative approach for social change.

I'll be posting these on here as a part of my monthly "Shameless Self Promotion" series. I hope you enjoy. Again, let me know your thoughts.